ML20136F021
| ML20136F021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1985 |
| From: | Brooks B, Mcdonald S, Richardson E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0714, NUREG-0714-V04-05, NUREG-714, NUREG-714-V4-5, NUDOCS 8511220012 | |
| Download: ML20136F021 (53) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-_ NUREG-0714 Vols. 4 and 5 Occupational Radiation Exposure Fifteenth and Sixteenth Annual Reports,1982 and 1983 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offico of Resource Management B. Brooks, S. Mcdonald, E. Richardson
,p%,,
"M E888 PDR 0714 R
. a NOTlCE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Of fi:e Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013 7082
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although .ne listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications,
- t is not intended to be exhaustive.
R ?ferenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-m int Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG stries are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances. Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared b) ,ther federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressiona! reports can usually be obtained from these libraries. Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited. Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
Vols. 4 and 5 Occupational Radiation Exposure Fifteenth and Sixteenth Annual Reports,1982 and 1983 Manuscript Completed: July 1985 Date Published: october 1985 B. Brooks, s. Mcdonald, E. Richardson 1 Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm!ssion Weshington, D.C. 20555
,s.....
W.....)
PREVIOUS REPORTS IN THE SERIES NUREG-0714 is the permanent identification number for the Occupational Radia-tion Exposure report series. The following is a list of all previous reports, along with their separate identification numbers that have been published in this series. WASH 1350-R1 through WASH 1350-R6 First through Sixth Annual Reports of the Operation of the U.S. AEC's Centralized Ionizing Radiation Exposure Records and Reports System, U.S. Atomic Energy Comission. NUREG-75/108 Seventh Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for Certain NRC Licensees - 1974, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sion, Oct. 1975. NUREG-0119 Eighth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for 1975, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Oct.1976. NUREG-0322 Ninth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for 1976, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Oct.1977. NUREG-0463 Tenth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for 1977, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission~, Oct.1978. NUREG-0593 Eleventh Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for 1978, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Jan.1981. NUREG-0714, Twelfth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for 1979, Vol. 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Aug.1982. NUREG-0714, Occupational Radiation Exposure, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Vols. 2 and 3 Annual Reports,1980 and 1981, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, October 1983. i l l l
Jiiii ABSTRACT j
=
This report summarizes the occupational exposure data that is maintained in the Z U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Radiation Exposure Information and Reports System (REIRS). The bulk of the information contained in the report was ex-tracted from the 1982 and 1983 annual statistical reports submitted by seven y categories
- of NRC licensees subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR E S 20.407. These seven categories of licensees also submit personal identifica- 2 tion and exposure information for terminating employees pursuant to 10 CFR T S 20.408, and some analysis of this data is also presented in this report.
Annual reports were received from 482 NRC licensees in 1982 and from 467 9 - licensees in 1983. Compilations of the reports for 1982 indicated that some C 154,000 individuals were monitored, 94,000 of whom received a measurable dose. 1 The collective dose incurred by these individuals was calculated to be 57,000 g man-rems (man-cSv)t, and the average measurable dose was found to be 0.60 rem (cSv). These figures are about the same as those found in 1981. + Compilations of the reports for 1983 indicated that about 173,000 persons were monitored and that about 101,000 of them received a measurable dose. The col- T lective dose was calculated to be some 61,000 man-rems (cSv), and the average d measurable dose was 0.60 rem (cSv), the same as that found in 1982. In both - 1982 and 1983, about 20% of the individuals monitored received doses greater than 0.50 rem (cSv) as had been the case in 1980 and 1981. However, the i number of individuals receiving doses greater than five rems (cSv) decreased 1 from 0.14% (203 persons) in 1981 to 0.09% (136 persons) in 1982. M
- =
In 1982, some 158,000 termination reports submitted to the NRC contained per- d sonal identification and exposure information for about 59,000 individuals who __ had completed their work assignment or employment with a covered category of 5 . NRC licensees. This is about 10,000 less than the number of persons terminating =2 in 1981. The total number of monitored individuals for whom personal identifica- = tion and exposure information has been incorporated into the Commission's Radia- -- tion Exposure Information and Reports System during the fifteen years that it : has been operating is now ebout 300,000. - n Information on occurrences involving personnel exposures to radiation or radio-active materials that exceeded certain control limits was obtained from reports d - submitted by all NRC licensees pursuant to 10 CFR S 20.403 and S 20.405. In 1982 the total number of individuals involved in such occurrences was 32, and -- in 1983 the number was 41. The number of overexposures reported by radiography firms continued to decline from previous years' values; only two occurrences. - involving radiographers were reported in 1983. -- m j _m
- Commercial nuclear power reactors; industrial radiographers; fuel processors, a fabricators, and reprocessors; manufacturers and distributors of byproduct mate- 2 rial; independent fuel storage installations; facilities for land disposal of -
- low-level waste; and geologic repositories for high-level waste. ]
l tin the International System of Units the sievert (SV) is the name given to the W units for dose equivalent. One centisievert (cSv) equals one rem; therefore, -* man-rem becomes man-cSv. -- iii -- i I
l CONTENTS P8M ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. viii
- 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- 2. LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
- 3. ANNUAL PERSONNEL MONITORING REPORTS - 10 CFR S 20.407 ....... 3 3.1 Whole Body Dose Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2 Summary of Occupational Exposure Data By Licence Category . . . 6 3.2.1 Industrial Radiography Licenses, Single and Multiple Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2 Manufacturer and Distributor Licenses, Broad and Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.3 Low-Level Waste Disposal Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . I4 3.2.4 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. . . . . . . I4 3.2.5 Fuel Fabrication and Reprocessing Licenses . . . . . . . 16 3.2.6 Water Cooled Power Reactor Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.7 High Temperature Gas Cooled Power Reactor Licenses . . . 21 3.3 Health Implications of Average Annual Doses . . . . . . . . . . 24
- 4. TERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 10 CFR S 20.408 . . . . . . . 25 4.1 Termination Reports, 1969-1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2 Limitations of the Termination Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3 Transient Workers per Calendar Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.4 Transient Workers per Calendar Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
- 5. PERSONNEL OVEREXPOSURES - 10 CFR S 20.403 AND 10 CFR S 20.405. . . . 30 5.1 Control Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.2 Summary of Overexposures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.2.1 Personnel Overexposures - 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.2.2 Personnel Overexposures - 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 APPENDIX A - ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF ANNUAL REPORTS FILED BY CERTAIN NRC LICENSEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 v
CONTENTS (Continued) Pjgte TABLES Table 1 Distribution of Annual Whole Body Doses by License ' Category - 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 2 Distribution of Annual Whole Body Doses by License Category - 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 3 Summary of Annual Whole Body Exposures for Certain Categories of Licen::ces, 1968-1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 4 Annual Exposure Data for Certain Categories of Licensees, 8 [ P 1973 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Table 5 Annual Exposure Information for Industrial Radiographers, 1982 and 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 6 Annual Exposure Information for Manufacturers and Distribu-tors, 1982 and 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Annual Exposure Information for Fuel Fabricators. . . . . . . . N Table 7 16 y Table 8 Summary of Annual Exposures Reported by Nuclear Power Facilities, 1973-1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 9 Annual Exposure Information for Fort St. Vrain, 1974-1983 . . . 21 Table 10 Termination Reports Submitted to the NRC, 1969-1983 . . . . . . 26 Table 11 Transient Workers per Calendar Quarter, 1972-1983 . . . . . . . 28
- Table 12 Transient Workers per Calendar Year at Nuclear Power Facilities, 1977-1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 13 Personrel Overexposures to External Radiation, 1977-1983. . . . 31 rfGURES Figure 1 Annual Dose Distributions of Workers at Industrial Radio-grapt.y Facilities, 1982 and 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 figure 2 Annual Dose Distributions of Workers at Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities, 1982 and 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 3 Annual Dose Distributions of Workers at Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities and at an Independent Fuel Storage Facility, 1982 and 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 4 Annual Dose Distributions of Workers at Fuel Fabricators and Processors, 1982 and 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 vi
TABLES AND FIGURES (Coatinued) Page Figure 5 Total Annual Values at Light Water Cooled Power Reactors, 1969-1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 6 - Commercial Light Water Cooled Reactors, 1969-1983. . . . . . . 22 Figure 7 - Annual Dose Distributions of Workers at Light Water Reactor Facilities, 1982 and 1983 ................. 23 vii
=
PREFACE A number of NRC licensees have inquired how occupational radiation exposure data l (from reports. required by the NRC) are used by the NRC staff. This is a very appropriate inquiry that may be of importance to many affected licensees. In combination with other sources of information, the principal uses of the data are to provide-facts regarding routine occupational exposures to radiation and radioactive material that occur in connection with certain NRC-licensed activi-ties, including individual and collective radiation doses from external sources
- as well as pertinent information .on the inhalation of radioactive material (nu-clides involved, bioassay results, exposure magnitude, etc.). These facts are used by.the NRC staff as indicated below:
1.~ The data permit evaluation, from the viewpoint of trends, of the effective-ness of the overall NRC/ licensee radiation protection and ALARA efforts by certain licensees. They also provide for the identification (and subsequent correction) of unfavorable trends. l' 2. The external-dose data permit evaluation of the radiological risk associated with certain categories of NRC-licensed activities, including the size of the workforce and the collective dose.
- 3. The data provide for governmental monitoring of the potential transient-worker problem.
I
- 4. The data are used in the establishment of priorities for the utilization of NRC health physics resources: research, standards development, and regula-f tory program development.
- 5. The data are considered in reviews of inspection frequencies that are pro-grammed for various categories of licensees.
6.. The data may influence licensing action decisions.
- 7. LThe data are used for comparative analyses of radiation protection perfor-mance: US/ foreign, BWR's/PWR's, civilian / military, plant / plant, nuclear industry /other industries, etc.
- 8. The data are used for justification of the expenditure of resources in the annual budget process.
- 9. 'The data help provide facts for evaluating the adequacy of the current risk-
~
limitation system (e.g., are individual lifetime dose limits, worker popu-lation collective dose limits, and requirements for optimization, needed).
- 10. . The data permit comparisons of occupational radiation risks with potential public risks when action for additional protection of the public involves worker exposures.
ix
- 11. The data help in the evaluation of the effectiveness of dose-reduction 4
measures (e.g., methods for reducing individuals' doses that may increase the collective dose).
- 12. The data provide facts for answering Congressional and Administration inquiries and for responding to questions raised by public interest groups, special interest groups, labor unions, etc.
- 13. The data provide information which can be used in the planning of epidemi-ological studies.
With regard to routine work place conditions, the annual statistical summary reports required by $20.407, the termination reports required by $20.408, and the annual dose data reported by work function in accordance with Subsection 6.9.1.5 of the standard technical specifications for nuclear power plants provide the only centralized data base available to assist the staff in the performance of its duties as listed above. It is to everyone's advar.tage if these duties are performed by a well-informed staff in the light of factual information. Beginning with the next report in this series, we plan to expand the data anal-ysis sections in an effort to provide for additional practical applications. Suggestions for advanced analysis of this type are invited. f KAs Robert E. Alexander, Chief Occupational Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branches x
_~ . . . _ - .. . - _ _ . . . - - - . 1 Occupational Radiation Exposure Thirteenth and Fourteenth Annual Reports, 1982 and 1983
- 1. INTRODUCTION One of'the basic purposes of the Atomic Energy Act and the implementing regula-
- tions in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 20, is to pro-tect the health and safety of the public, including the employees of the licensees conducting operations under those regulations. Among the regulations designed to ensure that.the standards for protection against radiation set out
- in 10 CFR Part 20 are met is a requirement that licensees provide individuals likely to be exposed to radiation with devices to monitor their exposure. Each licensee is also required to maintain indefinitely records of the results of such nunitoring. However, there was no initial provision that these records, or any summary of them, be transmitted to a central location where the data could be retrieved and analyzed.
On November 4, 1968, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published an ) amendment to Part 20 requiring the reporting of certain occupational radiation exposure information to a central repository at AEC Headquarters. This informa-I tion was required of the_four categories
- of AEC licensees that were considered 4 to involve the greatest potential for significant occupational doses and of AEC facilities and contractors exempt from licensing. A procedure was established whereby the appropriate occupational exposure data were extracted from these reports and entered into the Commission's Radiation Exposure Information '
Reporting System (REIRS), a computer system maintained at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Computer Technology Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The computeri-zation of these data ensured that they would be kept ir. definitely and facilitated their retrieval and analysis. The data maintained in REIRS have been sucmarized and published in a report every year since 1969. Annual reports for each of the 3 years 1969 through 1973 presented the data reported by both AEC licensees and j contractors and were published in six documents designated as WASH-1350-R1 through WASH-1350-R6.
- In January 1975, with the separation of the AEC into the Energy Research and 4 Development Administration (ERDA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i - (NRC), cach agency assumed responsibility for collecting and maintaining occupational radiation exposure information reported by the facilities under its jurisdiction. The annual reports published by the NRC on occupational exposure for calendar year 1974 and subsequent years do not contain informa-tion pertaining to ERDA facilities or contractors. Comparable information for facilities and contractors under ERDA, now the Department of Energy (DOE), is
- - collected and published by DOE's Division of Operational and Environmental i
- Safety at Germantown, Maryland.
- Commercial nuclear power reactors; industrial radiographers; fuel processors, fabricators, and reprocessors; and manufacturers and distributors of specified quantities of byproduct material.
) } 1 i t
On September 29, 1978, 10 CFR S 20.407 was amended to require that all NRC specific licensees submit annual radiation exposure reports for each of the calendar years 1978 and 1979. The reports were statistical summary reports exactly like those that had been re, quired of the previously named four catego-ries of NRC licensees. Therefore, the reports published for the years 1978 and 1979 (NUREG-0593 and NUREG-0713, Vol. 1) summarized the annual exposure data that had been submitted by all types of NRC licensees. In 1980 the applica-bility of the reporting requirements of SS20.407 and 20.408 reverted back to four types
- of NRC licensees, and the annual report (NUREG-0714, Vols. 2 and 3) published for the years 1980 and 1981 contains exposure information pertaining to only those four categories of licensees.
In 1982 and 1983, paragraph 20.408(a) was amended to require three additional categories of NRC licensees to submit annual statistical exposure reports and individual termination exposure reports. The new categories are (1) geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste, (2) independent spent fuel stor-age installations, and (3) facilities for the land disposal of low-level radio-active waste. Therefore, this document presents the exposure information that was reported by NRC licensees representing two of these new categories. (There are no geologic repositories for high-level waste currently licensed.)
- 2. LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA All of the figures compiled in this report relating to exposures and doses are based on the results and interpretations of the readings of various types of personnel monitoring devices employed by each licensee. This information ob-tained from routine personnel monitoring programs is sufficient to characterize the radiation environment in which individuals work and is used in evaluating the radiation protection program.
Monitoring requirements are based, in general, on 10 CFR S 20.202 which requires licensees to monitor individuals who receive or are likely to receive a dose it any calendar quarter in excess of 25% of the applicable quarterly limits. For most adults the quarterly limit for the whole body is 1.25 rems, so that 0.312 rem per quarter is the level above which monitoring is required. Depending on the administrative policy of each licensee, persons such as visitors and clerical workers may also be provided with monitoring devices for identification or convenience, although the probability of their being exposed to measurable levels of radiation is extremely small. Licensees are given the option of reporting the dose distribution of only those individuals for whom monitoring is required, or the dose distribution of all those for whom monitoring is p*o-vided. Many licensees elect to report the latter; however, this may increase the number of individuals that one could consider to be radiation workers. In an effort to account for this, the number of individuals reported as having "no measurable exposure" has been subtracted from the total number of individuals monitored in order to calculate an average dose per individual receiving a measurable dose, as well as the average dose per monitored individual.
- Commercial nuclear power reactors; industrial radiographers; fuel processors, fabricators, and reprocessors; and manufacturers and distributors of specified quantities of byproduct material.
2
l l One source of error that is present in the calculation of the annual collective dose (i.e., the summation of each monitored person's whole body dose) incurred I by workers is the assumption that the midpoint of the dose range-is the mean i dose of the individuals reported in each dose ranp. This allows the collective
- dose to be calculated without knowing each person s actual annual dose by multiplying the number of individuals in each dose range by the midpoint of the range, and then summing these products. Past experience has shown that the i
t actual mean dose of the individuals reported in each range is less than the midpoint. Thus, the collective doses presented in this report may be 10% higher than the sum of the actual individual doses. The average dose per individual, as well as the dose distributions shown for i groups of licensees, also could have been affected by the multiple reporting of individuals who were monitored by two or more licensees during the year. Since individuals are not identified in the annual reports, an individual who i was monitored by five different licensees would have been counted once on each report. Therefore, when the data were summed to determine the total number of l individuals monitored by a group of licensees, this person would be counted as . five individuals rather than as one. This could also affect the distribution ! of doses because the individual has been counted five times in the lower dose i ranges rather than one time in the higher range in which his actual accumulated
- dose (the sum of his doses incurred at each facility) would have placed him.
i This source of error has the greatest potential impact on the data reported by ! power reactor facilities since they employ many short-term workers. Further j discussion of this is provided in Section 4. Another fact that should be kept in mind before drawing any conclusions from the annual statistical data is that all of the personnel included in the reports may not have been monitored throughout the entire year. Many licensees i such as radiography firms and nuclear power facilities may monitor numerous , 1 individuals for periods much less than a year. The average doses calculated
- from these data, therefore, are less than the average dose that an individual would receive if he were involved in that activity for the full year.
