ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

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

Page 1 of 72

Document Title:

Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry 

Program at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee: Part 3 – Beta Radiation

Document Number: ORAUT-OTIB-0046

Revision: 00

Effective Date: 06/22/2007

Type of Document: OTIB

Supersedes: None

Subject Expert(s): George D. Kerr, Edward L. Frome, Janice P. Watkins, and William G. Tankersley

Site Expert(s): N/A

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 06/06/2007

William G. Tankersley, Document Owner

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 06/05/2007

John M. Byrne, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 06/05/2007

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 DOCUM ENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REV ISION.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 2 of 72

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

06/22/2007 00 New technical information bulletin that provides background 

information on the Y-12 external dosimetry program related to film 

badge monitoring of beta radiation. Incorporates formal internal and 

NIOSH review comments. Attributions and Annotations section 

added. Added references and made editorial changes. No further 

changes occurred as a result of formal internal and NIOSH review of 

the Attributions and Annotations section. There is no change to the 

assigned dose and no PER is required. Training required: As 

determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by George D. Kerr.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 3 of 72

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

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

PAGE

6

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................8

2.0 Purpose.................................................................................................................................8

3.0 Film Badge Dosimetry at the Y-12 Plant.................................................................................9

3.1 1947 to 1949...............................................................................................................12

3.2 1950 to 1951...............................................................................................................13

3.3 1952 to Mid-1956........................................................................................................14

3.4 Mid-1956 to 1961........................................................................................................15

3.5 1961 to 1979...............................................................................................................16

4.0 Major Sources for Exposures to Beta Particles at the Y-12 Plant...........................................16

4.1 Natural Uranium..........................................................................................................17

4.2 Depleted Uranium.......................................................................................................17

4.3 Enriched Uranium.......................................................................................................19

4.4 Thorium......................................................................................................................21

4.5 Uranium-233...............................................................................................................21

5.0 Film Badge Response to Different Sources of Beta Particles................................................21

6.0 Y-12 External Dose Database..............................................................................................26

6.1 Data Delivered to the ORAU Center for Epidemiologic Research .................................26

6.2 Subgroup Data for Regression Analysis of Beta Doses................................................26

7.0 Statistical Methods...............................................................................................................27

7.1 Maximum Likelihood Estimates for Quarterly Data.......................................................27

7.2 Regression Analysis and the Prediction Density...........................................................28

7.3 Nonparametric Analysis Using Modified Boxplots.........................................................29

8.0 Use of Film Badge Measurements to Evaluate Beta Doses Over Time..................................30

8.1 All Quarterly Beta Doses.............................................................................................30

8.2 Quarterly Beta Doses for Two Large Y-12 Departments...............................................33

8.3 Limitations of Doses for Dose Reconstruction..............................................................34

9.0 Estimates for Unmonitored Quarterly Beta Doses.................................................................38

9.1 Procedure Used Through Fourth Quarter of 1955 ........................................................38

9.2 Procedure Used After Fourth Quarter of 1955..............................................................40

9.3 Parameters for Lognormal Prediction Densities............................................................42

9.4 Scaling Procedure Based on Maximum Likelihood Method...........................................42

9.5 Application of the Scaling Procedure ...........................................................................44

9.6 Examples of Application of Regression Model and Scaling Procedure..........................45

10.0 Discussion...........................................................................................................................46

11.0 Attributions and Annotations ................................................................................................50
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 4 of 72

References.....................................................................................................................................52

Attachment A, Lognormal Quantile-Quantile Plots for Quarterly Beta Doses.....................................59

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

3-1 Skin dose rates for slabs of natural uranium used in film badge 

calibrations at the Y-12 Plant ...............................................................................................

PAGE

10

3-2 MDLs and assigned MDL doses for film badge dosimeters used to 

measure beta and gamma radiation exposures at the Y-12 Plant..........................................12

3-3 Historical monitoring techniques and routine exchange frequencies for 

external radiation dosimeters at the Y-12 Plant.....................................................................12

3-4 Historical radiation protection guidelines for the Y-12 Plant...................................................14

4-1 Chronology of metal processing and fabrication at the Y-12 Plant during 

the film badge dosimetry program, 1947 to 1979..................................................................17

4-2 Maximum energies and intensities of the beta particles from common 

radiation sources at the Y-12 Plant.......................................................................................19

4-3 Properties of nuclear explosive nuclides...............................................................................20

6-1 Job activities and duties for 182 long-term Y-12 workers selected for 

regression analysis of beta doses ........................................................................................27

6-2 Comparison of job activities and duties for long-term Y-12 workers 

selected for regression analysis of gamma and beta doses...................................................28

8-1 PLE summary statistics for Y-12 quarterly beta doses, 1952 to 1979 ....................................31

8-2 MLE summary statistics for Y-12 quarterly beta doses, 1956 to 1965....................................39

9-1 MLEs of regression parameters ...........................................................................................40

9-2 Parameters for lognormal prediction density, 1947 to 1965...................................................41

9-3 Calculation of scaling factor for Section 9.4 example ............................................................44
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 5 of 72

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

3-1 Range of beta particles in skin as calculated with the ESTAR computer 

program...............................................................................................................................

PAGE

11

4-1 Estimated dose rates from beta particles at the surface of a semi-infinite 

slab of uranium metal for various enrichments of 235U...........................................................18

5-1 Energy spectra of beta particles from the decay products of NU as 

calculated using the DEXRAX code from the ICRP38 computer program 

package ..............................................................................................................................23

5-2 Energy spectra of beta particles from the decay products of 1-yr thorium 

as calculated using the DEXRAX code from the ICRP38 computer 

program package.................................................................................................................24

5-3 Energy spectra of beta particles from the decay products of 233U as 

calculated using the DEXRAX code of the ICRP38 computer program 

package ..............................................................................................................................25

8-1 Modified boxplots of Y-12 quarterly beta doses using Kaplan-Meier 

product limit estimate...........................................................................................................33

8-2 Related summary statistics for Y-12 quarterly beta doses, 1952 to 1979...............................34

8-3 Modified boxplots of Department 2014 quarterly beta doses.................................................35

8-4 Related summary statistics for Department 2014 quarterly beta doses..................................36

8-5 Modified boxplots of Department 2703 quarterly beta doses.................................................37

8-6 Related summary statistics for Department 2703 quarterly beta doses..................................38

9-1 Quarterly doses for a subgroup of 182 workers used for regression 

analysis...............................................................................................................................43

9-2 Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta 

doses for a worker with very early doses and a wide dose range ..........................................46

9-3 Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta 

doses for a worker with many early doses............................................................................47

9-4 Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta 

doses for a worker with low doses after 1961 .......................................................................48

9-4 Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta 

doses for a worker with low doses after 1961 .......................................................................49

A-1 Q-Q plots for 1952...............................................................................................................59

A-2 Q-Q plots for 1953...............................................................................................................60

A-3 Q-Q plots for 1954...............................................................................................................61

A-4 Q-Q plots for 1955...............................................................................................................62

A-5 Q-Q plots for 1956...............................................................................................................63

A-6 Q-Q plots for 1957...............................................................................................................64

A-7 Q-Q plots for 1958...............................................................................................................65

A-8 Q-Q plots for 1959...............................................................................................................66

A-9 Q-Q plots for 1960...............................................................................................................67

A-10 Q-Q plots for 1961...............................................................................................................68

A-11 Q-Q plots for 1962...............................................................................................................69

A-12 Q-Q plots for 1963...............................................................................................................70

A-13 Q-Q plots for 1964...............................................................................................................71

A-14 Q-Q plots for 1965...............................................................................................................72
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 6 of 72

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

BOW beta open window

cm centimeter

CER Center for Epidemiologic Research

COC Cincinnati Operations Center

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DU depleted uranium

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

EU enriched uranium

ev electron volt (a unit of energy)

gal gallon

GOW gamma open window

GCW gamma cadmium window

GM geometrical mean

GSD geometrical standard deviation

ICRP38 Publication 38 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection

hr hour

HEU highly enriched uranium

HP Health Physics

ID identification

in. inch

K-M Kaplan-Meier

keV kilo electron volts (1 thousand electron volts)

kg kilogram

lb pound

m meter

MDL minimum detectable limit

MeV mega electron volts (1 million electron volts)

ML maximum likelihood

MLE maximum likelihood estimate

mg milligram 

mm millimeter 

mR milliroentgen (a physical dose unit approximately equal to 1 mrad)

mrad millirad (a physical dose unit equal to 1/1000 of a rad)

mrem millirem (a biological dose units equal to 1/1000 of a rem)

mrep millirep (a physical dose unit approximately equal to 1 mrad)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 7 of 72

n neutron

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NU natural uranium

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PIC pocket ionization chamber

PLE product limit estimate

ppm parts per million

q-q quantile-quantile

qtr calendar quarter (13 weeks) 

rem roentgen equivalent man (a biological dose unit)

RPG radiation protection guideline

RU recycled uranium

SRS Savannah River Site

SSN Social Security Number

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

TIB technical information bulletin

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

UCCND Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division

U.S.C. United State Code

wk week

yr year

Y-12 Y-12 Plant, now the Y-12 National Security Complex

Z atomic number

β beta particle

γ gamma ray

μg microgram

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 8 of 72

1.0

Technical information bulletins (TIBs) are not official determinations made by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working documents that provide 

historical background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of dose reconstructions at 

particular sites or categories of sites. TIBs will be revised in the event additional relevant information 

is obtained. TIBs may be used to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of individual dose 

reconstructions.

INTRODUCTION

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 of 2000 [EEOICPA; 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)].

2.0

The purpose of this series of reports is to present definitive documentation about the development of 

the Y-12 film badge program from its beginning half a century ago to 1979, the end of the film badge 

period (McLendon et al. 1980; West 1993a). Parts 1 and 2 of this series discuss the use of film 

badges to monitor external exposures to gamma and neutron radiation at the Y-12 Plant (ORAUT 

2005a,b). This report, Part 3, provides background information on the Y-12 external dosimetry 

program related to film badge monitoring of beta radiation. The principal source of beta radiation at 

the Y-12 Plant has been depleted uranium (DU) metals (Henderson 1991; Ashley et al. 1995). 

PURPOSE

A summary of the maximum likelihood (ML) methods used to estimate parameters for randomly leftcensored lognormal data is provided in this report (Frome and Watkins, 2004). These parameters can 

be used to determine quarterly lognormal prediction densities for beta-particle dose to Y-12 worker 

populations. Tables of geometric means (GMs) and geometric standard deviations (GSDs) defining 

the prediction densities are supplied for 1947 to 1979 and can be used for sampling individual worker 

doses (ORAUT 2004a).

Graphical methods were used to evaluate the lognormal assumption for the quarterly dose data. 

Modified boxplots and quantile-quantile (q-q) plots with accompanying summary statistics supplied 

detailed information on quarterly doses and supported lognormal distributions for quarters after 1956. 

Quarterly data before 1956 were not found to fit a lognormal or other statistical distribution, and details 

of the monitoring policies and recording practices for this period confirmed that these data might not 

be suitable for use in estimating missing quarterly doses.

As an alternative, parameters for quarterly lognormal prediction densities before 1956 were obtained 

from ML regression based on data from a subgroup of 182 workers who were monitored regularly 

before and after 1961 and who worked in departments with potential for exposure to beta radiation. 

Although all employees were to be monitored with film badges from 1961 to 1979, before 1961 only 

workers with greater exposure potential were monitored (Watkins et al. 1993). As a consequence, it 

is to be expected that estimated doses based on the regression analysis of the subgroup data are 

favorable to claimants.

All statistical analyses were carried out using the R system (RDCT 2004). The R system is an 

integrated suite of free software for data manipulation, calculation, and graphical display. It can be 

run on a variety of UNIX® platforms and similar systems (including Linux and FreeBSD), Windows®, 

and Mac OS®. A detailed documentation on all aspects of the R system is available on the R Web 

page (http://www.r-project.org). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 9 of 72

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

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 11.0.

3.0

The first film badge dosimeter used at Y-12 was the same U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

film badge used at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 1949 (West 1993a) and described 

by Thornton, Davis, and Gupton (1961). This film badge was an AEC Catalog Number PF-1B film 

badge manufactured by the A. M. Samples Machine Company in Knoxville, Tennessee (Patterson, 

West, and McLendon 1957; West 1993b). The radiation-sensitive film in the PF-1B badge was 

enclosed in a protective stainless-steel case with a clip for attachment to clothing or a lanyard. One 

portion of the film was covered by a cadmium filter with a thickness of 1 mm to determine the dose 

from hard X-rays and gamma rays with energies from 100 keV to 3 MeV. The remaining uncovered 

portion of the film (open window) was used to determine the dose from beta particles or soft X-rays 

with energies less than 100 keV (Handloser 1959; Morgan 1961). 

FILM BADGE DOSIMETRY AT THE Y-12 PLANT

The above film badge was used until 1961, when a newer film badge dosimeter was adopted for use 

at all AEC facilities operated by Union Carbide Corporation Nuclear Division (UCCND) (Thornton, 

Davis, and Gupton 1961; McLendon 1963; McRee, West, and McLendon 1965). This film badge 

served as a security badge and provided monitoring of both routine and accident-related radiation 

exposures. As in the earlier PF-1B film dosimeter, a cadmium filter with a thickness of approximately 

1 mm or mass density of 1,000 mg/cm2 was included to measure the penetrating whole-body dose 

from hard X-rays and gamma rays. In addition, the film badges had an open window to measure 

beta radiation and to distinguish film exposures due to beta particles and soft X-rays. Plastic and 

aluminum filters were also incorporated into the UCCND film badge. The areas behind the plastic and 

aluminum filters were read, but these results were not used routinely in the evaluation of a worker’s 

exposure to beta particles, X-rays, and gamma radiation at the Y-12 Plant (Sherrill and Tucker 1973).

In order to interpret a worker’s dose from beta and gamma radiation by means of film badge 

dosimetry, it was necessary that the film be calibrated (Sherrill and Tucker 1973). The calibrations 

were done by exposing separate sets of film badges to known doses from high-energy beta particles 

and gamma rays. The film dosimeters were calibrated for beta radiation by placing them face down 

on a slab of natural uranium (NU) and for gamma radiation by exposing them to gamma rays from 

either a radium or 60Co source (Souleyrette 2003). The calibration films were then developed and 

read to determine the response of the unshielded film to beta radiation, denoted as beta open window 

(BOW); the response of the film to gamma radiation, denoted as gamma open window (GOW); and 

the response of the film to gamma radiation through the cadmium filter, denoted as gamma cadmium 

window (GCW) (Sherrill and Tucker 1973). 

After a worker’s badge film was developed and read, the worker’s exposure to gamma radiation was 

determined from the GCW (Sherrill and Tucker 1973). The GCW was used because any beta 

radiation would have been absorbed in the cadmium metal shield. The unshielded open-window area 

in the film dosimeter darkened when exposed to either beta or gamma radiation; therefore, it was 

necessary to compensate for the gamma-ray effect on the GOW before using it to estimate the 

exposure to beta radiation (BOW). To do this, the gamma exposure as determined from the film 

behind the GCW was used to estimate the reading that such an amount of gamma exposure would 

have produced in the film behind the GOW. This GOW value was then subtracted from the worker’s 

total beta plus gamma exposure to determine the beta exposure from behind the BOW (Sherrill and 

Tucker 1973). At certain uranium facilities, film badge dosimeters were sometimes calibrated when 

covered with plastic bags that were used to prevent contamination of the film badges during use in 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 10 of 72

dusty areas of the facilities. Film badges were never covered with plastic bags during use or 

calibration at the Y-12 Plant (Rutherford 2005). 

Table 3-1 summarizes the various beta dose rates to skin from NU slabs that were used in film badge 

calibrations at the Y-12 Plant. These dose rates represent dose rates to the basal layer of skin (see, 

for example, NBS 1954; ICRP 1984, 2002). The basal layer of the skin on most body surfaces is at a 

range of depths between 5 and 10 mg/cm2 with a mean range of approximately 7 mg/cm2

. The 

currently accepted value for the beta dose rate from an NU slab after passing through a tissueequivalent plastic filter of 7 mg/cm2 is approximately 233 mrad/hr (see, for example, IAEA 1974; 

Coleman, Hudson, and Plato 1983; DOE 2004). The radiation dose at a tissue depth of 7 mg/cm2 is 

now referred to as the shallow radiation dose, rather than skin dose. Beta particles with energies less 

than approximately 60 keV are not able to penetrate to the basal layer at a skin depth of 7 mg/cm2 

(Figure 3-1). The radiations that contribute most significantly to the shallow (or skin) dose are beta 

particles with energies from approximately 60 keV to 4 MeV and photons with energies less than 

approximately 15 keV (ORAUT 2005c).

Table 3-1. Skin dose rates for slabs of natural uranium 

used in film badge calibrations at the Y-12 Plant. 

Reference Surface dose rate

Murray (1948a)a 270 mR/hr

Struxness (1951a)a 240 mrep/hr

McLendon (1963) 240 mrad/hr

McRee, West, and McLendon (1965) 240 mrad/hr

Jones (1971) 240 mrad/hr

a. These references note that the dose rate from gamma rays at 

surface of the NU calibration source w as approximately 5 mR/hr.

