National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Dose Reconstruction (DR) Methodology Templates 

and Peek Street Dose Reconstructions

Timothy Taulbee, PhD, CHP

Associate Director for Science

Subcommittee on Procedure Reviews

September 29, 2022
Overview

 Purpose of DR Methodology Templates

 History of DR Methodology Templates

– Path Forward

 NIOSH response to SC&A comments on Peek Street

 Summary

9/26/2022 2
Purpose of DR Methodologies 
Purpose of DR Methodology Templates

 Goal is to summarize information to assist in processing 

(completing) individual dose reconstructions.

 Templates have limited scope of applicability.

– Applicability varies by site

 Use of templates usually requires Professional 

Judgement that is best discussed during the 

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction (SCDR) reviews of 

individual cases.

9/26/2022 4
DR Template Limitations

 The DR templates are NOT Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) 

and unlikely to fit the needs for all potential claims at a specific 

site.

 DR templates may only apply to one claim or a small group of 

claims at a specific site. They may not apply to all potential 

claims at a site. For Example:

– A DR template developed for admin workers does not apply to 

operations workers.

– A DR template developed for a small group of claims over a short 

time period. The template may not address the full operational 

period as there may not be any claims over the full period.

9/26/2022 5
Purpose and Use

 These are informational documents to help process certain 

Dose Reconstructions. 

 General guidance is to use the DR templates with caution. 

If a claim doesn’t fit, an individualized Dose Reconstruction 

is completed.

 DR Template language can be edited and customized for a 

particular claim.

9/26/2022 6
Purpose and Use cont.

 DR Templates are routinely updated and revised when new 

Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs) are revised AND a 

Dose Reconstruction is needed.

– DR Template may not be revised until it is used again and 

may just be updated on a case by case basis. 

 The FINAL review / evaluation / determination of whether 

a template is applicable and used correctly, resides with 

the individual dose reconstruction. 

9/26/2022 7
History of DR Methodology Templates 
Origin Story (In the beginning...)

 No Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) existed to perform 

Dose Reconstructions. 

 A DR report was generated specifically for the claim 

being evaluated using as much site-specific information 

as we could compile and include to explain how we 

reconstructed the energy employee’s radiation dose. 

9/26/2022 9
Origin Story (In the beginning...) cont.

 DCAS Health Physicist had a general format to write a DR 

report.

– The goal of DR report was to include enough information 

so that another Health Physicist could review the report 

and understand how we reconstructed the dose and why 

we made certain decisions.

– Effectively, it is the DR methodology templates outline. 

9/26/2022 10
ORAU and the Development of TBDs

 ORAU began to develop TBDs for the large sites (Hanford, 

Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Idaho National Laboratory) in 2002.

 The reliance on the documentation (DR methodology language) 

within the DRs for individual claims decreased as the methods 

were documented in the TBDs. The TBDs could be referenced in 

the DR instead of custom language.

 ORAU began to process large numbers of claims.

– ORAU prioritized sites with large numbers of claims due to a large 

backlog of Dose Reconstructions.

– As TBDs were completed, claims processing increased.

9/26/2022 11
Focus on Smaller Sites

 The initial focus on large sites became clear in 2005/2006. 

 To mitigate (or balance) claims processing, DCAS hired another 

contractor (Battelle) to focus specifically on smaller Atomic 

Weapons Employer (AWE) sites.

– Battelle developed TBD-5000 (Methods/tools).

– Battelle developed TBD-6000 (Primarily for Uranium Metal 

Facilities).

 This increased processing of smaller sites but still left a 

vacancy for sites that didn’t just do uranium metal work.

9/26/2022 12
Focus on First 1000 claims

 By 2007/2009 timeframe there was pressure to finish the first 

1000 claims submitted. 

 DCAS returned to the original practice of one-off Dose 

Reconstructions to complete these early claims.

 So similar cases could be processed, DCAS re-developed 

written DR methodology templates. 

9/26/2022 13
Focus on First 1000 claims cont.

 Some of these templates were written specifically to process 

the claims in house at the time.

– For example, the DR Methodology could have been written to be 

overestimates for an administrative workers (likely noncompensable) and offer no guidance or information on 

operations workers or best estimate cases.

 Initially these templates were to process small numbers of 

claims from a particular site.

 Given the Dose Reconstruction and SEC workload, it was not 

an efficient use of resources to develop a TBD for a site that 

only has few claims. 

9/26/2022 14
DR templates initially developed for small numbers of claims

 Since 2005-2009 the number of claims has grown significantly 

and in unusual ways due to various external influences.

– Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) influences - As SECs are evaluated the 

number of claims at a particular site increase significantly. 

– DOL/DOE/DHHS Worker Outreach Meetings – As outreach meetings 

are held in specific areas, claims at outreach sites also increase.

