REPORT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

Audit of Case PIID* from Hanford 

Contract No. 200-2004-03805 

Task Order No. 4 

SCA-TR-TASK4-CNPIID 

Prepared by 

S. Cohen & Associates 

6858 Old Dominion Road, Suite 301 

McLean, Virginia 22101 

February 2005 

NOTICE: This information is protected by Privacy Act 5 USC §552a; disclosure to any third party without 

the written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains is strictly prohibited. 
T 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK4-CNPIID 

Effective Date: 

February 4, 2005 

S. Cohen & Associates:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 1 

AUDIT OF CASE PIID FROM HANFORD Page 2 of 35 

Task Manager: ___________________ Date: 02/04/05 

 U. Hans Behling, PhD, MPH 

Project Manager: _________________ Date: 02/04/05 

 John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Supersedes: 

Draft Rev. 00 

Hanford Case #PIID 2 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Relevant Background Information...................................................................................... 5 

1.1 Audit Objectives ..................................................................................................... 6 

1.2 Summary of Audit Findings.................................................................................... 6 

2.0 Audit of External Doses...................................................................................................... 9 

2.1 Recorded Photon Doses .......................................................................................... 9 

2.1.1 Potential Deficiencies in Dose Reconstruction Report Pertaining to 

Recorded Photon Doses .............................................................................. 9 

2.2 Missed Photon Doses............................................................................................ 13 

2.2.1 Deficiency 1: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for 

PIID*......................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.2 Deficiency 2: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for 

PIID*......................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.3 Deficiency 3: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for 

PIID*......................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.4 Deficiency 4: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for 

PIID*- PIID* and PIID*- PIID*............................................................... 14 

2.2.5 Deficiency 5: Procedural Deficiencies Pertaining to Missed Photon 

Doses......................................................................................................... 14 

2.3 Recorded Neutron Doses ...................................................................................... 17 

2.4 Missed Neutron Doses .......................................................................................... 17 

2.4.1 Issue of Concern No. 1: Inability to Duplicate Assigned Missed 

Neutron Doses........................................................................................... 18 

2.4.2 Issue of Concern No. 2: Failure to Account for Missed Neutron 

Doses for the Remaining PIID* Years of Monitoring.............................. 19 

2.5 Occupational Medical Exposures ......................................................................... 20 

2.5.1 Issue of Concern No. 1: Improper Reference Cited in the Dose 

Reconstruction Report .............................................................................. 21 

2.6 Onsite Ambient Dose............................................................................................ 21 

3.0 Audit of Internal Doses..................................................................................................... 22 

3.1 NIOSH’s Approach for Estimating Potential Internal Dose................................. 23 

4.0 CATI Report and Radiological Incidents ......................................................................... 24 

4.1 Issue of Concerns Pertaining to Contamination Event ......................................... 25 

5.0 Summary Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 28 

5.1 Potential Deficiencies ........................................................................................... 28 

5.2 Dose Recontruction Report Content and Format.................................................. 28 

References..................................................................................................................................... 29 

Appendix A: IREP Input.............................................................................................................. 30 

Hanford Case #PIID 3 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of NIOSH-derived External/Internal Dose Estimates ..................................... 5 

Table 2. Case Review Checklist .................................................................................................... 7 

Table 3. Potential Dosimeter Record Discrepancies.................................................................... 13 

Table 4. Summary of Missed Photon Doses Not Included in Dose Reconstruction Report ....... 14 

Table 5. Measured/Assigned Doses for Case PIID for PIID ....................................................... 15 

Table 6. Assigned Neutron Doses Based on Neutron to Photon Ratio........................................ 17 

Table 7. Assigned Neutron Doses Based on Recorded η Doses.................................................. 17 

Table 8. Missed Neutron Doses Estimated by SC&A ................................................................. 20 

Table 9. Summary of Bioassays Performed on Case PIID .......................................................... 22 

Hanford Case #PIID 4 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

1.0 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

This report presents an independent audit of a Dose Reconstruction (DR) Report performed by 

the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for an energy employee who 

had worked at the Hanford Site’s PIID* as a PIID* for a period of PIID* and PIID*, and as a 

PIID* from PIID* through PIID*. The claimant’s job as a PIID* included PIID*. Work 

locations within the PIID*, and PIID*. The claimant was diagnosed with colon cancer in PIID*. 

Throughout the employment period, the claimant was monitored for external exposure by means 

of film dosimeters or TLDs. External exposures included photon and neutron radiation. 

Claimant was also monitored for internal exposure by means of periodic in vivo and in vitro 

bioassay measurements that included whole-body counting, chest counting, and urinalysis. 

NIOSH’s dose reconstruction for this case included a total of 227 exposure data entries to be 

used for determining the probability of causation. These dose data entries are #1 through #227 

and are reproduced herein as Appendix A. Throughout this report, reference will be made to 

select portions of Appendix A; for example, exposure entries #1 through #25 identify recorded 

external photon dosimeter results, while entries #26 through #35 correspond to external neutron 

exposures. 

Provided in Table 1 below are dose estimates derived by NIOSH that correspond to data 

contained in Appendix A. Using the dose estimate derived by NIOSH, the probability of 

causation (POC) was determined by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be 40.54% at the 99% 

confidence interval, and on this basis, the claim was denied. 

Table 1. Summary of NIOSH-derived External/Internal Dose Estimates 

Appendix A 

Exposure Entry No.

