ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

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

Page 1 of 26

Document Title:

Interpretation of Dosimetry Data For 

Assignment of Shallow Dose

Document Number: ORAUT-OTIB-0017

Revision: 01

Effective Date: 10/11/2005

Type of Document: OTIB

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert: Steven E. Merwin

Document Owner

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 10/04/2005

Edw ard F. Maher, Task 5 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 10/04/2005

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 10/11/2005

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-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 2 of 26

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

01/11/2005 00 New technical information bulletin to provide information for the 

interpretation of dosimetry data for assignment of shallow dose. First 

approved issue. Initiated by Steven E. Merwin.

10/11/2005 01 Revision to incorporate guidance on non-uniform skin exposures and 

exposures of the breast, testes, and other organs impacted by 

shallow doses. Approved issue of Revision 01. Training required: 

As determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by Steven E. Merwin.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 3 of 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

1.0 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................

PAGE

4

2.0 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4

3.0 GENERAL APPROACH.........................................................................................................5

4.0 APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS....................................................................................10

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................11

ATTACHMENT A, NON-PENETRATING DOSES TO ORGANS OTHER THAN THE SKIN..............13

ATTACHMENT B, SKIN DOSE ASSIGNMENT FOR SAVANNAH RIVER SITE CASES...................20

ATTACHMENT C, SKIN DOSE ASSIGNMENT FOR HANFORD CASES.........................................22

ATTACHMENT D, SKIN DOSE ASSIGNMENT FOR GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT CASES .........25

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Correction factors for non-penetrating dose to the breast, penis, and testicles.......................17

A-2 Correction factors for non-penetrating dose to the lip............................................................18

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Schematic diagram of the breast..........................................................................................14

A-2 Schematic diagram of the penis...........................................................................................15

A-3 Cross-sectional diagram of the penis....................................................................................16

A-4 Schematic diagram of the testicle.........................................................................................17
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 4 of 26

1.0 PURPOSE

Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs) are general working documents that provide guidance 

concerning 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 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the completion of individual dose 

reconstructions.

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 facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)).

The purpose of this Technical Information Bulletin (TIB) is to provide information to allow dose 

reconstructors to assign shallow doses for skin cancer cases and for cases involving other organs

affected by non-penetrating radiation including the breast and testes. Both general and site-specific 

information are provided.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Almost since the inception of operations at DOE sites, it has been known that non-penetrating 

(shallow) doses, notably from exposure to beta particles emitted by isotopes of uranium and their 

daughter products, needed to be evaluated. Consequently, dosimetry systems typically included 

more than one dose measurement including an uncovered, or open-window reading, allowing for the 

measurement of non-penetrating radiation doses. These open-window (OW) measurements form the 

basis for the assignment of skin doses under the dose reconstruction program conducted by NIOSH 

to produce radiation dose estimates that the Department of Labor uses in adjudicating certain cancer 

claims under the EEOICPA; they are also important for assessing doses to other organs such as the 

breast and testes, which can be impacted by non-penetrating radiation.

There are a number of confounding factors that complicate the assignment of skin dose based solely 

on open-window dosimeter measurements. Examples include: 

• Insufficient information is obtained by an open-window measurement to allow partitioning of 

dose by radiation type and energy as required by the IREP program

•

. Even under today’s 

standards, dosimetry systems and radiation dose limits are designed to ensure protection 

against adverse health effects, not the calculation of cancer risk. This is especially true for 

skin dose measurements. Thus, the dosimetry systems are designed such that the doses are 

measured accurately in order to demonstrate compliance with established dose limits. In 

order to partition the measured shallow dose into radiation types and energies relevant to the 

IREP program, additional information must be evaluated by the dose reconstructor, such as 

shielded (S) dosimeter readings corresponding to penetrating doses, and source term 

information contained in the TBDs.

Site reporting schemes

•

. At some sites and during certain time periods, doses were not 

reported as penetrating or non-penetrating. Thus, knowledge of the reporting scheme and 

interpretation of the data are required.

Over-response to low-energy photons. Although early film dosimeters were relatively accurate 

for measuring beta doses, they are known to have over-responded significantly to low-energy 

photons (such as those emitted from plutonium isotopes and daughter products). Although 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 5 of 26

attempts were made at some sites to correct for the over-response through calibration 

techniques or after-the-fact corrections, it is not always straightforward to reproduce the 

procedures adopted at the sites.

• Limit of detection issues

•

. Limits of detection (LODs) for open window measurements vary 

significantly based on type of radiation and energy. This complicates the assignment of 

missed dose. 

Security credentials

In addition to the factors that confound the assignment of skin dose, the assignment of shallow doses 

to organs other than the skin such as the breast and testes is complicated by the fact that the 

sensitive (cancer-inducing) depths in these organs differ from the normally accepted sensitive skin 

depth of 0.07 mm. Because open-window dosimeter measurements were generally designed for skin 

dose assessments, this requires corrections to the measured doses to account for beta particle 

attenuation. In addition, these organs are normally covered by clothing in the workplace which 

requires further consideration of beta attenuation.

. At some sites security credentials were placed over the dosimeter 

badge, including the open window portion. This resulted in an attenuation of beta particles, 

especially those of lower energies. Even though the badges may have been calibrated to 

correct for this attenuation, low-energy beta emitters could not be detected if the credential 

was thick enough to filter out all or most of the particles prior to their reaching the dosimeter.

Recognizing the confounding factors described above, the approach to calculating shallow dose 

described in this document is intended to facilitate the completion of the great majority of cases

without performing extensive research on individual cases, erring on the side of claimant favorability 

1) when necessary due to the lack of information, or 2) intentionally in order to address multiple 

confounding factors in a manner that facilitates the completion of dose reconstructions in a timely 

manner. Cases that involve special circumstances such as unique exposure geometries, exposure to 

low-energy beta particles, the presence of shielding materials, etc., may require special consideration 

to complete the dose reconstruction in a defensible manner.

3.0 GENERAL APPROACH

Dose to the skin (and the breast, testes, and certain other organs) can be associated with penetrating 

radiation (i.e., radiation that impacts tissue at a depth of 1 cm or more), non-penetrating radiation, or 

both. Penetrating radiation includes medium and high-energy photons and neutrons of all energies, 

and non-penetrating radiation consists of low-energy photons (such as X-rays emitted by plutonium 

isotopes) and beta particles (Note: low-energy photons and high-energy beta particles are more 

correctly considered weakly penetrating, since a small fraction of the energy may be deposited at 

depths in tissue greater than 1 cm).

