SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Rev. 0 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

TASK 3 

REVIEW OF NIOSH/ORAUT PROCEDURES AND METHODS 

USED FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

Review of the Third Set of Procedures (45 procedure reviews) 

Contract No. 200-2004-03805 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003, Rev. 0 

Prepared by 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

October 2007 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 2 of 290 

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. 

Document No. 

 SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Effective Date: 

Draft – October 29, 2007 

S. Cohen & Associates: Technical Support for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program 

Revision No. 0 

REVIEW OF NIOSH/ORAUT PROCEDURES AND 

METHODS USED FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION: 

Review of the Third Set of Procedures 

(45 procedure reviews) 

Page 2 of 290 

Task Manager: 

 ______________________ Date: ____________ 

 Stephen F. Marschke 

Project Manager: 

 ______________________ Date: ____________ 

John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Supersedes: 

N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 3 of 290 

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 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................8 

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................11 

Summary Findings.............................................................................................................12 

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................19 

1.1 Statement of Purpose .............................................................................................19 

1.2 Identification of Documents Subject to Review....................................................19 

1.3 SC&A’s Approach for Task 3................................................................................21 

1.4 Structure and Organization of the Report..............................................................24 

2.0 Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) Documents................................25 

2.1 OCAS-IG-001: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline..........25 

2.2

...........................................................................................33 

OCAS-PER-003: Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to 

Bethlehem Steel Cases

2.3 OCAS-PER-004: Application of Photofluorography at the Pinellas Plant...........40 

2.4 OCAS-PER-006: External Dosimetry Target Organ for Prostate Cancer............43 

2.5

.....................................47 

OCAS-PER-007: Evaluation of The Effect of Revision 2 of The Site 

Profile on Previously Completed Bethlehem Steel Cases

2.6

.....................................................................................................57 

OCAS-PR-008: Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program

Evaluation Plans

2.7

............................................................................................60 

OCAS-TIB-0013: Special External Dose Reconstruction Considerations for 

Mallinckrodt Workers

2.8 OCAS-TIB-0014: Rocky Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension ............72 

3.0 Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team Technical Information Bulletins (OTIB)........78 

3.1

.....................................................................................................78 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002: Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE 

Complex Claims

3.2

...............................................87 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005: Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry 

Organ, and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code

3.3

.................................................................................92 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related 

Diagnostic X-ray Procedures

3.4

..............................................................................................97 

ORAUT-OTIB-0013: Individual Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 

Dose Reconstruction

3.5

....105 

ORAUT-OTIB-0015: Bayesian Methods for Estimation of Unmonitored 

Y-12 External Penetrating Doses with a Time-Dependent Lognormal Model

3.6 ORAUT-OTIB-0021: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the X-10 Site....110 

3.7 ORAUT-OTIB-0026: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the K-25 Site....115 

3.8

.............................................................................................................120 

ORAUT-OTIB-0027: Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky 

Flats Plant

3.9 ORAUT-OTIB-0029: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12..................124 

3.10

.......................................................................................................................133 

ORAUT-OTIB-0030: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Hanford 

Site

3.11

.............................................................................................................137 

ORAUT-OTIB-0032: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Savannah 

River Site

3.12 ORAUT-OTIB-0034: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10..................142 

3.13 ORAUT-OTIB-0035: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for K-25..................148 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 4 of 290 

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. 

3.14

......................................................................................153 

ORAUT-OTIB-0037: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant

3.15

..........................................................................161 

ORAUT-OTIB-0038: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site

3.16

.......................................................................................................................171 

ORAUT-OTIB-0039: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford 

Site

3.17

..............................................................................................................186 

ORAUT-OTIB-0043: Characterization of Occupational Exposure to 

Radium and Radon Progeny During Recovery of Uranium from Phosphate 

Materials

3.18

............191 

ORAUT-OTIB-0045: Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Program at 

the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 - Neutron Radiation

3.19

..............................................................................192 

ORAUT-OTIB-0047: External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 Facility 

During the 1948–1949 Period

3.20

...........................................................................................................198 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049: Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained 

in the Lung

3.21

........................................207 

ORAUT-OTIB-0050: The Use of Rocky Flats Neutron Dose 

Reconstruction Project Data in Dose Reconstructions

3.22

.................212 

ORAUT-OTIB-0051: Effect of Threshold Energy and Angular Response of 

NTA Film on Missed Neutron Dose at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Facility

3.23

................................................................................................................219 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052: Parameters for Processing Claims for Construct. 

Workers

3.24

...............................219 

ORAUT-OTIB-0055: Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 

38 Neutron Quality Factors to ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting 

Factors for Respective IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges

3.25

........................223 

ORAUT-OTIB-0057: External Radiation Dose Estimates for Individuals 

Near the 1958 Criticality Accident at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

3.26 ORAUT-OTIB-0058: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Rocky Flats......229 

3.27 ORAUT-OTIB-0060: Internal Dose Reconstruction..........................................241 

3.28

..................................................................................................................252 

ORAUT-OTIB-0063: Los Alamos National Laboratory Bioassay Data 

Project

4.0 Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) Procedures...................................253 

4.1 ORAUT-PROC-0006: External Dose Reconstruction........................................253 

4.2

..............................................................258 

ORAUT-PROC-0042: Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring 

Data on Penetrating Gamma-Ray Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at 

the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Prior to 1961

4.3 ORAUT-PROC-0044: Special Exposure Cohort................................................265 

4.4 ORAUT-PROC-0060: Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction .....265 

4.5

..................................................................................................................272 

ORAUT-PROC-0086: Case Preparation – Complex Internal Dosimetry 

Claims

4.6

.............................................................................................275 

ORAUT-PROC-0094: Verification and Validation Process for Tools 

Development Group

4.7

.......................................................................................................280 

ORAUT-PROC-0095: Generating Summary Statistics for Coworker 

Bioassay Data

4.8 ORAUT-PROC-0096: Claimant Communications Quality Control Process.....287 

4.9 ORAUT-PROC-0097: Conduct of Worker Outreach Program..........................290 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 5 of 290 

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. 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1. Summary of Documents Reviewed ...........................................................13 

Table ES-2: Roll-up of Findings of the Review of OCAS and ORAUT Documents....14 

Table ES-3: Summary of Rankings................................................................................17 

Table 1.2-1: Identification of Documents Subject to Review........................................19 

Table 2.1-1: 

.........................................................................................................26 

Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of OCAS-IG-001, 

Rev. 1

Table 2.1-2: OCAS-IG-001 Review Outline/Checklist..................................................28 

Table 2.2-1: OCAS-PER-003 Review Outline/Checklist ..............................................34 

Table 2.2-2: Copy of OCAS-PER-003, Table 1.............................................................37 

Table 2.2-3: Intake Values of ORAUT-TKBS-0001 Used in IMBA Calculations........38 

Table 2.2-4: Comparison of PER-Developed Results to IMBA Findings .....................39 

Table 2.3-1: OCAS-PER-004 Review Outline/Checklist ..............................................41 

Table 2.4-1: OCAS-PER-006 Review Outline/Checklist ..............................................44 

Table 2.4-2:

....................................................................................................46 

Federal Guidance Report 12 Testes and Bladder Dose From External 

Exposure

Table 2.5-1: OCAS-PER-007 Review Outline/Checklist ..............................................48 

Table 2.5-2: External Exposure Parameters...................................................................52 

Table 2.5-3: Intake Parameters Used in IMBA Treatment.............................................52 

Table 2.5-4: Organs Considered in IMBA Analysis......................................................53 

Table 2.5-5: Category 2 Worker.....................................................................................53 

Table 2.5-6: Category 3 Worker.....................................................................................53 

Table 2.5-7: Category 4 Worker.....................................................................................54 

Table 2.5-8: Intake for Cobble Cutters over 4 Years .....................................................55 

Table 2.5-9: Results of Cobble Cutter Analysis.............................................................55 

Table 2.6-1: OCAS-PR-008 Review Outline/Checklist.................................................57 

Table 2.7-1: OCAS-TIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist .............................................60 

Table 2.7-2:

..........................................................................64 

Mallinckrodt Worker: Attila and MCNP5 Developed 

Badge Correction Factors

Table 2.7-3:

.................................................................66 

Results of the MCNPX Calculation and Analysis for Lower Torso 

and Lapel Dosimeter Locations

Table 2.8-1: TIB-0014 Review Outline/Checklist .........................................................73 

Table 3.1-1: 

............................................................................................................79 

Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-OTIB0002

Table 3.1-2: ORAUT-OTIB-0002 Review Outline/Checklist .......................................80 

Table 3.2-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0005 Review Outline/Checklist .......................................88 

Table 3.3-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0006 Review Outline/Checklist .......................................93 

Table 3.4-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist .......................................98 

Table 3.4-2:

................................................................................................101 

Minimum Detection Level (MDL) and Assigned MDL Doses* for 

Film Used to Measure Beta and Gamma Radiation Exposures at the 

Y-12 Plant

Table 3.5-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0015 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................105 

Table 3.5-2:

................................................................................................108 

Minimum Detection Level (MDL) and Assigned MDL Doses* for 

Film Used to Measure Beta and Gamma Radiation Exposures at the 

Y-12 Plant
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 6 of 290 

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 3.6-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0021 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................110 

Table 3.7-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0026 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................116 

Table 3.8-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0027 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................121 

Table 3.9-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0029 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................125 

Table 3.10-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0030 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................134 

Table 3.11-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0032 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................137 

Table 3.12-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0034 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................143 

Table 3.13-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0035 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................149 

Table 3.14-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0037 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................153 

Table 3.15-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0038 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................162 

Table 3.16-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0039 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................172 

Table 3.17-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0043 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................187 

Table 3.19-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0047 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................192 

Table 3.19-2: Abridged Version of Table 5 found in ORAUT-RPRT-0032 .................195 

Table 3.19-3:

..........................................................................................................196 

Maximum Exposures from Monitoring Data Compared to RPRT0032

Table 3.20-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................199 

Table 3.21-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0050 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................209 

Table 3.22-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0051 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................213 

Table 3.22-2:

..........................................................................................................217 

Comparison of % Missed Neutron Dose: IAEA Data vs. OTIB0051

Table 3.22-3:

.........................218 

Recommended Correction for Missed Neutron Dose due to 

Threshold Energy and Angular Response of NTA Film

Table 3.24-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................220 

Table 3.25-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0057 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................223 

Table 3.25-2: Comparison of Predicted vs. Measured Neutron Doses ..........................227 

Table 3.26-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0058 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................229 

Table 3.27-1: 

..........................................................................................................241 

Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-PROC0003

Table 3.27-2: ORAUT-OTIB-0060 Review Outline/Checklist .....................................242 

Table 3.27-3: Effect of Error Assumption on Best Estimate of Intake ..........................246 

Table 3.27-4:

.............248 

Default Values for the Lognormal Scattering Factor (SF) for Various 

Types of Measurement from Different Studies (Type B Errors)

Table 4.1-1:

...........................................................................................254 

Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-PROC0006, Rev. 00

Table 4.1-2: ORAUT-PROC-0006 Review Outline/Checklist ....................................255 

Table 4.2-1: ORAUT-PROC-0042 Review Outline/Checklist ....................................259 

Table 4.4-1: 

..........................................................................................................266 

Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-OTIB0007

Table 4.4-2: ORAUT-PROC-0060 Review Outline/Checklist ....................................267 

Table 4.5-1: ORAUT-PROC-0086 Review Outline/Checklist ....................................272 

Table 4.6-1: ORAUT-PROC-0094 QA-Document Compliance Checklist .................276 

Table 4.7-1: ORAUT-PROC-0095 Review Outline/Checklist ....................................281 

Table 4.8-1: ORAUT-PROC-0096 QA-Document Compliance Checklist .................287 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 7 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.7-1: Diagram of Human Figure with Ingot .......................................................68 

Figure 2.7-2:

....................................69 

Denitration Pot (Pot made of steel) 

Dimensions with Same Human Figure from Ingot

Figure 2.7-3:

.....................................................................69 

Pitchblend Dimensions with Human Figure 

Same as Previous Two Cases

Figure 3.4-1:

..............................102 

Estimated Coworker Lognormal Distribution Parameters 

Mu and Sigma with Trendlines, and Mean, Median, and 

95th Percentile of the Dose Distribution, by Quarter

Figure 3.9-1: 1-Year Doses, Excluding the Respiratory Tract ......................................132 

Figure 3.12-1: 

..............................................147 

Assumed Pu-239 Intake, 1951 to 1988, 

50 Percentile Composite Results, Type S th

Figure 3.14-1: Lognormal Representation of 1954 Third Quarter Results......................158 

Figure 3.14-2: Lognormal Representation of 1954 Fourth Quarter Results....................159 

Figure 3.14-3: 

.........................................................................................................160 

Type F Material Theoretical Fit Versus 50 Percentile Excretion 

Rates

th

Figure 3.15-1: 

...................................................................................169 

Predicted Plutonium Bioassay Results (line) Calculated using 

IMBA-Derived Pu Intake Rates Compared with Measured Pu-inUrine Results (dots), January 1, 1952, to December 31, 1961, 50th 

Percentile, Type M

Figure 3.25-1: Comparison of Recorded to Estimated Doses .........................................227 

Figure 3.27-1: Linear Plot of Plutonium Oxide Excretion Rate for Various Fits............246 

Figure 3.27-2: Logarithmic Plot of Fits of Plutonium Oxide Data..................................247 

Figure 4.7-1: 

.................................................286 

Comparison of Uncensored Data from a Lognormal(0,1) 

Distribution versus Censored Distribution with a Linear Distribution 

of Values Substituted for Censored Data
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 8 of 290 

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. 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

42 CFR 82 Title 42, Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations

Advisory Board 

or Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AMAD Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter 

AP Anterior-Posterior 

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer 

CAD Computer-Aided Design 

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

CEDR Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource 

CEF Critical Experiments Facility 

CER Center for Epidemiological Research 

Ci Curies 

CTW Construction Trade Worker 

D&D Decontamination and Decommissioning 

DCF Dose Conversion Factor 

(D)HHS U.S. (Department of) Health and Human Services 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOELAP Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

dpm Disintegrations per Minute 

DR Dose Reconstructor or Dose Reconstruction 

EE Energy Employee 

EALER Elevated Ambient Levels of External Radiation 

EDP Electronic Data Processing 

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

ENSDF Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File 

ERR Excess Relative Risk 

ESE Entrance Skin Exposure 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 9 of 290 

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. 

ET ExtraThoracic 

FGR Federal Guidance Report 

FIPR Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 

GI Gastro-Intestinal 

GM Geometric Mean 

GSD Geometric Standard Deviation 

HAT Human Alimentary Tract 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis 

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

K-25 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LLI Lower Large Intestine 

LOD Limit of Detection 

MCNP, 

MCNP5, or 

MCNPX Monte Carlo N-Particle transport codes 

MDA Minimum Detectable Activity 

MDL Minimum Detection Level 

MeV Megaelectron Volt 

MPBB Maximum Permissible Body Burden 

NBS National Bureau of Standards 

NDRP Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

n/p neutron/proton 

NTA Nuclear Track Emulsion Type A film 

NTP Nuclear Track Plate 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 10 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

PA Posterior-Anterior 

PER Program Evaluation Report 

PEP Program Evaluation Plan 

PFG Photofluorographic 

PGDP Paducah (Kentucky) Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

PIC pocket ionization chamber 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

POC Probability of Causation 

PROC Procedures 

QAP Quality Assurance Plan 

QC Quality Control 

REF Radiation Effectiveness Factor 

REX Hanford Radiological Exposure Records database 

RFETS Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

RFP Rocky Flats Plant 

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

SF Scattering Factor 

SRS Savannah River Site 

TBD Technical Basis Document 

TDG Tools Development Group 

TIB Technical Information Bulletin 

TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TORI Table of Radioactive Isotopes 

USTUR United States Transuranium and Uranium Registry 

V&V Verification and Validation 

WLM Work Level Month 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 11 of 290 

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. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and 

Title 42, Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, of the Code of Federal Regulations

(42 CFR Part 82), the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Advisory Board or 

Board) is mandated to conduct an independent review of the methods and procedures used by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and its contractors for dose 

reconstruction. 

As contractor to the Advisory Board, S. Cohen & Associates (SC&A) has been charged under 

Task 3 to provide support in this effort. To date the following work products have been 

completed under Task 3: 

(1) Develop a Formal Review Protocol for the Evaluation of Procedures Used in Dose 

Reconstruction: The purpose of a review protocol is to ensure a structured and 

systematic review process that determines whether procedures are consistent with the 

philosophy, intent, and/or statutory directives cited in EEOICPA, and comply with the 

general requirements, methods, and guidance provided in 42 CFR Part 82. 

In behalf of the first work product, SC&A submitted a report entitled, A Protocol for 

the Review of Procedures and Methods Employed by NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction, 

which was approved by the Advisory Board in April 2004. 

(2) Conduct a First Round of Critical Reviews of Methods and Procedures Used by 

NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction: Under Modifications Nos. 2 through 5 (initially 

authorized on June 24, 2004), the Advisory Board approved SC&A’s proposal of work 

to perform a review of a total of 33 documents from the Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (OCAS) and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

(ORAUT), that included implementation guidelines, procedures, technical information 

bulletins (TIBs), and plans. This review was completed and a draft report delivered to 

NIOSH and the Advisory Board entitled Task 3: The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT 

Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, SCA-TR-Task3, Rev. 0, Final 

Draft, January 17, 2005. This document and its findings are the subject of an issues 

resolution process that is currently underway under the direction of an Advisory Board 

working group. 

(3) Conduct a Second Round of Critical Reviews of Methods and Procedures Used by 

NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction: Under Modification No. 6 (authorized on 

August 30, 2005), NIOSH and the Advisory Board approved SC&A’s proposal of 

work to perform a review of a total of 30 documents that included OCAS and ORAUT 

procedures and technical information bulletins (TIBs).. This review was completed and 

a draft report delivered to NIOSH and the Advisory Board entitled Task 3: The Review 

of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, 

Supplement 1, SCA-TR-Task3 Supplement 1, Rev. 0, Final Draft, June 8, 2006. This 

document and its findings are the subject of an issues resolution process under the 

direction of an Advisory Board working group. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 12 of 290 

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) Conduct a Critical Review of General Workbooks Used by NIOSH for Dose 

Reconstruction: This workbook review was completed and a draft report was 

delivered to NIOSH and the Advisory Board entitled Task 3, Supplement 2, Review of 

Nine General Dose Reconstruction Tools, SCA-TR-Task3, Supplement 2, Rev. 0, 

Draft, April 13, 2007. This document and its findings are the subject of an issues 

resolution process under the direction of an Advisory Board working group. 

(5) Conduct a Third Round of Critical Reviews of Methods and Procedures Used by 

NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction: The Advisory Board identified 45 documents for 

SC&A to critically review. The draft work product presented herein is provided in 

fulfillment of this work assignment. 

(6) Conduct a Critical Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Parameters to Consider when 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers: For the review of ORAUTOTIB-0052, the standard SC&A review has been augmented by additional detailed 

confirmatory analysis of the data utilized by NIOSH in their development of ORAUTOTIB-0052. SC&A also interviewed personnel from the Center to Protect Workers’ 

Rights, since they have been deeply involved in providing comments on NIOSH’s 

approach to construction worker dose reconstruction. This review was completed and 

a draft report delivered to NIOSH and the Advisory Board entitled, Review of ORAUTOTIB-0052, Parameters to Consider when Processing Claims for Construction Trade 

Workers, SCA-TR-Task3-0004, Rev. 0, Draft, July 3, 2007. 

SUMMARY FINDINGS 

The 45 documents identified to SC&A for this third round of Task 3 critical reviews represent a 

sizeable body of written text that embraces a wide array of complex topics and clearly reflects an 

intense effort by many individuals who are regarded as scientific experts in their fields. These 

documents were created beginning in 2004 by the OCAS and the ORAUT, and reflect a 

maturation of the dose reconstruction program that began in 2000, and the first set of guidelines 

issued in 2002. Like our Task 3, Supplement 1 procedures review report issued in June 2006, 

this report reveals an integration of the generic OCAS and ORAUT guidelines with the site 

profiles, to the extent feasible. We believe this aspect of the guidelines helps to avoid 

inconsistencies between the procedures and the site profiles. 

Included in this round of reviews are revised versions of several documents that have previously 

been reviewed by SC&A for the Advisory Board. In addition to SC&A’s ‘normal’ review of 

these re-reviewed documents, they were also checked to assess whether the comments/issues/

findings made in the previous review were satisfactory addressed. It is equally important to note 

that some of the 45 documents have already been revised or are likely to be revised in the future, 

due to the fact that these documents are regarded as “living documents.” The need for living 

documents, as explained to SC&A by NIOSH, reflects the urgent demand for NIOSH to begin 

the adjudication of claims by a progressive selection process that started with claims requiring 

the least amount of procedural guidance and data. Future, more complex dose reconstructions 

may, therefore, require further procedural revisions and/or the development of additional 

procedures. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 13 of 290 

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 brief, SC&A’s review of the methods and procedures used for dose reconstruction must be 

viewed with some caution, since these findings are not only limited to documents as they exist 

currently, but more importantly do not include the role of site profiles in dose reconstruction. 

However, the latter issue is less of a concern for the procedures reviewed in this supplement, 

because of the concerted effort made by NIOSH to cross-reference site profiles. An overview of 

SC&A’s findings is given below with respect to the seven general review objectives identified by 

SC&A in its review protocol. Due to the large number of documents and their heterogeneous 

contents, some comments may not apply to all documents and, in select instances, may only 

apply to one or a few of the documents. 

Table ES-1 presents a summary of the reviews performed on the 45 documents that were 

assigned to SC&A by the Advisory Board for this third round of critical reviews. 

Table ES-1: Summary of Documents Reviewed 

Document Category Number 

Reviewed, results presented herein 32 

Re-reviewed, results presented herein 4 

Reviewed, including predecessor documents comments 2 

Reviewed as QA documents, results presented herein 2 

Not reviewed, deferred to an addendum to this report 2 

Not reviewed, document not issued 2 

Reviewed, results presented in separate report 1 

The approach used to perform the reviews contained in this report follows the SC&A procedures 

provided in “A Protocol for the Review of Procedures and Methods Employed by NIOSH for 

Dose Reconstruction” (SCA-PR-Task3, Rev. 1, Final, April 29, 2004). In brief, SC&A 

identified seven objectives (including 26 sub-objectives) in its protocol to the Advisory Board, 

which form the basis for conducting the review. Each of the 38 documents in the top three rows 

of Table ES-1 was rated as to how well it met each sub-objective using a rating system of 1 

through 5, corresponding to the following answers: 1=No (or Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (or Always). The two QA documents had a separate rating 

system. 

Table ES-2 presents a roll-up of the findings of the results of SC&A’s review of the 38 

documents that constitute the main scope of this third round of critical reviews. As indicated by 

the number of “fives” that were assigned to individual sub-objectives, it is evident that most 

documents received very high scores. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 14 of 290 

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 ES-2: Roll-up of Findings of the Review of OCAS and ORAUT Documents 

No. Description of Objective 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and 

timely for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 14 16 6 2 0 0 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the 

data in a logical sequence? 21 14 3 0 0 0 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., 

does not reference other sources that are needed for 

additional data)? 

15 11 9 3 0 0 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures 

that are part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by 

NIOSH for dose reconstruction? 

26 9 2 0 0 1 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to 

minimize the need for subjective decisions and data 

interpretation? 

20 10 3 2 0 3 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

identifying a potentially high probability of causation as 

part of an initial dose evaluation of a claim? 

9 1 0 0 0 28 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low 

doses, does the procedure provide clear guidance in 

defining worst-case assumptions? 

13 0 1 0 1 23 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? 0 0 0 0 0 38 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to 

permit unforeseen lines of inquiry? 0 0 0 0 0 38 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, 

and is it free of bias? 0 0 0 0 0 38 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? 0 0 0 0 0 38 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as 

required under the Privacy Act? 0 0 0 0 0 38 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 12 5 1 0 0 20 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 3 1 4 2 0 28 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 13 1 4 3 0 17 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 13 4 3 4 0 14 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to 

dose reconstruction? 19 10 0 0 1 8 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 27 0 1 0 0 10 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 15 of 290 

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 ES-2: Roll-up of Findings of the Review of OCAS and ORAUT Documents 

No. Description of Objective 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of 

missing data? 17 3 5 2 0 11 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of 

unknown parameters affecting dose estimates? 13 3 10 2 1 9 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? 11 2 8 1 1 15 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

selecting the types of probability distributions (i.e., 

normal, lognormal)? 

13 6 3 0 1 15 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use 

of random sampling in developing a final distribution? 4 0 1 0 0 33 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 27 4 0 1 0 6 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only 

limited significance to the final dose estimate and its 

POC? 

18 3 0 1 0 16 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid 

protocols for reconstructing doses? 16 8 8 3 1 2 

Objective 1: Determine the Degree to Which Documents Support a Process that is 

Expeditious and Timely for Dose Reconstruction 

A well-written procedure presents all required data in a logical, concise, unambiguous, and 

prescriptive manner. Our review of this set of documents revealed that most were concise, well 

organized, and provided generally complete and unambiguous guidance. Unlike many of the 

documents we reviewed in our January 2005 report, the documents reviewed in this report do not 

require the dose reconstructor to read through voluminous and frequently irrelevant background 

information, similar to our June 2006 findings. There were 186 applicable rankings under 

Objective 1, of which 84% received a ranking of a 4 or 5, and none received a ranking of 1. 

Objective 2: Determine Whether Documents Provide Adequate Guidance to be Efficient in 

Select Instances Where a More Detailed Approach to Dose Reconstruction Would Not 

Affect the Outcome 

SC&A understands the benefit of and endorses the need for an efficient dose reconstruction 

process that, in appropriate instances, either avoids a full-blown dose reconstruction (i.e., when a 

partial dose reconstruction yields a probability of causation (POC) > 50%) or simplifies a dose 

reconstruction by means of worst-case assumptions/dose assignments for claims with a low 

POC. As in our January 2005 report, we found that a sizeable number of documents, while 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 16 of 290 

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. 

making reference to the likely or unlikely compensability of a claim, provide little or no 

guidance to the dose reconstructor for prejudging a claim. However, we have come to believe 

that it is not always possible to provide explicit guidance on making these judgments, and that it 

is best to leave these judgments to the dose reconstructor working within a QA/QC framework 

that ensures consistency in these judgments. However, we have also found that, when it was 

possible to assist the dose reconstructor in making these judgments, such guidance was provided. 

There were 25 applicable rankings under Objective 2, of which 92% received a ranking of a 4 

or 5. Only OCAS-TIB-013 received a ranking of 1, as SC&A found that TIB-013 understated 

the maximum correction factor to be applied to the badge readings, and thus, does not provide 

adequate guidance for defining the claimant-favorable assumptions. 

Objective 3: Assess the Extent to Which Documents Account for all Potential Exposures, 

and Ensure that Resultant Doses are Complete and Based on Adequate Data in Instances 

where the POC is not Evident 

Objective 3 is divided into two parts. The first part applies to the quality of data collected via 

interviews. In this second set of supplemental documents reviewed by SC&A, none of the 

documents were associated with data collection via interviews. Therefore, this first part of 

Objective 3 was not applicable to all of the documents reviewed. 

The second part of Objective 3 applies to adequacy and use of site-specific data. We found that, 

to a large extent, a concerted effort was made in these documents to take into consideration sitespecific and time-dependent factors, with appropriate cross-references to site profiles. There 

were 73 applicable rankings under the second part of Objective 3, of which 71% received a 

ranking of a 4 or 5, and none received a ranking of 1. 

Objective 4: Assess Documents for Providing a Consistent Approach to Dose 

Reconstruction Regardless of Claimants’ Exposures by Time and Employment Locations 

In order for the adjudication process to be fair to claimants, the process of dose reconstruction 

must attempt to remain consistent over time and space. Consistency implies that the same 

documents are applied to claims that share a high degree of commonality. SC&A’s review of the 

documents found that the documents generally provided a consistent approach to dose 

reconstruction. There were 58 applicable rankings under Objective 4, of which 97% received a 

ranking of a 4 or 5. Only ORAUT-OTIB-0015 received a ranking of 1, as SC&A found that 

OTIB-0015 does not contain any prescriptive information, rather it contains a level of detail far 

more than is reasonable, needed, or desired, for dose reconstruction. SC&A concluded that 

OTIB-0015 is not a technical instruction document as much as it is a specific statistical theory 

document and is not necessary for use, or as a reference, by dose reconstructors. 

Objective 5: Evaluate Documents with Regard to Fairness and the Extent to which the 

Claimant is given the Benefit of Doubt when there are Unknowns and Uncertainties 

Concerning Radiation Exposures 

The statutory requirement of a claimant-favorable dose reconstruction process is achieved by 

(1) giving the benefit of the doubt when there are unknowns, and (2) defining uncertainties for 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 17 of 290 

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. 

measured data and selecting the 99th percentile value of a Monte Carlo distribution when 

determining the POC. 

With few exceptions, the guidelines reviewed in this report give the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant. There were 72 applicable rankings under Objective 5, of which 62% received a 

ranking of a 4 or 5. ORAUT-OTIB-0038 received two rankings of 1. The SC&A review of 

OTIB-0038 concluded that the uncertainties related to the model were large and, as a 

consequence, claimant-favorable dose reconstruction was not achieved. 

Objective 6: Evaluate Documents for its Ability to Adequately Account for the Uncertainty 

of Dose Estimates 

Generally, it was found that the procedures reviewed in this report adequately address 

uncertainties, with 82% of the 28 possible applicable rankings under Objective 6 receiving either 

a 4 or 5. The single ranking of 1 was given to ORAUT-OTIB-0027, because while the OTIB 

provides uncertainty factors for photon, neutron, and electron Rocky Flats Plant doses, there is 

no mention of the appropriate probability distribution to use in the IREP input. 

Objective 7: Assess the Scientific and Technical Quality of Methods and Guidance 

Contained in Documents to ensure that they reflect the Proper Balance Between Current/

Consensus Scientific Methods and Dose Reconstruction Efficiency 

The seventh and final review objective not only assessed the scientific credibility of procedural 

methods, but also the EEOICPA directive that the methods and procedures must achieve a 

balance between technical precision and dose reconstruction efficiency. There were 90 

applicable rankings under Objective 7, of which 84% received a ranking of a 4 or 5. As is the 

case for Objective 2, only OCAS-TIB-0013 received a ranking of 1 under Objective 7. Reasons 

for this low ranking included (1) SC&A was unable to match NIOSH’s results, (2) SC&A took 

issue with a number of assumptions made by NIOSH, including source spectrum, βbremsstrahlung, and exposure geometry, and (3) the manner in which TIB-0013 handles direct β

and neutron doses. 

In summary, for the 38 documents that were evaluated, there were a total of 988 possible 

rankings, of which 449, or 45.4%, were found to be not applicable. Table ES-3 shows a 

summary of the rankings for the remaining 539 applicable sub-objectives. 

Table ES-3: Summary of Rankings

Ranking Percentage With Rank 

5 60.1% 

4 20.6% 

3 13.4% 

2 4.8% 

1 1.1% 

As indicated by the large percentage of 5s that were given, SC&A found that most of the 

documents reviewed were in satisfactory condition, and although SC&A found some areas that 

could be improved upon, we believe that overall NIOSH and ORAUT should be commended for 

producing so many highly technical documents of generally high standards. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 18 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

Finally, SC&A’s critical review of the two QA documents found that ORAUT-PROC-0094 

provides adequate guidance to conduct and document verification and validation of software 

tools, and that ORAUT-PROC-0096 provides adequate instructions to perform QA checks of 

Task 4 claimant communication functions, including CATI, close-out interviews, and dose 

reconstruction submittals. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 19 of 290 

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 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

The purpose of this draft report is to assist the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

(Advisory Board) in fulfilling its mandate to review the methods and procedures used by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and its contractors in the 

performance of dose reconstruction, as directed by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and Title 42, Part 82, Methods for Radiation 

Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000, of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Specifically, Section B of 42 CFR Part 82 identifies the following statutory requirement for: 

... The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health to independently review 

the methods established by this rule and to verify a reasonable sample of dose 

reconstructions established under these methods. [Emphasis added.] 

Section P of 42 CFR Part 82 restates this requirement, but further directs the Advisory Board to 

identify those procedures that are to be reviewed by the Board, as stated in the following: 

As described above under the discussion of statutory provisions related to the 

rule, EEOICPA requires the Board to conduct an independent review of a sample 

of NIOSH dose reconstruction. 42 U.S.C. 7348 n(d). Since this review is 

specified to be independent, the Board, rather than HHS, must determine the 

procedures for the Board’s review of NIOSH dose reconstructions. Moreover, 

this level of autonomy is important for the credibility of the review. [Emphasis 

added.] 

1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO REVIEW 

Based on the above-cited statutory and regulatory requirements, the Board provided S. Cohen 

and Associates (SC&A) with a list of Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) and 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) documents to be assessed in FY2007 to 

satisfy the requirement of an “independent review.” The final list of documents to be reviewed 

is provided in Table 1.2-1. 

Table 1.2-1: Identification of Documents Subject to Review 

Document Number Rev. Document Title Date Comments 

OCAS-IG-001 2 External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline 8/25/06 Re-review 

OCAS-PER-003 0 Evaluation of Adding Ingestion Intakes to Bethlehem 

Steel Cases 1/28/05 

OCAS-PER-004 0 Application of Photofluorography at the Pinellas Plant 2/15/05 

OCAS-PER-006 0 External Dosimetry Target Organ for Prostate Cancer 9/15/06 

OCAS-PER-007 0 Evaluation of the Effect of Revision 2 of the Site Profile 

on Previously Completed Bethlehem Steel Cases 11/9/06 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 20 of 290 

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 1.2-1: Identification of Documents Subject to Review 

Document Number Rev. Document Title Date Comments 

OCAS-PR-008 2 Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program 

Evaluation Plans 12/6/06 

OCAS-TIB-0013 0 Special External Dose Reconstruction Considerations 

for Mallinckrodt Workers 10/26/05 

OCAS-TIB-0014 0 Rocky Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension 12/7/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002 2 Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE 

Complex Claims 2/7/07 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005 02 PC-1 Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, 

and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code 2/10/06 Re-review 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006 3 Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related 

Diagnostic X-ray Procedures 12/21/05 Re-review 

ORAUT-OTIB-0013 0 Individual Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 Dose 

Reconstruction 9/9/04 

ORAUT-OTIB-0015 0 

Bayesian Methods for Estimation of Unmonitored Y-12 

External Penetrating Doses with a Time-Dependent 

Lognormal Model 

9/9/04 

ORAUT-OTIB-0021 1 External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the X-10 Site 11/7/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0026 0 PC-2 External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the K-25 Site 11/15/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0027 0 Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky 

Flats Plant 5/19/05 

ORAUT-OTIB-0029 0 Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12 4/5/05 

ORAUT-OTIB-0030 0 External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Hanford Site 11/7/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0032 0 PC-1 External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Savannah 

River Site 11/7/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0034 0 Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10 12/13/05 

ORAUT-OTIB-0035 0 PC-1 Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for K-25 7/21/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0037 0 Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant 9/20/05 

ORAUT-OTIB-0038 0 Internal Dose Coworker for Rocky Flats ETS 8/3/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0039 0 PC-2 Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford Site 1/31/07 

ORAUT-OTIB-0043 0 

Characterization of Occupational Exposure to Radium 

and Radon Progeny During Recovery of Uranium from 

Phosphate Materials 

1/6/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0045 — 

Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Program at the 

Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 - 

Neutron Radiation 

— Not issued by 

ORAUT 

ORAUT-OTIB-0047 0 External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 Facility 

During the 1948-1949 Period 9/20/05 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049 00 Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in 

the Lung 2/6/2007 

ORAUT-OTIB-0050 00 The Use of Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction 

Project Data in Dose Reconstructions 12/13/05 

ORAUT-OTIB-0051 00 

Effect of Threshold Energy and Angular Response of 

NTA Film on Missed Neutron Dose at the Oak Ridge Y12 Facility 

5/15/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052 0 Parameters for Processing Claims for Construct. 

Workers 8/31/06 Review provided in separate report 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 21 of 290 

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 1.2-1: Identification of Documents Subject to Review 

Document Number Rev. Document Title Date Comments 

ORAUT-OTIB-0055 00 

Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 

Neutron Quality Factors to ICRP Publication 60 

Radiation Weighting Factors for Respective IREP Input 

Neutron Energy Ranges 

6/5/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0057 00 

External Radiation Dose Estimates for Individuals Near 

the 1958 Criticality Accident at the Oak Ridge Y-12 

Plant 

5/15/06 

ORAUT-OTIB-0058 1 PC-1 External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Rocky Flats 3/29/07 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060 00 Internal Dose Reconstruction 2/6/07 Incorporates 

PROC-0003 

ORAUT-OTIB-0063 — Los Alamos National Laboratory Bioassay Data Project — Not issued by 

ORAUT 

ORAUT-PROC-0006 1 External Dose Reconstruction 6/5/06 Re-review 

ORAUT-PROC-0042 00 

Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring Data on 

Penetrating Gamma-Ray Doses to Workers in Radiation 

Areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Prior to 1961 

9/9/04 

ORAUT-PROC-0044 — Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) — To be provided in 

an addendum 

ORAUT-PROC-0060 1 Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction 6/28/06 Incorporates 

OTIB-0007 

ORAUT-PROC-0086 00 Case Preparation - Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims 12/7/05 

ORAUT-PROC-0094 00 Verification and Validation Process for the Tools 

Development Group 1/5/06 

ORAUT-PROC-0095 00 Generating Summary Statistic for Coworker Bioassay 

Data 6/5/06 

ORAUT-PROC-0096 00 Claimant Communications Quality Control Process 3/3/06 

ORAUT-PROC-0097 — Conduct of Worker Outreach Program — To be provided in 

an addendum 

1.3 SC&A’S APPROACH FOR TASK 3 

The approach used to perform the reviews contained in this report follows the SC&A procedures 

provided in A Protocol for the Review of Procedures and Methods Employed by NIOSH for Dose 

Reconstruction (SCA-PR-Task3, Rev. 1, Final, April 29, 2004). In the original Statement of 

Work, key technical elements to be addressed in the review included the following: 

(a) Review the internal and external radiation dose reconstruction TBDs (including 

procedures for performing internal dose reconstructions and external dose 

reconstructions) 

(b) Review of methods for estimating “missed dose” and “unmonitored dose” (for cases 

related to monitoring technology and for cases where monitoring was not performed, 

monitoring data are not available or incomplete, or otherwise inadequate) 

(c) Review of the statistical approaches developed for multiple dose reconstructions 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 22 of 290 

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. 

(d) Review procedures used for determining whether data are sufficient to make a reasonable 

dose estimate 

(e) Review methods or procedures used for substituting exposure information for unavailable 

or incomplete information 

(f) Review methods for estimating uncertainty in dose and uncertainty distributions 

surrounding internal and external dose reconstructions on a facility- and time-specific 

basis, and evaluate whether the benefit of the doubt was resolved in favor of the claimant 

where there were uncertainties 

(g) Review procedures and questionnaires used for work history telephone interviews 

(includes review of Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI), scheduling, 

performance, and review procedures) 

(h) Review quality assurance plan and related procedures 

(i) Review procedures related to document acquisition (records request, management, 

assembly, and handling) 

(j) Review procedures related to completing a Site Profile (Site and Exposure Profiles), 

Worker Profiles, and SEC petition review, and procedures on how Worker Profile and 

Site Profile data will be used for individual case dose reconstructions 

(k) Review the NIOSH methods, procedures, and performance in evaluating, analyzing, and 

validating all contractor work products 

In addition to technical elements, SC&A also recognized that the review of methods and 

procedures must also address non-technical issues that reflect the philosophy, intent, and/or 

statutory directives cited in EEOICPA and 42 CFR Part 82. 

The Act (as stated in 42 CFR Part 82) requires that “... HHS establish by regulation, methods for 

arriving at reasonable estimates of the radiation doses incurred by covered employees in 

connection with claims seeking compensation for cancer...” [Emphasis added]. 

Other directives issued to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandated, 

by regulation, the establishment of methods that are (1) efficient, (2) consistently applied, 

(3) reasonable dose estimates, (4) complete, and (5) well grounded in the best available 

science. 

As acknowledged in the Act, the level of effort involved in dose reconstructions depends largely 

on the quantity and quality of available dose monitoring data, and the extent to which these data 

are, in fact, complete. The EEOICPA further recognized the complexity of traditional

approaches for dose reconstruction, which frequently require extensive research and analysis, 

and in instances of “...health research studies dose reconstruction may take from months to years 

to complete.” 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 23 of 290 

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. 

Owing to the large number of claims requiring dose reconstruction, Section 7384 of EEOICPA 

specifically states that “...one of the purposes of the compensation program is to provide for 

timely compensation” [Emphasis added], and Section E of 42 CFR Part 82 states that “...An 

additional critical factor affecting how doses are reconstructed is the amount of time available... 

In compensation programs, however, a balance must be struck between efficiency and 

precision.” [Emphasis added.] 

According to these directives, SC&A’s evaluation of documents cannot limit itself to a process 

that simply determines whether applicable documents are technically correct and make use of the 

most current ICRP biokinetic models, dose conversion factors (DCFs), cancer risk coefficients, 

computer codes, etc., but must equally address the more difficult and subjective question of 

whether a proper balance has been struck between efficiency and precision. 

SC&A’s review of the technical and scientific methods prescribed in applicable documents must, 

therefore, also assess non-technical issues and the impacts of scientific detail that are required 

procedurally, and weigh the incremental precision gained against the reduced efficiency and 

higher costs for reconstruction and added delay in the adjudication of claims. 

In brief, SC&A identified the following objectives in its protocol to the Advisory Board, which 

form the basis for conducting the review: 

Objective 1: Determine the degree to which documents support a process that is expeditious 

and timely for dose reconstruction. 

Objective 2: Determine whether documents provide adequate guidance to be efficient in select 

instances where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect 

the outcome. 

Objective 3: Assess the extent to which documents account for all potential exposures, and 

ensure that resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

Objective 4: Assess documents for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction, 

regardless of claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations. 

Objective 5: Evaluate documents with regard to fairness and the extent to which the claimant 

is given the benefit of doubt when there are unknowns and uncertainties 

concerning radiation exposures. 

Objective 6: Evaluate documents for their approach to quantifying the uncertainty distribution 

of annual dose estimates that is consistent with and supports a U.S. Department of 

Labor POC estimate at the upper 99% confidence level. 

Objective 7: Assess the scientific and technical quality of methods and guidance contained in 

documents to ensure that they reflect the proper balance between current/

consensus scientific methods and dose reconstruction efficiency. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 24 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

1.4 STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

Structure: For each of the above-cited seven general objectives, the review protocol was 

structured on a series of relevant questions contained in a checklist, which the SC&A reviewer 

used for rating a given procedure. A rating system of 1 through 5 corresponded to the following 

answers: 1=No (or Never), 2=Infrequently, 3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (or Always). 

For example, Objective 1 focused on timeliness. The need for NIOSH to perform large numbers 

of dose reconstructions in a timely manner places specific demands on procedures and the dose 

reconstruction process as a whole. SC&A’s evaluation of procedures for their support of a 

timely reconstruction process was, therefore, based on rating the answers to the following 

questions: 

• Is the procedure written in a style that is concise and unambiguous? 

• Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a logical sequence? 

• Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not reference other sources 

that are needed for additional data)? 

• Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part of the hierarchy of 

procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction? 

• Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive to minimize the need for subjective decisions 

and data interpretation? 

Answers that resulted in a rating other than a 5 in the checklist were supported with specific 

review comments. In some of the more technical issues, the SC&A analyst has provided 

corroborating information for ratings of “5,” when they checked the approach prescribed by the 

procedure and it was determined to be correct. Table 1.4.1 below identifies the Procedure 

Review Outline/Checklist that is used in this report to assess the degree to which a given 

procedure meets the seven objectives, as applicable to the procedure. This table is slightly 

different than the table used in our original Task 3 report (dated January 17, 2005), in that it 

includes item 7.3, which explicitly addresses the scientific validity of the methodology employed 

in the procedure to perform or support dose reconstruction. 

Organization: The individual procedures/documents for review are grouped by topic in the 

following sections: 

• Section 2.0, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) Documents 

• Section 3.0, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team Technical Information Bulletins 

(OTIB) 

• Section 4.0, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) Procedures 

• Section 5.0, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) Program Evaluation 

Reports 

For a specific section, procedures/documents are sequenced as given in the table of contents for 

this report.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 25 of 290 

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 OFFICE OF COMPENSATION ANALYSIS AND 

SUPPORT (OCAS) DOCUMENTS 

2.1 OCAS-IG-001: EXTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION 

GUIDELINE 

The review of OCAS-IG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 2, 

dated August 25, 2006, was prepared by Kathleen Behling. 

2.1.1 Purpose of the Implementation Guide 

The stated purpose of this implementation guide is to provide guidance “... on the components, 

standards, and methods of external radiation dose reconstruction for probability of causation 

calculations in support of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act (EEOICPA). It is to be used as a source to help provide specific guidance and methods 

which can be found in site profiles and other site-specific documents.” 

2.1.2 Review Protocol 

As part of the first set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated Revision 1 of the External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

Guideline (August 2002). Our findings were published in The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT 

Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, dated January 2005 (SCA-TR-Task3). 

Following the submission of this report and its findings, an expanded review and issuesresolution process was initiated. The process began by NIOSH providing written responses to 

each of SC&A’s findings. Under the direction of a Board-appointed Work Group, a series of 

meetings was held between representatives of NIOSH and SC&A auditors to discuss and resolve 

each finding. This process resulted in the preparation of an issues-tracking matrix, whereby the 

closeout status of each finding is tracked. 

The resolution of many findings identified during our review of Revision 1 of the 

implementation guide required NIOSH to incorporate changes in a future revision of the OCASIG-001. These findings were also assigned a resolution priority ranking of high, medium, or low 

by the Advisory Board. Our evaluation of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2, therefore, was designed to 

ensure that (1) the findings identified in Revision 1 were adequately resolved, and (2) the 

document adequately supports the dose reconstruction process. Table provides a list of 

applicable OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 findings, the Board-recommended resolution ranking, and our 

evaluation to assess whether those findings were adequately addressed. Table is a checklist 

containing SC&A’s evaluation of procedural objectives developed as described in the 

introduction to this report. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 26 of 290 

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 2.1-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Review 

Objective 

OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected 

in Rev. 2? Comments 

1.1 Deficiencies with procedure 

layout include: (1) fragmented 

structure, (2) excessive amount of 

useless data and/or historical 

background in main body, and 

(3) critical data for dose 

reconstruction found in 

Appendices rather than main 

body. (Finding No. IG-001-01) 

Low Partially Revision 2 of the Implementation Guide 

eliminated much of the excessive data, 

such as examples and historical 

background information. However, the 

fragmented structure was not modified. 

See additional details under Review 

Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 comments below. 

1.3 Guidance for deriving (1) film and 

TLD dosimeter uncertainty, (2) 

neutron dose from source term, 

and (3) occupational medical dose 

using x-ray machine operating 

parameters requires data and 

resources that are not available to 

the dose reconstructor. (Finding 

No. IG-001-02) 

1–2 

Medium 

3 Low 

Partially Guidance for dosimeter uncertainty and 

calculation of occupational medical doses 

has been modified to include references to 

site-specific documents. The neutron flux 

equation has been removed from IG-001 

in the section describing assessing 

neutron dose from source term; however, 

the recommended method remains the 

same. See additional details under 

Review Objective 1.3 comments below. 

3.2.1 IG-001 recommends inappropriate 

methods for estimating TLD 

uncertainty by (1) recommending 

the use of present-day (i.e., 

DOELAP) uncertainty parameters 

for TLDs of the 1960s and 1970s, 

and (2) giving the dose 

reconstructor an option of using 

the simplified dosimetry 

uncertainty calculation, even when 

site-specific data are available. 

(Finding IG-001-04) 

Medium Yes Revision 2 of IG-001 eliminates 

recommending inappropriate methods for 

TLD uncertainty and includes guidance 

that directs the dose reconstructor to sitespecific documentation, when available. 

5.0 IG-001 recommends a range of 

Limit of Detection (LOD) values 

for 1956–1960 that the reviewer 

considers too low for the period. 

(Finding IG-001-05) 

Low Yes Table 2.1 that referenced LOD values for 

the 1956–1960 period has been modified 

to remove any date-specific LOD values. 

5.0 Guidance implies that LOD for 

deep dose from gamma may also 

be applied to electron dose, which 

is inconsistent with historical data 

that show uncertainty for shallow 

dose is considerably higher than 

deep dose. (Finding IG-001-06) 

Low Yes Revision 2 of IG-001 removes the 

example that implies LOD for deep dose 

from gamma is also appropriate for 

electron dose. 

5.0 IG-001 assumes NTA film 

dosimeters were insensitive to 

neutrons below 500 kiloelectron 

volt (keV); however, reviewer 

contends that the dosimeter is 

insensitive to neutrons <1 

megaelectron volt (MeV). 

(Finding IG-001-07) 

Medium Yes Wording in revision indicates that a 

variety of energy thresholds for NTA film 

dosimeters are cited in the literature and 

recommends reviewing site-specific 

information for determining actual 

threshold values. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 27 of 290 

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 2.1-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Review 

Objective 

OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected 

in Rev. 2? Comments 

5.0 Methods for reconstruction of 

neutron doses from survey data or 

source term data do not appear 

practical, achievable, and 

defensible for most neutron 

exposure conditions. (Finding IG001-08) 

Medium Partially Revision 2 of IG-001 has eliminated some 

examples and slightly modified guidance 

for reconstruction of neutron doses but 

failed to include the use of more practical 

methods such as employing neutron-tophoton ratios. A more detailed discussion 

is provided under Review Objective 5.0 

comments below. 

5.0 IG-001 does not acknowledge the 

likely use of neutron/photon ratio 

methods in neutron dose 

reconstruction and erroneously 

states that “. . . at most facilities, 

neutron exposure were generally 

less than 20% of the photon 

exposures.” (Finding IG-001-09) 

Low Yes Section 2.2.2, which discusses missed 

neutron doses, has been modified to 

eliminate the statement indicating neutron 

exposures are less than 20% at most 

facilities and has introduced a statement 

acknowledging the use of site-specific 

neutron-to-photon ratios. 

5.0 IG-001, Appendix B, DCFs for 

bone surface and red marrow are 

underestimated. (Finding IG-001-

10) 

Medium Yes IG-001, Rev. 2 has added guidance to 

Section 4.4, which recommends applying 

a correction factor to the rotational and 

isotropic dose conversion factors (DCFs) 

for bone surface and red marrow (as well 

as esophagus and lung) when the 

dosimeter is worn on the chest and the 

worker may have experienced exposure 

geometries other than anterior-posterior 

(AP). 

6.0 IG-001 does not account for 

additional laboratory uncertainty 

for film badge readings associated 

with exposure less than 200 mrem. 

(Finding IG-001-11) 

Medium Yes Guidance has been added to the 

uncertainty section (Section 2.1.1.3) 

indicating that site-specific dosimetry data 

may be available in the site profile. 

6.0 IG-001, Appendix B, posterioranterior (PA) geometry DCFs are 

in error and underestimate dose. 

(Finding IG-001-12) 

High No There has been no modification 

introduced into Revision 2 of IG-001 to 

either address the fact that the PA 

geometry DCFs are in error and should 

not be used or recommend the use of a 

dosimeter location correction factor. A 

more detailed discussion of this issue is 

provided below under Review Objective 

6.0 comments. 

6.0 IG-001, Appendix B, rotational 

and isotropic geometry DCFs are 

in error and underestimate dose. 

(Finding IG-001-13) 

High Yes IG-001, Rev. 2 has introduced a new 

discussion and table of correction factors 

to be applied to rotational and isotropic 

DCFs for bone (surface), bone (red 

marrow), esophagus, and lung. 

6.0 Angular sensitivity not accounted 

for in ‘correcting’ measured film 

or TLD values. (Finding IG-001-

14) 

High Yes A paragraph discussing angular response 

of dosimeters has been added to Section 

4.0 of IG-001, Rev.2. New guidance 

directs the dose reconstructor to sitespecific documentation. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 28 of 290 

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 2.1-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Review 

Objective 

OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected 

in Rev. 2? Comments 

6.0 Environmental uncertainty (i.e., 

heat, humidity, light, etc.) was not 

addressed (Finding IG-001-16) 

Medium No There has been no discussion added to the 

revision of IG-001 that addresses 

environmental uncertainties. A further 

discussion of this issue is provided below 

under Review Objective 6.0 comments. 

6.0 Guidance for the selection of 

uncertainty distributions for total 

organ dose raises question of 

consistency and requires 

professional judgment. (Finding 

IG-001-17) 

Medium No Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of IG-001, Rev. 2 

have been modified by eliminating 

previously cited examples, figures, and 

references to statistical software for 

determining uncertainty distribution for 

total organ dose. However, this change 

does not resolve the issue of consistency 

or address the need for professional 

judgment. In fact, the elimination of the 

examples and figures may have further 

complicated this issue. A more detailed 

discussion of the selection of uncertainty 

distributions is provided below under 

Review Objective 6.0 comments. 

Table 2.1-2: OCAS-IG-001 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2 Effective Date: 08/25/2006

Document Title: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline

Auditor: Kathleen Behling

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 3 See Review 

Comments

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 29 of 290 

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 2.1-2: OCAS-IG-001 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2 Effective Date: 08/25/2006

Document Title: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline

Auditor: Kathleen Behling

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 See Review Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 4 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 30 of 290 

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 2.1-2: OCAS-IG-001 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2 Effective Date: 08/25/2006

Document Title: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline

Auditor: Kathleen Behling

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 3 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 4 See Review Comments 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.1.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

SC&A’s review of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1, identified several deficiencies regarding the clarity 

and structure of the document that NIOSH indicated would be modified in a subsequent revision 

of the implementation guide. One of these deficiencies identified the fact that the document 

contained excessive amounts of data that are not only of limited use to the dose reconstructors, 

but are time consuming to read and reduce the clarity of the guidance. Revision 2 of IG-001 has 

eliminated much of the excessive data and generally improved the clarity of the document. 

Review Objective 1.2 

Another deficiency that was identified under the Revision 1 review was the fragmented structure 

and illogical sequencing of information. For example, in order to reconstruct photon doses, the 

dose reconstructor is required to consult (1) Section 2.0 for a discussion of monitoring data, (2) 

Section 3.0, which provides guidance on handling incomplete, missing, or no monitoring photon 

data, and (3) Section 4.0 for a guidance on converting photon dose to organ dose. During the 

findings resolutions process, NIOSH agreed that SC&A’s comments were constructive and 

future revisions would include a change to the structure of the document. However, no such 

modifications were introduced into Revision 2 of IG-001. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 31 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 1.3 

Review Objective 1.3 addresses the need for this guidance document to be complete and require 

minimum additional data in order to reconstruct external doses. SC&A’s review of IG-001, 

Rev. 1, identified guidance that required the dose reconstructor to obtain data pertaining to 

(1) film and TLD dosimeter uncertainty, (2) neutron dose evaluations from source term, and 

(3) occupational medical data that would not be available to the dose reconstructor. Since the 

publication of Revision 1 of IG-001, site-specific documents (i.e., Site Profiles) have been 

developed for most of the DOE sites, as well as numerous OTIBs, which are used to support the 

more general guidance provided in IG-001. By referencing these technical and site-specific 

documents, Revision 2 of IG-001 has resolved two of the three concerns raised by SC&A 

previously identified under Review Objective 1.3. The area where NIOSH did not provide 

improved guidance is with regard to the assessment of neutron doses using source term data, 

which is discussed in more detail under Review Objective 5.0 below. Revision 2 simply 

removes the equation for calculating neutron fluence (Section 3.2.3.2); however, the 

methodology for assessing neutron dose from source term has not been changed. The revision 

also neglects to direct the dose reconstructor to site-specific documentation for additional 

information. 

Review Objective 1.5 

Review Objective 1.5 evaluates whether the guidance document is sufficiently prescriptive to 

minimize the need for subjective decisions. During our issues resolution process for findings 

identified in Revision 1, NIOSH indicated that the IG-001 guidance could be useful in 

preparation of technical documents (e.g., TBDs, OTIBs, procedures, etc.), which would provide 

more detailed guidance for the dose reconstructor. As discussed under Review Objective 1.3 

comments above, many technical and site-specific documents have been published since the 

release of IG-001, Rev. 2. However, Revision 2 of IG-001 does not consistently direct the dose 

reconstructor to these technical documents. 

Review Objectives 4.1 and 7.1 

Review Objectives 4.1 and 7.1 involve an evaluation of whether the implementation guide 

provides a prescriptive, sufficiently detailed, and consistent approach to dose reconstruction. 

SC&A recognizes that IG-001 was designed to provide general guidance and was intended to 

assist qualified health physicists in determining annual organ dose from external radiation, as 

opposed to providing step-by-step instructions. However, since this guidance is not intended to 

be prescriptive or overly detailed, the implementation guide should direct the dose reconstructor 

to technical and site-specific documentation, which were designed to provide more specific 

guidance. 

Review Objective 5.2 

In SC&A’s review of IG-001, Rev. 1, we identified some statements under Section 2.2.2.1 

Missed Dose regarding neutron exposures that were incorrect and conflict with site-specific 

documents. SC&A also identified the fact that the implementation guide did not acknowledge 

the use of neutron-to-photon ratios for estimated neutron doses. During the issues resolution 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 32 of 290 

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. 

process, NIOSH agreed with these findings and indicated that IG-001 would be revised to reflect 

the use of neutron-to-photon ratios. Although IG-001, Rev. 2, has removed the conflicting and 

erroneous statements, there was no discussion added regarding neutron-to-photon ratios. 

Review Objectives 6.1 and 6.2 

Under Review Objectives 6.0, the implementation guide is evaluated for its ability to provide 

guidance on dose estimate uncertainty. Our review of Revision 1 identified six separate issues 

under this objective, which NIOSH agreed to resolve in a future revision of IG-001. Three of 

these findings, however, have not been addressed in Revision 2. The unresolved findings 

include (1) all DCFs associated with posterior to anterior (PA) geometries in Appendix B of 

Revision 1 are in error and underestimate the dose, (2) environmental uncertainty associated with 

dosimeters (i.e., heat, humidity, light) was not addressed, and (3) guidance for selection of 

uncertainty distributions raises questions of consistency and required professional judgment. 

These three issues are discussed in more detail below. 

DCFs for PA Geometries. SC&A concluded that DCF values provided for PA geometries for 

photons and neutrons were measured with the dosimeter worn on the posterior of the individual. 

Since personnel dosimeters at the DOE facilities were commonly worn on the chest (anterior), all 

PA DCFs underestimate the dose. This dose underestimate is particularly pronounced when the 

organ of interest is the female breast, male testes, eye, and thyroid. Although SC&A 

acknowledges that the PA geometry is typically not prescribed as a common exposure 

orientation, NIOSH should have either identified the problem and recommended a badge 

placement correction factor, as they did for erroneous isotropic and rotational DCFs, or 

eliminated the use of PA geometry altogether. 

Environmental Uncertainty Associated with Dosimeters. In Revision 1 of IG-001, 

Section 2.1.1.3.1 states that uncertainty in the environmental component of personal dosimeters 

will be discussed in Section 2.1.3. However, Section 2.1.3 of Revision 1 provides a discussion 

of occupational medical dose and Section 2.1.4 discusses environmental dose. There is no 

discussion of the environmental component of personal dosimeters in IG-001, Rev. 1. During 

the findings resolution process, NIOSH acknowledged that this analysis was erroneously omitted 

and agreed to revise IG-001. However, Revision 2 does not include any discussion of 

environmental uncertainty associated with film dosimeters and the reference to the topic in 

Section 2.1.1.3.1 has not been changed. 