Dose 

(rem) 

External Dose: 

 ▪ Photon Dosimeter Dose 1 – 25 6.881 

 ▪ Missed Photon Dose 165 – 168 0.680 

 ▪ Neutron Dosimeter Dose 26 – 35 2.879 

 ▪ Missed Neutron Dose 169 – 172 3.003 

 ▪ Occupational Medical: 

 - chest x-rays 200 – 226 0.213 

 - chest photofluorography 227 0.260 

 ▪ Onsite Ambient 173 – 199 2.272 

Internal Dose (Hypothetical): 36 – 164 16.986 

Total: 30.902 

Hanford Case #PIID 5 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

1.1 AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

SC&A’s audit was performed with the following objectives: 

• To determine if NIOSH assigned doses that are consistent with monitoring 

records provided by the DOE and with information contained in the CATI report 

• To determine if the dose reconstruction process complied with applicable 

procedures that include generic procedures developed by NIOSH and ORAUT, as 

well as data/procedures that are site-specific to Hanford 

• In instances when procedure(s) provide more than one option or require 

subjective decisions, determine if the process is scientifically defensible and/or 

claimant favorable 

In pursuit of these objectives, a two-step process is followed in this audit. The first step of this 

audit is to independently duplicate and, therefore, validate doses derived by NIOSH. This step of 

the audit process is not only contractually mandated under Task 4, but provides NIOSH and the 

Advisory Board with a high level of assurance that the SC&A auditor understands which 

procedures, models, site-specific data, and assumptions NIOSH used to perform its dose 

reconstruction. The second step of the audit evaluates whether the methods employed by 

NIOSH are consistent with applicable procedures, scientifically defensible, and claimant 

favorable. 

Lastly, in compliance with the Privacy Act, this report makes no reference to the claimant’s 

name, SSN, address, or any personal data that might reveal the identity of the claimant. 

1.2 SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS 

An overview of SC&A’s audit findings for Case PIID is provided in Table 2 in the form of a 

checklist. This checklist evaluates the data collection process, information obtained from the 

CATI interview, and all methods used in the dose reconstruction. When deficiencies are 

identified by the audit, such deficiencies are further characterized with regard to their impact(s) 

by means of the following definitions: (1) low means that the deficiency has only a marginal 

impact on dose; (2) medium means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose, but is 

unlikely to impact the compensability of the case; and (3) high means that the deficiency 

substantially impacts the dose and may also impact the compensability of the case. A full 

description of deficiencies identified in the checklist is provided in the text of the audit that 

follows.

Hanford Case #PIID 6 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Table 2. Case Review Checklist 

CASE PIID ASSIGNED DOSE: 30.902 rem POC: 40.45% 

Audit Response If No, Potential Significance No. Description of Technical Elements of Review YES N/A NO LOW1 MEDIUM2 HIGH3

A. REVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION: 

A.1 Did NIOSH receive all requested data for the DOE or 

AWE site from any relevant data source? T T

A.2 Is the data used by NIOSH for the case adequate to 

make a determination with regard to POC? T

B. REVIEW OF INTERVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY CLAIMANT 

B.1 Did NIOSH properly address all work history 

dates/locations of employment reported by claimant? T

B.2 Did NIOSH properly address all 

incidents/occurrences reported by claimant? T

B.3 Did NIOSH properly address monitoring/ personal 

protection/work practices reported by claimant? T

B.4 Is the interview information consistent with data used 

for dose estimate? T

C. REVIEW OF PHOTON DOSES 

C.1 Was the appropriate procedure used for determining: 

C.1.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T

C.1.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.1.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.1.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

C.2 Did the DR properly account for all: 

C.2.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T T

C.2.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T T

C.2.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.2.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

C.3 Is the recorded/assigned dose properly converted to the organ dose of interest for: 

C.3.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T

C.3.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.3.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.3.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

C.4 Is the organ dose uncertainty properly determined for: 

C.4.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T T

C.4.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.4.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.4.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

D. REVIEW OF SHALLOW (i.e., 7 mg/cm2)/ELECTRON DOSES 

D.1 Was the appropriate procedure used for determining: 

D.1.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.1.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.1.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

D.2 Did the DR properly account for all: 

D.2.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.2.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.2.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

D.3 Is the recorded/assigned dose properly converted to the organ dose of interest for: 

D.3.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

 

1 Low means that the deficiency has only a marginal impact on dose. 2 Medium means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose, but is unlikely to impact the compensibility of the case. 3 High means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose and may also impact the compensibility of the case. 

Hanford Case #PIID 7 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

CASE PIID ASSIGNED DOSE: 30.902 rem POC: 40.45% 

Audit Response If No, Potential Significance No. Description of Technical Elements of Review YES N/A NO LOW1 MEDIUM2 HIGH3

D.3.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.3.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

D.4 Is the organ dose uncertainty properly determined for: 

D.4.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.4.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.4.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

E. REVIEW OF NEUTRON DOSES 

E.1 Was the appropriate procedure used for determining: 

E.1.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.1.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.1.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

E.2 Did the DR properly account for all: 

E.2.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.2.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.2.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T T

E.3 Is the recorded/assigned dose properly converted to the organ dose of interest for: 

E.3.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.3.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.3.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

E.4 Is the organ dose uncertainty properly determined for: 

E.4.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.4.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.4.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

F. REVIEW OF INTERNAL DOSE: BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL MODEL 

F.1 Is the use of the selected hypothetical internal dose 

model appropriate, based on the likely POC value? T

F.2 Is the use of a hypothetical internal dose model 

appropriate/conservative, based on claimant’s 

available bioassay data,? 

T

F.3 Was the hypothetical dose value correctly derived? T

G. REVIEW OF INTERNAL DOSE: BASED ON BIOASSAY/IMBA 

G.1 Was the appropriate procedure (or section of 

procedure) used for determining likely (>50%), 

unlikely (<50%), or undetermined POC and 

compensability? 

T

G.2 Are bioassay data sufficiently adequate for internal 

dose reconstruction? T

G.3 Are assumptions pertaining to dates of uptake 

reasonable/conservative? T

G.4 Are critical parameters (e.g., solubility class, particle 

size, etc.) used for IMBA organ dose estimates 

appropriate? 

T

G.5 Are assigned uncertainties (measurement errors) for 

bioassay data (used as input to IMBA) appropriate? T

H. Total number of deficiencies and their combined potential significance 5 T

_____________________________ 

1

 Low means that the deficiency has only a marginal impact on dose. 2

 Medium means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose, but is unlikely to impact the compensability of the case. 3

 High means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose and may also impact the compensability of the case. 

Hanford Case #PIID 8 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

2.0 AUDIT OF EXTERNAL DOSES 

2.1 RECORDED PHOTON DOSES 

As part of this audit, 100% of all DOE dose records were reviewed. These records include 

lifetime exposure reports that summarized exposure data by year and annual exposure data, 

which identified exposures for each month. SC&A’s review of these data showed the following: 

• With the exception of data for PIID*, and PIID*, data provided by the DOE were 

complete and consistent in that a summation of monthly exposures matched 

yearly/lifetime exposure data. 

