DRAFT 

REPORT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

COMPARISON OF SC&A’S BLIND DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

TO NIOSH’S DOSE RECONSTRUCTION OF CASE 

#[REDACTED] FROM THE HANFORD AND THE GRAND 

JUNCTION OPERATIONS OFFICE 

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redacted]

Prepared by 

Kathleen Behling 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

January 2015 

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:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

2 of 20

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.

S. Cohen & Associates:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on

Radiation & Worker Health Review of

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redacted]

Effective Date: 

Draft – January 27, 2015

Comparison of SC&A’s Blind Dose 

Reconstruction to NIOSH’s Dose Reconstruction 

of Case #[Redacted] from the Hanford and the 

Grand Junction Operations Office

Page 2 of 20

Task Manager:

________________________ Date: ___________

Douglas Farver, CHP

Supersedes:

N/A

Project Manager:

________________________ Date: ___________

John Stiver, MS, CHP

Reviewer:

 Douglas Farver

 John Stiver

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number Effective Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 01/27/2015 Initial issued.
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

3 of 20

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................4

1.0 Relevant Background Information .......................................................................................6

2.0 Comparison of Methodology/Doses used by SC&A and NIOSH for Case 

#[Redacted] ..........................................................................................................................8

2.1 Occupational External Dose Calculations .............................................................10

2.1.1 Hanford External Doses .............................................................................10

2.1.2 GJOO External Doses ................................................................................14

2.2 Occupational Internal Doses ..................................................................................15

2.2.1 Hanford Internal Doses ..............................................................................15

2.2.2 GJOO Internal Doses .................................................................................16

3.0 Summary Conclusions .......................................................................................................18

4.0 References ..........................................................................................................................20

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Comparison of SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction to NIOSH’s Dose 

Reconstruction for Case #[Redacted] ...........................................................................7

Table 2-1. Primary Cancers ............................................................................................................8

Table 2-2. Comparison of Data and Assumptions Used by NIOSH and SC&A ............................9

Table 2-3. Comparison of Hanford Missed Photon Doses ...........................................................11

Table 2-4. Comparison of Hanford Occupational Medical Doses ................................................13

Table 2-5. Hanford Coworker Intake Parameters (1974–1987) ...................................................15

Table 2-6. Comparison of Hanford Total Internal Doses .............................................................16

Table 2-7. Comparison of GJOO Total Internal Doses ................................................................17

Table 3-1. Comparison of Total External and Internal Doses Estimated for the Nine BCCs .....18
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

4 of 20

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.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

Advisory Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

BCC basal cell carcinoma 

CADW Chronic Annual Dose Workbook 

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

CF correction factor

CW coworker 

DCF dose conversion factor

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy 

DOL (U.S.) Department of Labor 

DR dose reconstruction 

EE Energy Employee 

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

FAP fission and activation products 

FP fission product 

GJOO Grand Junction Operations Office 

GSD geometric standard deviation 

HTO tritiated water

IMBA Integrated Modules of Bioassay Analysis 

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

keV kiloelectron volts 

LOD Limit of Detection

mrem millirem

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

OW open window 

PA posterior/anterior

POC probability of causation 

rem Roentgen equivalent man 

REMS Radiation Exposure Monitoring System

S shielded 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

5 of 20

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.

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

TBD technical basis document 

TIB technical information bulletin
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

6 of 20

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.

1.0 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Under Contract No. 200-2009-28555, SC&A was tasked by the Advisory Board on Radiation 

and Worker Health (Advisory Board) to perform six blind dose reconstructions (DRs) at the May 

21, 2013, DR Subcommittee meeting. SC&A was provided all of the Department of Energy 

(DOE) dosimetry records; the Department of Labor (DOL) correspondence, forms, and medical 

records; and the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) Reports that were made 

available to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for constructing 

doses in behalf of these cases. SC&A used two independent approaches to reconstruct 

occupational external and internal doses for the cases. Both approaches used the available 

dosimetry records and current guidance from NIOSH. The first approach, which is referred to as 

DR–Method A, used the spreadsheets and other tools developed by NIOSH to calculate the 

doses, whereas the second approach, referred to as DR–Method B, manually calculated the doses 

using a deterministic model that is based on central values and first principles. 

