This document is available on the
 

Department of Energy
 

REMS Program Web Site at:
 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/
 
 

Foreword
 Foreword

A core value of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure the health and safety of DOE 

employees, contractors, and subcontractors. The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) provides the 

corporate-level leadership and strategic vision necessary to establish clear expectations for, and provide 

oversight and enforcement regarding health, safety, environment, and security programs. In support of 

this mission, the HSS Office of Analysis provides for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data 

and performance indicators, such as occupational radiation exposure information. 

A key safety focus for DOE is to maintain worker radiation exposures below administrative control levels 

(ACL) and DOE radiation dose limits and to further reduce these exposures to levels that are “as low 

as reasonably achievable (ALARA).” The annual DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

provides an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection dose limits and ALARA process requirements 

and an overview of the status of radiation exposures of the DOE workforce. In addition, this report serves 

as a risk management tool for managing radiological safety programs and provides useful information 

to DOE organizations, epidemiologists, researchers, and national and international agencies involved in 

developing policies to protect individuals from harmful effects of radiation. 

The Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS) program remains a key component of HSS oversight 

and analysis to inform management and stakeholders of the continued vigilance and success of the 

DOE sites in minimizing radiation exposure to workers. One of the objectives of this report is to provide 

useful, accurate, and complete information to DOE and the public. As part of a continuing improvement 

process, we would appreciate your response to the User Survey included at the end of this report. 

Glenn S. Podonsky 

Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer 

Office of Health, Safety and Security 

Foreword
 

Foreword iii 
This page intentionally left blank. 

iv DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents Table of Contents 

FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................................................iii
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................................ix
 

SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION
 

1.1 Report Organization .............................................................................................................................1-1
 

1.2 Report Availability ................................................................................................................................1-1
 

SECTION 2—STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 

2.1 Radiation Protection Requirements ...................................................................................................2-1
 

2.2 Radiation Dose Limits ..........................................................................................................................2-1
 

2.3 Reporting Requirements ......................................................................................................................2-1
 

2.4 Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835 ...............................................................................................................2-2
 

SECTION 3—OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSE AT DOE 

3.1 Analysis of the Data ................................................................................................................................3-1
 

3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data.....................................................................................................................3-1
 

3.2.1 Number of Records for Monitored Individuals.........................................................................3-1
 

3.2.2 Number of Records for Individuals with Measurable Dose.....................................................3-1
 

3.2.3 Collective Dose.............................................................................................................................3-2
 

3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose ...........................................................................................................3-3
 

3.2.5 Dose Distribution .........................................................................................................................3-4
 

3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data ..........................................................................................................3-5
 

3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit.....................................................................................................3-5
 

3.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control Level......................................................................3-5
 

3.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material............................................................................3-5
 

3.3.4 Bioassay and Intake Summary Information..............................................................................3-7
 

3.4 Analysis of Site Data ...............................................................................................................................3-8
 

3.4.1 Collective TED by Site and Other Facilities ...............................................................................3-8
 

3.4.2 Changes by Site from 2010 to 2011 ............................................................................................3-8
 

3.4.3 Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective Dose in 2011 .............................................3-8
 

3.4.3.1 Further Detail on Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective 


Dose in 2011 ......................................................................................................................3-8
 

3.4.4. Summary by Program Office...................................................................................................3-19
 

3.5 Transient Individuals.............................................................................................................................3-21
 

3.6 Historical Data ......................................................................................................................................3-21
 

3.6.1 Prior Years ...................................................................................................................................3-21
 

3.6.2 Historical Data Collection.........................................................................................................3-23
 

3.7 DOE Occupational Dose in Relation to Other Activities ..................................................................3-23
 

3.7.1 Activities Regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission........................................3-23
 

SECTION 4—ALARA ACTIVITIES AT DOE 

4.1 Submitting ALARA Project Descriptions for Future Annual Reports ..............................................4-1
 

4.2 Operating Experience Program...........................................................................................................4-1
 

SECTION 5—CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
 

GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................................G-1
 

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ R-1
 

USER SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................................U-1
 

Table of Contents
 

Table of Contents v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF EXHIBITS
 

Exhibit ES-1: Collective TED (person-rem), 2007–2011 ....................................................................................................... ix
 

Exhibit ES-2: Average Measurable TED (rem), 2007–2011 .................................................................................................. ix
 

Exhibit 2-1: Laws and Requirements Pertaining to the Collection and Reporting of Radiation Exposures...............2-1
 

Exhibit 2-2: DOE Dose Limits from 10 C.F.R. 835 ...............................................................................................................2-2
 

Exhibit 3-1a: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2007–2011..............................................................................................3-1
 

Exhibit 3-1b: Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2007–2011..............................................................................................3-2
 

Exhibit 3-2: Components of TED, 2007–2011 .....................................................................................................................3-3
 

Exhibit 3-3: Average Measurable TED, 2007–2011.............................................................................................................3-3
 

Exhibit 3-4: Distribution of TED by Dose Range, 2007–2011............................................................................................3-4
 

Exhibit 3-5: Percentage of Individuals with Measurable TED by Dose Range, 2007–2011............................................3-4
 

Exhibit 3-6: Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rems ACL and the 5 rems Annual Limit, 2007–2011 .......................3-5
 

Exhibit 3-7: Dose in Excess of DOE Administrative Control Levels, 2007–2011.............................................................3-6
 

Exhibit 3-8: Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CED, and Average Measurable CED, 2007–2011 ..................3-6
 

Exhibit 3-9: Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 2007–2011 ....................................................................................3-7
 

Exhibit 3-10: Bioassay and Air Sampling Measurements, 2009–2011 ...............................................................................3-7
 

Exhibit 3-11: Collective CED by Radionuclide, 2011 ..........................................................................................................3-8
 

Exhibit 3-12: Collective TED by DOE Site for 2009–2011 ...................................................................................................3-9
 

Exhibit 3-13: Collective TED and Number of Individuals with Measurable TED by DOE Site, 2009–2011 ..................3-10
 

Exhibit 3-14: Site Dose Data, 2011 ......................................................................................................................................3-11
 

Exhibit 3-15: Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2011 ................................................................3-12
 

Exhibit 3-16: Program Office Dose Data, 2011...................................................................................................................3-20
 

Exhibit 3-17: Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 2007–2011....................................................................................3-21
 

Exhibit 3-18: Collective Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2011......................................................................3-22
 

Exhibit 3-19: Number of Workers with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2011 ........................3-22
 

Exhibit 3-20: Comparison of Occupational Exposure for DOE and NRC, 2007–2011...................................................3-24
 

Exhibit 5-1: 2011 Radiation Exposure Summary ..............................................................................................................5-1
 

vi DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACL Administrative Control Level 

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable 

AMWTP Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory 

CED Committed Effective Dose 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

D&D Decontamination and Decommissioning 

ED Effective Dose 

EqD Equivalent Dose 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EM Office of Environmental Management 

ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park 

FACET Facilities for Accelerator Science and Experimental Test 

Fermilab Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 

HSS Office of Health, Safety and Security 

ICP Idaho Cleanup Project 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LATA Los Alamos Technical Associates 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LLNS Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC 

mSv Millisievert 

NBL New Brunswick Laboratory 

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration 

NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

ORP Office of River Protection 

ORPS Occurrence Reporting and Processing System 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Pu Plutonium 

RCS Radiological Control Standard 

REMS Radiation Exposure Monitoring System 

SC Office of Science 

SLAC SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

SNL Sandia National Laboratories 

SRNS Savannah River Nuclear Solutions 

SRR Savannah River Remediation 

SRS Savannah River Site 

SST Swift & Staley 

Sv Sieverts 

TED Total Effective Dose 

TJNAF Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 

TRU Transuranic 

UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex 

ZPPR Zero Power Physics Reactor or Zero Power Plutonium Reactor 

Table of Contents vii 
This page intentionally left blank. 

viii DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Summary
 Executive Summary 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Analysis within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) 

publishes the annual DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report to provide an overview of the status of 

radiation protection practices at DOE (including the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]). The 

DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding 

compliance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection 

dose limits and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) process requirements. In addition, the report 

provides data to DOE organizations responsible for developing policies for protection of individuals from the 

adverse health effects of radiation. The report provides a summary and an analysis of occupational radiation 

exposure information from the monitoring of individuals involved in DOE activities. The occupational 

radiation exposure information is analyzed in terms of aggregate data, dose to individuals, and dose by site 

over the past five years. 

It should be noted that was revised as of June 2007, with full implementation required by July 2010. All sites 

have now transitioned, and therefore this report reflects the changes in dose terminology and dose assessment 

methodology required by the revision to 10 C.F.R. 835. 

As an indicator of the overall amount of radiation dose received during the conduct of operations at DOE, the 

report includes information on collective total effective dose (TED). The TED is comprised of the effective 

dose (ED) from external sources, which includes neutron and photon radiation, and the internal committed 

effective dose (CED), which results from the intake of radioactive material into the body. The collective ED 

from photon exposure decreased by 4% between 2010 and 2011, while the neutron dose and internal dose 

components of the collective TED decreased by 6% and 47%, respectively. Over the past 10-year period, 

99.99% of the individuals receiving measurable TED have received doses below the 2 rems (20 millisievert 

[mSv]) TED administrative control level (ACL), which is well below the DOE regulatory limit of 5 rems 

(50 mSv) TED annually. 

The occupational radiation exposure records show that in 2011, DOE facilities continued to comply with DOE 

dose limits and ACLs and worked to minimize exposure to individuals. The DOE collective TED decreased 

by 9% from 2010 to 2011, as shown in Exhibit ES-1. The collective TED decreased at four of the five sites with 

the largest collective TED. For these four sites, the decrease in collective TED in 2011 was attributed to the 

implementation of handheld X-ray devices to accurately identify prohibited waste items at the Savannah River 

Site (SRS); improvements in the planning of drum movements and better configuration in waste storage areas; 

increased worker awareness of the location of elevated exposure rate areas by utilizing electronic dosimeters; 

and programs that encouraged the workers to track their own dose at Idaho. 

Exhibit ES-1: Exhibit ES-2: 

Collective TED (person-rem), 2007–2011. Average Measurable TED (rem), 2007–2011. 

Executive Summary
 

Executive Summary ix 
 

Some sites experienced a decrease in the number of workers with measurable dose due to a reduction in work 

attributes associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); those sites include Hanford Site, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and SRS. Overall, from 2010 to 2011, there was less than a 1% decrease in the 

number of workers with measurable dose. However, due to a slight decrease (less than 1%) in both the DOE workforce 

and monitored workers, the ratio of workers with measurable doses to monitored workers remained the same at 14%. 

Another primary indicator of the level of radiation exposure covered in this report is the average measurable dose, 

which normalizes the collective dose over the population of workers who actually received a measurable dose. The 

average measurable TED decreased by 8% from 2010 to 2011, as shown in Exhibit ES-2. The number of individuals who 

received a measurable TED also decreased by nearly 1%. 

Additional analyses show that the dose distribution in 2011 is similar to the distribution in 2010. 

In 2011, only 14% of the monitored workers received a measurable TED and the average measurable TED, 0.067 

rem, was less than 2% of the DOE limit. From 2010 to 2011, the collective TED and the number of individuals with 

measurable TED decreased by 9% and 1%, respectively. These decreases in the dose and number of individuals 

were the result of decreased activities involving radioactive materials, particularly at the DOE sites that comprise the 

majority of DOE collective dose. 

Over the past 7 years, the collective dose and the size of the monitored workforce have remained at fairly stable levels. 

After 3 years of increases in the collective dose and the number of individuals with measurable dose, there was a 

decrease in both in 2011. This is attributable to the decrease in activities of decommissioning and waste processing at 

several of the larger DOE sites. While ARRA projects initially contributed to an increase in collective dose throughout 

the DOE complex, the completion of many of these projects is partially responsible for the decrease of collective dose 

and measurable records in 2011. No reported doses exceeded the DOE occupational limit of 5 rems TED in 2011 and 

no reported doses exceeded the DOE ACL of 2 rems TED. 

To access this report and other information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE, visit the DOE HSS web site at: 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/

x DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Section One
 Introduction 1

The DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

analyzes occupational radiation exposures at U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) facilities during 2011. 

This report includes occupational radiation exposure 

information for all DOE employees, contractors, and 

subcontractors, as well as members of the public in 

controlled areas who are monitored for exposure to 

radiation. The 107 DOE organizations submitting radiation 

exposure reports for 2011 have been grouped into 32 sites. 

This information has been analyzed and trends over time 

are presented to provide a measure of DOE’s performance 

in protecting its workers from radiation. 

1.1 Report Organization 

This report is organized into the five sections listed below. 

Additional supporting technical information, tables of 

data, and additional items are available on the DOE web 

site for Information on Occupational Radiation Exposure 

as appendices to this report (http://www.hss.doe.gov/ 

SESA/Analysis/rems). A User Survey form is included 

at the end of this report and users are encouraged to 

provide feedback to improve this report. 

