Draft

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

SC&A’S EVALUATION OF ORAUT-OTIB-0064, REVISION 02, 

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSIMETRY DATA FOR THE Y-12 

NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-2017-PR003, Revision 0 

Prepared by

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

Harry Chmelynski, PhD 

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 

Arlington, Virginia, 22201 

Saliant, Inc.

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

May 2017 

DISCLAIMER

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) technical 

support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), including its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, 

draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically 

marked as such. This document prepared by SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical 

issues.

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

2 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

SC&A, INC.: Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

DOCUMENT TITLE: 

SC&A’s Evaluation of ORAUT-OTIB-0064, Revision 02, Coworker 

External Dosimetry Data for the Y-12 National Security Complex

DOCUMENT NUMBER/

DESCRIPTION:

SCA-TR-2017-PR003 

REVISION NO.: 0 (Draft)

SUPERSEDES: N/A

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2017

TASK MANAGER: Kathy Behling, MS [signature on file]

PROJECT MANAGER: John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

DOCUMENT 

REVIEWER(S):

Kathy Behling, MS [signature on file]

John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 05/22/2017 Initial issue
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

3 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................. 5

2.0 Overview of OTIB-0064 ..................................................................................................... 5

3.0 SC&A’s Evaluation of OTIB-0064 .................................................................................... 6

3.1 Evaluation of NIOSH’s Approach to Coworker Dose ............................................ 6

3.2 Evaluation of NIOSH’s Statistical Methods ........................................................... 7

3.2.1 Comparison of 1962 Health Physics Report and Center for Epidemiologic 

Research Doses....................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Comparison of 1952–1956 Health Physics Report and Center for 

Epidemiologic Research Cumulative Skin Doses................................................... 8

3.2.3 Comparison of 1948–1949 Monitored Dose and Regression Approach..... 8

3.3 Evaluation of Documentation in OTIB-0064 ....................................................... 15

4.0 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 16

5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 16
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

4 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Cd cadmium

CER Center for Epidemiologic Research

CTW construction trade workers 

DR dose reconstruction 

E(dose) expected dose

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation 

HP health physics

MDL minimum detectable limit

mrem millirem

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

OTIB Occupational Technical Information Bulletin

ρ Pearson constant 

R2 Regression coefficient

R1 pocket ionization chamber reading 

R2 sensitive film reading under open window of film badge (skin dose) 

R3 sensitive film reading under 1-mm-thick Cd shield of film badge (deep dose) 

R4 insensitive film reading under 1-mm-thick Cd shield of film badge (deep dose) 

σ sigma

SRDB Site Research Database

μ mu
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

5 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

At the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) meeting of January 25, 2017, 

SC&A was tasked with a technical review of ORAUT-OTIB-0064, Coworker External 

Dosimetry Data for the Y-12 National Security Complex, Revision 02, issued April 29, 2013 

(NIOSH 2013a, referred to as “OTIB-0064”). In OTIB-0064, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) used external gamma dose data from ORAUT-OTIB0044, Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility in Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee: Part 1 – Gamma Radiation, Revision 01, issued April 29, 2013 (NIOSH

2013b, referred to as “OTIB-0044”), and external beta dose data from ORAUT-OTIB-0046, 

Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee: Part 3 – Beta Radiation, Revision 00, issued June 22, 2007 (NIOSH 2007, referred to 

as “OTIB-0046”), to derive the 50th and 95th percentile coworker gamma and beta doses during 

the period 1947–1979 for use in dose reconstruction (DR). This report presents SC&A’s 

evaluation of the technical approach and statistical methods used by NIOSH in OTIB-0064. 

2.0 OVERVIEW OF OTIB-0064

OTIB-0064 is a detailed document and, for evaluation purposes, it is advantageous to provide a 

brief outline as follows: 

• Purpose – The purpose of the document was to provide external gamma and beta 

coworker dose data for assigning doses to Y-12 workers that should have been 

monitored, but had record gaps with no monitoring data, during the period 1947–1979. 

