ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

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

Page 1 of 13

Document Title:

Technical Basis for Conversion from 

NCRP Report 38 Neutron Quality Factors 

to ICRP Publication 60 Radiation 

Weighting Factors for Respective IREP 

Input Neutron Energy Ranges

Document Number: ORAUT-OTIB-0055 

Revision: 00

Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Type of Document: OTIB

Supersedes: None

Subject Experts: George D. Kerr and Jack J. Fix

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 05/07/2006

John M. Byrne, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 05/11/2006

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 06/05/2006

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

 New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

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

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 13

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

06/05/2006 00 New document for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 Neutron 

Quality Factors to ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors 

for Respective IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges. First approved 

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

Initiated by George D. Kerr and Jack J. Fix. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 3 of 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

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

PAGE

4

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

2.0 Background..............................................................................................................................6

3.0 Neutron Dose Equivalent Adjustments.....................................................................................7

4.0 Discussion .............................................................................................................................11

References ........................................................................................................................................12

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

2-1 Radiation weighting factors from ICRP Publication 60..............................................................

PAGE

6

3-1 Neutron quality factor, Q, or weighting factor, wR ..................................................................... 8

3-2 Dose equivalent fractions for exposure to neutrons from (alpha,neutron) 

reactions in highly enriched UF4 storage containers at the Y-12 facility.................................. 10

3-3 Example calculation of the corrected dose equivalent for exposure of a 

worker to neutrons from (alpha,neutron) reactions in highly enriched UF4

storage containers at the Y-12 facility..................................................................................... 10

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

2-1 Comparison of neutron quality factors from NCRP Report 20 and NCRP 

Report 38.................................................................................................................................

PAGE

7

3-1 Comparison of point-wise data on the neutron quality factor from NCRP 

Report 38 and group averaged neutron quality factors used in dose 

reconstruction ..........................................................................................................................8

3-2 Dose equivalent fractions for an exposure to neutrons from (alpha,neutron) 

reactions in highly enriched UF4 storage containers at the Y-12 facility.................................. 10
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 4 of 13

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

E neutron energy

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

hr hour

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (a computer program)

keV thousand electron-volts (a unit of energy)

LET linear energy transfer (along a charged particle track)

MeV million electron-volts (a unit of energy)

mrem millirem

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory

POC probability of causation

Q neutron quality factor

Q average neutron quality factor (for the energy groups used in dose reconstruction) 

Qs site-specific neutron quality factor

RBE relative biological effectiveness (compared to X or gamma radiation)

TBD technical basis document

TIB technical information bulletin

U.S.C. United States Code

Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex

wR radiation weighting factor

§ section
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 5 of 13

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event additional relevant information is 

obtained. TIBs may be used to assist the NIOSH staff in the completion of individual work required for 

each dose reconstruction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73841(12)]. Accordingly, except for the exclusion for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted 

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

facility encompassed by EEOICPA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

determined in accordance with the POC [probability of causation1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exposures at the facility in its dose reconstructions for employees at DOE facilities, including radiation 

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

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

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

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

derived:

] guidelines established under 

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

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

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

• Radiation from naturally occurring radon present in conventional structures

 1 The U.S. Department of Labor is ultimately responsible under the EEOICPA for determining the POC.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 6 of 13

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

The purpose of this TIB is to provide a broader technical basis to convert from recorded neutron dose 

to dose equivalent using the ICRP Publication 60 radiation weighting factors (ICRP 1991). The 

respective site Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) often present this approach without a clear basis. 

For example, the Savannah River and Pantex site dosimetry representatives have expressed concern 

over the origin of the tables in these TBDs that are similar to Table 3.1 of this TIB. The guidance in 

this TIB states under the Discussion section that the neutron dose equivalent fractions are obtained 

from the respective TBDs and the methodology of this TIB is applied in the process of conversion to 

dose equivalent using the ICRP Publication 60 radiation weighting factors.