One of the six draft blind DR reports [Blind Dose Reconstruction of Case #035096 from the 

Hanford and the Grand Junction Operations Office, SCA-TR-BDR2014-CN[Redacted] (SC&A 

2014)], was submitted to the Advisory Board and NIOSH on January 21, 2014. In this report, 

SC&A presents a comparison between SC&A’s and NIOSH’s DR methodologies, doses, and 

resultant Probability of Causation (POC) values for Case #[Redacted]. Table 1-1 summarizes 

the external and internal occupational doses calculated by SC&A (using two independent 

methods) and the NIOSH-assigned doses for the nine basal cell carcinoma (BCCs) diagnosed in 

behalf of Case #[Redacted]. A detailed comparison of the three methodologies used to calculate 

doses in behalf of this case is presented in Section 2. Section 3 of this report provides Summary 

Conclusions. 

It should be noted that an explanation is provided regarding the differences in doses and why 

they occurred; however, SC&A does not make any value judgments regarding which among 

them may be the more preferred approach. It is our position that further discussions are best 

addressed by the DR Subcommittee. 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

7 of 20

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.

Table 1-1. Comparison of SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction to NIOSH’s Dose Reconstruction for Case #[Redacted]

SC&A’s DR – Method A SC&A’s DR – Method B NIOSH

BCC 

(#1) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#2) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#3) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#4) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#5) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC (#6)

[redact],

BCC (#8) 

[redact],

BCC (#9) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#7)

[redact]

(rem)

BCCs of 

[redact] (#1, 

#2, #5, #6, #8), 

[redact] (#4),

[redact] (#9) 

(rem)

BCC 

(#3) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#7)

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#1) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#2) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#3) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#4) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#5)

[redact]

(rem)

BCC (#6)

[redact],

BCC (#8) 

[redact],

BCC (#9) 

[redact]

(rem)

BCC 

(#7)

[redact]

(rem)

External Dose (Occ.)

 ▪ Recorded Photon Dose 

 30–250 keV Photons, 

 Hanford 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.680 0.680 0.680 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172

 >250 keV Photons, 

 Hanford 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 – – – 0.508 0.508 0.508 0.508 0.508 0.508 0.508

 30–250 keV Photons, 

 GJOO 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.370 – – – 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400

 ▪ Missed Photon Dose 

 30–250 keV Photons, 

 Hanford

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120

 30–250 keV Photons, 

 GJOO CW – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 ▪ Recorded Shallow Dose

 e

-

>15 keV, Hanford 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009 – – – – – – –

 e

-

>15 keV, GJOO SC&A 

 30–250 keV, GJOO NIOSH 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 – – – 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600

 ▪ Occupational Medical 

 Dose

 Hanford 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.032 0.008 0.008 0.324 0.031 0.053 0.530 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.032 0.008 0.008 0.324

 GJOO – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Internal Dose (Occ.):

 Th, U, & Ra GJOO 

 (CW Intakes) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 – – – 0.048 0.050 0.052 0.052 0.055 0.058 0.058

 Tritium, Hanford CW 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 – – – 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079

 E>15 keV, Hanford CW 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 – – – 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

 Pu, Hanford CW 0.043 0.045 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.051 0.051 – – – 0.042 0.045 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.051 0.051

 U, Hanford CW 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 – – – 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.009

 FAP, Hanford OTIB-0054 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 – – – 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Total 1.843 1.845 1.848 1.872 1.850 1.852 2.168 0.811 0.833 1.309 1.991 1.996 2.001 2.025 2.005 2.010 2.327

POC 43.18% 38.59% 45.27%
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

8 of 20

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.

2.0 COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY/DOSES USED BY SC&A AND 

NIOSH FOR CASE #[REDACTED] 

Case #[Redacted] represents an energy employee (EE) who worked at Hanford from February 

1974 through May 1987 and the Grand Junction Operations Office (GJOO) from [Redacted]

through [Redacted]. According to the DOE records and the CATI Report, the EE worked in the 

[Redacted] and had a variety of job titles, such as [Redacted], [Redacted], and [Redacted] at 

both Hanford and GJOO. The EE was monitored for external photon and electron exposure 

during the employment period at Hanford; there were no external monitoring records provided 

for employment at GJOO. In addition, there were no recorded bioassay data from either facility. 

The EE was diagnosed with nine basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), as shown in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1. Primary Cancers 

# Description Diagnosis Date ICD-9 Code

1 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

2 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

3 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

4 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

5 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

6 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

7 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

8 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

9 BCC, [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted]

For calculating radiation doses from employment at Hanford, all three DR methods primarily 

relied on guidance in the Technical Basis Document (TBD) for the Hanford (issued as six 

separate documents numbered ORAUT-TKBS-0006-01 through ORAUT-TKBS-006-6) and 

Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment of Shallow Dose (ORAUT-OTIB-0017). Since 

the EE was not monitored for radiation exposure at GJOO, SC&A’s ‘Method B’ did not assign 

any dose for this period of employment. NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned 

unmonitored external and internal doses based on a GJOO coworker dose model, which uses the 

95th percentile doses, and dose methodology guidance provided in a DR draft template, entitled 

DR Drafts GJOO_10-23-2013_5.0.docx. NIOSH/Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

(ORAUT) have not published any TBDs for assessing worker doses in behalf of GJOO. 