A radium source enclosed in 0.5 mm of platinum was used initially for the calibration gamma-ray 

source (Struxness 1951a) and a 60Co source was used starting in the early 1960s (UCNC 1963a). 

The film badges were exposed in air (no phantom), and the gamma radiation dose to the film badge 

was determined by the use of a Victoreen R-chamber that was exposed at the same distance from the 

gamma-ray source as the film badges (Struxness 1951a; McRee et al. 1965). The film badge 

dosimeters used at the Y-12 Plant typically exhibited about the same sensitivity to gamma and beta 

radiations; i.e., a 1-rem dose of beta particles yielded about the same response in the film as a 1-rem 

dose of gamma rays (Thornton, Davis, and Gupton 1961; Auxier 1967). Thus, the minimum 

detectable limits (MDLs) of the film badge dosimeters were assumed to be approximately the same 

for beta particles and gamma rays (Table 3-2). In 1949, neutron-sensitive films were added to the film 

badges for neutron dosimetry purposes (Struxness 1949a; ORAUT 2005b). The MDL of the neutronsensitive films is estimated to be about 50 mrem for all years of use at the Y-12 Plant (ORAUT 

2005b). There were only a few locations at the Y-12 Plant where neutron exposures were routinely 

possible; in these cases, personnel monitoring was provided by the neutron-sensitive film dosimeters 

(Emlet 1956).

The quarterly shallow (or skin) dose can be calculated from the recorded film badge doses using the 

equation:

D(skin) = D(β) + D(γ ) + D(n) (3-1)

where D(β) is the recorded dose from beta particles, D(γ) is the recorded dose from gamma rays, and 

D(n) is the dose from neutrons. The various component doses provided by Y-12 to CER for use in 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 11 of 72

Figure 3-1. Range of beta particles in skin as calculated with the 

ESTAR computer program (Berger et al. 2005). These data can 

also be applied to other low Z materials used in photographic film 

packets and security credentials of film badge dosimeters. 

previous epidemiology studies (Watkins et al. 1993) and to NIOSH in response to EEOICPA requests 

are either the recorded quarterly dose measurements after 1961 or those obtained by Y-12 as 

quarterly sums based on recorded monthly, biweekly, or weekly doses prior to 1961 (see Table 3-3). 

The quarterly deep (or penetrating whole-body) dose can be calculated using the equation:

D(penetrating) = D(γ ) + D(n) (3-2)

where D(γ) and D(n) are defined as in Equation 3-1. A comparison of Equations 3-1 and 3-2 shows 

that the quarterly recorded skin (or shallow) dose for a Y-12 worker should always be equal to or 

greater than that worker’s quarterly recorded penetrating (or deep) dose. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 12 of 72

Table 3-2. MDLs and assigned MDL doses (mrem) for film 

badge dosimeters used to measure beta and gamma 

radiation exposures at the Y-12 Plant.a

Periodb MDL Assigned MDL

May 1948 to December 1949 30 30

January 1950 to December 1951 30 0

January 1952 to September 1952 50 50

October 1952 to December 1952 43 43

January 1953 to June 1954 50 50

July 1954 to December 1954 30 30

January 1955 to December 1957 30 15

January 1958 to October 1979 30 Not Applicable

a. ORA UT (2005d) and West (1993a)

b. Dates are approximate because the changes did not occur for all 

employees at the same time.

Table 3-3. Historical monitoring techniques and routine exchange frequencies for 

external radiation dosimeters at the Y-12 Plant.a

Period

Monitoring 

technique

Routine exchange 

frequency Comments

1948–1949 Film badges, film 

pads, rubber finger 

rings, and PICs 

Film pads, film rings 

and PICs daily, film 

badges weekly

Film pads and finger rings were 

used to measured beta doses 

to hands of uranium metal 

workers 

1950–1958 Film badges, plastic 

finger rings

Weekly Neutron-sensitive films were 

exchanged biweekly

1958–1960 Film badges Monthly

1961–1979 Film badges Quarterly Nearly all workers monitored

1980–1995 TLDs Some quarterly, some 

annually, a very limited 

group on a monthly 

basis

Quarterly exchange if expected 

to receive more than 500 mrem; 

annual exchange if expected to 

receive less than 500 mrem

1996–present TLDs Mostly quarterly, some 

monthly

Workers monitored only if 

entering radiological areas. 

a. ORA UT (2005d), Souleyrette (2003); West (1993a); McLendon (1962, 1958); Reavis (1958); Wollan 

(1954); Struxness (1951a).

Although early film badge dosimeters were relatively accurate for measuring beta dose, they were 

known to have over-responded significantly to low-energy photons (ORAUT 2005c, 2006a). The 

disparity between the responses of film behind the open window for low-energy photons and beta 

particles was well understood, as was the difference in response between low- and high-energy 

photons. The decision by the Y-12 Health Physics (HP) staff to evaluate the open-window readings 

using a calibration curve derived from NU simply took advantage of the conservatism associated with 

evaluating the soft X-ray response behind the open window using the NU calibration curve (ORAU

2005a, 2006a). In the rare case in which a worker was involved in an incident while engaged in 

radiological or nondestructive testing with an X-ray machine, the type of machine and its operating 

voltage were known; thus, the Y-12 HP staff was prepared to calibrate film using an appropriate 

energy spectrum of X-rays and to evaluate any unusual X-ray exposure incident (Patterson 1958).

3.1 1947 TO 1949

Management of the Y-12 Plant was assumed by UCCND in May 1947, and the mission changed from 

the electromagnetic enrichment of uranium to the processing and fabrication of uranium and other 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 13 of 72

nuclear materials (ORAUT 2005a). The first experience related to the machining of uranium metal at 

the Y-12 Plant was in December 1947 in a shop in Building 9766 (Emlet 1952). In the spring of 1948, 

steps were taken for the transfer of certain weapons fabrication functions from Los Alamos to the Y-12 

Plant, which were to be established in Building 9212 where the chemical processing of uranium had 

long been occurring. At that time, the responsibility for the study and monitoring of the uranium 

machining operations was transferred from a Special Hazards Group to a Health Physics (HP)

Department established under the Medical Division at the Y-12 Plant (Emlet 1952). 

The HP Department started an external dosimetry program in 1948 to monitor exposures to Y-12 

workers in the Assay Laboratories, Radiographic Shop, Spectrographic Shop, and Machine Shops 

where uranium metals were handled (Murray 1948a,b; Struxness 1948a,b, 1949b). The radiation 

doses to the hands were measured using finger film pads (Larson 1949) or rubber finger rings 

containing film (Struxness 1949a) that were exchanged on a daily basis. The radiation doses to the 

whole body were measured using both Victoreen pocket ionization chambers (PICs) exchanged on a 

daily basis and PF-1B film badge dosimeters exchanged on a weekly basis (Souleyrette 2003; 

ORAUT 2006b). The MDLs for these dose measurements during the period from 1948 to 1949 were 

approximately 5 mrem for the PICs and approximately 30 mrem for the film in the finger pads, rubber 

finger rings, and badge dosimeters (Table 3-2). 

The external monitoring data for 1948 to 1949 are not readily available by Social Security Number 

(SSN) and are not being supplied by Y-12 in response to EEOICPA requests (Souleyrette 2003). A 

report has been published of external monitoring data for the period from 1948 to 1949 that are 

available from previous epidemiological studies by the Center for Epidemiologic Research (CER) at 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) (ORAUT 2005d). The CER data have now been placed 

on the O Drive of the secure data server at the ORAU Cincinnati Operations Center (COC) for use in 

the dose reconstructions for workers at the Y-12 facility. The data on the O Drive have been linked to 

each worker’s badge identification (ID) and SSN for dose reconstruction purposes (ORAUT 2005d).

3.2 1950 TO 1951

An extensive documentation of the worker radiological protection programs beginning in the 1950s is 

provided in the Recycled Uranium Mass Balance Project for the Y-12 National Security Complex Site 

Report (BWXT Y-12 2000). The external dosimetry program in place in 1950 was expanded to 

include all Y-12 personnel working with (1) depleted uranium (DU) metal, (2) discrete sources of 

gamma rays or beta particles, (3) X-rays, and (4) materials contaminated with fission products 

(McLendon 1960). The film pads and rubber film rings were both replaced with plastic film rings to 

assess the beta dose to the hands of DU metal workers (Struxness 1951b, 1952; Ballenger et al.

1953). The film badge and plastic film ring dosimeters were normally exchanged on a weekly basis 

(Table 3-3).

It was the policy at Y-12 in the 1950s to monitor all workers whose potential radiation exposure might 

exceed 10% of the radiation protection guidelines (RPGs) in effect at that time (Table 3-4). The RPG 

for the shallow or skin dose in 1950 and 1951 was 0.3 rem/wk (or 3.9 rem/qtr), and the 10% value for 

this RPG was 30 mrem/wk (or 390 mrem/qtr). Other workers at Y-12 were monitored because they 

had the potential to exceed the 10% value of the RPGs for the deep or penetrating whole-body dose 

from gamma and neutron radiation (ORAUT 2005a,b). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 14 of 72

Table 3-4. Historical radiation protection guidelines (rem) for the Y-12 Plant.

a

Period

Exposure 

period

Dose to lens 

of the eye 

Dose to 

extremitiesb

Shallow or 

skin dose 

Deep or penetrating 

whole-body dose TEDEc

1944–1948 Day 0.1 0.1

1949–1950 Week 0.3 0.3

1951–1954 Week 1.5 0.3 0.3

1955–1957 Week 0.3 0.6d 0.3

1958 Week 0.3 1.5 0.6e 0.3f

1959–1960 Quarter 1.2 25 6e 3f

Year 75

1961–03/29/1977 Quarter 25 10 3f

Year 5 75 30

03/30/1977–1988 Quarter 25 5 3

Year 15 75 15 5

1988–11/30/1992 Year 15 50 50 5

12/01/1992–Pres. Year 15 50 50 5g

a. Wiley (2004).

b. The extremities are defined typically as the hands and arms below the elbow and the feet and legs below the knee.

c. DOE has used the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to limit the sum of the internal and external w hole-body 

(effective) doses since 1989.

d. The actual date of change from 0.3 rem/w k to 0.6 rem/w k for the skin dose w as the 10th w eek of 1955 or March 1955 

(West 1955, 1956). 

e. Accumulated dose not to exceed 10(N-18) rem, w here N is the age in years.

f. Accumulated dose not to exceed 5(N-18) rem, w here N is the age in years.

g. Accumulated dose not to exceed N rem, w here N is the age in years.

Dosimetry practice was to record weekly open-window dose to the basal layer of the skin from beta 

particles or the penetrating doses from gamma rays behind the cadmium filter as zero if they were 

less than 30 mrem (Table 3-2). There are inconsistencies in the recorded dose records that appear to 

be due to changes in the way doses were originally recorded before being computerized or to typing 

mistakes in the transfer of the recorded doses to a computer system using keypunch cards. For 

example, there was only one positive gamma dose of 65 mrem among the 268 quarterly doses for the 

148 workers monitored in 1950, no positive quarterly beta doses for the 148 workers monitored in 

1950 or the 184 workers monitored in 1951, and no positive gamma doses among the 406 quarterly 

doses for the 184 workers monitored in 1951. The recorded gamma dose of 65 mrem could be a 

punch card mistake because there is no recorded penetrating dose for this worker. There are, 

however, 58 quarterly skin doses recorded for 45 workers in 1950 and 56 quarterly skin doses 

recorded for 48 workers in 1951 that range from a low of 36 mrem to a high of 1,800 mrem. Thus, it 

appears that the original intent was to computerize only the skin and penetrating doses and not the 

beta or gamma doses for the period from 1950 to 1951 [1].

3.3 1952 TO MID-1956

The documented dosimetry policy at the Y-12 Plant during this period was to assign the MDL dose for 

weeks with results less than the MDL for either beta or gamma radiation (Table 3-3). The MDL was 

estimated to be 50 mrem during weeks 1 to 38 of 1952, 43 mrem during weeks 39 to 52 of 1952, and 

50 mrem during all of 1953 and weeks 1 to 30 of 1954 (ORAUT 2006a,b; West 1993). For the 

remainder of 1954, all of 1955, and the first half of 1956, the MDL was 30 mrem (ORAUT 2006a,b; 

West 1993). The assigned MDL dose was recorded as due to either beta or gamma radiation 

according to a worker’s potential type of exposure as judged by the HP staff (West 1981); that is, the 

MDL was assigned to gamma rays and to penetrating radiation for persons having potential for that 

kind of exposure. For persons working with NU or DU, which has mainly a shallow (or beta particle) 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 15 of 72

exposure potential, the MDL was assigned to skin dose. In practice, however, weekly doses less than 

the MDL were often left blank in the computer records for the Y-12 film badge program.

In 1981, a discrepancy was noted in the penetrating radiation doses recorded for Y-12 workers in 

1954 (Beck 1981; West 1981). The average yearly value for a Y-12 worker in 1954 was only about 

10 mrem, whereas it was several hundred mrem for 1952, 1953, and 1955. A review of the 1952–

1955 data by the Y-12 Plant staff indicated that many workers assigned to departments having a 

penetrating dose potential showed elevated shallow (or skin) doses in 1954 (West 1981). However, 

these same workers showed elevated penetrating radiation dose and low shallow (or skin) dose in 

1953 and 1955. For a total of 61 workers, it was decided to exchange the penetrating and shallow (or 

skin) doses in the computer records for the Y-12 film badge program in 1954. A list of personnel (and 

SSNs) for whom 1954 penetrating and skin dose records were reversed is given in Attachment 2 of 

West (1981). The 1981 memorandum by West and the 1981 memorandum by Beck are available on 

the secure data server at the ORAU-COC.

For the period from 1952 to mid-1956, the differences between the various doses summed to obtain

the skin and penetrating doses (see Equations 3-1 and 3-2) now appear to be random, with some 

being greater and others being smaller than the skin or penetrating doses. In general, comparisons 

between the skin and penetrating doses and the sums of the beta, gamma, and neutron doses used 

to obtain these doses are highly consistent during the film badge program at the Y-12 Plant for 1952 

to 1979.

3.4 MID-1956 TO 1961

The radiation dosimetry policy to monitor only selected workers (approximately 10-20%) of the 

workforce was continued (Watkins et al. 1993; ORAUT 2005a). Line supervision at the Y-12 Plant, 

with the assistance of the HP Department, decided which groups and which persons in a group would 

be assigned to the film badge monitoring program and kept the list of assigned workers up to date 

(Patterson, West, and McLendon 1957; West 1993b). The workers typically selected for the program 

were those whose potential radiation exposure might exceed 10% of the RPGs in effect at that time. 

For example, the 10% value of the RPG for the skin dose was 60 mrem/wk (or 780 mrem/qtr) from 

1956 through 1958 and 600 mrem/qtr from 1959 through 1960 (Table 3-4). The line supervisor 

initiated requests for the HP Department to either add or remove workers from the film badge 

program. The HP staff then forwarded the request to the monitoring laboratory, with all necessary 

data on a formal request card, and the monitoring laboratory prepared two badges for workers added 

to the external monitoring program, one with a black face and one with a white face, to be worn during 

alternate badge exchange periods (Table 3-3). Monthly doses for a film badge dosimeter that read 

less than the MDL were recorded as 15 mrem, half of the MDL (Table 3-2), and entered as beta 

radiation doses. 

In April 1958, the external monitoring of 704 workers was reviewed during the switch from a weekly to 

a monthly badge exchange frequency (McLendon 1958; Reavis 1958). Some of the factors 

considered in the review were (1) type of exposure expected, (2) exposure potential involved, 

(3) typical experience over the last year in relation to average and high exposures, (4) expected 

changes in this typical experience in the near future, and (5) statistical limit of errors and detectability. 

As a result, it was decided to make a number of changes in the external monitoring program. The 

reasons for and the nature of the changes were discussed with, and agreed on, by supervision in all 

the departments (McLendon 1958). Of the 704 workers involved in the review, 89 were dropped from 

the external monitoring program and 615 were selected to remain in the program. The workers 

remaining in the monitoring program were distributed among departments as follows (department 

number in parenthesis): 207 in the A Wing, H2 & F Area (2703), 58 in Z Area (2701), 53 in Product 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 16 of 72

Control (2665), 45 in Production and Inspection (2233), 38 in H-1 Foundry (2702), 34 in Product 

Processing (2617), 31 in the 9215 Rolling Area (2793), 25 in the Fire Department (2093), 24 in 

Uranium Chip Recovery (2618), 23 in Mechanical Inspection (2044), and 77 in 10 other departments 

such as Electrical Maintenance (2004), Medical Department (2090), Guard Department (2091), Health 

Physics (2108), Plant Superintendent and Directors (2200), Shift Superintendents (2205), Special 

Testing (2231), Development Operations (2301), Product Chemical (2616), and Chemical (2619). 