• Annual recorded doses provided by the DOE matched assigned doses by NIOSH 

as represented by exposure entries #1–#25 of Appendix A. 

NIOSH’s Report of Dose Reconstruction stated that for exposure geometry and radiation 

energies, values were selected to maximize dose. Thus, “. . . To ensure that the estimate dose 

has been maximized, an organ dose conversion factor of 1 has been applied to both photons and 

neutrons. To maximize the probability of causation, a photon energy of range 100% 30–250 kev 

. . . [was] applied.” 

2.1.1 Potential Deficiencies in Dose Reconstruction Report Pertaining to Recorded 

Photon Doses 

Failure to Include Uncertainty. While the applied value of 1 for the colon dose conversion 

factor is conservative (i.e., claimant favorable), the fact the all photon doses of record were 

entered as a constant with no estimate of dosimeter uncertainty is a deficiency that is not 

claimant favorable. The need to account for dosimeter uncertainty is a procedural requirement as 

specified in all applicable procedures, which include OCAS-IG-001 (see Section 2.1.1.33), 

ORAUT-PROC-0006 (see Section 6.1.1.2), and ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 (see Section 6.3.4.3 and 

6.6.2). 

Missing DOE Dosimetry Data. Exposure entry #25 of Appendix A cites a deep dose of 80 mrem 

for PIID*, which also matches the deep dose value given in DOE’s Radiological Exposure 

Individual Dosimeter History Report (enclosed below as Exhibit 1). However, this cannot be 

verified since the monthly dosimeter data, as given in Exhibit 2, only provides data for PIID* 

(i.e., there are no data for the remaining PIID*). It should be noted that Exhibit 2 identifies a 

total of four pages on the upper right-hand side of the report and states “ . . . Historical Dose 

Report PIID*” It is assumed that the missing pages 3 and 4 provide monthly dosimetry starting 

PIID* and ending PIID*, which coincides with claimant’s termination date of PIID*. It should 

be further noted that in Appendix A there is no dosimeter dose assigned for the year PIID*, 

which may be due to the fact that all dosimeter measurements for PIID* were below the 

detection limit. If such is the case, these zero measurements must, nevertheless, be accounted for 

under the category of missed dose, as discussed in Section 2.3. 

 

Hanford Case #PIID 9 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Exhibit 1 

Deletions made to the following table – please see hard copies labeled ‘#6 – Hanford’ 

Hanford Case #PIID 10 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Exhibit 1 (Continued) 

Deletions made to the following table – please see hard copy labeled ‘#6 - Hanford’ 

Hanford Case #PIID 11 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Exhibit 2 

Deletions made to the following tables – please see hard copy labeled ‘#6 – Hanford’ 

Exhibit 2 (Continued) 

Hanford Case PIID 12 
T 

2.2 MISSED PHOTON DOSES 

NIOSH assigned missed photon doses for the years PIID* and PIID*. These are cited as entries 

#165 through #168 of Appendix A, and are based on LOD/2 multiplied by the number of zero 

deep dose recordings in a given year. 

Our review of dosimeter records reveals potential discrepancies for the years PIID* and PIID*, 

as given in Table 5 and discussed below. 

Table 3. Potential Dosimeter Record Discrepancies 

Year LOD/2 

(mrem) 

Assumed No. of Zero 

HP(10) Doses 

Assigned Missed 

Dose (mrem) 

Documented No. 

of Zero Doses 

PIID* 20 11 220 11 

PIID* 20 9 180 9 

PIID* 10 22 220 ? 

PIID* 10 6 60 ? 

Total 48 680 

2.2.1 Deficiency 1: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for PIID* 

NIOSH’s DR Report states that “. . . The total number of zero dosimeter readings assigned, 

based on the actual number of zeros reported in [energy employee’s] dosimetry files, was 48 for 

photons. . .” Column 8 of Exhibit 2 does, in fact, identify that of the 36 dose entries, there were 

a total of 22 zero readings for PIID*. Thus, it must be assumed that the dose reconstructor 

simply counted the number of zero dose entries in Column 8 and assigned a missed dose, as 

shown in Table 5. Inspection of Exhibit 2, however, shows that, in general, three dosimeters 

were assigned concurrently for each month representing one monthly whole-body dosimeter and 

two finger ring dosimeters. Therefore, the correct number of zero dose readings for PIID* 

should have been 9 instead of the 22 that were assumed by NIOSH; and the correct missed 

photon dose for PIID* is 90 mrem instead of 220 mrem. 

2.2.2 Deficiency 2: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for PIID* 

For PIID*, NIOSH assumed six zero readings. This value was apparently also taken from page 2 

of Exhibit 2, Column 8, which identifies six zero readings; however, for PIID*, only data for 

PIID*and PIID*are provided. Thus, potential zero doses for PIID* through PIID* are not 

included as missed photon doses. It must be assumed that the dose reconstructor has also failed 

to realize that these entries represent concurrent dosimeters that included finger rings and were 

limited for the months of PIID*. Missing for PIID* are monthly data for the other 10 months. 

Due to incomplete DOE data (i.e., missing pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 2), the actual number of zero 

dose readings for PIID* cannot be determined. 

2.2.3 Deficiency 3: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for PIID* 

For PIID*, NIOSH assigned no photon doses in behalf of recorded dosimeter doses. Exhibit 1 

verified that, for PIID*, there were no positive deep doses recorded. This would further imply 

Hanford Case PIID 13 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

that, for PIID*, there were likely 12 zero photon doses for which a missed dose should have been 

derived but which was not included in NIOSH’s DR Report. (It is likely that monthly dosimeter 

data are also included in the missing pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 2.) 

2.2.4 Deficiency 4: Misinterpretation of DOE’s Dosimetry Records for PIID* and PIID* 

In addition to deficiencies pertaining to missed doses for the years PIID*and PIID*, SC&A 

reviewed monthly dosimeter records for the years PIID* through PIID*, and PIID* through 

PIID*. Inspection of Appendix A shows no entry for missed photon dose for these years, which 

would imply that there were no monthly monitoring periods with a zero reading for a total of 

PIID* years. SC&A reviewed the monthly deep dose readings for the above cited years and 

found numerous monitoring periods for which the deep dose was recorded as zero or left blank. 