Using the guidance provided in the relevant documents, along with the employee’s dosimetry 

records and the CATI report, each DR method calculated reasonable, claimant-favorable annual 

organ doses for each of the nine BCCs.

A summary of the documents, assumptions, and dose parameters used by each DR method is 

provided in Table 2-2 below: 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

9 of 20

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.

Table 2-2. Comparison of Data and Assumptions Used by NIOSH and SC&A 

Dose Element NIOSH SC&A’s DR–Method A SC&A’s DR–Method B

Hanford

Recorded 

Photon Dose

Used DOE records, Hanford 

TBD, and Hanford B.E. 

Calculation Workbook 3.26.

Assumed EE worked N-Reactor

all years of employment.

25% 30–250 keV

75% >250 keV

Organ DCF = 1.0

IREP = Constant distribution.

Used DOE records and 

Hanford TBD. 

Assumed EE worked in the 

Reactor Area all years of 

employment.

25% 30–250 keV

75% >250 keV

Organ DCF = 1.0

IREP = Constant distribution.

Used DOE records, Hanford

TBD, OCAS-IG-001. 

Assumed EE worked 

throughout facility.

100% 30–250 keV

Organ DCF = 1.0

IREP = Normal distribution; 

30% uncertainty.

GJOO

Unmonitored 

Photon Dose

Used GJOO coworker dose.

Assumed “Administrative” 

category.

Assumed full year of 

employment for partial years.

DCF = 1.0; 100% 30–250 keV

IREP = Constant distribution.

Used GJOO coworker dose.

Assumed “Administrative” 

category.

Assumed partial years of 

employment for [Redacted] & 

[Redacted].

DCF = 1.0; 100% 30–250 keV

IREP = Constant distribution

Not Considered

Hanford

Missed Photon 

Dose

Used DOE records, Hanford

TBD and ORAUT-OTIB-0017

to identify 8 zero or <LOD/2 

values. LOD = 30 mrem.

DCF = 1; 100% 30–250 keV. 

IREP = Lognormal with GSD

of 1.52 based on OCAS-IG-001

guidance.

Used DOE records, Hanford

TBD and ORAUT-OTIB-0017

to identify 8 zero or <LOD/2 

values. LOD = 20 mrem.

DCF = 1; 100% 30–250 keV. 

IREP = Lognormal with GSD 

of 1.52 based on OCAS-IG001 guidance.

Used DOE records, and 

OTIB-0017 to identify 6 zero 

or <LOD/2 values. 

LOD = 30 mrem.

DCF = 1; 100% 30–250 keV. 

IREP = Lognormal with 

GSD of 1.52 based on 

OCAS-IG-001 guidance.

Hanford

Recorded 

Shallow Dose

DR Report states it used DOE 

records and ORAUT-OTIB0017 guidance. Shallow minus 

Deep dose. No clothing 

attenuation applied.

No IREP entries were identified 

for the one recorded shallow 

dose in 1982.

Used DOE records and 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017 guidance. 

Shallow minus Deep dose. No 

clothing attenuation applied. 

Assumed 100% E>15 keV. 

IREP = Constant distribution

for one recorded shallow dose 

in 1982.

Used DOE records and 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017 

guidance. Shallow minus 

Deep dose. Applied clothing 

attenuation to BCC on 

[Redacted]. Assumed 100% 

E>15 keV. IREP = Normal 

distribution with 30% 

uncertainty for 1982 

recorded shallow dose.

GJOO 

Unmonitored 

Shallow Dose

Used GJOO coworker dose.

Assumed “Administrative” 

category. Used beta/photon 

value of 1.5 as cited in GJOO 

DR template.

Assumed full year of 

employment for partial years.

DCF = 1.0; 100% 30-250 keV

IREP = Constant distribution.

Used GJOO coworker dose.

Assumed “Administrative” 

category. Used beta/photon 

value of 1.5 as cited in GJOO 

DR template. 

Assumed partial years of 

employment for [Redacted] & 

[Redacted].

DCF = 1.0; 100% electrons 

>15 keV.

IREP = Constant distribution.

Not Considered
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

10 of 20

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.

