Draft White Paper 

SC&A REVIEW OF LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL 

LABORATORY SITE PROFILE MATRIX ISSUES #6, #7, AND #8 

Contract Number 200-2009-28555 

Prepared by 

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

Saliant, Inc. 

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

September 2012 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

2 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Document No.: White Paper – SC&A 

Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8 

Effective Date: 

 Draft – September 5, 2012 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

SC&A REVIEW OF LAWRENCE BERKELEY 

NATIONAL LABORATORY SITE PROFILE 

MATRIX ISSUES #6, #7, AND #8 

Page 2 of 17 

Task Manager: 

________________________ Date:____________ 

Joseph Fitzgerald 

Supersedes: 

N/A 

Project Manager: 

________________________ Date:____________ 

John Stiver, CHP 

Peer Reviewer(s): 

 John Stiver 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 09/05/2012 Initial issue 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

3 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5 

2.0 LBNL Site Profile Issues and Findings .............................................................................. 6 

2.1 SC&A’s Initial Issue #6: Insufficiency of Neutron Dosimetry Treatment............ 6 

2.2

........................................................................................................... 11 

SC&A’s Initial Issue #7: Failure to Justify the Shallow to Deep Dose Ratio 

Assumption

2.3

.......................................................................... 12 

SC&A’s Initial Issue #8: Uncertainty in Beta-Gamma Dosimeter Response 

to Radiation Types and Energies

3.0 Summary........................................................................................................................... 15 

4.0 References......................................................................................................................... 16 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

4 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

DL detection limit 

DR dose reconstruction 

eV electron volt 

HEP high energy physics 

ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection 

keV kilo electron volts 

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

LOD limit of detection 

MDL minimum detectable limit 

MeV million electron volts 

mrem millirem 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

n/p neutron-to-photon ratio 

NTA Neutron Track A 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

R/wk Roentgen per week 

rem Roentgen equivalent man 

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 

TBD Technical Basis Document 

TIB Technical Information Bulletin 

TLD thermoluminescent 

WB Whole Body 

WG Work Group 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

5 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This evaluation is based on the following documents: 

 On April 2, 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

issued the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Site Profile, Rev. 01, 

ORAUT-TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007). 

 On January 20, 2010, NIOSH issued the LBNL Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

Evaluation Report SEC-00160 for August 13, 1942, through December 31, 1961, Rev. 0, 

(NIOSH 2010), based on lack of bioassay records through 1961 and external dosimetry 

records through 1947. 

 On May, 10, 2010, NIOSH issued the LBNL Site Profile, Rev. 02, ORAUT-TKBS-0049 

(ORAUT 2010b), herein referred to as the Technical Basis Document (TBD). 

 On January 27, 2012, SC&A issued the LBNL Site Profile Issues Matrix (SC&A 2012). 

 On February 1, 2012, NIOSH issued preliminary responses to SC&A’s LBNL Site 

Profile Issues Matrix (NIOSH 2012). 

 On February 3, 2012, a LBNL Work Group (WG) meeting was held to discuss the 

LBNL site profile issue. SC&A and NIOSH were each assigned a list of action items by 

the WG. 

The following is a summary of SC&A’s action items for Issues #6, #7, and #8, and the resulting 

SC&A response.
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

6 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

2.0 LBNL SITE PROFILE ISSUES AND FINDINGS 

2.1 SC&A’s Initial Issue #6: Insufficiency of Neutron Dosimetry Treatment 

NTA Film Energy Threshold Determination: As has been the case in a number of site profiles 

prepared by NIOSH, there is an inconsistent approach to the energy cut-off for the NTA neutron 

dosimeter. Callout “c” in Table 6.5 references NIOSH 2002 as listing the NTA lower energy 

threshold at 500 keV. Yet attribution number 47 discusses 800 keV as the threshold, and this is 

used as the basis for neutron energy threshold in ORAUT-TKBS-0049, Rev. 01 (ORAUT 2007). 

Other sources list 1,000 keV as the threshold for NTA response. The assumption that NTA film 

responds down to 500 keV is not justified by the technical data and is not claimant favorable. 