• Statistical Data – Table 7-1a, page 13, provides a summary of the statistical data (μ, σ, 

geometric mean [GM], geometric standard deviation [GSD], and expected dose 

[E(dose)]) for 1947–1951 on a quarterly basis obtained from OTIB-0044 (Table 7-1, page 

33) for gamma doses, and OTIB-0046 (Table 9-2, page 41) for beta doses. 

• Coworker Data – Table 7-1b, page 15, provides a list of recommended 50th and 95th

percentile gamma and beta doses for the period 1952–1979 on an annual basis. Table 

7-1c, page 16, provides similar data for the period 1947–1951. These two tables contain 

the primary dose data used for purposes of DR. 

• CTW Coworker Data – Table 7-2, page 17, provides a list of recommended 50th and 

95th percentile gamma and beta doses for the period 1947–1979 on an annual basis for 

construction trade workers (CTW). These dose values have been modified according to 

guidance provided in ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Parameters to Consider When Processing 

Claims for Construction Trade Workers, Revision 01 (NIOSH 2011). 

• Attachment A – This attachment provides an in-depth comparison of film badge gamma 

and beta dose results retrieved from the period 1948–1949 to the expected gamma and 

beta doses for the same period derived from the regression approach using the dose data 

from 147 Y-12 workers monitored during the period 1956–1965. The result of the 

comparison indicates that the regression approach provides favorable-to-claimant dose 

assignments for the late 1940s.
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

6 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

3.0 SC&A’S EVALUATION OF OTIB-0064

The following is a summary of SC&A’s evaluation of the approach, statistical analysis, and 

documentation used by NIOSH in developing OTIB-0064. 

3.1 EVALUATION OF NIOSH’S APPROACH TO COWORKER DOSE

NIOSH’s OTIB-0064 approach for developing 95th and 50th percentile coworker doses for DR 

purposes incorporates statistical data from OTIB-0044 for gamma and OTIB-0046 for beta 

exposures. The statistical parameters (μ, σ, GM, GSD, and E(dose)) for quarterly gamma doses 

listed in Table 7-1a, page 13, of OTIB-0064 represent only gamma doses for the period 1947–

1951, rather than quarterly data for gamma doses throughout the entire period of 1947–1979, as 

presented in Table 7-1 of OTIB-0044. Likewise, the statistical parameters for quarterly beta 

doses in Table 7-1c of OTIB-0064 represent only the timeframe of 1947–1951, rather than the 

1947–1979 beta dose data in Table 9-2 of OTIB-0046. It may have been because of the change in 

the method of excluding or including the missed doses that occurred between 1951 and 1952, as 

outlined on pages 14 and 15 of OTIB-0064, although this is not stated in the text. However, this 

did not affect the results in OTIB-0064, because more complete sets of statistical parameters 

were available in OTIB-0044 (Table 7-1) for gamma dose and OTIB-0046 (Table 9-2) for beta 

doses for use in deriving the percentile doses in Tables 7-1b and 7-1c of OTIB-0064. 

NIOSH considered missed dose from badge readings less than the minimum detectable levels 

(MDLs) for 1952–1979, using MDL/2 multiplied by the badge exchange frequency. For 1947–

1951, missed dose was included in the original analysis of these data in OTIB-0044. 

OTIB-0064 does not provide the detailed steps used to derive the numerical value of the 

percentile doses listed in Tables 7-1b and 7-1c from the numerical statistical values of μ, σ, GM, 

GSD, and E(dose) listed in OTIB-0044 for gamma doses and OTIB-0046 for beta doses. The 

only reference made to these derivations was in Step 3 of Table 7-1b (1952–1979) in OTIB-0064 

where it was stated:

The 50th- and 95th-percentile annual gamma and beta dose values were derived 

from the gamma and beta doses in Step 2 [on page 14] by ranking the data and 

extracting percentiles for each year.

