DRAFT WHITE PAPER 

REVIEW OF SOME SRS CLAIMANT CASES TO EXAMINE 

BADGE AND AREA CODES FOR ADEQUACY IN THORIUM 

SEC IMPLEMENTATION 

Contract Number 200-2009-28555 

Prepared by 

Lynn Ayers 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

Saliant, Inc.

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

November 2011 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted. 
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 2 of 11 

S. Cohen & Associates: Document Description: 

Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program 

Effective Date: 

Draft – November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Review of Some SRS Claimant Cases to Examine 

Badge and Area Codes for Adequacy in Thorium 

SEC Implementation 

Page 2 of 11 

Task Manager: ___________________ Date: 

Arjun Makhijani, PhD 

Supersedes: 

Rev. 0 

Project Manager: _________________ Date: 

John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Reviewer: 

Arjun Makhijani, PhD 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 11/28/2011 Initial issue 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 3 of 11 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published Addendum 2 to its 

Evaluation Report for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) (NIOSH 

2011). This report recommended that certain workers at SRS be added to the SEC, as follows: 

All externally monitored employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Savannah 

River Site from January 1, 1953 through December 31, 1957, and whose records 

have dosimetry codes A, G, CMX, or TNX; and all externally monitored 

employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their 

contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Savannah River Site from 

January 1, 1958 through September 30, 1972, and whose records have dosimetry 

codes 5A, 5C, 6B through 6Z, 12D through 12H, or 12J through 12Z for a 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely 

under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort. [NIOSH 2011] 

Some petitioner and claimant representatives believed that the dosimetry records were not 

adequate in several respects to prevent workers who were exposed to thorium in the designated 

work areas from being incorrectly excluded from the SEC. 

This report examines 10 claimant cases to evaluate completeness of the dosimetry codes. Some 

of these cases were provided by petitioner and/or claimant representatives. See Attachment 1 for 

a list of claims reviewed. 

SC&A reviewed dosimeter badge data and dosimetry cards from the claimants’ DOE Files for 

employment years from January 1953 through September 1972. Dosimetry codes from these 

sources were noted and compared against other indicators of work locations within the DOE 

File, such as bioassay cards. Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) responses were 

considered as well. SC&A noted discrepancies, gaps, illegible entries, and other issues that 

might compromise implementation of the proposed SEC class. 

We stress that this is a small sample and is not sufficient to enable statistically valid conclusions. 

Rather, it is meant to examine whether there are gaps in the data, as described by claimant 

representatives, or whether the records are complete enough to implement the SEC in these 

sample cases. 

Main finding: There are extensive gaps in the records. There was only 1 case out of 10 

where the assigned area and dosimetry codes are complete and legible with no 

uncertainties or discrepancies. Four (4) of the 10 cases have codes corresponding to 

inclusion in the proposed SEC class; these cases also have gaps. Five (5) of the 10 cases 

have incomplete, illegible, and/or indeterminate records of work location. In these cases, it 

appears that excluding workers due to the lack of an SEC code per the proposed NIOSH 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 4 of 11 

SEC class definition would not be claimant favorable, since it would be impossible to assure 

that they did not, in fact, qualify. 

DATA AND ANALYSIS 

SC&A found that dosimetry records for the 10 claims were of the types described by Dr. Taulbee 

at the Advisory Board meeting in August 2011 (ABRWH 2011). Dosimetry cards were used 

through 1958. Generally, each card had one “Assigned Area” field covering a period of 

6 months to 1 year at a time. Beginning in 1958, quarterly reports of badge data generally 

provide dosimetry codes on a biweekly or quarterly basis. Some of these reports reflected 

changes in work location within a quarter, or even within a single biweekly exchange cycle. 

This conveys a sense of greater precision in identifying worker locations during the latter period. 

Two questions affect the use of dosimetry records to determine inclusion in an SEC class. The 

first is the completeness of data available for review; the second is the usefulness of this data in 

identifying work locations. The issue of completeness addresses the question of whether 

workers had legible dosimetry codes for the entire period from January 1953 through September 

1972 (the proposed SEC period), or whether there were gaps in data or other problems with the 

records. Table 1 quantifies the data in terms of claimant-years; how many claimants have legible 

data available for how many years, as a percentage of the combined years of service during the 

SEC period for all selected claimants. Employment start and end dates, where available, were 

considered in assessing data completeness. However, except were explanations are readily 

available in the documents reviewed, SC&A did not attempt to investigate the possibility that 

data gaps might be explained by interruptions in service. 