The review appears to have included only workers who were being monitored for exposures to beta 

and gamma radiation and did not include workers who were being monitored for exposures to neutron 

radiation on a biweekly film badge exchange frequency (ORAUT 2005b).

On June 16, 1958, an unexpected nuclear excursion occurred in the C Wing of Building 9212 at the 

Y-12 Plant (UCNC 1958). An enriched uranium (EU) nitrate solution, sufficient to become critical, was 

drained from a bank of “always safe geometry” cylinders with small diameters into a 55-gal drum 

during an operation in which only water was expected to be in the cylinders. Eight workers, who were 

not expected to be exposed to radiation during this operation and were not wearing film badge 

dosimeters, received penetrating doses from gamma rays and neutrons ranging from about 23 to 

365 rem (Hurst, Ritchie, and Emerson 1959). These eight workers were identified by neutron 

activation of an indium strip in their ID badges and of sodium in their blood. Their radiation doses 

were estimated using each worker’s blood sodium activation data and other data obtained from a 

controlled physical mockup of the accident (Callihan and Thomas 1959). More information on these 

eight workers and 23 other workers who were in the area of the nuclear excursion but exposed to 

much smaller radiation doses based on neutron activation of the indium foil in their ID badges is

available on the O Drive of the secure data server at the ORAU-COC (ORAUT 2006c).

3.5 1961 TO 1979

As a result of the 1958 criticality accident at the Y-12 Plant, a program was instituted in 1961 to 

monitor all Y-12 workers for external radiation exposure with the use of a newer dosimeter system 

that was an integral part of the worker’s ID badge and contained components for both routine and 

accident-related dosimetry (Thornton, Davis, and Gupton 1961; McLendon 1963; McRee, West, and 

McLendon 1965; ORAUT 2006b). The film badges were read quarterly (Table 3-3) and the readings 

were recorded as determined, even when the readings were less than the MDL and so essentially not 

different from zero. The external doses to Y-12 workers were always determined from the film 

readings behind the cadmium filters and open windows of the film badges (Sherrill and Tucker 1973). 

The film areas behind the plastic and aluminum filters in the newer film badge dosimeters were read 

and recorded, but they were not used in the normal evaluation of worker doses. The film badge 

period ended in 1979 as film badge dosimeters at the Y-12 Plant were largely replaced by 

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) (McLendon et al. 1980; Howell and Batte 1982; Oxley 2001).

4.0

A chronology of metal processing and fabrication at the Y-12 Plant during the film badge dosimetry 

program is provided in Table 4-1 (Wilcox 2001). The main function of the Y-12 Plant in the late 1940s 

and 1950s was the processing and fabrication of uranium components for nuclear weapons. Since 

then, the Y-12 Plant has become the center for handling, processing, manufacture, and storage of 

uranium materials and nuclear weapons components (BWXT Y-12 2000). 

MAJOR SOURCES FOR EXPOSURES TO BETA PARTICLES AT THE Y-12 PLANT

Material processing at the Y-12 Plant has included the recovery of both EU and recycled uranium 

(RU) from the Y-12 site and other sites operated by DOE (BWXT Y-12 2000). Material processing 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 17 of 72

Table 4-1. Chronology of metal processing and fabrication at the Y-12 Plant during the film badge 

dosimetry program, 1947 to 1979.

a

Year Event

1947 Y-12 undertakes task of reducing K-25 EU to metal and fabrication.

1948 Machining of NU and EU on a small scale is initiated early in the year.

1949 The first HEU weapon parts are manufactured at Y-12 and shipped to Los Alamos National 

Laboratory. 

The first DU machining is started in Building 9766.

1953 Expanded facilities for uranium casting and machining are put into production in the E Wing of 

Building 9212.

1957 Installation is completed of a primary rolling mill in Building 9215 and larger pressing facilities for 

fabricating uranium are installed in Building 9204-4.

Production of HEU weapon parts starts in Building 9998. 

1958 Installation is completed of a heavy shop for uranium fabrication in 9204-4. The shop included a 

press with a rated capacity of 7,500 tons.

A 66-in.-wide rolling mill for work on DU parts and an a 42-in.-wide rolling mill for work on EU parts 

are installed in Building 9215 

1959 Fabrication of parts from thorium is started at Y-12.

1963 Facilities and expertise are developed to process uranium, thorium, and other materials in enclosed 

and/or closely controlled atmospheres. Production operations include rolling, forging, machining, and 

dimensional inspection.

1968 Efforts are begun to procure much larger and more accurate turning machines for producing weapon 

parts. The turning machines were installed in Building 9201-5 in 1971 and 1972.

a. See Wilcox (2001).

and fabrication at Y-12 has included NU, DU, thorium, and 233U. The areas at Y-12 involved in 

processing these different materials are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

4.1 NATURAL URANIUM

When uranium is separated from its ore, the resulting mixture is referred to as natural uranium. NU 

consists of about 0.72% by weight of 235U with the remainder being almost entirely 238U. In March 

1948, the first NU was machined at Y-12 for use in the shielding of gamma rays from radium sources 

(Wilcox 2001). In general, the same buildings and facilities were used for the processing and 

fabrication of both NU and DU metals. The majority of the DU operations at the Y-12 Plant were 

housed in Buildings 9201-5, 9204-4, 9206, 9215, 9766, and 9998 (Henderson 1991; Ashley et al. 

1995; BWXT Y-12 2000; Wilcox 2001; ORAUT 2005e).

4.2 DEPLETED URANIUM

Uranium with some of its 235U extracted is known as depleted uranium. DU metal is responsible for 

the majority of the shallow doses to workers at the Y-12 facility (Henderson 1991; Ashley et al. 1995). 

Historically, the workers who have received the highest doses from beta radiation have been those in 

the H-1 Foundry (Building 9998), the Arc-Melt Facility and Machine Shops in Building 9201-5, the 

Forming Area in Building 9204-4, and the Product Certification Groups (Ultrasonic Testing, 

Mechanical Properties, Dimensional Inspection, and Radiography).

Gamma radiation from uranium is normally not the controlling challenge to radiation protection in 

uranium facilities (DOE 2004). For example, the contact gamma radiation field is less than 

10 mrem/hr, while the contact beta radiation field from NU or DU is approximately 240 mrem/hr

(Table 3-4). The dominant radiation hazard in facilities requiring contact work with unshielded forms 

of uranium metal is the beta radiation field. Figure 4-1 shows the estimated beta dose rates from a 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 18 of 72

Figure 4-1. Estimated dose rates from beta particles at the surface of a semi-infinite slab of uranium 

metal for various enrichments of 235U (DOE 2004). 

semi-infinite slab of uranium metal of various enrichments (DOE 2004). For uranium enrichments up 

to about 30%, the beta radiation field is dominated by contributions from 238U decay products, and the 

beta radiation comes from the decay product 234mPa and to a lesser extent from 234Th (Table 4-2). 

Thus, for uranium of these enrichments, one is dealing essentially with the 2.29-MeV (Emax) beta 

particles from 234mPa, the most energetic contributor to the beta exposure (DOE 2004). The betaparticle dose contribution for uranium enrichments above 30% is considerably less due to the much 

lower energies of the beta particles emitted by the 231Th decay product of 235U (Table 4-2).

Processes that separate and sometimes concentrate uranium decay products such as 234mPa and 

234Th are not uncommon in DOE uranium facilities (Struxness 1954a,b; Henderson 1991; DOE 2004). 

Surface dose rates from beta particles on the order of 1 rem/hr to 20 rem/hr have been observed in 

such circumstances. Exposure control is complicated because considerable contact work takes place 

in some DOE facilities that process uranium metal for weapons components. 

Beta doses to the skin, extremities, and sometimes the lens of the eye can be limiting in facilities that 

process unshielded low-enrichment NU or DU. However, the actual beta doses to these body tissues 

depend on the energies of the beta particles and the thickness and types of intervening shielding of 

these body tissues. Shielding against beta particles is provided by such common items as clothing, 

aprons, gloves, eyeglasses, and face shields (Struxness 1954a,b; Henderson 1991; DOE 2004; 

ORAUT 2005c).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 19 of 72

Table 4-2. Maximum energies and intensities of the beta particles from common 

radiation sources at the Y-12 Plant.a

Radionuclide Decay product

Maximum beta 

energy (MeV) Beta intensity (%)

Uranium metal

U-238 Th-234 0.095

0.096

0.199

6.2

18.6

72.5

Pa-234m 2.28 98.6

U-235 Th-231 0.205

0.287

0.305

15

49

35

Thorium metal

Th-232 Ra-228 0.0389 100

Ac-228 0.983

1.014

1.17

1.74

2.08

7

6.6

32

12

8

Th-228 Pb-212 0.158

0.334

0.573

5.2

85.1

9.9

Bi-212 1.59

2.246

8

48.4

Tl-208 1.28

1.52

1.80

25

21

50

Uranium-233

U-232 Pb-212 0.158

0.334

0.573

5.2

85.1

9.9

Bi-212 1.59

2.246

8

48.4

Tl-208 1.28

1.52

1.80

25

21

50

Recycled uranium impurities

Pu-241 0.021 100

Tc-99 0.294 100

a. Maximum beta-particle energies and intensities taken from Shleien, Slaback, and Birky (1998).

4.3 ENRICHED URANIUM

EU is uranium that has been processed so that it contains more than 0.72% by weight of 235U, and 

highly enriched uranium (HEU) contains more than 20% by weight of 235U. The main facilities 

involved in the fabrication and processing of EU have been Buildings 9212 and 9206 (BWXT Y-12 

2000). Until the early 1970s, chemical processing of EU occurred in the Building 9212 Complex. 

Afterward, chemical processing, following virtually the same procedure and using nearly identical 

equipment, occurred in Building 9206. Relatively small amounts of HEU metal were handled at any 

time because of its critical mass of only 48 kg (22 lb) (Table 4-3).

The original mission of Building 9212 during World War II was to recover HEU from the 

electromagnetic separation process project at Y-12 (BWXT Y-12 2000). Following World War II, 

Building 9212 was expanded to accommodate the increased production of EU from the Oak Ridge 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 20 of 72

Table 4-3. Properties of nuclear explosive 

nuclides (NRC 2005).

Nuclide

Critical mass

(kg)

Main gamma energies

(MeV)

U-233 16 2.6 from Tl-208

U-235 48 0.19

Pu-239 10 0.41

Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25) and to provide capability for the recovery of EU from waste materials. 

In 1948, structures were erected in the spaces between the existing A, B, C, and D Wings and 

designated A-1, B-1, C-1, and D-1 Wings. Another structure was added in 1951 adjacent to the D-1 

Wing and designated the E Wing. The purpose of the E Wing was to facilitate the casting and 

machining of uranium components. A uranium hexafluoride conversion facility in the D Wing was shut 

down in 1964, which essentially halted the introduction of new HEU metal into the weapons stockpile. 

Since 1964, all HEU weapons components have been produced with uranium recovered from retired 

weapons and from production scrap. Three functions of the Building 9212 Facility that have 

contributed significantly to the shallow dose from beta particles are (1) casting of HEU metal (for 

weapons, storage, or other uses); (2) accountability of HEU from Plant activities (quality evaluation, 

casing, and storage); and (3) recovery of HEU to a form suitable for storage (from Y-12 Plant and 

commercial scrap). 

Building 9206 has several related structures that house support services, process services, and 

equipment, all of which are considered inclusively as the 9206 Facility (BWXT Y-12 2000). These 

other structures are 9768, 9720-17, 9409-17, 9510-2, 9767-2, and the east and west tank farms. EU

processes, activities, and missions of the 9206 Facility have included (1) recovery of EU and RU from 

Y-12 programs and other sites (1947 to 1994); (2) production of uranium compounds for other sites 

(1949 to 1972); (3) conversion of UF6 to UF4 to uranium metal for weapons (1954 to 1964); (4) casting 

and machining of HEU for weapons (1955 to 1965); (5) recovery of HEU from Savannah River Site 

(SRS) solutions and other scrap for return to SRS as uranium metal (1972 to 1989); (6) conversion of 

excess HEU metal for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (1980 to 1985); and (7) storage of inprocess materials (1950 to present). Non-EU processes, activities, and missions of the 9206 Facility 

have included (1) recycling DU chips (1951 to late 1950s), (2) production of uranium compounds for 

other sites (1949 to 1972), (3) canning of normal-assay uranium slugs for nuclear reactor use (1950 to 

1952), and (4) storage of in-process materials (1950 to present). 

From about 1949 to 1964, the Y-12 Plant received cylinders of 93.5%-enriched UF6 as feed material 

for nuclear weapon parts production (ORAUT 2005e). After 1964, the majority of the HEU processed 

at the Y-12 Plant was recycled from weapons stockpiles. Uranium recycling and purification 

processes at Y-12 continue to the present. RU is uranium that has been irradiated in a reactor so 

that it contains transuranic material (239Pu and 237Np), fission products (99Tc), and reactor-generated 

uranium products (236U) (BWXT Y-12 2000). Thus, the processing and reenrichment of RU might 

represent an increased potential radiation hazard for occupational exposure that is greater than that 

normally associated with the processing of unirradiated uranium. Y-12 has proactively evaluated the 

RU materials against a specification that would maintain uranium as the dominating dose hazard for 

both external and internal radiation exposures (ORAUT 2005e). An alpha-particle ratio was used to 

ensure that the relative internal hazard of an emitter of alpha particles other than uranium was not 

significantly greater than the relative internal hazard of uranium, and both a beta-particle ratio and a 

total fission product specification were used to ensure that there would be no significant addition to 

the external radiation exposure of Y-12 workers (BWXT Y-12 2000).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 21 of 72

4.4 THORIUM

The processing and fabrication of thorium metals at Y-12 began in the late 1950s and early 1960s 

(West 1965; Wilcox 2001; ORAUT 2005e). Thorium metal in pellet form was pressed into electrodes 

and two arc-melts were made. The metal from these melts was then pressed or rolled, formed, and 

machined. Metal scraps and chips were salvaged and pressed into electrodes to be used in the arcmelting process. The buildings housing these activities were as follows: (1) pellet and scrap 

preparation, arc-melting, crop and trim sawing occurred in Building 9201-5, (2) mold press sintering, 

ingot forging and annealing after the first cold roll, and final inspection and assembly were performed 

in Building 9204-4, (3) ingots were canned before the first cold roll in Building 9201-1, (4) cold and hot 

rolling were conducted in Building 9215, (5) decanning, cleaning, and final plating were done in 

Building 9206, (6) machining activities were conducted in Building 9766, and (7) development 

activities were carried out in Building 9202 (ORAUT 2005e; McRee, West, and McLendon 1965; 

McLendon 1963). In general, the same buildings and facilities were involved in the processing and 

fabrication of both thorium and DU metals. 

4.5 URANIUM-233

Irradiation of thorium in a reactor is the source for 233U, which has fission properties similar to 239Pu 

(Table 4-2). For several years in the 1960s and 1970s, the Y-12 Plant was involved in the processing 

and fabrication of metal parts from 233U (West and Roberts 1962; West 1974). This was 

accomplished by chemical conversion of a nitrate solution of 233U to a metallic form and metallurgical 

fabrication to obtain the desired parts (West and Roberts 1962). The processing and fabrication of 

233U presented two major radiation protection problems: (1) it was a major internal radiation hazard 

because its high specific alpha-particle activity was about 150 times greater than other uranium 

routinely processed at Y-12 (West and Roberts 1962), and (2) it was a major external radiation hazard 

because the 232U decay product of 233U has a very high beta-particle emission rate, as noted in 

Table 4-2, and a very high gamma-ray emission rate, as noted in Table 4-3.

Because of the potential radiation hazards of working with 233U, all operations were doubly contained

(West and Roberts 1962; West 1974). The operations were carried out in the controlled atmosphere 

of Building 9205 using hoods that had been converted to gloveboxes by the installation of plastic hood 

fronts equipped with glove ports. The inlet and outlet ventilation was filtered and the ambient 

pressure in the box was maintained at a negative pressure of 0.2 in. of water in relation to that in the 

room. Calculations indicated that special gamma-ray shielding was not required because the 

operations were short-term and involved limited amounts of material (West and Roberts 1962; West 

1974). However, extensive area and personnel monitoring for external radiation was provided by HP

during the operations. The use of gloveboxes and remote handling resulted in minimal beta doses to 

the skin or hands of the Y-12 workers who were involved in the processing and fabrication of metal 

parts from 233U (West and Roberts 1962; West 1974). 

5.0

The film badge used at Y-12 from 1948 through 1960 (Section 3.0) had a completely open window 

over the film packet, and the film packet used to protect the film against light and humidity had a 

thickness of approximately 25 to 30 mg/cm2 over the front surface of the film (Dudney 1956; ICRU 

1997). This thickness stopped essentially all beta particles with maximum energies less than 

approximately 150 keV from penetrating the film packet (Figure 3-1) and from producing a film 

response. The film badge used at Y-12 from 1961 through 1979 (Section 3.1) had an open window 

covered by security credentials with a thickness of approximately 50 mg/cm2

, so the total thickness 

over the front surface of the film was approximately 80 mg/cm2 (Thornton, Davis, and Gupton 1961). 