Uncertainty Distributions. SC&A’s review of IG-001, Rev. 1, questioned whether the guidance 

for determining organ dose uncertainty distributions could lead to inconsistencies and required 

professional judgment that may go beyond the knowledge and experience of the average dose 

reconstructor. NIOSH’s resolution of this finding was to eliminate (1) an example of calculating 

total external organ dose, (2) figures that illustrated uncertainty for each of the external dose 

components, and (3) references to statistical software in Section 5.0, Annual Organ Dose & 

Distribution, of Revision 2. SC&A believes that the revision to IG-001 should have directed the 

dose reconstructor to applicable technical and site-specific documents, which provide clear 

guidance on the selection of uncertainty distribution for dosimeter, missed, occupational medical, 

and onsite ambient doses. In addition, Revision 2 should have identified the fact that 

calculational tools (workbooks) have been developed for best-estimate cases that automate the 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 33 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

process of determining dose uncertainty using Monte Carlo sampling techniques. The use of 

these calculational tools eliminates inconsistencies and the need for professional judgment. 

Lastly, it is SC&A’s opinion that the examples and figures initially cited in Revision 1 of IG-001 

should not have been removed and were useful in providing an understanding of the combined 

uncertainty for all external dose components. 

2.1.4 Conclusions 

Revision 2 of OCAS-IG-001 External Dose Reconstruction Guideline was issued primarily in 

response to SC&A’s review of Revision 1 of this implementation guide. During our initial 

evaluation, SC&A identified 15 findings, which NIOSH agreed to resolve in a future revision. 

Our review of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2, identified that NIOSH has not resolved three of the fifteen 

Revision 1 findings and has partially resolved three additional findings. Of the six issues that 

were not appropriately addressed in OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2, only one finding (i.e., erroneous PA 

geometry DCFs) was ranked as a high priority by the Advisory Board. 

In general, SC&A believes that the modifications introduced into OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2, 

improve the guidance document and have corrected many previous findings. We would suggest, 

however, that the remaining unresolved Revision 1 findings be addressed in a future revision of 

the implementation guide. 

2.2 OCAS-PER-003: EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF ADDING INGESTION 

INTAKES TO BETHLEHEM STEEL CASES 

The review of OCAS-PER-003, Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to 

Bethlehem Steel Cases, Rev. 0, dated January 28 2005, was prepared by Robert Barton. 

2.2.1 Purpose of Program Evaluation Report 

The stated purpose of this Program Evaluation Report (hereafter referred to as the PER in this 

review) is as follows: 

On 3/31/2003 NIOSH completed a Technical Basis Document assessing 

exposures to uranium at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation facility. The original 

document did not assess the intakes of uranium through an ingestion route. The 

document has since been revised on 6/29/2004 to include this exposure pathway. 

The purpose of this PER is to evaluate the effect on this additional intake on 

previously completed claims. (OCAS-PER-003, pg. 1) 

2.2.2 Review Protocol 

Our evaluation of OCAS-PER-003 is summarized in Table 2.2-1 below. Table 2.2-1 presents a 

checklist containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether a Program Evaluation 

Report adequately supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to 

this report.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 34 of 290 

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 2.2-1: OCAS-PER-003 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-003, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 01/28/2005

Document Title: Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to Bethlehem Steel Cases

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review Comments

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? N/A 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A See Review 

Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 35 of 290 

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 2.2-1: OCAS-PER-003 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-003, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 01/28/2005

Document Title: Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to Bethlehem Steel Cases

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 3 See Review Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.2.3 General Comments 

There have been three versions of the site profile for the Bethlehem Steel plant to date: 

ORAUT-TKBS-0001 Rev. 00, ORAUT-TKBS-0001 Rev. 01, and OCAS-TKBS-0003, which 

represents the most recent site profile. The purpose of this PER is to analyze the affect on dose 

reconstruction calculations (particularly the probability of causation) from the source of 

ingestion that was added to ORAUT-TKBS-0001, Rev. 01. This treatment does not utilize the 

most recent intake parameters as found in the OCAS document and so the applicability of the 

treatment found in this PER is no longer the current standard. However, a separate PER report 

has been generated (PER-007) which deals with the changes of the most recent site profile and 

will be reviewed in another section. Therefore, this review will concentrate on the validation of 

PER-003’s conclusions in reference to the two older site profiles it references, and will not deal 

with any comparisons to the newer profile. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 36 of 290 

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. 

2.2.4 Review Comments 

Review Comment 1.2 

The title of the PER, Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to Bethlehem Steel 

Cases, is misleading, as the PER does not deal solely with the ingestion component. The 

conclusions of the PER relate not only to the addition of the ingestion component, as prescribed 

in Revision 01, but also recalculates the probability of causation including the updated 

occupational x-ray data. The analysis of the ingestion component merely acts as a method to 

develop which cases should be recalculated. A more appropriate title would be: Evaluation of 

the Effect of Revision 01 of the Site Profile on Previously Completed Bethlehem Steel Cases. 

Review Comment 1.3 

The PER does not specify which specific intake parameters it utilizes in determining the annual 

percent increase in dose. In ORAUT-TKBS-0001, Revisions 00 and 01, the inhalation 

parameters are given in two tables that represent the high-sided and low-sided estimates for 

annual dose. In addition, each table represents a triangular distribution and so lists a non-zero 

mode, as well as a maximum value. Therefore, there are four possible inhalation intake 

parameters listed in addition to the possible use of the average and median intake values that can 

be calculated from the distribution. Ingestion intakes are found in only one table, which, 

likewise, contains a mode and maximum value. It would be much easier to independently verify 

the results of the PER if the specific intake parameters used in determining the percent increase 

in dose were stated explicitly. 

Review Comment 6.1 

In recalculating the probability of causation (POC) for the individuals deemed effected by the 

change in dose reconstruction, the PER states that: 

Once the new dose values were entered, the POC calculation was run 30 times 

with a different random seed value each time. This was done in order to produce 

a more precise POC by minimizing minor fluctuations attributable to the 

computation rather than the actual uncertainty in the POC. The average of 

30 runs is reported in the table below. (PER-003, pg. 3) 

It is not immediately clear why 30 runs would significantly reduce computational errors 

associated with the POC calculation, nor why the average was taken instead of the 90th or 95th

percentile value. After further investigation, it appears this method stems from the IREP User’s 

Guide (NIOSH 2007, pg. 14). This document should be referenced in the PER report so that the 

use of the average of 30 runs does not appear as a discretionary choice. Furthermore, this 

document specifies that the arithmetic mean of the 99% confidence level is to be utilized; this 

additional information concerning the “average” value should be added to the PER. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 37 of 290 

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. 

Review Comment 7.3 

Selection of Absorption Type 

The PER states that it will select the most claimant-favorable absorption type based on the organ 

of interest; specifically, it will utilize absorption Type M for non-respiratory tract organs and 

Type S for respiratory organs. SC&A calculated the cumulative dose through 2002 for all organs 

using both absorption types. The PER assertion is correct in all cases except for the respiratory 

tract organ, ET1, which showed Type M dominance. The dose for ET1 when calculated for 

Type M was generally a factor of 4 higher than the Type S dose. 

Methodology and Conclusions of the PER 

The PER uses the largest assumed difference to calculate the effect this change has on previously 

calculated POCs. The largest assumed differences were 5.62% for tissues associated with the GI 

tract, 0.62% for respiratory tract doses, and 0.94% for all other doses. For example, with an 

increase of 5.62%, the claimant would have to have had an original POC of 48.6% in order to 

reach a new POC equal to 50%, 

The PER then identifies seven claimants who had a POC in the range of 40-50% from December 

2004. Of these seven, one already included the ingestion dose in the original POC calculation, 

five had POC’s sufficiently below 50% that the addition of ingestion dose would not have 

brought them to 50%, and only one of the seven claims had a POC close enough to 50% that 

using the maximum percent increase (5.62%) would bring them equal to or above 50%. The 

PER then recalculates the POC with the added ingestion dose and consideration for the updated 

occupational x-ray information specified in Revision 01. Table 1 of the PER, summarizing this 

concept, is copied below in Table 2.2-2. 

Table 2.2-2: Copy of OCAS-PER-003, Table 1 

Claim 

Identification Cancer Type Original POC New POC 

A Chronic Myelocytic Leukemia 44.90 % 43.72 % 

B Kidney 46.36 % 45.72 % 

C Rectum/Kidney 49.42 % combined 49.11 % 

combined 

D Testis 47.53 % 46.37 % 

E Chronic and Acute Myelomonocytic 

Leukemia 

48.32 % combined 46.53% 

combined 

F Kidney 49.27 % 47.11 % 

As one can see in the above table, all of the cases involve non-respiratory tract cancers. 

Therefore, the maximum percent increase for the GI tract organs (5.62%) and all other nonrespiratory tract organs (0.94%) would apply. Given this information, only claim “F” would 

result in a POC equal to or greater than 50% when the original POC is used. However, when the 

new POC is calculated with the updated x-ray dose, the POC falls to 47.11% and so the addition 

of the ingestion dose would not bring this POC up to 50% or greater. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 38 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

Verification of PER Methodology

The following treatment will use the intake parameters specified in ORAUT-TKBS-0001, 

Rev. 01, and use the methodology outlined in the PER to calculate the increase in dose caused by 

the addition of the ingestion component (the inhalation parameters for Rev. 00 and Rev. 01 are 

identical). The site profile specifies that cases where it is suspected that the claimant will be 

below a 50% POC, the inhalation values found in Table 3 (ORAUT-TKBS-0001, pg. 5) should 

be used. Since the effect of the additional ingestion intake would only be relevant to this type of 

claimant, the following treatment will also assume the inhalation intakes of Table 3. The 

ingestion intakes were taken from Table 4 of the TBD. All intake values used in the IMBA 

calculation are listed in Table 2.2-3. 

Table 2.2-3: Intake Values of ORAUT-TKBS-0001 Used in 

IMBA Calculations 

Daily Intake (pCi/day)* 

Intake Year Maximum Median 

Inhalation Ingestion Inhalation Ingestion 

1949 17,781 466 5,217 137 

1950 17,781 466 5,217 137 

1951 19,261 493 5,651 145 

1952 16,301 411 4,783 121 

* To convert to dpm/day multiply by 2.22. 

The source radionuclide was assumed to be entirely U-234, an assumption often employed by the 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project (see ORAUT-OTIB-0004 pg 9). The dose was then 

calculated for various organs using both Type M and Type S absorptions; the absorption type 

that produced the maximum cumulative dose for each organ was used. To determine the 

percentage increase in adding the ingestion dose, the following formula was utilized: 

Percent Increase = 100*[((Combined Dose)-(Inhalation Only Dose))/ 

(Inhalation Only Dose)] 

In order to compare those values developed in the PER, each stated value of “percent increase” 

found on page 2 of the PER will be compared to those values calculated via IMBA and displayed 

in Table 2.2-4. It is clear from the table that the use of both the maximum and median intake 

values yielded similar results.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 39 of 290 

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 2.2-4: Comparison of PER-Developed Results to IMBA Findings 

PER Assumptions 

(found on page 2) 

IMBA Finding for Maximum Dose IMBA Finding for Median Dose 

“The highest increase in dose 

occurred in the first year of 

exposure for all organs other than 

the respiratory tract.” 

True for all organs dominated by 

Type M absorptions with the 

exception of the anterior nose (ET1), 

which had its highest increase in 

1998. 

True for all organs dominated by 

Type M absorptions with the 

exception of ET1 that had its highest 

increase in 1997. 

“The difference in respiratory tract 

dose continued to increase through 

2002, the largest difference being 

0.62% increase in the ET2 

compartment.” 

Organs dominated by Type S 

absorptions showed general increase 

as time passed; however, once 

reaching a certain maximum would 

fluctuate around that value. The 

largest increase was 0.79%, which 

occurred to the posterior nose, 

larynx, pharynx, mouth (ET2) and 

the basal cells of the bronchial region 

(BBbas). 

Organs dominated by Type S 

absorptions showed general increase 

as time passed; however, once 

reaching a certain maximum would 

fluctuate around that value. The 

largest increase was 0.758% that 

occurred to the ET2, BBbas and 

secretory cells of the bronchial 

region (BBsec). 

“The majority of organs had an 

increased dose of approximately 

0.94% in the first year and quickly 

decreased to a 0.74% increase.” 

In agreement with PER findings. In agreement with PER findings. 

“The largest difference in dose was 

found in the lower large intestine 

(LLI) tissue. The largest increase in 

dose to the LLI was 5.62%, 

occurred in the first year.” 

The largest difference in dose was to 

the lower large intestine (LLI) tissue 

in the first year. This percent 

increase was 5.48% 

The largest difference in dose was to 

the lower large intestine (LLI) tissue 

in the first year. This percent 

increase was 5.52% 

Implications of the IMBA Generated Values for the PER 

The largest IMBA calculated percent increase using both the maximum and median intake 

parameters was lower than 5.62% for GI tract tissues (IMBA calculated them at 5.48% for the 

maximum and 5.52% for the median), and the IMBA analysis agreed well for all other nonrespiratory tract organs as using an increase of approximately 0.94%. Therefore, the conclusions 

of the PER are consistent with findings of this review. It should be noted, however, that the 

largest increase for respiratory tract organs (those dominated by Type S) was calculated using 

IMBA to be 3.45% and 3.41% for the median and maximum intakes; these are much larger than 

the PER-based value of 0.65%. However, none of the claims previously calculated as being 

between 40-50% were for respiratory tract doses, and so this does not affect the conclusions of 

the PER. 

2.2.5 References 

NIOSH 2007. User’s Guide for the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (NIOSH-IREP) 

Version 5.5.1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Prepared by SENES Oak 

Ridge, Inc. January 2007. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 40 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

OCAS-PER-003. 2005. Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to Bethlehem Steel 

Cases, Rev. 0, January 28, 2005. Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Program 

Evaluation Report: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

OCAS-PER-007. 2006. Evaluation of the Effect of Revision 2 of the Site Profile on Previously 

Completed Bethlehem Steel Cases, Rev. 0, November 9, 2006. Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support, Program Evaluation Report: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

OCAS-TKBS-0003. 2006. Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an Exposure 

Matrix for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York; Period of Operation: 1949–

1952, Rev. 00, July 27, 2006. Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS): 

Cincinnati, Ohio. July 27, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0004. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Estimating the Maximum 

Plausible Dose to Workers at Atomic Weapons Employers Facilities, Rev. 03 PC-2, December 6, 

2006. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0001. 2004. Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an 

Exposure Matrix for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York; Period of 

Operations: 1949-1952, Rev. 01, June 29, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

(ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

2.3 OCAS-PER-004: APPLICATION OF PHOTOFLUOROGRAPHY AT THE 

PINELLAS PLANT 

The review of OCAS-PER-004: Application of Photofluorography at the Pinellas Plant, Rev. 0, 

dated February 15, 2005, was prepared by Harry J. Pettengill, PhD. 

2.3.1 Purpose of the Program Evaluation Report 

The purpose of this report was to re-evaluate previously completed cases for the Pinellas Plant to 

assure that claimant files properly assessed occupational medical doses, given the new 

information indicating that photofluorography may have been used and contributed to potential 

claimant doses. Prior reviews of claims before February 15, 2005 did not assume that 

photofluorography was used at Pinellas Plant. The observation of a photofluorography film in a 

claimant’s file on January 23, 2005, necessitated the re-evaluation of prior claims.

2.3.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of PER-004 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist containing 

objectives that SC&A has developed to evaluate whether the Evaluation Report adequately 

supports dose reconstruction of potentially missed dose for Pinellas Plant claimants.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 41 of 290 

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 2.3-1: OCAS-PER-004 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-004, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 02/15/2005

Document Title: Application of Photofluorography at the Pinellas Plant

Auditor: Harry J. Pettengill, Ph.D.

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 42 of 290 

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 2.3-1: OCAS-PER-004 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-004, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 02/15/2005

Document Title: Application of Photofluorography at the Pinellas Plant

Auditor: Harry J. Pettengill, Ph.D.

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.3.3 General Comments 

The evaluation was necessitated to determine if prior claims would have been approved (i.e., 

exceeded 50% POC) if the original dose reconstruction had considered a higher dose due to the 

potential use of photofluorography. A search of prior claims by NIOSH showed that 11 prior 

claims should be re-evaluated. 

Our review found that the evaluation of prior claims properly assessed the potential added 

contribution to dose to all organs that would have been exposed had a photofluorographic chest 

exam been provided. The newly calculated organ dose was then applied to the 11 potential 

claims to determine if the new calculation would result in a POC of greater than 50% when 

applied to the diagnosed cancer reported by the claimant. 

The approach being applied was referenced to and is totally consistent with ORAUT PROC0061, Rev. 00 (December 1, 2004): Occupational X-ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites and 

also ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 03 PC-1 (December 21, 2005): Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures. It is noteworthy that OTIB-0006 has been 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 43 of 290 

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. 

revised three times since its publication; however, these revisions would not affect a change in 

these claims’ re-evaluations. Consistent with OTIB-0006, Rev. 3, this review considered that 

photofluorography may have been used prior to 1960 and a conservative dose estimate was used. 

 

2.3.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.2 

OCAS-PR-008 provides guidance on the preparation of PERs, including specifying a six section 

format to be followed. The structure of PER-004 does not strictly follow the guidance provided 

by PR-008. In particular, PER-004 has a single Evaluation section, rather than separate Issue 

and Probability of Causation Evaluations. 

2.3.5 Conclusions 

As a consequence of the PER, the Pinellas Medical TBD section of the site profile was revised to 

ensure that all future claims would consider the potential dose from photofluorographic exams 

prior to 1960. The result of the evaluation report demonstrates that all prior claimants that had 

not exceeded a POC factor 50% still did not exceed that value after dose re-calculation. This 

evaluation assures that Pinellas’ future claimants will have their medical dose calculated in a 

manner that is claimant favorable, and is totally consistent to other sites where the use of 

photofluorography cannot be excluded. 

2.3.6 References 

OCAS-PER-004. 2005. Application of Photofluorography at the Pinellas Plant, Rev. 0, Office 

of Compensation Analysis and Support, Program Evaluation Report: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

February 15, 2005. 

OCAS-PR-008. 2006. Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation 

Plans, Rev. 2, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Program Evaluation Report: 

Cincinnati, Ohio. December 6, 2006. 

ORAUT-PROC-0061. 2004. Occupational X-ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, Rev. 00, 

December 1, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Cincinnati, Ohio. 

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

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures, Rev. 03 PC-1, December 21, 2005. Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

2.4 OCAS-PER-006: EXTERNAL DOSIMETRY TARGET ORGAN FOR 

PROSTATE CANCER 

The review of OCAS-PER-006, External Dosimetry Target Organ for Prostate Cancer, Rev. 0, 

dated September 15, 2006, was prepared by Stephen F. Marschke. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 44 of 290 

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. 

2.4.1 Purpose of the Program Evaluation Report 

The purpose of OCAS-PER-006 was to evaluate the impact on completed dose reconstructions 

of changing the prostate’s surrogate target organ from the testes to the bladder.

2.4.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OCAS-PER-006 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A has developed to evaluate whether the Evaluation Report 

performs its intended purpose. 

Table 2.4-1: OCAS-PER-006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-006, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 09/15/2006

Document Title: External Dosimetry Target Organ for Prostate Cancer

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 45 of 290 

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 2.4-1: OCAS-PER-006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-006, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 09/15/2006

Document Title: External Dosimetry Target Organ for Prostate Cancer

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

under the Privacy Act? 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 See Review 

Comments

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.4.3 General Comments 

OCAS-PER-006 does not evaluate the appropriateness of changing the prostate’s surrogate organ 

from the testes to the bladder. Rather, it assesses the impact of that change on previously 

performed dose reconstructions. Similarly, this review of OCAS-PER-006 does not evaluate the 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 46 of 290 

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. 

appropriateness of using the bladder as the prostate’s surrogate organ. As OCAS-PER-006 

indicates, NIOSH’s guidance on target organ selection is provided in OCAS-IG-001 and 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. SC&A has reviewed both these documents, and those reviews show that 

SC&A agrees with the use of the bladder as the surrogate organ for the prostate. 

2.4.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.2 

OCAS-PR-008 provides guidance on the preparation of PERs, including specifying a six-section 

format to be followed. The structure of PER-0006 does not strictly follow the guidance provided 

by PR-008. In particular, PER-006 has a single Evaluation section, rather than separate Issue 

and Probability of Causation Evaluation sections, and its Summary section is missing. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Since the prostate is deep in the body cavity and would not be exposed to non-penetrating 

radiation, the use of the testes as a surrogate organ, which are very close to the body surface, 

would result in a significant and unrealistic overestimate of the prostate exposure to external beta 

and low energy photon radiation. Hence, SC&A concurs that the bladder, which is deep in the 

body cavity and close to the prostate, is a more appropriate surrogate for the prostate, as 

compared to the testes. Federal Guidance Report (FGR) 12, Tables II.4 through II.16, present 

organ dose factors, including testes and urinary bladder, due to various external exposure 

configurations. Table reproduces four of the FGR tables, and demonstrates the scientific validity 

of the PER-006 statement, i.e., for all four Table cases, the testes and bladder FGR 12 dose 

factors for the highest energy photons are nearly the same, while for the lowest energy photons, 

the four bladder factors are about 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the testes factors. 

Table 2.4-2: Federal Guidance Report 12 Testes and Bladder Dose From External Exposure 

Semi-infinite Cloud 

Source Infinite Pool Source Plane Source at the Air-ground Interface 

Source Uniformly 

Distributed to an 

Infinite Depth 

(Gy per Bq s m-3) (Gy per Bq s m-3) (Gy per Bq s m-2) (Gy per Bq s m-3) 

FGR 12, Table II.4 FGR 12, Table II.5 FGR 12, Table II.6 FGR 12, Table II.15 

Photon 

Energy 

(MeV) 

TESTES BLADDER TESTES BLADDER TESTES BLADDER TESTES BLADDER 

0.010 6.587E-19 8.251E-21 1.521E-21 1.905E-23 3.597E-19 2.426E-21 7.714E-23 4.235E-25 

0.015 2.666E-17 6.043E-19 6.233E-20 1.412E-21 9.241E-18 1.360E-19 3.982E-21 5.153E-23 

0.020 1.296E-16 1.220E-17 3.050E-19 2.861E-20 2.566E-17 2.367E-18 2.289E-20 1.637E-21 

0.030 5.509E-16 1.616E-16 1.297E-18 3.778E-19 4.481E-17 1.479E-17 1.074E-19 2.863E-20 

0.050 1.689E-15 9.478E-16 3.919E-18 2.173E-18 5.672E-17 3.808E-17 4.411E-19 2.570E-19 

0.070 2.857E-15 1.947E-15 6.522E-18 4.392E-18 6.917E-17 5.672E-17 9.841E-19 6.965E-19 

0.100 4.432E-15 3.337E-15 9.968E-18 7.432E-18 9.669E-17 8.493E-17 2.005E-18 1.542E-18 

0.200 9.354E-15 7.432E-15 2.062E-17 1.630E-17 1.996E-16 1.715E-16 5.582E-18 4.470E-18 

0.500 2.341E-14 1.940E-14 5.099E-17 4.215E-17 5.197E-16 4.550E-16 1.663E-17 1.311E-17 

1.000 4.859E-14 3.973E-14 1.054E-16 8.606E-17 1.004E-15 8.783E-16 3.518E-17 2.950E-17 

2.000 1.014E-13 9.174E-14 2.195E-16 1.985E-16 1.830E-15 1.805E-15 7.718E-17 6.564E-17 

5.000 2.818E-13 2.530E-13 6.145E-16 5.516E-16 3.965E-15 4.038E-15 1.997E-16 1.806E-16 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 47 of 290 

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. 

2.4.5 Conclusions 

SC&A agrees with the statement made in PER-006 that: 

The change in prostate surrogate organ from testes to bladder will result in lower 

organ doses, and consequently lower POC [probability of causation] values. 

Therefore, this change will not result in an increase in POC value for any 

completed claims, and no cases will need to be re-evaluated. (PER-006, pg. 2) 

2.4.6 References 

OCAS-IG-001. 2002. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 01, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH), Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

OCAS-PER-006. 2006. External Dosimetry Target Organ for Prostate Cancer, Rev. 0, Office 

of Compensation Analysis and Support: Cincinnati, Ohio. September 15, 2006. 

OCAS-PR-008. 2006. Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation 

Plans, Rev. 2, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Program Evaluation Report: 

Cincinnati, Ohio. December 6, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2006. IMBA Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model 

Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. February 10, 2006. 

ORAUT-PROC-0003, 2003. Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 0, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1, 2003. 

FGR 12, 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil, Keith F. Eckerman 

and Jeffrey C. Ryman, Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93-081. September 1993. 

2.5 OCAS-PER-007: EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF REVISION 2 OF THE 

SITE PROFILE ON PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED BETHLEHEM STEEL CASES 

The review of OCAS-PER-007, Rev. 0, dated November 9, 2006, was prepared by Robert 

Barton. 

2.5.1 Purpose of the Program Evaluation Report 

The stated purpose of this PER is as follows: 

...to evaluate the magnitude of the effect these changes [to the Bethlehem Steel 

Site Profile] made on the probability of causation for previously reconstructed 

cases. That is, all cases reconstructed using the previous version of the site 

technical basis document were evaluated to determine if the magnitude of the 

change in dose is sufficient to move the probability of causation (PC) to greater 

than or equal to 50% at the 99% credibility interval. (PER-007, pg. 2) 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 48 of 290 

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. 

2.5.2 Review Protocol 

The SC&A evaluation of OCAS-PER-007, Evaluation of the Effect of Revision 2 of the Site 

Profile on Previously Completed Bethlehem Steel Cases, Rev. 0, is summarized in Table. This 

table presents a checklist containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether a 

procedure adequately supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction 

to this report. All instances in which the procedure was found to be deficient are explained in the 

subsequent text. 

Table 2.5-1: OCAS-PER-007 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-007, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 11/09/2006

Document Title: Evaluation of the Effect of Revision 2 of the Site Profile on Previously Completed 

Bethlehem Steel Cases

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 2 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review Comments 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

3 See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 2 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A See Review 

Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 49 of 290 

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 2.5-1: OCAS-PER-007 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PER-007, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 11/09/2006

Document Title: Evaluation of the Effect of Revision 2 of the Site Profile on Previously Completed 

Bethlehem Steel Cases

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.5.3 General Comments 

The PER identifies two major changes in the site profile that would have a significant effect on 

previously performed dose reconstructions. In order to estimate the effect that this will have on 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 50 of 290 

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. 

the “Probability of Causation” (POC), the PER establishes the relationship between the increase 

in dose values and the “Excess Relative Risk” (ERR). The PER states the following relation: 

POC=ERR/(1+ERR)*100% 

The PER also states that the “ERR varies essentially linearly with the dose” (PER-007, pg. 3). 

Therefore, a difference in the POC value can be obtained by estimating the change in the 

excessive relative risk based on the difference between doses. 

The PER identifies several groups of workers who would be affected by the changes to the site 

profile in different ways. The first class, denoted as Category 1, would be the group affected by 

the change to the external shallow dose parameters. The PER also identifies three classes of 

workers who would be impacted by the change in internal dose parameters; these are denoted as 

Categories 2–4. Category 2 deals with workers who were present for all 4 years, and 

Categories 3 and 4 deal with workers who were present for only the first 2 years or last 2 years, 

respectively. 

2.5.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

The PER does not specify which intake parameters were utilized to calculate the dose from the 

original site profile. The original site profile (ORAUT-TKBS-0001 Rev. 00) gives the inhalation 

values in two tables (Tables 2a and 2b on pp. 5 and 6). Each table represents a low-sided 

estimate of intake and a high-sided estimate of intake. The PER does specify that it used the 

median value for the defined triangular distribution; however, it does not specify whether it used 

the high-sided distribution or low-sided distribution. This is only an issue for the older site 

profiles, as the newer version (OCAS-TKBS-0003) gives a discrete value for the inhalation and 

ingestion intake. In addition, no guidance is given as to what absorption types were used in 

calculating the change in dose. A claimant-favorable method would be to use the maximizing 

absorption value for each organ under consideration. 

In addition, the PER compares the newer profile (Revision 2) to both of the previous versions of 

the profile (Revisions 0 and 1), and contains no additional discussion as to why one comparison 

was used over the other. Specifically, the PER compares Revision 2 to Revision 0 of the site 

profile for the workers classified as Categories 1 and 2, it compares Revision 2 to Revision 1 for 

workers classified as Category 4, and does not specify what comparison was made for 

Category 3. The main difference between Revision 0 and Revision 1 is that Revision 1 added an 

ingestion intake to the internal dose, while the inhalation intake values remain the same. It 

would be logical to compare Revision 2 to Revision 0 when considering cases where the 

claimants POC value is likely to increase (Categories 1–3), as this comparison would yield the 

larger percent difference in dose. Likewise, in cases where the original POC is going to be 

reduced (Category 4 worker), the use of Revision 1 instead of Revision 0 would yield a smaller 

percent difference in dose and therefore would benefit the claimants. Therefore, the PER would 

benefit from a brief discussion as to why each older site profile was selected. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 51 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 1.2 

OCAS-PR-008 provides guidance on the preparation of PERs, including specifying a six section 

format to be followed. The structure of PER-007 does not strictly follow the guidance provided 

by PR-008. In particular, PER-007 is missing the Resolution or Corrective Action section, and 

its Conclusion section should be entitled Summary. 

Review Objective 1.4 

The closest analog to PER-007 is PER-003, which actually deals with the effect that Revision 01 

of the Bethlehem Steel site profile had on dose reconstructions completed using Revision 00 (as 

opposed to this PER which deals with the effect of Revision 02). However, the methodology 

between the two documents does not match in a few key places. 

 

Specifically, PER-007 makes reference to the median intake values found in the older site 

profiles, while PER-003 does not specify how to interpret the various distributions. PER-003 

calculates the percent increase in dose for each organ and year and takes the maximum increase 

for three specific classes of cancer (GI tract tissues, respiratory cancers, all other non-respiratory 

cancers). PER-007 is not clear as to how the percent increase was reached for Categories 3 and 

4-type worker. PER-007 does, however, state that it used the maximum dose totaled to 4 years 

in developing its percent increase for Category 2 workers. PER-003 states that Type M 

absorptions should be used for non-respiratory tract tissues, Type S absorptions should be used 

for the respiratory tract, and an f(1) value of 0.02 should be used for both cases—PER-007 does 

not specify any of these parameters. 

Review Objective 1.5 

When describing the process of choosing threshold POC values for different categories of 

workers, the PER is not consistent in how it describes the results of its analysis. For example, 

the PER states that for Category 2 workers the intake parameters should be taken from Revision 

00 of the site profile, the doses were totaled after 4 years, the limiting organ was the liver, and 

the threshold POC was 41.49%. For Category 3 workers, it gives the threshold POC as 37.58%; 

however, it is not stated which version of the site profile should be used, what the limiting organ 

was, or at what point the doses were totaled. For Category 4 workers, it states to use Rev. 1 of 

the site profile; however, it does not list a limiting organ, threshold POC, or at what point the 

doses were totaled. Lack of a consistent format for developing and documenting the PER’s 

conclusions makes it difficult for independent verification of the methodology. 

Review Objective 7.3 

External Exposure Treatment for Category 1 Worker 

The Category 1 worker, as defined in the PER, is a worker who would be affected by the changes 

in the external treatment of dose, which include the addition of residual contamination and 

contaminated clothing for natural uranium. The exposure parameters shown in Table were 

considered. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 52 of 290 

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. 

Based on the average of the total shallow dose received, it was calculated that a POC of 36.56% 

would now result in a POC equal to or greater than 50%. This is in good agreement with the 

findings of the PER, which estimates the threshold POC value at 36.52%. No justification was 

given for using the median value for exposure, as opposed to the mean value. However, use of 

the mean value of the distribution results in a threshold POC of 37.38%, and so the use of the 

median value is a more claimant-favorable method. 

Table 2.5-2: External Exposure Parameters 

Rev. 02 Values (rem) 

Unat Dust Unat Direct 

Contact 

Residual 

Contamination 

Contaminated 

Clothing 

Total Shallow 

Dose 

1949 0.0020 5.4501 1.77 1.80 9.02 

1950 0.0020 5.4501 1.77 1.80 9.02 

1951 0.0010 5.9043 1.77 1.80 9.48 

1952 0.0000 6.8127 1.77 1.80 10.38 

Average: 9.48 

Rev. 00 Values (rem) 

Unat Dust Unat Direct 

Contact 

Residual 

Contamination 

Contaminated 

Clothing 

Total Shallow 

Dose 

1949 0.0028 5.4501 Not Treated Not Treated 5.45 

1950 0.0028 5.4501 Not Treated Not Treated 5.45 

1951 0.0030 5.9043 Not Treated Not Treated 5.91 

1952 0.0026 4.9960 Not Treated Not Treated 5.00 

Average: 5.45 

IMBA Treatment of Internal Dose 

The IMBA software was utilized by SC&A in its verification of the PER’s analysis on the effect 

of using the revised version of the site profile (OCAS-TKBS-0003) in regards to internal dose 

for both inhalation and ingestion of uranium. 

The IMBA analysis utilized the following intake parameters, which are found in Table. The 

ORAU ingestion parameters are italicized because they are only included in Revision 01 of the 

site profile and are not treated in Revision 00. 

Table 2.5-3: Intake Parameters Used in IMBA Treatment 

OCAS Rev. 02 ORAU Rev. 00, 01 

Exposure Period Inhalation Intake 

(dpm/day) 

Ingestion Intake 

(dpm/day) 

Inhalation Intake 

(dpm/day) 

Ingestion Intake 

(dpm/day) 

1/1/1949–12/31/1949 22043 2544 11581.2 303.58 

1/1/1950–12/31/1950 22043 2544 11581.2 303.58 

1/1/1951–9/30/1951 9864 1156 12544.83 321.43 

10/1/1951–12/31/1951 3288 385 12544.83 321.43 

1/1/1952–12/31/1952 3288 385 10617.59 267.86 

The doses were calculated for each year spanning from the first year of exposure (1949) through 

2002, for each organ allowed in the IMBA software. The dose was also calculated for both 

absorption Types “M” and “S,” where the maximum for a given organ and year was the value 

used. Each organ considered is listed in Table. The doses were summed at 4 years or 2 years 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 53 of 290 

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. 

after the initial exposure, based on what category of worker was being analyzed; in addition, the 

total dose for all the years leading up to 2002 was also considered. 

Table 2.5-4: Organs Considered in IMBA Analysis 

Adrenals Urinary Bladder Brain Breast Gall Bladder 

Heart Wall Kidneys Liver Muscle Ovaries 

Pancreas Testes Thyroid RBM Bone Surface 

Stomach SI ULI LLI Skin 

Spleen Thymus Uterus ET Lung 

Colon ET1 ET2 LN(ET) Bbsec 

Bbbas Bb AI LN(TH) Esophagus 

The results of this analysis, along with any associated PER generated component, are shown by 

worker category in Table through Table, below. 

Table 2.5-5: Category 2 Worker 

IMBA Analysis PER Analysis 

4-Year Total Dose Values 

Maximum Percent Difference 71% - 

Average Percent Difference 46% - 

Limiting Organ Lower Large Intestine Liver 

Threshold POC 36.92% 41.49% 

Total Dose Thru 2002 Values 

Maximum Percent Difference 30% - 

Average Percent Difference 24% - 

Limiting Organ Lower Large Intestine - 

Threshold POC 43.48% - 

Table 2.5-6: Category 3 Worker 

IMBA Analysis PER Analysis 

2-Year Total Dose Values 

Maximum Percent Difference 133.78% - 

Average Percent Difference 98.57% - 

Limiting Organ Lower Large Intestine Not Given 

Threshold POC 29.96% 37.58% 

Total Dose Thru 2002 Values 

Maximum Percent Difference 104.41% - 

Average Percent Difference 95.48% - 

Limiting Organ Lower Large Intestine - 

Threshold POC 32.85% - 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 54 of 290 

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 2.5-7: Category 4 Worker 

IMBA Analysis PER Analysis 

2-Year Total Dose Values 

Maximum Percent Difference - 49.58% - 

Average Percent Difference - 42.97% - 

Limiting Organ Bbsec Not Given 

Threshold POC 66.48% Not Given 

Total Dose Thru 2002 Values 

Maximum Percent Difference - 50.42% - 

Average Percent Difference - 49.24% - 

Limiting Organ ET - 

Threshold POC 66.85% - 

Implications of IMBA Analysis 

As shown in Table through Table, the IMBA analysis did not agree well with the conclusions of 

the PER. For worker Categories 2 and 3, the PER threshold POCs were 5% to 8% higher than 

those calculated using IMBA. This means that the Category 2 workers with POCs in the 36% to 

41% range would have been excluded from recalculation, as would the Category 3 workers with 

POCs in the 29% to 37% range. Judging by the values listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the PER, there 

is no clear-cut correlation between an older POC and the newer calculated POC. Therefore, it is 

recommended that OCAS revisit the analysis to include the workers falling into the lower POC 

threshold ranges. No threshold POC is given for Category 4 workers; however upon inspection 

of Table 3 of the PER it can be seen that the POC values ranged from 51%–80%. Since the 

IMBA-calculated POC was approximately 66%, this does not appear to be an issue; however, a 

more detailed discussion as to what criteria were used in the selection of Category 4 cases is 

warranted. 

The reason for the discrepancy between the IMBA and PER results is not clear. It may be 

attributable to the selection of absorption types, the specific organs used in the calculation, or 

inconsistencies related to data interpretation (see Sections 2.5.4.1-2 for discussion of 

inconsistent/missing methodology). One possible reason for the discrepancy could be related to 

the organs that were sampled (see Table for the Category 2 worker. The PER lists the limiting 

organ for the Category 2 worker as the liver. In the IMBA analysis, the liver did have an aboveaverage percent increase (58%), although it was still well below the maximizing increase for the 

LLI (71%). However, if the increase for the liver is assumed to be bounding, the resulting 

threshold POC is still only about 39%. This value is still below the 41.49% stated in the PER. 

Analysis of Cobble Cutters 

The PER has very little to say on the addition of separate inhalation values for workers who were 

designated as Cobble Cutters. In Section 2.0 of the PER it states: 

The intakes assigned to cobble cutters are higher than all others for the last 

two years of operation (1951 and 1952). If someone was exposed the entire 

four years, the non-cobble cutting exposure is bounding. (Per-007, pg. 2) 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 55 of 290 

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 the PER’s treatment of Category 3 workers (those assigned to the final 2 years of operation), it 

is not stated that it was assumed that a Cobble Cutter intake was used. Instead the PER states in 

Section 3.0: 

Since designating the employee as a cobble cutter could increase the PC if 

employment was not for the entire four years, cases in which this may have an 

affect were evaluated as both a cobble cutter and a non-cobble cutter. (PER-007, 

pg. 5) 

While this would appear to take care of the issue, the fact remains that it is not clear whether the 

cobble cutter intakes, when higher than non-cobble cutters, were used in determining the range 

of POC values to address. If the higher intakes were not used, then this would result in a smaller 

and less claimant-favorable pool of claims to recalculate. 

The second part of the statement asserts that maximum intake for workers who were present for 

all 4 years of operation is bounded by the non-cobble cutters. In order to verify this statement, 

SC&A performed a similar analysis as used in Section 2.7.4.2 to compare a Cobble Cutter 

worker, as defined in Revision 2 of the site profile, to the regular worker from Revision 0. The 

following intake parameters for the Cobble Cutter are shown in Table. 

Table 2.5-8: Intake for Cobble Cutters over 4 Years 

Inhalation Rate for (dpm/day) Time Period 

0.5 um Particles 5 um Particles 

Ingestion Rate 

(dpm/day) 

1/1/1949– 12/31/1949 4701.00 2572.00 2544.00 

1/1/1950– 12/31/1950 4701.00 2572.00 2544.00 

1/1/1951– 9/30/1951 5250.00 2470.00 1156.00 

10/1/1951– 12/31/1952 5625.00 2632.00 385.00 

The results of this analysis are shown in Table, along with the corresponding values associated 

for a Category 2 worker who was not a cobble cutter (found in Table 4 of this review). 

 

Table 2.5-9: Results of Cobble Cutter Analysis 

Cobble Cutter Non-Cobble Cutters 

4-Year Total Dose Values 

Maximum Percent Difference 32% 71% 

Average Percent Difference - 21% 46% 

Limiting Organ Bb Lower Large Intestine 

Threshold POC 43.14% 36.92% 

Total Dose Thru 2002 Values 

Maximum Percent Difference 32% 30% 

Average Percent Difference - 15% 24% 

Limiting Organ Bb Lower Large Intestine 

Threshold POC 43.10% 43.48% 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 56 of 290 

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. 

It is clear from Table that the dose to Category 2 workers are adequately bounded by the noncobble cutting dose, if the increase is assessed after 4 years as prescribed in the PER. However, 

if the increase is assessed through 2002, the cobble cutting dose becomes the bounding intake, 

although only by ~0.4%. 

2.5.5 Conclusions 

While SC&A agrees with the PER’s conclusions concerning the effect of Revision 2 on external 

shallow dose (Category 1 workers), its independent review of the effect on internal dose did not 

agree in two of the three worker classes (Categories 2 and 3). In both cases where there was a 

discrepancy, the threshold POC calculated using IMBA was 5%–8% less than the PER value. 

When considering the recalculated POC values in Section 3.0 of the PER, it is clear that there is 

not a direct correlation between the original POC and a certain increase. For example, in Table 2 

of the PER, an original POC of 42.49% is raised to 54.57% when recalculated, while a worker in 

the same category who had an original POC of 44.90% was recalculated at 21.65%. 

Based on this trend, it is SC&A’s recommendation that NIOSH revisit the issue to ensure that the 

pool of recalculated claims adequately encompasses those with the possibility of reaching or 

surpassing 50%. Also, the PER is rather arbitrary in how it presents its methods, assumptions, 

and conclusions, and so a more detailed approach would certainly benefit the PER. Since this 

document is not used in dose reconstruction, the added detail would not hinder the processing of 

claims, but rather further validate the completeness and precision of the program. 

2.5.6 References 

OCAS-PER-003. 2005. Evaluation of the Effect of Adding Ingestion Intakes to Bethlehem Steel 

Cases, Rev. 0, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 28, 

2005. 

OCAS-PER-007. 2006. Evaluation of the Effect of Revision 2 of the Site Profile on Previously 

Completed Bethlehem Steel Cases, Rev. 0, November 9, 2006. Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

OCAS-PR-008. 2006. Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation 

Plans, Rev. 2, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 6, 

2006. 

OCAS-TKBS-0003. 2006b. Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an Exposure 

Matrix for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Rev. 00, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0001. 2003. Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an 

Exposure Matrix for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York: Period of 

Operation: 1949-1952, Rev. 00, March 31, 2003. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0001. 2004. Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an 

Exposure Matrix for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York; Period of 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 57 of 290 

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. 

Operation: 1949-1952, Rev. 01, June 29, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

2.6 OCAS-PR-008: PREPARATION OF PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORTS 

AND PROGRAM EVALUATION PLANS 

The review of OCAS-PR-008, Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program 

Evaluation Plans, Revision 2, dated December 6, 2006, was prepared by Stephen F. Marschke. 

2.6.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The purpose of OCAS-PR-008 is as follows: 

...to provide the process for evaluating the effect programmatic changes might 

have on previously completed dose reconstructions. This procedure also 

describes the general format and content of Program Evaluation Reports (PERs) 

and Program Evaluation Plans (PEPs) that are used to document the results of 

these evaluations.

2.6.2 Review Protocol 

The SC&A evaluation of OCAS-PR-008 is summarized in Table. This table presents a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether a procedure adequately supports 

the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report. All instances in 

which the procedure was found to be deficient are explained in the subsequent text. 

Table 2.6-1: OCAS-PR-008 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PR-008, Rev. 2 Effective Date: 12/06/2006

Document Title: Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation Plans 

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 58 of 290 

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 2.6-1: OCAS-PR-008 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PR-008, Rev. 2 Effective Date: 12/06/2006

Document Title: Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation Plans 

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 59 of 290 

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 2.6-1: OCAS-PR-008 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-PR-008, Rev. 2 Effective Date: 12/06/2006

Document Title: Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation Plans 

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? N/A 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.6.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Section 4.3.3 states, “The guidelines used to conduct the evaluation should also be used to 

conduct the POC evaluation.” There are two concerns with this statement: (1) “the Evaluation” 

should be changed to “the Issue Evaluation (Section 4.2),” to be absolutely sure as to what is 

being referred to, and (2) there is no mention of ‘guidelines’ in Section 4.2, so it is unclear as to 

what should be used. 

Also, in two locations, Section 5.4 instructs the OCAS to conduct a PEP or PER “as described in 

Section 5.0, above.” Although Section 5 is entitled Procedure, it really documents 

responsibilities, not how to conduct a PEP or PER. Section 4 entitled General provides the 

instructions as to what is required to be included in a PEP or PER. 

Review Objective 1.5 

Section 5.2.2 states, “Depending on the scope of the PER, determine if a PEP is required.” 

Likewise, each section pertaining to the PEP begins with the phrase, “As needed.” Since no 

information is provided as to how to determine whether or not a PEP is needed, it appears to be 

left to the subjective judgment of the OCAS Team Leader. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 60 of 290 

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. 

2.6.4 References 

OCAS-PR-008. 2006. Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation 

Plans, Rev. 2, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 6, 

2006. 

2.7 OCAS-TIB-0013: SPECIAL EXTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR MALLINCKRODT WORKERS 

The review of OCAS-TIB-0013, Rev. 0, dated October 26, 2005, was prepared by Robert 

Barton, with Richard Olsher and Robert Anigstein. 

2.7.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this TIB is as follows: 

...to provide guidance on the application of geometry-based dose correction 

factors to external dosimetry badge data for Mallinckrodt workers in particular 

job classifications. The factors are to be used for the periods of time where the 

individual’s work history places him/her in that job.

2.7.2 Review Protocol 

The SC&A evaluation of OCAS-TIB-0013, Special External Dose Reconstruction 

Considerations for Mallinckrodt Workers, is summarized in the Table. This table presents a 

checklist containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether a procedure 

adequately supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this 

report. All instances in which the procedure was found to be deficient are explained in the 

subsequent text. 

Table 2.7-1: OCAS-TIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-TIB-0013, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 10/26/2005

Document Title: Special External Dose Reconstruction Considerations for Mallinckrodt Workers

Auditor: Robert Barton, Richard Olsher, and Robert Anigstein

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 3 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 3 See Review Comments 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 See Review Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 61 of 290 

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 2.7-1: OCAS-TIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-TIB-0013, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 10/26/2005

Document Title: Special External Dose Reconstruction Considerations for Mallinckrodt Workers

Auditor: Robert Barton, Richard Olsher, and Robert Anigstein

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

1 See Review 

Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 2 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 62 of 290 

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 2.7-1: OCAS-TIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-TIB-0013, Rev. 0 Effective Date: 10/26/2005

Document Title: Special External Dose Reconstruction Considerations for Mallinckrodt Workers

Auditor: Robert Barton, Richard Olsher, and Robert Anigstein

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 1 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.7.3 General Comments 

The purpose of OCAS-TIB-0013 is to assess the possible underestimation of doses to organs in 

the lower torso based on the geometry of a film badge located on the lapel of a worker’s coat. A 

correction factor for the measured dose was developed for three example scenarios; (1) ingot 

machining, (2) pitchblende cleanup, and (3) denitration pot work. The three scenarios were 

chosen in order to represent three different geometries where the location of the film badge could 

result in a significant underestimate of the dose to particular organs if correction factors are not 

applied to account for geometry of exposure. The document concludes that the worst of these 

cases (the correction factor related to ingot machining) should be the value applied to develop a 

dose for organs in the lower torso. 

SC&A performed its own analysis of the problem using the probabilistic computer codes 

MCNP5 and MCNPX (Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport code - LANL 2004). These codes 

were utilized to calculate the different flux values at assumed geometrical distances from the 

given sources (cylindrical slab for pitchblende, shielded vertical cylinder for denitration pot 

activities, and unshielded horizontal cylinder for ingot work). The results of the analysis show 

that the geometrical correction factor for the lower torso, as developed in the TIB document, is 

much lower than the factor derived by SC&A. Hence it does not represent a claimant-favorable 

approach. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 63 of 290 

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. 

2.7.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

The writing style is generally clear, but the paragraphs are not numbered sequentially (e.g., 

Section 4.0 precedes Section 3.3). 

Review Objective 1.2 

The attempt to validate the model, using data from ring dosimeters, should precede the 

conclusions in Section 3.2, since these conclusions presuppose the validity of the model. 

Review Objective 1.3 

The TIB is not clear as to the methodology and parameters assumed in the NIOSH point-kernel 

shielding computer code, Attila, calculation. Important parameters such as average worker 

geometry, in particular worker height and assumed dosimeter position, were not indicated in the 

description. Also, the source geometry, photon spectra, and assumed expected 

composition/activity were not included in the TIB description of its methodology. Although the 

geometric parameters can be inferred from OCAS-TIB-0013, Figures 2, 3, and 4, which show the 

three dimensional CAD geometry used in the Attila input, the translation to physical values is 

subjective at best, and results in significant inaccuracy. More exact input parameters were 

obtained via private communication with the TIB’s author (Macievic 2006). 

Review Objective 2.2 

The procedure understates the maximum correction factor to be applied to the badge readings, as 

is discussed further under Review Objective 7.3. Thus, the procedure does not provide adequate 

guidance for defining the claimant-favorable assumptions. 

Review Objective 5.2 

The TIB assumes an apparent geometry where the badge is fitted in the middle of the chest (as 

seen in Figures 2 and 3 of the document). If the badge were worn off-center on the chest or at 

another location such as the collar (typically around 10 cm from the center), the use of the stated 

correction factors on the measured exposure would result in the underestimation of the corrected 

exposure. Also, the analysis assumes a worker height of ~178 centimeters (approximately 5’10). 

Although this would be in the interest of claimants shorter than this height, it would also 

introduce an underestimation for workers taller than the assumed height. Some discussion as to 

how this assumed worker height was obtained, as well as verification that it creates a plausible 

upper bound for the claimant, would benefit the analysis. For example, the ICRP Publication 89 

lists 176 cm as the reference height of the adult male (ICRP 2002), while for U.S. males between 

18 and 74 the mean and 90th percentile heights are 175.5 and 187.0 cm, respectively (DHHS 

1987). 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 64 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 7.3 

In order to verify the analysis presented in OCAS-TIB-0013, SC&A used the MCNP (Monte 

Carlo N-Particle) computer program to model the same scenarios modeled by NIOSH using the 

Attila program. The first SC&A MCNP analysis attempted to reproduce the Attila results using 

MCNP5, and the photon spectra and exposure geometry furnished by Macievic (2006). 

However, as described below, upon detailed review of the NIOSH model, concerns were 

identified regarding the photon spectra and exposure geometry. Therefore, a second MCNP 

analysis was performed using MCNPX, and photon spectra and exposure geometry developed by 

SC&A. Both MCNP analyses are discussed below, including comparing their results to NIOSH 

Attila results. 

MCNP5 Comparison with Attila Results 

The stated purpose of this TIB is to develop a geometry correction factor for dosimeters worn on 

the lapel in relation to three distinct source geometries that would result in significant underestimation of the exposure recorded by the film badge. The TIB comes to the conclusion that a 

correction factor of 2.1 should be used to correct the badge readings for the organs in the lower 

torso. To verify this, a MCNP5 run was performed under the same geometrical configurations 

and source terms identified by the Attila analysis. More specifically, the problem was 

considered for gamma dose only (as specified on page 3 of the TIB), using the source spectrum 

and geometrical values provided by OCAS (Macievic 2006). The doses were obtained by 

tallying the photon flux, using point detectors for the ingot and pitchblende scenarios, and a ring 

detector to take advantage of the rotational geometry of the denitration pot scenario. The tallies 

were then modified by a dose function to obtain the Hp(10,0°) or the personal dose equivalent at 

a depth of 10 cm for an angle of incidence of 0 degrees (ICRP 1996). 

The results of the MCNP5 calculation show that the maximum correction factor for the lower 

torso is approximately 7.6 for the ingot worker scenario. The results of the MCNP5 calculations 

and the corresponding factors developed by Attila are shown in Table. 

Table 2.7-2: Mallinckrodt Worker: Attila and MCNP5 Developed 

Badge Correction Factors 

Scenario 

Location Uranium Ingot Pitchblende Denitration Pot 

Attila MCNP5 Attila MCNP5 Attila MCNP5 

Lapel Badge 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Lower Torso 2.125 7.609 2.11 2.17 0.03333 0.0607 

Hands 3.65 4.009 1.2047 -- 1.6667 -- 

As seen in Table, the correction factors are in reasonably close agreement for the lower torso in 

the case of the pitchblende cleanup scenario; however, the ingot scenario is underestimated by a 

factor of 3, and the denitration pot scenario is underestimated by a factor of 2. In all cases 

sampled, the correction factors developed by MCNP were larger than the Attila model. This 

might be explained if the Attila model was performing a volume averaging technique over 

various locations on the lower torso; however, this is not clearly defined and would not represent 

a maximum dose received. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 65 of 290 

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. 

MCNPX Analysis with SC&A Revised Assumptions 

Source Spectrum. It is not currently known where the source spectrum utilized by OCAS was 

obtained (no reference listed in the TIB). The spectrum provided to SC&A (Macievic 2006, 

Attachment 2.7.A), which details the parameters used in the Attila code, had some significant 

errors relating to branching ratios and specific activities of the various isotopes listed. For 

example, the specific activities for Th-234 and Pa-234m assume an in-growth of uranium 

progeny of approximately 100 days after purification. This is a reasonable assumption given the 

nature of the work being performed. However, the value listed for “gammas/sec” implies that 

Pa-234m and Pa-234 have the same specific activity. This is incorrect, given that Pa-234m 

decays via gamma emission to Pa-234 in only 0.16% of the disintegrations, while the other 

99.84% are a transition from Pa-234m to U-234 via a beta emission. Therefore, the gamma 

contribution from Pa-234 is overestimated by more than a factor of 600. 

When considering the U-235 chain and its short-lived progeny, the activity concentration with 

respect to U-238 is correct (shown as 1.5×10-8 Ci/g); however, this is incorrectly translated to the 

“gammas/sec” value. When the incorrectly stated “gammas/sec” value is converted to its 

associated activity concentration, the value of 1.1×10-10 Ci/g is obtained. Therefore, the 

contribution from U-235 and its progeny are underestimated by about a factor of 140. 

The most current source of nuclear decay data is the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File 

(ENSDF), which is updated and maintained by the National Nuclear Data Center at the 

Brookhaven National Laboratory. A convenient compendium of these data is found in “WWW 

Table of Radioactive Isotopes” (TORI) (Firestone et al. 1999). This Web-based data set, which 

is also accessible via http://ie.lbl.gov/toi/nucSearch.asp, provides direct links to the ENSDF that 

enable the user to access data more recent than those in the TORI tables. The nuclear decay data 

used by SC&A in the MCNPX analysis were obtained from these sources. 

β-Bremsstrahlung. Macievic appears to ignore the β-bremsstrahlung contribution to the photon 

spectra of uranium. A separate MCNPX run was made by SC&A to analyze the bremsstrahlung 

spectra. As observed in Table, below, these x-rays contribute about 50% of the total dose in the 

MCNPX analysis. 

Exposure Geometry. The treatment found in the TIB does not account for the fact that film 

badges have a significant angular dependence. This factor is important because in each of the 

three scenarios, photons coming directly from the source (which is at or below the waist) would 

impinge on the badge at an oblique angle. While photons that are normally incident on the front 

face of the badge will be read with close to 100% efficiency, a 45° angle of incidence to the front 

face of the badge can result in efficiencies between 46%–91% for energies of 0.11–1.2 MeV 

respectively (Hine and Brownell 1956). This would result in a significant underestimation of the 

dose if the exposure readings for the film badges were taken at face value. 

The SC&A MCNPX analysis accounted for angular dependence. The exposure geometry was 

based on information furnished by Macievic, shown in Attachment 2.7.A, Error! Reference 

source not found.. The ingot was modeled as a cylinder of solid uranium metal, 50.8 cm (1.66 

ft) long and 33.02 cm (1.08 ft) in diameter, with a density of 18.95 g/cm3

. The dosimeter was 

modeled as a hollow rectangular solid, 1 cm × 1 cm × 1 mm thick. Two dosimeter locations 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 66 of 290 

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. 

were modeled. One was at the same elevation as the cylindrical ingot, 19.7 cm (~0.65 ft) from 

the center of the ingot along a line perpendicular to its axis. The center of the second dosimeter 

was at an elevation of 58.2 cm (1.91 ft) above the center of the cylinder, again displaced 19.7 cm 

in the x direction, and 10 cm in the y direction. The y direction displacement is to account for 

the fact that a dosimeter worn on the lapel would be off-center by as much as 10 cm. The x axis 

is assumed to be perpendicular to the frontal plane of the body (i.e., the anterioposterior 

direction), while the y axis is perpendicular to the sagittal plane. 

MCNPX Analysis. Since the largest correction factor was previously shown to be from the 

“ingot machining” scenario (see Table), that was the only scenario analyzed with MCNPX 

Version 26C (Hendricks 2006). MCNPX was used because it enables the accumulation of 

particles over a specified surface (such as a 3-dimensional rectangular envelope of a personal 

dosimeter), binned by energy and by azimuthal angle. The analysis employed 19 photon energy 

bins spanning the range of 0–2.25 MeV, which encompassed the entire γ-ray spectrum of natural 

uranium and virtually all of the bremsstrahlung spectrum. These bins were selected so that the 

midpoint of each bin was approximately equal to one of the energies for which fluence-to-air 

kerma conversion coefficients are listed by ICRP (1996, Table A.1). We also used six angular 

bins, spanning the range of 0o–90o in 15o increments. 

Separate MCNPX runs were required for the γ-ray and bremsstrahlung spectra. The output 

consisted of the incident flux at each of the two badge locations (tabulated by energy and angle), 

and normalized per source particle from the ingot cylinder. The next step was to convert the flux 

tallies into a dose quantity for each dosimeter location. First, correction factors of fluence-toHp(10) were developed by multiplying the fluence-to-air kerma conversion factors (ICRP 1996, 

Table A.1) by the air kerma-to-Hp(10, 0°) factors (ICRP 1996, Table A.24), to create energydependent fluence-to-Hp(10, 0°) factors. When necessary, linear interpolation was used to adjust 

the ICRP factors to the MCNPX energies. Finally, to account for the angular dependence, the 

fluence-to-Hp(10, 0°) factors were further multiplied by the appropriate angular factors. These 

angular factors were determined by linear interpolation by energy and angle of the angular 

factors also listed in ICRP 1996, Table A.24. This created the desired fluence-to-Hp(10) 

conversion factors from which the doses were calculated. 

Table shows the results of the MCNPX calculation. The Hp(10, α) dose rates are calculated for 

the bremsstrahlung and gamma components at both dosimeter locations. The dose rates are 

given as both a dose per source particle (as given by MCNPX), as well as a converted dose per 

disintegration. The contribution from bremsstrahlung x-rays, as well as the gamma components 

are then summed at each badge location to give a total dose from photons. 

Table 2.7-3: Results of the MCNPX Calculation and Analysis for Lower Torso 

and Lapel Dosimeter Locations 

Badge Location: Lower torso Lapel 

Exposure Source na pSv/pb pSv/disc pSv/p pSv/dis 

Ratio 

(lapel/torso)

γ rays 0.518 1.12E-06 5.82E-07 1.11E-07 5.77E-08 — 

Bremsstrahlung 1.85 3.04E-07 5.62E-07 2.97E-08 5.48E-08 — 

Total 1.14E-06 1.12E-07 10.2 a

 Number of source particles per disintegration of U-238 

b

 Dose in picosieverts per source particle 

c

 Dose in picosieverts per disintegration of U-238
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 67 of 290 

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. 