Table 1. Summary of Dosimetry Code Availability for Selected Claimant Files 

Available & Legible Blank, Illegible, Not Copied Record Unavailable 

Full Year Partial Year Full Year Partial Year Full Year Partial Year 

Jan. 1958 – Sep. 1972 

n = 103 

64 

(62%) 

27 

(26%) 

1 

(1%) 

2 

(2%) 

11 

(11%) 

25 

(24%) 

Jan. 1953 – Dec. 1957 

n = 36 

12 

(33%) 

8 

(22%) 

10 

(28%) 

6 

(17%) 

6 

(17%) 

2 

(6%) 

All Years 

n = 139 

76 

(55%) 

35 

(25%) 

11 

(8%) 

8 

(6%) 

17 

(12%) 

27 

(19%) 

Table 1 indicates significant gaps in the records for each of the two periods evaluated and for the 

two periods combined. From 1958 through 1972, 62% of the claimant-years were fully 

represented with legible dosimetry records. While another 26% of the claimant-years have some 

data available, this still appears to pose a problem for the implementation of the SEC. During 

the presentation of the NIOSH proposal for an addition to the SEC class on August 24, 2011, Dr. 

Taulbee stated that a single instance of a qualifying dosimeter or area code in a worker’s record 

should be sufficient to include a worker in the SEC class, though he noted that the matter of 

implementing the proposed class was up to the Department of Labor (ABRWH 2011, pp. 198– 

199). The gaps were even larger in the earlier period, 1953 to 1957, when only 33% of the 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 5 of 11 

worker-years had complete data, and only 55% have legible data representing the worker’s 

location during any part of the year. 

Several factors influenced the availability of legible records in the claimants’ files. One factor is 

copy quality. In many cases, records were present in the claimant files, but the indicators of 

work location could not be read. Some copies are simply too light or too blurred to distinguish 

the codes. Many copies of dosimetry cards from the pre-1958 period were overexposed at the 

bottom, where the assigned area field is located. Another problem with the cards is that the 

assigned area would be scratched out as employee assignments changed during the year. Some 

of the entries could be read through the lines; others were completely obscured. If an entry was 

crossed out without replacement, we inferred that no valid area code was available for that 

period. If a legible replacement entry was available, we regarded the replacement entry as 

evidence of worker location for the part of the period represented by the card. Some cards have 

no entry for the assigned area; the field is blank. Another problem, noted in one file, is that the 

wrong page of a quarterly report was copied; the record provided by DOE does not include the 

claimant’s data. All of the complications described in this paragraph were counted in the 

“Blank, Illegible, Not Copied” category of Table 1. The only situation counted as “Record 

Unavailable” is a period with no report or card available in the DOE file. 

Table 2 provides specific observations for each claimant. One column describes any gaps, 

discrepancies, or uncertainties that might complicate assessment of a claimant’s work location. 

Another column lists evidence from the DOE files that would support inclusion in the SEC class 

as recommended by NIOSH. 

One issue noted in the “inconclusive” column is dosimetry code 000, which appears in the 

quarterly badge reports. SC&A consulted NIOSH for assistance in interpreting this code; it is 

currently assumed that 000 represents an unknown work location. 

Table 2. Detailed Observations from Review of Selected Claimant Files 

Case ID Years 

Employed* Missing or Inconclusive Area Designations Potential SEC Inclusion Indicators 

1 1953–1964 1955–1957 (assigned areas illegible on cards) 

1953 (no records) 

None noted 

2 1953–1972 

1972 (no records for Q3) 

1971 (no records for Q1) 

1970 (no records for Q2, Q4) 

1968 (code 000 for Q1) 

1967 (no records for Q1-Q2, Q4; code 000 for Q3) 

Bioassay Jun. 1967, location “A” 

1966 (no records) 

1964–1965 (code 000 for all quarters) 

1963 (code 000 for Q2-Q4) 

1962 (no records for Q2) 

1958 (no records Q1, Q3, Q4) 

1955 (several entries for assigned area, all scratched out) 

1954 (one assigned area scratched out and replaced) 

1953 (no records for Q2) 

1971 Q2-Q4 code 6G 

1972 Q1, Q2 code 6G 

1956–1957 area G2 

1954 area G2 or G7 

1953 Q3, Q4 area A 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 6 of 11 

Case ID Years 

Employed* Missing or Inconclusive Area Designations Potential SEC Inclusion Indicators 

3 1953–1972 

1972 (no records for Q3) 

1971 (no records) 

1970 (no records for Q2-Q4) 

1969 (no records for Q4) 

1966 (no records for Q1-Q2) 

1965 (no records for Q2-Q4) 

1964 (no records for Q4; code 000 for Q1) 

1963 (no records for Q2; code 000 for Q4) 

1962 (no records for Q1-Q2) 

1961 (no records for Q3) 

1960 (no records for Q2-Q3) 

1958–1959 (no records) 

1955 (assigned area is blank; 2 data entries marked A-1) 

1953 (no records) 

1970 Q1 code 5A 

1969 Q1-Q3 code 5A 

1967-1968 code 5A 

Two bioassays Jul-67, 

location 773-A 

1966 Q3-Q4 code 5A 

1956–1957 area A1 

1955 2 data entries A1 

1954 area A6 

4 1953–1954 

1967–1969 DOE located dosimetry data for 3 or 4 cycles 

when the claim file does not indicate employment at SRS. 

