United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Radiation
Office of
Radiation Programs
Washington DC 20460
November 1980
EPA 520/4-80-001
Occupational Exposure
to Ionizing Radiation
in the United States:
A Comprehensive Summary
for the Year 1975

-------
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION




           IN THE UNITED STATES:








 A Comprehensive Summary for the Year 1975
               John R. Cook




            DeVaughn R. Nelson
               November 1980








    General Radiation  Standards Branch




      Criteria and Standards Division




       Office  of Radiation  Programs




   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency

-------
                                  FOREWORD








     The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation Programs




has a national program to evaluate exposure to ionizing and nonionizing




radiation, to develop radiation standards and guidance to Federal




agencies, to protect the public health and safety, and to assure environ-




mental quality.  The responsibility to formulate Federal guidance for




occupational exposure derives from Executive Order 10831 and Public




Law 86-373 (42 USC 2021(h)), which charge the Administrator of the




Environmental Protection Agency to "advise the President with respect to




radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including




guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation




standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of coopera-




tion with States."









     The number of workers exposed to ionizing radiation has increased




significantly since existing Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for




occupational exposure was issued in 1960.  This report provides a compre-




hensive summary of exposures of workers for the year 1975, and was




prepared in support of a program to update and revise that guidance.









     The Office of Radiation Programs would like to know of any errors or




omissions and of additional sources of information.  All comments and




suggestions for improvements in future reports on this subject are welcome.
                                    111

-------
                                   PREFACE








     The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the Federal




Radiation Protection Guidance for occupational exposure to ionizing




radiation.  As part of this review, we recognized the need for




comprehensive, reliable information on numbers of workers and their doses




for various occupations using radiation sources.  Therefore, early in




1976, we undertook a program to summarize 1975 occupational exposure to




ionizing radiation in the United States.





     We found that existing information varies widely.  Monitoring and




recordkeeping practices differ considerably among occupations, industries,




and regulatory agencies.  Our exposure estimates for several occupational




subcategories are quite uncertain because the data are limited.  Small




data samples may not be representative, because individual dosimeter




readings can have significant errors.  We believe, however, that average




doses for the work force as a whole, and its major subcategories, are




based on significant enough numbers of monitored workers to provide a




reliable assessment.





     We have the most confidence in our estimates for specific types of




workers where government agencies require, or maintain themselves,




comprehensive personnel dosimetry record systems.  For completeness,




however, we have included projections for all types of workers, even when




complete data is unavailable.  Similarly, we projected worker distribution




and exposure by age and sex from available, but incomplete data.
                                     IV

-------
     This report omits two relatively small groups of workers:  uranium




miners and other miners exposed to radon gas and its decay products, and




airline workers exposed to cosmic radiation.  Finally, we have summarized




whole-body exposures only, since there are insufficient data to generate




summaries for partial-body, internal, and extremity exposures.  With these




qualifications, we believe that this report summarizes 1975 occupational




exposure to ionizing radiation.
     w^. are indebted to the many people who helped with this project.  We




especially thank Sanford C. Cohen of Teknekron Research, Inc., who




supervised a prime contract report that was a foundation for this study.





     The following officials of Federal agencies and State departments of




health supplied exposure records and licensee or registrant listings




essential to the report:





     Lt. Col. Johan Bayer, Air Force; Col. Vandy Miller, Army; Caleb




Kincaid, Bureau of Radiologial Health (Department of Health and Social




Services), Carol Woods, Energy Research and Development Administration




(now the Department of Energy); Horace P. Richardson, Mining Enforcement



and Safety Administration (now Mine Safety and Health Administration);




Gene Proctor, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Dr. Abraham




Schwebel, National Bureau of Standards; Michael B. Musachio, National




Institutes of Health; Cmdr. William M. Beckner, Navy; Barbara Brooks,




Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and, for the States, Joseph 0. Ward,




California; Maurice E. Neuweg, Illinois; William H. Spell, Louisiana;




Charles Flynn, Maryland; Eugene Fisher, New Jersey; Bill Condon,

-------
Fred Strinsa, Dr. F. J. Bradley and Dr. Leonard Solon, New York; James




Wynd, Ohio; J. Donald McDonald, Pennsylvania; and Joseph M. Nanus, Texas,





     Mr. Philip A. Cuny performed computer analyses of the occupational




data, Ms. Jane Zabinski and Mr. Matthew Weinstein helped in the




calculation of descriptive statistics and the preparation of tables and




figures, and Ms. Amelia Manning and Mr. Avery Comarow edited the



manuscript.
                                     VI

-------
                                  CONTENTS



                                                                   Page

Foreword                                                            iii

Preface                                                              iv

Contents                                                            vii

Summary                                                               1

  I.  INTRODUCTION                                                    7

 II.  REVIEW OF PREVIOUS OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE INFORMATION            9
    A.  Early Records and Studies of Workers Exposed to Radiation
        in the United States                                          9
    B.  Growth in Exposure Reporting and Regulation                  12

III.  FACTORS IN OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE IN 1975                       21
    A.  Types of Exposure and Personnel Dosimeters                   21
    B.  Regulatory Authorities                                       22
        1.  Federal                                                  22
        2.  State                                                    26
        3.  Indirect                                                 27
    C.  Monitoring and Reporting Requirements                        28

 IV.  DATA SOURCES AND SUMMARY METHODS                               31
    A.  Data Sources                                                 31
        1.  Government                                               31
        2.  Commercial                                               32
    B.  Methods for Summarizing Data                                 35
    C.  Radiation Work Force and Exposure Data                       36

  V.  NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE SUMMARY FOR 1975                39
    A.  Occupational Categories                                      39
    B.  Results                                                      39
        1.  Composition of the Radiation Work Force                  39
            a.  Average dose considerations                          44
            b.  Distribution of work force and collective dose       45
            c.  Dose range distributions                             45
        2.  Extrapolations by Ages and Sex for Major
            Occupational Categories                                  49
            a.  Potentially exposed work force                       49
            b.  Collective dose                                      53
            c.  Average whole-body doses                             53
        3.  Calculated Lifetime Doses                                59
                                    vii

-------
                            CONTENTS (continued)
                                                                   Page

        4.  Average Dose for Established Dose Range Intervals        59
        5.  Contribution to Collective Dose from Doses Reported
            as Less Than Measurable                                  60
        6.  Extremity Exposures                                      64

 VI.  SOURCES OF ERROR AND UNCERTAINTY                               65
    A.  Measurement Error                                            65
    B.  Dosimeter Misuse                                             67
    C.  Conclusion                                                   67

REFERENCES                                                           69

APPENDIX A - THE LIST METHOD                                        A-l

APPENDIX B - THE CODE METHOD                                        B-l

APPENDIX C - ANALYSIS OF MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORIES                   C-]

APPENDIX D - TABULATED SUMMARIES FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES              D-l

APPENDIX E - COMMERCIAL EXTREMITY DATA                              E^-l
                                    Vlll

-------
                                 TABLES
Table                            Title                              Page

   1.  Distribution of Annual Whole-Body Exposures for AEC and
       AEC Contractor Personnel                                        11

   2.  Occupational Exposure Summary for 1960                         14

   3.  State Radiological Health Programs                             18

   4.  Occupational Exposure Summary for 1P70                         19

   5.  Major Regulatory Authorities for 1975 Occupational
       Exposures                                                      24

   6.  Summary of 1975 Occupational Exposure Data from Federal
       Agencies                                                       33

   7.  Occupational Categories and Subcategories used
       in this Report                                                 40

   8.  National Occupational Exposure Summary for 1975                42

   9.  Distribution of the 1975  Radiation Work Force
       by Dose Range and Occupation                                   50

  10.  Distribution of Workers by Age and Sex for Major Occupations   52

  11.  Distribution of Whole-Body Collective Dose
       by Age and Sex for Major  Occupations                           54

  12.  Distribution of Mean Whole-Body Dose by Age and Sex for
       Major Occupations                                              58

  13.  Comparison of Two Collective Dose Estimates:
       Range Midpoints and Observed Means                             61

  14.  Estimated Contribution of Doses Reported as
       Leas-Than-Measurable                                           f3
                                     IX

-------
                                 FIGURES


Figure                            Ti tie                             Page

   1.  Radiation Exposure of Military and Civilian
       Personnel in the Naval >7uclear Propulsion Program              13

   2.  Number of NRC Byproduct Licensees, 1960-1975                   17

   3.  Authorities for Radiation Protection of Workers                23

   4.  Schematic Diagram of Work Force Segments and Exposure Data
       Sources Used in this Report                                    37

   5.  Distribution of Radiation Work Force by Occupation             46

   6.  Distribution of Collective Dose by Occupation                  47

   7.  Distribution of Whole-Body Dose for the
       Radiation Work Force                                           48

   8.  Distribution of Collective Dose by Age and Sex for
       the Radiation Work Force                                       55

   9.  Distribution of Collective Dose by Occupation, Age
       Group and Sex                                                  56

-------
                                   SUMMARY









          This report summarizes the results of a study of 1975 occupa-




tional exposures to ionizing radiation in the United States.  Exposure




data for all workers exposed to radiation are unavailable, so many of our




results are estimates based on extrapolation of partial data that may not




be representative of some groups of workers.  We, in particular,  caution




against too much credence being given to the age and sex extrapolations.








          Our primary findings are:








          1.        About 1.1 million United States  workers were  exposed




                    to ionizing radiation in 1975.  About 370,000 received




                    measurable occupational  doses.  (Measurable here  means




                    that a dose was distinguishable  from background dose




                    for at least one reporting period during the  year.)








          2.        The collective dose to the work  force was nearly




                    130,000 person-reins.   The approximately 5.5%  of the




                    work force that received more than 500 mrem accounted




                    for about 75% of this collective dose.








          3.        The average annual dose  to all workers was 120 mrem; for




                    workers with measurable  doses, it was 350 mrem; and  for




                    workers receiving more than 500  mrem, it was  1,600 mrem.

-------
About 67% of the work force received less-than-




measurable doses; about 95% received doses of 500 mrem




or less; and about 0.15% received doses exceeding




5 rem.









Major occupational categories:




          Workers in MEDICINE comprised 49% of the




          radiation work force; in INDUSTRY, 18%; in




          GOVERNMENT, 17%; in MISCELLANEOUS (trans-




          portation and education), 9%; and in the




          NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, 7%.




          Workers in MEDICINE accounted for the




          largest share of the collective dose (40%),




          double the nearly equal shares for INDUSTRY




          (20%), the NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (19%), and the




          GOVERNMENT  (18%).









Male  and female workers:




          The  average dose to all male workers was




          more than twice that to all  female workers.




—        Although male workers outnumber female




          workers 4-to-3, they receive 75%  of the




          collective  dose to  the entire work force.




          Of the total collective dose to female




          workers, 65% was received by women under the




          age  of 30 and over  80% by women in MEDICINE.

-------
We also make the following observations:









o         From 1960 to 1975 the average annual growth rate of




          the U.S. population was 1.2%, while that of the




          radiation work force was about 6%.









o         The degree of monitoring varied widely among




          occupational groups.  For most Federal Agencies and




          for workers closely regulated by Federal agencies,




          such as the NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE,  almost all  potentially




          exposed workers are monitored.  On  the other hand,  we




          estimate that less than half the workers in MEDICINE




          (who number more than seven times those in  the  NUCLEAR




          FUEL CYCLE) are monitored.









o         This report's average annual dose estimates for




          whole-body exposure may not be comparable or accurate




          for all workers.  For example:









             A personal monitoring device only records the dose




             it receives.  Some occupational  workers, notably




             medical, wear the monitoring device inside or




             outside a protective apron.  The recorded dose may




             or may not approximate their  whole-body  dose.









             About one-third of all monitored workers received  a




             measurable dose.   The two-thirds receiving a "less-

-------
   than-measurable" dose were counted as receiving a




   zero dose.









   The age distribution of workers exposed to




   radiation is skewed toward younger workers.  People




   under age 30 accounted for 48% of the work force




   exposed to radiation, but comprised only 37% of the




   total national work force.








   Exposures are different according to sex.  Men




   under age 30 received 33% of the total collective




   dose, compared to 16% for women under age 30.




   However, average individual exposures were more




   than two times greater for young men, because there




   are more women than men under 30 in the work force




   exposed to radiation.  Men under 30 averaged 180




   mrem annually, compared to 70 mrem for women under




   30.









Personnel dosimeters can provide accurate exposure




information, but their performance varies widely.




Their misapplication or intentional misuse can also




result in mistakes.  If a commercial dosimetry service




does not correct them, the erroneous records remain in




the data system.  Using uncorrected exposure data




leads to inaccurate projections of occupational




exposure.  We consider commercial data used in this

-------
report less reliable than summaries obtained from




Federal regulatory agencies.  We believe that exposure




data from the latter benefit from evaluation and




corrections before the data are reported to a Federal




agency.  (See Chapter VII for detailed discussion.)








We did not fully analyze dosimeter errors or resolve




uncertainties about numbers of workers in specific




occupational categories.  However, we estimate that




actual values for the national summary statistics are




probably within 30% of our results.

-------
                              I.  INTRODUCTION









     The Federal Radiation Council (FRC) was established in 1959 "to




advise the President with respect to radiation matters directly or




indirectly affecting health."  In a 1960 memorandum to President




Eisenhower, the FRC recommended what is now the Federal Radiation




Protection Guidance for occupational exposure to ionizing radiation (1).*




This guidance provides the basis for present Federal regulations for




occupational radiation protection.  Reorganization Plan 3 of 1970




abolished the FRC and transferred its functions to the U.S. Environmental




Protection Agency (EPA).





     In 1974 EPA began a review of the current guidance on occupational




exposure.  As part of that review, we examined the magnitude and extent of




occupational exposure in 1975 in the U.S.  In this report, we provide our




summarized analysis.  We also discuss the growth of the radiation work




force, thte development of monitoring and reporting practices, the




regulatory bodies involved, the regulatory requirements in effect in 1975,




and the sources of data and methods we used.  In Appendices A & B we




describe in some detail the two different methods (List and Code) used to




estimate average annual exposures and the size of different parts of the




work force.
* References are on p.69.

-------
     We tried to use a minimum of new terminology.  We introduced two




terms, however, to differentiate major parts of the radiation work force:




"total" and "exposed."  "Total" workers means the actual or projected




number of all workers potentially exposed to ionizing radiation.   These




workers, regardless of monitoring status, can be exposed beyond background




levels on the job.  "Exposed" workers means the actual or projected number




of workers that received measurable exposure (occupational exposures




greater than approximately 10 mrem).  All "exposed" workers are not




necessarily monitored for exposure.  -Section V.B. contains additional




discussion of these points.

-------
          II.  REVIEW OF PREVIOUS OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE  INFORMATION



     A substantial growth in uses of ionizing radiation has occurred in

the United States since the late 1950's.  There  has been a corresponding

increase in the size of the work force exposed to radiation.


     The first year for which even crude estimates of numbers and doses

were available for these workers was 1960 (2,3).  The 1960 figures

indicated that about 440,000 workers were potentially exposed to ionizing

radiation.  By 1970, the number of these workers grew to an estimated

775,000, an increase of about 80% in ten years  (3).  The estimated average

annual dose per potentially exposed person remained about 200 mrem from

1960 to 1970.


     There has been little monitoring of personnel exposure in some

occupational categories.  For example, 250,000 medical workers were

estimated to be exposed to radiation in 1960, yet there were coo few data

available to estimate their average dose reliably (2).  Data for many

industrial workers were equally scarce.  Workers in jobs in or actively

regulated by the Federal government generally have had the best

monitoring.  Most other workers, especially those receiving relatively

low-level exposures, generally have had little or no monitoring.
     A.  Early Records and Studies of Workers Exposed to Radiation
         in the United States
     The Manhattan Engineering Project, created during World War II to

develop an atomic bomb, generated most of the earliest recorded data

-------
for large numbers of workers potentially exposed to radiation in the




United States.  In 1946, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was




established by Congress to regulate and encourage the development of




atomic energy and to assume responsibility for the Manhattan Project.  In




1974, Congress split the AEC into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)




and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA).  In 1977




ERDA was merged with other agencies to form the Department of Energy (DOE).





     Early in its existence the AEC began to monitor and maintain records




on its workers and many others employed by contractors.  It did not




publish summaries of worker exposure until the late 1950's.  AEC reports




published in the 1960's focused on accidental exposures  (4-11).  The AEC




later established a worker registry with information on overexposure




incidents (12, 13).   In the 1970's, they began to publish complete




exposure summaries for AEC facilities, licensed nuclear power plants, and




other licensees  (14-20).  NRC and ERDA separately continued publication of




these detailed summaries (21-32) in 1974.





     Table 1 summarizes whole-body exposures  for AEC workers and employees




of AEC contractors from 1947 to 1970 (33).  As shown in the table, this




work force increased from an average of 17,000 from 1947 to 1954 to a




maximum of 138,000 during the next 15 years.





     A thorough but small pilot study of occupational exposure to ionizing




radiation at the Westinghouse Testing Reactor Facility was funded by the




Public Health Service (PHS) in the early 1960's (34).  The study included




2,300 individuals for the period 1950-63 and  focused on record-keeping




practices and usefulness of records for epidemiological  studies.  The report




provided the first published summary of annual occupational exposures.
                                      10

-------
          Table 1.   DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL WHOLE-BODY EXPOSURES FOR
                    AEC EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES OF AEC CONTRACTORS*
                          Number of Workers Exposed
Years
1947-54
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
0-1 rem
130,128
56,708
38,225
45,510
59,455
71,600
77,522
90,651
122,437
107,786
122,711
128,360
130,552
101,764
103,206
98,625
92,185
1-5 rem
5,311
3,157
2,312
2,424
6,271
3,912
4,629
5,174
5,707
5,472
6,157
6,671
7,218
6,513
4,776
4,288
4,464
5-10 rem
284
285
100
83
159
66
41
40
113
80
86
175
167
108
4
4
12
10-15 rem
32
41
4
5
10
2
2
3
0
0
11
8
0
1
0
1
0
15+ rem
6
1
3
1
12
1
1
8
8
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Total
135,761
60,192
40,644
48,023
65,907
75,581
82,195
95,876
128,265
113,339
128,965
135,214
137,939
108,386
107,986
102,918
96,661
"Source:  Operational Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience Within
the United States Atomic Energy Commission, WASH 1192, Fall 1971 (33).
                                      11

-------
     A 1979 Naval Sea Systems Command report summarizes occupational




radiation exposure from U.S. Naval nuclear propulsion plants and their




support facilities for the period 1954-1978 (the first nuclear-power ship




went to sea in January 1955) (35).  Since 1966, there has been a




significant and steady fall in collective radiation dose (man-rems/year),




in spite of an ever-increasing number of ships in operation (see Figure 1).





     We can compile a rough general exposure summary (limited to certain




segments of the work force) for 1960 (see Table 2).  It combines data from




Federal agencies and estimates made by the Federal Radiation Council




(FRC).  The data include workers monitored for convenience as part Oi.




security badging who did not receive measurable doses (military and AEG




personnel, for example).  The FRC estimated that in 1960 there were about




250,000 and 50,000 radiation workers in medicine and general industry,




respectively (2), but gave no exposure estimates for them.








     B.  Growth in Radiation Exposure Reporting and Regulatory Activities









     The number of x-ray generators, artificially-produced radionuclides,




nuclear power reactors, and high-voltage accelerators have greatly




increased in the last several decades, raising the number of workers




potentially exposed to ionizing radiation.





     Exposure data reported to and by the AEC cover principally that part




of the work force using radionuclides.  Information from AEC licensees,




however, helps to gauge the growth of the entire work force and to review




related state activities (4-32).  In 1958, Congress amended the Atomic




Energy Act to permit states to regulate certain radioactive byproduct
                                     12

-------
                                                         NUMBER OF SHIPS
                                                       TOTAL MAN-REM/YEAR
<  90  -
-  70  -
^  60  -
ui  40  -
         60  61  62   63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70   71  72  73  74  75  76   77 78 79
                                                                                 -25000
                                                                                 -20000
                                                                                  -15000
<
ui
>•


UI
a.

S
UI
ee.

Z
                                                                                  -10000
                                                                                  - 5000
       Figure 1.  TOTAL RADIATION EXPOSURE RECEIVED BY MILITARY AND CIVILIAN
                  PERSONNEL IN THE NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM 1960-1979  (35)

-------
                Table 2.  OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE SUMMARY FOR 1960
Occupational Group
                                Number
                                  of
                                Persons
                                                            Mean Whole-Body
                                                                 Dose
                                                              (millirem)*
A.  Federal Agencies


    U.S. Air Force
             2
    U.S. Army

    U.S. Navy
3,4,5
  1.  Nuclear Propulsion Program
      a. government
      b. contractor
  2.  Non-Nuclear Navy (government)

Atomic Energy Commission and
  Contractors (some Federal-mostly
               contractor employees)"

Bureau of Radiological Health (HEW)
Mining Enforcement and Safety
  Administration
  (privately employed uranium miners)'

National Aeronautics and
                                  6,800

                                 16,400
                                               4,685
                                              10,394
                                               7,420
                                              82,195


                                                1,500


                                                5,800
  SUBTOTAL, Federal Agencies

B.  Healing Arts12'13
C.  Industry12
                                136,024

                                250,000
                                 50,000
                                                                   30

                                                                   30
                                                         230
                                                          50
                                                         220
                                                         220
Space Administration9
National Bureau of Standards
National Institutes of Health
200
100
530
-
                                                               170**
TOTAL
                                436,024
*Values for mean whole-body dose are rounded  to  the nearest  10 millirem.
**Mean whole-body dose for AEC and Department of Defense personnel  arid
contractor personnel.
                                       14

-------
                              Table  2.   (Continued)
Sources of Information;

1.  Nelson, Maj. Robert, U.S. Air Force, Brook AFB, Personal communication,
February 6, 1980, and Ricci, Capt. John, U.S. Air Force, Brook AFB, Personal
communication, May 14, 1979

2.  Wangemann, Col. Robert, U.S. Army, Office of the Surgeon General, Personal
communication based on best available information, February 13, 1980.

3.  Miles, M.E. and W.R., Kindley, "Occupational Radiation Exposure from U.S.
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants and Their Support Facilities," Naval Sea
Systems Command, Department of the Navy, Report NT-78-2, February 1979.

4.  Arentzen, Vice Admiral W.P., The Surgeon General of the Navy, Personal
communication, January 22, 1979.

5.  Kindley, W.R., Personal communications, September 27, 1979 and
February 4, 1980.

6.  "Operational Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience, 1943-1970,"
Division of Operational Safety, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH 1192, 1971,

7.  Kincaid, Caleb, Bureau of Radiological Health, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Personal communication based on best available
information, January 2, 1979.

