ORAUT-OTIB-0017

Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose

Report from the Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews (SCPR)

Presented to the

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

April 11, 2018 

1
ORAUT-OTIB-0017, “Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for

Assignment of Shallow Dose”

• ORAUT-OTIB-0017 provides guidance for assigning shallow doses to 

the skin, testes, and breast from non-penetrating radiation, including 

beta exposures and exposures to low-energy photons.

• Revision 01 issued October 11, 2005.

• SC&A review report issued June 6, 2006, contained 15 findings (on 

BRS).

• SCPR, NIOSH, and SC&A worked on resolutions 2006–2008.

• 14 findings closed, 1 finding in abeyance.

2
Finding 1: It is suggested that the dose reconstructor check whether 

the site was reporting dose due to electrons or photons, and 

whether the dosimetry system had been calibrated for that type of 

radiation.

• SC&A explained that the OTIB needs to provide additional guidance 

on how to interpret film badge data with respect to beta vs. lowenergy photon exposure for the purpose of reconstructing shallow 

doses. 

• NIOSH explained that this OTIB is to be used together with the site 

profile and other OTIBs on a case-by-case basis. 

• Resolution as of October 2, 2007: The SCPR found NIOSH’s response 

acceptable and closed this finding.

3
Finding 2: The protective clothing used for each case was known in 

the majority of cases. Clothing-specific transmission factors should 

be used.

• NIOSH explained that there is language in the OTIB that allows the 

dose reconstructor to choose the appropriate clothing shielding 

factors based on whether a minimizing, maximizing, or a realistic 

analysis of beta dose is being performed. 

• SC&A and SCPR concur with this response. 

• Resolution as of October 2, 2007: The SCPR closed this finding. 

4
Finding 3: It is SC&A’s opinion that individual monitoring for beta 

particles only works on a “yes/no” basis.

• NIOSH: OCAS and ORAUT disagree with this position. Consideration of geometry issues is discussed in 

the OTIB in the section on “Exposure Geometry” (see p. 7) and is discussed in the dose reconstruction 

(DR) reports on a case-by-case basis. 

• SC&A’s main concern is the potential for direct deposition of a hot particle on the worker’s skin that is 

not detected, or localized undetected beta exposure. 

• NIOSH explained that whether such exposures might have occurred is determined based on frisking 

data (for hot particles) and knowledge of the working conditions at the facility

• SC&A recommends that Finding 3 be closed, not because everything is resolved, but because OTIB0017, although weak technically, cannot in SC&A’s opinion be improved much further. SC&A suggests 

the following:

 When the cancer site is on the hands, lower arm, or face, consider workplace monitoring data.

 When the cancer site is on the thorax, use individual monitoring data.

 When the cancer site is on the lower legs or feet, consider both.

• Resolution as of October 14, 2008: The SCPR closed this finding. It should be noted that, due to findings 

identified in an SC&A DR review, many of SC&A’s concerns were ultimately addressed to SC&A’s and the 

SCPR’s satisfaction under overarching issues (NIOSH-OVER-0009). 5
Finding 4: It is possible to state definitely where the cancer site is, 

but not where the contamination was.

• Discussion about Finding 3 applies to this issue. 

• Resolution as of October 2, 2007: The SCPR transferred this item 

because it is being addressed and ultimately closed under Finding 3. 

6
Finding 5: A skin dose due to hot particle exposure will not be 

detected because of the localized nature of the exposure.

• Discussion about Finding 3 applies to this issue. 

• Resolution as of October 2, 2007: The SCPR transferred this item 

because it is being addressed and closed under Finding 3.

7
Finding 6: If dosimetry recorded a limit of detection (LOD), then this 

value should be used as the basis for the missed dose calculation.

• Based on the following quote from a subsequent white paper 

prepared by SC&A on OTIB-0017, it appears that SC&A and NIOSH 

agree: 

If it is known that the film badge dosimeter overstated the dose from lowenergy photons, and if it can be further ascertained that the LOD was 

expressed in terms of this overstated dose rather than the corrected dose, 

then we agree that it is appropriate to apply a correction factor to the LOD 

in assigning a missed dose from low-energy photons.

• Resolution as of December 11, 2007: Issue resolved to the satisfaction 

of the SCPR, who closed the finding. 

8
Finding 7: It is not claimant favorable to consider that the employee 

had 4 mm of clothing thickness.

• NIOSH: Due to the location of the organ of concern, the 4-millimeter 

assumption was made for pants and an undergarment – not a lab 

coat. 

• SC&A and SCPR found this explanation acceptable. 

• Resolution as of October 2, 2007: The SCPR closed this finding.

9
Finding 8: Attachment A provides a correction factor for the breast, 

penis, and testicle using a source that was modeled as a 10-cm2

infinitely thin disc source located 2 cm away from the skin. For the 

breast area, the film dosimeter would give a reasonable dose 

estimate. If the source was near the testicles, the film dosimeter 

would not measure anything.