1953–1954 (no records – job did not require monitoring) 

None noted 

5 1953–1959 

1958 (no records Q1-Q3) 

1957 (no records) 

1954 (assigned area scratched out on Q1-Q2 side) 

1953 (no records for Q1-Q3; start date Feb. 1953) 

None noted 

6 1953–1972 

1972 (no records for Q1, Q3) 

1971 (no records) 

1970 (no records for Q1, Q2, Q4) 

1966–1967 (no ext. data; Pu bioassay 04/67 location P) 

1965 (code 000 for Q1-Q2) 

1964 (code 000) 

1963 (code 000 for Q2-Q4; no records for Q1) 

1960–1962 (data for only 1 badge cycle [2 wk] per year) 

1959 (no records) 

1954–1957 (assigned area illegible copies) 

1953 (no records) 

None noted 

7 1954–1972 No discrepancies or missing intervals were noted None noted 

8 1953–1972 

1968 (Q3 code 12 – letter is not legible on copy) 

1958 (card area D-2; printouts 5C = CMX/TNX) 

1957 (2 areas scratched out, replaced) 

1956 (1 area scratched out, replaced with A9) 

1955 (1 area scratched out, not replaced, on Q3-Q4 side) 

1954 (3 areas scratched out both sides, replaced with D on 

Q3-Q4 side) 

1969 Q1-Q2 code 12G 

1968 Q1-Q4 code 12G 

1962 Q1 code 5A 

1961 Q1-Q4 code 5A 

Bioassay Nov. 1961, 773A 

1960 Q2-Q4 code 5A 

1959 Q1 code 5C 

Bioassays Feb.–Mar. 1959 

location “CMX” 

1958 Q1-Q4 code 5C 

Bioassay Jul. 1958 “CMX” 

1956 area A9 

9 1961–1972 1972 (no records) 

1968 (Q1-Q2 partially obscured/illegible) 

1970–1971 code 6K 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 7 of 11 

Case ID Years 

Employed* Missing or Inconclusive Area Designations Potential SEC Inclusion Indicators 

10 1961–1964 

1964 Q3 (code 000 – unknown) 

Bioassay Aug-64, location “A” 

1962–1963 (no records – possibly d/t military service) 

None noted 

* Only listing years within the proposed SEC period, January 1953–September 1972. 

Seven (7) of the 10 claimants were employed at SRS in 1958, when dosimetry cards and 

quarterly badge reports are both found in claimant files. Since dosimetry codes from the badge 

reports are the primary indicators for SEC class inclusion for 1958, the cards from this year are 

not considered a primary data source; SC&A did not report missing or illegible cards for 1958 as 

a concern in Tables 1 and 2. However, as an exercise in evaluating the reliability of dosimetry 

cards to indicate work location, SC&A attempted to compare information from the cards and 

quarterly reports. We found that one case demonstrates clear agreement between the card and 

the quarterly report, one demonstrates a significant discrepancy, one has no records in either 

form for 1958, and four cases could not be compared due to blank or illegible card entries. The 

results are presented in Table 3. 

Table 3. Comparison of Dosimetry Cards and Quarterly Reports for 1958 

Case 

Number 

1958 External Dose Card 

“Assigned Area” 

1958 Badge Report 

Dosimetry Code(s) 

Agreement/Disagreement 

Between Sources 

re: SEC inclusion 

1 Assigned Area illegible on copy Q1-Q4, code 8A (100P). Cannot compare locations. 

2 Assigned Area is blank; data for Q2 only Q2 only, code 7A (100R). 

No codes for three quarters. 

Monitored periods agree. 

Cannot compare locations. 

3 No record No record. Cannot compare locations. 

5 Assigned Area illegible on copy Q4 only, codes 2A (200H) & 2Z 

(not provided). 

No codes for three quarters. 

Cannot compare locations. 