As mentioned in Section 2.0, evaluation of skin doses is complicated by the fact that sites sometimes 

did not report doses as penetrating or non-penetrating. For example, the open-window reading from a 

dosimeter may have been reported directly as “OW,” but this value would include the contribution from 

both penetrating and non-penetrating radiation. In other cases, the sites may have reported a result 

as “Skin Dose,” but the value reported may have included only the non-penetrating component or both 

the penetrating and non-penetrating components. To further complicate matters, the values reported 

may or may not include contributions from neutrons, which in most cases were monitored separately 

but were reported under different schemes. If the TBD does not provide clear information, the 

reporting schemes can typically be identified by evaluating the data. For example, if the reported OW 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 6 of 26

values are always equal to or higher than the S values, this is an indication that the OW reading 

includes both penetrating and non-penetrating radiation.

General Approach Summary

This section discusses the general approach to determining skin dose. Site-specific considerations 

and procedures are provided in the attachments. At the end of this section, information is provided 

that allows the dose reconstructor to modify this approach to assign dose to organs other than the 

skin that are impacted by non-penetrating radiation, such as the breast and testes. 

The general approach to determining skin dose involves only a few basic steps. These steps may be 

supplemented or modified for certain sites and timeframes, e.g., when additional dosimeter elements 

were present that provided more information. The basic steps include:

1. Translate the reported doses into non-penetrating and penetrating doses, separating out 

reported neutron doses, if applicable.

2. Assign the penetrating dose as photons, with the energy partitioned as 30-250 keV and/or 250 

keV according to the TBD.

3. Assign the non-penetrating dose as electrons >15 keV (corrected to account for attenuation, if 

applicable), or photons <30 keV if the employee worked in a plutonium facility.

4. Add missed electron and/or photon dose.

5. Include measured and/or missed neutron dose, if applicable.

6. All dose conversion factors for the skin should be assumed to be 1.

In general, non-penetrating radiation doses should be assigned as <30 keV photons if the employee 

worked with or around Pu, otherwise, > 15 keV electrons should be assigned. If the nature of the 

non-penetrating dose is unknown, consider the following guidance:

a. For a likely non-compensable case, it is acceptable to assume the non-penetrating dose is 

associated with <30 keV photons, as this maximizes POC.

b. For a likely compensable case, it is acceptable to assume the non-penetrating dose is 

associated with >15 keV electrons, as this minimizes POC.

c. If the compensability decision may hinge on this issue, and if the partitioning of the nonpenetrating dose cannot be decided based on the available information, additional research 

may be required.

Electron Attenuation

All measured and missed non-penetrating doses that are considered electrons should be corrected to 

account for attenuation by clothing or personal protection equipment (PPE), if applicable. No 

attenuation should generally be assumed if the skin cancer was diagnosed in an area not normally 

covered by clothing, such as the face. Information on beta attenuation factors for uranium can be 

found in the DOE Standard “Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in 

Uranium Facilities,” DOE-STD-1136-2000 (which is based on the DOE Health Physics Manual of 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 7 of 26

Good Practices for Uranium Facilities, EGG-2530). Examples from this document of transmission 

factors for uranium through various types of protective clothing include:

• Lab coat (65% Dacron/35% cotton) – 0.91

• Two pairs of coveralls plus paper liner – 0.80

• Two pairs of gloves plus liner – 0.60

• Face shield – 0.41 

For likely non-compensable cases, an acceptable claimant-favorable approach is to assume 100% 

transmission (i.e., ignore attenuation). For likely compensable cases, an acceptable minimizing 

approach is to assume a transmission of 0.6 (unless there is evidence a face shield was used and the 

skin cancer was on the face, in which case 0.41 would be appropriate). For cases in which a best 

estimate is applied and the specific type of protective clothing is unknown, a factor of 0.855 for 

uranium is appropriate (equal to the average of the 0.80 and 0.91 factors listed above). Note that the 

transmission factors listed are claimant favorable for areas where undergarments (such as a shirt) are 

worn, because the factors are relevant only to the protective clothing material itself. Also, these 

factors are not necessarily claimant favorable for beta particles of higher energy than those from 

uranium, and are highly claimant favorable for low energy beta particles such as those from Tc-99 

(see Attachment D). Thus, the dose reconstructor must ensure that appropriate transmission factors 

are applied based on the specific types of exposure.

Exposure Geometry

The nature of beta particles suggests that some recorded doses may significantly overestimate or 

underestimate the actual dose to the skin at the cancer diagnosis location. For example, for a 100% 

AP exposure geometry the actual beta dose to the back would be zero, yet a dosimeter worn on the 

chest would record the incident dose, and thus the shallow dose reported by the site would 

significantly overestimate the skin dose of concern. On the other hand, if the exposure geometry 

were primarily PA, the dosimeter would significantly underestimate the beta dose to the back. If there 

is an indication that the recorded dose significantly underestimates the actual dose at the cancer 

location due to exposure geometry, attenuation, or other issues, the reported results should be 

adjusted upward accordingly. However, if there is an indication but no definitive evidence that the 

recorded dose significantly overestimates

Non-Uniform Exposure of the Skin

the actual dose, no correction should be made. The 

exception to this rule is the over-response of film to low-energy photons (discussed below); sitespecific instructions regarding this issue are provided in the attachments.

The skin cancer risk factors present in the IREP program are described in the associated NIOSHIREP technical documentation and were obtained from Land and Smith 2003. The underlying data 

used by Land and Smith represent the risk from uniform whole-body irradiation of the skin (Ron et al. 

1998; ICRP 1991). Therefore, the actual risk of cancer induction associated with partial-body 

irradiation is less than is indicated by the risk factors inherent in IREP. For example, if half of the 

body received a certain dose, there would be approximately one-half of the risk of skin cancer 

induction associated with the same dose to the whole body (ICRP 1991). At the same time, however, 

the IREP model includes a baseline risk of cancer induction, and the baseline risk for a specific area 

of skin would be roughly proportional to the area of skin considered. These two considerations 

roughly offset each other in terms of probability of causation calculations. Therefore, if a skin cancer 

occurred within a known area of contamination or partial-body irradiation, it is appropriate to calculate 

the skin dose (in accordance with OCAS-IG-001) to the affected location without adjusting for the total 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 8 of 26

skin area of the body. Similarly, if it is known that the cancer occurred in an area not within the area 

of contamination or partial-body irradiation, no dose should be assigned to that cancer location.

