ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller & Associates I MJW Corporation

Page 1 of 72

Document Title:

Pantex Plant – Occupational Internal Dose

Document Number: ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 

Revision: 01

Effective Date: 06/22/2007

Type of Document TBD

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert(s): Eva Eckert Hickey, Donald E. Bihl, Daniel J. Strom, and Richard J. Traub

Site Expert(s): Martin, Jerome B.

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 05/31/2007

Jack J. Fix, Document Owner

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 05/31/2007

John M. Byrne, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 06/01/2007

Edward F. Maher, Task 5 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 06/12/2007

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Brant A. Ulsh Signature on File for Approval Date: 06/22/2007

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

 New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 2 of 72

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

07/27/2006 00 New Technical Basis Document for the Pantex Plant – Occupational 

Internal Dose. First approved issue. Training required as 

determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by Jerome B. Martin.

Jack J. Fix, Document Owner

Signature on File 05/29/2006

John M. Byrne, Document Owner

Signature on File 04/26/2006

Edward F. Maher, Task 5 Manager

Signature on File 05/26/2006

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Signature on File 05/31/2006

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Signature on File 07/27/2006

02/08/2007 00 PC-1 Page change revision to change the date for the first DU-laden 

hydroshot from 1952 to 1959 on page 31. Updated the text in 

Section 5.2.2.6 on page 28 and updated Table 5-11 on page 32 and 

5-19 on page 48. Added reference on page 49 for the telephone 

conversation that confirmed the actual date. Table 5-1 was moved 

from page 9 to page 10. Results in a decrease in the intake of DU 

and resultant dose for the years 1952 to 1959. Text was modified or 

added in Section 5 and References (pages 9-12, 28, 31-32, 48-49, 

and 53). No sections were deleted. Incorporates internal formal 

review comments and NIOSH formal review comments. This 

revision results in a reduction in assigned dose and no PER is 

required. Training required: As determined by the Task Manager. 

Initiated by Donald E. Bihl. Approval:

Jack J. Fix, Document Owner

Donald E. Bihl Signature on File for 01/24/2007

John M. Byrne, Document Owner

Signature on File 01/25/2007

Edward F. Maher, Task 5 Manager

Signature on File 01/26/2007

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Signature on File 01/31/2007

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Brant A. Ulsh Signature on File for 02/08/2007
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 3 of 72

06/22/2007 01 Approved revision initiated to include Attributions and Annotations 

and additional references. No sections were deleted. Minor editorial 

changes were made in Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.1.4, 5.2.2.5, and 

5.2.2.6.2. Constitutes a total rewrite of the document. Incorporates 

formal internal and NIOSH review comments. This revision results in 

no change to the assigned dose and no PER is required. Training 

required: As determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by Donald 

E. Bihl.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 4 of 72

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

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

PAGE

6

5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................8

5.1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................9

5.1.2 Scope...........................................................................................................................9

5.1.3 History of Internal Dosimetry ........................................................................................9

5.1.4 Current Internal Dosimetry Practices .......................................................................... 11

5.2 Radionuclides with Potential for Internal Dose .......................................................................11

5.2.1 Tritium ........................................................................................................................11

5.2.1.1 Internal Assessment for Tritium During Routine Operations ......................... 13

5.2.1.1.1 Dose to Uptake........................................................................... 14

5.2.1.1.2 Tritium Missed Dose Before 1972............................................... 17

5.2.1.1.3 Tritium Missed Dose, 1972 to 1988............................................. 17

5.2.1.1.4 Tritium Missed Dose, 1989 to Present ........................................ 17

5.2.1.1.5 Unmonitored Workers, 1956 to 1971 .......................................... 18

5.2.1.1.6 Unmonitored Workers, 1972 to Present ...................................... 18

5.2.1.2 Tritium Release Event in 1989 ..................................................................... 20

5.2.2 Uranium......................................................................................................................20

5.2.2.1 Background.................................................................................................. 20

5.2.2.2 Uranium Reporting Levels or Minimum Detectable Activities........................ 22

5.2.2.3 Uranium Intakes from Assembly/Disassembly of Weapons 

for Unmonitored Workers ............................................................................. 23

5.2.2.3.1 Analysis of 1990s Uranium Urinalysis Data................................. 24

5.2.2.3.2 Depleted Uranium Intakes for Assembly/Disassembly 

Unmonitored Workers, 1980 to 1993 .......................................... 25

5.2.2.3.3 Depleted Uranium Intakes for Assembly/Disassembly 

Unmonitored Workers, 1994 to the Present ................................ 25

5.2.2.3.4 Depleted Uranium Intakes for Assembly/Disassembly 

Unmonitored Workers, 1961 to 1979 .......................................... 25

5.2.2.4 Depleted Uranium Intakes from Machining................................................... 26

5.2.2.5 Depleted Uranium Intakes from Burning of Contaminated 

High Explosives ........................................................................................... 27

5.2.2.6 Intakes from Hydroshots .............................................................................. 29

5.2.2.6.1 DU .............................................................................................. 29

5.2.2.6.2 Other Possible Radioactive Sources........................................... 33

5.2.2.6.3 Clean Up of Firing Site 5............................................................. 33

5.2.2.6.4 Clean Up of Firing Site 23........................................................... 33

5.2.3 Thorium ......................................................................................................................34

5.2.4 Plutonium and Plutonium Incidents............................................................................. 36

5.2.4.1 Plutonium General ....................................................................................... 36

5.2.4.2 1961 Cell Incident ........................................................................................ 39

5.2.4.3 1978 Storage Cylinder Incident .................................................................... 40

5.3 Assessing Occupational Internal Dose from Elevated Radon.................................................41

5.3.1 Dose from Radon-222 Progeny .................................................................................. 41

5.3.2 Radon Monitoring at DOE Facilities............................................................................ 42

5.3.3 Underground Buildings ............................................................................................... 42

5.3.4 Radon Concentrations................................................................................................ 42

5.3.5 Working Level-Months................................................................................................ 46
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 5 of 72

5.4 Intake Summary.....................................................................................................................47

5.5 Attributions and Annotations ..................................................................................................49

References ........................................................................................................................................63

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................71

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

5-1 Number of workers with bioassay monitoring .........................................................................

PAGE

10

5-2 Job titles and descriptions of work with possibility for occupational intake.............................. 12

5-3 Tritium dose data ................................................................................................................... 15

5-4 Tritium urinalysis screening levels, 1991................................................................................ 18

5-5 Potentially missed intake and dose from monthly sampling for chronic 

intake of tritium, 1989 to present ............................................................................................ 18

5-6 Tritium uptakes for unmonitored workers ............................................................................... 19

5-7 Uranium dose to workers ....................................................................................................... 22

5-8 History of uranium urinalysis .................................................................................................. 23

5-9 Retirements in the DOE complex ........................................................................................... 26

5-10 Recorded numbers of hydro test shots and other detonations at Firing 

Site 5 or other sites ................................................................................................................32

5-11 Estimated number of detonations potentially involving DU dispersion and 

intakes ...................................................................................................................................32

5-12 Thorium dose to workers........................................................................................................ 36

5-13 Number of workers on plutonium bioassay, 1991 to 2002 ...................................................... 37

5-14 Activity composition of weapons-grade plutonium mixtures from Hanford .............................. 38

5-15 Plutonium incident air sample counts, 1961 ........................................................................... 39

5-16 Results of 137 radon measurements in 1990 ......................................................................... 43

5-17 Summary statistics of 1990 radon measurements.................................................................. 46

5-18 Summary of 1969 radon measurements in Cells 1 to 6 .......................................................... 47

5-19 Summary of default intakes.................................................................................................... 48

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

5-1 Air sample log-probability fit inside hydroshot bunkers ...........................................................

PAGE

30

5-2 Air sample log-probability fit outside hydroshot bunkers......................................................... 30

5-3 Absolute differences between duplicate radon measurements............................................... 46
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 6 of 72

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

BPNNL Battelle–Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Bq becquerel

cd calendar day

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie

cm centimeter

cpm counts per minute

d day

DAC derived air concentration

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DORMS Dosimetry Records Management System

dpm disintegrations per minute

DU depleted uranium

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

EU enriched uranium

g gram

gal gallon

GSD geometric standard deviation

HE,50 committed effective dose equivalent

HE high explosive

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air

HERS Historical Exposure Records System

hr hour

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

L liter

m meter

mCi millicurie

MDA minimum detectable activity

MeV megaelectron-volt, 1 million electron-volts

min minute

mL milliliter

mrem millirem

NCRP National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements

NDE nondestructive examination

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 7 of 72

NOCTS NIOSH-Office of Compensation Analysis and Support Claims Tracking System

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

PAEC potential alpha energy concentration

PAEE potential alpha energy exposure

pCi picocurie

POC probability of causation

RAMS Radiation Alarm Monitoring System

RST Radiation Safety Technician

s second

SNM special nuclear material

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

Sv sievert

TBD technical basis document

U.S.C. United States Code

wd working day

WL working level

WLM working level-month

yr year

μCi microcurie

μg microgram

μm micrometer

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 8 of 72

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Technical basis documents and site profile documents are not official determinations made by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working 

documents that provide historic background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of 

dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event 

additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s). These documents may be used 

to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

In this document the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building, or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy [DOE] facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act [EEOICPA; 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)]. 

EEOICPA defines a DOE facility as “any building, structure, or premise, including the grounds upon 

which such building, structure, or premise is located ... in which operations are, or have been, 

conducted by, or on behalf of, the Department of Energy (except for buildings, structures, premises, 

grounds, or operations ... pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program)” [42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(12)]. Accordingly, except for the exclusion for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted 

above, any facility that performs or performed DOE operations of any nature whatsoever is a DOE 

facility encompassed by EEOICPA.

For employees of DOE or its contractors with cancer, the DOE facility definition only determines 

eligibility for a dose reconstruction, which is a prerequisite to a compensation decision (except for 

members of the Special Exposure Cohort). The compensation decision for cancer claimants is based 

on a section of the statute entitled “Exposure in the Performance of Duty.” That provision [42 U.S.C. § 

7384n(b)] says that an individual with cancer “shall be determined to have sustained that cancer in the 

performance of duty for purposes of the compensation program if, and only if, the cancer ... was at 

least as likely as not related to employment at the facility [where the employee worked], as 

determined in accordance with the POC [probability of causation1

As noted above, the statute includes a definition of a DOE facility that excludes “buildings, structures, 

premises, grounds, or operations covered by Executive Order No. 12344, dated February 1, 1982 (42 

U.S.C. 7158 note), pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program” [42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12)]. 

While this definition contains an exclusion with respect to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the 

section of EEOICPA that deals with the compensation decision for covered employees with cancer 

[i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b), entitled “Exposure in the Performance of Duty”] does not contain such an 

exclusion. Therefore, the statute requires NIOSH to include all occupationally derived radiation 

exposures at covered facilities in its dose reconstructions for employees at DOE facilities, including 

radiation exposures related to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. As a result, all internal and 

external dosimetry monitoring results are considered valid for use in dose reconstruction. No efforts 

are made to determine the eligibility of any fraction of total measured exposure for inclusion in dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH, however, does not consider the following exposures to be occupationally 

derived:

] guidelines established under 

subsection (c) ...” [42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b)]. Neither the statute nor the probability of causation 

guidelines (nor the dose reconstruction regulation) define “performance of duty” for DOE employees 

with a covered cancer or restrict the “duty” to nuclear weapons work. 

• Radiation from naturally occurring radon present in conventional structures

• Radiation from diagnostic X-rays received in the treatment of work-related injuries

 

1 The U.S. Department of Labor is ultimately responsible under the EEOICPA for determining the POC. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 9 of 72

5.1.1

This TBD addresses intakes of radionuclides associated with weapons operations as well as radon 

exposures, which might have been enhanced due to the unique cell design at the Pantex Plant for 

limiting the consequences of accidents.

Purpose

5.1.2

Activities at the Pantex Plant with the potential for airborne contamination occurred in bays and cells. 

The principal function in the bays is the assembly and disassembly of nuclear explosives, particularly 

the mechanical portion of operations that includes electrical components and tritium reservoirs. 

Physics package assembly and disassembly, which involved bare high explosives (HE) and sealed 

pits, occurred in the cells. There are 13 cells for assembly and disassembly at the Pantex Plant. 

Operations with radioactive components began in these cells in 1956. Cell 1 is no longer in use 

because of an accidental tritium gas release in 1989 [1]. 

Scope

Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis & Quality Assurance Document (BWXT Pantex 2001) implies that 

particle size measurements could have been made for specific incidents but had not been performed 

(at that time) for routine airborne contamination conditions. Data were found for particle size 

measurements assessed for uranium and thorium during the 1990s. It appears that measurements 

were used to determine appropriate radiation protection measures and not for dose assessment. The 

dose reconstructor should use the default 5-μm activity median aerodynamic diameter assumption 

(with the exception of tritium and radon progeny) unless data on specific particle size are available in 

the records and are representative of the intakes being considered (ORAUT 2007a). 

Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, 

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 5.5.

5.1.3

There was no routine bioassay program at Pantex before 1972 for uranium, thorium, or plutonium [2]. 

Bioassay was performed for specific events; for instance, bioassay was obtained from workers 

involved in a plutonium contamination event in 1961 and from those involved in decontamination of 

the facility after the event [3]. A 1967 report describing an inspection of the radiation protection 

program states that Pantex used air samples and contamination surveys to indicate the need for 

bioassay and did not maintain a routine plutonium or uranium bioassay program (Davis 1967). The 

report further states that Pantex performed about 10 tritium urinalyses a month, and there was no 

indication of personnel exposure. There might have been a small routine tritium program, but the 

research for this analysis found no other information. 

History of Internal Dosimetry

The 1991 procedure Analysis of Biological Samples for Uranium, Thorium, and/or Plutonium stated 

that urinalysis was to be conducted for personnel exposed to 40 derived air concentration (DAC)-hr 

integrated air concentrations as measured by breathing-zone monitors or was to be estimated if not 

specifically monitored (MHSMC 1991a). The procedure also stated that, “personnel working in 

potentially contaminated areas shall be entered into the routine bioassay program and shall have a 

routine bioassay for the suspect heavy metal radionuclide performed every 4 to 6 months.” However, 

the routine bioassay program for radionuclides other than tritium was short-lived, occurring mostly in 

1991 and 1992 [4]. 

The TBD research did not reveal the level of air concentrations or other workplace indicators that 

triggered special bioassays before 1991 [5]. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 10 of 72

In 1989, Pantex contracted with Delphi Groupe to develop the Historical Exposure Records System 

(HERS), an electronic database that contains the best-available personnel dose data. Original 

personnel dose records were reviewed, discrepancies identified and corrected, and data entered in 

the database. This effort reconstructed and included missing, incomplete, and invalid doses. It 

included records from 1957 to 1983, with the exception of March 1976 and December 1979 because 

data were not available for those months (BWXT Pantex 2000). HERS reports are available for 

several contamination events that occurred in 1989, but earlier data were not easy to extract from the 

files. The dose records in the worker or claimant files will contain the HERS data, but those data do 

not include bioassay data. A review of all worker files in the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support Claims Tracking System (NOCTS) revealed that only 10% of the files had any bioassay 

data and most of the data were for tritium results. Only 3% of the files had uranium bioassay results 

and all but one of the results were for samples collected since 1986. No plutonium or thorium 

bioassay results were found in the NOCTS files. Therefore, this TBD provides other approaches for 

determining intakes of radionuclides that dose reconstructors can use when bioassay data are not 

available.

Table 5-1 provides a historical perspective of bioassay practices at Pantex from 1972 to 2002. The 

table lists the number of workers monitored for the radionuclides of interest for each year.

Table 5-1. Number of workers with bioassay monitoring (BWXT Pantex 2005a). 

Year

Workers monitored 

for tritium

Workers monitored 

for uranium

Workers monitored 

for thorium

Workers monitored 

for plutonium

1972 4 0 0 0

1973 1 0 0 0

1974 0 0 0 0

1975 0 0 0 0

1976 463 0 0 0

1977 466 0 0 0

1978 519 0 0 0

1979 712 0 0 0

1980 14 0 0 0

1981 41 0 0 0

1982 5 0 0 0

1983 0 0 0 0

1984 0 0 0 0

1985 17 0 0 0

1986 626 0 0 0

1987 481 0 0 0

1988 499 0 0 0

1989 212 0 0 0

1990 2,341 46 0 0

1991 1,115 431 0 0

1992 879 239 17 12

1993 1,078 90 0 0

1994 1,104 138 4 3

1995 971 37 90 33

1996 940 69 56 17

1997 933 89 13 18

1998 610 12 1 2

1999 554 13 16 1

2000 535 33 9 8

2001 512 65 16 1

2002 511 57 11 10

2003 441 87 25 9

2004 421 109 15 0
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 11 of 72

Knowing the job title and a brief description of duties for that title can be helpful in determining the 

correct information to use for assessing dose. Production Technicians (also called Assembly 

Operators) or Radiation Safety Technicians (RSTs) typically had the highest potential for intakes of 

occupational radionuclides. Other workers could have incurred intakes, but the probability of incurring 

an intake was smaller and the magnitude of an intake, if it occurred, would have been smaller [6]. 

Claimant interview files might not state the same job title because the interviewee could have 

described the type of job performed rather than the job title. The job titles have changed over the 

years. Table 5-2 summarizes job titles, descriptions, and possibilities for intakes.

5.1.4

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several actions resulted in the current internal dosimetry program. 

First, there were new regulations from DOE (Order 5480.11 (DOE 1988), the RadCon Manual (DOE 

1992), and 10 CFR 835); second, a new contractor came to the site; and third, several workplace 

incidents occurred that demonstrated the need to improve the internal dosimetry program [7].

Current Internal Dosimetry Practices

The Pantex Plant radiation protection program uses engineering and administrative controls to 

prevent intakes. However, because of the quantities of tritium, plutonium, uranium, and thorium 

handled at the Plant, there is the possibility of an accidental intake resulting in 100-mrem committed 

effective dose equivalent (CEDE or HE,50) (BWXT Pantex 2001). According to BWXT Pantex (2001),

the purpose of the current internal dosimetry program is to detect intakes equal to or greater than 10 

mrem HE,50 based on International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30 dose 

calculation methodology (ICRP 1982). To meet the requirements of 10 CFR 835.402(c), workers who 

might be likely to have internal HE,50 doses higher than 100 mrem participate in the internal dose 

evaluation program. Pantex maintains routine bioassay monitoring programs for tritium to 

demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 835.402(c). To identify intakes of actinides in a timely manner, 

the internal dosimetry program is tied closely to the quantification of airborne radionuclide 

concentrations to which workers are exposed. Pantex does not have a routine bioassay program for 

actinides, but uses occurrence-based bioassay sampling to confirm intakes and calculate internal 

doses (BWXT Pantex 2001). Therefore, with the exception of tritium exposure, there is reliance on 

personal air sampling to determine the need to conduct bioassay sampling. At present, bioassay 

sampling occurs within 2 to 3 d of an assessment of airborne exposures exceeding 4 DAC-hr for an 

individual actinide (BWXT Pantex 2001).

5.2 RADIONUCLIDES WITH POTENTIAL FOR INTERNAL DOSE 

Only five groups of radioactive materials are of concern for occupational intake at Pantex: tritium, 

uranium, thorium, plutonium, and radon progeny (BWXT Pantex 2001). BWXT Pantex (2001) 

discusses the first four radionuclides; the latest version of Section 2 of this Pantex Site Profile 

(ORAUT 2006a) discusses processes and locations where radioactive material could have been 

present. 

5.2.1

The principal sources of tritium at Pantex were and are the weapons components known as 

reservoirs, which first arrived at Pantex in late 1956 or early 1957 (Martin 2004). A Cockcroft Walton 

neutron generator in use before 1956 produced some tritium in the off-gas, and titanium tritide 

particulate contamination probably existed in the target and the area where the drift tube connected to

the target, but the amount would have produced negligible intakes [8]. Tritium sealed under high 

pressure in the reservoir units has the potential to leak during disassembly. BWXT Pantex (2001) 

states that tritium could leak through reservoir materials, which presumably refers to concern for 

Tritium
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 12 of 72

Table 5-2. Job titles and descriptions of work with possibility for occupational intake [9]. 

Job title Description of work

Possibility for intake

(1 highest)a

Production Technician, 

Assembler, Assembly 

Operator, Assembly 

Fabrication

Assembles, disassembles, reassembles, inspects 

components 

1

Quality Assurance Technician I Conducts NDE evaluations with linear accelerators, X-ray 

machines, etc.; conducts telemetry testing; performs 

confirmatory measurements on components, assemblies, 

containers, etc.

1 

Quality Assurance Technician 

II

Performs NDE, electronic, destructive, telemetry, and 

radiation measurement testing

1 

RST (entry) Performs monitoring and sampling; collects samples; 

assists RST in monitoring personnel

1a

RST Performs monitoring and sampling; collects samples; 

performs radiation and contamination surveys; conducts 

surveillance work

1

RST (Senior) Responds to contamination or radiation alarms; performs 

surveillance, monitors radiation conditions in workplace

1 

Firing Site Technician Includes hydroshot operators, driver, anyone involved with 

cleanup of hydroshot contamination

1

Not known, possibly drivers or 

teamsters

Includes burning of HE and cleanup of ash at burning 

ground

1

Material Handler (pits and 

cans)

Operates material handling/moving equipment; transports 

material; loads and unloads materials and containers

2 

Operations Manager, 

Production Supervisor 

Supervises personnel engaged in manufacturing, 

assembly, packaging, material control, etc.