Table 6 below summarizes missed photon doses that were not included in the dose reconstruction 

report. 

Table 4. Summary of Missed Photon Doses Not Included in Dose Reconstruction Report 

Year 

No. of Zero 

Recordings for 

HP(10) 

LOD/2 

(mrem) 

SC&A’s Estimate 

of Missed Dose 

(mrem) 

PIID* 2 20 40 

“ 0 20 – 

“ 0 20 – 

“ 1 10 10 

“ 1 10 10 

“ 0 10 – 

“ 1 10 10 

“ 2 10 20 

“ 1 10 10 

“ 2 10 20 

“ 5 10 50 

“ 0 10 – 

“ 2 10 20 

“ 3 10 30 

“ 9 10 90 

“ 7 10 70 

“ 3 10 30 

“ 3 10 30 

“ 7 10 70 

“ 10 10 100 

“ 11 10 110 

“ 9 10 90 

“ 2 – 11 (?) 10 20 –110 

“ 12 (?) 10 120 (?) 

Totals ~100 950 – 1,040 

2.2.5 Deficiency 5: Procedural Deficiencies Pertaining to Missed Photon Doses 

Current procedural guidance pertaining to “missed” photon doses is exclusively directed to 

dosimeter data submitted by the DOE for which the dosimeter reading(s) are documented as zero 

Hanford Case PIID 14 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

(0) readings (see Section 2.1.2 of OCAS-IG-001). In brief, the guidance states that for zero 

measurements, the assigned annual missed dose is determined by dividing the lower limit of 

detection (LOD) of the dosimeter by two and multiplying the LOD/2 by the total number of zero 

measurements for that year. 

While this is an appropriate approach for assigning missed dose in instances when DOE records 

reveal an assigned photon dose of zero, a significant deficiency that is claimant unfavorable 

results when the DOE record reveals “measured” doses below LOD/2. 

The simplest way to demonstrate this procedural deficiency and unfavorable impact on claimants 

(including this claimant) is by way of the following illustration: 

At the Hanford Site, the lower limit of detection for personnel dosimeters up until 

PIID* was 40 mrem. Thus, a person who was monitored prior to PIID* on a 

monthly basis but had 12 zero measurements would be assigned a missed photon 

dose of 240 mrem for the year. 

However, at Hanford (and assumedly elsewhere), doses well below LOD were, in 

fact, recorded. Exhibit 3 shows monthly dosimeter doses for Case PIID for the 

year PIID*, and shows monthly assigned doses as low as 1 mrem. Because there 

were no zero measurements for Case PIID for PIID*, there was no assignment of 

missed dose. The obvious discrepancy is that for measured doses less than 20 

mrem, the claimant actually receives less assigned dose than the monitored 

individual whose measured dose is zero. For example, Table 7 provides the 

measured deep dose data for Case PIID and the assigned annual dose as recorded 

in entry #4 of Appendix A. (Note: The 175 mrem dose given in Exhibit 3 was 

apparently rounded up to 180 mrem, as given in Appendix A.) All but 3 monthly 

doses were above LOD/2 (or 20 mrem) and corresponded to a yearly “measured” 

dose of 175 mrem. This is 65 mrem less than the 240 mrem dose that would have 

been assigned as “missed” dose if Case PIID had 12 zero measurements. 

Table 5. Measured/Assigned Doses for Case PIID* for PIID* 

Month Measured Dose 

(mrem) 

January 2 

February 2 

March 13 

April 17 

May 1 

June 12 

July 25 

August 41 

September 2 

October 36 

November 5 

December 19 

Total 175 

Hanford Case PIID 15 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Exhibit 3 

Table deleted – please see hard copy labeled ‘#6 – Hanford’ 

Hanford Case PIID 16 
T 

2.3 RECORDED NEUTRON DOSES 

The principal work location for this claimant was PIID* of the PIID*, which is cited as an area 

with potential neutron exposure (Section 6.3.4.5, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6). Exposure entries #26 

through #35 of Appendix A cite neutron exposures for the years PIID* through PIID*, and for 

PIID*, and PIID*. 

Attachment 6E of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 specifies that prior to implementation of the HMPD in 

PIID*, neutron doses are to be estimated by means of neutron to photon ratios. For the PIID*, 

the ratio of 2.47 was defined (Table 6E-5 of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6). Table 6E-3 further defines 

a maximum neutron correction factor of 1.91. On the basis of these recommendations, the 95th

percentile annual neutron doses were derived for the years PIID*– PIID* by multiplying the 

corresponding annual photon doses by 2.47 and 1.91, as shown in Table 3. 

Table 6. Assigned Neutron Doses Based on Neutron to Photon Ratio 

Year Photon Dose of 

Record (mrem) 

η – γ ratio 

factor 

Adjustment 

Factor 

Assigned η Dose 

(mrem) 

PIID* 80 2.47 1.91 377 

PIID* 100 2.47 1.91 472 

PIID* 110 2.47 1.91 519 

PIID* 180 2.47 1.91 849 

PIID* 20 2.47 1.91 94 

For all years after PIID*, all neutron doses of record were adjusted by means of the 1.91 neutron 

correction factor; and for the years between PIID* and PIID*, the additional adjustment factor of 

1.35 was applied, as recommended in Section 6E.4.2.3 (see Table 4). 

Table 7. Assigned Neutron Doses Based on Recorded η Doses 

Year Photon Dose of 

Record (mrem) 

Adjustment 

Factor 

Assigned η Dose 

(mrem) 

PIID* 80 1.91; 1.35 206 

PIID* 10 1.91 19 

PIID* 20 1.91 38 

PIID* 120 1.91 229 

PIID* 40 1.91 76 

In summary, the assigned neutron doses for entries #26 through #35 of Appendix A comply with 

the procedural recommendations of Attachment 6E of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 

2.4 MISSED NEUTRON DOSES 

Missed neutron doses are identified in entries #169 through #172 of Appendix A and correspond 

to the years PIID*, and PIID*. (Note: the years for missed neutron doses cited by NIOSH are 

identical to the years of missed photon doses.) 