As shown in Table , the contribution from bremsstrahlung is comparable to that from gamma 

radiation. While this does not have a significant affect on the dose ratio sought, it calls into 

question the methodology employed by the TIB, which does not address this additional source of 

exposure. More important, the table demonstrates that the dose ratio between the lower torso 

and the lapel is approximately 10.2. This represents an increase by a factor of almost 5 over the 

conclusion of the TIB, which lists a maximum conversion factor of 2.1 from the lapel to the 

lower torso. 

Additional Comments 

Direct β Dose. OCAS-TIB-0013 states that the same ratio of doses to the badge worn on the 

lapel to those to the lower torso would apply to β radiation. This is an unproved assertion that 

needs to be substantiated. Electron dose has an angular dependence that is different than that for 

photon radiation (see ICRP 1996, Tables A.45–A.47). 

Neutron Dose. Neutron doses are not mentioned in OCAS-TIB-0013. There would be some 

neutron dose from the uranium ingot scenario, and substantially more from the denitration pot 

due to the (α,n) reaction in UO3, especially since the sides of the steel pot would not be nearly as 

effective in shielding the lower torso from neutrons as from photons. 

Measured Dose Comparison. Another issue is found in the attempted validation of the method 

by comparison of the calculated geometric correction factors developed by the Attila model to a 

correction factor obtained by comparison of ring dosimeters worn by selected workers in 1949 

(Section 4.0 of the TIB). Though the TIB states that most of the data from this monitoring 

period are currently not available, it uses the specific data from five cases that were available. 

The first two sources, labeled subjects “1” and “2,” reflect beta doses received during the trial 

period. Since the Attila model was based purely on photon exposures, comparison of these beta 

exposures to the calculated photon exposures is questionable. 

The comparison of experimental to calculated values is visually shown on a probability plot. 

This plot depicts the five different measured doses versus the three calculated ratios for the 

“hand to lapel” scenario. This chart is misleading in its conclusions, as the actual work 

performed by the study subjects is not specified, so a comparison to the three different source 

geometries used in the calculation is not possible. 

At best, the TIB comparison of “measured to calculated ratios” shows that the Attila-generated 

values are in the same general range as the measured values. Since this range is relatively large 

(1.67–3.17), the conclusion that these specific cases validate the Attila based methodology is not 

well supported. 

2.7.5 Conclusion 

OCAS-TIB-0013 does not represent a scientifically valid or a claimant-favorable approach to 

developing a correction factor for organs in the lower torso. SC&A’s analysis of the problem

using MCNPX concluded that the TIB underestimates the dose conversion factor by a factor of 

almost five. This would not be explained by differences in parameters used in the models, since 

the SC&A analysis, using MCNP5 (which used all of the geometric and source parameters 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 68 of 290 

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. 

specified by OCAS), produced conversion factors that were approximately three times higher 

than the TIB values. 

Therefore, in both cases the TIB has significantly underestimated the conversion factor and does 

not represent a sufficiently claimant-favorable approach to the dose reconstruction process. 

Attachment 2.7.A: Source Problem Information Provided by OCAS 

Note: Attachment A has been reformatted from the five pages originally provided by Macievic (2006) to three; 

however, all of the original parameters remain unchanged. 

Human figure made of water 

Diameter of ingot: 1.08 Ft 

Length of ingot: 1.66 Ft 

Width of body from finger tip of left hand to finger tip of right hand: 1.56 Ft 

Figure 2.7-1: Diagram of Human Figure with Ingot 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 69 of 290 

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. 

Figure 2.7-2: Denitration Pot (Pot made of steel) 

Dimensions with Same Human Figure from Ingot 

Figure 2.7-3: Pitchblend Dimensions with Human Figure Same as Previous Two Cases 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 70 of 290 

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. 

Source data 

Item Radius (cm) Length (cm) Weight (g) 

Cylindrical Ingot 16.51 50.8 824360 

U-238 Chain 

Nuclide Specific Activity (Ci/g) Emissions (dis/sec) 

U-238 3.2973E-07 1.0057E+10 

Th-234 3.10811E-07 9480140000 

Pa-234m 3.10811E-07 9480140000 

U-234 3.2973E-07 1.0057E+10 

Th230 8.13514E-13 24813.236 

Ra-226 4.81081E-17 1.4673608 

U-235 Chain 

Nuclide 

U-235 0.000000015 457519800 

Th-231 0.000000015 457519800 

URANIUM-CYLINDRICAL INGOT PROBLEM 

Natural Uranium 

Uranium metal density 18.95 g/cm3

Intensities refer to percentage of disintegrations of nuclide itself, not from parent series. 

NOT 

USED NOT USED 

Nuclide Beta MeV fraction Gamma MeV fraction gammas/sec 

Th-234 0.076 0.027 0.0633 0.038 360245320 

0.095 0.062 0.0924 0.027 255963780 

0.096 0.186 0.0928 0.027 255963780 

0.1186 0.725 0.1128 0.0024 22752336 

Pa-234m 2.28 0.986 0.766 0.00207 19623889.8 

1.001 0.0059 55932826 

Pa-234 0.5834 0.04 0.132 0.197 1867587580 

0.6174 0.021 0.57 0.107 1014374980 

0.6807 0.023 0.883 0.118 1118656520 

0.6887 0.24 0.926 0.109 1033335260 

0.6926 0.11 0.946 0.12 1137616800 

0.6944 0.042 0.053 0.0012 11376168 

0.7107 0.16 0.121 0.0004 3792056 

0.7112 0.038 

0.8104 0.077 

0.8334 0.023 

1.183 0.1 

U-234 0.053 0.0012 687.9119328 

0.121 0.0004 229.3039776 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 71 of 290 

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. 

Th-230 0.0677 0.0037 0.005233111 

0.142 0.0007 0.000990048 

0.144 0.00045 0.00063646 

Ra-226 0.186 0.0328 2.74338E-06 

U-235 0.1438 0.105 345884.9688 

0.163 0.047 154824.7003 

0.1857 0.54 1778836.982 

0.205 0.047 154824.7003 

Th-231 0.205 0.15 0.0256 0.148 487533.0989 

0.287 0.49 0.0842 0.065 214119.2664 

0.304 0.35 

DENITRATION POT PROBLEM 

UO3 mixture 

assume 3/4 of pot filled with UO3

824360 grams of UO3 per pot, most of weight is U, assume 1pot = 1cylindrical ingot 

same gammas and energies as in ingot above 

PITCHBLENDE RAFFINATE (AM7) PROBLEM 

Nuclide MeV fraction Ci gammas/sec 

Th-230 0.0677 0.0037 24.4 3340360000 

Th-230 0.142 0.0007 24.4 631960000 

Th-230 0.144 0.00045 24.4 406260000 

Th-232 0.126 0.0004 0.001 14800 

Ra-226 0.186 0.0328 0.158 191748800 

2.7.6 References 

Firestone, R.B., Ekstrom, L.P., and Chu, S.Y.F., “WWW Table of Radioactive Isotopes,” 

American Physical Society, Division of Nuclear Physics Meeting, October 20-23, 1999. 

Hendricks, J. S., et al. 2006. “MCNPX, Version 26C,” LA-UR-06-7991. 

<http://mcnpx.lanl.gov/> 

Hine, G.J., and G.L. Brownell. 1956. Radiation Dosimetry, Academic Press Inc.: New York, 

New York. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1996. Conversion Coefficients for 

use in Radiological Protection against External Radiation. ICRP Publication 74. Annals of the 

ICRP, 26 (3/4), Elsevier Science, Inc.: Tarrytown, New York. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 2003. Basic Anatomical and 

Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection: Reference Values, ICRP Publication 89. 

Pergamon Press. Oxford, England. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 72 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Labs) 2001. The Isotopes Project Home Page. 

<http://ie.lbl.gov/toi /nucSearch.asp> 

LANL (Los Alamos National Lab) 2004. “MCNP: A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport 

Code, Version 5 – Volume II: User’s Guide,” X-5 Monte Carlo Team April 24, 2003 (Revised 

June 30, 2004). 

Macievic, G. V. Health Physicist, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. < [glm7@cdc.gov]> “RE: OCAS-TIB-0013 

Information Request,” December 6, 2006, personal e-mail to Robert Barton, SC&A, Inc. 

OCAS-TIB-0013. 2005. Special External Dose Reconstruction Considerations for Mallinckrodt 

Workers, Rev. 0. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1987. Anthropometric Reference Data and 

Prevalence of Overweight United States, 1976–1980. National Center for Health Statistics, Data 

from the National Health Survey, Series 11, No. 238, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 87-l688, 

October 1987. 

2.8 OCAS-TIB-0014: ROCKY FLATS INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER 

EXTENSION 

The review of OCAS-TIB-0014, Rocky Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension, Rev. 00, 

dated December 07, 2006, was prepared by Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

2.8.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this TIB is to provide monitored coworker information for calculating and 

assigning occupational internal doses to employees at RFETS for whom no or insufficient 

bioassay monitoring records exist. A TIB that analyzes Internal Dosimetry Coworker data at 

RFETS was previously completed (ORAUT-OTIB-0038). That document analyzed the data 

from the beginning of operations at the site to 1988. For that effort, data was obtained from the 

CEDR repository of data. In order to extend the analysis beyond 1988, data were obtained from 

the Rocky Flats site’s HIS-20 database. The purpose of this TIB is to extend the previous TIB 

(ORAUT-OTIB-0038) utilizing the same methodology. 

2.8.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OCAS-TIB-0014 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the TIB adequately supports the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 73 of 290 

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 2.8-1: TIB-0014 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-TIB-0014, Rev. 00 Date: 12/07/2006

Document Title: Rocky Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension 

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 4 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in 

a logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does 

not reference other sources that are needed for additional 

data)? 

4 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are 

part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction? 

4 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

See Review 

Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

identifying a potentially high probability of causation as part 

of an initial dose evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worstcase assumptions? N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is 

it free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 3 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 3 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 3 

See Review 

Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 74 of 290 

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 2.8-1: TIB-0014 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: OCAS-TIB-0014, Rev. 00 Date: 12/07/2006

Document Title: Rocky Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension 

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing 

data? 3 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting 

the types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, 

lognormal)? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only 

limited significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review 

Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

2.8.3 General Comments 

Urinalysis data collected by Rocky Flats for uranium and plutonium from 1989 to 2005 were 

extracted from the HIS-20 database. In-vivo Am-241 lung data were not addressed in this TIB. 

Bioassay data were analyzed by quarter or year, depending on the amount of data available 

during the periods. A lognormal distribution was assumed. After log transforming the data, the 

50th and 84th percentiles were determined for each period. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 75 of 290 

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. 

NIOSH demonstrated the comparability of dose distributions between the broader contractor and 

decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) subcontractor population, by providing a 

comparison of termination bioassay results for plutonium and uranium. Results were provided 

for (1) top-tier contractors, (2) all subcontractors, and (3) D&D subcontractors [Analysis of 

Termination Bioassay Results for Rocky Flats during the Shutdown and D&D Era (1990–2005)]

(NIOSH 2006). SC&A reviewed the analysis of termination bioassay results and generally 

concurs with the NIOSH assessment. SC&A accepted the concept of applying OCAS-TIB-0014 

as an extension of ORAUT-OTIB-0038 for worker populations in the D&D era. 

In TIB-0014, in the same way as in OTIB-0038, two sequential fitting approaches were used to 

interpret the urinalysis bioassay data. The first one grouped the bioassay monitoring data by 

quarter or year, depending on the amount of data available during the periods. A lognormal 

distribution was assumed as the best representation of all the RFP workers’ bioassay results 

during a certain period of time. After log transforming the data, the mean (50th), and mean plus 

one standard deviation (84th) percentiles were determined for each period of time. The second 

approach consisted of the derivation of an inhalation intake function that would reproduce the 

50th and 84th percentiles bioassay values that were calculated using the first approach. The 

IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the bioassay results to a series of 

inhalation intakes. Data from 1989 through 2005 were fit as a series of chronic intakes, through 

inhalation, using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr and a 5-μm activity median aerodynamic 

diameter (AMAD) particle size distribution. The IMBA fit was derived for a period of several 

consecutive years. Two intake periods were fit to the derived 50th and 84th percentile uranium 

excretion data. Two intake periods were fit to the data for Type M material and one was fit for 

Type S material to the derived 50th and 84th percentile plutonium excretion. The fit to Type S Pu 

is an minimized intake. If the POC is <50%, for the minimized Type S intake, it should be 

followed by a manual fit to the coworker bioassay data for the time frame of interest for the 

employee, using the assumption of Type S material. 

2.8.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 through 1.5 

Our review has identified that the procedure is not complete in terms of required data. The 

document uses data whose source is not referenced. 

TIB-0014 is consistent with all other TIBs, OTIBs, and procedures that are part of the hierarchy 

of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. TIB-0014 is sufficiently 

prescriptive to minimize the need for subjective decisions. 

Review Objective 3.2 

TIB-0014 is meant to address site-specific data pertaining to in-vivo/in-vitro bioassay data, 

missing dosimetry data, and unmonitored periods of exposure. The technical review of methods 

used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 76 of 290 

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. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 

TIB-0014 provides the methodology to determine the doses for employees at DOE sites that were 

not monitored for internal ionizing radiation exposure, or the records of such monitoring are 

incomplete or unavailable. The technical review of methods used in this TIB is addressed below 

under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 6.1 

Although it provides adequate guidance for selecting the types of probability distributions (i.e., 

normal, lognormal), TIB-0014 does not adequately account for the uncertainty of dose estimates, 

as described in the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The SC&A review of TIB-0014 revealed at least two areas of concerns with the validity of the 

scientific protocols that were employed. These concerns are presented below: 

(1) The Use of the 50th Percentile to Calculate Intakes and Doses 

SC&A finds that the use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of the 

workers will misrepresent the higher exposures experienced by unmonitored subcontractors at 

RFP. SC&A is supportive of intake models based on a percentile that encompasses all exposures 

from D&D exposures. 

As in its review of ORAUT-OTIB-0038, which OCAS-TIB-0014 extends to the D&D era, 

SC&A notes that the intake model for OCAS-TIB-0014 was derived using an IMBA fit for a 

period of several consecutive years. As a consequence, for some time periods, the dose will be 

calculated using an intake rate that corresponds to urinary excretion values smaller than the 

chosen percentile (50th). SC&A considers the uncertainties in the adequacy of the bioassay 

program and in the completeness of radiation records associated with D&D activities at RFP to 

be large and that a coworker model based on the 50th percentile of the bioassay records does not 

adequately address these uncertainties. 

(2) In-Vivo Counting Results 

SC&A also finds OCAS-TIB-0014 to be incomplete because it does not address in-vivo counting 

results. For respiratory organ dose calculations, OCAS-TIB-0014 recommends applying Type M 

Pu, followed by the minimizing Type S intake. If both actions do not yield a POC >50%, 

NIOSH recommends manually fitting the coworker bioassay data for the time frame of interest 

for the employee, using the assumption of Type S material. In ORAUT-OTIB-0038, this manual 

fit of the data includes Am lung data. The uncertainties associated with the calculation of doses 

to the lung from urine data are large. The correlation of Pu retention in the lungs with the 

excretion rate in urine is indirect and depends on the chemical and physical forms. Different 

matrix materials containing Pu may have specific dissolution behavior. Absorption parameters 

depend on the production temperature. The method of formation of the material and its history 

(temperature, specific surface area) can influence the fraction rapidly absorbed and the long-term 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 77 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

retention half-time. The different types of material encountered in D&D activities produce 

different urinary excretion patterns. As a consequence, there is an increased uncertainty in the 

association of the urinary excretion rate with lung retention or lung deposition.

2.8.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined TIB-0014, in terms of its conceptual approach, including the overall technical 

approach used, scientific validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. SC&A accepts 

NIOSH’s position that it is possible to derive a surrogate exposure model for the unmonitored 

worker based on the distribution of internal doses received by the monitored workers at RFP in 

the D&D era. However, the use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the excretion rates 

may misrepresent the higher exposures experienced by unmonitored workers. 

TIB-0014 should contain information on Am lung data for calculating potential unmonitored 

worker doses to the lung.

2.8.6 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

NIOSH 2006. Analysis of Termination Bioassay Results for Rocky Flats during the Shutdown 

and D&D Era (1990–2005), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Response to 

SC&A Comments on December 18, 2006. 

OCAS-TIB-0014. 2006. Rocky Flats Internal Dosimetry Coworker Extension, Rev. 00, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 7, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0038. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Coworker 

Data for Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Rev. 00, August 3, 2006. Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 78 of 290 

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 OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES TEAM TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION BULLETINS (OTIB) 

3.1 ORAUT-OTIB-0002: MAXIMUM INTERNAL DOSE ESTIMATES FOR 

CERTAIN DOE COMPLEX CLAIMS 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0002, Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE 

Complex Claims, Rev. 02, dated February 7, 2007, was prepared by Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.1.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this TIB is, “to provide a method to facilitate timely processing of claims 

under the EEOICPA that involve cancer to an organ with little or no reported dose from 

internally deposited radionuclides that might be associated with work at DOE complex sites.” 

OTIB-0002 is only to be used for “maximizing” cases (or where the dose is significantly 

overestimated); and cases that use OTIB-0002 for assessing internal dose can not be 

compensated. Thus, the assumptions used in the OTIB should represent the upper bound values.

3.1.2 Review Protocol 

As part of the first set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated Revision 1 of Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE 

Complex Claims (January 10, 2004). Our findings were published in The Review of 

NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, dated January 2005 

(SCA-TR-Task3). Following the submission of this report and its findings, an expanded review 

and issues-resolution process was initiated. The process began by NIOSH providing written 

responses to each of SC&A’s findings. Under the direction of a Board-appointed Workgroup, a 

series of meetings was held between representatives of NIOSH and SC&A auditors to discuss 

and resolve each finding. This process resulted in the preparation of an issues-tracking matrix, 

whereby the closeout status of each finding is tracked. 

The resolution of many findings identified during our review of Revision 1 of OTIB-0002 

required NIOSH to incorporate changes in a future revision of the document. Our evaluation of 

OTIB-0002, Revision 2, therefore, was designed to ensure that (1) the findings identified in 

Revision 1 were adequately resolved and (2) the document adequately supports the dose 

reconstruction process. Table provides a list of applicable OTIB-002, Revision 1 findings, and 

our evaluation to assess whether those findings were adequately addressed. 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0002 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 79 of 290 

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 3.1-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0002 

Review 

Objective 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002, Rev. 01 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected 

in Rev. 02? Comments 

1.1/1.2/1.5 Guidance not written in a clear and 

logical manner (i.e., Section 3.1.1 

provides reasons for using 10 and 20 

times 10% MPBB as maximum intakes 

that are difficult to follow and 

understand). (OTIB-0002-01) 

None Given No Our re-review identified that, in 

several sections, the writing style 

is not clear and unambiguous 

1.3 Guidance only references data from 

documents that need to be known to 

understand the procedures described. 

(OTIB-0002-02) 

Low No The document uses critical 

information and historical data 

without providing references. 

4.1 Methods described for calculating 

maximum internal doses are difficult to 

understand and reproduce. (OTIB-0002-

04) 

Low Partially 

5.1 Assumption that intakes are 10 to 20 

times the 10% MPBB is not always 

justifiable in terms of new ICRP models. 

(OTIB-0002-05) 

Low No This assumption remains 

unchanged. 

5.2/5.3 Assumption that the intakes are 10 to 20 

times the 10% MPBB is not claimant 

favorable for many nuclides. (OTIB0002-06) 

None Given No This assumption remains 

unchanged. 

5.2/5.3 Assignment of solubility types based on 

criterion of choosing the solubility type 

that produces the larger doses to system 

organs is not correct for many nuclides. 

(OTIB-0002-07) 

None Given No Following Table 4-1, the 

assignment of solubility types 

remains unchanged. 

Technical 

Issue 

Fractional retention values in Table 

3.1.1-1 are incorrect. These fractions 

refer to stable elements and must be 

corrected with a decay factor for the 

specific radionuclide. (OTIB-0002-08) 

None Given No The fractional retention values 

(now in Table 4-1) remain 

unchanged. 

Technical 

Issue 

It is arbitrary to use 3-4 days post intake 

to calculate the fractional retention in 

whole body for inhalation type F and 90 

days for type M to account for rapid 

clearance from the lung. (OTIB-0002-09) 

None Given No Table 4-1 still uses 3-4 days for 

type F and 60-90 days for 

type M. 

Technical 

Issue 

Section A.2.6, Organs of Interest, (p. 14) 

include the thyroid, however, Table 

3.1.1-4 (p.8) does not identify thyroid. 

(OTIB-0002-10) 

Low Not 

Applicable

Section A.2.6 ‘Organs of 

Interest’ has been deleted. 

Technical 

Issue 

Section 4.0, first sentence “The 

calculation of organ dose assumes that the 

covered employee had maximum intakes 

of all of the radionuclides listed in Table 

3.1.1-1” should refer to Table 3.1.1-2. 

(OTIB-0002-11) 

Low Yes This sentence has been corrected, 

and is now the first sentence of 

Section 5. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 80 of 290 

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 3.1-2: ORAUT-OTIB-0002 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0002, Rev. 02 Effective Date: 02/07/2007

Document Title: Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 2 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 2 See Review Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 3 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

3 See Review 

Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 81 of 290 

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 3.1-2: ORAUT-OTIB-0002 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0002, Rev. 02 Effective Date: 02/07/2007

Document Title: Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 3 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.1.3 General Comments 

The method provided in OTIB-0002 to assign internal doses is based upon the following: 

...the “largest reasonably possible value” of the source term that consisted of 

radionuclides that are or were typically the more significant radionuclides (by 

either preponderance or by internal dose significance) on a site. For this worstcase estimate of internal dose, it is assumed that on the first day of employment, 

the worker had an acute inhalation intake of each of the radionuclides in the 

source term. 

Additional assumptions to develop this method are: 

 All intakes are inhalations of standard 5 micrometer AMAD, except for 

I-131, which is assumed to be in vapor form (class SR-1). 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 82 of 290 

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. 

 The most soluble form of the radionuclide specified in ICRP (1995) was 

used to maximize 

 dose to systemic organs, except as noted below; dose to lung is not 

germane to this exercise. 

 Because maximum permissible body burdens (MPBB) were the derived 

limits for so many years, the assumed implausible uptake was based on a 

percent of the radionuclide-specific MPBB for soluble chemical forms as 

defined in National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 68 [also 

referred to as National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) 

Publication 22](NBS 1959). It was assumed that an intake resulting in 

10% of a MPBB would not have likely occurred to an unmonitored worker 

or would have likely resulted in a readily noticeable bioassay result in a 

monitored worker, readily noticeable air sample, or other indicator of 

personnel contamination. In other words, an event that provided the 

possibility of an intake that would have resulted in a body burden 

exceeding 10% of the MPBB would not have gone unnoticed and there 

would be some sort of indication in the worker’s records. This assumption 

applies to facilities with active radiation protection programs where 

bioassay or air monitoring programs were present and able to detect such 

intakes. The current ICRP methodology is used to calculate doses from 

these implausible intakes. 

 For types F and M materials, the associated derived intakes (i.e., intake 

resulting in a 10% MPBB) were assumed to be 10 and 20 times 10% of the 

MPBB, respectively. The factors of 10 and 20 are based on the current 

ICRP models and approximate the differences between an intake and the 

activity that is present in the body after the initial clearance of the shortterm compartments. These factors are used to relate body burden, the 

historical quantity of control that was based on ICRP Publication 2 (ICRP 

1959) methods, to intake, the present quantity of control that is based on 

current ICRP methods. These factors were estimated from tables in the 

November 2002 issue of Health Physics that list the intake retention 

fraction for the whole body (without the extrathoracic (ET) region) as a 

function of time after acute intake for different elements and inhalation 

types (Potter 2002). Because initial deposition in the nonsystemic organs 

was not considered by ICRP (1959) to be part of the body burden, the 

selected retention fractions allowed some time for the rapid clearance 

components. (OTIB-0002, pg. 4) 

Those assumptions, which constitute the basis for the derivation of the methodology described in 

the TIB, were presented by NIOSH without a technical explanation. 

 

NIOSH does not substantiate the assumption that “an intake that resulted in 10% of an MPBB 

would likely not have occurred to an unmonitored worker or would have likely resulted in a 

readily noticeable bioassay result in a monitored worker, readily noticeable air sample, or other
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 83 of 290 

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. 

indicator of personnel contamination.” OTIB-0002 methodology to calculate the maximum 

plausible dose is based on deriving intakes that would result in body burdens that are 10 to 20 

times the 10% MPBB. SC&A finds that the basic assumption for deriving intakes and doses 

should be better explained by NIOSH. 

SC&A considers that the technical approach used in this document needs some refinement. For 

example, the time for the rapid clearance components, was presented as 3 and 4 days for Type F 

nuclides and 60 and 90 days for Type M nuclides, without a clear indication of how they were 

derived. In addition, the multiplication factors 10 and 20 were not derived correctly for many 

nuclides, as described in Review Objective 7.3. 

3.1.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Our review has identified that, in several sections, the writing style is not clear and unambiguous. 

The following paragraphs exemplify some of the difficulties encountered in the analysis of the 

document. 

(1) It is difficult to understand the meaning of an organ with “little dose” from internally 

deposited radionuclide. “The purpose of this TIB is to provide a method to facilitate 

timely processing of claims under the EEOICPA that involve cancer to an organ with 

little or no reported dose from internally deposited radionuclides that might be 

associated with work at DOE complex sites.” [Emphasis added] The only way to 

evaluate the dose to an organ is to calculate the dose to the organ. 

(2) Some of the assumptions that constitute the basis of the document are presented without a 

clear indication on how they were derived. For example, the fractional retentions in 

whole body are calculated at 3–4 days post intake for Type F, and 60 days and 90 days 

for Type M. NIOSH ‘s only explanation is “Because initial deposition in the 

nonsystemic organs was not considered by the ICRP (1959) to be part of the body 

burden, the selected retention fractions allowed some time for the rapid clearance 

components.” 

(3) In Table 4-2 of OTIB-0002, Th-230 is specified, with the following note: “thorium-230 

can be used as a surrogate for Th-232.” There is no further instruction on what to do with 

this information. Should the DR add to the list of radionuclides exposures to Th-232 in 

the same amount as Th-230? 

Review Objective 1.3 

The procedure is not complete in terms of required data. The sources of certain critical 

information are not referenced. The document references historical data without substantiating 

them with the sources. The following paragraphs, extracted from OTIB-0002, exemplify the 

need for more information from NIOSH: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 84 of 290 

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. 

- For this worst-case estimate of internal dose, it is assumed that on the first 

day of employment the worker had an acute inhalation intake of each of the 

radionuclides in the source term in the amounts listed below. 

Based on historical data, it is believed to be unlikely that such an intake 

could have occurred without being detected by workplace monitoring at 

the time. It is also believed that this is an overestimate of internal dose 

for an unmonitored worker or a worker with no bioassay results 

exceeding detection thresholds. [Emphasis added] 

- NIOSH does not substantiate the assumption that 

. . . an intake that resulted in 10% of an MPBB would likely not have occurred to 

an unmonitored worker or would have likely resulted in a readily noticeable 

bioassay result in a monitored worker, readily noticeable air sample, or other 

indicator of personnel contamination. In other words, an event that provided the 

possibility of an intake that would have resulted in a body burden exceeding 10% 

of the MPBB would not have gone unnoticed and there would be some indication 

in the worker’s records. 

This assumption may in fact be appropriate for the intended purpose of this OTIB. 

However, the document would benefit from additional discussion and validation of 

this assumption. 

Review Objective 1.4 

SC&A’s review has identified that the procedure may not be consistent with all other procedures 

that are part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. In 

particular, for sites where a coworker model was developed, it is difficult to evaluate which 

procedure (OTIB-0002 or coworker model) should be applied in cases of employees who were 

not included in a bioassay program. 

Review Objective 1.5 

SC&A’s review has identified that the procedure is not sufficiently prescriptive to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions. The following paragraphs illustrate SC&A concerns: 

 The decision on who to apply the method described in OTIB-0002, without prior 

calculation of the dose, is considered by SC&A subjective: 

The purpose of this TIB is to provide a method to facilitate timely processing 

of claims under the EEOICPA that involve cancer to an organ with little or no 

reported dose from internally deposited radionuclides that might be 

associated with work at DOE complex sites. (Emphasis added) 

 The application of the procedures described in this TIB for workers whose initial hire 

date was before 1970, requires the need of subjective decisions: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 85 of 290 

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. 

The covered employee’s initial start date was before 1970 (for the DOE 

Hanford Site, before 1953), provided the dose reconstruction report includes 

an evaluation or explanation that demonstrates the doses from Table 4-2 

intakes overestimate the actual or potential doses received by the worker. The 

following are some examples of potential information to use in this evaluation. 

1. Employee job title 

2. Bioassay monitoring results 

3. Work location or other job conditions 

4. Recorded external dose 

5. Other site employees with similar jobs 

Review Objective 2.2 

OTIB-0002 is meant to be efficient for claims with suspected cumulative low doses. Some 

subjective decisions are sometimes required in defining the target population to apply the 

procedure, as outlined in Review of Objective 1.5. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 

Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 were designed to assess whether procedure decisions are claimantfavorable in instances of missing data, in instances of unknown parameters effecting dose 

estimates, and in instances where the claimant was not monitored. 

 The Review Objective 1.3 already notes that NIOSH does not substantiate the assumption 

that “an intake that resulted in 10% of an MPBB would likely not have occurred to an 

unmonitored worker or would have likely resulted in a readily noticeable bioassay result 

in a monitored worker, readily noticeable air sample, or other indicator of personnel 

contamination. In other words, an event that provided the possibility of an intake that 

would have resulted in a body burden exceeding 10% of the MPBB would not have gone 

unnoticed and there would be some indication in the worker’s records.”

 In addition, the assumption that the intakes are 10 to 20 times the 10% MPBB is not 

always justifiable in terms of the new ICRP models, and for many nuclides, this is not a 

claimant-favorable approach, as exemplified under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The review of the scientific protocols that were employed revealed that the fractional retentions 

in Table 4-1 are incorrect. They are the fractional retention values exactly as they appear in the 

tables in the November 2002 issue of Health Physics. Those fractions refer to the stable element. 

Each value must be corrected with a decay factor for the specific radionuclide in question. 

Depending on the radionuclide’s half-life, the correction that needs to be made is significant. 

For example: 

 For Type M Nb-95, for example, the fractional retention in whole body is, at 60 days 

equal to 0.015 and at 90 days equal to 0.007. The corresponding factor to multiply the 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 86 of 290 

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. 

intake are 67 (60 days) and 144 (90 days) and do not justify the multiplication factor of 

20, suggested by NIOSH. 

 For Co-58, Type M, the fractional retention in whole body is equal to 0.023 at 60 days 

and equal to 0.014 at 90 days. The corresponding factors to multiply the intake are 43 

(60 days) and 71 (90 days), and not 20, as was used, as follows: 

The assumption of type S for Co-58 and Co-60 is used....... The fractional 

retention in the whole body is similar for type M and type S at 60 and 90 days, 

so the derived intake is estimated as 20 times the 10% MPBB. 

3.1.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined OTIB-0002 in terms of its conceptual approach, including the overall technical 

approach used, scientific validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. In its review, SC&A 

found areas of concern, as specified above, that must be resolved by NIOSH. 

3.1.6 Workbook 

To facilitate entry of organ doses into the IREP computer code, the Maximum Internal Dose 

Calculation Workbook 3.03 was developed. The Maximum Internal Dose Calculation 

Workbook 3.03 was discussed and described in OTIB-0002, Rev. 0, but not in Rev. 1. Because 

it is not discussed in OTIB-0002, Rev. 1, and because it has not been revised recently to reflect 

OTIB-0002, Revision 1 changes, it is unknown whether NIOSH intends to continue using the 

Maximum Internal Dose Calculation Workbook 3.03. Nonetheless, SC&A performed a review 

of the Maximum Internal Dose Calculation Workbook 3.03, and the results of that review have 

been included in the draft report, Review of Nine General Dose Reconstruction Tools (SCA-TRTASK3, Supplement 2, April 2007). 

3.1.7 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1959. Report of Committee II on 

Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation, ICRP Publication 2, Oxford: Pergamon.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1973. Implications of Commission 

Recommendations that Doses be Kept As Low As Readily Achievable, ICRP Publication 22. 

Oxford: Pergamon. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002. 2004. Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex 

Claims, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 10, 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002. 2007. Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex 

Claims, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 7, 2007. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 87 of 290 

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. 

Potter, C. A. 2002. Intake Retention Fractions Developed from Models Used in the 

Determination of Dose Coefficients Developed for ICRP Publication 68—Particulate Inhalation, 

Health Physics, Volume 83, Number 5, pp. 594–789. 

SC&A 2007. Review of Nine General Dose Reconstruction Tools (SCA-TR-TASK3, 

Supplement 2, S. Cohen and Associates, Vienna, Virginia. April 2007. 

3.2 ORAUT-OTIB-0005: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY ORGAN, EXTERNAL 

DOSIMETRY ORGAN, AND IREP MODEL SELECTION BY ICD-9 CODE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0005, Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and 

IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 02 PC-1, dated February 10, 2006, was prepared by 

Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.2.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this TIB is “to provide guidance on selecting appropriate ICRP modeled 

organs/tissues to estimate the internal dose for specific ICD-9 codes, the appropriate 

organs/tissues to estimate external dose, and the appropriate model in the Interactive 

RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP). This TIB also provides information for selecting and 

assessing likely primary cancers for secondary cancers.” 

3.2.2 Review Protocol 

As part of the first set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated Revision 1 of IMBA Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP 

Model Selection by ICD-9 Code (January 23, 2004). Our findings were published in The Review 

of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, dated January 2005 

(SCA-TR-Task3). Following the submission of this report and its findings, an expanded review 

and issues-resolution process was initiated. The process began by NIOSH providing written 

responses to each of SC&A’s findings. Under the direction of a Board-appointed Workgroup, a 

series of meetings was held between representatives of NIOSH and SC&A auditors to discuss 

and resolve each finding. This process resulted in the preparation of an issues-tracking matrix, 

whereby the closeout status of each finding is tracked. 

From SC&A’s review of OTIB-0005, Revision 1, a single issue remained unresolved on the 

issues tracking matrix, that being for Review Objective 1.4: 

Document inconsistent with ICRP 66 regarding the assignment of the oral cavity 

as a nonmetabolic organ (in IMBA), instead of ET2 region. (Issue number: OTIB0005-01) 

After the first review, the ICRP issued a new model for the Human Alimentary Tract Model, 

ICRP Publication 100 (ICRP 2006). The oral cavity is no longer part of the ET2 region. It is 

now part of the HAT (Human Alimentary Tract). In the ICRP 100, the dose to the oral cavity is 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 88 of 290 

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. 

compared to a typical non-source organ such as the muscle. NIOSH’s treatment of the oral 

cavity is compatible with the new ICRP, and the comment is satisfactory resolved. 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0029 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.2-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0005 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0005, Rev. 02 PC-1 Effective Date: 02/10/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by 

ICD-9 Code

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 89 of 290 

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 3.2-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0005 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0005, Rev. 02 PC-1 Effective Date: 02/10/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by 

ICD-9 Code

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 See Review 

Comments 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 See Review Comments 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.2.3 General Comments 

OTIB-0005 document is a basic document to be used in all dose reconstructions. As described in 

the document: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 90 of 290 

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. 

OTIB-0005 designates the appropriate internal dosimetry organ/tissue selection 

for the various ICD-9 coded cancers, the appropriate organ/tissue to estimate 

external dose, and the appropriate IREP model to use as well. (OTIB-0005, 

pg. 4) 

No dose reconstructions can be realized without using OTIB-0005. 

3.2.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.3 and 1.5 

The procedure is written in a clear and unambiguous style. Data and discussions are presented in 

a logical sequence. 

The procedure is not always complete in terms of require data and the DR will need, for some 

types of cancer, advice from the ORAU medical team, as exemplified in the following 

paragraph: 

Due to the complexity of determining the appropriate organ/tissue for some 

ICD-9 code cancers, a medical review by an ORAU team physician is required to 

determine the organ/tissue to use in IMBA for those cancers. (OTIB-0005, pg. 

30) 

The procedure is consistent with all other procedures that are part of the hierarchy of procedures 

employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. The need for subjective decisions is minimized. 

Review Objective 5.1 

OTIB-0005 procedure decisions are claimant favorable in instances of missing data, as for 

example the approaches in cases of secondary cancers, and multiple secondary cancers with 

unknown primary cancer site or multiple primary and secondary cancers. The following 

paragraphs, extracted from OTIB-0005, exemplify this claimant –friendly approach:

When there are cancers of multiple organs or the cancer site is unknown, the 

remainder organ should be selected as the model to apply dose. However, if the 

organ location can be determined through the medical records or a medical 

review, then an organ in close physical proximity should be selected. The 

remainder selection provides a claimant favorable estimate of dose. [OTIB-0005, 

pg. 30]

For secondary cancers with unknown primary cancers sites, the likely primary 

cancer sites are listed in Table 3-2. Since the likely primary cancer sites are 

listed only by ICD-9 code (three digit codes with no extensions), it is possible for 

a single likely primary cancer site to have multiple options for IMBA, external, 

and IREP organ model selection. In this case, each possible option must be 

assessed and the option that yields the largest probability of causation shall be 

submitted. [OTIB-0005, pg. 31]
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 91 of 290 

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 some claims, multiple secondary cancers with unknown primary cancer 

location may be indicated. In such cases, unless the DOL specifically states 

differently, each likely primary cancer site from each secondary cancer is to be 

treated separately, with individual IREP probability of causation determinations 

and combined as separate primary cancers. [OTIB-0005, pg. 31]

OTIB-0005 is also claimant favorable in cases of organs in close proximity to the thyroid: 

For cancer sites where “Thyroid/Remainder” is listed for the external organ 

selection, there is no external dose model for the organ of interest and the organ 

is located in close proximity to the thyroid. The thyroid has higher organ dose 

conversion factors than the remainder selection, thereby maximizing the dose. If 

a more realistic dose assessment is required rather than a maximizing dose 

assessment, then the remainder organ should be selected to calculate dose. 

[OTIB-0005, pg. 30]

Review of Objectives 7.1 and 7.3 

OTIB-0005 procedures are detailed enough to be followed by the dose reconstructor. It employs 

scientifically valid medical protocols and ICRP model organs to help the calculation of the POC. 

3.2.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined OTIB-0005 and concurs with its conceptual approach, including the overall 

technical approach used, scientific validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. OTIB-0005 is 

an essential document for the assignment of the POC in dose reconstruction. 

3.2.6 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. ICRP Publication 66: 

Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection, Annals of the ICRP 

Volume 24/1-3, 1995. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 2006. “Human Alimentary Tract 

Model for Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 100. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2004. Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP 

Model Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. January 23, 2004. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 92 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2006. Internal Dosimetry Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP 

Model Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. February 10, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0029. 2005. Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 5, 2005. 

SC&A 2005. The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-Task3, S. Cohen and Associates, McLean, Virginia. January 2005. 

3.3 ORAUT-OTIB-0006: DOSE RECONSTRUCTION FROM OCCUPATIONALLY 

RELATED DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY PROCEDURES 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related 

Diagnostic X-ray Procedures, Rev. 3, dated December 21, 2005, was prepared by Harry J. 

Pettengill, Ph.D. Input was also taken from a prior Rev. 2 review of the same OTIB by Hans 

Behling. 

3.3.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

Under EEOICPA, diagnostic x-rays, specifically chest x-rays, were required as a condition of 

employment and are included as part of the total occupational radiation exposure to the atomic 

worker. This document was published by ORAUT as an OTIB to be used for DOE and AWE 

sites relating to “... using a detailed methodology for dose reconstruction from diagnostic 

medical x-rays that were sustained by workers as a condition of employment, and provides the 

technical basis for dose reconstruction in the absence of specific dose measurements or records 

of technical factors.” This OTIB further states that it “supplements and expands upon the 

guidance provided in...OCAS-IG-001.”

3.3.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0006 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in this report. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 93 of 290 

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 3.3-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 3 Effective Date: 12/21/2005

Document Title: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures

Auditor: Harry J. Pettengill, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 3 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 

See Review 

Comments

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 94 of 290 

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 3.3-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 3 Effective Date: 12/21/2005

Document Title: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures

Auditor: Harry J. Pettengill, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 4 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 4 

See Review 

Comments

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.3.3 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.0 and 7.0 

For a procedure to support a dose reconstruction process that is expeditious and timely, the 

procedure should prioritize its content with the most important/relevant information presented 

first, followed by technical support data and data that are interesting but not essential. 

In Section 1 (Introduction), the procedure attempts to define and clarify what constitutes 

occupational medical exposures. Unfortunately, early consideration by NIOSH was that it 

constituted those exposures necessitated as “a condition of employment only.” To date, most 

dose reconstruction has limited medical dose to being from pre-employment, annual, and 

termination chest x-rays. Little or no consideration was given for other exams such as back xrays (lumbar spine), which were also a condition of employment. Past reviews of earlier 

revisions of this procedure have pointed this out, and NIOSH agrees that, these exams and 

further required screening exams of high-risk workers, such as beryllium and asbestosis workers, 

should be included. This revision of the OTIB is helpful, but it should be further revised such 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 95 of 290 

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. 

that dose reconstruction will include all potential work-related doses, especially screening 

exams. 

Section 2.0 of this OTIB provides a lengthy and detailed technical explanation regarding various 

parameters (i.e., beam kilovoltage, current, filtration, collimation, exposure time, distance, and 

waveform) that affect the beam output and, if known, can be used to estimate the potential air 

dose to a patient for a given diagnostic x-ray. However (and not surprisingly), the OTIB 

acknowledges the unlikely availability of such data (i.e., kVp, mA, filtration, distance, and 

exposure time), but not until Section 3.0, page 15, of the TIB, which states the following: 

X-ray output measurements are likely to be unavailable, particularly prior to 

about 1980 [when occupational x-rays probably ceased to be required for 

employment]. In the absence of suitable measurement data, medical diagnostic 

x-ray dose reconstruction can be accomplished using technique factors along 

with published output data that provide beam intensity per mAs as a function of 

kVp, filtration, and distance. [Emphasis added.] 

The unlikely availability of beam measurement data is restated several more times: 

Section 3.1, page 16: 

Although beam output measurements may typically be unavailable, diagnostic 

medical x-ray dose reconstruction using actual measurement data is the preferred 

method for determining the dose to the worker from this source, so much that 

special effort to determine if such measurements have been made is justifiable. 

[Emphasis added.] 

Section 3.1, page 16: 

If the actual beam quality is unknown, as is likely the case, to ensure claimant 

favorability, a higher rather than lower HVL should be assumed 

Section 3.2, page 17: 

When beam measurement data are unavailable, as is likely to be the case, 

technique factors can be used to obtain reasonable estimates of exposure. The 

basic data required for kVp, filtration, exposure in mAs, and distance. Beam 

output data are available from a number of publications, including NCRP Report 

No. 102 (NCRP, 1989). Table B.3 in this report (p 99) provides average air 

kerma rates for medical diagnostic x-ray equipment operating at various kVps 

with 2.5 mm Al filtration at distances from 30 to 182 cm from the source. 

Correction for different thickness of Al filtration can be made by reference to 

Table 3.1, p 13. Using these tables, a reasonable estimate of beam output and 

hence entrance kerma can be obtained. Once the entrance kerma has been 

determined, organ doses are determined in the manner described above for 

reconstruction using measurement data. [Emphasis added.] 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 96 of 290 

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. 

The difference between measurement data and technique factors for deriving dose estimates is 

trivial, since both techniques require knowledge about kVp, mA, filtration, distance, and 

exposure time that the procedure warns “are unlikely to be available.” By far, the most probable 

method for estimating medical occupational exposures will involve the use of default values, 

which the procedure does not address until the very end. 

In summary, this document reads more like an introductory reference text on medical x-rays than 

a procedure. It not only presents an excess of background information that is well-understood by 

a dose reconstructor, but is also of limited use since the required data are “unlikely to be 

available.” In spite of the unlikely availability of data, the procedure, nevertheless, justifies the 

need for the dose reconstructor to make “...that special effort to determine if such measurements 

have been made....” 

Reconstruction by means of default values as given in Section 3.3 of this procedure appears 

adequate and claimant favorable. As such, Section 3.3 should have been the principal 

component of this procedure. However, several other factors should be taken into consideration 

when using default values as presented in the procedure as shown in Table 3-4 (Default Dose 

Values by Procedure). These default values are derived from other historic studies and are not 

based upon actual measurements of x-ray machines used at DOE sites. Although the authors 

were careful to use minimum filtration, low kilovoltage, slow film, and no additional 

collimation, it still cannot describe the characteristics inherent to equipment in use at DOE sites 

during the early years. Typically, historic review has shown these parameters varied widely 

from site to site, and was more dependent on the type of equipment in use. 

 

There is some ambiguity regarding the use of default values. Table 3.4 identifies a default value 

of 3.0 cGy entrance kerma for photofluorographic chest examination, and proceeds to apply this 

value to default organ dose values given in Table 4.0-1 of Section 4.0. Section 5.0 of the OTIB 

provides some historical dose data on behalf of photofluorography that include a 1959 study of 

Hanford by Rising and Soldat. In that study the upper bound entrance skin exposure in air (ESE) 

for photofluorographic chest examinations was 1.53 R with the following recommendation: 

Thus, although the Hanford measured value is likely an upper limit and hence an 

overstatement of the actual exposure from photofluorography to the average 

patient, this 1.53 R ESE value should be used in the absence of data to ensure 

claimant favorability. 

Thus, the OTIB provides two default values for photofluorography, which differ by a factor of 2 

[i.e., 3.0 cGy entrance kerma versus 1.53 R (ESE)]. This raises two questions: (1) is the 1.53 R 

default value uniquely applicable to Hanford, and (2) if so, is there a defensible explanation for a 

two-fold higher value for all other DOE/AWE sites? The absence of a defensible explanation 

clearly raises the question regarding consistency of the dose reconstruction process. 

Also, a major consideration is the period of use of photofluorographic (PFG) equipment at DOE 

sites. The procedure prescribes that a dose reconstructor should assume that PFG was in use 

unless it is shown as not being available. Unfortunately, many dose reconstructors have used the 

absence of 6x9 inch film in a claimant’s file as the basis to rule out PFG. Given that medical 

records and x-ray films are often separated, this could result in significant lost dose. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 97 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

It would be more prudent for the procedure to state that dose reconstructors should use 1 PFG 

per year (1.53 R) prior to 1960, as a base and add other x-rays found in the files. 

3.3.4 References 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1989. Medical X-ray, 

Electron Beam, and Gamma-Ray Protection for Energies Up to 50 MeV (Equipment Design, 

Performance, and Use), Report No. 102, NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland. 

OCAS-IG-001. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 2, Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support. August 25, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 2003. Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic 

X-ray Procedures, Rev. 2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

December 29, 2003. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 2005. Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic 

X-ray Procedures, Rev. 3, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

December 21, 2005. 

3.4 ORAUT-OTIB-0013: INDIVIDUAL DOSE ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE FOR 

Y-12 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0013, Rev. 00, dated September 9, 2004, was prepared by Ron 

Buchanan, PhD, CHP, and Harry Chmelynski, PhD. 

3.4.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

There is not a specific section that states the purpose of OTIB-0013 (ORAUT 2004a). However, 

from the introduction and the remainder of the text, it can be determined that this document 

describes a scaling procedure that can be applied to coworker data to estimate doses during 

periods when workers were not monitored prior to 1961, if these unmonitored workers had at 

least five quarters of monitoring data during the period from 1961 through 1965. These 

estimates are used to supplement the measured doses, ultimately for use in external dose 

reconstruction. The scaling factors are estimated using the maximum likelihood statistical 

method, as described in Frome and Watkins 2004. A similar procedure for estimating the scaling 

factors based on a Bayesian statistical approach is discussed in OTIB-0015. Both methods are 

reported to yield very similar results. For large samples, the Bayesian and maximum likelihood 

estimates of the scaling factors should converge. 

3.4.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0013 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in this report.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 98 of 290 

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 3.4-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0013, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Individual Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 Dose Reconstruction

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP and Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 3 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 2 See Review 

Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 99 of 290 

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 3.4-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0013 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0013, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Individual Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 Dose Reconstruction

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP and Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? 5 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.4.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Generally, OTIB-0013 is written in a style that is clear and unambiguous. However, there are 

areas where the data are not clearly defined or there are conflicts in the years stated. These are: 

 Recorded-dose data points in Figure 1 unclear: OTIB-0013 on page 5 states that the 

solid green dots in Figure 1 are for when the recorded dose was known for the period 

1961 through 1965 for the individual in the example; it then goes on to calculate the 

unknown doses, with error bars, for each quarter for the period 1956 through 1960. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 100 of 290 

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. 

However, the figure on page 6 shows solid green dots for all quarters for all years; 1956–

1965. It is not clear from the text why there are the solid green dots representing 

measured doses in Figure 1 for the period 1956 through 1960, if it was necessary to 

calculate unmonitored doses because of lack of monitoring during that period.

 Conflict concerning the time period the DR is to apply this OTIB - It is not clear from 

the OTIB for what time period these dose adjustment factors are to be applied because of 

the following statements:

– OTIB-0013: On page 3, Section 3.0, it states, “...unmonitored quarters from 

1951 through 1960.”

– OTIB-0013: On page 4, Section 4.0, it states, “...unmonitored between January 

1951 and December 1960.”

– OTIB-0013: In the heading of Table 1, it states, “...doses 1951 to 1965.” 

However, Table 1 lists data for 1947, 3rd quarter through 1965, 4th quarter. 

– OTIB-0013 provides information and data for PROC-0042, which uses the term 

“...prior to 1961” on page 3 of PROC-0042.

– PROC-0042: Table 5.1 lists data for the period 1947–1965.

– Workbook: Y-12_Workbook CB_1951–1960 and CF After 1960 1.14.: List data 

for 1951 through 1961 in its Lookup Parameter spreadsheet. 

For consistency in dose reconstruction, this OTIB needs to define the specific period that the 

dose reconstructor (DR) is to apply this data and scaling procedure. 

Review Objective 3.2.1 

The following two items were identified concerning the use of personal dosimeter and dosimetry 

data: 

 No real coworker data for 1947 to 1956 - Periods when most of the recorded dosimetry 

data were not available, or not usable to derive a dose distribution, were not specifically 

mentioned in this OTIB to inform the DR what data was, and was not, used to obtain the 

coworker dose distribution data. It is not stated in this document that the dose data for 

the years 1947–1956 (3rd quarter) in Table 1, p. 8, are not actually from badged workers’ 

dose records. In fact, these values are inferred doses from regressions analysis of 147 

badged workers at Y-12 for the period of 1956–1965. Document RPRT-0032 must be 

analyzed to understand the development of this data. Even if this is an acceptable method 

to use in view of the lack of actual, reliable, recorded dose data for 1947–1956, it should 

be clearly stated in the procedure that this is the case and not presented as actual dose of 

record.

 Incorrect LOD value - On page 4 of the OTIB it assumes an LOD = 30 mrem for use in 

calculating Yo

 to be used when the worker’s recorded dose = 0. However, ORAUT-
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 101 of 290 

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. 

TKBS-0014-6, page 12, Table 6.3.1-2 lists the laboratory MDL (or LOD) to be 40 mrem 

for 1948–1980. Additionally, the MDL values for dosimeters at Y-12 are listed in 

Table 3 of Watkins, et al. 2004, which is reproduced below as Table.

Table 3.4-2: Minimum Detection Level (MDL) and Assigned MDL Doses* 

for Film Used to Measure Beta and Gamma Radiation Exposures at the Y12 Plant 

Period of time** MDL Assigned MDL 

January 1948 to January 1950 30 30 

January 1950 to January 1952 30 0 

January 1952 to September 1952 50 50 

September 1952 to January 1953 43 43 

January 1953 to July 1954 50 50 

July 1954 to July 1956 30 30 

July 1956 to July 1961 30 15 

July 1961 to October 1980 30 Not Applicable 

* Doses in mrem. 

** Dates are approximate because the changes did not occur for all employees at the same time 

Source: Watkins et al. 2004, Table 3

Considering these larger documented values for LODs, the laboratory minimum LOD of 40 

mrem should at least be used in this analysis. 

Review Objective 3.2.4 

The purpose of OTIB-0013 is to provide estimates of scaling factors for each worker based on 

the relationship of the available data in the 1961–1965 period relative to coworker data in the 

same quarters. If a Y-12 worker was employed for at least five quarters from 1961 to 1965, this 

document proposes that the individual’s monitoring data can be used to “adjust” the coworker 

dose distributions to provide estimates for unmonitored periods from 1951 through 1960. 

However, as described below, a very important assumption of the constant scaling factor is not 

supported in the OTIB. 

Unsupported assumption of constant scaling factor. The method for applying the estimated 

scaling factors is based on the assumption that the individual’s potential for exposure during the 

1950s is similar to that from 1961 to 1965, and that the individual’s doses differ from the 

coworker population dose by a constant factor both in the later years when data are available for 

comparison, and in the earlier unmonitored years. No evidence is presented to support these 

important assumptions. It is likely that the appropriate scaling factor may change over time for 

many individuals, especially those who change job assignments during the 15-year time frame 

covered by the analysis, but also for other workers due to changes in working methods and 

activities. No evidence is presented that five quarters of data provide sufficient information to 

estimate the scaling factors with sufficient precision. Moreover, under the proposed procedure 

the most uncertain scaling factors, estimated for the individuals with only five quarters of data, 

are then applied to the largest number of unmonitored quarters, compounding the effects of 

uncertainty. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 102 of 290 

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. 

The scaling procedure also assumes that suitable lognormal distributions for the coworker 

population in the time periods prior to 1961 are available from other sources. The parameters μ 

and σ for the lognormal distributions reported in OTIB-0013, Table 1, are plotted in the lower 

two curves in Figure. Also shown in Figure are the trend line linear regressions for each 

parameter. The three upper curves in the figure show the median, mean, and 95th percentile of 

the lognormal distributions. A noticeable dip in the median, mean and 95th percentile occurs in 

1961, when more-widespread monitoring was adopted. Prior to this, only workers thought to 

have higher potential for exposure were being monitored. After 1961, the dose distributions 

have remained at lower levels. Note that the dip in 1961 occurred mainly due to the reduction in 

the parameter μ, while σ actually increased by a small amount. These effects are what would be 

expected if workers at the lower end of the distribution begin to be tested while the previously 

monitored, mostly higher, doses remain somewhat the same before and after 1961. These 

changes would be expected to increase the variance and decrease the median. 

y = -0.0036x + 1.1886

y = -0.0405x + 5.0534

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1951-11952-11953-11954-11955-11956-11957-11958-11959-11960-11961-11962-11963-11964-11965-1

Quarter

Parameter Value or Dose (mrem)

Mu Sigma Median (mrem)

Mean (mrem) 95th Pctl (mrem) Trend(Sigma)

Trend(Mu)

Figure 3.4-1: Estimated Coworker Lognormal Distribution Parameters 

Mu and Sigma with Trendlines, and Mean, Median, and 

95th Percentile of the Dose Distribution, by Quarter 

Note that a similar dip occurred in 1958, but dose levels quickly recovered. This suggests that 

the variability in measured dose levels was greater prior to 1961 than after, because a smaller 

number of workers were being monitored and the quarterly doses to these workers were more 

variable. The parameter values for the coworker lognormal distributions in the early years 

appear to be based on simple backward extrapolation of coworker distributions in later years. No 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 103 of 290 

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. 

evidence is presented that this backward extrapolation is claimant favorable. Indeed, given the 

increased variability in the 1957 to 1961 time interval compared to post-1961, it is unlikely that 

the parameter values in the years before 1957 would be as uniform as indicated in Figure. 

The derivation of coworker lognormal distributions for the early years is not a topic addressed in 

this document, only the derivation of worker-specific scaling factors. Despite the 

mathematically correct use of maximum likelihood methods for estimating the scaling factors, 

the constancy of the scaling factors over time and the application of such factors to possibly 

inappropriate distributions in the early years are not adequately addressed. 

The product of the procedure is a set of scaling factors which are used to adjust the coworker 

distributions and assign a unique distribution to each worker in the unmonitored quarters. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Discontinuity at low and zero doses. The example provided on page 4 and completed on page 5 

was very informative and helped to clarify the procedure. However, analyzing the example data 

in OTIB-0013, Table 2, and the yt

o function which replaces yt (the ln of recorded dose, d) when 

the recorded dose is zero as described on page 4 for use in determining the maximum likelihood 

estimate, φ, indicates a discontinuity in the dose assignment function in the 0–10 mrem range. 

For example, if two identical workers were to receive the doses as listed in OTIB-0013, Table 2, 

with worker A receiving three zeros as listed in the “d” Column of the table and worker B

receiving three 7-mrem doses instead of three zero-mrem doses, then according to the present 

dose assignment (using the yt

o function if d = 0) for the 1st quarter of 1957, worker A would be 

assigned 151.4 mrem and worker B would be assigned 126.7 mrem; 16% less dose. A sample 

calculation shows that, in fact, worker A could receive ten zero doses and worker B could receive 

ten 7-mrem doses and worker B would receive a dose assignment 16% less than worker A, while, 

according to the records, worker B received 70 mrem more dose than worker A during the period 

1961–1965. This could result in inequality in dose assignments for each year prior to 1961 that 

this method is used, i.e., a worker is penalized for having low doses recorded as opposed to zero 

readings. It should be noted that this problem diminishes as the recorded doses approach a 

significant fraction of the LOD value (however, increasing of the LOD as recommended in 

Section 3.2.1 of this report would extend the range of the problem). It should also be noted that 

PROC-0042 instructs the dose reconstructor to not use the scaling procedure if the scaling factor 

goes negative, which according to this analysis is caused by a large number of zeros or very low 

doses recorded. However, dose assignment inequality could still occur and this discontinuity in 

dose assignment methodology should be corrected. 

3.4.4 Workbooks 

The following workbook makes use of the correction factors derived in this OTIB and 

implemented in PROC-0042: 

Y-12_Workbook CB_1951–1960 and CF After 1960 1.14. 

Incorrect use of Scaling Factor terminology in Workbook, etc. There is a misuse of 

terminology that could result in incorrect dose assignment if the dose reconstructor is not 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 104 of 290 

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. 

familiar with the intent of both OTIB-0013 and PROC-0042. This stems from using the term 

“scaling factor” interchangeably for φ and for eφ. OTIB-0013 defines and uses the term “scaling 

factor” appropriately; however, the workbook and PROC-0042 do not. On page 4, OTIB-0013 

defines the scaling factor: “The estimate of the scaling factor φ ...”, and on page 7 and 14, 

PROC-0042 defines the scaling factor: “The scaling factor, φ,...” However as pointed out in 

SC&A’s recent review of PROC-0042, the term is incorrectly used when referring to eφ. This 

occurs again in the workbook in the Lookup Parameters spreadsheet, Column CU, line 3 and 

lines 5–6. By the definitions quoted above, Phi in Column CS is actually the scaling factor φ; 

whereas Column CU, lines 5–7 are eφ

. Additionally, Column CU, line 3, should read “If scaling 

factor is >= 0 then we can use modeled data, else we must stop.” Or, it could be changed to read 

“If e(scaling factor) is >= 1 then we can use modeled data, else we must stop.” and be correct; if 

modeled data refers to the data in Table 1 and the procedures in OTIB-0013 and PROC-0042. 

Also, Column CU, lines 5–6 should be changed to read “e(scaling factor). 

