Draft 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

SC&A’S EVALUATION OF REVISIONS TO PANTEX 

TECHNICAL BASIS DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO SITE 

PROFILE AND SEC ISSUES

Contract No. 211-2014-58081

Document No. SCA-TR-2016-SP003, Revision 0 

Prepared by 

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP 

SC&A, Inc. 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

Saliant, Inc. 

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

February 2016 

DISCLAIMER 

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) technical 

support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), including its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, 

draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically 

marked as such. This document prepared by SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical 

issues. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

2 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SC&A, INC.: Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Radiation & Worker 

Health Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

DOCUMENT TITLE:

SC&A’s Evaluation of Revisions to Pantex Technical Basis

Documents Relevant to Site Profile and SEC Issues

DOCUMENT NUMBER/

DESCRIPTION:

SCA-TR-2016-P003

REVISION NO.: 0

SUPERSEDES:

EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/23/2016

TASK MANAGER: Joe Fitzgerald

PROJECT MANAGER: John Stiver, MS, CHP

DOCUMENT

REVIEWER(S):

Joe Fitzgerald

John Stiver

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 2/23/2016 Initial issue
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

3 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................4

1.0 Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................6

1.1 Site Profile Issue #1 (SEC Issue #6): Interpretation of External Dosimetry Data ...7

1.1.1 NIOSH’s Recommendations on Dose Record Entries .................................7

1.1.2 SC&A’s Evaluation .....................................................................................8

1.2 Site Profile Issue #2 (SEC Issue #7): Data Do Not Support Assumption That 95th 

Percentile Neutron-to-Photon Ratio is Bounding for All Exposure Scenarios ........9

1.2.1 NIOSH Recommendations Concerning Neutron NTA Film .......................9

1.2.2 SC&A’s Evaluation of NTA Film Correction Factors ................................9

1.3 Site Profile Issue #3 (SEC Issue #8): Completeness and Interpretation of Historic 

Radiological Exposure Sources .............................................................................11

1.3.1 NIOSH .......................................................................................................11

1.3.2 SC&A’s Evaluation ...................................................................................11

1.4 Site Profile Issue #4 (SEC Issue #15): Exposure from Tritium. ............................11

1.4.1 NIOSH .......................................................................................................11

1.4.2 SC&A’s Evaluation ...................................................................................11

2.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................13

3.0 References ..........................................................................................................................14
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

4 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

AP anterior-posterior 

cm centimeter 

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy 

DR dose reconstructor 

eV electron volt 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis 

keV kiloelectron volt 

L liter 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

μCi microcurie 

MCNP Monte Carlo n-particle 

MDA minimum detectable activity 

MeV megaelectron volt 

mrem millirem 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

n/p neutron-to-photon 

NTA Neutron Track Emulsion, Type A (film) 

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

PA posterior-anterior 

238PuO2 plutonium-238 oxide 

238PuF4 plutonium-238 tetrafluoride 
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

5 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

TBD technical basis document 

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 

WG Work Group
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

6 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Four of the Pantex Plant site profile [and corresponding Special Exposure Cohort (SEC)] issues 

identified by SC&A (SC&A 2008, 2009) and discussed during the Pantex Plant Work Group 

(WG) meetings were to be resolved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) making revisions in the Pantex technical basis documents (TBDs). The applicable 

documents were as follows: 

 ORAUT-TKBS-0013-3, Pantex Plant—Occupational Medical Dose, Revision 02,

February 1, 2007, superseded by Revision 03, March 20, 2014.

 ORAUT-TKBS-0013-4, Pantex Plant—Occupational Environmental Dose, Revision 01,

June 22, 2007, superseded by Revision 02, January 3, 2014.

 ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Pantex Plant—Occupational Internal Dose, Revision 01,

June 22, 2007, superseded by Revision 04, June 1, 2015.

 ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Pantex Plant —Occupational External Dose, Revision 01,

June 22, 2007, superseded by Revision 02, November 24, 2015.