For situations in which the precise location of a skin contamination is unknown and it is unclear 

whether the irradiated area included the skin cancer location, the risk distributed over the whole skin

area is relevant. For example, a hot particle exposure calculated for 1 cm2 in accordance with OCASIG-001 should be modified to account for the total skin area (18,000 cm2 for males and 16,000 cm2 for

females) to most accurately represent the risk of cancer induction associated with the exposure. 

Specifically, the following approach is prescribed for these situations:

• the maximum skin dose calculated in accordance with OCAS-IG-001 adjusted for fraction of 

skin area irradiated shall be considered the geometric mean (GM) of a lognormal distribution. 

For example, a dose of 180 rem calculated to an area of 1 cm2 from a single hot particle on a 

male shall be divided by 18,000 (i.e., the GM would be 0.01 rem).

• the maximum skin dose calculated in accordance with OCAS-IG-001 not adjusted for fraction 

of skin area irradiated shall be considered the upper end of a lognormal distribution. The 

specific percentile used to define the GSD shall be based on the divisor applied to determine 

the GM. For example, a divisor of 18,000 in the example above implies that the dose of 180 

rem would represent a percentile of greater than 99.99%; such a percentile in turn represents 

a GSD of approximately 14. To simplify this approach while maintaining claimant favorability, 

the following guidance shall be applied.

If the ratio of the nonirradiated skin area to the 

irradiated skin area is: Use a GSD of:

<1

N/A (apply calculated 

skin dose as constant 

without adjustment for 

area)

1 - 10 6

10 – 100 8

100 – 1000 10

1000 – 10,000 12

>10,000 (e.g., single hot 

particle exposure)

14
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 9 of 26

Although there is evidence that hot particle doses are less effective than whole body doses in 

inducing cancer (Merwin and Moeller 1989; Charles et al. 1988), the overall approach described 

above is considered claimant favorable.

Over-response of Film to Low-Energy Photons

Film dosimetry can over-respond to 16 keV and 59 keV X rays by factors of 8.5-12 and 14-19 

respectively (Wilson, 1990). Because of this over-response to low-energy photons, a nominal 

multiplication factor of 0.6 is prescribed in this document for non-penetrating doses assumed to be 

from <30 keV photons measured with film. This factor is to be applied if it can be established that the 

site did not apply a correction to the reported doses to account for the over-response (see additional 

discussion below). The factor of 0.6 is claimant-favorable in view of the available data, and is high 

enough to ensure that if the open-window readings were actually attributable 100% to beta particles 

and not low-energy photons, the calculated probability of causation (POC) which is determined by the 

Department of Labor would be greater under the low-energy-photon assumption. Missed doses 

assigned as <30 keV photons should also include this correction factor, because missed doses are 

based on nominal limits of detection (LODs), which for film significantly overestimates the potential 

missed low-energy photon dose.

Typically, film dosimetry systems that incorporated both open-window and shielded measurements 

did not correct for low-energy photon over-response. However, unless it can be established that the 

site did not already apply a correction to the reported doses to account for film over-response (e.g., 

the site TBD may provide this information, or the records may provide evidence), the factor of 0.6 

should not be applied by the dose reconstructor.

Assignment of Shallow Dose to Organs Other than the Skin 

Deep (penetrating) doses to organs other than the skin that are impacted by shallow doses should be 

calculated in a manner similar to organs not impacted by shallow doses, i.e., assigned as photons (or 

neutrons) with energy ranges and correction factors as prescribed in the relevant site TBDs, together 

with the appropriate organ dose conversion factors (DCFs) as prescribed in OCAS-IG-001. Nonpenetrating doses to these organs should be calculated from the dosimetry data in accordance with 

the instructions in this TIB, and such doses assigned as electrons (measured or missed) should be 

adjusted per the information in Attachment A. To summarize this information, for likely noncompensable cases, a claimant-favorable factor of 0.3 should be applied to the electron doses for the 

breast, testes, and penis, and a claimant-favorable factor of 3.6 should be applied to the electron 

doses to the lip. These factors account for the attenuation afforded by clothing (where applicable) and 

the different depths (compared to skin) of the sensitive cells. For likely compensable cases, the 

external electron dose should be ignored entirely for the breast, testes, and penis, and a factor of 1.0 

should be applied for the lip. Attachment A should be consulted for cases requiring a more refined 

estimate or for evaluation of other organs impacted by non-penetrating radiation. No adjustments are 

warranted for non-penetrating radiation doses assigned as low-energy photons.

Uncertainty

In this document, approaches have been presented that represent claimant-favorable assumptions in 

recognition of the fact that all available information necessary to develop a true best estimate of the 

shallow dose partitioned in a manner consistent with the IREP input parameters is not reasonably 

possible. Thus, a dose reconstruction based on the guidance in this document is likely to be 

inherently claimant favorable. Consistent with this approach, even though there may be considerable 

uncertainties in the measured doses and in the appropriate partitioning by radiation type and energy, 

it is recommended that all measured doses be treated as a constant. An additional consideration is 

that treating acute doses as a distribution is not likely to have a significant impact on the calculated 

probability of causation (POC); for example, for some cancer types an acute 30-250 keV photon dose 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 10 of 26

treated as a constant actually results in a slightly higher

4.0 APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

POC than if the same dose were treated as a 

normal distribution with a standard deviation of 30%. Missed doses should be divided by 2 and 

treated as a lognormal distribution consistent with OCAS-IG-001.

This document provides site-specific information only for the Savannah River Site (SRS), Hanford, 

and the Gaseous Diffusion Plants (GDPs). Subsequent revisions will provide site-specific information 

for other major DOE sites. However, this information may be used for other sites with similar 

dosimetry systems and reporting protocols, provided that adequate documentation exists to ensure 

that doses are not being underestimated for a likely non-compensable case or overestimated for a 

likely compensable case.1

 1 Overestimates for likely compensable cases are permissible if information to support more accurate or precise dose 

estimates is not available and will not be forthcoming in a timely manner (Department of Health and Human Services 

2005).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 11 of 26

REFERENCES

Charles, M. W., J. P. Williams and J. E. Coggle, Skin Carcinogenesis Following Uniform and 

Nonuniform Beta Radiation, Health Physics 55(2):399-406, 1988.

