Overview of 

Previously 

Presented 

Procedure Reviews

Kathleen Behling

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Heath

August 18, 2021
Previous presentations with no 

formal closeout

◆ March 12, 2013

– ORAUT-OTIB-0052 

– ORAUT-OTIB-0070

– OCAS-IG-001

◆ July 17, 2013

– OCAS-TIB-0010

– ORAUT-OTIB-0023

◆ October 17, 2013

– OCAS-PER-012

– ORAUT-OTIB-0010

◆ November 6, 2014

– OCAS-PER-014

◆ December 13, 2017

– ORAUT-OTIB-0020

– ORAUT-OTIB-0052

◆ April 11, 2018 (closeout 

deferred awaiting NIOSH 

followup)

– ORAUT-OTIB-0017

– NIOSH-OVER-0009

2
ORAUT-OTIB-0070, rev. 00

◆ Title: “Dose Reconstruction during Residual 

Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons 

Employer Facilities”

◆ Provides guidance for reconstruction of internal 

doses due to resuspension of particulate surface 

contamination

◆ Reviewed by SC&A August 2008 

◆ Presented to Board March 12, 2013

3
OTIB-0070 key findings and 

resolution 

Finding (15 total) Resolution

Several findings related 

to use of resuspension 

factor (RF) and derivation 

of source term depletion 

rate

Findings were adequately 

addressed in rev. 01

Many findings questioned 

attachment B use of air 

concentration survey data 

at thorium facilities

Attachment B was never 

used, and NIOSH 

eliminated it in rev. 01

4
OTIB-0070 Board discussions

Question Response

Is default RF appropriate for 

outdoor setting?

Default RF is only used for 

indoor activities at facilities 

where post-operational 

cleanup has been 

performed

Is default RF applicable for 

all Atomic Weapons 

Employer sites?

OTIB specifies site-by-site 

analysis be conducted 

when no post-operational 

cleanup has been 

completed

5
OCAS-IG-001, rev. 01, 02, and 03

◆ Title: “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

Guideline”

◆ Provides general guidance on the components, 

standards, and methods for reconstructing external 

radiation dose for probability of causation (POC)

◆ Revision 01 reviewed by SC&A January 2005

◆ Revision 02 reviewed by SC&A October 2007

◆ Focused review of revision 03 by SC&A April 2012 to 

ensure all findings addressed 

◆ Presented to Board March 12, 2013

6
IG-001 findings 1–10 and resolution

Finding (24 total) Resolution

Several findings related to 

structure, clarity, and specificity of 

guidance

Findings adequately addressed in 

revision 01

Inappropriate limit of detection 

(LOD) values

Corrected in revision 02

Reconstruction of neutron doses 

in both revisions

Rev. 03 added neutron-to-photon 

ratios and discussion on 

evaluating missed neutron data

Underestimated dose conversion 

factors (DCFs) for bone, red 

marrow

Revision 02 added table of 

correction factors (CFs)

7
IG-001 findings 11–16 and 

resolution 

Finding Resolution

Underestimated DCFs for 

posterior-to-anterior, 

rotational, and isotropic 

geometries in both revisions

Anterior-to-posterior geometry 

recommended in site-specific 

documents and workbooks

Angular sensitivity not 

accounted for

Corrected in revision 02, 

which directs to site-specific 

documents

Dosimeter uncertainty/ 

selection of uncertainty 

distribution

Site-specific documents and 

workbook address these 

concerns

8
IG-001 Board discussions

Question Response

Would IG-001 be used to 

assess film badge 

inadequacies?

IG-001 predates all other 

guidance and is general 

in nature. Film badge 

limitations addressed in 

site-specific documents.

Did SC&A’s review 

consider experience 

gained in the dose 

reconstruction (DR) 

process?

SC&A’s review was early 

in the DR process, so no 

such evaluation was 

possible.

9
OCAS-TIB-0010, rev. 02

◆ Title: “Best Estimate External Dose 

Reconstruction for Glovebox Workers”

◆ Provides correction factors for best-estimate DR 

to organs located in the lower torso from photons 

emanating from gloveboxes when a dosimeter is 

worn on the lapel 

◆ Reviewed by SC&A in June 2006 

◆ Presented to the Board July 17, 2013

10
TIB-0010 key findings and resolution 

Finding (9 total) Resolution

Lacks data on radioactive 

source, exact dimensions, 

locations, thickness of the 

walls

The requested information 

was added to appendix B.

Lower torso organs not 

specified

Information added to 

section 2.

Questions about design of 

analysis (finding 5), 

assumptions on glovebox 

model (finding 6), and Attila 

software (finding 8) 

In abeyance 2/5/201; resolved 

by using of the 95th percentile 

instead of the mean for the 

CF. (NOTE: TIB-0010, rev. 04, 

still recommends mean value.)