Additionally, NIOSH released ORAUT-OTIB-0086, Pantex External Coworker Model, in 2015 

(ORAUT 2015; referred to as “OTIB-0086” in this report). This document addresses the Pantex 

external coworker model and also replaces the neutron-to-photon (n/p) method for assigning 

neutron dose with the recorded neutron dose, modified by an overall adjustment factor of 2.9 for 

Neutron Track Emulsion, Type A (NTA) film. SC&A evaluated OTIB-0086 and provided a 

report to the Pantex WG in October 2015 (SC&A 2015). That review is applicable to the 

evaluation of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, because ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 uses the 

methodology developed in OTIB-86 for assigning neutron doses from recorded NTA film. 

SC&A evaluated the relevant revisions to the latest editions of the Pantex TBDs, compared to the 

editions that were available when the issues were identified, to determine if the changes 

instituted by NIOSH provided for adequate issue resolution. SC&A did not evaluate the technical 

aspects of the entire revised TBDs, as that is outside the scope of this task; only the sections 

relevant to resolving the TBD and SEC issues were evaluated. There were no issues to be 

addressed by revisions in the occupational medical dose TBD, ORAUT-TKBS-0013-3, or the 

occupational environmental dose TBD, ORAUT-TKBS-0013-4. 

The four site profile issues (and their corresponding SEC issues) that were to be resolved by 

NIOSH making changes in the Pantex TBDs were as follows: 

 Site Profile Issue #1 (SEC Issue #6): Interpretation of external dosimetry data.

NIOSH was to provide clarification of “zero” entries in the electronic database beyond

1976.

 Site Profile Issue #2 (SEC Issue #7): Data do not support assumption that 95th

percentile neutron-to-photon ratio is bounding for all exposure scenarios. NIOSH

issued a different neutron dose reconstructor (DR) approach in the revised ORAUT-
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

7 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

TKBS-0013-6 (Revision 02, November 2015) and OTIB-0086 (August 2015),

“Evaluation of the Pantex External Coworker Model.” SC&A reviewed OTIB-0086 in 

October 2015 (SC&A 2015). 

 Site Profile Issue #3 (SEC Issue #8): Completeness and interpretation of historic

radiological exposure sources. NIOSH agreed to add information in the revised TBDs

to inform DRs of this history.

 Site Profile Issue #4 (SEC Issue #15): Exposure from tritium. NIOSH agreed to revise

Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 and the corresponding guidance from ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5,

Revision 01, to reflect the actual Pantex minimum detectable activity (MDA) values.

These proposed changes will be provided in a note or memo to the WG, followed by a

subsequent revision of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5.

In the following sections SC&A presents its evaluations of whether or not the current revisions 

to the TBDs adequately resolve the outstanding issues. 

1.1 SITE PROFILE ISSUE #1 (SEC ISSUE #6): INTERPRETATION OF EXTERNAL 

DOSIMETRY DATA 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, Occupational External Dose, was released on November 

24, 2015. SC&A evaluated NIOSH’s recommendations about dose record entries containing 

zeros, blanks, or marks in this revision and also in OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015). 

1.1.1 NIOSH’s Recommendations on Dose Record Entries

Revised ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 

SC&A could not find that the issue of dose record entries containing zeros, blanks, or marks was 

addressed in Revision 02 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6. 

OTIB-0086 recommendations 



OTIB-0086 makes the following recommendations: 

Recorded “0” – This entry is assumed to mean that the dosimeter was issued and

processed, and that no exposure or dose was detected in excess of the dosimeter limit of

detection.

 Blanks – Indicates that no dosimeter was issued during this exchange cycle, or that the

dosimeter was lost or damaged, or a processing error occurred.

 Marks – Dash, slash, or hash marks indicate that no dosimeter was issued during this

exchange cycle, or that the dosimeter was lost or damaged, or a processing error

occurred.
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

8 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

According to page 5 of OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015), the DR will assign dose before11988 as 

follows: 

1

 According to ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, Section 6.4, page 13, starting in 1989, all personnel entering 

the operational areas were required to wear a dosimeter; therefore, the terms “before 1988” should be changed to 

“before 1989” and “in 1988” should be changed to “in 1989” in this section of OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015). 

In such cases for years before 1988, NIOSH intends to apply (after consideration 

of the worker’s job title and the totality of the monitoring record), either:

(1) Unmonitored dose based on external coworker data 

(2) Missed dose 

(3) Ambient dose.