1.2 Report Availability 

This report is available online and may be downloaded 

from: 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/ 

Requests for additional copies of this report, for 

access to the data files, or for individual dose records 

used to compile this report and suggestions and 

comments should be directed to: 

Ms. Nirmala Rao, Office of Analysis (HS-24) 

DOE REMS Project Manager 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585-1290 

E-mail: nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov 

Visit the DOE web site for more information on 

occupational radiation exposure, such as the 

following: 

u Annual occupational radiation exposure 

reports in PDF files since 1974; 

u Guidance on reporting radiation exposure 

information to the DOE Headquarters 

Radiation Exposure Monitoring System 

(REMS); 

u Guidance on how to request a dose history for 

an individual; 

u Statistical data since 1987 for analysis; 

u Applicable DOE orders and manuals for the 

recordkeeping and reporting of occupational 

radiation exposure at DOE; and 

u ALARA activities at DOE. 

Introduction
 

Describes the content and organization of this report. 

Discusses the radiation protection and dose reporting requirements. 

Presents the 2011 occupational radiation dose data along with trends over the past 5 years. 

Provides instructions to submit successful as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) projects. 

Discusses conclusions. 

The appendices are now offered in color on the DOE Radiation Exposure web site. Please visit 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/ and select Annual Reports to review. The appendices 

provide a comprehensive breakdown of dose by operations office and site, as well as distributions by 

facility type and occupation, type of dose, and internal dose by radionuclide. 

Section One 

Section Two 

Section Three 

Section Four 

Section Five 

Appendices 

Introduction 1-1 
This page intentionally left blank. 

1-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Standards and Requirements
 Section Two 2

One of DOE’s primary objectives is to provide a safe and 

healthy workplace for all employees and contractors. 

To meet this objective, the DOE Office of Health, Safety 

and Security (HSS) establishes comprehensive and 

integrated programs for the protection of workers from 

hazards in the workplace, including ionizing radiation. 

The basic DOE standards for occupational radiation 

protection include radiation dose limits which establish 

maximum permissible doses to workers. In addition to 

the requirement that radiation doses not exceed these 

limits, contractors and subcontractors are required to 

maintain exposures at ALARA levels. 

This section discusses the radiation protection 

standards and requirements in effect for 2011. For more 

information on past requirements, visit the DOE web site 

for DOE Directives, Delegations, and Requirements at 

https://www.directives.doe.gov/. See Archives section 

under the Directives menu for historical references. 

be added to the external whole-body dose to 

determine the total effective dose equivalent 

(TEDE). Prior to this guidance, the external dose 

and internal dose were each limited separately. 

It should be noted that 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 835, Occupational 

Radiation Protection was revised in June 2007, 

with full implementation required by July 2010. 

The revision adopted ICRP Publications 60 [4] 

and 68 [5] dosimetric quantities and units (see 

Section 2.4, Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835). The 

laws and requirements for occupational radiation 

protection pertaining to the information collected 

and presented in this report are summarized in 

Exhibit 2-1. 

2.2 Radiation Dose Limits 

Radiation dose limits are codified in 10 C.F.R. 

Standards and Requirements


2.1 Radiation Protection Requirements 

DOE radiation protection standards in effect at the 

beginning of 2011 were originally based on Federal 

guidance for protection against occupational radiation 

exposure promulgated by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency in 1987 [1]. This guidance, initially 

implemented by DOE in 1989, is based on the 1977 

recommendations of the International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 26 [2] and 

the 1987 recommendations of the National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements Publication 

91 [3]. This guidance recommends that internal dose 

Exhibit 2-1: 

835.202, 206, 207, and 208 [6] and are summarized 

in Exhibit 2-2. 

2.3 Reporting Requirements 

On June 27, 2011, DOE Order (O) 231.1A was 

updated and reissued as DOE O 231.1B [7]. DOE 

Manual (M) 231.1-1A, Environment, Safety, and 

Health Reporting Manual, has been cancelled and 

the reporting requirements from the manual have 

been moved to the online REMS Reporting Guide 

at http://www.hss.doe.gov/sesa/Analysis/rems/ 

REMS_Reporting_Guide.pdf. [8] 

Laws and Requirements Pertaining to the Collection and Reporting of Radiation Exposures. 

Title Date Description 

10 C.F.R. 835, Occupational 

Radiation Protection [6] 

Issued 12/14/93 

Amended 11/4/98 

Amended 6/8/07 

Establishes radiation protection standards, limits, and 

program requirements for protecting individuals from 

ionizing radiation that results from the conduct of DOE 

activities. 

DOE Order 231.1B, 

Environment, Safety and 

Health Reporting [7] 

Approved 6/27/11 Requires the annual reporting of occupational radiation 

exposure records to the DOE REMS repository. 

REMS Reporting Guide [8] Issued 2/23/12 Specifies the current format and content of the reports 

required by DOE Order 231.1B. 

Standards and Requirements 2-1 
Exhibit 2-2:
 

DOE Dose Limits from 10 C.F.R. 835.
 

Personnel 

Category 

Section of 

10 C.F.R. 

835 Type of Exposure Acronym 

Annual 

Limit 

General 

employees 

835.202 Total effective dose TED 5 rems 

The sum of the effective dose to the 

whole body for external exposures 

and the committed equivalent dose to 

the maximally exposed organ or tissue 

other than the skin or the lens of the 

eye (Total Organ Dose) 

ED+CEqD 

(TOD) 

50 rems 

Equivalent Dose to the Lens of the Eye EqD-Eye 15 rems 

The sum of the equivalent dose 

to the skin or to any extremity for 

external exposures and the committed 

equivalent dose to the skin or to any 

extremity 

EqD-SkWB + CEqD-SK 

and 

EqD to the maximally 

exposed extremity + CEqD-SK 

50 rems 

Declared 

pregnant 

workers* 

835.206 Total effective dose TED 0.5 rem per 

gestation 

period 

Minors 835.207 Total effective dose TED 0.1 rem 

Members of 

the public in a 

controlled area 

835.208 Total effective dose TED 0.1 rem 

*Limit applies to the embryo/fetus. 

2.4 Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835 

In August 2006, DOE published a proposed amendment 

to 10 C.F.R. 835 in the Federal Register, and in June 2007, 

the final amended rule was published. The amendment: 

u Specified new dosimetric terminology and 

quantities based on ICRP 60/68 in place of ICRP 

26/30; 

u Specified ICRP 60 tissue weighting factors in 

place of ICRP 26 weighting factors; 

u Specified ICRP 60 radiation weighting factors in 

place of ICRP 26 quality factors; 

u Amended other parts of the regulation that 

changed as a result of adopting ICRP 60 

dosimetry system; 

u Used the ICRP 68 dose conversion factors 

to determine values for the derived air 

concentrations (DACs); and 

u Adopted other changes intended to enhance 

radiation protection. 

The rule became effective on July 9, 2007, and was 

required to be fully implemented by DOE sites by July 9, 

2010. Because all sites began complying with the new 

requirements during 2010, the monitoring year 2011 

is the first year where all sites are required to report 

under the Amendment to 10 C.F.R. 835. Therefore all 

terminology used in this annual report reflects that of the 

Amendment. 

2-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE Section Three	 3

3.1 Analysis of the Data 

Certain key indicators are useful when evaluating 

occupational radiation exposures received at DOE 

facilities. The key indicators are analyzed to identify and 

correlate parameters having an impact on radiation dose 

at DOE. 

Key indicators for the analysis of aggregate data are the 

following: 

u number of records for monitored individuals; 

u individuals with measurable dose; 

u collective dose; 

u average measurable dose; and 

u dose distribution. 

Analysis of individual dose data includes an examination 

of: 

u doses exceeding the 5 rems (50 millisievert 

[mSv]) DOE regulatory limit; and 

u doses exceeding the 2 rems (20 mSv) DOE 

Administrative Control Level (ACL), as specified 

in DOE STD 1098-2008 Radiological Control. 

Additional information is provided in this report 

concerning activities at sites contributing to the majority 

of the collective dose. The data for prior years contained 

in this report are subject to change because sites may 

submit corrections or additions for previous years. 

3.2 Analysis of Aggregate Data 

3.2.1 Number of Records for Monitored Individuals 

The number of records for monitored individuals 

represents the size of the DOE work force monitored for 

radiation dose. The number of records for monitored 

individuals is not the same as the workforce as it could 

include the same individual more than once. The 

number represents the sum of all records for monitored 

individuals, including all DOE employees, contractors, 

and subcontractors, as well as members of the public. 

Individuals that have more than one record due to being 

monitored at more than one site comprise only 3% of the 

monitored workers; therefore the multiple counting has 

minimal impact on the totals and averages presented 

in this report. (See Section 3.5). This is because of the 

conservative practice at some DOE facilities of providing 

radiation dose monitoring to individuals for reasons 

other than the potential for exposure to radiation and/ 

or radioactive materials exceeding the monitoring 

thresholds specified in 10 C.F.R. 835.402. Many 

individuals are monitored for reasons such as security, 

administrative convenience, and legal liability. Some 

sites offer monitoring for any individual who requests 

monitoring, independent of the potential for exposure. 

For this reason, the number of records for workers 

who receive a measurable dose best represents the 

exposed workforce. 

3.2.2 Number of Records for Individuals with 

Measurable Dose 

DOE uses the number of individuals receiving a 

measurable dose to represent the exposed workforce 

size. The number of individuals with a measurable 

dose includes any individual with a reported 

detectable dose greater than zero total effective dose 

(TED). 

Over the past 10-year period, 99.99% of the individuals 

receiving measurable TED have received doses below 

the 2 rems (20 mSv) TED ACL, which is well below the 

DOE regulatory limit of 5 rems (50 mSv) TED. 

Exhibits 3-1a and 3-1b show the number of DOE and 

contractor workers, the total number of workers 

Exhibit 3-1a:
 

Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2007–2011.
 

*The number of DOE and contractor workers was determined 

from the total annual work hours at DOE [9] converted to fulltime equivalents. 

For 2011, 68% of the DOE workforce was monitored 

for radiation dose, and 14% of monitored 

individuals received a measurable dose. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE
 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-1 
Exhibit 3-1b:
 

Monitoring of the DOE Workforce, 2007–2011.
 

Year 

DOE & 

Contractor 

Workforce 

Number of 

Workers 

Monitored 

Percent of 

Workers 

Monitored* 

Number 

Monitored 

w/Measurable 

Dose 

Percent 

Monitored 

w/Measurable 

Dose* 

2007 122,666 86,667 71%▼ 11,198 13%▼

2008 122,082 83,235 68%▼ 11,296 14%▲

2009 125,933 86,694 69%▲ 11,757 14% 

2010 135,414 92,066 68%▼ 13,039 14% 

2011 134,370 91,839 68% 12,957 14% 

5-Year Average 128,093 88,100 69% 12,049 14% 

* Up arrows indicate an increase from the previous year's value. Down arrows indicate a decrease from the previous year's value. 

monitored for radiation dose, the number of individuals 

with a measurable dose, and the relative percentages for 

the past 5 years. 

Over the past 5 years, the percentage of individuals 

monitored for radiation exposure has remained within 

3% of the 5-year average; the percentage of monitored 

individuals receiving any measurable radiation dose 

each year has been within 1% of the 5-year average. 

Twenty-four of the reporting sites experienced decreases 

in the number of workers with a measurable TED from 

2010 to 2011. The largest decrease in total number of 

workers with a measurable TED occurred at the Hanford 

Site. Eight of the reporting sites experienced increases in 

the number of workers with a measurable TED from 2010 

to 2011. The largest increase in the number of workers 

receiving a measurable TED occurred at the Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL). A discussion of activities at 

the highest dose facilities is included in Section 3.4.3. 

3.2.3 Collective Dose 

The collective dose is the sum of the dose received by 

all individuals with a measurable dose and is measured 

in units of person-rem (person-sievert [Sv]). As used in 

this report, the collective dose is a measure of the overall 

occupational radiation exposure at DOE facilities and 

includes the dose to all DOE employees, contractors, 

and subcontractors, as well as members of the public 

who are monitored during a visit to a DOE facility. DOE 

monitors the collective dose as one measure of the 

overall performance of radiation protection programs 

to keep individual exposures and collective exposures 

ALARA. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the collective TED decreased at 

DOE by 9% from 946.7 person-rems (9,467 person-mSv) 

in 2010 to 863.5 person-rems (8,635 person-mSv) in 2011. 

The internal dose is based on the 50-year Committed 

Effective Dose (CED) methodology. Under this 

methodology, the cumulative dose received from the 

intake of radioactive material over the next 50 years is 

assigned to the individual as a one-time dose in the year 

of intake. The internal dose component of the collective 

TED decreased by 47% from 95.9 person-rems (959 

person mSv) in 2010 to 51.0 person-rems (510 personmSv) in 2011. The primary reason for the decrease 

in the collective CED is that there were no reported 

intakes in 2011 of the magnitude of the 32 rem CED at 

the Savannah River Site (SRS) in 2010. The collective 

photon dose decreased by 4% from 698 person-rems 

(6,980 person-mSv) in 2010 to 669 person-rems (6,690 

person-mSv) in 2011. 

The neutron component of the TED decreased by 6% 

from 153 person-rems (1,530 person-mSv) in 2010 to 144 

person-rems (1,440 person-mSv) in 2011. 