Failure to Adjust Recorded Doses to Correct for Lack of Response of NTA and CR-39 in 

the Intermediate and Thermal Neutron Energy Range: Table 6.6 of TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 

2007), “Adjustments to Recorded Dose,” defines the corrections for photon and neutron 

dosimeters to adjust the measured quantity. However, no adjustment is indicated for the failure 

of NTA film to respond to intermediate energy neutrons. As presented, a significant part of the 

spectrum is inappropriately monitored and uncorrected. 

There is virtually no discussion of the potential neutron fields that may have existed throughout 

the history of this facility. Given that LBNL was a world leader in accelerator development, and 

given the leading-edge high energies developed by the machines, it is likely that there was the 

potential for unanticipated radiation fields and possible neutron exposures across a range of 

energies, especially in the early decades. 

The site profile document is silent as to thermal and/or slow neutron exposure. A search of the 

“O” drive revealed only a single document that mentioned slow or thermal neutrons. Clearly, 

there was the potential for exposure to slow neutrons, as slow neutron electroscopes were in use 

in 1956 and readings were documented for several individuals. 

It is unclear from ORAUT-TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007) how and when albedo 

thermoluminescent (TLD) data were merged with CR-39 results. The gap in neutron response 

from above the cadmium cutoff (nominally 0.5 eV) to the lower energy threshold for CR-39 

(also not mentioned, but assumed to be around 150 keV) is not discussed. NIOSH should 

evaluate the neutron program and determine how missed intermediate energy neutron dose 

should be determined for this period, as well as intermediate and thermal energy neutrons for the 

NTA and pre-NTA years. 

Selection of Minimum Detectable Dose for CR-39 Dosimeters: Table 6-1 of TKBS-0049 

(ORAUT 2007) shows that the minimum detectable level (MDL) for CR-39 is 10 mrem, with no 

attribution provided. The Los Alamos TBD shows an MDL for CR-39 of 20 mrem. The current 

commercial service available from Landauer, Inc., also shows an MDL of 20 mrem. It is likely 

that the MDL for CR-39 is higher than 10, and more likely around 20 mrem. This number is 

important in terms of assessing missed dose from exposure below the detection limit (DL). It 

should be noted that the MDL value does not encompass the dose not registered because of the 

inability of CR-39 to detect neutrons of energies less than approximately 150 keV. 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

7 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Use of Neutron-Gamma Ratios for Situations Where Neutron Data are Lacking – Seeming 

Inconsistency between the Environmental and External Dose Sections: Table 4.1 of the 

Environmental Occupational Dose section (Section 4.0) of TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007) contains 

estimates of annual environmental dose throughout the history of the facility. The values 

provided are totals of neutron and photon exposure. 

In TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007), the Environmental Dose section utilizes a ≥70% factor and the 

External Dose section utilizes a 42% factor. This significant difference in the average site-wide 

neutron-to-photon ratio is surprising. It is possible that the environmental dose includes more 

skyshine and other factors; however, this issue needs to be addressed and the large difference 

explained. 

The present section in TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007) on the determination of missed and missing 

neutron exposure needs a thorough review. Both the source terms and the dosimeter response 

specifications need to be addressed. 

NIOSH’s Preliminary Response to Issue #6: 

Regarding NTA film, Section 6.3 of Revision 2 of the LBNL Site Profile indicates 

that a neutron to photo ratio can be applied for the LBNL film era which was up 

through 1994. The LBNL Site Profile includes neutron to photon ratios based on 

site specific information. 

Section 6.2.3 of Revision 2 of the LBNL Site Profile provides a correction factors 

to account for angular dependence, and fast neutron energy for NTA film and 

CR-39 dosimeters. 

Peer-reviewed data indicate an [CR-39] LOD of 15 mrem 

(http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/4/285.abstract). Table 6-4 of Revision 2 

of the LBNL Site Profile will be revised accordingly. 

Regarding the NP ratio for environmental doses and personnel dosimetry, the 

footnote (b) of Table 4-1 does point out that these numbers are impacted by 

skyshine and shielding. Therefore, NIOSH feels that the difference in 

environmental geometry and shielding scenarios and occupational exposure 

geometry and shielding scenarios account for the differences in NP ratios. 

SC&A’s Current Evaluation of Issue #6: Insufficiency of Neutron Dosimetry Treatment 

SC&A finds that some of the items in this original site profile issue have been addressed, or were 

negated, by the revised TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b), or the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). 