8.  LeFranc, Katherine, Mining, Enforcement and Safety Administration,
Department of Interior, Personal communication of information contained in
annual report, February 26, 1979.

9.  Proctor, Gene, NASA, Personal communication, February 13, 1979.

10. Schwebel, A., National Bureau of Standards, Personal communication,
January 4, 1979.

11. Masachio, M.B., National Institutes of Health, Personal communication,
December 29, 1978.

12. Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection Standards,
Staff Report of Federal Radiation Council, May 13, 1960.

13. Klement, A.W., C.R. Miller, R.P. Minx, and B. Shlein, "Estimates of
Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ORP/CSD 72-1, August 1972.  The estimated number of medical
and dental radiation workers in the healing arts is 320,000 in this report.
                                       15

-------
material through an AEC-State Agreement.  From 1960 to 1975, 26 states




adopted statutes to authorize agreements with the AEG (now NRC);  25 became




Agreement States.  Growth in the number of byproduct licensees of the NRC




(AEG) and Agreement States is shown in Figure 2.   The total number of




licensees nearly doubled between 1960 and 1970.





     During the same period, the states became increasingly involved in




all aspects of radiation protection.  Before 1957 only Hawaii had enabling




legislation for radiation protection regulations.  By 1960 11 states, and




by 1970 46, had passed such legislation (see Table 3).  This increased




radiation protection activity by the states provided the impetus  for




creating the "Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation."




These model regulations were first published in 1962 by the Council of




State Governments, aided by the AEC and the U.S.  Public Health Service




(36).





     "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs," begun in




1961 by the Public Health Service, provides an annual source of regulatory




data (37-53).  Table 3, based on data from the report, shows growth both




in the number of sources of ionizing radiation and in the size of state




programs to regulate such sources.





     In 1972, EPA published estimates of U.S. population exposures from




several sources, including occupational (3).  Table 4 summarizes  1970




occupational exposure from that study.  Medical workers accounted for over




50% of the radiation work force and received about 65% of the collective




dose.  The AEC category included industrial activities, government spon-




sored research and development, and some medical uses (radionuclides).
                                     16

-------
     CA
     III
     U)
     Ul
       14000
       13000
       12000
        11000
        10000
        9000
     g  aooo
     CO
     O  7000
     cc
     III
     oa
     i  6000
        5000
        4000
        3000
        2000
/v
                               >-*
            1960 '61 '62 '63 '64 "65 '66 -67 '68 "69 70 71 '72 73 74 75
                           YEAR
^^*r* NRC LICENSEES
••••• AGREEMENT STATE LICENSEES
mil	 TOTAL BYPRODUCT LICENSEES
     Figure 2.  NRC BYPRODUCT LICENSEE GROWTH 1960-1975
                        17

-------
                                                      Table  3.   STATE  RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH  PROGRAMS
                                                          Number and  Total Man-Equivalent
                                                           Radiological Health Personnel
00
Fiscal
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Number of Number of
States With of NRC
Enabling Agreement
Legislation" States
11
17
21
31
33
35
36
43
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
47
49
49
50
0
0
4
6
8
11
15
17
18
22
22
23
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
United
States
Population
180.7
183.7
186.5
189.2
191.9
194.3
196.6
198.7
200.7
202.7
204.9
207.1
208.9
210.4
211.9
213.5
215.1
216.9
218.5
of State and Local Agencies
Total Man-
Pun Part Equivalent0
178
177
244
297
346
360
364
368
389
412
429
467
471
450
487
523
564
558
168
291
367
439
487
433
423
387
325
310
276
200
149
176
148
116
118
109
210(53)
237(53)
312(53)
375(53)
437(53)
444(53)
445(53)
439(52)
448(52)
470(53)
486(51)
507(53)
514(53)
505(52)
523(51)
566(48)
597(51)
594(48)
Number of State Regulated Ionizing Radiation Devices
Medical Dental Industrial Particle
X Ray X Ray X Ray Accelerators
	
— .
113000d
123000(37)
113806(53)
109643(53)
113284(52)
109406(52)
106069(50)
109718(52)
116261(53)
116695(52)
120381(52)
138491(52)
124406(50)
117118(48)
128217(48)
116400(48)
	
22550(18)
45930(29)
74360(37)
94174(53)
98460(53)
100545(52)
98557(50)
99956(49)
106200(52)
117161(53)
126704(52)
129378(52)
142875(52)
139607(50)
139133(48)
144570(50)
145642(48)
	
	
	
—
9566(49)
10169(48)
11028(50)
9709(50)
11086(45)
4638(45)*
6469(45)
6525(47)
6558(48)
7546(49)
7390(49)
5970(45)
6682(31)
5722(31)8
	
	
	
	
371e
610f
302(52)
576(47)
732(50)
639(49)
790(47)
714(48)
875(48)
963(47)
833(45)
661(45)
1113(45)
983(47)
         •West Virgina  6 Wyoming have radiation protection programs  functioning under General Public Health  Laws  of  the State.
         ^Projections of the Population of the United States:   1977  to  2050, Series P-25, No. 704, July 1977.
         cThe number of States (including D.C., Virgin Islands (to 1974) 6 Puerto Rico) reporting data, or for
          which estimates are made, are given in parenthesis.
         ^Health agencies estimated that there were between 100,000  and 125,000 medical x-ray units in 1963.
         "State health  agencies reported a total of 371 particle  accelerators while information from manufacturers
          indicated a total of 700 particle acceleratora in use at end  of FY 1965.
         ^Information provided principally by manufacturers.
         ^Reporting provided in terms of number of facilities  instead of number of units, beginning with 1970.

-------
               Table  4.   OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE SUMMARY FOR 1970*
Category
Number
of
Persons
Collective
Dose
(per son- reins)
Mean Whole-Body
Dose per Person
(millirem)
AEC

Contractors              102,918

Reporting Licensees
  AEC                     62,090
  Agreement State         24,519

Non-reporting
  Licensees
  AEC                     93,000
  Agreement State          3,000

Military

  Army                     7,445
  Air Force               17,591
  Navy                    55,051
  PHS                        508

Other Federal              2,000

Medical

  Radium                  37,925
  Non-Federal
    Medical x-ray        194,451
    Dental x-ray         171,226
                    20,361
                    13,365
                     6,715
                     5,022
                       822
                       744
                     1,555
                    10,879
                        65

                       258
                    20,480

                    62,253
                    21,403
                      198
                      215
                      274
                       54
                      274
                      100
                       88
                      198
                      129

                      129
                      540

                      320
                      125
TOTAL
771,814
163,922
210
*Source: Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States
1960-2000, USEPA, Office of Radiation Programs, Criteria and Standards
Division, Table IV-4, Page 148.
                                    19

-------
These accounted for 37% of the work force and 28% of the collective dose.




The remaining 10% of the work force and 8% of the collective dose were




mostly in the armed services and the public health service.  Overall, it




was estimated that 770,000 persons received an average dose of 210 mrem.





     As was true a decade earlier, little monitoring data for medical and




dental radiation workers, except those for which Federal agencies kept




records, were available.  Average annual doses of 320 mrem for non-Federal




medical x-ray workers and 125 mrem for non-Federal dental x-ray workers




were estimated from limited data from an occupational exposure survey in




Illinois and two film-badge surveys in Wisconsin (3).  Since these doses




were much higher than the 90 mrem and 77 mrem reported for U.S. Air Force




medical and dental personnel, the Illinois and Wisconsin data were




possibly atypical.  If so, the 1970 occupational dose for medicine workers




was overstated.  On the other hand, medical use of radiation sources in a




military service may result in significantly less exposure per individual




because of the existence of well-established radiation protection programs,





     We conclude that the 1970 summary, while improved over the limited




1960 summary, provides exposure estimates of considerable uncertainty.
                                     20

-------
               III.  FACTORS IN OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE IN 1975









     A.  Types of Radiation Exposure and Personnel Dosimeters








     Radiation exposures can be grouped into internal, extremity, and




whole body.  Internal exposure occurs when radioactive material is




breathed, ingested, or absorbed into the body.  Such material often




concentrates in specific organs or tissues.  Internal exposures are




monitored infrequently.  They are omitted from this report because the




data are insufficient.





     Extremity exposures are exposures of the hands or feet, usually from




an external radiation source.  These exposures typically occur when the




extremities are close to radioactive sources while the torso and head are




shielded by a barrier or protected by distance.  This report later notes




some general findings about extremity exposures based on small samples,




but we cannot make projections for the national work force.





     Most occupational radiation exposures are to the whole body, from




x-ray, gamma ray, or neutron sources.  Unless otherwise noted, subsequent




discussions refer to whole-body exposure.





     The two major types of personnel dosimeters used to monitor radiation




are thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) and film badges.   The TLD "chips"




are small, reusable, and readily processed.  Film badges are also small,




and provide a permanent record, but are not as readily processed.
                                     21

-------
     B.  Regulatory Authorities









     No single agency regulates the exposure of workers in the United




States.  This resposibility is carried out by five Federal regulatory




agencies with jurisdiction over exposure of workers or sources of




radiation exposure in private industry, several Federal agencies who




regulate exposure of their own (or their contractors') employees, and




various agencies of the fifty States (see Figure 3).  Some of these State




agencies regulate exposure of workers under agreements with one or more of




the Federal regulatory agencies, and some regulate independently.  This




section briefly describes the major regulatory authorities and their




exposure monitoring and reporting requirements as they existed in 1975.




Table 5 lists the primary authorities and identifies major legislative




mandates, applicable sources of radiation, and exposure regulations.









     1.  Federal Authorities









     The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, defines three types of




radioactive material:  1) source material (uranium or thorium ore); 2)




special nuclear material (enriched plutonium or uranium); and 3) byproduct




material (radionuclides left over after the use of special nuclear




material).  The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 transferred regulatory




authority for these materials from AEC to NRC.





     Only NRC licenses users of significant quantities of special nuclear




material.  About half the states have agreements with the NRC that give




them limited authority to license users of source or byproduct materials.
                                     22

-------
                         AUTHORITIES FOR RADIATION PROTECTION OF WORKERS
                  EPA (1,2)
                             RECOMMENDATIONS
PRESIDENT
                                 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION
                                                                                             PRESIDENTIAL
                                                                                             GUIDANCE TO
                                                                                             REGULATORS
     PROTECTION GUIDANCE
ir iir v















•

STATES
(7)

















NRC
(2)
1 APPROVE



AGREEMENT
STATES





NRC AGREE-
MENT, OSHA
APPROVED,
AND STATE
PROTECTED
WORKERS


)ST,




















OSHA
(3)
kTES









i
GOVERN-
MENT AND
NONGOV-
ERNMENT
LICENSEE
WORKERS













*










MSHA
(4)



NRC






I
ALL WORK-
ERS NOT
OTHERWISE
PROTECTED








NON-AEA<2)


LICENSEES
_t_















EXPOSURES



1

DOD
(2)


- 1
MINE AND
MILL WORK-
ERS






»



















1

DOE
(2)


1
MILITARY,
AND DOD
CIVILIAN
AND CON-
TRACTOR
WORKERS











_JL




















OTHER














DOT
(5)




FEDERAL
AGENCIES
(3)

1
DOE AND
DOE CON-
TRACTOR
WORKERS












AGENCY
AND
AGENCY
CONTRAC-
TOR
WORKERS






•llllllllllllllllltllllMIIIIIII
REGULATORS
OF WORKERS
EXPOSURE

FDA
(6)








i
TRANSPORT
WORKERS



IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIII
REGULATORS
OF SOURCES
ONLY

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIItllllllll


IMPLEMENTORS
OF GUIDANCE
AND REGULATIONS

WORKERS
USING ELEC
TRONIC
PRODUCT
RADIATION
SOURCES
PROTECTED
WORKERS

Figure 3. Occupational radiation protection guidance is binding on all major  regulatory  agencies except
          NRC and the States, in which case it is advisory.  Heavy lines refer  to  Federal  Radiation
          Protection Guidance; light lines indicate regulations.  The authorities  cited  in parentheses
          are (1) Executive Order 10831; (2) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as  amended;  (3)  Occupational
          Health and Safety Act of 1970; (4) Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977; (5)  Department
          of Transportation Act of 1966; (6) Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968; (7)
          State enabling legislation and State laws.

-------
                Table 5.  MAJOR  REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FOR 1975 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES
                                     General Legislative Authority
                                          Source of
                                          Radiation
                      Occupational
                      Exposure
                      Reulations
 I  FEDERAL GUIDANCE
    Environmental
     Protection Agency
IX  DIRECT REGULATORS
    A.  Federal Authorities
        1) Nuclear Regulatory
            Commission
        2) Department
            of Energy

        3) Department of Defense
           a. Army
           b. Navy
           c. Air Force

        4) Department of Interior
             (MESA)

        5) Department of Labor
             (OSHA)

      B. State Authorities
        1) State Radiation
             Control Programs
        2) State NRC Agreement
        3) State OSHA Agreement
Executive Order 10831, through
 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970
 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
 through Energy Reorganization Act
 of 1974

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Federal Metal & Non-Metallic
 Mine Safety Act of 1966

Occupational Safety & Health Act
 Act of 1970
Enabling State Legislation

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
 Occupational Safety & Health
 Act of 1970
All
Source, Special
(non-exempt)
Byproduct
NORM*
Electronic
NARMb
Source, Byproduct
Electronic, NARMb
 None
 (Fed.  Radiation
 Protection Guid.)
 10 CFR 20
Special
(exempt )
Special
(exempt )
DOE Manual
Chapter 0524
AR 40-14
NAVMED P-5055
AFR 161-8

30 CFR 57
29 CFR 19
SSRCR Part D

10 CFR 20
29 CFR 19
III   INDIRECT REGULATORS
         1)  Health, Education,
             and Welfare0  (BRH)
         2)  Department of
             Transportation
Radiation Control  for Health
  and Safety Act of 1968
Department of Transportation
 Act of 1966
      •Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials
      ^Natural  and  Accelerator Produced Radioactive Materials
      cNow Department  of Health and Human Services
Electronic

Source, Special
Byproduct, NARMb
21 CFR Chapter I,
 Subchapter J
49 CFR 174-177

-------
Users in the remaining states are licensed by NRC.  All NRC licensees are




governed by occupational exposure regulations contained in 10 CFR (Code of




Federal Regulations) Part 20.  NRC Agreement States must have compatible




regulations.  Thus, these states effectively implement 10 CFR 20




regulations.





     Some special nuclear material operations need no license.  The 1974




Energy Reorganization Act transferred regulatory authority of the AEC's




research laboratories and other facilities to the ERDA, later the




Department of Energy (DOE).  Contractors who operate ERDA/DOE laboratories




and facilities are exempt from NRC requirements when they use special




nuclear materials to develop weapons or reactors for military vehicles or




vessels.  In these cases, ERDA/DOE Manual Chapter 0524 governs occupational




exposures.





     The Department of Defense (DOD) is also exempt from NRC licensing




requirements when it uses special nuclear material for weapons or




propulsion.  Each service has internal regulations for occupational




exposure:  AR 40-14 (Army); NAVMED P-5055 (Navy); and AFR 161-8 (Air Force).





     The Federal Metal and Non-Metallic Mine Safety Act of 1966 assigned




the Department of Interior (DOI) regulatory authority over occupational




exposure in underground mines.  DOI's jurisdiction included gamma-ray




exposures in uranium mines and radon exposures in all underground mines.




The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 superceded the 1975 Act,




transferring the authority to the Department of Labor (DOL).   The




applicable occupational exposure regulations,  now in 30 CFR 57,  did not




change.
                                     25

-------
     The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 established broad




authority for the regulation of occupational exposure by the Occupational




Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  It applies to all occupational




exposures except 1) those regulated by the two acts mentioned above,  and 2)




those in facilities operated by states or counties in non-OSHA approved




states.  Federal agencies, although not subject to OSHA inspections or




fines, must establish programs that conform to OSHA regulations.  OSHA




approves "State Plans" that allow state authorities to regulate




occupational exposure.  An OSHA-approved state must enforce regulations at




least as rigorous as OSHA's.  OSHA's occupational exposure regulations are




specified in 29 CFR 1910.96.








     2.  State Authorities









     Many state radiation control programs operate under NRC agreements and




OSHA-approved state plans.  Some state and Federal programs overlap.  In




general, Federal standards prevail unless the state's are more protective.





     Many states use the Suggested State Regulations for Control of




Radiation (SSRCR).  These are prepared by the Conference of Radiation




Control Program Directors with support from the Department of Health and




Human Services (HHS), NRC, and EPA.  Part D contains standards for pro-




tection against radiation and is equivalent to 10 CFR 20.  NRC Agreement




States effectively adopt Part D of the SSRCR.
                                     26

-------
     3.  Indirect Regulatory Authorities









     Three Federal agencies have no direct authority for regulating




exposure of workers, but indirectly affect occupational exposure.





     The Secretary of HHS has authority under the Radiation Control for




Health and Safety Act of 1968 to regulate the manufacture of electronic




radiation-generating devices to assure their safe performance.   The Bureau




of Radiological Health, which administers the Act, issued regulations in




21 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter J that, among other things, limit  leakage




radiation from electronic source components and assemblies.





     The Department of Transportation (DOT) indirectly regulates




occupational exposures through its packaging, storage, and carriage




regulations for radioactive materials.  DOT has authority under the




Department of Transportation Act of 1966 to regulate, except for postal




shipments, the interstate transport of all radioactive materials,  including




source, special, and byproduct materials.  DOT regulations are  at  49 CFR




174-177.





     The U.S. Postal Service indirectly affects occupational exposures




through limitations on type and quantity of radioactive material shipped in




the U.S. Mail.  Postal shipments are covered by U.S.  Postal Service




Regulations, Part 124.3, U.S. Postal Service Publication #6, December 1975.





     Most Federal regulations concerning occupational exposure  to  ionizing




radiation are consistent with Federal guidance.  The current guidance




limits the whole-body dose accumulated over a lifetime,  in rem,  to 5 times




the number of years beyond age 18 and to 3 rem in 13 weeks.  This  is




equivalent to an average annual exposure of 5 rem.   OSHA regulations are






                                     27

-------
consistent with these limits on maximum exposures but, unlike other




regulations, they do not require that doses be kept "as low as practical"




within these limits.  Although consistant with Federal guidance, DOT and




U.S. Postal Service regulations are designed to keep the maximum annual




exposure below 500 mrem, for most situations, because the general public,




as well as workers, can be exposed.









     C.  Monitoring and Reporting Requirements









     Radiation protection regulations generally include conditions for




personnel monitoring.  Such conditions are typically equivalent to 10 CFR




20.202, which requires monitoring of an individual who "receives, or is




likely to receive" a whole-body dose in any calendar quarter of more than




312.5 mrem.





     Monitoring is optional for workers likely to receive a lower dose.




Therefore, actual practice varies widely.  At some facilities all persons




are monitored, even though exposure of'most workers may be very small or




zero.  At others no one is monitored, though many workers may be receiving




appreciable fractions of the 312.5 mrem per quarter dose.  Under such




conditions, any estimate of the total number of radiation workers derived




by counting monitored workers is uncertain.  We believe that the number of




monitored persons generally sets a lower limit for the number of radiation




workers.  All monitored persons are therefore counted as part of the




radiation work force.  There are, however, difficulties in extrapolating




monitoring data for some segments of the work force.  These are discussed




later.
                                     28

-------
     Besides uncertainties in monitoring practices for workers receiving




less then 312.5 mem, there are various reporting requirements for summaries




of workers receiving any radiation.  Even when monitoring is required and




done, the dose data are not necessarily reported or available for analysis




of occupational exposures.  OSHA has no requirements for reporting




radiation exposures unless excessive.  OSHA's authority covers'about




three-quarters of the radiation work force.





     NRG requires (10 CFR  20.407) nuclear power reactor; industrial




radiographer; fuel processor, fabricator, and reprocessor; and commercial




processor and distributor of specified quantities of byproduct materials




licensees—but no others—to submit an annual report of personnel




monitoring information.  The report includes a statistical summary of




individuals for whom personnel monitoring was either required or provided




during the calendar year.  NRC summarizes these data in an annual




occupational radiation exposure report (25-28).  In 1978, NRC ordered a




special two-year study during which a_ll licensees were to provide summaries




of occupational exposure information (43 FR 44827,  Sept. 29, 1978).





     DOE requires its contractors to provide annual summary reports of all




monitoring data.  This information is published in an annual report of




radiation exposures (23,24).





     All of DOD maintains personnel monitoring and  record systems.   Not all




exposure data in DOD systems  are summarized or published on an annual




basis.   The Naval Security Systems Command, which monitors radiation




exposures to Navy and civilian personnel in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion




program, now summarizes exposure information annually (35).
                                     29

-------
                   IV.  DATA SOURCES AND SUMMARY METHODS
     We could not develop a single, simple, reliable system for compiling




a comprehensive summary of annual occupational exposure in the United



States.  Instead, we had to pursue several methods.  This chapter




describes the specific sources of 1975 data and the methods we used to




analyze them.








     A.  Data Sources








     The two major sources of occupational exposure data for this report




were Federal government agencies and commercial dosimetry service




records.  Federal agency exposure data provided a nearly complete sample




for one-quarter of the work force.  Commercial data covered about one-




fifth of the work force.








     1.  Government








     We assumed that monitored workers represent potentially exposed




workers for occupations or facilities for which Federal agencies have




compiled exposure data.  Appendix D gives Federal exposure summaries for



1975.





     DOD had the largest number of monitored workers in government for



1975.  Within DOD, the Navy had the largest number.  DOE had the second




largest monitored work force, and NRC reporting licensees the third




                                     31

-------
largest.  Data from other Federal agencies included relatively few




workers.  Table 6 summarizes available 1975 exposure data from Federal




sources.





     Air Force data provided exposure summaries for 20 occupational




categories (see Appendix D).  These data provided the greatest occupational




detail for any group of government or government contractor employees.





     NRG summarizes whole-body exposure for four licensee categories in its




annual Report on Occupational Radiation Exposure.  DOE (ERDA) also




publishes annual radiation exposure summaries for 10 occupational




categories.  Both reports give the distribution of workers by dose range




according to the reporting format of 10 CFR 20.





     The records of the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) report




exposures of miners to radon decay products in units of working level




months.  Since these data are not directly comparable to whole-body doses




in rem units, we did not use them in this report.