Twenty-one of the DOE sites reported decreases in the 

collective TED from the 2010 values, while 11 of the DOE 

sites reported increases. The five sites that contributed 

most (78%) of the DOE collective TED in 2011 were (in 

descending order of collective TED for 2011) SRS – 17% 

(including Savannah River Nuclear Solutions [SRNS] 

and Savannah River Remediation [SRR]); Hanford – 16% 

(including the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory [PNNL], and the Office of River Protection 

[ORP]); Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) – 15%; 

Idaho – 15% (including INL and Idaho Cleanup Project 

3-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
—

-

—

—

Exhibit 3-2:
 

Components of TED, 2007–2011.
 

The collective TED decreased by 9% at DOE 

from 2010 to 2011. 

The collective internal dose decreased by 

47% from 2010 to 2011. 

Neutron dose decreased by 6% from 2010 to 

2011. 

Photon dose decreased by 4% from 2010 to 

2011. 

Effective Dose from photons the 

component of external dose from 

gamma or X ray electromagnetic 

radiation (also includes energetic betas) 

Effective dose from neutrons the 

component of external dose from 

neutrons ejected from the nucleus of an 

atom during nuclear reactions 

Internal dose radiation dose resulting 

from radioactive material taken into the 

body 

* The percentages in parentheses represent the percentage of each dose 

component to the collective TED. 

[ICP]); and Oak Ridge – 15% (including East Tennessee 

Technology Park [ETTP], Y-12 National Security 

Complex [Y-12], Oak Ridge National Laboratory [ORNL], 

and Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 

[ORISE]). Four of these sites reported decreases in the 

collective TED in 2011 compared with 2010. 

3.2.4 Average Measurable Dose 

The average measurable dose to DOE workers, a key 

radiation dose indicator, is calculated by dividing the 

collective dose (i.e., TED or CED) by the number of 

individuals with a measurable dose for each dose type. 

The average measurable TED is shown in Exhibit 3-3. 

The average measurable TED decreased by 8% from 

0.073 rem (0.73 mSv) in 2010 to 0.067 rem (0.67 mSv) in 

2011, matching the 5-year average. While the collective 

dose and average measurable dose serve as measures of 

the magnitude of the dose accrued by DOE workers, they 

do not depict the distribution of doses among the worker 

population. 

Exhibit 3-3:
 

Average Measurable TED, 2007–2011.
 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-3 
3.2.5 Dose Distribution 

Exposure data are commonly analyzed in terms of dose 

intervals to depict the dose distribution among the 

worker population. Exhibit 3-4 shows the number of 

individuals in each of 11 different dose ranges. 

The number of individuals receiving doses above 

0.100 rem (1 mSv) is included to show the number of 

individuals with doses above the monitoring threshold 

specified in 10 C.F.R. 835.402(a) and (c) [6]. 

Exhibit 3-4 shows that the dose distribution for 2011 was 

slightly lower in five ranges compared with the 2010 

data. Ninety-nine percent of the individuals monitored 

Exhibit 3-4:
 

Distribution of TED by Dose Range, 2007–2011.
 

had doses less than 0.25 rem (2.5 mSv). Exhibit 3-5 

presents the dose distribution in terms of the percentage 

of individuals with measurable TED in each range. The 

percentages shown in this manner assist in revealing 

changes in the distribution from year to year. It shows 

that the values remain relatively constant with the 

exception of 2010. The percentages above 0.100 rem 

increased in 2010, which is consistent with the overall 

increase in the collective TED and average measurable 

TED during 2010 as a result of the increased activities 

funded under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA). As these activities subsided during 2011, the 

percentages decreased in the dose ranges between 0.100 

rem and 0.500 rem. 

TED Range (rem) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Number of Individuals in

Each Dose Range* 

Less than measurable 75,469 71,939 74,937 79,027 78,882 

Measurable to 0.100 9,048 9,348 9,760 10,352 10,507 

0.100–0.250 1,428 1,427 1,398 1,858 1,735 

0.250–0.500 518 421 490 695 564 

0.500–0.750 147 73 71 101 99 

0.750–1.000 34 20 28 23 41 

1–2 21 6 10 9 11 

2–3 1 1 

3–4 

4–5 

>5 1 1 

Total number of records for monitored 

individuals 86,667 83,235 86,694 92,066 91,839 

Number with measurable dose 11,198 11,296 11,757 13,039 12,957 

Number with dose >0.100 rem 2,150 1,948 1,997 2,687 2,450 

% of individuals with measurable dose 13% 14% 14% 14% 14% 

Collective TED (person-rems) 800.463 690.780 726.477 946.749 863.528 

Average measurable TED (rem) 0.071 0.061 0.062 0.073 0.067 

* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range. 

Exhibit 3-5: 

Percentage of Individuals with Measurable TED by Dose Range, 2007 – 2011. 

TED Range (rem) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Percentage of Individuals

with Measurable TED*

Measurable <0.100 80.8% 82.8% 83.0% 79.4% 81.1% 

0.100–0.250 12.8% 12.6% 11.9% 14.2% 13.4% 

0.250–0.500 4.6% 3.7% 4.2% 5.3% 4.4% 

0.500–0.750 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 

0.750–1.000 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 

1–2 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 

2–3 0.01% 0.01% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

>3 0.009% 0.0% 0.0% 0.01% 0.0% 

* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range. 

3-4 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
 

3.3 Analysis of Individual Dose Data 

The previous analysis is based on aggregate data for 

DOE. From an individual worker perspective, as well 

as a regulatory perspective, it is important to closely 

examine the doses received by individuals in the 

elevated dose ranges to thoroughly understand the 

circumstances leading to these doses in the workplace 

and to better manage and avoid these doses in the 

future. The following sections focus on doses received 

by individuals that were in excess of the DOE limit 

(5 rems [50 mSv] TED) and the DOE recommended ACL 

(2 rems [20 mSv] TED). 

3.3.1 Doses in Excess of DOE Limit 

Exhibit 3-6 shows the number of doses in excess of 

the TED regulatory limit (5 rems [50 mSv]) from 2007 

through 2011. One individual received a TED in excess 

of 5 rems (50 mSv) in 2007 from an intake of plutonium 

at LANL. (See Occurrence Reporting and Processing 

System [ORPS] report NA-LASO-LANL-CMR-2007-0002) 

In 2010, one individual received a TED in excess of 5 

rems (50 mSv). For more information on this event, 

see the Type B Accident Investigation Board Report 

“Employee Puncture Wound at the F-TRU Waste 

Remediation Facility”, June 14, 2010 and the Preliminary 

Notice of Violation, NEA-2011-02, issued to SRNS July 22, 

2011. The Type B Accident Investigation Board Report 

is publicly available and the URL is: http://www.hss. 

doe.gov/sesa/corporatesafety/aip/docs/accidents/typeb/ 

FINAL_Type_B_Report_F-TRU_Puncture_Wound_2010. 

pdf On June 14, 2010, after performing can puncture 

Exhibit 3-6:
 

Number of Individuals Exceeding 2 rems ACL and the 5 rems Annual Limit, 


2007–2011.
 

In 2011, no individual received a TED in excess of 2 

rems (20 mSv). 

Year >2 rems >5 rems 

2007 1 1

2008 1

2009

2010 1

2011

operations during transuranic (TRU) remediation 

activities, an operator was placing the survey flag into 

the can and received a puncture wound to the right 

index finger resulting in a CED of 31.6 rems from an 

intake of plutonium (Pu)-238. (See ORPS report EM-SRSRNS-CPWM-2010-0008) 

No individual was reported to have exceeded 5 rems in 

2011. 

3.3.2 Doses in Excess of Administrative Control 

Level 

The Radiological Control Standard (RCS) [10] 

recommends a 2 rems (20 mSv) ACL for TED per year 

per person for all DOE activities. Prior to allowing 

an individual to exceed this level, approval from the 

appropriate Secretarial officer or designee should be 

received. The RCS recommends that each DOE site 

establish its own more restrictive ACL that would require 

contractor management approval to be exceeded. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems in 2011. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-6, four individuals have exceeded 

the 2 rems (20 mSv) ACL in the past 5 years. Two of 

the four individuals also exceeded the 5 rems (50 mSv) 

annual limit. 

3.3.3 Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material 

As shown in Exhibit 3-7, some of the highest doses to 

individuals have been the result of intakes of radioactive 

material. For this reason, DOE tracks the number of 

intakes as a performance measure in this report. DOE 

emphasizes the importance of taking measures to avoid 

intakes and maintain doses ALARA. 

Exhibit 3-8 shows the number of internal depositions of 

radioactive material (an indicator of worker intakes), 

collective CED, and average measurable CED for 2007 

to 2011. The number of internal depositions decreased 

by 8% from 1,665 in 2010 to 1,530 in 2011, while 

the collective CED decreased by 47%. The average 

measurable CED decreased by 43% from 0.058 rem (0.58 

mSv) in 2010 to 0.033 rem (0.33 mSv) in 2011. 

Ninety percent of the collective CED in 2011 was from 

uranium intakes at Y-12 during the operation and 

management of Enriched Uranium Operations facilities 

at the site. Compared with external dose, relatively 

few workers receive measurable internal dose, so 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-5 
Exhibit 3-7:
 

Dose in Excess of DOE Administrative Control Levels, 2007–2011.
 

Year 

Total Effective 

Dose (TED) 

(External + 

Internal Dose) 

(rem) 

Effective Dose 

(ED) from 

External 

Sources 

(rem) 

Committed 

Effective Dose 

(CED) from 

Intakes 

(rem) 

Committed 

Equivalent 

Dose (CEqD) 

from Intakes 

(rem) 

Intake 

Nuclides 

Facility 

Types Site 

2007 7.530 0.000 7.530 129.850 Pu-238, Pu-239 Research, General LANL 

2008 2.106 0.286 1.820 60.325 Pu-238, Pu-239 TA-55 Facility LANL 

2009 None reported 

2010 31.618 0.029 31.589 1,043.190 Pu-238 Transuranic (TRU) Waste 

Remediation Facility SRS 

2011 None reported 

Exhibit 3-8:
 

Number of Internal Depositions, Collective CED, and Average Measurable CED, 2007–2011.
 

Number of Internal Collective CED Average Measurable CED per 

Depositions* (person-rem) Deposition (rem) 

5-yr. avg.

1,402 

5-yr. avg.

64.9 

5-yr. avg.

0.046 

* The number of internal depositions represents the number of internal dose records with positive results reported for each individual. 

Individuals may have multiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once. 

larger fluctuations may occur from year to year in the 

number of workers and collective CED, than for other 

components of TED. 

Exhibit 3-9 shows the distribution of the internal dose 

from 2007 to 2011. The total number of individuals with 

intakes in each dose range is the sum of all records 

of intake in the subject dose range. Individuals with 

multiple intakes during the year may be counted more 

than once. Doses below 0.020 rem (0.20 mSv) are shown 

as a separate dose range, to show the large number 

of doses in this low dose range. The decrease in the 

number of individuals with measurable CED in 2011 is 

primarily due to the decrease of individuals receiving 

less than 0.100 rem (1 mSv). 

The internal dose records indicate that the majority of 

the intakes result in very low doses. In 2011, 58% of 

the internal dose records were for doses below 0.020 

rem (0.20 mSv). Over the 5-year period, internal doses 

from intakes accounted for 8% of the collective TED, 

and 11% of the individuals who received internal doses 

were above the monitoring threshold (0.1 person-rem 

[1 mSv]) specified in 10 C.F.R. 835.402(c) [6]. 

On November 8, 2011, workers at the INL Materials and 

Fuels Complex Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR) 

Facility operated by Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) were 

packaging plutonium reactor fuel plates. Upon opening 

one of the storage containers, the workers discovered a 

plutonium fuel plate wrapped in plastic and tape. When 

the workers attempted to remove the wrapping material, 

an uncontrolled release of radioactive contaminants 

occurred, resulting in the contamination of 16 workers 

and the facility. The official dose assessments for the 

3-6 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
 

 

Exhibit 3-9:
 

Internal Dose Distribution from Intakes, 2007–2011.
 

Year 

Number of Individuals with CED in the Ranges (rem)* Total 

No. of 

Indiv.** 

Total 

Collective 

CED 

(person-rem) 

Meas. 

<0.020 

0.020-

0.100 

0.100-

0.250 

0.250-

0.500 

0.500-

0.750 

0.750-

1.000 

1.0-

2.0 

2.0-

3.0 

3.0-

4.0 

4.0-

5.0 >5.0 

2007 631 451 151 22 3 1 1 1 1,261 67.168 

2008 616 471 133 25 2 2 1 1,250 59.062 

2009 707 456 118 16 4 1 1,302 51.162 

2010 894 611 137 19 1 1 1 1 1,665 95.886 

2011 882 528 106 12 1 1 1,530 51.012 

* Individuals with doses equal to the dose value separating the dose ranges are included in the next higher dose range. 

** Individuals may have multiple intakes in a year and, therefore, may be counted more than once. 

intakes of americium and plutonium were finalized as of 

November 26, 2012, for 15 of the monitored individuals. 

The highest committed effective dose equivalent for 

a worker was 1.5 rems. The highest committed dose 

equivalent to bone surfaces (the most highly irradiated 

single organ or tissue) was 16.5 rems. These doses are 

below the ACL and regulatory limits. The data presented 

in this report includes these finalized dose values. 

An accident investigation was conducted in accordance 

with the requirements of DOE O 225.1B, Accident 

Investigations, and an investigation report, Plutonium 

Contamination in the ZPPR Facility at the INL, November 

8, 2011, was released in January 2012. See also the ORPS 

report NE-ID-BEA-ZPPR-2011-0001. 