3.4.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-PROC-0042. 2004. Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring Data on 

Penetrating Gamma-Ray Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant 

Prior to 1961, Rev. 00, September 9, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

(ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0013. 2004a. Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 

00, September 9, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0015. 2004b. Technical Information Bulletin: Bayesian Methods for 

Estimation of Unmonitored Y-12 External Penetrating Doses with a Time-dependent Lognormal 

Model, Rev. 00, September 9, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORAUT-RPRT-0032. 2005. Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at 

the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 1 – Gamma Radiation, Rev. 00, April 13, 2005. 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6. 2003. Technical Basis Document for the Y-12 National Security 

Complex – Occupational External Dosimetry, Rev. 00, November 19, 2003. Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

Watkins, J.P., G.D. Kerr, E.L. Frome, W.G. Tankersley, and C.M. West. 2004. Historical 

Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

Part 1 – Gamma Radiation, ORAU Technical Report # 2004-0888. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 105 of 290 

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. 

3.5 ORAUT-OTIB-0015: BAYESIAN METHODS FOR ESTIMATION OF 

UNMONITORED Y-12 EXTERNAL PENETRATING DOSES WITH A TIMEDEPENDENT LOGNORMAL MODEL 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0015, Rev. 00, dated September 9, 2004, was prepared by Ron 

Buchanan, PhD, CHP, and Harry Chmelynski, PhD. 

3.5.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

There is not a specific section that states the purpose of this OTIB. However, it does state in the 

introduction that this OTIB describes the Bayesian procedure in general, discusses Bayesian 

regression and prediction analysis of external penetrating dose data for Y-12 with a time–

dependent lognormal model, and estimates a scale factor for imputation of unmonitored does for 

an individual. 

3.5.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0015 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.5-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0015 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0015, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Bayesian Methods for Estimation of Unmonitored Y-12 External Penetrating Doses 

with a Time-Dependent Lognormal Model

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP and Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 106 of 290 

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 3.5-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0015 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0015, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Bayesian Methods for Estimation of Unmonitored Y-12 External Penetrating Doses 

with a Time-Dependent Lognormal Model

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP and Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 4 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 4 See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 1 See Review Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 107 of 290 

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 3.5-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0015 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0015, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Bayesian Methods for Estimation of Unmonitored Y-12 External Penetrating Doses 

with a Time-Dependent Lognormal Model

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP and Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? 5 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 2 See Review Comments 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 2 See Review Comments 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.5.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Generally, OTIB-0015 is written in a style that is clear and unambiguous. However, one area 

that is lacking in detail is Section 2.1 on page 4 where the variables used in the equations are not 

defined, i.e., beta. The reader is required to refer to associated references, i.e., ORNL/TM2004/146 (Frome and Watkins 2004), OTIB-0013, and/or PROC-0042 to analyze the equations. 

Review Objective 3.2.1 

Personal dosimeter and dosimetry data were adequately addressed, except in the following area: 

 Incorrect LOD value - The OTIB was generally claimant favorable in the use of 

recorded or missing dosimetry data affecting dose estimates. However, on page 4 of the 

OTIB it assumes an LOD = 30 mrem for use in calculating scaling factor. However, 

ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6, page 12, Table 6.3.1-2 lists the laboratory LOD to be 40 mrem 

for 1948–1980. Additionally, the MDL values for dosimeters at Y-12 according to 

ORAU Technical Report 2004-0888 (Watkins et al. 2004) page 11, are reproduced below 

as Table. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 108 of 290 

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 3.5-2: Minimum Detection Level (MDL) and Assigned MDL Doses* 

for Film Used to Measure Beta and Gamma Radiation Exposures at the Y-12 

Plant 

Period of time** MDL Assigned MDL 

January 1948 to January 1950 30 30 

January 1950 to January 1952 30 0 

January 1952 to September 1952 50 50 

September 1952 to January 1953 43 43 

January 1953 to July 1954 50 50 

July 1954 to July 1956 30 30 

July 1956 to July 1961 30 15 

July 1961 to October 1980 30 Not Applicable 

* Doses in mrem. 

** Dates are approximate because the changes did not occur for all employees at the same time 

Source: Watkins et al. 2004, Table 3

Considering these larger documented values for LODs, the laboratory minimum LOD of 

40 mrem should at least be used in this analysis. 

Review Objective 3.2.4 

The OTIB makes use of 40 quarters of coworker data for 1956 to 1965 in the last equation on 

page 4 and in the text in the latter part of page 4. However, according to ORAU Technical 

Report 2004-0888 (Watkins et al. 2004), the only data that are reliable for that period is the 4th

quarter of 1956 through the 4th quarter of 1965, which is 37 quarters, not 40 quarters of data as 

used in OTIB-0015. 

Review Objective 4.1 

Prescriptive approach is included in the discussion of Review Objective 7.2. 

Review Objective 7.1 

The level of detail is included in the discussion of Review Objective 7.2. 

Review Objective 7.2 

The flow of material for the estimation of unmonitored external penetrating doses at Y-12 is: 

 General statistical theory and formal development in TM-2004/146 (Frome and Watkins 

2004) to

 Specific theory and formulation in OTIB-0015, to 

 Y-12 application developed in ORAU Technical Report 2004-0888 (Watkins et al. 2004) 

and then to methodology specific to Y-12 in OTIB-0013, and finally to

 Dose reconstruction (DR) procedures and instructions in PROC-0042. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 109 of 290 

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. 

For a document to be useful to a DR it must contain some form of instructions, equations, data 

tables, correction factors, etc.; or some necessary information related to such items. However, 

OTIB-0015 contains no such items. It does not contain any prescriptive information, but it does 

contain levels of detail far more than is reasonable, needed, or desired, for DR. OTIB-0015 is 

not a technical instruction document as much as it is a specific statistical theory document and is 

not necessary for use, or as a reference, by dose reconstructors for correct DRs. The document in 

itself is well written and mostly correct (except as noted above), but the DR should not be 

burdened with reading and understanding this specific-theory document. 

3.5.4 Workbooks 

There are no workbooks involved with this OTIB. The workbook Y-12_Workbook CB_1951–

1960 and CF After 1960 1.14 eventually makes use of the results of the specific theory and 

formulation developed in this OTIB. 

3.5.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

Frome, E., and Watkins, J. 2004. Statistical Analysis of Data with Non-detectable Values, 

ORNL/TM-2004/146, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0013. 2004a. Dose Adjustment Procedure for Y-12 Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 

00, September 9, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0015. 2004b. Technical Information Bulletin: Bayesian Methods for 

Estimation of Unmonitored Y-12 External Penetrating Doses with a Time-dependent Lognormal 

Model, Rev. 00, September 9, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-PROC-0042. 2004. Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring Data on 

Penetrating Gamma-Ray Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant 

Prior to 1961, Rev. 00, September 9, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6. 2003. Technical Basis Document for the Y-12 National Security 

Complex – Occupational External Dosimetry, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 19, 2003. 

Watkins, J., Kerr, G., Frome, E., Tankersley, W., and West, C. 2004. Historical Evaluation of 

Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, (Part 1 – Gamma 

Radiation), ORAU Technical Report 2004-0888, Oak Ridge Associated Universities: Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 110 of 290 

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. 

3.6 ORAUT-OTIB-0021: EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSIMETRY DATA FOR THE 

X-10 SITE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0021, External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the X-10 Site, 

Rev. 01, dated November 7, 2006, was prepared by Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.6.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of OTIB-0021 (ORAUT 2006) is to provide information to allow dose 

reconstructors to assign doses to workers at the X-10 site who have no or limited monitoring 

data, based on site coworker data. The data in this TIB are to be used in conjunction with 

ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment. This 

document provides site coworker data and information that may be used only for cases not 

requiring best estimate calculations. Such cases include clearly non-compensable cases for 

which a higher external dose can be assigned than was likely to have been actually received, or 

clearly compensable cases for which a lower external dose can be assigned than was likely to 

have been actually received. 

3.6.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0021 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.6-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0021 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0021, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the X-10 Site

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 3 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review Comments

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 111 of 290 

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 3.6-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0021 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0021, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the X-10 Site

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to 

permitunforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as 

requiredunder the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 4 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 112 of 290 

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 3.6-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0021 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0021, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the X-10 Site

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.6.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Generally, the OTIB was written in a fairly clear and unambiguous manner. However, some 

wording and errors contained in the text creates confusion and requires several rereads, and/or 

assumptions to be made, to clarify the issues. The following are the areas identified: 

 Page 6, Section 4.0, Item # 1, states, “Revision 1 of this document provides site coworker 

data and information that may be used only for cases not requiring best estimate 

calculations.” However, the last sentence states, “Revision 1 of this document will 

provide dose distributions and additional information based on the data presented herein 

to permit the processing of cases requiring a best estimate analysis.” There may be an 

error in the last sentence of the paragraph; perhaps it should read “Future revisions of 

this document...” 

 Page 6, Section 4.0, Items #3 and #4 contains identical text. Therefore, Item #4 needs to 

be deleted. 

 Page 7, Section 6.0; the wording and intended significance of latter part of the first 

paragraph is unclear. It reads as follows: 

Starting in 1961, the CEDR data are identified by quarter. Since the site 

implemented a quarterly badge exchange cycle for essentially all workers 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 113 of 290 

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. 

starting in the third quarter of 1956, these CEDR data are directly 

correlated to the X-10 site monitoring results. 

It is not obvious how it is correlated, and to what, and the significance of this correlation. 

It goes on to state: 

Prior to 1961, the CEDR data for X-10 typically include from one to three 

monitoring results each year for an individual. This is as indication that 

the result represents annual summaries of the quarterly or weekly (which 

was the typical exchange frequency prior to the third quarter of 1956) 

dosimetry data. 

If the exchange frequency was 4 (i.e., quarterly) to 50 (i.e., weekly) times per year then it 

is not clear how one to three entries each year would indicate an annual summary of this 

many monitoring periods. 

At the end of the paragraph it states: 

The fact that two or three results are associated with some individuals is 

an indication that dosimetry results from Oak Ridge sites other than X-10 

(e.g., K-25 and Y-12) were included. It does not appear possible based on 

either the CEDR or CER data to separate the doses associated with the 

individual Oak Ridge sites prior to 1961; thus, these data should be used 

with caution by the dose reconstructors. 

It is not clear if this is the same one to three results referred to in the previous sentence or 

not, or how these results would indicate that the dosimetry results were from other Oak 

Ridge sites. 

 Page 10, last sentence of the first paragraph, states the following: 

Additionally, assigning beta dose as gamma dose in IREP has no negative 

effect because the radiation effectiveness factors are the same for >15 keV 

electrons and >250 keV photons, and are higher for both <30 keV photons 

and 30–250 keV photons. 

The meaning of the last part of this statement is unclear in its present form. After 

consulting reference OTIB-0060, February 6, 2007, it is assumed to mean the following: 

Additionally, assigning beta dose as gamma dose in IREP has no negative 

effect because the radiation effectiveness factors (REF) are the same for >15 

keV electrons and >250 keV photons, and the REFs are higher for <30 keV 

photons and 30–250 keV photons than they are for beta particles. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 114 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 1.2 

The OTIB was written in a manner that presented the data in a logical sequence. However, 

Section 8.0, page 11, of this OTIB does not provide any details concerning the data contained in 

Table 3, but instead makes a reference to OTIB-0052 (ORAUT 2006). OTIB-0052, page 32, 

Section 8.2, explains that the total dose is equal to 1.4 x recorded dose, plus the coworker missed 

dose. However, an analysis of the data in Table 3 of OTIB-0021 shows that it is more complex 

than this simple statement. The data entries in Table 3 depend how the data in Table 2 were 

derived, i.e., if the non-zero coworkers’ dose were greater than the coworkers’ dose, including 

zeros plus 1⁄2 LOD from Table 1 or the other way around (this can be different for the different 

percentiles within a given year). This comparison is made in Section 7.0, page 9, Step #3 of 

OTIB-0021, but not incorporated into Section 8.0 to assist the DR in understanding the contents 

of Table 3 for Construction Trade Workers (CTW). Some of the entries in Table 3 were spot 

checked by SC&A and verified as derived from one of the two prescribed methods. However, 

not all entries in Table 3 reflect values derived from either of the two methods. For example, the 

entry in Table 2 for 1950 for the 99th percentile is 3.113 rem; therefore [1.40 × 3.113 = 4.358] or 

[(3.113 - 0.780 missed dose) × 1.40 + 0.780 = 4.046] should appear in Table 3 at the 99th

percentile for 1950, but the entry in Table 3 is 4.172 rem, neither of these derived numbers. For 

1950, the entry in Table 3 for the 95th percentile is 2.246 (i.e., 1.40 × 1.604 = 2.246) and the 

entry in Table 3 for the 50th percentile is 0.780 rem (i.e., (0.780 - 0.780) × 1.40 + 0.780 = 0.780 

rem), which appears to be correctly derived by one of the two methods. The 99th percentile value 

for 1955 is another example where the entry in Table 3 does not appear to be derived from 

Table 2 by use of either of the two stated methods. 

This could cause confusion or incorrect dose assignment for CTWs if the DR expected, or 

automatically assigned, doses to an unmonitored CTW that were simply 1.4 × the data entries in 

Table 2. 

Review Objective 1.3 

Most of the data needed to follow the prescribed steps were contained in this OTIB. However, 

the footnote of Table 1, page 8, informs the DR that the LOD values for low-energy beta are not 

reliable. It then goes on to state that the X-10 TBD should be reviewed to identify such potential 

exposure scenarios. However, it does not inform the DR how to handle these low-energy beta 

exposures once they are identified. 

Review Objective 5.2 

Section 7.0, page 9, Item #1, describes the database from which the coworker dose data were 

obtained. It explains how the partial-year doses were extrapolated. However, the last sentence 

makes the statement, “Prior to 1961, reported doses were not extrapolated since the reported 

values apparently represented doses received during the entire year.” The assumption that the 

annual recorded doses prior to 1961 represented an entire year of monitoring is not supported. In 

fact, there would have been the normal partial years of monitoring/employment that would make 

the average annual recorded dose somewhat less than the dose that would have been received in 

a full 12-month period. The recorded doses prior to 1961 would need to be adjusted by an 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 115 of 290 

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. 

average monitoring period factor, such as 12/11 if the average employment/monitoring period 

was 11 months, etc. 

3.6.4 Workbooks 

The external coworker dose data for the X-10 site contained in the DR tool entitled Complex 

Wide CoWorker Data 1.10 was compared to the data in Table 2 of this OTIB. The values of the 

data were the same in both documents. 

3.6.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0020. 2004. Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment, 

Rev. 00, December 29, 2004. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0021. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: External Coworker Dosimetry 

Data for the X-10 Site, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

November 7, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 31, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060. 2007. Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dose Reconstruction, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT): Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

February 6, 2007. 

3.7 ORAUT-OTIB-0026: EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSIMETRY DATA FOR THE 

K-25 SITE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0026, External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the K-25 Site, 

Rev. 00 PC-2, dated November 15, 2006, was prepared by Harry J. Pettengill, PhD, and 

supported by Joe Zlotnicki, PhD. 

3.7.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of this OTIB is to provide information to allow ORAUT dose reconstructors to 

assign doses to workers at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25) who have no or limited 

monitoring data, based on site coworker data. The data in this OTIB are to be used in 

conjunction with ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose 

Assignment.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 116 of 290 

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. 

3.7.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0026 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the OTIB adequately supports 

the dose reconstruction process, as described in this report. 

Table 3.7-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0026 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0026, Rev. 00 PC-2 Effective Date: 11/15/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the K-25 Site

Auditor: Harry J. Pettengill, PhD and Joe Zlotnicki, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review Comments

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 117 of 290 

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 3.7-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0026 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0026, Rev. 00 PC-2 Effective Date: 11/15/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the K-25 Site

Auditor: Harry J. Pettengill, PhD and Joe Zlotnicki, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 4 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 4 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 4 See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 See Review Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 4 See Review Comments 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 4 See Review Comments 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 118 of 290 

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. 

3.7.3 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and 2.1 

A concern arises in the guidance provided to dose reconstructors (DR) in Section 7, item 5. 

(OTIB-0026, page 8). The use of professional judgment is recommended. The DR is required to 

determine whether a worker was in one of the following three categories: 

...unlikely to have been exposed..., or 

...Exposed to intermittent low levels of radiation..., or 

...routinely exposed...

Based on the DR’s judgment, a choice is made to use the on-site ambient dose, the 50th

percentile, or 95th percentile as a best estimate of the workers’ dose. This is contrary to the 

requirement for dose calculations to follow a prescriptive approach. This concern is discussed in 

detail in the SC&A report, The Review of NIOSH/ORAU Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, Supplement 1 (SC&A 2006). The OTIB should develop a more detailed 

prescriptive approach to this issue that enables the DR to categorize the worker without the 

routine need for personal judgment. 

Review Objectives 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 

Until approximately 1980, few of the dosimeters issued at the K-25 site were processed. Thus 

the coworker data that is developed in OTIB-0026 is significant and will play a role in the dose 

determination for many workers. 

The doses that are assigned in the database are based on a composite of limited measurements 

and an assignment of the LOD/2 entered in place of missing or null results as required in OTIB0020. As discussed in the external dosimetry section of the site profile review report, it is not 

entirely clear when and how dosimeters were pulled for processing. Thus the entire database for 

coworkers is based to a great extent on an unknown group of (presumably) higher exposure 

individuals, coupled with a large component attributable to the LOD/2. 

Review Objectives 4.1 and 7.1 thru 7.3 

There is a concern with the development of the shallow dose table (Table 2, OTIB-0026): The 

process of deriving the data for the table resulted in zero values for the non-penetrating 

component of dose for 19 of the 41 years the table addresses. The OTIB describes the issue as: 

...With the methodology described above, null values for non-penetrating dose 

can occur because of the subtraction of the reported penetrating doses from the 

reported shallow doses and the favorable to claimant method described above to 

establish coworker doses based on the addition of potential missed doses. 

However, a “zero” value in Table 2 for non-penetrating dose will not result in a 

dose of zero being assigned to an organ such as the skin. For example, the 50th 

percentile dose to the skin in 1948 would be assigned entirely as 0.780 rem of 

photons. This approach does not result in an underestimation of probability of 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 119 of 290 

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. 

causation (which is determined by the Department of Labor) because assigning 

beta dose as gamma dose in IREP has no negative effect, since the radiation 

effectiveness factors are the same for >15 keV electrons and >250 keV photons, 

and are higher for 30–250 keV photons. [OTIB-0026, pg. 10] 

This issue is dismissed as unimportant, as it is stated that IREP will automatically assign the 

penetrating dose to the non-penetrating input. This may well be technically appropriate at the 

present time. However, surely this assumption would collapse were NIOSH to modify IREP in 

the future and change this particular programming rule. Consideration should be given to 

modifying the table to ensure that a modification of IREP does not inadvertently cause the 

system to fail with regard to non-penetrating dose calculations. In this reviewer’s opinion, the 

reliance on the current design of a software program as a method of ensuring the accuracy of 

input data from a very different component of the overall dose reconstruction system is a weak 

quality link. 

3.7.4 Conclusions 

There are two areas where the OTIB will provide a significantly claimant-favorable approach. 

First, as discussed in the final paragraph of section 7.0 of the TIB, the annual doses show a 

marked decline once actual dosimetry results are used in place of estimates. Although doses 

might be expected to decline slightly when dosimeter processing is first ramped up due to 

increased worker and management awareness, the reduction by factors ranging by 5 to 10 signify 

that the estimates were crafted conservatively. 

The second area where a conservative approach has been taken is in the use of the system wide 

modifying factor for construction workers as laid out in OTIB-0052 and incorporated in the 

November 2006 version of OTIB-0026. This OTIB reviewed a number of sites and a system 

wide adjustment factor of 1.4 was adopted for construction workers. This is claimant favorable 

for K-25, which was a selected site for the review. The data shows that the construction worker 

doses were bounded by the total worker dose for every year of K-25 operation except one. Thus 

for all other years, the coworker dose assigned for construction trades will automatically be 

increased by a factor of 1.4, despite the fact that the data shows that this is not required for 

K-25. 

3.7.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0020. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data 

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

Ohio. October 7, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0026. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: External Coworker Dosimetry 

Data for the K-25 Site, Rev. 00 PC-02, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 15, 2006. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 120 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 2007. Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction 

Trade Workers, Rev. 00 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

January 16, 2007. 

SC&A 2006. Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-TASK3 Supplement 1, Rev. 0, Draft Report, June 8, 2006. S. Cohen 

and Associates, McLean, Virginia. 

3.8 ORAUT-OTIB-0027: SUPPLEMENTARY EXTERNAL DOSE INFORMATION 

FOR ROCKY FLATS PLANT 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0027, Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky Flats 

Plant, Rev. 00, dated May 19, 2005, was prepared by Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.8.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of OTIB-0027 is to supplement the information given in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, 

Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flats Plant - Y-12 - Occupation External Dosimetry, 

Rev. 00, and ORAUT-TKBS-0011-4, Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flats Plant – 

Y-12 - Occupation Environmental Dosimetry, Rev. 01. This OTIB provides additional 

information for calculating dose from low-energy photons and electrons, and dosimetry 

uncertainty factors. 

3.8.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0027 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 121 of 290 

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 3.8-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0027 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0027, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/19/2005

Document Title: Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky Flats Plant

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 3 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 122 of 290 

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 3.8-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0027 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0027, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/19/2005

Document Title: Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky Flats Plant

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 1 See Review Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.8.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

The procedure was written in a fairly clear and unambiguous manner. However, some of the 

errors contained in the text create confusion and require several rereads to clarify the issues. The 

following are the errors identified: 

 Page 5, Section 1.0 – Occupational External Dosimetry (Rev. 01) should read 

Occupational Environmental Dose (Rev. 01). 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 123 of 290 

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. 

 Page 5, Section 2.0 – First paragraph, 5th line, is it correct to assume that the word “they” 

refers to the gloves; as opposed to material, windows, etc., pulled outside for storage? 

 Page 5, Pre-1960 – First paragraph, 5th line, should read “as a sum of each of the two 

windows (OW + CD)”; not “as the sum of each of the three windows (OW + CD + BR),” 

because BR was not present in this era of dosimeters. 

 Page 5, Pre-1960 – First paragraph, next to the last line, should read “contribution was,” 

not “contribution is was.” 

 The change from film to TLDs most likely did not take place all at once, but the OTIB 

contains inconsistencies in the year that film was discontinued and TLDs started. The 

text on page 6 states around 1970, however, Table 4-1 on page 7 lists 1969 for photons 

and 1968 for electrons. The change-over date for photons and electrons should be the 

same, and agree with the text. 

 Page 8, Table 4-2 lists the period for Panasonic TLD for photons as 1983–1998. Most 

likely this should read 1983–2003 to agree with the rest of the data in the table. 

The procedure goes into some details concerning the past and then the presently recommended 

methods to be used for calculating non-penetrating and penetrating doses from recorded doses 

for each of the three time periods. It would be useful, and may help to prevent misunderstanding, if a summary table of presently recommended methods was provided for quick 

reference at the end of Section 2.0. 

Review Objective 1.5 

In general, the procedure is prescriptive and eliminates the need for subjective decisions or data 

interpretation on the part of the DR. However, several statements are made that could leave the 

DR without a clear course of action. Twice on page 6 it is stated that “Alternatively, if original 

component data is available in the dosimetry record, Pen and Skin doses can be calculated using 

CD, BR and OW results and the equations above.” This is a true statement, but it is most likely 

unrealistic for a DR to perform these very time-consuming and possibly error-prone data 

manipulations. 

Review Objective 5.2 

The procedure is generally claimant favorable, but a situation could arise that leaves the DR 

without definite directions when there is an unknown parameter that could affect dose estimates. 

Twice on page 6 and once on page 7, the statement is made, “Using these equations and 

available knowledge of source material (e.g., plutonium, enriched or depleted uranium) 

spectra,...” where knowledge of source material is referring to the data in Table 2-1. However, 

the DR is not provided with what is the most claimant-favorable default source material to use if 

the worker’s source material is unknown. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 124 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

Review Objective 6.1 

Pages 7 and 8 of the OTIB provide uncertainty factors for photon, neutron, and electron doses for 

different time periods at RFP. However, there is no mention of the appropriate probability 

distributions to use in the IREP Input, which would be a “constant” for measured doses. 

3.8.4 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-4. 2004b. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flats Plant - Y-12 - 

Occupation Environmental Dosimetry, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. June 29, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6. 2004a. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flats Plant - Y-12 - 

Occupation External Dosimetry, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 20, 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0027. 2005. Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky Flats Plant, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 19, 2005. 

3.9 ORAUT-OTIB-0029: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER DATA FOR Y-12 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0029, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12, Rev. 00, dated 

April 5, 2005, was prepared by Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.9.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of OTIB-0029 is to provide detailed calculations and an assignment of 

intakes to energy employees who, for a variety of reasons, were not monitored for internal 

exposure or whose records of such monitoring are incomplete or unavailable, based on coworker 

data from the Y-12 Site.

3.9.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0029 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 125 of 290 

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 3.9-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0029 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0029, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 04/05/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

4 

See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 3 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 2 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 2 

See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 126 of 290 

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 3.9-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0029 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0029, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 04/05/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 3 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 4 See Review Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.9.3 General Comments 

OTIB-0029 states the following: 

Bioassay results were obtained from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and 

Education (ORISE) Center for Epidemiologic Research (CER) Dosimetry 

Database, which contains uranium urinalysis records from the Y-12 site for 1950 

to 1988. The database results are in units of disintegrations per minute 

(dpm)/day, although original urinalysis results were reported in terms of either 

mass or activity concentrations, depending on the measurement method. The 

assumptions used to convert mass results to activity concentrations for inclusion 

in the database are not known, nor are the assumptions used to normalize spot 

sample results to 24 hours. (OTIB-0029, pg. 3) 

In OTIB-0029, two sequential fitting approaches were used to interpret the urinalysis bioassay 

data. The first one grouped the bioassay monitoring data by quarter or year, depending on the 

amount of data available during the periods. A lognormal distribution was assumed as the best 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 127 of 290 

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. 

representation of all RFP workers’ bioassay results during a certain period of time. After log 

transforming the data, the 50th and 84th percentiles were determined for each period of time. The 

second approach consisted of the derivation of an inhalation intake function that would 

reproduce the 50th and 84th percentiles bioassay values that were calculated using the first 

approach. 

As explained in OTIB-0029: 

The IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the bioassay 

results to a series of inhalation intakes. ... Data from January 1952 through 

December 1988 were fit as a series of chronic intakes.

The initial intake assumptions were based on periods that coincided with major 

operations on the site. The years 1947 to 1951 had very specific operations and 

were therefore modeled as one intake period. However, the bioassay data had 

some distinct patterns, so the intake dates were adjusted to obtain a better 

approximation of the data. There appeared to be low-level chronic intakes of 

uranium throughout long periods, with briefer, larger intakes superimposed on 

them. To model this pattern, three long-term chronic exposures were assumed to 

cover 1947 through 1988. Five shorter chronic exposures were modeled on top of 

the early period to account for the intermittent rises in the urine results. [OTIB0029, pg. 4] 

Exposures to Type M or Type S uranium compounds were assumed, for the derivation of intakes 

using the IMBA fit to the urinalysis data. Intakes were assumed to be via inhalation using a 

default breathing rate of 1.2m3/h and a 5-μm AMAD particle size distribution. 

Contributions from contaminants in recycled uranium, including plutonium, Np-237, and Tc-99, 

must be added to the uranium dose, according to information contained in ORAUT-TKBS-0014-

5, about intake values relative to the uranium intake amounts. 

3.9.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 through 1.4 

Our review has identified that the document references and uses data from documents that need 

to be known, in order to understand the procedures described. 

The OTIB is consistent with all other OTIBs and procedures that are part of the hierarchy of 

procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. OTIB-0029 is sufficiently prescriptive 

to minimize the need for subjective decisions. 

Review Objectives 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 

OTIB-0029 is meant to address site-specific data pertaining to in-vitro bioassay data, missing 

dosimetry data, and unmonitored periods of exposure. The technical review of methods used in 

this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 128 of 290 

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. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 

OTIB-0029 is meant to assign doses for employees at DOE sites that were not monitored for 

internal ionizing radiation exposure or the records of such monitoring are incomplete or 

unavailable. The technical review of methods used in this TIB is addressed below under the 

Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 6.1 

Although it provides adequate guidance for selecting the types of probability distributions (i.e., 

normal, lognormal), OTIB-0029 does not adequately account for the uncertainty of doses 

estimates, as described in the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The SC&A review of OTIB-0029 revealed at least six areas of concerns with the validity of the 

scientific protocols that were employed. These concerns are presented below: 

(1) Database

The ORISE CER database of uranium urinalysis records for the Y-12 site for 1950–1988 was 

used, without questioning the accuracy of these records. The records were used despite the 

problems pointed out on page 3 of ORAUT-OTIB-0029: 

The database results are in units of disintegrations per minute (dpm)/day, 

although original urinalysis results were reported in terms of either mass or 

activity concentrations, depending on the measurement method. The assumptions 

used to convert mass results to activity concentrations for inclusion in the 

database are not known, nor are the assumptions used to normalize spot sample 

results to 24 hours. 

(2) Choice of the Lognormal Distribution and the 50th Percentile Intake Rates

Bioassay results were obtained from the ORISE Center for Epidemiologic Research (CER) 

Dosimetry Database, which contains uranium urinalysis records from the Y-12 site for 1950 to 

1988 (ORAUT-OTIB-0029, page 3). The urine records from the database were analyzed by 

month and were fit into a lognormal distribution. The 50th and 84th percentiles were calculated 

for each month. 

The intake rates were calculated using the IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program. 

Intakes were assumed to be chronic exposures via inhalation. The monthly bioassay results were 

used to obtain a series of inhalation intakes. Doses to be assigned to individuals are calculated 

from the 50th-percentile intake rates. 

There is no explanation on the choice of the 50th percentile. Monthly urinary results from Y-12 

workers, from 1952 to 1988, were characterized by NIOSH as being typical of a lognormal 

distribution. As expected with data that can be modeled by a lognormal distribution, the urine 

activity results must be positively skewed, for each month, during 26 years. SC&A does not 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 129 of 290 

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. 

agree with the choice of the 50th percentile to characterize the non monitored worker’s intake 

from coworker data as a claimant-favorable approach. A more appropriate claimant-favorable 

assumption is to use the upper percentiles activity urine results to calculate intake rates and 

doses. 

The last 10 years of the Table A-1 (page 11 of 21), for example, are characterized by 50th

percentile values below the detection limits for natural uranium (11dpm/d), showing that the 

majority of the data were below detection limits. The high value of the geometric standard 

deviation, on the other hand, is a hint to the fact that the positive values probably are much 

higher than the detection limits. The intake rates as derived for March 1, 1978–September 30, 

1984, and from October 1, 1984–December 31, 1988, are very small, and lead to equivalent 

doses to body tissues and organs that are also insignificant. This is clearly a non claimantfavorable approach, since many of the workers presented high urine activity concentrations, as a 

consequence of high intakes of uranium. As the high results are consistently measured, every 

month (each month results are characterized by the positively skewed lognormal distribution), 

one can conclude that contamination was happening regularly at Y-12. Even for Type S 

uranium, whose excretion rate decreases very slowly, the conclusion stays the same. The 

contribution of 1-month chronic exposure to the activity of a urine sample collected at the end of 

the following month does not justify the results on Table A-1. The uranium activity of Type S 

compounds in urine samples taken 1-month post exposure are expected to be 5 to 10 times lower 

than post-weekend samples taken during the month of chronic exposure. Thus the existence of a 

lognormal distribution every month, with the parameters described in Table A-1, leads to the 

conclusion of regular, monthly exposures at Y-12. SC&A considers that the claimant-favorable 

approach to workers that were not monitored is to consider them exposed to the higher level of 

contamination that was characteristic of Y-12. 

(3) Post-weekend sampling: 

ORAUT-OTIB-0029 assumes that, “Because of the nature of work at Y-12, a chronic exposure 

pattern best approximates the true exposure conditions for most workers with a potential for 

intakes.” 

A chronic constant intake was assumed by NIOSH. Results were interpreted without considering 

that samples were taken Monday morning before entering the working area. That is, routine 

samples were submitted after a minimum of 48-hr absence from the work area (ORAUT-TKBS0014-5). At Y-12 the primary urine collection method was a spot sample submitted Monday 

morning before entering the work area....... (ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5) 

Intakes were back calculated from urine results, by fitting bioassay results for different periods. 

NIOSH did not consider the 48-hour absence from work and, as a result, the intake rates derived 

on ORAUT-OTIB-0029 are lower than if they were calculated using the same data, but 

considering Monday morning excretion samples. 

The interpretation of bioassay results for chronic exposures of workers should take into 

consideration the day of the week on which samples are taken. In this way the short-term 

components associated with lung clearance will be accounted for, since the early clearance 

component(s) of excretion may introduce a significant difference before and after an interruption 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 130 of 290 

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 exposure, e.g., the weekend. For uranium exposures, the 48-hour waiting period prior to 

submitting urine samples is particularly relevant. 

NIOSH did not use the fact that urine samples were collected on a Monday morning, after a 

minimum of 48-hours absence from the work area. The model used by NIOSH was a chronic 

constant daily intake of uranium. SC&A has compared intake rates of uranium obtained from 

urine samples collected (1) during continuous intake (as was assumed by NIOSH) and (2) on a 

Monday, 2 days after continuous intake paused due to the weekend. SC&A has concluded that 

the approach taken by NIOSH is not claimant favorable. For example, after 1 year of exposure, 

the same amount of uranium excreted in urine will generate daily intake rates, using the NIOSH 

intake model, that are as follows: 

 For Type F compounds, 4.3 times lower than if samples were assumed to be taken after 

the weekend 

 For Type M compounds, 2.2 times lower than if samples were assumed to be taken after 

the weekend 

 For Type S compounds, 2 times lower than if samples were assumed to be taken after the 

weekend 

It is not clear how many working days per year were used by NIOSH, and there is no hint on 

what was the working schedule of the Y-12 personnel. Even if one assumes that NIOSH 

conservatively considered 7 days a week exposure, instead of 5 or 6 days a week exposure, the 

NIOSH model still will underestimate the annual exposure by: 

 For Type F compounds, 3 times for workers on 5 days per week schedule and 3.7 for 

workers on 6 days per week schedule 

 For Type M compounds, 1.6 times for workers on 5 days per week schedule and 1.9 for 

workers on 6 days per week schedule 

 For Type S compounds, 1.5 times for workers on 5 days per week schedule and 1.7 for 

workers on 6 days per week schedule 

SC&A has included Type F compounds in the comparison, because workers at Y-12 were 

exposed to soluble forms of uranium, classified as absorption Type F by the ICRP. In ORAUTTKBS-0014-5, the following is reported: 

The uranium compounds with which Y-12 has worked ranges from highly soluble 

to very insoluble. .... Exposures to soluble compounds were monitored from the 

closing days of World War II by clinical tests of renal function and by fluorimetric 

tests for uranium in urine. 

SC&A recommends that the intake rates should be recalculated using the fact that urine samples 

were collected after a minimum of 48-hours absence from the work area. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 131 of 290 

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) Material Types: 

Uranium urine results were fit using Type M and Type S material. Exposures to Type F material 

was not considered, although in document ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5 it is specifically reported that 

workers were exposed to uranium compounds of different solubility, including soluble material. 

For example on item 5.2 of ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5, it is reported that: 

The uranium compounds with which Y-12 has worked ranges from highly soluble 

to very insoluble. .... Exposures to soluble compounds were monitored from the 

closing days of World War II by clinical tests of renal function and by fluorimetric 

tests for uranium in urine. 

The interpretation of results from urinary excretion of uranium Type F materials, after 48-hours 

absence from work, produce intake rates that result in doses that can be, depending on the time 

of exposure, for many organs (most of the systemic organs) higher than if Type M or S were 

used. 

Figure, below, is used to illustrate these findings. It was calculated for a worker exposed for 1 

year to chronic constant daily intakes. The 1-year committed equivalent doses to the different 

organs, per Bq U-234 excreted after the weekend at the end of the working year, is shown. Thus, 

assumptions for the values on Figure are: 

Years of Exposure to U-234: 1 year 

Post-weekend urine sample collected on the last month of the 1st year 

Equivalent Doses calculated for the 1st year after the beginning of work 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 132 of 290 

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. 

One Year Equivalent Doses

0.00E+00

1.00E-03

2.00E-03

3.00E-03

4.00E-03

5.00E-03

6.00E-03

7.00E-03

8.00E-03

9.00E-03

Adrenals

Bladder Wall

B

one

Surface

Brain

Bre

asts

Esophagus

St Wall

SI Wall

ULI W

all

LLI W

all

C

olon

Kidne

ys

Liver

Muscle

Ov

aries

P

ancre

as

Red M

arro

w

Skin

Sple

en

T

estes

Thy

mus

Thyroid

Uterus

Organs

Equivalent Doses(Sv)/Bq excreted

Type F

Type M

Type S

Figure 3.9-1: 1-Year Doses, Excluding the Respiratory Tract 

SC&A finds that the assumption that doses should be assigned based on exposures to uranium 

compounds of solubility Types M and S, without considering Type F compounds, not claimant 

favorable for many cancer sites. This assumption does not follow instructions given in 

42 CFR 82. The 42 CFR 82, specifically states that: 

..., if the solubility classification of an inhaled material can not be determined, 

the dose reconstruction would use the classification that results in the largest 

dose to the organ or tissue relevant to the cancer and that is possible given 

existing knowledge of the material and process. 

3.9.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined OTIB-0029, the coworker model for internal dose assessment for Y-12, in 

terms of its conceptual approach, including the overall technical approach used, scientific 

validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. SC&A accepts NIOSH’s position that it is 

possible to derive a surrogate exposure model for the unmonitored worker based on the 

distribution of internal doses received by the monitored workers at Y-12. However, the use of a 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 133 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

model based on the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of the workers, may misrepresent the 

higher exposures experienced by unmonitored workers at Y-12. 

OTIB-0029 proposed intakes for uranium should be redone taking into consideration that 

samples at Y-12 were collected after the weekend. Assigned intakes should include Type F 

uranium compounds. 

3.9.6 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5. 2006. Technical Basis Bulletin: Y-12 National Security Complex – 

Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. October 10, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0029. 2005. Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Y-12, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 5, 2005. 

3.10 ORAUT-OTIB-0030: EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSIMETRY DATA FOR THE 

HANFORD SITE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0030, External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Hanford Site, 

Rev. 00, dated November 7, 2006, was prepared by Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.10.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of this OTIB is to provide information to allow ORAUT dose reconstructors to 

assign doses to workers at the Hanford Site who have no or limited monitoring data, based on 

site coworker data. The data in this OTIB are to be used in conjunction with ORAUT-OTIB0020, Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment.

3.10.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0030 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 134 of 290 

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 3.10-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0030 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0030, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Hanford Site

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review Comments

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 135 of 290 

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 3.10-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0030 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0030, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Hanford Site

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.10.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.2 

OTIB-0030 was written in a manner that presented the information in a logical sequence. 

However, Section 8.0, page 8, of this OTIB does not provide any details concerning the data 

contained in Table 3, except to make a reference to OTIB-0052. OTIB-0052, page 32, Section 

8.2, explains that the total dose to be assigned to Construction Trade Workers (CTWs) is equal to 

1.4 × recorded dose, plus the coworker missed dose. However, an analysis of the data in Table 3 

of OTIB-0030 shows that it is more complex than this simple statement. The data entries in 

Table 3 depend how the data in Table 2 were derived, i.e., if the non-zero coworkers’ dose were 

greater than the coworkers’ dose including zeros plus 1⁄2 LOD from Table 1, or if it was the other 

way around (this can be different for the different percentiles within a given year). This 

comparison is made in Section 7.0, page 7, Step #4 of OTIB-0030, but not incorporated into 

Section 8.0 to assist the DR in understanding the contents of Table 3 for CTWs. Some of the 

entries in Table 3 were spot checked by SC&A and verified as derived from one of the two 

prescribed methods. However, not all entries in Table 3 reflect values derived from either of the 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 136 of 290 

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. 

two methods. For example, the entry in Table 2 for 1956 for the 95th percentile is 2.306 rem; 

therefore either [1.40 × 2.306 = 3.228] or [(2.306 – 0.650 missed dose) × 1.40 + 0.650 = 2.968] 

should appear in Table 3 at the 95th percentile for 1956, but the entry in Table 3 is 3.076 rem, 

neither of two derived numbers. For 1956, the entry in Table 3 for the 99th percentile is 4.421 

[i.e., (3.344 – 0.650) × 1.40 + 0.650 = 4.421] and the entry in Table 3 for the 50th percentile is 

0.695 rem [i.e., (0.682 – 0.650) × 1.40 + 0.650 = 0.695 rem] which appears to be correctly 

derived by one of the two methods. The 99th and 50th percentile values for 1959 are another 

example where the entry in Table 3 does not appear to be derived from Table 2 by use of either 

of the two stated methods. 

This could cause confusion or incorrect dose assignment to CTWs, if the DR expected or 

automatically assigned doses to an unmonitored CTW that were simply 1.4 x the data entries in 

Table 2. 

Review Objective 1.3 

The OTIB generally provided the data needed and/or the appropriate references. However, on 

page 8, last part of the first paragraph, it is stated that “...and non-penetrating doses are assigned 

as electrons >15 keV with corrections applied to account for clothing attenuation or other 

applicable considerations...” The OTIB does not provide the DR with data, or reference to 

specific OTIBs or procedures from which information can be obtained, with which to make these 

corrections for clothing or other applicable considerations. Additionally, no explanation or 

examples are provided on what might constitute other applicable considerations. 

This situation could lead to each DR having to expend resources to locate the necessary 

information, and could also result in inconsistency among the different DRs. 

3.10.4 Workbook 

The external coworker dose data for the Hanford site contained in the DR tool entitled Complex 

Wide CoWorker Data 1.10 was compared to the data in Table 2 of this OTIB. The values of the 

data were the same in both documents. 

3.10.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0020. 2004. Technical Information Bulletin: Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data 

for External Dose Assignment, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. December 29. 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0030. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: External Coworker Dosimetry 

Data for the Hanford Site, Rev. 00 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 7, 2006. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 137 of 290 

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. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 31, 2006. 

3.11 ORAUT-OTIB-0032: EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSIMETRY DATA FOR THE 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0032, External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Savannah River 

Site, Rev. 00 PC-1, dated November 7, 2006, was prepared by Doug Farver, CHP, CSP. 

3.11.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of ORAUT-OTIB-0032 is to provide information to allow ORAUT dose 

reconstructors to assign doses to Savannah River Site (SRS) workers who have no or limited 

monitoring data, based on site coworker data. The data are to be used in conjunction with 

ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment. 

3.11.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0032 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in this report. 

Table 3.11-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0032 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0032, Rev. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Savannah River Site

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 

Refers to ORAUTOTIB-0020 and 

ORAUT-OTIB0052 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 138 of 290 

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 3.11-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0032 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0032, Rev. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Savannah River Site

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 4 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 4 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 4 

See Review 

Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 139 of 290 

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 3.11-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0032 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0032, Rev. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 11/07/2006

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Savannah River Site

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.11.3 General Comments 

OTIB-0032 presents the external dosimetry coworker data to be used by the dose reconstructors 

and a brief discussion on how the data were calculated. The coworker dosimetry data is based 

both on worker dosimeter results and doses potentially missed due to limitations of the dosimeter 

design and/or processing. The document does not provide a detailed technical justification for 

the calculational methods, nor does it give any specific guidance on how or when the coworker 

data are to be used. 

3.11.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5 

The document lacks clarity and repeatedly refers to material and methods described in ancillary 

documents, such as ORAUT-OTIB-0020 and ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 

Specific examples include the following: 

From Section 2.0: 

The ORAU Team is conducting a series of coworker data studies to permit dose 

reconstructors to complete certain cases for which external and/or internal 

monitoring data are unavailable or incomplete. Cases not having complete 

monitoring data may fall into one of several categories, including: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 140 of 290 

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. 

• The worker was unmonitored and, even by today’s standards, did not need to 

be monitored (e.g., a non-radiological worker). 

• The worker was unmonitored, but by today’s standards would have been 

monitored. 

• The worker may have been monitored but the data are not available to the 

dose reconstructor. 

• Partial information is available, but it is insufficient to facilitate a dose 

reconstruction. 

As described in ORAUT-OTIB-0020,1 some cases not having complete 

monitoring data can be processed based on assumptions and methodologies that 

do not involve coworker data. For example, many cases falling in the first 

category above can be processed by assigning ambient external and internal 

doses based on information in the relevant site Technical Basis Documents 

(TBDs). 

From Section 3.0: 

As described in ORAUT-OTIB-0020,1 the general approach to developing 

coworker data for cases without external monitoring data involves two phases. 

The first (Phase I) permits cases to be processed when a “best and final” estimate 

of dose is not required for claim determination. The second (Phase II) facilitates 

the assignment of “best and final estimates” of dose, when necessary. This initial 

revision of this TIB provides coworker external dosimetry summary statistics 

applicable to Phase I dose reconstructions; coworker dose distributions 

applicable to Phase II dose reconstructions will be made available in a 

subsequent revision. 

From Section 7.0: 

The results are presented in Table 2 below. These percentile doses should be 

used for selected SRS workers with no or limited monitoring data, using the 

methodologies outlined in Section 7.0 of ORAUT-OTIB-0020. 

Also, from Section 7.0: 

Doses to organs impacted only by penetrating radiation (e.g., organs other than 

the skin, breast, and testes) are calculated based only on the “Gamma” columns 

in Table 2 combined with the appropriate organ dose conversion factors (DCFs). 

Doses to the skin, breast, and testes (and any other cancer location potentially 

impacted by non-penetrating radiation) are determined based on both the 

“Gamma” and “Non-penetrating” columns; gamma doses are assigned as 

photons with an energy range consistent with information in the external 

dosimetry TBD for the SRS, and non-penetrating doses are assigned as electrons 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 141 of 290 

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. 

>15 keV with corrections applied to account for clothing attenuation or other 

applicable considerations (or as <30 keV photons, if appropriate). 

From Section 8.0: 

Table 3 contains penetrating dose values that have been adjusted using the 

guidance given in Section 8.0 of ORAUT-OTIB-0052, “Parameters to Consider 

When Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers.” This guidance is 

applicable for construction trade workers who meet the criteria given in Section 

3.0 of ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 

These statements require the dose reconstructor to use professional judgment to determine which 

Table 2 values to use based on the organ of interest. A separate table listing those organs whose 

doses are calculated with only the “Gamma” data and those calculated with both the “Gamma” 

and “Non-penetrating” data would eliminate any potential judgment errors. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 

The document does not give specific guidance on how to use the coworker external dosimetry 

data, so it is unclear if the document is favorable or unfavorable to the claimant. Tables 2 and 3 

of the document contain 50th, 95th, and 99th percentile doses and Table 1 contains the maximum 

annual missed doses (based on n×LOD, where n is the exchange frequency). Typically, NIOSH 

calculates a missed dose using 50% of the maximum annual missed dose (n×LOD/2). So, for 

years 1966–1970, the missed annual penetrating and non-penetrating doses would be 0.240 rem 

and 0.300 rem respectively. Comparing these values with the Table 2 values for years 1966–

1970 shows: 

 All the Table 2 values for gamma (penetrating) are greater than the missed doses. 

 All of the 95th and 99th percentile non-penetrating doses are greater than the missed doses. 

 All but one of the 50th percentile non-penetrating doses is less than the missed doses. 

As another example, consider the non-penetrating doses for 1951–1957. From Table 1, the 

maximum annual missed dose is 2.600 rem and half of that is 1.300 rem. Comparing these 

values to the Table 2 doses shows: 

 All the 50th percentile doses are less than the missed doses. 

 67% (4 of 6) of the 95th percentile doses are less than the missed doses. 

 1 of 6 of 99th percentile doses is less than the missed dose. 

Clearly, a coworker dose that is less than 50% of the maximum annual missed dose cannot be 

considered claimant favorable. So, depending on which percentile the dose reconstructor 

chooses, the dose or doses may or may not be claimant favorable. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 142 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

3.11.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0020. 2004. Technical Information Bulletin: Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data 

for External Dose Assignment, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. December 29. 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0032. 2006. External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Savannah River Site, 

Rev. 00 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 7, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 31, 2006. 

 

3.12 ORAUT-OTIB-0034: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER DATA FOR X-10 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0034, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10, Rev. 00, dated 

December 13, 2005, was prepared by Robert W. Bistline, PhD. 

3.12.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this TIB is to provide the details of the calculation and assignment of 

intakes based on coworker data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (X-10) for the 

purpose of estimating unmonitored exposures or where records of monitoring are incomplete or 

unavailable, whether for discrete periods or for the entire period of employment. 

3.12.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0034 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in this report.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 143 of 290 

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 3.12-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0034 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0034, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/13/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10

Auditor: Robert W. Bistline, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 3 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 3 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 3 

See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 See Review 

Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 144 of 290 

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 3.12-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0034 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0034, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/13/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10

Auditor: Robert W. Bistline, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 3 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.12.3 General Comments 

For ORNL workers that may have had occupational internal dose from intakes of radionuclides, 

but were not monitored for those intakes or were inadequately monitored, the OTIB provides a 

basis to calculate estimated intake rates for strontium, uranium, plutonium, and americium based 

upon analysis of coworker bioassay data described in ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Analysis of 

Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment, Rev. 00, May 30, 2005. The SC&A 

review of OTIB-0019 (SCA-TR-TASK3 Supplement 1) showed that there are some weaknesses 

with its methodology, and that its results are not always claimant favorable. 

OTIB-0034, Section 2.0 Overview states the following: 

Bioassay results for ORNL were obtained from the Oak Ridge Institute for 

Science and Education (ORISE) Center for Epidemiologic Research (CER) 

Dosimetry Database, which contains urinalysis records from the ORNL site for 

the period 1951 to 1988. The database results are in units of disintegrations per 

minute (dpm)/24 hours. Because of the varied operations at the different ORNL 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 145 of 290 

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. 

facilities over time with the potential for exposure from numerous different 

radionuclides, the database contains urinalysis data for numerous radionuclides. 

These data are stored using Electronic Data Processing (EDP) codes. Data were 

stored under 64 different EDP codes and included measurements for five 

radioisotopes of uranium, four radioisotopes of plutonium, seven other 

transuranics radionuclides, numerous fission and activation products, and gross 

alpha and gross beta measurements. Except for follow-up for accidental 

exposures, they were collected on an annual sampling basis; therefore, the 

analysis that follows considers chronic exposures to estimate annual intakes. A 

statistical analysis of these data was performed in accordance with ORAU 

[ORAUT-OTIB-0019]. The resultant values were input to the Integrated 

Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) Expert OCAS-Edition computer program, 

and a fit to the data for each of the four radionuclides was performed to obtain 

intake rates for assigning dose distributions. (OTIB-0034, p. 6) 

OTIB-0034, Section 4.1 Assumptions 

In OTIB-0034 a lognormal distribution for the annual data for each of the four radionuclides was 

assumed and the 50th and 84th percentiles were calculated. All the results were assumed to be 

representative of a full day (24 hrs) of urinary excretion. Each result used in the intake 

calculation was assumed to be normally distributed and all results weighted equally. 

A chronic exposure was assumed; while this is unlikely for ORNL workers, it will 

approximate a series of acute intakes with unknown intake dates. Intakes were 

assumed to be via inhalation using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr and a 

5 μm activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD) particle size distribution. 

(OTIB-0034, p. 7) 

OTIB-0034, Section 4.2 Bioassay Fitting: 

The IMBA Expert OCAS/Edition computer program was used to fit the bioassay 

results to a series of inhalation intakes. Data for each radionuclide were fit as a 

series of chronic intakes. 

Because the Type S strontium, uranium, and plutonium isotopes and Type M 

plutonium and americium isotopes present at ORNL have very long half-lives and 

because the material is retained in the body for long periods, excretion results are 

not independent. An intake in the early 1950s could contribute to urinary 

excretion in the 1980s or later. (OTIB-0034, p.7)

OTIB-0034, Section 4.3.5 Additional Radionuclides: 

It is recognized that hundreds of different radionuclides were present at ORNL at 

some point during its operations. However, bioassay data for additional radionuclides beyond 90Sr, 238U, 239Pu, and 241Am were deemed to be of little use for 

coworker estimations, largely because there were too few measurements to be 

statistically reliable for intake estimation. Three additional radionuclides, both 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 146 of 290 

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. 

important to internal Dosimetry and present in the reported air monitoring data 

were considered. These are 106Ru, 137Cs, and 144Ce. 

Thus, this coworker approach is only useful for the four radionuclides noted, although hundreds 

of different radionuclides were recognized to have been present at ORNL at various points in 

time and in various locations that cannot always be identified or associated with specific 

individual workers. 

3.12.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.3 

The procedure is not complete in terms of required data. The document references and uses data 

and procedures from documents that need to be known in order to understand the described 

procedures in OTIB-0034. 

The OTIB-0034 is consistent with all other OTIBs and procedures that are part of the hierarchy 

of procedures by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. It is also sufficiently prescriptive to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions. 

Review Objectives 3.2.2 through 3.2.4 

OTIB-0034 is meant to address site-specific data pertaining to in-vivo/in-vitro bioassay data, 

missing dosimetry data and unmonitored periods of exposure. The technical review of methods 

used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 4.1 

The procedure is consistent with other site coworker approaches, thus the default assumption is 

applied to assume only chronic intakes for the various radioisotopes and solubility Types (F, M, 

or S) of these radioisotopes. The procedure points out that “a chronic exposure pattern was 

assumed; while this is unlikely for workers at ORNL, it will approximate a series of acute 

intakes with unknown intake dates.” This may not be claimant favorable in many cases at 

ORNL (X-10) considering the fact that ORAUT-TKBS-0012-5, notes that numerous buildings 

exist on the site where exact dates of operations of these facilities are not known, and, the site 

depended on area health physicists to determine if in-vitro bioassay monitoring and in-vivo 

monitoring should be done. Thus, identification of the workers to apply coworker models is 

difficult, if not impossible. The following is noted in Section 4.2 of the ORAUT-OTIB-0034: 

To avoid potential underestimation of intakes for people who worked at ORNL for 

relatively short periods, each intake was fit independently, using only the 

bioassay results from the single intake period. This will result in an overestimate 

of intakes, particularly for assumed Type S exposures extending through multiple 

assumed intake periods. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 147 of 290 

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. 

Review Objectives 5.1 through 5.3 and 7.3 

Because of the varied operations at the different ORNL facilities over time with the potential for 

exposure from numerous different radionuclides, the ORNL database contains urinalysis data for 

numerous radionuclides that are stored using Electronic Data Processing (EDP) codes. The data 

are under 64 different EDP codes and include five radioisotopes of uranium, four radioisotopes 

of plutonium, seven other transuranic radionuclides, numerous fission and activation products, 

and gross alpha and gross beta measurements. However, the majority of the EDP codes contain 

fewer than 100 data entries; therefore, only a few codes contained enough entries to allow 

statistical evaluation for dose reconstruction—these included strontium, uranium, plutonium, and 

americium. The data from only these four radionuclides could be used to estimate annual 

intakes, assuming chronic exposures, with the values input to the IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition 

computer program to fit the 50th and 84th percentile bioassay results to series of inhalation intakes 

for the F, M, and S solubility types. SC&A agrees that the use of the 50th percentile in most 

cases will be client favorable. However, for plutonium Type S, the chronic intake for the entire 

set of years was fitted to the bioassay data for the last 3 years (1986 through 1988) and all the 

previous years of much higher values were ignored (see Figure A-23 on page 28 of 29 in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0034 shown in Figure). 

Source: ORAUT-OTIB-0034, Figure A-23 

Figure 3.12-1: Assumed Pu-239 Intake, 1951 to 1988, 

50th Percentile Composite Results, Type S

The issue addressed under Review Comment 4.1 above also addresses a concern of not being 

claimant favorable in instances of missing data and where claimants were not monitored. 

Figure shows the model intake rate fit for Type S material based on a chronic intake for the 

entire set of years fitted to the bioassay data for the last 3 years (1986 through 1988). It appears 

that the authors have selectively chosen the 50th percentile bioassay results for only the last 3 

years and ignored all the previous data that are greatly elevated over these values to derive the 

inhalation intake model for the Type S Pu-239. This does not provide a claimant-favorable 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 148 of 290 

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. 

model for reconstructing doses, as can be observed by the red dots in Figure (i.e., OTIB-0034, 

Figure A-23). 

NIOSH use of the 50th percentile and the IMBA fit intake rate derived for the various time 

periods (such as the two time periods shown in Figures A-24 and A-25 for Am-241), the 

assumed and predicted intakes fit versus the values in the first approximately 5 years are much 

less and from about 3,800 days to 7,200 days the model fit is much higher. This is not to 

criticize the model but would indicate that the percentile used for deriving the intake should be 

greater. This would in turn be much more claimant favorable. On the positive side, it should be 

noted that the predicted fits for the strontium and uranium models, shown in earlier figures in 

OTIB-0034, are claimant favorable. 

3.12.5 Conclusions 

SC&A has examined OTIB-0034, the Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10 (ORNL) 

document, in terms of its technical approach, scientific validity, conceptual approach, and the 

degree of conservatism. SC&A accepts NIOSH’s position that it is possible to derive a surrogate 

exposure model for the unmonitored workers based on the distribution of internal doses received 

by the monitored workers for at least four of the many radionuclides to which ORNL workers 

were exposed. Two of these may not be claimant favorable as modeled in this document and the 

many other radionuclides had insufficient bioassay monitoring results taken to allow statistical 

evaluation for the purposes of using coworker data for dose reconstructions. 

3.12.6 References 

ORAUT-TKBS-0012-5. 2006. Technical Basis Document for Oak Ridge National Laboratory – 

Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 00 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. May 30, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0019. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Analysis of Coworker Bioassay 

Data for Internal Dose Assignment, Rev. 00, October 7, 2005. Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0034, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for X-10, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 13, 2005. 

SCA-TR-TASK3 Supplement 1, Rev. 0, Draft, June 2006, The Review of NIOSH/ORAU 

Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, Supplement 1, S. Cohen and 

Associates, McLean, Virginia. June 8, 2006. 

3.13 ORAUT-OTIB-0035: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER DATA FOR K-25 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0035, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for K-25, Rev. 00 PC-1, 

dated July 21, 2006, was prepared by Harry J. Pettengill, PhD, and supported by Bill James, 

PhD. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 149 of 290 

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. 

3.13.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

 

The purpose of OTIB-0035 is to provide information for the application of K-25 coworker data 

in estimating unmonitored internal exposures. Some employees were not monitored for internal 

ionizing radiation exposure during the course of their employment, or the records are incomplete 

or unavailable. In such cases, data from monitored coworkers are used to estimate a claimant’s 

possible exposure. 

3.13.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0035 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in this report. 

Table 3.13-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0035 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0035, Rev. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 07/21/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for K-25

Auditor: Harry Pettengill, PhD and Bill James, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 See Review Comments 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 150 of 290 

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 3.13-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0035 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0035, Rev. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 07/21/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for K-25

Auditor: Harry Pettengill, PhD and Bill James, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 4 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 4 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 4 

See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 See Review Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 4 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 151 of 290 

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 3.13-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0035 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0035, Rev. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 07/21/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for K-25

Auditor: Harry Pettengill, PhD and Bill James, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 4 See Review Comments 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.13.3 General Comments 

For K-25 workers that may have had occupational internal dose from intakes of radionuclides, 

but were not monitored for those intakes or were inadequately monitored, the OTIB provides a 

basis to calculate estimated intake rates for uranium and Tc-99 based upon analysis of coworker 

bioassay data as described in OTIB-0035. This approach follows the processes previously 

described in Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment (ORAUT-OTIB0019) and Coworker Data Exposure Profile Development (ORAUT-PLAN-0014). Although the 

approach described in the OTIB is generally consistent for unmonitored or inadequately 

monitored worker assessments, there are potential weaknesses, inaccuracies, and assumptions 

made that could result in dose calculations that are not always claimant favorable. 