6 Assigned Area illegible on copy Q1-Q4, code 10A (100K). Cannot compare locations. 

7 K (non-SEC area) Q1-Q4, code 10A (100K), nonSEC code. Agreement. 

8 D-2 (non-SEC area) Q1-Q4, code 5C (CMX/TNX – 

SEC code). 

Disagreement between 

assigned area and 

dosimetry code. 

SC&A was not able to complete a detailed comparison between work locations indicated by 

CATIs and dosimetry records, as we can only translate the area and dosimetry codes that are 

listed in the SEC class definition or in Table 7-5 of ER Addendum 2 (NIOSH 2011, pp. 42–43). 

We could not determine, for example, if area code “D-1” and dosimetry codes “1B” or “2Z” 

match work locations identified in claimants’ CATI reports. However, a few anecdotal 

observations can be made. Some CATI references to specific facilities could be matched with 

work locations indicated by the dosimetry records. For example, a worker who claimed to have 

worked in C Reactor and 200F has specific dosimetry codes for those facilities (code 11A and 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 8 of 11 

1A, respectively). A worker who mentioned an incident cleanup in 221 F Canyon has dosimetry 

code 1A (200F Separations) during the specified time. None of the CATIs specifically identifies 

a facility or area associated with the SEC class. One worker claimed to have worked in “773” 

(with no letter suffix); this worker’s dosimetry codes and bioassay records do indicate work in 

773-A (an SEC location). 

The CATI’s usefulness seems limited, because it generally provides a broad overview of work 

history recalled by the worker or survivor, whereas the dosimetry codes required to qualify a 

worker for inclusion in the SEC (NIOSH 2011) are precisely defined in time and space. Since 

this degree of fine-grained determination is required for inclusion in the SEC, using a CATI as a 

supplemental or complementary source would not appear to enhance the ability to ensure that a 

worker was not present in the SEC areas during some part of his/her period of employment. 

FINDINGS 

Finding 1: One (1) of the 10 cases examined has complete dosimetry code designations for the 

duration of employment during the proposed SEC period. This case would conclusively not 

meet the criteria for inclusion in the SEC class. [Case 7] 

Finding 2: Four (4) of the 10 cases examined had incomplete or missing data, but at least 1 

dosimetry code that supports inclusion in the SEC. In all 4 of these cases, SEC-eligible 

dosimetry codes cover a work period greater than 1 year (250 work days). These cases appear to 

meet the criteria proposed by NIOSH, despite periods of missing or inconclusive records. [Cases 

2, 3, 8, and 9] 

Finding 3: Five (5) of the 10 cases examined have gaps in the records; the available records do 

not contain any area or dosimetry codes specified in NIOSH’s proposed class definition. In view 

of the gaps in the data, it does not seem feasible to rule out the possibility that these claimants 

may have worked in areas that would make them eligible for inclusion in the SEC class. [Cases 

1, 4, 5, 6, and 10] 

• Case 1 has illegible “Assigned Area” entries for 3 years (1955–1957) and no dosimetry 

records for 1953. 

• Case 4 has dosimetry records from a period when the claim file does not indicate 

employment at SRS. The three available dosimetry records from this period do not 

support inclusion in the SEC class. A fourth record was apparently identified by DOE, 

but the page containing the claimant’s badge number was not provided; this interval 

cannot be assessed for work location. Since the employment record is incomplete, it is 

not possible to determine if the monitoring record is complete. 

• Case 5 has no records for three quarters of 1958, all of 1957, and three quarters of 1953. 

In addition, the “Assigned Area” was scratched out for the first half of 1954. 

• Case 6 has no external dosimetry records for half of 1972, all of 1971, three quarters of 

1970, and all of 1966–1967, although a bioassay was recorded for location “P” in June 

1967. Case 6 also has nine consecutive quarters of dosimetry code 000 (unknown). 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 9 of 11 

• Case 10 has no dosimetry records for 1953–1954, which may be explained by military 

service. Case 10 also has dosimetry code 000 for the third quarter of 1964. 

Finding 4: Some apparent discrepancies were noted, particularly for the earlier years. These 

examples may not directly impact inclusion or exclusion for these individuals, but they are 

considered in the larger context of accurately determining work locations from the area codes. 

• Case 5, 1955, assigned area “D1;” plutonium bioassay in April 1955 indicates location 

“200F.” SC&A does not have access to an interpretation of area code “D1,” but it does 

not appear to represent 200F. 

• Case 8 has two transfer notations on a bioassay card from 1957; “A9 to D” in January, 

and “D to CMX” in June. The claimant’s external dose card for 1957 has 2 scratched out 

entries, one legible as “A9,” with a final entry of “D-2.” “CMX” is not indicated on the 

card. 