– Media influence – If a member of Congress begins to inquire about 

a particular site and the inquiry appears in the local media the 

number of claims can increase. (News cycle influence)

9/26/2022 15
Number of Claims using DR Methodology Templates by Site

Site(a) Location # of Claims(c)

Metals and Controls(b) Attleboro, MA 476

BWXT(b) Lynchburg, VA 374

General Electric(b) Evendale, OH 351

Wah Chang(b) Albany, OR 295

Amchitka Island Amchitcka, AK 177

Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Cheswick, PA 148

Albuquerque Operations Office Albuquerque, NM 119

General Electric Vallecitos Pleasanton, CA 85

Norton Company Worcester, MA 82

Office of Scientific and Technical Information Oak Ridge, TN 52

South Albuquerque Works Albuquerque, NM 48

Metallurgical Laboratory Chicago, IL 48

Lake Ontario Ordinance Works (LOOW) Niagara County, NY 45

9/26/2022 16
Number of Claims by Site cont.

Site(a) Location # of Claims(c)

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Bloomfield, NJ 44

Peek Street Facility Schenectady, NY 30

Kirkland Operations Office, Kirkland Airforce Base Albuquerque, NM 19

Lovelace Respiratory Research institute Albuquerque, NM 19

Vitro Manufacturing (Canonsburg) Canonsburg, PA 27

W.R. Grace and Company (Maryland) Curtis Bay MD 17

Albany Research Center Albany, OR 17

University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project Rochester, NY 16

New Brunswick Laboratory New Brunswick, NJ 5

Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor Piqua, OH 7

Vitro Corporation of America Chattanooga, TN 5

Latty Avenue Properties Hazelwood, MO 2

(a) 9 sites not listed as we don’t have current data 

(b) TBD/Site Profile is being developed

(c) Number of claims is as of December 2019 – last NOCTS report 9/26/2022 17
DCAS is re-evaluating the DR Methodology templates

 We are moving forward with developing TBDs for the top 4 sites 

based on the number of claims.

– The top 4 sites comprise over 50% of all DR template cases.

 After completion of the top 4 sites, DCAS will move on to the next 

sites on the list until we have site profiles for all sites with more 

than 100 claims (0.2% of all claims).

– Note: Metals and Controls comprises less than 1% of the total claims.

 DCAS will re-evaluate whether we are going to develop site 

profiles for sites with less than 100 claims (<0.2%).

9/26/2022 18
NIOSH Response to SC&A Comments on Peek 

Street DR Methodology Template
Would like to emphasize that DR Templates are NOT TBDs

 How these templates are used in individual Dose 

Reconstructions (implementation) is the only real measure 

of the accuracy.

 We suggest that Subcommittee work with the 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews to evaluate 

how the templates are used in individual DRs as part of the 

evaluation process.

– For example, template references of Occupational Medical Dose 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Mixed Fission Products ORAUT-OTIB-0054, but 

individual dose reconstruction may be correct.

9/26/2022 20
Finding 1 – Photon Energy Distribution (30-250keV)

 Finding 1: The assumption of 100% 30–250 kiloelectron volts (keV) 

for the penetrating photon energy distribution is unsupported and 

inconsistent with assumptions used in the Hanford technical basis 

document. 

 NIOSH Response: The majority of the work at Peek Street involved 

uranium which has a claimant favorable photon energy 

distribution of 30-250keV. This claimant favorable assumption is 

common and used across multiple uranium facilities. 

 Impact: None: SC&A agrees with NIOSH’s reasoning but doesn’t 

believe the basis is sufficiently articulated in the DR template. 

9/26/2022 21
Finding 2 – Uncertainty assumption of 1.3

 Finding 2: The assumption of an uncertainty factor of 1.3 is 

unsupported and inconsistent with the cited reference. 

 NIOSH Response: NIOSH agrees current value in template 

references an older version of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-06 and that the 

template should be updated to reduce the factor to 1.2 when used 

for dose reconstructions. 

 Impact: Likely negligible. In an overestimating case this “error” is 

simply a larger overestimate. In best estimate or underestimate 

cases, the Health Physicist should identify the difference in the 

individual dose reconstruction and apply the correct value if it 

applies to a claimant who worked in the specific time period. 

9/26/2022 22
Finding 3 – Neutron to Photon ratio of 1.2

 Finding 3: SC&A was unable to verify the neutron-to-photon ratio 

of 1.2 using the cited references.

 NIOSH Response: Although the citation in the template has 

changed the methodology, NIOSH believes the ratio of 1.2 is 

claimant favorable and still valid for the Peek Street Facility. 

 Impact: None. SC&A agrees with NIOSH reasoning. However, 

SC&A suggests replacing the current DR Template wording with 

the N:P ratio technical basis in NIOSH’s response. We can do so 

for clarity, but this is really modifying documentation of a 

professional judgement. There is no impact on dose 

reconstructions. 

9/26/2022 23
Finding 4 – Dosimeter LOD used in Template

 Finding 4: The dosimeter LOD used in the DR Template is not 

specified in the template, and the value of 0.050 rem assumed 

based on NIOSH’s calculation is not consistent with the Hanford 

dosimeter information.

 NIOSH Response: The use of LOD values in a DR template are 

place holder values and are updated during the development of 

the individual dose reconstruction. 