     2.  Commercial









     We early recognized that data from government agencies alone would be




insufficient for some occupational categories to allow estimating the




number of workers and their exposures.  Federal summaries simply do not




include data for electronic product sources in medical, educational, and




industrial occupations in the public sector.  We therefore obtained a




sample of occupational exposure data from a commercial dosimetry firm.




These data consisted of individual records rather than summary tables.
                                     32

-------
 Table  6.   SUMMARY OF  1975 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE  DATA  FROM  FEDERAL AGENCIES
                                                                            Mean Annual

Dept . of Defense
Navy
Army
Air Force
SUBTOTAL
DOE (ERDA-1975)
Reactor Research
Uranium Enrichment
Weapon F & T
General Research
Accelerator
Other
DOE Offices
SUBTOTAL
NRC
Power Reactors
Fuel Fabrication
and Reprocessing
Industrial
Radiography
Manufacturing and
Distribution
SUBTOTAL
BRH
NIH
NASA
NBS
(MSHA)
TOTAL
Personnel
Do's i me try
Processor
In-house
In-house
In-house

In-house
In-house
In-house
In-house
In-house
In— house
In-house


Commercial

Commercial

Commercial
Co— ercial

Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
(Army)
In-house

Occupational
Category
Detail
Fleet, Shipyard,
Non-nuclear Navy
None
Occupation

Facility Type
Facility Type
Facility Type
Facility Type
Facility Type
Facility Type
Facility Type


Facility Type

Facility Type

Facility Type
Facility Type

None
None
None
None
None

Number of
Monitored
60,400
16,000
16,100
92,506
6,727
7,471
19,425
33,769
7,384
11,479
2,170
88,425

54,763

1 1 ,405

9,178
3,367
78,713
2,392
2,183
1,410
393
3,344)**
266,018
Workers
Exposed
43,700
6,700
5,400
55, Sod
5,286
5,664
7,846
14,339
2,382
9,139
459
45,115

28,034

5,495

4,693
1,859
40,081
1,481
179
274
190

143,120
Whole-Body Pose*
(mil 1 irem)
Monitored Exposed
160
30
10
110
420
50
70
90
150
290
20
140

390

270

300
350
360
60
10
20
50


220
60
40
135
530
70
180
210
450
370
100
270

760

570

590
640
710
90
170
170
110


*  Mean value of whole-body do«e rounded to nearest  10 mrem
** Environmental monitoring for radon and its decay  products  - number of workers not included in TOTAL.
                                           33

-------
Some records included the age and sex of workers.  A smaller number of




records contained extremity dose information.





     We do not believe the commercial data to be as representative or




reliable as government data.  Government data are generally representative




because monitoring practices and regulatory requirements provide




relatively complete records for an identified occupational group.




Government data are generally reliable because anomalous or spurious




exposure records are normally investigated and verified.





     Commercial service data, on the other hand, have recognized




weaknesses:









         Unless the service maintains the permanent exposure record of a




         customer's employees, spurious or anomalous records are likely to




         remain uncorrected.









         Raw commercial data may include records based on a customer's




         evaluation of environmental exposures or dosimeter performance




         when no worker is actually exposed.









         In particular, commercial data may be questionably representative




         for occupational categories with low exposures and no regulatory




         reporting requirements.









     Available resources did not permit us to evaluate these weaknesses,




so we used commercial data only if government data were unavailable.
                                     34

-------
     B.  Methods for Summarizing Data









     Two methods were used to project those portions of the radiation work




force not contained in government summaries.  In general, these methods




involved the computation of average doses and number of workers per




radiation facility, licensee, or registrant from commercial data.  Then




based upon the total number of facilities, licensees, or registrants




obtained from other studies, we projected the number of workers and their




collective dose for identified occupational categories.






     List Method






     Except for users of certain exempt radionuclides or radionuclide




quantities, users of radionuclide sources are licensed by the NRG or NRC-




Agreement States.  Users of electronic radiation sources register their




facility with state radiation control programs.   We requested nine state




programs and NRC to list all radiation users according to type of




radiation source and type of industry and occupation.  We then had a




commercial dosimetry service compile exposure data by industry and




occupation for all of its clients appearing on the state and NRC lists.




This produced 75,000 exposure records, collated  into various occupational




categories.  (See Appendix A for comprehensive details of List Method.)






     Code Method






     The commercial dosimetry service began to group and code its clients




into over 50 occupational or facility categories after the List Method




approach had begun.  This permitted a second way to analyze commercial
                                     35

-------
data.  The commercial service then created a statistical summary of its




200,000-record data base by client code, as well as by groups that




corresponded to some categories of the List Method.  However, no




distinction by radiation source was possible with the Code Method.




(Appendix B provides complete details.)






     National Summary Method






         Neither the Code nor List Method generated an accurate summary




for all occupational categories.  We therefore revised each method to




conform to other relevant data, such as personnel resource statistics.




(These revisions and their results are described in Appendices A and B.)




The revised versions of the List and Code Methods also disagreed in some




occupational categories.  We therefore made a "best estimate" summary,




using the results we believed to be most accurate for each category.  The




MEDICINE category estimate is based on the Code Method; the INDUSTRY




estimate on the List Method.  We based the NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE category and




most of the GOVERNMENT category on Federal agency data.  In the




MISCELLANEOUS category, we included educational projections from a




separate EPA analysis; we based transportation projections on the Final




Environmental Statement on the Transport of Radioactive Materials by Air




and other Modes, NUREG-0170 (see Appendix C).









     C.  Radiation Work Force and Exposure Data









     Figure 4 illustrates the relative size and composition of work force




segments and of exposure data used in this report.  The outlined areas are




scaled to the relative number of workers in that segment of the work force,






                                     36

-------
           FEDERAL AGENCY EXPOSURE SUMMARIES
    WORKERS WITH
    MEASURABLE
    EXPOSURES

OCCUPATIONALLY
EXPOSED WORKERS
                                                     EPA COMMERCIAL DATA SAMPLE:
                                                     CODE METHOD:
                                                     LIST METHOD:
TOTAL AREA
INNER AREA
                                                  '/.,,,,,.


                                                  W'SMv'SSi


                                                                                   MONITORED WORKERS
                            WORKERS WITH OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE POTENTIAL
              Figure 4.  SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WORK FORCE  SEGMENTS AND EXPOSURE
                          DATA  SOURCES USED IN THIS REPORT

-------
     Within the set of all ("Total") workers with occupational exposure




potential is the set of all actually exposed workers;  within this is the




set of measurably exposed ("Exposed") workers.  The border of the




occupationally exposed worker set is dotted because the relative size of



this group is uncertain.  The set of monitored workers includes some with




no exposure potential, yet it omits some who are measurably exposed.





     We considered the Federal and commercial data to be separate subsets




(shaded areas) of the monitored worker group.  In the List Method, we used




about 40% of the total available data from the commercial firm.  In the




Code Method, we used almost the entire set of commercial data.
                                     38

-------
             V.  NATIONAL  OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE  SUMMARY FOR 1975




     A.  Occupational Categories




     We have used five major categories:  MEDICINE, INDUSTRY, NUCLEAR FUEL

CYCLE, GOVERNMENT, and MISCELLANEOUS.  Some occupational categories in

this report lack detailed subcategories.  This is because scanty detail

sometimes forced us to present worker exposure by facility type rather

than by specific occupation.  The scope of category detail thus ranges

from specific professional groups to entire industrial sectors.  For

example, we can identify Dentistry, Podiatry and Chiropractic as separate

medical subcategories.  On the other hand, information in the industrial

sector limited us to dividing this large group into three subcategories.

Table 7 describes the categories and their subcategories used in the

national summary.




     B.  Results


     1.  Composition of the Radiation Work Force.



     Table 8 presents our "best estimate" summary of the number of workers

for the national radiation work force in 1975 and their average and

collective doses.


     There were about 1.1 million persons ("total") in the radiation work

force.  About 370,000 persons ("exposed") received a measurable dose.  The
                         .            »
average doses for these populations were 120 and 350 mrem, respectively.
                                     39

-------
                         Table  7.   OCCUPATIONAL  CATEGORIES &  SUBCATEGORIES  USED IN THIS  REPORT
Category/Subcategory
                           Deacription
Summary Method
MEDICINE
     Hospital/Clinic



     Private Practice



     Dental

     Podiatry

     Chiropractic

     Veterinary
Non-Federal occupations involving medical diagnostic or therapeutic use
of naturally occuring, byproduct, accelerator produced radioactive
materials, and/or electronic sources of ionizing radiation.

     Physicians, nurses, technologists, radiopharmacists, and medical physicists
     at large medical facilities and university hospitals (military and Veterans
     Administration hospital/clinics are included in GOVERNMENT category).

     Physicians, nurses, technologists, etc. in private, group, or clinic
     practices smaller than Hospital/Clinic facilities and .generally
     owned privately.

     Dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants.

     Podiatrists and assistants

     Chiropractors and assistants.

     Veterinarians and assistants.
 Revised Code
 (See Appendix B)
 Revised Code



 Revised Code



 Revised Code

 Revised Code

 Revised Code

 Revised Code
 INDUSTRY
      Manufacturing and Distrib.
      of Radiation Sources

      Industrial Radiography
      Industrial  Users  of
      Radiation Sources
Occupations that entail exposure from radionuclide and electronic  sources  in
industry and private enterprise other than the practice of medical sciences.

     Occupations associated with development, delivery, or installation of
     radiopharmaceutical, brachytherapy, and electronic sources  of radiation.

     Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and NRC Agreement State Licensees
     classified as radiographers.

     Users of radionuclide and electronic sources for a wide  variety
     of purposes, including non-destructive testing,  well-logging,
     thickness gauging, etc.
 Revised  List
 (See  Appendix A)

 Revised  List
Revised List
Revised List
 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
      Nuclear Power Reactors

      Nuclear Fuel Fabrication
        & Reprocessing

      Uranium Enrichment
 Includes all fuel cycle occupational activities except  uranium mining.


     Maintenance, operation, and inspection personnel and  transient workers.

     Fabrication, Reprocessing and related occupations.


     Occupations involved in uranium enrichment at  Department of Energy (DOE)
     contractor  facilities.
Principally NRC &
DOE Annual Reports

NRC

NRC


DOE

-------
                                                         Table  7.  (Continued)
Category/Subcategpry
                           Description
      Summary Method
     Nuclear Waste Disposal
     Uranium Mills
     Low Level Waste disposal - government contractor disposal operation
     not included - some waste transportation personnel included.

     Uranium Mill NRC licensees not required to report exposures.
Revised  List
                                                                                                                        Revised List
GOVERNMENT
     Department of Defense
     Government (Federal)
     Department of Energy
Includes occupational exposures at Veterans Administration (VA) and Military
hospitals and Civil Defense facilities.

     Includes exposures to medical personnel in all three services as well as
     Nuclear Navy (Ships and Shipyards) and special nuclear material exposure.

     Veterans Administration (VA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National
     Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Bureau of Standards
     (MBS), etc.

     Researchers and other personnel at DOE and DOE contractor facilities.
Federal Agencies
Army, Navy, and Air Force
VA, NIH, NASA, NBS, etc.
DOE
 MISCELLANEOUS


      Education
Occupational groups involving Education and Transportation.
     Faculty, staff, & students who work with radiation
     sources.  Colleges & Universities included-in "4-year";
     Technical schools and Community colleges included in "2-year" groups.
Code & Resource Data
(Appendix C)

Code & Resource Data
(Appendix C)
      Transportation
     Personnel  involved in transportation of radioactive materials
     by  airlines, railroads, common freight carriers, etc.
NRC & Resource Data
(Appendix C)
 ADDITIONAL GROUPS

      Education - Students


      Transportation - Incidental
      Students  exposed during courses.
      Flight  attendants  on airlines carrying radioactive materials.
Code & Resource Data
(Appendix C)

NRC & Resource Data
(Appendix C)

-------
          Table  8.   NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE  SUMMARY  FOR  1975
Occupational
Subgroup
   Number of
    Workers
Totalb     Exposed0
              Mean Whole-Body       Collective
              Dose (millirem)           Dose
              Total    Expos edc	(person-rems)
MEDICINE
Hospital/Clinic 100,000
Private Practice 137,800
Dental 265,700
Podiatry 10,100
Chiropractic 14,600
Veterinary 18,100
Entire Subgroup 546,300
INDUSTRY*1
Industrial Radiography
Licensees 19,800
Other Industrial Users
Licensees 114,100
Registrants 55,900
Source Manuf. & Distr.
Licensees 7,000
Registrants 4,000
Entire Subgroup 200,800
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Power Reactors 54,763
Fuel Fabrication
and Reprocessing 11,405
Uranium Enrichment 7,471
Nuclear Waste Disposal 300
Uranium Mills 300
55,100
53,300
41,400
2,100
3,700
6,200
161,800
9,700
18,800
16,000
3,900
800
49,200
28,034
5,495
5,664
100
100
220
160
20
10
30
80
90
290
100
110
350
40
130
390
270
50
10
20
400
410
140
30
110
230
320
580
610
370
630
200
520
760
560
70
920
50
22,000
21,700
5,800
100
400
1,400
51,400
5,700
11,400
5,900
2,500
200
25,600
21,400
3,100
400
100
-
  Entire Subgroup
74,200
39,400
340
630
24,900
                                            42

-------
                            Table 8. (Continued)
Occupational
Subgroup
                          Number of
                           Workers
                       Totalb     Exposed0
              Mean Whole-Body       Collective
              Dose (millirem)           Dose
              Total^   Exposed0     (person-rents)
GOVERNMENT
Dept.
Dept.
Other
of
of
Energy
Defense
Federal Govt.
80
92
13
,954
,500
,400
39
55
4
,451
,800
,400
150
110
90
300
180
280
11
10
1
,800
,100
,300
  Entire Subgroup

MISCELLANEOUS

    Education (Faculty):
                      186,800
99,700
120
230
23,100
2-year Institutions
4-year Institutions

Transportation

Entire Subgroup
ALL
WORKERS
1
7
14
77
98
,106
,000
,800
,000
,800
,900
2,
4,
Hi
19,
369,
,300
,900
,800
,000
,100
60e
80e
30
40
120
170
230
200
200
350
1
2
3
128
400
,100
,300
,800
,800
ADDITIONAL GROUPS

    Transportation
      (Flight Attendants;  30,000      10,000
      radionuclides)

    Education (Students):
      2-year Institutions  35,000      11,700
      4-year Institutions  54,800	18,300
                                                   60'
                                                   80e
                                                             10
                         170
                         230
                                         100
                        2,000
                        4,200
  All Additional Groups   119,800
                                   40,000
                50
          150
              6,100
b
c
d
e
f
Extrapolated numbers of workers are rounded to the nearest 100, mean doses to
the nearest 10 mrem, and collective doses to the nearest 100 person-rem.
All monitored and unmonitored workers with potential occupational exposure.
Workers who received a measurable dose in any monitoring period during the year.
"Licensee" means NRC and NRC agreement state licensees for use of radionuclides.
Doses from electronic (e.g., x-ray) sources are also included.  "Registrant"
means state registrants, who have electronic sources only.
These estimated doses are based on small samples that may not be representative.
Persons who are only incidentally exposed or not normally considered workers;
the estimates listed are very uncertain.
                                          43

-------
The "total" workers in the MEDICINE, INDUSTRY, NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE,




GOVERNMENT, and MISCELLANEOUS groups received average doses of 90, 130,




340,  120, and 40 mrem respectively.  The collective dose was about 129,000




person-rems.  Two additional groups, flight attendants and students,




totalled  120,000 persons.  We omitted them from the total radiation work




force because their status, numbers, and exposures were largely uncertain.





     We based many of our worker extrapolations on the number of monitored




persons per facility as reported by commercial data.  We expect that




because of cost considerations, lack of reporting requirements, and other




factors,  these data generally omit workers who receive low radiation




doses.  The exposed but unmonitored worker population could be substantial




in some cases, particularly for low-exposure occupations.  We consider




populations projected from such data to be least estimates.  On the other




hand, we  believe that the commercial data tend to represent larger-than-




average facilities (clients).  When these data are used to set




persons-per-facility ratios, this would bias population estimates upward.




We think  that these factors counteract each other to some extent.







     a.   Average doses considerations.







     The  average doses, above, for "total" workers are based on all




potentially exposed workers, including those who received zero or no




measurable dose.  These average doses are inappropriate when considering




only those workers actually exposed.  We therefore present below a brief




summary for "exposed" workers.





     The NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE category had the largest average dose, at 630




mrem.  The INDUSTRY category had the next largest average dose, at 520 mrem.






                                     44

-------
The MEDICINE, GOVERNMENT, and MISCELLANEOUS categories had considerably




lower average doses:  320, 230, and 200 mrem respectively.  The "exposed"




work force can be divided into two major segments.  One consists of about




90,000 workers (NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE and INDUSTRY) who averaged about 570




mrem/year.  A second, much larger, group numbers about 280,000 workers




(MEDICINE, GOVERNMENT, and MISCELLANEOUS) who averaged about 280 mrem/year.




The latter segment received 60% of the collective dose.







     b.  Distribution of work force and collective dose.







     Figures 5 and 6 illustrate some main features of the summary data.




Figure 5 shows each major category's percentage of the total extrapolated




work force.  The MEDICINE group was the largest, comprising almost half




the work force.  The INDUSTRY (18%) category was second,  followed by




GOVERNMENT (17%) and MISCELLANEOUS (9%).   The NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (7%)  had




the smallest share of the radiation work force.  The shaded areas




represent that portion of the category estimated to have  received a




measurable dose.  The NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE and GOVERNMENT categories had by




far the highest percentage of workers with measurable dose.





     Figure 6 shows the distribution of collective dose by major




occupational category.  The MEDICINE (40%) category had about  double the




nearly equal INDUSTRY (20%), NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (19%), and GOVERNMENT




(18%) shares of the collective dose.







     c.  Dose range distributions.






     Figure 7 shows the projected distribution of the national work force by




dose range according to our data sample of 475,000 workers.  Two-thirds of






                                     45

-------
    (Shaded area shows percent of category that received measurable dose)

                        GOVERNMENT 17%
MISCELLANEOUS 9%
    NUCLEAR
   FUEL CYCLE
        7%
                           MEDICINE 49%
                                                    INDUSTRY 18%
 Figure 5.  DISTRIBUTION OF RADIATION WORK FORCE BY OCCUPATION
                                46

-------
                    NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
                           19%
      GOVERNMENT
          18%
Figure  6.  DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTIVE DOSE BY OCCUPATION
                       47

-------
            3
                 800.000 -
                 700.000
                600.000
                500.000
                400.000
                300,000
                200.000
                100,000
                         66.7%
                              18.8%
                                   5.8%
                                        3.3%
                                             2.4%

                                                                          0-1* 0.01%
                         MM   NM- 0.10-  0.25-  0.6-  1.0-  1.5-   2.0-  3.0-  4.0-  5.0-   12+
                              0.10 0.25   0.50  1.0   1.5   2.0   3.0   4.0  5.0   12.

                                               Dote Range (REM)
Figure  7.   DISTRIBUTION  OF  WHOLE-BODY DOS£  FOR THE  RADIATION WORK FORCE
                                                48

-------
the workers did not receive a measurable dose.  About 85% of the workers




received less than 100 mrem and about 95% less than 500 mrem.  About 0.15%




of the workers received more than 5 rem.





     Table 9 shows the projected distribution of doses by occupational




category.  We found that a greater percentage of exposures exceed 5 reins




for those categories represented by commercial data than in the government




and closely regulated sectors, where data came directly from government




summaries.   We do not know whether this difference is real or an artifact




caused by misrepresentations in the commercial data or government




summaries.   The last column in Table 9 gives the actual  or estimated




percentage of workers in categories for which we had exposure data..







     2.  Extrapolations by Age and Sex for Major Occupational Categories






     Some of the commercial data had age and sex information.  We do not




know how representive it was,  but we had no other age and sex data.   The




following age and sex projections assume that the 120,000 age and sex




coded commercial records were representative for the five major categories




of the radiation work force.








     a. Potentially exposed work force.






     Table 10 shows distribution of potentially exposed  persons ("total"),




extrapolated  by age and sex for the major occupational  categories.




Overall, men outnumbered women 4 to 3.  Women outnumbered men 5 to 3 in




the MEDICINE category.   The number of men and women were fairly close in




the MISCELLANEOUS category, but men outnumbered women in the  three other
                                     49

-------
Table 9.  DISTRIBUTION OF 1975 RADIATION WORK FORCE BY DOSE RANGE AND OCCUPATION
                                   DOSE  RANGE
Category
1
*
1
MEDICINE
Hospital/Clinic
Private Practice
Dental
Chiropractic
Veterinary
Category
Subtotal
Ul
0 INDUSTRY
"Industrial
Radiography
Other Industrial
Manufacturing and
Distribution
Category
Subtotal
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Nuclear Power
Reactors
Fuel Fabrication
and Reprocessing
Uranium
Enrichment
Uranium Mills
Nuclear Waste
Disposal
Category
Subtotal
Less
rhan
teas.8

45.
63.
84.
75.
66.
70.

51.
80.
57.
75.

49.
52.
24.
75.
68.'
47.
Meas.-
0.099

25.
20.
11.
18.
23.
17.

19.
9.5
16.
11.

19.
17.
70.
20.
18.
24.
0.100-
0.249

12.
7.5
2.1
3.7
5.8
5.6

8.5
3.4
11.
4.3

7.5
9.7
3.8
5.0
9.0
7.4
0.250-
0.499

8.0
4.3
0.87
2.5
2.8
3.2

6.4
2.1
4.8
2.7

5.4
9.0
1.4
0.00
5.0
5.5
0.500-
0.749

3.6
1.9
0.34
0.69
1.0
1.4

3.6
1.2
1.9
1.4

3.2
3.8
0.39
0.00
0.00
3.0
0.750-
1.0

2.0
0.94
0.24
0.23
0.64
0.76

2.8
0.62
2.3
0.92

2.5
2.1
0.08
0.00
0.00
2.2
1.0-
1.99

2.9
1.6
0.24
0.23
0.71
1.1

5.6
1.8
2.9
2.2

7.3
3.3
0.08
0.00
0.00
5.9
2.0-
2.99

0.82
0.50
0.09
0.00
0.22
0.33

1.8
0.86
1.2
0.98

3.4
1.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.7
tiem -
3.0-
3.99

0.30
0.22
0.09
0.00
0.09
0.16

0.68
0.54
0.81
0.56

1.3
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.0
4.0-
4.99

0.17
0.14
0.05
0.00
0.12
0.10

0.37
0.25
0.81
0.29

0.77
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
5.0-
5.99

0.07
0.09
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.06

0.23
0.04
0.21
0.07

0.31
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
6.0-
6.99

0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02

0.09
0.03
0.23
0.05

0.11
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
7.0-
7.99

0.02
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.03

0.01
0.05
0.05
0.04

0.04
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
8.0-
8.99

0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01

0.03
0.01
0.00
0.01

0.02
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
9.0-
9.99

0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00

0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02

0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
10.0-
10.99

0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.0-
' 11.99

0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01

0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Percent Whole-Body
of Records As
Total Percent
12+C Work of Extrap.
Force Population

0.04 9.0 89.
0.03 13. 18.
0.00 24. 0.8
0.00 1.3 2.9
0.03 1.6 17.
0.02 49. 22.