FILM BADGE RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT SOURCES OF BETA PARTICLES
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 22 of 72

This thickness stopped essentially all beta particles with maximum energies of less than 

approximately 300 keV from penetrating the open window over the film (Figure 3-1) and from 

producing a film response. These somewhat different responses to low-energy beta particles were 

taken into account in the calibration factors obtained with an NU source. 

Beta particles are emitted with a spectrum of energies, and the average beta-particle energy is about 

one-third of the maximum beta-particle energy (Emax). Figure 5-1 shows the energy spectra of the 

beta particles from NU as calculated using the DEXRAX code from the ICRP38 computer program 

package (Eckerman et al. 1994; Eckerman 2003). The maximum energies of each of the beta-particle 

spectra shown in Figure 5-1 are the same as those listed in Table 4-2, but the energy spectra are the 

composite energy spectra of all the beta particles emitted by the 231Th decay products of 235U and 

234Th and the 234mPa decay products of 238U. Most of the shallow dose to the skin and nearly all the 

response in the film emulsion behind the open window of the film badge comes from the 234mPa decay 

product of 238U (Emax = 2.28 MeV). The beta particles from the 231Th decay product of 235U (Emax = 

199 keV) and the 234Th decay product of 238U (Emax = 305 keV) are highly attenuated by the paper 

jacket of the film packet in the badge used from 1948 to 1961 and by both the paper jacket of the film 

packet and the security credentials over the open window of the film badge used from 1961 to 1979

(Section 3.0). 

Figure 5-2 shows the composite energy spectra of the beta particles from decay products of so-called 

1-yr thorium. The decay products of 232Th and 228Th are in radioactive equilibrium in thorium ore, but 

the chemical separation of these isotopes to produce thorium metal affects the radioactive equilibrium 

of the thorium decay products for periods of more than 20 years (Schneider et al. 1999). The

radioactivity of the thorium in the metal decreases rapidly at times less than one year, approaches a 

minimum at approximately five years, and increases as radioactive equilibrium of the decay products 

is established at approximately 50 years after chemical separation of the thorium metal from the 

thorium ore. Most of the thorium metal at Y-12 was processed within one year following chemical 

separation from the thorium ore (West 1965). Figure 5-3 shows the composite energy spectra from 

decay products of 232U, which occurs as contaminates in reactor-produced 233U. Uranium-233, like 

239Pu, is a long-lived fissile isotope produced in reactors by neutron capture in an abundant naturally

occurring isotope (i.e., 239Pu by neutron capture in 238U and 233U by neutron capture in 232Th) (Kang 

and von Hippel 2001). The amount of 232U contaminant in the 233U processed at Y-12 was measured 

to be 47 ppm or 47 μg of 232U/g of 233U (Chew 2005), and the emission of beta particles per gram of 

233U would be 47 times that shown in Figure 5-3. The energy spectra of the beta particles from 1-yr

thorium (Figure 5-2) and 232U (Figure 5-3) indicate that the skin dose would be adequately measured 

by film badges because the number of high-energy beta particles from these metals is comparable to 

the number of high-energy beta particles from an NU calibration source.

In practical monitoring of beta particles, the exposure geometry is usually unknown and quite variable, 

but the source of the beta particles is usually known (the beta-emitting isotope, fission products, 

uranium metal, thorium metal, etc.). After the filtration of the lowest energy components by the paper 

jacket and security credentials over the front of the film, the energy spectrum of the beta particles 

varies only slowly with the source-to-film distance (i.e., with the thickness of the intervening air). In 

addition, a 1-MeV beta particle can travel over 4 m in air (Berger et al. 2005). Therefore, a fairly 

good calibration can be achieved with a standard source of the same beta emitter as the one whose

beta radiation is to be monitored, especially if the radiation is diffusely incident on the body (Ehrlich 

1962). Thus, the beta dose readings at a uranium facility were expected to be reliable for film badge

dosimeters calibrated with an NU slab (the standard technique until the 1980s), and the uncertainties

in the beta dose readings were approximately equal to those for gamma dose readings (Morgan 

1961). The MDL of the dose measurements for gamma rays and beta particles was estimated to be 

approximately 30 mrem for most of the film badge period at the Y-12 Plant (Table 3-2). Thus, there
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 23 of 72

Figure 5-1. Energy spectra of beta particles from the decay products of NU as calculated using the 

DEXRAX code from the ICRP38 computer program package (Eckerman 2003). NU is assumed to be 

0.72% by weight 235U, the remainder being almost entirely 238U. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 24 of 72

Figure 5-2. Energy spectra of beta particles from the decay products of 1-yr thorium as calculated 

using the DEXRAX code from the ICRP38 computer program package (Eckerman 2003). The 

activity of the decay products of 1-yr thorium is taken from Schneider et al. (1994, Table 3.1.5). All 

beta particles from 228Ra are attenuated by the paper jacket on the film packet in the badge. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 25 of 72

Figure 5-3. Energy spectra of beta particles from the decay products of 233U as calculated using 

the DEXRAX code of the ICRP38 computer program package (Eckerman 2003). The amount of 232U contaminant in the 233U processed at Y-12 was measured to be 47 ppm (or 47 μg of 232U/g of 

233U) and the emission of beta particles per gram of 233U would be 47 times that shown in this

figure. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 26 of 72

is an uncertainty of ±30 mrem in reading the film badges when the readings are between 0 and 30 

mrem. However, the ±30 mrem does not represent the uncertainty when the reading of the film badge 

is greater than 30 mrem (Morgan 1961). If an exposure was to hard X-rays or gamma rays with 

energies from 100 keV to 3 MeV, the uncertainty was about ±15% for a dose reading of 100 mrem 

and ±10% for a dose reading of 1 rem. The uncertainties for beta particles were essentially the same 

as those for hard X-rays or gamma rays unless there was an exposure to an unknown mixture of soft 

X-rays, hard X-rays and gamma rays, and beta radiation (Morgan 1961). 

Mixtures involving all three types of radiation (beta particles, soft X-rays with energies less than 

100 keV, and hard X-rays and gamma-rays with energies between 100 keV and 3 MeV) were 

extremely rare at the Y-12 Plant (Patterson 1958).

6.0

6.1 DATA DELIVERED TO THE ORAU CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH

Y-12 EXTERNAL DOSE DATABASE

Electronic files of data for workers from Y-12 and other Oak Ridge sites were provided from 1978 

through the early 1990s to the CER at ORAU. These files contained data for more than 17,000 Y-12 

workers and included quarterly summations in mrem for the beta, gamma, and neutron doses. More 

than 425,000 Y-12 records pertained to the film badge period and were used to develop methods to 

provide individual doses for unmonitored quarterly periods of employment. Additional details 

concerning these files can be found in the first report of this series (ORAUT 2005a).

6.2 SUBGROUP DATA FOR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF BETA DOSES 

Data for a subgroup of 182 Y-12 workers provided the basis for the regression analysis to evaluate 

the time trend in the dose potential from beta particles during the period from 1956 to 1965. The 182 

workers in this subgroup were employed in departments where most job tasks involved potential 

exposure to beta particles and were monitored both before and after 1961. A regression model can 

be used to describe the temporal pattern of beta dose, and the results can be used to estimate 

quarterly distributions of beta dose for unmonitored quarters before 1956.

The following procedure was used to select the group of workers who had a total of at least six years

of data in departments with a potential for exposure to beta sources. Starting with 426,621 quarterly 

beta doses for the period from the first quarter (Q1) of 1952 to the fourth quarter (Q4) of 1979: 

1. Select all quarterly records for period Q1 1956 to Q4 1962 (n = 59,051). 

2. Identify all departments with individuals who were monitored from Q1 1956 to Q4 1960. The 

assumption is that before 1961 the HP Department selected individuals with potential for beta 

exposure for monitoring.

3. Select records from Set 1 with department numbers from Set 2 (n = 45,280).

4. Select all workers from Set 3 having at least 24 quarterly film badge records with at least four

records after 1961 and at least 20 records before 1961. The resulting group consisted of 182 

workers with 4,805 quarterly beta doses.

Using a work history database acquired by ORAU from Y-12 (ORAUT 2005a), all job titles with 

corresponding dates were obtained for each of the 182 long-term Y-12 workers. Multiple job titles for 

an individual frequently showed a progression of promotions as workers gained skills and seniority. A 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 27 of 72

recurring example was the progression from machine operator to specialty machinist to machinist 

and, occasionally, to supervisor of machining. For each individual in each group, the job held during 

the majority of the period from 1956 through 1960 was selected. This job was classified by type of 

activity (e.g., machining) and duties (worker, foreman, supervisor, or manager). 

Table 6-1 lists the results of the job analysis for the 182 workers in the beta dose regression group. 

Of these workers, 156 (86%) performed tasks that involved no management or supervisory 

components. Most of these were machinists, chemical or production operators, and fire or security 

workers. Another 23 members of this group (13%) held positions with some supervisory tasks such 

as laboratory, inspection, and production supervisors, fire captains, or foremen. The foremen 

probably had exposure potential similar to that of their workers, and the supervisors could have had 

exposures somewhat similar to the workers they supervised. Only three (2%) of the 182 individuals 

were managers, including shift superintendent and assistant shift superintendents.

Table 6-1. Job activities and duties for 182 long-term Y-12 

workers selected for regression analysis of beta doses.

Activity Duties Number of workers

Crafts Foreman 5

Fire and security Supervisor 5

Fire and security Worker 16

Inspection Supervisor 1

Inspection Worker 9

Laboratory work Supervisor 4

Laboratory work Worker 5

Machining Worker 65

Management Manager 3

Medical Worker 1

Production Foreman 7

Production Supervisor 1

Production Worker 43

Production support Worker 17

Table 6-2 provides a comparison between activities and duties of the subgroups used in the gamma 

and beta regression analyses of this study. A total of 113 workers were present in both of these 

subgroups. An HP Report for Q3 1962 indicated that many of the workers with the highest exposures 

to beta particles and gamma rays at the Y-12 Plant were in the Mechanical Operations and Product 

Certification Departments (UCNC 1963b). Thus, it was not surprising that 113 of the workers in the 

gamma and beta regression groups were members of both groups.

7.0

7.1 MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES FOR QUARTERLY DATA

STATISTICAL METHODS

The ML methods described in the first report of this series (ORAUT 2005a) and Frome and Watkins 

(2004) were used to obtain estimates of the lognormal parameters and related summary statistics for 

the beta film badge doses for each quarter from 1956 to 1965.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 28 of 72

Table 6-2. Comparison of job activities and duties for long-term Y-12 workers 

selected for regression analysis of gamma and beta doses.

Activity Duties

Number of workers

Gamma regression Beta regression

Crafts Foreman 0 5

Fire and security Supervisor 5 5

Worker 14 16

Inspection Supervisor 1 1

Worker 6 9

Laboratory work Supervisor 3 4

Worker 6 5

Machining Worker 71 65

Management Manager 4 3

Medical Worker 1 1

Production Supervisor 1 1

Foreman 4 7

Worker 28 43

Production support Worker 2 17

Research and development Worker 1 0

Total number of workersa 147b 182c

a. Redundancy of 113 w orkers betw een the tw o subgroups.

b. Selected from w orkers in the entire population of Y-12 w orkers.

c. Selected from w orkers in departments w ith a potential for exposure to beta particles. 

7.2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND THE PREDICTION DENSITY

Let di denote the radiation dose at time ti (in years) and assume that the di at fixed times ti(i = 1,..., n) 

are a random sample from a lognormal distribution with log-scale mean [2]: 

μi = μ(xi ; α,θ) = log(α + θxi) (7-1)

and standard deviation σ. The GSD is exp(σ), and the geometric mean GMi = α + θxi, where xi = 

1961 – ti ; i.e., α is the GM in Q1 1961 [3].

The logarithm of the likelihood function for the unknown parameters α, θ, and σ is:

L(α,θ,σ) = Σi log[g(di ; μi

,σ)] + (n – m)log [G( * di ; μi,σ)] (7-2)

where g(d; μ,σ) is the lognormal probability density function and G(d*

; μ,σ) is the lognormal distribution 

function evaluated at d* (the detection limit). The summation in Equation 7-2 is over all of the m nonzero di. The maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of α, θ, and σ and the variance-covariance matrix 

are obtained numerically with the use of the function optim() in the R system (RCDT 2004). Further 

details on how to obtain and use R are provided in Frome and Watkins (2004).

To estimate the prediction density for an unmonitored quarterly dose z = log(d) at time tu the "large 

sample" ML prediction density proposed by Lejeune and Faulkenberry (1982) is used:

q(z; x, μ) = n[ ∧

μ (xu ;

∧

α,

∧

θ ),

∧

σ 2 + var( ∧

μ(xu ,

∧

α,

∧

θ ))] (7-3)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 29 of 72

In Equation 7-3, n[μ,σ2] is the normal density function with mean μ and variance σ2 . For a given 

quarter tu, xu = (1961 – tu) and ∧

μ(xu ;

∧

α,

∧

θ ) = log( ∧α + ∧θ xu).

The second term in the variance in Equation 7-3 is nonlinear in the parameters. The variance of 

∧

μ(x ;

∧

α,

∧

θ ) = log( ∧α + ∧θ x) can be estimated using the method of statistical differentials (ElandtJohnson and Johnson 1980); that is:

var( ∧

μ(x ;

∧

α,

∧

θ ) = 2

1 p var( ∧

α) + 2 p2 var( ∧θ ) + 2p1p2cov( ∧

α,

∧

θ ) (7-4)

In Equation 7-4, p1 = ∂μ / ∂α and p2 = ∂μ / ∂ θ are evaluated at the MLEs, and var( ∧

α ), var( ∧θ ), and 

cov( ∧

α ,

∧

θ ) are obtained from the ML variance-covariance matrix.

Because the ML prediction for z = log(d) is normal, it follows that the prediction density for the 

unknown dose at time tu is lognormal with GM = ∧

α + ∧θ (1961 – tu) and GSD = exp( ∧σ ). In the 

situation of interest, the second term in the variance is much less than 2

σ

∧

and can be ignored for all 

practical purposes.

7.3 NONPARAMETRIC ANALYSIS USING MODIFIED BOXPLOTS

A modified version of a boxplot was used to summarize the beta film badge doses. For each quarter 

the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) product limit estimate (PLE) of the empirical distribution function was 

calculated as described in Frome and Watkins (2004, Section 4.4). A large number of the beta doses 

were nondetects and recorded as zero. Each dose recorded as zero was treated as a left-censored 

value at an MDL of 30 mrem. The PLE adjusts for nondetects, which occurred in most of the 

quarters. A conventional boxplot is obtained by calculating the 25th quartile, xq25, and the 75th 

quartile, xq75, which define the ends of the box that contain the central 50% of the data. Large 

outliers for each quarter are identified by calculating the value of xq75 + 1.5 × (xq75 – xq25), and all 

data points that exceed this value are shown in the boxplot by a separate symbol, such as a +, for 

each outlier. Small quarterly outliers are identified by calculating xq25 – 1.5 × (xq75 – xq25), and all 

positive data less than this value are shown separately in the boxplot.

A modified boxplot is obtained by calculating the 25th and 75th quartiles using inverse interpolation 

from the PLE to take nondetects into account. The modified boxplots in this report show xq25 as a

blue inverted triangle and xq75 as a green upright triangle, and the box connecting these quartiles is 

not drawn. The maximum dose is shown as a red circle, and the minimum dose is a red diamond 

when no left-censored data were present. Each dose in a quarter that exceeded (on logarithmic

scale) log(xq75) + 1.5 × [log(xq75) – log(xq25)] is shown as a black plus sign (+). All data points in a 

quarter that are less than (on logarithmic scale) log(xq25) – 1.5 × [log(xq75) – log(xq25)] are also 

shown as plus signs, although these might be incomplete if there were a large number of zero doses. 

The percent zeros, percent positive outliers, number of film badge readings, and censoring adjusted 

K-M means are shown as part of the modified boxplots of this report.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 30 of 72

8.0

8.1 ALL QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

USE OF FILM BADGE MEASUREMENTS TO EVALUATE BETA DOSES OVER TIME

There were 426,621 beta doses recorded for Y-12 workers from 1952 to 1979 including nondetects

recorded as zeros. All summary statistics used to obtain the modified boxplots (Section 7.3) for each 

quarter are listed in Table 8-1 and shown in Figure 8-1. Figure 8-2 shows additional summary 

information by quarter in separate plots for the percentage of the quarterly doses that were recorded 

as zero, the percentage of positive outliers, the total number of quarterly doses, and the quarterly K-M 

means. Note that when a lognormal distribution is used to describe a quarterly dose distribution, 

rsdy = [log(xq75) - log(xq25) ] ÷ 1.35 provides an outlier-resistant nonparametric estimate of the 

standard deviation of log(d), which is equivalent to the log(GSD) [4].