The DR will assign dose after 1988 as follows: 

After 1988, all personnel who entered the operational areas of the plant were 

required to wear a dosimeter as a condition for entry. The absence of a listed 

result, or the presence of a dash, slash, or hash mark for a given dosimeter 

exchange cycle in 1988 and later years, should be interpreted to mean that the 

worker was not monitored because he or she was not present in the operational 

areas. Therefore, ambient dose should be assigned for those exchange cycles. 

1.1.2 SC&A’s Evaluation 

Revised ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 

SC&A could not find that the issue of dose record entries containing zeros, blanks, or marks for 

the period 1976–1988 was addressed in Revision 02 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6. Therefore, it 

appears that this issue remains unresolved. 

OTIB-0086 recommendations 

It is not clear if the DR is to take into consideration the job title and totality of the monitoring 

records only for blanks, dashes, and hash mark entries, or if this consideration applies to entries 

with zeros also. If the consideration does apply to entries with zeros, then SC&A concurs with 

NIOSH’s recommendation. However, if it does not, then SC&A recommends that the 

consideration should be applied to entries with zeros after 1976, because the original issue was 

that the electronic database may have inserted zeros if a worker was not monitored, requiring the 

DR to evaluate if the worker should receive missed dose, coworker dose (which may be greater), 

or environmental dose. 
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

9 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

1.2 SITE PROFILE ISSUE #2 (SEC ISSUE #7): DATA DO NOT SUPPORT 

ASSUMPTION THAT 95TH PERCENTILE NEUTRON-TO-PHOTON RATIO IS 

BOUNDING FOR ALL EXPOSURE SCENARIOS 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, was released on November 24, 2015. SC&A evaluated 

NIOSH’s recommendations concerning neutron dose in the revised ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 and 

in OTIB-0086, Attachment B (ORAUT 2015). The proposed neutron dose assignment method 

does not use the n/p values; instead, it uses the recorded neutron dose and applies adjustment 

factors to the NTA film results for both individual dose reconstruction (i.e., ORAUT-TKBS0013-6, Revision 02, pages 34, 43, and 46), and to create the neutron coworker model dose 

results for 1960–1977 in Table 7-2, page 10, of OTIB-0086. 

1.2.1 NIOSH Recommendations Concerning Neutron NTA Film 

NIOSH recommends using the original recorded neutron dose from NTA film, multiplied by a 

correction factor of 2.9, which was derived from an energy response factor of 1.4, an angular 

response factor of 1.33, and a track fading factor of 1.56 (i.e., 1.4 × 1.33 × 1.56 = 2.9). ORAUTTKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, page 34, refers to OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015) for the details of 

these correction factors. According to OTIB-0086, these factors were derived as follows: 

1. Energy response – NIOSH used its Monte Carlo n-particle (MCNP) model generated for

Mound Laboratory of an observer located at 240 centimeters (cm) from a glovebox

(shielded with 4 inches of moderator) located in a concrete room. In this model, the NTA

film would miss 29% of the dose equivalent because of the NTA film’s 500 kiloelectron

volt (keV) neutron energy threshold. The correction factor would be 1/(1 – 0.29) = 1.4.

2. Angular response – NIOSH used the angular correction factor of 1.33 for NTA film

from Kathren et al. (1965) for anterior-posterior (AP) geometry neutron exposures.

3. Track fading – NIOSH used the NTA film track fading correction factor of 9% per week

(Kahle et al. 1969) for a total of 4 × 0.09 = 0.36 per month, to result in a derived track

fading factor of 1/(1 – 0.36) = 1.56.

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, Table 6-2, pages 34, 43, and 46 indicate that NTA film 

was used through 1976. However, this is less clear in OTIB-0086 because it is uncertain if the 

2.9 factor applies to all recorded neutron doses through 1977. Page 7 of OTIB-0086 recommends 

that it be applied for 1960 through 1977, but Table A-1, page 17, of OTIB-0086 lists NTA film 

used through 1975. This point needs to be clarified and consistent dates used. 

1.2.2 SC&A’s Evaluation of NTA Film Correction Factors 

The following summarizes SC&A’s evaluation of the NTA film correction factors as 

recommended by NIOSH in ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, and OTIB-0086. The details 

were provided in SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0086 (SC&A 2015). 