And in Step 3 of OTIB-0064, Table 7-1c (1947-1951) where it is stated: 

The 50th- and 95th-percentile annual gamma and beta dose values were derived 

from the resultant lognormal distributions from Step 1 [on page 15]. 

To perform an approximate comparison between dose values recommended in OTIB-0064 and 

those listed in OTIB-0044, SC&A calculated the sum1 of the quarterly GM values for a given 

year from Table 7-1 of OTIB-0044, plus one-half the maximum potential missed dose (i.e., based 

on MDL/2) from Table 6-4, page 12, of OTIB-0064, for one-half the badge exchange cycles 

(considering that on an average one-half the exchange cycle had zero, or <MDL, readings 

 

1 The calculated sum would be the total of the four quarter doses plus 1⁄2 the maximum missed dose 50% of the time; 

therefore, the total for any given year would be the sum of the quarter doses plus 1⁄4 the maximum missed dose.
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

7 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

recorded). The resulting annual dose values were then compared to the 50th percentile gamma 

dose values in Table 7-1c for the period of 1947–1951, and Table 7-1b for the period 1952–1979. 

It was determined that the recommended 50th percentile dose values were generally close to, or 

slightly greater than, the GM values adjusted for missed dose (if applicable). Similar comparison 

results were obtained for beta doses. 

SC&A did not identify any issues with the general approach used in OTIB-0064 to derive 

coworker doses for the period 1947–1979. 

3.2 EVALUATION OF NIOSH’S STATISTICAL METHODS 

SC&A evaluated the statistical methods employed by NIOSH in OTIB-0064 for developing 

coworker doses using data from OTIB-0044 for gamma and OTIB-0046 for beta exposures, as 

discussed below. 

3.2.1 Comparison of 1962 Health Physics Report and Center for Epidemiologic Research

Doses

Table 6-1, page 9, of OTIB-0064 provided a comparison of the 1962 gamma and skin (gamma 

plus beta) doses from the Health Physics (HP) Report (UCNC 1963) and the Center for 

Epidemiologic Research (CER) database. SC&A found that the two sets of dose data are in good 

agreement, and the two distributions appear to be almost identical, as shown for skin doses in 

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Comparison of 1962 Skin Doses (data from OTIB-0064, Table 6-1) 

SC&A found no issues with the comparison of the HP Report and the CER database 1962 dose 

data.
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

8 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

3.2.2 Comparison of 1952–1956 Health Physics Report and Center for Epidemiologic 

Research Cumulative Skin Doses

On page 9 of OTIB-0064, it is stated: 

The two sets of cumulative skin doses have high correlation as Figure 6-1 shows. 

The Pearson correlation coefficient, which assumes a bivariate normal 

distribution, is 0.841 (Pearson 1896), and the nonparametric Spearman (rank) 

correlation coefficient is 0.975 (Spearman 1904). 

SC&A analyzed these data and found that the value of the correlation cannot be determined from 

Figure 6-1 alone. The data for the individual doses of the 65 foundry workers used to derive the 

figure are required to verify the two correlations. Visual examination of the figure shows there is 

a very high degree of correlation, and the variances of the two variables are approximately equal. 

If the variances were equal, the slope of the regression line would be equal to the Pearson 

correlation. Examination of the figure shows that the slope is slightly less than 1. This indicates 

that the correlation is slightly less than 1. The reported Pearson constant (ρ) was only 0.841, so 

the regression coefficient (R2) for regression is only 0.71, which is lower than would be expected

given the high Spearman R2

 of 0.975. The one low outlier in Figure 6-1 is the likely cause of this 

discrepancy. The nonparametric Spearman estimate of the correlation appears more reasonable. 

The use of ranks in the calculation of the Spearman correlation reduces undue influence of the 

outlier. SC&A found no issues with the comparison of the HP Report (UCNC 1957) and the 

CER database cumulative 1952–1956 skin dose data. 