In Figures 8-1, 8-3, and 8-5 the horizontal blue line segments mark values of 10% of the RPG, which 

changed somewhat over this period (Table 8-1), and the vertical blue dashed line at 1961 indicates 

the time at which all workers were monitored. In Figure 8-1, 75% of the beta doses each quarter were 

found to be lower than 10% of the RPG except for 1954 to 1958, when some of the quarterly dose 

75th percentiles were slightly larger. Beginning in 1961, when monitoring was extended to all workers 

regardless of exposure potential, there was a precipitous drop in the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles 

of dose, which indicated that the newly monitored workers generally had doses far lower than the 

workers who were selected to be monitored before 1961. Maximum quarterly doses remained fairly 

constant from 1953 to 1970, which verified that workers with the highest exposure potential were 

already being monitored before 1961. Dose distributions from 1961 and later were highly skewed 

toward very low doses, which pulled the boundary for outliers to much lower values and resulted in 

additional high outliers. These outliers can be seen in the long stretches of black crosses beginning in 

1961 when monitoring for all workers began. The number of film badge readings on which each 

quarterly boxplot was based, shown in Figure 8-2, was generally about 1,000 or less before 1961 and 

about 5,000 or more afterwards.

The following nonparametric summary statistics were calculated and are listed in Table 8-1:

kmm = K-M estimate of the mean for the quarter.

kmse = the K-M estimate of the standard error of the K-M mean.

xqp = pth quartile, p = 25, 50, 75 (xq50 is an estimate of the GM).

xmax = the maximum dose in quarter.

rsdy = [log(xq75) - log(xq25)] ÷ 1.35 = estimate of log(GSD).

cdose is cumulative dose (or sum of all doses).

pnd = percent nondetects.

cdosea = n*kmm = "adjusted" cumulative dose.

nout = number of positive outliers.

n = total number of quarterly doses.

The adjusted cumulative dose is an estimate of the total dose adjusted for nondetects (zero doses), 

and is obtained by multiplying the K-M mean by the number of doses (i.e., cdosea = n*kmm). An 

estimate of missed dose (for monitored workers) is obtained by subtracting the cumulative dose from 

the adjusted cumulative dose. 

To further investigate the suitability of fitting lognormal models to the quarterly beta exposure data 

after 1956, q-q plots and R-square statistics were produced for each quarter, as shown in 

Attachment A. With few exceptions, R-square was well above 0.9 for quarters in 1956 and later, but it 

was much lower in earlier years.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 31 of 72

Table 8-1. PLE summary statistics for Y-12 quarterly beta doses, 1952 to 1979. Quarter kmm kmse xq25 xq50 xq75 xmax rsdy cdose cdosea pnd nout n

52 115.0 14.0 10.7 21.3 118.0 1,530 1.783 19,347 23,690 70.4 0 206

52.25 345.2 43.2 10.2 20.4 102.0 3,780 1.707 81,755 87,336 73.5 1 253

52.5 247.7 26.7 9.5 19.1 28.6 2,625 0.814 69,033 76,292 78.6 64 308

52.75 220.1 26.8 9.0 18.0 27.0 2,988 0.814 75,317 84,959 83.4 56 386

53 381.1 71.3 9.0 18.1 27.1 4,605 0.814 52,360 56,022 83.0 24 147

53.25 334.8 62.3 8.9 17.8 26.8 3,712 0.814 48,604 52,564 84.1 25 157

53.5 418.9 57.2 11.0 22.0 436.2 2,750 2.729 60,160 63,254 68.2 0 151

53.75 413.3 31.0 21.8 291.1 510.8 3,989 2.339 134,586 138,042 34.4 0 334

54 411.3 40.4 29.3 227.4 294.5 4,615 1.711 133,986 136,552 25.6 0 332

54.25 717.6 77.8 19.0 266.5 841.3 6,961 2.811 144,686 147,108 39.5 0 205

54.5 771.0 72.3 20.5 585.0 898.0 5,892 2.803 153,518 155,742 36.6 0 202

54.75 968.3 45.6 247.9 613.8 1,318.0 5,311 1.238 479,014 481,245 15.1 0 497

55 986.3 42.8 399.6 655.5 1,132.5 7,046 0.772 516,922 517,808 5.7 3 525

55.25 816.5 32.7 197.1 723.9 978.7 5,065 1.188 426,285 428,662 15.0 0 525

55.5 629.0 32.5 238.4 494.0 657.0 4,439 0.751 291,540 294,372 20.1 8 468

55.75 1,102.9 63.0 499.5 815.0 1,242.0 8,522 0.675 438,953 438,954 20.4 12 398

56 861.5 33.7 426.0 651.0 1,038.0 4,470 0.660 385,636 385,952 4.5 1 448

56.25 681.8 32.5 195.0 447.0 832.0 3,828 1.075 335,407 335,446 0.2 0 492

56.5 745.3 28.0 319.8 495.0 917.0 4,419 0.781 459,847 459,850 0.2 0 617

56.75 557.1 25.3 216.0 338.0 600.0 5,234 0.757 345,393 345,402 0.3 12 620

57 975.2 37.9 471.9 688.5 1,098.8 9,524 0.627 550,937 550,988 0.4 7 565

57.25 682.1 25.3 234.9 432.0 921.0 3,393 1.013 405,847 405,850 0.2 0 595

57.5 517.0 20.6 193.1 299.0 664.0 3,621 0.916 345,365 345,356 0.1 0 668

57.75 475.1 17.1 194.7 303.5 569.4 3,028 0.796 322,130 322,118 0.0 1 678

58 465.9 16.2 194.7 282.0 619.0 3,017 0.858 327,976 327,994 0.0 0 704

58.25 322.4 15.3 66.5 198.0 408.0 3,674 1.345 223,153 223,746 4.8 0 694

58.5 413.7 15.0 154.5 307.0 549.9 3,084 0.941 284,655 285,039 3.2 0 689

58.75 318.0 11.8 61.2 204.5 470.0 2,755 1.511 249,632 250,584 7.9 0 788

59 289.7 10.8 54.2 182.0 422.0 2,245 1.521 242,922 244,507 9.2 0 844

59.25 304.1 11.4 64.8 201.0 425.5 2,532 1.395 259,124 259,701 4.4 0 854

59.5 369.6 18.8 57.6 203.6 471.0 5,956 1.558 334,555 335,966 8.9 0 909

59.75 373.4 18.7 45.9 177.5 485.8 10,407 1.749 391,002 393,190 12.3 0 1,053

60 279.7 12.6 32.0 108.0 354.0 5,109 1.782 319,784 321,096 6.0 0 1,148

60.25 391.6 17.7 44.8 165.3 468.0 5,910 1.739 431,590 432,326 3.9 0 1,104

60.5 464.6 18.9 55.4 230.8 590.3 3,840 1.753 489,680 490,153 2.7 0 1,055

60.75 398.5 17.2 49.4 177.5 518.2 3,628 1.742 392,300 392,522 1.4 0 985

61 125.0 4.0 11.3 22.9 86.8 4,475 1.512 625,940 662,625 45.8 29 5,301

61.25 112.9 4.0 4.9 14.0 58.0 4,379 1.828 600,191 623,772 39.8 17 5,525

61.5 101.4 3.3 7.5 15.4 59.5 4,069 1.531 550,282 557,092 10.9 41 5,494

61.75 94.1 3.4 5.6 13.8 51.6 4,534 1.651 495,874 523,666 46.4 42 5,565

62 92.2 2.9 7.8 18.3 63.8 2,555 1.560 494,696 514,753 30.0 28 5,583

62.25 136.6 4.8 10.6 24.2 78.9 4,266 1.490 717,376 731,083 19.5 87 5,352

62.5 112.7 3.5 15.9 24.4 64.2 2,986 1.036 567,228 607,904 43.5 343 5,394

62.75 84.8 3.1 12.4 21.9 28.6 3,700 0.618 392,191 451,730 68.0 793 5,327

63 80.6 3.0 17.3 24.3 36.4 4,800 0.550 374,051 439,754 62.0 736 5,456

63.25 70.7 2.6 1.8 9.4 30.8 2,519 2.108 363,997 391,395 59.3 4 5,536

63.5 95.4 3.4 17.2 23.6 56.7 5,825 0.886 485,017 529,375 42.3 380 5,549

63.75 66.8 2.2 9.9 18.1 47.3 3,047 1.161 329,266 364,795 48.2 122 5,461

64 73.3 2.5 14.1 19.2 40.2 4,054 0.777 350,941 401,464 58.3 484 5,477

64.25 83.9 2.6 18.2 24.5 60.7 3,368 0.891 399,539 445,845 43.9 249 5,314

64.5 91.7 3.1 16.2 27.1 51.1 3,034 0.853 482,032 491,512 10.6 417 5,360

64.75 76.6 3.4 11.0 16.9 26.1 3,810 0.644 329,985 392,345 78.1 633 5,122

65 58.8 2.0 7.4 15.8 27.7 3,424 0.976 252,975 296,176 62.3 379 5,037

65.25 61.3 2.5 8.7 15.6 36.4 2,924 1.056 258,853 274,256 27.6 197 4,474

65.5 51.9 2.6 6.4 12.8 26.6 5,290 1.059 209,635 225,506 29.6 223 4,345

65.75 43.3 1.8 9.1 16.5 25.4 2,726 0.756 144,097 187,749 68.9 317 4,336

66 64.3 2.9 10.5 20.5 41.4 5,290 1.019 269,756 278,612 13.8 158 4,333
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 32 of 72

Quarter kmm kmse xq25 xq50 xq75 xmax rsdy cdose cdosea pnd nout n

66.25 63.2 2.8 9.1 18.6 35.6 5,290 1.012 260,308 274,225 23.7 223 4,339

66.5 72.2 3.2 10.5 21.6 50.8 5,290 1.173 297,393 317,680 32.1 95 4,400

66.75 63.5 2.2 10.0 23.0 39.4 1,894 1.017 270,808 284,798 19.4 192 4,485

67 57.8 2.4 11.1 16.9 38.9 5,290 0.929 237,292 260,967 37.9 203 4,515

67.25 64.3 2.6 9.5 19.9 43.4 5,290 1.127 279,823 296,616 25.7 139 4,613

67.5 42.0 1.9 5.3 12.2 25.0 5,290 1.142 161,328 199,626 67.9 174 4,753

67.75 50.8 2.0 6.2 15.2 31.4 5,290 1.202 219,480 243,688 42.4 143 4,797

68 55.0 2.6 5.7 13.5 27.8 5,290 1.180 239,455 268,620 52.3 200 4,884

68.25 28.6 1.5 5.4 10.6 20.7 5,290 0.995 100,474 142,256 74.9 183 4,974

68.5 48.1 1.7 7.9 16.0 27.3 2,663 0.916 196,730 250,697 73.8 336 5,212

68.75 49.8 1.8 7.9 15.6 26.4 2,932 0.896 206,283 263,591 74.9 394 5,293

69 36.1 1.2 5.9 13.6 24.3 1,162 1.046 142,308 194,868 75.7 245 5,398

69.25 37.7 1.7 6.0 11.8 22.5 3,986 0.977 168,895 206,068 58.1 280 5,466

69.5 31.7 1.8 4.1 9.9 19.4 5,290 1.148 135,328 188,140 80.9 196 5,935

69.75 30.8 1.8 2.8 8.7 15.4 4,660 1.264 148,342 181,166 64.1 187 5,882

70 40.3 2.9 3.1 7.2 17.5 8,120 1.283 202,042 242,767 76.5 213 6,024

70.25 18.7 0.7 3.0 7.2 15.1 1,514 1.202 82,310 112,237 57.9 96 6,002

70.5 47.1 2.5 5.4 11.4 20.1 7,200 0.982 250,084 306,574 77.7 474 6,509

70.75 54.3 2.5 4.6 13.1 24.4 5,492 1.238 317,080 362,290 57.7 297 6,672

71 31.9 1.4 5.6 11.5 21.2 1,961 0.987 137,896 215,612 90.7 303 6,759

71.25 29.2 1.0 3.9 7.9 17.0 1,647 1.102 161,979 197,304 53.9 301 6,757

71.5 18.6 0.9 3.7 7.1 15.4 1,462 1.060 64,122 123,299 92.8 172 6,629

71.75 19.0 0.8 3.0 5.6 13.3 1,354 1.112 84,144 124,564 78.2 217 6,556

72 26.0 1.4 2.8 6.6 15.3 3,675 1.257 134,384 169,650 65.9 182 6,525

72.25 43.1 1.3 6.6 14.6 26.3 3,330 1.021 227,823 275,840 60.0 305 6,400

72.5 29.3 0.9 7.6 15.7 24.3 1,071 0.862 106,216 187,608 86.0 254 6,403

72.75 33.4 1.1 7.4 14.3 25.4 1,151 0.920 133,502 206,880 83.2 291 6,194

73 31.9 1.0 6.1 13.5 21.9 1,019 0.943 134,159 201,321 83.5 308 6,311

73.25 35.9 1.4 9.2 16.1 23.9 2,542 0.710 140,266 217,626 85.1 356 6,062

73.5 26.3 1.0 4.7 10.9 21.9 1,872 1.134 93,431 154,644 85.8 129 5,880

73.75 24.7 1.1 6.9 14.0 20.6 1,158 0.811 62,573 133,331 92.1 190 5,398

74 41.7 2.0 5.6 13.0 22.6 2,210 1.037 155,407 220,927 89.6 252 5,298

74.25 34.2 1.3 6.0 14.3 23.5 1,350 1.005 124,507 183,278 82.0 230 5,359

74.5 29.1 1.1 6.2 13.5 21.4 1,231 0.922 96,214 156,092 84.9 221 5,364

74.75 27.8 1.2 5.9 13.5 23.1 2,145 1.018 81,935 144,949 88.6 162 5,214

75 34.1 1.2 5.6 14.4 25.1 1,281 1.118 122,052 176,229 79.8 123 5,168

75.25 36.8 1.3 5.1 12.7 24.0 1,207 1.148 138,448 180,946 72.9 133 4,917

75.5 30.8 1.2 4.9 11.9 24.5 1,953 1.189 101,723 138,076 70.7 67 4,483

75.75 32.2 1.1 4.8 12.0 24.6 1,624 1.217 112,104 146,188 66.2 67 4,540

76 51.6 1.1 24.3 38.5 47.7 1,730 0.501 235,526 238,289 4.4 273 4,618

76.25 22.1 1.0 4.5 11.2 20.4 1,655 1.125 67,747 101,770 66.3 54 4,605

76.5 24.9 1.1 4.0 9.1 17.0 1,555 1.079 86,799 113,843 59.4 134 4,572

76.75 25.8 1.1 6.2 14.5 22.4 1,670 0.950 66,632 121,105 84.5 108 4,694

77 20.4 0.8 3.4 8.5 17.8 1,206 1.221 68,629 100,633 65.9 56 4,933

77.25 15.3 0.4 4.3 9.5 18.2 1,553 1.062 45,505 76,821 59.4 1 5,021

77.5 28.7 1.2 6.2 11.7 19.9 2,300 0.861 120,537 145,165 43.0 251 5,058

77.75 21.7 0.9 3.1 7.3 16.9 1,383 1.246 78,504 106,373 62.0 63 4,902

78 26.2 1.0 4.4 10.2 19.2 1,433 1.096 109,993 131,183 40.7 132 5,007

78.25 27.6 1.2 3.5 8.5 18.5 1,673 1.245 116,223 140,015 50.2 110 5,073

78.5 27.7 1.4 4.8 10.7 19.0 1,708 1.022 90,346 144,095 89.0 169 5,202

78.75 25.9 1.1 3.7 9.1 20.7 1,660 1.287 107,413 136,104 55.9 56 5,255

79 30.0 1.0 5.6 12.8 23.5 1,638 1.064 123,970 155,070 51.9 110 5,169

79.25 41.9 1.2 7.7 17.7 34.9 1,587 1.119 214,347 230,953 23.2 90 5,512

79.5 27.7 1.1 5.9 11.8 21.8 1,621 0.969 99,901 143,929 70.4 151 5,196

79.75 39.6 1.5 5.9 13.7 24.9 1,622 1.072 177,670 217,364 59.0 183 5,489
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 33 of 72

Figure 8-1. Modified boxplots of Y-12 quarterly beta doses using Kaplan-Meier product 

limit estimate. 

8.2 QUARTERLY BETA DOSES FOR TWO LARGE Y-12 DEPARTMENTS

To verify further that individuals selected for monitoring before 1961 were the workers with 

exposure potential, two departments were examined. The Y-12 department with the largest 

number of quarterly beta doses after 1961 was Department 2014 (Buildings, Grounds, and 

Maintenance Shops). This department had only 39 beta doses recorded before 1961 and 32 

of these doses were zero. Of interest were the quarterly beta dose distributions after 1961 

when all members of this department were monitored. Figure 8-3 shows the modified quarterly 

boxplots and demonstrates that all but 6 of the 19,435 beta doses were below 10% of the 

RPG. In addition, 60% or more of the beta doses were zero for most quarters, as shown in 

Figure 8-4. In contrast, Department 2073 (Process Design and Engineering) had the largest 

number of beta doses recorded before 1961. Figure 8-5 shows there was essentially no 

change in the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles of the beta doses in 1961 when all workers were 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 34 of 72

Figure 8-2. Related summary statistics for Y-12 quarterly beta doses, 1952 to 1979.

monitored (compare with Figure 8-1), with the 75th percentile generally about 750 mrem. Only 

after 1970 when the percent of zero doses increased dramatically, as shown in Figure 8-6, did 

the beta dose distributions drop.