11
TIB-0010 Board discussions

Question Response

Were specific designs of 

gloveboxes used in the model?

Adjustments not made based on 

design; relied on geometric 

considerations.

Was shielding on the front of the 

glovebox but not underneath 

considered in the model?

Shielding was not considered; it is 

a geometric correction factor.

Did the model take into account the 

height of the workers?

Reference Man height used, but 

95th percentile value would 

encompass badge to lowest organ.

Is the model adjusted for workers 

who wore lead aprons?

Not a question for the glovebox 

adjustment. It is a question for the 

interpretation of the badge location. 

Is this model used as a best 

estimate?

Yes, used for best estimate to 

lower torso organs.

12
ORAUT-OTIB-0023, rev. 00

◆ Title: “Assignment of Missed Neutron Doses 

Based on Dosimeter Records”

◆ Provides information about when it is appropriate 

to assign missed neutron doses at DOE sites 

using the nLOD/2 method or an “alternative” 

method

◆ Reviewed by SC&A in June 2006 

◆ Presented to Board July 17, 2013 

13
OTIB-0023 key findings and 

resolution 

Finding (8 total) Resolution

Lack of clarity, inconsistent 

terminology, guidance 

inconsistent with IG-001

Corrected in rev. 01

Detailed information necessary 

for DR not available

Condition 1 (if neutron missed 

dose (nLOD/2) exceeds 75% of 

photon dose, missed dose not 

assigned) was eliminated in 

rev. 01, which resolves finding

Reconstruction of missed neutron 

dose unrealistic and neutron-tophoton assumptions not claimant 

favorable

Condition 1 was eliminated in 

rev. 01, which resolves finding

14
OTIB-0023 Board discussions

◆ Board members had no questions or comments 

about the review and finding resolution process 

for OTIB-0023.

15
ORAUT-OTIB-0010, rev. 00

◆ Title: “A Standard Complex-Wide Correction Factor 

for Overestimating External Doses Measured with 

Film Badge Dosimeters”

◆ Evaluates the degree of standardization of film 

dosimeters

◆ Develops a standard methodology to assign an 

overestimating organ dose.

◆ Reviewed by SC&A in January 2005 

◆ Presented to Board October 17, 2013

16
OTIB-0010 key findings and 

resolution 

Finding (10 total) Resolution

Guidance lacking on how to 

treat missed or zero dosimetry 

data and issues of uncertainty

Table 2-1 added to rev. 01 

with instruction on calculation 

of recorded and missed doses 

and how to enter into IREP

No guidance on CF when 

recorded dose >0 but <LOD

Rev. 01 specifies use of 

40 mR as default LOD

Inconsistent guidance in 

OTIB-0010 and PROC-0006

PROC-0006 was revised and 

inconsistency corrected

CF of 2 and LOD value of 

40 mR not overly conservative

When applied to every 

recorded and missed dose, 

respectively, it is considered 

sufficiently conservative

17
OTIB-0010 Board discussions

Question Response

Is this OTIB currently in use, since 

overestimate approach was not 

being continued? 

OTIB was still active but rarely 

used. Overestimating approach not 

completely removed due to 

time/expense.

Due to sensitivity of various film 

badges in use, is a 40 mR LOD 

reasonable?

It is a good value since the 

guidance uses 40 mR as LOD (not 

LOD/2) and maximizes the number 

of zeros.

In finding 9, what does the 

standard CF of 2 correct for?

CF corrects for film badge 

uncertainties.

How are missed doses compared 

to records with zeros, less than 

detectable, or blank cycles 

handled?

A recorded dose in a year is 

assumed to occur in one badge 

cycle. Then, missed doses are 

calculated for all other cycles.

18
OCAS-PER-012, rev. 00

◆ Title: “Evaluation of Highly Insoluble Plutonium 

Compounds”

◆ The existence of type SS plutonium (Pu) was assessed in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049 and resulted in increased internal 

dose for specific organs, which prompted the issuance of 

PER-012

◆ Reviewed by SC&A in March 2010

◆ SC&A reviewed 9 DRs affected by PER-012 (Subtask 4) 

in July 2012

◆ Presented to Board October 17, 2013

19
PER-012 Subtasks 1 and 2 

assessment and findings

Subtask Action taken Finding

Subtask 1: Assess 

circumstances that 

necessitated the 

PER

To account for longer 

retention and increased 

organ doses from 

type SS Pu, issued 

OTIB-0049, which 

specifies “dose 

adjustment factors” 

(generally factor of 4)

Review of OTIB-0049, 

OCAS-PEP-012,and 

PER-012 found NIOSH 

properly characterized 

the significance of 

highly insoluble. 

No findings.