 Impact: None. The DR Templates are not Technical Basis 

Documents. If the Health Physicist chooses a value or a particular 

site based on professional judgement, they will update the LOD 

values accordingly based on the reference. 

9/26/2022 24
Finding 5 – PSF Annual Maximum Dose Value

 Finding 5: SC&A was unable to verify the PSF annual maximum 

ambient dose value using the cited reference.

 NIOSH Response: SC&A correctly identified a computational error. 

The original calculated value was 1.550 rem, but should have been 

1.555 rem. However, NIOSH is reevaluating this maximum 

ambient dose for the PSF and will revise the template accordingly.

 Impact: There is a potential impact as this dose increases from 

the current template. Preliminary indications are that the current 

dose is a large overestimate. The revaluated dose may decrease 

as a result of the re-evaluation.

9/26/2022 25
Finding 6 – Incorrect Occupational Medical Doses

 Finding 6: The DR Template occupational medical dose basis 

contains incorrect information and outdated references.

 NIOSH Response: NIOSH investigating whether occupational 

medical x-rays were performed onsite. The occupational medical 

dose will be updated in accordance with the latest guidance in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006.

 Impact: Likely None: Again, during the dose reconstruction 

process, the Health Physicist reviews the latest guidance in the 

TIBs and makes updates to the individual dose reconstructions. 

The template does not have to be perfectly up to date to result in 

an accurate dose reconstruction. 

9/26/2022 26
Finding 7 – Mixed Fission Product Assignment

 Finding 7: The fission product information in the DR Template is 

not consistent with current guidance in ORAUT-OTIB-0054, 

Revision 04.

 NIOSH Response: NIOSH agrees that guidance associated with 

the current version of ORAUT-OTIB-0054 needs to be 

incorporated into the DR template. 

 Impact: Likely None: Again, during the dose reconstruction 

process, the Health Physicist reviews the latest guidance in the 

TIBs and makes updates to the individual dose reconstructions. 

9/26/2022 27
Finding 8 – Mixed Fission Product Assignment

 Finding 8: No basis or reference is cited for the recycled uranium 

activity fractions in Table 5 of the DR Template.

 NIOSH Response: NIOSH agrees that the section on recycled 

uranium activity fractions should be updated based on guidance 

in Battelle-TBD-6000. 

 Impact: Likely None: During the dose reconstruction process, 

the Health Physicist reviews the latest guidance in the TBDs being 

used and makes updates to the individual dose reconstructions. 

9/26/2022 28
Observation 1 – PSF Specific Tool

 Observation 1: SC&A did not locate a PSF-specific tool containing 

the preprogrammed plutonium DCFs.

 NIOSH Response: Given the limited number of claims for PSF, no 

site-specific tool has been created for PSF. For sites without a 

site-specific tool, the complex-wide generic “SM Calculation 

Workbook” is used. The template incorrectly references a PSF 

specific tool instead of the generic complex wide tool that is 

used. We will update the template to correctly reference the 

generic tool. 

 Impact: None.

9/26/2022 29
Observation 2 – Natural Uranium PSL

 Observation 2: The natural uranium PSL in the DR Template is not 

consistent with information in ORAUT 1997 and is not referenced.

 NIOSH Response: The color coding in the DR Template indicates 

that claim-specific PSL values are a placeholder value to be 

updated during the dose reconstruction process. This is why they 

do not match what is in “ORAUT 1997” [GE 1997].

 Impact: None. The DR Templates are not TBDs and placeholder 

values are commonly used. During the individual dose 

reconstruction process the Health Physicist applies the correct 

values. 

9/26/2022 30
Observation 3 – Plutonium composition reference

 Observation 3: The plutonium composition information is correct. 

However, the reference cited is outdated and needs updating.

 NIOSH Response: NIOSH agrees that the reference for the 

plutonium composition information is outdated and needs 

updating. NIOSH will update the reference as part of the next 

revision to the DR Template.

 Impact: None. Although the correct values are used in Dose 

Reconstruction, the citation needs to be updated.

9/26/2022 31
Summary
DR Template Summary

 NIOSH would like to emphasize that DR Templates are not 

complete site profiles that provide the full technical basis for dose 

reconstructions. 

 In most cases the template was originally designed to only process 

a few claims. The number of claims using templates has grown 

significantly over time and we are working to develop Technical 

Basis Documents (TBDs) for sites with a large numbers of claims.

 General guidance and place holder values are commonly used in 

DR templates. Sometimes these values are simply reminders to 

the Dose Reconstructor to evaluate the exposure potential. 

9/26/2022 33
DR Template Summary cont.

 How these templates are used in individual Dose 

Reconstructions (template implementation) is the only real 

measure of the accuracy.

 Again, we suggest that Subcommittee work with the 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews to evaluate 

how the templates are used in individual DRs as part of the 

evaluation process.

9/26/2022 34
For more information, contact CDC

1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636)

TTY: 1-888-232-6348 www.cdc.gov

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 

official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Questions?

9/26/2022 35