2

Quality Control Inspectors/ 

Auditors

Conducts special audits; different from quality assurance 

technicians

2

Security, protective force, 

guard

Performs per job title 2b

Engineer, engineering Performs variety of tasks associated with design, testing, 

procedure development

2c

Machinist Machining on DU for one weapon design only See Section 5.2.2.4

Metrology laboratory staff Performs nonradiological metrology calibrations Environmental only

Fireman Performs per job title Environmental only

Computer Programmer, 

Electronic Data Processing 

Analyst 

Performs computer programming, maintenance Environmental only

Secretary, Administrator, 

Technical Writer, 

nonoperations management, 

Planner

Performs per job title Environmental only

Tool and dye maker Performs per job title Environmental only

Food service Performs tasks associated with operation of cafeteria Environmental only

Stores Stockman, Clerk, 

Supervisor

Performs tasks associated with general stores Environmental only

a. Based on actual contact with components or contamination or RSTs assisting potentially contaminated personnel.

b. In general, security personnel had little chance of intakes; however, some small intakes from contamination in cells or igloos 

are possible. The default assumption is to place security personnel in category 2; however, based on other information in the 

file, the dose reconstructors can assign environmental intakes only if they believe the Energy Employee’s tasks did not involve 

entry into cells, Gravel Gerties, igloos, or locations with resuspendable contamination [10]. 

c. Engineering tasks cover a wide range, and most have no potential for intakes. However, some tasks might have involved 

observations during assembly or disassembly work or observations during hydroshots. If the engineer did not have a 

dosimeter or never had recordable dose, assign an environmental dose only unless there is information in the file to indicate

otherwise. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 13 of 72

migration of molecular tritium through welds. The tritium in the reservoirs is 99% gaseous molecular 

hydrogen (DT, HT, or T2) and 1% tritiated water vapor (HTO or T2O) (BWXT Pantex 2001). Tritium 

gas interacts over time with moisture in the air, hydrogenated materials (e.g., hydrocarbons, organic 

compounds, and concrete), and some forms of metals to form tritiated compounds and metal tritides 

(Peterson and Davis 2002). 

Tritium gas is far less hazardous than tritiated water, organically bound tritium, or metal tritides, but it 

combines with water vapor in the air or body tissues to form compounds (Johnson and Hill 1993). Of 

particular importance is tritiated water, which the human body absorbs. Elemental tritium is not 

absorbed through the skin to a significant degree. Tritiated water vapor is readily absorbed through 

the skin and lungs and retained in the body. Tritiated water that enters the body is chemically 

identical to ordinary water and is distributed throughout the entire mass of body water (Johnson and 

Hill 1993). 

5.2.1.1 Internal Assessment for Tritium During Routine Operations

Notes:

For tritium, uptake refers to total tritium distributed in body fluids regardless of mode of 

intake. Uptake can be thought of as total intake and includes skin absorption. Uptake is 

equivalent to whole body in the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) computer 

program, and is the product of the urine concentration in activity per liter multiplied by 42 L 

of body fluids.

The following discussion makes no distinction between annual dose and committed dose. 

Because the tritium uptakes discussed in this section were determined from Pantex dose 

calculations, which in turn were determined from urine samples, dose reconstructors 

should consider uptakes to be considered HTO (inorganic tritium in IMBA) unless 

otherwise noted in a worker’s records. 

Pantex analyzed tritium bioassays on the site. For workers assigned to the tritium bioassay program, 

the frequency of monitoring was monthly. In addition, there were bioassays for new hires and 

terminations (although it is not clear if this was for all new hires or just those expected to be in the 

bioassay program). In addition, for each month one-twelfth of the worker population received an 

annual urinalysis (Alley 1990). 

The following tritium discussion deals with four periods: 1956 to 1971, 1972 to 1982, 1983 to 1988, 

and 1989 to the present. The discussion explains the selection of those periods.

The extent of a routine tritium bioassay program before 1972 is unclear although there are indications 

of sampling of about 10 workers per month in the 1960s [11]. Because there is no evidence that 

workers were monitored for tritium before 1972, dose reconstructors should interpret routine 

occupational records before 1972 that show “0" for internal dose to mean that no information is 

available rather than to indicate a dose below detectable levels [12]. Dose records in the 1990s 

specifically state monitored internal emitters (and give a dose) or state not monitored as “N/M.” No

NOCTS files had tritium bioassay results for years before 1972, and the files included only a few post1972 tritium results. Tritium doses in the files should be treated the same as those for 1972 to 1982 

as described below. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 14 of 72

From 1972 to the present, although tritium bioassay occurred, there are few routine monitoring data in 

individual worker dosimetry records. A few urinalysis records for 1972 show consistent use of 

0.25 μCi/L as a less-than value (MHSMC 1983). A batch of urinalysis records for 1983 shows 

background counts per minute, gross counts per minute, and final concentrations in microcuries per 

liter. It appears that Pantex recorded nonzero concentrations when the gross counts per minute 

exceeded the square root of twice the background counts per minute, which would be a decision 

level. The smallest nonzero concentration recorded was 0.023 μCi/L, so 0.05 μCi/L would be a 

reasonable estimate of the MDA at that time (MHSMC 1983). Technical Basis for the Internal 

Dosimetry Program and the DOE Pantex Facility (BWXT Pantex 1992) lists the tritium urinalysis 

“detection limit” as 14 dpm/mL (0.0063 μCi/L). Although it does not state so directly, this document 

implies that this is the MDA. BWXT Pantex (2001) lists the tritium urinalysis MDA as 15 dpm/mL

(0.0068 μCi/L).

5.2.1.1.1 Dose to Uptake

The most complete set of tritium information consists of maximum and average doses for 1972 to 

2001 (Table 5-3). Because it is likely that the dose reconstructor will find only tritium doses rather 

than actual bioassay results in the worker files, the following paragraphs provide methods to convert 

from recorded dose to uptake (for input into IMBA or the tritium tool).

Tritium intake before 1983. To convert from tritium dose back to uptake for 1972 to 1982, dose 

reconstructors should use a dose conversion factor of 3.5 μCi/mrem. This conversion results from the 

approach in ICRP Publication 10 (ICRP 1968) explained in NUREG-0938 (Brodsky 1983; 1.5 mCi = 

425 mrem). It assumes an acute intake and a quality factor of 1.7 for tritium beta particles. Dose 

reconstructors should use a lognormal distribution with a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 3 

(ORAUT 2007a) and should apply this same conversion to recorded tritium doses for years before 

1972 if they encounter any such doses [13]. Because this conversion produces a dose lower than the 

recorded dose by nearly 44% when input into IMBA, it is permissible to use the doses as recorded for 

likely noncompensable, maximum internal dose cases. 

Tritium intakes from 1983 to 1988

dose rate in rem/d = 8.12 × 10-6 q (5-1)

. Ikenberry (1983) described the uptake to dose calculation 

method used at that time, which was based on ICRP Publication 2 (ICRP 1959) but used a quality 

factor of 1. 

where q is the uptake in microcuries. Total dose was determined by integrating over the dose rate 

curve. For an acute exposure,

dose in rem = 1.4 × 10-4 q (5-2)

and for chronic exposure,

dose in rem = 8.12 × 10-6 qt (5-3)

where t is the period of chronic exposure in days. 

Equation 5-2 produces a conversion factor of 7.1 μCi/mrem and, assuming a 365-d exposure, 

Equation 5-3 produces a conversion factor of 0.33 μCi/mrem. Ikenberry (1983) does not specify a 

particular intake scenario, so it is not known which of the two equations produced the reported doses. 

Both were probably used to fit whichever intake scenario was appropriate for each worker but, for the 

purpose of establishing a default intake, Equation 5-2 is favorable to claimants along with the 

assumption of a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 3 (ORAUT 2007a). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 15 of 72

Table 5-3. Tritium dose data [14]. 

Year

Workers monitored 

for tritium

Maximum recorded 

individual tritium dose 

(mrem)

Maximum 

uptake in 

μCia

Average worker

tritium dose 

(mrem)b

Average uptake 

in μCia

1972 4 12 42 8 28

1973 1 0 0 0 0

1974 0 NAc NA NA NA

1975 0 NA NA NA NA

1976 463 0 0 0 0

1977 466 0 0 0 0

1978 519 0 0 0 0

1979 712 0 0 0 0

1980 14 114 400 43.8 160

1981 41 122 430 14.2 50

1982 5 37 130 20.2 71

1983 NA NA 113d NA 0.070d

1984 0 NA NA NA NA

1985 17 3 21 0.6 4.3

1986 626 6 43 0.1 0.71

1987 481 2 14 0.02 0.14

1988 499 3 21 0.01 0.071

1989 212 1,180 430e 8.5 30

1990 2,341 3 14 0.002 0.010

1991 1,115 5 24 0.02 0.10

1992 879 5 24 0.05 0.24

1993 1,078 14 68 0.2 1.0

1994 1,104 11 53 0.1 0.48

1995 971 12 58 0.1 0.48

1996 940 7 34 0.017 0.082

1997 933 1 5 0.003 0.015

1998 610 1 5 0.0066 0.0066

1999 554 0 0 0 0

2000 535 0 0 0 0

2001 512 0 0 0 0

2002 511 0 0 0 0

2003 441 0 0 0 0

2004 421 0 0 0 0

a. Based on 3.5 μCi/mrem for 1972 to 1982, 7.1 μCi/mrem for 1983 to 88, and based on Equation 5-8b for 1990 to present. (See 

text).

b. Based on Pantex recorded values.

c. NA = not available.

d. Obtained directly from urinalysis results.

e. Based on 1981 maximum because of the large single incident in 1989.

Tritium intakes 1989 to Present. In 1989, DOE Order 5480.11 (DOE 1988) required sites to convert 

to ICRP 30 internal dose methodology (ICRP 1982). Spot-checking of case files showed that Pantex 

used both acute and chronic assumptions for different cases [15]. For instance, a May 1991 letter to 

a worker’s file (case xxxx) states that a 0.5-mL aliquot was analyzed by liquid scintillation and that 

“Doses were calculated by the use of computer algorithms incorporating an assumption of a single 

intake 30 d before the measurement.” Two other cases (xxxx and xxxx), dated 1991 and 1993, 

respectively, showed outputs from the REMedy© internal dosimetry computer code, and both 

assumed a chronic intake mode to calculate the dose. 

For the acute intake scenario, BWXT Pantex (1992) provided Equation 5-4 to convert from calculated 

dose to uptake assuming a single exponential retention curve with a 10-d retention half-time: 

dose = 1.3 × 10-3 C0 (5-4)
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 16 of 72

where C0 is the initial body water concentration in disintegrations per minute per milliliter and the dose 

is in millirem. The concentration is distributed in 42,000 mL of body water, so the uptake in 

disintegrations per minute is 42,000C0. Therefore, 

uptake in dpm = (42,000)(dose)/(1.3 × 10-3) = (3.23 × 107

)(dose in mrem) (5-5a)

uptake in pCi = (1.46 × 107

)(dose in mrem) (5-5b)

For the chronic intake scenario, the same document provides Equation 5-6 for calculating dose from a 

urine sample:

dose in mrem = [(8.7 × 10-5 t) + 1.3 × 10-3] Ce (5-6)

where Ce is the urine concentration in disintegrations per minute per milliliter. Monthly sampling was 

the normal frequency for workers potentially exposed to tritium [16] so, with a t of 30 d:

dose in mrem = 3.9 × 10-3 Ce (5-7)

Distributing the tritium in 42,000 mL of body water gives:

uptake in dpm = (1.07 × 107

)(dose in mrem) (5-8a)

uptake in pCi = (4.82 × 106

)(dose in mrem) (5-8b)

The same equation for an intake period other than 30 d is:

uptake in pCi = (1.89 × 104

)(dose in mrem)/[(8.7 × 10-5 t) + 1.3 × 10-3] (5-9)

Equation 5-5 differs from Equation 5-8 by a factor of 3, so if the doses are large it could be important 

to know if the original calculation of the recorded tritium dose assumed the chronic or acute scenario. 

It is implied, although not explicitly stated, in the Pantex procedure Internal Dose Assessment

(MHSMC 1991b) that chronic intakes were applied to workers receiving routine monthly bioassay and 

an acute intake scenario was applied to workers receiving termination or infrequent bioassay. 

Disassemblies were occurring more often than assemblies during this period, so chronic intakes were 

more likely [17]. 

Equation 5-8 and IMBA produce a slightly smaller dose than originally recorded. For instance, a 

recorded dose of 10 mrem for a monthly sample results in a recalculated dose of 7.4 mrem. 

Therefore, if the only information available is the recorded tritium dose, and it is evident from the 

records that the worker was on a monthly sampling frequency, dose reconstructors can use the 

recorded dose directly for the likely noncompensable, maximum internal dose approach. 

Therefore, for tritium doses in the records for 1989 to the present, the dose reconstructor should apply 

the following steps:

If the worker’s file provides (in order of priority):

• Actual bioassay results and an acute intake date or chronic exposure period, use that 

information to determine dose; or

• Dose and a chronic intake period, use the recorded dose unless better accuracy is required, in 

which case use Equation 5-8 for monthly sampling frequency or Equation 5-9 for another 

exposure period; or
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 17 of 72

• Dose calculated from a termination sample or single sample when the worker was not on a 

monthly routine, use Equation 5-5.

Regardless of the step used to determine the dose, dose reconstructors should assume a lognormal 

distribution with a GSD of 3 (ORAUT 2007a).

5.2.1.1.2 Tritium Missed Dose Before 1972

See Sections 5.2.1.1.5 and 5.2.1.1.6 for unmonitored worker discussions. 

5.2.1.1.3 Tritium Missed Dose, 1972 to 1988

The apparent urinalysis MDA in 1972 of 0.5 μCi/L would have resulted from a chronic intake for 30 d 

at 1.6 × 106 pCi/d, and the resultant dose to all organs would have been about 3 mrem [18]. If the 

annual tritium dose is recorded as zero but it appears that some bioassay monitoring occurred, the 

dose reconstructor should assign the dose as a triangular distribution with a minimum of 0 mrem, a 

mode of 18 mrem, and a maximum of 36 mrem [19]. These values are small enough that they can be 

applied to the entire period; however, if more refinement is desired, the values below for 1983 to 1988 

would be more appropriate [20].

The urinalysis MDA of 0.05 μCi/L applicable in 1983 would have resulted from a chronic intake for 

30 d at 1.6 × 105 pCi/d, and the resultant dose would have been far less than 1 mrem [21]. It is 

unlikely that Pantex tracked doses below 1 mrem, so an assignment of a 1-mrem dose for each 

month of potential missed dose is reasonable for the period from 1983 to 1989 [22]. If the annual 

tritium dose is recorded as 0 mrem but it appears that bioassay occurred, the calculation should use a 

triangular distribution with a minimum of 0 mrem, a mode of 6 mrem, and a maximum of 12 mrem 

[23]. 

5.2.1.1.4 Tritium Missed Dose, 1989 to Present

The 1991 internal dose assessment procedure (MHSMC 1991b) lists urinalysis results above for 

which a dose assessment is necessary (Table 5-4). By inference, results below the values in the 

table did not need dose assessment because, as the procedure states, “The activities cited below 

have been calculated to result in 1 mrem of exposure based on methods described in ANSI N13.14” 

(HPS 1983). This TBD analysis has not established how far back in time these screening values were 

in place, but it is plausible that Pantex started using them in 1989 with the implementation of DOE 

Order 5480.11 (DOE 1988). Assuming a chronic intake for the monthly sample period and a 

urinalysis result of 0.135 μCi/L at the end of the period, the IMBA Version 3.1.99 calculates a daily 

uptake of 4.28 × 105 pCi/d (or 0.87 mrem to all organs). The daily uptake rate and the total potentially 

missed dose are dependent on the number of monitoring periods, as listed in Table 5-5. However, 

the potentially missed dose is reasonably close to 1 mrem/30 d, so it is favorable to claimants and 

efficient to use 1 mrem for each monitoring period. Therefore, if a worker’s record shows, for 

example, 2 mrem for three monitoring periods in a year and zero dose for the remaining nine periods, 

the unrecorded dose would be 9 mrem and the recorded dose would be 6 mrem (or could be adjusted 

using Equation 5-8). This dose would apply equally to all organs [see, for instance, ICRP 1995, Table 

5.1.2(d)] [24]. [Using the formula from ANSI Standard N13.14-1983 (HPS 1983), the acute intake in 

Table 5-4 results in a 1-mrem dose if the time after intake is 7 d, so Pantex must have used the 0.357-

μCi/L value for incident follow-up samples. It would not be appropriate for potentially missed dose 

estimation] [25]. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 18 of 72

Table 5-4. Tritium urinalysis screening levels, 1991.

a

Analysis period Urine tritium concentration (μCi/L)

Termination 1.35 E-2

Monthly 1.35 E-1

Acute 3.57 E-1

a. From MHSMC (1991b); assumed to apply to 1989 to present.

Table 5-5. Potentially missed intake and dose from 

monthly sampling for chronic intake of tritium, 1989 to 

present.

a

Monthly periods 

missed

Daily intake

(× 105 pCi)

Total missed dose 

(mrem) (all organs)

1 4.28 0.869

2 3.73 1.51

3 3.62 2.23

4 3.58 2.93

5 3.56 3.64

6 3.55 4.37

7 3.54 5.08

8 3.54 5.82

9 3.54 6.55

10 3.54 7.27

11 3.54 7.98

12 3.54 8.73

a. Based on 0.135 μCi/L excretion at end of total period from 

Table 5-4.

If the annual tritium dose is recorded as zero but it appears that bioassay occurred, the dose should 

be assigned as a triangular distribution with a minimum of 0 mrem, a mode of 6 mrem, and a 

maximum of 12 mrem [26]. 

5.2.1.1.5 Unmonitored Workers, 1956 to 1971

During weapons assembly, there was little chance that tritium could leak because workers did not 

manipulate the valves on the tritium reservoir [27]. A very small amount of tritium migration through 

reservoir welds occasionally occurred, which is why workers surveyed the reservoirs on arrival [28]. 

However, weapons brought in for inspection, repair, or disassembly provided a possibility for a small 

release of tritium and subsequent intake for Production Technicians (Assembly Operators), RSTs, and 

Quality Assurance Technicians. Around 1980, disassembly of weapons became more frequent than 

assembly, and releases were more likely to occur [29]. Table 5-3 shows this pattern and lists the 

maximum and average recorded tritium doses from 1972 to 2001. Because tritium uptakes before 

1972 were unknown but unlikely to be greater than the post-1972 uptakes, this analysis assumed that 

twice the highest uptake from the 1970s was to apply to all the years from 1957 to 1971 [30] 

(Table 5-6). Dose reconstructors should consider the resultant dose a constant upper bound. 

5.2.1.1.6 Unmonitored Workers, 1972 to Present

It is unlikely that unmonitored workers had higher intakes than monitored workers. However, for the 

period from 1972 to 1976 and for 1984, there was little or no tritium bioassay monitoring (BWXT 

Pantex 2005a). During the years in which monitoring occurred, there is no guarantee that everyone 

exposed to tritium was monitored. Nevertheless, for Production Technicians (Assembly 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 19 of 72

Table 5-6. Tritium uptakes for unmonitored workers [32]. 

Year

Maximum recorded 

individual tritium 

dose (mrem)a

Maximum uptake 

(μCi)b

Average worker 

tritium dose (mrem)a

Average uptake (mode 

of distribution)

(μCi)b

1956-71 24c 84c 16c 56c

1972 12 42 8 28

1973 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

1974 NMf 5.8d NM 2.9e

1975 NM 5.8d NM 2.9e

1976 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

1977 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

1978 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

1979 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

1980 114 400 43.8 160

1981 122 430 14.2 50

1982 37 130 20.2 71

1983 NA 113 NA 2.9e

1984 NM 5.8d NM 2.9e

1985 3 21 0.6 4.3

1986 6 43 0.1 2.9e

1987 2 14 0.02 2.9e

1988 3 21 0.01 2.9e

1989 1,180 430g 8.5 30

1990 3 14 0.002 2.9e

1991 5 24 0.02 2.9e

1992 5 24 0.05 2.9e

1993 14 68 0.2 2.9e

1994 11 53 0.1 2.9e

1995 12 58 0.1 2.9e

1996 7 34 0.017 2.9e

1997 1 5.8d 0.003 2.9e

1998 1 5.8d 0.0066 2.9e

1999 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

2000 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

2001 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

2002 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

2003 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

2004 0 5.8d 0 2.9e

a. From Table 5-3.

b. Based on 3.5 μCi/mrem for 1972 to 1982, 7.1 μCi/mrem for 1983 to 1988, and Equation 5-8b for 1989 to present (see 

text). 

c. Assumed values based on twice highest values in 1970s [33].

d. Based on (0.135 μCi/L)(42 L) [34].

e. Based on (0.5)(0.135 μCi/L)(42 L) [35].

f. NM = not monitored.

g. Based on 1981 maximum because of the large single incident in 1989 [36].

Operators), RSTs, and Quality Assurance Technicians, tritium uptakes were possible. This analysis 

estimated uptakes for unmonitored workers in these job categories using Table 5-3 values; the 

average uptake was not allowed to become less than that which would result in a dose of 6 mrem/yr 

[31]. Table 5-6 lists those uptakes. Dose reconstructors should consider tritium uptakes for 

unmonitored Production Technicians (Assembly Operators), RSTs, or Quality Assurance Technicians 

to be a triangular distribution with the modes and maximums in Table 5-6 and minimums of zero.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 20 of 72

There is no reason to expect workers other than Production Technicians (Assembly Operators), 

RSTs, and Quality Assurance Technicians to incur uptakes of tritium from other than environmental 

sources [37]. 

5.2.1.2 Tritium Release Event in 1989

During a release event in 1989, significant amounts of tritium were released and four workers were 

exposed to tritium. This event is reasonably well documented, and data are available for assessment. 

Data on this event are from two primary sources: “an interoffice memorandum with worker exposure 

records information (Griffis 1989) and a classified document. An individual had an acute tritium 

exposure at 2:30 p.m. (1430) on May 17, 1989. No alpha contamination was found on the individual. 

Urine specimens were taken 2 and 4 hr after the incident. According to unclassified information from 

the classified report, the first bioassay occurred at 1630 using a 0.5-mL aliquot specimen pipetted into 

10-mL Biofluor. This sample was analyzed using a Tri-Carb Model 2250 CA liquid scintillation 

counter. The tritium activity was 291,000 dpm, which was equivalent to 262 μCi/L of tritium.

The individual received medical care for the intake that included many special urine and blood 

samples and mandatory forced fluids. Urinalysis results will be in the worker’s records and are 

summarized in a letter from the Medical Director (Lang 1990). 