OBSERVATIONS 

Observation 1: Additional guidance is needed for interpreting codes that are similar, but not 

identical, to the codes specified in NIOSH’s class definition. 

• Several examples of alpha-numeric codes were noted prior to 1958. SC&A assumed that 

the letter code would determine SEC inclusion or exclusion, regardless of numeric 

suffixes. For example, we interpreted area code D8 to indicate D Area (a non-SEC 

location); we interpreted area code G2 to represent G Area; and area codes A1, A6, and 

A9 to indicate A Area (G and A Areas are SEC locations). 

• Some claimant files include multiple cards for the same periods in 1953; it appears that 

separate cards were maintained in different work areas. SC&A was uncertain about 

interpreting assigned areas on some of these cards. Cases 2 and 8, for example, have 

cards marked “300M Area (A)” and cards marked “A” for the same periods. It is not 

clear if the “A” cards represent “A Area,” which is included in the SEC, or if this is an 

abbreviated notation for “300M Area (A).” 

• SC&A used bioassay records to supplement our understanding of claimants’ work 

locations. One location code found on bioassay cards caused some confusion in 

evaluating SEC inclusion potential. Two claimants had bioassays recorded for location 

“A” in the 1960s. In both cases, the dosimetry records were obscure with regard to 

assigned location. Case 2 had a bioassay for location “A” in June 1967; dosimetry 

records are not available for this period. Case 10 had a bioassay for location “A” in 

August 1964, when the claimant’s dosimetry code is 000. SC&A was unable to 

determine whether or not these records indicate work in “A Area” (an SEC location). 

Case 2 has a dosimetry code providing evidence for SEC inclusion. Case 10 does not. 

Observation 2: The wording of the class definition is unclear in regard to the requirement for 

250 days of employment. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 10 of 11 

At the Advisory Board meeting of August 24, 2011 (ABRWH 2011), Board Member Field asked 

how workers would meet the “hurdle for the 250 days.” Would they need to have one of the 

dosimetry codes for a 250-day period or work at the facility [for 250 days] and have that 

dosimetry code for some period of time? Dr. Taulbee indicated that this question would boil 

down to DOL’s implementation of the class. However, he offered his personal opinion that. 

“they would only have to have one dosimeter through that time period” with the requisite 

designation. At the present time, it is unclear how the 250-day criterion would be met if 

Dr. Taulbee’s suggestion is accepted. On the other hand, there were gaps in the records of 9 out 

of the 10 cases examined. In such cases, it is likely that in many cases it would be impossible to 

ensure that workers who fell short of 250 days with the requisite code would not have had 250 

days, had the records been complete. 

REFERENCES 

ABRWH (Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health) 2011. Transcript of the 79th 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. Cincinnati, Ohio. August 24, 

2011, pp. 199–200. 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) 2011. SEC Petition Evaluation 

Report, Petition SEC-00103, Addendum 2. Cincinnati, Ohio. August 9, 2011. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

November 28, 2011 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document Description: White Paper:

 Analysis of Some SRS Claims 

Page No. 

Page 11 of 11 

ATTACHMENT 1: LIST OF CLAIMS REVIEWED

Case ID NIOSH ID SRS Employment Dates 

Listed on Claim 

Job Designations Listed on Claim 

(see note) 

1 [redacted] 12/11/1951–05/28/1954 

08/23/1954–04/17/1964 

[redacted] Operator, 

[redacted] Operator 

2 [redacted] 03/30/1953–04/30/1976 Operations – [redacted] 

3 [redacted] 09/10/1951–12/10/1955 

12/19/1955–05/31/1979 

[redacted] Clerk 

4 [redacted] 

12/11/1951–01/05/1954 

05/29/1975–06/18/1975 

07/14/1983–07/01/1996 

Construction/Carpentry 

5 [redacted] 02/26/1953–01/16/1959 [redacted] Advisor 

6 [redacted] 

05/07/1952–08/30/1953 

08/31/1953–06/30/1957 

07/01/1957–12/31/1981 

Engineer 

7 [redacted] 07/26/1954–12/31/1972 Mechanic 

8 [redacted] 11/19/1951–12/31/1984 Electrical and Instrument Repair 

9 [redacted] 05/16/1961–05/31/1995 

Laborer, Process Operator, 

Fire Equipment Inspector, 

Equipment Operator, 

Crane Operator and Supervisor 

10 [redacted] 1961–1964 Janitor, Decontaminator 

Note: The job designation does not mean that all of the worker’s time was spent in a particular 

area, even if the designation indicates a particular area (such as reactors or canyons). Many 

construction workers would be expected to work in several areas of SRS or the entire plant. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.