0.01 1.8 58.
0.01 15. 9.
0.00 1.0 50.
0.01 18. 16.

0.00 4.9 100.
0.00 1.0 100.
0.00 0.67 100.
0.00 0.03 30.
0.00 0.03 8.
0.00 6.7 99.

-------
                                                                Table  9.   (Continued)
                                                                    DOSE  RANGE
Category
Less
Than
Meas.
GOVERNMENT
Government
Military
Research and
Development
Category
Subtotal
MISCELLANEOUS
Education:
2-yr institution
4-yr institution
Transportation
Category
Subtotal
TOTAL Work Force
Meas.- 0.100- 0.250- 0.500-
0.099 0.249 0.499 0.749
0.750- 1.0-
1.0 1.99
2.0- 3.0-
2.99 3.99
4.0-
4.99
5.0-
5.99
6.0-
6.99
7.0-
7.99
8.0-
8.99
9.0-
9.99
10.0-
10.99
11.0-
11.99
Percent Whole-Body
of Records As
Total Percent
12$ Work of Extrap.
Force Population

67.
40.

51.

47.


67.
67.
85.

81.
67.
17.
43.

29.

35.


22.
20.
8.7

11.
19.
7.9
7.5

8.7

8.0


5.4
6.5
4.4

4.7
5.8
3.6
4.0

4.3

4.1


3.2
3.2
1.5

1.8
3.3
1.6
1.9

2.1

1.9


0.94
1.3
0.43

0.60
1.5
0.62
1.1

1.3

1.1


0.57
0.64
0.16

0.26
0.91
1.3
1.9

2.2

2.0


0.37
1.1
0.13

0.30
1.7
0.28
0.89

0.91

0.86


0.16
0.51
0.07

0.14
0.68
0.17
0.28

0.28

0.27


0.09
0.32
0.00

0.05
0.30
0.10
0.13

0.17

0.15


0.00
0.07
0.00

0.01
0.17
0.05
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.00
0.04
0.00

0.01
0.06
0.03
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.04
0.02
0.01

0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.00
0.02
0.00

0.00
0.03
0.05
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.01
0.01
0.00

0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.00
0.03
0.00

0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.00
0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00


0.01
0.02
0.00

0.00
0.01
1.2
8.4

7.3

17.


0.63
1.3
7.0

8.9
100.0
50.
100.

100.

97.


6.8
25.
3.9

13.
36.
•includes annual  records  reporting 0 mrem/month for all 12 months.

kIncludes annual  records  reporting at least 10 nrem (generally reported detectability  limit)  for at least one month, but less than 100 mrem in total for
   the year.

cPersonnel dosimetry errors may be responsible for a considerable percentage of exposure records exceeding 12 reins.

dPodiatry is included in  Private Practice.

'Extrapolated dose distribution  for waste disposal is based on possibly non-representative  commercial dosimetry data.

-------
                      Table  10.   EXTRAPOLATED DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS BY AGE AND SEX FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS*
Isi
CATEGORY
MEDICINE
Male
Female
INDUSTRY
Male
Female
18-19

6,075
30,117
2,494
1,410
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Male 363
Female 688
GOVERNMENT
Male
Female
MISCELLANEOUS
Male
Female
TOTAL
Male
Female
684
1,481
1,288
4,857
10,904
38,553
20-24

36,414
124,913
20,460
6,145
9,949
2,063
14,008
12,759
11,683
15,840
92,514
161,720
25-29

45,321
68,697
30,291
5,314
17,428
507
24,828
11,735
11,762
8,552
129,630
94,805
30-34

44,461
43,807
30,364
4,518
15,432
543
32,118
7,405
11,468
4,947
133,843
61,220
35-39

26,099
22,624
20,568
2,783
7,515
217
14,123
5,241
6,915
2,523
75,220
33,388
-AGE 	
40-44

dumber———-
20,296
18,200
21,399
3,506
5,228
145
15,262
3,645
4,079
2,165
66,264
27,661
45-49

11,251
11,550
14,640
2,639
5,664
145
10,478
3,190
2,209
1,360
44,242
18,884
50-54

10,191
10,129
15,435
3,181
4,720
109
12,984
5,127
4,258
2,102
47,588
20,648
55-59

5,003
3,868
8,097
1,590
2,468
0
5,125
1,595
859
617
21,552
7,670
60-65

3,378
2,440
4,555
868
1,016
0
4,101
684
644
367
13,694
4,359
66+

973
493
434
109
0
0
227
0
233
72
1,867
674
Total

209,462
336,838
168,737
32,063
69,783
4,417
133,938
52,862
55,398
43,402
637,318
469,582
       *The numbers of work force members  for the occupational categories  and age groups are expressed to  the nearest unit
         for internal arithmetic consistency in this report.  They are  not  significant beyond one or two figures.

-------
categories.  About 65% of the potentially exposed workers were younger




than 35 years old.  Females 20 to 24 years old in the MEDICINE category




alone comprised about one-fourth of all women in the radiation work force.








     b.  Collective dose.









     Table 11 shows the distribution of the collective whole-body dose by




age and sex, extrapolated for the major occupational categories.   Figure 8




illustrates the contribution to the total collective dose by age  group for




men and women.  Men outnumber women in total collective dose by more than 3



to 1.  Figure 9 shows collective dose distribution by age, sex and




occupational category.





     Men received about 19%, 19% and 16% of the  total collective  dose  in




the NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, INDUSTRY, and GOVERNMENT categories, respectively.




Women received only about 3% of the total collective dose in these three




categories combined.  Men and women in the MEDICINE category each accounted




for about 20% of the total.   Women 20 to 24 years old in the MEDICINE




category alone received nearly 8% of the total collective dose.   This  was




the most for either sex in any age group for any activity.   It  primarily



reflected the large number of women in this age  group within MEDICINE.   The




MISCELLANEOUS category accounted for only 3% of  the total collective dose.








     c.  Average whole-body dose.









     Table 12, derived from Tables 10 and 11, shows the average doses  for




all potentially exposed workers ("total") by age group and sex  for the
                                     53

-------
                       Table 11.  EXTRAPOLATED  DISTRIBUTION OF WHOLE-BODY COLLECTIVE  DOSE (PERSON-REMS)
                                                    BY AGE AND SEX  FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS*
in
CATEGORY

MEDICINE
Male
Female
INDUSTRY
Male
Female
18-19



392
1,751

525
32
20-24



4,161
10,047

5,334
432
25-29



5,172
5,014

6,357
491
30-34



6,193
3,186

3,938
74
35-39



2,927
1,858

3,597
41
	 AUt— 	
40-44
r son- reins -

4,249
1,363

1,966
106
45-49



1,159
1,357 .

1,337
21
50-54



895
598

782
35
55-59



370
184

450
16
60-65



230
145

43
22
66+.



124
25

1
0
Total



25,872
25,528

24,330
1,270
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Male
Female
GOVERNMENT
Male
Female
MISCELLANEOUS
Male
Female
TOTAL
Male
Female
172
67

333
77

159
198

1,581
2,125
4,913
174

3,711
457

287
957

18,406
12,067
6,807
26

3,473
475

701
197

22,510
6,203
5,067
9

5,144
286

515
94

20,857
3,649
2,738
3

2,123
389

197
75

11,582
2,366
1,688
3

1,852
105

106
28

9,861
1,605
1,253
1

1,276
20

97
24

5,122
1,423
1,275
0

2,173
34

54
55

5,179
722
555
0

816
14

5
8

2,196
222
149
0

336
0

35
8

793
175
0
0

6
0

0
0

131
25
24,617
283

21,243
1,857

2,156
1,644

98,218
30,582
      *The numbers of person-reins  for the occupational categories and  age  groups  are expressed to the nearest
       unit for internal  arithmetic consistency in this report.   They  are  not  significant beyond one or two figures.

-------
   18.0
   16.0
   14.0
LU
CO

8
Ul
£}  10.0
    8.0
u.
O



2   6-°
u

-------
     Ul
     v>
     O
     Q
     ui
     O
     u
     O

     u.
     O
     111
     u
     cc
     01
     Q.
7.0

 6.0


 5.0


 4.0


 3.0

 2.0


 1.0


 0.0

 5.0


4.0

 3.0

 2.0


 1.0


0.0


 5.0

 4.0


3.0


ZO

1.0

0.0
                                     MEDICINE
                                             •""•'MALE (SUM  =  20.1%)
                                                ~ FEMALE (SUM  = 19.8%)
MISC,
         •••""MALE (SUM  = 1.7%)
         —— FEMALE  (SUM = 1.3%)
                                     INDUSTRY
                                             	'"MALE  (SUM = 18.9%)
                                                rr* FEMALE (SUM =  1.0%)
                   18-19 20-24 25-2930-34 35-39 40-44 45-4950-54 55-59 60-65 66+
                                  AGE RANGE (YRS)
Figure  9.  DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTIVE DOSE BY OCCUPATION, AGE,  AND SEX
                                      56

-------

i
UJ
V)
o
O
UJ
O
UJ
p
o
2
0
H-
u.
O
h-
Ul
u
oc
UJ
Q.


5.0
4.0
3.0

2.0
1.0
0.0

5.0


4.0

3.0

2.0
1.0
0.0
^ NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
/\
/ \
» ^ ii 	 i MALE (SUM = 19.1%)
«£
^ w~~ FEMALE (SUM = 0.2%)
"
.- *"••*>.„
^ m^**^-'^^-^— ^ *'^ i uup

m


m
GOVERNMENT

-------
                           Table 12.  EXTRAPOLATED DISTRIBUTION OF MEAN WHOLE-BODY DOSE (MILLIREM)

                                                BY AGE AND  SEX FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS*
in
00

CATEGORY

MEDICINE
Male
Female
INDUSTRY
Male
Female
r

18-19



60
60

210
20

20-24



110
80

260
70

25-29



110
70

210
90

30-34



140
70

130
20

35-39



110
80

170
10

40-44



210
70

90
30

45-49



100
120

90
10

50-54



90
60

50
10

55-59



70
50

60
10

60-65



70
60

10
30

66+



130
50

0
0

Total



120
80

140
40
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Male
Female
GOVERNMENT
Male
Female
MISCELLANEOUS
Male
Female
TOTAL
Male
Female
470
100

490
50

120
40

140
60
490
80

260
40

20
60

200
70
390
50

140
40

60
20

170
70
330
20

160
70

40
20

160
60
360
10

150
30

30
30

150
70
320
20

120
10

30
10

150
60
220
10

120
10

40
20

120
80
270
0

170
16

10
30

110
30
220
0

160
0

10
10

100
30
150
0

80
0

50
20

60
40
0
0

30
0

0
0

70
40
350
60

160
40

40
40

150
70
      *Values of Mean Whole-Body Dose are rounded  to the nearest 10 millirem.

-------
major occupational categories.  On average, men had twice the radiation




exposure of women, though in some occupations men had four to five times




the exposure of women.  Male workers ages 18 to 24 in the NUCLEAR FUEL




CYCLE and GOVERNMENT categories had the highest average doses of all




workers.  Average doses generally decreased with workers' age in all




categories.









     3.  Calculated Lifetime Dosses









     Neither government nor commercial exposure records furnished lifetime




exposure data.  We roughly estimated average lifetime doses  by assuming




that the average dose/age group distribution given in Table  12 represents




an equilibrium, or unchanging, distribution.  The average lifetime dose




for potentially exposed workers then was the sum of the average annual




dose from age 18 to 65.  So, the average lifetime dose for potentially




exposed ("total") workers from age 18-65 was about 6.7 rem for men and




2.9 rem for women.  The corresponding lifetime dose estimates for




measurably exposed ("exposed") workers was about 20 rems for  men and




8.6 rems for women.








     4.  Average Doses for Established Dose Range Intervals.









     Conforming to 10 CFR 20.407, certain NRC licensees submit annual




reports that give the distribution of workers exposed  in a series of  dose




ranges.  Some other agenpies also use this dose range  scheme  for annual




exposure summaries.  Collective dose and overall average dose can only be




approximated, however, because the summaries omit actual exposure values.






                                     59

-------
     One technique for estimating the collective dose from a dose range

distribution of workers is to assume that the mid-point of each range

approximates the average dose for workers in that range.  The sum of the

products of these midpoints and the corresponding number of workers in each

dose range gives an estimate of the collective dose.  This collective dose

divided by the total number of workers, then provides an estimate of the

overall average dose.  Assumption of the midpoint approximation can produce

large collective dose errots, however, because the distribution of persons

vs. dose range is appreciably skewed toward lower doses (see Figure 7.).


     Since the commercial data did include actual reported doses (to the

nearest 10 mrem), we calculated true average doses for each of the 10 CFR

20.407 dose ranges and compared them with the corresponding midpoint

approximations.  Table 13 gives this comparison.  It shows that the mid-

point approximation can badly overestimate the actual average.  In the dose

range from 0.01 to 0.10 rem, the overestimate was 41%.  Overall, we found a

cumulative difference of +7.5% between the midpoint approximation and the

true mean value of collective dose for workers receiving between 0.01 and

5.0 rem.  The bottom of the table shows that using the midpoint

approximation for the 0-1 rem and larger dose ranges overestimates the

collective dose even more.  This was common practice in early exposure

summaries.
     5.  Contribution to Collective Dose from Doses
         Reported as Less Than Measurable.
     Table 9 shows that 67% of the projected work force received

"less-than-measurable" doses in 1975.  Differences in such factors as
                                     60

-------
            Table  13.   COMPARISON OF TWO COLLECTIVE DOSE ESTIMATES:
                         DOSE RANGE MIDPOINTS VS.  DOSE RANGE MEANS
Dose
Range
(rem)
MIDPOINT AND
MEAN DOSES
Range Range
Midpoint Mean
(rem) (rem)
/.0.01*
0.01 -
0.10 -
0.25 -
0.50 -
0.75 -
1.00 -
2.00 -
3.00 -
4.00 -
0.10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.055
0.175
0.375
0.625
0.875
1.500
2.500
3.500
4.500
0.039
0.157
0.351
0.609
0.856
1.388
2.431
3.469
4.470
Range
Population
(persons)
737,954
207,761
64,174
36,560
17,053
10,029
18,856
7,576
3,360
1,873
COLLECTIVE
Range Range
Midpoint Mean
(person- (person-
rems ) rems )
—
11,427
11,230
13,710
10,658
8,775
28,284
18,940
11,760
8,429
—
8,103
10,075
12,833
10,385
8,585
26,172
18,417
11,656
8,372
DOSE
Midpoint
Excess
(%)
-
41.0
11.5
6.8
2.6
2.2
8.1
2.8
0.9
0.7
Summary for
above ranges
1,105,196    123,213   114,598
7.5
                           BROAD  SUMMARY DOSE RANGES
0.00 -
0.01 -
0.00 -
0.01 -
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.500
0.505
2.500
2.505
0.045
0.148
0.101
0.313
1,073,531
335,577
1,105,196
367,242
536,766
169,466
2,762,990
919,941
48,309
49,665
111,625
114,947
1,011
241
2,375
700
"Doses below 0.01 rem are considered less than measurable.
                                       61

-------
monitoring procedures, detectability limits, and background corrections,




determine which workers are placed in this dose range.  The range generally




includes workers whose dosimeters read something less than 10 mrem in every




monitoring period (typically one month) of the year.  We can examine the




potential contribution to collective dose from those workers estimated to




receive "less-than-measurable" doses.  We will do so by assuming a




log-normal distribution of workers as a function of dose (32,34).





     The possible contribution to collective dose from such workers could




be sizable.  For example, if all such persons averaged a monthly dose of




5 mrem, this would increase the 128,800 person-rems total given in Table 8




by 44,400 person-rems (.005 rem/month x 12 months x 740,000 workers).  The




pronounced skew in the distribution of workers toward lower doses,




however, suggests that the true collective dose contribution from the




less-than-measurables is much less than 44,400 person-rems.





     We fitted the Table 9 data for workers receiving more than 100 mrem




with a log-normal distribution.  Extrapolating this distribution down to




1 mrem, we estimated a possible contribution to collective dose from the




less-than-measurables.  About 86% of the work force received less than




100 mrem and 30% received less than 1 mrem.  For the 56% of workers




between 1 and 100 mrem, we interpolated an average annual dose for 11




approximately equal fractions of 5%.  We then estimated collective dose




from this portion of the work force by summing the products of inter-




polated average dose and corresponding work force number.





     Table 14 presents some details.  The collective dose derived from the




extrapolation for the 10-100 mrem dose range is about 10^000 person-rems,
                                     62

-------
compared to an observed 8,103 person-rents.  This suggests  that  in  this
range actual data account for about 80% of  the estimated collective dose,

For the 1-10 mrem range, we only derive an additional  1800 person-rents
—much less than the midpoint approximation of 44,400  person-rents
suggested above.


Table 14.  DOSE CONTRIBUTION FROM DOSES REPORTED AS LESS-THAN-MEASURABLE
Cumulative
Percent of
Work Force

86-100
80-86 f.
75-80
70-75
65-70
60-65
55-60
50-55
45-50
40-45
35-40
30-35
0-30

Dose
Range
(millirem)

100+
50-100
30-50
20-30
14-20
9.0-14
6.5-9.0
4.5-6.5
3.0-4.5
2.0-3.0
1.5-2.0
1.0-1.5
0.0-1.0

Average
Annual Dose
(millirem)
(See Tables
9,10 & 14)
75.0
40.0
25.0
17.0
11.5
7.75
5.50
3.75
2.50
1.75
1.25
0.00

Number of
Workers

154,920
66,410
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
55,350
332,070
1,106,900
Collective
Dose
(person-rents)

120,697
4,982
2,214
1,384
941
637
429
304
208
138
97
69
0
132,100
     Including log-normal extrapolation for exposures below 100 mrem, we

calculated a total collective dose of about 132,100 person-rents.  This
                /
        j
effectively added only 3,300 to the previous total of 128,800

person-rents, an increase of less than 3%.  This small contribution does

not significantly affect either the collective dose or the average dose
                                                                  X
for the work force.

     One last point concerning "iess-than-measurable" doses:  each

individual's reported exposure is often determined by subtracting some


                                     63

-------
average background value obtained from control dosimeters.  Negative




results are reported as zero.  This creates an upward bias in reported




values that may compensate for the assumption that "less-than-




measurable" doses are zero.  If so, however, this bias in the 10-100 mrem




range would have led us to predict that the observed collective dose




(8,103 person-rems) should be larger than the extrapolated collective




dose (approximately 10,000 person-rems).  That this did not happen could




mean, alternatively, that the log-normal extrapolation is not appro-




priate.  Nevertheless, we conclude from the above considerations that the




potential errors,from neglecting "less-than-measurable" doses are small.








     6.  Extremity Exposures








     One of our initial objectives was to estimate extremity exposures




for the U.S. radiation work force.  We obtained some extremity exposure




data from the commercial dosimetry firm, but could not determine how




representative they were.  (Appendix E gives the distribution.)  Though




we could not devise suitably extrapolated national totals from these




data, we found that approximately half of the records showed no




measureable exposure while less than 0.1% of the records gave exposures




greater than 30 rem.
                                     64

-------
                    VI.  SOURCES OF ERROR AND UNCERTAINTY








     A.  Measurement Error









     Besides uncertainties that our assumptions and extrapolations




introduced, the dosimetry records themselves may contain errors that equal




or exceed those that any subsequent analyses cause.  Monitoring data




actually represent doses to dosimeters; the worker assigned the dosimeter




might receive the same— and might not.  There are several reasons for




discrepancies; for example, the worker is exposed but the dose is




inaccurately measured, or the worker is not exposed but a faulty dosimeter




yields a measurable dose.  In addition, accurate dose measurement is




particularly difficult in mixed fields of gamma, x-ray, and neutron




radiation.





     Some dosimetry data from commercial processors are likely less




reliable than government data as previously discussed in Section V.A.2.




The AEC reached a  similar conclusion after contracting with several



film-badge companies for statistical data on licensees for the years




1966-1971 (54-58).  The inconsistencies between these statistical  studies




and the AEC's own licensee data were serious.





     A recent NRCrsponsored study of personnel dosimeter performance




indicates that many processors would have difficulty passing draft




performance standards proposed by the Health Physics Standards Committee




and tentatively adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
                                     65

-------
as N13.ll (59,60).  In two tests, 22% and 14% of dosimeters were in error



by more than 50%.  Despite poor performances by individual dosimeters,  the



same study showed that the mean value for a large number of dosimeters



probably characterizes average and collective doses for groups of workers



adequately.





     The NRC study showed that the average bias P (where P=(D-D )/D ,



D=reported dose and D =delivered dose) of reported doses (where all D
                     o                                              o


values were less than 10,000 mrem) was:  (a) 0.28 high for low energy



x rays (15-30 kev), (b) 0.17 high for medium energy x rays (30-300 kev),



(c) 0.03 high for cobalt-60 gamma rays (1.2-1.3 Mev), (d) 0.23 high for



Strontium 90 betas, (e) 0.21 low for californium-252 neutrons  (thermal to



several Mev), (f) 0.81 high for photon mixture of Cobalt-60 gamma rays  and



medium energy x rays, (g) 0.15 high for photon and beta mixtures, and



(h) 0.10 low for photon and neutron mixtures.  The corresponding standard



deviation for the above average biases (number of dosimeters in each



category in parenthesis) was, respectively:  (a) 1.6 (2650), (b) 3.6



(4772), (c) 5.3 (3321), (d) 0.53 (1544), (e) 0.48 (1188), (f) 19. (4396),



(g) 0.47 (3096), and (h) 0.68 (1136).  If we assume that all 23,960



dosimeters (including 1857 accident doses in the 10-800 rad range) of  this



study are representative of dosimetry used for the U.S. work force, the




average bias was 0.24 high.  The corresponding standard deviation was  8.7.