3.3.4 Bioassay and Intake Summary Information 

For the monitoring year 2011, bioassay and intake 

summary information was required to be reported under 

the REMS Reporting Guide [8]. During the past 3 years, 

urinalysis has been reported as the most common 

method of bioassay measurement used to determine 

internal doses to the individuals. Exhibit 3-10 shows the 

breakdown of bioassay measurements by measurement 

type. The measurements reported under “in vivo” 

include direct measurements of the radioactive material 

in the body of the monitored person. Examples of in 

vivo measurements include whole body counts and 

lung or thyroid counts. The measurements reported in 

“Other” are for air samples taken in the workplace that 

are used to calculate the amount of airborne radioactive 

material taken into the body and the resultant internal 

dose. Note that the numbers shown are based on the 

number of measurements taken, and not the number 

of individuals monitored. Individuals may have 

measurements taken more than once during the year. 

Fifty-nine percent of the urinalysis measurements in 

2011 were performed at three sites: Y-12, Hanford, 

and SRS. The majority of the bioassay measurements 

reported as “Other” were from air sampling and 

account for 32% of the measurements. Over half of 

the in vivo measurements were from Hanford. Y-12 

performs the largest number of bioassay measurements 

overall, comprising 27% of the total measurements 

taken. The largest increases in the number of urinalysis 

measurements occurred at Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL) and the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant, while Hanford reported the largest total increase 

in the number of “Other” measurements. 

Exhibit 3-10:
 

Bioassay and Air Sampling Measurements, 2009-2011.
 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-7 
 

Exhibit 3-11 shows the breakdown of the collective CED 

by radionuclide for 2011. Uranium-234 accounts for the 

largest percentage of the collective CED, with over 97% of 

this dose accrued at Y-12. 

Exhibit 3-11:
 

Collective CED by Radionuclide, 2011.
 

3.4 Analysis of Site Data 

3.4.1 Collective TED by Site and Other Facilities 

The collective TED for 2009 through 2011 for the major 

DOE sites and operations/field offices are shown 

graphically in Exhibit 3-12. A list of the collective TED 

and number of individuals with measurable TED by 

DOE sites is shown in Exhibit 3-13. The collective TED 

decreased by 9% from 947 person-rems (9,470 personmSv) in 2010 to 864 person-rems (8,640 person-mSv) 

in 2011, with Savannah River (including SRNS and 

Savannah River Remediation [SRR]), Hanford (including 

the Hanford Site, PNNL, and the ORP), LANL, Idaho 

(including INL and ICP) and Oak Ridge sites (including 

ETTP, Y-12, ORNL, and ORISE) contributing 78% of the 

total DOE collective TED. 

3.4.2 Changes by Site from 2010 to 2011 

Exhibit 3-14 shows the collective TED, the number with a 

measurable TED, the average measurable TED, and the 

percentage of the collective TED delivered above 0.500 

rem by site for 2011, as well as the percentage change in 

these values from the previous year. Some of the largest 

percentage changes occurred at relatively small facilities 

where conditions may fluctuate from year to year. The 

changes that had the most impact in the overall values 

at DOE occurred at sites with a relatively large collective 

TED in addition to a large percentage change, such as 

Savannah River in 2011. 

The percentage of the collective TED above 0.500 rem is 

an indicator of the distribution of dose to individuals. A 

smaller fraction of the monitored population received 

doses above 0.5 rem in 2011. See section 3.2.5 for more 

information on the characteristics of the distribution of 

doses to individuals above a certain dose value. 

3.4.3 Activities Significantly Contributing to 

Collective Dose in 2011 

In an effort to identify the reasons for changes in the 

collective dose at DOE, several of the larger sites were 

contacted to provide information on activities that 

significantly contributed to the collective dose for 2011. 

These sites (SRS, Hanford, LANL, INL, and Oak Ridge) 

each had a collective TED over 100 person-rems and 

were the top contributors to the collective TED in 2011. 

These sites comprised 78% of the total collective TED 

at DOE. Four sites reported decreases in the collective 

TED, which contributed to a 9% decrease in the DOE 

collective TED from 947 person-rems (9,470 person-mSv) 

in 2010 to 864 person-rems (8,640 person-mSv) in 2011. 

The sites significantly contributing to the collective TED 

in 2011 are shown in Exhibit 3-15, including a description 

of activities that affected the collective TED. 

3.4.3.1 Further Detail on Activities Significantly 

Contributing to Collective Dose in 2011 

In addition to the information provided in Exhibit 3-15, 

several of the DOE sites provided further information on 

operations conducted during the monitoring year. The 

REMS Reporting Guide, Item 1, specifies that the sites 

should provide a description of activities conducted at 

the site as it relates to the collective radiation exposure 

received. The following descriptions are excerpts from 

the transmittal letters from DOE sites in 2011. 

Argonne National Laboratory 

The collective TED for the monitoring year 2011 at 

Argonne National Laboratory is 29.420 person-rems, 

down from 31.170 person-rems the previous year, 

resulting in a decrease of 5.6%. The decrease was due 

to efficiencies in work methods and increased efforts 

to keep doses ALARA within the Alpha Gamma Hot 

Cell Facility. No individuals exceeded 2 rems TED this 

monitoring year. 

3-8 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Exhibit 3-12:


Collective TED by DOE Site for 2009–2011.
 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-9 
 

Exhibit 3-13:
 

Collective TED and Number of Individuals with Measurable TED by DOE Site, 2009–2011.
 

2009 2010 2011 

Site 

Collective 

TED 

(personrem) 

Number 

with 

Meas. 

TED 

Collective 

TED 

(personrem) 

Number 

with 

Meas. 

TED 

Collective 

TED 

(personrem) 

Number 

with 

Meas. 

TED 

Ames Laboratory 0.717 31 0.907 32 0.762 29 

Argonne National Laboratory 17.610 137 31.170 177 29.420 176 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 5.191 180 11.529 214 12.822 172 

Energy Technology Engineering Center 0.125 43 0.292 54 0.139 47 

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 18.750 243 11.220 169 10.090 155 

Hanford:

 Hanford Site 93.149 1,633 112.522 1,673 94.691 1,479

 Office of River Protection 20.639 346 28.522 535 25.308 496

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 15.326 242 27.500 280 22.336 257 

Idaho National Laboratory 111.326 1,808 130.278 1,890 126.612 2,385 

Kansas City Plant 0.525 10 0.046 10 0.049 2 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 0.613 14 1.097 16 0.759 13 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 25.993 182 18.214 144 16.979 116 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 115.733 1,392 125.389 1,335 127.056 1,459 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 0.029 5 0.022 3 0.017 5 

Nevada National Security Site 5.519 86 3.288 84 2.743 78 

New Brunswick Laboratory 0.059 3 0.037 3 0.165 8 

Oak Ridge:

 East Tennessee Technology Park 0.851 33 1.187 43 0.830 39

 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 0.231 62 0.114 56 0.211 82

 Oak Ridge National Laboratory 46.654 655 73.468 726 66.252 714

 Y-12 National Security Complex 61.882 1,379 69.516 1,635 59.055 1,537 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.151 79 1.884 90 4.038 78 

Pantex Plant 25.158 302 26.131 303 28.947 311 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.540 32 2.960 63 2.279 47 

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 0.786 101 0.663 79 0.401 53 

Sandia National Laboratories 4.871 131 3.564 81 6.913 126 

Savannah River Site 108.902 2,185 179.572 2,587 149.967 2,512 

Separations Process Research Unit 0.288 10 7.850 74 0.179 13 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0.169 6 0.053 4 0.236 10 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 0.690 27 3.111 67 6.245 57 

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project 3.624 92 31.497 237 15.000 191 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 0.909 68 1.199 62 0.476 25 

West Valley Demonstration Project 36.985 230 41.873 308 51.662 247 

Service Center Personnel* 0.482 10 0.074 5 0.889 38 

Totals 726.477 11,757 946.749 13,039 863.528 12,957 

Note: Bold values indicate the greatest value in each column. 

*	 Includes service center personnel from Albuquerque and Oak Ridge in addition to several smaller facilities not associated with a DOE 

site. 

3-10 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
 

Exhibit 3-14:
 

Site Dose Data, 2011.
 

2011 

Site 

Collective 

TED 

(personrem) 

Percent 

Change 

from 

2010 

Number 

with 

Meas. 

Dose 

Percent 

Change 

from 

2010 

Avg. 

Meas. 

TED 

(rem) 

Percent 

Change 

from 

2010 

Percentage 

of Coll. 

TED above 

0.500 rem 

Percent 

Change 

from 2010 

Ames Laboratory 0.762 29 0.026 

Argonne National Laboratory 29.420 -6% ▼ 176 -1% ▼ 0.167 -5% ▼ 49% -5% ▼

Brookhaven National Laboratory 12.822 11% ▲ 172 -20% ▼ 0.075 38% ▲ 23% 300% ▲

Energy Technology Engineering Center 0.139 47 0.003 

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 10.090 -10% ▼ 155 -8% ▼ 0.065 -2% ▼

Hanford:

 Hanford Site 94.691 -16% ▼ 1,479 -12% ▼ 0.064 -5% ▼ -100% ▼

 Office of River Protection 25.308 -11% ▼ 496 -7% ▼ 0.051 -4% ▼ 2% 100% ▲

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 22.336 -19% ▼ 257 -8% ▼ 0.087 -12% ▼ 22% -52% ▼

Idaho National Laboratory 126.612 -3% ▼ 2,385 26% ▲ 0.053 -23% ▼ 10% 75% ▲

Kansas City Plant 0.049 2 0.025 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 0.759 13 0.058 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 16.979 -7% ▼ 116 -19% ▼ 0.146 16% ▲ 52% 15% ▲

Los Alamos National Laboratory 127.056 1% ▲ 1,459 9% ▲ 0.087 -7% ▼ 21% -9% ▼

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 0.017 5 0.003 

Nevada National Security Site 2.743 -17% ▼ 78 -7% ▼ 0.035 -10% ▼

New Brunswick Laboratory 0.165 8 0.021 

Oak Ridge:

 East Tennessee Technology Park 0.830 39 0.021

 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 0.211 82 0.003

 Oak Ridge National Laboratory 66.252 -10% ▼ 714 -2% ▼ 0.093 -8% ▼ 7% -27% ▼

 Y-12 National Security Complex 59.055 -15% ▼ 1,537 -6% ▼ 0.038 -10% ▼ 1% -80% ▼

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 4.038 114% ▲ 78 -13% ▼ 0.052 147% ▲

Pantex Plant 28.947 11% ▲ 311 3% ▲ 0.093 8% ▲ 6% 100% ▲

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 2.279 -23% ▼ 47 -25% ▼ 0.048 3% ▲

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 0.401 53 0.008 

Sandia National Laboratories 6.913 94% ▲ 126 56% ▲ 0.055 25% ▲

Savannah River Site 149.967 -16% ▼ 2,512 -3% ▼ 0.060 -14% ▼ 6% -69% ▼

Separations Process Research Unit 0.179 13 0.014 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0.236 10 0.024 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 6.245 101% ▲ 57 -15% ▼ 0.110 136% ▲ 37% 100% ▲

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project 15.000 -52% ▼ 191 -19% ▼ 0.079 -41% ▼

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 0.476 25 0.019 

West Valley Demonstration Project 51.662 23% ▲ 247 -20% ▼ 0.209 54% ▲ 36% 442% ▲

Service Center Personnel* 0.889 38 0.023 58% ▲

Totals 863.528 -9% ▼ 12,957 -1% ▼ 0.067 -8% ▼ 12% -4% ▼

Note: Bold and boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column. The percentage change from the previous year is not shown because 

it is not meaningful when the site collective dose is less than 1 person-rem (10 person-mSv). Please see section 3.4.3.1 for more information. 

* Includes service center personnel from Albuquerque and Oak Ridge in addition to several smaller facilities not associated with a DOE site. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-11 
Exhibit 3-15 :
 

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2011.
 

Hanford 

Percent Change* 

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Collective TED (person-rem)

Ç

Hanford Site 

The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Hanford Site sits 

on 586-square-miles in the desert of southeastern Washington State. 

The area is home to nine former nuclear reactors and their associated 

processing facilities that were built beginning in 1943. Hanford reactors 

produced plutonium from 1944 until 1987. Today, Hanford workers are 

involved in an environmental cleanup project and remediation of the site. 

There were 1,479 individuals with measurable TED at Hanford in 2011, 

which is a 12% decrease from 2010. The TED decreased 16% from 

112.522 person-rems in 2010 to 94.691 in 2011. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

The Office of River Protection (ORP) 

The DOE ORP mission is to retrieve and treat Hanford’s waste and 

close the tank farms to protect the Columbia River. The chemical and 

radioactive waste is currently stored in 171 large underground tanks. 

ORP and its contractors are removing and transferring this waste 

from the older single-shell tanks to the newer double-shell tanks. This 

transfer of waste is to reduce the environmental risk posed by the older 

tanks. The cornerstone of the tank waste cleanup project is the Waste 

Treatment Plant (WTP). The WTP will use a technology called vitrification 

to immobilize chemical and radioactive waste in an exceptionally sturdy 

form of glass to isolate it from the environment. 