However, a number of important items still remain, and several new items have been introduced 

by the revisions in TKBS-0049; these items are discussed below. 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

8 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Neutron Radiation Fields Not Characterized

The following statement is found on page 54 of TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b): 

Evaluations of potential neutron radiation hazards in LBNL workplaces have also 

been done on numerous occasions, as noted in Attachment A. Table 6-6 lists 

neutron radiation sources potentially encountered at LBNL over the years, the 

approximate energy category, and the associated dose fraction. Workplace 

neutron radiation energies of potential external radiation exposure significance 

to workers are between 10 keV and 20 MeV. 

Then, in Table 6-6, the last line lists Cyclotrons and Accelerators in Buildings 51 and 71 as 

having 50% 0.1–2.0 MeV and 50% 2.0–20 MeV neutron dose fields. SC&A has reviewed the 

material and some of the references in Attachment A of ORAUT 2010b and found that this 

historical account is a useful tool. We note, however, that the pertinent data have not been 

extracted and brought forth into the main text of the TBD to provide a technically sound basis for 

comparing the dosimeters, which were calibrated using PoBe or PuBe neutron standards 

(ORAUT 2010b, pg. 53), to the various neutron fields present in the work areas and 

environmental areas of the numerous LBNL accelerators over a wide time span. 

There is need for greater detail and benchmark measurements characterizing the neutron fields 

workers could have been exposed to over time, and operating conditions at the various facilities. 

For example, were there measurements to show that some workers were, or were not, exposed to 

significant neutron fields below the cut-off energy of NTA film, TLDs, and CR-39? 

Additionally, were there measurements to show that some workers were, or were not, exposed to 

neutron fields with significant dose above the range that these dosimeters could register with 

reasonable accuracy (i.e., >10–20 MeV)? Although some of this information may be present in 

the references contained in Attachment A of ORAUT 2010b (i.e., BNS 1957; Moyer 1960; 

Patterson 1965; Stephens and Miller 1969; and especially Sun 1991), this information should be 

brought forth into the text of the TBD. The TBD should provide summaries of the different 

accelerators’ operating periods, neutron energy spectra and dose equivalent measures made in 

the work areas and environmental areas, and the response of the NTA film and CR-39 neutron 

dosimeters, along with any correction factors. For example, the 1987 article concerning NTA 

film and CR-39 response comparisons (Greenhouse 1987), discussed on pages 107–108 of 

Attachment A of the TBD, indicates that NTA film and CR-39 dosimeters only responded to 

approximately 50% of the total neutron dose equivalent; this could indicate an issue with the 

recorded neutron doses, and perhaps a need for correction factors to be applied. 

Use of TLDs and CR-39

It is unclear from the TBD how/when/if TLD neutron data were merged with CR-39 results. 

According to Tables 6-3 and 6-4 of the revised TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010), since 1995, TLDs 

are only used for beta/photon dosimetry and CR-39 is the only neutron dosimeter. If this is true, 

how is the dose below the threshold (~0.1 MeV) of CR-39 detected? Are any neutron-sensitive 

TLDs used, and if so, how are the data from the TLD and CR-39 compiled for recorded dose? 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

9 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

CR-39 MDL

Table 6-4 of the revised TKBS-0049 lists the MDL for CR-39 as 10 mrem; this is to be changed 

to 15 mrem, as per the LBNL WG meeting of February 3, 2012. SC&A has found that the Los 

Alamos National Laboratory uses a CR-39 MDL value of 20 mrem (ORAUT 2009), and 

Brookhaven National Laboratory recommends a value of <20 mrem (ORAUT 2010a). SC&A 

finds that an MDL of 15 mrem may be reasonable, but not necessarily claimant favorable. 

Environmental versus Facility n/p Values

The Environmental Dose section utilizes a ≥70% factor (n/p of 2.33 =>2.33/3.33 = 0.70) as per 

footnote “c” of Table 4-1, page 32, of the revised TKBS-0049, and the External Dose section 

utilizes a 44% factor (n/p of 0.77 => 0.77/1.77 = 0.44) as per Table 6-10, page 56, of the revised 

TKBS-0049. This indicates that the neutron-to-photon doses were, on the average, 2.33/0.77 = 

3.0 times greater in the environmental areas than in the facilities. While some of this difference 

could come from neutron skyshine in the early years, SC&A believes that if the environmental 

doses were measured using survey instruments, such as rem-balls, (as indicated in annotation 

[15]1

 on page 62 of the TKBS-0049 2010 where it mentions “portable instrument readings”), 

then it is feasible that the NTA film personnel badges may have missed some of the lower/higher 

energy neutron dose in the work areas around the accelerators. Table 4-1 on page 31 should 

provide greater granularity by tabulating annual gamma and neutron doses and then n/p values. 