2.0 BACKGROUND

When routine personal monitoring or radiation survey data are reported, the site-specific neutron 

quality factor (Qs) must be removed such that absorbed dose is the fundamental unit and the ICRP 

Publication 60 (ICRP 1991) radiation weighting factor (wR) must be applied before the conversion to 

organ dose for use in IREP (NIOSH 2003). The ICRP selected the value of the radiation weighting 

factor for a specific type and energy of radiation to be representative of the relative biological 

effectiveness (RBE) of that radiation in inducing stochastic effects such as cancer due to low radiation 

doses. Table 2-1 summarizes the radiation weighting factors recommended by ICRP (1991). The 

values of wR are broadly compatible with values of neutron quality factors (Q), which are related to the 

quantity of linear energy transfer (LET). The LET is a measure of the density of ionization along the 

track of an ionizing particle such as an electron, proton, alpha particle, or heavier nucleus. The value 

of wR is set equal to unity for all radiations of low LET, including X and gamma radiation of all 

energies. The choice for other radiations is based on values of the RBE, regardless of whether the 

reference radiation is X or gamma.

Table 2-1. Radiation weighting factors from ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP 1991).

Type of radiation and energy rangea Radiation weighting 

factor, wR

Photons, all energies 1

Electrons and muons, all energiesb 1

Neutrons, energies less than 10 keV 5

10 keV to 100 keV 10

100 keV to 2 MeV 20

2 MeV to 20 MeV 10

Energies greater than 20 MeV 5

Protons, other than recoil protons with energies greater than 2 Mev 5

Alpha particles, fission fragments, and heavy nuclei 20

a. All values relate to the energy of the radiation incident on the body or, for internal sources, the 

energy of the radiation emitted from the source.

b. Excluding Auger electrons emitted from nuclei bound to DNA.

In general, since the 1950s a quality factor of 10 has been applied to fast neutron exposures, but this 

value has changed from 5 to 20 across facilities and time frames (NIOSH 2002). This TIB presents a

technique that dose reconstructors can use to remove the site-specific quality factor (Qs) from 

personal monitoring or radiation survey data at a facility of interest. Figure 2-1 shows the two most 

widely used sets of neutron quality factors (Q) in the United States. The first set, from NCRP Report 

20 (NCRP 1957), was obtained from neutron transport calculations of both the absorbed dose and 

dose equivalent in a slab phantom. The second set, from NCRP Report 38 (NCRP 1973), was 

obtained from neutron transport calculations of both the absorbed dose and dose equivalent in a 

cylindrical phantom. The two sets of data for the neutron quality factor are in close agreement despite 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 7 of 13

differences in the shapes of the tissue-equivalent phantoms used to represent the human torso. The 

Q(E) values are the ratio of the dose equivalent to the absorbed dose nearest the surface of the 

phantom being irradiated by a normally incident plane, parallel beam of monoenergetic neutrons 

having an energy, E. The results in the following sections are based on the newer, more extensive 

set of data on Q(E) from NCRP Report 38.

Figure 2-1. Comparison of neutron quality factors from NCRP Report 20 

(NCRP 1957) and NCRP Report 38 (NCRP 1971).

3.0 NEUTRON DOSE EQUIVALENT ADJUSTMENTS

An adjustment to the dose equivalent from neutrons is necessary to account for the change in neutron 

quality factors between historical and current scientific guidance, as discussed in NIOSH (2003). To 

make such an adjustment, a curve was fit that described the NCRP 38 (NCRP 1971) neutron quality 

factor as a function of neutron energy (see Figure 2-1). An average quality factor, Q(E E ) 1 2 , , for each 

neutron energy group was developed by integrating to find the area under the curve (E2 > E1) and 

then dividing the area under the curve by the width of the neutron energy group, E2 – E1, as shown in 

equation (1).