3.2.3 Comparison of 1948–1949 Monitored Dose and Regression Approach

Attachment A, Section A.6, of OTIB-0064, pages 32–34, provides an evaluation of 1948 and 

1949 recorded dose readings associated with four dose fields. These fields are represented by R1 

= pocket ionization chamber, R2 = sensitive film under open window (skin dose), R3 = sensitive 

film under 1-mm-thick cadmium (Cd) (deep dose), and R4 = insensitive film under 1-mm-thick 

Cd (deep dose). The monitored doses are compared to the E(doses) derived from the lognormal 

distributions using the regression approach presented in Section 7.0, pages 31–33, and Table 7-1, 

of OTIB-0044 for gamma dose, and Section 9.0, pages 38 – 41, and Table 9-2, of OTIB-0046 for 

beta dose.

SC&A found in Table A-7, page 33, of OTIB-0064 that the eight quarterly gamma lognormal 

dose distribution values from OTIB-0044 are almost identical for each quarter, with a small 

decrease in the expected value in each following quarter. The same is true for the eight beta 

lognormal dose distribution values from OTIB-0046. In Table A-7, the dose values E(R1), 

E(R2), E(R3), and E(R4) are compared with the expected lognormal distribution values. The 

reason for using the expected value to make a comparison is stated on page 32 as: 

The mean dose was selected as the most appropriate comparison statistic from the 

regression approach because it is calculated using both the log of the geometrical 

mean μ and the log of the geometrical standard deviation σ. 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

9 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

However, this is not sufficient reason to select the expected value, since any percentile (other 

than the median) is also calculated using both the log of the GM μ and the log of the GSD σ. 

SC&A examined the Discussion Section (A.7) of Attachment A, which included the following 

summary statement:

This investigation of the Y-12 external monitoring data for 1948 and 1949 has 

clearly demonstrated that backwards extrapolation from the regression approach 

provides a reasonable method that is favorable to claimants for use in the 

reconstruction of potential whole-body doses from photon exposures to workers 

at the Y-12 facility during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Although gamma doses 

were the major interest, beta doses were also investigated. It was found that 

backwards extrapolation from 1956 to 1965 beta doses to the 1948 to 1949 period 

furnishes ultraconservative doses because of the continuing shift from mainly 

highly enriched uranium before 1950 to principally natural and depleted uranium 

by 1960. [emphasis added] 

Comparison of 1948–1949 Beta Doses 

In order to determine if the stated differences between the two sets of estimates for beta doses are 

correct, SC&A created Figures 2 and 3 that show the quarterly lognormal distributions (shaded 

area) for beta doses in 1948 and 1949, respectively. The expected median and mean values 

(dashed vertical lines) of each lognormal distribution are shown in the figures. The 

corresponding quarterly value of E(R2) from Table A-7 is also shown in the figures (solid 

vertical line). Note that several quarters did not have estimates for E(R2) in Table A-7. The 

E(R2) beta dose values are all below the median and mean of the corresponding lognormal 

distributions. 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

10 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Figure 2. Comparison of 1948 Beta Doses (data from OTIB-0064, Table A-7) 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

11 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Figure 3. Comparison of 1949 Beta Doses (data from OTIB-0064, Table A-7) 

Table 1 shows the relative location of the recorded beta dose E(R2) as a percentile of the 

corresponding expected dose from the lognormal distribution (i.e., the total area under each of 

the curves in Figures 2 and 3 from regression analysis). The recorded beta dose exceeded the 

expected dose 6% to 47% of the time; conversely, the expected dose exceeded the recorded dose 

94% to 53% of the time. Based on this comparison, the lognormal distribution would generally 

be more claimant favorable for assigning beta dose than using E(R2). However, only the second 

quarter in 1948 appears to be “ultra-conservative.”