3.13.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.2, 1.3, and 5.2 

In response to a prior SC&A question on internal dose coworker data related to the site profile 

report it was stated that an individual who was never monitored is assumed to not have the 

potential to have received larger intakes than the majority of those who were monitored, and that 

one should assume that the coworker distribution is representative of their intakes—the median 

dose is therefore assigned as a lognormal distribution and the associated GSD is assigned to 

account for possible larger intakes and uncertainty associated with the distribution. The use of 

the median bioassay data values from 1948 to 1988 for uranium intake rates and 1978 to 1988 

data for Tc-99 intake rates may not be reasonable or necessarily claimant favorable. Because 

there was undoubtedly some variation of intake rates around the median values, it does not 

appear to be claimant favorable to assume that a claimant’s intake was a median intake as 

opposed to a higher value, such as 84th percentile value (+1 standard deviation). Therefore, this 

section of the OTIB warrants revision to be claimant favorable. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 152 of 290 

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. 

Review Objectives 3.2.2 through 3.2.4 

The OTIB assumes using intakes modeled from 1948–1988 to estimate the intakes of workers 

prior to 1948, and states that if the workers “had larger intakes in the earlier years their bioassay 

results would have reflected this in the years that samples were collected.” However, the 

procedure does not caution that relatively large acute intakes of uranium in chemical forms that 

have fast (Class F) absorption rates (such as UF6, which was the most prevalent form at the site) 

may not be detectable several months or years after initial intakes and, therefore, may not be 

reflected with any sensitivity in samples taken several years after the intake. If any workers had 

relatively large intakes of Class F chemical forms of uranium in the early years (e.g., 1945 or 

1946), it is very possible that bioassay in 1948 did not detect or reflect the intake(s). In an 

instance like this, only air sample or surface contamination data taken at the time of the intake 

would be relatively useful for identifying the intake, and this caution should be added to this 

procedure in a future revision. 

Review Objectives 4.1 and 7.1 

The procedure does not adequately model all intake scenarios; thus, the default assumption 

applied across the complex has been to assume only chronic intakes. The procedure points out 

that a chronic intake assumption can be used to approximate small acute intakes. There is no 

doubt that chronic, acute, or a series of either types or combinations of these types of intakes 

could have occurred at this site. The important issue is that the procedure should have a stronger 

basis for using any intake assumption that is not as claimant favorable as any realistic potential 

intake scenario that could be assumed and defend its use. 

3.13.5 Conclusions 

There were also a few strengths noted in the internal dosimetry coworker OTIB. The assumption 

of U-234 contributing 100% of the uranium isotope activity in the intake was clearly claimant 

favorable, due to having a higher dose factor for this isotope than for U-235 and U-238. 

Directing dose reconstructors to add the other radionuclides (plutonium, neptunium, etc.) in the 

default isotopic distribution identified in the K-25 Site Description TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0009-

2) to all uranium intakes after the start of processing recycled uranium is also important and 

claimant favorable. The guidance to run dose calculations with each uranium absorption rate (F, 

M, S) to determine which absorption rate gives the largest dose to the organ and probability of 

causation is also appropriate. The document is also consistent with other site coworker internal 

dosimetry approaches being applied. 

3.13.6 References 

ORAUT-PLAN-0014. 2004. Coworker Data Exposure Profile Development, Rev.00, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 24, 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0019. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Analysis of Coworker Bioassay 

Data for Internal Dose Assignment, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. October 7, 2005. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 153 of 290 

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. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0035. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Coworker 

Data for the K-25 Site, Rev. 00 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. July 21, 2006. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0009-2. 2004, Technical Basis Document for the K-25 Site – Site Description, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 12, 2004.

3.14 ORAUT-OTIB-0037: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER DATA FOR 

PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0037, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant, Rev. 00, dated September 20, 2005, was prepared by Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.14.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of OTIB-0037 is to provide the details of the calculation and assignment of intakes 

based on coworker data from the Paducah (Kentucky) Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) for the 

purpose of estimating unmonitored exposures or where records of monitoring are incomplete or 

unavailable.

3.14.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0037 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.14-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0037 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0037, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/20/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

4 

See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 154 of 290 

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 3.14-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0037 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0037, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/20/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 3 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 3 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 3 

See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 3 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 4 See Review Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 155 of 290 

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 3.14-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0037 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0037, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/20/2005

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1–5* Comments 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review 

Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.14.3 General Comments 

In OTIB-0037, 

Uranium urine bioassay results from 1952 through 1988 were obtained from the 

PGDP Dosimetry Section. The data were copied from working files that are the 

basis for the PGDP annual dose reports and dose histories. Some of the bioassay 

data were taken from handwritten logs and then added to the electronic data 

base. PGDP urinalysis data were extracted from two separate Microsoft® 

Access files provided by the PGDP Dosimetry Section. File 

“PGDP_Historical_Urine” was the source of urinalysis data from 1977 through 

1988. File “Historical_Urinalysis_Data_(unverified)” was the source of 

urinalysis data from October 1952 to mid-1977. There were no units associated 

with urinalysis results in this file. Comparison to results with identified units in 

file “PGDP_Historical_Urine” and with information presented in Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – Occupational Internal 

Dose [ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5] determined the results in this file were in units of 

milligrams per liter. Because both of the above files included PGDP uranium 

urinalysis data from 1977, the data were evaluated to identify and eliminate 

duplicate entries. 

 

In OTIB-0037, two sequential fitting approaches were used to interpret the urinalysis bioassay 

data. The first one grouped the bioassay monitoring data by quarter, from the final quarter of 

1952 through 1988. The effective bioassay date was set equal to the midpoint of the analysis 

period. 

 

A lognormal distribution was assumed as the best representation of the workers’ bioassay results. 

After log transforming the data, the 50th and 84th percentiles were determined for each quarter. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 156 of 290 

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. 

The second approach consisted of the derivation of an inhalation intake function that would 

reproduce the 50th and 84th percentile bioassay values that were calculated using the first 

approach. The IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the bioassay 

results to a series of inhalation intakes. Data from 1952 through 1988 were fit as a series of 

chronic intakes, through inhalation, using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3

/hr and a 5-μm 

AMAD particle size distribution. 

 

The total uranium results are in units of μg/L; therefore the results were 

multiplied by 1.4 in order to normalize them to the Reference Man excretion rate 

of 1400 mL per day. Bioassay results were converted from mass to activity before 

fitting assuming 0.0389 Bq/μg, characteristic of low-enrichment (2 percent) 

uranium. Low-enrichment uranium feed is the default value in [ORAUT-TKBS0019-5] when the specific location where a claimant worked is not available. 

PGDP received uranium and began enrichment operations during June 1952 and 

first withdrew enriched uranium during November 1952. The November 1952 

period is consistent with uranium urinalysis data; however, the first intake period 

was conservatively assumed to begin on June 1, 1952. 

 

The IMBA fit was derived for a period of several consecutive years. Two intake periods were fit 

to the derived 50th- and 84th-percentile uranium excretion data. Intakes due to Type F, Type M 

and Type S uranium were considered. Doses to be assigned to individuals are calculated from 

the 50th-percentile intake rates. 

Because the uranium streams at PGDP could have contained recycled uranium, 

the dose from the added constituents, including plutonium, 237Np, and 99Tc, 

must be included. See [ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5] for information about intake 

values in relation to the uranium intake amounts. 

3.14.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 through 1.4 

Our review has identified that the procedure is not complete in terms of required data. The 

sources of some critical information are not referenced. 

The OTIB is consistent with all other OTIBs and procedures that are part of the hierarchy of 

procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. OTIB-0037 is sufficiently prescriptive 

to minimize the need for subjective decisions. 

Review Objective 3.2 

OTIB-0037 is meant to address site-specific data pertaining to in-vivo/in-vitro bioassay data, 

missing dosimetry data, and unmonitored periods of exposure. The technical review of methods 

used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 157 of 290 

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. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 

OTIB-0037 is meant to assign doses for employees at DOE sites that were not monitored for internal 

ionizing radiation exposure or the records of such monitoring are incomplete or unavailable. The 

technical review of methods used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 

comments. 

Review Objective 6.1 

OTIB-0037 provides reasonable guidance for selecting the types of probability distributions (i.e., 

normal, lognormal), as described in the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The SC&A review of OTIB-0037 revealed at least two areas of concerns with the validity of the 

scientific protocols that were employed. These concerns are presented below: 

(1) The Lognormal Distribution: 

In OTIB-0037, the bioassay monitoring data were analyzed by quarter, from the final quarter of 

1952 through 1988. A lognormal distribution was assumed as the best representation of the 

workers bioassay results during a certain period of time. After log transforming the data, the 

50th and 84th percentiles were determined for each period of time. 

(1.1) The Representation of the Unmonitored Worker 

The following is noted in TKBS-0019-5: 

From the start of Plant operations in 1952, samples of urine from workers 

involved in enrichment operations were analyzed for uranium. Over time, other 

workers were included in the monitoring program. 

There is no clear definition of who was included in the early monitoring programs, when and 

which other workers were included in the program over time. In OTIB-0037, monitored and 

unmonitored workers are not compared by job types, radionuclide exposure lists, or contaminant 

air concentrations. It is possible that some workers who were not monitored received high doses 

and that some practices were only monitored after having been implemented for some time. 

Thus, it is important to know how to place the unmonitored worker in the distribution. 

(1.2) The Misrepresentation of the High Urinalysis Results 

The fitting of the data to a lognormal distribution was statistically acceptable, but many times did 

not represent well the data at the high-end of the results. There are significant discrepancies 

between the high “real” results and the ones generated by the curve. The analysis of the PGDP 

U values for 1954, by quarters, illustrates these discrepancies: 

 1st Quarter: The 99th percentile as calculated by the lognormal equation is 48.93 μg/L 

and the 99th value (the result that occupies the rank 99, when results are placed in 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 158 of 290 

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. 

ascending values order) is 300 μg/L. There are 78 values that are higher than the 95th

value (100 μg/L). The 50th percentile (GM) is 10.6 μg/L. 

 2nd Quarter: The 99th percentile as calculated by the lognormal equation is 68.3 μg/L 

and the 99th value is 600. There are 55 values that are higher than the 95th value 

(60 μg/L). The 50th percentile (GM) is 8.6 μg/L. 

 3rd Quarter: The 99th percentile as calculated by the lognormal equation is 58.44 μg/L 

and the 99th value is 150 μg/L. The 50th percentile (GM) is 7 μg/L. In this quarter the 

difference between the 95th percentile and the 50th percentiles value is small, but the 

lognormal representation of results shows problems in the representation of the positive 

values, as can be illustrated by Figure, extracted from NIOSH data files, for 1954. 

Z-Scores vs. Natural Log of Data

y = 0.9084x + 1.9514

R2 = 0.7386 8 

6 

Ln (data)

2

4 

2 

Figure 3.14-1: Lognormal Representation of 1954 Third Quarter Results 

 4th Quarter: The 99th percentile as calculated by the equation is 82.9 μg/L and the 99th

value is 300 μg/L. The R2 for the equation is 0.7467, with larger discrepancies on the 

high-end of the curve, as shown in Figure, extracted from NIOSH PGDP U 1954 file. 

The 50th percentile as calculated by the lognormal equation is 6.05 μg/L. 

0 

-1 0 1 2 3 4

Series1

Linear (Series 1) 

Z-score
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 159 of 290 

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. 

Figure 3.14-2: Lognormal Representation of 1954 Fourth Quarter Results 

Z-Scores vs. Natural Log of Data

y = 1.1193x + 1.8002

The misrepresentation of the higher results by the lognormal curves persists until the 1980s, 

when the problem practically disappears. 

(2) The Intake Model 

The IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the 50th and 84th percentile 

bioassay results to a series of inhalation intakes. Data from 1952 through 1988 were fit as a 

series of chronic intakes, through inhalation, using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr and a 

5-μm AMAD particle size distribution. The IMBA fit intake rate was derived for two time 

periods (June 1, 1952–March 31, 1980, and April 1, 1980–December 31, 1988). The intake rates 

theoretically reproduce excretion rates. Figure, below (reproduced from Figure A-1, page 12, 

OTIB-0037), compares the theoretical fit for Type F materials to the individual 50th-percentile 

excretion rates. As can be observed, there are large discrepancies between the predicted bioassay 

results using the derived intake rates for the period (solid line) and the GM (50th percentile) 

results for the different periods (blue dots). 

R2 = 0.7467

8

6

Ln (data)

Series1

4 Linear (Series1)

2

0

0 2 4

Z-score
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 160 of 290 

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. 

Figure 3.14-3: Type F Material Theoretical Fit Versus 50th Percentile Excretion Rates 

As illustrated by Figure, the model intake rates do not reproduce exactly the 50th percentile of 

each period of time analyzed. In some time periods, the dose will be calculated using an intake 

rate that corresponds to urinary excretion values smaller than the 50th percentile of the excretion 

rates of the workers for that time period. This is particularly true in the earlier periods of time. 

Thus, when NIOSH uses the 50th percentile dose distribution, it should not be understood as the 

50th percentile of the workers’ intake rates. They correspond to a model intake rate that will fit 

the chosen percentiles, with some periods of time when the urine excretion rates will be 

underestimated and some periods of time when they will be overestimated. This observation is 

not critical of the model intake rate, but instead is an argument in favor of raising the percentile, 

from which the intake should be derived. 

(3) Doses from Recycled Uranium Contaminants 

In the lack of bioassay data, SC&A concurs with NIOSH that doses must be based on

information about intake values in relation to the uranium intake amounts. 

3.14.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined OTIB-0037, the Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant document, in terms of its conceptual approach, including the overall technical 

approach used, scientific validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. SC&A accepts 

NIOSH’s position that it is possible to derive a surrogate exposure model for the unmonitored 

worker based on the distribution of internal doses received by the monitored workers. However, 

the use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of the workers, may 

misrepresent the higher exposures experienced by unmonitored workers. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 161 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

3.14.6 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0037. 2005. Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. September 20, 2005. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5. 2007. Technical Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose, Daniel S. Mantooth and Clark B. Barton, Revision 01 PC-1, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 31, 2007. 

3.15 ORAUT-OTIB-0038: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER DATA FOR 

ROCKY FLATS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0038, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site, Rev. 00, dated August 3, 2006, was prepared by Joyce 

Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.15.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this TIB is to provide monitored coworker information for calculating and 

assigning occupational internal doses to employees at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site (RFETS) for whom no or insufficient bioassay monitoring records exist. 

3.15.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0038 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the OTIB adequately supports 

the dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 162 of 290 

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 3.15-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0038 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0038, Rev. 00 Date: 08/03/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 4 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in 

a logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does 

not reference other sources that are needed for additional 

data)? 

2 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are 

part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction? 

4 

See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

identifying a potentially high probability of causation as part 

of an initial dose evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worstcase assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is 

it free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 2 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 2 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 2 

See Review 

Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 163 of 290 

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 3.15-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0038 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0038, Rev. 00 Date: 08/03/2006

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing 

data? 2 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 1 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? 1 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting 

the types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, 

lognormal)? 

4 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

See Review 

Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only 

limited significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 2 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.15.3 General Comments 

Bioassay results, used in OTIB-0038, were obtained through the CEDR, which contains 

approximately 300,000 bioassay records from Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site 

(RFETS) and includes measurements for uranium, plutonium, and americium for the years 1952 

through 1988. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 164 of 290 

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 of the uranium and plutonium urinalysis results were recorded either as positive numbers or 

zeros. In general, a zero entry meant the result was less than some reporting level; however, 

after April 6, 1970, actual results were reported. A large fraction of the uranium and plutonium 

urinalysis data was entered as zeros (zeros were reported in 176,900 records, a little over half of 

the results for all measurements). Where a reporting level was specified in the site TBD and 

where zeros were inserted for the actual values (below the reporting level) in the original data, a 

linear distribution between zero and the reporting level was substituted for the zeros. The linear 

distribution had the form, c/n, 2c/n, 3c/n, ..., nc/n, where n is the number of zero values less than 

the reporting level, c. 

NIOSH justified the linear distribution by stating that this linear distribution (alone) fits a 

lognormal transformation by better than 80% and typically significantly improves the goodness 

of fit for the entire data set. Furthermore NIOSH complements the justification by stating that 

the linear distribution has an average equal to half of the reporting value, consistent with the 

general dose reconstruction practice of assigning half of the lower limit of detection for missed 

dose calculations. 

The reporting levels used were (1) for enriched uranium, 8.8 dpm/24 hr through 1963, and 20–

28 dpm/24 hr after 1963; (2) for depleted uranium, 5.8 dpm/24 hr through April 1964, 20–

28 dpm for May 1964–1979, and actual measured values thereafter; (3) and for plutonium, 

0.88 dmp/24 hr through 1961, 0.2 dpm/24 hr for 1962–April 1970, and actual measured values 

after April 1970. The reporting level for gross alpha through 1963 was 8.8 dpm/24 hr (assigned 

as enriched uranium) and 0.9 dpm/24 hr thereafter (assigned as plutonium). 

In-vivo Am-241 lung data from 1965 to 1988 were extracted from a Microsoft® Access table 

named RFFACW02_RFWB. There were just fewer than 80,000 Am-241 records in the lung 

database. From 1965 through 1971, all results (about 4,000) were reported as zero, with no 

explanation of what those values might have meant. Therefore, no analyses were performed on 

those data. After 1971, positive values began to appear, but there still were no exclusion 

instructions for when 0 values were reported. Therefore, 0 results were treated as zeros because 

no better information was available. Calculations of the lung plutonium values recorded with the 

Am-241 lung data were determined by using the Am-241 data and an assumed concentration of 

100 ppm (by weight) of Am-241 in the plutonium. 

In OTIB-0038, two sequential fitting approaches were used to interpret the urinalysis bioassay 

data. The first one grouped the bioassay monitoring data by quarter or year, depending on the 

amount of data available during the periods. A lognormal distribution was assumed as the best 

representation of all the RFP workers’ bioassay results during a certain period of time. After log 

transforming the data, the 50th and 84th percentiles were determined for each period of time. The 

second approach consisted of the derivation of an inhalation intake function that would 

reproduce the 50th and 84th percentile bioassay values that were calculated using the first 

approach. The IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the bioassay 

results to a series of inhalation intakes. Data from 1952 through 1988 were fit as a series of 

chronic intakes, through inhalation, using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3

/hr and a 5-μm 

AMAD particle size distribution. The IMBA fit was derived for a period of several consecutive 

years. Five intake periods were fit to the derived 50th- and 84th-percentile uranium excretion 

data. Four intake periods were fit to the data for Type M material and one was fit for Type S 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 165 of 290 

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. 

material to the derived 50th- and 84th-percentile plutonium excretion and americium lung burden 

data. 

3.15.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 through 1.4 

Our review has identified that the procedure is not complete in terms of required data. The 

sources of some critical information are not referenced. 

The OTIB is consistent with all other OTIBs and procedures that are part of the hierarchy of 

procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. OTIB-0038 is sufficiently prescriptive 

to minimize the need for subjective decisions. The basis to derive OTIB-0038 is difficult to 

understand. 

Review Objective 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4 

OTIB-0038 is meant to address site-specific data pertaining to in-vivo/in-vitro bioassay data, 

missing dosimetry data, and unmonitored periods of exposure. The technical review of methods 

used in this OTIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 

OTIB-0038 is meant to assign doses for employees at DOE sites that were not monitored for internal 

ionizing radiation exposure or the records of such monitoring are incomplete or unavailable. The 

technical review of methods used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 

comments. 

Review Objectives 6.1 and 6.2 

Although it provides adequate guidance for selecting the types of probability distributions (i.e., 

normal, lognormal), OTIB-0038 does not adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates, as described in the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The SC&A review of OTIB-0038 revealed at least five areas of concerns with the validity of the 

scientific protocols that were employed. These concerns are presented below:

(1) Interpretation of Zero Monitoring Results, Low Value Monitoring Results, and 

Reporting Levels 

(1.1) The Linear Distribution:

SC&A finds that the linear distribution provided for use in OTIB-0038 as a substitution for low 

internal dose value results does not have a clear scientific basis for this application. NIOSH 

justified the use of the linear distribution by stating that this linear distribution (alone) fits a 

lognormal transformation by better than 80% and typically significantly improves the goodness 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 166 of 290 

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. 

of fit for the entire data set. In addition, NIOSH states that the linear distribution has an average 

equal to half of the reporting value, consistent with the general dose reconstruction practice of 

assigning half of the lower limit of detection for missed dose calculations. SC&A believes that 

the basis for the use of the linear distribution is not clear. The reporting level is not a lower limit 

of detection. The reporting level is a non parametric value, unrelated to the real capacity of 

distinguishing between real measurement results and background or noise counts. Half the 

reporting level is not a scientifically statistically meaningful value and cannot be used to justify a 

procedure. 

SC&A notes that such a linear distribution was not used for plutonium. For Pu, NIOSH has used 

the exact values as they were reported in the dose files and have substituted the zeros by the 

reporting level of 0.88. While the OTIB ranks the 0.88 values, it does not use those values to fit 

the lognormal distribution. SC&A believes there is no clear scientific rationale to accept that the 

registered values lower than 0.88 are real measurements and that the zeros are equal to 0.88.

In OTIB-0038 the intake is derived based on the 50th percentile of a lognormal fit to the bioassay 

results in a certain period of time (year or quarter of a year). A large fraction of the registered 

bioassay values are equal to zero. Thus, 50th percentile depends on the approach NIOSH uses to 

account for the zero values, low bioassay results and below reporting level values. 

(1.2) Uncertainties Related to the MDA 

The MDA for the median and extreme conditions were calculated for the period 1952–1971, and 

are presented in TKBS-0011-05 (2007). There is as much as a nine-fold difference between the 

MDA for the median conditions and the extreme conditions for plutonium for the years 1952 to 

1971. The MDA was not discussed in OTIB-0038, and neither of the MDA values was applied 

to workers with zero monitoring results, low monitoring results, or discussed in relation to 

reporting levels. SC&A finds that uncertainties in the MDA values bring a great uncertainty to a 

model based on low monitoring excretion values. 

(2) The Lognormal Distribution 

In OTIB-0038, the bioassay monitoring data were grouped by quarter or year, depending on the 

amount of data available during the periods. A lognormal distribution was assumed as the best 

representation of all the RFP workers’ bioassay results during a certain period of time (year or 

quarter of a year). After log transforming the data, the 50th and 84th percentiles were 

determined for each period of time. 

(2.1) The Appropriate Representation of the Unmonitored Worker 

As noted in OTIB-0038, “Statistical methods used to calculate co-worker intake values assume 

that bioassay results for group of workers have a lognormal distribution.” 

If the physical samples represent a statistical sample from a population we wish to characterize, 

it is important to know the statistical design (or lack thereof) of the procedure used to select the 

samples. In sample design, all members of the population must have a known (non-zero) 

probability of selection into the sample before the results can be considered as representative of 

the population. This simple requirement defines the population that the samples represent. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 167 of 290 

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. 

Using the estimated distribution to represent workers with unknown or zero probability of 

selection into the sample is a subjective decision, not a statistical one, and should be identified as 

such. Thus it is important to know how to place the unmonitored worker in the distribution. 

In OTIB-0038, monitored and unmonitored workers are not compared by job types, radionuclide 

exposure lists, or contaminant air concentrations. Thus, it is possible that some workers who 

were not monitored received high doses and that some practices were only monitored after 

having been implemented for some time. Some jobs that might have presented radiation 

contamination risks might have been misjudged and workers might not have been monitored. It 

is also possible that some workers might have been exposed to high-fired oxides of Pu, and only 

monitored for a limited time by misjudgment of the significance of results below detection limits 

in urine samples. 

(2.2) The Significance of the High Urinalysis Results 

(2.2.1) Exclusion of Results 

A coworker model needs to distinguish whether high excretion cases were routine samples, 

samples related to incidents, or samples following chelation. NIOSH has excluded the highest 

excretion data from the data file from which the OTIB-0038 model was derived, without 

explanation. If data from an incident is excluded, without known and well established criteria, 

then the distribution that remains without the missing data may not be the correct one, since the 

right (“high-end”) tail of the distribution will be too thin without those values. 

(2.2.2) The Misrepresentation of the High Urinalysis Results 

The fitting of the data to a lognormal distribution was statistically acceptable, but many times did 

not represent well the data at the high-end of the results. There are significant discrepancies 

between the high “real” results and the ones generated by the curve. Depending on the year, 

these discrepancies may start at the 95th percentile level, as in 1958 (when, for example, in the 

first quarter, the 95th percentile calculated by the equation was 27.16 and the result that occupies 

the rank 95 is 55.3), or at the higher percentile, as in 1966. The analysis of the RFETS Table 

values for 1966, by quarters, provides the following results: 

1st Quarter: The 95th percentile as calculated by the equation is 1.6 dpm/24h and the 

95th value (the result that occupies the rank 95, when results are placed in ascending 

values order) is 1.63. The R2 for the equation is 0.64, with larger discrepancies on the 

high-end of the curve. There are 61 values that are higher than the 95th value, the largest 

one being 230 dpm/24h. There are 42 results at least 10 times higher than the 95th

percentile. The 99th percentile as calculated by the equation is 3.23 dpm/24h and the 99th

percentile value is 70 dpm/24h. 

2nd Quarter: The 95th percentile as calculated by the equation is 0.96 dpm/24h and the 

95th value is 0.87. The R2 for the equation is 0.65, with larger discrepancies on the highend of the curve. There are 58 values that are higher than the 95th percentile value, the 

largest one being 140 dpm/24h. There are 24 results at least 10 times higher than the 95th
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 168 of 290 

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. 

percentile. The 99th percentile as calculated by the equation is 1.7 dpm/24h and the 99th

value is 5.17 dpm/24h. 

3rd Quarter: The 95th percentile as calculated by the equation is 0.67 dpm/24h and the 

95th value is 0.63. The R2

 for the equation is 0.73, with larger discrepancies on the highend of the curve. There are 49 values that are higher than the 95th value, the largest one 

being 110 dpm/24h. Seven results are at least 10 times higher than the 95th percentile. 

The 99th percentile as calculated by the equation is 1.1 dpm/24h and the 99th percentile 

value is 55 dpm/24h. 

4th Quarter: The 95th percentile as calculated by the equation is 1.129 dpm/24h and the 

95th value is 0.95. The R2 for the equation is 0.68, with larger discrepancies on the highend of the curve. There are 56 values that are higher than the 95th value, the largest one 

being 160 dpm/24h. There are 23 results at least 10 times higher than the 95th percentile. 

The 99th percentile as calculated by the equation is 2.09 dpm/24h and the 99th value is 

110 dpm/24h. 

These high results were considered by NIOSH as routine monitoring results. The ones related to 

accidents or incidents were excluded from the analysis, as noted in item 2.2.1. 

(3) The Intake Model 

The IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the 50th and 84th percentile 

bioassay results to a series of inhalation intakes. Data from 1952 through 1988 were fit as a 

series of chronic intakes, through inhalation, using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr and a 

5-μm AMAD particle size distribution. The IMBA fit was derived for a period of several 

consecutive years. Five intake periods were fit to the derived 50th and 84th percentile uranium 

excretion data. Four intake periods were fit to the data for Type M material and one was fit for 

Type S material to the derived 50th and 84th percentile plutonium excretion and americium lung 

burden data. 

For Type M Pu, for example, just one intake rate was considered for the period of 1952 to 1961. 

This intake rate theoretically produces excretion rates for 1952 to 1961 which can be represented 

by the solid line shown in Figure , below (Figure B-21, page 29, OTIB-0038), comparing the 

theoretical fit for Type M materials to the individual 50th-percentile excretion rates. As can be 

observed, there are large discrepancies between the predicted bioassay results using the derived 

intake rates for the period (solid line) and the GM results for the different periods (blue dots). 

The red dots correspond to time periods after 1961. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 169 of 290 

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. 

Figure 3.15-1: Predicted Plutonium Bioassay Results (line) Calculated using IMBADerived Pu Intake Rates Compared with Measured Pu-in-Urine Results (dots), 

January 1, 1952, to December 31, 1961, 50th Percentile, Type M 

(Source: OTIB-0038, Figure B-21) 

The model intake rates do not correspond to the 50th percentile of each period of time analyzed. 

As shown in Figure , in some time periods, the dose will be calculated using an intake rate that 

corresponds to urinary excretion values smaller than the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of 

the workers for that time period. 

Thus, when NIOSH uses the 50th percentile dose distribution, it should not be understood as the 

50th of the workers intake rates. They correspond to a model intake rate that will fit the chosen 

percentiles, with some periods of time when the urine excretion rates will be underestimated and 

some periods of time when they will be overestimated. 

(4) The Database used by NIOSH to Derive the Intake Model Described in OTIB-0038: 

Comparison of HIS-20 Versus CEDR Database 

OTIB-0038 was based on the CEDR database. NIOSH has investigated the differences between 

the CER and HIS20 databases for Rocky Flats workers, and has provided information presented 

to the Working Group in reports dated March 26 (Lochamy et al. 2006), April 6, 2006 (Lochamy 

2006), and in October 2006 (Cragle 2006). These reports were used by NIOSH to demonstrate 

that there is good agreement in the parameter values calculated from either database and used for 

the generation of coworker data distributions. In those analyses, NIOSH has provided a 

comparison of the number of records in each database. 

The comparisons using the CER database instead of the HIS-20 database (to illustrate their 

similarities) focuses on the values of the GM and GSD. In both databases, there are a large 

number of zero results that bring the GM to a very low value, most of the time below MDA or 

reporting levels. Because the lognormal distribution derived for most of these years excludes the 

higher recorded values, as explained in Item 2, the GSD is also not representative of the variation 

that includes the high excretion values. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 170 of 290 

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. 

(5) High-Fired Plutonium Oxides 

There were numerous fires at the RFP plant over its history, large and small. Such fires have 

been shown to involve “high-fired” plutonium oxide, which have exhibited long-term retention 

in the lung exceeding that predicted by the standard Type S model. The workers involved in 

such fires would likely either contribute to the zero entries in urine bioassay or would not have 

been further monitored, because their earlier bioassay samples were below detection limits. 

There is no cross-referencing between the OTIB-0049 (Estimating Lung Doses for Plutonium 

Strongly Retained in the Lung) and OTIB-0038 models, although it is understood that under 

OTIB-0049, all workers exposed or potentially exposed to plutonium are treated as if they were 

exposed to the high-fired form. In OTIB-0038, plutonium intakes are calculated either as 

Type M or Type S, with no mention of unmonitored worker exposure to high-fired nuclides and 

how that would be addressed. 

3.15.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined OTIB-0038 in terms of its conceptual approach, including the overall technical 

approach used, scientific validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. SC&A accepts 

NIOSH’s position that it is possible to derive a surrogate exposure model for the unmonitored 

worker based on the distribution of internal doses received by the monitored workers at RFP. 

However, the use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of the workers, in 

the way it was derived by NIOSH in the model, may misrepresent the higher exposures 

experienced by unmonitored workers at RFP. The uncertainties related to a model based on the 

50th percentile excretion rates of the workers are large and, as a consequence, dose reconstruction 

cannot be accomplished with sufficient accuracy. 

OTIB-0038 should contain information on how potential unmonitored worker exposures to highfired plutonium should be addressed from the coworker standpoint, given that workers could 

have been exposed to high-fired oxides or its residues without that recognition. 

3.15.6 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

Cragle, D. 2006. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Informal White Paper, 

Comparison of the CEDR and HIS-20 Databases, October 2006. 

Lochamy 2006. Follow-Up Evaluation of Rocky Flats Plant HIS-20 and CEDR Databases For 

Coworker Bioassay Assessments, Informal white paper, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. April 6, 2006. 

Lochamy, J.C., M.H. Smith and D.W. Hearnsberger. 2006. Comparison of Rocky Flats Plant 

HIS-20 and CEDR Databases for Coworker Bioassay Assessments, Informal white paper. Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. March 26, 2006. 

 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 171 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

ORAUT-OTIB-0038. 2006. Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 3, 

2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049. 2007. Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 6, 2007. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-05. 2007. Rocky Flats Plant – Occupational Internal Dose. Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 1, 2007. 

3.16 ORAUT-OTIB-0039: INTERNAL DOSIMETRY COWORKER DATA FOR THE 

HANFORD SITE 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0039, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford Site, 

Rev. 00 PC-2, dated January 31, 2007, was prepared by Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.16.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this Technical Information Bulletin (TIB) is to provide the details of the 

calculation and assignment of intakes based on coworker data from the Hanford site [including 

the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)] for the purpose of estimating unmonitored 

exposures. 

3.16.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0039 is summarized in Table below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed under the first phase of Task 3 to evaluate whether 

the TIB adequately supports the dose reconstruction process as directed under the EEOICPA and 

defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 172 of 290 

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 3.16-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0039 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0039, Rev. 00 PC-2 Date: 01/31/2007

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford Site

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 4 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in 

a logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does 

not reference other sources that are needed for additional 

data)? 

2 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are 

part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction? 

3 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 3 

See Review 

Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

identifying a potentially high probability of causation as part 

of an initial dose evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worstcase assumptions? N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is 

it free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as 

requiredunder the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 2 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 2 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 2 

See Review 

Comments 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 173 of 290 

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 3.16-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0039 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0039, Rev. 00 PC-2 Date: 01/31/2007

Document Title: Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford Site

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 

3 

In-vivo monitoring 

results were not used 

for Pu and thorium 

exposures. See review 

comments related to 

objective 7. 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing 

data? 2 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 2 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? 2 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting 

the types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, 

lognormal)? 

4 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

See Review 

Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 4 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only 

limited significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 2 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.16.3 General Comments 

This document is meant to be used together with ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, 2004 Section 5.6, 

Unmonitored Workers. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 174 of 290 

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. 

OTIB-0039 provides the assignment of intakes to unmonitored workers that could have been 

occupationally exposed to plutonium, uranium and thorium, strontium, promethium, zinc, 

sodium and cesium, for times up to 1988. As stated in OTIB-0039 (page 10): 

As is typical of a site with large operating reactors and spent fuel dissolution 

operations, there was potential for exposure at Hanford to many radionuclides 

including fission and activation products, plutonium, uranium, and tritium. In 

addition, Hanford handled thorium for part of its history. 

Assignment of intakes to unmonitored workers that might have been exposed to tritium, I-131, 

U-233 and Rn-220 are given in ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, 2004. In addition, ORAUT-TKBS0006-5 contains information on how to handle mixtures of various nuclides, including 

instructions to use OTIB-0054 for fission /activation products. Assignment of exposures to 

D&D radiological workers is also given in ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5. As stated in ORAUT-OTIB0039 (page 35), “Assignment of radionuclides not analyzed in this study should be in accordance 

with guidance in the Unmonitored Worker section of the current version of the Hanford internal 

dosimetry technical basis document.” 

This review refers only to the specific assignment of intakes and doses covered in ORAUTOTIB-0039. The assignment of intakes to unmonitored workers according to the different 

installations, as well as radionuclides that are only covered in ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 and OTIB0054, are not addressed in this work. 

Assignment of intakes to plutonium, uranium, strontium, and promethium was based on bioassay 

urinalysis. Thorium intakes were based on uranium intakes. Assignment of intakes to Cs-137, 

Na-24, and Zn-65 were based on whole-body counting. Bioassay results for Hanford were 

obtained as a copy of the Hanford Radiological Exposure Records (REX) database. 

3.16.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 through 1.5 

As stated above, OTIB-0039 is to be used together with ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 (2004), Section 

5.6, Unmonitored Workers, which defines the installations where intakes derived in OTIB-0039 

should be applied, and when and how they should be applied. ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 (2007) 

also references OTIB-0054 for the assignment of intakes from fission/activation products, for the 

unmonitored worker. 

In addition, to understand the information given for each radionuclide in OTIB-0039, it is 

necessary to have previous knowledge of the ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 (2004) and all other 

documents cited in the TBD. 

There are conflicting guidelines between the assignment of intakes and doses using the methods 

described in OTIB-0039 and ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 (2004) with the ones described in ORAUTOTIB-0002 (2007), Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims, which 

specifies “overestimate of internal dose for an unmonitored worker or a worker with no bioassay 

results exceeding detection limits.” OTIB-0002, Attachment A, provides “the basis for applying 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 175 of 290 

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. 

the assumptions, conditions, and results of this TIB to claims for Hanford Site employees before 

1970.” 

Although OTIB-0039, Section 6, provides a detailed description on the assignment of intakes 

and doses, subjective decisions from the dose reconstructor are still required for Type S 

plutonium. In this case, a minimizing intake was calculated for Type S Pu. If the application of 

Type M or the application of this minimizing intake do not result in a draft POC > 50%, the dose 

reconstructor is expected to manually fit the coworker data for the time frame of interest for the 

employee, using Type S plutonium and assigning acute or chronic intakes, depending on the 

patterns in the data. This manual fit will probably require subjective decisions from the dose 

reconstructor. 

Review Objective 3.2 

OTIB-0039 is meant to address site-specific data pertaining to in-vivo/in-vitro bioassay data, 

missing dosimetry data, and unmonitored periods of exposure. The technical review of methods 

used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objectives 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 

OTIB-0039 is meant to provide the details of the calculation and assignment of intakes for

Hanford employees that were not monitored for internal ionizing radiation exposure or the 

records of such monitoring are incomplete or unavailable, based on coworker data. The 

technical review of methods used in this TIB is addressed below under the Review Objective 7.3 

comments. 

Review Objectives 6.1 and 6.2 

Although OTIB-0039 provides adequate guidance for selecting the types of probability 

distributions, SC&A does not concur with the distributions that were used, in many 

circumstances, as described in the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The SC&A review of OTIB-0039 revealed several areas of concerns with the validity of the 

scientific protocols that were employed. 

SC&A reviewed the bioassay Excel results available in the ORAU term server O-Drive, under 

Coworker, Approved Files (O:\CoWorker Data\Approved Files\Internal Dose Data\Hanford). 

Those files contain the bioassay data for seven different radionuclides: plutonium, uranium, 

strontium-90 (Sr-90), promethium-147 (Pm-147), zinc-65 (Zn-65), sodium-24 (Na-24), and 

cesium-137 (Cs-137), presented on a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis, depending on the 

total number of samples in each period. The files also contain the statistical analysis that was 

performed by NIOSH for each radionuclide for each period, including the lognormal regression 

analysis of the data and the calculation of the 50th percentile (GM) and 84th percentile (GSD) 

from the lognormal equation. The numerical results of this SC&A review of the individual Excel 

Hanford bioassay data files are too detailed to be included in this review. Rather, this review 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 176 of 290 

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. 

discusses the conclusions regarding the NIOSH Hanford bioassay analysis that SC&A has drawn 

from those detailed results, for each radionuclide. 

(1) Plutonium 

(1.1) Plutonium Urinalysis Statistical Results: 

Among the plutonium bioassay data, there were a great number of results that were recorded as 

blanks, zeros, or reporting level values. The following text was extracted from OTIB-0039: 

In general, Hanford used reporting levels for plutonium urinalysis results until 

September 1981. Whether a value recorded at the reporting level meant no 

detection, or whether the reporting level or higher was a true detection and 

nondetections were recorded as zero or blank, was indeterminate at the broad 

level. 

The meanings of the reporting level, zero, and blanks had to be determined on a 

year-by-year basis, and the decision was included in the specific instructions on 

how to rank such sample results. For example, the 1966 to 1974 reporting level 

was 1.1 × 10-8 μCi/sample (0.244 dpm/sample) and the 1975 to 1981 reporting 

level was 0.025 dpm/sample. These numbers were considered to be one-half of the 

detection level and were used to indicate no detection of plutonium. The linear 

distribution was used to distribute and rank blanks, zeros, and values at these 

reporting levels. For other years, however, the reporting level was less apparent 

because there were many values that were probably a reporting level, but other 

values were less than the reporting level. The latter samples were included in 

the linear fit, and the apparent reporting level was set as the top of the linear 

distribution (ORAUT-OTIB-0039) (Emphasis added). 

The values presented as the top of the linear distribution in a non numbered Table on page 13 of 

ORAUT-OTIB-0039 are not consistent with the values listed in Table 5-2, ORAUT-TKBS0006-5, and with the ones that were really used as top of the linear distributions. 

SC&A analysis of the statistical distributions derived by NIOSH are presented below, divided by 

periods of time: 

Period 1946–1957: 

For this period of time, the uncertainties associated with the statistical model proposed by 

NIOSH are unacceptable high: 

 The uncertainties related to the values reported below or at the reporting levels were not 

resolved in a satisfactory way. 

 The reporting level is in general lower than the MDA. Results below the MDA should be 

used with caution, because of the uncertainties related to them. NIOSH does not address 

this problem. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 177 of 290 

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. 

 The number of reported positive results is very small for each data group analyzed. The 

number of bioassay results recorded as blanks, zeros, or reporting level values, 

constituted more than 95% of the total number of results, many times >99%. These 

results were artificially transformed into values that fitted a linear distribution, using the 

assumed reporting level as the top of the distribution. The assumption of imposing a 

lognormal distribution fit to a set of data, with more than 95% of the values artificially 

belonging to a perfect linear distribution, needs further justification from NIOSH. 

 The calculated urine excretion geometric median values, as a result of this biased 

statistical analysis, are very low, in general less than 1⁄2 of the reported levels, and equal 

to an even lower fraction of the MDAs. Therefore, the intakes and doses to the 

unmonitored worker are assigned based on urine excretion values, which are equal to a 

low fraction of the reporting levels. These low excretion values are artificial values and 

are independent of the real positive results gathered during each period of time. 

Period 1958–1981: 

In the second quarter of 1958, the reporting level changed to a lower value than in the previous 

years, 0.025 dpm/sample. The proportion of zeros, blanks, and results equal to or below 

reporting levels dropped to around 80%, theoretically improving the lognormal fit. Even with 

this improvement, the lognormal model proposed by NIOSH, does not represent well the positive 

results. The regression equations do not cover the highest results. In general, the regression 

equations misrepresent the higher excretion rates. This misrepresentation is higher for the years 

until 1961, but it is still true for all following years. 

It is important to notice that in 1958, the number of urinalysis samples decreased to about 1⁄2 of 

the number of samples in 1955, 1956, and 1957. During the entire period 1958–1981 the number 

of urine samples continued to decrease to about a little more than 1/10th of number of samples in 

1955, 1957 and 1958. NIOSH does not address this decrease, or the job performed by the 

workers whose urine samples were collected, or the reason the samples were collected. NIOSH 

does not mention the size of the monitored population nor the criteria for monitoring through invitro analysis and/or in-vivo monitoring. In this way it is very difficult to know how well the 

values used in the statistical analysis represented the exposed working population. 

SC&A is concerned about the scientific validity of the statistical distribution that was used to 

calculate the excretion rates associated to the intakes assigned to the unmonitored workers. 

Period 1982–1988: 

During 1982–1988, the same concerns about the monitoring program and the number of workers 

that were monitored through in-vivo counting, urinalysis, and feces analysis (ORAUT-TKBS0006-5 states that, “routine fecal sampling was used for some high-risk plutonium workers, 

mostly operators at PUREX and the Plutonium Finishing Plant, from 1986 through June 1989)” 

are repeated. The number of results used to derive the lognormal distribution model is about 

13%–14% of the number of results used in 1955, 1956, and 1957. NIOSH should address this 

issue, giving an evaluation of how well the values used in the lognormal distribution represent 

the worker’s population monitored for plutonium. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 178 of 290 

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. 

(1.2) In-vivo Counting Results: 

SC&A acknowledges the difficulties encountered by NIOSH in the use of in-vivo results for Pu 

dose reconstructions. In ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, this difficulty is clearly expressed: 

Because the uncertainty in the 241Am to Pu alpha ratio can vary nearly two orders 

of magnitude, plutonium intakes should not be determined solely by chest 

counting data if possible. If no information concerning the isotopic mixture of an 

intake is available and a default mixture is assumed, then a GSD of 5 uncertainty 

should be associated with an intake determined by chest counting. 

However, the use of urine excretion rates to calculate lung doses introduce uncertainties that may 

be as large or even larger than the ones introduced by the use of in-vivo counting. The 

correlation of Pu retention in the lungs with the excretion rate in urine is indirect and depends on 

the chemical and physical forms. Different matrix materials containing Pu may have specific 

dissolution behavior. The method of formation of the material and its history (temperature, 

specific surface area) can influence the fraction rapidly absorbed and the long-term retention 

half-time. As a consequence, there is an increased uncertainty in the association of the urinary 

excretion rate with lung retention or lung deposition. 

For respiratory organ dose calculations, ORAUT-OTIB-0039 recommends applying Type M Pu, 

followed by the minimizing Type S intake. If both actions do not yield a POC >50%, NIOSH 

recommends manually fitting the coworker bioassay data for the timeframe of interest for the 

employee, using the assumption of Type S material. 

SC&A considers that the uncertainties related to respiratory organ dose calculations were not 

properly resolved by NIOSH, in OTIB-0039. 

(1.3) Intake Modeling: 

(1.3.1) Material Types: 

The IMBA Expert OCAS-Edition computer program was used to fit the 50th percentile bioassay 

results to a series of inhalation intakes. Exposure to Type M and Type S plutonium compounds 

were considered. 

There is no mention to exposure to “high-fired” plutonium oxide, which have exhibited longterm retention in the lung exceeding that predicted by the standard Type S model. OTIB-0049 

(Estimating Lung Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung) uses the data from a 

Hanford worker to derive the dose correction factors, recommended for use for all workers 

exposed to high-fired oxides. 

(1.3.2) The Intake Model: 

The model intake rates do not correspond to the 50th percentile of each period of time analyzed. 

In some time periods, the dose will be calculated using an intake rate that corresponds to urinary 

excretion values smaller than the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of the workers for that 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 179 of 290 

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. 

time period. For example, the intake rate for the year 1946 is obtained by fitting the GM 

excretion levels for 1946, 1947, and 1948, using an assumption of a continuous intake. The 

Pu-239 intake rate to be used for 1946, 1947 and 1948 is 57.7dpm/d. This intake rate 

underestimates the GM excretion rate for 1946, as shown in Figure A-1, page 39 of OTIB-0039. 

The intake rate of 57.7 dpm/d will produce an excretion rate of 0.157 dpm/d of Pu-239, after 

1-year exposure, corresponding to 0.21dpm/d excretion rate of the Pu mixture. Thus, the 

unmonitored worker will be assigned with a dose for the year of 1946, corresponding to 22% of 

the reporting level for 1946. Figures A-2, page 39 of OTIB-0039, illustrates the same problem 

occurring for 1949 and 1950. 

The intake rates for the years 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958 were obtained by 

assuming a continuous constant intake rate for the years 1953–1981. A distortion was produced 

as a result of this procedure: the predicted excretion rate for a number of years, using this 

constant intake rate, is smaller than the GM excretion rates calculated from the fit of lognormal 

distributions to the excretion rates in each year. For 1953 to 1958, the predicted excretion rates 

are between 15% and 55% of the geometric medians calculated from the lognormal distributions. 

Thus, when NIOSH suggests the use of intake rates for the 50th percentile to calculate doses, it 

should not be understood that those intake rates correspond, for each period of time, to the 50th

percentile of the excretion rates of the workers. They correspond to a model intake rate that will 

fit the chosen percentiles, with some periods of time when the urine excretion rates will be 

underestimated. This is illustrated in Figures A-1, A-2, and A-3. NIOSH repeatedly uses 

assumptions that are not claimant favorable. 

(1.3.3) The Intake Rates for 1944–1946: 

The extrapolation of intake rates to the period 1944–1946 needs further justification, since the 

tolerance air concentration for Pu was implemented at an unknown time, “at least by October 

1945,” as stated in OTIB-0039. 

(1.4) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A considers that the mathematical procedures to calculate representative coworkers’ 

excretion rates and intake rates are not claimant favorable. SC&A considers that NIOSH did not 

resolve the uncertainties related to statistical analysis of the data in a satisfying scientific valid 

protocol. SC&A is concerned that as a consequence of those uncertainties, Pu dose 

reconstruction for unmonitored workers cannot be accomplished in the way presented in OTIB0039. 

(2) Uranium, Thorium, and Recycled Uranium Impurities 

(2.1) Uranium: 

The number of results included in the database used in OTIB-0039 was relatively small. In this 

database, the number of employees monitored per quarter in 1963–1966 dropped to a maximum 

of 80 workers. In 1969, less than 42 workers per quarter of the year have uranium urinalysis 

results in the database. In 1970, (entire year) only 70 workers had results in the database. The 

number of workers is also small for 1971–1976, some of those years with less than 100 workers: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 180 of 290 

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. 

1972 (97 workers), 1973 (62 workers), 1976 (76 workers). In OTIB-0039 the small number of 

samples collected in 1973 is mentioned. NIOSH does not give any indication on the total 

number of personnel working in the production facilities, at UO3 Plant, and at the 300 Area 

fabrication plants, potentially exposed to uranium. 

Until 1951, uranium results are treated as natural uranium (0.70 pCi/ug). After 1952, uranium 

results are treated as recycled uranium (0.9099 pCi/g). 

In ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, the monitoring practice for uranium is described: 

A note about sampling of UO3 Plant workers: Because chemical toxicity was the 

principal concern for uranium exposures at the UO3 Plant, one sampling scheme 

used was to obtain both a Friday evening sample and Monday morning sample. 

The period of this sampling scheme was not established, other than in the 1970s 

and maybe earlier. This scheme was changed to Monday-morning-only sampling 

about the early 1980s. Changeover should be clear in the records. The 

Friday/Monday sampling scheme was also used in 1962 and 1963 for 313 and 

314 Building Workers. 

There is no mention in OTIB-0039 of this monitoring practice, or even a description of the work 

performed by the employees whose samples are included in the database. For Type F uranium 

exposures, activity in samples collected after the weekend are expected to present results much 

lower than the ones collected on Friday. If the sample was collected after the weekend, the urine 

results for Type F uranium would produce intake rates 3 times higher than the ones calculated 

using continuous exposures as in OTIB-0039, after one year of work. For Type M uranium, the 

calculated intakes for samples collected after the weekend would have been 1.6 higher than the 

intakes calculated by NIOSH. 

(2.2) Thorium:

Exposures to thorium are calculated based on the uranium exposures. NIOSH assumes the same 

mass intake rates for thorium and uranium and describes this practice as claimant favorable, but 

does not offer any monitoring or measurement values as explanation. The in-vivo bioassay data 

are not mentioned in OTIB-0039. 

The equilibrium factors used between Th-232 and daughters are not claimant favorable. OTIB0039 uses the equilibrium factors from ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, which are claimant favorable 

only for the monitoring results described in the TBD: 

The degree of equilibrium between 232Th and decay products including 228Th 

would have been variable. As explained in the Hanford internal dosimetry TBD 

[ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5], a time since purification of 0.5 yr was assumed. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 (2007) states the following: 

Radium-228, the first progeny of 232Th would have been removed, either during 

the processing of the ore at Fernald or during baking and sintering in the 

300 Area, so the progeny would not have been in equilibrium (West 1965). 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 181 of 290 

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. 

Workers could have been exposed to thorium in a mixture of ages (i.e., time since 

purification), but most of the material would have been fairly young. It is 

favorable to claimants to assume younger material when whole body counting is 

the bioassay method (explained below); hence, the thorium was assumed to be 

0.5 yr since purification. 

In OTIB-0039, intake results are being used, not whole-body counting results which uses the 

daughters to account for the parent activity: the assumption of 0.5 yr since purification is no 

longer claimant favorable, in the assignment of intakes in OTIB-0039. 

(2.3) Recycled Uranium Impurities: 

The inclusion of impurities must be updated. It will probably follow Table 5-13 of ORAUTTKBS-0006-5. The values in Table 5-13 were not well explained. As an example, the level 

chosen for Th seems arbitrarily chosen. 

(2.4) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A is concerned that the data and the information presented in OTIB-0039 for uranium are 

not sufficient to sustain the assignment of intakes to unmonitored workers, based on coworker 

information. SC&A concludes that uranium dose reconstruction for unmonitored workers cannot 

be accomplished in the way presented in OTIB-0039. As a consequence, and aggravated by 

other technical issues, as described above, SC&A concludes that thorium dose reconstruction for 

unmonitored workers cannot be accomplished in the way presented in OTIB-0039. This 

conclusion extends to the dose reconstruction for the unmonitored worker from impurities 

present in recycled uranium. 

(3) Strontium-90 

According to OTIB-0039, both Sr-90 and Sr-89 could have been counted. All results were 

assumed to be Sr-90. 

(3.1) Strontium Urinalysis Statistics: 

Strontium urinalysis results are analyzed from 1965 to 1988. Through 1981, zero or less-than 

results were treated as non detections and included in the linear distribution. Reporting levels, 

treated as the top of the linear distribution, are given in a non-numbered table in Section 4.1.3 of 

OTIB-0039. 

Period 1965–1967: 

There were 634 results. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the results were below detection limits 

and were artificially transformed into values that fitted a linear distribution. The assumption of a 

lognormal distribution, with 97% of the results belonging to a perfect linear distribution needs 

further justification. The calculated geometric median from this biased distribution is less than 

40% of the reported level. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 182 of 290 

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. 

Period 1968–1970: 

Some technical problems are reported for these years. 

The reporting level in 1968 and 1969 was 1.67E-5 μCi/L or 51.4 dpm/24h sample (ORAUTOTIB-0039, Section 4.1.3). The reporting level in 1970 was 1.00E-6 μCi/L or 3.08 dpm/sample 

(ORAUT-OTIB-0039, Section 4.1.3). 

Looking at the data posted for Sr in the NIOSH- ORAUCOC termserver O_Drive (O:\CoWorker 

Data\Approved Files\Internal Dose Data\Hanford), a linear distribution was not applied for the 

data below 3.08 dpm/sample. For unexplained reasons, a linear distribution was apparently 

applied to data in rank positions 93 to 120 and from 123 to 143. The values follow each other 

with a constant difference of 0.519036. This last rank, 143, roughly corresponds to the 

51.4 dpm/24h reporting level for 1968 and 1969. 

The lognormal distribution as given needs further justification. 

Period 1971, 1972: 

There are some technical problems in trying to reproduce the values in OTIB-0039 from the 

Excel tables in the NIOSH –ORAUCOC termserver ODrive (O:\CoWorker Data\Approved 

Files\Internal Dose Data\Hanford\Sr\ Hanford Sr 1971-1978 version 4). The problem is related 

to the units used in the tables: dpm/L versus dpm/d. 

Period 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977: 

The number of urinalysis results used to derive the model distribution was small, varying from 

38 results to 108 results. There are very few results above the reporting level. The GMs are 

calculated mostly from a distribution of artificial numbers. NIOSH should justify the use of the 

lognormal distribution and of the GM as the best representation of the worker’s exposure to Sr 

during this period of time. 

Period 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981: 

The same problem occurs in 1978–1981, although there was a substantial increase in the amount 

of data. There were few results above reporting levels. The linear distribution was artificially 

fitted to more than 95% of the values, which were below reporting level. The assumption of a 

lognormal distribution, with more than 95% of the results belonging to a perfect linear 

distribution requires further justification. The calculated GM is 40%–50% of the reporting level. 

The lognormal distributions, in general, do not represent well the high real results that were 

obtained for each year. 

Period 1982–1988: 

The lognormal distributions for the each year or fraction of the year during this period of time 

included all reported results in the distribution, independent of their representation of a real 

measurement or not. The unmonitored worker dose in this case, is assigned based on the 

reporting practice of the year, instead of being calculated based on the exposure of their peers. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 183 of 290 

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. 

As a consequence, the GM for the years 1982–1983 dropped to very low values, much lower 

than the following years, because in 1982 and 1983 negative values were reported. 

(3.2) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A considers that the mathematical procedures to calculate representative coworker excretion 

rates are not claimant favorable. SC&A considers that NIOSH did not resolve the uncertainties 

related to statistical analysis of the data in a satisfying scientific valid protocol. SC&A is 

concerned that as a consequence of those uncertainties, Sr dose reconstruction for unmonitored 

workers cannot be accomplished in the way presented in OTIB-0039. 

(4) Pm-147 

According to ORAUT-OTIB-0039: 

...specific bioassay for 147Pm was initiated when the Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory (now PNNL) began manufacturing 147Pm heat sources in the 

325 Building in 1966. Some exposure to 147Pm also occurred in the 308 Fuels 

Laboratory. The number of workers in the bioassay program and the number of 

samples were small in comparison to the numbers for the plutonium, uranium, or 

strontium bioassays, with a high of 65 workers in 1968. There was almost no 

sampling from 1972 to 1975, which probably indicates a cessation of the original 

heat source program, and only 20 workers were sampled from 1976 to 1979. The 

exact end date of the heat source program has not been determined. For purposes 

of this study, it was assumed that exposure occurred from 1966 to 1979, although 

it is likely that any exposure from 1972 to 1975 was only due to residual activity. 

(4.1) Pm-147 Statistical Analysis: 

The number of results is very low. For the period of 1975 to 1979, there were 103 results, but 

only 5 above the reporting level. A linear distribution was artificially fitted to the 98 results, 

which were below reporting level. The assumption of a lognormal distribution, with 95% of the 

results belonging to a perfect linear distribution is doubtful. In the period of March 31–

December 31, 1970, and 1971, there were only 39 measurements with only 2 results above 

reporting level. NIOSH should further explain the scientific reasons to apply an artificial linear 

distribution to 37 results and then apply a lognormal distribution over the results obtained from 

the linear distribution, plus the two results above detection limit. 

(4.2) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A considers that the mathematical procedure to calculate representative coworker excretion 

rates, from the statistical analysis of the data requires further explanation. SC&A is concerned 

that as a consequence, Pm-147 dose reconstruction for unmonitored workers cannot be 

accomplished in the way presented in OTIB-0039. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 184 of 290 

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. 

(5) Zn-65 

Zn-65 was reported in whole-body counts from 1960 to 1983. There were about 370 results in 

1984, and these results were included in the statistical analysis. 

(5.1) Statistical Analysis: 

Period 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973: 

The fitting of the data using the lognormal distribution presented good correlation coefficients. 

There were a number of high results, suggesting that the use of the 95th percentile to represent, in 

a claimant-favorable manner, the unmonitored worker is more adequate than the GM. 

(5.2) The Intake Model: 

The model intake rates do not correspond to the 50th percentile of each period of time analyzed. 

In some time periods, the dose will be calculated using an intake rate that corresponds to urinary 

excretion values smaller than the 50th percentile of the excretion rates of the workers for that 

time period. 

The assigned intake rates for the period 1944–1959 require further justification from NIOSH. 

(5.3) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A accepts NIOSH’s position that it is possible to assign intakes and doses due to exposure 

to Zn-65 to the unmonitored worker based on the coworker data, for the period 1960–1984. 

However, the use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the monitoring results, in the way it 

was derived by NIOSH, may misrepresent the higher exposures experienced by unmonitored 

workers. 

NIOSH should further explain the assignment of intakes for the period 1944–1959. 

(6) Na-24 

Whole-body counting results were reported for Na-24 from 1960–1983. NIOSH has included 

the results taken in 1984, although the much smaller number of results. 

(6.1) Statistical Analysis of the Data: 

Except for the 1962 results, the whole-body counting measurements were well represented by a 

lognormal distribution. In the first quarter of 1962, the real results are not well represented by 

the regression line for the lognormal distribution. In the last quarter of 1962, only 8 of the 103 

results may be considered real measured results. The lognormal distribution, as derived by 

NIOSH, does not represent well the exposures. 

(6.2) The Intake Model: 

The assigned intake rates for the period 1944–1959 require further justification from NIOSH. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 185 of 290 

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. 

(6.3) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A accepts NIOSH’s position that it is possible to assign intake and dose due to exposure to 

Na-24 to the unmonitored worker based on the coworker data, for the period 1960–1984. 

NIOSH should refine the assignment of intakes for the year of 1962. 