     We did not further examine dosimetry performance in this study. We



assumed that all dosimetry data with reported values of less than 12 rem



represent actual exposures.  There was some difficulty with the commercial



data because a considerable number of reported doses greatly exceeded



12 rem. Appendix A discusses the steps we took to minimize this problem.
                                     66

-------
     B.  Dosimeter Misuse









     Personnel dosimeters may be exposed without exposing the assigned




wearer, and vice-versa.  The dosimeter readings would overstate the actual




dose received in the first case and understate it in the second.  Such




occurences are generally unintentional.  Occasionally, however, a




monitored individual may deliberately misuse the dosimeter.   If an




employer pays more for work performed in a radiation field,  a worker might




shield his dosimeter to work longer for more pay.  Or, if the work is




unpleasant—for example, performed in extreme heat and humidity—the




worker might place his dosimeter near a radiation source to  leave the job




sooner.  Both such abuses have occurred.  We cannot say how  frequently




they occurred in 1975.









     C.  Conclusion









     We did not try to examine and measure all errors linked with




personnel dosimetry and work force extrapolations.  The NRC  study of




personnel dosimetry performance leads us to conclude that information on




the number of workers potentially exposed may be better than information




on their actual exposure.  The overall accuracy of the participating




dosimetry services was disappointing, especially since the radiation




sources for each of the eight radiation categories were known (59,60).   We




do not know to what extent the choice of personnel dosimeters is tailored




to the various kinds of radiation to which workers are exposed.   In
                                     67

-------
addition, we know that dosimeter readouts ar_ adjusted differently for




background corrections.





     All of these considerations lead us to conclude that mean and




collective dose values for most categories of occupational workers, as




well as for the entire national work force, are probably known to within




no better than 30%.
                                     68

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.   "Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal Agencies," Federal
Radiation Council—Approved by President Eisenhower (25 F.R. 4402),
May 18, 1960.

2.   "Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection
Standards," Staff Report of Federal Radiation Council, May 13, 1960.

3.   Klement, A.W., C.R. Miller, R.P.  Minx, and B. Shleien, "Estimates of
Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000," United States
Environmental Protection Agency, ORP/CSD 72-1, August 1972.

4.   Hayes, D.F., "A Summary of Accidents and Incidents Involving
Radiation in Atomic Energy Activities; June 1945 - December 1955," U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, TID-5360, August 1956.

5.   "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities, January -
December 1956," Supplement 1 to TID-5360, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
August 1957.

6.   "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities, January -
December 1956," Supplement 1 (Revised) to TID-5360, U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, August 1958.
•
7.   "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities,
.1947-1958," Supplement 2 to TID-5360,  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
August 1959.

8.   "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities,
1959-1960," Supplement 3 to TID-5360,  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
August 1961.

9.   "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities,
1961-1962," Supplement 4 to TID-5360,  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
August 1963.

10.  "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities,
1962-1964," Supplement 5 to TID-5360,  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
August 1965.

11.  "A Summary of Industrial Accidents in U.S. AEC Facilities,
1965-1966," Supplement 5 to TID-5360,  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
August 1967-

12.  "Registry of Information on Personnel Overexposures to Ionizing
Radiation," Second Report, January 1972 - December 1973, U.S.  Atomic
Energy Commission.
                                     69

-------
13.  "Registry of Information on Personnel Overexposures to Ionizing
Radiation," Third Report, January 1972 - May 1974, U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.

14.  Eason, C.F., "First Year's Experience in the Reporting and Recording
of Occupational Radiation Exposure Information in the Central Repository,"
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1350-R1, April 1970.

15.  Eason, C.F., "A Report of the Second Year's Experience in the
Reporting and Recording of Occupational Radiation Exposure Information in
the Commissions Central Repository," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
WASH-1350-R2, December 1970.

16.  "The Centralization of Occupational Radiation Exposure Information,  A
Report by the Assistant for Workman's Compensation and Radiation Records
of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Experience 1970," U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, WASH-1350-R3, 1971.

17.  "Fourth Annual Report of the Operation of the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission's Central Repository of Individual Radiation Exposure
Information," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1350-R4, September 1972.

18.  "Fifth Annual Report of the Operation of the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission's Centralized Ionizing Radiation Exposure Records and Reports
System," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1350-R5, July 1973.

19.  "Sixth Annual Report of the Operation of the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission's Centralized Ionizing Radiation Exposure Records and Reports
System," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1350-R6, September 1974.

20.  "A Compilation of Occupational Radiation Exposures from Light Water
Cooled Nuclear Power Plants 1969-1973," USAEC, WASH-1311, May 1974.

21.  "Seventh Annual Report of Radiation Exposures for AEC and AEC
Contractor Employee - 1974," Energy Research and Development
Administration, ERDA-76/119.

22.  "Eighth Annual Report of Radiation Exposures for ERDA and ERDA
Contractor Employees - 1975," Energy Research and Development
Administration, ERDA 77-29.

23.  "Ninth Annual Report of Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE
Contractor Employees - 1976," U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV-0011/9,
April 1978.

24.  "Tenth Annual Report of Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE
Contractor Employees - 1977," U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV-0066/10,
March 1980.

25.  Brooks, B.C., "Seventh Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report,
1974," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/108,
November 1975.
                                      70

-------
26.  Brooks, B.C., "Eighth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report
1975," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0119, October 1976.

27.  Brooks, B.C., "Ninth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report,
1976," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0322, October 1977-

28.  Brooks, B.C., "Tenth Annual Occupational Radiation Exposure Report,
1977," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0463, October 1978.

29.  Murphy, T.D. and C.S, Hinson, "Occupational Radiation Exposure at Light
Water Cooled Power Reactors, 1969-1974," United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NUREG-75/032, June 1975.

30.  Murphy, T.D., N.J. Dayem, J.S. Bland, and W.J. Pasciak, "Occupational
Radiation Exposure at Light Water Cooled Power Reactors, 1969-1975,"
NUREG-0109, August 1976.

31.  Johnson, L.A., "Occupational Radiation Exposure at Light Water Cooled
Power Reactors, 1976," United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
NUREG-0323, March 1978.

32.  Cool, W.S., "Occupational Radiation Exposure at NRC-Licensed
Facilities," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0419, March 1978.

33.  "Operational Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience within the
United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1943-1970," U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, WASH 1192, Fall 1971.

34.  Wald, N., A.A. Spritzer, and A. Brodsky, "A Pilot Study of Occupational
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation," Graduate School of Public Health,
University of Pittsburgh Report Number 8 (Final Report and Summary),
December 27, 1960 - December 27, 1964.

35.  Miles, M.E. and W.R. Kindley, "Occupational Radiation Exposure from
U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plant and Their Support Facilities,"
Department of the Navy, Report NT-79-2, February 1979.

36.  "Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation," Conference of
Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.  Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, October 1978.

37.  "Expenditures and Basic Needs for Radiological Health Programs in State
and Territorial Public Health Agencies - First Status Report," U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Division of Radiological Health, March 1961.

38.  "Expenditures and Basic Needs for Radiological Health Programs in State
and Territorial Public Health Agencies - Second Status Report," U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Division of Radiological Health, April 1962.
                                     71

-------
39.  "Status Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs -
Fiscal Years 1962 and 1963," U.S. Department of Health,  Education and
Welfare, SAB DOC 460-2-64, July 1964.

40.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1964," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, SAB DOC
460-1-65, May 1965.

41.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1965," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, SAB DOC
460-3-66, June 1966.

42.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1966," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, CCB 67-2,
July 1967.

43.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1967," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, CCB 68-2,
July 1968.

44.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1968," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, BRH/ORO 69-3,
July 1969.

45.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1969," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, BRH/ORO 70-4,
July 1970.

46.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1970," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, BRH/ORO 71-2,
May 1971.

47.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1971," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publications
(FDA) 73-8017,  BRH/OBD 73-6, November 1972.

48.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1972," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publications
(FDA) 74-8004, August 1973.

49.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1973," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publications
(FDA) 75-8006, July  1974.

50.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1974," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publication
(FDA) 76-8017, July  1975.

51.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1975," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DHEW Publication
(FDA) 77-8005, July  1976.
                                     72

-------
52.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1976," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, HEW Publication
(FDA) 77-8034, August 1977.

53.  "Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs - Fiscal Year
1977," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, HEW Publication
(FDA) 78-8034, August 1978.

54.  "A Cumulative Film Badge Readings of Licensee Employees - Statistical
Data for Calendar Year 1966 - Results of Compilation by Four Film Badge
Companies," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, AEC-R 175 - Safety Record of
the Atomic Energy Industry, April 13, 1968.

55.  "Annual Film Badge Readings of Licensee Employees - Results of
Compilations by Four Film Badge Companies for 1967," U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, AEC-R 175/1, September.26, 1968.

56.  "Annual Film Badge Readings of AEG and State Licensee Employees -
Results of Compilation by Three Film Badge Companies for 1968," U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, AEC-R 104/3, February 2, 1970.

57.  "Annual Film Badge Readings of AEC and State Licensee Employees -
Results of Compilations by Two Film Badge Companies for 1969," U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, SEC-R 269, July 23, 1971.

58.  "Film Badge Reading of AEC and State Licensee Employees - Results of
Compilations by Two Film Badge Companies For 1970 and 1971," U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission,  Note to Files: "Film Badge Study Determination" by
B.H. Weiss, June 8, 1973.

59.  NUREG/CR-1064 Performance Testing of Personnel  Dosimetry Services,
USNRC, January 1980.

60.  Plato, Phillip, Progress Report No. 27, Contract No. NRC-01-77-180,
March 1980.

61.  Fess, L.R., "Summary of Diagnostic X-Ray Statistics Relating
Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel by Healing Arts Professions,"
Radiological Health Data, 10:379-380, 1969.

62.  Barrall, R.C. and S.I. Smith, "Personnel Radiation Exposure and
Protection from Tc-99M.Radiations,"  American Association of "Physicists in
Medicine (AAPM), AAPM Monograph No.  1, 1976.

63.  Barrall, R.C., L.H. Lanzl and J.W. Hilbert,  "A Survey of Personnel
Exposure in Nuclear Medicine," Committee on Radiation Protection, American
Association of Physicists in Medicine, August 3, 1975.

64.  "Hospital Statistics," '1975 Edition, American Hospital Association,
Chicago, 1975.

65.  "A Report of the ACR Committee  on Manpower - Manpower II." American
College of  Radiology, July 1977.
                                     73

-------
66.  Ralph Bunge, Bureau of Radiological Health, unpublished data.

67.  "Group Dental Practices in the United States, 1971," DHEW Publication
No. (NIH) 72-189, US GPO, Washington, DC.

68.  "Institutional Characteristics of U.S. Medical Schools 1975-1976,"
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Health Resources
Administration, Bureau of Health Manpower, DHEW Publication No. (HRA)
78-79, May 1978.

69.  Grant, W.V. and C.G. Lind, "Digest of Education Statistics,  1977-78,"
National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, 1978.

70.  "Health Resource Statistics - 1975," U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, DHEW Publication (HRA) 76-1509, 1976.

71.  NUREG-0170 Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of
Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes, O.S.D, USNRC, Dec.  1977,
P4-38.

72.  NUREG-0154 Exposure of Airport Workers to Radiation from Shipment  of
Radioactive Materials, USNRC, January 1977.
                                      74

-------
                                 APPENDIX A
                              THE LIST METHOD
                                                                    Page




I.  INITIAL APPROACH                                                 A-3




          A.  List Methodology                                       A-3




          B.  Extrapolation Techniques                               A-4




II.  INITIAL RESULTS                                                 A-19




III. REVISION OF LIST METHOD                                         A-22




          A.  Population Estimates                                   A-22




          B.  Refining Raw Commercial Exposure Data                  A-25

-------
                                   TABLES
Table                              Title                          Page
A-l  1975 Whole-Body Exposures Sampled from
     Commercial Dosimetry Service                                  A-6

A-2  Description of Activity Categories                            A-10

A-3  Licensee Work Force for Several Categories                    A-12

A-4  Licensee Work Force in Several NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
     Categories                                                    A-13

A-5  Registrant Work Force in MEDICINE Categories                  A-14

A-6  Registrant Work Force in Additional Categories                A-14

A-7  Summary of Source Data Used in List Method                    A-16

A-8  Results of Extrapolations to Total Occupationally
     Exposed Population by Activity                                A-20

A-9  Revised Version for List Method Summary                       A-23
                                   FIGURES
Figure                             Title                           Page
A-l   List Method Flow Diagram  for California:
      An NRC Agreement State                                       A-5
                                      A-2

-------
                            I.  INITIAL APPROACH









     A.  List Methodology




         Most of the exposure data we obtained from Federal agencies were




already categorized by occupation or facility.  The supplemental




commercial data, however, were not separable by occupation but simply




listed by clients' names.  We devised the List Method to select data from




alphabetized lists according to whether the client was an NRC licensee or




only a state registrant.  Additional licensee and registrant information




provided the basis for separation into occupational categories.




     We selected California, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Texas to




represent NRC Agreement States because they contained more than 50% of all




Agreement State licensees.  Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania




represented non-Agreement States.  These latter states had more than 40%




of the non-Agreement State licensees.  We asked the states and NRC for




lists of licensees (users of radionuclides) and registrants (users of




electronic produced ionizing radiation) along with their industry or




occupation.  For Agreement States, we compared the state licensee list to




the NRC licensee list to eliminate duplicate entries from the State list.




     We originally hoped that electronic-source exposures could be




separated from radionuclide exposures in the List Method.  However, since




NRC and NRC State Agreement licensees are required to include all




exposures to workers from both electronic radiation and radioactive




sources, we could not make a clean separation.  We partially separated




these two types of source users by comparing an Agreement State's licensee




and registrant lists and placing the duplicate entries (i.e., both




radioactive-source and electronic-source users) on the licensee






       \                             A-3

-------
list.  This separated out the solely electronic-source users.  Figure A-l




illustrates the separation procedure used for California, an NRC Agreement



State.




     We asked a commercial dosimetry service to compare its client list




with the licensees and registrants listed in each state.  From 30,000




licensee and registrant comparisons, the service matched about 10%.  These




provided a total sample of about 75,000 annual exposure records with




designated occupations.  During this procedure the service removed, as




much as possible, records of badges used for area monitoring and other




non-personnel monitoring purposes.  The service then compiled exposure




summaries for various occupational groups and for age and sex



differentiation.   We used this data to compute average doses and to make




extrapolations for occupational categories of the national work force.




Table A-l gives a summary of the List Method data.  Table A-2 describes




the worker activity categories.








     B.  Extrapolation Techniques



     We used extrapolation techniques for occupational categories where no




Federal summaries existed.  The commercial data provided two key inputs




for these extrapolations:  1) the average number of monitored individuals




per licensee, registrant, or facility, and 2) the average worker dose for




an activity.  We basically estimated the NRC and Agreement State licensee




portion of the national work force by multiplying the number of licensees



by the number of monitored individuals per licensee.  Table A-3 gives data




and results for several occupational categories where no other data or




assumptions were necessary.






                                      A-4

-------
Figure A-l. LIST MET!
CALIFORN
STATE
NOTE: THIS STEP RESTRICTS THE
CALIFORNIA LIST TO AGREE-
MENT STATE LICENSEES ONLY
NOTE: THIS STEP RESTRICTS THE
REGISTRANT LIST TO USERS OF
ELECTRONIC DEVICES ONLY
f
EPA/CALIFORNIA
REGISTRANT
LIST
CATEGORY^iQRA)
3.
CAGEGORYJJjC.RB)
1
COMPARE Ct
. MATCH ®£
fc
APPROPRIATE CODE iLj—
8.
iOD FLOW DIAGRAM FOR
IA: AN NRC AGREEMENT
NRC
LICENSEE
LIST
CATEGORY A.
1
C3J 1 — '
'• CATEGORY B
1
CALIFORNIA
REGISTRANT
LIST
CATEGORY A^
2.
3.
CATEGORY B.
1

3MMERCIAL OOSIMETRY F
CLIENT EXPOSURE D
1 1

COMPARE
MATCH _ _
(ELIMINATE DUPLICATES
FROM STATE LICENSEE LIST
COMPARE
- _ _ MATCH
(ELIMINATE """"""""•
DUPLICATES FROM STATE
REGISTRANT LIST)
ILE _ COMPARE

ICLA
]CRA VAGOATA
TfRA WITH APPROPRIATE
^ COOEl
f SUMMARIZE DATA BY CODE
EPA CALIFORNIA
REGISTRANT
EXPOSURE DATA
1 CATEGORY A iCRAi
2. CATEGORY BiCRBi
L
t
EPA REGISTRANT
EXPOSURE DATA
SAMPLE
1 '
COMBINE WITH DATA FOR OTHFR STATES
•
CALIFORNIA
LICENSEE
LIST
CATEGORY A
1
2
3
• CATEGORY B
1
J I
CALIFORNIA
LICENSEE
LIST
CATEGORY A
3.
: CATEGORY B
1
2
3.
' 1
CALIFORNIA
LICENSEES
ONLY
CATEGORY A
1
•C3) I I
4
'• CATEGORY B.
1
^ I
EPA.C.ALIFORNIA
LICENSEE

1
rfli I "1
CATEGORY iifitS'
1
t
EPA CALIFORNIA
LICENSEE
EXPOSURE DATA
1 CATEGORY A iCLAI
2. CATEGORY B (CLB)
fc|
*
EPA LICENSEE
EXPOSURE DATA
SAMPLE
A-5

-------
Table A-l.  1975 WHOLE-BODY EXPOSURES  SAMPLED  FROM COMMERCIAL DOSIMETRY SERVICE
                                                      Number of

Regulatory
Authority
Agreement
State
Registrants
(California,
Louisiana,
Maryland,
New York,
Texas )










Agreement State
Registrants
Non-Agreement
State
Registrants
(Illinois,
New Jersey,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania )





Activity
Industry

Medical (Private)

Medical (Hospital)

Dental

Veterinary
Education
Government
Chiropractic
Podiatry
Medical (Private)
Medical (Hospital)
Chiropractic
Podiatry
All Medical & Dental

All Activities
Industry

Medical (Private)

Medical (Hospital)

Dental
Veterinary
Education
Government
Total Number
of Workers
in Sample
1,236

871

985

562

241
1,227
62
10
41


1,907

2,469

5,235
1,801

306

728

377
59
587
58
Mean Whole-Body
Dose (milliretn)
(potentially exposed)
70

130

190

60

180
90
20
7
5


160

140

110
150

250

160

10
30
40
30
Workers in
Sample with
Measurable Doses
343

381

558

113

123
191
14
3
7


949

1,062

1,733
467

141

426

43
19
123
10
Mean Whole-Body
Dose (millirem)
(measurably exposed)
260

290

340

320

350
550
80
20
30


320

320

330
580

550

280

80
100
180
150

-------
Table A-l.   (Continued)
                          Number of

Regulatory
Authority
Non-Agreement
State
Registrants
(continued)





Non-Agreement
State
Registrants
All Registrants
(Agreement plus
Non-Agreement
States)




^







All
Registrants
Agreement
State
Licensees


Activity
Chiropractic

Podiatry

Medical (Private)
Medical (Hospital)
Chiropractic
Podiatry
All Medical


All Activities
Industry

Medical (private)

Medical (hospital)
Dental
Veterinary
Educational
Government
Chiropractic
Podiatry
Medical (Private)
Medical (Hospital)
Chiropractic
Podiatry
All Medical

All activities
Industry

Medical (private)
Total Number
of Workers
in Sample
___

13


1,047


1,474


3,929
3,037

1,177

1,713
939
300
1,814
120
10
54


2,954

3,893

9,164
3,888

119
Mean Whole-Body
Dose (millirem)
(potentially exposed)
___

30


190


140


130
120

160

180
40
150
70
20
7
10


170

140

120
210

140
Workers in
Sample with
Measurable Doses
___

4


571


614


1,233
810

522

984
156
142
314
24
3
11


1,520

1,676

2,966
861

69
Mean Whole-Body
Dose (millirem)
(measurably exposed)
___

90


350


330


400
440

360

310
250
310
410
110
20
50


330

320

360
970

240

-------
Table A-l.   (Continued)
                         Number of
Total Number Mean Whole-Body Worker! in
Regulatory of Workers Dose (millirem) Sample with
Authority Activity in Sample (potentially exposed) Measurable Doses
Agreement Medical (Hospital)
State
Licensees Education
(continued)
Government
Medical (Private)
Medical (Hospital)
All of the above
me
1 Licensees (1) Power Reactors
OB
(2) Fuel Fabrication
(3) Fuel Reprocessing
(4) Waste Disposal
(5) Mills
(6) Industrial
Radiography
(7) Manufacturing and
Distribution
(8) Other Industrial
(9) Medical (Private)
(10) Medical (Hosp.)
(11) Education
(12) Government
Activities 4-8
Activities 4-12
2,202
2,117
899
2,321
9.225
2,837
3,795
113
23
90
2,325
1,658
8,385
173
16,219
13,482
2,698
12,481
45,053
210
160
310
210
210
940
80
520
170
15
260
150
310
150
190
110
140
280
190
1,219
440
467
1,288
3,056
1,962
1,162
86
8
23
958
380
1,405
82
9,048
3,614
1,051
2,774
16,569
Mean Whole-Body
Dose (millirem)
(measurably exposed)
390
770
610
380
630
1,370
250
690
480
60
620
640
1,850
330
340
400
370
1,240
500

-------
Table A-l   (Continued)
                         nurnoer 01

Regulatory
Authority
Selected
Agreement
States and
HRC Licensees
contained







Activity

Industry-
Agreement States
and SRC Activities
4-8
Medical (Private)
Medical (Hospital)
Education
Government
Medical (Private)
Medical (Hospital)
Total Number
of Workers
in Sample




16,369
292
18,421
15,599
3,597
18,713


Mean Dose (mrem)
(potentially exposed)




260
150
190
110
190
190

Individuals in
Sample with
Measurable Doses




3,63'
151
10,267
4,054
1,058
10,418


Mean Dose (mrem)
(measurably exposed)




1,180
290
340
440
640
340

All of the above '
selected combinations
Miscellaneous
ERDA

BRH


Research and
Development
Manufacturing and
Distribution
54,278


599

469
190


9

710
19,615


94

98
520


60

3,400

Entire Sample
ALL
77,515
210
29,041
550

-------
             Table  A-2.   DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORIES*
    Activity

    Medical
      Hospital/Clinic
      Private Practice
b.  Dental


c.  Podiatry


d.  Chiropractic


e.  Veterinary
f.  Industrial Radiography
    (Radionuclides)
g.  Other Industrial
    (Radionuclides)
     (Electronic Sources)
h.  Manufacturing & Distribution
     (Electronic  Sources)
i.  Nuclear Power Reactors
 Brief Description

All medical use of electronic and
radionuclide sources of radiation in
hospital/clinic or private practice,
excluding categories "b-e" below.