Footnote “c” to Table 4-1 states that, “Neutron component of dose is typically >70% of total 

[16]2.” SC&A believes that this statement is too general and that greater clarity would be 

realized by a breakdown on an annual basis. We also note that if skyshine is a contributor to the 

greater environmental n/p values compared to the personnel monitoring n/p values, then the 

environmental n/p values should show a decrease as a function of time as the tops of the 

accelerators became better shielded around the 1960s (Moyer 1960). 

Revised TKBS-0049 used Under-responsive NTA Film to Correct for Under-responsive NTA 

Film In Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.3.1 of the revised TKBS-0049, NIOSH used 876 NTA film 

results from 1947–1987 (which originally missed part of the dose because of the lack of lowenergy neutron response below ~800 keV) to derive n/p values to replace these very neutron 

dose readings that are faulty, because they missed the doses below ~800 keV (circular 

reasoning). If the NTA film readings can be adjusted by applying the appropriate correction 

factors for fading, angular dependence, low-energy cut off, decreased response at high energies, 

etc., then the corrected recorded results can be used directly in dose reconstruction (DR), and n/p 

values would only be needed to assign neutron doses to workers who were not monitored for 

neutrons, but who were potentially exposed to neutrons. 

 1

 [15] East, James. ORAU Team, Task 3. May, 2006. Summary statement based on facts reported in the 

Environmental Reports over the years. The portable instrument readings were converted from hourly rates to annual 

for consistency. [Annotation from ORAUT 2010b.] 

2

 [16] East, James. ORAU Team, Task 3. May, 2006. This statement is drawn from notations in many of 

the Environmental Reports and represents the capabilities of the monitoring at the time observations were made. 

[Annotation from ORAUT 2010b.] 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

10 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Revised TKBS-0049 - Neutron and Photon Doses are Not Correlated

It is stated on page 57 of TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b) that, “Figure 6-2 illustrates a scatter plot 

of the measured neutron and photon dose. It is evident that the measured neutron and photon 

doses are well correlated with a Pearson Correlation of 0.09.” However, an examination of 

Figure 6-2 (reproduced below as Exhibit A) shows that there appears to be very little correlation 

between neutron and photon doses in this plot. A Pearson Correlation of 0.0913 and a 

Spearman Correlation of 0.0923 indicates a poor correlation between the variables. 

Exhibit A: Plot of Neutron Dose vs. Photon Dose 

(From ORAUT 2010b, Figure 6-2, page 59) 

Text Errors in Revised ORAUT-TKBS-0049

 The scales in Figure 6-1 and 6-3 are backwards and need to be corrected. 

 Table 6-6, page 54, ICRP 60 correction factors are actually “adjusted” ICRP 60 

correction factors, because they are a combination of the ICRP 60 correction factor and 

the energy fraction. 

Summary of Issue #6

The revised TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b), page 55, addressed the angular dependence of 

neutron dosimetry (both NTA film and CR-39) and recommends a correction factor of 1.3, which 

is acceptable. However, there are no explicit recommendations for correction of the lack of 

response below the lower-energy cut off or lack of sensitivity at higher energies or the mention 

of correction factors for NTA film fading. The following is stated on page 55 of the TBD: 

Considering that NTA has a lower energy response limit of about 0.5 MeV, it is 

likely that neutron doses were under-estimated in general workplace areas with 

highly scattered neutron fields and accurately measured in less scattered neutron 

fields with higher energy neutrons. As such, consideration can be given to 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

11 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

estimating the neutron dose using a neutron-to-photon dose (NP) ratio which is 

described in Section 6.4.3. [Emphasis added.] 

This does not explicitly direct the dose reconstructor to use the n/p method. Section 6.3 on page 

56 states that the dose reconstructor “should” use the n/p method to determine the missed 

neutron dose, and on page 58 it is stated that “Table 6-10 may be” used to assign measured and 

missed neutron doses. However, Table 6-11 on page 60 provides a table of uncertainties, which 

include NTA film for 1940s–1994 (i.e., apparently not using the n/p method); additionally, as 

previously discussed, the n/p values that were derived to replace deficient recorded neutron dose 

values, were themselves based on deficient recorded neutron dose values (which did not correlate 

well to the paired photon dose values). 