Department of Health & Human Services, “Timely Completion of Dose Reconstruction Reports,” Letter 

from Larry Guess to Dr. Richard E. Toohey, April 6, 2005.

Durham, J.S. VARSKIN Mod 2 and SADDE Mod 2: Computer Codes for Assessing Skin Dose from 

Skin Contamination, NUREG/CR-5873, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC, 2005.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), The Biological Basis for Dose Limits to 

the Skin, ICRP Publication 59, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1991.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), Conversion Coefficients for use in 

Radiological Protection against External Radiation, ICRP Publication 74, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, 1997.

Land, C. and J. M. Smith, Report of the NCI-CDC Working Group to Revise the 1985 NIH 

Radioepidemiological Tables, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National 

Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2003.

Merwin, S. E. and M. P. Moeller, Hot Particles: Risks, Regulations and ALARA, Radiation Protection 

Management 6(6):52-57, 1989.

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

Implementation Guideline, Rev. 0, OCAS-IG-001, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), NIOSH-Interactive 

RadioEpidemiological Program (NIOSH-IREP) Technical Documentation, Final Report, Office 

of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 18, 2002.

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, OCAS-TIB-006, Technical Information Bulletin: 

Interpretation of External Dosimetry Records at the Savannah River Site (SRS), Rev 1, 

February 20, 2004.

ORAU Team, ORAUT-TKBS-0003, Technical Basis Document for the Savannah River Site to be 

Used for EEOICPA Dose Reconstructions, Rev 01, August 21, 2003.

ORAU Team, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-4, Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Environmental Dose, Rev 00, October 15, 2003.

ORAU Team, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

External Dosimetry, Rev 01, January 9, 2004.

ORAU Team, ORAUT-TKBS-0019-6, Technical Basis Document for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational External Dose, Rev 00, August 24, 2004.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 12 of 26

ORAU Team, ORAUT-TKBS-0015-6, Technical Basis Document for the Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant – Occupational External Dose (Draft).

ORAU Team, ORAUT-TKBS-0009-6, Technical Basis Document for the K-25 Site – Occupational 

External Dose (Draft).

Ron, E., D. L. Preston, M. Kishikawa, T. Kobuke, M. Iseki, S. Tokuoka, M. Tokunaga and K. Mabuchi. 

Skin Tumor Risk Among Atomic-Bomb Survivors in Japan, Cancer Causes and Control, 9: 

393-401, 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy, EGG-2530, Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Uranium 

Facilities, June 1988.

U.S. Department of Energy, Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in 

Uranium Facilities, DOE-STD-1136-2000, August 2000.

Wilson, R. H., J. J. Fix, W. V. Baumgartner, and L. L. Nichols, 1990, Description and Evaluation of the 

Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Program From 1944 Through 1989, PNL-7447, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 13 of 26

ATTACHMENT A 

NON-PENETRATING DOSES TO ORGANS OTHER THAN THE SKIN

Consistent with the guidance in OCAS-IG-001, doses from non-penetrating radiation are important not 

only for the skin, but also for other organs with sensitive tissues near the surface of the body. In 

particular, this paper provides guidance on how to modify the calculated non-penetrating dose to 

assign dose to a) the breast, penis, and testicles, and b) the lip. The breast, penis and testicles are 

addressed together since these share common characteristics including the fact that they are typically 

covered by clothing in the workplace, and the sensitive tissues are at a greater depth than 0.07 mm 

(the sensitive depth in skin). The lip is treated in a separate section since it is not typically covered 

and because the sensitive layer is actually at a depth less than 0.07 mm. Other organs that may be 

affected by non-penetrating radiation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis using the 

information contained herein.

General Information

As described in this TIB, non-penetrating radiation includes beta particles and low-energy X-rays. 

This appendix presents detailed information regarding doses from beta particles to organs other than 

the skin, and relates this information to doses from low-energy X-rays typically encountered in Pu 

facilities.

The dose from beta particles depends on the average energy of the beta spectrum and the depth of 

the radiosensitive tissues in the organ. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently funding a 

contract to produce Varskin 3, a significant upgrade to the computer code Varskin Mod 2. Varskin 3 is 

a Windows-based code that calculates the dose to skin from beta, gamma, and monoenergetic 

electron radiation. The user can choose the radionuclide and skin depth at which the dose is 

calculated. The user can also account for the presence of clothing between the source and the skin. 

The calculations included in this paper were performed using an alpha version of Varskin 3; the 

results of the alpha version have been verified to be equivalent to those obtained using Varskin 

Mod 2. 

Whereas the deep dose from penetrating radiation varies little over the mass of an organ and 

therefore organ dose conversion factors (DCFs) are used to calculate an average organ dose, the 

dose from beta particles varies greatly with depth and, therefore, it is necessary to calculate the dose 

at specific depths of concern with respect to cancer induction. Provided below is information to be 

used by dose reconstructors to convert non-penetrating radiation dose calculated for the skin in 

accordance with this TIB into a quantity to be assigned in IREP for organs other than the skin (in 

addition to the deep dose normally assigned).

Doses to organs other than the skin are compared to doses calculated to the skin at a depth of 70 μm 

to derive correction factors for the non-penetrating doses assigned in accordance with this TIB. When 

determining the dose to organs surrounded by skin, it is necessary to know the total thickness of the 

skin, including the dermis. The dermis consists of a papillary layer, a reticular layer, and a 

subcutaneous layer. The thickness of the epidermis and dermis varies depending on location of the 

skin on the body. For the purposes of this paper, two types of skin have been defined: thin skin and 

thick skin. Thin skin is considered to have a thickness of 1.5 mm, while thick skin has a thickness of 4 

mm. In some organs, such as the breast, penis, and testicles, a 1-mm layer of thick connective tissue 

exists beneath the dermis. Additional details on the basis for the calculations are provided below. 

Breast

The breast is an exocrine gland composed of the following parts:
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 14 of 26

• Glandular tissue that produces and transports milk,

• Connective tissue that supports the breast,

• Blood that nourishes breast tissue and provides the nutrients to the breast needed for milk 

production,

• Lymph that removes waste products,

• Nerves that make the breast sensitive to touch, and

• Adipose tissue (fat cells) that protects the breast from injury.