1. Energy response – OTIB-0086 uses the term “THERMAL NEUTRONS” on page 21;

however, SC&A assumes that this is a general term that refers to neutrons with energy

below 500 keV, since thermal neutrons are defined as 0.025 electron volts (eV) in energy.
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

10 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

In evaluating the recommended energy correction factor of 1.4, SC&A does not find that 

the MCNP model generated for Mound Laboratory of an observer located at 240 cm from 

a glovebox with 4 inches of moderator necessarily represents the situation and neutron 

energy fields for a worker at Pantex with potential exposure to multiple neutron sources 

(such as in a bay, cell, etc.). This is especially true for situations where a Pantex worker 

was exposed to posterior-anterior (PA) geometry neutron sources, because the Mound 

model was for AP geometry neutron sources. Additionally, SC&A could not find that 

NIOSH had performed an MCNP model particular for Pantex, as implied in the following 

statement on page 21 of OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015): 

A Monte Carlo n-particle (MCNP) model was developed to determine the 

amount of dose that was missed due to a sensitivity threshold of 500 keV 

for the conditions likely to have been encountered by workers who 

received neutron doses at Pantex (LANL 2003). [Emphasis added.]

SC&A found that NIOSH apparently applied the MCNP model for Mound to Pantex. SC&A 

also found that the reference to LANL 2003 in the above quoted statement was to the LANL 

MCNP program in general, which was not specific to either Mound Laboratory or Pantex. 

2. Angular response – The angular correction factor of 1.33 for NTA film from Kathren et

al. (1965) was derived for only AP geometry exposures. However, personnel at Pantex

were potentially exposed to multiple sources of neutrons, which could include PA

geometry. Neither NTA film calibration nor the AP angular correction factor address PA

geometry for neutron exposure.

3. Track fading – OTIB-0086 used the moderated plutonium-238 oxide (238PuO2) [average

energy of 0.9 megaelectron volts (MeV)] exposed NTA film track fading correction

factor of 9% per week (Kahle et al. 1969) for a total of 4 × 0.09 = 0.36 per month,

resulting in a derived track fading factor of 1/(1 – 0.36) = 1.56. However, the same

referenced article (Kahle et al. 1969) also provides data that show that a plutonium-238

tetraflouride (238PuF4) neutron source (average energy of 1.3 MeV), under identical

exposure conditions, produced a fading factor of 33% after one week and 56% after two

weeks. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, does not provide information about the

timing of the neutron calibration cycle (i.e., if it was performed at the beginning, middle,

or the end of the badging cycle; although Table 6-8 states “Midcycle calibration

minimizes overall uncertainty,” it does not state this was performed for Pantex NTA

film). However, Table 6-13, page 37, of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, does

recommend using a neutron energy range of 0.1–2 MeV; hence, both the 0.9 MeV

238PuO2 and the 1.3 MeV 238PuF4 neutron source fall in that energy range. There does not

appear to be any supporting evidence to select the lower fading factor of 9%. NIOSH’s

Mound white paper (NIOSH 2010) states the following (page 4):

NIOSH continues to support the fading values of 33% in the first week 

after exposure and 56% after two weeks. This fading correction is to be 

applied independent of other corrections such as angular response or 

energy response.
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

11 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Therefore, it is not obvious why the value of 9% fading per week was selected to be 

applied at Pantex. 

The issues identified by SC&A in evaluating OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015) are applicable to this 

issue because Revision 02 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 (November 2015) uses the methodology 

detailed in OTIB-0086 (August 2015) to assign neutron dose from recorded NTA film. 

Additionally, the coworker neutron dose for 1975 is approximately ten times larger than those of 

other years (ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02, page 71, Table A-2, and OTIB-0086, Table 7-

2, page 10). 

1.3 SITE PROFILE ISSUE #3 (SEC ISSUE #8): COMPLETENESS AND 

INTERPRETATION OF HISTORIC RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE SOURCES 

1.3.1 NIOSH 

To resolve this issue, NIOSH agreed to add information in the revised TBDs to inform DRs of 

the history of potential sources of exposure for Pantex workers.