Subtask 2: Assess 

specific methods 

for corrective 

action

PER-012 was 

prompted by OTIB0049, which was 

critically reviewed by 

SC&A 10/29/2007

No findings.

20
PER-012 Subtasks 3 and 4 

assessment and findings

Subtask Action taken Finding

Subtask 3: 

Evaluate approach 

for identifying the 

number of DRs 

requiring 

reevaluation

DRs affected 

(1) completed on or 

before 2/6/2007, 

(2) involved facilities 

with exposure to 

type SS Pu, and 

(3) POC was <50%. 

SC&A agreed with 

methodology and had 

no findings.

Subtask 4: 

Recommend a 

sample of affected 

DRs for evaluation

Dose reevaluation is for 

4 groupings of target 

tissues and is dictated 

by 1 of 4 monitoring 

methods.

SC&A recommended a 

minimum of 1 case be 

selected from 10 

permutations.

Board selected 9 

cases.

21
PER-012 Subtask 4 case reviews 

assessments and findings

Subtask Action taken Finding

Subtask 4: Review 

a sample set of 

DRs affected by 

PER-012

Audit focused on 

assessing whether 

internal doses 

associated with type SS 

Pu were performed 

accurately and in 

accordance with 

guidance in OTIB-0049.

SC&A’s audit 

concurred with 

approach/assumptions 

in calculating internal 

doses to highly 

insoluble Pu for all 9 

cases. Methodology 

consistent with OTIB0049. No findings. 

22
PER-012 Board discussions

◆ Board members had no questions or comments 

about the review of PER-012 and evaluation of 

9 impacted cases.

23
NIOSH-OVER-0009

◆ Title: “Skin Exposure”

◆ Addresses SC&A’s concerns about the modeling 

of fine and large particle deposition on the skin.

◆ Presented to Board April 11, 2018

24
OVER-0009 concern 1

◆ Derived dose of 16 mrem/year to bare skin based 

on unsupported and unrealistic assumptions, 

which include: 

– Daily skin contaminations for 250 workdays per year 

that only persist for 8 hours 

– Implication that after 8 hours, each skin contamination 

is 100% removed by a standard daily shower 

– Only bare skin is subject to contamination/radiation 

exposure

25
OVER-0009 concern 1 resolution

◆ NIOSH discussed approach for addressing fine 

particle deposition to satisfaction of SC&A, except for 

assumptions about the ease with which uranium 

could be removed from skin and clothing.

◆ NIOSH prepared a white paper (February 2015), 

which assessed the literature for articles that 

qualitatively and quantitatively supported the removal 

of uranium by washing with soap and water.

26
OVER-0009 concern 2 and 

resolution

◆ Concern 2: Concern about the relationship between calculated 

dose and how IREP uses this dose to derive a POC, given that 

the skin dose only occurs to a small area.

◆ Resolution: NIOSH did the following: 

– Explained the relationship between derived dose and IREP to 

determine a POC. 

– Identified specific ORAUT-OTIB-0017 guidance for dealing with 

nonuniform exposure to the skin.

– Consulted with SENES to confirm OTIB-0017 guidance was 

appropriate.

27
OVER-0009 concern 3 and 

resolution 

◆ Concern 3: Same basic questions as described 

in concern 1, but for deriving doses for the skin 

deposition of large uranium flakes.

◆ Resolution: SC&A recommended using 

OTIB-0017 protocols, where the skin exposure 

under a hypothetical flake is averaged over the 

entire surface area of the body.

28
OVER-0009 Board discussion on 

daily showers

◆ Question: Are there data to show that all 

facilities required daily showers, and workers, in 

fact, took a standard daily shower in winter and 

summer?

◆ Response: NIOSH stated that it did not look in 

detail at whether workers took a daily shower. At 

many facilities, showering was part of their 

activity, especially operations such as rolling.

29
OVER-0009 Board discussion on 

averaging

◆ Question: How is this averaging (i.e., small 

versus large particles versus whole body) being 

resolved by IREP?

◆ Response: NIOSH assigns a lognormal 

distribution to account for various scenarios of 

how large an area of the skin could have been 

contaminated.

30
OVER-0009 Board discussion on 

location of contamination

◆ Question: We know that a skin cancer occurred on 

the bare skin. We do not know where the 

contamination occurred, but we're generating a bare 

skin estimate and then averaging it over the entire 

body. Is that claimant favorable?

◆ Response: NIOSH stated that to account for the 

unknown nature of where the contamination 

occurred, various lognormal distributions were 

developed.

31
Current status of OVER-0009 Board 

review

◆ Due to the Board’s inability to get all their 

questions satisfactorily answered, the Board 

postponed action on approving the review of 

OVER-0009. 

◆ The Board requested clarification at a future 

Board meeting.

32
OVER-0009 followup 

(August 22, 2018)

NIOSH presentation:

◆ What is associated risk of assuming a hot particle deposited on a 

worker’s skin was never measured, and you have a skin cancer? 