The ORP had an 11% decrease in collective TED from 28.522 person-rems 

in 2010 to 25.308 person-rems in 2011. This same location also showed a 

7% decrease in the number of individuals with measurable TED. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

15.6% 10.2% 9.9% 

È È

5-yr. avg.

140.8 

Savannah River Site 

Percent Change*

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Collective TED (person-rem)

Ç Ç

The Savannah River Site (SRS) was constructed during the early 1950s to 

produce the basic materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, 

primarily tritium and plutonium-239, in support of our nation's defense 

programs. Five reactors were built to produce these materials. Also built 

were a number of support facilities including two chemical separations 

plants, a heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target 

fabrication facility, a tritium extraction facility and waste management 

facilities. 

The SRS collected records for 7,888 individuals in 2011, and 2,512 people 

had a measurable total effective dose (TED). The number of individuals 

with measurable TED decreased by 3% from 2010. The collective TED 

was 149.967 person-rems, 16% lower than 2010. No individual exceeded 

2 rems TED for 2011. 

An increase in dose at SRS in 2010 was primarily the result of a puncture 

wound. The decrease in dose for 2011 was due to the reduced amount 

of work scope in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

and the implementation of handheld X-Ray devices in Solid Waste to 

accurately identify prohibited waste items, which reduced the amount 

of rework. K-Area realized an increase in dose due to Radio Frequency 

Tamper Indicating Devices (RFTID) failures & battery changes and an 

extensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visit. The Savannah 

River Remediation (SRR) experienced an increase in dose at Saltstone 

and the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) due to equipment 

conditions and emergent repairs while F and H Tank Farms saw a 

decrease in dose due to work scope changes and increased ALARA 

practices. 

16.5% 37.7% 33.5% 

È

5-yr. avg.

135.6 

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. 

3-12 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Exhibit 3-15 (Continued):
 

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2011.
 

Los Alamos 

National Laboratory 

Percent Change* 

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Collective TED (person-rem)

Ç Ç

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) conducts radiological operations 

in active facilities, storage facilities, facilities with legacy radiological 

concerns, and inactive facilities and areas destined for decommissioning. 

Radiological activities include programmatic and production work; facility 

construction, modification, and maintenance; and research, development, 

and testing. 

LANL had 1,459 people with measurable TED, a 9% increase from 

2010. Collective TED at LANL in 2011 was 127.056 person-rems, 

which is virtually unchanged from last year (1% increase). Internal dose, 

committed effective dose (CED), was reported as 0.909 person-rem. The 

two highest individual doses (just over 1 rem) were accrued by workers 

performing plutonium glove box work at TA-55; these doses were tracked 

and controlled rigorously by line management and the LANL Institutional 

Radiation Safety Committee. Internal doses reflect a combination of 

routine tritium doses from LANL tritium operations and low-level intakes 

of uranium and plutonium. The top four internal doses were uranium 

doses accumulated over the year; the highest cumulative dose was 

0.361 rem. 

TA-55 Plutonium Facility operations accounted for the majority of 

occupational dose at LANL in 2011, which is historically consistent for 

LANL. Occupational dose was accrued from manufacturing and related 

weapons work, Pu-238 work, repackaging materials, and providing 

Radiation Control Technician (RCT) and other infrastructure support for 

radiological work and facility maintenance at TA-55. In addition to TA-55 

operations, significant portions of LANL dose were accrued by workers 

performing retrieval, repackaging, and shipping of radioactive solid waste 

at LANL waste facilities at TA-50 and TA-54 and workers performing 

programmatic and maintenance work at the TA-53 Los Alamos Neutron 

Science Center. 

No individual received over 2 rems at LANL during 2011. 

1.3% 9.8% 15.6% 

È

5-yr. avg.

125.2 

Hanford 

Percent Change* 

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 

Located in Richland, Washington, PNNL is one of 10 national laboratories 

managed by DOE's Office of Science (SC). The laboratory provides the 

facilities, unique scientific equipment, and world-renowned scientists and 

engineers to strengthen U.S. scientific foundations through fundamental 

research and innovation. Approximately 4,900 people are employed 

at PNNL. In addition to the Richland campus, PNNL operates a marine 

research facility in Sequim, Washington, and satellite offices in Seattle and 

Tacoma, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. 

The collective TED at PNNL in 2011 was 22.336, a 19% decrease from 

the previous year. PNNL also had an 8% decrease in the number of 

individuals with measurable TED. 

The primary reason for the decrease at all three sites was reduction in 

ARRA work activities. Neutron exposures decreased proportionately to 

the overall reduction in dose. The largest contributors to exposure at the 

Hanford site were decontamination activities at the Plutonium Finishing 

Plant (37%), Tank Farm activities (19%), work activities at PNNL (16%), 

decontamination and demolition of various facilities on the river corridor 

and central plateau (14%), and transuranic (TRU) retrieval and other 

Waste and Fuels operations (14%). 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-13 
Exhibit 3-15 (Continued):
 

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2011.
 

Idaho National 

Laboratory 

Percent Change* 

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Collective TED (person-rem)

Ç

Idaho National Laboratory - Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) 

The radiation exposure activities performed by BEA during 2011 at the INL 

Site included work at the Advanced Test Reactor, the Materials and Fuel 

Complex, and the Central and Idaho Falls Facilities. BEA monitored 3,785 

individuals in 2011. There was a collective TED of 51.430 person-rems in 

2011. This represents an increase of approximately 7% compared with 

2010. 

On November 8, 2011, workers at the INL Materials and Fuels Complex 

Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR) Facility operated by Battelle Energy 

Alliance (BEA) were packaging plutonium reactor fuel plates. Upon opening 

one of the storage containers, the workers discovered a plutonium fuel 

plate wrapped in plastic and tape. When the workers attempted to remove 

the wrapping material, an uncontrolled release of radioactive contaminants 

occurred, resulting in the contamination of 16 workers and the facility. The 

official dose assessments for the intakes of americium and plutonium were 

finalized as of November 26, 2012, for 15 of the monitored individuals. The 

highest committed effective dose equivalent for a worker was 1.5 rems. 

The highest committed dose equivalent to bone surfaces (the most highly 

irradiated single organ or tissue) was 16.5 rems. These doses are below the 

ACL and regulatory limits. The data presented in this report includes these 

finalized dose values. (see section 3.3.3) 

An accident investigation was conducted in accordance with the 

requirements of DOE O 225.1B, Accident Investigations, and an 

investigation report, Plutonium Contamination in the ZPPR Facility at the 

INL, November 8, 2011, was released in January 2012. See also the ORPS 

report NE-ID-BEA-ZPPR-2011-0001. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED. 

Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) 

AMWTP work activities, performed by Bechtel BWXT Idaho and Idaho 

Treatment Group, in 2011 continued the direct support of the 1995 

Idaho/U.S. Navy/U.S. DOE Settlement Agreement requiring the removal 

of transuranic waste from the DOE’s Idaho Operations area. The primary 

work activities at the AMWTP that contributed to workforce dose included 

TRU waste retrieval from burial, waste characterization, and waste handling 

operations in support of shipment of transuranic and by-product waste 

materials from Idaho to the DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility 

and other commercial disposal sites. No significant radiological concerns 

were encountered in 2011. 

In 2011 there were 1,594 persons monitored. The collective TED was 

20.400 person-rems. This represents a 16.2% decrease from 2010. This 

decrease in collective TED can be attributed to improvements in the 

planning of drum movements and better configuration in waste storage 

areas (higher dose rate drums were placed further from workers). 

Additionally, workers were made aware of the location of elevated 

exposure rate areas by utilizing electronic dosimeters and programs that 

encouraged the workers to track their own dose during the day. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) 

ICP activities performed by CH2M-WG, LLC, during 2011 leading to 

radiation exposure included waste management activities, Advanced Test 

Reactor Complex decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities, 

Accelerated Retrieval Project (ARP) exposure activities, Materials and Fuels 

Complex D&D activities, and Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering 

Center (INTEC) nuclear materials disposal. 

CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC submitted 1,815 records. The collective TED for 2011 

was 52.875 person-rems. This represents a 7% decrease from 2010 (56.768 

person-rems). 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED. 

2.8% 13.7% 5.6% 

È È 

5-yr. avg.

124.6 

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. 

3-14 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Exhibit 3-15 (Continued):
 

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2011.
 

Oak Ridge 

Percent Change* 

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Collective TED (person-rem)

Ç Ç

Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) 

Y-12 is one of four production facilities in the National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s Nuclear Security Enterprise. The facility’s emphasis is the 

processing and storage of uranium and development of technologies 

associated with those activities. Decades of precision machining 

experience make Y-12 a production facility with capabilities unequaled 

nationwide. Y-12 maintains the safety, security and effectiveness of the 

U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and provides safe and effective nuclear 

propulsion systems for the U.S. Navy. 

Over 6,000 individuals were monitored at the Y-12 National Security 

Complex in 2011. The collective TED decreased 15% from 69.516 personrems in 2010 to 59.055 person-rems in 2011. The 2011 collective CED 

decreased 22% from 57.232 person-rems in 2010 to 44.594 personrems in 2011. ALARA efforts resulted in a reduction in the airborne 

radioactivity concentrations, and material types processed in some areas 

were more soluble than in previous years. The total extremity dose 

increased 64% from 23.986 person-rems in 2010 to 39.225 person-rems 

in 2011. This increase was due to disposition of legacy material and 

consolidation of material at the site. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

ORNL is a multiprogram science and technology laboratory managed 

for the DOE by UT-Battelle, LLC. ORNL's mission is to deliver scientific 

discoveries and technical breakthroughs that will accelerate the 

development and deployment of solutions in clean energy and 

global security, and in doing so create economic opportunity for 

the nation. ORNL also performs other work for the DOE, including 

isotope production, information management, and technical program 

management, and provides research and technical assistance to other 

organizations. 

In 2011, ORNL reported a 2% decrease in the number of individuals with 

measurable TED compared with 2010. The collective TED for ORNL in 

2011 was 66.252 person-rems. This represents a 10% decrease from 

2010 (73.468 person-rems). During 2011, ORNL saw a decrease in 

isotope processing and maintenance activities at the High Flux Isotope 

Reactor (HFIR) and the Spatial Neutron Source (SNS). 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED at ORNL during 2011. 

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) 

ORISE is a DOE institute focusing on scientific initiatives to research 

health risks from occupational hazards, assess environmental cleanup, 

respond to radiation medical emergencies, support national security and 

emergency preparedness, and educate the next generation of scientists. 

In 2011, ORISE reported 82 individuals with measurable dose. The 

collective TED for the monitoring year was 0.211 person-rem. This 

represents an 85% increase from 2010. The primary reason for this 

change was due to increased radiological work and additional staffing 

that received a measurable TED. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) 

URS/CH2M Oak Ridge, LLC (UCOR) is the DOE's cleanup contractor for 

the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, primarily focused on cleanup of the ETTP 

(the former Oak Ridge K-25 Site). 

12.4% 15.3% 19.6% 

È

5-yr. avg.

120.2 

* Up arrows indicate an increase in change. Down arrows indicate a decrease in change. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-15 
Exhibit 3-15 (Continued):
 

Activities Significantly Contributing to Collective TED in 2011.
 

Oak Ridge 

Percent Change* 

2010- Description of Activities at the Site 2011 

(last yr.) 

2009-

2011 

(3 yr.) 

2007-

2011 

(5 yr.) 

The major activities performed at UCOR managed sites in 2011 consisted 

of environmental restoration work, decommission and decontamination 

of facilities, surveillance and maintenance tasks, stabilization of inactive 

facilities and demolition of facilities. 

The increase in collective TED for 2011 as compared to 2010 is primarily 

attributed to removal of a legacy waste tank and remediation of 

surrounding contaminated soils. The decrease in total neutron dose for 

2011 compared to 2010 reflects a decrease in waste operations work 

at ORNL. The increase in CED for 2011 compared to 2010 is associated 

with invasive work activities performed within K-25 prior to demolition 

activities. There were no unusual events related to occupational radiation 

exposure at UCOR facilities for 2011. 

No individual exceeded 2 rems TED in 2011. 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) conducts 

research in the physical, biomedical, and environmental 

sciences, as well as in energy technologies and 

national security. BNL also builds and operates major 

scientific facilities available to university, industry, 

and government researchers. Brookhaven is operated 

and managed for DOE’s Office of Science (SC) by 

Brookhaven Science Associates, a limited-liability 

company founded by Stony Brook University, the largest 

academic user of Laboratory facilities, and Battelle, a 

nonprofit, applied science and technology organization. 

There were 172 people with measurable TED at BNL in 

2011. The collective TED increased by 11% from 11.529 

person-rems in 2010 to 12.822 person-rems in 2011. The 

highest individual dose was 0.856 rem. No individual 

exceeded 2 person rems TED or exceeded any DOE 

occupational dose limit. The CED was 0.001 personrem, and the equivalent dose from external sources of 

radiation was 12.821 person-rems. 

Energy Technology Engineering Center 

The Energy Technology Engineering Center is currently 

in a safe shutdown mode, pending the completion of the 

Environmental Impact Statement. In 2011, few people 

received any significant radiation exposure dose from 

the DOE operations, with 13% decrease in the number of 

individuals with measurable TED. The number of people 

monitored in 2011 was about 5% less than that in 2010. 