! 3. ANNUAL PERSONNEL MONITORING REPORTS - 10 CFR $ 20.407 1 ! 3.1 Annual Whole Body Dose Distributions
- On February 4, 1974, 10 CFR I 20.407 was amended to require certain categories of licensees to submit an annual statistical report indicating the distribution of the whole body exposures incurred by their employees. In prior years the ,
annual report was formatted differently and was not very useful as a basis for ! estimating the collective dose. Tables 1 and 2 are compilations of the statis-i tical reports submitted for calendar years 1982 and 1983 by six categories
- of l licensees. For each category, they show the number of individuals that incurred i an annual whole bo# dose that fell within one of the 18 dose ranges and the collective dose (man-ress) estimated to have been received by these indivi-i duals. The collective dose was calculated by assuming that each individual l
- Commercial nuclear power reactors; industrial radiographers; fuel processors,
! fabricators and reprocessors; manufacturers and distributors of byproduct i
- material; independent fuel storage installations; and facilities for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
! 3
q Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES BY LICENSE CATEGORY 1982 samene ee een. e mese me., Desse n. ,eso e meses. ino e, essi tsCEless CATEGOftT ale h leu ther Teens essen- seebee Teest weten Cessets e esens men tie- e es- an- pee.nhor etese- Does Empes.e se < a se e.m e.is-ea ae 1e- 2e- 3e- 4e- e.e- ee- ye_ ee- ee- to.e- > arense h e se 2.s 3.e 4.s s.s e.e 7.0 ee ee is e 12 e 12 e esse. sere Doee - - ;est INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPifY Sasle '"" I,035 587 190 89 27 18 20 10 I I,977 942 187 Malnple t - eians 2,o40 2,ol? 78 9 790 481 28 6 564 195 65 21 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 7,258 5,218 2.881 Total ' 3,0 75 2,604 979 879 508 304 584 205 66 21 5 3 0 0 0 0 9,235 2 6,160 2.998 MANLTACTURING & DISTRIR. Broad 2,718 979 337 90 54 ! 168 164 65 22 11 I 4.610 1.892 821 OtImr 536 210 49 19 8 4 11 3 3 843 307 69 Total 3,254 1,189 386 187 98 58 175 68 25 I I 5,433 II 2,199 890 LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL Tota 3 429 164 48 14 5 9 14 680 251 53 INDEP. SPENT FLTL STORACI
,. Total 3 9 7 9 7 35 32 9 FLTL FABRICATION Lh Fuel Pm 3,535 3,73 1 770 341 133 36 44 7 7 8 8,652 5,117 724 Deca ==== oft' and Pm Fast FarJ~ 840 198 43 22 8 7 24 14 1,156 316 307 Tesal 4,375 3,929 413 403 141 43 68 21 7 8 9,808 5,433 438
**COedMERGAL PODER REAC '.
l Bonhas Water Reactors 21,437 10J52 4,454 4,404 2,840 2,048 4,795 2,358 1,183 230 7 54,128 32,671 24.466 Preat tater B-na- 30,830 21,664 8,274 6,418 3,900 2,749 6,061 2,328 631 202 49 13 4 0 l 13,117 52,287 27,761 Itash Temp, Cas Reacross 978 22 1,000 22 0 Total $2.237 32,016 12,728 10,815 6,740 4,797 10,856 4.686 1,814 432 56 13 4 0 1 137,245 84,958 52,227
'A4pested Total 49,753 30.100 11,618 10,073 6,295 4,459 10.259 4,699 2,043 579 89 30 4 0 1 130,000 80,249 52,227 7CRAND TOTAL 5 60,847 37,999 13,844 11.545 7,054 4,873 II100 4,993 2,14I 619 95 34 4 0 2 0 155,211 94,324 1 57.008 l
*Do aus. ce, .co.m ee sek. =s.r.on8 - a,e reponse a e.e n-t i.8ne, rane
**W as seactors that reported althouWe all of them sney not ha e been h commoscal coeration for a full year.
I 7hese salues are ar'r =me8 to account for the snutopie countwig of trarisent reactor workers (see Section 4), 4 l
Table 2 DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES BY LICENSE CATEGORY 1SE3 fBeenhor of Ineutemmes weuk Uphate seety Domes he the Feemming Rangen IAeme er esel femmeber Teens Tegel tuGIh Ceessetse M CATe00ST She bases- semaine, names. Dame samen- esmane e es. R3s- 1s~ 2e- 18- 4e- Re- e.e- Fe- e8- ee- to e- > amanse namwame. ammaan
"-r---
ese ac EL18 e.18-eJE eJs-e se Em 14 as as 4.s s.e se 7e se se 1e.8 ne 12 0 a.nons-ored Does ameneses LNDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY 1,714 733 213 941 470 133 77 32 17 22 15 2 4 0 I sasle -~ 42 7 4 2 1 6,910 4,358 2,171 2,552 854 654 365 207 387 136 29 Malbr e n '- 1.688 409 151 44 33 7 5 2 1 8.624 5,131 2,384 Total 3,593 2,154 969 731 397 224 KANETACTURL%G & DISTRia 4.332 1,744 767 2,588 966 25 9 139 85 53 139 64 26 9 4 Based 719 259 57 460 187 43 II 5 2 7 I I o O 2 Other 4 5,051 2,003 8 24 l 150 90 55 146 65 27 9 2 6 Tosal 3,048 1.153 302 l LOWLEVEL WASTE DisFOSAL 612 358 71 j 254 239 55 28 17 13 13 Tesal INDEP. $FENT FLTL STORAGE 33 27 8 Total 6 7 6 9 5 u. FTEL FASR3 CAT 10M 8,440 4,746 748 I.074 442 99 42 26 9 2 17 Lh fuel Presses 3.694 3.035 h-== ei U as4 P. 583 267 87 316 155 50 18 6 7 24 7 Feel F=Na 9,023 5,083 835 460 IOS 49 50 16 2 17 Total 4.010 3.490 1.124 o*CotaMERCIAL Fon1R REAC1 16 4 59,229 34.768 27,574 4,097 2.618 1.927 5.663 2.890 3,252 229 63 Sauhas tuer Reasoes 24,461 !!.518 4.498 89.342 53,920 29,184 2,793 6,520 2.423 698 315 2 First tsee Restoss 35.422 22,716 8.192 6J79 3.882 I,013 48 1 lid Teuilt Gas Reactors 965 48 88,736 56,759 12,183 1,950 544 65 16 4 149.584 i Tosal e4.848 34.275 12.690 10.476 6.500 4.720 5.313 6 172.927 101,268 60.881 12,801 5,545 2.023 603 76 23 1 GRAND TOTALS 71.659 41.022 15.146 II.847 7.114 5.061 I (Uam4meteo o e e--act., - .e e- .e ,a.as r- a,e .epo,,ea m . # r.,,e.
**inchoes am seactors inat separied artrum.gh as of owe may not has toen in cornewaas operanon for a sua year.
TThese ensues are aw r ='a'* tar em sandtapse courmng of transent workers (see Saction 43. l l
r received an annual dose equal to the midpoint of the dose range in which he appears. The number of individuals in each dose range was multiplied by this midpoint, and then these products were summed. Overall, the tables show that about 40% of the total number of individuals monitored each year received expo-sures that were too small to be detected by personal radiation monitoring devices, as has been the case for the last six years. The collective dose increased slightly between 1982 and 1983 to a value of 60,900 man-rems (man-cSv) and is about 2,000 man-rems (man-cSv) more than that found for 1981. The " Adjusted Total" shown in Table 1 for the dose distribution of individuals monitored by commercial power reactors in 1982 reflects corrections that were made to the compilation of the annual reports to account for the counting of transient workers more than one time. This adjusted total was also used in the calculation of the " Grand Total" at the bottom of Table 1. No adjustments were made to the distributions shown in Table 2 because the necessary data for transient workers has not yet been computerized. Further discussion of the data and methodology used in making these corrections is given in Section 4. It should be pointed out that very few of the annual exposures that exceed five rems (cSv) are classified as personnel overexposures. Although 1.25 rems (cSv) is the quarterly limit set forth in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR S 20.101, paragraph (b) permits licensees, under certain conditions, to allow a worker to receive a whole body dose of three rems (cSv) per calendar quarter (up to 12 rems (cSv)) annually. The conditions are that (1) the licensee must have determined and recorded the worker's prior accumulated occupational dose to the whole body and that (2) the worker's whole body dose when added to his accumulated occupa-tional dose does not exceed 5(N-18) rems (cSv) where "N" equals the individual's age in years. Although there is no annual limit, annual exposures that exceed 12 rems (cSv) indicate that an overexposure.has occurred. Any quarterly exposure in excess of the applicable quarterly limits must be reported. A discussion of various types of occurrences in which the limits have been exceeded is given in Section 5. A summary of the annual whole body exposures reperted to the Commission by certain categories of NRC licensees required to submit reports pursuant to 10 CFR S 20.407 during the past sixteen years is presented in Table 3. About 95% of the exposures have consistently remained less than two rems (cSv), and the number of individuals receiving an annual exposure in excess of five rems (cSv) has remained at two tenths of one percent of the total number of indivi-duals monitored each year for 1982 and 1983. 3.2 Summary of Occupational Exposure Data by License Category As was previously explained, the statistical data contained in the annual reports required by 10 CFR S 20.407 provide the dose distribution of the workers moni-tored by each licensee and permit an estimate to be made of the collective dose incurred by these groups of individuals. This information was collated and sum-marized to yield the informstion shown in Table 4. Figures in the third column indicate the total number of individuals for whom monitoring was provided by the licensees in each category, and the fourth column gives the number of these individuals that received a measurable whole body dose (referred to as " workers" in this report). If one then divides the total collective dose (shown in the fifth column) by each of these figures, two average doses are found. The aver-age dose per monitored individual is shown in the sixth column and is always smaller than the average dose per worker, shown in the seventh column. The 6
h TABLE 3 SUMARY OF ANNUAL WHOLE 800Y EXPOSURES FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF LICENSEES 1968-1983 Percent of Percent of Number of Total Number of Monitored Persons Individuals Individuals Individuals Compiled (Adjusted
- With Doses With Doses With Doses Year Number Number) <2 rems >5 rems >12 rems 1968 36,836 97.2% 0.5% 3 1969 31,176 96.5% 0.5% 7
- 1970 36,164 96.1% 0.6% 0 l 1971 36,311 95.3% 0.7% 1 44,690 1972 95.7% 0.5% 8 1973 67,862 95.0% 0.5% 1 1974 85,097 96.4% 0.3% 1 1975 78,713 94.8% 0.5% 1 1976 92,773 95.0% 0.4% 3
- 1977 98,212 (93,438) 93.8% 0.4% 1 l 1978 105,893 (100,818) 94.6% 0.2% 3 1979 131,027 (125,316) 95.2% 0.2% 1 1980 159,177 (150,675) 94.6% 0.3% 0 1981 157,874 (149,314) 94.6% 0.2% 1 1982 162,456 (155,211) 94.9% 0.1% 0 1983 172,915 (N/A) 95.2% 0.1% 0
*The total number of monitored individuals after adjusting for the multiple counting of transient reactor workers (see Section 4).
l l 7 l l
! 7A8LE 4 ANNUAL EXP05URE DATA FOR CER7AIN CATEGORIES OF LICENSEES 1973 - 1983 i ! Number of Collective Average Dose Average Measur-Number of Number Workers with Dose per Monitored able Dose per LICENSE Calendar Licensees of Monitored Measurable (man-reas Individual Worker (reas CATEGORY Year Reporting Individuals Doses or man-c5v](ress or c5v) or c5v) CR, l Industrial 1983 340 8,624 5,131 2,344 0.28 0.46 0.45 Radiography 1987 353 9,235 6,160 2,998 0.32 0.49 0.46 1981 266 9,938 5,489 2,652 0.27 0.44 0.48 1980 292 11.102 6,556 2,979 0.27 0.45 0.57 1979 341 11, % 9 6,904 3,461 0.29 0.50 0.47 1978 331 13,093 6,685 2,950 0.23 0.44 0.43 1977 339 10,569 6,197 3,159 0.30 0.51 0.45 1976 321 11.245 6,222 3,629 0.32 0.58 0.51 1975 291 9,178 4,693 2,796 0.30 0.60 0.53 1974 319 8,792 4,943 2,938 0.33 0.59 0.51 1973 341 8,206 5,328 3,354 0.41 0.63 Manufacturing 1983 33 5,051 2,003 824 0.16 0.41 0.54 ; and 1982 34 5,453 2,199 890 0.16 0.40 0.51 Distribution 1981 - 29 4,846 2,395 904 0.19 0.38 0.52 1980 j 29 5.119 2,460 1,033 0.20 0.42 0.61 1919 ; 28 3,937 2,219 888 0.23 0.40 0.55 1978 I 27 3,973 1,886 851 0.21 0.45 0.61 l 1977 30 4,243 2,459 1,329 0.31 0.54 0.63 1976 24 3,501 1,976 1,226 0.35 0.62 0.67 1975 19 3,367 1,859 1,188 0.35 0.64 0.64 1974 24 3,340 1,827 1,050 0.31 0.57 0.43 1973 34 4,251 1,925 1,177 0.28 0.61 Low Level '1983 1 i 612 358 71 0.12 0.20 0.14 i Waste Olsposal 1982 1 680 251 53 0.08 0.21 0.20 l Independent !1983 1 33 27 8 0.24 0.30 0 f uel Storage !!982 1 35 l 32 9 0.26 0.28 0 , Fuel 1983 15 9,023 5,013 835 0.09 0.17 0.19 r Fabrication 1982 16 9,808 5,433 831 0.08 0.15 0.20 and 1981 18 10,552 5,942 940 0.09 0.16 0.09 < Processin3 1980 18 10,204 5,900 1,111 0.11 0.19 0.12 ! 1979 21 9,946 5,365 1,268 0.13 0.24 0.16 ! 1978 20 11,305 6,100 1,525 0.13 0.25 0.24 i 1977 21 11,496 . 7,004 1,725 0.15 0.25 0.34 1976 24 11.227 5,285 1,830 0.16 0.35 0.41 l 1975 24 11,614 5,602 3,175 0.27 0.57 0.54 1974 26 11,064 4.728 2,836 0.26 0.60 0.61 1973 27 10,610 5,056 2,400 0.23 0.47
** Commercial 80 148,571 88,688 56,758 0.38 0.64 0.57 o l Light Water l1983 1982 79 129,000* 80,227* 52,227 0.40 0.65 0.57 Reactors 73 123,918* 80,664* $4,211 0.44 0.67 0.54 l l1981 1980 70 124,250* 17,903* 53,810 0.43 0.69 0.59
'1979 69 99,463* 62,316' 39.759 0.40 0.64 0.57 1918 68 12,448' 45,414* 31,910 0.44 0.70 0.61 1977 65 61,130' 42,867* 32,731 0.49 0.76 0.64 1976 4 62 66,800 36,115 26,555 0.40 0.72 0.62 I 54 54,763 28.034 21.210 0.39 0.76 0.64 l1975 0.62 1914 53 62,044 21,904 14.083 0.23 0.64 1913 41 44,195 16,558 14,337 0.32 0.87 i
Grand Totals 1983 461 171,914 101,220 60,t80 0.35 0.60 0.54 and Averages 1982 482 154,211* 94,302* 51,008 0.37 0.60 0.56
.1981 385 149,314' 94.490* 58,767 0.39 0.62 0.54 l
41980 410 150,615' 92.819' 58,933 0.39 0.63 0.57 1919 459 125,316* 76,8048 45,376 0.J6 0.59 0.55 1978 451 100,8198 60,1458 37,236 0.31 0.62 0.59
,1977 ,
4% 91,438' ; 58,521' 38,944 0.42 0.67 0.62 . 1976 428 92,713 50,198 33,240 0.36 0.66 0.60
' 28,429 0.71 0.62 388 18,922 40,188 0.36 l1975 1914 422 85,240 33,402 20,907 0.25 0.63 0.60
'1913 441 61,862 28,867 21,268 0.31 0.14 l *CR la the ratto of the annual collective dose delivered at annual doses exceeding 1.5 reos to the total annual collective dose. (See Section 3.2).