The latest version of Section 4 of this Site Profile addresses the environmental release from this 

incident (ORAUT 2004a).

5.2.2

5.2.2.1 Background

Uranium

Uranium at Pantex was enriched, natural, or depleted. Natural uranium was in a form referred to as 

tuballoy. Enriched uranium (EU) was in a sealed component with little likelihood of release. No data 

are available to indicate that EU was ever a contaminant in the workplace. The internal dosimetry 

technical basis document (BWXT Pantex 1992) stated, “All of the unsealed uranium used at the 

Pantex facility is either depleted uranium or natural uranium.” DU manufactured after 1952 could 

have contained contaminants from movement of recycled U and DU throughout the Portsmouth, 

Paducah, K-25, Y-12 complex. Exact levels of contaminants in Pantex DU have not been discovered 

and probably varied from batch to batch. As an upper bound, dose reconstructors should add the 

following intakes of contaminants to any intakes of DU: 307 pCi 239Pu/g DU; 3.53 pCi 237Np/g DU; 

509 pCi 99Tc/g DU [38]. 

According to BWXT Pantex (2001) and interviews with workers, uranium contamination at Pantex is 

either uranium metal or air-oxidized uranium. Exceptions would be the burning of DU-contaminated 

HE components at the burn pads and explosion of DU during hydro tests, which would have produced 

some thermally oxidized DU. BWXT Pantex (2001) states that uranium compounds at Pantex are 

assumed to exhibit class Y inhalation behavior. However, an earlier internal dosimetry technical basis 

document (BWXT Pantex 1992) used an assumption of 80% class Y and 20% class W. Neither 

assumption was based on solubility studies of actual Pantex contamination. Because oxides of 

uranium can exist over a range of solubility, dose reconstructors should assume either absorption 

type M or S to maximize the dose to the specific organ of concern. Exposure to significant quantities 

of type F uranium at Pantex is not credible [39]. 

Because components are new during assembly operations, there is little likelihood that significant 

removable DU oxide would have been on them. During disassembly, aged uranium components from 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 21 of 72

certain weapons programs had a coating of oxide in the form of black dust that was potentially present 

as airborne contamination [40]. Uranium oxide became most noticeable beginning in the early 1980s 

and was present on eight of the 31 weapons types disassembled at Pantex to date, with types 28 and 

55 apparently having the highest contamination from black dust according to worker interviews. 

Following a contamination event in 1989, consideration for preventing contamination by uranium oxide 

resulted in modifications to disassembly operations such as the use of downdraft tables (see Sections 

5.2.2.5 and 5.2.2.6).

Some DU was released at the burning grounds from burning of contaminated HE and at the hydro test 

firing sites when hydro tests involved DU components (Firing Sites 4, 5, and 10 only) (see Section 

5.2.2.4). In addition, machining of DU-contaminated metal occurred associated with one weapon 

design [41]. 

Because there is no evidence that workers were routinely monitored for uranium before 1991, unless 

claimant records clearly indicate that uranium bioassay occurred, dose reconstructors should interpret 

routine occupational records before 1991 that show “0” for internal dose as no information available 

rather than as a dose below detectable levels [42]. Dose records in the 1990s specifically state 

whether internal emitters were monitored (and give a dose) or not monitored (N/M). Pantex provided 

routine urinalysis of uranium in 1991 and 1992 [43]. The technical basis document at the time (BWXT 

Pantex 1992) stated that the uranium urinalysis method was isotopic analysis using alpha 

spectrometry that “can detect 0.03 pCi/isotope/sample.” The document reported an environmental 

background urinary excretion rate of 0.15 dpm/d of 238U based on studies of potentially exposed and 

unexposed Pantex workers. This environmental screening level was carried over to the internal dose 

assessment procedure (MHSMC 1991b), which indicated that dose assessment was to occur for any 

uranium result with a net activity greater than or equal to 0.15 dpm. BWXT Pantex (1992) stated that 

the 0.15-dpm screening level would not apply if isotopic ratios implied that the uranium was not 

derived from DU. 

Since 1993, monitoring of uranium exposures has been event driven and is identified by airmonitoring data. Since the middle 1990s, Pantex has used lapel air samplers to monitor for intakes 

and trigger bioassay measurements. Because Pantex has performed bioassays on more than 300 

workers since 1993 (see Table 5-7), the implication is that there must have been workplace 

indications of potential uranium intakes [44]. Analysis of Biological Samples for Uranium, Thorium, 

and Plutonium (MHSMC 1991a) provided the following workplace indicators that would trigger 

bioassay:

• All personnel ... not wearing ... respiratory protection whose tracked internal 

annual exposure is equal to 40 DAC-hours

• All personnel whose breathing zone monitor indicates that they have been exposed 

to 40 DAC-hours [also lists the DAC for 238U as 6 × 10-11 μCi/mL] 

• All personnel found to have skin contamination equal to or greater than ... 1000 

dpm/100 cm2 238U.

BWXT Pantex (2001) decreased the trigger value for special bioassay: “Special bioassay samples 

are collected (usually within 2 to 3 days) when airborne exposures exceed 4 DAC-hours for any single 

actinide (i.e., >4 DAC-hours for 239Pu, 232Th, or 238U creates an occurrence).” This analysis has not 

determined exactly when the change occurred between 1991 and 2001. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 22 of 72

Table 5-7. Uranium dose to workers.

a

Year

Workers monitored 

for uranium

Total worker uranium 

dose (person-mrem)

Maximum individual uranium 

CEDE (mrem)

Average worker uranium 

CEDE (mrem)

1990 46 0 0 0

1991 431 109 109 0.25

1992 239 778 502 3.3

1993 90 76 15 0.84

1994 138 0 0 0

1995 37 0 0 0

1996 69 0 0 0

1997 89 0 0 0

1998 12 0 0 0

1999 13 0 0 0

2000 33 0 0 0

2001 65 0 0 0

2002 57 0 0 0

2003 87 10 7 0.11

2004 109 0 0 0

a. Developed from data in the Pantex Dosimetry Records System (DORMS).

Table 5-7 lists recorded doses (CEDE) from uranium exposures from 1991 to 2004 as recorded in the 

facility’s dosimetry records management system (DORMS). Although these doses are not directly 

relevant to dose reconstruction, the overall trend is indicative of reduced uranium intakes after 1993.

The weight percent and activity fractions of radionuclides of DU and even natural uranium can be 

variable. Values were listed in the 1992 version of the internal dosimetry technical basis document 

(BWXT Pantex 1992), but their origin was not stated and they were not mentioned in BWXT Pantex 

(2001). The 1992 values are not significantly different from the default values in the IMBA code, and 

dose reconstructors should use the IMBA values for consistency.

5.2.2.2 Uranium Reporting Levels or Minimum Detectable Activities

For most of its history, Pantex followed an event-driven approach to uranium bioassay and used many 

laboratories, so the records for bioassay results are spotty [45]. Table 5-8 summarizes some 

information found in the records. In most cases, the sensitivity parameter in the table was based on 

observed less-than values in the records. The equations used to determine the less-than values are 

not known; however, it is likely that the less-than value was more of a decision level than an MDA. 

Assume the MDA is twice the less-than value [48].

Table 5-8 has temporal gaps. Because uranium bioassays were generally not obtained routinely but 

usually from special bioassay samples obtained after events with potential for intake, it is not known if 

the gaps in the table occur because no bioassay was obtained in those years or if the bioassay 

sensitivities have not been found. If necessary, dose reconstructors should use the last previous 

MDA for years not covered in Table 5-8.

Most documentation of uranium exposure at Pantex focuses on DU, but BWXT Pantex (2001) 

mentions the possibility of exposure to natural uranium. When interpreting bioassay data, if the type 

of uranium exposure is not known, it is favorable to claimants to assume the intake was natural 

uranium (BWXT Pantex 2001). However, dose reconstructors should assume DU for intakes 

associated with hydroshots and burning pads (see Sections 5.2.2.5 and 5.2.2.6). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 23 of 72

Table 5-8. History of uranium urinalysis.

a

Year Laboratory Sensitivity value Description

1959 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 0.5 μga

1960 Tracer Laboratory 10 μg/La Fluorometry sensitivitya

1963 Controls for Radiation 0.10 μg/La Less-than valuea

1965 Controls for Radiation 0.10 μg/La Less-than valuea

1967 Controls for Radiation 0.15 μg/La Less-than valuea

1968 Isotopes, Inc. 0.10 μg/La

1978 Control for Environ. Pollution 5 μg/samplea Less-than valuea

1983 Camp Dresser & McKee 1.4 pCi/La 2σ counting error only; 

use 3.3 for MDA [46]

1983 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 5 μg/L Less-than valuea

1990-92 Y-12 Bioassay Lab 0.03 pCi/sample MDAb

1994 Y-12 Bioassay Lab Approx. 0.15 dpm/ sample, U-238, U234, U-235. 0.06 dpm/sample U-236MDAsa [47]

2001 Y-12 Bioassay Lab U-238, U-234, U-235: 0.03 pCi/L MDAc

a. From reports from the laboratories (Author unknown 1952; MHSMC 1978; MMES 1990a).

b. From BWXT Pantex (1992) and Ealy (1990).

c. From BWXT Pantex (2001).

5.2.2.3 Uranium Intakes from Assembly/Disassembly of Weapons for Unmonitored Workers

Dose reconstructors should use bioassay data for uranium in worker files to calculate intakes. 

However, uranium bioassays in the files are scarce. If they were not involved in an incident with 

potential for intakes, some production line workers might not have had uranium bioassay; therefore, a 

missed dose calculation for possible frequent intermittent intakes from disassemblies might not be 

possible. The following discussion provides an approach for assigning intakes for workers associated 

with assembly and disassembly when no bioassay data are available or when bioassay data are 

insufficient to determine possible missed dose. 

A good set of DU intake data found in the Pantex records is related to a contamination incident in 

February 1989 (MMES 1990b). Approximately 6 months after identification of the incident, workers 

were given in vivo counts by Helgeson Scientific Services. The data from these counts were 

subsequently determined to be “flawed with an apparent positive bias” (Brake 1989). Because of this 

and a recommendation from a DOE investigation team, Pantex management committed to perform 

urinalysis on all workers (BWXT Pantex no date). 

Note: Dose reconstructors should not

The bioassay samples were taken in late 1989 and early 1990, approximately 1 yr after the 

contamination incident was identified. Internal Dosimetry Urinalysis Studies (BWXT Pantex 2000) 

contains bioassay data from urinalyses. This is the oldest set of data that provides isotopic 

determination of uranium alpha activity in urine samples and has sufficient data to perform statistical 

analysis. 

use data from the Helgeson in vivo counts. 

Martin Marietta Energy Systems processed the samples at the Y-12 Plant Laboratory. The MDA, 0.03 

pCi per isotope per sample, was calculated from the formula in Performance Criteria for 

Radiobioassay (HPS 1996). The calculation included a 1,000-min count, a detector efficiency of 

0.0985, and an average recovery of 75%. The average chemical recovery for the sample sets for this 

incident was 70%. Recoveries less than 25% were considered not accurate due to counting statistics 

associated with low recoveries. No dose assessment was provided with the data set. Data with a 

negative value indicated the background was higher than the activity in the sample (Ealy 1990).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 24 of 72

5.2.2.3.1 Analysis of 1990s Uranium Urinalysis Data

From February 1 to April 1, 1990, 305 workers provided urine samples for analysis. The results are 

documented in the HERS microfilm archive, Roll 9030, identified by badge numbers beginning with 

“P.” In addition, these data contain 23 spiked samples (badge number C999999) and 11 “R999999” 

samples. This data set was analyzed to establish a baseline for unmonitored workers (or workers 

whose bioassay results are not found). 

The 305 “P” sample measurements, associated with real individuals, averaged 1,635 ±384 g urine 

and 0.229 ±0.168 dpm total uranium per sample. These measurements are reportedly 24-hr urine 

samples [49]. 

When four individuals for whom radiochemical recovery was listed as zero were removed from the 

data set, the measurements averaged 1,623 ±385 g urine and 0.227 ±0.163 dpm/d total uranium. 

Fitting a lognormal distribution to the nonnegative values (299 of 301 observations) with two values 

treated as missing (Strom 1986) gave a median (geometric mean) of 0.188 dpm/d with a GSD of 2. 

Assuming an acute inhalation intake of absorption class S DU 14 months before the excretion results 

in a median intake of 75,000 dpm [50]. Although the urine samples were taken in response to a 

specific event, the measured uranium excretion could have been the result of years of accumulation 

of DU in the body from smaller, frequent, intermittent intakes. An assumption of 10 yr of chronic 

intake produces 50-yr committed doses about twice the acute intake doses; however, the chronic 

intake scenario produces smaller doses until about 7 to 8 yr after the start of intakes. The measured 

excretion probably resulted from a combination of contributions from chronic intakes since 1980 and 

the acute intake in 1989. The differences are not large and, during this period when disassembly 

activity was intense, the chronic intake scenario is the more plausible for most workers [51]. 

Using the IMBA internal dosimetry software, the median inhalation intake for absorption type M 

uranium was determined to be 2.8 dpm/d based on the midpoint (5 yr) of the chronic intake period 

(that is, 0.188 dpm/d excretion after 1,826 d of chronic intake of type M uranium). The range of intake 

from 1 yr of chronic intake to 10 yr of chronic intake (2.99 dpm/d to 2.77 dpm/d) was contained within 

the standard GSD of 3. The median inhalation intake for absorption type S uranium was determined 

to be 41.5 dpm/d based on the midpoint (5 yr) of the chronic intake period, and the range of intake 

from 1 yr of chronic intake to 10 yr of chronic intake (81 dpm/d to 34.1 dpm/d) was contained within 

the standard GSD of 3. 

Similar statistical analyses were performed on the 238U results for 1991 through 1994, using coworker 

analysis methods presented in Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment

(ORAUT 2005). The median results and GSDs were 0.041 (2.7), 0.061 (2.7), 0.061 (3.0), and 0.033 

(3.0) dpm/d for 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. Assuming 238U represents 83% of the total 

alpha activity in DU, the total uranium median activities would be 0.049, 0.074, 0.074, and 0.040 

dpm/d for 1991 through 1994, respectively. These values are less than the 0.188 dpm/d determined 

from the 1990 data, and they provide some confidence that the 1990 data are favorable to claimants. 

Because ingestion of uranium cannot be ruled out, this TBD analysis estimated chronic ingestion 

intakes. The median ingestion intake of soluble uranium (f1 = 0.02) was calculated to be 9.75 dpm/d, 

and the median ingestion intake of insoluble uranium (f1 = 0.002) was calculated to be 97.5 dpm/d 

[52]. Because equilibrium is quickly established for ingestion, the ranges from 1 yr to 10 yr of chronic 

intake were not significantly different from the median intakes [53]. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 25 of 72

5.2.2.3.2 Depleted Uranium Intakes for Assembly/Disassembly Unmonitored Workers, 

1980 to 1993

When bioassay data are not available for Production Technicians (Assembly Operators), RSTs, and 

Quality Assurance Technicians for 1980 to 1993, dose reconstructors should assume a median 

chronic DU inhalation intake of one of the following: Type M inhalation - 1.3 pCi/d, type S inhalation – 

19 pCi/d, soluble ingestion – 4.4 pCi/d, or insoluble ingestion – 44 pCi/d. The distribution should be 

lognormal with a GSD of 3 (see Section 5.2.3.3.1). 

When bioassay data are not available, to assess the intake of a worker whose job had a lower 

potential for intake but might have had incidental exposure to contamination from disassembly 

activities (such as category 2 in Table 5-2 or the “some potential” category in ORAUT [2004b]), dose 

reconstructors should assign 10% of the intake [54]. 

5.2.2.3.3 Depleted Uranium Intakes for Assembly/Disassembly Unmonitored Workers, 

1994 to the Present

As indicated in Table 5-7, doses to workers were reduced considerably from 1994 to the present due 

to better procedural controls and barriers. All of the 1995 238U bioassay results, for instance, were 

below detection (BWXT Pantex 2005b). To account for potential unmonitored dose, dose 

reconstructors should assign a claimant who worked in a job with a high potential for intake with an 

intake that is 0.2 times the intake from 1980 to 1993 to account for improved radiation protection 

barriers and procedures (lognormal, median, GSD = 3) based on the ratio of urine excretion in the 

1994 dataset to the 1989-90 dataset (Ealy 1990; Reichert 1994). 

5.2.2.3.4 Depleted Uranium Intakes for Assembly/Disassembly Unmonitored Workers, 

1961 to 1979

The first disassembly of a weapon with DU oxide at Pantex occurred in 1961 (BWXT Pantex 2004, 

p. 2-10). The number of disassemblies at Pantex is classified. Prior to 1980, approximately 10 

disassemblies were performed for maintenance or quality control per year per weapons program at 

Pantex [55]. Table 5-9 lists the number of weapons retired from use throughout the DOE complex. 

Weapons can be retired without being disassembled but the trends over time should be similar, 

although what is not shown in or inferable from the table are the numbers of partial disassemblies that 

resulted in refurbishing of weapons. From 1961 to 1965, most disassemblies were performed at the 

Medina and Clarksville plants (BWXT Pantex 2004, p. 2-19), and from 1966 to 1975, disassemblies 

were performed at Pantex and the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. One can infer from the table that the 

annual number of disassemblies at Pantex for the years before 1980 was probably somewhat less 

than the number for the period from 1980 to 1989. In addition, before about 1980 nuclear weapon 

disassembly operations were generally free of contamination [56]. However, because the 

documentation of the number of disassemblies and partial disassemblies and the contamination levels 

are not specifically available, it is favorable to claimants to assign unmonitored workers an intake that 

is the same as that from 1980 to 1993 in accordance with the worker’s risk potential from Table 5-2 

(lognormal, median, GSD = 3) [57]. 

A few small sets of uranium urinalysis results were found with analysis dates ranging from February 

1963 to March 1967. Although the dates and circumstances for the samples (e.g., routine or postaccident) were not found, the 34 results were analyzed as a group assuming a lognormal distribution 

and coworker analysis methods presented in Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose 

Assignment (ORAUT 2005). The median excretion rate was 0.375 dpm/d with a GSD of 4.1 [58]. 

Considering that the circumstances of the sampling are not known, this excretion rate compares 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 26 of 72

Table 5-9. Retirements in the DOE complex.

a

Year Retirements

Fraction relative to 1980-89 yearly 

average assuming 100% at Pantex

Fraction relative to 1980-89 yearly average 

assuming 50% at other plants

1961 1,571 1.25 0.326

1962 766 0.611 0.305

1963 830 0.662 0.331

1964 2,534 2.02 1.01

1965 1,936 1.54 0.772

1966 2,357 1.88 0.940

1967 1,649 1.32 0.658

1968 2,194 1.75 0.875

1969 3,045 2.43 1.21

1970 1,936 1.54 0.772

1971 1,347 1.07 0.537

1972 1,541 1.23 0.614

1973 544 0.434 0.217

1974 807 0.644 0.322

1975 2,240 1.79 0.893

1976 2,181 1.74 NAb

1977 998 0.796 NA

1978 1,148 0.915 NA

1979 730 0.582 NA

1980 904 NA NA

1981 1,887 NA NA

1982 1,537 NA NA

1983 749 NA NA

1984 1,143 NA NA

1985 1,322 NA NA

1986 1,224 NA NA

1987 958 NA NA

1988 1,023 NA NA

1989 1,794 NA NA

a. From DOE (2001). 

b. NA = not applicable.

reasonably well with the median excretion of 0.188 dpm/d assuming chronic intake for the large group 

of samples collected in 1990 [59].

5.2.2.4 Depleted Uranium Intakes from Machining

Unlike other sites that performed hydro tests, Pantex did not machine DU as part of the hydro test 

program. However, machining was performed on DU for a period in the early 1960s associated with 

one particular weapon design (Martin 2004). A 1960 report describing these operations stated that 

the workers were required to wear respirators during all machining operations and that breathing-zone 

air sampling was performed during the machining with all samples showing no detectable activity 

(Phillips and Dufek 1960). Judging from the air sample monitoring log at the firing sites at the same 

time, the air-sampling detection limit at Pantex at that time was about 2 pCi/m3 (2 × 10-12 μCi/mL) [60]. 

This is similar to the detection limit stated for air sampling at the Hanford uranium fabrication facilities 

in the same time frame (Wilson 1958). Assuming exposure for 8 hr/d just at the detection limit, the 

daily intake would have been: 

working day (wd) intake = (8 hr/d)(1.2-m3

/hr breathing rate)(2 pCi/m3) = 19 pCi

calendar day (cd) intake = (19 pCi/wd)(250 wd/yr/365 cd/yr) = 13 pCi.

Because the air sample results were below this level and the machinists wore respirators, the 13-

pCi/d inhalation intake rate should be considered a constant upper bound. Ingestion of DU from this 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 27 of 72

work cannot be ruled out (NIOSH 2004). Following guidance in Estimation of Ingestion Intakes

(NIOSH 2004), the estimated ingestion intake would have been:

ingestion daily intake = (0.2)(2 pCi/m3

) = 0.4 pCi/cd (constant).

5.2.2.5 Depleted Uranium Intakes from Burning of Contaminated High Explosives

A 1971 letter from the Plant Manager to the manager of the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office on 

the burning of HE at the burning grounds stated that, “during the past years, uranium (238U) parts have 

been burned in conjunction with the waste HE ...” (Drummond 1971). Dose from intakes by operators 

of the burning pad was considered occupational internal dose; exposure of other workers from plumes 

was considered environmental exposure. During a telephone interview, Herman Phillips, who has 

worked as a safety engineer at Pantex since 1952, provided details on the burning operations. 

Burning HE was a part-time task for Transportation Department workers involving a few hours 

approximately once a week. Only a few workers would have been involved during any one burn. The 

ignition operators were about 100 yards from the burn pad during a burning. Access for all other 

workers was restricted to about 300 yards or more. Ash from the burn was collected and placed in 

10- to 20-gal cans for burial. Operators wore half-face respirators with high-efficiency particulate air 

filters during the ash collection task (Bihl and Martin 2004). 