It is not clear if the uncertainties in Table 6-11 are assumed to encompass the angular 

dependence, lack of low-energy response, decreased response at high energies, and fading 

correction factors (which were not all quantified in ORAUT 2010b), as well as the variability in 

measurement uncertainty, or just the variability in measurement uncertainty; i.e., is the dose 

reconstructor to apply this uncertainty factor in addition to the 1.3 angular correction factor as 

given in Table 6-8, as well as the other correction factors that have not yet been quantified? 

2.2 SC&A’s Initial Issue #7: Failure to Justify the Shallow to Deep Dose Ratio 

Assumption

TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007) provides guidance concerning the doses to be assigned in the 

“early” years (pre-1979) for which there is no record of beta exposure. In the general case, there 

is an assumption that a factor of three for the ratio of shallow to deep dose is reasonable and 

claimant favorable. However, as discussed below, SC&A believes that for some personnel, the 

3:1 ratio may not be claimant favorable. 

However, LBNL had a broad mandate. In most cases, the site description does not provide 

sufficient detail as to the quantities, forms, and methods under which these materials were 

handled. What is known is that the levels of protection in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s fell far 

short of what would be considered good practice today. 

There is no mention of skin, head and eye, or non-uniform whole-body irradiation in the site 

profile. Typically, workers handling beta emitters and those performing maintenance inside 

accelerators can be exposed to significant non-uniform fields. Likewise, there is no mention in 

TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007) of potential skin and clothing contamination and resultant exposure. 

It is unclear from TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2007) if workers were exposed to significant shallow 

dose with possibly little deep dose to be used as an indicator. Possible activities that may have 

been conducted include fume hood operations, maintenance of accelerators, ventilation and 

plumbing systems, waste disposal operations, and spill cleanup. The lists of nuclides are 

extensive and include beta emitters, including some pure beta and low-energy X-ray emitters. 

For some personnel, the 3:1 ratio may not be claimant favorable. NIOSH should identify the 

workers who could have received exposure from these beta or low-energy X-ray emitters, or 

provide an alternative method of estimating the shallow dose in a claimant-favorable manner.
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

12 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

NIOSH’s Preliminary Response to Issue #7: 

Non-uniform exposure can be addressed using the guidance in DCAS-TIB-0010a) 

[DCAS 2011] and DCAS-TIB-0013b)[DCAS 2010], or, if necessary be addressed 

on a case-by-case basis using modeling. Section 6.6 of Revision 2 of the LBNL 

Site Profile provides claimant-favorable guidance on the assignment of shallow 

dose because it is based on a comparison of the historical dose limits used by 

LBNL.

SC&A’s Current Evaluation of Issue #7: Failure to Justify the Shallow to Deep Dose Ratio 

Assumption 

SC&A finds that some of the items in this original site profile issue have been addressed, or were 

negated, by the revised TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b), or the SEC. However, a number of 

important items still remain, and several new items have been introduced by the revisions in 

TKBS-0049 2010; these items are discussed below. 

SC&A’s Review of DCAS-TIB-0010, DCAS-TIB-0013, and ORAUT-OTIB-0017

SC&A concurs that the use of these documents provides for resolution of some of the geometry 

and shallow dose issues when shallow doses were measured. However, as per TKBS-0049 

(ORAUT 2010b), page 51, Table 6-2, there was no shallow dose measured or recorded prior to 

1982. Therefore, the issue of the lack of shallow dose measurements is pertinent for the period 

1948–1981. SC&A’s review of Nielsen 1951 indicates that the beta-to-gamma ratio for a 

uranium slab 12 inches thick is 3:1; however, it is 5:1 at closer distances. Therefore, the 3:1 ratio 

may not be claimant favorable at close distances. Additionally, working with pure beta emitters 

such as P-32 and Sr-90 (listed in Tables 2-1 and 6-5 of ORAUT 2010b) would result in 

exposures that would not register any gamma dose on the dosimeters to be used to derive the 

shallow dose.