◆ When you do not know if the skin was irradiated over the tumor or 

not, it falls into the realm of binomial distribution.

◆ Since no binomial distribution in IREP, a claimant-favorable 

lognormal approximation of the binomial distribution was 

incorporated into OTIB-0017. 

◆ SENES is in process of producing a binomial distribution test 

model for IREP to determine if lognormal distributions are 

claimant favorable. 

33
OVER-0009 proposed resolution 

(August 22, 2018)

◆ NIOSH is revising OTIB-0017, and a couple of issues 

are going to be refined for better detail.

◆ DFO requested SC&A perform a focused review of 

the revised OTIB-0017.

◆ Update: OTIB-0017 has not been revised since 

rev. 01 was issued in 2005.

34
ORAUT-OTIB-0017, rev. 01

◆ Title: “Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose”

◆ Provides guidance for assigning shallow doses to 

the skin, testes, and breast from nonpenetrating 

radiation, including exposure to beta and lowenergy photons.

◆ Reviewed by SC&A in June 2006

◆ Presented to Board April 11, 2018

35
OTIB-0017 findings 2–5 and 

resolution 

Finding (15 total) Resolution

Clothing-specific transmission 

factors should be used

OTIB allows the dose 

reconstructor to choose the 

appropriate clothing shielding 

factors based on minimizing, 

maximizing, or realistic 

analysis

Several findings about 

potential for direct deposition 

of a hot particle on the 

worker’s skin that is not 

detected

These findings were 

transferred to overarching 

issues (NIOSH-OVER-0009)

36
OTIB-0017 findings 7–15 and 

resolution 

Finding Resolution

4 mm clothing thickness not 

claimant favorable

4 mm assumed for pants and 

undergarment, not lab coat

Attachment A CF not 

appropriate for a source near 

testicles, since film badge 

would not measure dose

NIOSH said it relies on quality 

assurance and training to 

ensure a full array of guidance 

is correctly employed in DR

OTIB not claimant favorable in 

instances of unknown factors

OTIB is claimant favorable in 

recommendations for DCF, 

LOD, attenuation, and 

radiation type/energy range

37
OTIB-0017 Board discussion on 

finding 12

Question Response

For finding12, it appears that 

NIOSH, SC&A, and the 

Subcommittee are all in 

agreement, but the revision 

has been in abeyance since 

2007. Is there any indication 

of when the OTIB will be 

revised?

NIOSH stated the OTIB is 

currently undergoing revision 

for other items, and this 

finding will be incorporated 

into the revision that is 

currently being worked on.

38
OTIB-0017 Board discussion on 

finding 7

Question Response

Finding 7 relates to the 4 mm 

assumption for clothing and 

that clothing provides an 

additional barrier. Since 

underpants are designed to 

breath, they cannot be 

considered impermeable, if that 

is an assumption implicit in the 

4 mm.

NIOSH did not know the 

answer to the question and 

would have to do additional 

research. NIOSH stated that 

thicknesses were based on 

VARSKIN guidance.

39
Current status of OTIB-0017 Board 

review

◆ Due to the Board’s inability to get all their 

questions satisfactorily answered, the Board 

postponed action on approving the review of 

OTIB-0017. 

◆ The Board requested clarification at a future 

Board meeting.

40
OTIB-0017 followup 

(August 22, 2018)

NIOSH presentation on finding 7:

◆ NIOSH assessed 3 different sets of clothing and did attenuation 

measurements for 1–5 mm and a density around 1.5 g/cm3 for both 

the undergarments and the protective outer clothing.

◆ NIOSH re-ran the calculations using the mean of the distribution of 

the new measured values, resulting in similar values for strontium-90 

and yttrium-91.

◆ For rhodium, ruthenium, rhodium, ruthenium-106, and rhodium-106, 

the CF results differed by about a factor of 2 (i.e., 0.5, not 0.2) 

◆ NIOSH stated they are in the process of revising OTIB-0017 and will 

revise table A1 based on their new results. 

41
OTIB-0017 followup Board 

discussions

42

Comment Response

Question on finding 7 was 

about the permeability of the 

undergarment, not just the 

thickness.

NIOSH responded that they 

are revising OTIB-0017 and 

will assess the permeability 

issue during the revision 

process. 

Update: OTIB-0017 has not 

been revised since the 

issuance of revision 01 in 

2005.
Document reviews not included in 

presentation

◆ ORAUT-OTIB-0052, rev. 01 and 02, “Parameters 

to Consider when Processing Claims for 

Construction Trade Workers”

◆ OCAS-PER-014, rev. 00, “Construction Trade 

Workers”

◆ ORAUT-OTIB-0020, rev. 01, “Use of Coworker 

Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment”

43