The burning grounds have operated since 1952 (DOE 1997). Air sample results from the burning 

grounds cover 1960 to 1967, with no results for 1963 (MHSMC ca. 1967). Two categories of results 

are listed as during burning and during cleanup. Some results are recorded as disintegrations per 

minute per cubic meter and others as counts per minute. 

In relation to the air samples taken during burning, 24 were listed as zero or background, 9 had 

results that ranged from 4 to 112 dpm/m3

, and 17 had nonzero results in counts per minute (in the 

logs, the results are written as d/m/m3

) (MHSMC ca. 1967). No information was available for 

converting the counts-per-minute results to concentrations, but if one assumes a 25% counting 

efficiency, the nonzero results would represent a range from 2 to 77 dpm/m3

. Therefore, the air 

sample result of 112 dpm/m3 is probably the highest concentration measured. Considering that there 

were 50 total samples, it can reasonably be assumed that the highest result represents the 95th 

percentile or higher [61]. The exact locations of the samplers were not shown, but reference was 

frequently made to the pad, implying that the samplers were close to the burning material and not the 

worker locations (MHSMC ca. 1967). 

To estimate the concentration at the location of the workers, this analysis used the following equations 

from National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report 123 I (NCRP 

1996), assuming the air sampler was about 2 m and the workers about 100 m from the burning

material: 

C = fQ/πuσyσz (5-10)

where C is the concentration from a ground-level release in activity per cubic meter, f is the fraction of 

time the wind blows in the direction of interest, Q is the release rate in activity per second, u is the 

wind speed in meters per second, and the sigma values are the horizontal and vertical atmospheric 

diffusion parameters. 

In this application, the change in concentration from 2 to 100 m for the same burn is being calculated, 

so fQ/πu is constant. The equations then become:
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 28 of 72

C(air sample) = K/σyσz at 2 m (5-11)

C(workers) = K/σyσz at 100 m (5-12)

The diffusion parameters are determined by:

σy = (0.08x)(1+0.0001x)

-1⁄2 (5-13)

σz = (0.06x)(1+0.0015x)-1⁄2 (5-14)

where x is the distance from the burning point to the air sampler or workers. When expressed as a 

ratio of concentrations, the K term cancels, so: 

C(workers) = C(air sample) σyaσza/σywσzw (5-15)

using the subscript w to refer to the worker’s location and a to refer to the air sample location. 

Using Equations 5-13, -14, and -15 at distances of 2 and 100 m and the 95th-percentile air sample 

concentration of 112 dpm/m3

, the estimated concentration of DU for workers during burning was 

4.8 × 10-2 dpm/m3

. The intake was determined as the product of air concentration, breathing rate, and 

exposure time. Sampling times of some air sample results were logged; the times were usually from 

1 to 2 hr (MHSMC ca. 1967). [ERDA (1976) states that, “Explosives burn rapidly and amounts of 500 

lbs or more are usually consumed in less than 15 minutes. However, occasionally (about once a 

month) smoke can be observed for up to 30 minutes.” Nevertheless, worker exposure was assumed 

to be 2 hr to be consistent with the air sample run times.] Therefore: 

95th-percentile intake in pCi 

 = (4.8 × 10-2 dpm/m3

)(1.2 m3/hr)(2 hr)/2.22 dpm/pCi = 0.052 pCi DU per burn (5-16)

According to Mr. Phillips, burns might have been performed about once a week (Bihl and Martin 

2004). The air sample log shows far fewer entries than weekly in the years sampled; this analysis 

could not determine if air samples were taken for every burn. It is reasonable that different workers 

were involved with different burns. Therefore, the once-a-week estimate seems to be a reasonable 

upper bound for each worker. Under the assumption that the same workers incurred intakes when 

the activity referred to in the logs as “pickup” or “cleanup” occurred, the daily intake was:

(weekly intake)(50 weeks/yr)/365 d/yr = 7.1 × 10-3 pCi/d (5-17)

Twenty-one air samples were taken during cleanup activities. Only 1 result was listed as background; 

6 were nonzero results recorded in disintegrations per minute per cubic meter; and 14 were nonzero 

results listed in counts per minute (MHSMC ca. 1967). When plotted as a lognormal distribution, the 

results in disintegrations per minute per meter indicated a median value of about 22 dpm/m3 (1 × 10-11

μCi/mL) and a 95th percentile of 900 dpm/m3

. The results in counts per minute fell within this 

distribution with an exception of one at 1,040 dpm/m3 under a counting efficiency assumption of 25% 

[62]. Mr. Phillips stated that the workers wore half-face respirators during cleanup activities (Bihl and 

Martin 2004), but credit was not taken for this use of respirators. On the few occasions that the time 

of sampling was logged, the times ranged from 40 to 90 min (MHSMC ca. 1967). A 2-hr exposure 

time for cleanup of the ash was assumed [63]. There was no definitive information about the 

frequency of cleanup activities; the air sample logs show cleanup at a less frequent rate than burning. 

This analysis made the assumption most favorable to claimants that cleanup occurred once a week. 

Therefore, the 95th-percentile default intake from cleanup of DU-contaminated ash is:
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 29 of 72

95th percentile intake in pCi/d 

= (900 dpm/m3

)(1.2 m3/hr)(2 hr)(50/365)/2.22 dpm/pCi = 130 pCi/d (5-18)

Assuming the same workers performed the cleanup as those who performed the burn, the intake from 

the burn itself is negligible in relation to the cleanup activities. Therefore, the default intake rate of DU 

for burning ground workers is 130 pCi/d for 1952 to the present. This intake would represent the 

upper bound and therefore should be considered a constant distribution. Dose reconstructors should 

assume either absorption type M or S [64]. 

5.2.2.6 Intakes from Hydroshots 

5.2.2.6.1 DU

Pantex has used firing sites for HE quality control and research since 1952. Some of the test firings 

at Firing Sites 4, 5, and 10 involved DU through 1985 (DOE 1997; MHSMC 1990, Chapter 7). 

According to a former employee who worked at the firing sites from 1959 to 2000 and was supervisor 

of the firing site since 1960, the first hydroshot that involved DU occurred in late 1959 or 1960 (Bihl 

2006). Dose from intakes by operators of the hydroshots was considered occupational internal dose; 

exposure of other workers from plumes was considered environmental exposure [65]. Mr. Phillips 

described the hydroshot operations. Operators were in a bunker a few tens of feet from the 

detonation site. The bunker was fully enclosed with a ventilation system that was shut down during 

the detonation. After the detonation, the operators walked to ground zero to retrieve their instruments. 

A driver, who was outside the fenced area (approximately 2,000 ft from ground zero), drove to the 

detonation site to retrieve the operators. The total exposure time for the operators was less than 

30 min. The cloud from the detonations was clearly visible and the operators and driver avoided 

direct exposure to the cloud (Bihl and Martin 2004). 

The prevailing winds carried the cloud basically northward away from most Pantex buildings and 

worker locations. The water treatment plant and sewage treatment plants are about 1 and 2 km, 

respectively, northeast of Firing Site 5; they are a bit closer but nearly due east from Firing Site 4. 

This analysis found data providing air concentrations inside and outside the bunker at Firing Site 4 for 

October 1959 to January 1962 (MHSMC ca. 1967). The data list 94 results for inside the bunker and 

79 results for outside. Eighty-five percent of the results are recorded as 0 dpm/m3 with the lowest 

nonzero value recorded as 1 dpm/m3 (only one significant figure was recorded). Figure 5-1 shows a 

log-probability plot of the inside-bunker data, and Figure 5-2 shows that for the outside-bunker data 

with the air concentrations expressed in picocuries per cubic meter. The inside concentrations fit a 

log-probability curve with a median concentration of 0.18 pCi/m3 and a 95th-percentile value of 

6.2 pCi/m3 [66]. The outside concentrations had a median concentration of 0.82 pCi/m3 and a 

95th-percentile value of 24 pCi/m3 [67]. The following conditions could have caused the large spread 

in the air concentrations:

• Different hydroshots could have contained different masses of DU or HE.

• The cloud could have been sharply defined close to the detonation spot and shortly after the 

detonation time, such that under rare weather conditions the samplers were within the 

boundaries of the initial cloud, whereas most of the time they were not.

• A sample filter could have occasionally picked up a large particle of DU.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 30 of 72

Lognormal Percentages

Inside Bunker (pCi/m3)

1 5 10 50

90 95 98 99 99.5

Figure 5-1. Air sample log-probability fit inside hydroshot bunkers [68]. 

Lognormal Percentages

Outside Bunker (pCi/m3)

0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0

80 90 95 98 99

Figure 5-2. Air sample log-probability fit outside hydroshot bunkers [69]. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 31 of 72

Pantex obtained air concentrations from hydroshots in the 1970s using a radio-controlled drone 

mounted with air samplers on each wing. The drone flew through the cloud within a minute or two of 

the test at a location expected to sample the highest concentration. These results were used by 

Pantex to predict offsite concentrations rather than exposure of the test operators (Gidley 1971). Mr. 

Phillips expressed an intuitive estimate that ground-level concentrations for the operators would have 

been at least 100 times lower (Bihl and Martin 2004). 

This analysis found results from the drone samplers for March 1971, various dates in 1972, and two 

dates in the summer of 1974 (Gidley 1971; Alexander 1972a,b,c, 1974). It is not known if these data 

comprise the complete set of data from drone flights or merely what has been found to date. The 

design of the firing pad at Firing Site 5 changed from a flat pad to a sand-filled pit in the summer of 

1971, but the drone results do not show an appreciable change in cloud concentration before and 

after the change (Alexander 1972a,b,c). The log-probability fit to the drone sampler results had a 

median concentration of 70 pCi/m3 and a 95th-percentile concentration of 944 pCi/m3

, so the median 

ground concentration outside the bunker in the 1960s was about 85 times less than the median cloud 

concentration measured in the 1970s [70]. Considering the large GSDs and the dynamics of cloud 

concentrations measured very near to the cloud origin, the two sets of measurements are reasonably 

consistent; that is, they do not indicate that the 1970s shots produced significantly higher or lower 

ground-level concentrations than the 1960s shots. 

The March 1971 drone results were from a study that compared the cloud concentration of DU from a 

hydroshot that contained DU and two detonations from Firing Site 5 that contained only HE (Gidley 

1971). The cloud concentration of DU was similar for all three shots, and the DU from the HE-only 

shots was resuspended contamination from the firing site area (Gidley 1971). The effect of the sandy 

pit on resuspension of DU is not known, but by 1977 there was a policy to not use Firing Site 5 for any 

non-DU detonations because, “this could cause the resuspension of some of the residue of shots fired 

at that bunker in the past” (Boettner 1977; Wilcox 1984; Alexander 1984). Therefore, intakes of DU 

by firing site personnel were possible after every shot at Firing Site 5, not just the hydroshots. 

Table 5-10 lists what was discovered about the number of DU-related detonations. The number of 

shots in 1960 and 1961 was assumed to equal the number of air samples in the air sample log (often 

more than one sample per day), namely 30 and 58, respectively. These shots occurred at Firing Site 

4 (MHSMC ca. 1961). The shots from 1971 to 1986 occurred at Firing Site 5 (Gidley 1971; Alexander 

1972a,b,c, 1974). Test firing using DU ended in 1986 (MHSMC 1997, Chapter 7). As shown, there 

are gaps in the data. This analysis used annual environmental reports to fill some of the gaps 

(Alexander 1975, 1976; Alexander, Cornelius, and Horton 1978; Laseter 1986). Because the first DU 

shot may have occurred in late 1959, the number of shots for 1959 was chosen to be half of the 

number of shots in 1960. 

Some of the annual environmental reports listed release activities of DU based on estimates of the 

amount of DU that went airborne from the firing site. Table 5-11 summarizes that data. The ratio of 

1973 release activities over those from 1976 was 5, whereas the ratio of the number of hydroshots 

was 4 and the ratio of total shots at Firing Site 5 was 3.3 [71]. Therefore, it is favorable to claimants to 

use total shots in 1973 as the base and the ratio of release activities to estimate total shots for years 

where the numbers of shots are missing. For instance, the estimated number of shots at Firing Site 5 

for 1977 becomes (0.001)(24)/0.00004 = 600. However, a limit was set at 500 shots per year based 

on a reasonable limit of two shots per working day to which any one worker could have been exposed 

[72]. Table 5-11 lists the recorded or estimated total number of shots potentially involving dispersion 

of DU. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 32 of 72

Table 5-10. Recorded numbers of hydro test shots and 

other detonations at Firing Site 5 or other sites. 

Year Hydroshots Other shots at FS-5 Total

1967 67a NDb ND

1968 3a ND ND

1969 37a ND ND

1970 54a ND ND

1971 49c ND ND

1972 45c ND ND

1973 28c 52c 80

1974 ND ND ND

1975 ND ND ND

1976 7c 17c 24

1977 ND ND ND

1978 ND ND ND

1979 3c 8c 11

1980 5c 0 5

1981–86 ND ND ND

a. From ERDA (1976). Specific site was not identified. 

b. Not discovered.

c. From Johnson (1973, 1974, 1980, 1981, 1982) and Alexander 

(1977).

Table 5-11. Estimated number of detonations 

potentially involving DU dispersion and 

intakes [74]. 

Period Total shots Intake (pCi/d)

1959 15/yra 0.6

1960 30 1.2

1961 58 2.3

1962-72 500/yrb 20

1973 80 3.2

1974 60 2.4

1975 120 4.7

1976 24 0.95

1977 500b 20

1978 500b 20

1979 11 0.43

1980 5 0.20

1981 6 0.24

1982 6c 0.24

1983 6c 0.24

1984 0 0

1985 6c 0.24

1986 6 0.24

a. Assumed to be half of the number in 1960.

b. Assumed 2 shots per working day.

c. Assumed equal to highest year in 1980s.

The default intake for firing site operators and drivers, assuming a 30-min exposure to each shot, 

would be: 

daily chronic intake in pCi 

 = (air concentration pCi DU/m3

)(1.2-m3/hr breathing rate)(0.5 hr)(no. of shots/yr)/(365 d/yr) (5-19)
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 33 of 72

Because of the uncertainty as to whether an operator was or was not in the cloud for any particular 

shot and because the operators and driver spent part of their time outside of the bunker retrieving 

instruments, the 95th percentile outside air concentration was used to determine the intake per shot 

(24 pCi/m3

) [73]. Substituting this air concentration and simplifying the math, the formula for the 

default intake becomes:

daily chronic intake in pCi = (3.9 × 10-2)(no. of shots/yr) (5-20)

Because the 95th percentile was used, which certainly would not apply to all shots, dose 

reconstructors should consider the result to be a constant upper bound and assume either absorption 

type M or S [75].

5.2.2.6.2 Other Possible Radioactive Sources

The Pantex Plant Radiological Investigation Report (BWXT Pantex 2004) states that contaminated 

soil from the firing sites potentially contained low levels of beryllium, DU, strontium, and thorium. The 

more detailed discussion of the firing sites does not mention use or residual contamination of 

radioactive strontium, and when questioned directly if there had been a hydroshot involving 

radioactive strontium, Mr. Phillips said there had not been. Mr. Phillips said there had been one 

hydroshot involving thorium (Traub 2007). [The year of this event is still being investigated, and an 

update will be made when the year is determined. Until then, dose reconstructors should assign the 

intake below, once, to anyone involved with hydroshots.] Assuming that the air concentration from the 

thorium hydroshot was no worse than the 95th-percentile concentration outside the bunker from the 

DU shots (24 pCi/m3

), and assuming a 30-min exposure, the one-time acute intake is:

acute intake in pCi 

= (air concentration pCi Th/m3

)(1.2-m3/hr breathing rate)(0.5 hr) (5-21)

acute intake in pCi = 14 pCi.

As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the state of equilibrium of 232Th with its progeny is not known. It is 

favorable to claimants to assume that the 14 pCi is for 232Th and the progeny are in equilibrium. 

Either absorption type M or S may be assumed [76]. 

5.2.2.6.3 Clean Up of Firing Site 5

Firing Site 5 was decontaminated in the late 1990s. According to the Radiation Safety Section 

Manager, the work was done by a subcontractor under Radiation Work Permits with monitoring by site 

Radiological Control Technicians, and bioassays were collected. This work was conducted during the 

time Pantex was using lapel air samplers and using 40 DAC-hr as the trigger for initiating bioassay. 

Therefore, if it is determined that an energy employee was an unmonitored worker associated with the 

Firing Site 5 cleanup, an assumption of chronic intake of 50 DAC-hr per year of DU can be made. 

[This assumes that intakes below 1 DAC-hr on any given air sampler are disregarded and there might 

be 50 such results per year.] Fifty DAC-hr of type Y uranium equates to an intake of 1,200 pCi, or 

3.2 pCi/d [77].

5.2.2.6.4 Clean Up of Firing Site 23

In the 1980s a device was constructed at Firing Site 23 for destruction of small, prototype-sized 

weapons with HE and DU that had been tested off the site and returned to Pantex. The device, 

referred to as the Silver Bullet, was a contained system with air effluents vented through a highefficiency particulate air (HEPA)-filtered system. Within the Silver Bullet, a device was surrounded 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 34 of 72

with lead plates and bags of gravel. The Silver Bullet was used for one weapons design only and only 

about 10 shots were conducted [78]. After the explosions, the contaminated gravel was removed by 

shoveling onto a conveyor belt that dumped the gravel into a wooden box for disposal. Workers wore 

full anti-contamination clothing and respirators during both setup of the shot and cleanup afterwards. 

Cleanup of the gravel was conducted after each shot [79]. 

Urinalysis data associated with one Firing Site 23 cleanup was found (Copeland 1983a,b). The exact 

period of the cleanup activities is not known; a batch of urine samples dated October 4, 1983 are 

labeled as background samples; the other sample dates range from November 9 to December 5, 

1983. The November and December DU urinalysis results were analyzed as a group using the 

coworker analysis methods in Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment

(ORAUT 2005). The results ranged from <5 to 50 μg/L, with all but one exceeding the analysis 

detection level. The median urinalysis result was 16 μg/L with a GSD of 2.1. 

The intake scenario was difficult to determine based on the pattern of the bioassay. Tracy Ikenberry, 

who was a radiological engineer at Pantex at the time, believed that actual removal of the 

contaminated gravel would have been a 1- or 2-d task at the most for a small crew of workers, 

although he did not witness any of the cleanups. Several of the workers had samples taken on 

November 9, 14, and 21, and the latest samples usually had the higher concentrations. Therefore, 

two intake scenarios were investigated: 1) The median result was modeled as a sample obtained four 

days after the start of two days of exposure, and 2) the median result was modeled as a sample 

obtained at the end of 12 d of chronic exposure (November 10-21) [80]. The first assumption 

produced the largest total intake (1.6 × 105 pCi/d DU for 2 d), which was about 3 times greater than 

the intake from the second assumption. Therefore, the uncertainty from the intake assumption was 

greater than the uncertainty in the distribution of the urinalysis results; and a GSD of 3 is reasonable 

[81]. 

If urinalysis results are not available after subsequent shots and clean-up activities, the following 

default intakes can be assigned. Personal recollections of persons associated with use of the Silver 

Bullet indicate that there were 10 shots with the last shot in 1988. Because these were rare, shortterm events spread over many years, an assumption of acute intake is best. Assuming the first shot 

occurred in October or November 1983, the number of shots with cleanups can be distributed as one 

in 1983, two in each year from 1984 to 1987, and one in 1988 [82]. They should be modeled as acute 

intakes of 3.2 × 105 pCi of type S DU (GSD of 3) with intakes dates of November 9, 1983, January 2, 

1984, July 1, 1984, January 2, 1985, July 1, 1985, January 2, 1986, July 1, 1986, January 2, 1987, 

July 1, 1987, and January 2, 1988 [83]. These intakes should be applied to workers identified as 

being involved with hydroshots or firing sites. The workers involved in the 1983 cleanup are identified 

in the records, and it is favorable to claimants to assume they were involved in subsequent cleanups if 

consistent with their employment history [84]. 

5.2.3

Thorium at Pantex exists as thorium metal, thorium alloys, or materials impregnated with a thorium 

compound. Workers handle these forms during assembly and disassembly of certain weapons. 

Because of the relative hazard of thorium, Pantex uses strict workplace monitoring practices, such as 

smear checks of components, to verify the integrity of the thorium encapsulation. It is assumed that 

workers could have encountered oxidized thorium components during disassembly of weapons. 

Pantex has never conducted machining of components containing thorium [85]. 

Thorium
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 35 of 72

Information on source terms of weapons containing thorium is classified, as is the number or 

percentage of weapons that contain thorium. However, there is strong indication that controls for 

contamination have always been in place, as has workplace monitoring for thorium [86]. 

Natural sources of thorium can exist in rocks and soils (see the latest version of Pantex TBD on 

occupational environmental dose, ORAUT 2004a). Thorium can be present in measurable amounts 

in biological materials in the environment; ingestion of these materials can result in measurable 

quantities of thorium in bioassay samples collected from workers. Baseline bioassay measurements 

have shown this to be true. Pantex determined the amount of thorium that is naturally present in 

baseline bioassay samples for its workers (BWXT Pantex 2001). 

Thorium-232 and 228Th levels were analyzed in baseline fecal samples. Environmental levels of 232Th 

and 228Th were determined using a lognormal probability analysis on the bioassay data in accordance 

with A Guide for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at U.S. Department of Energy Installations

(Corley et al. 1981). The 95th-percentile results for background levels of thorium in fecal samples 

were 0.4 dpm/sample (0.18 pCi/sample) of 232Th and 0.39 for the 232Th:228Th ratio. Results that 

exceed both screening levels are assumed to represent occupational exposure and are adjusted to a 

net occupational excretion by subtracting the arithmetic mean background excretion rate of 

6.7 × 10-2 dpm/sample (3.0 × 10-2 pCi/sample) from 232Th fecal results (BWXT Pantex 2001, p. 6-4). 