1.3.2 SC&A’s Evaluation 

SC&A found that Section 5.1.4, page 10, and Section 5.1.6, page 14, of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, 

Revision 04 (June 2015), and Section 6.1.4, page 10, of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02

(November 2015), added additional information about Pantex’s history and workers at other 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)/U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, which may 

require the DR to require additional records. SC&A finds that this issue has been sufficiently 

addressed. 

1.4 SITE PROFILE ISSUE #4 (SEC ISSUE #15): EXPOSURE FROM TRITIUM.

1.4.1 NIOSH 

NIOSH agreed to revise Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 and corresponding guidance in ORAUT-TKBS0013-5, Revision 04, to reflect the use of actual Pantex MDA values, instead of program limits. 

These proposed changes will be provided in a note or memo to the WG, followed by a 

subsequent revision of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 04.

1.4.2 SC&A’s Evaluation 

SC&A compared ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 04 (June 2015), paragraph by paragraph to 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 01 (June 2007), and found the following: 

 It appears that Table 5-1 of Revision 04 is the same as Table 5-1 of Revision 01.

 It appears that Table 5-2 of Revision 04 is the same as Table 5-2 of Revision 01, except

that, when the job title of Machinist is listed, the “Possibility for intake” was changed

from “See Section 5.2.2.4” to “1

a

.”
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

12 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

 Table 5-3 of Revision 04 (maximum and mode of tritium intakes/doses for 1956–1990

and 1991–present) is completely different that Table 5-3 of Revision 01 (which contains

tritium dose data for 1972–2004). Figure 1 provides a reproduction of Table 5-3 of

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 04:

Figure 1: Table 5-3 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 (2015) 

SC&A evaluated Table 5-3 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 04 (2015) and verified the 

values listed. These values were derived as follows: 

 NIOSH’s search of the individual claimant files indicated that the largest MDA value

recorded for the period 1956–1990 was 0.500 microcuries per liter (μCi/L), and for the

period 1991–present, the largest MDA value recorded was 0.135 μCi/L.

 The full MDA values (because this was a maximum calculation for triangular

distribution) were used in the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) program

to derive the maximum annual undetected intake, in μCi, (as listed in Column 3 of

Table 5-3). The following parameters were used in the IMBA program:

o 30 days chronic intake (because of monthly tritium bioassays)

o Type F, inorganic tritium

o 42 L body fluid

 In Column 5, the mode intake values, in μCi, are one-half the maximum intake values.

 In Column 2, the maximum values of the undetected individual annual tritium dose, in

millirem (mrem), were derived by multiplying the maximum intake values, in μCi, by

0.067 mrem/μCi (ICRP 1995).

 In Column 4, the mode values of the undetected individual annual tritium dose, in mrem,

are one-half the maximum dose values.

SC&A did not search all the claimant files to verify the maximum MDA values that NIOSH 

recommended, because this would have been a very large and resource-intensive task; SC&A did 

verify the resulting intakes and dose recommendations as appropriate, including Table 5-3 and 

Attachment C of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 04 (2015). However, it appears that while the 
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

13 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

last sentence in footnote a to Table 5-3 of Revision 04 is correct for the period 1991–present, it is 

incorrect for the period 1956–1990. The sentence states,

Note that these values exceed any recorded doses or intakes the site reported for 

any year of operation, including 1989 when a major tritium released occurred. 

During the period 1956–1990, the maximum dose in Table 5-3 (ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, 

Revision 04) is 42 mrem. However, according to Table 5-3 (ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 

01), during the period 1972–1990, there was a maximum recorded individual tritium dose of 114 

mrem in 1980, 122 mrem in 1981, and 1,180 mrem in 1989. Therefore, it would not appear that 

using the values in Table 5-3 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5, Revision 04, would necessarily bound 

all recorded tritium doses at Pantex. 

Additionally, it is not obvious why the periods of 1956–1990 and 1991–present were selected

when the SEC period is through 1991; i.e., why were the periods not 1956–1991 and 1992–

present? 

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 



SC&A’s review of the revised Pantex TBDs indicates the following: 

Site Profile Issue #1 (SEC Issue #6): Interpretation of external dosimetry data.

SC&A could not find that NIOSH addressed the issue of recorded zeros (or other

markings) in the records before 1989 in the revised ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6

(Revision 02). From reviewing OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015), SC&A recommends that the

DR consider the worker’s job titles and dosimetry records in totality when evaluating

recorded zeros (as well as blanks, dashes, and hash marks) for deciding whether to assign

coworker, missed, or environmental external dose, because the electronic database may

have inserted zeros for unmonitored workers after 1976.