Hanford Case PIID 17 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Assigned missed neutron doses for the years PIID* and PIID* were derived as defined in 

Section 6E.4.2.6 of ORAUT-TKB-0006-6. Before PIID*, the procedure specifies that: 

missed neutron dose = (missed photon dose)(neutron/photon dose ratio); 

and, for deriving the maximum missed neutron dose, the 95th percentile neutron/photon ratio of 

2.47 can be used. Additionally, there is a need to apply the neutron correction factor of 1.91. 

Applying this approach for PIID* and PIID* yields the following 95th percentile missed neutron 

doses: 

PIID* missed η dose = (220 mrem)(2.47)(1.91) 

 = 1,038 mrem 

PIID* missed η dose = (180 mrem)(2.47)(1.91) 

 = 849 mrem 

These values match those of entries #169 and #170 of Appendix A. 

2.4.1 Issue of Concern No. 1: Inability to Duplicate Assigned Missed Neutron Doses 

For the years PIID* and PIID*, missed neutron doses of 955 mrem and 191 mrem, respectively, 

were assigned, which SC&A could not reproduce (see entries #171 and #172 of Appendix A). 

For the post- PIID* time period, missed neutron doses were to have been derived by procedural 

guidance contained in Section 6.5.2.1 of ORAUT-TKSB-0006-6 and/or Attachment 6E, 

Section 6E.4.2.6 of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6. (Admittedly, guidance provided in these two 

sections of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 for deriving missed neutron doses is inconsistent, as well as 

difficult to interpret. It also appears that the dose reconstructionist did not attempt to follow the 

procedural “guidance” provided in these sections for deriving missed neutron doses.) 

Based on SC&A’s “interpretation” of guidance provided in ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, the missed 

neutron doses for 1992 and 1993 should have been calculated as follows: 

 Missed η dose (PIID*) = (No. of Zero η dose reads)(MDL/2)(η dose correction 

factor) 

Hanford Case PIID 18 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

From the previous Exhibit #2, the data show a total of ten zero neutron readings for PIID*; and 

for PIID*, the DOE Radiological Exposure Individual Dosimeter History Report (Exhibit 1) 

shows a zero η dose for the year, which implies 12 months of zero neutron doses. Table 6-31 of 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 identifies a neutron MDL value of 50 mrem and Table 6-29 identifies 

the neutron correction factor of 1.91. Thus, for PIID* and PIID*, SC&A calculates missed 

neutron doses of 478 mrem and 573 mrem, respectively. These values differ significantly from 

the values of 955 mrem and 191 mrem derived by NIOSH (see entries #171 and #172 of 

Appendix A). 

 PIID* Missed Neutron Dose = (10 zero η readings)(50/2 mrem)(1.91) 

 = 478 mrem 

 PIID* Missed Neutron Dose = (12 zero η readings)(50/2 mrem)(1.91) 

 = 573 mrem 

2.4.2 Issue of Concern No. 2: Failure to Account for Missed Neutron Doses for the 

Remaining PIID* Years of Monitoring 

As was previously pointed out for missed photon doses, the DR Report also implies that there 

were no zero recorded neutron doses for the PIID* years that include PIID* through PIID*, 

PIID* through PIID*, and PIID*. SC&A’s review of monthly external monitoring records 

reveal zero neutron dose readings for nearly all years of claimant’s employment. Table 8 

summarizes the number of yearly zero neutron readings and derives estimates of missed neutron 

exposures. Based on monthly zero neutron readings, SC&A estimates a missed neutron dose 

18.1 rem. This is more than 15 rem greater than the assigned dose of 3.0 rem by NIOSH. 

Hanford Case PIID 19 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Table 8. Missed Neutron Doses Estimated by SC&A 

Before 

PIID* 

No. of Zero 

η Reading MDLFilm/2 Neutron/Photon 

Ratio 

Neutron 

Correction Factor η Dose (rem) 

PIID* 12 40 2.47 1.91 2.264 

PIID* 12 40 2.47 1.91 2.264 

PIID* 12 40 2.47 1.91 2.264 

After PIID* No. of Zero 

η Readings MDLTLD/2 Neutron/Photon 

Ratio 

Neutron 

Correction Factor η Dose (rem) 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 10 25 1.91 0.477 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 11 25 1.91 0.525 

PIID* 10 25 1.91 0.477 

PIID* 6 25 1.91 0.286 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.477 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 10 25 1.91 0.477 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

PIID* 12 25 1.91 0.573 

Total Missed Neutron Dose: 18.106 

2.5 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL EXPOSURES 

Estimates of occupational medical exposures for this claimant are cited in entries #200 through 

#227 of Appendix A. NIOSH assumed a yearly 14” x 17” PA chest x-ray for the years PIID* 

through PIID* and a single 4” x 5” chest photofluorographic examination in PIID* for a 

combined colon dose of 471 mrem (0.471 rem). The colon dose for individual 14” x 17” chest xray examinations varied from 13 mrem to 5 mrem; an organ dose of 260 mrem was assigned for 

the chest photofluoroscopic examination. 

Table 2 of Attachment E of ORAUT-PROC-0006 contains organ doses for PA chest x-ray exams 

by year. Organs are categorized into three groups and doses cited in Table 2 are considered 

“high.” Nevertheless, for further maximizing organ doses, the dose reconstructor may multiply 

the given organ dose by a factor of 1.3 and enter this dose as a constant. For example, Table 2 

Hanford Case PIID 20 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

identifies a colon dose of 10 mrem for PIID*, which when multiplied by 1.3 yields a point dose 

value of 13 mrem and concurs with entry #200. 

For occupational medical exposure, the assigned dose of 471 mrem is scientifically valid, 

procedurally compliant, and claimant favorable. 

2.5.1 Issue of Concern No. 1: Improper Reference Cited in the Dose Reconstruction 

Report 

Under the heading of Occupational Medical Exposure on page 6 of the DR Report, the following 

statement appears: “Based on information in Attachment E of the External Dose Reconstruction 

procedure6 . . . a total X-ray dose of 0.471 rem was assigned.” 

