DISCLAIMERThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by a n agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference .
Executive SummaryThis report was prepared to examine the specific issue of the potential for unrecorded neutron dose for Hanford workers, particularly in comparison with the recorded whole body (neutron plus photon) dose. During the past several years, historical personnel dosimetry practices at Hanford have been documented in several technical reports (Wilson 1987, Wilson et al. 1990. This documentation provides I a detailed history of the technology, radiation fields, and administrative practices used to measure and record dose for Hanford workers. Importantly, documentation has been prepared by personnel whose collective experience spans nearly the entire history of Hanford operations beginning in the mid-1940s. Evaluations of selected Hanford radiation dose records have been conducted dong with statistical profiles of the recorded dose data. The history of Hanford personnel dosimetry is complex, spanning substantial evolution in radiation protection technology, concepts, and standards.Epidemiologic assessments of Hakord worker mortality and radiation dose data were initiated in the early 1960s. In recent years, Hanford data have been incl-uded in combined analyses of worker cohorts 'fiom several Department of Energy (DOE) sites and fiom several countries through the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Hanford data have also been included in the DOE Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR). In the analysis of Hanford, and other site data, the question of comparability of recorded dose through time and across the respective sites has arisen. DOE formed a dosimetry working group composed of dosimetrists A d epidemiologists to evaluate data and documentation requirements of CEDR. This working group included in its recommendations the high priority for documentation of site-specific radiation dosimetry practices used to measure and record worker dose by the respective DOE sites. IARC formed a dosimetry subcommittee to evaluate comparability of radiation dose data among participants in their study.Based on previous published assessments by the authors of this report (Wilson et al. 1990) the evaluations associated w i t h the epidemiologic studies have shown recorded occupational whole body dose for Hanford to be comparable with the currently accepted deep (i.e., 1 cm in tissue) dose and with the recorded dose for other participants involved in these studies, with notable exceptions of exposure to I) low-energy photons, 2) neutrons, and 3) internal contaminants other than tritium. This is attributable to site-specific...