The use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the monitoring results, misrepresents the 

higher exposures experienced by unmonitored workers. 

NIOSH should further explain the assignment of intakes for the period 1944–1959. 

(7) Cs-137 

Cesium-137 was reported routinely with every whole-body count from 1960 to 1983. For 1984–

1988, the nuclide was recorded if it was detected above a reporting level: 

For this period the total number of whole-body counts given was determined by 

tallying the number of 40K counts, which were recorded for every valid wholebody count. Each whole-body count for which 137Cs was not listed was 

considered the same as a whole-body count with a blank or zero result for 137Cs.

(7.1) Statistical Analysis: 

The statistical representation of the Cs-137 measurement results for 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 

1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968, using the “rank method,” as described in OTIB-0039, to 

derive the lognormal curve is appropriate. For 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 

1978, 1979, 1980, and 1983, the lognormal distribution is reasonable but misrepresents some 

high results. In 1981 and 1982, the raw 50th percentile is the MDA 0.65nCi (NIOSHORAUCOC termserver O-Drive, O:\CoWorker Data\Approved Files\Internal Dose 

Data\Hanford O Drive). This is different from the numbers used in Table 4-9. 

The statistical results derived for 1984–1988 are “biased,” although OTIB-0039 states that the 

use of a linear distribution for these years produces a distribution that is “less biased” than the 

use of the “rank only method.” The number of artificially produced results is very high and the 

number of real measurements results very low, generally less than 2%, of the total, as stated in 

OTIB-0039. The end result of using this distribution to assign intakes to the unmonitored 

workers is that their doses will be calculated from artificially produced values, lower than the 

detection level. 

(7.2) The Intake Model: 

The assigned intake rates for the period 1944–1959 require further justification from NIOSH 

(7.3) SC&A Conclusion: 

SC&A accepts NIOSH’s position that it is possible to assign intakes and doses due to exposure 

to Cs-137 to the unmonitored worker based on the coworker data, for the period 1960–1983. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 186 of 290 

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. 

The use of a model based on the 50th percentile of the monitoring results, may misrepresent the 

higher exposures experienced by unmonitored workers. 

NIOSH should further explain the assignment of intakes for the period 1944–1959. 

NIOSH should redefine the assigned intakes for 1984–1988.

3.16.5 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002. 2004. Technical Information Bulletin – Maximum Internal Dose 

Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims, Rev. 01, PC-2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 7, 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0039. 2007. Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford Site, Rev. 00 

PC-2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 31, 2007. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049. 2007. Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 6, 2007. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0054. 2007. Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal DoseRelated Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 11, 2007. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. November 14, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5. 2007. Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site – Occupational 

Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. June 22, 2007. 

West, C.M., 1965. “Health Physics Considerations Associated with Thorium Processing,” 

Y-KB-53, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID 11596] 

3.17 ORAUT-OTIB-0043: CHARACTERIZATION OF OCCUPATIONAL 

EXPOSURE TO RADIUM AND RADON PROGENY DURING RECOVERY OF 

URANIUM FROM PHOSPHATE MATERIALS 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0043, Characterization of Occupational Exposure to Radium and 

Radon Progeny During Recovery of Uranium from Phosphate Materials, Rev. 00, dated January 

6, 2006, was prepared by Charles Phillips. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 187 of 290 

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. 

3.17.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of this TIB is to characterize “occupational radiation exposure from the extraction 

of uranium during nonmonazite phosphate processing at atomic weapons employer (AWE) 

facilities. Exposure models and associated data have been acquired and/or extrapolated from 

existing published scientific research and Federal studies.” 

3.17.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0043 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the OTIB adequately supports 

the dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.17-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0043 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0043, Rev. 00 Date: 01/06/2006

Document Title: Characterization of Occupational Exposure to Radium and Radon Progeny During 

Recovery of Uranium from Phosphate Materials

Auditor: Charles Phillips

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 4 See Review Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in 

a logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does 

not reference other sources that are needed for additional 

data)? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are 

part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

identifying a potentially high probability of causation as part 

of an initial dose evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worstcase assumptions? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 188 of 290 

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 3.17-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0043 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0043, Rev. 00 Date: 01/06/2006

Document Title: Characterization of Occupational Exposure to Radium and Radon Progeny During 

Recovery of Uranium from Phosphate Materials

Auditor: Charles Phillips

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is 

it free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing 

data? 4 See Review Comments 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? 3 See Review Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting 

the types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, 

lognormal)? 

N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 189 of 290 

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 3.17-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0043 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0043, Rev. 00 Date: 01/06/2006

Document Title: Characterization of Occupational Exposure to Radium and Radon Progeny During 

Recovery of Uranium from Phosphate Materials

Auditor: Charles Phillips

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only 

limited significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.17.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

The title of OTIB-0043 is misleading in that it implies that only radium and radon progeny doses 

are considered in the document, whereas Th-232 exposures are also included in the OTIB. 

However, the OTIB fails to consider Th-230 as a possible contributor to the doses encountered in 

uranium recovery from phosphoric acid processing facilities. The OTIB uses data from 

Guimond et al. (1977) to determine internal doses from Th-232, but fails to recognize the same 

reference measured Th-230 concentrations that were equal to U-238 concentrations in 

phosphoric acid. If the OTIB intends to provide guidance for doses associated with thorium, it 

should consider those associated with Th-230, or explain why they are omitted. 

Section 2.0 of the OTIB would be made more readable by making the last paragraph in that 

section the opening paragraph. 

Review Objective 1.3 

OTIB-0043 references several documents, primarily those produced by the Florida Institute of 

Phosphate Research (FIPR), which are appropriate for estimating doses in the phosphate industry. 

However, an important reference by Keaton (1987), which was included in the FIPR documents, 

was not included in the OTIB. This publication contains data on phosphate industry exposures 

that are potentially more representative in time than those considered in ORAUT-OTIB-0043. 

Review Objective 4.1 

Doses are assigned to AWE workers in uranium recovery operations associated with phosphate 

production plants in the 1950s era based on relatively recent information and measurements 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 190 of 290 

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. 

made in phosphate facilities. The approach to the use of this information is prescriptive and 

easily understood. 

Review Objective 4.2 

The hierarchical process as defined in 42 CFR 82.2 is applied in OTIB-0043. Bioassay and 

dosimetry data are generally not available for AWE workers involved in uranium recovery 

operations in phosphate plants; thus, surrogate information for phosphate plant workers is 

proposed. 

Review Objectives 5.1 through 5.3 

These review objectives evaluate the degree to which OTIB-0043 is claimant favorable in its 

approach to assigning doses where there is an absence of monitoring data or there are unknown 

factors affecting monitoring data for the assignment of individual doses to AWE workers. 

There is generally a lack of monitoring and bioassay data for the workers affected by this OTIB 

during the period covered by their employment extracting uranium from phosphoric acid. The 

approach of ORAUT-OTIB-0043 is to use data collected on doses to workers at phosphate 

production plants at times, generally, much later than the time frame when uranium was extracted 

at these production facilities. The basis of the applicability of the data used to the time frame for 

uranium extraction, as stated in Section 4.2 of OTIB-0043, is that there have been no significant 

changes in phosphate plants or radon exposures since uranium extraction was performed on 

phosphate plant products. The basis of this assertion was an e-mail communication from B. Birky 

of FIPR. Given all the studies conducted during the 1970s and 1980s on radon exposure in the 

phosphate industry and recommendations offered as a result of those studies, it would appear that a 

more firm basis is needed to assure that the dosimetric information used in the OTIB is claimant 

favorable. If changes were made at the plants to reduce worker exposures, the data from the plants 

taken after these changes would underestimate worker exposures during the period when uranium 

was recovered from phosphoric acid. 

OTIB-0043 should explicitly include Th-230 in the exposure matrix. The OTIB seems to have 

overlooked the possibility that Th-230 also partitioned to the phosphoric acid stream along with 

uranium. If this occurred, Th-230 could have contributed significantly to the internal doses for 

uranium extraction workers; hence, the possibility of an important missed dose. 

It is not apparent that 0.036 WLM/yr, which is adopted in the OTIB-0043 for deriving upperbound internal doses from radon and its short-lived progeny, is a plausible and bounding 

exposure rate for uranium extraction workers. The OTIB based its default value by selecting the 

best estimate of a vast amount of data gathered at phosphate mining and processing facilities in 

Florida, and makes an effort to select data that might be applicable to facilities contracted by the 

AEC to separate uranium from phosphate plant products. However, additional information is 

needed regarding the location, size, and characteristics of the tailings piles, which contain the 

radium, at a given facility and at the Florida facilities in order to support the default value 

adopted in the TBD. If such information is not available, the upper 95th percentile values 

reported in OTIB-0043 might be more appropriate for use as default bounding values for 

exposure to radon and its short-lived progeny. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 191 of 290 

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. 

3.17.4 Technical Issues 

In Table 4-3 of OTIB-0043, Th-232 intake rates are calculated using U-238 to Th-232 ratios in 

phosphate rock. Since the ratio of the concentration of U-238 to Th-232 in phosphoric acid is 

reported to be as high as about 10:1, the high-end default intake rate of Th-232 and Th-228 

adopted in the TBD should be about 8.2 pCi/day, instead of 1.1 pCi/day. NIOSH adopted an 

intake rate of 1.1 pCi/day for Th-232 and Th-228 based on the ratio of U-238 to Th-232 observed 

in phosphate ore concentrate, which, on face value, would appear to be an appropriate approach. 

However, it appears that, based on the report by Guimond et al. (1977), Th-232 might be more 

efficiently partitioned to the phosphoric acid stream than uranium, resulting in an enrichment of 

Th-232 relative to that of U-238. 

3.17.5 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

Birkey, B., 2005. E-mail communications from B. Birkey, Florida Institute of Phosphate 

Research in Bartow, Florida, to R. Gard, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, regarding 

Phosphate Plant Radon Levels, September 1 and September 2, 2005. 

Guimond, R.J., Mills, W.A., and Windham, S.T. 1977. “Radiation Exposures in the 

Florida Phosphate Industry,” International Radiation Protection Association Meeting #4, Paris, 

France, Vol. 3, pp. 1049–1052. 

Keaton H. 1987. An assessment of radiological hazards associated with the operation and 

maintenance of the gypsum filtration system at wet-process phosphoric acid plants. In: 

Natural radiation and technologically enhanced natural radiation in Florida. Proceedings of 

a symposium held May 6–8, 1987, Daytona Beach, Florida. Published by the Florida Chapter 

of the Health Physics Society. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0043, Characterization of Occupational Exposure to Radium and Radon 

Progeny During Recovery of Uranium from Phosphate Materials, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 6, 2006. 

3.18 ORAUT-OTIB-0045: HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF THE FILM BADGE 

PROGRAM AT THE Y-12 FACILITY IN OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE: PART 2 - 

NEUTRON RADIATION 

This OTIB has not been issued by ORAUT. It is suggested that review of this document be 

deferred until next fiscal year, after it has been issued by NIOSH. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 192 of 290 

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. 

3.19 ORAUT-OTIB-0047: EXTERNAL RADIATION MONITORING AT THE Y-12 

FACILITY DURING THE 1948–1949 PERIOD 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0047, External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 Facility During 

the 1948–1949 Period, Rev. 00, dated September 20, 2005, was prepared by Robert Barton. 

3.19.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of this OTIB is as follows: 

...to discuss and summarize the 1948–1949 external monitoring data that are now 

available for use in the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project for workers at 

facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor 

agencies.

3.19.2 Review Protocol 

Our evaluation of OTIB-0047 is summarized in Table. Table presents a checklist containing 

objectives that SC&A developed under the first phase of Task 3 to evaluate whether a procedure 

adequately supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this 

report. 

Table 3.19-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0047 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0047, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/20/2005

Document Title: External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 Facility During the 1948–1949 Period

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review 

Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

N/A 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 193 of 290 

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 3.19-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0047 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0047, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/20/2005

Document Title: External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 Facility During the 1948–1949 Period

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? N/A 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 194 of 290 

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 3.19-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0047 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0047, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/20/2005

Document Title: External Radiation Monitoring at the Y-12 Facility During the 1948–1949 Period

Auditor: Robert Barton

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 2 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.19.3 General Comments 

The purpose of this document is to analyze recently uncovered dose records for the years of 

1948–1949 at the Y-12 complex. The ultimate goal of this OTIB is to characterize the doses 

statistically, and, if necessary recommend modification of the dose reconstruction process to 

account for the new data. The OTIB comes to the conclusion that the dose records do not 

represent a claimant-favorable approach and so should not be used to replace the current 

recommendations for applying dose to this period (found in RPRT-0032). 

SC&A was able to recreate this statistical analysis with no significant discrepancies (see 

Section 7.3.1 for minor issues found). However, the conclusions of the OTIB with regard to the 

use of surrogate data developed in RPRT-0032 in place of the actual monitoring records is 

questionable (see complete discussion in Review Objective 7.3). 

3.19.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.3 

The finding of OTIB-0047 concludes that the recovery of these dose records does not affect the 

dose reconstruction process that has been employed thus far. After analyzing the dose records, 

the OTIB concludes that the treatment found in ORAUT-OTIB-0045 Technical Information 

Bulletin: Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 – Neutron Radiation, gives a more claimant-favorable approach 

to external dose to workers. This OTIB would benefit from a more substantive discussion of the 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 195 of 290 

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. 

conclusions of OTIB-0045 and give quantitative examples of how the older document is a more 

claimant-favorable approach. However, OTIB-0045 no longer exists in its original form, but is 

currently titled ORAUT-RPRT-0033; the TIB should be updated to reflect this change in 

document organization. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Statistical Analysis Issues: 

Issue 1: The OTIB states that there were “240 distinct ID Badges identified,” however, SC&A 

was only able to identify 229 distinct badge numbers. It is not clear where this discrepancy 

arises. However, this does not affect the statistics of the OTIB nor its conclusions and so it is of 

minor importance. 

Issue 2: The statistical analysis for each of the dose inputs (R1–R4) states that all “NR” 

readings were excluded. Based on an email response via NIOSH, it was found that doses that 

were recorded as “0” were not excluded from the original statistical treatment. However, upon 

recreation of the statistics for each dose input, it was apparent that this was not the case for three 

of the four dose inputs. For the doses recorded for R1–R3, any doses listed as “0” were not 

included in the analysis; however, the R4 did include zero readings in its analysis. 

Validation of the OTIB’s Conclusions: 

This section reviews the OTIB’s conclusion that the dose values developed by ORAUT-RPRT0032 are more claimant favorable than the dose records recovered for the years 1948–1949. 

Upon inspection of ORAUT-RPRT-0032 the following recommended dose values were found. 

The results are shown in Table as an abridged version of the table found in ORAUT-RPRT-0032. 

Table 3.19-2: Abridged Version of Table 5 found in ORAUT-RPRT-0032

Year Qtr μ σ GM(reg) GSD(reg) E(dose) 

1948 1 5.2077 1.1709 182.6697 3.2248 362.5419 

1948 2 5.1773 1.1708 177.2026 3.2245 351.6610 

1948 3 5.1469 1.1707 171.9009 3.2243 341.1072 

1948 4 5.1165 1.1706 166.7578 3.2240 330.8709 

1948 Total: 1386.181 

1949 1 5.0862 1.1706 161.7685 3.2238 320.9423 

1949 2 5.0558 1.1705 156.9285 3.2235 311.3123 

1949 3 5.0254 1.1704 152.2334 3.2233 301.9717 

1949 4 4.8735 1.1701 134.8161 3.2224 267.3344 

1949 Total: 1201.561 

Total: 2587.742 

Table contains the maximum doses found in the dose records. The maximum dose for a quarter 

was calculated by summing the maximum exposure recording found in each month of the dose 

records for the given quarter. Also included in the final column of Table are the values found in 

RPRT-0032, which can be used as a comparison. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 196 of 290 

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 3.19-3: Maximum Exposures from Monitoring Data 

Compared to RPRT-0032 

Year Quarter R1 R2 R3 R4 RPRT Max Dose 

1948 1 0 0 0 0 362.5419 

1948 2 148 115 85 55 351.6610 

1948 3 140 900 700 90 341.1072 

1948 4 205 90 90 90 330.8709 

1948 Total 493 1105 875 235 1386.181 

1949 1 260 5250 90 90 320.9423 

1949 2 265 90 0 0 311.3123 

1949 3 220 90 0 0 301.9717 

1949 4 210 90 0 0 267.3344 

1949 Total 955 5520 90 90 1201.561 

Total 1448 6625 965 325 2587.742 

As one can see from Table, the gamma dose given in the RPRT-0032 is larger than the maximum 

recorded dose in most cases. It is important to note that the values listed in RPRT-0032 are for 

gamma exposures only and do not take into account the beta component. Therefore, the most 

meaningful comparisons should be made with R1 (representing the dose recorded by pocket 

ionization chambers or PICs), R3 (representing a shielded film badge), and R4 (representing an 

insensitive film badge with a MDL of 500 mrem). The recorded dose for R2 represents an open 

window-type film badge, which would record both the beta and gamma contribution. 

The doses recorded for R1 and R4 are less than the values found in RPRT-0032 in all instances. 

The doses for R3 are all less than the RPRT-0032 values with the exception of the third quarter 

of 1948. This is due to an unusually large dose to a worker in July of 1948, which registered as 

640 mrem for R3 (the next highest dose for R3 in July of 1948 was 55 mrem). The TIB 

addresses this issue in the following manner: 

The high R2 reading for another worker in the Fire Department (Dept. 2093) in 

July 1948 appears to be an artifact for a couple of reasons: (1) the R2 and R3 

readings for the skin and whole-body doses are nearly equal (...), and (2) the high 

R3 reading for the whole-body dose is not observed in either the R1 or R4 

readings for the worker (...). The Recorded R3 dose of 640 mrem was greater 

than either the R1 MDL of 5 mrem or the R4 MDL of 500 mrem (OTIB-0047, 

pg. 12). 

This is consistent with SC&A’s review of the dose records, and so it is reasonable to characterize 

this unusually high dose as an outlier and not an accurate representation of the exposure 

scenarios. 

The readings for R2 are larger for the third quarter of 1948 and the first quarter of 1949. The 

larger reading for the third quarter of 1948 is, again, due to the large dose to the Fire Department 

worker in July of 1948. If this outlier is ignored, then the total dose for this quarter falls to 

270 mrem, which is lower than the RPRT-0032 value of ~341 mrem. In the first quarter of 1949, 

the recorded R2 maximum is much larger than the RPRT-0032 value (larger by a factor greater 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 197 of 290 

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. 

than 10). This is mainly due to a worker who received 2.5 rem in January and again in February. 

The TIB addresses this issue in the following manner: 

The two very high R2 doses in January and February 1949 to a worker in the 

Chemical Department (Dept. 2619) suggest a large skin dose that may not have 

been detected by the PICs. These two high R2 doses do not appear to be due to 

beta particles because the ratio of R2 to R3 of approximately 100:1 is much 

larger than the expected beta-to-gamma dose ratio from exposure to uranium 

(OTIB-0047, pp. 8–9). 

The report goes on to explain the unusually high exposure in the following:

The two high R2 readings in January and February 1949 are more likely the 

result of exposure to very-low energy photons leaking from an X-ray 

spectrograph or other devices, a problem that was noted in early Health Physics 

reports (Struxness, 1948b 1948c). (OTIB-0047, pp. 9 and 12) 

The sited references refer to Health Physics: Industrial Hygiene Reports from September and 

November of 1948, not the Industrial Hygiene Reports from January and February of 1949. In 

the September 1948 report it states: 

An investigation of these instruments indicated that the level of x-rays coming 

from the sides and top is several times tolerance allowed for continuous eight 

hour exposure. A procedure has been set up so that each person operating the 

dummy load will wear an x-ray film badge. (Struxness 1948b, pg. 6) 

This is consistent with the explanation provided by OTIB-0047; also, the Industrial Hygiene 

report for September (Struxness 1948a) gives a similar statement regarding exposure to x-rays. 

However, it is interesting to note that no mention is made in the January and February industrial 

hygiene reports concerning unusually high levels of x-ray exposure, which would be expected, 

given that the large exposure occurred during this time (Struxness 1949). 

It is clear that comparing the dose records in the context of a single maximum exposure to the 

recommended gamma dose from RPRT-0032 shows that the values in RPRT-0032 represent a 

more claimant-favorable approach. However, as noted in the TIB, the 75th percentile dose for 

each dose record was generally around 30 mrem. This is especially true for the doses recorded 

by the PICs which the TIB states were the doses of record for the period in question. 

Considering that each dose record represented an exposure period of 1 week, this would mean 

the 75th percentile would likely receive 120 mrem in a month, which translates to 360 mrem in a 

quarter. This quarterly dose estimate surpasses all but one of the recommended dose values 

found in RPRT-0032 (ironically this is the first quarter of 1948 which had no non-zero doses 

recorded). Given that 30 mrem is the minimum detectable activity (MDA) for the film badges, 

this does not seem like an unreasonable value to assume as claimant favorable for exposure. 

Therefore, the TIB certainly warrants a more substantive and quantitative discussion as to why 

these dose records should be ignored, while the values developed in RPRT-0032 should be used. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 198 of 290 

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. 

3.19.5 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-RPRT-0032. 2005. Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at 

the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 1 – Gamma Radiation, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. March 21, 2005. 

ORAUT-RPRT-0033. 2005, Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the 

Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 – Neutron Radiation, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 13, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0044. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Historical Evaluation of the Film 

Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 – Neutron 

Radiation, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. July 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0047. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: External Radiation Monitoring at 

the Y-12 Facility During the 1948–1949 Period, Rev. 00, September 20, 2005. Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

Struxness, E.G. 1948a. Health Physics – Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, May 1–31, 1948. 

Y-181/1R, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee – Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Co., June 16. 

Struxness, E.G. 1948b. Health Physics – Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, September 1–30 

1948. Y-259, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee – Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Co., 

October 8. 

Struxness, E.G. 1948c. Health Physics – Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, November 1–30 

1948. Y-300/1R, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee – Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Co., 

December 15. 

Struxness, E.G. 1949. Health Physics – Industrial Hygiene Progress Report, December 1–31, 

1948. Y-318/1R, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee – Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Co., 

January 11, 1949. 

3.20 ORAUT-OTIB-0049: ESTIMATING DOSES FOR PLUTONIUM STRONGLY 

RETAINED IN THE LUNG 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the 

Lung, Rev. 00, dated February 6, 2007, was prepared by Joyce Lipsztein, PhD. 

3.20.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of OTIB-0049 is to provide a method for calculating a best estimate (for the 

purposes of this project) of the annual organ doses for intakes of plutonium that are retained in 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 199 of 290 

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. 

the lung longer than predicted by the normal absorption Type S model and to describe the 

conditions for applicability of this method. 

3.20.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0049 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the OTIB adequately support 

the dose reconstruction process as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.20-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Rev. 00 Date: 02/06/2007

Document Title: Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 4 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in 

a logical sequence? 4 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does 

not reference other sources that are needed for additional 

data)? 

4 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are 

part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 

See Review 

Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for 

identifying a potentially high probability of causation as part 

of an initial dose evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worstcase assumptions? N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is 

it free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as 

requiredunder the Privacy Act? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 200 of 290 

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 3.20-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Rev. 00 Date: 02/06/2007

Document Title: Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung

Auditor: Joyce Lipsztein, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 4 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 4 

See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing 

data? 4 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? 4 

See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting 

the types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, 

lognormal)? 

N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 See Review 

Comments 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only 

limited significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 See Review 

Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.20.3 General Comments 

Studies of the behavior of various oxide forms of Pu in the respiratory tract show two distinct 

phases of absorption to blood; a small fraction, typically less than 1% of the inhaled amount, is 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 201 of 290 

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. 

absorbed within about a day, with the remainder being cleared from the lung with half-times of 

the order of years. Both the fraction rapidly absorbed and the long-term retention half-time can 

be influenced by the method of formation of the material and its history. Plutonium dioxide 

(

239PuO2), formed by complete oxidation of the metal or salt at about 1,000°C (high–fired) has 

repeatedly demonstrated the very low absorption generally associated with Type S (ICRP 71, 

1995). 

In addition, in several cases of inhalation of plutonium high-fired oxides, it has been shown that 

there is a longer retention in the lung than currently predicted using default Type S parameters. 

High-fired plutonium oxide is transferred at an extremely slow rate from the lung into the 

systemic circulation in many cases. There is a component of retention in the lung that is not 

currently described by the current ICRP 66 Human Respiratory Tract Model. 

OTIB-0049 recognizes that: 

... with the depletion of the fast-removal components, the rate of removal of 

plutonium from the lung is slower than that predicted by Type S material for some 

people under some conditions; as a consequence, the total dose to an organ 

accumulated over many years is greater. This phenomenon has been popularly 

referred to as “Type Super S” (or “Type SS” for short), although it is not 

established that it necessarily is caused only by slower absorption of the 

plutonium into the blood (OTIB-0049, pg. 6).

The ICRP at present does not address specifically the case of inhalation exposures to high-fired 

plutonium oxides. Although the long-term retention of the high-fired oxides has been reviewed 

in the scientific literature, there is not a consensus among authors on how to address this issue. 

Meanwhile NIOSH has proposed, in OTIB-0049, an alternate approach to estimate doses for 

high-fired plutonium oxides. 

The OTIB-0049 does not propose a model to account for the longer retention of the high-fired 

oxides of plutonium. 

This TIB does not propose a new class of material for general modeling purposes 

or propose a new variation of the lung model. Rather, to account for the 

increased organ doses, the TIB analysis developed empirical “dose adjustment 

factors” from selected cases from RFP and Hanford that exhibited Type SS 

behavior following intakes of 239Pu mixtures (OTIB-0049, pg. 7).

The standard approach adopted in this TIB is to first calculate doses to the 

organs of interest by applying the standard Type S model to the available 

bioassay data or air monitoring data. Then, one or more adjustment factors are 

applied to this dose in order to account for the longer retention of Type SS 

material in the lungs and, in the case of urine bioassay data, the lower urinary 

excretion per unit intake of Type SS material compared to Type S material 

(OTIB-0049, pg. 7).
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 202 of 290 

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. 

The derivation of lung dose adjustment factors is based on an empirical 

comparison of the plutonium retained in the lungs for 10 well-documented cases 

involving acute intakes of plutonium (nine from RFP and one from Hanford) in 

relation to the amount projected for each case using the default Type S model for 

the same intake (OTIB-0049, pg. 32).

The 10 cases used to derive the adjustment factors were called the design cases. 

The data for the design cases were custom modeled in the IMBA computer code to 

get a curve fit to plutonium lung data that could be used to generate, analytically, 

the plutonium retention in the lungs at any time and for any intake scenario using 

the IMBA Intake-to-Bioassay feature. For the given intake scenario and the same 

intake, the plutonium lung retention was calculated for the default ICRP Type S 

model. The annual dose adjustment factors are the ratios of the plutonium lung 

retentions projected annually for the actual case to those projected for the default 

Type S model. ... In relation to Type S, the design cases tend to exhibit a higher 

retention of plutonium in the lungs, especially after the first several years, with a 

similar flatness of the retention curves after 10 years. Two cases represent a 

similar upper bound, one from RFP (RFP 872) and one from Hanford (HAN-1)

(OTIB-0049, pg. 32).

The dose adjustment factor is the ratio of the plutonium retention for the highest 

of the design cases (RFP 872 or HAN-1) and the plutonium retention predicted by 

the default Type S model any year after an acute intake or start of a chronic 

intake (OTIB-0049, pg. 33).

3.20.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 through 1.5 

Our review has identified that the document in general is written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous. Some paragraphs need clarification, but in general, it presents data in a logical 

understandable sequence. 

Some of the sources of information in the document are not referenced. 

The OTIB is consistent with all other OTIBs and procedures that are part of the hierarchy of 

procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. OTIB-0049 is sufficiently prescriptive 

to minimize the need for subjective decisions. 

Review Objective 3.2 

OTIB-0049 is meant to address potential exposures to a specific compound, plutonium high-fired 

oxides, formed by the complete oxidation of the nuclide, at high temperatures, as for example in 

a fire. OTIB-0049 adjustment factors are meant to ensure that resultant doses, calculated from 

in-vivo/in-vitro bioassay data, are conservative. OTIB-0049 states that its methods “can be 

applied to doses from coworker studies for sites where Type SS absorption is appropriate, but 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 203 of 290 

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. 

only Type S intakes were assessed” (pg 12), thus providing a method to estimate doses at sites 

that would have been otherwise unmonitored. 

Review Objectives 5.0 

The procedure is claimant favorable in instances of missing information, since it is mentioned in 

OTIB-0049 that it is favorable to apply the methods described in the document if the intake 

material is unknown and plutonium oxide is a possibility. The document is based on the two 

upper bound lung retention design cases and was shown to be claimant favorable, as addressed 

below under the Review Objective 7.3 comments. 

Review Objective 7.3 

SC&A has conducted a thorough review of the methodology proposed by NIOSH in terms of its 

scientific merit and the degree to which outstanding uncertainties are bounded by assumptions 

that give the benefit of doubt to the claimant. SC&A reviewed the methods used by NIOSH to 

derive the lung dose adjustment factors from in-vivo bioassay results and from urine results, as 

well as the adjustment factors for systemic organs, GI tract, and the extra-thoracic regions. The 

revision included comparisons of autopsy data for lung, liver, and skeletal plutonium content to 

the predicted values derived using lung count data and urinary excretion data, using the OTIB0049 empirical model, for a representative number of RFP cases.

(1) SC&A Review of the Design Cases 

NIOSH derived empirical models to reproduce lung contents and urinary excretion of the design 

cases, by customization of absorption parameters, particle transport rates, and deposition 

fractions in the pulmonary regions. These modifications on the HRTM do not produce 

biologically plausible models, and are meant only for the specific derivation of the adjustment 

factors in OTIB-0049. 

SC&A has reviewed the design case data and concludes that the empirically derived parameters 

for each design case fit the bioassay data for those cases. In three of the design cases, not all 

bioassay urine data were used. The data that were used were bioassays representing later 

excretions, which more accurately characterize the long-term retention in the lung. The early 

time urine excretions were not included in these cases. 

The two cases that were used to derive the adjustment factors are HAN-1 and RFP 872. From all 

empirically derived parameters, those two cases present the highest fractions that are cleared 

with this very slow transport rate. 

SC&A reviewed the representativeness of the design model cases, upon which OTIB-0049 is 

based, by comparing the lung and excretion data from the design cases to 19 other cases from the 

1965 RFP fire. Based on its review of all the workers involved in the 1965 fire, SC&A 

concludes that the design model cases chosen by NIOSH as a basis for OTIB-0049 are 

sufficiently conservative for broad use. 

(2) SC&A Review of the Derivation of Lung Dose Adjustment Factors 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 204 of 290 

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 has reviewed and reproduced the lung adjustment factors as provided. The parameters 

used to derive empirical lung contents and urinary excretions were not used by NIOSH to 

calculate equivalent doses to the lung. The current ICRP dose model is used to calculate doses 

for Type S compounds, and the resultant doses must be multiplied by adjustment factors. SC&A 

considers this approach as appropriate because the parameters used to empirically match lung 

and urinary excretion from exposed workers do not correctly describe the partition of activity in 

the human respiratory tract regions and in tissues containing target cells for dose calculations. 

(3) SC&A Review of Possible Effects of Smoking 

The ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model suggests that smoking modifies the mechanical 

transfer rates of deposited particles, decreasing the mechanical transfer rates of deposited 

particles from the AI compartments (ICRP Supporting Guidance 3, 2002). According to an RFP 

site expert, many of the workers at RFP during this time period were smokers, some of them 

heavy smokers, smoking as many as two to three packs of cigarettes a day. Although there is no 

mention of the effect of smoking in OTIB-0049, the NIOSH approach is sufficiently 

conservative to accommodate this issue, since the transport rates used in the empirical model are 

much smaller than the ones suggested by the ICRP for smokers. SC&A, therefore, concludes 

that any effect from smoking is covered by the NIOSH approach. 

(4) SC&A Review of the Intake Adjustment from Urinalysis Data

OTIB-0049 correctly mentions the difficulty in deriving a bounding adjustment factor to correct 

intakes calculated from urinalysis results: 

Type SS material is absorbed into the blood stream at a slower rate than Type S 

material. This causes less material to be deposited in the systemic organs, as well 

as less plutonium being eliminated through the urine. Per unit intake, the 

difference between predicted urine content for Type S and Type SS varies 

considerably. This makes determining a correction factor difficult because the 

value of the correction factor is dependent on the time after intake and the length 

of exposure for each urine sample result (OTIB-0049, pg. 36). 

SC&A has reviewed the intake adjustment factors for doses calculated from urine bioassay data 

and has concluded that the approach proposed by NIOSH is reasonable and sufficiently 

conservative for broad use. 

(5) SC&A Review of the Procedures used for Calculating Doses to the Lung, Systemic 

Organs, Extra-Thoracic Region, and GI Tract

SC&A reviewed the procedure for calculating doses to the lung, systemic organs, extra-thoracic 

region, and GI tract, from lung monitoring results, urine excretion data, and air monitoring 

results. SC&A agrees with the assumptions made by NIOSH, and considers the adjustment 

factors described in OTIB-0049 appropriate to correct doses derived from Type S intakes of 

plutonium. 

SC&A concurs with NIOSH notes on the applicability and limitations of the dose adjustment 

factors, as follows: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 205 of 290 

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. 

 Applies only to doses resulting from the intake of plutonium oxide; however, it 

is favorable to the claimant to apply it if the intake material is unknown and 

plutonium oxide is a possibility. Considering the uncertainty in the nature of 

the material, long-term (years) air oxidation of formerly Type M plutonium 

can be considered to apply. 

 Applies only to doses resulting from intakes of plutonium for which the 

activity isotopic ratio of 239+240Pu to 238Pu is greater than 1. This restriction is 

based on the observed behavior of relatively pure 238Pu, which tends to be 

more soluble than 239Pu. When this condition is met, SS behavior applies to 

all isotopes in the plutonium mixture. 

 Applies to the dose from 241Am in the mixture when the activity ratio of 

239+240Pu to 241Am is greater than 1. 

 Does not apply to situations where the plutonium is a minor constituent by 

mass in another matrix, such as in recycled uranium. 

 May be applied to chest count data (using the adjustment discussed in 

Section 4) except when there are multiple positive chest count results that 

occur in more than one year. The case should be evaluated to determine if a 

best fit to the actual data should be performed in such cases. 

 Because the highest of the various dose adjustment factors was used for 

Attachment C, no additional uncertainty should be applied to the lung dose 

calculation; i.e., use the same uncertainty distribution as was applicable to 

the Type S dose calculation. 

 The methods described in this TIB can be applied to doses from coworker 

studies for sites where Type SS absorption is appropriate, but only Type S 

intakes were assessed. The types of adjustments made to the Type S intakes 

and doses should be based on the method used to create the coworker study 

(i.e., whether the intakes are based on urinalysis or chest counts) (OTIB0049, pg. 12).

SC&A agrees with NIOSH that: 

Doses to systemic organs should be based on urine bioassay data when possible. 

If it is necessary to calculate these doses from chest count data, the Type S model 

should be used with no adjustments (OTIB-0049, pg. 9). 

SC&A has compared intakes derived from the model design cases per unit lung counts with 

Type S derived intakes. It is true that, depending on the time elapsed between measurements and 

exposure, Type S intakes are higher or equal to the ones derived using the empirical model. 

Theoretically, no intake corrections are needed. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 206 of 290 

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. 

On the other hand, doses to systemic organs are calculated from lung monitoring results without 

an adjustment factor to envelope the conclusions taken from the empirical model. The 

relationship between systemic organs content and lung content in OTIB-0049 were derived from 

an empirical model, and the true transport and absorption rates from the lung are probably 

different from the empirical model. Some models presented in the literature to explain the highfired biokinetics use absorption parameters that are higher than the ones used in the Type S 

model, compensating for this effect by introducing a lung compartment with infinite half time 

(Khokhryakov et al. 2005). Depending on the time after intake, the activities in systemic organs 

may be higher than expected using default Type S. Thus, SC&A concurs that the NIOSH 

approach to systemic organs should be based on urine bioassay data when possible. 

(6) SC&A Review of the Comparison of Predicted Activities in Lung, Liver, and 

Skeleton, Applying the NIOSH Approach, with Autopsy Data from USTUR 

NIOSH evaluated if the adjustment factors in OTIB-0049 provided plausible bounding results, 

by analyzing autopsy and bioassay data from the United States Transuranium and Uranium 

Registry (USTUR) obtained for a number of Rocky Flats workers with confirmed plutonium 

intakes: 

Seven cases were selected that had detectable values for both lung and urine 

bioassay measurements (OTIB-0049, pg. 38).

The expected lung content and liver content at autopsy was estimated using standard Type S 

parameters. The lung content was corrected using the adjustments factors and the liver content 

was not adjusted. These estimated contents were compared to autopsy data, and NIOSH 

concluded that the adjustments are bounding. 

SC&A has independently reviewed autopsy and bioassay data from the USTUR for eight Rocky 

Flats workers with confirmed plutonium intakes. Cases included individuals who had intakes of 

the high-fired plutonium oxide and other types of exposures to plutonium oxides. The observed 

lung, liver and skeleton burdens at death were compared with values calculated based on the lung 

measurements and on the urinary excretion of plutonium in these cases. SC&A relied on the 

USTUR results for bioassay and for autopsy, including the calculation done by the USTUR to 

extrapolate the skeleton content. SC&A has followed the procedures presented in OTIB-0049 to 

predict the activities in systemic organs and in the lung from individual bioassay measurement 

results. SC&A used the lung measurement results and the urine bioassay results, independently, 

to test each individual approach. 

The theoretical contents in liver, bone, and lung, calculated using the approach described in 

OTIB-0049, in general produced results that overestimated the autopsy data. There was only one 

exception among the cases that were reviewed: the derivation of the liver and bone content, from 

the MDA in lung, as lung measurement results were reported as below detection level for this 

case.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 207 of 290 

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. 

3.20.5 Conclusions 

SC&A examined OTIB-0049 in terms of its conceptual approach, including the overall technical 

approach used, scientific validity, and sufficient degree of conservatism. SC&A is in agreement 

with the NIOSH approach for estimating annual dose from intakes of Pu-239 that are retained in 

the lung longer than predicted by the normal absorption Type S model, based on the applicability 

of empirically derived adjustment factors for the lung, systemic organs, GI tract organs and 

tissues, and extra-thoracic regions.

3.20.6 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. ICRP Publication 66: 

Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection, Annals of the ICRP Volume 24/1-

3, 1995. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. ICRP Publication 71: Agedependent Doses to the Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4, Inhalation 

Dose Coefficients, Annals of the ICRP Volume 25/3-4, 1995. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 2002. ICRP Supporting Guidance 

3: Guide for the Practical Application of the ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model, Annals of 

the ICRP, Vol. 32/1-2, Oxford, England. 

Khokhryakov, V.F., Suslova K. G., Vostrotin V. V., Romanov S. A., Eckerman, K. F., 

Krahenbuhl M. P., and Miller S. C. 2005. Adaptation of ICRP 66 respiratory tract model to 

data on plutonium biokinetics for Mayak workers, Health Physics, Volume 88, Number 2, pp. 

125–132. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung, Rev. 00, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 6, 2007. 

3.21 ORAUT-OTIB-0050: THE USE OF ROCKY FLATS NEUTRON DOSE 

RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA IN DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0050, The Use of Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction 

Project Data in Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 00, dated December 13, 2005, was prepared by Ron 

Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.21.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of this OTIB is to provide guidance on the application of neutron dose from the 

Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project (NDRP) to NIOSH dose reconstructions. In 

addition to neutron dose guidance, this OTIB includes information about NDRP reconstructed 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 208 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

gamma dose and methods to determine missed gamma dose utilizing the NDRP reconstructed 

gamma dose. 

3.21.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0050 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the OTIB adequately supports 

the dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 209 of 290 

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 3.21-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0050 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0050, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/13/2005

Document Title: The Use of Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project Data in Dose 

Reconstructions

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 3 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 See Review Comments

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 210 of 290 

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 3.21-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0050 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0050, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/13/2005

Document Title: The Use of Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project Data in Dose 

Reconstructions

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.21.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

The procedure was well written, except for two sections in which the wording was confusing and 

the directions difficult to follow. This occurred in Section 3.0 on page 6 concerning Nonaffected original neutron dose - NDRP neutron dose - Notional neutron dose, and Section 4.1.5 

concerning Missed Neutron Dose. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 211 of 290 

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. 

 Section 3.0 - The details of the entries on page 6 concerning the three different neutron 

doses—especially concerning blanks—are difficult to follow. This is a hard concept to 

put into text; perhaps a table to illustrate the different entries would be helpful to the DR 

and help prevent confusion. 

 Section 4.1.5 – The description of the zero entries and their significance is difficult to 

follow. In the second and third sentences it is stated, “If there is no entry for the NDRP 

or notional dose, it should not be assumed to be a zero. However, if there is a zero in...” 

[Emphasis added]. It then goes on to discuss what to do if there is a zero, but never 

comes back to tell what to do if there is no entry. 

Review Objective 1.3 

The last paragraph in Section 3.0 discusses error values and types of distributions. However, in 

the last sentence, it states that the DR must calculate the error associated with this component in 

accordance with OCAS-IG-001 and OTIB-0027. There are insufficient instructions and details 

for the DR to perform this function in an expeditious and timely manner. 

Review Objective 1.4 

In Section 2.0, page 5, it is stated that, “Except for the application of n/p ratios as described in 

Section 4.1.6, the methods described in this OTIB apply only to workers at Rocky Flats Plant 

(RFP) plutonium facilities during the period from 1952 to 1970.” According to the NDRP report 

(ORISE 2005), page 10, all the NTP and NTA films that were available were retrieved for 

possible use in the NDRP project. Because the concern in the 1950s and 1960s was neutron 

exposure in the Pu facilities, most of the NTP and NTA film were from Pu workers. However, 

any that were rereadable were included in the NDRP project regardless of job location. This 

would include any plates and films for workers involved in other areas besides the Pu areas. 

This issue is important because it affects the validity of applying the coworker dose data to 

unmonitored workers, especially to non-Pu workers. If only Pu workers’ NTP/NTA films were 

reread, or only Pu workers worn NTP/NTA badges, then the results of the NDRP study may not 

be directly applicable to non-Pu workers and an adjustment factor may be needed. If the NDRP 

study did include non-Pu workers, then it may contain dose data that can be used to assign 

neutron doses to unmonitored non-Pu workers, or separate out neutron and photon dose from 

composite dose. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Section 4.16, page 8, provides instructions to the DR concerning separating out a worker’s 

neutron and photon dose from the composite dose for 1970–1976 using an n/p ratio of 0.42. This 

was the recommended procedure at the time of the writing of this OTIB (December 13, 2005). 

However, a look at the n/p values during other periods at the RFP, and other facilities, would 

indicate that the use of an n/p ratio of 0.42 could underestimate the neutron dose in a significant 

number of cases. Recent data published in OTIB-0058 Rev. 01, January 8, 2007, Table 6-2, 

provides neutron and photon dose data for most workers and more realistic average n/p values of 

approximately 1.5 for Building 771 and 2.4 for all other buildings for calculating unmonitored 

workers’ doses. The more realistic n/p data needs to be incorporated in a revised OTIB-0050. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 212 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

3.21.4 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

OCAS-IG-001. 2002. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 1., August 

2002. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0027. 2005. Supplementary External Dose Information for Rocky Flats Plant, 

Rev. 00, May 19, 2005. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0058. 2007. External Coworker Dosimetry Data for the Rocky Flats Plant, 

Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 8, 2007. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0050. 2005. Use of Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project Data in 

Dose Reconstructions, Rev. 00, December 13, 2005. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

ORISE (Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education) 2005. Technical Basis Document for the 

Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project, ORISE 05-0199, February 7, 2005. Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. 

3.22 ORAUT-OTIB-0051: EFFECT OF THRESHOLD ENERGY AND ANGULAR 

RESPONSE OF NTA FILM ON MISSED NEUTRON DOSE AT THE OAK 

RIDGE Y-12 FACILITY 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0051, Rev. 00, dated May 15, 2006, was prepared by Ron 

Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.22.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of OTIB-0051 is to provide definitive documentation of the effects of threshold 

energy and angular response of nuclear track emulsion, type A (NTA) film on missed neutron 

dose at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. 

3.22.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0051 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the OTIB adequately supports 

the dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 213 of 290 

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 3.22-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0051 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0051, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/15/2006

Document Title: Effect of Threshold Energy and Angular Response of NTA Film on Missed Neutron 

Dose at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Facility

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 4 See Review Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 4 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 214 of 290 

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 3.22-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0051 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0051, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/15/2006

Document Title: Effect of Threshold Energy and Angular Response of NTA Film on Missed Neutron 

Dose at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Facility

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.22.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.3 

Generally, the OTIB is complete in that it contains the data and tables required by the dose 

reconstructor to follow the recommendations in the OTIB. However, there are two areas that 

lack some technical details and clarity. The Critical Experiments Facility (CEF) is mentioned in 

several places in this OTIB and on pages 7 and 11 it is stated that the mean missed neutron dose 

(because of the energy threshold of NTA film) is 55% as determined in 1960 by measurements at 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 215 of 290 

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. 

the CEF and reference is made to RPRT-0033 (ORAU 2005). There are areas that need 

addressed in more details: 

 Lack of complete CEF analysis - The OTIB introduces the CEF at the beginning and 

lists the final recommendations in Table 8-1 for the CEF. However, the facility is left out 

of the analysis in between these two sections, such as the series of figures in Section 4 

and Figure 6-1. The reader is left to read the RPRT-0033 (ORAUT 2005) report and fill 

in the data for OTIB-0051 to get a complete picture. For dose reconstruction, it is not 

clear if this OTIB will be used for the Critical Experiments Facility workers, or if RPRT0033 is to be used for those workers (which mainly makes use of n/p ratios to compensate 

for the NTA film under response). Additionally, it has not been stated if there were, or 

were not, any criticality experiments conducted at Y-12 in the early days before the CEF 

was constructed that may have exposed workers to neutrons below the NTA threshold. 

 Fast and thermal neutron measurements at CEF - OTIB-0051 uses the fact that on 

pages 20 and 21 of the RPRT-0033 (ORAUT 2005) it is stated that, “Fast neutrons” and 

“Thermal neutrons” were measured during the experiment at different locations at the 

CEF, and a mean missed-neutron dose of 55% was determined for the CEF. However, 

because OTIB-0051 is specifically concerned with the response of NTA film to neutrons 

of different energies, it is imperative that there be a detailed understanding of the neutron 

spectra and measurement methods involved in obtaining this data. No information is 

provided in RPRT-0033 as to the methodology used and therefore the implied energy 

spectra of Fast and Thermal neutrons in this case (i.e., Fast most likely does not refer to 

mono-energetic 4.00 MeV neutrons, or Thermal to only 0.025 eV neutrons). Considering 

the incompleteness of information, OTIB-0051 should not make use of the RPRT-0033 

data in its present form as a basis for making DR recommendations concerning NTA film 

response at the CEF. 

Review Objective 3.2.1 

Use of personal dosimeters - See Section 7.3 concerning use of NTA film data. 

Review Objective 5.2 

The OTIB was generally claimant favorable in instances of unknown parameters affecting dose 

estimates. However, there are three situations where uncertain parameters could lead to an 

underestimate of neutron dose that were not identified in the OTIB; these are: 

 Moderated (alpha,n) neutrons – Chemical operations are mentioned several times in 

the OTIB. However, the analyses in Section 4, Section 6, and the final results in 

Table 8-1 only deal with UF4 and UO3 in containers and in storage. OTIB-0051, 

Table 8-1, provides correction factors for fairly energetic neutrons from unmoderated 

(alpha,n) reactions, but do not provide for any correction factors for NTA results for 

workers that were potentially exposed to lower-energy neutrons from moderated 

(alpha,n) reaction neutrons. From the information provided in the OTIB, it would appear 

that the correction factors obtained from measurements made were for neutrons coming 

from (alpha,n) reactions taking place in metal containers, and not from wet chemical 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 216 of 290 

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. 

processes where the water would act as a neutron moderator and quickly degrade the 

neutron energy below the 700 keV threshold of the NTA film. This could occur when 

workers were directly exposed to moderated neutrons while working on wet chemical 

processes (especially around recycled uranium operations), or near-by workers not 

directly involved in the process, but who received doses from moderated neutrons 

because of the material between them and the main operation(s). Therefore, the OTIB 

needs to develop and recommend a correction factor in Table 8-1, for highly moderated 

neutron exposure from (alpha,n) reactions. 

 Third parameter needs to be considered – The OTIB, page 18, states that: 

The potential for neutron exposure depends on both the total activity of the 

uranium (which is a function of enrichment) and the chemical compound in 

question (the mixing of uranium and fluorine or other low-Z atoms). 

However, a third variable should be included in the contents of analyzing the response of 

NTA film to (alpha,n) neutrons; that is the amount of moderator (mainly hydrogenous 

material) present because the presence of moderating material increases the fraction of 

missed neutron dose when measured using NTA film. 

 Angular Response – The short treatment and recommendations concerning the angular 

response of NTA film in Section 7 of this OTIB was compared to the recommendation of 

several other articles (such as Hine and Brownell 1956 and Kathren et al. 1965) and 

found that the use of 1.3x as an angular dependence factor is reasonable, although not 

necessarily overly conservative, i.e., compare to 1.39x or 1.54x for rotational geometry, 

which would be expected to be somewhat different. Therefore, it should only be used to 

compensate for frontal angular dependence in the anterior hemisphere of exposure. 

Anterior/Posterior (AP) versus Posterior/Anterior (PA) must also be considered in 

addition to angular dependence for the decrease in response in NTA film from neutrons 

from posterior exposure. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Most of this OTIB employed scientifically valid protocols for reconstructing doses. However, 

some areas of technical comparison/validation were not analyzed or were incomplete. These 

consisted of: 

(1) OTIB-0051 missed dose vs. IAEA results for NTA film: An IAEA report, page 31, (IAEA 

1990) list the computed NTA film response (mounted on a phantom) in Table 3-IX as a 

function of neutron-energy interval. Comparing the relative response of NTA film to 

neutrons of different energies and that of a calibration source can provide information to 

calculate missed neutron doses. Missed neutron doses at several important neutron 

energies/sources listed in OTIB-0051 were calculated using the IAEA information, and they 

were then compared to the results shown in Figure 6-1 of OTIB-0051. A summary of this 

comparison is shown in the following table. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 217 of 290 

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 3.22-2: Comparison of % Missed Neutron Dose: IAEA Data vs. OTIB-0051 

Source of 

Neutrons 

Mean Neutron 

energy (MeV) 

IAEA calc. 

NTA response 

IAEA 

response @ E 

Compared to 

IAEA response 

@ 3.98 MeV 

IAEA % 

missed dose

OTIB Fig. 6.1 

% missed dose 

Ratio of 

missed dose 

(IAEA)/(OTIB)

AmBe 3.98 6.12E-04 1.00 0 13 0 

Cf-252 2.51 4.70E-04 0.77 23 21 1.1 

86" Cyclo. 1.00 2.87E-04 0.47 53 28 1.9 

Calib UF4 0.63 1.37E-04 0.22 78 51 1.5 

CEF 0.45 1.76E--5 0.03 97 55 1.8 

It appears that the information in IAEA provides for a larger missed dose than the OTIB0051 claimant-favorable recommendations in Figure 6-1 for the same locations; this ranges 

from 1.1x for Cf-252 sources to 1.9x for the 86” cyclotron. This comparison can only be 

used as an indicator because the NTA response values listed in Table 3-IX of the IAEA 

report are for a narrow band of neutron energies (for example, 3.98 MeV represents neutrons 

from 3.16 MeV to 3.98 MeV). A source of neutrons as listed in Table 7.3-1 above would 

contain a broader energy spectra and the NTA film would respond with higher efficiency to 

neutrons with energies greater than 3.98 MeV, and with lower efficiency to neutrons with 

energies less than 3.98 MeV. However, this comparison does serve to illustrate the fact that 

the OTIB-0051 recommended correction factors for NTA film’s lack of response to lower 

energy neutrons is not overly conservative and most likely represents the 50th percentile 

values and not the 95th percentile values. 

(2) Situations where most, or all, of the neutrons are below the threshold: This OTIB does not 

recommend how the DR is to handle neutron exposure situations where the majority of the 

neutron flux ranges from the neutron threshold of the NTA film down to thermal energies. In 

these situations, there is not a significant number of higher-energy neutrons registered on the 

NTA film to use to calculate missed dose, regardless of the energy threshold used. These 

situations need to be identified and addressed. 

(3) Y-12 worker at X-10 and rovers: The issue of Y-12 workers who worked on X-10 projects 

involving neutron fields, either at Y-12 or at X-10, is not addressed. Clarification has not 

been made if these workers’ DR will be covered under Y-12 or X-10. Additionally, workers 

that were “rovers” who worked at many different locations at Y-12, and perhaps X-10, may 

have been exposed to a variety of neutron fields. It would be difficult to categorize these 

workers to a known neutron field as listed in the OTIB. The present OTIB does not 

recommend to the DR how to handle the NTA film’s lack of response to lower energy 

neutrons in these cases. 

(4) Selection of neutron energies for the 86” cyclotron: It is stated on page 11 of the OTIB that 

the average neutron energy for the 86” cyclotron was 1.05 MeV, and 4.0 MeV for 241-AmBe 

neutron sources. On page 15, last paragraph, of the OTIB it is stated that a Po-Be or Am-Be 

source used to calibrate NTA film is a good match to the neutron spectra found in the 

workplace at Y-12 facility, particularly the stray neutron field about the 86” cyclotron. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 218 of 290 

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. 

However, Po-Be and Am-Be sources have average energies around 4 MeV whereas the 

average energy of the neutron field at the cyclotron is around 1.05 MeV. Figure 3-1, page 10 

of the OTIB, shows that the relative response of NTA film is approximately 1.5 at 1 MeV, 

compared to a relative response of approximately 4.1 at 4 MeV. This does not appear to be a 

good match and could create a dose assignment of only (1.5/4) = 38% of the true neutron 

dose, because of the decreased NTA film response to lower energy neutrons. Approximately 

the same results are obtained when using the IAEA data in Table 3-IX (IAEA 1990), i.e., 

(2.87E-4)/(6.12/E-4) = 47 %. 

Summary. OTIB-0051 is a good start for NIOSH to attempt to correct for the under response of 

NTA film to lower-energy neutrons. It refers to IAEA for calculated NTA track response vs. 

neutron energy and Kathren et al. 1965 for angular dependence. The OTIB does not appear to 

apply (especially in the summary table on page 18) to chemical process workers who might have 

been exposed to moderated neutrons in process lines from (alpha,n) reactions (especially in early 

days of operations and/or around recycled uranium processes), but only to (alpha,n) reaction 

neutron exposures around the uranium storage areas. Situations where the majority of the 

neutron flux is below the effective threshold of NTA film are not addressed. Additionally, 

neutron doses to rovers and Y-12 workers on X-10 projects have not been addressed/clarified. 

The final recommendations to the DR are contained in Table, which is a reproduction of Table 

8-1 of OTIB-0051: 

Table 3.22-3: Recommended Correction for Missed Neutron Dose due to Threshold 

Energy and Angular Response of NTA Film 

Neutron sourcea Correction factor 

for threshold energy

Correction factor for 

angular response

Total correction 

factor

Unshielded radionuclide sources 1.0 1.3 1.3 

Cf-252 fission neutron source 1.3 1.3 1.7 

86 Inch Cyclotron 1.4 1.3 1.8 

Shielded radionuclide sourcesb 2.0 1.3 2.7 

Enriched uranium storage containers 2.2 1.3 2.9 

CEFc 2.2 1.3 2.9 

a. See Section 2.0 and Table 2-1. 

b. Health Physics Calibration Laboratory. 

c. Normally inhabited locations inside CEF. 

Source: OTIB-0051, Table 8.1 

Overall, this is a good start and provides reasonable results. The methods need to be developed 

in more detail, other thresholds energies need to be considered, and perhaps a few example 

calculations provided to allow it to be evaluated for technical soundness and clamant 

favorability. 

3.22.4 Workbooks 

There are no workbooks directly involved in developing this OTIB. However, the following two 

workbooks could make use of the correction factors recommended in this OTIB: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 219 of 290 

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) Y-12_Calculation Workbook 1.12. 

(2) Y-12_Workbook CB_1951–1960 and CF After 1960 1.14. 

3.22.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

Hine, G., and Brownell, G. 1956. Radiation Dosimetry. Academic Press, Inc.: New York, New 

York. 

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) 1990. Compendium of Neutron Spectra and 

Detector Responses for Radiation Protection Purposes, Technical Report Series No. 318, 

Vienna, Austria. 

Kathren, R., Prevo, C., and Block, S. 1965. “Angular Dependence of Eastman Type A (NTA) 

Personnel Monitoring Film,” Health Physics, Volume 11, pp. 1067–1069. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0051. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Effect of Threshold Energy and 

Angular Respons, Rev. 00, May 15, 2006. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

ORAUT-RPRT-0033. 2005, Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the 

Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 2 – Neutron Radiation, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 13, 2005. 

3.23 ORAUT-OTIB-0052: PARAMETERS FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS FOR 

CONSTRUCT. WORKERS 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0052 was performed as a separate subtask under this task order, 

and a draft report was delivered to NIOSH and the Board on July 3, 2007, with report number 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0004. 

3.24 ORAUT-OTIB-0055: TECHNICAL BASIS FOR CONVERSION FROM NCRP 

REPORT 38 NEUTRON QUALITY FACTORS TO ICRP PUBLICATION 60 

RADIATION WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR RESPECTIVE IREP INPUT 

NEUTRON ENERGY RANGES 

This review of ORAUT-OTIB-0055, Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 

Neutron Quality Factors to ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors for Respective 

IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges, Rev. 00, dated June 5, 2006, was prepared by William R. 

Hoey. 

3.24.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The stated purpose of OTIB-0055 is to present the technical basis and methodology for 

converting from recorded neutron dose to neutron dose equivalent using the ICRP 60 radiation 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 220 of 290 

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. 

weighting factors. This conversion has already taken place in many of the site TBDs; however, 

the basis for the conversion was not always clearly presented in the TBDs. 

3.24.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0055 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report. 

Table 3.24-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0055, Rev. 00 Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 Neutron Quality Factors to 

ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors for Respective IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges

Auditor: William R. Hoey

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and 

unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in 

a logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does 

not reference other sources that are needed for additional 

data)? 

5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are 

part of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize 

the need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether procedures provide adequate guidance to be efficient in select 

instances where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the 

outcome. 

2.1 “For suspected high cumulative exposures,” does the 

procedure provide clear guidance as to the magnitude of dose 

for any given tissue/organ that will exceed the 50% PC 

value? 

N/A 

2.2 “In instances of suspected cumulative low doses,” does the 

procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 221 of 290 

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 3.24-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0055, Rev. 00 Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 Neutron Quality Factors to 

ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors for Respective IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges

Auditor: William R. Hoey

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ---- 

3.1.1 Scope of information N/A 

3.1.2 Level of detail sought and relevance to dose reconstruction N/A 

3.1.3 Objectivity and lack of bias N/A 

3.1.4 Sensitivity to the claimant N/A 

3.1.5 Protection of information required under Privacy Act N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ---- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as 

defined in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing 

data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where 

claimant was not monitored? N/A 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting 

the types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, 

lognormal)? 

N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A No distributions are developed. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 222 of 290 

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 3.24-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0055 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0055, Rev. 00 Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 Neutron Quality Factors to 

ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors for Respective IREP Input Neutron Energy Ranges

Auditor: William R. Hoey

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process 

efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that cannot 

reasonably be accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure require levels of detail that may have 

limited significance to the precision of the final dose 

estimate? 