Each mammary gland forms a lobe of the breast, which consists of a single major branch of alveoli, 

milk ducts, and one lactiferous sinus that narrows to an opening in the nipple (nipple pore). There are 

fifteen to twenty-five lobes in a breast and each lobe consists of twenty to forty lobules - a smaller milk 

duct with its supporting alveoli. Each lobule consists of ten to 100 supporting alveoli (Figure A-1).

Figure A-1. Schematic diagram of the breast.

The most common type of cancer in the female breast develops in glandular tissue and is classified 

as adenocarcinoma. The earliest form of the disease, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), develops solely 

in the milk ducts. The most common type of breast cancer, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), develops 

from DCIS, spreads through the duct walls, and invades the breast tissue. 

Invasive lobular carcinoma originates in the milk glands and accounts for 10 – 15% of invasive breast 

cancers. Less common types of breast cancer include the following:

• Inflammatory (breast tissue is warm and appears red; tends to spread quickly) 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 15 of 26

• Medullary carcinoma (originates in central breast tissue) 

• Mucinous carcinoma (invasive; usually occurs in postmenopausal women) 

• Paget’s disease of the nipple (originates in the milk ducts and spreads to the skin of the 

nipples or areola) 

• Phyllodes tumor (tumor with a leaf-like appearance that extends into the ducts; rarely 

metastasizes) 

• Tubular carcinoma (small tumor that is often undetectable by palpation) 

Rarely, sarcomas (cancer of the connective tissue) and lymphomas (cancer of the lymph tissue) 

develop in the breasts.

The size of the breast depends on the amount of adipose tissue. In order to determine the 

contribution to breast dose from non-penetrating radiation, it was assumed that the breast had no 

adipose cells and that the only protection from non-penetrating radiation was the epidermis, dermis, 

and a layer of connective tissue. Further, the skin on the breast was assumed to be thin. Thus, the 

total skin thickness was assumed to be 2.5 mm (1.5 mm + 1 mm of dense connective tissue). This 

value is considered claimant favorable.

In addition to protection afforded by the skin itself, it is assumed that women wore both a shirt and a 

bra. A claimant-favorable estimate of the thickness and density of each garment is 2 mm and 0.7 

g/cm3 (total density thickness of approximately 0.28 g/cm2

).

Penis

The penis is a pendulous organ suspended from the front and sides of the pubic arch and containing 

the greater part of the urethra. In the flaccid condition it is cylindrical in shape. It is composed of three 

cylindrical masses of cavernous tissue bound together by fibrous tissue and covered with skin. Two of 

the masses are lateral, and are known as the corpora cavernosa penis; the third is median, and is 

termed the corpus cavernosum urethræ (Figures A-2 and A-3).

Cancer of the penis can occur at various locations: the surface of the glans (the head of the penis) 

and on the foreskin (the loose skin that covers the head of the penis); the deeper tissues of the glans; 

the shaft of the penis; the lymph nodes in the groin. The skin of the penis is considered to be thin and 

includes dense connective tissue; thus, for modeling purposes, the skin thickness is assumed to be 

1.5 mm thick plus 1 mm of dense connective tissue. For modeling purposes it is assumed that male 

workers wore pants or shorts and one layer of undergarments. Pants were assumed to have a 

thickness of 2 mm and a density of 0.7 g/cm3 while the layer of undergarment was also assumed to 

have a thickness of 2 mm and a density of 0.7 g/cm3

. These estimates are considered to be claimant 

favorable.

Testicles

The testicles (also called testes or gonads) are located behind the penis in a pouch of skin called the 

scrotum. The testicles produce sperm and testosterone. The germ cells inside the seminiferous 

tubules (sertoli cells) create sperm and are, therefore, the most radiosensitive cells of the testicles. 

The sperm move into the epididymis where they mature. The leydig cells distributed throughout the 

testicle are the body’s main source of testosterone (Figure A-4).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 16 of 26

Testicular cancer is cancer of the germ cells. It is possible to have cancer of the leydig or sertoli cells, 

but these tumors are not as common and are usually not malignant. Also, since testicular cancer is 

Figure A-2. Schematic 

diagram of the penis.

Figure A-3. Cross-sectional diagram of the penis.

associated with the germ cells, lumps or masses in the scrotum or on the epididymis, but not on the 

testicle, is not considered testicular cancer.

The skin surrounding the testicles is considered to be thin and includes dense connective tissue; thus, 

for modeling purposes, the skin thickness is assumed to be 1.5 mm thick plus 1 mm of dense 

connective tissue. For modeling purposes it is assumed that male workers wore pants or shorts and 

one layer of undergarments. Pants were assumed to have a thickness of 2 mm and a density of 0.7 

g/cm3 while the layer of undergarment was assumed to have a thickness of 2 mm and a density of 0.7 

g/cm3

. These estimates are considered to be claimant favorable.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 17 of 26

Figure A-4. Schematic diagram of the testicle.

Breast, Penis, and Testicle Dose Calculations

The following recommendations provide a correction factor that should be applied to the nonpenetrating dose determined in accordance with this TIB in order to determine the dose to specific 

organs. The correction factor, when multiplied by the shallow dose measurement, will provide a 

claimant favorable reconstruction of the dose to the breast, penis and testicles.

As described above, the tissue depths for the breast, penis and testicle were nearly identical, 

including the layers of clothing covering these organs. Therefore, these organs were modeled 

identically as having a skin depth of 2.5 mm with a total covering of 5 mm of cloth with a density of 0.5 

g/cm3

. The dose was calculated at a point immediately below these layers and was compared to the 

dose to the skin at a depth of 70 μm. The source was modeled as a 10 cm2

, infinitely thin disk source 

located 2 cm away from the skin. Different source geometries would not significantly change the 

resulting correction factors. The skin depth for the breast was set to 70 μm below the clothing and the 

dose was averaged over 0.01 cm2

. The results of the calculations are provided in Table A-1.

Table A-1. Correction factors for non-penetrating dose to the 

breast, penis, and testicles.