 Site Profile Issue #2 (SEC Issue #7): Data do not support assumption that 95th

percentile neutron-to-photon ratio is bounding for all exposure scenarios. From

reviewing the revised ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 (Revision 02) and the related document,

OTIB-0086 (ORAUT 2015), SC&A found that instead of using the n/p method, NIOSH

recommends using the recorded neutron dose, with the NTA film results adjusted for

energy response, angular response, and track fading. As previously summarized, and

detailed in SC&A’s review of OTIB-0086 (SC&A 2015), SC&A does not find the

neutron adjustment factors to be claimant favorable for Pantex workers.

 Site Profile Issue #3 (SEC Issue #8): Completeness and interpretation of historic

radiological exposure sources. SC&A found that sections had been added to ORAUTTKBS-0013-5, Revision 04 (2015), and ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6, Revision 02 (2015),

with information concerning Pantex’s history and workers at other AEC/DOE facilities

that resolves this issue.

 Site Profile Issue #4 (SEC Issue #15): Exposure from tritium. SC&A found that

Revision 04 to ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 (mainly Table 5-3) provides for tritium dose
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

14 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

assignments based on recorded MDA values and also simplifies tritium dose assignment 

for the DR and allows for consistence in dose assignments. SC&A found this issue to be 

addressed, except for the statement in the footnote to Table 5-3 of ORAUT-TKBS-0013-

5, Revision 04 (2015), concerning the maximum intake and dose, and the reason for 

using the period 1956–1990 instead of 1956–1991. 

3.0 REFERENCES 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. Dose Coefficients for Intakes 

of Radionuclides by Workers, Publication 68, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. Ann. ICRP 24 

(4), 1994. 

Kahle et al. Kahle, J. B., E. N. Arnett, and C. T. Meyer. “Latent Image Fading in Personnel 

Monitoring Neutron Film,” Health Physics, volume 17, number 5, pp. 735–736. 1969.

Kathren et al. 1965. Kathren, R. L., C. T. Prevo, and S. Block. “Angular Dependence of Eastman 

Type A (NTA) Personnel Monitoring Film,” Health Physics, volume 11, number 10, pp. 1067–

1069. 1965. 

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) 2003. MCNP – A General Monte Carlo N-Particle 

Transport Code, Version 5, LA-UR-03-1987, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

New Mexico. April 24, 2003. SRDB Ref ID: 22399. 

NIOSH 2010. NIOSH Evaluation of NTA Neutron Film Fading at Mound: Response to SC&A 

Issues and Recommendations, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. December 2010.

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-3. 2007. Pantex Plant—Occupational Medical Dose, Revision 02, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 1, 2007. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-3. 2014. Pantex Plant—Occupational Medical Dose, Revision 03, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. March 20, 2014. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-4. 2007. Pantex Plant—Occupational Environmental Dose, Revision 01, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 22, 2007. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-4. 2014. Pantex Plant—Occupational Environmental Dose, Revision 02, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 3, 2014. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5. 2007. Pantex Plant—Occupational Internal Dose, Revision 01, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 22, 2007. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5. 2015. Pantex Plant—Occupational Internal Dose, Revision 04, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1, 2015. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6. 2007. Pantex Plant—Occupational External Dose, Revision 01, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 22, 2007. 
Effective Date:

2/23/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SP003

Page No.

15 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by 

the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6. 2015. Pantex Plant—Occupational External Dose, Revision 02, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 24, 2015.

ORAUT 2015. Pantex External Coworker Model, ORAUT-OTIB-0086, Revision 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. August 7, 2015. 

SC&A 2008. Pantex Plant Site Profile Review. SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, Inc., 

Jefferson, Maryland. July 17, 2008. 

SC&A 2009. A Paper Study of the SEC Petition and NIOSH Evaluation Report for Pantex. 

SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. March 2009. 

SC&A 2015. SC&A’s Evaluation of the Pantex External Coworker Model: ORAUT-OTIB-0086, 

Revision 0, SC&A, Inc., Vienna, VA and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, MD. October 2015.