5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.24.3 General Comments 

This procedure does a commendable job in presenting the technical basis for the conversion of 

individual neutron doses recorded at the various sites to the neutron dose to be used as part of an 

individual’s dose reconstruction that is based on the most current scientific publication, ICRP 

Publication 60 (ICRP 1991), concerning the calculation of personnel neutron doses. 

According to information presented in the procedure, this procedure was prepared largely in 

response to questions from technical personnel at some sites concerning the presentation and use 

of the ICRP Publication 60 neutron radiation weighting factors in that site’s TBD. It was 

determined that the various TBDs did not always present a clear description of the methodology 

and basis for the methodology to be used to convert recorded personnel neutron doses to the 

neutron doses to be used as part of the dose reconstruction for these personnel. 

In addition to providing a detailed discussion of the technical basis for the neutron dose 

conversion process, the procedure also presents an example of how a dose conversion would be 

performed. 

3.24.4 Review Comments 

SC&A’s review of this procedure produced no comments, and SC&A agrees with its contents. 

3.24.5 References 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 223 of 290 

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. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0055, Technical Basis for Conversion from NCRP Report 38 Neutron Quality 

Factors to ICRP Publication 60 Radiation Weighting Factors for Respective IREP Input Neutron 

Energy Ranges, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 5, 2006. 

3.25 ORAUT-OTIB-0057: EXTERNAL RADIATION DOSE ESTIMATES FOR 

INDIVIDUALS NEAR THE 1958 CRITICALITY ACCIDENT AT THE OAK 

RIDGE Y-12 PLANT 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0057, Rev. 00, dated May 15, 2006, was prepared by Ron 

Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.25.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of OTIB-0057 is to review the available dosimetric data and its potential application 

in dose reconstruction for Y-12 workers who were near the nuclear criticality accident in 

Building 9212 of the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in 1958. The accident occurred on 

Monday, June 16, at approximately 2:05 p.m. (UCNC 1958; Callihan and Thomas 1959). 

Additional data relevant to individuals described in this OTIB of a personal nature can be found 

in Y-12 1958 Criticality Accident Roster (ORAUT 2006), which is available to dose 

reconstructors as needed. 

3.25.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0057 is summarized below in Table. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 3.25-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0057 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0057, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/15/2006

Document Title: External Radiation Dose Estimates for Individuals Near the 1958 Criticality Accident 

at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Comments Rating 

1-5* 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 224 of 290 

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 3.25-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0057 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0057, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/15/2006

Document Title: External Radiation Dose Estimates for Individuals Near the 1958 Criticality Accident 

at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 5 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 225 of 290 

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 3.25-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0057 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0057, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 05/15/2006

Document Title: External Radiation Dose Estimates for Individuals Near the 1958 Criticality Accident 

at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.25.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Generally, the OTIB was written in a fairly clear and unambiguous manner. However, some 

wording and errors contained in the text create confusion and require several rereads, and/or 

assumptions to be made, to clarify the issues. The following are the areas identified: 

 The last paragraph on page 7 lists the whole-body limit as 15 mrem/yr; this should read 

15 rem/yr.

 The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 12 states, “The last column of 

Table 5-1 lists the doses of record for these eight individuals (UCNC 1958).” The 

meaning of this should be qualified by rewording it to read, “The last column of 

Table 5-1 lists the original doses of record for these eight individuals using an RBE of 2.0 

(UCNC 1958).” 

 Towards the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph on page 16, the words 

“greater than” should be changed to “less than;” i.e., it should read, “For the first IREP 

neutron energy interval (less than 10 keV), all of the first two energy intervals in 

Table 7-1 were combined and the total percentage of the absorbed dose at energies less

than 10 keV was 13.5%.” 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 226 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 5.2 

The OTIB was generally claimant favorable in instances of unknown parameters affecting dose 

estimates. However, one area that lacked sufficient detailed analysis was the uncertainty 

associated with the dose assignments. In the footnote of Table 5-1 on page 13, it is mentioned 

that the estimated uncertainty for both neutrons and gamma doses is 20% for the eight workers 

listed in the table. In the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 18, the following is 

stated: 

The estimated uncertainties of 10% by Mole and 20% by Hurst, Ritchie, and 

Emerson (1958) suggest an overall uncertainty of approximately 25% in the 

estimated dose to workers from the accident. [Note: (1958) should read (1959)] 

This does not provide a complete analysis of the uncertainty of the estimated doses, especially 

for this accident where there are a number of unknown and assumed parameters for both the 31 

workers involved and any other workers that may have been exposed and DR becomes 

necessary. The 20% factor comes from AP versus lateral exposure mentioned on page 12, and 

the 10% factor comes from the difference in serum content of sodium between the burro and 

humans, as mentioned on page 13. These are only two of the many uncertainties in this accident 

situation. In the next section, Review Objective 7.3 provides some details concerning the 

unknowns, assumptions, and uncertainties in this case. As can be seen from that analysis, the 

suggested uncertainty of +25% does not bound the uncertainties found in the actual results. 

OTIB-0057 presents a solid reconstruction of the accident and associated doses. However, 

further analysis of the unknowns/assumptions, and a more realistic uncertainty, are needed. In 

this accident situation, an uncertainty in the range of at least +50% is needed to encompass the 

feasible doses and to ensure claimant favorability. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Most of this OTIB employed scientifically valid protocols for reconstructing doses. However, 

one area of technical comparison/validation was not analyzed and considered. This consists of 

comparing the neutron dose results obtained by sodium analysis at various distances to those 

obtained by inverse-square of the distance for the two workers (F and G) at 25 ft, which were 

used to estimate the dose to other workers further away from the accident. If the dose versus 

distance of the data in Table 6-1 for workers #8 and #10 - 31 (which are based on the sodium 

analysis of workers F and G) are plotted on a log-log scale, as shown in Figure, a straight line 

can be drawn connecting these data points and extended to smaller and larger distances. If the 

individual doses obtained from the sodium activation analysis of workers A - H are then plotted 

as a function of distance on the same graph, Figure shows that the latter data points do not fall on 

the predicted dose line as a function of distance. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 227 of 290 

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. 

Figure 3.25-1: Comparison of Recorded to Estimated Doses 

Furthermore, as shown by Table, workers’ B, C, D, and E predicted neutron doses (by the results 

of workers F and G; 20 rem at 25 ft.) are all significantly less than the actual measured dose by 

sodium activation analysis. The predicted dose for worker A dose is significantly more than that 

which was measured, but the uncertainty in distance and geometry (i.e., 3–6 ft) associated with 

this close of distance precludes the use of this data point for comparison. 

Table 3.25-2: Comparison of Predicted vs. Measured Neutron Doses 

Worker Distance 

(ft) 

Meas. neutron dose 

(rad) by Na act. 

Predicted 

dose by 1/r2

Difference 

Predicted/measured 

B 14 78 63.8 -18.2% 

C 17 98 43.3 -55.8% 

D 22 95 25.8 -72.8% 

E 22 68 25.8 -62.1% 

F 25 20 Benchmark - 

G 25 20 Benchmark - 

H 50 6.6 5.00 -24.2% 

From the results shown in Table and Figure, it can be seen that the actual measured dose 

exceeded the predicted dose in all the comparisons; in 3 out of 5 cases the difference was greater 

than the +25% uncertainty suggested in Section 8.0, page 18. 

This analysis leads to the conclusion that the unknown factors, assumptions, and uncertainties in 

this accident situation and its recreation are greater than anticipated. Some possible 

unknowns/uncertainties are as follows: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 228 of 290 

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. 

 Source geometry 

 Radiation energy spectra 

 Knowledge of distances 

 Knowledge of exposure times and exposure conditions 

 Dose measurement errors 

 Differences between mock up experiment and accident 

 Differences between burro and humans 

 Others 

The main concern with this OTIB is that if the doses predicted by use of the inverse-square of the 

distance method are less than those measured dose, then the doses assigned workers that were 

not measured could be underestimates of the actual doses they received. 

3.25.4 Workbooks 

There were no notebooks associated with this OTIB. 

3.25.5 References 

42 CFR Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

Callihan, D., and J. T. Thomas. 1959. Accidental Radiation Excursion at the Oak Ridge Y-12 

Plant–I, Description and Physics of the Accident, Health Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 363-372. 

Hurst, G. S., R. H. Ritchie, and L. C. Emerson, 1959, Accidental Radiation Excursion at the Oak 

Ridge Y-12 Plant—III, Determination of Radiation Doses, Health Physics, Volume 2, pp. 121–

133. 

Mole, R. H., 1984, Sodium in Man and the Assessment of Radiation Dose After Critical 

Accidents, Physics in Medicine and Biology, Volume 29, pp. 1307–1327. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0057. 2006. External Radiation Dose Estimates For Individuals Near The 1958 

Criticality Accident At The Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 15, 2006. 

ORAUT 2006. Y-12 1958 Criticality Accident Roster, Rev. 00 (Official Use Only), Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

UCNC 1958. Accidental Radiation Excursion at the Y-12 Plant, June 16, 1958, Final Report, 

Y-1234, Y-12 Plant, Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 229 of 290 

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. 

3.26 ORAUT-OTIB-0058: EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSIMETRY DATA FOR 

ROCKY FLATS 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0058, External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Rocky Flats, 

Rev. 01 PC-1, dated March 29, 2007, was prepared by Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

3.26.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

The purpose of OTIB-0058 is to provide information to allow dose reconstructors to assign doses 

based on site coworker data to Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) workers who have no or limited 

monitoring data. In addition, the data in this OTIB should be used to assign dose for gaps in the 

dosimetry record. The data are to be used in conjunction with ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Use of 

Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment (ORAUT 2005b). 

3.26.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0058 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report. 

Table 3.26-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0058 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0058, Rev. 01 PC-1 Effective Date: 03/29/2007

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Rocky Flats 

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 3 See Review 

Comments 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 230 of 290 

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 3.26-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0058 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0058, Rev. 01 PC-1 Effective Date: 03/29/2007

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Rocky Flats 

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 4 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 3 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 4 See Review 

Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 3 See Review Comments 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 3 See Review Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 231 of 290 

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 3.26-1: ORAUT-OTIB-0058 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0058, Rev. 01 PC-1 Effective Date: 03/29/2007

Document Title: External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Rocky Flats 

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 4 See Review Comments 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.26.3 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.1 

Generally, the OTIB was written in a style that is clear and unambiguous. However, in several 

areas information was inconsistent or its application was not clear. These areas were: 

 Mixed versions of the OTIB-0058: Page 8 of OTIB-0058 states, “Inclusion of NDRP 

data in the HIS20 database led to the development of tables of data for penetrating and 

nonpenetrating dose that include and exclude the NDRP values.” This is apparently a 

carryover from the earlier editions that contained Tables 7-3 and 7-5, which excluded 

NDRP data. These tables no longer appear in the March 29, 2007, version of OTIB0058. Additionally, the heading on pages 4, 8, and 16 of Rev. 01 PC-1 contain the older 

date and version numbers. 

 Inconsistent dates for n/p values: The third bullet point on page 8 of OTIB-0058 

instructs the dose reconstructor (DR) to use the n/p values in OTIB-0050 (ORAUT 

2005d) for 1977–2005. However, OTIB-0050, page 8, Table 4-1 only lists annual n/p 

ratios for 1977 to 2000. It is not clear to the DR if NIOSH intends for the DR to use the 

average n/p value of 0.42 (obtained from 1977–2000 TLD data) for all years during 

1977–2005, or if the results for each specific year are to be used (if so, what is to be used 

for 2001–2005?). Additionally, if the average n/p value of 0.42 is to be applied to all 

years during 1977–2005, there is no mention of the justification for this recommendation. 

When one-half maximum potential annual missed dose is added is not clear: Step 1 on page 

9 describes how the coworker doses contained in HIS20 database were normalized to 1 year. 

Step 2 states that one-half the maximum potential annual missed dose values were added to the 

reported annual doses from the HIS-20 database. Then Step 3 states that the dose data from 

Step 2 were ranked according to percentile. If the procedure were performed in the order stated, 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 232 of 290 

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. 

then there would be no zeros in the ranked data because all would at least contain some 

contribution from the one-half the maximum potential annual missed dose added. However, the 

coworker data file [O-drive ->AB Doc ->RFP -> Co-worker data -> RRFP Coworker Stats 

(NDRP Included HIS 20 Data)] that Table 7-1 of OTIB-0058 was derived from contains some 

zero, or very low dose, entries for the 50th percentile penetrating dose for some years; e.g., 1978, 

1980, 1981, 1982, 1989, 2000–2004, etc., indicating that the missing dose values were not added 

in before ranking. The OTIB needs to clarify this sequence of steps concerning how and when 

the one-half the maximum potential annual missed dose was added. 

Review Objective 1.3 

As the RFP dose reconstruction system has evolved, it has come to encompass many procedures 

and documents. Some of these are listed in the reference section of this report; i.e., ORAUTOTIB-0017, ORAUT-OTIB-0020, ORAUT-OTIB-0027, ORAUT-OTIB-0050, and ORAUTOTIB-0052; the NDRP report; numerous workbooks; and the regular list of generic procedures 

and OTIBs. OTIB-0058 does contain some of the coworker specific data tables for use by the 

DR. However, the overall RFP dose reconstruction system has grown to the point where there is 

a potential for incorrect assignment of dose during the dose reconstruction process because of the 

complexity of the process. This is not directly the fault of OTIB-0058, but the resulting complex 

system of dose reconstruction for RFP that has been developed. 

Review Objective 1.4 

The procedures in OTIB-0058 were consistent with other procedures, with one exception. This 

involves the selection of coworker data if there are zeros present. As described in Step 2, page 9, 

of OTIB-0058, the zero entries were modified by one-half the maximum potential annual missed 

dose. However, for some years and percentiles it is claimant favorable to not use the zero entries 

and not add the one-half the maximum potential annual missed dose, as is described in ORAUTOTIB-0021 (ORAUT 2006a), page 6, Section 7.0, Step 3. This is discussed in more detail in the 

Review Objective 3.2.3 of this report. 

Review Objective 3.2.1 

OTIB-0058 did not always address site-specific dosimetry data adequately. For example, there 

are problems with calculated neutron dose entries during 1969-1970, as stated on page 10 of the 

OTIB: 

Also, for the 1969–1970 time period, the data from the HIS-20 database were 

analyzed without consideration of the zero readings in the database due to issues 

regarding the accurate recording of “zero” dose readings during that period. 

This was a claimant-favorable analysis. However, what was not considered was the fact that 

many of the neutron NTA films during the period 1967–1970 were not read, because it was 

decided that it was necessary to read fewer, high-exposure potential, NTA film with more 

accuracy than had been done in the past; this left a lot of NTA films unread. For some of these 

unread NTA films, a neutron dose was calculated from photon dose × (n/p) values and entered in 

the worker’s dose of record. This makes some of the coworker composite dose data consist of 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 233 of 290 

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. 

photon plus neutron dose derived by using the (photon dose) × (n/p) method, not separately 

measured photon and neutron doses. Unfortunately, during this same time period, it was also 

decided that the NTA film did not need to be archived; therefore, they were not available for 

reread by the NDRP. Although the zero entries during 1969–1970 have been compensated for, 

the problem of potentially incorrect neutron dose entries in the workers’ composite dose of 

records makes the database questionable for constructing a coworker model for that time period. 

Review Objective 3.2.3 

In some dose assignment procedures, OTIB-0058 adequately addressed missing dosimetry data. 

However, two areas that were not claimant favorable are: 

(1) Use of zero data entries: A process is described in Step 2, page 9, of OTIB-0058 where 

data for Table 7-1 are derived using zero entries, modified by one-half the maximum 

potential annual missed dose. However, for some years and percentiles it is claimant 

favorable to not use the zero entries and not add the one-half the maximum potential 

annual missed dose as is described in OTIB-0021 (ORAUT 2006a), page 6, Section 7.0, 

Step 3. Preliminary calculations show that about 40% of the penetrating 95th percentile 

doses in Table 7-1 would be greater if the coworker doses were used without zeros and 

no addition was made for one-half the maximum potential annual missed dose. For 

example, the HIS-20 penetrating dose [O-drive ->AB Doc ->RFP -> Co-worker data -> 

RRFP Coworker Stats (NDRP Included HIS 20 Data)] for the 95th percentile for 1980 

was 0.633 rem from the data table, which included zeros, and 1.001 rem without zeros. 

The corresponding entry in Table 7-1 of OTIB-0058 consists of 0.633 + 0.120 = 0.743 

mrem, which is about 25% less than if the non-zero data had been used. This does not 

usually apply to the 50th percentile dose, because the dose values are lower in this 

category and the one-half the maximum potential annual missed dose overrides these 

lower values. OTIB-0058 should follow the guidance of OTIB-0021 (ORAUT 2006a) 

and use the most claimant-favorable method of calculating the coworker data in 

Table 7-1 for each year. 

(2) No missed-dose adjustments made for neutron doses: The reason for not including any 

missed dose for neutron dosimetry is stated on page 10, Step 5 of OTIB-0058: 

The NDRP data include an estimate of missed neutron dose (addressed as 

notional dose by the NDRP (project); therefore, no adjustments are needed 

for missed neutron dose for 1952 to 1969. Similarly, for 1970 to 2005, missed 

neutron dose is accounted for when the applicable neutron-to-photon ratio is 

applied to the data in Table 7-1. 

1952–1969 NTA film: There must be a distinction made between missed neutron dose 

(due to the LOD of the dosimetry system) and a gap in neutron monitoring (because there 

was no recorded neutron dose). The NDRP report (ORISE 2005) only used notional 

doses to fill in gaps if, and only if, there were positive photon doses on record for that 

period and the worker was known have potentially been exposed to neutrons. The 

notional doses were based on a combination of (photon dose) × (n/p) and the worker’s 

measured neutron doses for that year (in the 1950s, the notional dose consisted of only 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 234 of 290 

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. 

the (photon dose) × (n/p)). There were no missed doses assigned resulting from the LOD 

of the neutron dosimeter by the NDRP. If a zero NTA film result was recorded (either 

from an original reading or from a reread during the NDRP project), then it remained that 

way; no adjustment was made for the LOD of the neutron dosimeter by the NDRP 

process. 

1970–2005 TLDs: Generally, if a zero TLD neutron result was measured then it 

remained that way, no adjustment was made for the LOD of the neutron dosimeter in the 

records. 

The data in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of OTIB-0058 contain adjustment for missed dose due to 

the LOD of the photon dosimetry system only. As illustrated above, the NDRP did not 

include missed dose, due to the LOD of the neutron dosimetry system, and neither does 

the n/p method compensate for missed dose when TLDs were used. Therefore, the data 

entries in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 consider only the LOD for photons and do not include an 

LOD adjustment for neutrons. To illustrate this concept, consider the following: 

 Table 1 of OTIB-0058 lists a penetrating composite (photon + neutron) dose of 

2.505 rem for the 50th percentile for 1952. This value was derived from the HIS-20 

coworker database of 2.045 rem composite dose + 1⁄2(24 × 0.040 – 0.40) LOD of the 

photon dosimetry system = 2.505 rem. Note that the composite dose in the HIS-20 

database consists of both photon plus neutron doses and the total dose could have 

consisted of zero neutron readings as well as zero photon readings, yet the only 

adjustment made was for the photon LOD. 

 Table 2 of OTIB-0058 lists a photon dose of 1.390 rem for the 50th percentile for 

1952. This value was derived from the HIS-20 coworker database of 2.045 rem 

composite dose by using an NDRP specified n/p value of 1.2 plus a photon LOD of + 

1⁄2(24 × 0.040 – 0.40) = 0.460 rem; i.e., 2.045 rem /(1+1.2) + 0.460 rem = 1.330 rem. 

 Table 2 of OTIB-0058 lists a neutron dose of 1.115 rem for the 50th percentile for 

1952. This value was derived from the HIS-20 coworker database of 2.045 rem 

composite dose by using an NDRP specified n/p value of 1.2; i.e., [2.045 rem 

/(1+1.2)] × 1.2 = 1.115 rem. Note that there was no missing dose added to the 

neutron dose as there was for the photon dose. But the composite dose could have 

contained zero entries for neutron reading. This is generally true for TLD readings as 

well as NTA film reading. 

Analyzing the file tblNDRPData [located at O-drive ->AB Doc ->RFP -> NDRP -> Copy 

of NDRP_BE_20070319 -> tblNDRPData] shows that out of 23,563 entries, the final 

NDRP neutron dose was blank for 87 entries (0.4%), <15 mrem for 2742 entries (11.6%) 

and <30 mrem for 3594 entries (15.1%). This indicates that there were a significant 

number of final NDRP neutron doses under the LOD of NTA film, especially in view of 

the neutron LODs values listed in NIOSH’s workbook entitled “RFP Missed Zero Cal 

WB 1.44” of September 8, 2006. Column 15 of that table lists Neutron LOD/2 values 

ranging from 0.010 to 0.200 rem per exchange cycle. Comparing these values to the 

LOD values for photons listed in Column 11 of that table (ranging from 0.010 to 0.020 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 235 of 290 

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. 

rem) results in potential missed neutron doses that are up to 10 times greater than missed 

photon doses. 

Considering this information, it cannot be stated that OTIB-0058 is always claimant favorable in 

instances of missing dosimetry data. 

Review Objective 3.2.4 

Generally, OTIB-0058 adequately addressed unmonitored periods of exposure. However, there 

are two areas of concern: 

(1) An incorrect assumption may be implied by the statement made on page 10, Step 5, of 

OTIB-0058, that the NDRP assigned a notional dose. Assignment of notional dose 

should not be interpreted as meaning that it corrects for all gaps in neutron monitoring 

and all missed dose due to the LOD of the neutron dosimetry systems. The fact that the 

LOD of the neutron dosimetry systems is not included in the NDRP data was discussed 

previously in Review Objective 3.2.3. The only gaps in neutron dose records that the 

NDRP bridges are periods of time when there were positive photon doses of record and 

the worker was known to be potentially exposed to neutrons. A review of several of the 

individual DOE claimants’ files show that the NDRP does not generally apply to all years 

of photon monitoring, or to all years of employment. Therefore, the NDRP should not be 

considered to compensate all missed and unmonitored neutron dose for 1952–1969. 

(2) OTIB-0058 incorporated OTIB-0052’s (ORAUT 2006b) recommendation of multiplying 

the coworkers’ dose by 1.4 to arrive at a dose assignment for unmonitored construction 

workers directly into Tables 7-3 and 7-4. However, OTIB-0058 used different 

methodologies for the time period of 1952–1969 compared to 1970–2005; the DR is not 

informed of this change in methods by OTIB-0058. An evaluation of the use of one 

adjustment factor of 1.4 for all construction workers for the entire period of 1952–2005 is 

beyond the scope of this review; SC&A has performed a review of OTIB-0052 in a 

separate report. OTIB-0058 did not discuss the appropriateness of using the 

recommendation of OTIB-0052 for RFP constructions workers, nor did it contain 

supportive evidence for it use.

Review Objective 5.2 

OTIB-0058 is not always claimant favorable in instances of unknown parameters. One example 

is the assignment of n/p values for 1952–2005. The third bullet point on page 8 of OTIB-0058 

provides the n/p values used to determine neutron doses in Table 7-2: 

To determine neutron dose for the period from 1952 to 1969, neutron-to-photon 

ratios defined in the NDRP study [ORISE 2005] were used. Neutron-to-photon 

ratios for the period from 1970 to 1976 are defined in this document (see 

Table 6-2). For 1977 to 2005, values from ORAUT-OTIB-0050 were used 

(ORAUT 2005[d]). 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 236 of 290 

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. 

During these three major time periods and the many different locations/operations that took place 

at RFP, the n/p values could have ranged from <0.1 to 10, or more. According to OTIB-0058, 

the appropriate n/p values for all unmonitored workers potentially exposed to neutrons are as 

follows: 

 1952–1958: n/p = 1.2, which was derived from the average of all the buildings for 1959. 

 1959–1969: The appropriate n/p value for all unmonitored workers ranges from 0.5 to 

3.0 depending on the year as listed in Table 11.1 of the NDRP (ORISE 2005); these 

values were derived from the average of all the buildings each year. 

 1970–1976: Table 6-2 of OTIB-0058 lists the average coworkers’ n/p value for each year 

derived from some years of measured data (5 years out of 7 years). The n/p values 

ranged from 0.67 to 1.61. 

 1977–2005: An average n/p value of 0.42 from OTIB-0050 is used. The n/p values 

ranged from 0.26 to 0.61. These values were derived from TLD data obtained during 

1977–2000. 

As can be seen from this brief summary, there are no job-specific (or even category of jobs 

specific) or even building-specific n/p values recommended. Additionally, for 1952–1958 and 

1977–2005, one n/p value covers multiple years. The assumptions that would have to be made to 

justify assigning these few n/p values to cover over 50 years of changes and all building, 

operations, and job types would not be considered claimant favorable in view of the many 

unknowns in neutron exposures and dosimetry. 

Review Objective 5.3 

The purpose of OTIB-0058 is to provide claimant-favorable dose reconstruction procedures in 

instances where the claimant was not monitored. Therefore, the overall evaluation of OTIB0058 is relevant to this review objective. OTIB-0058 is sometime (but not always, as is 

discussed in the various sections of this report) claimant favorable; therefore, it is rated as 3 

(sometimes fulfills the requirements) in the rating system of 1 to 5. 

Review Objective 7.2 

Generally, the level of detail in this procedure was reasonable. However, in some areas there 

were not sufficient details concerning the origin of the data, or how the data were derived, to 

allow the DR to make technically sound decisions involving individual cases or in non-standard 

circumstances. This mainly applies to the data contained in Tables 7-1 through 7-4. The data in 

these tables were not derived in an obvious manner and it requires some analysis to understand 

their origin and appropriate application. Additionally, the methodology is different for the 

period 1952–1969 as compared to 1970–2005. This difference is not noted in the text of the 

OITB. It would assist the DR in better understanding the dose being assigned if a brief 

description of the derivation of the data and/or several short examples were illustrated, as 

contained in Review Objective 3.2.3, Item 2 of this report. A basic understanding of the data 

being used may enable the DR to perform better, and more consistent, dose reconstructions. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 237 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 7.3 

For the most part, the procedure employed scientifically valid protocols. However, one area 

could have been made more scientifically correct, as noted below: 

Prorating dose leads to uneven weighting of actual measured data: Pages 6 and 9 of OTIB0058 describe the procedure used to normalize each worker’s dose to a full year, so yearly 

percentile values could be computed. In the data file RRFP Coworker Stats (NDRP Included 

HIS 20 Data) [located at O-drive ->AB Doc ->RFP -> Co-Worker data -> RRFP Coworker Stats 

(NDRP Included HIS 20 Data)], this is accomplished by using a fractional function in which the 

original dose is divided by the fraction of a year that the dose record is for; i.e., if the worker’s 

dose of 400 mrem was acquired in 6 months, the normalized annual dose would be 400 mrem/0.5 

= 800 mrem. The problem with this methodology is that is gives equal weight to all annualized 

yearly doses. For example, if Worker A had one month of dose data and Worker B had 12 

months of dose data, there are actually only 13 data points that should be used in analyzing the 

coworker data. However, using the HIS-20 method, there would appear to be 24 months of dose 

data, all with equal weight when normalized. The number of prorated-dose values is not always 

negligible in the HIS-20 database; e.g., 19% of the dose entries for 1966 are prorated (561 out of 

2,921). The correct method would be to use only the recorded data values and then normalize 

them using the lowest common denominator, in this case dose per day. The annual doses would 

then be obtained by multiplying the resulting dose per day by 365 (or the appropriate number of 

days per year). Then analyses, such as percentile ranking, averages, etc., could be performed on 

these annual values. The difference between the two methods does not have a large impact on 

the results of percentile ranking, but is important if the normalized annual data in the HIS-20 

database are used for other purposes, such as calculating average doses or n/p values. 

3.26.4 Ramification of Developments since Issuance of OTIB-0058, Rev. 01 PC-1, 

March 29, 2007 

Up to this point, OTIB-0058 has been reviewed according to the information and dose 

reconstruction protocol available as of March 29, 2007. However, significant changes have 

taken place since that time that will impact the implementation of OTIB-0058. These proposed 

changes are as follows: 

(1) On May 4, 2007, the Advisory Board recommended that SEC status be granted for 

workers who were or should have been monitored for neutrons at the RFP during the 

period of 1952–1958. 

(2) On June 12, 2007, the Advisory Board recommended that SEC status be granted for 

workers who were or should have been monitored for neutrons at the RFP during the 

period of 1959–1966. 

(3) On May 17, 2007, at the Advisory Board’s request, NIOSH provided alternate neutron 

dose reconstruction procedures for the period 1959–1970 (NIOSH 2007). 

The alternate neutron dose reconstruction procedures for the period 1959–1970 proposed by 

NIOSH would: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 238 of 290 

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. 

 Eliminate the previous n/p method of estimating an unmonitored worker’s neutron dose. 

That method consisted of multiplying the worker’s recorded photon dose by an n/p value; 

this n/p value was derived for a specific building for a given year. 

 Replace the previous method with one that uses a given percentile (i.e., 50th or 95th) of the 

neutron dose results that were obtained from workers badged for neutrons for a specific 

building for a given year. These badge results are on a badge-exchange basis, as opposed 

to an annual average, to better reflect the variations in neutron doses with job types and 

time dependence. 

 Remove the use of the reading bias correction factor of 1.99 for Building 71 and 1.13 for 

all other buildings for unaffected (i.e., non-reread) Original Neutron Dose when using 

NDRP dose records. 

 Replace the previous reading bias correction factor with a 50th percentile value of 1.640 

or 95th percentile value of 6.950 (derived from 1959–1969 reread vs. unaffected data 

analysis) for workers with NDRP unaffected neutron doses greater than zero. If the 

NDRP unaffected neutron dose was recorded as zero, then the worker will be assigned a 

claimant-favorable neutron dose of 73 mrem/d (50th percentile value) or 183 mrem/d 

(95th percentile value). 

 Notional doses in the worker’s NDRP dose records (part of which were derived from n/p 

values) would be replaced by coworker data, as described in the second bullet point 

above. At this time, it appears that NIOSH would only replace the n/p derived portion of 

the notional dose and leave the dose derived from the worker’s adjacent neutron dose 

readings as they presently are. 

Because OTIB-0058 covers photon, beta, and neutron exposures for 1952–2005, the recent 

proposed changes will only affect part of the procedures/data in OTIB-0058; those concerned 

with neutron exposures (or procedures using the n/p method to derive photon doses from 

composite doses) during 1952 through 1970. This includes the 95th and 50th percentile photon 

and neutron dose data for 1952–1970 in Tables 7-2 and 7-4. Additionally, Section 8.0 

concerning justification for extrapolation of n/p values from 1959 to the 1952 to 1958 period will 

not be needed if the n/p method is not used. 

At this time, it is not obvious how the photon dose will be calculated from the composite doses 

records for the period 1952–1970, for unmonitored workers that were not exposed to neutrons. 

Presently, the values for photon dose in Table 7-2 and 7-4 of OTIB-0058 are derived by using 

n/p values, as discussed in Review Objective 3.2.3 Item 2 of this report. However, this method 

depends on use of n/p values, which is not used in NIOSH’s alternate neutron dose 

reconstruction procedures (NIOSH 2007). Also, it is not certain if the alternate neutron 

procedure will extend back to cover the period 1952–1958 (if it is accepted) as a means to 

separate out the photon doses from the composite doses. 

The proposed changes most likely will require the revision of some RFP dose reconstruction 

documents, such as TBDs and OTIBs. Some of these documents are: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 239 of 290 

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) TKBS-0011-6 (Langsted 2007), especially parts 6.7.3.4 and 6.7.3.5 concerning NTA film 

reading bias factors and the use of the NDRP n/p data. 

(2) OTIB-0027 (ORAUT 2005c), Section 3.0 and Tables 4-1 and 4-2. 

(3) OTIB-0050 (ORAUT 2005d), Sections 3 and 4 will have to be rewritten concerning 

notional doses. 

(4) OTIB-0058 (ORAUT 2007), as previously described in this section of this report. 

3.26.5 Workbooks 

Seven RFP workbooks use the data generated by OTIB-0058. Following are the titles of these 

seven workbooks, along with comments concerning their dependence on recent changes made in 

OTIB-0058 as of March 29, 2007, and proposed changes since March 29, 2007: 

(1) Complex Wide CoWorker Data 1.10: The data for RFP in this workbook is outdated 

because it was taken from Table 7-2 of older versions of OTIB-0058 and that table has 

been deleted in recent versions of OTIB-0058. 

(2) RFP_OTIB-0058 Implementation Guidance_6-13-06: This guide is outdated because 

of the recent changes in OTIB-0058, and it will also be affected by the proposed SECs 

and NIOSH alternate neuron dose reconstruction procedures. 

(3) RFP_OTIB-0058 Co-worker data Tool 1.00: This tool is outdated because of the recent 

changes in OTIB-0058, and it will also be affected by the proposed SECs and NIOSH 

alternate neuron dose reconstruction procedures. 

(4) RFP-Missed Zero Calculation Workbook 1.14: The columns concerned with neutron 

dose for the period 1951–1970 will need to be modified accordingly. 

(5) RFP Calculation Workbook 2.24: No apparent changes because of the revised OTIB0058 were identified for this workbook. Changes to this workbook will be required 

because of the SECs and the NIOSH’s alternate neutron dose reconstruction procedure, if 

these are approved. 

(6) RFP_BE words for DRs_5-16-06: No apparent changes to this workbook because of the 

revised OTIB-0058. Changes to this workbook will be required because of the SECs and 

the NIOSH’s alternate neutron dose reconstruction procedure, if these are approved. 

(7) RFP Basic Guidelines for RFP Version 1.10, 4-5-06: Changes in the recent OTIB-0058 

will require changes in this guide, i.e., page 9 of the guide refers to the use of the n/p 

value of 1.42 for the period 1971–1976; this has since been replaced by Table 6-2 in the 

new OTIB-0058. Additionally, if the proposed SEC’s and NIOSH’s alternate neutron 

dose reconstruction procedures are accepted, the NDRP and other neutron dose issues 

discussed on pages 8–18 of the guide will need to be revised. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 240 of 290 

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. 

3.26.6 Summary 

This review of the OTIB-0058, Rev. 01 PC-1, March 29, 2007, provides an evaluation of the 

latest OTIB concerned with assigning coworker dose to unmonitored RFP workers for the period 

1952–2005. Additionally, it incorporates recent proposed changes and their major impacts to 

provide a view of the current status of the external dose reconstruction procedures for 

unmonitored RFP workers. This can serve as a starting point when the RFP dose reconstruction 

process begins to be finalized. 

3.26.7 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) 2007. NIOSH’s response 

entitled III ABRWH Request 3, “Neutron Doses 1959 to 1970,” May 17, 2007. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017. 2005a. 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-0020. 2005b. Technical Information Bulletin: Use of Coworker Dosimetry 

Data for External Dose Assignment, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. October 7, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0027. 2005c. Technical Information Bulletin: Supplementary External Dose 

Information for Rocky Flats Plant, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. May 19, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0050. 2005d. Technical Information Bulletin: Use of Rocky Flats Neutron 

Dose Reconstruction Project Data in Dose Reconstructions, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 13, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0021. 2006a. Technical Information Bulletin: External Coworker Dosimetry 

Data for the X-10 Site, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. November 7, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052. 2006b. Technical Information Bulletin: Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 31, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0058. 2007. Technical Information Bulletin: External Coworker Dosimetry 

Data For The Rocky Flats Plant, Rev. 01 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. March 29, 2007. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 241 of 290 

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. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, 2007. Technical Basis Document: Rocky Flats Plant – Occupational 

External Dose, Rev. 0, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 8, 

2007. 

ORISE (Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education) 2005. Technical Basis Document for the 

Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project, ORISE 05-0199, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. February 7, 

2005. 

3.27 ORAUT-OTIB-0060: INTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

The review of ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 00, dated February 6, 

2007, was prepared by Doug Farver, CHP, CSP. 

3.27.1 Purpose of the Technical Information Bulletin 

This document supersedes PROC-0003 and provides information and guidance for 

reconstructing internal dose and to document the rationale for selection of certain default 

parameters. 

3.27.2 Review Protocol 

As part of the first set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated ORAUT-PROC-0003 Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 0 (May 1, 

2003). Our findings were published in The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods 

Used for Dose Reconstruction, dated January 2005 (SCA-TR-Task3). Following the submission 

of this report and its findings, an expanded review and issues-resolution process was initiated. 

The process began by NIOSH providing written responses to each of SC&A’s findings. Under 

the direction of a Board-appointed work group, a series of meetings was held between 

representatives of NIOSH and SC&A auditors to discuss and resolve each finding. This process 

resulted in the preparation of an issues-tracking matrix, whereby the closeout status of each 

finding is tracked. 

As indicated in the issues-tracking matrix, PROC-0003 was replaced with ORAUT-OTIB-0060, 

and the resolution of many findings identified during our review of PROC-0003, Rev. 0 were to 

be addressed with the issuance of OTIB-0060. The PROC-0003 findings were also assigned a 

resolution priority ranking of high, medium, or low by the Advisory Board. Our evaluation of 

OTIB-0060, Revision 0, therefore, was designed to ensure that (1) the findings identified for 

PROC-0003 were adequately resolved, and (2) the document adequately supports the dose 

reconstruction process. Table provides a list of applicable PROC-0003, Rev. 0 findings, the 

Board-recommended resolution ranking, and our evaluation to assess whether those findings 

were adequately addressed. 

SC&A’s evaluation of OTIB-0060 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report. 

Table 3.27-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-PROC-0003 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 242 of 290 

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. 

Review 

Objective 

ORAUT-PROC-0003, Rev. 0 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected in 

ORAUTOTIB-0060?

Comments 

1.3 Guidance in procedure incomplete 

since it does not include references for 

ICRP 30, 56, 67, 69, 71, 72, and 78, 

which are necessary to understand 

Table 1. (PROC-0003-01) 

Low Partially ICRP 30, 66, 71, and 78 are 

currently referenced, but ICRP 67, 

69, and 72 are not. 

2.1/2.2 Table 1, Absorption Types for 

Selected Radionuclides, page 10, 

Column “deposition sites” should be 

changed to “systemic deposition sites.” 

(PROC-0003-03) 

Low Not 

Applicable 

2.1/2.2 Table 1, Absorption Types for 

Selected Radionuclides, page 10, soft 

tissue compartments are present in 

new physiologically based biokinetic 

models (Sr, Ra, U, Th, Np, Pu, Am, 

Cm) and represent body compartments 

that are not considered the main ones. 

(PROC-0003-04) 

Low Not 

Applicable 

2.1/2.2 Table 1, Absorption Types for 

Selected Radionuclides, page 10, does 

not consider the introduction of 

compartments produced by decay 

product nuclides (i.e., kidneys/spleen 

for Ra-226). (PROC-0003-05) 

Low Not 

Applicable 

2.1/2.2 Table 1, Absorption Types for 

Selected Radionuclides, page 10, 

contains deposition site errors: (1) Ra 

should include liver, (2) Th should 

include kidneys, (3) Np, Pu, and Am 

should include kidneys and red bone 

marrow, and (4) Cm should include 

gonads, kidneys, and red bone 

marrow. (PROC-0003-06) 

Low Not 

Applicable 

PROC-0003, Table 1 ‘Absorption 

Types for Selected Radionuclides’ 

has not been carried forward into 

OTIB-0060. Rather than assigning 

specific absorption types for 

radionuclides, OTIB-0060, Section 

5.2.3 states “an assessment of each 

type to which the element is 

assigned in ICRP 68 (...) shall be 

made, and that which results in the 

largest dose to the organ of interest 

shall be selected”. 

Table 3.27-2: ORAUT-OTIB-0060 Review Outline/Checklist 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 243 of 290 

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. 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 02/06/2007

Document Title: Internal Dose Reconstruction

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 

3 

The guide 

references NIOSH 

and ORAUT 

documents and 

should be revised to 

reference IMBA 

documentation for 

additional guidance.

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 2 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 5 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 244 of 290 

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 3.27-2: ORAUT-OTIB-0060 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 02/06/2007

Document Title: Internal Dose Reconstruction

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 4 See Review Comments 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 3 See Review Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

3.27.3 General Comments 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060 describes the parameters and methodology used to reconstruct the internal 

dose of workers who had the potential for internal exposure to radionuclides. The document 

provides guidance for instances where the worker was monitored, by fitting the bioassay data or 

assigning a missed dose; where the worker was not monitored, by assigning an unmonitored dose 

or using coworker information; and practices to improve the case processing efficiency, such as 

calculating over or under estimates of a worker’s dose. 

NIOSH uses the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Assessment (IMBA) computer code to 

estimate single or multiple intakes of various radionuclides, and to calculate the resulting doses 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 245 of 290 

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. 

from measurements of activity in the body and/or excreta, based on a worker’s bioassay 

measurements and site-specific information. 

The approach of assigning actual, missed, unmonitored, and/or coworker internal dose and using 

a standardized computer code provides a certain amount of consistency and reproducibility. 

However, some specific areas of the internal dose reconstruction process would benefit from 

including additional details and technical justifications. These areas include discussion of the 

bioassay measurement error, error distribution, and the process of fitting positive bioassay 

results. 

Measurement Error

In Section 5.2.5.2 of the guide, NIOSH states the following: 

If there are no errors reported with the results, Measurement Error should be 

calculated using the Uniform Relative option, with k = 0.3 as a starting point. 

Note that in this instance the value of k is somewhat arbitrary; the same intake 

will result from any percentage, given the same percentage for all results. This 

might not be a reasonable estimate if there are some reasonably well-defined 

peaks or results vary by more than 1 order of magnitude. Larger values will have 

more precise statistics and might need to be assigned relatively smaller errors to 

obtain a better fit. Alternative values for the error should be tried if a reasonable 

fit is not obtained (e.g., the majority of results appear to be underpredicted, or the 

larger results are underpredicted). Application of a 10% error to the largest 

results while retaining a 30% error on the smaller results might improve the fit. 

Other values can be tried if this does not provide a satisfactory fit. Use of the 

Uniform Absolute option, with the same value entered for all results, will yield an 

unweighted fit (i.e., all results are weighted equally). If you cannot obtain a 

reasonable fit, contact the Principal Internal Dosimetrist for assistance. 

The first comment related to this section and the guide in general concerns the use of terms like 

“better fit,” “satisfactory fit,” and “reasonable fit,” without providing a method to measure the 

“goodness of fit.” As shown below, the fit of the data can be very dependent on other 

parameters. The IMBA code as used by NIOSH applies the maximum likelihood method to find 

the “best estimate” of intake from a given set of bioassay measurement data. IMBA allows the 

user to select the method used to calculate measurement error for bioassay results reports without 

errors. The user may choose Uniform Absolute, Uniform Relative, Square Root, and 

Logarithmic error assumptions (James 2004a). Briefly, Uniform Absolute error assumes the 

errors on each data point are the same; Uniform Relative error assumes the error on each data 

point are relative to the magnitude of the data point (i.e., measurement results may have been 

quoted as ± 10%); Square Root errors are proportional to the square root of measurement result 

(i.e., errors primarily from counting statistics); and Logarithmic errors assume the errors on each 

measurement are lognormally distributed with a given geometric standard deviation, instead of 

being normally distributed. The effect of the different error assumptions is illustrated in the 

IMBA Technical Basis document (James 2004b) using a 239PuO2 inhalation as an example. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 246 of 290 

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, from the IMBA TBD, Table A.37, shows how the “best estimate” of intake can vary 

widely, depending on the type of errors assumed. 

Table 3.27-3: Effect of Error Assumption on 

Best Estimate of Intake 

Error assumption Best estimate of intake, 

Bq

Uniform absolute 4,169 

Uniform relative 904.2 

Square root 2,444 

Logarithmic 1,413 

Source: IMBA TBD, Table A.37 

Assuming uniform absolute error gives the best visual fit on a linear scale as shown in Figure

(James 2004b, Figure A-21). 

Figure 3.27-1: Linear Plot of Plutonium Oxide Excretion Rate for Various Fits 

Reproduced from the IMBA TBD: 

The “uniform absolute” error assumption appears to give the best by eye fit to the 

data because this is the only fit that comes close to the first data point, while still 

not appearing too far from the last four data points. The other fits are much 

closer to the last four data points, because the errors associated with these data 

are much smaller than that associated with the first point. Consequently, since 

the shape of the curve is fixed (by the ICRP Publication 67 plutonium biokinetic 

model), these other fits cannot represent the first data point as well. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 247 of 290 

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. 

 Before jumping to the conclusion that the assumption of uniform absolute error is 

“best,” it is instructive to view the data and fits plotted on a logarithmic scale. 

[Figure below]. 

Figure 3.27-2: Logarithmic Plot of Fits of Plutonium Oxide Data 

The IMBA TBD also recommends: 

As a general guide one can consider the following criteria for selecting the most 

appropriate error assumption in the absence of specific estimates for any (or all) 

data points. 

Data criterion Appropriate error assumption

1. Error dominated by counting statistics Square-root errors 

2. Data are believed to be distributed lognormally Lognormal errors 

3. Excretion data varying over a large range Lognormal errors 

4. In-vivo data Uniform relative errors 

5. No information whatsoever Test all assumptions(a)

(a)The assumption selected must satisfy the requirements of your regulatory authority.

Assuming the errors on each in-vitro bioassay measurement are lognormally distributed, with a 

given geometric standard deviation (GSD), ICRP Draft Guidance on Interpretation of Bioassay 

Data, Annex E, “Data Fitting” (ICRP 2006) provides several ranges of GSDs. Table E-2 from 

Annex E is reproduced in Table, below. The scattering factor for Type B uncertainties (SFB) is 

the GSD of the lognormal Type B uncertainty distribution. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 248 of 290 

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 3.27-4: Default Values for the Lognormal Scattering Factor (SF) for 

Various Types of Measurement from Different Studies (Type B Errors) 

Ranges are given in Parentheses 

Quantity Log. normal scattering factor SFB

True 24-hr urine 1.1(a)

Simulated 24-hr urine, creatinine or specific 

gravity normalized. 

1.6(b) (1.3(c) - 1.8(d)) 

Spot urine sample 2.0(a)

Fecal 24-hr sample 3 (2 - 5)(b)

Fecal 72-hr sample 2 (1.5–2.5)(e)

Chest count (see Table E.1) 1.2 to 2.1 

(a) Value given by Moss et al., 1969 based on plutonium in urine measurements of 

workers at Los Alamos. 

(b) Value based on judgment and experience. 

(c) At Los Alamos, Type B uncertainties, in terms of the coefficient of variation, for 

urine samples normalized using volume and specific gravity has been found to 

be 30% (i.e., an SF of 1.3). 

(d) Value given by Riddell et al., 1994 based on plutonium in urine measurements of 

Sellafield workers. Because sampling procedures and measurements techniques 

have improved over the years recent measurements are likely to have a SF less 

than 1.8. 

(e) SF values for 72-hr fecal samples are consistent with 24-hr fecal samples. 

Source: ICRP 2006 Annex E, Table E-2 

In summary, NIOSH’s guidance on using a Uniform Relative error may be applicable for in-vivo 

measurements. However, it may not be applicable or claimant favorable for modeling in-vitro 

measurement results. After a review of proposed ICRP guidance, NIOSH may decide that using 

a logarithmic error assumption for in-vitro measurement results and selecting specific GSD 

values (i.e., 1.5 for 24-hr urine, 2.0 for spot urine, and 1.6 for chest counts) would reduce the 

arbitrary k-value selection and improve the overall consistency of the internal dose assessments. 

Error Distribution

Section 5.2.5.3 of the guide simply states: 

Individual bioassay results are assumed to be normally distributed 

As discussed above, this may not be true in all cases. NIOSH may wish to review ICRP 

guidance and possibly revise or elaborate on the technical justification supporting this statement. 

Fitting Positive Bioassay Results

Section 5.3 of the guide provides the general philosophy and guidelines for fitting positive 

bioassay results. The guide uses the following terms and definitions for the discussion of fitting 

positive bioassay results: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 249 of 290 

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. 

 Positive – means a result greater than the reporting level (i.e., MDA, detection level) 

 Negative – means a result that is less than or equal to the reporting level. 

The second bullet of Section 5.3.2 of the guide states: 

In IMBA, for results < MDA, Measurement Result = MDA value, Data Type = 

“<LOD.” Include the first negative (<MDA) result following each set of positive 

results. If there are multiple positive results, include no more than two negative 

results. For fewer than five consecutive positive results, include only one 

negative result. Use of additional “<LOD” results, particularly for chronic 

exposures, frequently yields a fit that appears to underestimate the general trend 

of the data. Note that the presence of a result less than the MDA does not mean 

that a new intake must be assigned for the next result greater than the MDA. 

NIOSH provides the guidance to “include no more than two negative results” for data with 

multiple positive bioassay results and to “include only one negative result” for data with fewer 

than five consecutive positive results. The justification given is that “additional ‘<LOD’ results, 

particularly for chronic exposures, frequently yield a fit that appears to underestimate the general 

trend of the data.” This position seems to contradict IMBA’s Technical Basis document (James 

2004b), which specifically states the following: 

A major benefit of the maximum likelihood method is that it enables 

measurements that are “less than the limit of detection” (< LOD) to be 

considered in an unbiased manner in the estimation of intake. 

The unbiased estimation of intake by the maximum likelihood method in the case 

of a dataset with a large proportion of values “< LOD” has been validated (by 

Monte Carlo calculations) by Marsh et al. In press. (Marsh et al. 2002) 

If, indeed, a large proportion of < LOD values result in an underestimate of intake using the 

maximum likelihood fitting method, then NIOSH should document the technical justification and 

may wish to consult with the IMBA designers as to why IMBA is not performing as described in 

the technical documentation. 

3.27.4 Review Comments 

Review Objectives 1.5 and 4.1 

Though the OTIB is prescriptive, it makes use of several subjective terms that could be 

interpreted differently by different dose reconstructors. Terms such as “better fit,” “reasonable 

fit,” or “satisfactory fit” would benefit by some type of quantification guidance (i.e., intake 

quantity ± 10% defined as satisfactory fit). Section 5.4 discusses “long-lived/retained” and 

“short-lived/retained” radionuclides and provides a few examples, but does not specify a 

boundary. It may be beneficial, to avoid potential confusion, to either specify time ranges for the 

two radionuclide groups or provide a table with all the radionuclides used by IMBA list with the 

appropriate time range. Section 5.4.1 “Missed Dose Determination” lists the following as 

decision criteria: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 250 of 290 

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. 

If the detection threshold decreases over time and the radionuclide/absorption type 

reaches equilibrium slowly in the compartment of interest (e.g., in urine: Type M or S 

plutonium/transuranics or Type S uranium), perform the fit using the date of the last 

sample and half of the associated detection threshold, assuming a single chronic intake 

for the entire potential exposure period. 

 If the detection threshold decreases over time for radionuclide/absorption 

types that reach equilibrium rapidly, or if the detection threshold increases 

over time, use IMBA to determine chronic intakes applicable to each period 

(note that this is applicable only if there is a bioassay result in the period). 

These statements rely on the dose reconstructor to determine if the radionuclide/absorption type 

reaches equilibrium slowly or rapidly, with no quantification of what is slow or rapid. Again, a 

table listing the radionuclides and equilibrium rate would eliminate the ambiguity. 

Review Objective 6.1 

As discussed in the General Comments, the OTIB prescribes certain distributions to be used (i.e., 

Section 5.3.2 lists Set Error Distribution = Normal). However, NIOSH’s prescriptions may not 

be valid in all cases. For example, ICRP guidance (ICRP 2006) considers bioassay data to be 

lognormally distributed. The OTIB does not provide the technical basis for the decision of a 

normal distribution. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The OTIB would benefit from more thorough explanations of the bases for the guidance 

prescribed in Section 5.3, “Fitting Positive Bioassay Results,” Section 5.4, “Assignment of 

Missed and Unmonitored Dose,” and Section 5.5, “Assessment Methods.” 

3.27.5 References 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1979. Limits for the Intake of 

Radionuclides by Workers, Part 1, Publication 30, Part 1, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1990. Age-Dependent Doses to 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 1, Publication 56, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1994. Age-Dependent Doses to 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 2 Ingestion Dose Coefficients,” ICRP 

Publication 67, Annals of the ICRP, Volume 23/3-4, August 1994. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. ICRP Publication 66: 

Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection, Annals of the ICRP Volume 24/1-

3, 1995. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 251 of 290 

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. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. Dose Coefficients for 

Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, Publication 68, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. Age-Dependent Doses to 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 3 Ingestion Dose Coefficients, 

Publication 69, Annals of the ICRP Volume 25/1, 1995. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1995. Age-dependent Doses to the 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4, Inhalation Dose Coefficients,

Publication 71. Annals of the ICRP Volume 25/3-4, 1995. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1996. Age-Dependent Doses to the 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides Part 5, Compilation of Ingestion and 

Inhalation Coefficients, Publication 72. Annals of the ICRP Volume 26/1, 1996. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1998. Individual Monitoring for 

Internal Exposure of Workers, Publication 78, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 2006. Committee 2, “Draft 

Supporting Guidance Document, Interpretation of Bioassay Data, Annex E: Data Fitting.” 

January 16, 2006. 

James, A.C., User Manual for IMBA ExpertTM OCAS-Edition (Version 3.2). 2004. 

James, A.C., User Manual for IMBA ExpertTM OCAS-Edition (Version 3.2), Appendix A: 

Technical Basis. 2004. 

Marsh, J.W. et al. 2002. Validation of IMBA and IMBA Expert presented at the European IRPA 

Congress, “Towards Harmonization of Radiation Protection in Europe.” Florence, Italy, 

October 8–11, 2002. 

Moss, W.D., Campbell, E.E., Schulte H.F. and Tietjen, G. L. 1969. A Study of the Variations 

Found in Plutonium Urinary Data. Health Phys. 17, 571–578. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060. 2007. Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 6, 2007. 

ORAUT-PROC-0003. 2003. Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 0, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1, 2003. 

Riddell, A.E. and A.R. Britcher. 1994. PLUTO - A Software Package using the 'Maximum 

Likelihood Method' to Fit Plutonium in Urine Data to an Excretion Function. Radiation 

Protection Dosimetry 53:199-201. 

SC&A 2005. The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-Task3, S. Cohen & Associates, McLean, Virginia. January 2005. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 252 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

3.28 ORAUT-OTIB-0063: LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY BIOASSAY 

DATA PROJECT 

This document has not been issued by ORAUT. It is suggested that review of this document be 

deferred until next fiscal year, after the document has been issued by NIOSH. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 253 of 290 

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 OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES TEAM (ORAUT) 

PROCEDURES 

4.1 ORAUT-PROC-0006: EXTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

The review of ORAUT-PROC-0006, External Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 01, dated June 5, 2006, 

was prepared by Kathleen Behling. 

4.1.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The stated purpose of this procedure is to provide instructions on the performance of external 

dose reconstructions: 

This procedure specifies steps taken to incorporate direction from the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (OCAS) in the performance of external dose reconstructions 

(DRs) as contained in the External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

Guideline (OCAS-IG-001), Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs), approved site 

Technical Basis Documents (TBDs), and Oak Ridge Associated University Team 

(ORAUT) procedures (PROCs).

4.1.2 Review Protocol 

As part of the first set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated Revision 00 of the procedure External Dose Reconstruction (June 

2003). Our findings were published in The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods 

Used for Dose Reconstruction, dated January 2005 (SCA-TR-Task3). Following the submission 

of this report and its findings, an expanded review and issues-resolution process was initiated. 

The process began by NIOSH providing written responses to each of SC&A’s findings. Under 

the direction of a Board-appointed work group, a series of meetings was held between 

representatives of NIOSH and SC&A auditors to discuss and resolve each finding. This process 

resulted in the preparation of an issues-tracking matrix, whereby the closeout status of each 

finding is tracked. 

The resolution of many findings identified during our review of Revision 00 of the external dose 

reconstruction procedure required NIOSH to incorporate appropriate changes in a future revision 

of ORAUT-PROC-0006. These findings were also assigned a resolution priority ranking of 

high, medium, or low by the Advisory Board. Our evaluation of ORAUT-PROC-0006, Revision 

01, therefore, was designed to ensure that (1) the findings identified in Revision 00 were 

adequately resolved, and (2) the document adequately supports the dose reconstruction process. 

Table provides a list of applicable ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 00 findings, the Boardrecommended resolution ranking, and our evaluation to assess whether those findings were 

adequately addressed in Revision 01. It should be noted that the issues-tracking matrix for the 

first set of procedures did not specifically list all of the ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 00 findings, 

but simply indicated that, “Due to the similarities between OCAS-IG-001 and ORAUT-PROC0006, review comments considered relevant to OCAS-IG-001 also apply to ORAUT-PROC-
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 254 of 290 

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. 

0006.” However, many of the OCAS-IG-001 findings are not applicable to PROC-0006, due to 

the differences in document structures and the fact that PROC-006 was designed to provide a 

step-by-step approach to external dose reconstruction, rather than the more general guidance 

provided in OCAS-IG-001. As a result of these differences in document style and purpose, only 

6 of the 15 unresolved findings from OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 00, apply to PROC-0006; and in some 

cases, the wording of the findings was slightly modified to make them more applicable, as shown 

in Table. 

Table is a checklist containing SC&A’s evaluation of procedural objectives, as described in the 

introduction to this report. 

Table 4.1-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 00

Review 

Objective 

OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected 

in Rev. 1? Comments 

1.1 Deficiencies with procedure layout 

include (1) excessive amount of 

useless data and/or historical 

background in main body, and (2) 

critical data for dose reconstruction 

found in Appendices rather than 

main body. 

Low Yes Revision 01 of the ORAUT-PROC-0006 

constitutes a total rewrite of the document. 

This revision is written in a clear, concise, 

and structured manner. Critical dose 

reconstruction data that were previously 

contained in Attachments have now been 

incorporated into the main body of the 

procedure. 

1.3 Guidance for deriving film and 

TLD dosimeter uncertainty requires 

data and resources that are not 

available to the dose reconstructor. 

Medium Yes ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 01, provides 

specific guidance and instructions regarding 

dosimeter uncertainty. It also identifies 

site-specific documentation that is available 

to the dose reconstructor and calculational 

tools that can be used for determining 

uncertainty. 

5.0 PROC-0006, Appendix B, DCFs 

for bone surface and red marrow 

are underestimated. 

Medium Yes Revision 01 of the external dose procedure 

has eliminated the attachment containing 

the photon and neutron DCFs and refers the 

dose reconstructor to OCAS-IG-001, 

External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, for these values. 

This issue, which was also a finding in 

OCAS-IG-001, has been appropriately 

addressed in Revision 2 of the 

implementation guide. 

6.0 PROC-0006, Appendix B, PA 

geometry DCFs are in error and 

underestimate dose. 

High No ORAUT-PROC-0006, Revision 01, has 

eliminated the attachment containing the 

photon and neutron DCFs and refers the 

dose reconstructor to OCAS-IG-001 

External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline for the DCF 

values. (It should be noted however, that 

this issue, which was also a finding in 

OCAS-IG-001, has not been addressed in 

Revision 2 of the implementation guide.) 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 255 of 290 

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 4.1-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 00

Review 

Objective 

OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1 

Finding Description 

Resolution 

Ranking 

Corrected 

in Rev. 1? Comments 

6.0 PROC-0006, Appendix B, 

rotational and isotropic geometry 

DCFs are in error and 

underestimate dose. 

High Yes Revision 01 of PROC-0006 has eliminated 

the attachment containing DCF values and 

refers the dose reconstructor to OCAS-IG001, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, for these values. 

This issue, which was also a finding in IG001, has been appropriately addressed in 

Revision 2 of the implementation guide. 

6.0 Guidance for the selection of 

uncertainty distributions for total 

organ dose raises question of 

consistency and requires 

professional judgment. 