Q(E ,E ) =

Q(E)dE

E - E 1 2

E

E

2 1

1

2

∫ (1)

Figure 3-1 shows the point-wise neutron quality factors from NCRP Report 38 (NCRP 1971) and 

average quality factors calculated for each of the neutron energy groups used to define the neutron 

weighting factors in ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). Table 3-1 summarizes these group averaged 

quality factors and the radiation weighting factors used in dose reconstruction. In addition, this table 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 8 of 13

compares the group averaged NCRP 38 quality factors with other historical dosimetry guidelines for 

neutrons from the First Tripartite Conference at Chalk River in 1949 (Warren et al. 1949; Fix, Gilbert, 

and Baumgartner 1994) and NCRP Report 17 (NCRP 1954; Taylor 1971). 

Figure 3-1. Comparison of point-wise data on the neutron quality factor from 

NCRP Report 38 (solid line) and group averaged neutron quality factors 

used in dose reconstruction (dashed lines).

Table 3-1. Neutron quality factor, Q, or weighting factor, wR.

Neutron energy

(MeV)

Historical 

dosimetry

guidelinesa

NCRP Report 38 group 

averaged quality

factorb

ICRP Publication 60

neutron weighting

factor

Ratioc

Thermal 3 2.35 5 2.13

0.5 eV - 10 keV 10

10 keV - 100 keV 5.38 10 1.86

100 keV - 2 MeV 10.49 20 1.91

2 MeV – 20 MeV 7.56 10 1.32

20 MeV - 60 MeV 6.96d 5 1.00e

a. First Tripartite Conference at Chalk River in 1949 (Warren et al. 1949; Fix, Gilbert, and Baumgartner 1994) and NCRP 

Report 17 (NCRP 1954; Taylor 1971).

b. See Figure 3-1.

c. Ratio of the ICRP 60 weighting factor to the group averaged NCRP38 quality factor each neutron energy group. 

d. “Not applicable” is usually inserted here rather than the NCRP group averaged value of 6.96, which is larger than the 

ICRP 60 weighting factor of 5 for 20-to-60-MeV neutrons and results in a non-claimant-favorable reduction in the 

corrected dose for this neutron energy group.

e. Ratio for adjusting neutron dose from NCRP 38 quality factor to ICRP 60 weighting factor is arbitrarily set equal to unity 

to avoid a non-claimant-favorable reduction in the corrected dose for this neutron energy group.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 9 of 13

A corrected neutron dose equivalent, C (E E ) f 1 2 , , for each of the five neutron energy groups used in 

dose reconstruction (see Table 2-1) can be calculated by dividing the dose equivalent fraction, 

D (E E ) f 1 2 , , for each energy group by the corresponding energy specific averaged NCRP 38 (NCRP 

1971) quality factor, Q(E1 E2 , ), and then multiplying by the ICRP 60 (ICRP 1991) weighting factor, 

w (E E ) R 1 2 , , as shown in equation (2). The total corrected dose equivalent is then the sum of the 

corrected energy group dose equivalents. Note that the Df values are unique to each facility and are 

discussed in the site specific TBDs. These corrections, based on the values of Q(E1 E2 , ) and 

w (E E ) R 1 2 , as listed in Table 3-1, should be applied to measured dose, missed dose, and dose 

determined based on neutron-to-photon ratio (ORAU 2005a). It is recommended to use the value of 

1.00 for the ratio of wR to Q noted in Table 3.1 for the energy range from 20-60 MeV because this 

results in a claimant favorable dose equivalent fraction. 