The cited Reference 6 in the DR Report identifies ORAUT-PROC-0006, External Dose 

Reconstruction, Rev. 00, June 27, 2003. Rev. 00, June 27, 2003 does not contain the cited 

“Attachment E.” Attachment E was not added to ORAUT-PROC-0006 until November 2003, 

along with a subsequent revision in December. Reference #6 in the DR Report should, therefore, 

have identified ORAUT-PROC-0006 with an effective date of December 11, 2003, and a 

Revision No. 00 PC-2. 

2.6 ONSITE AMBIENT DOSE 

Although it is acknowledged that this claimant was routinely monitored for external radiation 

exposure, onsite ambient doses were nevertheless assessed, in order to account for any 

inadvertent subtraction of elevated ambient doses registered in “control badges.” For the total 

employment period, NIOSH derived a time-integrated dose of 2.272 rem, with annual doses 

given in entries #173 through #199 of Appendix A. 

For this calculation, NIOSH assumed a 50-hour workweek and selected the highest average 

external onsite radiation level at Hanford for each year, regardless of the actual work location of 

the energy employee. Maximum annual onsite doses for Hanford were taken from Table 4.3.1-1 

of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-4. 

SC&A verified the derived onsite ambient dose of 2.272 rem and concludes that the inclusion of 

an onsite dose and the methodology employed is procedurally correct and claimant favorable. 

Hanford Case PIID 21 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

3.0 AUDIT OF INTERNAL DOSES 

Internal dose monitoring records submitted by the DOE included both in vivo and in vitro 

bioassays. In vivo monitoring consisted of whole-body counting (WBC) for gamma emitting 

fission products and chest counting (CH) for Am-241, Th-234, and U-235. In vitro bioassays 

consisted of analysis of urine samples for uranium and Pu-238/-239 representing 12- or 24-hour 

collection periods. Table 9 summarizes the type of bioassay provided and the dates. Wholebody and chest counting were performed on a yearly basis for 17 out of the 27 years, with most 

of the unmonitored years occurring during the early years of employment. Similarly, routine 

urinalyses for Pu-238/-239 were performed on an annual basis, with 5 unmonitored years 

occurring before 1975. 

Table 9. Summary of Bioassays Performed on Case PIID* 

Urinalysis Year In vivo WBC (date) Chest 

(date) Uranium Pu-238/-239 

PIID* PIID* PIID* — — 

PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID*; PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* PIID* 

 PIID* — — — 

 PIID* — — — 

 PIID* — — See footnote 1 PIID* 

 PIID* — — See footnote 2 — 

 PIID* — — PIID*3 — 

 PIID* — — — 

 1 In PIID*, Claimant was tested a total of 12 times; uranium concentration varied between 1.4E+00 to 

5.12E+00; however, the unit is not defined. 

2

 In PIID*, Claimant was tested a total of six times; uranium concentration varied between 1.15E+00 to 

1.46E-01; however the unit is not defined. 

3

 The unit for defining urine concentration is not defined. 

Hanford Case PIID 22 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

For all whole-body counts, there were no radionuclides with significant body concentrations. 

For urinalysis, all data were below detection limits except for uranium levels found in urine for 

the years PIID* and PIID*. However, the DOE summary records do not identify the unit of 

concentration (e.g., nCi/l, μg/24-hr volume) for these results. For Pu-238/-239, the detection 

limit ranged between 0.02 and 0.05 dpm per sample. 

3.1 NIOSH’S APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING POTENTIAL INTERNAL DOSE 

Due to the long time intervals between annual in vivo and in vitro bioassays, missed years of 

internal monitoring, and uncertainty regarding the interpretation of historical uranium urinalysis 

data, there is a potential for undetected and/or unaccounted internal doses. 

To account for such doses, NIOSH elected to assign an internal dose based on a hypothetical 

intake, as defined in procedure ORAUT-OTIB-0002, “Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for 

Certain DOE Complex Claims, Rev. 01,” January 28, 2004. For DOE facilities with reactors, the 

procedure specifies a single acute inhalation of 28 radionuclides with specific activity levels. To 

maximize the time-integrated organ dose, the procedure further specifies that this “event” is 

assumed to take place on the first day of employment. Entries #36 through #164 of Appendix A 

identify annual doses to the colon based on radiation type. 

SC&A independently verified the dose calculation by means of the Excel® Workbook, as 

specified in ORAUT-OTIB-0002 and verified the DR Report’s organ dose of 16.986 rem. Based 

on available bioassay data and their limitations, the use of the hypothetical intake model is 

justified and is likely to be claimant favorable. 

Hanford Case PIID 23 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

4.0 CATI REPORT AND RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENTS 

Review of the CATI report showed one inconsistency with data presented in the dose 

reconstruction report. The DR Report identifies PIID*, as the energy employee’s termination 

date, while the CATI report cites PIID*. 

DOE’s bioassay records, however, show a termination urinalysis (uranium) for PIID*, and 

termination whole-body and chest counts for PIID*. Based on termination bioassay dates, it is, 

therefore, concluded that the energy employee terminated employment on PIID*, as cited in the 

DR Report. 

The CATI report indicates that the energy employee was restricted from the workplace or certain 

job duties because the employee had reached/exceeded a radiation dose limit. DOE records 

further show the following: 

• In PIID*, the employee was placed on radiation work restriction due to lost finger 

ring dosimeter(s). The employee was reinstated as of PIID*. 

• In PIID*, an unexpectedly high extremity dose of 4,740 was recorded. Following 

an investigation of the ring dosimeter, the extremity dose was reduced to 1,730 

mrem. This, however, was still above the 900 mrem exposure control guide. 

• In PIID*, an extremity exposure of 2,110 mrem was recorded, which exceeded 

the 900 mrem administrative exposure control guide. 

These events/exposures are unlikely to have contributed to the organ dose of interest in this case 

and were, therefore, not factored into the dose reconstruction. 

The CATI report also makes reference to a radiological incident involving skin contamination 

and torn gloves while handling plutonium. Regarding this event, the DR Report states the 

following: 

The DOE files contain one “skin and clothing decontamination” record 

indicating that [the claimant’s] right palm became contaminated as a result of a 

torn glove. The records show that his hand was successfully decontaminated. 

The monitoring records analyzed in this dose reconstruction, together with the 

claimant-favorable assumptions applied, would have accounted for any dose 

received from these types of exposures. 