Use of x-ray machines in the practice
of dentistry.

Use of x-ray machines in the
practice of podiatry.

Use of x-ray machines in the practice
of chiropractic medicine.

Use of x-ray machines in the practice
of veterinary medicine.

Facilities which use radionuclides
purposes of radiography (i.e.,
non-destructive testing).

Facilities which utilize or handle
radionuclides other than categories
"f-m" above, including industrial
R&D.

Industrial facilities which utilize
electronic sources of radiation
(i.e., x-ray machines), other than
category "h" below, including
industrial R&D.

Facilities which produce or
distribute radionuclides for
commercial application
(i.e., radiopharmaceuticals).

Facilities which produce or
distribute electronic sources
of radiation (i.e.> x-ray machines).

All reactors subject to reporting
requirements in 10 CFR 20.
                                   A-10

-------
                           Table A-2 (Continued)
    Nuclear Fuel Fabrication
    and Reprocessing
                        Facilities for the production of fuel
                        assemblies used in reactors and for
                        the chemical processing of fuel from
                        reactors.
k.  Nuclear Waste Disposal
                        Facilities for the handling,
                        treatment, and burial of nuclear
                        radioactive wastes.
1.  Uranium Mills
m.  Uranium Enrichment
                        Facilities for the extraction of
                        uranium oxide from uranium ore.

                        Facilities for the isotopic enrich-
                        ment of uranium.
n.  Government
    (Radionuclides)
    (Electronic Sources)
o.  Military
p.  Research and Development
    Education
                        Use of radionuclides for government
                        functions, including Public Health
                        Service exposures (i.e., civil
                        defense).  VA hospitals included in
                        this category.  Government R&D
                        included in category "p" below.
                        Military included in category
                                                                11 o" below.
*Source:
                        Use of electronic sources of
                        radiation (i.e., x-ray machines)
                        for government functions (i.e., civil
                        defense).  VA hospitals included in
                        this category.  Government R&D
                        included in category "o" below.

                        All Army, Navy, and Air Force
                        exposures to ionizing radiation.

                        Exposures to ionizing radiation from
                        government-sponsored R&D.

                        Use of radionuclide and electronic
                        sources of radiation for educational
                        purposes.  University hospitals
                        included in category "a" above.
Occupational Exposures to Ionizing Radiation Within the
  United States for the Year 1975, Phase II Report, Prepared
  by Teknekron, 'Inc.
                                   A-ll

-------
         Table A-3.   LICENSEE WORK FORCE FOR SEVERAL CATEGORIES
Category
Medicine
Hospital /Clinic
Private Practice
Other Industrial
Education
Workers Monitored
Per Licensee

35.8
6.6
21.0
77.2
Number of
Licensees

3,284
2,022
5,432
829
Number of
Workers

117,567
13,345
114,072
63,999
     The industrial radiography 'category could not be separately




identified in the commercial data.  However, the NRC had 345 industrial




radiography licensees for which 9178 workers were  monitored, representing




an average of 26.6 workers per licensee.  NRC Agreement State data showed




399 facilities but not the number of workers.  We assumed that the number




of workers per licensee derived for just NRC radiography licensees applied




to all such licensees, yielding 26.6 x (345 + 399) = 19,790 total workers.




     The manufacturing and distribution category was treated similarly to




the radiography category, but with additional assumptions.  We again




derived the number of workers per licensee  from NRC data: 3,367 workers




for 307 licensees gives 11.0 workers per licensee.  The number of similar




licensees  in  the Agreement States was unknown.  We assumed that the ratio




of NRC to Agreement State licensees was the same for this activity as it




was for the entire industrial category  (i.e.  2945/3173).  This assumption




yields 330 Agreement State licensees.  These were added to the 307




licensees  to  give a total of (307 + 330) x  11.0 = 7,000 workers.




     Waste disposal and uranium mill licensees are not required to report




their worker  exposure summaries to the NRC.  We estimated these worker
                                     A-12

-------
populations by combining commercial and NRC data as summarized in

Table A-4.
           Table A-4.  LICENSEE WORK FORCE IN SEVERAL NUCLEAR
                         FUEL  CYCLE  CATEGORIES
Category
Waste Disposal
Uranium Mills
Number of
Workers per Facility
(commercial data)
7.7
15.0
Number of
Facilities
(NRC data)
40
17
Number of
Workers
308
255
     We similarly estimated the number of workers in the government

(radionuclide) activity (primarily employed by Civil Defense and Veterans

Administration licensees); 30.3 workers per facility (commercial data)

multiplied by 322 licensees (NRC data) yields 9,757 workers.  Exposure data

from the Bureau of Radiological Health was believed to provide the best

estimate of mean dose for this category.

     For medical categories that used electronic product radiation sources,

we relied on Fess information that related x-ray facilities, equipment, and

personnel (61).  Although the overall number of diagnostic x-ray machines

increased, there appeared to be no major changes to general patterns of

persons operating x-ray machines between 1965 and 1975.  We again

calculated the average number of monitored persons per facility from the

commercial data.  We estimated the number of facilities by dividing the

number of machines reported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by

the Fess number of x-ray machines per facility.  The product of the

estimated workers per facility and the derived number of facilities yielded

the estimated work force.  See Table A-5.
                                     A-13

-------
          Table  A-5.   REGISTRANT WORK  FORCE  IN MEDICINE  CATEGORIES.

              Number of   Machines per  Number of   Workers per  Number of
Activity	Machines	Facility	Facilities    Facility    Workers
Medical
Private
Practice
Hospital/
Clinic
Dental
Podiatry
Chiropractic
Veterinary


40,225

49,632
139,607
4,775
11,566
7,972


1.16

4.53
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.05


34,677

10,956
126,915
4,775
11,566
7,592


3.1

6.0
3.7
3.0
1.7
6.1


107,499

65,736
469,586
14,325
19,662
46,311
     We used the commercial data identified in state registrant lists to

calculate additional populations exposed to electronic product radiation

sources.  The "other industrial" category, which includes industrial

radiographers using only x-ray type sources, had an average of 9.0 workers

per facility.  We estimated 7,390 facilities to be using x-ray devices in

the non-healing arts.  This included educational and governmental as well

as industrial facilities (51).  Based on the combined NRC and NRC

Agreement State licensees for these categories, we estimated that 85%,

11%, and 4% of the 7390 facilities were Other Industrial, Government, and

Education, respectively.  The projected results are given in Table A-6.



         Table A-6.  REGISTRANT WORK FORCE IN ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES

Other Industrial
Government
Education
Persons per
Facility
9.0
8.0
47.7
Number of
Facilities
6,281
296
813
Number of
Persons
56,529
2,368
38,780
     The last remaining activity concerns exposures associated with the

manufacturing and distribution of electronic sources of radiation.  The


                                     A-14

-------
commercial data provided a ratio of 9.0 workers per facility.  When this




was multiplied by an estimated 440 facilities, we obtained a work force




estimate of 3,960 workers.




     The accuracy of the above work force extrapolations, where no




government summaries existed, was dependent on the commercial data




sample.  The size of the commercial data sample for some categories was




uncomfortably small, and we have correspondingly less confidence in those




results.  Table A-7 summarizes the source data from Federal and State




Licensee/Registrant listings.  The numbers of whole-body exposure records




available from the commercial dosimetry sample and government summaries




are given in Table A-7.
                                     A-15

-------
                          Table A-7.   SUMMARY OF  SOURCE DATA USED  IN LIST METHOD*




CATEGORY
MEDICINE
Hospital /Clinic and
Private Practice
Radionuclide sources
Electronic sources
Dental

Podiatry
Chiropractic
Veterinary
SUBTOTAL
INDUSTRY
Number of
NRG and
Agreement
State
Licensees
submitted
for analysis
(Radionuclide
sources)




(1)
	
(1)

(1)
(1)
(1)
2957

Number of
State Reg-
istrants
submitted
for
analysis

(Electronic
sources )
•



	
5560
8619

1050
1833
1628
18690

Number of Whole-Body
Records in Data Sample

Commercial Government
Dosimetry Summary




18713
2890
939

54
10
300
22906

Category Description or Type of
Professional Personnel Involved














Physicians, Nurses, technologists,
technicians and
therapists
Dentists, dental technologists and
assistants
Podiatrists and

assistants
Chiropractors and assistants
Veterinarians &


veterinary assts.


Industrial Radiography
 280
 (2)
2325**
Q178
Manufacturing & Distribution
  Radionuclide sources          240
  Electronic Sources
               (2)
Other Industrial

  Radionuclide sources

  Electronic sources
4025
               (2)
              1658      3367


               469




             12273

              3037
Facilities which use radiation
sources for purposes of radio-
graphy (i.e., non-destructive testing)

Facilities which produce or distri-
bute radionuclides for commercial use
(e.g., radiopharmaceuticals)

Electronic sources of radiation
(e.g., x-ray machine)

Industrial facilities which utilize
electronic and radionuclide sources
not included in the Industrial Radio-
graphy, Manufacturing and Distribution
categories above, or the Nuclear Fuel
Cycle categories below
  SUBTOTAL
4545
2500
 19762     12545

-------
                                               Table A-7.   (Continued)
                                Dumber of     Number of    Number of Whole-Body
                                NRC and       State Reg-   Records in Data Sample
                                Agreement     istrants
                                State         submitted
                                Licensees     for analysis
                                submitted
                                for analysis
                                (Radionuclide (Electronic   Commercial  Government
                                sources)      sources)      Dosimetry   Summary
                                                   Category Description or Type  of
                                                   Professional Personnel Involved  in
                                                   Activity
CATEGORY
  Nuclear Power Reactors
  Nuclear Fuel Fabrication
   and Processing
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Uranium Mills
  Uranium Enrichment
  SUBTOTAL
GOVERNMENT
  Department of Energy
     SUBTOTAL
 EDUCATION
     Radionuclide  sources

     Electronic  sources
220


 18




  9


 14
261
(3)
895
755
(3)
655
               695
            2837**


            3908**




                23


                90
              6858
599**
             15599

              1814
                                                                         54763
           11405
                                        7471
           73639
84940
Department of Defense
Government
Radionuclide sources
Electronic sources
(3)

895
	
(3)

	
655
	

3597
120
81346

2392
	
 4316     168678
   SUBTOTAL
 755
695
17413
            All reactors subject to reporting
            requirements (10 CFR 20)

            Facilities for the production of fuel
            assemblies used in reactors and
            chemical processing of fuel from
            reactors

            Facilities for the handling, treatment
            and burial of radioactive waste

            Facilities for the extraction of
            uranium oxide from uranium ore

            Facilities for the isotope enrichment
            of uranium
Personnel exposed to ionizing radiation
from government sponsored research and
development

Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel

Use of radionuclide and electronic
sources of radiation for government
functions:  Civil Defense,  Public
Health Service, and VA Hospitals
included in this category
                       Use of radionuclide and
                       electronic sources of radiation for
                       educational purposes, University
                       hospitals and clinics are  included
                       in Medicine category

-------
                                                       Table  A-7.   (Continued)









CATEGORY
TOTALS
Number of Number of Number of Whole-Body
NRC and State Reg- Records in Data Sample
Agreement istrants
State submitted
Licensees for analysis
submitted
for analysis
(Radionuclide (Electronic Commercial Government
sources) sources) Dosimetry Summary

9413 22540 71255** 254862
Category Description or Type of
Professional Personnel Involved in
Activity








oo
  (1) Radionuclide sources licensed to Dentists,  Podiatrists,  Chiropractors,  Veterinarians,  Private
Practice and Hospital/Clinic medical practice are included in  the  total  of of 2957.
  (2) No detailed assignment of electronic source registrants  for  the  designated  Industrial  categories.
  (3) Number of radionuclide and electronic sources of radiation not given.
     *Source:  Occupational Exposures to Ionizing Radiation Within the United States  in  the
Year 1975, Phase II Report, Prepared by Teknekron, Inc.
    **Some whole-body records are also contained  in government summary.   Thus,  the  total  number
of records utilized for data analysis is less than the sum of  individual records  contained in
the government summary and commercial dosimetry sample.

-------
                            II.  INITIAL RESULTS








     Table A-8 shows the initial results of the List Method for 24




occupational activities.  The estimated number of workers and'average dose




are given for the "total" workers potentially exposed to radiation and for




the "exposed" workers projected to receive measurable doses.  The summary




shows 1,410,800 "total" and 470,563 "exposed" workers, with mean doses




of 130 and 410 mrem, respectively, and a collective dose of 185,384




person-reins.  The Dental group was the largest single component of the




radiation work force, with about 470,000 persons.  The Other Industrial




(Radionuclides) activity had the largest collective dose, about 32,000




person-reins.  The group with the largest average dose was Manufacturing




and Distribution (Electronic Source).
                                     A-19

-------
   Table A-8.  RESULTS OF EXTRAPOLATIONS TO TOTAL OCCUPATIONALLY EXPOSED
               POPULATION BY ACTIVITY*
Activity
                   Mean Whole-Body  Collective
 Projected Number        Dose           Dose
 of Workers*             (rem)**     (person-rems)
Nuclear Power Reactors
Nuclear Fuel Fabrication
& Reprocessing
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Uranium Mills
Uranium Enrichment
54,763 (28,034)
11,405 (5,495)
308 (105)
255 (65)
7,471 (5,664)
.39
.27
.17
.015
.051
(.76)
(.56)
(.48)
(.06)
(.071)
21,400
3,100
50
4
400
Industrial Radiography
  (Radionuclides)

Manufacturing and
  Distribution
  (Radionuclides)

Other Industrial
  (Radionuclides)

Manufacturing and
  Distribution
  (Electronic Sources)

Other Industrial
  (Electronic Sources)

Medical  (Radionuclides)
  Private Practice
  Hospitals/Clinics
 19,816 (8,165)
  7,000 (3,865)
114,072 (25,330)
  3,960 (825)
 56,529 (15,100)
 13,345 (6,900)
117,567 (65,525)
.30   (.72)
.35   (.65)
.71   (3.4)
,12   (.45)
5,900
2,500
,28   (1.26)    31,900
2,800
6,800
,15   (.29)      2,000
,19   (.34)     22,300
*Number  in  parentheses  is  projected  (or,  in  some  cases, actual) number of
workers  with measurable exposure.

**Number in parentheses is mean whole-body dose for  those receiving
measurable  doses.

^Source:  Occupational  Exposures  to  Ionizing Radiation Within  the United
          States  for  the Year  1975,  Phase II Report,  Prepared  by Teknekron
          Research, Inc.  July 7,  1978.   Several  minor arithmetic
          corrections were made in this  table from the original.
                                     A-20

-------
                               Table A-8.  (Continued)
Activity
                     Mean Whole-Body  Collective
  Projected Number        Dose           Dose
  of Workers*	(rem)**    (person-rents)
Medical (Electronic
  Sources)
  Private Practice

  lospitals/Clinics

Dental

Podiatry

Chiropractic

Veterinary

Education (Radionuclides)

Education (Electronic
  Sources)

Government
  (Radionuclides)

Government (Electronic
  Sources)

Military

Research and

  Development
 107,499  (28,670)

  65,736  (37,760)

 469,586  (78,015)

  14,325  (2,920)

  19,662  (5,900)

  46,311  (21,600)

  63,999  (16,630)


  38,780  (6,710)


   9,757  (4,090)
 .16  (.60)

 .18  (.31)

 .04  (.24)

.010  (.05)

.007  (.02)

 .15  (.32)

 .11  (.42)


 .07   (.4)


 .19  (.46)
  84,940  (40,094)
 .14  (.30)
17,200

11,800

18,800

   140

   140

 6,900

 7,000


 2,700


 1,900
   2,368  (475)         .02  (.11)         50

  81,346  (62,626)***  .095  (.123)     7,700
11,900
TOTAL
1,410,800  (470,563)    .13  (.41)    185,384
*Number in parentheses is projected number of workers with measurable
exposure.

**Number in parentheses is mean whole-body dose for those receiving
measurable doses.

***Number of workers with measurable exposure is relatively large because
Navy did not use a less-than-measurable range.

+ERDA enrichment workers have been eliminated from the Research and
Development activity to form the Uranium Enrichment category.  Visitors to
ERDA facilities have also not been excluded.
                                    A-21

-------
                        III.   REVISION OF LIST METHOD








     The List Method findings shown-in Table A-8 resulted from a purely




systematic approach: multiplying numbers of facilities by numbers of




persons per facility and multiplying the resulting extrapolated




populations by average doses to obtain collective doses.  In reviewing




these results, we found that the sizes of some professional work force




groups were much larger than estimates by professional associations.  We




also questioned the representativeness of some of the commercial dose data.




     Table A-9 is a revised version of the List Method summary.  The




results are re-grouped into five major categories:  MEDICINE, INDUSTRY,




NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, GOVERNMENT, and EDUCATION.  Population and collective




dose estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 persons and 100 person-rems,




respectively, while average dose*9 are rounded to the nearest 10 mrem.








     A.  Population Estimates




     Two of the initial population estimates in MEDICINE (Table A-8), for




Dental and Veterinary, were considerably larger than estimates from




corresponding professional associations.  The persons-per-client ratio




used from the commercial data was probably larger than the true ratio,




because larger facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to




provide personnel monitoring.  This would lead to an overestimate of the




work force size.  We brought  the Dental population into closer agreement




with American Dental Association data by replacing the 3.7 persons per




facility derived from the List Method sample by a 2.5 value from age-only




records of the commercial sample.  Our assumption here is that records
                                     A-22

-------
Table A-9.  REVISED VERSION FOR LIST METHOD SUMMARY
                                       Mean
Activity
MEDICINEd:
Hospital/Clinic
Licensees
Registrants
Private Practice
Licensees
Registrants
Dental
Podiatry
Chiropractic
Veterinary
SUBTOTAL
INDUSTRY*1:
Industrial Radiography
Licensees
Industrial Users
Licensees
Registrants
Manufact. & Distrib.
of Radiation Sources
Licensees
Registrants
SUBTOTAL
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE:
Nuclear Power Reactors
Nuclear Fuel Fabrication
& Reprocessing
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Uranium Hills
Uranium \ Enr i chment e
SUBTOTAL

Extrapolated
Population
Total Exposed
117,600
65,700
13,300
107,500
342,700
14,300
19,700
22,800
703,600
19,800
114,100
55,900
7,000
. 4,000
200,800
54,763
11,405
300
300
7,471
74,200

65,500
37,800
6,900
28,700
56,900
2,900
5,900
10,800
215,400
9,700
18,800
16,000
3,900
800
49,200
28,034
5,495
100
100
5,664
39,400
A-23
Whole-Body Dose
(millirem)
Total Exposed
190
190
160
100
30
10
-
200
90
290
100
110
350
40
130
390
270
310
20
50
340

340
330
300
370
170
30
10
420
290
580
610
370
630
200
520
760
560
920
50
70
630

Collective
Dose
(person-rems)
22,100
12,500
2,100
10,600
9,900
100
100
4,500
62,000
5,700
11,400
5,900
2,500
200
25,600
21,400
3,100
100
400
24,900


-------
                             Table A-9.   (Continued)
Activity
     Extrapolated
     Population
   Total     Exposed
               Mean
         Whole-Body Dose
            (millirem)
         Total   Exposed
                  Collective
                      Dose
                 (person-reins)
GOVERNMENT ;
                    g
Department of Energy

Department of Defense
 SUBTOTAL
   80,954
   92,500
39,451
55,800
150
110
300
180
  185,700
99,900130
11,800
10,100
Other Government
Licensees
Registrants

9,800
2,400

4,100
500

170
30

400
120

1,600
100
EDUCATION :
Licensees
Registrants
SUBTOTAL
64,000
38,800
102,800
16,600
6,700
23,300
80
70
70
290
380
320
4,900
2,600
7,400
TOTAL
1,267,100   427,200    110
                 340
                  143,500
Q
  The left column is  the projected  or  actual "total" number of radiation
workers in each activity.   The  right column is  the  projected number  of
"exposed" individuals who  receive a measurable  dose.

  The mean doses correspond to  the  populations  in the  first two  columns.

  The collective dose is the product of  the extrapolated  "total" population
and  the corresponding mean dose.  The  mean dose for those "exposed"  is  the
quotient of  the collective dose and the  extrapolated "exposed" population.
Collective dose values  are rounded  to  the nearest 100  person-rem while  mean
doses are rounded to  the nearest  10 mrem.  The  total and  subtotal values  of
collective dose were  obtained from  non-rounded  subcategory activities before
rounded.

  "Licensee" refers to  NRC and  NRC  agreement  state  licensees for use of
radionuclides.  Because of NRC  monitoring requirements, dose to  these workers
from electronic radiation  sources is also included. "Registrant" refers  to
state registrants, who  have only  electronic radiation  sources.
A
  Populations are exact for these primarily research and  development
activities since complete  records on the entire workforce are  available.

  Mean whole body dose  value based  on  Analysis  of Burial  Ground  Operational
Exposure Experience (Table III, Appendix H) of  NUREG-0216, The Environmental
Survey of the Reprocessing and  Waste Management Portions  of the  LWR  Fuel
Cycle, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  Commission, March 1977.
                                       A-24

-------
with age information correspond to actual persons and not to area type




monitoring.  This decreased the dental population estimate by about




125,000 persons.  Based on data from the American Veterinary Medical




Association, we decreased the Veterinary to about half.  The revised List




Method population is thus 1.26 million "total" with about 427,000




"exposed".









     B.  Refining Raw Commercial Data




     The average doses calculated from commercial data were much higher




for some occupations than those given by government summaries for the same




activities.  We examined the commercial data and found 70 out of 75,000




records with exposures in the 12+ rem range.  The government data




contained only 3 out of 250,000 records in the 12+ rem range.  We found




that 25% of the total collective dose from the commercial data was due to




the 70 reported doses of more than 12 rem.  Furthermore, the average dose




for these 12+ rem records was over 40 rem; two records in the industrial




radiography category accounted for over 1300 rem.  We concluded that the




raw commercial data contained anomalous records.




     We examined several methods for eliminating anomalous records in the




commercial data base.  One method was to establish a dose limit beyond




which records would be considered erroneous, and therefore deleted.  But,




such a limit would be arbitrary.  Morever, it was likely that some 12+ rem




records in the commercial data were accurate.