*These figures are adjusted to account for the multiple counting of transient reactor workers (see l Section 4). ;
** Includes all twas that reported, although all of thee may not have been in commercial operetton for a full year. g 1
latter average is normally used for radiation workers because it deletes the minimal exposures of many individuals who are monitored for convenience or for identification purposes. One of the parameters that the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) recommends be calculated for occupational dose distributions to aid in the comparison of exposure data is the ratio "CR." CR is defined to be the ratio of the annual collective dose incurred by indivi-duals whose annual doses exceed 1.5 rems to the total annual collective dose. The latest UNSCEAR report [Ref. 1] states that normal values of CR should be between 0.05 and 0.50. This means that, usually, no more than 50% of the collective dose should be due to individual doses that exceed 1.5 rems. The last column in Table 4 shows the values of CR for the different types of licenses; one can see that CR is close to 0.50 for three of the groups and is much less than 0.50 for the remaining three groups. 3.2.1 Industrial Radiography Licenses, Single and Multiple Locations These licenses are issued to allow the use of sealed radioactive materials, usually in exposure devices or " cameras," that primarily emit gamma rays for nondestructive testing of pipeline weld joints, steel structures, boilers, aircraft and ship parts, and other high-stress alloy parts. Some firms are licensed to conduct such activities in one location, usually in a plant, and others perform radiography at multiple sites in the field. As shown in Table 4, annual reports were received for 353 radiography licenses in 1982 and for 340 licenses in 1983. This means that more than 98% of the covered radiography licensees filed an annual report, and extrapolations to account for those not reporting were not necessary. Table 5 summarizes the reported data for the two types of radiography licenses for 1982 and 1983 and shows that the number of workers receiving measurable doses reported by the single-location license decreased by 18% while the collective dose increased by 14% between 1982 and 1983. This resulted in the average measurable dose increasing from 0.20 rem (cSv) to 0.28 rem (cSv). The number of workers at firms having multiple-location licenses also decreased by about 16%, and the collective dose decreased even more (23%). This resulted in the average measurable dose decreasing to 0.50 rem (cSv). Overall, one finds that the average measurable dose for radiography workers continues to remain at about one-half of one rem (cSv), as it has for the last seven years, and that the average dose for workers performing radiography at a single location is usu-ally less than half this amount. This is probably due to the fact that it is much more difficult for workers to avoid exposure to radiation in the field, where conditions are not the best and may change every day. In order to see the contribution that each radiography licensee made to the total collective dose, a summary of the information reported by each of these licensees in 1982 and in 1983 is presented, in alphabetical order, in Appendix A. 9
I' l 2 TABLE 5 ANNUAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION FOR IN00STRIAL RADIOGRAPHERS I 1982 and 1983 : Workers Average j Number of with Collective Measur , Type of License Year Monitored Measurable Dose able Dose i Individuals Doses (manrens (rens or orman-cSv) cSv) l Single location 1982 1,977 942 187 0.20 !' Multiple locations 1982 7,258 5,218 ?,811 0.54
; Total 1982 9,235 6,160 2,998 0.49 ;
Single location 1983 1,714 773 213 0.28 Multiple locations 1983 6,910 4,358 2,171 0.50 ! Total 1983 8,624 5,131 2,384 0.46 ! , Since personnel monitoring data has frequently been found to have legnormal l l' distributions (Ref. 2), trends in the data reported by radiography I'consees j may be observed from log probability plots
- of the data.
Figure 1 displays such plots of the doses incurred by workers monitored by the two types of radiography licensees for each of the years 1982 and 1983. One
; can see that the p'ots of the dose distributions of workers at single location i radiography facilities, where the workers receive doses that average about half :
- of those received by workers at multiple-location facilities, form fairly [
! straight lines and usually lie above those of the multiple location facilities.
! One feature of these types of graphs is that several comparisons of various dose distributions can be quickly made. For example, one can easily see that i about 85% of the workers monitored by firms licensed for radiography at mul- .
tiple locations received doses that were less than one rem (cSv), while some 965 [ l of the workers monitored at single location radiography fac111 ties received such ; doses. Also, the relative positions and curvature of the graphs are indicative ; of certain characteristics of the dose distributions. I i i Further examination of the plots of the dose distribution of workers at single ! location radiography facilities reveals that the position of the 1943 Plot below i that of the 1982 plot indicates an increase in the average dose and in CR (as , shown at the bottom of the graph). This is due to the fact that six workers ! i received doses that exceeded four rems (cSv) in 1983. Looking at the plots for ! i the multiple location Ifeensees for 1982 and 1983, one can qu'chly see that they are quite similar to each other, and one would expect to see similar average doses and values of CR. i If the data have a log normal distribution, the data points will form a straight f j line when plotted on-log probability paper on which cumulative probabilities are i i laid off on the vertica axis at distances proportional to the corresponding ! i number of standard deviations above or below the median, and the dose is plotted l
- on the horizontal axis on a logarithmic scale. l i
I l 10 i
FIGURE 1 ANNUAL DOSE DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS AT INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY FACILITIES 1982 & 1983 l C'# 1 I I l l l l 1 I I I l _[_. - C.9 - - 98.8 . 1982 Single Location - C5 - - 9e 98 - 1983 Single Location - 5 g - - a u. O 90 - 1982 Multiple Locations - g 1983 Multiple Locations 80 - su yo - - !3 .0i - 60 - - 3 40 . AVERAGE MEASURABLE _ i DOSE (rems or cSvl 'CR INDUSTRIAL 30 RADl00RAPHY 1983 1982 1981 1980 1983 1982 1981 1980 - 20 - Single Location 0.28 0.20 0.19 ,0.20 0.40 0.23 0.21 0 25 _ Multiple Locations 0.50 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.46 10 1 I I l l f I I i l l l 0.1 0.26 0.5 0.75 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 ANNUAL DOSE (rems or cDv)
'CR le the ratio of the annual collective doen delivered at individual doses enceeding 1.5 reme to the total annual collective dose.
Note: Each point on the curves represents the cumulative percentage of workare with measuteblo doest who feceived dosee less than the indicated annual dose. 11
l l l l The tendency of the plots to curve upward for doses greater than one rem (cSv) l is typical of distributions having several workers with doses in the higher l dose ranges [Ref. 1, 3], and indicates that the entire distribution is not a log normal one. Another theoretical analysis of occupational dose distribu-l tions (Ref. 4] has found that these data may be fitted by a hybrid log normal distribu'.iun. At low doses, this distribution is Icg normal, but at higher doses, where radiation control programs very closely monitor each worker's total dose so that the frequency of doses approaching the dose limits is reduced, the distribution is normal. 3.2.2 Manufacturer and Distributor Licenses, Broad and Other These licenses are issued to allow the manufacture and distribution of radionu-clides in various forms for a number of diverse purposes. Broad licenses are issued to large facilities having a comprehensive radiological protection pro-gram, and the other licenses are usually issued to smaller firms requiring a more restrictive license. Some firms are medical suppliers that process, pack-age or distribute such products as diagnostic test kits, radioactive surgical implants, and tagged radiochemicals for use in medical research, diagnosis and therapy. Other firms are suppliers of industrial radionuclides and are involved in the processing, encapsulation, packaging, and distribution of the radionu-clides that they have purchased in bulk quantities from production reactors i and cyclotrons. Major products include gamma radiography sources, cobalt l irradiation sources, well logging sources sealed sources for gauges and smoke ! detectors,andradiochemicalsfornon-medIcalresearch. However, only those NRC licensees (about 30) that possess or use at any one time specifled quanti-ties of the nuclides listed in Paragraph 20.408(a)(G) are required to submit annual (10 CFR S 20.407) and termination (10 CFR 5 20.408) reports. As shown in Table 4, annual reports were received from 34 and 33 manufacturing and dis-tribution licensees in 1982 and 1983, respectively. Table 6 presents the annual data that were reported by the two types of licensees in 1982 and 1983. One can see that the total number of workers receiving i measurable doses, as reported by these types of licensees decreased by about l nine percent between 1982 and 1983, as did the collective dose. This resulted in the average dose remaining at about 0.41 rem (cSv). This is about the same ! as the averago measurable doses found in 1980 and 1981. Looking at the informa- l tion shown separately for the broad and other types of licensees, one can see i that the values of all of the parameters remain higher for the broad licensees, probably because this type of Ilconse allows the possession of larger quantities of radioactive materials than do the other licenses, in order to see the contribution that each of these licensees made toward the total values l of the number of persons monitored, number of workers, and collective dose, Appendix A lists the values of these parameters for each licensee in alpha-botical order by licensee name for 1982 and 1983. Figure 2 displays 100 probability plots of the doses incurred by workers under 4 l the two types of manufacturing and distribution licenses for the years 1982 and 1983. The position of the curves plotted for the other licenses above those plotted for the broad licenses indicates that a larger portion of the workers reported by the other licensees have lower doses than those reported by the broad licensees, for example, the graphs show that about 86T,of workers mon-itored by the broad licensens received doses that were less than one rem (cSv), 12 1
Figure 2 ANNUAL DOSE DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS AT MANUFACTURING b DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES 1982 & 1983 I I I l l l l l l l l I M.9 - - M.8 - - M.6 - - M - - M . 1983 Other _ M - Broad _ 1982. Other 3 $ 30 - 1953 8 toad - 6 .: .0 - - U 70l
- .0 _ _
3 g 60 8- - AVERAOE MCASURABLE 40 DOSE Items or cSvl 'CR
~
1983 1982 1M1 1980 30 - MANUF Is DIST. 1983 1982 1MI 1900 - Stoad 0 44 0.43 0.44 0.64
. 0.64 0.62 0.M 0.81 20 Othaf 0 22 0 22 0.17 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.27 10 - -
1 i i l 1 1 I l i i i1 0.1 0.26 06 0.75 1.0 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 9 to ANNUAL 0082 (terne or c8vl
'CH le the ratio of the annual collective does deliveted at Individual doses escoeding 1.6 tems to the total annual collective dose.
Note: Cach point on the curves tepresents the cumulative percentage of wothere with maneutable doene who received dosee less than the Indicated annual dose. 13
TABLE 6 ANNUAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS 1982 and 1983 Workers Collecti/w Average Number of with Dose Measurable Type of License Year Monitored Measurable (man-rems Dose (rems Individuals Doses or cSv) or cSv) M & 0-Broad 1982 4,610 1,892 821 0.43 M & 0-Other 1982 843 307 69 0.22 Total 1982 5,453 2,199 890 0.40 M & 0-Broad 1983 4,332 1,744 767 0.44 M & 0-Other 1983 719 259 57 0.22 Total 1983 5,051 2,003 824 0.41 while about 98% of the workers monitored by the other licensees received such doses. 3.2.3 Low-level Waste Disposal Licensees , These licenses are issued to allow the receipt, possession and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes at a land disposal facility. The ifcensee has s the appropriate equipment to pick up wastes from such places as hospitals and t laboratories,andtransportthemtoaproperfacilityforstorageandburla1. The requirement for this category of NRC licensee to file annual reports became effective in January 1983. The one licensee in this category submitted annual reports for 1982 and 1983, although the facility is located in and licensed by an Agreement State, which has primary regulatory authority over its activities. The licensee is an older company with a fairly large operation, and Table 4 summarizes the data reported for 1982 and 1983. One can see that the collective dose, although rather small, increased by about 30% from 1982 to 1983. However, the number of workers receiving measurable doses increased by some 40%, so that the average measurable dose remained at about 0.20 rem (cSv). Figure 3 displays log probability plots of the doses incurred by workers at the low-level waste disposal facility during 1982 and 1983. One can quickly see that the distributions are quite similar, with all of the doses being less than two rems (cSv) and about 92% of the doses being less than 0.75 rem (cSv) each year. This resulted in the average measurable doses remaining at about 0.20 rem (cSv) each year and'in rather low values of CR each year. Appendix A IIsts the exposure information reported by this licensee. 3.2.4 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation These Ilcenses are issued to allow the possession of power reactor spent fuel and other associated radioactive materials for the purpose of storage of such fuel in an independent spent fuel storage Installation (ISFS!). Here, the spent fuel, which has underQone at least one year's decay since being used as a ; 14
Figure 3 ANNUAL DOSE DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS AT LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND AT AN INDEPENDENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY 1 M 2 ft I N 3
#N i i i l l I I I I I I l
CS - - M.8 - - M.5 - - y . - Low Level Waste IN3 M - Low Level Waste IN2 - 1,M _ . l20( _ independent Fuel Storage 1983 independent Fuel _ 8torage .1982 lto - AVEHAut MEASUHAHLC .CH -
~
40 DOSE Iterns or c8v) IN3 1982 1983 1M2 _ 30l Low. Level West Disposal 0.20 0 21 0.14 0 20
* ~
20 Independent Fuel Storage 0.30 0 28 0 0
~
10 ~ t i i i i i e i i e i 1 0.1 0 26 0.0 0.70 1.0 2 3 4 6 0 7 8 910 ANNUAL 008t learne or eSvl
'CM le the f allo of the annuel collective done delivered at Ind6vidual doses enceeding 1.5 tente to the total annual collective does, Note: f ach poltit att the curvee taptosante the cuttiutative percentage of wothere with eneaeutable doses who received doses less thett the leidlented ennual done.
16
l I i source of energy in a power reactor, is provided interim storage, protection, ; and safeguarding for a limited time, pending its ultimate disposal. Table 4 summarizes the data submitted by the only licensed ISFSI for 1982 and 1983. Only about 35 individuals were monitored at the facility and a collective dose of 8 or 9 man-reas (man-cSv) was incurred each year. The average dose for the approximately 30 workers receiving measurable doses each year was found to be about 0.30 rem (cSv). Figure 3 displays log probability plots of the doses incurred by workers at the ISFSI in 1982 and 1983. The plots are similar, with all doses being less than 0.75 ren so that the value of CR was zero each year. Appendix A lists the exposure data reported by this licensee. 3.2.5 Fuel Fabrication and Reprocessing Licenses The fuel fabrication licenses are issued to allow the processing and fabrication of reactor fuels. In most uranium facilities, where light water reactor fuels are processed uranium hexafuoride enriched in the isotope U-235 is converted tosoliduranIumdioxidepelletsandinsertedintozirconiumtubes. The tubes are fabricated into fuel assemblies, which are shipped to nuclear power plants, l Some facilities also perform chemical operations to recover the uranium from l scrap and other off-specification materials. On a much smaller scale, fuel assemblies containing plutonium oxide pellets can be similarly fabricated and < used in reactors for experimental purposes. However, there are no NRC licensees t engaged in this activity at this time, j The number lutonium fuel,ofhas facilities licensed by been decreasin for the NRC the last to fabricate several fuel,(especia11y years Table 4) herefore,anumberofIIconsees(fivein1982andfourin1983)areprimarily engaged in decommissioning activities, and the information that they provided ' for 1982 and 1983 is shown as "Pu Decommissioning" in Table 7. [ r Table 7 ! 6 ANNUAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION FOR FUEL FABRICATORS 1982 and 1983 Workers Collective Average Number of with Dose Measurable ! Type of License Year Monitored Measurable (man rems Dose (man reas L Individuals Doses ormancSv) or man cSv) Uranium fuel Fab 1982 8,652 5,117 724 0.14 Pu Decommissioning 1982 1,156 316 107 0.34 Total 1982 9,808 5,433 831 0.15 Uranium fuel Fab 1993 8,440 4,746 748 0.16 Pu Decommissioning 1983 583 267 87 0.33 Total 1983 9,023 5,013 835 0.17 f 16
One can see that the collective dose incurred during decommissioning is much less than that incurred during fuel fabrication, but the small number of workers incurring the dose results in an average measurable dose that is about twice that received by the fuel fabrication workers. However, it should be pointed out that three of the eleven licensees primarily engaged in uranium fuel fabri-cation in 1982 and 1983 were also involved in the decommissioning of plutonium facilities, and the report submitted by each one covered both activities. Therefore, for comparison with data submitted for previous years, the data in the " Totals" row should be used because decommissioning activities were also
- l. being conducted during previous years and were not shown separately. Appendix A lists the number of persons monitored, the number of workers receiving measurable doses, and the collective dose for each of these licensees in alphabetical order by licensee name for 1982 and 1983.
. Figure 4 consists of the log probability plots of the dose distributions of workers at fuel fabrication facilities for the years 1982 and 1983. One can see that the distributions are quite similar, with all doses being less than five rems (cSv) and about 99.3% of the doses being less than two rems (cSv) each
, year. The average dose and the value of CR were therefore about the same for each, Fuel reprocessing licenses are issued to allow the separation of usable uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. There is only one licensed commercial facility that has ever reprocessed fuel, and it has been shut down since 1972.