SC&A’s review of DOE files confirms one contamination event that was the result of a torn 

glove and resulted in the contamination of the employee’s right hand. Enclosed as Exhibit 4 is a 

copy of DOE’s record for this radiological incident. Because of the poor quality of this 

photocopy, comments that describe this event have been transcribed below: 

Hanford Case PIID 24 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

 PIID* worked in the PIID* to PIID* at ~1100 hrs. 

~1115 hrs. During survey of the PIID* (?) and PIID* in preparation of the tour – 

PIID* were found contaminated – the ones the PIID* had used right before the 

survey. The PIID* [i.e., claimant] had been using PIID* and when he took them 

off, he turned them inside out. He re-used the same PIID* when he resumed work 

after lunch. PIID* found he was contaminated when he couldn’t get through 

Hand and Foot counter located near the change rooms. 

[Emphasis added.] 

4.1 ISSUE OF CONCERNS PERTAINING TO CONTAMINATION EVENT 

Inspection of Exhibit 4 reveals the following: 

• Exhibit 4 has a heavy smudge mark that conceals the date of this contamination 

event. 

• Exhibit 4 also identifies alpha contamination levels for five locations, which 

include the hand. The “direct alpha measurement” of 1,750 is given for the hand. 

However, the measurement unit cannot be deciphered and it is not possible to 

determine if the unit is expressed in cpm, cps, dpm, or dps. 

• Comments contained in Exhibit 4 (as reproduced above) provide no clear 

indication of the timeline or sequence of events that include (1) the tearing of 

glove, (2) contamination of hand, (3) lunch, and (4) resumption of work after 

lunch. 

• Comments contained in Exhibit 4 do not mention a prompt and successful 

decontamination, as stated in the DR Report. 

In summary, the DR Report statement that “. . . The records show that his hand was successfully 

decontaminated. The monitoring records analyzed in this dose reconstruction . . . accounted for 

any dose received from these types of exposures . . .” is, however, unsubstantiated for the 

following reason: Table 9 identifies the dates for all Pu-238/-239 urinalysis. Table 9 shows only 

one annual routine urinalysis. Although the data of this contamination event could not be 

determined, it would appear highly improbable if it coincided in time with one of the annual 

routine urinalysis. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that there was no follow-up urinalysis 

done as a result of this contamination event that had a high potential for internal contamination. 

Although there appears to have been no follow-up bioassay performed that would assess 

potential internal exposure from the contamination event, SC&A does acknowledge the fact that 

a hypothetical internal dose was assigned. It is also reasonable to conclude that the assigned 

hypothetical dose is greater than the potential internal dose that may have resulted from the 

documented contamination event. 

Hanford Case PIID 25 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Exhibit 4 

Deletion made to exhibit – please see hard copy labeled ‘#6- Hanford’

Hanford Case PIID 26 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

Exhibit 4 (Continued) 

Hanford Case PIID 27 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

5.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

5.1 POTENTIAL DEFICIENCIES 

SC&A’s audit of the dose reconstruction for this case reveals that a substantial number of 

technical errors may have been made that could significantly change the organ dose and the 

associated probability of causation of cancer. 

In the event that the issues of concern raised in this audit are validated, this may suggest one or 

more of the following: 

• The dose reconstructor for this case is insufficiently familiar with the procedures 

needed to complete a dose reconstruction. 

• Procedures used for dose reconstruction are too numerous, too fragmented in 

format, and in some areas, difficult to interpret. (Note: This comment reflects the 

opinion of this reviewer, who, under Task 3 of SC&A’s contract with NIOSH, has 

thoroughly reviewed all procedures used for dose reconstruction.) 

• NIOSH’s review process for completed dose reconstructions is inadequate. 

5.2 DOSE RECONTRUCTION REPORT CONTENT AND FORMAT 

In its current form, the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction (DR) Report only provides brief summary 

explanations and dose data. For several categories of doses, the DR Report under review herein 

limits explanation/information regarding a derived dose estimate to a broad reference involving 

an entire Site Profile. The failure to explain how individual categories of internal/external 

exposures were derived and the absence of a well-defined paper trail for specific dose estimates 

poses severe limitations on NIOSH’s internal QA review process. Similarly, these shortcomings 

force SC&A auditors to engage in time-consuming speculations regarding the choice of 

procedures, methodology, and parameters selected by the dose reconstructor for deriving dose 

estimates. 

Hanford Case PIID 28 S. Cohen & Associates
T 

REFERENCES 

OCAS-IG-001. 2002. “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guide,” Rev. 1. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support. 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-PROC-0006. 2003. “External Dose Reconstruction,” Rev. 00. Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002. 2004. “Technical Basis Document – Maximum Internal Dose Estimates 

for Certain DOE Complex Claims,” Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 2003. “Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures,” Rev. 02. Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3. 2004. “Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Medical Exposure,” Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-4. 2004. “Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Environmental Dose,” Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6. 2004. “Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

External Dosimetry,” Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Hanford Case PIID 29 S. Cohen & Associates
APPENDIX A: IREP INPUT 

CLAIMANT CANCER DIAGNOSIS 

Primary 

Cancer #1

Primary Cancer 

#2

Primary Cancer #3 Secondary 

Cancer #1

Secondary 

Cancer #2

Secondary Cancer #3

Cancer Type colon (153.1) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Date of 

Diagnosis 

PIID* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

EXPOSURE INFORMATION 

Number of exposures 

227 

Exposure # Exposure 

Year

Exposure Rate Radiation Type Dose Distribution 

Type

Parameter 1 Parameter 2 Parameter 3

1 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.080 0.000 0.000 

2 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.100 0.000 0.000 

3 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.110 0.000 0.000 

4 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.180 0.000 0.000 

5 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.020 0.000 0.000 

6 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.460 0.000 0.000 

7 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.400 0.000 0.000 

8 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.780 0.000 0.000 

9 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.750 0.000 0.000 

10 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.490 0.000 0.000 

11 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.790 0.000 0.000 

12 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.370 0.000 0.000 

13 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.100 0.000 0.000 

14 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.540 0.000 0.000 

15 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.670 0.000 0.000 

16 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.200 0.000 0.000 

17 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.060 0.000 0.000 

18 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.110 0.000 0.000 

19 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.240 0.000 0.000 

20 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.170 0.000 0.000 

21 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.090 0.000 0.000 

22 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.030 0.000 0.000 

23 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.010 0.000 0.000 

24 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.051 0.000 0.000 

25 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.080 0.000 0.000 

26 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.377 0.000 0.000 

27 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.472 0.000 0.000 

28 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.519 0.000 0.000 

29 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.849 0.000 0.000 

30 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.094 0.000 0.000 

31 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.206 0.000 0.000 

32 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.019 0.000 0.000 

33 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.038 0.000 0.000 

Hanford Case PIID 30 S. Cohen & Associates 
34 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV 