Table 2-2. Comparison of Data and Assumptions Used by NIOSH and SC&A

Dose Element NIOSH SC&A’s DR–Method A SC&A’s DR–Method B

Hanford 

Occupational 

Medical Dose

Assigned medical dose for 

years with documented x-rays 

and based on ORAUT-OTIB0079. Dose based on Hanford 

TBD & ORAUT-PROC-0061. 

IREP = Normal distribution 

with 30% uncertainty.

Assigned medical dose for 

years with documented x-rays 

in DOE file. Dose based on

Hanford TBD. 

IREP = Normal distribution 

with 30% uncertainty.

Assigned medical dose based 

on documented x-rays plus 

frequency cited in Hanford 

TBD plus x-rays in DOE 

file. Dose based on Hanford

TBD. IREP = Normal 

distribution with 30% 

uncertainty.

Hanford

Environmental 

Internal Dose

Assessed environmental 

internal dose using maximum 

annual intakes from Hanford 

TBD. Resulted in doses of 

<1 mrem.

Assessed environmental 

internal dose using maximum 

annual intakes from Hanford 

TBD. Resulted in doses of 

<1 mrem.

Assessed environmental 

internal dose using 

maximum annual intakes 

from Hanford TBD. Resulted 

in doses of <1 mrem.

Hanford

Unmonitored

Internal Dose

Assigned internal dose based 

on coworker intakes cited in 

Hanford TBD. Assigned 

fission/activation product dose 

based on ORAUT-OTIB-0054.

Assigned internal dose based 

on coworker intakes cited 

Hanford TBD. Assigned 

fission/activation product dose 

based on ORAUT-OTIB-0054.

Not considered. Only 

considered doses from 

environmental internal dose.

GJOO 

Unmonitored 

Internal Dose

Used GJOO coworker intakes 

from GJOO DR Template.

Assumed “General Labor” job

category.

Used GJOO coworker intakes 

from GJOO DR Template.

Assumed “Administrative” job 

category.

Not considered

2.1 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE CALCULATIONS 

2.1.1 Hanford External Doses 

Hanford Recorded Photon Doses 

The DOE records show that the EE was monitored on a yearly dosimeter exchange basis for the 

entire Hanford employment period during [Redacted]–[Redacted], and that the EE received a 

small amount of positive recorded photon and electron dose. All three DR methods calculated 

recorded photon doses using guidance provided in the Hanford Occupational External Dose TBD 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6) and ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev. 01, and applied an organ dose 

conversion factor (DCF) of 1.00 in accordance with External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline (OCAS-IG-001). 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assumed the EE worked in the [Redacted] throughout 

employment, and therefore, assigned photons based on 25% 30–250 keV and 75% >250 keV 

energy ranges. Both methods also applied an organ DCF of 1.0 and entered the annual dose 

values into the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) as a constant distribution with 

no uncertainty.

SC&A’s ‘Method B’ assumed the EE worked throughout the Hanford site, and assigned 100% of 

the photons as 30–250 keV. ‘Method B’ also applied an organ DCF of 1.0. However, annual 

doses were entered as a mean value (i.e., normal distribution) with an uncertainty of 30%. 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

11 of 20

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.

All three methods calculated the identical total recorded photon dose of 0.680 rem for the EE’s 

employment at Hanford. 

Hanford Missed Photon Doses 

Missed dose was assigned by all DR methods for photon doses reported as zero or less than onehalf the applicable limit of detection (LOD) value. NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ counted 

eight missed photon readings, and SC&A’s ‘Method B’ counted six missed readings. 

NIOSH’s DR and SC&A’s ‘Method B’ used guidance in ORAUT-OTIB-0017, which cites the 

following for the assignment of missed photon dose to the skin. 

1. If only the OW (shallow) reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should 

be the appropriate OW LOD (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 

>15 keV electrons. 

2. If only the S (deep) reading was reported as zero, the missed dose assigned should be the 

appropriate S LOD (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 30–250 keV 

photons. 

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

the appropriate OW LOD (divided by 2, treated as lognormal) and considered 30–

250 keV photons.” 

Based on the above-cited ORAUT-OTIB-0017 guidance, NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ 

found that there were no instances when the photon (or S) reading was positive and the beta (or 

OW) reading was zero. Therefore, all missed doses were entered into IREP as 30–250 keV 

photons. Both NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method B’ assumed an LOD value of 0.030 rem; however, 

NIOSH based their assumption regarding the LOD value on guidance in the External Dose 

Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 03 (OCAS-IG-001) while SC&A’s ‘Method B’ 

used the LOD value cited in ORAUT-OTIB-0017.

SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned the missed doses as 100% 30–250 keV. An LOD value of 

0.020 rem was assumed, based on guidance in the Hanford TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, 

Table 6-13). 