However, the licensee was still doing some decontamination work and storing i radioactive waste at the facility, and the annual report that was submitted each year was usually grouped with those of the fuel fabricators. In Febru-ary 1982, the Department of Energy assumed possession and control of the i reprocessing facility to conduct waste solidification activities necessary ! for final decommissioning. During this period, the NRC license will, in effect, be suspended, and no reports will be filed with the NRC. l 3.2.6 Water-Cooled Power Reactor Licenses l These licenser are issued to utilities to allow them to usea pecial nuclear material in a reactor to produce heat to generate electricity to be sold to ! consumers. There are two major types of commercial reactors In the United States - pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors - each of which uses water as the primary coolant. As shown in Table 4, annual reports were received from nuclear power facilities ; for 79 Ilconsed reactors where 129,000 Individuals were monitored for exposure to radiation in 1982. Of this number 80,221 workers received a measurable done and incurred a collective dose of 52,221 man-rems (man cSv). These figures are about the same as those reported in 1981. In 1983, the collective done increased somewhat to reach a high of 56,150 man rems (man cSv), while tho average ! measurable dose remained about the same, figure 5 provides plots of the total i values of several of the parameters given in Table 4. , Table 8showsthecontributionmadebythetwomajortypesofpowerreactors. ; One can see that the average dose per worker, collectivo dose per reactor, number of workers per reactor and collectivo dose per megawatt year have been greater for bolling water reactors (BWRs) than that fuund for pressurized water i 17 i
Figure 4 ANNUAL DOSE DISTM18UTION OF WORKERS AT FUEL FABRICATORS AND PROCESSORS 1982 ft 1983 I I I l I I I I I I I I C.9 - - C.s - A O,5 - - a _ 19sa _ C . I w C - - 8C - - C . ge - . 1 CCO(,.. AVERAct MEASUMAGLE DOSE treme of c8vl 'CM g ,, IM3 1982 1981 1980 198.1 1982 1901 1900 _ 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.19 0 19 0.30 0.00 0.12 C .. . O ,. - 1 I I l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 0 26 08 035 1.0 2 3 4 8 8 7 8 9 10 ANNUAL 0088 frame et c8v)
'CN leihe tatto of the annual collective does delivered at Individual doses onceeding 1.6 tems to the total annuel collective done, Note: f ach point on the eutves reptosents the cumulative percenteve of woehets with measurable dosee who receiveti doses lees then the Indicated annual dose, i
18
AT LIG E D E CTORS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m- - TOTAL ANNUAL VALUES: - !!! =."'."JS /~~ l= - j;; ray,g,^,rr== ,,,,-
- - =
e = j - 00
/
g m - f' f %./ - so l*
~
,$l ,,
F/ ,I c -
~
l s /
- l. -
,/
/
},4*/,s%;G,/- - ,
10 - ,/ - io 1 i i i l i L i i i l i i i 1 0 0
*n *1e 'n 'n *14 'N 'N *i1 'N *N '80 11 '82 'm '84 'n Yeer 19
i l TMLE 3* SMmet 64 m flustHES EFEEfEB Sv smurum deer FaCILITMS 1973 - 1983 Avereer Total *%e. of tsareers Total Collectise Deee Amorese me. Collective anectar mammer of anectars asemer taita M ie angemett yr. Ammmel por amector of teneters tese per Tear Tjee teclasse of que-1ress Emeos Esmerated (rumsAmorter er (see-rems or For teacter Nagasett yr, [ cSe/merter) ame-c5e) Ir3 Mas u 5 J59 9.855 3.D5 L55 M3 NJ 2.5 ans 12 4,564 5.3ee 3,394 a.a5 3ee 445 L3 Total M 13,963 14 M8 7,364 0.94 582 616 L9 ISM fees 29 6,627 9,697 6,8M 0.68 331 405 1. 8 Bas 14 7,895 8,MS 4.959 8.81 547 626 L7 Total 34 13.722 18,466 M ,aB3 8.M 404 543 L3 19P5 fees 26 8,Ma 18,804 u ,983 9.M 318 419 0.7 mes la 12,6u 14,687 5,786 0.06 M1 812 2.2 Total 44 20,8M 25.491 17,M9 0.82 45 579 L2 1576 Ftes 30 U aE7 17.58B 13.325 0.79 460 506 Le mes 23 12,626 17,3b9 3,586 S.71 549 7M L5 Total 53 26,433 35.447 21,9u 0.75 499 669 L2 1577 fees 34 13.469 N ,878 17,346 0.65 396 614 0.8 Bas 23 19.982 21,3AB 9,998 0.89 328 930 2.1 Total 57 32,511 42,266 26,444 0.77 5M M2 L2 g Isa has 39 16,7u 25,72e 19,ase 0.65 429 659 0.s bas 25 15.096 20,278 u,7M 0.74 644 all L3 Total 64 31.899 45,930 31,614 0.69 497 719 1.0 15 3 Ptes 42 21,437 38.323 14,249 0.55 510 SM L2 has 25 18,322 25.245 u ,671 0.73 713 1,010 L6 Tatal 67 39,759 64,873 29,920 0.62 593 956 1. 3 1980 ftes 42 24,266 46,237 18,287 0.52 578 1,101 1.3 has 26 29,538 34,094 la,the 0.47 1,136 1,311 2.7 Tetal 64 53.796 08.331 29,155 0.67 791 1,181 1. 8 1981 ftes 44 28,671 47.351 20,552 0.61 652 1,0M 1.4 bas 26 25.471 34,832 10.999 0.73 90C 1,340 2.7 Total 70 54.142 82,183 31.451 0.66 773 1,174 L7 1982 ftes at 27.753 52.147 22,141 0.53 578 1,006 L3 bas 26 24,437 32.235 10,655 0.M 940 1,240 2. 3 Total 74 52,190 84,382 32,795 0.62 705 1,139 1.6 1983 mas 49 29.016 52.173 23,196 0.56 592 1,065 1.3 has 26 27.455 33,473 9,730 0.82 1,056 1,287 2. 8 Tetal 75 56.471 35,646 32.926 0.66 753 1.142 L7 "The figures em this takle are based en tse eer of nuclear poner reacters that had been la commercial operatfee for at least one year as of W 31 ef each ef tse years laticates. ascarrected far as1tiple coastlag of transiest morters because tae morters any be asettered by both bas and Ptes.
._,m... , - . . . - . _ . . . . - _ . . - , , . - . - , . . . . . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - , .. -- . -
reactors (PWRs) for the last ten years. This can be easily seen in Figure 6 which plots the average values of the annual collective dose and number of workers for each year since 1969. Figure 7 presents the log normal plot of the distribution of the whole body doses received by radiation workers at nuclear power facilities in 1982 and 1983. One can quickly see that about 73% of the workers receiving measurable doses at BWRs received doses that were less than one rem (cSv), while about 82% l of the workers at PWRs received such doses. Also, departures from a straight line for doses that exceed one rem are again seen, and, according to the hybrid log normal method [Ref. 4] of analyzing these dose distributions, the sharpness of the departure indicates that a strong feedback mechanism operates when workers begin to incur large doses. Listed at the bottom of the figure are the values of CR for the last four years. These show that a larger portion l of the collective dose (about 60%) at BWRs continues to be due to workers receiving doses greater than 1.5 rems (cSv) than at PWRs, where CR is usually about 0.50. More detailed presentations and analyses of the annual exposure information reported by nuclear power reactors can be found in the two annual reports, NUREG-0713, Vol. 4 [Ref. 5] and NUREG-0713, Vol. 5 [Ref. 6]. 3.2.7 High Temperature Gas Cooled Power Reactor Licenses A license to operate a power reactor is issued to utilities to allow them to use special nuclear material in a reactor to produce heat to generate electri-city to be sold to consumers. However, in this type of a reactor, a gas, usually helium, is used as the primary coolant. Fort St. Vrain near Greeley, Colorado, is the only such reactor in operation in the U.S. As shown in Table 9, annual whole body doses incurred by workers at the plant have been minimal. For the last three years, everyone monitored has received a whole body dose that was less than 0.10 rem (cSv), and no one has over exceeded an annual dose of 0.25 rem (cSv). The average dose per worker remains at about 0.03 rem (cSv) or less. TABLE 9 ANNUAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION FOR FORT ST. VRAIN 1974 - 1983 No. of Individuals with Annual Annual Average Doses in Ranges (Rems or cSv) Total Collective Gross Measurable No No. of Dose Electricity Dose Per Measurable Measurable 0.10- Individuals (man roms Generated Worker Y:ar Oose Oose <0.10 0.25 Monitored or man-cSv) (MW yr.) (remsorcSv) 1974 1597 63 1 1,661 3.3 0.0 0.05 1975 1263 0 0 1,263 0.0 0.0 0.00 1976 1362 25 0 1,387 1. 3 2.0 0.05 1977 946 55 1 1,002 2.9 29.8 0.05 1978 896 34 0 930 1.1 75.7 0.05 19/9 1149 120 2 1,271 6.4 28.6 0.05 1980 902 57 1 960 3.0 83.2 0.05 1981 1096 31 0 1,12/ 1.0 93.6 0.03 1982 978 22 0 1,000 0.4 72.6 0.02 1983 965 48 0 1,013 1. 0 94.4 0.02 21
Fie w e s COMMERCIAL UGHT WATER COOLED REACTORS 1988-1M3 AVERAGE ANNUAL COLLECTNE DOSES AVERAGE NUGASER OF WORKERS
/. . -
j , tme - - Mu - een f - na - -- rwa :
~
f,% __ ~ jisse #N inus - - jg ,f - - j i s
- f
- 1 i
- r. .:
- j. ,g f - = see E
./
f# '# - = ~ s - s A* : li s - .I ~ g a e
- a -
'
- s i *
's ::*: p/
l
*/ ,A~
1-3- -. ,.\ ,e \ j .;
,i 1
- g. .] \ / ,/ s%s, -- - -b -
/
,4 -
o - - , - P : aan, f _ ano NI - . - 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 I I I I I I I 3 3 I I I I 3 3 3 I I I I 3 M *M "ft *22 ~23 "M *M *M *FF *M "JB M M MMM M *M ~71 ~32 ~73 "M *M *M *FF "M *75 W Tl M MM Year Year
Figure 7 ANNUAL DOSE DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS AT 1 LIGHT WATER REACTOR FACILITIES 1 1982 ft 1983 1 I I I I I l l E 98.9 - 99.8 - I 90 - E 1982 PWRs gn - 1983 PWRs g o -
$n _
1982 BWRs , 1903 BWRs I - a _ So 5 3 - 3 70 - u -
- 9. _
~
50 - AVERAOE MEASURABLE gj DOSE (rems or cSvl 'CR - 1983 1982 1981 1980 1983 1982 1981 1980 - 30( BWRs 0.82 0.78 0.73 0.87 0.63 0.59 0.57 0.63
~
20 - PWRs 0.58 0.53 0.81 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.47 l i I I I I I l l l l l 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 ANNUAL DOSE (rems)
'CR le the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at Individual doses exceeding 1,5 rems to the total annual collective dose.
Note: Each point on the curves represents the cumulative percentage of workers with measurable doses who received doses less than the Indicated annual dose. 23
4 a For the ten years ending on December 31, 1983, the total collective dose for
, workers at the site is about 27 man ress (man-cSv), and a total of 481 mega-watt years of electricity had been generated. This yields a ten year average of about 0.04 man-res (man-cSv) per megawatt year which is a small fraction of the average value of this parameter found for LWRs (see Table 4).
3.3 Health Implications of Average Annual Doses If any damage to health is caused by exposure to radiation in the work place, i it would probably manifest itself as certain types of cancer in the exposed worker or, less likely, as inherited genetic damage in the first few generations i i of the workers' offspring. However, the likelihood of either cancer or genetic l damage occurring as a result of occupational radiation exposure experienced by l j workers in the nuclear industry is small. A vast amount of scientific informa- ' tion is available from which estimates of these risks can be made. Much of i
- j. this information, however, has been obtained from epidemiologic studies of p human populations at levels of exposures considerably higher than those normally
- experienced in the work place. Complementary to this, information obtained
- , from many animal and cell biology studies has greatly enhanced our knowledge L and understanding. Although using this information to estimate risks in the
- work place introduces large uncertainties, these uncertainties can be dealt with in such a manner that the risk is not likely to be underestimated. Thus the discussion below is likely to overstate the health implications rather than
, understate them. Cancer induction as a result of radiation exposure has been examined by many
- organizations having scientific and medical expertise in the subject. One of these, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), completed a comprehensive review
- of the biological effects of ionizing radiation in 1980 [Ref. 8]. Based on this report, a large working population receiving one million man reas (man-cSv) i might suffer an estimated 100 to 200 additional cancer deaths over the remaining !
years of their lives. This risk estimate can be applied to the collective dose, I 61,000 man-rems (man-cSv) and the population, 101,000 workers, receiving measur-able exposures, presented in Table 4 of this report.' The result is that, for i the work force reported as being exposed in 1983, the expected number of cancer i 4 deaths that might result from occupational radiation dose received that year would be about ten. (Results derived from the 1982 data would be quite similar.) ! These deaths would occur many years following the exposure and would be in addi-tion to the approximately 18,000 cancer deaths that occur normally in a popula-l tion of 100,000 workers without exposure to this amount of radiation. Perhaps
! more meaningful to the individual workers are the health implications to the 1
' workers receiving the average dose of 0.60 rem (cSv) or the maximum dose of 25 rems (cSv) during 1983. The estimated increased cancer death risk is about one chance in 10,000 for the average dose and about four chances in 1,000 for the maximum dose. Should a worker receive 0.60 rem (cSv) per year continuously j during his entire working career (working from age 20 until age 65) his risk 4 of dying from cancer could increase by less than 2% over the normal risk of dying of cancer. ~These risks can be compared to the American Cancer Society's
, estimates of one chance in four of developing cancer and one chance in six of i dying of cancer. '
, The potential genetic effects from a worker population receiving about 61,000 i man-ress (man-cSv) is very small compared to the genetic damages that normally 1 . 4 i 24
1 l i [ i f occur spontaneously in a population of this size. Approximately 100,000 serious ,
-genetic defects occur normally in one million live births, i.e., an average of i about one serious defect in every ten live births. Theoretically, the total I genetic damage in the first generation children of the 101.000 workers would, according to the 1980 NAS report, be an increase of four or less cases (less l
than 0.05%) compared to the expected 10,000 cases that occur normally. No significant increase in the number of genetic defects has been observed in the children of individuals exposed to ionizing radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. ! 4. TERMINATION DATA SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 10 CFR S 20.408 g 4.1 Termination Reports, 1969-1983 In 1969, the Atomic Energy Comm certaincategoriesoflicensees{ssion(predecessoroftheNRC)beganrequiring to submit personal identification and exposure
- information upon the termination of each monitored person's employment or work ascignment in the licensee's facility. The appropriate information on each :
report has been manually coded and entered into the Commission's computerized Radiation Expc ure Information Reporting System (REIRS) for permanent reten-tion. The da'i are retrievable by several criteria - social security number name, facility, etc. - which allows statistical analysis of the data as well as the tracing of individual dose histories. -During the years that this infor-
! mation has been collected,'some 1,100,000 termination records have been re-
- ceived for approximately 300,000 individuals who have been reported as having terminated their employment at facilities in one or more of the categories of i covered licensees. The figures given for the number of reports and the number l
of individuals are different because numerous individuals have been terminated more than once over the years and because some individuals may have had exter-nel doses reported for more than one part of the body, as well as estimates of internal depositions of radioactive material, each of which is counted as ; one record. Table 10 provides a breakdown of this information for individuals terminating during each of fifteen years and, since the majority of termina- ! tion reports are now submitted by nuclear power facilities, the number of records and individuals that they reported are displayed separately. One i can see that the number of records continues to increase each year, primarily i because of the growing need for workers at power reactors. 4.2 Limitations of the Termination Data When examining or using the statistics that are based on the termination data, one'should keep in mind that these data have various limitations: (1) some licensees submit a termination report for each monitored contractor employee ; at the end of each monitoring period rather than waiting until the individual i
- Assuming that, on the average, each exposed person will have one child in the future, i.e., 101,000 children born to this worker population. '
9 Commercial nuclear power reactors; industrial radiographers; fuel processors, fabricators, and reprocessors; and manufacturers and distributors of speci-fled quantities of byproduct material. L 25 1
- _ . - _ ._ _ _,_ _ ~__--_-- _ .- _ _ _ _ ,. _ _., _ - _
TABLE 10 TERMINATION REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE NRC 1969 - 1983** - All Covered Categories
- Power Reactor Licensees Number of Number of Number of Number of YEAR Termination Terminating Termination Terminating Records Individuals Records Individuals 1969 5,009 3,992 790 727 1970 8,606 6,069 2,126 1,908 1971 12,955 8,874 2,246 2,197 1972 13,685 10,353 4,997 3,888
, 1973 19,985 15,588 11,525 9,071 1974 30,389 21,499 16,946 11,603 1975 44,676 27,415 38,376 22,627 1976 70,230 40,079 63,593 35,294 1977 88,295 42,183 81,074 36,864 1978 96,010 44,541 85,308 37,359 ' 1979 133,470 58,913 118,218 48,305 1980 175,408 73,662 162,515 65,092 1981 185,841 71,780 177,832 66,902 1982** 158,316 59,147 153,390 56,491 1983** 88,188 35,766 86,223 34,563
- Commercial nuclear power reactors; industrial radiographers; fuel processors, fabricators, and reprocessors; manufacturers and distributors of specified quantities of byproduct materials; low-level waste disposal facilities; inde-pendent spent fuel storage installations; and geologic high-level waste respositories.
**The termination data for all individuals terminating during 1982 or 1983 have not been entered into the REIR System.
26
i actually completes his work assignment at the facility, (2) the period (s) of l exposure that are reported for terminating individuals may indicate the moni-
- toring period during which he may have been exposed to radiation rather than the actual dates of exposure, (3) some licensees report cumulative periods of exposure and doses rather than.the actual periods and dose incurred during-each period, and (4) licensees having more,than one licensed facility sometimes include in the termination report submitted when the individual leaves the second facility the dose that he incurred at the first facility, which may f
.already have 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.