Radionuclide

Maximum beta 

energy (keV)

Correction factor for breast, 

penis, and testicles

Ru/Rh-106 3,540 0.29

Sr/Y-90 2,280 0.21

Y-91 1,540 0.002

The results show that the minimum beta energy required to penetrate to the target cells in the breast, 

penis, and testicle is 1500 keV. By comparison, ICRP Table A.43 gives this minimum energy as 1000 

keV (1.0 MeV), but those calculations do not account for clothing. Thus, calculating the dose to these 

organs from beta radiation should only be considered for sources with maximum beta energies above 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 18 of 26

1500 keV. For these sources, Table A-1 indicates that a claimant favorable approach would be to 

assign 30% of the beta particle dose calculated in accordance with this TIB. This factor should be 

assigned to the missed dose calculated in accordance with this TIB only for the badge cycles in which 

the missed dose was assigned as beta particles; to ensure claimant favorability, missed dose is 

generally assumed to be associated with 30-250 keV photons, in which case a correction factor would 

not be appropriate.

Corrections associated with beta particle exposure in uranium facilities must consider the presence of 

uranium daughter products. Beta exposures during work involving natural uranium or uranium with 

enrichments below approximately 30% are typically dominated by a high energy beta particle from the 

U-238 daughter Pa-234m which has a maximum energy of 2.29 MeV, very similar to that of Y-90 (see 

Table A-1); therefore, the factor of 30% indicated above would be claimant favorable for such 

exposures. Although ICRP 74 Table A.43 indicates a conversion factor for the breast of 0.49 for 2 

MeV beta particles, two considerations indicate that a factor of 0.3 is claimant favorable for

radionuclide exposures involving such energies (e.g., uranium). First, radionuclides emit beta 

particles having a non-uniform energy spectrum, and thus the average beta particle energy from 

uranium is substantially less than 2 MeV. Second, the ICRP 74 factors do not take clothing into 

account. Note that for beta particle exposures above 4 MeV (i.e., as may be encountered in certain 

accelerator facilities) the factor of 0.3 may not be claimant favorable; ICRP 74 should be consulted for 

appropriate correction factors for such circumstances.

At facilities with low-energy X-rays, notably Pu facilities, the open-window dosimeter reading is often 

significantly higher than the shielded reading, which is largely a result of a significant fraction of the Xrays being absorbed by the 1 cm-thick shield. However, for a total shield thickness of approximately 

0.5 cm for the breast, penis and testes as described above, over 50% of the 17 keV Pu X-rays and 

over 98% of the 60 keV Am-241 photons would reach the sensitive issues, and thus no correction is 

recommended for the non-penetrating component.

Lip Dose Calculations

A correction should be made when calculating dose to the lip to account for dose received at a depth 

of 20 μm, which is a claimant-favorable assumption based on the lip’s thinner epidermis compared to 

that of the skin. Table A-2 provides radionuclide-specific correction factors for several radionuclides 

of interest. The data in Table A-2 were calculated using Varskin 3 as described previously.

The correction factor is most notable for the low-energy beta sources, especially those with maximum 

energies below 500 keV. These parameters are considered to be claimant favorable. Note that 

electrons below 100 keV do not contribute to the lip dose.

Table A-2. Correction factors for non-penetrating 

dose to the lip.

Radionuclide

Maximum beta 

energy (keV)

Correction 

factor for lip

Ce-141 580 1.0

Co-58 475 1.0

Co-60 318 1.2

Cs/Ba-137m 512 1.1

Eu-154 569 1.5

Eu-155 246 3.3

I-131 606 1.2

Nb-95 160 3.6

Pm-147 225 1.8

Ru/Rh-106 3,540 1.0

Sr/Y-90 2,280 1.0
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 19 of 26

Tc-99 294 1.2

Y-91 1,540 1.0

Zn-65 330 1.0

Based on the information in Table A-2, a claimant favorable approach would be to apply a correction 

factor of 3.6 to the non-penetrating dose component assigned as beta particles. For cases in which 

this factor results in a POC greater than 50%, a more appropriate correction factor should be applied 

based on the radionuclides of concern as documented in the site TBD and other relevant information 

sources. As discussed previously, beta exposures from uranium are typically dominated by the highenergy beta particle from Pa-234m, so in these cases no correction would be needed for calculating 

beta dose to the lip. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 20 of 26

ATTACHMENT B

SKIN DOSE ASSIGNMENT FOR SAVANNAH RIVER SITE CASES

General Information

In the film badge era, the OW reading likely included a significant over-response to low-energy 

photons; therefore, prior to 1971, measured doses assigned as <30 keV photons should be multiplied 

by 0.6 if there is no indication in the records that the dosimeter was calibrated for low-energy 

photons.2

A. The penetrating component of skin dose (and the non-penetrating component of skin dose for Pu 

workers) must be multiplied by the appropriate era-specific correction factor (e.g., 1.119) per the 

TBD and OCAS-TIB-006.

B. Missed doses should be calculated based on the following LODs:

• 1951 – 1970: 50 mrem for OW, 40 mrem for S

• 1971 – 1983: 25 mrem for OW, 15 mrem for S

• 1984 – present: 20 mrem for OW, 5 mrem for S

C. For 1982 and later, these instructions supersede the information in Section 3.0 (Shallow Dose 

Interpretation) of OCAS-TIB-006.

Procedure 

Measured Dose

1. Subtract the reported S reading from the reported OW reading. This is the calculated nonpenetrating dose.

2. Assign the calculated non-penetrating dose as either electrons E>15 keV, or photons E<30 keV. 

In the former case, a correction factor should be provided for clothing, if applicable, depending on 

likely clothing thickness and beta energy; in the latter case, if applicable (see General Information 

above) a correction factor of 0.6 should be applied prior to 1971 to account for film over-response, 

and the era-specific correction factor should be applied.

3. Multiply the reported S reading (separating out the neutron dose, as applicable) by the appropriate 

era-specific correction factor. This is the corrected penetrating photon dose.

4. Assign the corrected penetrating photon dose as photons, partitioned by energy according to the 

SRS TBD or OCAS-TIB-006.

5. Assign the reported neutron dose (if applicable) partitioned by energy and correct for neutron 

quality according to the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

Missed Dose

6. For any badge cycle with a zero result in either the OW or S reading, or both, assign a single 

missed dose as explained in Items 7-9 below.

7. If only the OW reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the appropriate 

OW LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered electrons (corrected for 

 2 As discussed in OCAS-OTIB-0006, a 17-keV calibration curve in the DOE records is evidence of calibration for low -energy 

photons based on the employee’s w ork w ith Pu.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 21 of 26

attenuation, if applicable) or low-energy photons (multiplied by 0.6 in the film badge era, if 

applicable) consistent with the approach taken in Step 2.