A comparison of total missed photon dose calculated by the three DR methods is shown in 

Table 2-3. The slight difference in total missed photon doses was due to (1) the counting of 

eight missed doses by NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ as opposed to six missed doses assigned 

by SC&A’s ‘Method B,’ and (2) ‘Method A’ used an LOD value of 0.020 rem, while NIOSH 

and ‘Method B’ assumed an LOD value of 0.030 rem. 

Table 2-3. Comparison of Hanford Missed Photon Doses 

Recorded Photon Doses SC&A-Method A 

(rem)

SC&A-Method B

(rem)

NIOSH

(rem)

All 9 BCCs 0.080 0.090 0.120
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

12 of 20

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.

All three DR methods entered annual missed photon doses into IREP as a lognormal distribution 

with an uncertainty of 1.520. 

Hanford Recorded Electron (Shallow) Doses 

DOE records showed only 1 year (i.e., [Redacted]) where the reported beta dose was positive. 

Both SC&A DR methods used guidance in ORAUT-OTIB-0017 for assigning non-penetrating 

dose to the skin and entered these doses into IREP as >15 keV electrons. SC&A’s ‘Method A’ 

did not apply any correction factor (CF) for clothing; however, ‘Method B’ did apply a clothing 

attenuation CF of 0.855 for the BCC on the [Redacted]. 

NIOSH’s DR Report states the following with regard to the assignment of Hanford reported 

shallow dose: 

Corrections to the reported shallow doses were applied in accordance with the 

Technical Information Bulletin: Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment 

of Shallow Dose [ORAUT-OTIB-0017]. The electron dose was assumed to be the 

difference between the reported deep and shallow dose from [the EE’s]

Radiological Exposure Individual Dosimeter History document. A dose 

conversion factor of 1.000 was used for all dosimeter doses applied in this dose 

reconstruction. A reduction of the electron dose due to attenuation from clothing 

was not applied because the skin cancers evaluated in this dose reconstruction 

were diagnosed in locations in which the skin would not normally be covered. 

Although the DR Report states that reported shallow dose was assigned, an inspection of the 

IREP sheets for all nine BCCs did not identify any electron dose for [Redacted].

SC&A’s ‘Method A’ and ‘Method B’ assigned a recorded shallow dose of 0.010 rem for all 

cancer sites, except the BCC on [Redacted], where ‘Method B’ assigned 0.009 rem due to the 

clothing attenuation correction. This single recorded electron dose was entered as 100% 

electrons >15 keV. SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assumed a constant dose distribution with no 

uncertainty, and SC&A’s ‘Method B’ entered the electron doses as a normal distribution with a 

30% uncertainty. 

Hanford Occupational Medical Doses 

All three DR methods calculated an occupational medical dose from diagnostic x-ray procedures 

required as a condition of employment. NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ identified the 

following four guidance documents that were referenced/consulted in order to calculate their 

occupational medical doses: 

1. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3, Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Medical Dose, Rev. 02.

2. ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, Rev. 04.
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

13 of 20

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.

3. ORAUT-PROC-0061, Occupational Medical X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE 

Sites, Rev. 03.

4. ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Technical Information Bulletin: Guidance on Assigning 

Occupational X-Ray Dose under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered Off Site, Rev. 00.

SC&A’s DR ‘Method B’ strictly used guidance provided in the Hanford TBD (ORAUT-TKBS0006-3). 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned dose for only x-ray exams that were documented in 

the EE’s DOE records. Both DR methods counted six PA chest x-rays and calculated doses 

based on values cited in Table 3-8 (“Organ Doses for Chest Projections for all Periods”) and 

Table 3-9 (“Skin Dose Guidance for Various Chest Projections and Periods”) of the Hanford 

TBD. This resulted in the assignment of identical doses for all nine BCCs, as shown in 

Table 2-4. 

SC&A’s ‘Method B’ identified six documented posterior/anterior (PA) chest x-ray exams for the 

years [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], and [Redacted]. ‘Method B’ also used 

guidance cited in Table 3-3 of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3 that states from [Redacted] through 

[Redacted], all employees at Hanford received annual conventional x-ray exams; and from 

[Redacted] through [Redacted], all employees less than 45 years of age were given x-ray exams 

every 5 years, and 1 exam at the termination of employment. Using this information, ‘Method 

B’ assumed that the EE received an x-ray exam every year between [Redacted] and [Redacted], 

plus the documented exam in [Redacted]. Method B also assumed the EE received an x-ray 

exam in [Redacted] (5 years after the last in [Redacted]) and one at termination in [Redacted], 

for a total of 10 x-rays. Occupational medical doses were assigned to the skin using the dose 

values in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3, which provide dose values for 

specific areas of the skin. 