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 doses being received by short-term workers. , Since nearly half of the termination reports indicated periods of exposure that were less than 90 days, it is possible that several thousand individuals could have been employed by two or more licensees during the same calendar quarter. Thus, in this report, a " quarterly transient" worker is defined to be an individual 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 among facilities. Table 11 displays some of the information gathered from these termination , reports that were submitted by all covered licensees and by licensed nuclear . . power facilities, separately. One can quickly see that the vast majority of these individuals are monitored by nuclear power facilities. The number of these individuals increased more than twentyfold during the five years 1972 >' through'1976 but now appears to be increasing at a much smaller rate. They. have comprised about two percent of the number of workers receiving a measurable dose (Table 4) for the last several years. This probably reflects the earlier rapid rate of growth of the nuclear power industry and its need for short-term , workers. 'The. table also shows that the average individual dose (which is close to being a quarterly dose for these workers) has tended to decrease during this time and has remained less than 0.5 rem during the last five years. Examina-tions of these records also revealed that some individuals have worked for as
-many as six different NRC licensees during one quarter. However, on the average, less than two instances per year have been found in which a worker exceeded his quarterly limit of three rems (cSv) as a result of his working at two or more different licensed facilities within one calendar quarter. In a few of- these instances, the doses that the workers had received while employed by the first i
utility were revised upward later in the year. The underestimates resulted in quarterly doses that- slightly exceeded three rems (cSv). A very few quarterly _. exposures exceeding three rems (cSv) may have gone undetected because a worker's dose was received over a period spanning more than one quarter and was reported - for the entire period. When this happens, it is not possible to determine the + portion of the dose received during each quarter. This method of reporting is considered by the NRC staff to be inconsistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.408, and licensees will be advised that such reports are not acceptable. 4.4 Transient Workers per Calendar Year L Since the number of transient workers per calendar quarter comprise only a
.small percentage of the total number of individuals terminating each year,.
b 27 e _..--- _ _ . - , - ,._ -~__ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , , _ _ ,
TABLE 11 TRANSIENT WORKERS PER CALENDAR QUARTER
'1972-1983 All Covered Licensees No. of Persons Collective Average Terminated by Two Dose Individual or more Licensees (man-rems or Dose (rem Year Within One Quarter man-cSv) or cSv) 1972 69 63 0.91 1973 157 138 0.88 1974 332 170 0.51 1975 709 508 0.72 1976 1299 904 0.70 1977 1481 870 0.59 1978 1570 720 0.46 1979 1809 836 0.46 1980 2355 1063 0.45 1981* 2344 955 0.41 1982** 1977 773 0.39 Power Reactor Facilities 1972 57 57 1.00 ' 1973 146 123 0.84 1974~ 285 158 0.55
, 1975 684 493 0.72 1976 1257 889 0.71 1977 1437 851 0.59 1978 1500 680 0.45 1979 1754 802 0.46 1980- 2218 1033 0.47 1981* 2335 952 0.41 1982** 1922 771 0.40
- Revised according to latest compilations.
** Figures for 1982 may be incomplete because all of the 1982 termination data have not been computerized at this time.
28
. . - - ... -- _= . . -
it was decided to change the criteria so that the records of more workers would be examined. This was done by selecting the records of all individuals who began and terminated two or more periods of employment with at least two dif-ferent reactor facilities within one calendar year and summing each worker's whole body doses. An examination of these data would allow one to determine the , number and average dose for these " annual transients." Since more than 95% of I these transients are reported by nuclear power facilities, only the termination records of these individuals were examined in detail. Table 12 summarizes the number and doses of the transients found among the individuals terminating during the six years 1977 through 1982. A similar collation has not been done for the 1983 data because not all of them have yet been computerized. One can see that the number of these workers increased from about 3,200 workers in 1977 to about 5,400 in 1980 and 1981. The 4,481 workers shown for 1982 may indicate a decreasing trend or may be due to the fact that all of the 1982 termination data have not yet been computerized. The average dose, however, remains at about I I rem (cSv). More details about these annual transients and a discussion of the impact that the inclusion of these individuals in each of two or more licensee's annual dose distribution reports had on the annual compilation of the reports submitted by all of the nuclear power facilities are presented in the NRC reports designated as NUREG-0713, Vols. 4 and 5 [Refs. 6 and 7]. TABLE 12 TRANSIENT WORKERS PER CALENDAR YEAR AT NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES 1977-1982 Collective No. of No. of Individuals Dose Average Commercial Terminated by (man-rems or Dose Year Reactors Two or More Licensees man-cSv) (rems or cSv) 1977 57 3,161 3,776 1.29 1978 64 3,202 3,231 1.01 1979 67 4,022 3,891 0.97 1980 69 5,463 6,028 1.10 1981* 73 5,425 5,381 0.99 1982** 75 4,481 4,954 1.11
- Revised according to latest compilations.
** Figures for 1982 may be incomplete because all of the 1982 termination data have not been computerized at this time.
29
. . .. _ - . - . . _ - - - - - - - ~ . . - - . _ - -
- 5. ' PERSONNEL OVEREXPOSURES - 10 CFR S 20.403 and 10 CFR S 20.405 5.1 Control Levels.
i j One requirement of the above-referenced sections of Part 20, Title 10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations, is that all persons licensed by the NRC must submit reports of all occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed certain control levels, thus providing.for investigations and corrective
- actions as,necessary. The term " overexposure" is not necessarily intended to indicate that a. worker has been subjected to an unacceptable biological risk.
Based on the magnitude of the exposure, the occurrence may be placed into one of three categories: Category A i 10 CFR S 20.403(1) - Exposure of the whole body of any individual to 25 rems or more; exposure to the skin of the whole body of any individual 4 to 150 rems or more; or exposure of the extremities (feet, ankles, hands or forearms) of any individual to 375 rems or more. The Commission must
- be notified immediately of these events.
Category B 10 CFR S 20.403(b) - Exposure of the whole body of any individual to 5
'. rems or more; exposure of the skin of the whole body of any individual to j 30 rems or more; or exposure of the extremities to 75 rems or more. The Commission must be notified within 24 hours of these events.
Category C , 10 CFR S 20.405 - Exposure of an individual to radiation or concentrations of radioactive material that exceeds any applicable quarterly limit in Part 20 or in the licensee's license but is less than the values given above. This includes reports of whole body exposures that exceed 1.25 rems, or that exceed 3 rems, as discussed in Section 3.1. Reports of skin expo-sures that exceed 7.5 rems and extremity exposures that exceed 18.75 rems are included, and reports of exposures of individuals to concentrations in l excess of the levels given in 10 CFR S 20.103 and Appendix B usually fall 3
-into this category as well. These reports must be submitted to the Com-mission within 30 days of the occurrence.
A short description of the seven occurrences reported in 1982 and 1983 that resulted in individuals receiving exposures of the magnitudes indicated in Category A or B is given in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. 5.2 Summary of Overexposures J Table 13 summarizes all of the occupational overexposures to external sources of radiation as reported by Commission licensees pursuant to S 20.403 and
- S 20.405 during the years 1977 through 1983. For 1982 and 1983, it shows the j number of individuals that exceeded various limits while employed by one of several types of licensees. For the years 1977 through 1980, only the over-exposures reported by licensed industrial radiography firms are shown separately.
i Most of the occurrences included in the "All Others" category come from research 1 30 i
. - - - - - , n-,,.,,
TC LE 13 PERSONNEL OVEREXPOSURES TO EXTERNAL RADIATION 1977 - 1983 Types of Overexposures and Doses License Persons and Whole Body (rees or c5v) Skin (rees or c5v) Extremity (rees or c5v) Year Category Doses (rees or cSv) <5.00 15 <25 >25 > 7. 5< 30 130<150 >150 >18. 75< 75 > 75< 375
>375 Industrial No. of Persons 1 1 Radiography Sum of Doses 4.7 650 Power No. of Persons 7 l Reactor Sum of Doses 13.2 1983 Medical No. of Persons 2 Facilities Sum of Doses 3.5 8
Marketing No. of Persons 1 2
& Manufact. Sum of Doses 25 49.5 Others No. of Person 25 2 Sus of Doses 837 228 Industrial No. of Persons 6 3 Radiography Sum of Doses 16.1 20.7 Power No. of Persons 1 1 Reactors Sum of Doses 5.0 9.4 1982 Medical No. of Persons 2 Facilities Sum of Doses 1.9 b
Marketing No. of Persons I 1982 & Manufact. Sum of Doses 1.3 All Others No. of Persons 1 15 2 Sum of Doses 4.3 569 206 Industrial No. of Persons 7 1 1981 Radiography Sum of Doses 12.2 7.1 C All Others No. of Persons 10 2 1 4 Sum of Doses 24.1 30.9 8.1 102.9 Industrial No. of Persons 4 1 1 1980 Radiography Sum of Doses 23.6 7.7 56.0 No. of Persons 84 3 3 All Others Sus of Doses 285.4 73.5 33.000 d Industrial No. of Persons 8 3 1979 Radiography Sum of Doses 25.9 34.6 8 I All Others No. of Persons 30 3 7 1 2 15 19 Sum of Doses 65.0 39.0 125.7 40.0 327 468.1 147 Industrial No. of Persons 4 1 1 1978 Radiography Sum of Doses 15.3 21.6 150 No. of Persons 12 4 1 2 2 All Others Sus of Doses 36.0 51.9 27.3 18.2 49.2 h Industrial No. of Persons 7 2 3 1977 Radiography Sus of Doses 23.7 23.2 630 I No. of Persons 38 1 3 10 All Others Sum of Doses 75.0 220 40.0 224
- his person slaultanecusly received an extremity overexposure of 61 reos (cSv) that is not shown, his person steultaneously received a skin overexposure of 15.2 rees (cSv) that is not shown.
ne of these persons simultaneously received an extremity overexposure of 21 rees (cSv) that is not shown. ne of these persons simultaneously received an extrealty overexposure of 46 rees (cSv) that is not shown, ne of these persons simultaneously received an extremity overexposure of 45 rees (cSv) that is not shown. These two persons simultaneously received extremity overexposures of 82 and 38 rees (cSv) that are not shown. his person steultaneously received a skin overexposure of 13 reos (cSv) that is not shown. y his person simultaneously received an extreelty overexposure of 18 reos (cSv) that is not shown. This person simultaneously received an extreetty overexposure of 26.9 rees (cSv) that is not shown. 31
facilities and universities. In 1980 the total number of individuals reported as being overexposed was 96, a considerable increase over the numbers reported for other years. This increase was due to the overexposure of some 67 individ-uals at one nuclear power facility during steam generator repair work. They received doses between three and five rems. In 1982, the total number of over-exposed individuals was 32, and the highest whole body dose was 9.4 rems (cSv). In 1983, the number of individuals involved in such occurrences increased to 40, and the highest whole body dose was 25 rems (cSv). In 1980, 1979, 1978, and 1977, the highest whole body doses were 7.7, 17.0, 27.3 and 220 rems (cSv), respectively. There were no instances in 1982 or 1983 in which the estimated intake of radioactive material exceeded the quarterly intake limit, equivalent to exposure for 520 hours at the maximum permissible concentrations (MPC-hours). There were thirteen reports of personnel exposures to airborne concentrations of soluble uranium in excess of the applicable limit equivalent to exposure for 40 hours at the maximum permissible concentration in 1982. Ten of these (all less than 100 MPC-hours) occurred at two uranium milling facilities during non-routine cleanup operations, and bioassay results indicated that protective devices had prevented physical uptake of the material. One of these mills shutdown in the fall of 1982. There were no reported exposures to excessive concentrations in 1983. 5.2.1 Personnel Overexposures - 1982 Radiography Company - License Number 35-16191-01 On October 4,1982, while working on a pipeline in Indiana, a radiographer and his assistant received whole body doses of 5.3 and 6.5 rems (cSv), respectively. Af ter completing a radiograph, they failed to make adequate surveys to ensure that the radioactive source, iridium-192, was properly secured within the exposure device, and they waited in close proximity to the device until they noticed that their self-reading pocket dosimeters were off scale. Although the doses are in excess of NRC limits, they are below the level where observable medical effects would be expected. Nuclear Power Facility - License Number DPR-39 On March 25, 1982, a shift engineer at the Zion nuclear power plant received a whole body dose of about 5 rems (cSv) when he entered the Unit I reactor cavity to che'ck for water leakage. The incore instrumentation thimbles had been retract-ed and were significant sources of radiation in the reactor cavity. Several problems that contributed to the overexposure included inadequate preplanning, surveys, and training and a shortage of calibrated high-range portable survey instruments. Nuclear Power Facility - License Number DPR-26 On June 1, 1982, a contractor employee at the Indian Point plant received a whole body dose of 8.7 rems (cSv) to bring his dose for the second quarter of 1982 to 9.4 rems (cSv). The exposure occurred when the employee, a diver, swam in the vicinity of a misplaced spent fuel assembly while assisting in the instal-lation of new fuel racks. Several factors that contributed to the overexposure were instrument malfunctions that did not allow the proper detection of the radiation field in the area of the spent fuel bundle by either the diver or the health physics personnel. 32
Shielding Manufacturer - License Number SMB-179 In May 1983, the licensee, a company that fabricates kinetic energy penetrators and shielding from depleted uranium, discovered higher radiation doses to foundry workers' hands than had previously been measured. It was estimated that extremity overexposures ranging from 20 to 127 rems (cSv) had been received by fifteen foundry workers during the fourth quarter of 1982, extremity doses between 21 and 143 rems (cSv) were received by fourteen workers during the first quarter of 1983, and extremity doses from 20 to 40 rems (cSv) were received by thirteen workers during the second quarter of 1983. The overexposures occurred when the inside of the workers' leather gloves became contaminated with deplet-ed uranium, and the skin of the palms of the hands received larger doses than anticipated. No visible damage to the workers' hands were found. Radiography Company - License Number 42-19788-01 During an inspection of the licensee's activities conducted by the NRC staff on January 4-5, 1983, records were found that indicated that two radiographers apparently received whole body doses of 8.9 and 3.6 rems (cSv) during the month of October 1982. Although a specific event or incident was not identified that could have caused the overexposures, the exposures indicated a need for the licensee to strengthen his radiation safety program, particularly for field operations. 5.2.2 Personnel Overexposures - 1983 Radiography Company - License Number 37-15445-02 On June 7, 1983, the licensee was conducting radiography at a temporary job site in Hoboken, New Jersey. An iridium-192 source became disconnected from the drive cable of the radiography device, and the licensee was unable to return the source to its safe shielded position. The licensee requested assis-tance from a company that manufactures iridium-192 sources. The employee of the second company retrieved the iridium-192 source the next day, but he received a calculated dose of 650-1100 rems (cSv) to his thumb and index finger because an adequate survey was not conducted prior to the recovery attempt. The exposed individual was examined by a physician who did not identify any physical effects nor did he expect any subsequent health effects. Gauge Manufacturer - License Number 12-11184-01 During the third quarter of 1983, an employee of a company that makes, distributes, and repairs industrial gauges containing sealed radiation sources received an apparent whole body dose of 25 rems (cSv) ard a 60 rem (cSv) dose to the hands. He was also involved in loading and unloadirl) sealed radioactive sources into source holders. Although the doses receiver l by the individual are in excess of NRC limits, they are still below the level where observable medical effects would be expected. However, there were further indications of inadequacies in the licensee's radiation protection program, and on August 15, 1983, the NRC suspended the company's license. The suspension was rescinded on September 16, 1983, after NRC inspections determined that the licensee had taken adequate , corrective actions. 33
l REFERENCES
- 1. ' United Nations, " Report of the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation," Annex H, General Assembly of Official Records, 1982, United. Nations, New York.
4
- 2. Brodsky, A. , R. Specht, B. Brooks, et. al. , "Lo normal Distributions of 1 Occupational Exposure in Medicine and Industry,g' presented at the 9th Midyear Topical Symposium of the Health Physics Society, 1976.
, - 3. B. G. Brooks, " Occupational Radiation Exposure Twelfth Annual Report
, 1979," USNRC Report NUREG-0714, Vol.1, August 1982.
- 4. Kumazawa, S. and T. Numakunai, "A New Theoretical Analysis of Occupational Dose Distributions Indicating the Effect of Dose Limits," Health Physics, Vol. 41, No. 3, 1981.
S. B. G. Brooks, " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors 1982," USNRC Report NUREG-0713, Vol. 4, 1984.
- 6. B. G. Brooks, " Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear l Power Reactors 1983," USNRC Report NUREG-0713, Vol. 5, 1985.
i E 1 0 34 i.
Appendix A Alphabetical Listing of Annual Reports Filed by Certain NRC Licensees 35
E ' o r P l-t l L ! I r I L t r
)
h-b;"*. 't i . . . . . . . ' g .1. 't I 't- . . . . . . . d 't i *:'t i
- i i ! ' 't't
- t i ! ! ~: 't * " "
"""i."***
{ l . l; L 8 :8 2 ya
;.3 ,. 0 1. *. ; 0;3. :. 3. *. :; 2 0 3. :. :. :. ". .
. e
- 3. :. 2 2. :. 2 2. . ; :. :
. , . . 3 2. ;: S. ;:
a 5 , , , ;, , , , ,,, .- , ,, , , ,,,, , , , , , , , , , t
') s '* * :*:* : 22 :***"*** *=* "*
~ ..
- t. i. t. :. L. i. .*.. . :. :. t. :. i. :. G. r. t. t. :. B. i. t. t. t. E. . ~. 2. :. :. :. :. :. t. t. . t. S. t. :. E. t.
l, . ... 8' t
- . E. S. E ;;
22;;: 2.
; 2 2. :. :. :. :. :. S. R. S. 2 3. :. 2. . :; :.;.;;
R : 3 8 7 2. :. 0 5 8. . :. :. ; 8. :.. . i L
- I, ,3 3...
- . -.3....... . ,.3....:..... .3.:
g 'l ....... -- 1
...---.----~.---.---.----,..--
I l I. t t :I. I.:::
*t t t ? l *t a : I Ts.-I t :::: i t t I I. .I :, :t::t i g,II t , ..i-t- if---..
yIgy -
---- s :: s s ::::::
lll. t<
-r 4..
v v v v .y - - f. :4 -
. f. : :t y t v. --vr 4 4 4 A. 4. tEk- **.... 44.-.e- I. ... . . - . 4. 4. . . * . . .-.44 ... :s::i.g::sf...I.4t44vf::dr4 t
. . l W W 5.
r - . .
- : as
- 2 at at-sr e2 2 rrgg r:-
- : . = :: r :1 5-E!!!::r-!g
- -.: g -, s g vr . -1 41 ::t g j
's.E e
s a : e s s : - s.