8. If only the S reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the appropriate S 

LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 30-250 keV photons.

9. If both the OW and S readings were reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the 

appropriate OW LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 30-250 keV 

photons.

10. During the film-badge era, if there was a potential exposure to neutrons, assign unmonitored 

neutron dose based on neutron-gamma ratios per the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

11. During the TLD era, for a person potentially exposed to neutrons, if a zero neutron result were 

recorded, assign missed dose per the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

Examples of skin dose assignments for SRS badge readings in 1970 (assuming no clothing correction 

and no calibration curve in record for low-energy photons) (mrem). OW reading S reading Measured dose assigned Missed dose assigned

50 0 50 (electrons) or 50 X 0.6 X 1.119 = 33.57 (low -energy 

photons)

40/2 = 20

(30-250 keV photons)

0 0 None 50/2 = 25

(30-250 keV photons)

100 60 40 (electrons) or 40 X 0.6 X 1.119 = 26.856 (low -

energy photons) AND

60 X 1.119 = 67.14

(photon energy per TBD or OCAS-TIB-006)

None

100 100 100 X 1.119 = 119.00

(photon energy per TBD or OCAS-TIB-006)

None

0 40 40 X 1.119 = 44.76

(photon energy per TBD or OCAS-TIB-006)

50/2 = 25 (electrons) or 50/2 X 0.6 = 

15 (low -energy photons)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 22 of 26

ATTACHMENT C

SKIN DOSE ASSIGNMENT FOR HANFORD CASES

General Information

A. In the film badge era, the OW reading likely included a significant over-response to low-energy 

photons; however, starting in April 1957, an additional dosimeter element was included in the 

badge design to facilitate an accurate measurement of X-ray dose. Therefore, prior to April 1957, 

measured doses assigned as <30 keV photons should be multiplied by 0.6 (only if, as described in 

Section 3.0, evidence exists indicating that the recorded doses were not adjusted downward by 

the site to account for the over-response).

B. Missed doses should be calculated based on the following LODs:

• 1944 – 1971: 50 mrem for non-penetrating (OW), 40 mrem for penetrating (S)

• 1972 – 1994: 30 mrem for non-penetrating, 20 mrem for penetrating

• 1995 – present: 50 mrem for non-penetrating, 10 mrem for penetrating

C. Hanford used a variety of dosimetry types and reporting schemes during its history. The dose 

reconstructor must ensure that the non-penetrating and penetrating doses have been adequately 

interpreted from the data reported. For example, when beta and gamma doses are reported by 

the site, these typically represent the non-penetrating and penetrating doses, respectively, and 

collectively represent the total skin dose. However, when the data are reported as open-window 

and shielded, the open-window measurement represents the total skin dose and the shielded 

measurement represents only the penetrating component.

D. Hanford used a variety of measurement techniques and reporting schemes for neutron dose. 

These doses may or may not have been included in the reported skin (or shallow) or whole-body 

(or deep) doses. As is the case for reconstructing doses for organs not impacted by nonpenetrating radiation, the calculation of dose to the skin requires that any neutron doses have 

been separated from the reported dose quantities and treated separately in IREP.

E. As described in the Hanford Occupational Environmental Dose TBD, workers from the mid 1940s 

to the mid 1950s may have been exposed to radioactive particles emitted from facility stacks.

Procedure 

Measured Dose

1944-March 1957

1. Determine the non-penetrating dose by subtracting the reported S reading from the reported OW 

reading. 

2. Assign the non-penetrating dose as either electrons >15 keV (corrected for attenuation, if 

applicable), or photons <30 keV if the employee worked primarily with or near plutonium, such as 

in PFP. In the latter case, a correction factor of 0.6 should be applied to account for film overresponse, if a correction by the site is not evident in the records as described above and in 

Section 3.0. 

3. Assign the penetrating photon dose as photons, partitioned by energy according to the Hanford 

TBD.

4. Assign the reported neutron dose (if applicable) partitioned by energy and corrected for neutron 

quality according to the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 23 of 26

April 1957-1971

5. Assign the non-penetrating dose as the reported beta dose (assigned as >15 keV electrons, which 

should be corrected for attenuation, if applicable) and 65% of the reported X-ray dose (assigned 

as <30 keV photons). Note: if the employee worked primarily with or near plutonium, such as in 

PFP, the reported beta dose should normally be zero during this era since the non-penetrating 

component should have been identified as X-rays by the algorithm; however, in instances in which 

a positive beta dose was reported, as a claimant-favorable measure the dose should be 

considered <30 keV photons.

6. Assign the penetrating dose as the reported gamma dose (assigned as photons, partitioned by 

energy according to the Hanford TBD) and 35% of the reported X-ray dose (assigned as 30-250 

keV photons).

7. Assign the reported neutron dose (if applicable) partitioned by energy and corrected for neutron 

quality according to the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

1972-1994

8. Determine the non-penetrating dose by subtracting the reported penetrating reading (typically 

reported as deep or whole body) from the reported non-penetrating reading (typically reported as 

shallow or skin). 

9. Assign the non-penetrating dose as either electrons >15 keV (corrected for attenuation, if 

applicable), or photons <30 keV if the employee worked primarily with or near plutonium, such as 

in PFP. 

10. Assign the penetrating photon dose as photons, partitioned by energy according to the Hanford 

TBD.

11. Assign the reported neutron dose (if applicable) partitioned by energy and corrected for neutron 

quality according to the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

1995-Present

12. Determine the non-penetrating dose by subtracting the reported deep photon reading from the 

reported shallow reading. 

13. Assign the non-penetrating dose as either electrons >15 keV (corrected for attenuation, if 

applicable), or photons <30 keV if the employee worked primarily with or near plutonium, such as 

in PFP. 

14. Assign the penetrating photon dose as photons, partitioned by energy according to the Hanford 

TBD.

15. Assign the reported neutron dose (if applicable) partitioned by energy and corrected for neutron 

quality according to the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

Missed Dose

16. For any badge cycle with a zero result in any of the element readings, assign a single missed 

dose.

17. If only the OW (or beta, or non-penetrating) reading was reported as zero, the missed dose 

assigned should be the appropriate non-penetrating LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 24 of 26

lognormal) and considered electrons (corrected for attenuation, if applicable) or low-energy 

photons (multiplied by 0.6 prior to 1957). For the period 1957-1971, when X-ray doses were 

reported separately, a non-zero value reported for X-rays indicates that the missed dose should 

be considered electrons, and a zero value reported for X-rays indicates that the missed dose 

should be considered 30-250 keV photons.