Extremity Doses

TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b) states on page 61 that the extremity dose can be assigned by using 

3 times the WB (Whole Body) photon dose based on the comparison of the dose limits at the 

time, as provided on page 61: 

Whole body–0.3 rem/wk; 

Skin–0.5 rem/wk; and 

Extremity–1.5 R/wk. 

However, the extremity dose limit is 5 times the WB dose limit (i.e., [1.5 R/wk] / [0.3 R/wk] = 

5); therefore, 3 times the WB dose could underestimate the extremity dose. 

2.3 SC&A’s Initial Issue #8: Uncertainty in Beta-Gamma Dosimeter Response to 

Radiation Types and Energies 

The Use of Early Electroscope Data Needs Greater Definition: Page 39 of TKBS-0049 

(ORAUT 2007) describes the use of electroscope data as follows: 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

13 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

 

... Exposure data were recorded by film badges and thermoluminescent 

dosimeters (TLDs). Early exposure records also provided electroscope (or at 

times, electrometer or E was used) results, which supplemented the results 

measured by film. Dose reconstructors should use the electroscope results in a 

qualitative manner because no data were found on the calibration or energy 

response of these devices; they should use the film or TLD results to estimate the 

actual exposure or the electroscope reading if no corresponding dosimeter 

reading exists. 

A search of the “O” drive found that, anecdotally at least, there were significant problems with 

electroscopes. A study performed November 23, 1953, by Jim Bennett (Bennett 1953) showed 

that readings from the three electroscopes tested were widely divergent from the film that was 

exposed with them. Two gave a 10% response compared with the film, and the third was “off 

scale.” No details are provided as to the energy of the gamma source used for the exposure. 

However, the memo provides a cautionary statement as to using electroscope data, even in a 

qualitative manner. 

Dosimeter Response to Very High Energy Photons and Charged Particles: LBNL was a 

pioneer in the development of high energy physics (HEP) and in the search for exotic particles. 

The film and electroscopes in use in the early decades will likely not have been calibrated for 

energies above 1 or 2 MeV. NIOSH should evaluate the dosimetry and potential for exposure to 

radiation at energies above that commonly produced by radioisotopes. The detectors will have 

responded to some degree, but the correction factor magnitude and sign are unknown and not 

mentioned in the 2010 version of TKBS-0049. The response of the detector element or film, for 

example, will depend greatly on the composition of the holder and filters.

NIOSH’s Preliminary Response to Issue #8: 

The period prior to 1961 is covered under the SEC. Section 6.1.1 of Revision 2 of 

the LBNL Site Profile has been revised to read,” Dose reconstructors should use 

the electroscope results cautiously to assign exposure because no data were found 

on the calibration or energy response of these devices; they should use 

preferentially the film or TLD results to estimate the actual exposure. The 

electroscope results include daily readings in tables captioned "dosimeter," "slow 

neutron," and "electroscope." The three readings, which occurred on the same 

dates, were evidently used to measure exposure at the end of work shifts [42]3

. 

Presently any claims from 1948 and later that have electroscope data also have 

film and/or TLD data, which the dose reconstructor is directed to use according 

to the LBNL Site Profile. 

3

 [42] Guido, Joseph, ORAU Team, Task 5. June 5, 2006. Mr. Guido reviewed the original data from 

multiple claims and made the observation that the readings represented the end of work shifts. [Annotation from 

ORAUT 2010b.] 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

14 of 17 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

NOTICE:

SC&A’s Current Evaluation of Issue #8: Uncertainty in Beta-Gamma Dosimeter Response 

to Radiation Types and Energies 

SC&A finds that some of the items in this original site profile issue have been addressed, or were 

negated, by the revised TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b), or the SEC. However, a number of 

important items still remain, and several new items have been introduced by the revisions in 

TKBS-0049; these items are discussed below. 

External Dose is Not Covered under the SEC After 1947

The NIOSH response to this issue of “The period prior to 1961 is covered under the SEC.” 

appears to be incorrect, because the SEC only covers external dose through 1947; therefore, this 

issue is still pertinent for the year 1948 and forward. 

Electroscope Issue

This issue was discussed during the February 3, 2012, LBNL WG meeting. This item would not 

be an issue for the year 1948 and forward because film or TLD data are available along with the 

electroscope data; therefore, the electroscope data are not needed for dose reconstruction. 

According to NIOSH, this change will be noted in the next revision of TKBS-0049. This issue 

can be closed. 