BWXT Pantex (2001) states that thorium at the Plant is inhalation class Y, which would be essentially 

equivalent to absorption type S. This is consistent with the ICRP Publication 68 recommendation that

thorium oxides are type S (ICRP 1995). Although processing of thorium at Y-12 and Hanford created 

disequilibrium between 232Th and 228Th, material handled at Pantex would have aged long enough that 

a significant amount of 228Th would have grown back, especially for weapons being disassembled 

[87]. The dose reconstructor should assume equilibrium without evidence to the contrary [88]. 

Because there is no evidence that workers were routinely monitored for thorium before 1991, unless 

the worker records clearly indicate bioassay for thorium, dose reconstructors should interpret routine 

occupational records before 1991 that show “0” for internal dose as no information available rather 

than necessarily as a dose below detectable levels. Dose records in the 1990s specifically state 

whether internal emitters were monitored (and a dose is given) or not monitored (N/M) [89]. 

Monitoring of thorium exposures has been event-driven since at least 1991 [90]. Table 5-12 lists the 

number of individuals monitored and the dose results. The procedure Analysis of Biological Samples 

for Uranium, Thorium and/or Plutonium provided criteria for when thorium bioassay monitoring was 

required (MHSMC 1991a). To summarize, the criteria were exposure to 40 DAC-hr of thorium in the 

workplace air after accounting for use of respiratory protection, if applicable, or skin contamination 

equal to or exceeding 200 dpm/100 cm2

. The only reported doses have occurred since 1999 [91]. 

This analysis found no bioassay data before 1983.

In early 1992, several workers were given baseline thorium urine bioassays. The analyses were 

performed by Controls for Environmental Pollution. The results were less than 0.05 dpm/L. 

Therefore, dose reconstructors should assume that the MDA was about 0.1 dpm/L (0.045 pCi/L). All 

the follow-up results were less than the detection limit (CEP 1992). 

It is not certain that NOCTS records will include bioassay results even for the monitored workers listed 

in Table 5-12. Considering the extent of workplace controls used during disassembly of thorium 

weapons, the very limited amount of available data in relation to thorium intakes, and the inability to 

determine the frequency of handling weapons containing thorium, dose reconstructors should: 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 36 of 72

Table 5-12. Thorium dose (CEDE) to workers [92]. 

Year

Number monitored 

for thorium

Total worker thorium 

dose (person-rem)

Maximum individual 

thorium dose (mrem)

Average worker 

thorium dose (mrem)

1991 0 0 0 0

1992 17 0 0 0

1993 0 0 0 0

1994 0 0 0 0

1995 67 0 0 0

1996 56 0 0 0

1997 13 0 0 0

1998 1 0 0 0

1999 16 25 25 1.6

2000 9 14 14 1.6

2001 16 221 150 13.8

2002 11 48 48 4.4

• For workers who had the highest possibility of intake (from Table 5-2), for each year from 1980 

to 2000, assume a single acute intake of 40 DAC-hr (48 pCi) of 232Th (in equilibrium with 

progeny) [(1 × 10-12 μCi/mL)(106 mL/m3

)(1.2 m3/hr)(40 hr)(106 pCi/μCi)]. Assign 0.1 times this 

intake for category 2 workers in Table 5-2 [93]. These intakes are modes of triangular 

distributions with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 10 times the mode to account for the 

possibility of more than one intake per year and possible unrepresentativeness of the airsampling system. There is no record of disassembly of thorium weapons before 1980.

• For each year from 2001 to the present, for workers with the highest possibility of intake, 

assume a single acute intake of 4 DAC-hr (4.8 pCi) unless the recorded dose for the worker 

exceeds 5 mrem CEDE. If the recorded dose exceeds 5 mrem, convert the recorded dose to 

intake using 0.86 pCi/mrem [(3.2 × 103 Bq/Sv from ICRP 1989)(10-5 Sv/mrem)(27 pCi/Bq)] [94]. 

Assign 0.1 times this intake for category 2 workers in Table 5-2. Because Pantex has used 

lapel sampling during this period, these intakes are the maximum of a triangular distribution 

with a minimum of zero and a mode of one-half the maximum [95]. 

A check on the reasonableness of the above estimates was made by analyzing 232Th bioassay 

results. Two hundred fifty-eight worker urine samples were analyzed between 1992 and 1996 (BWXT 

Pantex 2005b). Only one result arguably exceeded the detection level; the median of the distribution 

was 0.000 pCi/L and the 95th percentile was 0.004 pCi/L (less than detectable) [96]. One hundred 

fifty-one worker fecal samples were analyzed between 1996 and 2000 (BWXT Pantex 2005b). About 

half were above the analytical detection level, but only four exceeded the expected natural excretion 

of about 0.32 pCi/d [2.9 μg/d × 1.1 × 10-7 μCi/μg 232Th × 106 pCi/μCi (ICRP 1975)]. An acute intake of 

48 pCi would result in less than 0.32 pCi/d excretion over about 6 d after the intake, so the intake 

estimate above and the fecal data agree reasonably well [97]. 

5.2.4

5.2.4.1 Plutonium General 

Plutonium and Plutonium Incidents

Plutonium at Pantex is in the encapsulated pits of nuclear weapons. Workers handle the pits during 

weapons assembly and disassembly. Strict workplace monitoring practices ensure the integrity of the 

encapsulation including contamination smear checks during assembly and disassembly (BWXT 

Pantex 2001). If contamination occurred, exposure to plutonium would be acute rather than chronic. 

Table 5-13 lists the number of workers given plutonium bioassay by year. There were no recorded 

internal doses associated with these 1991 to 2002 bioassays.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 37 of 72

Table 5-13. Number of workers on 

plutonium bioassay, 1991 to 2002 [98]. 

Year

Number of workers

monitored for plutonium

1991 0

1992 12

1993 0

1994 0

1995 28

1996 17

1997 18

1998 2

1999 1

2000 8

2001 1

2002 10

2003 9

2004 0

Although exposure to plutonium has been strictly controlled at Pantex, there is indication of past 

concern about potential plutonium intakes. Based on two sets of bioassay data, it appears that in 

1963 and 1966 monthly urine sample collection and analysis occurred for workers who could have 

been exposed to plutonium [99]. This analysis found additional bioassay data for 1961, 1968, the 

early 1980s, and 1994 to present. A 1961 incident that resulted in the release of plutonium is 

discussed below. 

Dose estimates from these bioassays were not found and, because they are not listed in the records, 

doses were probably determined to be less than whatever recording level was used at that time. For 

1961 data, the results were not detectable and the lower limit of detection was 0.2 cpm/sample or 

about 0.8 dpm/sample [100]. Although not specified in these data, other bioassay data indicated that 

24-hr samples were taken. The results for the 1968 samples were all less than 0.3 dpm/L [101]. 

MDAs were not provided for 1963 and 1966 or for data from the 1980s. Bioassay data from March 

30, 1994, had isotopic MDAs ranging from 0.01 to 0.04 dpm/sample for 238Pu and 239/240Pu [102]. A 

number of different vendors analyzed plutonium bioassay samples over the years.

Several individuals who had urine bioassays for plutonium in the 1960s were identified as claimants, 

and their claimant files were reviewed. The analysis found no indication of the bioassay history or 

doses from these bioassays in the records. Therefore, claimant files probably will not contain reliable 

bioassay data. If bioassay data are not available, dose reconstructors should use the following 

approach for assigning potentially missed doses to workers.

Because the plutonium was encapsulated, it was assumed that the potential for intake was rare (i.e., 

intakes would have been acute rather than chronic) [103]. BWXT Pantex (2001) states that plutonium 

at the Plant should be considered an aged weapons-grade mixture. For the following discussion, the 

intake activities are for the total alpha activity of the mixture. Dose reconstructors should assume the 

20-yr aged mixture [104]. Table 5-14 lists the composition of weapons-grade plutonium mixtures. 

Because the source of intake would have been plutonium oxides, dose reconstructors should assume 

inhalation type S (ICRP 1994).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 38 of 72

Table 5-14. Activity composition of weapons-grade plutonium mixtures from Hanford.

a

Mixture designation: Fresh 5-yr 10-yr 15-yr 20-yr 25-yr 30-yr

Years of agingb: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Specific activity in mixture (Ci/g)

Pu-238 8.56E-03 8.23E-03 7.91E-03 7.60E-03 7.31E-03 7.03E-03 6.75E-03

Pu-239 5.77E-02 5.77E-02 5.77E-02 5.77E-02 5.77E-02 5.77E-02 5.77E-02

Pu-240 1.36E-02 1.36E-02 1.36E-02 1.36E-02 1.36E-02 1.36E-02 1.36E-02

Pu-241 8.24E-01 6.48E-01 5.09E-01 4.00E-01 3.15E-01 2.48E-01 1.95E-01

Pu-242 1.97E-06 1.97E-06 1.97E-06 1.97E-06 1.97E-06 1.97E-06 1.97E-06

Am-241 0 5.83E-03 1.04E-02 1.39E-02 1.66E-02 1.87E-02 2.03E-02

Pu-239+240 7.13E-02 7.13E-02 7.13E-02 7.13E-02 7.12E-02 7.12E-02 7.12E-02

Pu-alpha 7.99E-02 7.95E-02 7.92E-02 7.89E-02 7.85E-02 7.83E-02 7.80E-02

Total alpha 7.99E-02 8.53E-02 8.96E-02 9.28E-02 9.52E-02 9.70E-02 9.83E-02

Activity ratios

Pu-239+240: total 

alpha 1.00 0.836 0.796 0.768 0.749 0.735 0.725

Pu-238: total alpha 0.107 0.0965 0.0883 0.0819 0.0768 0.0725 0.0687

Pu-241: total alpha 10.3 7.60 5.68 4.31 3.31 2.56 1.98

Am-241: total 0 0.0684 0.116 0.150 0.174 0.193 0.207

a. BWXT Pantex (2001) did not provide a table of isotopic mixtures. The Hanford mixtures should be close enough for the 

default assumptions. The total alpha specific activity changes only about 10% from 10 to 30 yr of aging. 

b. Time since separation of 241Am from the Pu mix.

In addition, dose reconstructors should use the following methods based on exposure period:

• For workers who had the highest possibility of intake (from Table 5-2), for each year of 

possible exposure from 1980 to 2000, when the number of disassemblies was highest, 

assume a single acute intake of 40 DAC-hr (290 pCi) [(6 × 10-12 μCi/mL)(106 mL/m3

)(1.2 

m3

/hr)(40 hr)(106 pCi/μCi)]. Assign 0.1 times this intake for category 2 workers in Table 5-2 

[105]. These intakes are modes of triangular distributions with a minimum of zero and a 

maximum of 10 times the mode to account for the possibility of more than one intake per year 

and possible unrepresentativeness of the air-sampling system [106]. 

• For each year from 2001 to the present, for workers with the highest possibility of intake, 

assume a single acute intake of 4 DAC-hr (29 pCi). Assign 0.1 times this intake for category 2 

workers in Table 5-2. Because Pantex used lapel sampling results as criteria for when to 

conduct bioassay during this period, these intakes are the maximum of a triangular distribution 

with a minimum of zero and a mode of one-half the maximum (BWXT Pantex 2005b). 

• For the period from 1958 to 1979 (except 1961, as discussed below), it is unknown what air 

sample levels would have triggered bioassay; however, it is expected that fewer disassemblies 

occurred. There would have been less oxidation of plutonium metal during the earlier years as 

well [107]. However, because the documentation of the number of disassemblies and the 

contamination levels is not available, it is favorable to claimants to assign unmonitored

workers an intake that is the same as the intake from the 1980 to 2000 period in accordance 

with their risk potential from Table 5-2. 

Twenty-three non-incident (reason codes annual, routine, or termination) plutonium urinalysis results 

have been recorded in the Pantex DORMS since 1989; these samples were obtained in 1995 and 

1996. All results were below the detection limit (median = 0.00026 pCi/d) [108]. Incident-related urine 

sample results since 1989 were also analyzed as a group and all results except possibly one were 

below the detection limit (median = 0.0000 pCi/d). Although daily urine excretion of type S plutonium 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 39 of 72

is a small fraction of the intake, these excretion results are consistent with the 40-DAC-hr intake 

assumed for the 1980 to 2000 period above [109]. 

5.2.4.2 1961 Cell Incident

An incident of plutonium exposure occurred in 1961. The details of the event are classified, but some 

data were available that dose reconstructors can use to estimate intakes. The appropriate intake 

should be applied to all workers known either to have been involved in this event or to have worked in 

the cells or bays in 1961 even if it is not clear that they were involved.

Three people were in the cell at the time of the incident, and all were contaminated. The problem was 

recognized as soon as the incident happened, and the three individuals immediately left the cell. The 

two operators were wearing respirators, but the supervisor standing approximately 6 ft from the 

release point was not. Initial contamination readings were as high as 450,000 dpm, but there was no 

contamination outside the cell (MHSMC 1962). There was a statement that an initial urinalysis 

performed immediately after the incident showed no internal deposition of plutonium, but there is no 

information on exactly how long after the incident the urinalysis occurred. A urinalysis within a few 

hours would be unlikely to find anything. In addition, because the material was most likely type S, 

urinalysis would not have been a particularly sensitive indicator of intake. The air sample data in 

Table 5-15 were obtained from reports.

Table 5-15. Plutonium incident air sample counts (dpm/m3

), 1961 

(MHSMC 1962). 

Location 0-2 hr + 3 d + 4 d

Assembly cell 1,900 1.03 0.43

A cubicle 880 0.55 0.156

B cubicle --- 28 0.185

Equipment room 1,030 Filter paper damage 0.156

Analysis of this incident made the following assumptions [110]:

• The breathing rate of the three workers was 3 m3

/hr (ICRP 1994) or 0.05 m3/min (heavy 

exercise, adult male).

• The workers were exposed for 5 min (assumes time in the cell and immediately following while 

they removed contaminated clothing).

• The workers closest to the pit were exposed to the highest air concentration (1,900 dpm/m3

).

• The supervisor was not as close to the release, so the second highest air concentration 

(1,030 dpm/m3

) was used for him.

• The air samples were removed for counting 2 hr after the incident, but essentially all activity on 

the filters was obtained in the first 5 min [111]. Therefore, the air concentration breathed by 

the workers in those 5 min was 120/5 min, or 24 times greater than as reported. 

• The material was aged weapons-grade plutonium mixture, absorption type S [112]. 

• Assuming the plutonium was produced 10 yr before the incident [113], isotopic ratios can be 

obtained from Table 5-14. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 40 of 72

• A protection factor of 5 (0.2) was allowed for the two workers in respirators. This factor 

underestimates the protection of most respirators when worn properly with a good fit [114]. 

However, the quality of the respiratory protection program at that time was not known, and 

some intake could have occurred during undressing.

Using these assumptions, an estimation of the intake can be made as follows:

• For the workers wearing respirators:

Total alpha = 0.05 m3

/min × 5 min × 1,900 dpm/m3 × 24 × 0.2 = 2,280 dpm = 1,027 pCi

• For the foreman without a respirator:

Total alpha = 0.05 m3

/min × 5 min × 1,030 dpm/m3 × 24 = 6,180 dpm = 2,784 pCi

Both of these intakes produce expected daily urine excretion far below the likely detection level for the 

urinalysis. The method of analysis is noted as “N.T.A.” The MDA for the analysis was not stated but, 

given the state of the art at that time, sample results less than 0.04 dpm/sample are unlikely to be 

different from background. Urinalysis of these three workers occurred 8 d after the incident on 

November 14, 1961. The results were 0, 0.01, and 0.03 dpm (MHSMC 1962). It is favorable to 

claimants to use the MDA of 0.04 dpm/d as the bioassay result in IMBA (absorption type S), which 

results in an intake of 66,000 pCi. Because this is substantially higher than expected from the air 

sample data, it should be considered a constant upper bound. This is the total alpha intake. 

Assuming 10-yr-old weapons-grade plutonium, intakes of the specific radionuclides are:

Plutonium-239: 52,000 pCi

Plutonium-238: 5,800 pCi

Plutonium-241: 370,000 pCi

Americium-241: 7,700 pCi

In addition to the incident itself, there was decontamination of the cell following the accident. 

Decontamination of Building 12-44-6 Following Radiation Accident on November 6, 1961 (MHSMC 

1962) contains information on decontamination activities. Exhibit 3 of that report provides urinalysis 

data for the workers who participated in cleanup operations. Only three samples were 0.04 dpm or 

higher. These workers wore full-face respirators and full protective clothing during decontamination 

activities. The first three individuals listed in Exhibit 3 of the accident report are the workers involved 

in the incident.

5.2.4.3 1978 Storage Cylinder Incident

Sometime just before November 14, 1978, a nuclear materials inventory of a Nuclear Weapons 

Accident Residue (NWAR) storage cylinder (a concrete cylinder about 6 ft in diameter buried vertically 

and mostly below ground) was attempted. The mounded earth overcap was removed and the 

cylinder was opened. Heavy rainfall occurred during the time the cylinder was open, and the cylinder 

was flooded, which soaked various cans storing radioactive waste. The cans were removed, 

surveyed, and moved to Magazine 4-75 (also referred to as Igloo 75) [115]. Although no 

contamination was found during the initial survey, the cans were wet so the alpha survey was 

ineffective. A subsequent survey on November 14 found alpha contamination associated with a small 

hole in one 11-M can that contained mostly plutonium waste (uranium and tritium contamination was 

also possible). The igloo was secured. Potentially exposed workers were given bioassay on or about 

November 17 [116]. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 41 of 72

A special decontamination procedure was developed which included, for example, full anticontamination clothing and full-face respirators, continuous radiation monitoring, high-volume air 

sampling, and HEPA-filtered vacuum cleaners. Cleanup began on January 23, 1979, and concluded 

by February 8. 

Details are provided in MHSMC (1979a,b), which include the decontamination procedure, results of 

surveys, pictures, notes associated with the original movement of the cans from the cylinder and with 

cleanup of the igloo, and results of bioassay samples. It is possible that claims files for energy 

employees associated with this work do not have these bioassay results; if an energy employee was 

employed at Pantex in 1978 or 1979, the bioassay results in this file should be checked. 

5.3 ASSESSING OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE FROM ELEVATED RADON

Uranium occurs naturally in virtually all soils, with average levels of about 1 part per million. 

Radium-226 is typically in secular equilibrium with 234U and decays to 222Rn with a half-life of 1,600 yr. 

Therefore, the noble gas 222Rn is continuously produced in soil where it can be trapped in the 

crystalline structure of minerals or released to the interstices between solid materials. In the absence 

of buildings, 222Rn produced within a meter or so of the soil surface can diffuse into the atmosphere 

where diffusion and advection dilute it with outdoor air (NCRP 1984a). During the 1980s it was 

discovered that buildings with heating and air conditioning tend to operate at slightly negative 

pressure [a few tens of pascals, less than 1 inch (water gauge)] in comparison to outdoor air. As a 

result of this negative pressure, soil gas tends to flow actively into indoor air, where it can build to 

higher levels than outdoors due to limited air changes and relatively small dilution volumes. This 

phenomenon is an example of technological enhancement of natural radioactivity (NCRP 1984a,b,

1987). 

While the general characteristics of areas with potential for elevated levels of indoor radon as well as 

construction designs that tend to enhance radon levels are known, it is rarely possible to predict 

indoor radon levels for a given structure. In general, structures that exhaust air to the environment 

without adequately engineered replacement air have higher indoor radon levels than structures that 

do not do this, and structures that have exposed soil (dirt floors, sumps) or exposed minerals (e.g., 

gravel) tend to have higher radon levels. Underground structures have a higher ratio of soil surface to 

building volume. All other factors being equal, an underground building would be likely to have a 

higher radon concentration than an aboveground building.

Thorium has 220Rn progeny that is a radioactive noble gas, commonly called thoron, which has a 

much shorter half-life of 55.6 seconds than its parent. In general, 220Rn decays before it can build up 

to significant levels unless there are large quantities of 232Th and its decay products present. There is 

no reason to expect that Pantex had 220Rn of significance. Work on thorium weapons was infrequent.

5.3.1

Radon itself produces far less dose to the bronchial epithelium than its progeny. Because radon 

progeny measurements are more difficult to obtain, measurements of radon are often used as a 

surrogate for progeny measurements. Radon progeny concentrations are expressed as the quantity 

potential alpha energy concentration (PAEC), traditionally measured in working levels (WL). 

Originally, 1 WL was defined as 100 pCi/L (1 × 10−10 Ci/L = 1 × 10−7 Ci/m3 = 1 × 10−7 μCi/cm3

) of radon 

in equilibrium with its short-lived decay products. At present, 1 WL is usually defined as any 

combination of short-lived radon decay products in 1 L of air, without regard to the degree of 

equilibrium, that will result in the ultimate emission of 130,000 MeV of potential alpha energy per liter 

of air. This is almost identical to the original definition. Time-integrated exposures to radon progeny 

Dose from Radon-222 Progeny
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 42 of 72

are expressed in the quantity potential alpha energy exposure (PAEE), which are traditionally 

measured in working level-months (WLM) and defined as exposure to 1 WL for 170 hr or any 

equivalent concentration and time product (ICRP 1981).

5.3.2

In 10 CFR 835.2(a), DOE states, “Background means radiation from ... radon and its progeny in 

concentrations or levels existing in buildings or the environment which have not been elevated as a 

result of current or prior activities....” Because background is specifically excepted from monitoring 

requirements, DOE and its contractors generally do not monitor for radon and its short-lived decay 

products. However, if radon and its progeny are elevated due to DOE activities, then DOE requires 

monitoring. This has been the policy of DOE and its predecessor agencies [117] [the U.S. Energy 

Research and Development Administration, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and the 

Manhattan Engineer District].

Radon Monitoring at DOE Facilities

5.3.3

At Pantex, the Gravel Gertie cells are in Buildings 12-44, 12-85, 12-96, and 12-98, which are 

considered to be underground even though they are not below grade. Bays, which are also 

considered underground, are in Buildings 12-17, 12-19, 12-21, 12-56, 12-64, 12-84 East, 12-84 West, 

12-99, 12-104, and 12-117. Workers in these buildings were likely to have greater exposures to 

radon and its decay products than workers in other buildings [118]. 