This number also can vary from year to year, depending 

on the number of visitors and/or contractors that come 

to the site. 

The collective TED decreased by 52% from 0.292 personrem in 2010 to 0.139 person-rem in 2011. No individual 

exceeded 2 rems TED. 

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) 

advances the understanding of the fundamental nature 

of matter and energy by providing leadership and 

resources for qualified researchers to conduct basic 

research at the frontiers of high-energy physics and 

related disciplines. 

In 2011, Fermilab reported an 8% decrease in the 

number of people with measurable TED (155) compared 

with 2010 (169). During 2011, the collective TED 

was 10.090 person-rems. This is approximately a 10% 

decrease from 2010. This decrease was due to no 

major shutdowns of the accelerators complex. Major 

shutdowns of the accelerators were avoided due to the 

permanent shutdown of the Tevatron in September 2011. 

Kansas City Plant 

The collective TED for the 68 individuals monitored 

at the Kansas City Plant in 2011 was 0.049 person-rem, 

representing a 6.5% increase from 2010. 

The majority of this dose (0.046 person-rem) was 

one individual that was involved in a special project 

involving portable flash x-ray units. 

3-16 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory-Nevada 

LLNL is a DOE facility operated by the Lawrence 

Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) management 

team, which includes Bechtel, the University of California, 

BWX Technologies, Washington Group, and Battelle. The 

site serves as a national resource of scientific, technical, 

and engineering capability with a special focus on 

national security. LLNL’s mission encompasses such 

areas as strategic defense, energy, the environment, 

biomedicine, technology transfer, education, counterterrorism, and emergency response. Support of these 

operations requires the use of a wide range of radiationproducing devices (e.g., x-ray machines, accelerators, 

electron-beam welders) and radioactive material. The 

types of radioactive materials range from tritium to 

transuranics; the quantities range from nanocuries (i.e., 

normal environmental background values) to kilocuries. 

The collective TED for LLNL overall in 2011 was 16.979 

person-rems. For the non-Nevada facilities, the 2011 

collective TED was 16.851 person-rems. This reflects a 6% 

decrease from the 2010 collective TED of 18.017 personrems and is due to decreased operations in the Plutonium 

Facility and at LLNL. However, over half (52%) of the 

collective TED was above 0.500 rem. In 2011, 7,668 

people were monitored, and 115 people had measurable 

TED. There were 18 people with internal uptakes 

accounting for 0.030 person-rem total collective CED. 

LLNL-Nevada is a DOE facility operated by the LLNS 

management team, which includes Bechtel, the 

University of California, BWX Technologies, Washington 

Group, and Battelle. For 2011, LLNL-Nevada had a 

collective TED of 0.104 person-rem, representing an 

approximate decrease of 69% from 2010. Two-hundred 

thirteen people were monitored, but only 1 person had a 

measurable dose. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

decreased the collective TED by 23% in 2011. The 

NREL staff that was involved in x-ray generating device 

work increased in size, while individual exposure time 

decreased due to more users using the same number of 

machines. 

New Brunswick Laboratory 

The New Brunswick Laboratory (NBL) is a Governmentowned, Government-operated center of excellence in 

the measurement science of nuclear materials. Specific 

operations involving radioactive material include 

destructive and nondestructive measurements of nuclear 

materials including plutonium and uranium. Research 

to develop improved measurement technology applied 

to nuclear materials and management of interlaboratory 

measurement evaluation programs also have the 

potential to lead to ionizing radiation exposure. 

The collective TED at NBL for 2011 was 0.165 person-rem. 

This represents a more than four-fold increase from the 

value for 2010 (0.037 person-rem). The primary reason 

for this increase was due to preparation for restart of 

plutonium laboratory operations. Plutonium operations 

have been shut down since December 2004, with little 

to no activity taking place in the laboratory areas. 

During 2011, material in the plutonium laboratories was 

collected, moved, and consolidated over several months. 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

The overall collective TED for the Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant in 2011 was 4.038 person-rems. The 

following discription provides a breakdown of the 

various activities at this site. 

Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA) Kentucky 

The exposure information for 2011 covers LATA 

Kentucky activities performed under the DOE contract. 

Its scope consists of environmental remediation, facility 

decontamination, and final assessment of buildings and 

areas at the Paducah Site. 

The collective TED for 2011 was 0.506 person-rem. 

This represents a 73% increase from the previous year. 

The primary reason for this change was increased 

facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) 

operations at Paducah. There were no unusual events 

related to occupational radiation exposure at LATA 

Kentucky facilities for 2011. 

Uranium Disposition Services/Babcock & Wilcox 

Conversion Service, LLC 

The collective TED for 2011 was 3.480 person-rems. This 

represents a 185% increase from 2010. The primary 

reason for this change was increased startup operations 

at the Paducah Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion 

Facility. 

Swift & Staley (SST) 

The collective TED for 2011 was 0.051 person-rem. This 

represents a 94% decrease from 2010. This decrease 

is attributed to several factors. SST applies the ALARA 

process to all operations involving potential personnel 

exposure to ionizing radiation or releases of radioactive 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-17 
material from sites or facilities where SST conducts 

operations for DOE. SST is successful in reducing 

exposure using ALARA principles. In addition, SST 

no longer provides dosimetry for Uranium Disposition 

Services, which was the primary contributor to SST’s 

personnel exposure. 

Pantex Plant 

The DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) Pantex Plant is the nation’s only facility for 

assembly and disassembly of nuclear explosives. The 

collective TED for the Pantex Plant in 2011 was 28.947 

person-rems, which resulted in an 11% increase in the 

collective TED. The 2011 activities that contributed 

the majority of dose to the Pantex Plant workers were 

operations that exposed them to large numbers of bare 

weapon pits (the pits contain significant quantities of 

Special Nuclear Materials). These operations include 

nuclear explosive assembly/disassembly operations, 

weapon dismantlement programs, life-extension 

programs, Special Nuclear Material Component Requalification, and Special Nuclear Material staging. 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) radiological 

operations include operation of a research reactor, 

gamma irradiation facility, hot cell facility, several 

accelerators, light laboratory work involving x-ray 

machines and use of tracer radionuclides, and waste 

operations. 

SNL reported twice as many people with measurable 

TED in 2011 (126) compared with 2010 (59). The 2011 

collective TED for SNL was 6.913 person-rems, which 

represents a two-fold increase in site collective TED from 

2010. These increases can be attributed to Auxiliary Hot 

Cell Facility TRU waste processing and Annular Core 

Research Reactor special irradiation projects conducted 

throughout 2011. 

Separations Process Research Unit 

Project activities in 2011 included the surveillance and 

maintenance activities to maintain site condition, the 

processing and shipment of low activity water, shipping 

of low activity soil, deconning in the sludge processing 

tent, and tenting the G2 and H2 buildings in preparation 

for demolition activities. This report contained 226 

records, and 13 people had measurable TED. Collective 

TED was 0.179 person-rem for 2011, representing a 98% 

decrease in TED from 2010. The primary reason for this 

decrease was that demolition activities were halted at the 

end of September 2010. 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

The SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) 

program centers around experimental and theoretical 

research in elementary particle physics using accelerated 

electron beams and a broad program of research in 

atomic and solid-state physics, chemistry, and biology 

using synchrotron radiation from accelerated electron 

beams. The main instrument of research is the 3.2-km 

linear accelerator, which can generate high-intensity 

beams of electrons and positrons up to 50 GeV. The 

Klystron Test Laboratory manufactures all the klystrons 

used in SLAC accelerators, as well as novel structures 

and components for future accelerators; it supports lowlevel and high-level radio frequency operations of SLAC 

accelerators, and it operates a 70-MeV X-band research 

accelerator and laser facility capable of producing 

subpicosecond beam bunches. 

The construction of the new Facilities for Accelerator 

Science and Experimental Test (FACET) was completed 

in mid 2011 to study plasma acceleration, using short, 

intense pulses of electrons and positrons to create 

an acceleration source called a plasma wakefield 

accelerator. FACET beams at SLAC have been operated 

since June 2011. 

The 2011 report contained 2,491 records, including 10 

people with measurable TED. No individual exceeded 

2 person-rems TED or any DOE occupational dose limit 

during 2011 at SLAC. Compared with the 2010 collective 

TED (0.053 person-rem), the 2011 collective TED (0.236 

person-rem) was about four times higher. This increase 

is mainly associated with the operations of the newly 

constructed FACET facility and the construction of 

Building 28 (near the SLAC Klystron Gallery). 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) 

is one of 17 national laboratories funded by the DOE. 

TJNAF also receives support from the City of Newport 

News and the Commonwealth of Virginia. TJNAF’s 

primary mission is to conduct basic research of the 

atom's nucleus using the unique particle accelerator, 

known as the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator 

Facility. 

3-18 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
In 2011, 1,682 individuals were monitored, and 57 

individuals had reportable doses. The collective 

TED for 2011 was 6.245 person-rems. No individual 

dose exceeded the TJNAF ACL of 1 rem. The highest 

measurable TED was 0.730 rem. 

The collective TED at TJNAF doubled from 3.111 personrems in 2010 to 6.245 person-rems in 2011. The increase 

in TED was due to the specific conditions associated 

with the Q-weak experiment that took place in Hall C. 

This experiment used the highest sustained beam 

current ever achieved at TJNAF. The combination of 

high current and unexpected beam loss led to both high 

levels of activation and failure of beam line components. 

As a result, multiple repairs and maintenance work 

occurred within high radiation areas. 

Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project – 

Moab 

The Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Action Project 

(UMTRA) site is located approximately 3 miles northwest 

of Moab in Grand County, Utah, and includes the 

former Atlas Minerals Corporation (Atlas) uranium-ore 

processing facility. The site encompasses 480 acres, 

of which approximately 130 acres are covered by a 

uranium mill tailings pile. The UMTRA Project ships 

one trainload of tailings each day. The trains have up 

to 36 railcars, each holding four lidded containers, for a 

total of about 5,000 tons of tailings per shipment. Tailing 

shipments began in April 2009 and are expected to 

continue through 2025. 

The collective TED for the UMTRA Project in 2011 was 

15 person-rems, a 52% decrease from 2010. The primary 

reason for this decrease was a 50% reduction in the work 

force in July 2011. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located in the 

Chihuahuan Desert near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a DOE 

facility managed by Washington TRU Solutions. The 

facility safely disposes of the nation's defense-related 

transuranic radioactive waste. WIPP began disposal 

operations in March 1999. 

Twenty-five people had measurable TED at WIPP in 

2011, a 60% decrease from 2010. The collective TED 

for 2011 was 0.476 person-rem. This also represents 

a 60% decrease from 2010. The primary reason for 

this decrease was due to changes in the amount of 

radioactive material contained in the waste processed. 

All doses received were from routine activities associated 

with the disposal of transuranic waste. There were no 

individuals exceeding 2 rems TED for this monitoring 

year. 

West Valley Demonstration Project 

Two projects involving low-dose jobs in 2011 required 

dosimetry monitoring of personnel . These were the 

installation of the tank and vault drying system in the 

waste tank farm and the installation of the permeable 

treatment wall. This resulted in a relative increase in 

the number of workers with no measurable TED. The 

increase of 23% collective TED (51.662 person-rems) in 

2011 was due to an increase in D&D activity over 2010. 

3.4.4 Summary by Program Office 

DOE has divided the responsibility of managing its 

missions among specific program offices. The various 

DOE sites support different functions and therefore 

fall under the authority and management of separate 

program offices. It should be noted that several of the 

DOE sites undertake work supporting multiple program 

offices. However, those sites have a lead program 

office and are not required to report radiation exposure 

by program office, so the exact contribution from 

each program office cannot be determined. In these 

instances, the site is shown under one program office 

but may have significant portions of the dose from work 

done in support of other program offices. Exhibit 3-16 

shows the number of individuals with measurable TED, 

the collective TED, and the average measurable TED 

by DOE program office. The Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) and the NNSA account for the 

largest percentages of the collective TED (53% and 28%, 

respectively). The mission of the EM is to complete the 

safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about 

from five decades of nuclear weapons development and 

government-sponsored nuclear energy research. NNSA 

is responsible for the management and security of the 

nation’s nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, 

and naval reactor programs, as well as responding to 

radiological emergencies and the transportation of 

nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. In 

general, the missions of EM and NNSA require more 

interaction and activities involving radioactive materials. 

These offices account for over 81% of the collective TED 

at DOE. 

The primary sites contributing to the collective TED at 

EM are SRS, Hanford, and INL. For NNSA, the primary 

contributors are LANL and Y-12. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-19 
 = 

 = 

 

 = 

 = 

 = 

Exhibit 3-16:
 

Program Office Dose Data, 2011.
 

Program Office 

Collective 

TED 

(personrem) 

Percent 

Change 

from 2010 

Number 

with 

Meas. 

Dose 

Percent 

Change 

from 2010 

Avg. 

Meas. 