     We found that 85% of the collective dose for records over 12 rem




occurred in records that di'd not have birthdate data.  Assuming that




clients are more likely to "spike" dosimeters or monitor high radiatiot




areas with dosimeters not actually assigned to workers, and that these






                                     A-25

-------
dosimeters are less likely to have birthdate coded records, we




recalculated average doses after eliminating non-birthdate coded records




over 12 rem.  Non-birthdate coded records under 12 rem were not eliminated




because comparison of average doses for birthdate and non-birthdate coded




records under 12 -rem agreed to within a few millirem.  Although this




correction method does not assure an accurate data base, we believe it




provides more reliable information than do summaries based simply on the




raw commercial data.




     We obtained a 15% overall reduction in average dose for the




commercial data by omitting the non-birthdate coded records over 12 rem.




The largest changes in average dose occurred in the Manufacturing and




Distribution (Electronic Sources) and Other Industrial (Radionuclide)




categories.  The average doses for the "total" and "exposed" populations




for the former activity were reduced from 710 to 40 mrem and 3,400 to




200 mrem, respectively.  The "total" and "exposed" averages for the Other




Industrial category, which included the two records totalling 1300 rem,




fell from 280 to 110 mrem and from 1,260 to 440 mrem, respectively, with




an associated decrease in collective dose of 19,400 person-rems.




     The combination of smaller population sizes and average doses in the




revised summary decreased the estimated collective dose for the work force




from about 185,000 to about 142,000 person-rems.  The total population




decreased from 1.41 to 1.26 million workers.  Despite improvements, we




concluded that the List Method still generally overestimated population




sizes.  For the INDUSTRY category, however, we believe that the population




extrapolation from the List Method is superior to the Code Method given in




Appendix B.
                                     A-26

-------
                               APPENDIX B
                             THE  CODE METHOD
                                                                     Page
  I.   INITIAL APPROACH                                              B-3




 II.   INITIAL RESULTS                                               B-4




III.   REVISION OF CODE METHOD                                       B-8




       A.   Bias of Commercial Data                                  B-8




       B.   Category Revisions                                       B-9




            1.   Medical                                             B-9




                 a.   Hospital                                       B-9




                 b.   Private Practice                               B-10




            2.   Academic                                            B-13




            3.   Government                                          B-13




            4.   Industry                                            B-13




            5.   Nuclear Fuel Cycle                                  B-14




 IV.   REVISED CODE METHOD RESULTS                                   B-15

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                          Title                                   Page


B-l  Initial Code Method Exposure Summary                              B-5


B-2  Workers Potentially Exposed in the Healing Arts to
     Electronic Ionizing Radiation Sources in 1975                     B-ll


B-3  Revised Code Method Occupational Exposure Summary for 1975        B-l6
                                     B-2

-------
                            I.  INITIAL APPROACH
     In the Code Method we used about 200,000 exposure records from a



commercial dosimetry service to represent occupations not included in



Federal summaries.  This was possible because the commercial data could be




sorted and summarized according to an occupational classification system




developed by the dosimetry service after we started to use the List Method




approach.  This is in contrast to the List Method; after matching clients




with licensee and registrant lists from nine states and the NRC, we could




only classify 75,000 of the service's whole-body exposure records.



     As with the List Method, we calculated the average number of persons



per facility and the average dose for monitored workers from the commer-




cial data to extrapolate to national figures.  Since the Code Method




results are based on the entire data base of the commercial firm, we




cannot release the intermediate work force calculations without




compromising proprietary marketing information.  We therefore present the



initial Code Method population estimates without explicitly showing their




derivation.




     We again found that some worker estimates based on persons-per—



facility ratios did not agree with personnel resource data of professional




groups.  These will be treated in Section III on Revision of Code Method.
                                    B-3

-------
                            II.  INITIAL RESULTS








     We divided the commercial dosimetry data into seven major groups:




Hospital, Private Practice, Academic, Industrial, Services, Utilities,




and Government.  Within these seven groups there were 52 client code




categories.




     Table B-l shows the initial Code Method exposure summary by group and




category.  We have added a Federal Summaries section to the table for




government occupational groups that do not generally use commercial




dosimetry services.  There is no need to attempt extrapolations of these




groups from limited commercial data, because most government agencies have




complete personnel exposure summaries.




     Based on the Code Method, there were 1.4 million persons in the 1975




radiation work force, with about 460,000 exposed; they received average




doses of 100 and 310 mrem respectively and a total collective dose of




about 140,000 person-reins.  These population figures are very close to




those for the unrevised List Method (Table A-8).  Since the List Method




extrapolations were also based on persons-per-facility ratios derived from




a subset of the Code Method data, this might be expected.  However, this




excellent overall comparability is not reflected in some occupational




groups.  For example, the nuclear power plant data in the Code Method




projects a population of only 8,700 persons; we used the 55,000 reported




by NRC in the List Method.  The Dental group is projected at- almost




515,000 persons, 45,000 higher than the initial List Method results.  We




therefore found it necessary to modify these Code Method results to




provide agreement with personnel resource data.
                                     B-4

-------
            TABLE B-l.  INITIAL CODE METHOD EXPOSURE  SUMMARY FOR  1975
Occupational
  Group
Description
 Extrapolated
 Population3

Total	 Exposed
  Mean Whole-
  Body Dose'3
  (millirem)
Total    Exposed
 Collective
   Dosec
(person-reins)
* HOSPITALS *
Gen. Med. & Surgical
Inst. (Prison, college)
Psychiatric
T.B. or Respiratory
Other specialties
Childrens Specialties
Universities (not infirm)
Subtotal
* PRIVATE PRACTICE *
Physician
Dental
Veterinarian
Osteopathic
Chiropractic
Radiologists
Cardiologists
Specialists(urology,etc. )
Medical X Ray
Med. Labs, blood banks, etc.
Sanitariums ,nurs .homes , etc
Subtotal
* INDUSTRIAL *
Manufacturing-General
Metals/Metal Products
Forge
Electronic Eqp& Appliances
Instruments/Gauges

120,000
530
2,870
110
3,600
1,830
25,150
154,090

137,380
513,590
34,120
3,160
29,170
14,660
450
11,900
6,270
6,250
. 2,770
759,720

29,980
26,120
740
41,180
13,980
Office Equipdncl. computers) 2,750
Oil Prod.& Refineries
Mining
Trans p/Farm Eqp.
Aerospace
Rubber /Plastic Products
Chemicals
Drugs/Pharmaceuticals
2,580
940
11,470
.7,130
3,770
12,170
2,900

72,000
210
600
40
1,150
550
10,310
84,860

50,830
80,120
11,600
840
7,330
8,800
140
3,770
3,620
1,270
1,470
169,790

6,300
8,620
320
9,060
2,100
200
250
360
3,210
6,270
130
800
410

250
60
20
60
50
50
130
220

160
20
80
50
30
180
10
70
300
60
80
60

60
120
330
90
40
-
10
20
90
110
-
10
10

420
140
100
160
160
170
310
400

450
140
230
180
110
290
40
220
520
280
150
270

290
360
770
400
240
30
100
50
340
130
100
170
70

30,360
30
60
10
180
90
3,170
33,900

22,650
11,300
2,660
150
820
2,580
-
840
1,890
360
220
43,480

1,800
3,090
250
3,580
490
10
30
20
1,080
800
10
130
30
                                       B-5

-------
                             Table B-l. (Continued)
Occupational
  Group
Description
     Extrapolated
     Population3

    Total	Exposed
  Mean Whole-
  Body Dose^
  (millirem)
Total   Exposed
       Collective
         Dosec
      (person-reins)
Radiopharmaceuticals
Food Proc./Bev/Tobacco
Nuclear Fuels
Construction
Engineers /Consultants
Research/Res. Labs & R&D
Ind. Radiographers, etc.
Plant Med. Facility
Foundry /Castings
Subtotal
* SERVICES *
Insurance
Transportation/ freight
Airport Security
Resale/Dist.X-Ray Eqp.
Subtotal
* UTILITIES *
Nuclear Power Plants
Conventional Power, etc.
Subtotal
* GOVERNMENT *
Federal
State
Local
Subtotal
* ACADEMIC *
University or college
Jr. or Comm. college
Grade, high or private
Tech . (nursing^mechj etc . )
Subtotal
6,550
860
4,390
700
4,450
17,740
17,890
3,600
2,240
214,130

600
20,150
5,280
15,060
41,090

8,630
430
9,060

1,630
3,800
2,850
8,280

49,260
4,800
200
2,380
56,640
2,420
260
1,800
200
1,600
3,370
10,200
430
400
58,710

20
3,220
630
5,870
9,740

5,350
140
5,490

210
1,140
770
2,120

14,290
2,160
20
760
17,210
110
80
30
150
210
120
550
40
80
120

_
30
10
130
60

840
60
810

10
40
190
90

80
60
-
60
70
300
250
70
530
590
610
960
330
460
430

20
190
60
340
270

1,360
200
1,330

90
140
720
350

260
120
-
180
240
730
70
120
110
940
2,060
9,790
140
190
25,440

_
600
40
2,020
2,660

7,270
30
7,290

20
160
550
730

3,740
260
-
140
4,140
 Non-Federal Total
1,243,010   353,380
 90
330
117,640
                                       B-6

-------
                              Table B-l.   (Continued)
 Occupational
   Group
 Description
       Extrapolated
       Population3

     Total   Exposed
  Mean Whole-
  Body Dose**
  (millirem)
Total    Exposed
        Collective
          Dosec
       (person-reins)
FEDERAL SUMMARIES:
Uranium Enrichment (DOE) 7,471
Military 92,500
Veterans Administration 7,000
Research & Develop. (DOE) 80^54

5,664
55,800
2,300
39,451

50
110
150
150

70
180
460
300

380
10,070
1,050
11,780
   Subtotal
  187,925   103,215
 120
230
 23,290
TOTAL
1,430,935   456,595
 100
310
140,930
a The left column is the projected or actual "total" number of potentially
exposed individuals in each activity.  The right column is the projected  or
actual "exposed" number of individuals who received a measureable dose.

k The mean doses correspond to the populations in the first two columns.

c The collective dose is the product of the extrapolated total population and
the corresponding mean dose.  The mean dose for those exposed is the quotient of
the collective dose and the extrapolated exposed population.  Collective  dose
values are rounded to the nearest 10 person-rein, while mean doses are rounded to
the nearest 10 mrem.  The Total and Subtotal values of collective dose were not
obtained from rounded individual subcategory activities.
                                        B-7

-------
                        III.   REVISION OF  CODE METHOD









     The major drawback to use of the detailed occupational breakdown of




exposure data in the Code Method was  lack of corresponding detailed work




force estimates.  Therefore, we recombined code categories to levels where




work force data were available.  These levels were basically the NRC




program code description for its special and byproduct licensees, and the




registration classification used by state radiological health programs for




electronic radiation sources.  These.occupational groupings were also used




in the List Method, but in that approach we generally based extrapolations




on information derived  from the commercial data.  In the revised Code




Method, we relied even more on published information of professional




manpower and institutional studies.









     A.  Licensee and Registrant Data




     The NRC, with Agreement State data included, biannually summarizes




the number of licenses.  The NRC has  10 licensee categories for byproduct




material use:  academic; private practice; other medical; measuring




systems; manufacturing, distribution  and service; radiography; irradi-




ators; research and development; civil defense; and others.  The Food and




Drug Administration annually compiles information from states on the




number of registered electronic sources of ionizing radiation-, i.e., x-ray




machines and particle accelerators.   These annual reports provide the




number of diagnostic medical x-ray units in the following types of




facilities:  hospital,  clinic, x-ray  truck, physician, chiropractor,




veterinarian, podiatrist, and others.
                                     B-8

-------
     B.  Category Revisions




     1.  Medical




     a.  Hospitals




     The number of diagnostic x-ray machines in hospitals and other types




of facilities are documented in the annual "Report of State and Local




Radiological Health Programs."  Data for 1975 showed about 42,500 x-ray




machines for hospitals (51).  We multiplied this number of machines by the




number of occupationally exposed workers per x-ray machine, determined in




the Fess study, to give an estimate of 47,000 workers.  This does not




include workers exposed to radionuclide sources.




     Two studies of personnel exposures in nuclear medicine indicated an




average of 7.2 workers for 47 hospitals averaging 561 beds (62,63).  In




1975, approximately 3,200 hospitals/clinics had diagnostic radioisotope




capability (32).  We therefore estimated that approximately 23,000 workers




were exposed as a result of diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures.  From




1975 hospital statistics, we find approximately 1,800, 1,400, and 1,000




hospitals had therapeutic radioisotope, radium therapy, and cobalt therapy




facilities, respectively (64).  We assumed that the average number of




workers per hospital for each of these radionuclide uses was the same as




that for nuclear medicine, yielding approximately 30,000 additional




workers.  This gives a total of 100,000 workers exposed from all uses of




radiation in hospitals.




     The earlier estimate of 157,000 persons occupationally exposed in




hospitals (Table B-l) was considerably larger than the 100,000 determined




here.  In that estimate we assumed that:  (1) the number of dosimeters




used by each commercial customer equals the number of potentially exposed
                                    B-9

-------
workers, and (2)  hospitals using the commercial service are




representative of all U.S. hospitals.  We believe the latter assumption to




be the weakest.  Small hospitals will tend to have the minimum necessary




radiation sources with little or no personnel monitoring.  Hospitals using




a dosimetry service are likely to be larger than average and have more




workers involved with each type of radiation source.








     b.  Private Practice




     To estimate the amount of radiation exposure in private medical




practices, we followed an approach similar to that used for hospitals.  In




1975, physicians, clinics, and others (including x-ray vans but excluding




academic or educational devices) had approximately 43,380, 9,360 and 3,990




diagnostic machines, respectively, for a total of 56,730 (51).  Assuming




1.16 x-ray machines per facility (61), we obtain 48,905 facilities in




total.




     A report of the American College of Radiology Committee on Manpower




stated that 11,283 active, non-Federally employed, radiologists practiced




in 1974-75 and  that, of these, 10,583 practiced in diagnostic or




therapeutic radiology  (65).  There were 6,985 radiologists in 1,058 group




practices (6.6  radiologists per group).  We assumed the remaining 3,598




radiologists to be solo practitioners.  This yielded a total of 4,656




practices or facilities.  The 4.29 persons-per-radiology facility provided




by Fess yielded 19,970 radiologists  and associated workers.  We similarly




used the Fess data to revise the estimates of other potentially exposed




worker populations in the healing arts as shown in Table B-2.
                                    B-10

-------
        Table B-2.   WORKERS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED IN THE HEALING ARTS TO
                   ELECTRONIC IONIZING RADIATION  SOURCES  IN  1975
Group
Radiologists
Physicians
Dentists
Chiropractors
Veterinarians
Podiatrists
TOTAL
Number of
Units3
56,730d
146,140
12,370
8,520
5,050

Units per
Facility
1.16
1.10
1.00
1.05
1.00

Number of
Facilities
4,656C
44,249e
855
12,370
8,114
5,050

Workers per Number of
Facility Workers
4.29
2.33
2.00
1.18
2.23
2.00

19,970
103,100
265,700
14,600
18,100
10,100
431,570
aReport of State and Local Radiological Health Programs Fiscal year  1975
(51).  Data for New Jersey estimated from 1974 and 1976 Reports.
Therapeutic x-ray machines are included.
bFess statistics on diagnostic x-ray utilization (61).
cPersonnel resource data from the American College of Radiology (65).
"Includes units for physicians, clinics, and other (e.g., nursing homes).
eRadiology facilities must be subtracted from physicians' facilities,
hence 56,730 divided by 1.16 equals 48,905 minus 4,656C equals 44,249.
     There also would be potentially exposed workers for the 2,040 private

practice licensees of the NRC and Agreement States.  We believe that few,

if any, of these licenses were assigned to dentists.  Many would be held

by radiology clinics; the remainder would be distributed among specialty

and other large practice clinics.  Using the 7.2 persons per facility

found by Barrall and Smith (62), there would be 14,700 additional medical

workers exposed to radiation.  Thus, we projected that about 446,300 total

medical workers are potentially exposed to radiation in private

practices.  This total is much smaller than the 773,000 workers projected

solely from the commercial exposure data (Table B-l) and without benefit

of professional manpower studies.
                                    B-ll

-------
     The combined total of the revised estimates for the hospital and




private practice categories yielded about 545,000 persons, as opposed to




the 930,000 based on projections from the commercial dosimetry service




data.  The Revised Code Method total is similar to a recent FDA estimate




of the number of medical radiation workers (559,000) in 1978 (66).




     The largest discrepancy between unrevised and revised Code Method




worker projections occured in dentistry.  The Fess data gave two exposed




workers per x-ray facility whereas the commercial data yielded




approximately four.  The extrapolated number of dental personnel from




these two estimates was 265,700 and 513,590, respectively.  According to




Fess, there was an average of 1.10 dental x-ray machines per facility and




1.09 machines per practitioner (61).  This indicates that most facilities




are solo practices where either the dentist or dental assistant takes the




radiographs.  We would expect, therefore, that in the average dental




practice only two people are occupationally exposed to radiation.




     The assumption of two radiation workers per dental facility is




supported by another study of health personnel resources which identified




3,148 dentists practicing in 715 dental groups (67).  The study showed




that in 1973, on average, approximately two auxiliary persons were




employed for each dentist in these group practices.  Only 1.5% of these




auxiliaries were designated as x-ray technicians; 61% were dental




assistants and hygienists; and the remaining 37.5% were primarily




secretarial and receptionist support.  Thus, even in group practices,




there are likely just two and at most three persons potentially exposed




per dentist, including the dentist.
                                    B-12

-------
     2.  Academic
     The estimate of potentially exposed workers for the academic group in
Table B-l included students.  Our only revision here to the original Code
Method estimates was to eliminate grade schools, high schools and private
preparatory schools.  However, neither the revised Code Method nor the
revised List Method provided a satisfactory approach to the Education
category.  Therefore, we made a separate analysis of education data
(Appendix C) for the 1975 Exposure Summary given in Table 8.


     3.  Government
     The principal change in the Government grouping for the revised Code
Method was to combine some Federal Summaries data with code projections
for other Federal, state, and local governments.  The latter projection of
8,280 persons was added to the estimated 7,000 persons of the Veterans
Admininstration to give a total of 15,300 workers.  The exposure
statistics for Government Research and Development came from the DOE (see
Appendix D).  Data for U.S.  Army, Navy, Air Force and Department of Energy
personnel and contractors came entirely from exposure summaries compiled
by these agencies.  These data covered all occupational exposure
activities, including research and medical.


     4.  Industry
     The "Industry" group of the commercial dosimetry data contained 22
separate codes and comprised about 15% of all customer institutions and
18% of the number of monitored workers.  However, data for the 22 codes
                                    B-13

-------
could not be exploited, since the number of NRC and NRC Agreement State




licensees was known only for the Industrial Radiography code.  We treated




this subgroup separately by assuming that there were twice as many x-ray




radiography facilities as there were NRC radiography licenses.




     The commercial exposure data for the remaining 21 industry codes were




combined and assumed to be a representative sample for the entire Industry




group.  We added the number of all other NRC and NRC Agreement State




industrial licensees to the number of non-medical x-ray and accelerator




facilities to obtain an upper estimate of the total number of remaining




"Industry" facilities.  We assumed that each accelerator or x-ray unit




represented a facility.  The total number of workers projected for "Other




Industrial" and "Manufacturing and Distribution" categories was 196,240.




The Services group from the initial Code Method provided the remaining




entry in the Industry category.  We eliminated the Insurance subgroup from




this group, since the estimated exposure per person was less than 1 mrem.








     5.  Nuclear Fuel Cycle




     We placed the utilities group of the intial Code Method in the




Uranium Fuel Cycle group, since it is basically documented by the NRC.




The NRC maintains complete summary data for nuclear power plants and




nuclear fuel sources and reprocessing.  The subcategory of Uranium




Enrichment is documented by the DOE.
                                    B-14

-------
                      IV.  REVISED CODE METHOD RESULTS









     The Occupational Exposure Summary for 1975 that we estimated with the




revised Code Method is given in Table B-3.  Five major occupational




categories were used:  MEDICINE, INDUSTRY, NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE, GOVERNMENT,




and EDUCATION.




     We could not make estimates for nuclear waste disposal and uranium




mills in the Code Method.  However, we estimated only 600 persons and 8




person-rems in the List Method for these two activities.




     The extrapolated work force and collective dose determined by the




revised Code Method were, respectively, 12% and 8% less than the




corresponding values from the revised List Method.  This is primarily due




to the substantially reduced number of estimated workers in the medical




and educational categories.   Since these two categories have lower mean




exposures than the entire work force average, the percentage decrease in




collective dose is less than the percentage decrease in work force.