8.3 Limitations of Doses for Dose Reconstruction

After reviewing the boxplot in Figure 8-1 and the q-q plots and R-square statistics in Attachment A, as 

well as the monitoring and recording practices during the film badge period, it was decided that a 

lognormal model could be used with quarterly dose data after Q1 1956 for estimating the prediction 

density for the dose reconstruction procedure described in ORAUT (2004a). Quarterly data for beta 

doses before this date were found not to fit lognormal or other commonly used statistical distributions. 

The reasons for the lack of fit before Q1 1956 appear to be (1) the small size of the monitored worker 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 35 of 72

Figure 8-3. Modified boxplots of Department 2014 quarterly beta doses. 

populations, (2) the frequent exchange of the film badge dosimeters, and (3) the methods of assigning 

dose if the measured beta-particle dose was less than the MDL of the film badge dosimeter. 

Certain summary statistics were investigated and further confirmed the suitability of using the 

lognormal model and data for a quarter if the unmonitored dose occurred during or after 1956. Table 

8-2 lists these summary statistics, most of which were based on application of a lognormal model to

each set of quarterly film badge data beginning with 1956. The logarithmic scale mean (column mu in 

Table 8-2), standard deviation (column sig), and standard error of the mean (column se.mu) can be 

used to determine the parameters of a lognormal prediction density for an individual who was not 

monitored during a quarter [5].

The five-fold jump between 1960 and 1961 in the number of doses per quarter corroborates the policy 

change from monitoring selected workers with higher exposure potential to monitoring all workers. In 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 36 of 72

Figure 8-4. Related summary statistics for Department 2014 quarterly beta doses.

addition, the inclusion of workers with lower exposure potential led to a generally higher percentage of 

nondetectable quarterly doses, although this percentage varied substantially from quarter to quarter. 

As expected, beginning in 1961 the estimates of mean, median, 99th-percentile, and upper tolerance 

limits dropped substantially from earlier years because the population of monitored workers was no 

longer restricted to individuals with higher exposure potential. Before 1961 (the period with numerous 

unmonitored quarters), the expected dose derived from the quarterly lognormal model (column AM in 

Table 8-2) was generally higher than the mean dose estimated nonparametrically using the K-M 

product limit method (column KM in Table 8-2). In addition, from Q1 1956 through 1960, the 99–95 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 37 of 72

Figure 8-5. Modified boxplots of Department 2703 quarterly beta doses.

geometric upper tolerance limit (column UTL) based on the lognormal model generally exceeded the 

nonparametric 99–95 geometric upper tolerance limit (column NPUTL). These findings support the 

use of the model-based approach because it would likely result in estimated doses that were 

somewhat higher and therefore favorable to claimants. The final column in Table 8-2 represents the 

radiation protection guideline in effect during a given quarter (Section 3.1). 

A comparison of the upper tolerance limits to the RPG demonstrates compliance with the guidelines in 

force during this period. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 38 of 72

Figure 8-6. Related summary statistics for Department 2703 quarterly beta doses. 

9.0

9.1 PROCEDURE USED THROUGH FOURTH QUARTER OF 1955

ESTIMATES FOR UNMONITORED QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

As discussed in Section 8.2, information gathered from the boxplots and q-q plots led to the 

determination that quarterly dose datasets before Q1 1956 were not suitable for estimating doses for 

unmonitored quarters during this period. An alternative approach was developed in which the 

parameters of a lognormal prediction density were estimated from a regression analysis based on the 

subgroup data of 182 workers (Section 6.2) who had higher dose exposure potential than the workers 

who were not monitored. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 39 of 72

Table 8-2. MLE summary statistics for Y-12 quarterly beta doses, 1956 to 1965. 

Yr Qtr N %ND mu sig se.mu GM KM AM D99 UTL NPUTL RPG

56 1 448 4 6.334 1.141 0.054 563 861 1,080 8,011 9,541 4,470 7,800

56 2 492 0 5.891 1.314 0.059 362 682 858 7,690 9,281 3,727 7,800

56 3 617 0 6.245 0.894 0.036 516 745 769 4,130 4,630 3,933 7,800

56 4 620 0 5.881 0.968 0.039 358 557 572 3,406 3,854 4,042 7,800

57 1 565 0 6.564 0.842 0.035 709 975 1,010 5,024 5,622 5,829 7,800

57 2 595 0 6.145 0.906 0.037 467 682 703 3,835 4,315 3,338 7,800

57 3 668 0 5.814 0.976 0.038 335 517 540 3,247 3,661 3,396 7,800

57 4 678 0 5.834 0.794 0.031 342 475 468 2,168 2,389 2,606 7,800

58 1 704 0 5.803 0.839 0.032 331 466 471 2,335 2,582 2,507 7,800

58 2 694 5 5.149 1.200 0.046 172 322 354 2,811 3,257 2,628 7,800

58 3 689 3 5.527 1.147 0.044 251 414 486 3,628 4,175 2,501 7,800

58 4 788 8 5.094 1.323 0.047 163 318 391 3,542 4,132 1,671 7,800

59 1 844 9 4.984 1.320 0.046 146 290 349 3,148 3,654 1,795 6,000

59 2 854 4 5.086 1.252 0.043 162 304 354 2,979 3,420 1,756 6,000

59 3 909 9 5.119 1.378 0.046 167 370 432 4,129 4,796 4,450 6,000

59 4 1,053 12 4.983 1.519 0.047 146 373 462 4,996 5,834 3,330 6,000

60 1 1,148 6 4.739 1.390 0.041 114 280 300 2,898 3,308 2,385 6,000

60 2 1,104 4 5.021 1.479 0.045 152 392 453 4,735 5,462 3,186 6,000

60 3 1,055 3 5.235 1.503 0.046 188 465 581 6,203 7,193 3,156 6,000

60 4 985 1 5.147 1.368 0.044 172 398 438 4,144 4,761 3,124 6,000

61 1 5,301 46 3.219 1.812 0.030 25 125 129 1,694 1,855 1,561 10,000

61 2 5,525 40 2.909 1.878 0.029 18 113 107 1,447 1,580 1,706 10,000

61 3 5,494 11 3.198 1.563 0.022 24 101 83 929 995 1,295 10,000

61 4 5,565 46 2.811 1.840 0.030 17 94 90 1,200 1,310 1,414 10,000

62 1 5,583 30 3.081 1.665 0.024 22 92 87 1,048 1,129 1,239 10,000

62 2 5,352 20 3.414 1.656 0.024 30 137 120 1,434 1,545 2,128 10,000

62 3 5,394 43 3.114 1.783 0.029 23 113 110 1,425 1,554 1,375 10,000

62 4 5,327 68 2.154 2.215 0.050 9 85 100 1,491 1,686 1,258 10,000

63 1 5,456 62 2.725 1.759 0.035 15 81 72 912 1,003 1,150 10,000

63 2 5,536 59 2.240 2.088 0.039 9 71 83 1,210 1,343 1,134 10,000

63 3 5,549 42 3.231 1.492 0.023 25 95 77 814 874 1,204 10,000

63 4 5,461 48 2.869 1.571 0.026 18 67 61 681 735 795 10,000

64 1 5,477 58 2.785 1.651 0.031 16 73 63 754 821 963 10,000

64 2 5,314 44 3.276 1.412 0.023 26 84 72 707 758 1,101 10,000

64 3 5,360 11 3.457 1.292 0.018 32 92 73 641 679 1,234 10,000

64 4 5,122 78 1.354 2.638 0.082 4 77 126 1,790 2,111 1,429 10,000

65 1 5,037 62 2.581 1.662 0.034 13 59 53 631 691 760 10,000

65 2 4,474 28 2.863 1.456 0.024 18 61 51 518 556 887 10,000

65 3 4,345 30 2.829 1.277 0.021 17 52 38 330 352 719 10,000

65 4 4,336 69 2.309 1.562 0.039 10 43 34 381 418 636 10,000

The regression analysis of the group of 182 workers described in Section 6.2 is based on the 

assumption that the doses follow a lognormal distribution with logarithmic scale mean 

μi = log[α + θ(1961 – ti)] and standard deviation σ (Section 7.2). Zero doses are treated as censored 

at 30 mrem. The ML estimates of the regression parameters and their standard errors are listed in 

Table 9-1. The cov( ∧

α ,

∧

θ ) is equal to 2.297.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 40 of 72

Table 9-1. MLEs of regression parameters.

α θ σ

Estimate 151.71 56.83 1.345

Standard error 3.04 1.82 0.014

The results of the regression analysis can be used to estimate the lognormal parameters for the 

prediction density for beta doses for quarters when a worker was not monitored before 1956. For 

example, for Q2 1950 the MLE of the GM is: 

GM1950.25 = 151.71 + 56.83[1961 – ti

] = 151.71 + 56.83[1961 – 1950.25] = 762.3 mrem

The arithmetic mean and the 95th percentile in mrem for this quarter are: 

mean1950.25 = exp[log(762.3) + (1.3452 / 2)]

= exp[6.636 + 0.905] = 1884

xq951950.25 = exp[(log(762.3) + z.95 × 1.345]

= exp[6.636 + (1.645 × 1.345)] = 6968

The results in Table 9-2 for quarters from 1947 through 1955 were determined by the procedure 

discussed in this section. 

Figure 9-1 shows boxplots for each quarter from 1956 to 1962 based on the set of 4,805 data points 

used for the regression approach. The solid line from upper left to lower right shows the median 

dose for each quarter determined by the MLEs obtained by fitting a lognormal model for left-censored 

data with zero doses replaced by a value of 30 mrem for the MDL. Figure 9-1 shows a general trend 

of decreasing beta dose with increasing time.

9.2 PROCEDURE USED AFTER FOURTH QUARTER OF 1955

Exploratory data analysis showed that it was reasonable to fit lognormal models to the actual quarterly 

dose data beginning with Q1 1956 (Sections 8.2 and 8.3). The period before 1961 was of particular 

interest because unmonitored quarters after 1961 were rare [6]. Lognormal parameters were 

calculated from each quarterly dose dataset using ML methods for left-censored data as described in 

Section 7.1. These parameters were used to determine separate lognormal prediction densities that 

could be sampled to estimate dose for a worker’s unmonitored quarter. The ML prediction density in 

any quarter for z = log(d) is normal with mean ∧

μ and ∧

σ = [ ∧

σ

2 + var(

∧

μ ) ]

1/2. Values of ∧

μ , ∧

σ , and 

var(

∧

μ ) can be determined from columns 5 to 7 [μ, σ, and se(μ)] in Table 8-2. For easier 

implementation in dose reconstruction, the quantity [∧

σ

2 + var(

∧

μ ) ]

1/2 was calculated for each quarter 

and appears in column 4 (sig) of Table 9-2, and the GSD in column 6 is the corresponding exp(sig). 

The results in Table 9-2 for quarters from 1956 through 1965 were determined by the procedure 

discussed in this section. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 41 of 72

Table 9-2. Parameters for lognormal prediction density, 

1947 to 1965. 

Year Qtr mu sig GM GSD Edose

1947 3 6.8231 1.3687 918.82 3.9304 2,344.4

1947 4 6.8075 1.3687 904.61 3.9304 2,308.2

1948 1 6.7917 1.3687 890.41 3.9304 2,272.0

1948 2 6.7756 1.3687 876.20 3.9304 2,235.7

1948 3 6.7593 1.3687 862.00 3.9304 2,199.5

1948 4 6.7426 1.3687 847.79 3.9304 2,163.2

1949 1 6.7257 1.3687 833.59 3.9304 2,127.0

1949 2 6.7085 1.3687 819.38 3.9304 2,090.7

1949 3 6.6911 1.3687 805.17 3.9304 2,054.5

1949 4 6.6733 1.3687 790.97 3.9304 2,018.2

1950 1 6.6551 1.3687 776.76 3.9304 1,982.0

1950 2 6.6367 1.3687 762.56 3.9304 1,945.7

1950 3 6.6179 1.3687 748.35 3.9304 1,909.5

1950 4 6.5987 1.3687 734.15 3.9304 1,873.2

1951 1 6.5792 1.3687 719.94 3.9304 1,837.0

1951 2 6.5592 1.3687 705.73 3.9304 1,800.7

1951 3 6.5389 1.3687 691.53 3.9304 1,764.5

1951 4 6.5181 1.3687 677.32 3.9304 1,728.2

1952 1 6.4970 1.3687 663.12 3.9304 1,692.0

1952 2 6.4753 1.3687 648.91 3.9304 1,655.7

1952 3 6.4532 1.3687 634.71 3.9304 1,619.5

1952 4 6.4305 1.3687 620.50 3.9304 1,583.3

1953 1 6.4074 1.3687 606.29 3.9304 1,547.0

1953 2 6.3837 1.3687 592.09 3.9304 1,510.8

1953 3 6.3594 1.3687 577.88 3.9304 1,474.5

1953 4 6.3345 1.3687 563.68 3.9304 1,438.3

1954 1 6.3090 1.3687 549.47 3.9304 1,402.0

1954 2 6.2828 1.3687 535.27 3.9304 1,365.8

1954 3 6.2559 1.3687 521.06 3.9304 1,329.5

1954 4 6.2282 1.3687 506.85 3.9304 1,293.3

1955 1 6.1998 1.3687 492.65 3.9304 1,257.0

1955 2 6.1705 1.3687 478.44 3.9304 1,220.8

1955 3 6.1404 1.3687 464.24 3.9304 1,184.5

1955 4 6.1093 1.3687 450.03 3.9304 1,148.3

1956 1 6.3333 1.1410 563.00 3.1299 1,079.5

1956 2 5.8916 1.3140 362.00 3.7210 858.3

1956 3 6.2461 0.8940 516.00 2.4449 769.5

1956 4 5.8805 0.9680 358.00 2.6327 571.9

1957 1 6.5639 0.8420 709.00 2.3210 1,010.6

1957 2 6.1463 0.9060 467.00 2.4744 704.0

1957 3 5.8141 0.9760 335.00 2.6538 539.4

1957 4 5.8348 0.7940 342.00 2.2122 468.7

1958 1 5.8021 0.8390 331.00 2.3141 470.6

1958 2 5.1475 1.2000 172.00 3.3201 353.4
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 42 of 72

Year Qtr mu sig GM GSD Edose

1958 3 5.5255 1.1470 251.00 3.1487 484.6

1958 4 5.0938 1.3230 163.00 3.7547 391.1

1959 1 4.9836 1.3200 146.00 3.7434 348.9

1959 2 5.0876 1.2520 162.00 3.4973 354.7

1959 3 5.1180 1.3780 167.00 3.9670 431.6

1959 4 4.9836 1.5190 146.00 4.5677 462.8

1960 1 4.7362 1.3900 114.00 4.0149 299.5

1960 2 5.0239 1.4790 152.00 4.3886 453.8

1960 3 5.2364 1.5030 188.00 4.4952 581.7

1960 4 5.1475 1.3680 172.00 3.9275 438.4

1961 1 3.2189 1.8120 25.00 6.1227 129.1

1961 2 2.8904 1.8780 18.00 6.5404 105.0

1961 3 3.1781 1.5630 24.00 4.7731 81.4

1961 4 2.8332 1.8400 17.00 6.2965 92.4

1962 1 3.0910 1.6650 22.00 5.2857 88.0

1962 2 3.4012 1.6560 30.00 5.2383 118.2

1962 3 3.1355 1.7830 23.00 5.9477 112.7

1962 4 2.1972 2.2150 9.00 9.1614 104.6

1963 1 2.7081 1.7590 15.00 5.8066 70.5

1963 2 2.1972 2.0880 9.00 8.0688 79.6

1963 3 3.2189 1.4920 25.00 4.4460 76.1

1963 4 2.8904 1.5710 18.00 4.8115 61.8

1964 1 2.7726 1.6510 16.00 5.2122 62.5

1964 2 3.2581 1.4120 26.00 4.1042 70.5

1964 3 3.4657 1.2920 32.00 3.6401 73.7

1964 4 1.3863 2.6380 4.00 13.9852 129.8

1965 1 2.5649 1.6620 13.00 5.2698 51.7

1965 2 2.8904 1.4560 18.00 4.2888 52.0

1965 3 2.8332 1.2770 17.00 3.5859 38.4

1965 4 2.3026 1.5620 10.00 4.7683 33.9

9.3 PARAMETERS FOR LOGNORMAL PREDICTION DENSITIES 

Columns 5 and 6 in Table 9-2 contain the GM and GSD of each quarterly lognormal prediction 

density, which can be used to estimate a dose for an unmonitored quarter. Table 9-2 covers the 

years from the management takeover of Y-12 by UCCND in 1947 to 1965. The GMs and GSDs for 

the earlier and later years were obtained in two distinct manners. The values for 1947 through 1955 

were calculated using the subgroup regression approach discussed in Section 9.1. In contrast, from 

Q1 1956 through 1965, the GM and GSD for each quarter were determined by applying a lognormal 

model directly to the doses for that quarter, as discussed in Section 9.2. 