TED 

(rem) 

Percent 

Change 

from 2010 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE) Total Monitored 14 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 0.017 5 0.003 

EE Totals* 0.017 5 0.003 

Office of Environmental Management (EM) Total Monitored 30,636 

East Tennessee Technology Park 0.830 39 0.021 

Energy Technology Engineering Center 0.139 47 0.003 

Hanford Site 94.691 -16% ▼ 1,479 -12% ▼ 0.064 -5% ▼

Idaho National Laboratory 83.079 1% ▲ 1,336 38% ▲ 0.062 -26% ▼

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 30.404 -20% ▼ 263 -4% ▼ 0.116 -16% ▼

Office of River Protection 25.308 -11% ▼ 496 -7% ▼ 0.051 -4% ▼

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 4.038 114% ▲ 78 -13% ▼ 0.052 147% ▲

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 2.279 -23% ▼ 47 -25% ▼ 0.048 3% ▲

Savannah River Site 149.967 -16% ▼ 2,512 -3% ▼ 0.060 -14% ▼

Separations Process Research Unit 0.179 13 0.014 

Service Center Personnel* 0.830 35 0.024 

Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project 15.000 -52% ▼ 191 -19% ▼ 0.079 -41% ▼

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 0.476 25 0.019 

West Valley Demonstration Project 51.662 23% ▲ 247 -20% ▼ 0.209 54% ▲

EM Totals* 458.882 -13% ▼ 6,808 -2% ▼ 0.067 -11% ▼

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Total Monitored 33,951 

Kansas City Plant 0.049 2 0.025 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 16.979 -7% ▼ 116 -19% ▼ 0.146 16% ▲

Los Alamos National Laboratory 127.056 1% ▲ 1,459 9% ▲ 0.087 -7% ▼

Nevada National Security Site 2.743 -17% ▼ 78 -7% ▼ 0.035 -10% ▼

Pantex Plant 28.947 11% ▲ 311 3% ▲ 0.093 8% ▲

Sandia National Laboratories 6.913 94% ▲ 126 56% ▲ 0.055 25% ▲

Y-12 National Security Complex 59.055 -15% ▼ 1,537 -6% ▼ 0.038 -10% ▼

NNSA Totals* 241.742 -2% ▼ 3,629 1% ▼ 0.067 -3% ▼

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) Total Monitored 3,002 

Idaho National Laboratory 43.533 -10% ▼ 1,049 14% ▲ 0.041 -21% ▼

NE Totals* 43.533 -10% ▼ 1,049 14% ▲ 0.041 -21% ▼

Office of Science (SC) Total Monitored 24,182 

Ames Laboratory 0.762 29 0.026 

Argonne National Laboratory 29.420 -6% ▼ 176 -1% ▼ 0.167 -5% ▼

Brookhaven National Laboratory 12.822 11% ▲ 172 -20% ▼ 0.075 38% ▲

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 10.090 -10% ▼ 155 -8% ▼ 0.065 -2% ▼

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 0.759 13 0.058 

New Brunswick Laboratory 0.165 8 0.021 

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 0.211 82 0.003 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 35.848 1% ▲ 451 0% 0.079 1% ▲

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 22.336 -19% ▼ 257 -8% ▼ 0.087 -12% ▼

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 0.401 53 0.008 

Service Center Personnel* 0.059 3 0.020 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0.236 10 0.024 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 6.245 101% ▲ 57 -15% ▼ 0.110 136% ▲

SC Totals* 119.354 -3% ▼ 1,466 -5% ▼ 0.081 3% ▲

Note: Bold and boxed values indicate the greatest value in each column. The percentage change from the previous year is not shown because 

it is not meaningful when the site collective dose is less than 1 person-rem (10 person-mSv). Please see section 3.4.3.1 for more information. 

3-20 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
A more detailed breakdown of the exposure information 

by site, program office, and contractor is available at 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/ in the 

Appendices section of the Annual Report. 

3.5 Transient Individuals 

Transient individuals, or transients, are defined as 

individuals who are monitored at more than one 

DOE site during the calendar year. For the purpose 

of this report, a DOE site is defined as a geographic 

location. During the year, some individuals performed 

work at multiple sites and, therefore, had more than 

one monitoring record reported to the repository. In 

addition, some individuals transferred from one site 

to another. This section presents information on 

transient individuals to determine the extent to which 

individuals traveled from site to site and to examine the 

doses received by these individuals. Exhibit 3-17 shows 

the dose distribution and total number of transient 

individuals from 2007 to 2011. Over the past 5 years, the 

records of transient individuals have averaged 3% of the 

total records for all monitored individuals at DOE. These 

individuals received, on an average, 4% of the collective 

TED. The collective TED for transients decreased by 

16% from 37.8 person-rems (378 person-mSv) in 2010 to 

31.7 person-rems (317 person-mSv) in 2011. The average 

measurable TED decreased 13% from 0.064 rem (0.64 

mSv) in 2010 to 0.056 rem (0.56 mSv) in 2011. These 

decreases are consistent with the overall decreases 

Exhibit 3-17:
 

Dose Distribution of Transient Workers, 2007–2011.
 

observed across the DOE complex from 2010 to 2011 

and represent a decrease in work performed involving 

radiation exposure. Since 1993, the percentages have 

remained relatively constant, even though DOE has 

become extensively involved in D&D activities and other 

types of operations. 

The tracking and analysis of transient workers are 

important aspects of the HSS REMS project. While each 

site is responsible for monitoring individuals during their 

work at that site, the REMS project collects dose records 

from all sites and verifies that individuals do not exceed 

regulatory limits by accruing dose at multiple facilities. 

Although the number of transient individuals and 

average dose have been relatively low, the examination 

of these records remains an important function of HSS in 

ensuring individual worker health and safety. 

3.6 Historical Data 

3.6.1 Prior Years 

In order to analyze recent radiation exposure data 

in the context of the history of radiation exposure at 

DOE, it is useful to include information prior to the 

past 5 years as presented in this report. For this reason, 

Exhibits 3-18 and 3-19 are presented to show a summary 

of occupational exposures back to 1974, when the 

Atomic Energy Commission split into the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Energy Research 

Dose Ranges (TED in rem) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Transients 

Less than measurable 2,353 2,088 2,055 2,337 2,151 

measurable <0.100 408 424 523 487 498 

0.100–0.250 52 43 51 74 54 

0.250–0.500 8 9 20 23 11 

0.500–0.750 5 1 

0.750–1.000 1 1 3 2 3 

1–2 2 

Total number of individuals monitored* 2,822 2,565 2,652 2,928 2,720 

Number with measurable dose 469 477 597 591 569 

% with measurable dose 17% 19% 23% 20% 21% 

Collective TED (person-rem) 23.670 21.261 31.016 37.797 31.749 

Average measurable TED (rem) 0.050 0.045 0.052 0.064 0.056 

All DOE

"Total number of records for monitored individuals" 86,667 83,235 86,694 92,066 91,839 

Number with measurable dose 11,198 11,296 11,757 13,039 12,957 

% of total monitored who are transient 3.3% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.0% 

"% of the number with measurable dose who are transient" 4.2% 4.2% 5.1% 4.5% 4.4% 

* Total number of individuals represents the number of individuals monitored and not the number of records. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-21 
 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3-18:
 

Collective Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2011.
 

Exhibit 3-19:
 

Number of Workers with Measurable Dose and Average Measurable Dose, 1974–2011.
 

* 1974--1989 collective dose = DDE 1946--1974 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

1990--1992 collective dose = DDE + AEDE 1974--1977 Energy Research and Development Administration 

1993--2010 collective dose = DDE + CEDE (ERDA) 

2011 collective dose = ED + CED 1977--Present Department of Energy (DOE) 

3-22 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
and Development Administration, which subsequently 

became DOE. Exhibits 3-18 and 3-19 show the collective 

dose, average measurable dose, and number of workers 

with a measurable dose from 1974 to 2011. As can be 

seen from the graphs, all three parameters decreased 

dramatically between 1986 and 1993. The main reasons 

for this large decrease were the shutdown of facilities 

within the weapons complex and the end of the Cold 

War era, which shifted the DOE mission from weapons 

production to shutdown, stabilization, and D&D 

activities. 

3.6.2 Historical Data Collection 

In section 3.7 of the 2000 and 2001 annual reports on 

occupational exposure, information was presented on 

historical data that had been collected to date. Sites 

were requested by DOE to voluntarily provide historical 

exposure data, and many sites have subsequently 

responded. No additional sites have reported historical 

data during the year 2011. 

Sites that have not yet reported historical dose records 

are encouraged to contact Ms. Nirmala Rao at DOE 

(see section 1.2) to obtain further information on 

reporting these records. This is a request to voluntarily 

report historical data (records prior to 1987) that are 

available in electronic form or in whatever format that 

is most convenient for the site. The data will be stored 

as reported in REMS, and wherever possible, data will 

be extracted and loaded into the REMS database for 

analysis and retrieval. For detailed analysis, read section 

3.7 of the 2000 report. 

Sites that have voluntarily reported historical data are as 


follows:
 

	 u Fernald Environmental Management Project;
 

	 u Hanford Site;
 

	 u Idaho National Laboratory;
 

	 u Kansas City Plant;
 

	 u Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
 

	 u Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
 

	 u Nevada National Security Site;
 

	 u Oak Ridge K-25 Site;
 

	 u Pantex Plant;
 

	 u Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant;
 

	 u Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site;
 

	 u Sandia National Laboratories; and
 

	 u Savannah River Site
 

3.7 DOE Occupational Dose in Relation to 

Other Activities 

3.7.1 Activities Regulated by the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

In the DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

1992-1994, DOE occupational radiation exposure was 

shown in relation to other industrial and governmental 

endeavors in order to gain an understanding of 

the relative scale of the radiation exposure at DOE 

operations to other activities. The 2011 report includes 

the DOE occupational exposure in relation to activities 

regulated by the NRC. It should be noted that the 

purpose of this information is simply to put the DOE 

radiation exposure in context with other endeavors that 

involve radiation exposure. A direct comparison is not 

appropriate due to the differences in the missions of 

DOE and NRC. While the mission of DOE is broad in 

scope and includes activities from energy research to 

national defense, NRC licensed activities are dominated 

by radiation exposure received at commercial 

nuclear power plants. Reactor operations account for 

approximately 79% of the collective TED, while industrial 

radiographers, manufacturers, and distributors of 

radiopharmaceuticals, independent spent fuel storage 

installations, and fuel cycle licensees comprise the 

remainder. 

The DOE and NRC occupational exposure data shown 

in Exhibit 3-20 cover the past 5 years (2007 to 2011). 

While the number of workers monitored at NRC and 

DOE are relatively comparable over the past 5 years, 

the number of individuals with a measurable dose at 

DOE was 20% of the NRC total for this time period. The 

percentages of DOE’s collective dose (TED) and average 

measurable dose (TED) were 8% and 39% of the NRC 

totals, respectively. 

Occupational Radiation Dose at DOE 3-23 
3-24 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

Exhibit 3-20: 

Comparison of Occupational Exposure for DOE and NRC, 2007 –2011. 

Number of Individuals Number of Individuals 

Monitored with Measurable Dose 

Collective TED Average Measurable TED 

(person-rem) (rem) 

DOE 

NRC 
Section Four
 ALARA Activities at DOE 4

Descriptions of ALARA activities at DOE are provided 

on the HSS web site for the purposes of sharing 

strategies and techniques that have shown promise in 

the reduction of radiation exposure and to facilitate 

the dissemination among DOE radiation protection 

managers and others interested in these project 

descriptions. Readers should be aware that the project 

descriptions are voluntarily submitted from the sites 

and are not independently verified or endorsed by 

DOE. Program and site offices and contractors who are 

interested in benchmarks of success and continuous 

improvement in the context of integrated safety 

management and quality are encouraged to provide 

input. 

4.1 Submitting ALARA Project 

Descriptions for Future Annual Reports 

Individual project descriptions may be submitted to 


the DOE Office of Analysis through the REMS web site. 


The submittals should describe the process in sufficient 


detail to provide a basic understanding of the project, 


the radiological concerns, and the activities initiated to 


reduce dose. The web site provides a form to collect the 


following information about the project:
 

u Mission statement;
 

u Project description;
 

u Radiological concerns;
 

u Total collective dose for the project;
 

u Dose rate to exposed workers before and after 


exposure controls were implemented; 

u Information on how the process implemented 

ALARA techniques in an innovative or unique 

manner; 

u Estimated dose avoided;
 

u Project staff involved;
 

u Approximate cost of the ALARA effort;
 

u Impact on work processes, in person-hours if 


possible (may be negative or positive); 

u Figures and/or photos of the project or 

equipment (electronic images if available); and 

u Point of contact for follow-up by interested 

professionals. 

The REMS web page for submitting ALARA project 

descriptions can be accessed on the Internet at: 

http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/rems/

rems/ALARA.cfm

4.2 Operating Experience Program 

DOE has a mature operating experience program, 

which has been enhanced from the lessons 

learned program that was initially developed in 

1994. The current DOE operating experience 

program is described in DOE O 210.2A, DOE 

Corporate Operating Experience Program [11]. The 

objective is to institute a DOE-wide program for the 

management of operating experience to prevent 

adverse operating incidents and to expand the 

sharing of good work practices among DOE sites. 

The purpose is to provide a systematic review, 

identification, collection, screening, evaluation, 

and dissemination of operating experience 

from U.S. and foreign government agencies and 

industry, professional societies, trade associations, 

national academies, universities, and DOE and its 

contractors. The DOE Headquarters takes corporate 

responsibility for identifying, analyzing, and sharing 

operating experience information, combined with 

the operating experience/lessons learned provided 

by DOE field sites, optimizes the knowledge gained 

and shared with others through various products, 

including a corporate database. 