Underground Buildings

5.3.4

A DOE-wide survey of radon levels (UNC Geotech 1990) sampled 137 locations at Pantex and made 

duplicate measurements at 13 locations. Table 5-16 lists complete survey data. 

Radon Concentrations

Eight buildings at Pantex measured above 4 pCi/L (4 ×10−9 μCi/cm3), which is the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency reference point for considering remedial action for indoor radon (UNC Geotech 

1990). As listed in Table 5-17, the average for all buildings was 1.62 ±1.24 pCi/L with a geometric 

mean (median) of 1.37 pCi/L and a GSD of 1.68. Values ranged from 0.8 to 8.1 pCi/L. Underground 

buildings had a higher average, and aboveground buildings had a lower average.

Considering the uncertainty in these measurements, the average absolute difference between 

duplicate measurements was 0.27 pCi/L with no obvious dependence on the average value of the 

measurement (Figure 5-3). The average ratio was 1.03, which indicates no significant bias.

Far more important than measurement uncertainty is the issue of representativeness (i.e., an 

uncertainty that cannot be quantified from available measurements). Most of these Pantex 

measurements were made over a 2-month period during the winter, which is normally expected to be 

the time with the highest radon concentrations because buildings are closed and heated most of the 

time [119]. 

There is an earlier set of radon measurements. For 6 months at the beginning of 1969, Pantex 

monitored radon levels in Cells 1 to 6 on a twice-monthly basis using Eberline-supplied radon film 

badges. The raw results were reported as number of tracks in exposed and covered areas, and the 

integrated radon concentration (in picocurie-hours per cubic meter) was inferred from the net number 

of tracks (McFall 1969). The integrated radon concentration was converted to an average radon 

concentration in picocuries per liter by dividing by the number of hours of exposure and multiplying by 

1,000 cm3

/L. Of the 66 radon film badges issued, this TBD analysis found no record of analysis for 6, 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 0

6/22/2007 Page 43 of 54

Table 5-16. Results of 137 radon measurements in 1990 (UNC Geotech 1990).

RPIS Bu-Ins-Bldg 

Code Building number General description

Gross sq 

ft

No 

flrs

Radon 

(pCi/L)

Dupl. 

radon 

(pCi/L)

Install 

date

Retrieve 

date Room

01001DOE BLDG DOE Building DOE Building (12-36) is of brick construction (with 

bricks from the Panhandle area). 

8.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Main Office

0100111-48 11-48 11-48 3200 1 7.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Maintenance Shop

0100112-104 12-104 East U 12-104 is bay building 99680 2 7.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 5

0100112-66 12-66 12-66 is SNM [special nuclear material] warehouse 25900 1 5.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Center Of building

01001FS-01 FS-1 U FS-01 is an earth covered storage facility for HE 5364 1 5.2 5.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break room

0100112-23 12-23 12-23 3200 1 4.5 01/10/90 02/16/90 North wall middle

0100112-15 12-15 12-15 16800 1 4.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Training Room 103

0100112-60 12-60 12-60 is Mass Properties Facility 8600 1 4.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office - Vault

0100112-79 12-79 12-79 is warehouse/loading dock 28700 1 3.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 South Warehouse Area

0100112-104 12-104 U 12-104 is bay building 99680 2 3 01/10/90 02/16/90 106f R Collins Office

0100112-15 12-15 12-15 16800 1 2.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Training Graphic Arts

0100112-58 12-58 U 12-58 is bay building 2600 1 2.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 East Wall Between Bay 4&5

0100112-15 12-15 12-15 16800 1 2.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 Training Office

0100112-44 12-44-4 U 12-44 is Gravel Gertie cell building 27100 1 2.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 Round Room

0100112-6 12-6 12-6 23700 1 2.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 131 Quality Records

0100112-14 12-14 12-14 900 1 2.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100112-26 12-26 Tooling 

Warehouse

U 12-26 is bay building 87500 1 2.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Tooling Warehouse Office

0100112-26 12-26 U 12-26 also has pit vault 87500 1 2.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 28

0100112-35 12-35 12-35 13400 1 2.3 2.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Area Mechanics Office

0100111-17 11-17 U 12-17is bay building 6700 1 2.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 7 Lab

0100112-1 12-1 12-1 is cafeteria/change room 27600 2 2.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Lepor Colony

0100112-5 12-5 12-5 74400 1 2.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Electric Shop Office

0100112-86 12-86 12-86 is an Inert Assembly and Test Facility 2.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Electrical Testing Area

0100111-7 11-7 12-7 34100 1 2.1 2.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break room

0100112-61 12-61 12-61 24000 1 2.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Warehouse Area

0100112-44 12-44 U 12-44 is Gravel Gertie cell building 27100 1 2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Cell 8

0100112-64 12-64 U 12-64 is bay building 32000 1 2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 9

01001STATION 30 Zone 4 

Station 30

U 4-30 is underground igloo SNM storage building 2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Control Room

0100112-28 12-28 3500 1 1.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Quality Hallway

0100112-37 12-37 22700 1 1.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 120 Control Room

0100112-42 12-42 Radiation SAFET 47400 2 1.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 12-42 Cr

0100112-84 12-84 U Bay 1 1 1.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 13

0100111-29 11-29 4200 1 1.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100112-37 12-37 22700 1 1.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 121 Tech Doc

0100112-37 12-37 22700 1 1.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 112 Mail Room

0100112-5 12-5 74400 1 1.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Plant Eng Annette Covington

0100112-5 12-5 74400 1 1.8 1.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Plant Design Eng

0100116-2 16-2 Courier 20072 1 1.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 114 Break room

0100110-9 10-9 15500 1 1.7 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100111-27 11-27 5100 2 1.7 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 119

0100112-50 12-50 1400 1 1.7 01/10/90 02/16/90 West Of 12-50 Door

0100112-75 12-75 21862 1 1.7 01/10/90 02/16/90 Desk Lieutenants Office

0100112-99 12-99 60716 1 1.7 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break Room

0100111-20 11-20 16600 1 1.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office South Wall

0100112-16 12-16 5000 1 1.6 1.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Plastic Shop Office

0100112-2 12-2 Safety 13456 1 1.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 Dosimetry Lab Room 157

0100112-2B 12-2B 3220 1 1.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 North Wall By Clock

0100112-42 12-42 47400 2 1.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 South Vault

0100112-6 12-6 23700 1 1.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 103 Cafeteria

0100112-84 12-84 1 1 1.6 01/10/90 02/16/90 125d
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 44 of 54

RPIS Bu-Ins-Bldg 

Code Building number General description

Gross sq 

ft

No 

flrs

Radon 

(pCi/L)

Dupl. 

radon 

(pCi/L)

Install 

date

Retrieve 

date Room

0100112-36 12-36 294001 1.5 01/10/90 02/16/90 Emergency Preparedness

0100112-52B 12-52B1 1.5 01/10/90 02/16/90 Meteorology

0100112-9 12-9 1850031.5 01/10/90 02/16/90 HE Side

0100112-96 12-96U Gravel Gertie 78651 1.5 01/10/90 02/16/90 Round Room

0100112-99 12-99U Bay 607161 1.5 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 7

0100112-26 12-26U Bay 875001 1.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 30

0100112-107 12-107 South 100001 1.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 By C.L. Saban’s Office

0100112-44E 12-44-EU 12-44 is Gravel Gertie cell building 19001 1.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Marion Everett’s Office

0100112-6 12-6 237001 1.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 112 Tom Folks

0100112-68 12-68 359001 1.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Machine Shop Office

0100112-69 12-69 9800 1 1.4 01/10/90 02/16/90 Emmett Hallway

0100111-5 11-5U Bay 90002 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Control Bay

0100112-2 12-2 134561 1.32 01/10/90 02/16/90 Medical Office

0100112-24 12-24 SouthU Bay 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 27

0100112-49 12-49 39001 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Electronics Room

0100112-6 12-6 237001 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 104 Room Standards

0100116-12 16-12 285002 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Employment

0100112-61 12-61 240001 1.2 01/10/90 02/15/90 Break Room

0100112-107 12-107 North 100001 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Preventive Maint Section

0100112-11 12-11 29001 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Data Management

0100112-42 12-42 474002 1.21 01/10/90 02/16/90 Upstairs Assembly Ops

0100112-6 12-6 237001 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 121 Elaine Miller

0100112-64 12-64U Bay 320001 1.2 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 15

0100112-69 12-69 98001 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 DOE Office

0100112-9 12-9 185003 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100112-97 12-97B 100001 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 By Refrigerator in Break Room

0100112-98 12-98U Gravel Gertie 343581 1.2 1.2 01/10/90 02/16/90 Cell 2

0100112-21 12-21 Gas Lab 293002 1.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break Area

0100111-18 11-18 Control Room 15001 1.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Control Room

0100111-2 11-2 96002 1.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 110

0100111-51 11-51 11600 1 1.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100112-32 12-32 South Side 76001 1.1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Above Phone on Ramp

0100112-98 12-98-3U Gravel Gertie 343581 1.1 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Round Room

0100111-36 11-36 500021 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100111-50 11-50 2215111 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 110 Office

0100112-100 12-100 436011 01/10/90 02/16/90 Environmental Protection

0100112-11A 12-11A 520011 01/10/90 02/16/90 Quality Hallway

0100112-5 12-5 7440011 01/10/90 02/16/90 General Stores Office

0100112-52B 12-52B1 01/10/90 02/16/90 Meteorology

0100112-52C 12-52C 360011 0.9 01/10/9002/16/90 Meteorology

0100112-6 12-6 2370011 01/10/90 02/16/90 Assy Eng Office

0100112-6 12-6 2370011 01/10/90 02/16/90 Room 700 Stoddard

0100112-61 12-61 2400011 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office Area

0100112-82 12-82U Bay 680011 01/10/90 02/16/90E-Bay Office

01001STATION C Station C1 01/10/90 02/16/90 West Wall By Exit

0100112-21 12-21 2930021 01/10/90 02/16/90X-Ray Office

0100112-2B 12-2B 32201 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 South Wall - Nancy’s Office

0100112-104 12-104U Bay 996802 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 13

0100112-104-EAS 12-104 EastU Bay 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 2

0100112-106 12-106 54001 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Across From Room 105 Janitor

0100112-24 12-24 North U Bay 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 10

0100112-31 12-31U Bay 76001 0.9 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 3 Outside

0100112-64 12-64 320001 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 D&I Office

0100112-99 12-99 607161 0.9 01/10/90 02/16/90 105-F Manufacturing Office

0100112-84 12-84-East11 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break Room
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 45 of 54

RPIS Bu-Ins-Bldg 

Code Building number General description

Gross sq 

ft

No 

flrs

Radon 

(pCi/L)

Dupl. 

radon 

(pCi/L)

Install 

date

Retrieve 

date Room

0100112-84 12-84U Bay11 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 4

0100112-84 12-8411 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break Room

0100112-84 12-84U Bay11 0.8 1.3 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 7

0100112-101 12-101 Portable Maint 53341 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 By Sign-Out Board

0100112-102 12-102 57781 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Tech Applications

0100112-103 12-103 236081 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Smoking Area

0100112-104 12-104 West 996802 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 128f Manufacturing Office

0100112-111 12-111 74161 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Carpenter Shop

0100112-112 12-112 65251 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Camera Room

0100112-17 12-17 325002 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break Area

0100112-19 12-19 EAST 325002 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Break Area East Side

0100112-2012-70 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Cafeteria

0100112-3 12-3 20001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Transportation

0100112-35 12-35 134001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Utilities Console Room

0100112-39 12-39 Fire Department 82001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Sleeping Room

0100112-41A 12-41A 30001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 North Wall

0100112-42A 12-42A 199001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Outer Wall by Sandia Sign

0100112-5 12-5 744001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Master Mechanics

0100112-59 12-59 83001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Chem Lab Office

0100112-5C 12-5C 217002 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Sheet Metal Shop

0100112-84 12-84U Bay11 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 12

0100112-86 12-86 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 86-2e-5

0100112-86 12-86 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 206s Upstairs Assembly Ops Office

0100112-86 12-86U Bay 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 10

0100112-97 12-97A 100001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 By Clock in Hallway

0100112-97 12-97C 100001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Above Fire Ext by Copier

0100112-99 12-99U Bay 607161 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Bay 6

0100116-1 16-1 VMF 542001 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Office

0100116-12 16-12 285002 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 Purchasing

01001STATION B Station B 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 East Wall Center

01001Trailer Parking Lot 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 West Trailer from 12-2 

01001Trailer Parking Lot 0.8 01/10/90 02/16/90 East Trailer from 12-2
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 46 of 72

Table 5-17. Summary statistics of 1990 radon measurements [121]. 

Parameter All buildings

Underground 

buildings

Aboveground 

buildings

Mean (pCi/L) 1.62 1.81 1.56

SD (pCi/L) 1.24 1.35 1.21

CV 0.77 0.75 0.77

GeoMean (pCi/L) 1.37 1.51 1.33

GSD 1.68 1.75 1.66

Min (pCi/L) 0.8 0.8 0.8

Max (pCi/L) 8.1 7.1 8.1

Max/Min 10.1 8.9 10.1

Count 137 31 106

Figure 5-3. Absolute differences between duplicate radon 

measurements [122]. 

and 60 had reported analyses. Of the 60 reported analyses, 6 were damaged. Of the 54 undamaged 

results, 33 were reported as zero. When the zeros are included, the overall mean concentration in the 

cells was 4.2 ±8.6 pCi/L with a range from 0 to 47.2 pCi/L. Fitting a lognormal distribution to all 54 

points yielded a median of 1.2 pCi/L with a GSD of 6.7. This median is slightly lower than the median 

from the 1990 data, and the GSD is considerably larger. These results probably reflect (1) the time of 

year of the sampling and the longer period over which the sampling took place and (2) the difference 

in the sampling methods [120]. Table 5-18 summarizes the statistics from the 1969 radon datasets.

5.3.5

The Pantex-measured radon concentrations were converted to equilibrium equivalent concentrations

by multiplying the radon concentration by the equilibrium factor F using an assumed value of 0.4 as 

recommended by the ICRP (1981) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of 

Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1993). The equilibrium equivalent concentration was divided by 

100 pCi/L/WL to arrive at the PAEC. These operations were combined to create: 

Working Level-Months

PAEC = C × F/100 pCi/L/WL (5-21)

where C is the radon concentration in picocuries per liter and PAEC is in WLs. Dose reconstructors 

should multiply the PAEC by the months per year of exposure to determine the WLM for input to the 

Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 47 of 72

Table 5-18. Summary of 1969 radon measurements in 

Cells 1 to 6 [123]. 

Parameter pCi/L WL

Mean 4.24 0.0170

Standard deviation 8.58 0.0343

Coefficient of Var. 202%

Minimum 0 0

Maximum 47.22 0.1889

Count 54

Using 54 measurements (including 33 zeroes):

Lognormal median 1.20 0.0048

GSD 6.70 6.70

Lognormal mean 7.33 0.0293

Lognormal std. dev. 44.2 0.1767

Using 21 nonzero measurements:

Lognormal median 7.34 0.0293

GSD 2.47 2.47

Lognormal mean 10.91 0.0437

Lognormal std. dev. 10.89 0.0436

For workers who spent most of their time in a facility with an earthen cover (Level 1 from Table 5-2), 

dose reconstructors should use the 1990 median value for underground buildings of 1.5 pCi/L for C

and 12 months for the period (unless the person only worked for part of a year). This results in an 

annual average exposure of:

(1.5 pCi/L)(0.4)(12 months)/100 pCi/L/WL = 0.072 WLM/yr (5-22)

For workers with possible occasional entries into underground buildings (e.g., those with a risk 

ranking of 2 in Table 5-2), dose reconstructors should assume that their WLMs are one-tenth of those 

from Equation 5-22 [124]. 

Radon exposure applies from 1958 when the Gravel Gerties were completed to the present [125]. 

The exposure distribution is lognormal [126]. Parameter 1 is the median value in WLM from Equation 

5-22. Parameter 2 is the GSD. Dose reconstructors should use a GSD of 3 to allow for uncertainties 

in the application of the 1990 radon measurements to a full year (rather than only winter months) and 

to account for possible yearly differences in radon due to frozen ground or snow cover [127]. 

5.4 INTAKE SUMMARY

Table 5-19 provides a summary of the default intakes developed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. These 

default intakes should be used when bioassay data are missing or inadequate. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 0

6/22/2007 Page 48 of 54

Table 5-19. Summary of default intakes [128]. 

Work or worker category Period Material Mode

Absorption 

type

Intake 

(pCi/d or noted) Distribution GSD

1 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1956–present Tritium Chronic inhalation/ 

absorption 

NAa From Table 5-6 Triangular

(0, mean from Table 5-

6, max from Table 5-6)

NA

2 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1961–1993 DU or U Chronic inhalation

or 

chronic ingestion 

M 

or

S

1.3 

19

Lognormal 3 

Soluble

or

insoluble

4.4 

44 

3 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1994–present DU or U Use 20% of values in row 2

4 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1980–2000 Th-232 or Th-228 One acute intake per year S 48 pCi Triangular (0, 48, 480) NA

5 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

2001–present Th-232 or Th-228 One acute intake per year S 2.4 pCib Triangular (0, 2.4, 4.8) NA

6 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1958–1979 Pu One acute intake per year S 290 pCi Triangular (0, 290, 

2900)

NA

7 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1980–2000 Pu One acute intake per year S 290 pCi Triangular (0, 290, 

2900)

NA

8 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

2001–present Pu One acute intake per year S 14.5 pCi Triangular (0, 14.5, 29) NA

9 Production techs, QA techs, RSTs, 

assemblers/disassemblers

1958–present Radon Chronic NA 0.072 WLM/yrc Lognormal 3

10 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 1961–1993 DU or U 10% of values in row 2

11 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 1994–present DU or U 2% of values in row 2

12 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 1980–2000 Th-232 or Th-228 One acute intake per year S 10% of value in row 4i Triangular (0, 4.8, 48) NA

13 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 2001–present Th-232 or Th-228 One acute intake per year S 10% of value in row 5b Triangular (0, 0.24, 

0.48)

NA

14 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 1958–1979 Pu One acute intake per year S 10% of value in row 6 Triangular (0, 29, 290) NA

15 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 1980–2000 Pu One acute intake per year S 10% of value in row 7 Triangular (0, 29, 290) NA

16 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or some risk 2001–present Pu One acute intake per year S 10% of value in row 8 Triangular (0, 1.45, 2.9) NA

17 Category 2 in Table 5-2 or entry into 

bays and Gravel Gerties

1958–present Radon Chronic NA 0.0072 WLM/yrc Lognormal 3

18 Machinists 1960–1965 DU Chronic inhalation M or S 13 Lognormal 3

19 Machinists 1960–1965 DU Chronic ingestion Soluble or 

insoluble

0.4 Lognormal 3

20 Burning ground techs. /operators 1952–present DU Chronic inhalation M or S 130 Constant NA

21 Firing site techs/operators 1959–1986 DU Chronic inhalation M or S Per Table 5-11 Constant NA

22 Firing site techs/operators Unknown, apply once in 

employment history

Th-232 in 

equilibrium 

Acute M or S 14 pCi Constant NA

23 Firing Site 5 cleanup if no bioassay 

was obtained

1994 to 1999 DU Chronic S 3.2 pCi/d Triangular (0, 1.6, 3.2) NA

24 Firing Site 23 cleanup if no bioassay 

was obtained

Nov. 10, 1983; Jan. 2, 

1984, 85, 86, 87, 88; July 

1, 1984, 85, 86, 87

DU Acute S 3.2 E5 pCi Lognormal 3

25 Involved in 1961 accident in bay Nov. 1961 Pu Acute S (all pCi) Pu-238: 5,800 , 

Pu-239: 52,000, Pu-241: 

370,000, Am-241: 7,700 

Constant NA

a. NA = not applicable.

b. Unless there is a recorded internal dose exceeding 5 mrem, in which case use 0.86 pCi/mrem.

c. Can be prorated by month.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 49 of 72

5.5 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

Where appropriate in the preceding text, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate 

information, conclusions, and recommendations to assist in the process of worker dose 

reconstruction. These callouts are listed in this section with information that identifies the source and 

justification for each item. Conventional references are provided in the next section that link data, 

quotations, and other information to documents available for review on the Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU) Team servers.

[1] Hickey, Eva Eckert. Battelle–Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (BPNNL). Principal 

Health Physicist. April 2004.

Information on the use of the cell was verified during an interview trip. 

[2] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Review of records from data capture and interview trips revealed no routine bioassay before 

1972 (see Table 5-1). Review of the HERS database confirmed this. 

[3] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Review of materials showed letters and memoranda in the 1960s that discussed bioassays. 

Because the statement is of a general nature and does not provide specific data, a reference 

was not given.

[4] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Comment made based on data reviewed from the records in DORMS as well as discussion in 

the Pantex Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Document (BWXT Pantex 1992).

[5] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

The author and others on the Pantex team repeatedly requested air-monitoring and -sampling 

data and were told that the data were not retrievable and the data would not be useful for 

analyzing intakes from radionuclides. 

[6] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Based on discussions with Plant employees familiar with the work during data capture and 

interview trips to the Plant and confirmed by J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation Safety 

Department.

[7] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

The Cell 1 tritium incident and the W28 disassembly/uranium issues are the basis for this 

comment.

[8] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2006.

Assuming a resuspension factor of 10-4/m, an acute 2-hr exposure during target changeouts, 

no respiratory protection, and changeouts once a year, the titanium tritide contamination level 

needed to produce an intake that would result in a 1-mrem dose to the lung would have been 

1.6 x 108 dpm/100 cm2

. Doses to all other organs would have been less. Although actual 

contamination levels have not been found, the author judged that they would have not reached 

this level.

[9] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. November 2003. 

The list in this table was developed from discussions with Pantex employees, including Jerry 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 50 of 72

Martin, former manager of the Radiation Safety Department. The list was then confirmed 

using information on Job Titles/Classifications from 1954 to 2003 (MHSMC 1983). 

[10] Hickey, Eva Eckert, and Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicists. April 2006. 