A comparison of medical doses derived by the SC&A and NIOSH DR methods is presented in 

Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4. Comparison of Hanford Occupational Medical Doses 

Cancer Sites SC&A-Method A 

(rem)

SC&A-Method B

(rem)

NIOSH

(rem)

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.031 0.008

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.031 0.008

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.053 0.008

BCC, [Redacted] 0.032 0.031 0.032

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.031 0.008

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.031 0.008

BCC, [Redacted] 0.324 0.530 0.324

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.031 0.008

BCC, [Redacted] 0.008 0.031 0.008

Each DR method entered the annual doses into IREP as a mean value with a standard deviation 

of 30%. 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

14 of 20

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.

SC&A’s ‘Method B’ doses are higher since this DR method assigned dose for 10 x-rays as 

opposed to 6 x-ray exams assigned by NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A.’ In addition, Method B 

used Tables 3-10 and 3-11 of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3, which provide doses from specific areas 

of the skin. 

2.1.2 GJOO External Doses 

There were no records of external dosimetry for the EE’s employment period at the GJOO. 

SC&A’s ‘Method B’ concluded that there was no indication that the EE was exposed to any 

radioactive materials at GJOO and did not assign any dose for this employment period. 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ determined that the EE should be assigned unmonitored dose 

for employment at GJOO. There is no site profile for the GJOO. However, more than 15,000 

exposure records of personnel associated with Grand Junction between the years [Redacted] and 

[Redacted] have been compiled in the REMS database. These data were used to develop the 

95th percentile coworker external doses for Operators, Laborers, Supervisors and Administrative 

workers. Guidance on the use of these data is provided in a DR template entitled, DR Drafts 

GJOO_10-23-2013_5.0.docx. Using this template, NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned 

unmonitored external dose as described below. 

GJOO Coworker Photon Doses 

Since the EE’s position was identified as an [Redacted], both NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ 

assigned coworker doses for each year of employment based on the ‘Administrative’ job 

category cited in the GJOO DR template. Both DR methods also assumed 100% 30–250 keV 

photons and a DCF of 1.0. The only difference between the two DRs was that NIOSH calculated 

claimant-favorable doses based on a full year of employment in [Redacted] and [Redacted], 

while SC&A’s ‘Method A’ included an appropriate time fraction to account for a partial year of 

employment during those years. This resulted in NIOSH assigning a maximized dose of

0.400 rem to each cancer site, while SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned 0.370 rem to each BCC.

GJOO Missed Photon Doses 

Neither NIOSH nor SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned missed photon dose since, according to the 

DR Drafts GJOO_10-023-2013_5.0.docx template, this dose was accounted for in the assigned 

95th percentile coworker doses. 

GJOO Coworker Electron (Shallow) Dose 

Both NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ calculated an electron dose based on applying a beta-tophoton ratio of 1.5 for years post-[Redacted], as recommended in the GJOO DR template. As 

with the modeled photon doses, NIOSH did not account for partial years of employment, while 

SC&A’s ‘Method A’ did apply an appropriate time fraction for the first and last years of 

employment. This resulted in NIOSH assigning a dose of 0.600 rem and SC&A assigning a 

slightly lower dose of 0.556 rem to each skin cancer location. 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

15 of 20

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.

SC&A’s ‘Method A’ entered annual dose values into IREP as electrons >15 keV with a constant 

dose distribution and no uncertainty. Although NIOSH appropriately calculated and refers to 

these doses as electrons, the annual dose values were entered into IREP as 30–250 keV photons. 

GJOO Occupational Medical Doses 

Neither NIOSH nor SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned doses for occupational x-ray exams, since 

x-rays were performed offsite at a non-covered facility, as specified in ORAUT-OTIB-0079.

2.2 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSES 

2.2.1 Hanford Internal Doses 

The EE’s file contained no records for bioassay monitoring for employment at Hanford. 

However, considering the work locations (e.g., [Redacted]) identified by the EE in the CATI, 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned internal doses based on coworker data and 

environmental intakes, while SC&A’s ‘Method B’ only assessed internal dose based on 

environmental intakes. Details associated with the calculation of internal doses are provided 

below. 

Internal Dose Based on Hanford Coworker Intakes 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ calculated unmonitored internal doses using guidance in the 

Section 5.6.2 and Attachment C of the Hanford Occupational Internal TBD (ORAUT-TKBS0006-5). Both DR methods considered radionuclides and intake parameters listed in Table 2-5 

below.