DOE posts operating experience information and 

links to other operating experience resources on the 

Internet. DOE uses the Internet to openly disseminate 

such information so that not only DOE but also other 

external entities will have a source of information to 

improve the health and safety aspects of operations 

within their facilities, including reducing the number 

of accidents and injuries. 

ALARA Activities at DOE
 

ALARA Activities at DOE 4-1 
The specific operating experience web site address 

may be subject to change. Information services can be 

accessed through the HSS web site as follows: http://www.hss.doe.gov/SESA/Analysis/II/ 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585-1290 

E-mail: nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov 

4-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Section Five Conclusions 5

The occupational radiation exposure records show 

that in 2011, DOE facilities continued to comply with 

DOE dose limits and ACLs and worked to minimize 

exposure to individuals. Only 14% of the monitored 

workers received a measurable dose and the average 

measurable dose was less than 2% of the DOE limit. In 

2011, the collective dose and the number of individuals 

with measurable dose decreased by 9% and 1%, 

respectively. These decreases in the dose and number 

of individuals were the result of decreased activities 

involving radioactive materials, particularly at the DOE 

sites that comprise the majority of DOE collective dose. 

See Exhibit 5-1 below for summary data. 

Over the past 10 years, the collective dose and the size 

of the monitored workforce have remained at fairly 

stable levels. The collective TED for all DOE facilities 

was reduced by 84 person-rems from 2010 to 2011. This 

year marks the first time since 2008 that collective dose 

in the DOE complex decreased. Much of this can be 

Exhibit 5-1:
 

2011 Radiation Exposure Summary.
 

attributed to a decline in ARRA activities and 

the absence of events that exceeded the 2 

rems occupational exposure limit. 

The collective dose at DOE facilities has 

experienced a dramatic (90%) decrease 

since 1986. This decrease coincides with 

the end of the Cold War era, which shifted 

the DOE mission from weapons production 

to stabilization, waste management, and 

environmental remediation activities, along 

with the consolidation and remediation of 

facilities across the complex to meet the new 

mission. It is notable that as DOE has become 

more involved in the new mission, collective 

and average doses have been relatively low. 

Also, during this time period, regulations have 

improved with an increased focus on ALARA 

practices and risk reduction. 

Conclusions
 

u The collective TED decreased 9% from 947 person-rems (9,470 person-mSv) in 2010 to 864 person-rems (8,640 

person-mSv) in 2011. 

u Sites contributing significantly to collective TED were (in descending order of collective TED) Savannah River, 

Hanford, Los Alamos, Idaho, and Oak Ridge. These sites accounted for 78% of the collective TED at DOE in 

2011. 

u The decrease in dose seen at four of the top five DOE sites was attributed to a variety of causes. The 

implementation of handheld x-ray devices to accurately identify prohibited waste items reduced the amount 

of rework at SRS. Improvements in the planning of drum movements and better configuration in waste 

storage areas and increased worker awareness of the location of elevated exposure rate areas helped 

decrease exposure at Idaho. Both Savannah River and Hanford saw decreases in collective TED due to a 

reduction in ARRA activities. 

u Sites attributed much of the decrease in collective dose to the winding down of ARRA activities and the 

completion of several large projects in 2011. 

u The collective internal dose (CED) decreased by 47% between 2010 and 2011. 

u Uranium-234 accounted for the largest percentage of the collective CED, with over 97% of this dose accrued at 

 Y-12. 

u The collective TED for transient workers decreased by 16% from 37.8 person-rems (378 person-mSv) in 2010 to 

31.7 person-rems (317 person-mSv) in 2011. 

Conclusions 5-1 
This page intentionally left blank. 

5-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
Glossary
 Glossary

administrative control level (ACL) 

A dose level that is established below the DOE dose limit in order to administratively control exposures. 

ACLs are multi-tiered, with increasing levels of authority required to approve a higher level of exposure. 

ALARA 

Acronym for “as low as is reasonably achievable,” which is the approach to radiation protection to manage 

and control exposures (both individual and collective) to the workforce and the general public to as low as 

is reasonable, taking into account social, technical, economic, practical, and public policy considerations. 

ALARA is not a dose limit but a process with the objective of attaining doses as far below the applicable limits 

as is reasonably achievable. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

The ARRA of 2009 is an economic stimulus package signed into law on February 27, 2009. 

average measurable dose 

Dose obtained by dividing the collective dose by the number of individuals who received a measurable dose. 

This is the average most commonly used in this and other reports when examining trends and comparing 

doses received by workers, because it reflects the exclusion of those individuals receiving a less than 

measurable dose. Average measurable dose is calculated for total effective dose (TED), effective dose (ED), 

neutron dose, extremity dose, and other types of dose. 

collective dose 

The sum of the total annual effective dose equivalent or total effective dose values for all individuals in a 

specified population. Collective dose is expressed in units of person-rem. 

committed effective dose (CED) (HE,50) 

The sum of the committed equivalent doses to various tissues or organs in the body (HT,50), each multiplied 

by the appropriate tissue weighting factor (wT) (i.e., HE,50 = wTHT,50). CED is expressed in units of rem. 

committed equivalent dose (CEqD) (HT,50) 

The equivalent dose calculated to be received by a tissue or organ over a 50-year period after the intake of 

a radionuclide into the body. It does not include contributions from radiation sources external to the body. 

CEqD is expressed in units of rem. 

CR 

See SR. 

ED 

The summation of the products of the ED received by specified tissues or organs of the body (HT) and the 

appropriate tissue weighting factor (wT)—that is, E = ΣwTHT. It includes the dose from radiation sources 

internal and/or external to the body. 

equivalent dose (EqD) 

The product of average absorbed dose (DT,

R) in rad (or gray) in a tissue or organ (T) and a radiation (R) 


weighting factor (wR). For external dose, the EqD to the whole body is assessed at a depth of 1 cm in tissue; 


the EqD to the lens of the eye is assessed at a depth of 0.3 cm in tissue; and
 

the EqD to the extremity and skin is assessed at a depth of 0.007 cm in tissue. The mathematical term is 


HT, while the abbreviation EqD is used in this report and in the REMS reporting requirements for this data 


element. EqD is expressed in units of rem (or Sv).
 

Glossary
 

Glossary G-1 
DOE site 

A geographic location operated under the authority of the DOE. 

exposure 

As used in this report, exposure refers to individuals subjected to, or in the presence of, radioactive materials that may 

or may not result in occupational radiation dose. 

Hanford 

This term is used to describe the entire reservation and all activities at this geographic location. It includes all cleanup 

activities at the reactors at the “Hanford Site,” ORP, and PNNL. This term is used when we are including Hanford Site, 

ORP, and PNNL. 

Hanford Site 

All activities at, and clean up of, the reactors and 100 – 400 areas at the reservation. Does not include ORP and 

PNNL. 

Office of River Protection 

Tank farm and liquid waste cleanup to protect the Columbia River. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

The national laboratory involved in a broad range of scientific research. 

members of the public 

Any individual not occupationally exposed to radiation or radioactive material, who either is not a DOE general 

employee or is an off duty DOE general employee. The definition of general employee is specified in 10 C.F.R. 835. 

number of individuals with measurable dose 

The subset of all monitored individuals who receive a measurable dose (greater than the limit of detection for the 

monitoring system). Many personnel are monitored as a matter of prudence and may not receive a measurable 

dose. For this reason, the number of individuals with measurable dose is presented in this report as a more accurate 

indicator of the exposed workforce. The number of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some 

individuals may be counted more than once if multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year. 

occupational dose 

An individual’s ionizing radiation dose (external and internal) as a result of that individual’s work assignment. 

Occupational dose does not include doses received as a medical patient or doses resulting from background radiation 

or participation as a subject in medical research programs. 

rem 

The acronym for roentgen equivalent in man. The rem is equal to 0.01 sievert, which is the international unit of 

measurement for radiation exposure. 

SR (formerly CR) 

SR is defined by United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) as the ratio of the 

annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding a specified dose value to the collective dose. UNSCEAR 

uses a subscript to denote the dose value (in mSv) used in the calculation of the ratio. Therefore, SR15 would be 

the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rems (15 mSv) to the total annual 

collective dose. 

G-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
total effective dose (TED) 

The sum of the ED from external sources and the CED from intakes of radionuclides during the monitoring period. The 

internal dose component of TED changed from the annual effective dose equivalent (AEDE) to the CEDE in 1993 and 

from CEDE to CED in 2007. 

total number of records for monitored individuals 

All individuals who are monitored and reported to the DOE Headquarters database system. This includes DOE 

employees, contractors, subcontractors, and members of the public monitored during a visit to a DOE site. The number 

of individuals represents the number of dose records reported. Some individuals may be counted more than once if 

multiple dose records are reported for the individual during the year. 

total organ dose (TOD) 

The sum of the ED to the whole body for external exposures and the committed equivalent dose to the maximally 

exposed organ or tissue other than the skin or the lens of the eye. 

transient individual 

An individual who is monitored at more than one DOE site during the calendar year. 

urinalysis 

The technique of determining the amount of radioactive material in the urine excreted from the body. 

Glossary G-3 
This page intentionally left blank. 

G-4 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References References

1.	 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1987. “Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal 

Agencies for Occupational Exposure,” Federal Register 52, No. 17, 2822; with corrections published in 

the Federal Registers of Friday, January 30, and Wednesday, February 4, 1987. 

2.	 ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1977. “Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, 

No. 3 (Pergamon Press, New York). 

3.	 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1987. “Recommendations on 


Limits for Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,” NCRP 91; superseded by NCRP Report No. 116.
 

4.	 ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1991. “1990 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 21, 

Nos. 1-3 (Pergamon Press, New York). 

5.	 ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994. “Dose Coefficients for Intakes of 

Radionuclides by Workers,” ICRP Publication 68, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Pergamon Press, 

New York). 

6.	 10 C.F.R. 835, 1998, “Occupational Radiation Protection.” Rule; DOE Federal Register, November 4, 1998. 

Amended June 8, 2007. 

7. DOE O 231.1B, 2011, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” June 27, 2011. 

8.	 REMS Reporting Guide, issued February 23, 2012. Online at http://www.hss.doe.gov/sesa/Analysis/rems/ 

REMS_Reporting_Guide.pdf. 

9.	 Computerized Accident and Incident Reporting System (CAIRS), “DOE and Contractor Injury and Illness 

Data by Year by Quarter” report. Online at http://www.hss.doe.gov/sesa/analysis/cairs/cairs/home.htm. 

10. DOE Standard, DOE-STD-1098-99 (change notice 1), “Radiological Control,” May 2009. 

11. DOE O 210.2A, “DOE Corporate Operating Experience Program,” April 8, 2011. 

References
 

References 	R-1 
R-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

User Survey 

DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

User Survey 

DOE, striving to meet the needs of its stakeholders, is looking for suggestions on ways to improve the DOE 

2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report. Your feedback is important. Constructive feedback will 

ensure the report can continue to meet user needs. Please fill out the attached survey form and return it to: 

Ms. Nirmala Rao, Office of Analysis (HS-24) Questions concerning this survey should 

DOE REMS Project Manager be directed to Ms. Rao at (301) 903-2297. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585-1290 

nimi.rao@hq.doe.gov 

Fax: (301) 903-1257 

User Survey
 

1.	 Identification: 

Name:...................................................................................................................................................... 

Title:......................................................................................................................................................... 

Mailing Address: .................................................................................................................................... 

.........................................................................................................................................................
 

.........................................................................................................................................................
 

.........................................................................................................................................................
 

2. Distribution: 

2.1 Do you wish to remain on the distribution for the report? _____ yes _____ no 

2.2 Do you wish to be added to the distribution? _____ yes _____ no 

(continued on back) 

User Survey 	 U-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please circle one. 

Not Useful Very Useful 

Please rate the usefulness of this report overall: 1 2 3 4 5 

Please rate the usefulness of the analysis presented in the following sections: 

Executive Summary 1 2 3 4 5 

Analysis of Aggregate Data 1 2 3 4 5 

Collective Dose 1 2 3 4 5 

Average Measurable Dose 1 2 3 4 5 

Dose Distribution 1 2 3 4 5 

Analysis of Individual Dose Data 1 2 3 4 5 

Doses above 2 rems ACL 1 2 3 4 5 

Doses in Excess of 5 rems 1 2 3 4 5 

Internal Depositions of Radioactive Material 1 2 3 4 5 

Analysis of Site Data 1 2 3 4 5 

Collective Dose by Site 1 2 3 4 5 

Description of Activities Related to Dose 1 2 3 4 5 

Historical Data 1 2 3 4 5 

ALARA Activities at DOE 1 2 3 4 5 

Conclusions 1 2 3 4 5 

Please rate the importance of the timeliness of the publication of this report as it relates to your professional need for 

the information on occupational radiation exposure at DOE: 

Not important Critical 

1 2 3 4 5 

Please provide any additional input or comments on the report. 


...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
 

U-2 DOE 2011 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report 

Prepared for the Office of Health, Safety and Security
	

by Oak Ridge Associated Universities
	

P.O. Box 117 • Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117