.z
- fis
--saraa
_g:-.= . s: s****:! v;ss:va
- - 8
.--sr-Es1 :.
sr
.rsss va - =gggs
- est
- ::
-- :: : eg::s:nz :: :1g...g 4
4 I iaae f : ! g y,: 1I::rrre::er:.gg:ivrrrr. g v..::::es=,a:sssas:
- e---
essa 8::::. I::ga....- g :::
- ..X. ::::. 4 5..x . . :.e .. 8. - : = g =..!!r rrg
- . ! ! ! ! ysyz x x:::.!
- 3. : ! .g = :. . : : : : : : s ; ::::::=vr : :ssa l:-:s ,!
12:::=
=5 y
~.
an . . . , . . . . , n~.a . ~
-3 ~... na.
. . . a. a. a. .
. ~. ~ >. a.a
. . . - ~ . .
- o. n. o. n. . . . ~ .
~
. a. n. ..
~
- a. ~. ~. .
. ~. .. ~. . . .a . .
- a
. . . ~. ~.. ~ .. . .~...~ . ~ ~ . . ., ~ ~ . ... n ~~ . . ~ ~ . ...~.
.. ~.
- a. a.
. . a. a. .. . . . . - .
. . . . n.
~
- a. n.
~.4 a.
. . .. . . ~.~.~..
~ ~ ~
n . ~ ~ d~ g e. - . > ~ - . 2
-{
. . . eo~ . . . ~ - o . O . - -
- . ~ ~ -
~
. ~ . . ~ , . - o . . . . - - .
- . ~ . -- ~
. . ' . . =. a
. . ~ ~ .- . ~a a 4
. . . . .0 . .. N. . . . . - . . . -. .
. . . . . . ~-
4 . ~. . . ~. N ~ ~ 4 1 Y b .....a-..~.... . . ~ n ..~ ~4 .
. . .. 4 4 - 6 w 4 4 .. ~... 6 .a ee-
&. M. G. b.
. 6
. L. G. P. o. t. &. G. a. b. e. b. a. b.
- b. e. . h. . P. M. M. P. M. . .
M - E I
~ . . . ~ .
. ~... ~..
. . o~. . . ~. . .. . ~. 8... *..* 8 8. -..
8... I-I
. ~ . ~ . .
. . . ~. o.
. a
. ~. ~. o. ~. o. . .. . . .
n ~ -
- . ~
- 3. .. .~. ~.e ~- . ~ . . -
( > ~M -
~
I g $:i . . -.- -. ~ ~ ....-~. -- _. . ~ . - .. . . . -~ -. - - . 1., . . . ~. . .....~.e-~- - -- ~ ~ . ..- . . . . ..-.. ~ n... ~
...~
~ .
1, - - - - 54 a-.
- 4 a ~
- 3.. ~. ~. . .a.
t
. . . - . - -Ya
- a. . . . . .- .. . ~. ~.. .. .. ..~ ~. ~. . . . . . .. .. ~. .. .. .,.~.,
~
.~.. ~. ..Y.
- e. . -...-..
-~~ ~ n . . . . . . . . . ~
. ~ . ..~..
.. ~.
~-..
. . -. . . -... . . .-. ..~....e
. . . . .. ~
. . . . ~ ~ . ~. o. ~ ... .~ . ~
. 4 .. . F . - -
- 7. "A7 . t. t. f. 7. -7. 7..7.~*A.
7 ? 7 7 7 ? ? .? ? 7 7 7 7. Y. ~? .? *1. 47 7 7, ~. 1 7 7
~ - ~- ~ .~ ~ -~ . ....
~ ~ . . .. . . ~ .
> - ~
. ~ . ~ ~ 4. . ..~.?.
. t7*7 o~ . . . .. .
E . Y d dd . 4
.W WFM e w Y F W 0 4 0 0 0
- w W-e w W w
= ou o
-w w u
r oS o O = oou e> G E
- o u
- w p O M
F O 4 4 > a a 4 w w M N O M e. w m W O u O . u M D w w W w e W F F > U k w w w 4 m D F W W o w w m > W o > O n e C O O rm uk > M G @ d e a w W 4
=w 4 wo . O e a e 4 p e . M 2 2 4 W e 4 m . M 1 O J e MM d A M W &
e W S 4 D o g e ow w w e m & wSM W WEW M. S w m. >o . A MW . e w O e a w M F w & M W w
- h > E R M E U O V M w D & MO @ O . O M
- O S w w w e 4 M o M 4 M K K . M a w M a e M > > W & 2 2 5 o e $ @
> d O M N s, . 4 E.
- w k
s 4 ofM
.. . > - > s , w . .> >.M > o w w 4 .w . . w h k, - 4 m ow k
- ~ ., ., . 4 - * *
. > > w - = w 8 8 4 w w e 6 0 0 3 o 3 M a M W w . Q a c y O W 3 y w e d S w w w w 4 > 4 w > w @ m e g > > M M M 6 w M > 4 > 4 w M W W W B e M y e w O & 4 4 S h eos g M w >F >A W M* E w e. > 3 e 4 3 e a w e wee s >m > > > F ~
E q > $ S M e. . 5 M . S D M 4 g 4 p H $ 3 4 y M w 9 O. k M M w oa d . O s O a. W D O wH d H
> 4 m a d w o E 8 E & D 4 H H w o oa .gm .
4 w
@ d W M e d > d J J W M M M O O O w M 4d 4 eM Mf .wM >M > o dO J wd we w W h. s M I M O P U W w 4 O d k e & E w G W W E S
- Q O > S M W W M w 4 w -4
>>O d e e m 3 4 4 4 w W w > F W h W & 1 8 S o--e 4 m w > e w o o . . . . op = S. . M . .J M M M W . .
g d* n. a d 8 8 .5. a. : o*oo.35 O. . M . > > 3 "2 ". 3. *. .* . . . : : :. :. :. E. r. r. r r *oo.. * : n d .8. 8 8. & & owoo 37
. _ . _ - _ _ - _ _ . . . _ = _.. .. - .
i APP 6msetX A ImameJ usousynsAL naceoGRAPHEAS 1982 , 1983
.7eems A'**e - -Tend ' immshes meet ,Cammmens Amunge ,
i - semes. Usense w i,,,,,,,,, sentam meet Commentse.
,,,,,,,,,, o ,,, men w o',,, i,m,eemmes asumummene .annesw omme omme .
Remusassed omne femaswsmmel (some) temmtessed omme (suuHamel tsums) - 94TTOus paLLEastE tese CO**a#T 34-44427-42 3 3 .e7 .*2 5477088 s-eaf Compag? 34-06943-01 19 19 3.92 .26 14 11 1 37 .14 ! SEPT. OF ae*Te PCALESTEe 484T 39-19189-42 49 8 .00 .99 31 3 .64 .00 DEPT. Op asary, past gstas,may 64-00364-46 38 34 8.19 .12 44 43 S.62 .13 DEPT. OF souve Navat Emptestyt 19-es319-93 -21 1 .99 .e9 DE#T. Os pavve US$ AJoe tas.6i 04-17972-01 12 1 .'? .*7 la 0 .C4 .C3 MPT. Of perve US$ Ste08 f45-3 04-17976-C1 24 23 1.15 **S 19 19 1.07 .06 DEPT. OF marf e USS setCT0e 844- 94-19130-91 16 7 1.62 .73 26 1 .09 .GS MPT. OF *4vve USS J45See tae-e 04-17765-41 17 3 44 .13 2tp 5 .95 .19 BEPT. OF Wavve US$ Peatert f at $4*14013*01 14 e .C9 .94 15 1 .05 .05 1 DEPT. OF mauf. USS P90TEUS tas 64-19041-01 17 11 .99 .99 22 21 1.67 .Ge DEPT. er navve USS 5*Ete? 849- 64-19403-41 12 12 .00 .PS DE*T. Of fuuE mavve oss stfesa G*-19770-41 16 e .se .ee 2G 2 .10 .45 9034E POWh9ev ame #eCw!st C9e* 37-19324-01 S 9 .37 .g7 4 4 45 .11 Deave C3ePeeafl0m 34-49996-42 , 7 4 .99 .71 4 6 .67 .11 SWWCan F0vece? E "4CNief weea$ 12-49687-01 1 0 .00 .90 1 0 .63 .C3 l DeeWEsatt LIGNT CBapasev 37-179G7-01 go to 3.77 .2y 13 17 3 32 .20 eumaL97 CO**a47 EfesEl 37-42279-02 9 6 1.12 .1 *
- S 1 02 . 2 0' M susteges Ceapaaev fuCDe*0047ES 34-06399-41 6 5 .92 .16 3 3. 40 .13 ,
E. I. SW 60gf gE ete0We5 E CO* 97-00499-38 9 2 .It .e5 5 1 .0$ .CS E. L. CteufLL E C0seposef 37-17637-01 0 6 .42 .39 e 3 .G3 .03 Ea5 Teen TEST 196 ame fgSPEC719e 29-e9014-01 23 to 19.90 77 22 19 15.82 .99 Esa5CO SEeVICES IseC. 29-47096-99 S4 39 12 67 .34 62 S2 14 3G .27 E6 5 6 fleet 9ae Inc. 99-21239-91 11 e 90 .11 17 13 3.10 .24 ELPass e4Tweat 845 CD*Paef 42-09201-02
- 4 4 1.18 .27 7 7 2. 32 .33 I EMPleE STE EL CaSTin65, t#C. 37-62449-81 3 1 .99 .99 4 2 42 .21 Este6T tmC9e*0e&TED 11-19479-41 S S 4.99 .*1 EmpteenstesT6L PeOTECitGe AGEuc 22-13399-41 17 16 92 86 17 4 .23 .v5 '
EteffetLE 6a5 C0p*a#T 17-17491-81 7 4 .32 .e8 7 2 42 .21 l Esas Can*am? 39-16191-#1 409 449 155.99 .38 42C 69 24.47 .37 j Essee Comesov g. 3. a. 29-83375-42 6 1 .CS .*S 7 e .64 .G0 t EaCTeeY muTU4L eESta#Cet CeePGs 20-44907-42 7 1 .e5 99 6 2 .13 .35 I platav TESTI#6 Lat3 eat 08tES 59-17894-41 12 12 4.57 .38 12 12 4.47 .37 ) resTEe wesEELEe Ente 67 CDe*0e&T 29-43369-93 36 le 3.00 .F1 35 12 S.47 - .47 FeamaL!n etSEseC# CEuTEe 37-40617-11 16 0 .00 .90 12 C .60 .93 pagtsettes 6 setteTSO4 INC. 45-08099-91 13 13 4.49 .34 13 9 2.47 .27 l 4 Gamp4 FIELD sa0!OGea*WIC FACfL 12-13050-01 3 2 .33 .e5 4 6 3.42 .SF d Gamma SCast C0mpas? 07-19920-01 8 0 .00 .PG G 0 .LO .G3 GEaste&L 3YeagICS CDe90eaf t04 46-01741-48 9e 99 22.27 .7 3- 1C7 99 26.00 .27 1 GEstfeat Steam!CS CO*PeeATIOut 29-11919-01 16 6 1.72 .23 IS 3 .40 .13 ) SEntesL ELECTett CO**asev le-12918-41 13 e .77 .gs i e _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ m a.- - Y _ _ _ _ _ _ _m __ ___
WdetssOIM MM ssecngigsev1 snwoecesivdeppes 16 tSat t==n ne=9== amsi.s2 o=====a ' V s. - imes .ni===a o=emmsim -y.==se-
'""'"" 8", 1tenme e48me'm tnemmmusa le'm=m4se Ons ssumtse cana gpapusa semmummusa ewe; eimatpo osse nemusemme cue nmannas( namu( semusesop omse )munnama( 9mmut 93maeT1 31331e12 30mevhA 29-00015-46 12 12 t*,4 *tI 12 10 *18 *II 93eleT1 31331eI3 30mevhA te-ette6-tS E 1 *46 *dE E 9 *SO **e 93elt91 m310eS 30ee* 21-9e94e-09 9 0 *tO *4S * # *30 *06 ttele'1 mSACeS 30eeSuT11Ch 12-02261-81 t t *t6 *46 -f t *tC *?E 93eleT1 se010eS 30sece9110h 12-94966-01 12 2 *IS 'J6 0 C *SO *Se 93m3eT1 h010eS 30ee0891I0h 21-92(62-81 9 4 *09 *JS E O *10 *OC -
SBeleT1 m010eS 30edee911Ch 84-16E16-42 13 O *04 'JS 22 4 W *90 S30 30m51en3110h 13511hS 0+-00919-3$ ttA 2&e et*09 *E6 tot 168 9A**t *tS 91Te51Ce3 19e5' 1#3' E9-et&99 & E -*t6 *46 t t *ts *SC 91003 a-ev A 53 eA1335 1h3* s6-tSt64-DI E2 52 04*42 1*66 29 fo ts*92 t*et
'90e51eT E-evA8 1 42* 21-16tE4-01 S S '*$$ 'ot S 3 '93 *OC m TA 1 m S 1=51r 3'=8* te-mm 9 a *se ec 9e343 sCPeGeI35 tne30eeCoT130 ,o-93ets-31 i E 1 *tA *11 f E *t6 *05 seleht11 30ee vhA* !m3* te-920E4-91 64 ta A*&& *et gg 21 t*fA *ts es* 3* eD111hS 30* E*-19629-31 2 2 *22 *11 .s t *tA *9e M* e* !sse3311ch 53eA133 1h3* 16-69206-01 11 6 11*90 t*26 1 A ***C '9F nim a-evA 53eAI335 1h3* 14-16269-01 29 20 E1*26 1*m9 tt 11 tC'92 '6C" eltsOA T5533IT135 110* 60-te6+9-ot 9 * *e6 *21 tt fo t*** *t*
g sevosI50m 51331 3T511e95 3C* 16-82191-91 & A *eG *11 9 9 1*98 *ft eslesem 1351!mS 1TtceTACeA 143' t+-00981-0E 9 9 1*t6 *28 4 6 t*t( *2( m355 011 AteS!a 151TmO 3Gse 65-1668E-32 6 t t*16 *2* tf 9 1*01 *tS mISes 51331 51ep31ne35 3e3* E4-t46E*-31 4 6 *EL 'JA e * *rC *05 esomm31 3CeeGeT110h *e-31009-C1 9 9 t*SA 'E
- tag 13selm5Ch fe3T AC=133m !h51* 22-165 M-91 196 26 1*GA *34 26+ 29 2*te *02 lm0343m03tA !hte33110h 92-t6+,1-31 e
- 6*66 1*E# t 2 t*#& ***
1e03elheimA 1351!hS 196* 0E-tE661-02 29 ta t*,e *1 # rt EC tA*tA *Ce lm0a51 SIT 1 sTla!3TAImS 3C* ts-19+99-31 9 9 t*62 *22 * * *40 *22 1#0051elT1 $?muT !h5e33110h 29-t406C-01 1 1 *EA '64 T t '1$ '05 tne0051elt1 : hse 33110= !h00$* C*-19041-91 1,9 861 tE*es *42 ot 91 tt*st *98 lm0051e191 196GeT10e13$ th3' 91-04229-82 e e tE'9A I*4T C 4 &*12 t*18 1t0051e191 m01 30setssA 96-16649-01 6 6 2*60 *sa tt 1C t*fA 't* lhcA51e191 eGA 55e4133$ tE-991*A-39 a & t*e9 *19 6 * '95 *2T
!heA51eiTI eT013Setem53 53e* 66-19LE9-01 3 O *09 *00 1 O *SP *00
! mea 51e191 13511mS 1T60evA0eA E4-t**e9-01 ta 1 *06 *46 14 1 'iS *06 1mS3s$011-etaO 30metmA 24-92816-02 C * *65 '24 E E ' C2 *ti tase331ICh 3 1351ImS 30eefhA tI-tet21-91 24 22 14*90' *ee tS 28 21*tA *19 1m5433110a 53s A133 30es od e3% E4-11969-31 8 9 10*10 1*96 9 6 **t9 '92 1m5433110n 51 eat 338 1e3* ,1-21t%-01 E# 59 24*84 *44 86 te t**rO *09
!ht53 imsd33110h* tu3' 56-14194-01 te el 6E*6A *66 52 52 11*12 'tl
!m13elCe* 83eTetulhA os 18e3 24-92914-02 8 *. *28 . *46 9 $ *26 *0$
!htla10e* 03eteleth10s assE 89-91192-SE 8 8 *00 ' *00 9 I *tA *ta 1813ee08miT!h 13511uS 30eevhA 36-94842-01 EL E& 9E*E2 1*14 29 26 iC'*2 1*22
t N V tnemit selenmangev1 uuse0WWWdanasuS 152' 131 1*mI mastnesgni - ymemse *& sus marume myg '- g unes 1remmmus semme 1remmma semmam tn'empmys sunnasnega g"' 44muLUE 088 l'PE"gsgo summumppa gua 'sumutua 0me ttu=emag 0'na qmenemeg psemag egamlemop ges gamaemmag gameg tnileht110evy 13stImS 1Tes* 1e 26-19921-01 8 0 *eS *eS 3 2 *92 *tg 111 Setam31 1m4 slatv etelaS EZ-ttE*9-91 & & s'eL *e6 & 4 2*tI *ti r* S* SA143$138 T55831913$ !m3 20-00E02-02 12 E '24 'at 14 tC 2*9e *2e r*3* 3 A113 m 3Cee va s !m3
- 12-16026-81 11 S G*&S *&1 6 & E*02 *Cc f*3ssemA1113 smleave051m3* 06-16911-91 6 9 *tA *E ( e G t'90 *2s rva a-eta 133A533$ 1m3* 21-19599-91 4 6 e*61 *hT 9 t s'92 *$&
rene elttE scnnesaA 12-00111-31 E E *16 *06 E O *3C *OC sTSA m5191$ 3CedoeT1106 19-31209-01 E 8 *09 *00 E C *10 *CC a3113A-MTA35 30*dTmA !m30secaT 12-8219C-92 5 1 *tA *tA
- 1 *tA *ta 1TeteS3 !m3* E6-15619-91 & & *e2 *t E
- E **@ *ff l
1*m3m3TG 13511eS 1Teots10mA ta 22-t*464-01 & C *09 *eG S O *00 *ac 1Tp 3uS1433elaS atsilaS 30eets 10-SSEt9-4E tot 160 E**tA *12 241 152 21*6e *t9 1381SM 1311ImS 1Tecavace13$ 3m 34-0112E-4E 11 !! 9*22 *m i fO 6 **tf *C( 103mm336 5mlet011OImS S 30m51e 99-09629-82 12 e t*6A '2E 12 9 t*tC "21 1033hS 51331 30metmA E4-02821-01 11 1 *EA 'EA tS 0 *SC *et 1&e3mellaS sonm0e A 30mevuA 96-14999-01 & 2 *tO *dE 6 2 *22 *tt w*SmT 3 nam !m3* 21-16111-01 , 22 19 E*06 'E6 24 16 2**0 *t9 n*Savslas 30teOevilOm 12-S0922-01 915 tse 2EE'96 *eS 969 E99 E2**65 *e6 3 mts91mem 011 30eevuA E9-01591-32 99 22 1*tO *06 59 te t*SP *04 avtom 3 evaS3a-$11W$ et$Ch 30m 19-11962-31 99 5 *26 *46 91 * *2e *cs uT51T3mA53115 oT130191$ sA53Te 20-161E0-31 1 1 *36 *ds E 2 *22 *ti ht51111Ce 51331 391aluS 3Cmeva E9-02946-31 E O *SO *dS uT13 GIT 11 13111aS lteJeTAGeA 0 95-11151-61 tI 11 e*22 *s* TT 11 t'90 '84 mTAeveS 31331e13113313951!ms 0e-34060-01 9 9 t*t4 *14
- E 1*12 *Ea m3sTmaS late 3311Jm sasA533 ec-ts16e-SI I 1 *tA *L A t 1 *tA *5 ets12 13511mS S tt$e33110m* ta 29-16669-01
*
- 1*tA *46 e31 190 !m3 ,6-0669E-01 9 9 E*36 *&9 4 5 E*tA *9(
9E-16992-91 21 26 24*26 ! *! E 63 E* 2**EZ *LT e31-3 man 3mS!m33eteS 19e d31-3m3m aeSIm33elaS 1Tsesvaca *t-1121E-32 1 1$ ts &*62 *eZ 12 11 s'te *** e319119135 !e3* tE-tat 92-01 & & &*24 1*4E 11 11 e*t5 *t9. 92-196E*-61 21 29 te'92 E*et EC ET T*42 e31111 1m3' G t
- 21, s13miSTm 13$timS auS1m31aS 1m3 21-19010 91 22 5 *EL *31 e141TmO-4355 30seGeT11bm E*-9 tit 6-32 E 9 'JO *40 sISR1$1 1u5e33113m slaA133 lac et-19249-91 tE 10 9*69 *e6 tE 6 5*95 '9E mlem3*e411$ 31331u13 51331 391 22-95642-82 2 8 *4S *dG 2 O '90 'OC etnacilg avansT310tlaS 3Cnenet Et-11496-31 E O *09 *00 t O *39 *99 nIss0n.1 s1331 3TsAimSS 30m.va 29-ts:62-.t . . *0. *,0 . O *33 *Se dC453T T-DTA 3S* TA-TFFat-07 6 5 4*91 1*tA 25-2ttE4-01 t t*60 te.p t t t*CC t*EC meuaTmT B-DTA 143' t ugea11Ce-senG53m 3CdavhA !m3 11-166*9-01 9 O 'JD *ag tE 15 9*tS ** 1 oT110hT1 T3eQm10113$ vhC 5dT33 E*-09591-0* 58 14 1*60 *J6 59 ZC E*EL *tS.