Constant 0.229 0.000 0.000 

35 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Constant 0.076 0.000 0.000 

36 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.769 0.000 0.000 

37 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.265 0.000 0.000 

38 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.259 0.000 0.000 

39 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.253 0.000 0.000 

40 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.249 0.000 0.000 

41 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.245 0.000 0.000 

42 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.243 0.000 0.000 

43 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.240 0.000 0.000 

44 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.238 0.000 0.000 

45 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.237 0.000 0.000 

46 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.236 0.000 0.000 

47 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.233 0.000 0.000 

48 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.232 0.000 0.000 

49 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.231 0.000 0.000 

50 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.230 0.000 0.000 

51 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.228 0.000 0.000 

52 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.227 0.000 0.000 

53 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.226 0.000 0.000 

54 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.225 0.000 0.000 

55 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.224 0.000 0.000 

56 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.222 0.000 0.000 

57 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.221 0.000 0.000 

58 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.220 0.000 0.000 

59 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.218 0.000 0.000 

60 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.217 0.000 0.000 

61 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.216 0.000 0.000 

62 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.215 0.000 0.000 

63 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.214 0.000 0.000 

64 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.212 0.000 0.000 

65 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.211 0.000 0.000 

66 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.211 0.000 0.000 

67 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.209 0.000 0.000 

68 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.208 0.000 0.000 

69 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.206 0.000 0.000 

70 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.206 0.000 0.000 

71 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.204 0.000 0.000 

72 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.203 0.000 0.000 

73 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.202 0.000 0.000 

74 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.201 0.000 0.000 

75 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.200 0.000 0.000 

76 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.199 0.000 0.000 

77 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.198 0.000 0.000 

78 PIID* chronic alpha Constant 0.197 0.000 0.000 

79 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 1.519 0.000 0.000 

80 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.152 0.000 0.000 

81 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.042 0.000 0.000 

82 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.016 0.000 0.000 

Hanford Case PIID 31 S. Cohen & Associates 
83 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.008 0.000 0.000 

84 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

85 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.003 0.000 0.000 

86 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 

87 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 

88 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

89 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

90 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

91 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

92 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

93 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

94 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

95 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

96 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

97 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

98 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

99 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

100 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

101 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

102 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

103 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

104 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

105 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

106 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

107 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

108 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

109 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

110 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

111 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

112 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

113 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

114 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

115 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

116 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

117 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

118 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

119 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

120 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

121 PIID* chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

122 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 4.458 0.000 0.000 

123 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.193 0.000 0.000 

124 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.091 0.000 0.000 

125 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.065 0.000 0.000 

126 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.052 0.000 0.000 

127 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.043 0.000 0.000 

128 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.036 0.000 0.000 

129 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.030 0.000 0.000 

130 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.025 0.000 0.000 

131 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.021 0.000 0.000 

132 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.018 0.000 0.000 

Hanford Case PIID 32 S. Cohen & Associates 
133 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.015 0.000 0.000 

134 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.013 0.000 0.000 

135 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.011 0.000 0.000 

136 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

137 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.008 0.000 0.000 

138 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

139 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.006 0.000 0.000 

140 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

141 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000 

142 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.003 0.000 0.000 

143 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.003 0.000 0.000 

144 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 

145 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 

146 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 

147 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 

148 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

149 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

150 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

151 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

152 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

153 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

154 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 

155 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

156 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

157 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

158 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

159 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

160 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

161 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

162 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

163 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

164 PIID* chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 

165 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Lognormal 0.220 1.520 0.000 

166 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Lognormal 0.180 1.520 0.000 

167 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Lognormal 0.220 1.520 0.000 

168 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Lognormal 0.060 1.520 0.000 

169 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Lognormal 1.038 1.520 0.000 

170 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Lognormal 0.849 1.520 0.000 

171 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Lognormal 0.955 1.520 0.000 

172 PIID* chronic neutrons E=100keV2MeV Lognormal 0.191 1.520 0.000 

173 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.350 0.000 0.000 

174 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.415 0.000 0.000 

175 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.225 0.000 0.000 

176 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.186 0.000 0.000 

177 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.186 0.000 0.000 

178 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.043 0.000 0.000 

179 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.040 0.000 0.000 

180 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.035 0.000 0.000 

Hanford Case PIID 33 S. Cohen & Associates 
181 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.035 0.000 0.000 

182 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.029 0.000 0.000 

183 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.029 0.000 0.000 

184 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.029 0.000 0.000 

185 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.038 0.000 0.000 

186 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.157 0.000 0.000 

187 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.127 0.000 0.000 

188 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.027 0.000 0.000 

189 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.025 0.000 0.000 

190 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.027 0.000 0.000 

191 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.027 0.000 0.000 

192 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.027 0.000 0.000 

193 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.030 0.000 0.000 

194 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.027 0.000 0.000 

195 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.035 0.000 0.000 

196 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.031 0.000 0.000 

197 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.030 0.000 0.000 

198 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.036 0.000 0.000 

199 PIID* chronic photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.026 0.000 0.000 

200 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.013 0.000 0.000 

201 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.013 0.000 0.000 

202 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.013 0.000 0.000 

203 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

204 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

205 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

206 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

207 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

208 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

209 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

210 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

211 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

212 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

213 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.007 0.000 0.000 

214 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

215 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

216 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

217 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

218 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

219 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

220 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

221 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.009 0.000 0.000 

222 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

223 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

224 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

225 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

226 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.005 0.000 0.000 

227 PIID* acute photons E=30-250keV Constant 0.260 0.000 0.000 

Hanford Case PIID 34 S. Cohen & Associates