Medium Yes Attachment C of PROC-0006, Rev. 00, 

contained guidance for assessing annual 

organ dose and its distribution. This 

attachment has been eliminated and 

instructions for assessing total dose 

uncertainty are provided in the main section 

of the procedure. These modified 

instructions provide a more clear and 

consistent approach to determining 

uncertainty distributions and direct the dose 

reconstructor to applicable calculational 

tools and technical documentation for such 

determinations. 

Table 4.1-2: ORAUT-PROC-0006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline

Auditor: Kathleen Behling

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

4 See Review 

Comments 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 256 of 290 

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 4.1-2: ORAUT-PROC-0006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline

Auditor: Kathleen Behling

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 257 of 290 

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 4.1-2: ORAUT-PROC-0006 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline

Auditor: Kathleen Behling

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 5 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

4.1.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.4 

SC&A’s review of ORAUT-PROC-0006, Rev. 01, identified only one minor inconsistency with 

other procedures employed by NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Section 5.3 of PROC-0006, Rev. 

01, contains the following statement: “Appendix A of OCAS-IG-001 lists the basic ICD-9 codes 

and general information on the corresponding organ for which the external dose should be 

calculated.” Two months after the release of Rev. 01 of PROC-0006, NIOSH issued Revision 2 

of OCAS-IG-001, which no longer contains the list of ICD-9 codes in Appendix A. Appendix A 

of OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 2, provides the photon and neutron DCFs and the list of ICD-9 codes has 

been removed from the implementation guide. 

SC&A realizes that at the time Rev. 01 of PROC-0006 was released, this statement was 

appropriate. However, since Appendix A of OCAS-IG-001 no longer contains the list of ICD-9 

codes, this statement should be removed in a future revision. 

It should also be noted that Rev. 01 of PROC-0006, Section 5.3, contains the following 

statement: “Detailed information on ICD-9 codes and the appropriate external organ is provided 

in ORAUT-OTIB-0005.” This statement, along with more detailed instructions that are provided 

in Section 6.0 of PROC-0006, should direct the dose reconstructor to the appropriate technical 

documents for assignment of ICD-9 code and surrogate external organs. 

4.1.4 Conclusions 

Revision 01 of ORAUT-PROC-0006 has appropriately addressed all of SC&A’s findings 

associated with Revision 00. In addition, this revised procedure has introduced current 

information and updated external dose reconstruction practices. The procedure is written in a 

clear and concise style. The dose reconstructor is directed to applicable technical and site-
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 258 of 290 

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. 

specific documentation and calculation tools, when available. Lastly, instructions for the 

reconstruction of external doses are sufficiently comprehensive and provide appropriate levels of 

detail to maximize consistency in the dose reconstruction process and minimize data 

interpretations. 

4.1.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

OCAS-IG-001. 2002. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 01. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH), Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

OCAS-IG-001. 2006. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 2, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH), Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support: Cincinnati, Ohio. August 25, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2006. IMBA Organ, External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model 

Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. February 10, 2006. 

ORAUT-PROC-0006. 2003. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 00, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 27, 2003. 

ORAUT-PROC-0006. 2006. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 01, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 5, 2006. 

SC&A 2005. The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-Task3, S. Cohen and Associates, McLean, Virginia. January 2005. 

4.2 ORAUT-PROC-0042: ACCOUNTING FOR INCOMPLETE PERSONAL 

MONITORING DATA ON PENETRATING GAMMA-RAY DOSES TO 

WORKERS IN RADIATION AREAS AT THE OAK RIDGE Y-12 PLANT PRIOR 

TO 1961 

The review of ORAUT-PROC-0042, Rev. 00, dated September 9, 2004, was prepared by Ron 

Buchanan, PhD, CHP. 

4.2.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The purpose of ORAUT-PROC-0042 is to provide ORAUT dose reconstructors with a procedure 

they can use to account for incomplete personal monitoring of penetrating gamma-ray doses to 

workers in radiation areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant prior to 1961. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 259 of 290 

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. 

4.2.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-PROC-0042 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether OTIBs adequately support the 

dose reconstruction process, as directed under the EEOICPA and defined in 42 CFR Part 82. 

Table 4.2-1: ORAUT-PROC-0042 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0042, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring Data on Penetrating Gamma-Ray 

Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Prior to 1961

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 3 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 3 See Review 

Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 260 of 290 

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 4.2-1: ORAUT-PROC-0042 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0042, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 09/09/2004

Document Title: Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring Data on Penetrating Gamma-Ray 

Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Prior to 1961

Auditor: Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 4 See Review 

Comments 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 3 See Review 

Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 3 See Review 

Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 261 of 290 

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. 

4.2.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

Generally, the OTIB was written in a fairly clear and logical manner. However, there are several 

areas that could be improved to assist the DR in understanding the different stages of development of the DR instructions. Additionally, some wording and errors contained in the text create 

confusion and require several rereads, and/or assumptions to be made, to clarify the issues. The 

following areas were identified: 

 It should be made clear at the beginning that this procedure only applies to certain 

workers during a given time period exposed to penetrating gamma radiation, and not to 

Y-12 workers in general. Specifically, it applies only to unbadged workers who worked 

in areas at Y-12 that had the potential for penetrating gamma radiation exposures 

during the period of 1947–1960. They may or may not have been employed at Y-12 

after 1960. 

 The format of the procedure appears to not match those of other procedures and OTIBs. 

For example, the references are listed in the front rather than at the end of the document. 

Also, Section 4.0, RESPONSIBILITES, page 3, does not appear in other documents 

reviewed to date. If this procedure is revised, a current, uniform, format is suggested. 

 The wording of the titles and the sequence of some of the subsections in Section 6.0 

could be improved to help guide and inform the DR of the purpose and flow of the 

procedure. 

 In Section 6, the procedure starts the text in most subsections with words that end with 

“s”, i.e., Uses, Obtains, and Extracts. This is somewhat confusing to the reader. It would 

be clearer if the instruction is definite, such as, “Use the data in Table 5.2...” 

 It would provide a clearer meaning if the word, “obtain,” in the main paragraph of 

Section 6.5, page 11, was replaced with the word, “extract,” because this is what the title 

instructs the DR to do. For example: 

Uses the following steps to extract the annual organ doses and their 

uncertainty parameters for a worker of interest and for all years of interest. 

 Section 6.1, page 7, uses the term “censored doses” without defining what the term 

means. 

Review Objective 1.5 

The OTIB was generally written in a prescriptive manner. However, several areas could be 

improved. They are as follows: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 262 of 290 

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) In Section 5, page 4, it is stated: 

In addition, dose reconstructors must evaluate monitoring data from the 1940s 

and 1950s cautiously because the purpose of monitoring programs at that time 

was to ensure compliance with exposure limits that were much higher than the 

current standard of 5 rem per year for dose to the whole body. 

In this section, the DR is not provided with definite instructions on how to evaluate the 

monitoring data from the 1940s and 1950s. Reference to problems during this era and 

appropriate OTIBs would be helpful. 

(2) Section 6.3, page 9, instructs the DR to use the “Microsoft® Excel® computer program and 

Crystal Ball®,” and Section 6.4, page 10, instructs the DR to perform steps to calculate the 

scaled annual distributions for organ doses. Both instructions are without a definite reference 

to the name of the programs and/or workbooks to be used. This could cause incorrect dose 

reconstruction results if the wrong programs and/or workbooks were used, or inconsistencies 

between different dose reconstructors. 

Review Objective 3.2.1 

It is not stated in this document that the dose data for the years 1947–1956 (3rd quarter) in 

Table 5.1, page 5, is not actually from badged workers’ dose records. In fact, these values are 

inferred doses from regression analyses of 147 badged workers at Y-12 for the period of 1956–

1965. Document ORAUT-RPRT-0032 must be analyzed to understand the development of this 

data. This may be an acceptable method to use in view of the lack of actual, reliable, recorded 

dose data for 1947–1956, but it should be clearly stated in the procedure that this is the case and 

not presented as actual dose of record. The second paragraph on page 4 of the procedure only 

refers to “the estimated parameters for lognormal distributions derived for each calendar quarter 

for July 1947 to December 1965 (ORAUT-OTIB-0013),” but not to the origin of the dose data. 

Review Objective 5.3 

For this procedure to be considered claimant favorable in instances where claimants were not 

monitored, there are number of assumptions/limitations that have to be accepted. These 

assumptions/limitations are not necessarily explicitly pointed out in detail in the procedure, and 

links/references to other documents must sometimes be followed to fully evaluate the 

applicability and technical soundness of this document. Some of these assumptions/limitations 

are listed below. 

(1) The worker’s routine duties and work location must have remained essentially the same 

during the 1950s and early 1960s (p. 4) and this information must be 

documented/verified. 

(2) To adjust for a worker that had above average exposures during 1947–1960, the worker 

must have 5 or more quarters of recorded dose data during 1961–1965 on file and 

remained in the same exposure situation during the 1950s and early 1960s (p. 4). 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 263 of 290 

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) If the worker did not have 5 or more quarters of recorded dose data during 1961–1965, or 

did not work at Y-12 during 1961–1965, then the worker can only be assigned a dose 

derived from the average badged worker during 1956–1965 without any adjustments for 

above average exposure jobs during this period. 

(4) It must be assumed that the workers that were badged during 1956–1960 were the highest 

exposed workers at Y-12 (pg. 6). 

(5) It must be assumed that the dose records for the 147 workers analyzed from the fourth 

quarter of 1956–1965 correctly represents the trend of increasing dose as they extrapolate 

back in time from 1956 to 1947, because there are no reliable dose records (RPRT-0032) 

that can be used to verify the time period of 1947–1956. 

(6) It must be assumed that the mean dose (not the upper percentile) of the badged workers is 

sufficient to calculate the assigned dose to unbadged workers. 

Some workers would fit into this category and the dose assigned would be claimant favorable. 

However, if a worker was not monitored for at least 5 quarters during 1961–1965, a scaling 

factor of 1.0 will be applied; if the exposure conditions did not remain constant, then a scaling 

factor of 1.0 would be applied and average coworker data would be assigned. This procedure 

may not be claimant favorable to some workers who were exposed to radiation fields prior to 

1961; especially to uncharacterized or unrecognized sources at the time. Although PROC-0042, 

page 6, states that the recommended approach is claimant favorable, because workers who had 

the potential for exposure above 10% of the radiation protection guidelines were monitored, at 

other DOE sites it has been found that some workers who were exposed may not have been those 

who were monitored, especially in the early years. It is not technically sound to assume that a 

worker received a dose below a certain limit because the worker was not monitored; there is no 

quantitative data to support such an assumption. 

Review Objective 7.3 

Most of this procedure employed scientifically valid protocols for reconstructing doses. 

However, the following technical errors were found in the text that could lead to errors in the 

assigned dose errors, if used as stated in the procedure: 

The procedure appears to contain a technical error in applying the scaling factor. This error 

would not result in an underestimate of a worker’s dose, but could result in a worker that had 

average, or below average, recorded doses during 1961–1965 being assigned a higher dose 

during 1947–1960 than another worker that has greater than average recorded doses during 

1961–1965. To correct this error, the last paragraph on Page 6 should be changed from 

“...assume a scaling factor of unity (one) and use...” to “...assume a scaling factor of zero (0)

and use....” Also, change the second paragraph on page 8 from: 

...assume a scaling factor of unity (one) and use the “population dose 

distributions for monitored workers” in Table 5.1 as a reasonable but necessary 

claimant favorable procedure to generate data for input to the NIOSH-IREP 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 264 of 290 

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. 

Program. If a scaling factor is assumed to be unity (one) or a scaling factor for a 

monitored worker is calculated to be equal to or less than unity (one),... 

to: 

...assume a scaling factor of zero (0) and use the “population dose distributions 

for monitored workers” in Table 5.1 as a reasonable but necessary claimantfavorable procedure to generate data for input to the NIOSH-IREP Program. If a 

scaling factor is assumed to be zero (0) or a scaling factor for a monitored 

worker is calculated to be equal to or less than zero (0),... 

Additionally, change the title of Section 6.2, page 8, from: 

Use of calculated scaling factors greater than unity 

to: 

Use of calculated scaling factors greater than zero

This is needed because the scaling factor appears in the exponent (GM* = eu+φ

) in calculating the 

scaled value of the geometric mean. Therefore, it must be zero to apply a multiplication factor of 

1.0 to the dose. These paragraphs, and the associated errors, do not appear in the other related 

OTIBs and RPRT. 

4.2.4 Workbooks 

The following two workbooks are designed for use with this procedure: 

(1) Y-12_Calculation Workbook 1.12. - This workbook is currently undergoing revision and 

will be evaluated by SC&A in the future. 

(2) Y-12_Workbook CB_1951–1960 and CF After 1960 1.14. - A review of this workbook 

in conjunction with its use with PROC-0042 did not reveal any obvious errors or 

incorrect data. 

4.2.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0013. 2004. Technical Information Bulletin: Individual Dose Adjustment 

Procedure for Y-12 Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. September 9, 2004. 

ORAUT-PROC-0042. 2004. Accounting for Incomplete Personal Monitoring Data on 

Penetrating Gamma-Ray Doses to Workers in Radiation Areas at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 265 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

Prior to 1961, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. September 

9, 2004. 

ORAUT-RPRT-0032. 2005. Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at 

the Y-12 Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 1 – Gamma Radiation, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 13, 2005. 

4.3 ORAUT-PROC-0044: SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT 

It was not possible for SC&A to review this document in time for this deliverable and SC&A 

plans to deliver this review as an addendum to this report. 

4.4 ORAUT-PROC-0060: OCCUPATIONAL ONSITE AMBIENT DOSE 

RECONSTRUCTION 

The review of ORAUT-PROC-0060, Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 

01, dated June 28, 2006, was prepared by Stephen F. Marschke. 

4.4.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The stated purpose of this procedure “is to provide direction ... for the assignment of external 

dose from onsite ambient radiation ...” 

4.4.2 Review Protocol 

As part of the first set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated ORAUT-OTIB-0007 Occupational Dose from Elevated Ambient Levels 

of External Radiation, Revision 0 (November 12, 2003). Our findings were published in The 

Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, dated 

January 2005 (SCA-TR-Task3). Following the submission of this report and its findings, an 

expanded review and issues-resolution process was initiated. The process began by NIOSH 

providing written responses to each of SC&A’s findings. Under the direction of a Boardappointed work group, a series of meetings was held between representatives of NIOSH and 

SC&A auditors to discuss and resolve each finding. This process resulted in the preparation of 

an issues-tracking matrix, whereby the closeout status of each finding is tracked. 

As indicated in the issues tracking matrix, OTIB-0007 was replaced with ORAUT-PROC-0060, 

and the resolution of many findings identified during our review of OTIB-0007, Revision 0 were 

to be addressed with the issuance of PROC-0060. Our evaluation of PROC-0060, Revision 1, 

therefore, was designed to ensure that (1) the findings identified for OTIB-0007 were adequately 

resolved, and (2) the document adequately supports the dose reconstruction process. Table

provides a list of applicable PROC-0003, Rev. 0 findings, the Board-recommended resolution 

ranking, and our evaluation to assess whether those findings were adequately addressed.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 266 of 290 

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 4.4-1: Evaluation of Findings Identified in the Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0007 

Review 

Objective 

ORAUT-OTIB-0007, Rev. 00 

Finding Description 

Corrected in ORAUTPROC-0060, Rev. 01? Comments 

1.0 Guidance in its current form is incomplete 

and does not provide sufficient data to 

account for EALER missed doses, as 

acknowledged in procedure. (OTIB-0007-

01) 

Yes A workbook has been 

developed to assist the dose 

reconstructor in determining 

EALER doses. That 

workbook was reviewed by 

SC&A in the Task 3, 

Supplement 2 report. 

4.1 Guidance provides no specific instruction 

on processing EALER missed dose for 

amending a claimant’s exposure record 

(e.g., should EALER dose be assumed to be 

chronic or episodic). (OTIB-0007-02) 

Yes Attachment B provides sitespecific EALER dose 

information. 

4.1 OTIB provides no guidance for assessing 

shallow dose in cases involving skin cancer 

or surficial tissues such as the eye, testes, 

etc. (OTIB-0007-03) 

No PROC-0060 does not 

provide any information on 

EALER doses to the skin, 

eyes, testes, etc. 

7.0 Amending OTIB to include necessary sitespecific data is time consuming and 

undermines the efficiency process; the use 

of claimant-favorable default values may be 

more efficient method of accounting for 

EALER. (OTIB-0007-04) 

Yes Attachment B provides site 

specific EALER dose 

information. 

As part of the second set of procedures/guidance documents selected by the Advisory Board for 

review, SC&A evaluated Revision 00 of ORAUT-PROC-0060 (March 7, 2005)1. Our single 

finding was published in Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, Supplement 1, June 8, 2006. The finding from that first SC&A review is 

repeated below: 

The method for maximum doses should address what the analyst should do when 

there is no data in the table in Attachment B. For example, what should the 

analyst do for someone who was at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) prior to 1963? The 

table has no doses listed for this site for the years prior to 1963. Should the 

analyst use the best-estimate approach? (SC&A 2006, page 150) 

SC&A’s evaluation of PROC-0060 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing the objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report.

 1

 ORAUT-PROC-0060 was misidentified as ORAUT-OTIB-0060 in the Section 3.11 heading in SC&A’s 

Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose Reconstruction, Supplement 1, June 8, 2006. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 267 of 290 

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 4.4-2: ORAUT-PROC-0060 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0060, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 06/28/2006

Document Title: Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) 5 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 268 of 290 

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 4.4-2: ORAUT-PROC-0060 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0060, Rev. 01 Effective Date: 06/28/2006

Document Title: Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction

Auditor: Stephen F. Marschke

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 5 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

4.4.3 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.5 

The revision to PROC-0060 did not address the previous SC&A comment on this document, 

namely; “The method for maximum doses should address what the analyst should do when there 

is no data in the table in Attachment B.” 

Review Objective 7.3 

A check of the Appendix B data produced the following results: 

ANL-W — no problems identified. 

Fernald — (1) a dose of 0.000 rem is reported for 1979; the correct value should be 0.338 rem, 

and (2) notes refer to TBD, Table 4-17, which is an error, should refer to TBD, Table B-1. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 269 of 290 

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. 

Hanford — (1) was able to reproduce the doses for years 1944 through 1981 and 1998 through 

2003, by assuming a radiation measuring device under-response factor of 1.0, not 1.3 as 

specified in Section 6.2, and (2) was not able to reproduce the doses for years 1982 through 

1997. 

INEEL — Incorrect values for 1983–1997 (listed below), source of error unknown: 

Year Correct Value Attachment B Value

1983 0.062 0.127 

1984 0.073 0.027 

1985 0.073 0.025 

1986 0.073 0.027 

1987 0.073 0.027 

1988 0.073 0.027 

1989 0.073 0.03 

1990 0.028 0.027 

1991 0.028 0.035 

1992 0.028 0.031 

1993 0.027 0.03 

1994 0.025 0.036 

1995 0.032 0.026 

1996 0.019 0.026 

1997 0.016 0.026 

K-25 — All values listed as 0.130 Rem/y in document; this is rounded down from the calculated 

value of 0.13305 Rem/y (off by a factor of ~1.024) 

LLNL — There is no Table 4-9 listed in the Occupational External Dose ORAUT-TKBS-0035-

4; values are apparently calculated using Table 4-7 and simply multiplying by 1.3 without any 

correction for 2,600 hours per year. For 1976, the table lists the value of 0.121 Rem/y, which 

would be based on a TBD value of ~93; however, the TBD lists the value at 293 for 1976—the 

correct value should be .381 

LANL — The treatment states that for the years 1943–1964, the highest value from 2001 should 

be used; however, these spaces are left blank in the table. Incorrect values were listed for the 

following years: 1974 should be 0.041 rem/y, 1976 should be .071 rem/y, 1995 should be 

0.048 rem/y, and 2002 should be 0.046 rem/y 

Mound — The value listed for 2003 is in Attachment B (same value as the previous 12 years); 

however, no value is given in Mound’s Occupational Environmental Dose TBD (ORAUTTKBS-0016-4) for that 2003. Value of 2.5 listed for 1944, correct value is 2.4. 

In the TBD, in order to calculate a geometric standard deviation, the upper limit dose of 

15 rem/yr is assigned to 1945–1948 as the 95th percentile dose (page 16). PROC-0060 then uses 

this 95th percentile dose as the maximizing external ambient dose. This is not consistent with 

42 CFR 82.10(k)(3), which states, “Worst-case assumptions will be employed ... only for claims 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 270 of 290 

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. 

for which it is evident that further research and analysis will not produce a compensable level of 

radiation dose ...?” 

NTS — No problems identified. 

PNNL — See Hanford. 

PADGDP — No problems identified. 

Pantex — No problems identified. 

Pinellas — Utilizes the value of .001 rem based on the expected exposure to the general public 

of 77 mrem (36 mrem from rocks and soil, 40 mrem from cosmic radiation, 1 mrem from 

weapons testing). 

PORGDP — 1994 value reads .061 rem, the correct value for 1994 is .047 rem, a value is listed 

in Attachment B for 2003, though no value exists in the TBD for this year 

RFP — (1) TBD, Table 4-3 has a column titled ‘2σ’ and a second column titled ‘Recommended 

Value (1σ).’ The TBD is not very clear as to what these two columns represent. A Table 4-3 

footnote to one of the values in the ‘2σ’ column identifies it as the ‘95% confidence limits’ 

(which agrees with normal convention), while Section 4.4.2 refers to the ‘Recommended Value 

(1σ)’ column as the ‘annual recommended values of uncertainty.’ The Attachment B notes 

utilize the ‘Recommended Value (1σ)’ as if it were the standard deviation, and adds 2 times it to 

the mean to determine the 95th-percentile dose. This cannot be a correct interpretation of the 

‘Recommended Value (1σ)’, because if it were, then the standard deviation would be greater 

than twice the standard deviation (e.g., σ = 39 versus 2σ = 5 for 1989). If the ‘Recommended 

Value (1σ)’ is actually a conservative (at 1σ) estimate of the dose received by a worker, then for 

1989 it would be calculated via (2,000/8,760) × (Mean1989 + 2σ1989/2) = 0.228 × (167 + 5/2) = 

39. Although for most (i.e., 13) of the years in TBD, Table 4-6, this equation can be used to 

reproduce the ‘Recommended Value (1σ)’, it does not produce the correct value for some of the 

years (i.e., 7). 

(2) Similar to other sites that were evaluated at the 95th percentile (i.e., K-25 and Y-12), the 

equation given in the notes does not include the TLD under-response factor of 1.3, as specified in 

Section 6.2. No basis is provided for not using the ambient radiation measurement device underresponse multiplication factor at the 95th percentile. 

Weldon Spring — No problems identified. 

ORNL (X-10) — Values are based on the correction factor of 1.3 and a 2,600-hour work year 

NOT the 2,500-hour work year stated in the “best estimates” section on X-10. 

Y-12 — Correct value based on a 2,600-hour work year should be .335 Rem not .315 Rem. 

SRS — The doses are given in TBD, Table 3.4-1, rather than in Appendix B. (1) The Table 3.4-

1 doses were calculated from TBD, Table C-19, by adjusting from 40 to 50 hours per week (i.e., 

multiplying by 1.25). TBD, page 60, states that the Table C-19 values are based on 2,000 hr/yr. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 271 of 290 

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. 

Therefore, the adjustment factor should be (2,600/2,000 =) 1.3. (2) The Table 3.4-1 doses do not

include the TLD under-response factor of 1.3, as specified in ORAUT-PROC-0060, Section 6.2, 

nor does it include a reason for not including the factor. 

4.4.4 Workbooks 

The External Ambient Dose Workbook 0.20 is a straightforward tool to retrieve the maximizing 

external ambient doses from PROC-0060, Attachment B. It prompts the user for inputs such as 

the work site, beginning and ending year of work, and the number of hours worked per year. 

The tool then retrieves the appropriate ambient external doses as prescribed by Attachment B, 

and formats them for entry into the IREP computer code. SC&A performed a review of the 

External Ambient Dose Workbook 0.20, and the results of that review have been included in the 

draft report, Review of Nine General Dose Reconstruction Tools (SCA-TR-TASK3, 

Supplement 2, April 2007). 

4.4.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0007. 2003. Occupational Dose from Elevated Ambient Levels of External 

Radiation, Revision 0, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 

12, 2003. 

ORAUT-PROC-0003. 2003. Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 0, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1, 2003. 

ORAUT-PROC-0060. 2006. Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 01, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 28, 2006. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0035-4. 2005. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational 

Environmental Dose, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 

18, 2005. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0016-04. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Mound Site – Occupational 

Environmental Dose, Rev. 00. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

October 6, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-4. 2004. Rocky Flats Plant – Occupational Environmental Dose, Rev. 01. 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 29, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0003. 2005. Savannah River Site, Rev. 03. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. April 5, 2005. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 272 of 290 

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 2005. The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-Task3, S. Cohen and Associates, McLean, Virginia. January 2005. 

SC&A 2006. Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures and Methods Used for Dose 

Reconstruction, SCA-TR-TASK3 Supplement 1, Rev. 0, Draft Report, S. Cohen and Associates, 

Vienna, Virginia. June 8, 2006. 

SC&A 2007. Review of Nine General Dose Reconstruction Tools, SCA-TR-TASK3, 

Supplement 2, S. Cohen and Associates, Vienna, Virginia. April 2007. 

4.5 ORAUT-PROC-0086: CASE PREPARATION – COMPLEX INTERNAL 

DOSIMETRY CLAIMS 

The review of ORAUT-PROC-0086, Case Preparation – Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims, 

Rev. 0, dated December 7, 2005, was prepared by Doug Farver, CHP, CSP. 

4.5.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The procedure applies to Claim Preparers who examine the DOE Response file submitted by 

DOE sites, summarize, and record on spreadsheets the relevant radiological data. 

4.5.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of PROC-0086 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report. 

Table 4.5-1: ORAUT-PROC-0086 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0086, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/07/2005

Document Title: Case Preparation – Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 4 See Review 

Comments 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 273 of 290 

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 4.5-1: ORAUT-PROC-0086 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0086, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/07/2005

Document Title: Case Preparation – Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

N/A 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

N/A 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays N/A 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data N/A 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure N/A 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? N/A 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? N/A 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? N/A 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 274 of 290 

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 4.5-1: ORAUT-PROC-0086 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0086, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 12/07/2005

Document Title: Case Preparation – Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims

Auditor: Doug Farver, CHP, CSP

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? N/A 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? N/A 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? N/A 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? N/A 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? N/A 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

4.5.3 General Comments 

PROC-0086 describes steps of the claim preparation process as it relates to the review of the 

EE’s radiological data provided by DOE and contained in the CATI. The procedure applies 

primarily to the Claim Preparers and, to a lesser extent, the Dose Reconstructor Group Managers. 

Overall, the procedure provides a very systematic method to summarize and record the EE’s 

radiological information on Excel spreadsheets. The six spreadsheets, Attachment A to the 

procedure, are easy to read and should provide a good overview of the EE’s radiological work 

history. 

4.5.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.1 

The purpose of this procedure is stated as, “to define the methodology for reviewing Energy 

Employee (EE) records submitted by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites for Dose 

Reconstructors to determine the most efficient approach to process claims filed by EEs.” This is 

misleading since the procedure does not discuss efficient claims process approaches and the role 

of the Dose Reconstructor is very minimal in this procedure. This procedure strictly applies to 

the review and summary of the EE’s records. NIOSH may wish to revise the purpose statement 

to more clearly describe the contents of the procedure. For example, a revised purpose statement 

might read: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 275 of 290 

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. 

The purpose of this procedure is to define the methodology for reviewing, 

summarizing, and consolidating Energy Employee (EE) information from records 

submitted by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites. 

In fact, efficiency is only mentioned in the procedure scope and in Section 6.2.1.1 of the 

procedure, which mentions “Efficiency Tips” when describing information contained in the 

Excel spreadsheets. Also, neither the procedure nor any of the six spreadsheets contained in 

Attachment A of the procedure describe what is meant by “Efficiency Tips.” NIOSH may wish 

to clarify what is meant by “Efficiency Tips” or simply delete the reference, since the term is not 

used any other place in the procedure. 

One final observation concerns the note to Section 6.3.12.1 concerning the review of DOE 

incident investigation reports. In the note, NIOSH gives examples of what is and what is not 

considered to be an incident and should or shouldn’t be entered into the spreadsheet. From the 

procedure: 

Incidents that should be noted in the appropriate area on the spreadsheet include 

clothing and skin contaminations, any report of incident or investigation noted in 

the DOE Response file, and any inhalation exposure. 

It would be prudent to include any mention, medical, or operations report, related to a wound. It 

is quite common for an employee to work at several different site locations during a day, week, 

month, etc. So the employee could sustain a wound (i.e., lacerated finger) a in non-radiological 

location in the morning and may be working in a radiological location that afternoon or the next 

day. Documenting the wound information could help the Dose Reconstructor determine work 

location or intake date. 

4.5.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

ORAUT-PROC-0086. 2005. Case Preparation – Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims, Rev. 0, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 7, 2005. 

4.6 ORAUT-PROC-0094: VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION PROCESS FOR 

TOOLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP 

This review of ORAUT-PROC-0094, Verification and Validation Process for the Tools 

Development Group, Rev. 00, January 5, 2006, was prepared by Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD. 

4.6.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The stated purpose of this procedure is as follows: 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 276 of 290 

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. 

...to establish the verification and validation (V&V) process for software tools 

created by the Tools Development Group (TDG) of the Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU) Team Dose Reconstruction Project for the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for the purpose of conducting dose 

reconstruction (Section 1.0). 

As also noted, the “V&V process applies to all software tools used in the dose reconstruction 

(DR) process and developed by the TDG, or software tools developed by individuals outside the 

TDG that ask the TDG to sanction a tool for general use” (Section 2.0). Furthermore, 

“Implementation of this procedure shall constitute a quality review process as that terminology is 

defined by ORAUT-PLAN-0001, Quality Assurance Program (QAP)” (Section 2.0). 

4.6.2 Review Protocol 

The subject procedure lists the ORAU Quality Assurance Program (ORAUT-PLAN-0001) as a 

driver (Section 8.1); hence the procedure (which is administrative rather than technical) is 

reviewed according to SC&A’s Procedure to Perform QA Reviews of NIOSH/ORAU Dose 

Reconstruction Procedures (Rev. 0, Draft, April 12, 2004). Table, which is a checklist taken 

from Attachment A of the SC&A procedure, summarizes the review, Section 3.0 provides 

general comments on the document, and Section 4.0 presents specific comments. 

4.6.3 General Comments 

The subject procedure contains sections on purpose, scope, references, responsibilities, general 

matters, procedure, records, applicable documents, and definitions and acronyms. It describes 

the responsibilities and interactions of various project personnel as they implement the different 

steps of the procedure. Several attachments are also appended to the procedure. Notably, 

Attachment D is a detailed flowchart of the entire V&V process for different integrity levels (0–

4) of software. 

Table 4.6-1: ORAUT-PROC-0094 QA-Document Compliance Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0094, Rev. 00 Effective Date: January 5, 2006 

Document Title: Verification and Validation Process for the Tools Development Group

Reviewer: Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD 

No. Question Y/N Comments 

1.0 Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) 

1.1 Have the organizations originating the procedures and 

related documents established a QA program appearing in a 

Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), and do the 

implementing documents reflect higher-level regulatory and 

project requirements and nuclear industry good practices? 

N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 277 of 290 

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 4.6-1: ORAUT-PROC-0094 QA-Document Compliance Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0094, Rev. 00 Effective Date: January 5, 2006 

Document Title: Verification and Validation Process for the Tools Development Group

Reviewer: Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD 

No. Question Y/N Comments 

1.2 When more than one organization is involved in the 

execution of activities, are the responsibilities and 

authorities of each organization clearly established in the 

QAPP to the extent necessary to smoothly perform the 

activities? 

N/A 

1.3 Does the QAPP identify the management position 

responsible for QA development, implementation, 

assessment, and improvement? 

N/A 

1.3.1 Are there adequate procedures for assuring that personnel 

performing project tasks have proper levels of experience 

and education? 

N/A 

1.4 Are there adequate procedures for training of project 

personnel? 

N/A 

1.4.1 Have staff training requirements been identified? N/A 

1.4.2 Has staff received general orientation training? N/A 

1.4.3 Has staff received training in the requirements of the 

Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act? 

N/A 

1.4.4 Has staff received training in the provisions of the QAPP? N/A 

1.4.5 Is a master record of staff training maintained in project 

files? 

N/A 

1.5 Are there adequate procedures for Management and QA 

surveillance, inspection, and audit of work products and 

processes to achieve continuous quality improvement? 

N/A 

1.6 Do procedures provide for adequate corrective action for 

identified deficiencies and non-conformances in work 

products and processes? 

N/A 

1.7 Is there an adequate procedure for the maintenance of 

project QA records in identifiable, legible, and retrievable 

condition? 

N/A 

1.8 Are there procedures covering all work activities of the 

project? 

N/A 

2.0 Individual Procedures and Documents

2.1 Is the procedure or document properly identified by title, 

document number, revision number, and date? 

Y 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 278 of 290 

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 4.6-1: ORAUT-PROC-0094 QA-Document Compliance Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0094, Rev. 00 Effective Date: January 5, 2006 

Document Title: Verification and Validation Process for the Tools Development Group

Reviewer: Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD 

No. Question Y/N Comments 

2.2 Do the title, document number, revision number, page 

number, and date appear on each page? 

N Title appears only on the 

first page; however, the 

other items appear on each 

page and unambiguously 

identify the document. 

2.3 Has the procedure been reviewed and approved by an 

independent reviewer familiar with the subject matter? 

Y Written by the Task 5 

Manager and reviewed and 

approved by the Tools 

Development Group 

Leader and the Project 

Director 

2.4 Does the procedure or document include a revision log 

showing revision number, date, and brief description? 

Y 

2.5 Are revisions clearly indicated on affected pages? N/A This is Rev. 00 

2.6 Are all abbreviations, acronyms, and technical terms, which 

may not be generally known by the average reader, 

adequately defined in the text or in a separate section? 

Y Abbreviations and 

acronyms are explained as 

they occur in the text. In 

addition, Section 9 

provides definitions of 

some key terms and 

acronyms. 

2.7 Are all scientific and engineering constants, values, 

equations, and assumptions, which may not be known by 

the average reader, clearly presented and referenced? 

N/A The procedure is 

“administrative,” not 

“technical.” 

4.6.4 Review Comments 

The Dose Reconstruction Submittal procedure provides adequate guidance to ORAU to conduct 

and document V&V of software tools. The following comments, observations, and suggestions 

are made to improve the procedure in future revisions: 

(1) The procedure considers software categorized into five different integrity levels, ranging 

from minor cosmetic changes to existing software (Level 0) to development of complex 

technical programs (Level 4) and, appropriately requires different degrees of V&V for 

each level. This categorization allows application of the appropriate level of V&V to a 

software tool and is consistent with taking a “graded approach” to QA. 

(2) Section 5.1 reiterates the statement of Section 2.0, by saying that “All computer tool 

V&V tests performed under this procedure shall constitute quality reviews pursuant to 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 279 of 290 

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. 

ORAUT-PLAN-0001, Quality Assurance Program” and lists eight attributes of a quality 

review. The subject procedure successfully covers all eight attributes. 

(3) The ORAUT Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) states: “All Project-designed 

algorithms and databases shall be developed, tested, and controlled in accordance with 

ORAUT-PLAN-0003, Information Systems Quality Assurance Plan ...” (ORAUTPLAN-0001, Rev. 1, January 31, 2005, Section 6.11.2). It appears that ORAUT-PLAN0003 applies to ORAUT-PROC-0094 (since the QAPP uses “all”), but the latter neither 

references nor indicates how it complies with the applicable requirements of the former. 

If ORAUT does not intend the software tools covered in the subject procedure to be 

covered by ORAUT-PLAN-0003, then it should state its reasoning to avoid possible 

confusion. 

(4) The subject procedure is inconsistent in its references to the title of ORAUT-PLAN0001, sometimes calling it the Quality Assurance Program and sometimes the Quality 

Assurance Program Plan. It should be noted that ORAUT-PLAN-0001 is entitled Quality 

Assurance Program, but also refers to itself as the Quality Assurance Program Plan 

(QAPP). This is a minor inconsistency since the use of the alternative forms does not 

result in any confusion or ambiguity. 

(5) Attachment D, Verification and Validation Process for the Tools Development Group, is 

a very useful, multi-page flowchart that can guide the user of the subject procedure 

through the many V&V steps and branches. Unfortunately, the flowchart does not appear 

to be referenced in the body of the text where it would be most beneficial. It should be 

referenced in the beginning of Section 6.0, Procedure. 

(6) While the Attachment D flowchart and the text of Section 6.2.2.3 clearly show a branch 

point in the subject procedure, depending on whether the Tools Development Group 

Manager determines that a software tool in integrity level 2 requires ORAUT-FORM0054 (go to Section 6.4) or a test plan (go to Section 6.10), Sections 6.4 and 6.10 do not 

mention this distinction. Section 6.4 states: “NOTE: This is the beginning of the steps 

for verifying and validating a software integrity level of 1 or 2.” The note should also say 

that it applies to level 2 only, if it has been determined that ORAUT-FORM-0054 is 

required rather than a test plan. Section 6.10 states: “NOTE: This is the beginning of 

the steps for verifying and validating software integrity levels of 2, 3, or 4.” This note 

should also say that it applies to level 2 only, if it has been determined that a test plan 

rather than ORAUT-FORM-0054 is required. 

(7) Section 5.3.1, for software under integrity level 2, states that “the test plan [if required] 

for future revisions will test only the additions/changes made to the lookups and will 

reference prior test plans,” and Section 5.3.2, for software under Integrity Levels 3 or 4, 

states that “test plans for future revisions need only test the items that the change in the 

software affected.” The requirement to test only changes made is not good practice, 

since, not infrequently, software development adheres to the “rule of unintended 

consequences,” whereby a change in one part of the program inadvertently affects 

seemingly unrelated parts of the code. Hence, ORAU should at least spot check the 

performance of the entire software tool whenever any changes are made; this requirement 

should be in the procedure. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 280 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

4.6.5 References 

ORAUT-FORM-0054. 2007. Lower Integrity Level Review. Rev. 02. Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 31, 2007. 

ORAUT-PLAN-0001. 2007. Quality Assurance Program Plan. Rev. 03. Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. July 31, 2007. 

ORAUT-PLAN-0003. 2005. Information Systems Quality Assurance Plan, Rev. 00. PC-1. Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 18, 2005. 

ORAUT-PROC-0094. 2006. Verification and Validation Process for the Tools Development 

Group, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 5, 2006. 

SC&A 2004. SC&A’s Procedure to Perform QA Reviews of NIOSH/ORAU Dose Reconstruction 

Procedures, Rev. 0, Draft, S. Cohen and Associates, McLean, Virginia. April 12, 2004. 

4.7 ORAUT-PROC-0095: GENERATING SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR 

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA

The review of ORAUT-PROC-0095, Generating Summary Statistics for Coworker Bioassay 

Data, Rev. 00, dated June 5, 2006, was prepared by Harry Chmelynski, PhD. 

4.7.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

This procedure describes the processes for converting coworker bioassay data into a usable 

analytical format, calculating statistics on the data, and validating the analyses for subsequent 

intake modeler use and, ultimately, for internal dose reconstruction use. The procedure applies 

only to bioassay data from coworkers and does not address coworker external dosimetry data. 

More detailed descriptions of the recommended statistical procedures are found in ORAUTOTIB-0019, which is incorporated by reference in the scope of this procedure. 

4.7.2 Review Protocol 

SC&A’s evaluation of PROC-0095 is summarized in Table, below. Table is a checklist 

containing objectives that SC&A developed to evaluate whether the procedure adequately 

supports the dose reconstruction process, as described in the introduction to this report.
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 281 of 290 

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 4.7-1: ORAUT-PROC-0095 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0095, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: Generating Summary Statistics for Coworker Bioassay Data

Auditor: Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

1.0 Determine the degree to which procedures support a process that is expeditious and timely 

for dose reconstruction. 

1.1 Is the procedure written in a style that is clear and unambiguous? 5 

1.2 Is the procedure written in a manner that presents the data in a 

logical sequence? 5 

1.3 Is the procedure complete in terms of required data (i.e., does not 

reference other sources that are needed for additional data)? 5 

1.4 Is the procedure consistent with all other procedures that are part 

of the hierarchy of procedures employed by NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction? 

5 

1.5 Is the procedure sufficiently prescriptive in order to minimize the 

need for subjective decisions and data interpretation? 4 See Review Comments 

2.0 Determine whether the procedure provides adequate guidance to be efficient in instances 

where a more detailed approach to dose reconstruction would not affect the outcome. 

2.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for identifying a 

potentially high probability of causation as part of an initial dose 

evaluation of a claim? 

5 

2.2 Conversely, for claims with suspected cumulative low doses, 

does the procedure provide clear guidance in defining worst-case 

assumptions? 

5 

3.0 Assess the extent to which procedures account for all potential exposures and ensure that 

resultant doses are complete and based on adequate data. 

3.1 Assess quality of data collected via interviews: ----- 

3.1.1 Is scope of information sufficiently comprehensive? N/A 

3.1.2 Is the interview process sufficiently flexible to permit 

unforeseen lines of inquiry? N/A 

3.1.3 Does the interview process demonstrate objectivity, and is it 

free of bias? N/A 

3.1.4 Is the interview process sensitive to the claimant? N/A 

3.1.5 Does the interview process protect information as required 

under the Privacy Act? N/A 

3.2 Adequacy and use of site-specific data pertaining to: ----- 

3.2.1 Personal dosimeters (e.g., film, TLD, PICs) N/A 

3.2.2 In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays 5 

3.2.3 Missing dosimetry data 5 

3.2.4 Unmonitored periods of exposure 5 

4.0 Assess procedure for providing a consistent approach to dose reconstruction regardless of 

claimants’ exposures by time and employment locations 

4.1 Does the procedure support a prescriptive approach to dose 

reconstruction? 5 

4.2 Does the procedure adhere to the hierarchical process as defined 

in 42 CFR 82.2? 5 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 282 of 290 

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 4.7-1: ORAUT-PROC-0095 Review Outline/Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0095, Rev. 00 Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Document Title: Generating Summary Statistics for Coworker Bioassay Data

Auditor: Harry Chmelynski, PhD

No. Description of Objective Rating 

1-5* Comments 

5.0 Evaluate procedure with regard to fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant 

5.1 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of missing data? 5 

5.2 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances of unknown 

parameters affecting dose estimates? 5 

5.3 Is the procedure claimant favorable in instances where claimant 

was not monitored? 5 

6.0 Evaluate procedure for its ability to adequately account for the uncertainty of dose 

estimates. 

6.1 Does the procedure provide adequate guidance for selecting the 

types of probability distributions (i.e., normal, lognormal)? 4 See Review Comments 

6.2 Does the procedure give appropriate guidance in the use of 

random sampling in developing a final distribution? 5 

7.0 Assess procedures for striking a balance between technical precision and process efficiency. 

7.1 Does the procedure require levels of detail that can reasonably be 

accounted for by the dose reconstructor? 5 

7.2 Does the procedure avoid levels of detail that have only limited 

significance to the final dose estimate and its POC? 5 

7.3 Does the procedure employ scientifically valid protocols for 

reconstructing doses? 4 See Review Comments 

──────────────

* Rating system of 1 through 5 corresponds to the following: 1=No (Never), 2=Infrequently, 

3=Sometimes, 4=Frequently, 5=Yes (Always). N/A indicates not applicable. 

4.7.3 General Comments 

The purpose of ORAUT-PROC-0095 is to provide guidance for converting coworker bioassay 

data into a usable format, calculating summary statistics on the data, and validating the data for 

use by the intake modeler. The recommended statistical methods are designed to provide 

estimates of lognormal distribution parameters based on available coworker data. This 

procedure assumes site bioassay data are available in readable format. The product of the 

procedure is a series of validated statistical results for use in intake modeling. Individuals 

responsible for performing the analyses include (1) Site Team Leader, (2) Subject Matter Expert, 

(3) Coworker Bioassay Statistics Team Leader, (4) Statistics Analyst, and (5) Statistics 

Validator. The procedure requires that the roles of Statistical Analyst and the Statistics Validator 

be performed by different individuals. 

The proposed procedure provides detailed instructions for three data analysis steps: 

(1) preparing the data in a usable format for subsequent analysis; (2) generating estimates of the 

50th and 84th percentiles, geometric mean (GM) and the geometric standard deviation (GSD) 

from the available data; and (3) validating the analysis. After data preparation, which includes 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 283 of 290 

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. 

 

treatment of censored data and outliers, two statistical methodologies are recommended in the 

procedure for determining the 50th and 84th percentiles of the data. The first method is based on 

a simple ranking of the data. The second method is a regression method based on assumption of 

a lognormal distribution. The regression approach provides a second set of estimates of the 50th

and 84th percentiles, as well as estimates of the GM and GSD of the fitted lognormal distribution. 

In this application, censored data refers to measurements below the Minimum Detection Limit 

(MDL) established for the laboratory analytical procedure used for collecting the data. Many of 

these data sets include data entries recorded as below the MDL, or data entries that are recorded 

as zero, or “less than x.” The estimation of lognormal distribution parameters is complicated by 

the common occurrence of missing data and/or censored data. Several alternatives are suggested 

in Section 6.2.1.2 of the procedure for handling censored data. The suggested procedures are 

reviewed in more detail in the following section of this review. 

4.7.4 Review Comments 

Review Objective 1.5 

The procedure addresses the problem of “outliers,” although the term outlier is not used 

explicitly by the authors. Section 6.2.1.3 of the procedure suggests that the analyst: 

Deletes, as the Site Team Leader directs, abnormal data such as known errors or 

results that have been determined to be nonrepresentative of the exposure 

conditions (e.g., a sample contaminated in the laboratory).

No additional guidance is provided for performing the very subjective task of identifying known 

errors and/or nonrepresentative data points. The procedure does require in Section 6.2.1.4 that 

all deletions or modifications of the data be documented in the OTIB. Specific procedures for 

identifying and handling erroneous and/or nonrepresentative data should be identified in the 

procedure. 

Review Objective 6.1 

The regression method proposed in the procedure for a data set of size n is written as follows:2

 

ln(yi) = m xi + b 

The symbols yi (i = 1, ... , r  n) denote the r data values above the MDA (i.e., not including the 

“less than” values) with corresponding normal scores xi = Φ-1[ (Ri - 0.5) /n] for i = 1, ... , r n. 

The symbols b and m denote the y-intercept and slope of the regression line, respectively. Here 

Φ-1[•] denotes the inverse of the cumulative normal distribution function, and Ri is the rank of 

the data yi when all n data values are included in the ranking and the (n-r) values below the 

MDA are assigned the lowest (n-r) ranks. If the data fit a lognormal distribution where the logs 

have mean μ and standard deviation σ, then a scatter plot of the r points (xi , ln(yi) ) will lie on a 

2

 It is far more common to use the symbol zi for the normal score variate, but the use of xi as the 

explanatory variable in a regression takes priority in this discussion. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 284 of 290 

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. 

straight line with slope m = σ and a y-intercept b = μ. It is easily shown that the geometric mean 

of the lognormal distribution is eμ and the GSD is eσ. 

The regression method may be used not only to verify that the data follow a lognormal 

distribution, but also to provide alternative estimates for the parameters of the lognormal 

distribution when there are values in the data set below the MDA. Since the regression estimates 

are based on the entire set of data above the MDA, they may be preferred over estimates 

obtained by ranking the data. This is particularly true for the estimate of the GSD, which is 

based on the ratio of the 84th to the 50th percentiles when using the minimal information method. 

A determination of the goodness-of-fit of a lognormal distribution to a data set of size n is to be 

based on regression analysis. Specifically, the following recommendations are made in 

Section 3.4 of ORAUT-OTIB-0019: 

Calculate the associated R2

 fit parameter. A value greater than 0.9 indicates a 

very good fit; however, values as low as 0.7 are acceptable, and even lower 

values may be acceptable if no better equation seems appropriate. 

It is difficult to determine the source and applicability of the OTIB recommendations regarding 

goodness of fit. Our concerns are based on the known dependencies that exist in the regression 

estimates derived from ranked data. 

When the points in the scatterplot do not all lie on a straight line, it is recommended that the R2

of the regression be examined to determine if the data are fitted approximately by a lognormal 

distribution. However, ORAUT-OTIB-0019 fails to warn the investigator that the R2 of this 

regression should be interpreted with care. The data values in the scatterplot are not independent 

observations. Indeed, if it is known that xi ≤ xj, then it is also known that yi ≤ yj. This 

dependence among the observations violates the usual assumption of conditional independence 

of the y values in the regression, given the set of x values. 

In general, the interpretation of R2 when there is known conditional dependence and censored 

data is not a simple matter. As a result of the dependency, the observed R2

 value may be 

seriously over-inflated. The subject was explored by Looney and Gulledge (1985). Using a very 

similar scatterplot and regression-model approach to estimate the parameters of a normal 

distribution, they provide tables based on simulation studies that may be used to adjust the 

observed R2 values to account for conditional dependence (with no censored data). 

Extrapolation to the censored data case does not appear to be a straightforward extension of their 

results and is deserving of further study. 

The recommendations quoted above from Section 3.4 of ORAUT-OTIB-0019 for interpreting 

the regression R2 do not appear to take this serious deviation from the standard regression model 

assumptions into account. Note that the conditional dependence does not result in biased 

regression parameter estimates for μ and σ, only the interpretation of the R2

 value as a goodnessof-fit statistic. Hence, the regression estimates remain as a valid “reality check” for the minimal 

information parameter estimates currently recommended. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 285 of 290 

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. 

Review Objective 7.3 

The procedure does not address the use of well-known maximum likelihood method (Cohen 

1959 and Cohen 1961) for estimating the parameters of the lognormal distribution using 

censored data. The proposed regression procedure is not the most efficient methods for 

estimating lognormal parameters (Aitchison and Brown 1957), but is designed to provide valid 

parameter estimates over a relatively large number of disparate data sets. The regression method 

recommended in the procedure for estimating lognormal parameters is much easier to implement 

than the maximum likelihood method, and provides approximate parameter estimates when 

fitting the lognormal distribution to a large number of censored data sets. With relatively large 

data sets, the parameter estimates generated using the recommended regression method should 

differ only slightly from the maximum likelihood method. 

The regression method proposed in the procedure for estimating lognormal parameters does not 

require that specific values be assigned for missing values and/or “less than” data. However, the 

procedure does provide the following recommendation for the development of replacement 

values for censored data: 

6.2.1.2 Determines if the data have been censored (by consulting the Site Team 

Leader’s instructions) and follows the Team Leader’s instructions for handling 

such data. 

NOTE: If the data are censored, rank all the data, but fit only the 

uncensored data unless directed to substitute a linear distribution (or 

another approved distribution) of values for the censored data. Methods 

for handling censored data may include deleting the data, using the data 

as presented, replacing the data with an appropriate distribution, or some 

other action that allows the full data set to be used. One method for 

handling censored data includes substituting a linear distribution as 

described here. The linear distribution is of the form, 1*C/n, 2*C/n, ..., 

n*C/n, where C is the cutoff value for the censored data and n is the 

number of censored values. This linear distribution has an average equal 

to one-half the censored value. Other distributions or data substitutions 

may be used with the approval of the Site Team Leader and the Subject 

Matter Expert. In some cases, it might not be possible to determine the 

censoring value and, therefore, it might not be possible to substitute a 

distribution. In such cases, zeros or less-than values in the database may 

be used as the Site Team Leader directs.

The use of a linearly spaced distribution of values as substitute values for measurements below 

the MDL is illustrated for a hypothetical case in Figure, below. The blue symbols represent a 

sample of 50 data points from a lognormal(0,1) distribution. For this illustration, the lowest 11 

data points are considered censored (i.e., below the MDL). The open circles at the lower left of 

Figure represent 11 substitute values developed using the linearly spaced distribution. Note that 

the substitute values fall below the original data points, indicating that use of the linearly spaced 

substitute values is not claimant favorable. This recommendation should be removed from the 

procedure. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 286 of 290 

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

-2

0

2

-4 -2 0 2 4

x = Normal Score

y = Ln(Dose)

Uncensored Sample (n=50) Censored Sample with 11 Substitute Values

Figure 4.7-1: Comparison of Uncensored Data from a Lognormal(0,1) Distribution versus 

Censored Distribution with a Linear Distribution of Values Substituted for Censored Data 

4.7.5 References 

42 CFR 82. 2002. Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol.67, 

No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002. 

Aitchison, J., and J. A. C. Brown, 1957. The Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, U.K., p..91. 

Cohen, A. Clifford, Jr., 1959. “Simplified Estimators for the Normal Distribution When 

Samples are Singly Censored or Truncated,” Technometrics, Vol. 1, No. 3 (August), pp. 217–

237. 

Cohen, A. Clifford, Jr., 1961. “Tables for Maximum Likelihood Estimates: Singly Truncated 

and Singly Censored Samples,” Technometrics, Vol. 3, No. 4 (November), pp. 535–541. 

Looney, Stephen W., and Thomas R. Gulledge, Jr., 1985. “Use of the Correlation Coefficient 

with Normal Probability Plots,” American Statistician, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Feb.), pp. 75–79. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0019. 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Analysis of Coworker Bioassay 

Data for Internal Dose Assignment, Rev. 00, October 7, 2005. Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 287 of 290 

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. 

ORAUT-PROC-0095. 2006. Generating Summary Statistics for Coworker Bioassay Data, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 5, 2006. 

4.8 ORAUT-PROC-0096: CLAIMANT COMMUNICATIONS QUALITY CONTROL 

PROCESS 

This review of ORAUT-PROC-0096, Claimant Communications Quality Control Process,

Rev. 00, March 3, 2006, was prepared by Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD. 

4.8.1 Purpose of the Procedure 

The stated purpose of this procedure is as follows: 

... to provide instruction for performing quality control (QC) checks for the 

various Task 4 claimant communications functions of the Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU) Team Dose Reconstruction Project for the National Institute 

of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to ensure timely transfer, 

completeness, and accuracy of data” (Section 1.0). 

As also noted, the “procedure applies to Project personnel involved in Task 4 claimant 

communications functions” (Section 2.0). 

4.8.2 Review Protocol 

The subject procedure lists the ORAU Quality Assurance Program (ORAUT-PLAN-0001) as a 

driver (Section 8.1); hence the procedure (which is administrative rather than technical) is 

reviewed according to SC&A’s Procedure to Perform QA Reviews of NIOSH/ORAU Dose 

Reconstruction Procedures (Rev. 0, Draft, April 12, 2004). Table, which is a checklist taken 

from Attachment A of the SC&A procedure, summarizes the review, Section 3.0 provides 

general comments on the document, and Section 4.0 presents specific comments. 

Table 4.8-1: ORAUT-PROC-0096 QA-Document Compliance Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0096, Rev. 0 Effective Date: March 3, 2006 

Document Title: Claimant Communications Quality Control Process

Reviewer: Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD 

No. Question Y/N Comments 

1.0 Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) 

1.1 Have the organizations originating the procedures and 

related documents established a QA program appearing in a 

Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), and do the 

implementing documents reflect higher-level regulatory and 

project requirements and nuclear industry good practices? 

N/A 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 288 of 290 

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 4.8-1: ORAUT-PROC-0096 QA-Document Compliance Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0096, Rev. 0 Effective Date: March 3, 2006 

Document Title: Claimant Communications Quality Control Process

Reviewer: Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD 

No. Question Y/N Comments 

1.2 When more than one organization is involved in the 

execution of activities, are the responsibilities and 

authorities of each organization clearly established in the 

QAPP to the extent necessary to smoothly perform the 

activities? 

N/A 

1.3 Does the QAPP identify the management position 

responsible for QA development, implementation, 

assessment, and improvement? 

N/A 

1.3.1 Are there adequate procedures for assuring that personnel 

performing project tasks have proper levels of experience 

and education? 

N/A 

1.4 Are there adequate procedures for training of project 

personnel? 

N/A 

1.4.1 Have staff training requirements been identified? N/A 

1.4.2 Has staff received general orientation training? N/A 

1.4.3 Has staff received training in the requirements of the 

Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act? 

N/A 

1.4.4 Has staff received training in the provisions of the QAPP? N/A 

1.4.5 Is a master record of staff training maintained in project 

files? 

N/A 

1.5 Are there adequate procedures for Management and QA 

surveillance, inspection, and audit of work products and 

processes to achieve continuous quality improvement? 

N/A 

1.6 Do procedures provide for adequate corrective action for 

identified deficiencies and non-conformances in work 

products and processes? 

N/A 

1.7 Is there an adequate procedure for the maintenance of 

project QA records in identifiable, legible, and retrievable 

condition? 

N/A 

1.8 Are there procedures covering all work activities of the 

project? 

N/A 

2.0 Individual Procedures and Documents

2.1 Is the procedure or document properly identified by title, 

document number, revision number, and date? 

Y 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 289 of 290 

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 4.8-1: ORAUT-PROC-0096 QA-Document Compliance Checklist 

Document No.: ORAUT-PROC-0096, Rev. 0 Effective Date: March 3, 2006 

Document Title: Claimant Communications Quality Control Process

Reviewer: Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD 

No. Question Y/N Comments 

2.2 Do the title, document number, revision number, page 

number, and date appear on each page? 

N Title appears only on the 

first page; however, the 

other items appear on each 

page and unambiguously 

identify the document. 

2.3 Has the procedure been reviewed and approved by an 

independent reviewer familiar with the subject matter? 

Y Written by the Task 4 

Manager and reviewed and 

approved by the Project 

Director and the Health 

Science Administrator. 

2.4 Does the procedure or document include a revision log 

showing revision number, date, and brief description? 

Y 

2.5 Are revisions clearly indicated on affected pages? N/A This is Rev. 00. 

2.6 Are all abbreviations, acronyms, and technical terms, which 

may not be generally known by the average reader, 

adequately defined in the text or in a separate section? 

Y Abbreviations and 

acronyms are explained as 

they occur in the text. In 

addition, Section 9 

provides definitions of 

some key terms and 

acronyms. 

2.7 Are all scientific and engineering constants, values, 

equations, and assumptions, which may not be known by 

the average reader, clearly presented and referenced? 

N/A The procedure is 

“administrative,” not 

“technical.” 

4.8.3 General Comments 

The subject procedure contains sections on purpose, scope, references, responsibilities, general 

matters, procedure for performing QC checks, records, applicable documents, and definitions 

and acronyms. It describes the responsibilities and interactions of various project personnel as 

they implement the different steps of the procedure. 

4.8.4 Review Comments 

The subject procedure provides adequate instructions to ORAU to perform QC checks of Task 4 

claimant communications functions, including CATI, close-out interviews, and dose 

reconstruction submittals. Responsibilities are clearly delineated and the reader is taken through 

the various processes step-by-step. Many useful graphics (computer screen shots) are included 
Effective Date: 

October 29, 2007 

Revision No. 

0 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK3-0003 

Page No. 

 290 of 290 

 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. 

NOTICE:

4.9 ORAUT-PROC-0097: CONDUCT OF WORKER OUTREACH PROGRAM 

to illustrate what the user of a computer system should see. The procedure also references 

ORAUT-PROC-0079 for proper handling of records covered by the Privacy Act. 

4.8.5 References 

ORAUT-PLAN-0001. 2007. Quality Assurance Program Plan, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. July 31, 2007. 

ORAUT-PROC-0096. 2006. Claimant Communications Quality Control Process, Rev. 00, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. March 3, 2006. 

ORAUT-PROC-0079. 2004. Protecting Privacy Act Data, Rev. 00, 

SC&A 2004. SC&A’s Procedure to Perform QA Reviews of NIOSH/ORAU Dose Reconstruction 

Procedures, Rev. 0, Draft, S. Cohen and Associates, McLean, Virginia. April 12, 2004. 

It was not possible for SC&A to review this document in time for this deliverable and SC&A 

plans to deliver this review as an addendum to this report.