Dosimeters Calibration Compared to Measured Workplace Photon Energies

As with neutron dosimeter, photon dosimetry needs to be evaluated in view of the dosimetry 

calibration sources and experimentally measured photon energy fields (benchmarks) around the 

occupied areas of the accelerators as a function of operating conditions and time. If this 

information is available in the references in Attachment A of TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b), it 

should be summarized and documented in the main text of the TBD.
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

15 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

3.0 SUMMARY 

SC&A finds that some of the items in the original site profile issues have been addressed or were 

negated by the revised TKBS-0049 (ORAUT 2010b) or the SEC. However, a number of 

important items still remain and several new items have been introduced by the revisions in 

TKBS-0049; these items were discussed in the Section 2 of this report. Important benchmark 

information in Attachment A of the TBD needs to be extracted and summarized and applied in 

the main body of the TBD.
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

16 of 17 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

4.0 REFERENCES 

Bennett 1953. Bennett, J., of LBNL, Letter to Nolan, W., of LBNL, dated December 2, 1953, 

entitled “Film Badge Testing Program,” University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, Berkeley, California. [SRDB Ref ID: 21337] 

BNS 1957. Bevatron Neutron Survey of 12/5/1957, University of California, Radiation 

Laboratory, Berkeley, California. December 5, 1957 [SRDB Ref ID: 21549, pdf. pp. 23–26]. 

DCAS 2010. Technical Information Bulletin: Selected Geometric Exposure Scenario 

Considerations for External Dose Reconstruction at Uranium Facilities, DCAS-TIB-0013, 

Rev. 0. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 23, 2010. 

DCAS 2011. Technical Information Bulletin: Best Estimate External Dose Reconstruction 

Considerations for Glovebox Workers, DCAS-TIB-0010, Rev. 4. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 28, 2011.

Greenhouse, N.A., T.M. de Castro, J.B. McCaslin, A.R. Smith, R.K. Sun, and D.E. Hankins, 

1987. An Evaluation of NTA Film in an Accelerator Environment and Comparisons with CR-39, 

Radiation Protection Dosimetry (1987) 20 (3): 143-147. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England. 

Moyer, B.J., 1960. Radiation Fields of High-Energy Accelerators, Presented at the Thirteenth 

International Congress on Occupational Health during July 25–29, 1960, [SRDB Ref ID: 13990]. 

Nielsen 1951. Nielsen, E., of LBNL, Letter to Garden, N., of LBNL, dated September 20, 1951, 

entitled “Radiation from Uranium Block,” University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, Berkeley, California. [SRDB Ref ID: 21143] 

NIOSH 2002. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. August, 2002. 

NIOSH 2010. Special Exposure Cohort, Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00160 for the 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 20, 2010. 

NIOSH 2012. NIOSH preliminary responses to issues have been added on Feb 1, 2012 prior to 

the work group discussion on Feb 3, 2012. National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 1, 2012. 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issues #6, #7, and #8

Page No. 

17 of 17 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

NOTICE:

ORAUT 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment 

of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. October 11, 2005. 

ORAUT 2007. Site Profile for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ORAUT-TKBS0049, Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 2, 2007. 

ORAUT 2009. Technical Basis Document for the Los Alamos National Laboratory – 

Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0010-6, Rev. 02. Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 23, 2009. 

ORAUT 2010a. Site Profile for the Brookhaven National Laboratory, ORAUT-TKBS-0048, 

Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 26, 2010. 

ORAUT 2010b. Site Profile for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ORAUT-TKBS0049, Rev. 02. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 10, 2010. 

Patterson, H.W., 1965. Accelerator Radiation Monitoring and Shielding, UCRL-16445 Rev, 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California. Academic Press, 

New York [SRDB Ref ID: 21691]. 

SC&A 2012. SC&A’s Issues Matrix for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Site Profile 

Technical Basis Document. SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, 

Maryland. January 2012. 

Stephens, L.D., and A.J. Miller, 1969. Radiation Studies at a Medium Energy Accelerator, 

UCRL-19386, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California. 

October 1969 [SRDB Ref ID: 72354]. 

Sun, Rai-Ko S., 1991. Review of Measurement at Accelerators and Application to Dosimeter 

Calibration, LBL-30883, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, 

California [SRDB Ref ID: 20875].