9.4 SCALING PROCEDURE BASED ON MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD

The scaling procedure developed for gamma doses can be used to estimate beta doses for workers 

not monitored in quarters before 1961. ORAUT (2004a) provides a detailed derivation and 

explanation of the scaling procedure, and ORAUT (2004b) illustrates its use for gamma doses.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 43 of 72

Figure 9-1. Quarterly doses for a subgroup of 182 workers used for regression analysis.

If a Y-12 worker was employed for at least five quarters from 1961 to 1965, that individual’s 

monitoring data can be used to adjust the dose distributions for unmonitored quarters from 1947 

through 1960 [7]. The method is based on the assumption that the individual’s potential for exposure 

from 1947 to 1961 was similar to that from 1961 to 1965, that the individual’s doses differed from the 

population dose by a constant factor, and that the missed dose in an unmonitored quarter can be 

described by a lognormal distribution. The adjustment is applied only if the calculated scaling factor is 

greater than 1, which will increase the value of the expected quarterly dose. 

Suppose that dt is the recorded dose during quarter t and that μt and σt are the known lognormal 

parameter values for that same quarter, which lies between Q1 1961 and Q4 1965 (Table 9-2, 

columns 3 and 4). Therefore, yt = log(dt

) follows the normal distribution with mean μt + φ, and 

standard deviation σt , where φ represents the average relative difference (on the logarithmic scale) of 

the individual’s doses from the population values. The MLE of φ is ∧

φ = Σt wtvt/Σt wt , where wt = 1/σt

2

and vt = yt – μt. The variance of φ = [Σt wt]

-1

. If for any quarter dt = 0 (indicating a nondetect), 

replace yt with o yt , the conditional expectation of y given it is less than the log(MDL). To obtain o

t y , first 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 44 of 72

calculate zt = [log(MDL) – μt] ÷ σt and then o yt = μt – [n(zt)/N(zt)] σt , where n(z) is the standard normal 

density and N(z) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function (Johnson, Kotz, and 

Balakrishnan 1995, Section 10.1). Table 9-3 lists the values of μ, σ, w, and o y (based on a value of 

30 mrem for MDL). 

 Table 9-3. Calculation of scaling factor for Section 9.4 example. 

Year Qtr mu sig w y0 d y v

1961 1 3.219 1.812 0.305 1.887 30 3.401 0.182

1961 2 2.890 1.878 0.284 1.701 185 5.220 2.330

1961 3 3.178 1.563 0.409 2.069 155 5.043 1.865

1961 4 2.833 1.840 0.295 1.707 245 5.501 2.668

1962 1 3.091 1.665 0.361 1.953 108 4.682 1.591

1962 2 3.401 1.656 0.365 2.080 220 5.394 1.992

1962 3 3.135 1.783 0.315 1.878 115 4.745 1.609

1962 4 2.197 2.215 0.204 1.118 128 4.852 2.655

1963 1 2.708 1.759 0.323 1.714 80 4.382 1.674

1963 2 2.197 2.088 0.229 1.215 130 4.868 2.670

1963 3 3.219 1.492 0.449 2.142 0 2.142 -1.077

1963 4 2.890 1.571 0.405 1.943 165 5.106 2.216

1964 1 2.773 1.651 0.367 1.828 0 1.828 -0.945

1964 2 3.258 1.412 0.502 2.221 118 4.771 1.513

1964 3 3.466 1.292 0.599 2.393 0 2.393 -1.072

1964 4 1.386 2.638 0.144 0.375 20 2.996 1.609

1965 1 2.565 1.662 0.362 1.721 125 4.828 2.263

1965 2 2.890 1.456 0.472 2.033 42 3.738 0.847

1965 3 2.833 1.277 0.613 2.146 62 4.127 1.294

1965 4 2.303 1.562 0.410 1.662 58 4.060 1.758

Example

Consider a worker with recorded dose dt for each quarter from 1961 to 1965 as listed in column 8 of 

Table 9-3. The calculated values of yt and vt are in columns 9 and 10 of Table 9-3 so that: 

∧

φ = Σt wtvt/Σt wt = 1.20312 

and

var( ∧

φ ) = 1/Σt wt = 0.13492

Note that the values in columns 4 to 7 of Table 9-3 are the same for each worker, whereas the values 

in columns 8 to 10 are determined by the individual recorded beta doses for each quarter of 

employment from 1961 through 1965.

9.5 APPLICATION OF THE SCALING PROCEDURE

Let t indicate a quarter for which a dose distribution is required for a worker unmonitored between 

January 1947 and December 1960. Without scaling, the unmonitored dose is lognormal with 

parameters (on the logarithmic scale) μt and σt (from Table 9-2); that is, yt = log(dt) is normally 

distributed with mean μt and standard deviation σt . The mean and standard deviation of the adjusted 

logarithmic dose are:
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 45 of 72

* μt = μt + ∧

φ

and

σt

* = [σt

2 + var( ∧

φ )]

1/2;

that is, the unmonitored dose in quarter t is lognormal with mean * μt and standard deviation σt

*

. If a 

worker was unmonitored for all four quarters in a given year, the adjusted lognormal parameters are 

calculated for each quarter and the annual dose estimate is obtained by Monte Carlo sampling as 

described in ORAUT (2004a).

Example (continued)

To estimate the unmonitored dose in Q1 1957 for the worker in this example, use 

∧

φ = 1.20312 and var( ∧φ ) = 0.13492

from above, so that

μt

* = 6.5639 + 1.20312 = 7.767 

and

σt

* = [0.842 2 + 0.13492]

1/2 = 0.9186

where μt = 6.5639 and σt = 0.842 are obtained from line 57 of Table 9-2. The unmonitored dose for 

the quarter is lognormal with * μt = 7.767 and σt

* = 0.9186. The adjusted GM is exp( * μt ) = 2361 and 

the adjusted GSD is exp(σt

*

) = 2.506. 

9.6 EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF REGRESSION MODEL AND SCALING 

PROCEDURE

Figures 9-2 through 9-5 provide examples of applying the beta regression model values and scaling 

procedure to obtain quarterly doses for workers with limited beta monitoring data before 1961. As 

discussed in Section 9.4, the scaling procedure can be used for workers who had unmonitored 

quarters before 1961 but have at least five quarters of monitoring data from 1961 through 1965. The 

scaling procedure is based on the assumptions that the individual’s potential for exposure during the 

1950s was similar to that from 1961 to 1965, and that the individual’s doses differed from the 

population dose by a constant factor. If the scaling factor is less than unity (1), the scaling factor is 

set equal to 1 and the monitored population dose distributions are applied to that worker before 1961. 

Comparison of results from the regression and scaling with actual doses received by these workers 

before 1961 demonstrates in these figures that the doses are regularly favorable to claimants. 

Figure 9-5 is used for demonstration only because this worker had different job activities that involved

much lower dose potential after 1961. Even in this extreme situation, except for one quarter the GMs 

assigned by the regression values were higher than the actual GMs, even without scaling upwards. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 46 of 72

50.1 51.1 52.1 53.1 54.1 55.1 56.1 57.1 58.1 59.1 60.1 61.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 65.1

Year.Quarter

101

102

103

104

105

Q99 - assigned

GM - assigned

 Q1 - assigned

Q99 - recorded

GM - recorded

 Q1 - recorded

Beta dose in mrem

scale = 1.43

Figure 9-2. Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta doses 

for a worker with very early doses and a wide dose range. The scaling factor is 1.43 on a 

logarithmic scale and 4.18 on the original linear scale.

10.0

This TIB provides background information on the Y-12 external dosimetry program through 1979 

related to the film badge monitoring of beta radiation and sources of beta radiation exposure at the 

Y-12 Plant. The report also provides comprehensive information on beta doses to Y-12 workers 

during the film badge period. In addition, the report presents the statistical methods that were 

developed to provide prediction densities for the sampling of individual doses to a worker during 

quarters when the worker was employed but not monitored for exposure to beta particles.

DISCUSSION

The statistical methods reported here include nonparametric modified boxplots for summarizing by 

quarter more than 425,000 individual beta doses and the derivation of ML quarterly lognormal 

prediction densities. For 1956 and later years, the doses for each quarter were used to derive 

parameter estimates by ML methods. For years before 1956, the prediction density parameters were 

derived by ML regression based on data from a subgroup of 182 workers. These subgroup members 

were required to have worked for at least 24 quarters from 1956 through 1965 in departments that 

were monitored during that time. Quarterly GMs and GSDs and summary statistics based on both the 

nonparametric product limit estimates and MLEs are also provided.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 47 of 72

50.1 51.1 52.1 53.1 54.1 55.1 56.1 57.1 58.1 59.1 60.1 61.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 65.1

Year.Quarter

101

102

103

104

105 Q99 - assigned

GM - assigned

 Q1 - assigned

Q99 - recorded

GM - recorded

 Q1 - recorded

Betaa dose in mrem

scale = 1.92

Figure 9-3. Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta doses for a 

worker with many early doses. The scaling factor is 1.92 on a logarithmic scale and 6.82 on 

the original linear scale.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 48 of 72

50.1 51.1 52.1 53.1 54.1 55.1 56.1 57.1 58.1 59.1 60.1 61.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 65.1

Year.Quarter

101

102

103

104

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 Q99 - assigned

GM - assigned

 Q1 - assigned

Q99 - recorded

GM - recorded

 Q1 - recorded

Beta dose in mrem

scale = 0

Figure 9-4. Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta doses for a 

worker with low doses after 1961. The scaling factor is zero on a logarithmic scale and 1.00 on 

the original linear scale.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 49 of 72

50.1 51.1 52.1 53.1 54.1 55.1 56.1 57.1 58.1 59.1 60.1 61.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 65.1

Year.Quarter

101

102

103

104

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 Q99 - assigned

GM - assigned

 Q1 - assigned

Q99 - recorded

GM - recorded

 Q1 - recorded

Betaa dose in mrem

scale = 0

Figure 9-5. Distribution of scaled prediction density versus actual monitored beta doses for a 

worker with different job activities before and after 1961. The scaling factor is zero on a 

logarithimic scale and 1.00 on original linear scale.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 50 of 72

11.0

Where appropriate in this document, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate information, 

conclusions, and recommendations provided to assist in the process of worker dose reconstruction. 

These callouts are listed here in the Attributions and Annotations section, with information to identify 

the source and justification for each associated item. Conventional References, which are provided in 

the next section of this document, link data, quotations, and other information to documents available 

for review on the Project’s Site Research Database.

ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

[1] Kerr, George D. ORAU Team. Health Physicist. April 2007. 

The film badge doses provided by most DOE facilities in response to EEOICPA requests by 

NIOSH are the shallow and deep doses as calculated using Equations 3-1 and 3-2. These 

also appear to be the doses of record at the Y-12 facility from 1950 to 1952. The film badge 

doses recorded by the Y-12 facility after 1952 clearly include the dose components from beta 

particles and soft X-rays, gamma rays and hard X-rays, and neutrons. Hence, it is possible in 

our studies to investigate the doses to Y-12 workers using the separate dose components 

rather than the sums of the dose components that are provided by the shallow (or skin) and 

deep (or penetrating whole-body) doses. 

[2] Kerr, George D. ORAU Team. Health Physicist. April 2007.

A capital or upper case D is normally used as the symbol for radiation dose. It is typical in 

statistics, however, to use a lower case letter to represent a variable. Hence, a lower case d is 

used as the symbol for radiation dose throughout the statistical discussions and statistical 

sections of this report. 

[3] Kerr, George D. ORAU Team. Health Physicist. April 2007.

The regression analysis used for beta doses in this report is different than that used for 

gamma doses in ORAUT 2005a. The regression analysis for gamma doses is based on a 

logarithmic dose function and the regression analysis for beta doses is based on a linear dose 

function. Hence, the GM for the gamma dose (ORAUT 2005a) is equal to exp[3.628 + 

0.122(1961 - t)] and the GM for the beta dose (Section 9.1) is equal to 151.7 + 56.8(1961- t) 

where t is the quarter for which a dose distribution is required for a worker unmonitored from 

January 1947 to December 1960. As examples, the t for the first quarter of 1954 would be 

1954.0 and the t for the second quarter of 1954 would be 1954.25. These two different 

assumptions were used because a more marked reduction was noted in the time trend for 

gamma doses prior to 1961 than the time trend for the beta doses. The results of our 

regression analysis for gamma and beta doses also provide other dose distribution parameters

that are needed to calculate the GSDs and so forth. 

[4] Watkins, Janice P. ORAU Team. Biostatistician. April 2007. 

Since the logs of the beta doses are assumed to follow a Normal distribution, the 75th

percentile corresponds to an approximate z-score of 0.675 and the 25th percentile to a z-score 

of -0.675. The distance [log(xq75) – log(xq25)] is approximately [0.675 – (-0.675)] or 1.35 

standard deviations. An estimate of one standard deviation, therefore, would be [log(xq75) –

log(xq250] ÷ 1.35. 

[5] Watkins, Janice P. ORAU Team. Biostatistician. April 2007. 

When the doses, d, follow a lognormal distribution, the ML prediction density in any quarter for 

z = log(d) is normal with mean ∧

μ and ∧

σ = [ ∧σ 2 + var( ∧

μ ) ]1/2, where ∧μ , ∧

σ , and var( ∧

μ ) appear in 

Table 8.2 and are designated as mu, sig, and se.mu. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 51 of 72

[6] Kerr, George D. ORAU Team. Health Physicist. April 2007.

Before 1961, film badge dosimeters were not issued to all workers, and there were a lot of 

unmonitored quarters among workers because film badges were typically provided only to 

workers who entered certain areas within the Y-12 Plant. In 1961, a new policy was instituted 

that required all Y-12 workers to be monitored for external radiation exposure with film badges, 

which were an integral part of the worker’s identification badges and contained components for 

both routine and accident-related dosimetry. Thus, unmonitored quarters among Y-12 workers 

were rare after 1961. 

[7] Watkins, Janice P. ORAU Team. Biostatistician. April 2007. 

As an additional assurance that an assigned dose for an unmonitored quarter would be 

favorable to claimants, a scaling procedure was developed that produced upward adjustment 

of a quarterly dose whenever there was evidence after complete monitoring began that the 

worker had higher potential exposure than average. Assigned doses were not scaled 

downward when evidence showed that the worker appeared to have lower potential than 

average. The procedure works by scaling the GM and GSD of the lognormal distribution 

which the dose reconstructor would use as a basis for creating the assigned dose. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 52 of 72

Ashley, J. C., J. E. Turner, M. L. Souleyrette, R. S. Bogard, and K. L. McMahan, 1995, A Technical 

Study of TLD Beta Calibration Factor for Exposure to Depleted Uranium, Y/DQ-59, Lockheed 

Martin Energy Systems, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June. [SRDB Ref ID: 16474]

REFERENCES

Auxier, J. A., 1967, “Special Methods in Radiation Dosimetry,” Principles of Radiation Protection, K. Z. 

Morgan and J. E. Turner, editors, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, pp. 215–241.

Ballenger, H. F., W. H. Baumann, M. B. Long, D. H. Reed, E. C. Long, C. M. West, L. C. Emerson, 

R. O. Wollan, D. M. Ross, S. R. Bernard, and J. C. Gallimore, 1953, Health Physics Progress 

Report, January 1, 1952 to July 1, 1952, Y-940, Y-12 Plant, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals 

Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 12503]

Beck, W. J., 1981, “Corrections to 1954 Y-12 Film Badge Data,” memorandum to D. Hudson, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, December 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 28125]

Berger, M. J., J. S. Coursey, M. A. Zucker, and J. Chang, 2005, ESTAR, PSTAR, and ASTAR: 

Computer Programs for Calculating Stopping-Power and Range Tables for Electrons, Protons, 

and Helium Ions (version 1.2.3), NISTIR 4999, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland. [SRDB Ref ID: 29223]

BWXT Y-12, 2000, Recycled Uranium Mass Balance Project Y-12 National Security Complex Site 

Report, Y/LB-16,036, Rev. 1, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

December. [SRDB Ref ID: 16500]

Callihan, D., and J. T. Thomas, 1959, “Accidental Radiation Excursion at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant—

I. Description and Physics of the Accident,” Health Physics, volume 1, number 4, pp. 363–

372. [SRDB Ref ID: 8606]

Chew, M. L., 2007, personal communication with G. D. Kerr, Kerr Consulting, Knoxville, Tennessee, 

April 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 31372]

Coleman, R. L., C. G. Hudson, and P. A. Plato, 1983, “Depth-Dose Curves for 90Sr and Natural and 

Depleted Uranium in Mylar,” Health Physics, volume 44, number 4, pp. 395–402. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 12288]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004, Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological 

Protection in Uranium Facilities, DOE-STD-1136-2004, Washington, D.C., December. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 18881]

Dudney, R. A., 1956, “Photographic Dosimetry,” in Radiation Dosimetry, 2nd Edition, G. J. Hine and 

G. L. Brownnell, editors, Academic Press, New York, New York, Volume II, pp. 299-355.

Eckerman, K. F., 2003, ICRP38 Computer Program (Ver. 1.0), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.