l
2
**mH*" G M E .t IIGIWatits1 uoesseimeBeeS 1582 458E 3,,,e,,,,,, gaseg u mesne agni onemsesu .*ymmusa tnes uaema mees onemmuga, ymenes*
" 84"" guyneenusa suummungua gnus - gumgua emme sap ginemme gaas supmpumis ggumaseg esua . sumsgga gnua sumuseume E" lu'* M l I"'l et'"""8 O" 9u'H*"P tnuul tvite*'1 98*etecA331 989 Sde33_ *6-30909-93 ' * *e3' *81 - e t '84 *t6 M&tseW sem3MteS eeB 3emeemA 64-.90++-ot e 2- *ts *86 9 9 * ,2 *CA ueatne91 ?etnes es ,ot 19 *:32-02 e 8 *Se *te neatenoi selat ese meh8*eSA* E4-92se6-ot e E **e *!E l .sa* M eesaes.a es ess e- et-r Mt,-ot <
* . t s6 t6 e evaA* etegatefma es a5$ es" e 1*n *te gt-tag 44-ot ta 12 ,*es *,e tE 6 2*te *t9 l evaA* 09qeAetta ed A$& 1* gt-tde&e-et
- te te E*62 *ee tt te t*tS *e6 neaA* M evelettA es a55 e* ti-t see9->t I te 2 *te *46 .'ti ts *se *et eH A
- steveleDeA ed 05$ e*
semA* 89evs.enmA es 45$ $* t t-tdne-ot gt-ttecs-et ta tE 6 e
.*M
'Je
*W
*de ti e w' '9t w aA* M eveseDeA ed A55 a* st*IA**e*et 8 6 *80 *80 6 *
- 12 *1e evaA* etetsamleS ed atS A* tt-ggeet-ot 12 I *36 *e6 , 1 *S( .gg
[ evaas MevetsetmA es ahB e9-41451-01 98 te *Ge *M
- ma* MnesmamA 6n s a e,-wus-st e e es - ne
! .eus M .esama.2 es a a sen.i-et se s *24 , 4. te c ts :s temA* stevo&etes es Am3 .+=e9104-e1 99 1. *68 *85 ' f, uemA* eteeaasama es 1.s3 e,-oeg,o-ot ot 2 *te - *86 teg tt
, *EG *SE eeaA* MessA*3#& e8 auB e*-15262-91 le e *se *eG tt 1 *0$
g *1( nemas etseegats& es tnsi e9-eM 60-ot te te 2*ES *26 1+ tE ,*ZA *tt [' essa
- Meve4etta es &> 20-etatS-e2 99 es e'aS *te 4$ tE E*22 *fA
. seAA* SBessam3eg es gem 3 gg-oegte-e9 I 69 26 t*6e *e9 C4 11 t*22 **2 esaA* egeve4 3e3 es gag go s,32 ,-ot te 91 6*aG *fP te 42 4*24 *tS'
,j
,tes& 8 M dvo&eDeS es aeB 40-1e4,4-01 e t '35 *d$ g 3 *1c *ee eemA* Meve4 96A es assi ,5-02464 31 & C- *16 *W *g 31 *EG **6
' semA* 89evelelba es tsbA ,6-ete62-eg tte 12 s'AA M
*e6 19 E*92 *9#
! esaA* etaveletta es &> ,M 44ee-02 g tes tE- e*44 *ee seaas etetsa63na es ane3 ,6-1646e-e2
*35 te 1 *36 ti s *SO *98 essa
- Meveletni es teiD 46-tdetS-ot 9 8 *aG *Je e C hsA* 63essamsmA es aet ,,-egege-et
'i* **e et te tt*62 *t S es ot ti*tt *rC tsaA* N essamtmA es Am3 ,o-ee9tI-ot E e *eG *se g 8 *?c *9t
- n aA* M usaeneA es aet ,,=ta66.w iE
- 2 1*22 *t s . 1. os *es
[ esaA* Nevesn3mA es 1W EE-09eed-ot te 1*24 2, te *dA ta 2*66 'tt l hema
- M ees&etsa es am3 6E-10229-01 te e *SO *de te 1 *tt *ta etaA* eteg gogge 851 3 ee-teetS-og f 1 19 15 2*es *tA 2g 22 2*32
; ,n ,- *tt -
=u* Mu 34 m* . ..
-a* M ..*
,e..,
e .,9-ot tf 12 - u l 1 8 ais m- 1. e *,. .u t. i. *u j e< n aa* M e1* es aeR* 4$$ 3' g,-23209-et e e *39 '84 tf I *SE *1$ seu* enu a* nes s- n tn es-et , te e *.s *ee tt te tu te - ws Mennis* 1 3- oG-teni-.t te :9 nw *.2 ~ t. t+ 4 02 se
- .es seteostca , se=se-1 n .* 3-Znn et . . w **e i nam asem amsatne i w e n Mesas sI-e2*e*-w 9 s 92 *t2 a 9 *n *22 naasseS sgas tnesesetW 3ese* 4+-19e06-31 & 4 tege *as g ,
- tS *tI t -. .
t j -. -
~ .+. - - -__ ,- - .-_ _ -- ... --. ~ _. - - - _ - _ _ _ -
ydd3NoiX Y tseoD BNonS1M1v1 uvC109vvdH3WS 1682 L6at leseg sess9ssa emag 3suezame yamssAa lemeg ness 9ssa euga 3suomene, yseset'e 1remase semme 1ressua 64ps4m es syassangis onos su'esum osse qegaegssim eganemaeps onos usnes% onos ggasenaep oeme 4ue**eem( 4e"*( tse"***P come qsisa>mem( 4mmet m3s ecal ej ns teGA51ttel 3Cee* ,6-1158e-81 9 9 *62 'JE 9 6 *EA *CA elaeCsa mieS 1mIett81CI*S 96-06928-02 EES tte 6E'9E *#t 04 86 tt*tA **t e3135 51331 avas 3Cedeha 21-09191-31 5 1 *CG *J E C t '95 *i( eca3351ap3AIa3 !e5e33AIG# sla' ,4-1184E-31 11 11 **12 *.8 6 6 4**C *et ece0351aA31Ial A35AIeS 33es* 2e-T6192-01 21 16 **,8 *26 22 1G **4E *tZ eCC13a 3CseGe'113h 2*-DEtsE-01 28 16 1*GO 'JA tE 1+ 1*fA 'SB eCes013 saletr11dloS tac 8e A* ,6-12592-31 19 16 1*tO *t' !l 14 t*Si 'ti ecetn3951Bem e353va3m S AESA' 2e-teC09-01 3 3 *30 "JD S L *SO *ce eCuAmalsA v141le35 !t3* 22-12tse-31 15 E *16 *46 te 2 *22 *T1 mc313va lesesa 53aa133 teJ" ,2-t965e-01 tta tse tE9*tA *49 11# 114 9G*eC *CC en313TW e31SI*S I*3* 12-Y4609-01 9 * *44 *t6 1 6 1*95 2 031vmcev 513313f511e55 3C* E6-2ttse-31 G I *36 *4G
- E *21 *3#
om1emon* 1a513=S 1*83ttaCelAS E6-105AA-31 ZE 19 h*46 *91 tL 2 '8C **@ 881T*0mT E-tlA !e3' E6-tat 91-SI 1 1 *06 *36 1 1 *36 *3S ciS SCmttiCe lacs 9 51331 3Cee* ,6-ts661-31 & & E*tA *6d 4 5 1*tC '2E cevm9 ecne351ep3AIa3 was elae1* 29-tte90-21 19 9 d*03 2*3C tS e **et *ST O2teD 91e 11435' !m3* 2,-IE561-31 24 E 2**e *dA 2g C *2C *16 d* r* 3eSIm3ItteS 3Geetna 183* 20-16102-01 E 2 *92 *21 2 t *tA *tA g etneevoC13 39513em 4143 1Im3 34a tE-ttA2e-SI 6 6 *65 *L T 6 e t*01 *ti dessla 1e0A516191 E-eva 1WS* 09-0ttE4-3E 21 e 2*46 *sE TG 11 **0E *fA t evaZIS 1351IoS 1tes Im3* 19-10844-32 3 3 *30 'JD tf 12 2*42 *28 dem 151!h veBaI3v* 110* 10-tS6eS-01 14 5 *eD *&S
- 2 *TC *tA 43110h 3951331 I >* 08-02994-32 2 2 *te 'JS 2 2 *TC *06 dleh tesd33AICa 3C* E5-2tt99-31 9 5 t *3 4 *dI 9 E E*62 *18 43ehsA1ATa19 sulet0316IeS 3C* EL-tteot-01 11 E *t6 'J6 4 5 '2C *CC d**19' if916 f4Tdi?!!'9' te?* 2T-P**'C-9' 6 1 '9C *?(
411158 Asses J35 estm55 51331 3C* ts-018E4-0+ 19 e E*C6 **E 12 8 2**e *E# e1115eraSw 035 e3Im35 51331 3C" 1-02904-02 21 1$ E*tO *dT f2 11 1*5e *T* 831158041# AIIIIdS 1'4G891Oba E4-00249-25 293 tmA Et**& '24 596 EEZ 2wE'E5 '92 divnA !mleB3AICa 3C* 09-210E2-01 EG 26 t'96 'ES E2 20 E'90 *20 acsavelE 910mI3 a-ef A 3ChdThA E6-OLeae-OE 2 1 *42 *eZ dCm3a etalas 3cedemA E4-06646-01 12 e 1*46 *42 C 6 *16 *TC daSs355fow,1 ettel?it ts a rt* *2-2*C*t *f e 5 *50 'te secSt155 53aa1335 elm 3* ES-te662*31 6 9 'E4 'de tS E '62 *ti da11hvh !m3* ,2-1961E-SI 8 6 t*16 *dE E E *SC *t( 4011mvs 40m39 esaer315 E4-00092-01 41 ta ta'92 *de 61 91 6*91 *21 8*3' 198Ca v Aca 83 5 !aJ' 34-11546-3E 21 15 s'dO *69 ZS 14 %*9? *t5
,*tA *lf tf 6 *'9C *CT 40'6 311A A3SAIeS 1teCetacna 19-14684-31 6 9 emtkla T110A 3TSAImS 3LmetmA EL-DE9at-SI 28 26 2*&* *tS 22 18 t*et *ti tnt 111A T55navm33 )TECts10a135 14-16048-01 & 9 1*eg og E * * *61 *29
l APPENDEX O (cent 3 BNDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHER 5 1982 1983 i Totes skoters one conocese Amoress . Teed vuorhers wie comensme Amorese Laerne. Monie mesmesseis neuemarmede - Dame . ansesw Dame sage,suess naesseres Does names w Dame neomrtered Does (men 4 ems) (rerns) anonrtored Dame (snen4 ems) hems) SUaLITY TESTI9G ImC. , 34-17799-C1 4 3 .E0 .767 e4R5ET CetSTRUCTIOg & Fat. 35-19433-41 12 10 8.C2 80 2 1 .17 .17 SE ACTCe Conte:L5 IneC. C4-19365-C1 to 9 .57 .e6 13 10 .75 .07
*EFInter ps3SUCTS C3ep. 48-03665-02 4 4 2.30 .*7 5 4 2.C0 .50 4ELIa=CE TESTIes Lat0 eat 3e!ES 19-17176-C1 It Il f.62 .*1 23 15 4.37 .29 e!Cua83 seUEGEL, Ota 34-09337-01 5 5 3.37 67 5 5 3.37 .67 e!CM*343 E9GINEEet4G Coa *awf 45-62884-C1 e 2 .SS .27 e 2 .35 .17 5 5 5 145PECTICm C0 epa 47 12-19780-C1 5 5 1C.90 2.10 9 9 S.92 .769 Saute 03a STEEL Ca57tmG5 CD. 34-C6664-C2 C 0 .00 .00 C 0 .C0 .JJ SauvEs eESEseCu Pe3 DUCT Inc 34-02044-01 7 0 .C0 .C0 7 0 .60 .30 5dafia takes tu. 3.-A.1gg.;g 4 0 .C3 .00 MITYEe STEEL CasituG C3 14 02407-01 2 2 .22 .11 2 2 .22. .11 5=ITM-E*Esf CDepa47 g6.geggy.C1 16 16 4.e2 .789 13 13 5.50 42 50ufwvE57 s-84T C3ep. 42-19798-C1 43 43 69.97 1.*18 24 24 29.*C 1.14 500TMuESTEen E#514EEntgG CO* 24-19500-01 0 0 .00 .C0 2 2 .55 .27 l s' ACE SCIE *CE SEeVICES Inc 09-C?S50-01 SC 40 IF.90 47 39 28 14 59 .51t SPECTRUM Latta aT*etES !*C. 29-07246-C1 6 1 .CS .e5 7 3 .15 .05 0 55W tuSPECTIC4 5taVICES gg-19g99 01 2 2 .e6 40 ST. L0uts STEEL Ca5f tw3 twC. 24-01587-01 3 3 .15 .PS 3 3 .15 .35 ST. LOUIS TEST!st LasceaT0eIES 24-00188-02 14 14 18.10 1.96 14 13 11 72 .93 ST0ut & WERSTEe ENSINEtates C3 20-C S 600-C2 80 49 14.97 .306 84 55 13.92 .25 SieUTHEe5 uf LLS C3e*Ceaf t04 37-11152-01 14 1 .17 .17 13 2 .22 .11 Sug ear TEST 1gG !aTEeuaTICual C4-19910-C1 0 0 .C0 .e6 & C .CC .C3 '
SUPEttDe I eJ5ierat s eaf CO. 12-C2370-C1 25 20 19.12 .*06 23 12 6.67 .556 Taftce ae3 FE44 CD4Pagt CS-02024-C1 3 3 .C0 .co 3 . . .c3 , TELEDv4E Cw!3Ca5T 34-00412-03 16 13 8.20 .63 7 7 1.12 .10 TEttECO inc 42-09373-02 25 23 3.tS .199 C 0 .00 .30 TE44ESSEE VaLLET aVTuceITY 41-06s32-C6 $2 26 s.00 .34 44 21 5.30 .25 TEeEE CDe# Dea?!D4 34-19607-C1 e 1 .CS .e5 7 3 .00 .C3 Tuarte Ist3*ECT!ce SteTICE Itt. 35-11239-C1 22 21 6.e2 .31 THIDECL CME"! Cat C3spoeaTICg 01-00956-C2
- 0 .cc .a0 9 0 .cJ .00 TMIDECL Cpf *It al CDe*3taTIOg 43-01227-C1 7 5 2.07 .71 It 2 .35 .17 Twicact C0eP3eaTT04 17-16300-01 32 e 40 .e5 45 16 .e3 .C5 Tommstu3 an3 8077U8 I4C . 21-17095-C1 0 0 .C00 .ee 6 0 .Co .03 Teags v38t0 ateLI4E5 14C 24-45151-05 17 7 47 .c68 le 3 .15 .05 Teams-Ea5 Teen In5*ECT!34 SEe. 37-14959-31 112 1C2 *3.40 .*2 132 98 115.20 1 176
I m e e AeI n s m e e6 eet 2 i e
- et d a 4 A f ( C i t 4 4
- 6 A C 9 6 2 e o
- 9 f e 6 ae m t t 2 t . e1 t g
- s
- e
- 2 t e0
- t e
- 9 t 9 C a " t 9 t t t
- e
- ysst9 * * * * * * * ' * * * * * *
- t 1
- s. * * * * *
- 2 u
m s t a m sm *4 4 e, * $ $ g e6 L s sA A 1 6 @ 2 t 2 2 d P C 6 6 $ 2 eM 0 2 4 t 4 1 9
- e
- 3 e & t r t 1 2 9 2 e 9 9
- 9 & t t 2 e 2, 2 S t C 1 *
- 9 2, 42 eem * * * * *
- E' 4
e' g 2 t e t 6 t . t t s 1
- 1 t 1 6
- 1 t t t E 1 2 t Ne K
s1 s e a e m O 1 E e1 6 *
- 3 2 3 ae
- t t t 6 6 2 eE e E 2 C E t 5 1 , 4 2 s I , 4 1 t t 1
- 6 t 9 t t 1 1 2 2 t mo -
s u p- m a m 1 a f 1 E
- T
- 6 f 3 9 9 $ t e
4 2 6 2 e6 t I F 2 e 9 9 9 E , t
- 6 t , 6 g - m t ? 2 t 2 7 2 9 t ? 1 t o 6 t
- u t
- s se g
a eg mma S . 6 t 6
- S A S e A 8 6 a6 6 t & 2 b 2 * & e1 m
- 2 0 0 a6 6 t 1, m
mLm d 4 9 e
.e S J e 4 d J t L
* * * * * * *6 *4 *d *e
- e et d & d t e J e & 6 e 4 # d 4 m
- yee m 1 t 2 1 3 1 u
t ( 1 m u e. g a s n"m A 6 6 6 6 6 A 4 2 0 6 4 a 2 . tv u n'm u2 m 4 8 4 4 A 2 4 e 8 6 9 t 9 3 4 6 S 3 2 # 9 0 9 4 6 6 9 S eS 3 4 0 2 # 4 6 4 4 3 4 3 & 6 4 t t 4 3 4 2
- 4 6 1
- 6 s 4 m a e d 3 a *
- 0 e 4 1
N _- 2m3 g e 2 6 6 .