18. If only the S (or gamma, or penetrating) reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned 

should be the appropriate penetrating LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and 

considered 30-250 keV photons.

19. If both the OW and S readings were reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the 

appropriate non-penetrating LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 

30-250 keV photons.

20. During the film-badge era, for a person potentially exposed to neutrons, assign unmonitored 

neutron dose based on neutron-gamma ratios per the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

21. During the TLD era, for a person potentially exposed to neutrons, if a zero neutron result was 

recorded, assign missed dose per the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

Examples of skin dose assignments for Hanford badge readings in 1980 (assuming no clothing 

correction) (mrem). Shallow reading Deep reading Measured dose assigned Missed dose assigned

50 0 50 (electrons or <30 keV photons) 20/2 = 10

(30-250 keV photons)

0 0 None 30/2 =15

(30-250 keV photons)

100 60 40 (electrons or <30 keV photons) A ND

60 (photon energy per TBD)

None

100 100 100 (photon energy per TBD) None

0 40 40 (photon energy per TBD) 30/2 = 15 (electrons or low -energy 

photons)

Examples of skin dose assignments for Hanford badge readings in 1970 (assuming no clothing 

correction) (mrem).

Beta reading X-ray reading Gamma reading Measured dose assigned Missed dose assigned 

50 0 0 50 (electrons or <30 keV photons) 40/2 = 20

(30-250 keV photons)

0 0 0 None 50/2 =25

(30-250 keV photons)

100 20 60 100 (electrons or <30 keV photons) AND 

20 X 0.65 = 13 (<30 keV photons) A ND 

20 X 0.35 = 7 (30-250 keV photons) AND

60 (photon energy per TBD)

None

100 0 100 100 (electrons or <30 keV photons) AND 

100 (photon energy per TBD)

50/2 = 25 (30-250 keV 

photons)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 25 of 26

ATTACHMENT D

SKIN DOSE ASSIGNMENT FOR GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT CASES

General Information

A. In general, the contribution to skin dose at DOE gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) from low-energy 

photons is extremely small compared to the contribution from beta particles.

B. Missed doses should be calculated based on the following LODs:

Paducah

• 1953 – 1980: 50 mrem for OW, 40 mrem for S

• 1981 – 1988: 30 mrem for OW, 20 mrem for S

• 1989 – present: 20 mrem for OW, 20 mrem for S

Note: The Paducah TBD states an OW LOD of 120 mrem for 1953-1980. However, this value appears 

to be speculative when compared against the LOD values for similar dosimetry systems at other sites at 

that time (see attachments A and B and the information for Portsmouth and K-25 below). As stated in 

the TBD, “In 1953, PDGP began using dosimeter and processing technical support from Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory...practices were similar to those used at ORNL and other major sites...ORNL has 

provided PGDP with dosimeters from early in the operations period through the present.” Based on the 

information provided, it appears that the LOD value reported in the TBD is based on considerations 

involving low-energy beta emitters; however, this would significantly overestimate the LOD (and missed 

dose) when the principal source of exposure is uranium, since the dosimeters were calibrated using 

uranium slabs. Therefore, the value has been reduced in this TIB to 10 mrem above the reported 

photon LOD. The dose reconstructor should consult the TBD to address potential exposures to Tc-99. 

Portsmouth

• 1954 – 1980: 30 mrem for OW, 30 mrem for S

• 1981 – 1982: Not Applicable for OW, 15 mrem for S

• 1983 – 1998: 40 mrem for OW, 10 mrem for S

• 1999 – present: 30 mrem for OW, 10 mrem for S

Note: For 1981 and 1982 there was no open window dosimeter measurement, so non-penetrating 

doses were not measured directly. Therefore, for this period the dose reconstructor must use judgment 

based on 1) extrapolation from prior and later years (if the employee’s job and exposure conditions were

consistent throughout the period), 2) application of shallow to deep dose ratios, or 3) co-worker studies. 

Additional research may be required to determine an appropriate method for the case.

K-25

• 1945 – 1987: 30 mrem for OW, 30 mrem for S

• 1988 – present: 5 mrem for OW, 5 mrem for S

Note: K-25 does not distinguish between open-window and shielded dosimeter measurements when 

reporting MDLs. It is implied that the MDLs should be considered the same.

C. To account for a potential exposure to Tc-99, which would not have been measured accurately by 

the dosimeters used at the sites, missed Tc-99 dose should be added as prescribed in the site 

TBD for some workers.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0017 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 10/11/2005 Page 26 of 26

Procedure 

Measured Dose

1. Subtract the reported S reading from the reported OW reading. This is the calculated nonpenetrating dose.

2. Assign the calculated non-penetrating dose as electrons >15 keV. A correction factor should be 

provided for clothing, if applicable, depending on likely clothing thickness and beta energy. 

3. Assign the reported S dose as photons, partitioned by energy according to the site-specific TBD.

4. Assign the reported neutron dose (if applicable) partitioned by energy and correct for neutron 

quality according to the TBD (using an organ DCF of 1).

Missed Dose

5. For any badge cycle with a zero result in either the OW or S reading, or both, assign a single

6. If only the OW reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the appropriate 

OW LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered electrons (corrected for 

attenuation, if applicable).

missed dose.

7. If only the S reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the appropriate S 

LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 30-250 keV photons.

8. If both the OW and S readings were reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the 

appropriate OW LOD for that era (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 30-250 keV 

photons.

9. Assign missed or unmonitored neutron dose per the TBD. 

10. If applicable, assign unmonitored Tc-99 dose (as >15 keV electrons) per the TBD.

Examples of skin dose assignments for GDP badge readings in 1970 (assuming Paducah LODs, no 

clothing correction and no Tc-99 exposure) (mrem).

OW reading S reading Measured dose assigned Missed dose assigned

50 0 50 (electrons) 40/2 = 20

(30-250 keV photons)

0 0 None 50/2 =25

(30-250 keV photons)

100 60 40 (electrons) AND 60 (photon energy per TBD) None

100 100 100 (photon energy per TBD) None

0 40 40 (photon energy per TBD) 50/2 = 25 (electrons)