Table 2-5. Hanford Coworker Intake Parameters (1974–1987) 

Radionuclide Solubility

Types Compared

IREP

Radiation Type

Pu-239, 240 M, S, SS alpha

Uranium F, M, S alpha

H-3 as HTO F e

-

<15 keV

I-131 F e

-

>15 keV

Cs-137 F e

-

>15 keV

Zn-65 S p >250 keV

Na-24 F p >250 keV

Solubility types that produced the highest dose (i.e., Type SS for plutonium and Type S for 

uranium) were used and radionuclides that produced doses of <0.001 (i.e., Zn-65 and Na-24) 

were not assigned. Both DR methods entered resultant doses into IREP as a lognormal dose with 

a geometric standard deviation (GSD) value as specified in the applicable table in the Hanford 

Occupational Internal TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5). 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

16 of 20

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.

Dose from Fission and Activation Products 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ also considered internal dose associated with fission and 

activation products. Both DR methods used guidance cited in Technical Information Bulletin: 

Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross 

Gamma Analyses, and implemented using ORAUT-OTIB-0054 Workbook, Version 1.60. It was 

determined by both methods that only Ru-106 resulted in a total measurable dose of 0.001 rem. 

This value was entered into IREP for each of the skin cancer sites as electrons >15 keV. 

Environmental Internal Dose 

All three DR methods assessed environmental internal doses using guidance in the Hanford 

Occupational Environmental Dose TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0006-4). Each method selected 

maximum annual intakes and default absorption types for assessing doses. NIOSH and SC&A’s 

‘Method A’ used the Chronic Annual Dose Workbook (CADW) (which allows for the evaluation 

of numerous radionuclides), and SC&A’s ‘Method B’ used the Interactive RadioEpidemiological 

Program (IMBA) (which requires each radionuclide to be entered individually) for calculating 

doses to the nine BCCs. All methods determined that the resultant doses were <0.001 rem, and 

these values were not included in IREP.

A summary of the total internal dose assigned by each DR method for the EE’s employment at 

Hanford is provided in Table 2-6. 

Table 2-6. Comparison of Hanford Total Internal Doses 

Cancer Sites

SC&A-Method A

(U, Pu, HTO, I, FP)

(rem)

SC&A-Method B

(Env. Only)

(rem)

NIOSH

(U, Pu, HTO, I, FP)

(rem)

BCC, [Redacted] 0.137 <0.001 0.136

BCC, [Redacted] 0.139 <0.001 0.138

BCC, [Redacted] 0.142 <0.001 0.141

BCC, [Redacted] 0.142 <0.001 0.141

BCC, [Redacted] 0.144 <0.001 0.142

BCC, [Redacted] 0.146 <0.001 0.144

BCC, [Redacted] 0.146 <0.001 0.145

BCC, [Redacted] 0.146 <0.001 0.144

BCC, [Redacted] 0.146 <0.001 0.144

As shown in Table 2-6, NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ calculated doses that are nearly 

identical. 

2.2.2 GJOO Internal Doses 

NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ calculated unmonitored internal dose in behalf of the EE using 

the guidance cited in the DR Drafts GJOO_10-023-2013_5.0.docx template. This guidance 

provides inhalation and ingestion intake rates for the period [Redacted]–[Redacted] for 

uranium, radium-226, and thorium-230. The intake rates were based on whether (1) the source 

term was ore or tailing samples, and (2) the EE’s job category was operator, general labor, 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

17 of 20

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.

supervisor, or administrative. NIOSH calculated doses based on the intake rate associated with 

the general labor job category, while SC&A’s ‘Method A’ used the administrative position, since 

the EE’s job function was [Redacted]. Both methods assumed the most claimant-favorable 

source terms and solubility types for deriving internal doses. 

A comparison of total internal doses assigned for each of the nine BCCs by each DR methods is 

provided in Table 2-7. 

Table 2-7. Comparison of GJOO Total Internal Doses 

Cancer Sites SC&A-Method A

(rem)

SC&A-Method B

(rem)

NIOSH

(rem)

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.047

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.050

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.052

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.055

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.058

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.058

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.058

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.058

BCC, [Redacted] 0.002 Not considered 0.058

SC&A’s ‘Method A’ GJOO internal doses are lower than the NIOSH-assigned doses due to the 

different job category selected by each method. SC&A assumed the EE was an administrative 

worker, while NIOSH assumed the general labor job category.
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

18 of 20

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.