• There was extensive discussion about other documents that address 

this issue. NIOSH explained that it currently relies on quality 

assurance and training to ensure that the full array of guidance 

documents are being correctly employed in individual dose 

reconstructions. 

• Resolution as of October 2, 2007: The SCPR concluded that the 

guidance provided in the OTIB with respect to this issue is adequate 

and closed Finding 8.

10
Finding 9: Tables A-1 and A-2 list correction factors for nonpenetrating doses based on radionuclide. In nearly all real cases, it 

is not possible to state the radionuclides that are responsible for 

the beta dose.

• NIOSH: The table provides benchmark correction factors for a range 

of beta energies. Site profile documents will typically provide 

information that will help the dose reconstructor determine the 

proper energy range to use. In addition, the OTIB itself provides 

guidance with respect to uranium daughter products. 

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• Resolution as of November 7, 2007: The SCPR agreed and closed this 

finding.

11
Finding 10: For low-energy beta radiation, the dosimeters were 

likely incapable of furnishing accurate doses.

• NIOSH: DR staff would have to consider this on a case-by-case basis. 

The purpose of the OTIB is to provide general information for the DR 

staff to use along with other sources of information. If necessary, the 

hierarchy of data sources listed in IG-001 (Table 1.1) and PROC-0006 

(Table 5.2) includes the use of source term modeling. 

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• Resolution as of November 7, 2007: SCPR closed this finding because 

no further action was required.

12
Finding 11: It is not clear why the two tables providing examples of 

skin dose assignments on pages 21 and 24 give the 

recommendation to assign 30–250 keV for missed dose to the skin 

for 0 “OW reading” and 0 “S reading.” 

• NIOSH: This radiation type and energy range was chosen because it is, 

in fact, claimant favorable compared to assigning the dose as electron 

dose (see IREP Technical Document). 

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• Resolution as of November 7, 2007: The SCPR closed this finding 

because no further action was required.

13
Finding 12: The logical order of the information in Chapter 3, 

“General Approach,” could be improved.

• NIOSH agreed with SC&A’s finding. NIOSH will revise OTIB-0017 in the 

future.

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• In Abeyance as of November 11, 2007, awaiting a revision to 

OTIB-0017.

14
Finding 13: The OTIB does not identify any cases where a possibly 

high probability of causation (POC) can be determined early in the 

investigation.

• NIOSH: PROC-0006, not OTIB-0017, is the document that would be 

used by DR staff to quickly triage a claim to determine the potential 

for high POC. It is important to consider the use of OTIB-0017 in the 

overall context of the DR process. In addition, OTIB-0017 does give 

guidance on the topic of low/high POC potential on page 6, items a, b, 

and c.

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• Resolution as of November 7, 2007: No further action was required; 

therefore, the SCPR closed this finding.

15
Finding 14: The OTIB is not claimant favorable in instances of 

unknown parameters affecting dose estimates. (Typically, the 

dosimeter location has no relationship to skin dose at the point of 

cancer incidence.)

• NIOSH: OCAS and ORAUT disagree with this position. Consideration of 

geometry issues is discussed in the OTIB and is addressed on a case- by-case basis. In addition, the OTIB makes a recommendation (i.e., 

dose conversion factor (DCF) = 1) to accommodate potential 

inaccuracies due to exposure geometry. The OTIB is claimant 

favorable in its recommendations regarding DCF, LOD, attenuation, 

and radiation type/energy range. 

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• Resolution as of November 7, 2007: The SCPR also concurred with 

NIOSH’s response and closed this finding. 

16
Finding 15: The OTIB does not employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstruction of doses regarding (a) assignment of non-penetrating dose, 

(b) assumption of 4 mm clothing thickness, and (c) treatment of hot 

particles.

• NIOSH: DCAS and ORAUT disagreed with this position and provided discussion of SC&A’s concerns as follows:

a) The guidance is given in order to assign the non-penetrating dose as electrons or low-energy photons as necessary to complete a valid dose reconstruction using IREP. Dose is often given as “OW” and “S” or “shallow” and “deep” – not beta and gamma.

b) Since the organ discussed in this section of the OTIB is the penis, the 4-mm assumption was 

made for pants and an undergarment – not a lab coat (although that could have been added), sweater, or shirt as recommended in the general comments section.

c) Non-uniform dose can be considered by the DR using the guidance in the OTIB along with tools such as VARSKIN and guidance from site profile documents regarding the potential for hot 

particle exposure.

• SC&A and SCPR agreed with NIOSH’s response. 

• Resolution as of November 7, 2007: The SCPR concurred with NIOSH’s response and closed this finding. It should also be noted that the non-uniform dose was ultimately adequately addressed under NIOSH-OVER-0009.

17
Questions?

18