Eckerman, K. F., R. J. Westfall, J. C. Ryman, and M. Cristy, 1994, “Availability of Nuclear Decay Data 

in Electronic Form, Including Beta Spectra Not Previously Published,” Health Physics, 

volume 67, number 4, pp. 338-345.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 53 of 72

Ehrlich, M., 1962, The Use of Film Badges for Personnel Monitoring, Safety Series No. 8, 

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

Elandt-Johnson, R. C., and N. L. Johnson, 1980, Survival Models and Data Analysis, John Wiley & 

Sons, New York, New York.

Emlet, L. B., 1952, “Contamination Control: Appendix A – Health Physics Aspects,” letter to R. C. 

Armstrong (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge Operations), Union Carbide Nuclear 

Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 20122]

Emlet, L. B., 1956, “Radiation Protection at UCNC Production Facilities,” letter to S. R. Sharpie (U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission), Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

August 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 23616]

Frome, E. L., and J. P. Watkins, 2004, Statistical Analysis of Data with Non-detectable Values, 

ORNL/TM-2004/146, UT Battelle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

August. [SRDB Ref ID: 24176]

Handloser, J. S., 1959, Health Physics Instrumentation, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

Henderson, 1991, Evaluation of Radiation Exposure in Metal Preparation Depleted Uranium Process 

Areas, Y/DQ--5/R1, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

May. [SRDB Ref ID: 8538]

Howell, R. L., and Z. Batte, 1982, Thermoluminescent Dosimetry for Union Carbide Corporation 

Nuclear Division Personnel, Y/DK-291, Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

April 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 8603]

Hurst, G. S., R. H. Ritchie, and L. C. Emerson, 1959, “Accidental Radiation Excursion at the Oak 

Ridge Y-12 Plant—III. Determination of Radiation Doses,” Health Physics, volume 2, pp. 121–

133. [SRDB Ref ID: 10132]

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 1974, Evaluation of Radiation Emergencies and 

Accidents: Selected Criteria and Data, Technical Reports Series No. 152, Vienna, Austria, 

March 29.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1977, Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 26, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 2002, Basic Anatomical and 

Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection: Reference Values, Publication 89, 

Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1997, Dosimetry of External 

Beta Rays for Radiation Protection, Report 56, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Johnson, N. L, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan, 1995, Continuous Univariate Distributions, Second 

Edition, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 54 of 72

Jones, D. A., 1971, Evaluation of Personal Monitoring Films for Y-12 Security Meter Badge, Y-DD-85, 

Union Carbide Corporation, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 8530] 

Kang, J., and F. N. von Hippel, 2001, “U-232 and the Proliferation-Resistance of U-233 in Spent Fuel,” 

Science & Global Security, volume 9, number 1, pp. 1–32. [SRDB Ref ID: 21218] 

Larson, C. E., 1949, “Finger Film Pad,” letter to H. Blatz (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Carbide 

and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, December 16. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 4298]

Lejeune, M., and G. D. Faulkenberry, 1982, “A Simple Predictive Density Function,” Journal of the 

American Statistical Association, volume 77, number 379, pp. 654–657.

McLendon, J. D., 1958, “Change in Y-12 Film Badge Program,” memorandum to E. W. Bailey et al., 

Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 20093]

McLendon, J. D., 1960, “Personnel Radiation Exposure Data,” memorandum to G. W. Flack, Union 

Carbide Nuclear Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, August 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 

3694]

McLendon, J. D., 1962, "Supplementary Film Badge Program," memorandum to L. E. Burkart, Union 

Carbide Nuclear Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 19800]

McLendon, J. D., 1963, Y-12 Radiation Safety Manual, Y-KB-29, Union Carbide Corporation, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, October 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 8541]

McLendon, J. D., R. G. Affel, A. G. Bailey, K. A. Davis, and E. D. Gupton, 1980, External Radiation 

Monitoring of Union Carbide Nuclear Division Personnel, Y/DD-268, Union Carbide 

Corporation, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 8589]

McRee, P. C., C. M. West, and J. D. McLendon, editors, 1965, Y-12 Radiation Safety Manual, Y1401–Revised, Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 11. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 8536]

Morgan, K. Z., 1961, “Dosimetry Requirements for Protection from Ionizing Radiation,” Selected 

Topics in Radiation Dosimetry, Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected Topics in 

Radiation Dosimetry, Sponsored by and Held in Vienna 7-11 June 1960, International Atomic 

Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, pp. 3–23. [SRDB Ref ID: 8345]

Murray, R., 1948a, Health Physics Progress Report, January 1 - 31, 1948, Y-120, Carbide and 

Carbon Chemicals Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, 

p. 476]

Murray, R., 1948b, Health Physics Progress Report, February 1 - 29, 1948, Y-134, Carbide and 

Carbon Chemicals Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, 

p. 469]

NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 2005, Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Explosive 

Materials: An Assessment of Methods and Capabilities, National Academy Press, 

Washington, D.C.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 55 of 72

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1954, Permissible Dose from External Sources of Ionizing 

Radiation, Recommendations of the National Committee on Radiation Protection, Handbook 

59, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., September 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 11111, 

p. 16]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004a, Technical Information Bulletin: Individual 

Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 Dose Reconstruction, ORAUT-OTIB-0013, Rev. 00, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, September 9.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004b, Accounting for Incomplete Personal 

Monitoring Data on Penetrating Gamma-Ray Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at the Oak 

Ridge Y-12 Plant Prior to 1961, ORAUT-PROC-0042, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September 9.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005a, Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge 

Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, TN, Part 1 – Gamma Radiation,

ORAUT-RPRT-0032, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 13.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005b, Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge 

Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 − Neutron Radiation, 

ORAUT-RPRT-0033, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 13.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005c, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 

11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005d, External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 

Facility During the 1948-1949 Period, ORAUT-OTIB-0047, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September 20.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005e, Technical Basis Document for the Y-12 

National Security Complex – Site Description, ORAUT-TKBS-0014-2, Rev. 01 PC-2, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, October 11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006a, A Standard Complex-Wide Methodology 

for Overestimating External Doses Measured with Film Badge Dosimeters, ORAUT-OTIB0010, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006b, Technical Basis Document for the Y-12 

National Security Complex - Occupational External Dosimetry, ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6, Rev. 00 

PC-3, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006c, External Radiation Dose Estimates for 

Individuals Near the 1958 Criticality Accident at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, ORAUT-OTIB0057, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 15.

Oxley, L. S., 2001, Technical Basis for the External Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 National Security 

Complex, RCO/TBD-007, Revision 3, BWXT Y-12, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, August 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 8467]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 56 of 72

Patterson, G. R. Jr., 1958, “Film Badge Exchange,” memorandum to J. C. Hart, Union Carbide 

Nuclear Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 28128]

Patterson, G. R., Jr., C. M. West, and J. D. McLendon, 1957, The Y-12 Health Physics Program, 

Y-1186 Deleted Revision, Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 14022]

RDCT (R Development Core Team), 2004, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, 

R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ISBN-3-900051-00-3, Vienna, Austria.

Reavis, J. P., 1958, “Frequency of Film Badge Analysis,” memorandum to C. M. West, Union Carbide 

Nuclear Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 20094]

Rutherford, B. F., 2005, personnel communication with G. D. Kerr, Kerr Consulting, Knoxville, 

Tennessee, July 26. [SRDB Ref. ID: 31372]

Schneider, S., D. C. Kocher, G. D. Kerr, P. A. Scofield, F. R. O’Donnell, C. R. Mattsen, S. J. Cotter, 

J. S. Bogard, J. S. Bland, and C. Wiblin, 1999, Systematic Radiological Assessment of 

Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials, NUREG-1717, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C., June.

Sherrill, M. W., and W. O. Tucker, 1973, Evaluation of New Film Badge Reader and Revised 

Exposure Computations, Y-DK-111, Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, October 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 8590]

Shleien, B., L. A. Slaback, Jr., and B. K. Birky, editors, 1998, Handbook of Health Physics and 

Radiological Health, Third Edition, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, January.

Souleyrette, M. L., 2003, Y-12 National Security Complex, Summary of Historical Monitoring 

Techniques Provided to NIOSH for EEOICPA Data Requests, Revision 0, BWXT Y-12, Y-12 

National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 8586]

Struxness, E. G., 1948a, Health Physics - Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, May 1 - 31, 1948, 

Y-181/1R, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 457]

Struxness, E. G., 1948b, Health Physics – Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, August 1 - 31 1948, 

Y-237/1R, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 6844]

Struxness, E. G., 1949a, Health Physics - Hygiene Progress Report, May 1 - 31, 1949, Y-429/1R, 

Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 296]

Struxness, E. G., 1949b, Health Physics-Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, December 1-31, 1948, 

Y-318/1R, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, January 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 364]

Struxness, E. G., 1951a, Health Physics Progress Report, November 1, 1950 - December 31, 1950, 

Y-780, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 

14. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 215]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 57 of 72

Struxness, E. G., 1951b, Health Physics Progress Report, January 1, 1951 – June 30, 1951, Y-836, 

Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, December 15. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 257]

Struxness, E. G., 1952, Health Physics Progress Report, July 1, 1951 - December 31, 1951, Y-858, 

H. F. Ballenger, editor, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, March 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 13055]

Struxness, E. G., 1954a, Health Physics Progress Report, July 1, 1952 through December 31, 1952, 

Y-1066, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 

30. [SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 85]

Struxness, E. G., 1954b, Health Physics Progress Report – January 1, 1953 through June 30, 1953, 

Y-1070, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 8602, p. 53]

Thornton, W. T., D. M. Davis, and E. D. Gupton, 1961, The ORNL Badge Dosimeter and Its Personnel 

Monitoring Applications, ORNL-3126, Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 8573]

UCNC (Union Carbide Nuclear Company), 1958, Accidental Radiation Excursion at the Y-12 Plant, 

June 16, 1958, Final Report, Y-1234, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 

4439]

UCNC (Union Carbide Nuclear Company), 1963a, Y-12 Plant Quarterly Health Physics Report –

Fourth Quarter CY 1962, Y-KB-26, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 5, 1963. [SRDB Ref ID: 

23618]

UCNC (Union Carbide Nuclear Company), 1963b, Y-12 Plant Quarterly Health Physics Report – Third 

Quarter CY 1962, Y-KB-24, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 

23617]

Watkins, J. P., J. L. Reagan, D. L. Cragle, E. L. Frome, C. M. West, D .J. Crawford-Brown, and W. G. 

Tankersley, 1993, Data Collection, Validation, and Description for the Oak Ridge Nuclear 

Facilities Mortality Study, ORISE 93/J-42, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, October. [SRDB Ref ID: 10133]

West, C. M., 1955, “Tabulation of Direct Radiation Findings,” internal correspondence to F. Baker, 

Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 

19808]

West, C. M., 1956, “Listings of External Exposure Records on IBM Sheets,” memorandum to P. 

Johnson, Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 5. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 19803]

West, C. M., and E. Roberts, Jr., 1962, Health Physics Experience During Processing of U-233 in 

Y-12 Plant, Y-KB-19, Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 11598]

West, C. M., 1965, Health Physics Considerations Associated with Thorium Processing, Y-KB-53, 

Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 11596]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 58 of 72

West, C. M., 1974, “Health Physics Considerations Associated with Processing of 233U,” internal 

correspondence to R. B. Burditt, Union Carbide Nuclear Division, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, May 10. [SRBD Ref ID: 28129]

West, C. M., 1981, “Discrepancy in 1954 Y-12 Film Badge Results,” letter to H. L. Fore (Oak Ridge 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant), Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, August 18. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 28125]

West, H. [C. M.], 1993a, “Brief History of the Y-12 External Monitoring Program,” internal 

memorandum to D. Cragle, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, June 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 8532]

West, H. [C. M.], 1993b, “Addendum to 'Brief History of the Y-12 External Monitoring Program',” 

memorandum to D. L. Cragle, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, June 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 13296]

Wilcox, W. J., Jr., 2001, An Overview of the History of Y-12, 1942 - 1992, A Chronology of Some 

Noteworthy Events and Memoirs, American Museum of Science and Energy, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, August. [SRDB Ref ID: 9609]

Wiley, S. W., 2004, “Y-12 Historical Radiation Standards,” letter to G. D. Kerr, BWXT Y-12, Knoxville, 

Tennessee, June 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 28131]

Wollan, R. O., 1954, “Health Physics Records,” letter to O. S. Hiestand, Jr. (U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, Office of Assistant Counsel General), Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Company, 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 19810]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 59 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 1 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 206 

GM= 7.9 GSD= 15.7 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 253 

GM= 2.1 GSD= 100.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 308 

GM= 0.7 GSD= 143.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 386 

GM= 0.2 GSD= 217.2 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1952

Figure A-1. Q-Q plots for 1952.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 60 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 2 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 147 

GM= 0.1 GSD= 601.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 157 

GM= 0.1 GSD= 642.3 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 151 

GM= 5.1 GSD= 74.2 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 334 

GM= 117.9 GSD= 7.9 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1953

Figure A-2. Q-Q plots for 1953.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 61 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 3 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 332 

GM= 134.3 GSD= 5.4 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 205 

GM= 101.5 GSD= 14.9 Rsquar 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 202 

GM= 139.2 GSD= 13.7 Rsqua 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 497 

GM= 420.3 GSD= 5.4 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1954

Figure A-3. Q-Q plots for 1954.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 62 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 4 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 525 

GM= 618.4 GSD= 3.1 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 525 

GM= 404.2 GSD= 4.9 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 468 

GM= 280.6 GSD= 5.2 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 398 

GM= 408.8 GSD= 7.2 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1955

Figure A-4. Q-Q plots for 1955.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 63 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 5 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 448 

GM= 563.2 GSD= 3.1 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 492 

GM= 361.8 GSD= 3.7 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 617 

GM= 515.6 GSD= 2.4 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 620 

GM= 358.1 GSD= 2.6 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1956

Figure A-5. Q-Q plots for 1956.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 64 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 6 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 565 

GM= 708.9 GSD= 2.3 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 595 

GM= 466.6 GSD= 2.5 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 668 

GM= 335 GSD= 2.7 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 678 

GM= 341.7 GSD= 2.2 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1957

Figure A-6. Q-Q plots for 1957.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 65 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 7 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 704 

GM= 331.4 GSD= 2.3 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 694 

GM= 172.3 GSD= 3.3 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 689 

GM= 251.5 GSD= 3.1 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 788 

GM= 163.1 GSD= 3.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1958

Figure A-7. Q-Q plots for 1958.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 66 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 8 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 844 

GM= 146 GSD= 3.7 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 854 

GM= 161.7 GSD= 3.5 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 909 

GM= 167.2 GSD= 4 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 1053 

GM= 146 GSD= 4.6 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1959

Figure A-8. Q-Q plots for 1959.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 67 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 9 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 1148 

GM= 114.3 GSD= 4 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 1104 

GM= 151.6 GSD= 4.4 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 1055 

GM= 187.8 GSD= 4.5 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 985 

GM= 171.9 GSD= 3.9 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1960

Figure A-9. Q-Q plots for 1960.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 68 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 10 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 5301 

GM= 25 GSD= 6.1 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 5525 

GM= 18.3 GSD= 6.5 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 5494 

GM= 24.5 GSD= 4.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 5565 

GM= 16.6 GSD= 6.3 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1961

Figure A-10. Q-Q plots for 1961.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 69 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 11 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 5583 

GM= 21.8 GSD= 5.3 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 5352 

GM= 30.4 GSD= 5.2 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 5394 

GM= 22.5 GSD= 5.9 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 5327 

GM= 8.6 GSD= 9.2 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1962

Figure A-11. Q-Q plots for 1962.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 70 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 12 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 5456 

GM= 15.3 GSD= 5.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 5536 

GM= 9.4 GSD= 8.1 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 5549 

GM= 25.3 GSD= 4.4 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 5461 

GM= 17.6 GSD= 4.8 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1963

Figure A-12. Q-Q plots for 1963.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 71 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 13 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 5477 

GM= 16.2 GSD= 5.2 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 5314 

GM= 26.5 GSD= 4.1 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 5360 

GM= 31.7 GSD= 3.6 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 5122 

GM= 3.9 GSD= 14 Rsquare= 0

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1964

Figure A-13. Q-Q plots for 1964.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0046 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/22/2007 Page 72 of 72

ATTACHMENT A

LOGNORMAL QUANTILE-QUANTILE PLOTS FOR QUARTERLY BETA DOSES

Page 14 of 14

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 1 N= 5037 

GM= 13.2 GSD= 5.3 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 2 N= 4474 

GM= 17.5 GSD= 4.3 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 3 N= 4345 

GM= 16.9 GSD= 3.6 Rsquare= 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

-2 0 2 4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Quarter= 4 N= 4336 

GM= 10.1 GSD= 4.8 Rsquare 

Lognormal Quantile

Dose in mrem 

Quarterly Y-12 Beta Dose for 1965

Figure A-14. Q-Q plots for 1965.