3.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

Total external and internal doses and resultant POCs calculated by SC&A’s ‘Method A,’ 

SC&A’s ‘Method B,’ and NIOSH in behalf of Case #[Redacted] are presented in Table 3-1 for 

comparison.

Table 3-1. Comparison of Total External and Internal Doses Estimated for the Nine BCCs

Total Doses SC&A-Method A 

(rem)

SC&A-Method B

(rem)

NIOSH

(rem)

External Skin Doses:

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

1.704

1.704

1.704

1.728

1.704

1.704

2.020

1.704

1.704

0.811

0.811

0.833

0.811

0.811

0.811

1.309

0.811

0.811

1.808

1.808

1.808

1.832

1.808

1.808

2.124

1.808

1.808

Internal Skin Doses:

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

0.139

0.141

0.144

0.144

0.146

0.148

0.148

0.148

0.148

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.183

0.188

0.193

0.193

0.197

0.202

0.203

0.202

0.202

Total Skin Dose

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

 - BCC, [Redacted]

1.843

1.845

1.848

1.872

1.850

1.852

2.168

1.852

1.852

0.811

0.811

0.833

0.811

0.811

0.811

1.309

0.811

0.811

1.991

1.996

2.001

2.025

2.005

2.010

2.327

2.010

2.010

POC 43.18% 38.59% 45.27%

As shown in Table 3-1, NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned total doses are in close 

agreement. SC&A’s ‘Method B’ total doses are less than one-half of those assigned by NIOSH 

and SC&A’s ‘Method A,’ because this DR method did not calculate any dose for the EE’s GJOO 

employment and only assessed environmental internal dose for the EE’s Hanford employment. 

It should also be noted that although doses assigned by SC&A’s ‘Method B’ were significantly

less than the other two DR methods, the POC was only modestly lower. This is primarily due to 

the fact that Method B entered the recorded photon and electron doses into IREP as a normal 

distribution with a 30% uncertainty, while NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method A’ entered the recorded 

doses as a constant value with no uncertainty. 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

19 of 20

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.

In instances when dose assignment among the three methods differed, they were linked to the 

following variables: 

 Assignment of Missed Photon Dose

 – NIOSH and SC&A’s ‘Method B’ assumed an LOD value of 0.030 rem; however, 

NIOSH counted eight missed doses and Method B counted six. 

 – SC&A’s ‘Method A’ counted eight missed doses, but assumed an LOD value of 

0.020 rem. 

 Assignment of Occupational Medical Dose

 – SC&A’s ‘Method A’ and NIOSH assigned medical doses for the six documented 

x-ray exams based on values cited in the Hanford TBD; both DR methods calculated 

identical doses that ranged from 0.008 rem to 0.324 rem based on the BCC location. 

 – SC&A’s ‘Method B’ assigned occupational medical doses based on values in the 

Hanford TBD, but assigned doses for documented exams and based on the x-ray 

frequency cited in Hanford TBD, for a total of 10 x-rays, which resulted in doses 

ranging from 0.031 rem to 0.530 rem. 

 Assignment of GJOO Internal Doses 

 – NIOSH assigned unmonitored internal doses based on the job category of ‘general 

labor,’ which resulted in a dose ranging from 0.047 rem to 0.058 rem. 

 – SC&A’s ‘Method A’ assigned coworker internal doses based on the job category 

‘administrative,’ which resulted in the assignment of 0.002 rem to each of the 9 

BCCs. 
Effective Date:

January 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DCR2015-CN[Redacted]

Page No.

20 of 20

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.

4.0 REFERENCES 

OCAS-IG-001. 2007. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 3, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 21, 2007. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, Rev 04, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 20, 2011. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Interpretation of Dosimetry Data 

for Assignment of Shallow Dose, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. October 11, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0054. 2007. Technical Information Bulletin: Fission and Activation Product 

Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses, Rev. 00 PC-1, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 19, 2007. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0079. 2011. Technical Information Bulletin: Guidance on Assigning 

Occupational X-Ray Dose under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered Off Site, Rev. 00, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 3, 2011.

ORAUT-PROC-0061. 2010. Occupational Medical X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, 

Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. March 3, 2010. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-3. 2010. Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Medical Dose, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 7, 

2010.

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-4. 2010. Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Environmental Dose, Rev 03. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

January 7, 2010. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5. 2012. Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Internal Dose, Rev. 05. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 

5, 2012. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6. 2010. Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

External Dose, Rev. 04. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 7, 

2010

SC&A 2014. SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction of Case #[Redacted] from Hanford and the 

Grand Junction Operations Office, SCA-TR-BDR2014-CN[Redacted], Rev. 0, SC&A, Inc., 

Vienna, Virginia. January 21, 2014.