- 1 2 8 e 1 2 2 t
t 6 e1 N S e u t we mm e e i mee f a t m a t ss m 8 1
- 6 4 S a 1
- 4 i9 6 t 8 5 t A 8 6 9 $ 9 ( S 3 4 1 6 et
- A t & &
g a E 2 1 t
- t 1 6 2 t o 2 o t
em s aNo n p e p- n 8 . $ 9 .
- 9 6 E 9
- 4 4 & 8 8 & 1 3 5 Z + 9 E 1 9 4 2 & e1
- 1 t g S u sm 1 $ 6 1 1 t 1
- 8 1 E Z 2 9 6 o e t s- g a
e a 1 1 1 A 3 2 3 T 1 2 6 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 t 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 t 1 E E t 1 s u 3 . 4 5 3 9 3 S 8 9 8 6 0 4 9 0 4 8 9 0 9 3 9 3 3 9 9 3 3 o0 3 9 o9 m a S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %4
- 3 - - - - - - -G 8 **4 - -6 6 9 2 4 2 2 2 6 2 4 4 4 9 4 6 2 9 4 6 4 9 t u
( 4 2 e1 E 2 3, e 6 4 s * . 4 4 1 a 4 9 0 2 6 e 0 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 2 9 # 6 6 8 9 . 1 E . 2 t ? 2 0 6
- 8 0 L 0 2 9 t t 8 8 9 8 2 4 6 0 & 6 ' 4 2 4 6 4 6 t 9 * *
- e 6 4 4 4 4 4 9 0 E 5 6 2 t 6 2 e4
- 4 0 4 6
- 2 e 1 A 6 6 t 4 E e
u 0 . 4 1 6 2 s 1 1 1 9 1 9 t " 9 9 - 0 1 l 1 9 8 9 -t 1- 2* 1- 7 - 9 *S 9 -t 1- l 9- t t - 4-* - 6 2 4 g-g - 6 4- 9 4 6 8 6 6 0 ee4 e 2 9
- 6 6 4 4 2
- 6 9 e 6 1 9 S 6
= - - - - - - = -
s m u r s 6
- E 2 2 2 o t 2 8 3 E 2 2 0
- 9 2 9 1
- 9 6
- E 0 E E 1 E 4 0
- E 2 9 E E a* e A
- 5 oa A*
1 P 3 e a 1 3 g v 4 *2 3 9 1 S 9 A* 3 e* eh 1 i o 5 m e n e se m 3 esp 3 W
- e*
- e3 e i 0 ae eC g s t e
8 e e s e 1 *l 3 a G + ce a et e e o 3 3 4 e a 3s 0 e* t t 3 e a v l e a ct 8 sG 3 e5
- t n
- 3 l *e r e 3 stl he ss a l
e se s' a 1 t 9 *
' 3 3 aa t 1 s T t a s l t e e e 3 3 s e C 4 o e a G e a sS 3 a ett s d 3 e t e o - a 3 3 n e 1 = G m m e d a e e e a m C e 8 m 8 1 s 3 9 1 3 3 0 3 E 3' t mt 3 1 1 1 A S & C t e G o e e t e 5 3 9 4 3 3 e
sum 1 - m 9 me *S 1 3 v 1 e 3 3 a t ' s & & C e A5 1 m ea e 1 1 S e 3 s
- e 5 2 3 S 8 l 3 3 , al 2 e s: GA se e 4 T0 tm 81 3e 3a =e 8> en a e e S a 3 8 a a a s e a s) 3 1 I' e e 3 3 I 3 ms e 4 3 e3 3 A 3 C t t1e 5 5 3 e 0 s e v a 5 e3 e 1 m1 3 e 1 9 t 6 b e m& I' 3 l 1 1 9 m3 3 e 1 a t 8 3 3 3
1 3 S t e t E e s ,3 l m 5 5 0 3 1 5 T 7 d e a a4 I I T a &
- t 3 3 3 e 3c13 33 hhC e1 m = -
5 5 t a 3 .e s e4 i 3 3 m3 3 P e 3 e e mc3 S 1 s 3 s A A m4 1 4 t 1 4 G es se 1 e T f 3 m A a t 1 s 1 1 3 1 1 8 2 e 3 3 3 s 1
$ 1 3 e **
- e 1e a 5 5 m e4 3 ! & 15 1 3 5*
a a3 4 ! I a 2 t C 3 e m 6 D a5 h mA 3 c5 3 e 4 t 1 3 oA s e3 t 5 5 1 9 9 s t emv l 3 mm t 1 I e1 3 3 v 9 s1 3 e 5 5 S t ! aA ee 4 5 S
- h m9 9 S a 5 s mA 3 4 e 3
- e8 4 S e e T e a1 ev g e 0 m 5 a 5 8 e
- e 3 3e Ie 1 e1 t1 v a0 mC e e t 3 4 o8 m m 5
e v e 9 3 3 t t l S l a .
- s1 & 1 & a a a s 9 1 ee s & s4 S 3 I I' A & 4 8 A 1 t 3 3 s - T s s
.s 1 I t t ee e# e1 1 ' t s5 5 l 1 t 5 5 e e o st eaNIa# asss a aMl 8 ig t 5 t 8 ,. m o
- e m s me e et t ve teD et 3ee3 *e t*t e 3e epee u 3 l t 1 c - - - a 1 ag .e e e e ea a a a 3
e
- :. :.: 1 1 :::::: : : : : : : = g e : :: : : :
fj] g r's
- s-n mpu.:nn33
,1n']!iis s. aii i,i!!!: !!!iiiiiiiiii!!!
== - -~
-: 33 33- ~m: --
1,:_ :_ - : 43 : ::-~-:- * *- ::::: ~_ m-
- ::::: 4: ::::::-
_3.:. : :
- x _~ s.
L_.i .l -
.. n. .. . . . . _ . .. ,,
'j : :
J1 E. l. i.,c i. ,st I. ,E E. : sf.
- E. E. E. l.- i. :s s :sss .- s' : E. : : l. i. E. 5 l I. I.
I J-n
- iisi!!!!!!!!!istignitigrit!!!r,Is t 1 n ,aI : : :~ -
~-
l ol lly. j .i---: _: ,= - :
- 2::~ n ~ , : :: - , -:: ,: -
. I p 3_:n-: _
- - : s * * : ~ j : - :- : :_.: : : : : :_ : : : : _:] : :~
l -. ~._ -
}i ll .s til .allili t a. inaa . . .ll!!!III a silli as il - - -
j ' !!!!!!: f!!!!!!![fl.i'I j - 3 I : alg g
!!g!!!vfj'['!
=:1 [-
l ~ _I:Z_ZI_!_jj!_!fiIIIII5.If:ff.ff!.44l. s-
- . E. -
- 9 :.
u
's . .- g. E* E s. t. .c g:gl1y3Il,g.
ass $3-~ ~
- I:" .:.
j gg. ,:- . g - ss3
. . e. :
s',[ : I:: x g I ~s*:isll.iv-[:sgi1:i"s nI.-i"II
. I -
x! : s::g y .: r : I : l l t a l l ! =s s : E l:: IV V:I, s !"
--Ex 9
- ~ ~
'I: :i g
. ,.x s g g x 1. g a s . s i g I g...- e gy g s y ::! sig
;E iV.t((I.
- i. .l E l l : E l. f"f " u r f [ E. f f D _! r:1 s .... ..-
- i. I
__ - ____ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ i
APPENDEX A(contJ . FUEL FASft0CATORS AND MIOCESSORS 1gaz .1983 Teams tuerters unen , commemme Aueress ..Teod Luperenes e ph d=ner_
- nemmensmae ones temas w asse i.e e.sas as ,anse omme naassw pas.
ww oe 'm y benist anw Dess (mewsmal bums) aTceICS ImTEagaTIpeat $4P-3021 115e ete 139.15. .22 4s7 a 1**.=S .*4 Sa9CDCE & WILC3s CD. 56*-0414 32 32 19.62 .*: 6 s .50 .so ta9CCCat an3 WILfCW tw=-line 212 ISS 2C.22 ! .33 2ao ae6 33.2s .ns 844CCCE 443 w!LCCs Itt 548-6042 2243 559 66.57 .e7 22 % a335 a2 9s .or Cost 35TIDg E4;ftfFRI*C ItC. 148-1067 264 159 27.92 .17 23e ate st.43 .3s CD=435T!0m E45thEfeInc. IwC. Swo-C333 93 e4 11.62- .38 79 54 6.02 .33 EEE3m asoCLEsa CCPeauv twC. 14#-1227 962 367 59.92 .26 957 aos 6s.57 .s6 GE=Esat ATC*IC Comeauv Sw=-0696 788 167 A6.17 .38 e34 249 35 17 .34 GE*EsaL EtECToIC CO. 54*-1997 1995 ee2 126.96 .1 s s 70 sose 392.o7 .39 GEuf taL ELECT *!C CD Sma-0960 972 194 *C.75 .ar est 23* e4.to .36 NUCLEat Futt SEev!CES Inte 5t*-0124 1161 1C14 10.77 .06 944 ses 3s.3r .06 Teras Ig5Teu=ImTS IgC. Su*-6023 14 e .c3 .ro , tHeITED m> cleat CCe*. 59=-6777 71 71 4.17 .06 *e a .os .on U4!TED uKLEa* C0ePO*aTIC4 14h3368 104 31 2.12 .P7 sas 27 s.92 .07 WESTI*G43USE ELECitIC CCaP 5me-1107 se9 543 147.CJ .77 676 er 340.*7 .23 WESTI4Gk3uSE ELECT *IC *D*P $**-1120 67 19 1.45 .19 *s 27 ,s.97 .or LOus4.EVEL usASTE DOWOEAL FACILITY CHDi-NUCLEAR SYSTDIS. INC. 46-19524-02 680 2 51 52.82 .21 612 358 70.95 .20 sesoEPEteOE88T SPENT FUEL STORAGE IneSTALLATIOtt GDIERAL ELECTRIC CD. 5856-2500 35 32 - 9.42 .30 33 27 7.90 .29
*s.s. corrumest enryttas crv:cs.198W1-620 2ow7
' " 1. EPORT NUMSE R (Asserved ey DOCf U.S. NUCLE AR NEGULATORY COMMISSION t e, \ BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0714, Vf s. 4 and 5
- 4. TITLE ND SUSTITLE (Add Vebme Na, #f apersonesel 2. Iteeve etaief [
Occu tional Radiation Exposure / Fifte th and Sixteenth Annual Reports,1982 and 1983 s. ReciPisNT S Cession NO.
- 7. AUTHOR (S) 8. DATE REP [T COMPLE TED B. Brooks S. Mcdonald, E. Richardson uo=Ta I lveaa Julf 1985
- e. PeRrORuiNG O ANirATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS lincke tw codef DAf ffEPORT ISSUE D Division of diation Programs and Earth Sciences aa Office of Nuc r Regulatory Research "W"ber Ogto l"1985 U.S. Nuclear Re latory Connission 8[*"***"*'
Washington, DC 55 p ,,,, ,,,,,,
- 12. SPONSORING ORG AN#2 ATI NAME AND M AILING ADDRESS (inche tw Ceet to PROJECT / TASK / WORK UNif NO Division of Radiation rograms and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regu tory Research II. FIN NO.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nunission Washington, DC 20555
- 13. TY PE OF R E PO R T Pg mi 0 COvt RE D // nebs.re dams /
Annual lendar Years 1982 and 1983
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 (Leave s'a'at 13, AbSTR ACT 000 words or sess)
This report summarizes the occupatio I ra ation exposure information that has been reported to the NRC by certain catego s f NRC licensees during the years 1973 through 1983. The bulk of the data pre ted in the report was obtained from annual radiation exposure reports submitted ir cordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.407. Data on workers termi ti their employment at certain NRC licensed facilities were obtained from report submi ed pursuant to 10 CFR 20.408. The annual reports submitted by nearly 0 licen es indicated that approximately 154,000 individuals were monitored in 1982 nd about 3,000 individuals were monitored in 1C3. They incurred average annu dosesof0.7 rem (cSv)and0.35 rem (cSv) respectively. Termination radia on exposure re rts required to be submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 20.408 were analyzed reveal that abo . 59,000 individuals completed their employment with one or e of the 500 cover' licenseesduring1982*. Some 56,000 of these individu s terminated from p r reactor facilities, when about 4,500 of them were con dered to be transient rkers who received an average , doseof1.11 rems (cSv). The most recent year for wh . h most of the termination d a are available for analysis.
- 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN A 15 17a DESCRIPTOM5 occupational radiation xposure industrial radiograph IFh IDENTIFIERS OPE N f D TERMS 18 AV AIL ABILITY ST A VENT 19 SICVRITY CL ASS Irms repertl atNO OFPAGES tMc1 assi fled Unlimited zo m y g rnsows n Pn<ce CNC 9 0RW 3J6 ellett
py;+ e 4 UNITEJ STATES . eovata ctass man
- -NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ***'**jgesrae .
' WASHINGTON,' D.C. 20666
'was oe Penwet ne o es '
OFFICIAL BUSINESS i r
- PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE SP
;.c< *'"
.{ 7 ' Jf
- p- ! ]?*,}'yg., ,
3
., ?('I: ( vT5
- t 7 ;. 1 s,
,.c n j 7 '-s , .
*a1h!^,Jr
(-_ .i t< 1
'1 x
3m m z, D' m m f 3 I r-3
.th a0 >
l l 4 { l 6 1 bb- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - - -- - -}}