C (E E ) = D (E ,E )

Q(E E )

 w (E E ) f 1 2

f 1 2

1 2

R 1 2 , , × , (2)

The following example, based on results of neutron spectra and dose equivalent measurements by 

the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in a highly enriched UF4 storage area at the Y-12 facility in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, illustrates the application of equation (2) (PNL 1990; McMahan 1991; BWXT 

Y-12 2001). The interaction of alpha particles from uranium with the nuclei of fluorine and other low-Z 

atoms generates neutrons with energies of approximately 2 MeV (DOE 2004). In general, the 

exposure potential of workers to neutrons generated by (alpha,neutron) reactions is low, but dose 

reconstructors should evaluate their exposures to neutrons if their work assignments required them to 

spend time near storage or process areas for large quantities of uranium fluoride compounds (DOE 

2004). The solid line in Figure 3-2 shows the PNL measurements of exposure to neutrons from 

(alpha,neutron) reactions in highly enriched UF4 at the Y-12 storage area, and Table 3-2 lists the dose 

fractions for the neutron energy groups shown by the dashed line in the figure. Suppose that a 

recorded neutron dose for a Y-12 worker in this storage area is 500 mrem. The corrected dose 

equivalent fractions as calculated using equation (2) and the data in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 are 13, 3, 

926, and 10 mrem for the less-than-10 keV, 10-to-100-keV, 0.1-to-2-MeV, and 2-to-20-MeV neutron 

energy groups, respectively, and the total corrected neutron dose equivalent is 952 mrem (see 

Table 3-3). The dose fractions for the lower energy (less than 10 keV), intermediate-energy (10 to 

100 keV), and high-energy (2 to 20 MeV) neutron groups are only 3% of the recorded dose equivalent 

for neutrons. Combining these three neutron energy groups with the 0.1-to-2-MeV fast neutron group 

provides a reasonable and claimant-favorable simplification of the neutron dose reconstruction for a 

Y-12 worker (see Table 3-2). The calculated corrected dose equivalent based on this simplifying 

assumption is 955 mrem (i.e., 1.91 × 1.00 × 500 mrem).

The use of only one dose fraction for neutrons with energies between 10 keV and 20 MeV as 

discussed above is unusual unless sufficiently detailed information of the neutron energy spectrum is 

not available. In this situation, the NCRP recommends the use of an average neutron quality factor 

for fast neutrons of 10 (NCRP 1973; also see NCRP 1957). Thus, dose reconstructors should use the

following claimant-favorable recommendations in the absence of detailed information on the neutron 

energies involved in a worker’s exposure: (1) assume the corrected neutron dose equivalent to be 

twice the measured dose, missed dose, or dose based on a neutron-to-photon ratio, and (2) assume 

the neutron energies to be in the energy range from 0.1 to 2 MeV. These recommendations should 

apply mainly to neutron doses measured prior to 1957 and the publication of NCRP Report 20. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 10 of 13

Figure 3-2. Dose equivalent fractions for an exposure to neutrons from 

(alpha,neutron) reactions in highly enriched UF4 storage containers at the Y-12 

facility. The solid line shows PNL measured results and the dashed line shows 

dose fractions for neutron energy groups used in dose reconstruction. The dose 

equivalent values in the figure are for a 1-hr exposure near the center of a large 

rack containing multiple UF4 storage containers.

Table 3-2. Dose equivalent fractions for 

exposure to neutrons from (alpha,neutron) 

reactions in highly enriched UF4 storage 

containers at the Y-12 facility. 

Neutron energy group Dose fraction

< 10 keV 0.012

10 - 100 keV 0.003

0.1 - 2 MeV 0.970

2 - 20 MeV 0.015

Claimant-favorable dose fractions

0.1 - 2 MeV 1.00

Table 3-3. Example calculation of the corrected dose equivalent for exposure of a worker to neutrons 

from (alpha,neutron) reactions in highly enriched UF4 storage containers at the Y-12 facility. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 11 of 13

Neutron

energy groupa

NCRP 38

quality factora

ICRP weighting

factora Ratioa Recorded dose

equivalent

Dose

fractionb

Corrected 

dose 

equivalent

<10 keV 2.35 5 2.13 500 0.012 12.78

10 - 100 keV 5.38 10 1.86 500 0.003 2.79

0.1 - 2 MeV 10.49 20 1.91 500 0.970 926.35

2 - 20 MeV 7.56 10 1.32 500 0.015 9.90

20 - 60 MeV 6.69 5 1.00 500 0. 0

Total 951.82

a. See Table 3-1.

b. See Table 3-2.