This statement is based on discussions with Plant employees familiar with the work and with J. 

Martin, former manager of the Radiation Protection Department. The risk of intakes was 

highest in the cells during disassembly operations, but some contamination, and therefore risk 

of intake, might have been present in cells after disassembly operations ceased when security 

personnel were performing security checks. Security personnel also had potential for intake 

while performing duties in weapons storage igloos. Security personnel were in areas with 

potential for contamination only a small percentage of their work hours, as opposed to workers 

who were involved in disassembly operations, who spent more daily hours in potential 

contamination areas. 

[11] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. November 2005. 

These data are from DORMS and were accessed November 17, 2005, by M. Prather (BWXT 

Pantex 2005a). In addition, there was an occasional reference to bioassay in memoranda

from the 1960s or 1970s. No data were available from these memoranda. 

[12] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

Review of dosimetry records from the 1960s and 1970s often showed a zero in the column for 

“internal emitters”; however, there are numerous references that indicate that bioassay was 

not performed routinely but rather only when there was a known release. Therefore, the dose 

reconstructors need to be careful and not assume that a zero means that someone was 

monitored. The dose records in more recent years (1990s forward) clearly indicate when an 

individual was monitored for internal dose. 

[13] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. Extrapolation prior to 1972 is 

based on the issue date of ICRP Publications 10 (1968) and 2 (1959), so it was assumed that 

the equations were used throughout these years. 

[14] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. November 2005. 

The Table 5-3 data are from DORMS, were accessed November 17, 2005 by M. Prather

(BWXT Pantex 2005a), and manipulated by the author.

[15] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

This statement is based on personal review of records from Pantex in several claims files. 

[16] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

The monthly sampling frequency for tritium is implied in the Pantex internal dosimetry manual 

(BWXT Pantex 2001), in Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, and in the text on page 4-9. This frequency 

is common for tritium exposure. However, if the worker’s records show the bioassay data, the 

dose reconstructor can see the sampling frequency and input the appropriate t value into 

Equation 5-6.

[17] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This general statement was made by J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation Protection 

Department, and by other Pantex employees during site visits. The documentation that would 

verify the statement is classified. However, Table 5-9 provides information that supports the 

statement in a general way.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 51 of 72

[18] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This result is from calculations using IMBA for inorganic tritium, chronic injection, and the 

following urine bioassay user-defined parameters: 

a(i) Lam(i)

9.638985746E-3 1.200000000E+1

3.236795167E-2 6.931471806E-2 

5.238864693E-4 1.732867951E-2 

-4.253082389E-2 2.772588722

and 1 × 10-7 for the blood half-time.

[19] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

For monthly sampling there are 12 periods/yr of potential missed dose. As a first 

approximation the total annual missed dose is 12 times the monthly missed dose; the true 

missed dose is slightly less than that because excretion after 12 months of chronic intake is 

slightly higher than excretion after 1 month of chronic intakes. However, the approximation is 

favorable to claimants and only 18% higher, which is insignificant for these low doses. Use of 

the triangular distribution for missed dose with a mode of the MDA/2 is established in ORAUT 

(2006b); while that method is for external dose, it has been policy to use it for internal dose as 

well. 

[20] Bihl, Donald E, ORAU Team Principal Health Physicist, July 2004. 

The MDA from 1983 through 1988 was less than the MDA for the previous years; therefore, 

the potential missed dose was smaller during that period. The dose reconstructor can use the 

smaller missed dose if desired; however, the higher missed dose is still small enough that 

using the higher missed dose for all years should not affect POC for most cases. 

[21] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

For the same radionuclide, intake mode, and intake duration, the relationships between urine 

excretion rate, intake, and organ dose is directly proportional; therefore, a urine excretion rate 

of 0.1 times the rate in the previous paragraph results in a daily intake 0.1 times the intake in 

that paragraph, and the dose is 0.1 times the dose in that paragraph. 

[22] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This statement is based on personal judgment. Few laboratories recorded doses below 

1 mrem. If Pantex did, the missed dose would have been smaller, so it is favorable to 

claimants to assume a recording cutoff of 1 mrem. 

[23] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

For monthly sampling there are 12 periods/yr of potential missed dose. As a first 

approximation the total annual missed dose is 12 times the monthly missed dose; the true 

missed dose is slightly less than that because excretion after 12 months of chronic intake is 

slightly higher than excretion after 1 month of chronic intakes. However, the approximation is 

favorable to claimants and only 18% higher, which is insignificant for these low doses. Use of 

the triangular distribution for missed dose with a mode of the MDA/2 is established in ORAUT 

(2007a). 

[24] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

In addition to the reference, it is also evident from use of the tritium tool or IMBA that all organ 

doses are equal. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 52 of 72

[25] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

This statement is made because missed dose calculations assume chronic rather than acute 

intake as would be applicable to incident follow-up samples. 

[26] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

This value is based on 1-mrem missed dose for each of 12 monthly periods, as explained in 

the first paragraph in the section. The maximum missed dose is the maximum of the triangular 

distribution, and the mode is one-half of the maximum. 

[27] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

Based on discussions with Plant employees familiar with the work during data capture and 

interview trips to the Plant, and was confirmed by J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation 

Safety Department.

[28] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

Based on discussions with Plant employees familiar with the work during data capture and 

interview trips to the Plant. Confirmed by J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation Safety 

Department. 

[29] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

This information was verified during an interview trip and was originally interpreted from a slide 

presentation from a data capture trip (BWXT Pantex no date). 

[30] Hickey, Eva Eckert, and Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicists. May 2004. 

The factor of 2 was a professional judgment made to be favorable to claimants. As explained 

in the text, the risk of tritium intake was less during assembly than disassembly and fewer 

disassemblies took place from 1956 to 1972 than afterward. 

[31] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

The mode of the triangular distribution for tritium missed-dose calculations is 6 mrem. It was 

used for unmonitored workers based on the premise that unmonitored workers were at less 

risk than monitored workers, especially for tritium because the source of tritium exposure

came from handling tritium reservoirs during disassembly. The possibility of casual exposure 

to tritium during the disassembly operations by unmonitored workers was considered remote 

because of the security and other safety requirements of the work.

[32] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

Data in the left hand column of Table 5-6 were from DORMS and were accessed November 

17, 2005, by M. Prather (BWXT Pantex 2005a). The data in the other columns were 

calculated based on the text in Section 5.2.1. 

[33] Hickey, Eva Eckert, and Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicists. May 2004. 

The factor of 2 was a professional judgment made to be favorable to claimants. As explained 

in the text, the risk of tritium intake was less during assembly than disassembly and fewer 

disassemblies took place from 1956 to 1972 than afterward. 

[34] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

The value of 0.135 μCi/L came from Table 5-4 for monthly sampling; this concentration is 

distributed in 42 L of body water, so the total uptake is 0.135 μCi/L × 42 L. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 53 of 72

[35] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

Same as attribute 34, except the value being calculated is the mode of the triangular 

distribution, which is one-half of the maximum, so 0.5 × 0.135 μCi/L × 42 L.

[36] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

Calendar year 1981 had the highest maximum uptake of any year monitored except 1989, so 

this value was considered favorable to claimants as a surrogate for 1989. 

[37] Hickey, Eva Eckert, and Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicists. May 2004. 

Tritium exposure occurred during disassembly. Tritium that leaked into the cell was removed 

by ventilation, so residual contamination was not an issue (at normal release levels). 

Therefore, those workers in the cell during disassembly incurred the tritium intakes. There is

always the possibility that other workers were occasionally in the cell or close by during a 

tritium leak, but these would have been infrequent and the doses would have been less than 

1 mrem/yr. 

[38] Chew, Melton H. M. H. Chew and Associates. Principal Health Physicist. April 2006. 

The values for the impurities were provided by Mel Chew based on research at Y-12 (ORAUT 

2007b). 

[39] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

The Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis and Quality Assurance Document (BWXT Pantex 

2001) states, “The compounds for uranium at Pantex are pure metal or air-oxides; it is 

assumed that all forms encountered will exhibit class Y aerosol behavior.” This is the basis for 

the statement that there would not be significant quantities of type F uranium at Pantex.

[40] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

The presence of black dust DU contamination was mentioned by many Pantex employees 

during site visits, including J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation Safety Department. It is 

also discussed in a presentation on DU contamination during investigation of the 1989 incident 

(BWXT Pantex no date).

[41] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

As an example of improvements in contamination control, a presentation from 1989 discussed 

the lessons learned and improvements for contamination control in a presentation on DU 

contamination during investigation of the 1989 incident (BWXT Pantex no date).

[42] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

Review of dosimetry records from the 1960s and 1970s often showed a zero in the column for 

“internal emitters”; however, there are numerous references that indicate that bioassay was 

not performed routinely but rather only when there was a known release. Therefore, the dose 

reconstructors need to be careful and not assume that a zero means that someone was 

monitored. The dose records in more recent years (1990s forward) clearly indicate when an 

individual was monitored for internal dose. 

[43] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Table 5-7 provides the data for uranium dose to workers from 1990 to 2004. This table was 

created from data from DORMS. 

[44] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

This statement was made based on inference from the statement that uranium exposures 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 54 of 72

were monitored only based on air-monitoring data (i.e., that the presence of uranium was 

detected). If bioassays were made on 300 workers, there must therefore have been the 

potential for uranium intakes.

[45] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2005. 

That Pantex used many offsite laboratories is evident from Table 5-8; that the laboratories

used event-driven bioassay more than routine bioassay came from statements made by the 

Pantex staff and was evident from the sparse use of bioassay in the early periods. It was less 

true after the 1989 accident. 

[46] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2005. 

If 1.4 is the 2-sigma value, then the 1-sigma value is 0.7. One frequently used formula for 

MDA is 4.65σ. 0.7 x 4.65 = 3.3. The sigma value in the MDA equation is arguably not just the 

counting error, but there are not enough data to do a more rigorous calculation.

[47] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2005. 

The MDAs for the Y-12 analyses were printed on the report, but they varied for each sample. 

The values shown in Table 5-8 were generally the higher of the various MDAs listed on the 

report (see MHSMC no date a, pp. 14–17). 

[48] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. March 2005. The assumption that the 

less-than value was more of a decision level than an MDA is favorable to claimants and 

consistent with the author’s professional experience. Setting the MDA as twice the decision 

level is a rough rule of thumb; however, its use is consistent with the uncertainty in how the 

less-than value was calculated. 

[49] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

That the samples were 24-hr samples is evident from the sample volumes. The collection of 

24-hr samples is also specified in Analysis of Biological Samples for Uranium, Thorium, and/or 

Plutonium (MHSMC 1991c).

[50] Strom, Daniel J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

The author calculated this value using IMBA. 

[51] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

How much DU contamination was present when a weapon was opened probably varied 

depending on the age of the weapon and its exposure to dampness and humidity. Therefore, 

intakes by disassembly workers probably varied daily from near zero to some hundreds or 

maybe thousands of dpm. Such an intake pattern is best modeled as a chronic intake rather 

than a single acute intake. 

[52] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. August 2005. 

The author calculated this value using IMBA. 

[53] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. August 2005. 

The author calculated this value using IMBA. 

[54] Hickey, Eva Eckert, and Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicists. August 2005. 

The authors considered it prudent and favorable to claimants to assign intakes of DU to certain 

classes of workers who were not daily and intimately involved in disassembly operations. 

Such intakes might have occurred through various means, for instance,
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 55 of 72

• Occasionally entering cells during disassembly operations (e.g., to observe or audit)

• Exposure to residual contamination in the cells when disassembly was not occurring

• Exposure to contamination during weapons movement from and to igloos

• Handling/storage of damaged weapons

• Handling/storage of low-level waste. 

Such unmonitored workers were assigned intakes of 10% of those of the highest risk workers 

based on professional judgment. 

[55] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Based on discussions with Plant employees familiar with the work during data capture and 

interview trips to the Plant. Confirmed by J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation Safety 

Department and in a presentation from a data capture trip (BWXT Pantex no date).

[56] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Based on discussions with Plant employees familiar with the work during data capture and 

interview trips to the Plant. Confirmed by J. Martin, former manager of the Radiation Safety 

Department and in a presentation from a data capture trip (BWXT Pantex no date).

[57] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Because of less contamination, it is likely that intakes were fewer or smaller before about 1980 

than afterward. However, it was favorable to claimants to assume the earlier intakes were the 

same as those in the post-1980 period. 

[58] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This value is a result of calculation by the author. 

[59] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This statement is based on the author’s professional judgment. 

[60] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

A review of the air-sampling log for samples from the firing sites in 1960 and 1961 shows 

2 pCi/m3 as the smallest recorded nonzero number with many samples recorded as zero or as 

a number greater than 2. The value of 2 pCi/m3 is also consistent with state-of-the-art at the 

time. 

[61] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

If there were 100 samples, the 95th sample would represent approximately the 95th-percentile 

value (depending on use of the actual sample results or a curving-fitting technique). Because 

there were 50 samples, the 95th percentile would be approximately represented by the 48th or 

49th sample, again depending on how well the samples fit a lognormal distribution. However, 

it was favorable to claimants to use only the top sample to represent the higher percentiles, 

without performing a rigorous curve fit. 

[62] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This value is a result of calculation by the author as explained in the text. The point is that 

some of the results were in cpm not dpm. The calculation showed that the cpm results were 

consistent with dpm results under the assumption of a counting efficiency of 25% or greater. 

[63] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

There were only a few entries in the log where the cleanup time was recorded. It was 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 56 of 72

considered favorable to claimants to assume a cleanup time slightly longer than the recorded 

times to cover the possibility of longer times on days when the time was not recorded.

[64] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

Burnt plutonium should be in the oxide form and therefore type S; however, it is favorable to 

claimants and eliminates debates about incomplete oxidation to assume type M when it 

maximizes the dose to the organ of concern. 

[65] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Workers who performed the hydroshots were considered directly exposed, and their intakes 

were therefore included in this TBD. The exposure of workers to the plumes distant from the 

firing sites is the same as from other effluent releases and was therefore considered 

environmental exposure. 

[66] Traub, Richard J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

These are original calculations, as shown in the figures. 

[67] Traub, Richard J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

These are original calculations, as shown in the figures. 

[68] Traub, Richard J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

These are original calculations, as shown in the figures. 

[69] Traub, Richard J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

These are original calculations, as shown in the figures. 

[70] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This value is the result of calculation by the author. 

[71] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author. 

[72] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

The two shots-per-day limit accounts for the time to set up the hydroshot and clean up the site 

afterwards as well as the fact that, during years where the number of shots was well 

documented, there were far fewer than 500 shots. 

[73] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

The 95th-percentile confidence value was used based on feedback from NIOSH during the 

review process. 

[74] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. May 2004. 

This table was built using information from Table 5-10, the assumptions listed in the footnotes, 

and Equation 5-20.

[75] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Use of the 95th-percentile value and a constant distribution was based on feedback from 

NIOSH during the review process. Allowing dose reconstructors to assume either type M or 

type S absorption types is explained in attribution 64. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 57 of 72

[76] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Nothing is known about the thorium hydroshot other than that it happened once. Progeny from 

232Th take years to build to equilibrium, so it is probable that the progeny were not in full 

equilibrium. However, the assumption of equilibrium increases the activity of the progeny and 

therefore the annual organ dose. Most thorium in a hydroshot would be converted to the oxide 

state (type S), but incomplete oxidation could have occurred. It is favorable to claimants to 

allow the dose reconstructor to choose type M when it produces a higher dose to the organ of 

concern. 

[77] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

The 238U or 234U Class Y DAC is 2 × 10-11 μCi/mL (10 CFR Part 835 Appendix A)

(2 × 10-11 μCi/mL)(1 × 106 pCi/μCi)(1 × 106 mL/m3

)(1.2 m3/hr)(50 hr), which equals 1,200 pCi. 

The daily value is 1,200 pCi ÷ 365 d/yr or 3.2 pCi/d. 

[78] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Information about the Silver Bullet and cleanup of the contaminated gravel was provided 

verbally by Pantex employees S. Wilson and H. Phillips. 

[79] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Information about the Silver Bullet and cleanup of the contaminated gravel was provided 

verbally by Pantex employees S. Wilson and H. Phillips. 

[80] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author using IMBA. 

[81] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Using the specific activity for DU in IMBA of 402 pCi/mg and 1.4 L/d urine excretion, the 

16 μg/L median urine excretion becomes 16 μg/L × 402 pCi/mg × 1 mg/1000 μg × 1.4 L/d, 

which is 9 pCi/d. When modeled in IMBA as excretion on the fourth day after start of a 2-d 

exposure to type S uranium, the daily intake is 1.6 × 105 pCi. A GSD of 3 means the 

uncertainty lies within factors of times 3 or divided by 3, which in this case is consistent with 

the uncertainty in the intake assumptions. 

[82] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Information about the Silver Bullet and cleanup of the contaminated gravel was provided 

verbally by Pantex employees S. Wilson and H. Phillips. 

[83] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Assuming an acute intake of 3.2 × 105 pCi instead of a 2-d chronic intake of 1.6 × 105 pCi/d 

saves the dose reconstructor time and produces essentially the same annual doses. 

[84] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Workers who were involved in the cleanups other than 1983 might or might not be listed in the 

records. Rather than restricting the 1983 cleanup workers to just the 1983 cleanup, it was 

deemed favorable to claimants to assume they were also involved in subsequent cleanups.

[85] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

The determination that there have been strict workplace restrictions in relation to thorium 

comes from discussions with the staff at Pantex during interview trips and from the Internal 

Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual (BWXT Pantex 2001).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 58 of 72

[86] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

The determination that there have been strict workplace restrictions in relation to thorium 

comes from discussions with the staff at Pantex during interview trips and the Internal 

Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual (BWXT Pantex 2001).

[87] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

The age of thorium during disassembly is not known and probably varied from weapon to 

weapon. Thorium-228 activity decreases relative to 232Th activity upon purification of the 

thorium (i.e., removal of the 228Ra) and reaches a minimum of about 44% in 5 to 6 years, then 

increases slowly to reach 90% in about 23 years (see, for instance, West 1965). 

[88] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Because the degree of disequilibrium of the 232Th progeny is not known, it was judged 

favorable to claimants to assume equilibrium. That assumption increases the activity of 

progeny during intake and consequently increases annual organ doses. 

[89] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This information was obtained by review of dose records from this period.

[90] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

This statement was made based of review of the Table 5-12 thorium doses to workers. The 

data in that table were from review of dosimetry data in DORMS.

[91] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

This statement was made based of review of the Table 5-12 thorium doses to workers. The 

data in that table were from review of dosimetry data in DORMS. 

[92] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

This statement was made based of review of the Table 5-12 thorium doses to workers. The 

data in that table were from review of dosimetry data in DORMS.

[93] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2005. 

The factor of 10 difference between worker risk categories is consistent throughout the 

document. It recognizes either that there was considerable difference in the probability that 

intakes occurred between level 1 and level 2 risk jobs or that the magnitudes of the intakes 

were considerably different. However, there is no basis for refinement of the differences 

between the risk categories beyond an order of magnitude. 

[94] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2005. 

Because bioassay results might not be available for dose reconstructors, a method is provided 

to determine intake from the dose results. Dose reconstructors need the intake value to 

determine doses to specific organs. 

[95] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2005. 

Lapel sampling in conjunction with a DAC-hour tracking system is considered more 

representative of intake than fixed-head sampling. As a consequence, there is a high degree 

of confidence that intakes of 4 DAC-hr or more were detected and dose was assessed. 

Therefore, the normal approach of setting the missed dose limit to the maximum and one-half 

the missed dose limit as the mode of a triangular distribution was used rather than setting the 

maximum at 10 times the missed dose limit, as was used in the previous paragraph. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 59 of 72

[96] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This value is a result of calculation by the author using IMBA. 

[97] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

This value is a result of calculation by the author using IMBA. 

[98] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This data is from the DORMS database. 

[99] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

In a set of data from a data capture trip, there were a number of requests for a laboratory to 

perform urinalysis for plutonium for a number of workers. There were requests for several 

months in a row for the same workers (MHSMC no date b).

[100] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This information was found in a compilation of letters, reports, and other documentation that 

discuss plutonium analysis. It is used to indicate that plutonium bioassay was performed and 

that there is some information available on plutonium bioassay, even if the individual dose 

records do not provide it. The information or assumptions are from MHSMC (no date b).

[101] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This information was found in a compilation of letters, reports, and other documentation that 

discuss plutonium analysis. It is used to indicate that plutonium bioassay was performed and 

that there is some information available on plutonium bioassay, even if the individual dose 

records do not provide it. The information or assumptions are from MHSMC (no date b).

[102] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

This information was found in a compilation of letters, reports, and other documentation that 

discuss plutonium analysis. It is used to indicate that plutonium bioassay was performed and 

that there is some information available on plutonium bioassay, even if the individual dose 

records do not provide it. The information or assumptions are from MHSMC (no date b).

[103] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

The assumption that the potential for intake was rare is inferred from discussions in BWXT 

Pantex (2001).

[104] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

BWXT Pantex (2001) states that the plutonium at Pantex is likely to be an aged weaponsgrade mixture; therefore, the assumption in this section was made to be a 20-year-aged 

mixture.

[105] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2005. 

Because bioassay results might not be available for dose reconstructors, a method is provided 

to determine intake from the dose results. Dose reconstructors need the intake value to 

determine doses to specific organs.

[106] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

A higher-than-normal maximum for the triangular distribution was used to account for possible 

unrepresentativeness of fixed-head air samples. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 60 of 72

[107] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. July 2004. 

Oxidation of plutonium metal on the surface can occur rapidly at ambient temperatures in 

moist air (see, for instance, Wick 1967); however, early nuclear capsules were coated and 

pressurized to help keep the system dry, and later pits were sealed. Pantex staff indicated 

that plutonium oxidation was rare; however, to be favorable to claimants it was assumed that 

some plutonium oxidation occurred over time. 

[108] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Pantex worker bioassay results are from the DORMS database (BWXT Pantex 2005b). The 

median was selected as the 12th sample result after ranking lowest to highest. 