Consequently, the overall average doses for the "total" and "exposed"




populations increases slightly.
                                    B-15

-------
                                   Table B-3.
                              REVISED CODE METHOD
                     OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE SUMMARY FOR 1975
Category
    Extrapolated
    Population3
Total      Exposed
      Mean
Whole-Body Doseb
   (millirem)
Total    Exposed
Nuclear Pwr Reactors  54,763

Nuclear Fuel Fabri-
cation & Reproc'g     11/405

Nuclear Waste Disp.
Uranium Mills
            28,034    390
            760
             5,495    270       560

          (Extrapolations not  feasible)
 Collective
     Dosec
(person-reins)
MEDICINE:
Hospital/Clinic
Radionuclide &
Electronic Sources
Private Practice
Radionuclide &
Electronic Sources
Dental
Podiatry
Chiropractic
Veterinary
SUBTOTAL
INDUSTRY:

100,000 55,100 220


137,800 53,300 160
265,700 41,400 20
10,100 2,100 10
14,600 3,700 30
18,100 6,200 80
546,300 161,800 90


400


410
140
30
110
230
320


22,000


21,700
5,800
100
400
1,400
51,400

Industrial Radiography
Radionuclide &
Electronic Sources
Other Industrial
Radionuclide &
Electronic Sources
17,890 10,200 550



AND 196,240 48,510 80
Manufacturing & Distr.
Radionuclide &
Electronic Sources
Services
SUBTOTAL
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE:

40,490 9,720 60
254,600 68,400 110

960



330

270
410

9,800



15,900

2,600
28,300

   21,400


    3,100
                                      B-16

-------
                             Table B-3.  (Continued)
Category
      Extrapolated
      Population3
  Total      Exposed
               Mean
         Whole-Body Dose**
            (millirem)
         Total    Exposed
 SUBTOTAL

EDUCATION:
  188,800
99,700
130
  Radionuclide &
  Electronic Sources  56,440
240
              17,200
            70
         240
                   Collective
                       Dosec
                  (person-rems)
Uranium
Enrichment
SUBTOTAL
GOVERNMENT:
Government
Radionuclide &
Electronic Sources
Military
Res. & Dev.
7,471
73,600



15,300
92,500
80,954
5,664
39,200



4,420
55,800
39,451
50
340



120
110
150
70
630



400
180
300
400
24,800



1,800
10,100
11,800
23,600
            4,100
TOTAL
1,119,800    386,300
           120
          340
          132,200
aThe left column is the estimated total number of potentially exposed
individuals in each activity.  The right column is the estimated number of
individuals who received a measureable dose.  The Total and Subtotal values
are rounded to the nearest 100 persons.
     mean doses correspond to the populations in the first two columns.  The
mean dose for those exposed is the quotient of the collective dose and the
extrapolated exposed population.  Mean doses are rounded to the nearest 10
mrem.

cThe collective dose is the product of the extrapolated total population and
the corresponding mean dose.  Collective doses are rounded to the nearest 100
person-rem.
                                      B-17

-------
                               APPENDIX C









                  ANALYSES OF MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORIES




                         AND ADDITIONAL GROUPS
I.  EDUCATION DATA                                                  C-3




    A.  Students                                                    C-3




    B.  Faculty and Staff                                           C-5




II. TRANSPORTATION                                                  C-7

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                               Title                             Page
C-l  Annual Number of Students Enrolled in Radiation
     Related Courses                                                   C-A

C-2  Faculty Work Force                                                C-6

C-3  Occupational Exposures Resulting from Transport
     of Radioactive Materials                                          C-8
                                     C-2

-------
                             I.  EDUCATION DATA








     We revised the education data because both the List and Code Methods




included students in the education work force.  In general, students are




not considered radiation workers.  We decided that the education




contribution to the radiation work force should include only faculty




members, radiation safety officers, and certain students (i.e., those




reimbursed for duties involving radiation outside the normal scope of




their curriculum—for example, teaching assistants and research grant




participants).  Students are therefore shown separately in Table 8 under




ADDITIONAL GROUPS.








     A.  Students




     Students are potentially exposed to radiation in courses in medical




and medico-technical schools and in some courses in liberal arts




universities (includes colleges).  Data for medical school enrollment




taken from the report "Institutional Characteristics of U.S. Medical




Schools 1975-1976" (68) are shown in Table C-l.   We assumed that




undergraduate and graduate students in medical programs enrolled in




courses having radiation exposure potential 30% of the time.  Therefore,




the annual number of potentially exposed medical students was about 43,300.




     For universities, we assumed that the number of Bachelors degree




recipients in science.fields in any year represented 13% of the




undergraduate students in .these fields, since the national average for all




disciplines was 13% (69).  We assumed that all students enrolled in the
                                    C-3

-------
 Table C-l.  ANNUAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN RADIATION RELATED COURSES*

                                                        Estimated Potentially

Educational
Program
MEDICAL
MD
Dentistry
Veterinary
Chiropractic
Osteopathy
Podiatry
Subtotal

UNIVERSITY
Nuclear Engineer
Rad. Technician
Nuclear Physics
Dental Specialist
Radiobiology
Subtotal
General Physics
General Chemistry
Subtotal
MEDICAL
TECHNICAL
Dental Assistant
Dental Hygienist
Radiological Tech.
Subtotal
TOTAL
Total
Under-
graduate

51,000
19,400
6,000
4,700
2,800
1,800
85,800
Under- ,
graduate
3,200
2,000
700
600
0
6,500
2,600d
4,200
6,800


8,700
9,500
16,800
35,000
134,100
Students

Graduate

35,000
13,300
4,100
3,200
1,900
1,200
58,700

Graduate
2,100
200
100
1,400
100
3,900
1,100
700
1,800


—
-
-

64,400


Total

86,100
32,700
10,100
7,900
4,700
3,000
144,500

Total





10,400


8,600


8,700
9,500
16,800
35,000
198,500
Exposed Students
Under-
graduate Graduate Total







25,700a 17,600a 43,300







6,500 3,900 10,400


2,000a 500a 2,500





35,000 35,000
69,200 22,000 91,200

a Assume 30% of students enroll in radiation related course in any year.
b Assume B.S. graduates represent 13% of all undergraduate students.
c Assume M.S. and Ph.D. graduates represent 20% of all graduate students.
<* Assume 10% of Physics majors enroll in radiation courses 30% of the time.
e Assume 5% of Chemistry majors enroll in radiation courses 30% of the time.

  *Based on data from "Digest of Education Statistics 1977-78," (69).
                                     C-4

-------
first five university disciplines listed in Table C-l were potentially




exposed each year.  We assumed that only 10% of Physics majors and 5% of




Chemistry majors were enrolled in courses involving radiation each year.




The total number of potentially exposed undergraduate and graduate




students at universities was 12,900.




     We assumed that all students at medico-technical schools were




potentially exposed each year of their two-year programs (70).  We assumed




there were no graduate students at these facilities.  The total number for




these medico-technical school students was 35,000.




     The total number of potentially exposed students for the so-called




four-year (medical and university) and two-year institutions were 56,200




and 35,000, respectively.  We used the average dose determined in the Code




Method (Table B-l) for students in the National Summary (Table 8).








     B.  Faculty and Staff




     We arbitrarily assigned faculty/staff and student/faculty ratios for




the different type educational institutions.  Based on the student




population given in Table C-l, the number of faculty and staff were



determined to be approximately 7,000 for two-year institutions and 14,800




for four-year institutions, for a total of 21,800 workers (see




Table C-2).  We used the average dose determined in the Code Method




(Table B-l) for the Faculty entry in the National Summary (Table 8).
                                     C-5

-------
Table C-2.  FACULTY WORK FORCE INVOLVED IN RADIATION-RELATED PROGRAMS
                                        Educational Institution


Undergraduate Students
Student/Faculty Ratio
Undergraduate Faculty
Graduate Students
Student/Faculty Ratio
Graduate Faculty
Faculty Subtotal
Associated Staff/Faculty
Associated Staff
Faculty & Staff Subtotal

Medical
25,700
10:1
2,570
17,600
5:1
3,520
6,090
Ratio 1:1
6,090
12,180

University
8,500
20:1
430
4,400
10:1
440
870
2:1
1,740
2,610
Technical
Medical
35', 000
10:1
3,500
—
—
—
3,500
1:1
3,500
7,000
TOTAL Faculty Work Force
21,800
                                       C-6

-------
                             II.   TRANSPORTATION









     Transportation was the second .entry in the MISCELLANEOUS category.




Many radioactive material shipments are low in radioactivity and do not




require licensed shippers and handlers.  Thus, not all radioactive




material transport firms appear on NRC licensee lists.  Some data were




available from the Code Method, but these did not agree well with




estimates from NRC's Final Environmental Statement on the Transport of




Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes (NUREG-0170) (71).  This NRC




report provided dose data but not work force figures, so we roughly




estimated the latter (Table C-3).




     The first column of Table C-3 shows the estimated number of




potentially exposed crew and handlers associated with each transport




mode.  We derived these worker estimates by dividing collective dose




estimates by corresponding estimated average doses.  For the passenger




aircraft transport mode, the estimated average dose of 10 mrem/yr was




taken from NUREG-0154 (72).  The average doses for Truck, Rail and




Secondary Modes, and Other Transport Modes, relied on the NUREG-0170




report.  We estimated about 77,000 persons in this work-force.  See




MISCELLANEOUS Subgroup in Table 8.




     We separately estimated that there were about 30,000 airline flight




attendants (pilots not included) who potentially receive extremely low




average doses from radioactive material on passenger aircraft.  Exposure




to cosmic radiation was not included.  We assumed that the ratio of




potentially-to-measurably exposed workers was 3 to 1, the same as for the




entire radiation work force.  See ADDITIONAL GROUPS entry in Table 8.
                                     C-7

-------
             Table C-3.  OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES RESULTING FROM
                          TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
             Potentially Exposed     Estimated
Estimated
Transport Work
Mode (Crew and
Passenger and Cargo
Aircraft
Truck
Rail
Other
Secondary
Modes
Subtotal
Passenger Aircraft
(Flight Attendants)
TOTAL
Force
Handlers)
47,000

15,000
4,000
1,000
10,000

77,000
30,000
107,000
Mean Annual Dose
(millirem)
iob

70
25
10
70

30
3
20
Collective Dose
(person-reins)
470

1,050
100
10
700

2,330
100C
2,430
asource: NUREG - 0170, (72).
bSource: NUREG - 0154, (73).
cExcludes dose from cosmic radiation.
                                     C-8

-------
                APPENDIX D
TABULATED SUMMARIES FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table              Title                                             Page


D-l  U.S. Air Force Exposure Data                                     D-2

D-2  Army Personnel Monitored During the Calendar Year 1975           D-4

D-3  Bureau of Radiological Health, 1975 Exposure Data by Age         D-5

D-4  Distribution of Annual Whole-Body Exposures for All ERDA
     Employees 1975                                                   D-6

D-5  National Aeronautic and Space Administration Data                D-7

D-6  National Bureau of Standards Personnel Monitored During the
     Calendar Year 1975                                               D-8

D-7  Statistical Analysis of Navy Radiation Exposure Data for
     Calendar year 1975                                               D-9

D-8  National Institutes of Health (NIH) Repository Data 1975         D-10

D-9  Nuclear Regulatory Commission Repository Data                    D-ll

D-10 Uranium Miner Exposures                                          D-12

D-ll U.S. Naval Shipyard Exposure Data                                D-13

D-12 Radiation Exposure Information in U.S. Navy BUMED System         D-J4
                                     D-2

-------
                  Table D-l. U.S. AIR FORCE EXPOSURE DATA
       SUMMARY OF  IONIZING RADIATION EXPOSURE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
           AS  COMPILED  FROM THE  USAF MASTER RADIATION REPOSITORY
                   USAF OEHL BROOKS AFB TX OCTOBER 1979
                             NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN EXPOSURE GROUP
                                  (MILLIREM PER YEAR WHOLE-BODY)
OCCUPATIONAL
CATEGORY
MEDICAL MAINT.
X-RAY TECHNICIAN
RADIOLOGIST
MEDICAL MISC.
DENTAL
VETERINARY
PHYSICIAN NUCLEAR MED.
TECHNICIAN NUCLEAR MED.
PMEL
INDUSTRIAL RADIOISOTOPES
INDUSTRIAL X-RAY
RADAR
SPECIAL WEAPONS
NUCLEAR REACTORS
RAD. MISC.
AF CONTRACTORS
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
MAINT. MISC.
DISASTER
HEALTH PHYSICS
ALL OTHER
0-
20
364
1614
170
1279
3181
329
29
180
1345
212
1875
293
538
2
214
33
1
489
371
424
1305
21-
50
29
116
13
94
203
29
1
9
85
17
124
20
26
-
18
-
-
31
24
32
70
51-
100
15
49
5
46
139
13
2
8
55
8
77
16
21
-
8
4
-
27
11
10
64
101-
250
12
31
6
18
54
5
-
2
28
5
45
10
12
-
7
1
-
14
5
3
28
251-
500
3
5
2
4
g
-
-
-
2
1
4
2
2
-
1
-
-
1
2
1
3
501-
1000
_
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
1001-
5000
_
1
1
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

MORE
THAN
5000
_
-
-
—
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
—
-
-
-
—
-
"
TOTALS
14248   941   578
286
41
                                  D-3

-------
          Table D-2.  ARMY PERSONNEL ANNUAL EXPOSURE DATA FOR
                              THE CALENDAR YEAR  1975*
Whole-Body
Exposure Range
(rem)
No Measurable Exposure
Meas. Exp. Thru 0.099
0.100 Thru 0.249
0.250 Thru 0.499
0.500 Thru 0.749
0.750 Thru 0.999
1.000 Thru 1.999
2.000 Thru 2.999
3.000 Thru 3.999
4.000 Thru 4.999
5.000 Thru 5.999
6.000 Thru 6.999
7.000 Thru 7.999
8.000 Thru 8.999
y.OOO Thru 9.999
10.000 Thru 10.999
11.000 Thru 11.999
12.000+
Number of
Personnel
9310
5932
414
171
75
24
30
6
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
Collective
Dose
(person-reins)
0
117.5
64.2
67.9
46.5
21.6
40.1
14.5
6.3
4.2
0
13.4
7.0
8.1
0
10.4
0
0
*Private communication from Col. Robert Wangemann, Feb. 8, 1980.
                                 D-4

-------
         Table D-3.  BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH,  1975 EXPOSURE DATA BY AGE




        NUMBER OF PERSONS MONITORED BY ANNUAL EXPOSURE RANGE AND AGE GROUPINGS
AGE
RANGE
UNDER 18
18 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60-64
65 AND
OVER
10
(mrem)
1

92
200
209
136
100
67
35
24
10
37
10-99 100-249 250-499 500-749 750-999
(mrem) (mrem) (mrem) (mrem) (mrem)
3
4
98
272
280
185
119
102
87
55
16
65
1

13
17
38
22
19
17
12
5

4


1 1
1 1 1
7 2 1
6 2
5 1
7 1

1
1 1
1
1000+
(mrem) TOTAL
5
4
205
1 493
2 539
2 353
1 245
194
134
85
28
107
TOTALS
911
1286
148
30
2392
                                          D-5

-------
Table D-4.   DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL WHOLE-BODY  EXPOSURES FOR ALL ERDA  EMPLOYEES  1975
                                 EXPOSURE RANGES (REMS)
FACILITY
TYPE
REACTOR
1800
FUEL FAD
FUEL PROC
URAN ENRCH
WEAPON FET
IRRAD FACL
GEN RESRCH
ACCELERATR
OTHER
VISITORS
ERDA OFFCS
TOTAL
TOTAL
MONITR
3812
1050
1865
7471
19425

33769
7384
11479
58946
2170
147371
ME AS.
1082
74
285
1807
11579

19430
5002
2340
54190
1711
97500
<0.10
882
519
619
5236
4365

9242
1161
6055
3764
376
32219
0.10
0.25
427
190
245
282
2341

2453
446
876
750
51
8061
0.25
0.50
427
155
224
105
594

1184
247
651
157
23
3767
0.50
0.75
258
55
140
29
224

510
135
343
40
5
1739
0.74
1.00
146
27
108
6
113

330
79
253
20
2
1084
1-2
299
25
170

181

484
177
503
21
2
1868
2-3
238
5
61

24

118
72
235
4

757
3-4 4-5
50 3

13

4

14 3
46 18
106 117


233 141
                                                  3-4  4-5  5-6 6-7  7-8  8-9 9-10  10-11
             TOTAL
11-12  12+ Person-Ferns
                                                                                                     225

                                                                                                     793

                                                                                                     383

                                                                                                    1435



                                                                                                    3034

                                                                                                    1076

                                                                                                    3375

                                                                                                    462

                                                                                                     44

                                                                                                  12627

-------
                               Table D-5.   NATIONAL AERONAUTIC AND  SPACE ADMINISTRATION  DATA
                                                 Distribution  of Annual Whole Body Exposure*
                                                                    1975
Covered
Categories

Research
Activities
Total No.
Personnel
Monitored
 1,410
                                                               Exposure Ranges (Rem).
Less
Than
Measurable'
 1,136
Less
Than
0.10
205
0.10   0.25   0.50   0.75
0.25   0.50   0.75   1.00   1-2   2-3   3-4   4-5   5-6    6-7   7-8   8-9   9-10   10-11   11-12
 48
Covered
Categories
Total No.
Personnel
Monitored

   63
Less
Than
Measurable

   41
                                                 Distribution of Extremity Exposures
                                                                    1975
Less
Than
0.10

 18
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.50
                                                               Exposure Ranges (Rem)
0.50
0.75
0.75
1.00
1-2   2-3   3-4   4-5   5-6   6-7   7-8   8-9   9-10   10-11   11-12
*Astronaut exposures not included.

-------
Table D-6.  NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS PERSONNEL ANNUAL EXPOSURE
                      DATA FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1975
Whole-Body
Exposure Range
(rem)
No Measurable
Exposure
Meas. Exp. Thru 0.099
0.100 Thru
0.250 Thru
0.500 Thru
0.759 Thru
1.000 Thru
2.000 Thru
3.000 Thru
4.000 Thru
0.249
0.499
0.749
0.999
1.999
2.999
3.999
4.999
Number of
Personnel
203
139
28
13
5
4
1
0
0
0
Collective
Dose
(person-rems)
0
4.293
4.662
4.287
2.932
3.528
1.580
0
0
0
                                D-8

-------
  Table D-7.  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF NAVY RADIATION EXPOSURE
                        DATA FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1975
Exposure Range (rein)

  .000-.099

  .100-.249

  .250-.499

  .500-.749

  .750-.999

 1.000-1.999

 2.000-2.999

 3.000-3.999

 4.000-4.999

 5.000-5.999

 6.000-6.999

 7.000-7.999

 8.000-8.999

 9.000-9.999

10.000-10.999

11.000-11.999

12.000+


Total Personnel Monitored
Number of Records

     43266

      3961

      2335

      1104

       660

      1159

       558

       117

        80

         0

         0

         0

         0

         0

         0

         0

         0


     53240
                              D-9

-------
Table D-8.  NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) EXPOSURE DATA - 1975
Dose Range
(rem)
Measurable
.10
.10 to .25
.25 to .50
.50 to .75
.75 - 1.00
1-2
2-3
3-4
Whole-Body Exposure
(persons)
2,004
130
28
7
7
3
2
1
1
Extremity Exposure
(persons)
241
46
6
1
3
0
1
2
1
    Total  Monitored         2,183                        301
                                D-10

-------
                                Table D-9.   NUCLEAR REGULATORY  COMMISSION REPOSITORY DATA
                                       DISTRIBUTION OF  ANNUAL WHOLE-BODY  EXPOSURES
                                          REPORTED BY COVERED LICENSEES - 1975
Covered
Categories
Exposure Ranges (Ren)

o
h— i
t-i


of NRC Total Ho.
Licensees Monitored
Power
Reactors 54763
Industrial
Radiography 9178
Fuel Processing
& Fabrication 11405
Manufacturing
& Distribution 3367
Totals 78713
Less than Measurable 0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75
Measurable -0.10 -0.25 -0.50 -0.75 -1.00 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 >12
26729 10606 4081 2948 1778 1384 3982 1873 692 424 169 60 24 12 0 1 00
4485 1811 813 614 346 263 538 171 64 35 21 8 1 3 1 2 1 1
5910 1968 1102 1021 433 241 381 153 77 40 30 11 9 14 15 0 00
1508 644 532 241 88 67 140 65 43 39 11 12 3 0 1 0 0 0
38632 15029 6528 4797 2645 1°55 5041 2262 876 538 231 91 37 29 17 3 1 1

-------
                    Table D-10.  URANIUM MINER EXPOSURES
Total
Employment
3,344
Average
Exposure
1.07 WLM
Miners having exposure in
indicated intervals, percent
0-1 WLM
56.5
1-2 WLM
23.5
2-3 WL,
12.4
3-4 WLM
6.1
4 WLM
1.4
Source:  Mine Enforcement and Safety Administration,  "Administration
         of the Federal Metal and Non-Metallic Mine Safety Act
         (P.L. 89-577), Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior -
         1975."
                                  D-12

-------
             Table D-ll.  U.S. NAVAL  SHIPYARD EXPOSURE DATA*
            Number of Persons Monitored
              in Shipyards - By Year


1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
Navy
Yards
10849
10659
10208
10244
10101
9543
12886
15748
16489
16926
19727
21550
18946
13182
9560
7650
6434
2107
1974
2816
708
0
0
0
0
Private
Yards
4135
5064
4765
4419
5056
5799
7313
8177
9434
12744
13324
14084
17228
15025
16133
12252
9486
11626
10394
8076
5290
3608
2862
2679
528

Total
14984
15723
14973
14663
15157
15252
20199
23925
25923
29670
33051
35634
36174
28207
25693
19902
15920
13733
12368
10892
5998
3608
2862
2679
528
Total Radiation in Shipyards
	(person-rems )	
                                                          Private
                                                          Yards   Total
                                                  2714
                                                  3728
                                                  3490
                                                  3820
                                                  4931
                                                  3826
                                                  4792
                                                  7328
                                                  6946
                                                  6776
                                                  6149
                                                  9730
                                                 11791
                                                 11135
                                                  3495
                                                  1821
                                                  4631
                                                    74
                                                   681
                                                  1425
                                                    14
                                                     0
                                                     0
                                                     0
                                                     0
              966
             1471
             1820
             1465
             2275
             2257
             2210
             3288
             6138
             4301
             2570
             4178
             7013
             4694
             2183
              904
              591
             1167
              477
              439
              765
              495
              162
              344
               64
 3680
 5199
 5310
 5285
 7206
 6083
 7002
10616
13084
11077
 8719
13908
18804"
15829
 5678
 2725
 5222
 1241
 1158
 1864
  779
  495
  162
  344
   64
*Source:  Private communication from W.R.  Kindley,  September 27,  1979
                                   D-13

-------
 Table D-12.  RADIATION EXPOSURE INFORMATION IN U.S.  NAVY BUMED SYSTEM*
   YEAR                   TOTAL NUMBER OF                 TOTAL MAN-REM
                        PERSONNEL MONITORED
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
12105
15372
21179
28718
35108
40690
49243
56220
55476
54911
51818
54468
56361
51079
54056
55962
55934
57056
2,657
1,642
6,446
5,671
8,777
16,411
17,075
15,509
10,879
12,128
10,527
12,206
8,504
8,340
8,923
7,988
7,628
7,665
*Source: Communication from Vice Admiral W.P. Arentzen, Surgeon General
 of the Navy, January 22, 1979.
                                   D-14

-------
       APPENDIX  E
COMMERCIAL EXTREMITY DATA

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                       Title                                     Page
E-l  Distribution (Percent) of Commercial Sample Extremity Data by
     Dose Range                                                       E-3
                                     E-2

-------
Table  E-l.  DISTRIBUTION (PERCENT) OF COMMERCIAL SAMPLE
             EXTREMITY  DATA BY DOSE RANGE (REM)
Dose Range
(rem)
Less than
Measurable
Meas - 0.99
1.00 - 4.99
5.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 14.99
15.00 - 19.99
20.00 - 29.99
30.00 - 39.99
40.00 - 49.99
50.00*
Distribution
(%)
49.1

35.6
13.4
1.3
0.25
0.14
0.16
0.022
	
0.045
Total Records in Sample - 13,382.
                                  E-3
                                                     •US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1981 341-082/148 1-3

-------