4.0 DISCUSSION

Adjustment to the neutron dose for each worker is necessary to account for the change in neutron 

quality factors between historical and current scientific guidance (see Table 3-1). A corrected neutron 

dose equivalent for each of the five energy groups used in dose reconstruction can be calculated 

using equation (2), the data in Table 3-1, and dose fractions listed in tables of the TBD for DOE facility 

of interest (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3). These corrections should be applied to measured dose, missed 

dose, and dose determined based on neutron-to-photon ratios. It is recommended to use the value of 

1.00 for the ratio of wR to Q noted in Table 3.1 for the energy group from 20-60 MeV because this 

results in a claimant favorable dose equivalent fraction. If sufficiently detailed information on neutron 

energies is not available, dose reconstructors should use the following claimant-favorable

recommendations: (1) assume the corrected dose equivalent to be twice the measured dose, missed 

dose, or dose based on neutron-to-photon ratios; and (2) assume the neutron energies are in the

range from 0.1 to 2 MeV. These recommendations should apply mainly to neutron doses measured 

prior to 1957 and the publication of NCRP Report 20 (NCRP 1957). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 12 of 13

REFERENCES

BWXT Y-12, L.L.C., 2001, Technical Basis for the External Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 National 

Security Complex, RCO/TBD-007 Rev. 3, Radiological Control Organization, Y-12 National 

Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2004, Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological 

Protection in Uranium Facilities, DOE Standard, DOE-STD-1136-2004, Washington, D. C.

Fix, J. J., E. S. Gilbert, and W. V. Baumgartner, 1994, An Assessment of Bias and Uncertainty in 

Recorded Dose from External Sources of Radiation Workers at the Hanford Site, PNNL11196, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

ICRP (International Committee on Radiological Protection), 1991, “1990 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60,” Annals of the ICRP, 

volume 21, numbers 1-3, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. 

McMahan, K. L., 1991, “The Martin Marietta Energy Systems Personnel Neutron Dosimetry Program,” 

Eleventh DOE Workshop on Personnel Neutron Dosimetry, CONF-9106235 (PNL-SA-21596), 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1954, Permissible Dose from 

External Radiation Sources of Ionizing Radiation, Report 17 (NBS Handbook 59), National 

Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1957, Protection Against 

Neutron Radiation up to 30 Million Electron Volts, Report 20 (NBS Handbook 63), National 

Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1973, Protection Against 

Neutron Radiation, Report 38, NCRP Publications, Washington, D.C.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2002, External Dose Reconstruction

Guideline, OCAS-IG-001 Rev. 1, Office of Compensation and Analysis, Cincinnati, Ohio.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2003, User’s Guide for the Interactive 

RadioEpidemiological Program (NIOSH-IREP), Version 5.2, Senes, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated Universities), 2005, Savannah River Site, ORAUT-TKBS-0003, Rev. 3, 

ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

PNL (Pacific Northwest Laboratory), 1990, Neutron Dose Equivalent and Energy Spectra 

Measurements at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Y-12 Plant, PNL-7528, Richland, 

Washington.

Taylor, L. S., 1971, Radiation Protection Standards, CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio.

Warren, S., A. C. Chamberlain, G. J. Neary, E. F. Edson, G. O. Failla, J. C. Hamilton, L. Hempelman, 

H. M. Parker, K. Z. Morgan, B. S. Wolf, A. Brues, L. S. Taylor, W. Langham, D. Hoffman, W. B. 

Lewis, A. J. Cipriani, G. C. Laurence, H. Carmichael, G. H. Guest, E. Renton, G. E. McMurtrie, 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 13 of 13

and A. O. Bratten, 1949, Minutes of the Permissible Doses Conference Held at Chalk River, 

Canada, September 29th-30th, 1949, R.M.-10, Tri-Partite Conference, Chalk River, Canada.