[109] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

The expected urine excretion from an acute intake of 290 pCi of type S plutonium is less than 

the detection limit for all times after the intake, which is consistent with the measured results. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author using IMBA. 

[110] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Most assumptions are based on review of the account of the accident, unless otherwise 

attributed.

[111] Hickey, Eva Eckert. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

Details of the accident are classified; however, it is believed that modeling the release as one 

in which most of the activity collected on the filter over a 2-hour period was puffed into the air 

promptly is more accurate than a slow release over the entire 2-hour period. Because the 

workers promptly evacuated the area after the alarm, this maximizes the concentration the 

workers could have breathed and is thus favorable to claimants. 

[112] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

That the plutonium was weapons-grade is consistent with the mission at Pantex; Pantex would 

have rarely if ever handled plutonium that was not weapons-grade. The age of the plutonium 

is not known. The assumption of 10-year-aged material provides higher doses than an 

assumption of newer material; the dose rates for older (15- to 20-year-aged) mixtures varies 

only a few percent relative to a 10-year-aged mixture. 

[113] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

That the plutonium was weapons-grade is consistent with the mission at Pantex; Pantex would 

have rarely if ever handled plutonium that was not weapons-grade. The age of the plutonium 

is not known. The assumption of 10-year-aged material provides higher doses than an 

assumption of newer material; the dose rates for older (15- to 20-year-aged) mixtures varies 

only a few percent relative to a 10-year-aged mixture. 

[114] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. April 2004. 

The smallest protection factor that ANSI (1992) grants for respiratory protection is 10.

[115] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. December 2005. 

Most of the information about this event is from MHSMC (1979a,b). Some of the details are 

from discussion with Pantex employees S. Wilson and H. Phillips.

[116] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. December 2005. 

Most of the information about this event is from MHSMC (1979a,b). Some of the details are 

from discussion with Pantex employees S. Wilson and H. Phillips.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 61 of 72

[117] Strom, Daniel J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

This is certainly the policy that has been stated verbally by various DOE policymakers over 

time and by inference from the lack of requirements to monitor for radon in most DOE 

buildings. Finding unequivocal documentation of this policy is difficult, but DOE Order 5480.11 

states in article 9.b, “Note: Natural background and therapeutic and diagnostic medical 

exposures are not to be included in dose records or in assessment of dose against limiting 

values” (DOE 1988). The exact history of the policy is not particularly germane to dose 

reconstruction except to explain the lack of radon and progeny measurements at DOE and 

predecessor organization facilities over the years. 

[118] Strom, Daniel E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

This statement follows from the first paragraph in Section 5.3 and the fact that a building that is 

surrounded by soil on more sides than just the floor generally has more radon emanating into 

the building than a building with just soil under the floor, unless barriers to radon emanation 

are employed. 

[119] Strom, Daniel E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

Soil gas is the principal source of indoor radon. In winter, buildings are closed and heated, 

which leads to decreased air pressure in the building because hot air rises and heat leaks 

draw air out of the building. This effect depressurizes the building in relation to soil gas, which 

draws radon in at an increased rate. This effect is especially strong when there is a 

combustion source (with a flue) in a building (e.g., a gas hot water heater or a gas or oil 

furnace). In addition, exhaust ventilation systems and clothes dryers generally depressurize 

buildings and, with closed windows limiting air makeup, there is more soil gas infiltration than 

in seasons when windows are open.

[120] Strom, Daniel J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author.

[121] Strom, Daniel J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author from the data in Table 5-16. 

[122] Strom, Daniel J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author from the data in Table 5-16.

[123] Strom, Daniel J. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. February 2004. 

These values are the result of calculations by the author from the Eberline data (McFall 1969).

[124] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. June 2004. 

The use of one-tenth intakes for workers in the second risk category is consistent throughout 

the TBD. It is based on two exposure modes: either occasional exposure to the same air 

concentrations as the high risk workers (modeled as 4 instead of 40 hr/wk), or continuous 

exposure to one-tenth of the contamination levels incurred by the high risk workers, such as 

reduced airborne concentrations in hallways or rooms in the same buildings but distant from 

the cells and bays. 

[125] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. June 2004. 

Radon intakes apply to unusual structures that enhance radon beyond normal concentrations; 

Gravel Gerties were constructed with gravel roofs and soil high on the sides, so they fit the 

criterion. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 62 of 72

[126] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. June 2004. 

Lognormal distribution for air concentrations of contaminants is the usual default unless there 

are data that clearly show otherwise. Radon air concentrations have been shown to have 

lognormal distributions (see, for instance, NCRP 1984a, p. 49). 

[127] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. June 2004. 

Table 5-17 shows the radon concentrations for the underground buildings to have a GSD of 

1.75 for that set of measurements, which is less than the Project default of 3. Therefore, the 

Project default of 3 takes precedence. For matters that influence internal dose, the smallest 

allowable GSD is 3. 

[128] Bihl, Donald E. BPNNL. Principal Health Physicist. September 2005. 

Table 5-19 is a summary of values that were developed for and are explained in this TBD; the 

table was requested by document reviewers.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 63 of 72

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. E., 1975, Environmental Monitoring Report for Pantex Plant Covering 1974, MHSMP75-8, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May 1. [SRDB

Ref ID: 13087]

Alexander, J. E., 1976, Environmental Monitoring Report for Pantex Plant Covering 1975, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 13097]

Alexander, J. E., V. A. Cornelius, and C. N. Horton, 1978, Supplement to Environmental Monitoring 

Report for Pantex Plant Covering 1977, MHSMP-78-41, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason 

Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, October. [SRDB Ref ID: 13321]

Alexander, R. E., 1972a, “Analysis of Drone Sample from Hydro Shot, March 8, 1972,” interoffice 

memorandum to H. Phillips, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, 

Texas, March 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 13316]

Alexander, R. E., 1972b, “Fluorometric Analysis of Drone Samples Taken on April 27, 1972 and April 

28, 1972,” interoffice memorandum to H. Phillips, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, 

Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 13317]

Alexander, R. E., 1972c, “Hydro Shots Analyses,” interoffice memorandum to H. Phillips, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, August 4. [SRDB Ref ID: 

13313]

Alexander, R. E., 1974, “Analysis of Hydro Samples,” interoffice memorandum to H. Phillips, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, October 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 

13318]

Alexander, R. E., 1977, “Test Fires at FS-5 for 1976,” letter to H&S File No. 2000.1, Mason & HangerSilas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, June 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 14044]

Alexander, R. E., 1984, “Hydroshots During FS-4 Renovation,” interoffice memorandum to R. A. 

Wilcox, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 13314, p. 4]

Alley, C. D., 1990, “Bioassay Information,” letter to A. G. Ladino (U.S. Department of Energy), Mason 

& Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, December 18. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 11092]

ANSI (American National Standards Institute), 1992, American National Standard for Respiratory 

Protection, ANSI Z88.2-1992, New York, New York.

Author unknown, 1952, X-ray records of two early employees - 1952, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 14320]

Bihl, D. E., 2006, “Telephone Conversation with [name withheld], October 11, 2006,” memorandum to 

file, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 

27015]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 64 of 72

Bihl, D. E., and J. B. Martin, 2004, “Telephone Interview with Herman Phillips on June 16, 2004 

Concerning Pantex Burning Pad and Firing Sites,” memorandum to file, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 13467]

Boettner, J. K., 1977, “Atmospheric Dispersal of D-38 from Firing Site Activities,” interoffice 

memorandum to E. D. Poynor, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, Texas, August 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 13464]

Brake, R., 1989, untitled letter to G. Runkle (U.S. Department of Energy), University of California, Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, November 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 11091]

Brodsky, A., 1983, Information for Establishing Bioassay Measurements and Evaluations of Tritium 

Exposure, NUREG-0938, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., June.

BWXT Pantex, 1992, Technical Basis for the Internal Dosimetry Program and the DOE Pantex 

Facility, Rev. 1, Radiation Safety Department, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 14. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 13312]

BWXT Pantex, 2000, Internal Dosimetry Studies, Urinalysis in Historical Exposure Records System 

(HERS), Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, March.

BWXT Pantex, 2001, Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis & Quality Assurance Document, RSD-TBD0001, Rev. 03, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, August 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 11070]

BWXT Pantex, 2004, Pantex Plant Radiological Investigation Volume I of II Report for the U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, 

Texas, AL-PX-SW-003788, Part I, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, January. [SRDB Ref ID: 

20778]

BWXT Pantex, 2005a, DORMS Data Related to Internal Dosimetry, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, 

November 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 20744]

BWXT Pantex, 2005b, Pantex bioassay data, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 19642]

BWXT Pantex, no date, Presentation on W28 Program after Accident, Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 26391]

CEP (Controls for Environmental Pollution), 1992, Untitled, 8 pages consisting of a section called 

“Sample Identification” and a section called “Test Results by Sample”, May 4. [SRDB Ref ID: 

17084]

Copeland, R. J., 1983a, Interoffice memo from R. J. Copeland to R. E. Alexander, “Analysis of Urine 

Samples per Uranium and Beryllium [Background data (10/4/83) for technicians from firing site 

23, Silver Bullet],” (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, 

October 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 14537, p. 29]

Copeland, R. J., 1983b, Interoffice memo from R. J. Copeland to M. S. Johnson, “Analysis of Urine 

Samples from Personnel Working on FS-23 Cleanup,” (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason 

Company), Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, December 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 14537, p.19]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 65 of 72

Corley J. P., D. H. Denham, R. E. Jaquish, D. E. Michels, A. R. Olsen, and D. A. Waite, 1981, A 

Guide for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at U.S. Department of Energy Installations, 

DOE/EP-0023, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., July.

Davis, C. E., 1967, Health Protection Survey Report, Pantex Plant, December 13-15, 1967. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 13310]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988, Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers, Order 

5480.11, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, Washington D.C., December 21. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 8073]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988, Radiological Control Manual, DOE N 5480.6, Office of 

Environment, Safety and Health, Washington D.C., June. [SRDB Ref ID. 13076] 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear 

Weapons Production Processes to Their Environmental Consequences, DOE/EM-0319, Office 

of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., January. [SRDB Ref ID: 11930]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001, Restricted Data Declassification Decisions 1946 to the 

Present, RDD-7, Office of Nuclear and National Security Information, Washington, D.C., 

January 1.

Drummond, J. C., 1971, untitled letter to H. C. Donnelly (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, January 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 

13311]

Ealy, J. A., 1990, “Pantex Plant Bioassay Samples,” letter to D. Griffis (Pantex Plant), Martin Marietta 

Energy Systems, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 14196]

ERDA (U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration), 1976, Environmental Assessment, 

Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, Washington D.C., June. [SRDB Ref ID: 13322]

Gidley, M.D., 1971, “Cloud Sampling Data – 62 Hydro Test,” interoffice memorandum to D. W. 

Hardwick, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May 4. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 13315]

Griffis, D. W., 1990, "File Holdings of Radiation Safety Department in Relation to Mr. [Privacy Act 

Information]," interoffice memorandum, Mason & Silas-Hanger Mason Company, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, Texas, July 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 11086]

HPS (Health Physic Society), 1983, Internal Dosimetry Programs for Tritium Exposure – Minimum 

Requirements, ANSI N13.14-1983, American National Standards Institute, New York, New 

York.

HPS (Health Physics Society), 1996, An American National Standard, Performance Criteria for 

Radiobioassay, ANSI N13.30-1996, American National Standards Institute, New York, New 

York.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1959, Report of Committee II on 

Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation, Publication 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 66 of 72

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1968, Report of Committee IV on 

Evaluation of Radiation Doses to Body Tissues from Internal Contamination Due to 

Occupational Exposure, Publication 10, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1975, Reference Man: Anatomical, 

Physiological and Metabolic Characteristics, Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1981, Limits for Inhalation of Radon 

Daughters by Workers, Publication 32, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1982, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides 

by Workers, Part 3, Publication 30, Part 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1989, Individual Monitoring for Intakes of 

Radionuclides by Workers: Design and Interpretation, Publication 54, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994, Human Respiratory Tract Model 

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. 

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

Radionuclides by Workers, Publication 68, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

Ikenberry, T. A., 1983, “Documentation of Tritium Dose Calculations,” interoffice memorandum to 

R. M. Adams, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 13346]

Johnson, J. R., and R. L. Hill, 1993, “Metabolisim and Dosimetry of Tritium,” Health Physics, volume 

65, number 6, pp. 628-647.

Johnson, R. C., 1973, “Hydro Firing 1972,” internal memorandum to R. Alexander, Mason & HangerSilas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 13945]

Johnson, R. C., 1974, “Hydro Test Shots 1973,” internal memorandum to R. Alexander, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 

14042]

Johnson, R. C., 1980, “Test Fire Shots FS-5,” internal memorandum to R. Alexander, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 

14043]

Johnson, R. C., 1981, “Test Site Statistics for 1980,” letter to J. Cassidy, Mason & Hanger-Silas 

Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 14047]

Johnson, R. C., 1982, “Hydro Test Fire FS-5, 1980,” internal memorandum to R. Alexander, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, June 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 13946]

Lang, C. M., 1990, “Medical Management Case of Mr. [Privacy Act Information] Following Tritium 

Incident May 17, 1989,” letter to B. L. Gage (U.S. Department of Energy), Mason & HangerSilas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, March 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 11090]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 67 of 72

Laseter, W. A., 1986, Environmental Monitoring Report for Pantex Plant Covering 1985, MHSMP-86-

18, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May 9. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 13089]

Martin, J. D., 2004, “Personal Communication with Herman Phillips,” memorandum to file, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, May 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 14542]

McFall, E. D., 1969, series of “Radon Film Badge Reports” addressed to Bill Crisman, Mason & 

Hanger-Silas Mason Company, and handwritten assignments of badge numbers to cells for 

various periods; Eberline Instrument Corporation, Santa Fe, New Mexico. [SRDB Ref ID: 

13457]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1962, Decontamination of Building 12-44-6 

Following Radiation Accident on November 6, 1961, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 

16. [SRDB Ref ID: 11088]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1978, soil, fecal, and urine sample results - 1978, 

Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 14194]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1979a, compilation including the clean-up 

procedure, notes, and memos generated concerning the contamination and clean-up of Igloo 

4-75, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 14296]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1979b, compilation including bioassay data of 

personnel involved in the clean-up of Igloo 4-75, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 14202]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1983, miscellaneous plutonium analysis 

procedures and results, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 14311]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1990, Pantex Plant Site Environmental Report for 

Calendar Year 1989, MHSMP-90-18, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May. [SRDB Ref ID: 

13440]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1991a, Analysis of Biological Samples for 

Uranium, Thorium and/or Plutonium, Pantex Plant Procedure IOP D5466, Issue No. 1, Pantex 

Plant, Amarillo, Texas, January 4. [SRDB Ref ID: 12319]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), 1997, 1996 Environmental Report for Pantex 

Plant, DOE/AL/65030-9704, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May. [SRDB Ref ID: 8621]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), ca. 1961, Air Sample Monitoring Log, Pantex 

Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 13944]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), ca. 1967, Air Sample Monitoring Log, Pantex 

Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 13944]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), no date a, miscellaneous uranium urinalysis 

reports, 1959–1999, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 14537]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 68 of 72

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company), no date b, miscellaneous plutonium analysis 

procedures and results, 1961–1994, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 14330]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, 1991b, Internal Dose Assessment, Pantex Plant 

Procedure IOP D5491, Issue No. 2, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, May 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 

12549]

MHSMC (Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, 1991c, Analysis of Biological Samples for 

Uranium, Thorium and/or Plutonium, IOP D5466, Issue No. 1, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, 

January 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 12319]

MMES (Martin Marietta Energy Systems), 1990a, uranium bioassay samples, 1990, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 14196]

MMES (Martin Marietta Energy Systems), 1990b, Internal Dosimetry Studies: Urinalysis, Pantex 

Plant, Amarillo, Texas. [SRDB Ref ID: 14531]

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1984a, Evaluation of 

Occupational and Environmental Exposures to Radon and Radon Daughters in the United 

States, Report 78, Bethesda, Maryland, May.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1984b, Exposures from the 

Uranium Series with Emphasis on Radon and Its Daughters, Report 77, Bethesda, Maryland.

NCRP (National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements), 1987, Exposure of the 

Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation, Report 94, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1996, Screening Models for 

Releases of Radionuclides to Air, Surface Water, and Ground Water, Report 123, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2004, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, 

OCAS-TIB-009, Rev. 0, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, April

13.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004b, Technical Information Bulletin – 

Assignment of Environmental Internal Doses for Employees Not Exposed to Airborne 

Radionuclides in the Workplace, ORAUT-OTIB-0014, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 

22.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for 

Internal Dose Assignment, ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 7.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006b, External Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTPROC-0006, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2007a, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTOTIB-0060, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 6.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 69 of 72

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2007b, Dose Reconstruction Considerations for 

Recycled Uranium Contaminants, ORAUT-OTIB-0053, Rev. 00-B, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

January 30.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Association Universities Team), 2003, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTPROC-0003, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 1.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Association Universities), 2006a, Pantex Plant – Site Description, ORAUT-TKBS0013-01, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 18.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Association Universities), 2004a, Technical Basis Document for the Pantex Plant 

– Occupational Environmental Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0013-04, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, August 24.

Peterson, S. R., and P. A. Davis, 2002, “Tritium Doses from Chronic Atmospheric Releases: A New 

Approach Proposed for Regulatory Compliance,” Health Physics, volume 82, number 2, pp. 

213–225.

Phillips, H., and D. Dufek, 1960, Possible Accidental Inhalation of U238 Dust – Machine Shop – Bldg. 

12-5, Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, February 12. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 14118, p. 2]

Reichert, M. M., 1994, “Pantex Plant Bioassay Uranium Samples Received 02-14-1994,” letter to N. 

Fairrow (Pantex Plant), Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 1. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 14537]

Strom, D. J., 1986, “Estimating Individual and Collective Doses to Groups with “Less than Detectable” 

Doses: A Method for Use in Epidemiologic Studies,” Health Physics, volume 51, number 4, 

pp. 437–445.

Traub, R. C., 2007, “Interview with Herman Phillips,“ memorandum to file, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, January 12.

UNC Geotech, 1990, Results of the U.S. Department of Energy Indoor Radon Study, Volume 1, 

DOE/ID/12584-75 Vol. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado, August. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 12287]

UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), 1993, Sources 

and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with 

Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York, New York.

West, C. M., 1965, Health Physics Considerations Associated with Thorium Processing, Y-KB-53, Y12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 11596]

Wick, O. J., 1967, Plutonium Handbook, A Guide to the Technology, Volume 1, Gordon and Breach, 

New York, New York.

Wilcox, R. A., 1984, “FS-4 Renovation,” interoffice memorandum to M. S. Johnson, Mason & HangerSilas Mason Company, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, June 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 13314, p. 3]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 70 of 72

Wilson, R. H., 1958, The Hanford Uranium Bioassay Program, General Electric Company, Hanford 

Laboratories, Richland, Washington. [SRDB Ref ID: 11557]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 71 of 72

GLOSSARY

aged

In the context of mixtures of plutonium isotopes, aging refers to the time since 241Am separated 

from the plutonium mixture and then grew back in from decay of 241Pu. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

Original agency established for nuclear weapons and power production; a predecessor to the 

U.S. Department of Energy.

dose of record

The dose files provided by DOE to NIOSH as part of the individual worker files. 

DU

Depleted uranium; uranium having less than the natural mass of 235U; used as components in 

nuclear weapons or as a surrogate for enriched uranium or plutonium in testing. 

Gertie

A facility covered with crushed gravel used to suppress potential radioactive contamination 

from the accidental explosion of a nuclear weapon during assembly or disassembly. Also 

referred to as a Gravel Gertie. 

equilibrium factor (F)

In relation to the potential alpha energy of radon and its progeny in air, the ratio of the 

equilibrium equivalent concentration (EEC) to the actual activity concentration of radon.

hydroshot

Detonation of a mixture of explosives and DU used as a quality control technique for 

measuring the performance of plastic-bonded explosives.

likely noncompensable, maximum internal dose approach

An efficiency method of assigning organ (or in some cases whole body) dose whereby the 

organ is assigned the maximum plausible dose that could have been received. If the resulting 

probability of causation is 45% or less at the 99% confidence level, the dose reconstruction is 

considered complete. Also called the overestimate approach. 

nuclear emulsion

Often referred to as “NTA” film and normally used to measure personnel dose from neutron 

radiation; in addition, Pantex apparently used NTA film at one time to measure alpha radiation 

from radon progeny in air.

potential alpha energy concentration (PAEC)

The kinetic energy potentially released in a unit volume of air by alpha particles emitted by the 

short-lived radioactive progeny of 222Rn (i.e., 218Po and 214Po) or 220Rn (i.e., 216Po, 212Bi, and 

212Po). PAEC is expressed in working levels (WL).

potential alpha energy exposure (PAEE) 

The average potential alpha energy concentration (PAEC) to which a worker is exposed, 

multiplied by the time of exposure in working months of 170 hours; that is, PAEE = PAEC × 

time. PAEE is expressed in working level months (WLM).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0013-5 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 72 of 72

Parameter 1

The column in the IREP template where the dose reconstructor will enter the calculated dose. 

Multiple entries based on year of employment, type of radiation, and appropriate energy 

ranges; internal and external exposures are possible.

Parameter 2

The column in the IREP template where the dose reconstructor will enter the lower limit of the 

dose distribution based on the radiation type and the dose distribution type.

progeny

Radionuclides that result from decay of a parent radionuclide.

radon

Unless otherwise specified, the isotope 222Rn.

thoron

The isotope 220Rn.

working level (WL)

The unit of potential alpha energy concentration (PAEC), defined as any combination of the 

short-lived radioactive progeny of radon or thoron in 1 liter of air without regard to the degree 

of equilibrium, that will result in the ultimate emission of 130,000 MeV of alpha energy (1 WL = 

2.083 × 10-5 J/m3

) (10 CFR Part 835).

working level month (WLM)

The unit of potential alpha energy exposure (PAEE), defined as exposure for 1 working month 

(of 170 hours) to an airborne concentration of 1 WL. (1 WLM = 1 WL × 170 hours = 0.00354 

J.h/m3

).