Table 1. Beta Dose E(R2) as a Percentile of the Corresponding Lognormal Distribution 

Year Quarter E(R2)

Percentile of 

Lognormal 

Distribution

1948 1 No data No data

1948 2 99.75 6%
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

12 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Year Quarter E(R2)

Percentile of 

Lognormal 

Distribution

1948 3 407.25 29%

1948 4 375 28%

1949 1 748.13 47%

1949 2 375 28%

1949 3 375 29%

1949 4 375 29%

Comparison of 1948–1949 Gamma Doses 

The same comparison was performed for gamma doses. Figures 4 and 5 show the quarterly 

lognormal distributions (shaded area) for gamma doses for 1948 and 1949, respectively. The 

expected median and mean values (dashed vertical lines) of each lognormal distribution are 

shown in the figures. The corresponding quarterly value of E(R3) from Table A-7 is also shown 

in the figures (solid vertical line). Two of the E(R3) gamma dose values were greater than the 

mean and median values of the corresponding lognormal distributions, and one E(R3) value, the 

second quarter of 1948, was less than the lognormal mean and median values. 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

13 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Figure 4. Comparison of 1948 Gamma Doses (data from OTIB-0064, Table A-7) 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

14 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Figure 5. Comparison of 1949 Gamma Doses (data from OTIB-0064, Table A-7) 

Table 2 shows the relative location of the recorded gamma dose E(R3) as a percentile of the 

corresponding expected dose from the lognormal distribution (i.e., the total area under each of 

the curves in Figures 4 and 5 from regression analysis). The recorded gamma dose exceeded the 

expected dose 29% to 76% of the time; conversely, the expected dose exceeded the recorded 

dose 71% to 24% of the time. Based on this comparison, the lognormal distribution may be 

appropriate for assigning gamma dose, but not necessarily claimant favorable. In three of the 

four quarters shown in Table 2, only the upper quartile of the lognormal distribution exceeded 

the value of E(R3) derived from the 65 foundry workers. In all three of these cases, E(R3) 

exceeds the mean and median values of the corresponding lognormal dose distribution as shown 

in Figures 4 and 5. 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

15 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 2. Gamma Dose E(R3) as a Percentile of the Corresponding Lognormal Distribution 

Year Quarter E(R3)

Percentile of 

Lognormal 

Distribution

1948 1 No data No data

1948 2 94.13 29%

1948 3 398.25 76%

1948 4 375 76%

1949 1 375 76%

1949 2 No data No data

1949 3 No data No data

1949 4 No data No data

Comparisons Incorporating Nondetects

OTIB-0064 presents the results of another comparison of the E(R2) and E(R3) values and the 

beta and gamma lognormal distributions in Table A-8, page 34, of OTIB-0064. In that 

comparison, the value of MDL/2 was used to calculate E(R2) and E(R3). SC&A did not find this 

comparison credible because two sets of data only should be compared using the same treatment 

of nondetects (i.e., readings of zero or less than the MDL values). Table 3-3, page 12, of OTIB0044, and Table 3-2, page 12, of OTIB-0046 indicate that an MDL of 30 millirem (mrem) was 

used for 1948 and 1949 for film badge gamma and beta measurements. 

3.3 EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTATION IN OTIB-0064 

SC&A’s review of OTIB-0064 identified seven observations, as discussed below, where 

clarification or correction of errors would facilitate understanding and application of the 

document for DR purposes. 

Observation 1. Page 9: The reference of “UCNC (1957)” maybe be incorrect. It appears that it 

should read “McLendon (1957).” 

Observation 2. Page 10: The reference of “UCNC (1957)” in the title for Figure 6-1 maybe be 

incorrect. It appears that it should read “McLendon (1957).” 

Observation 3. Page 13: It is not obvious why Table 7-1a only covers the period 1947–1951, 

instead of the complete period under review of 1947–1979. It may have been because of the 

change in the method of excluding or including the missed doses that occurred between 1951 and 

1952, as outlined on pages 14 and 15 of OTIB-0064, although this is not stated in the text.

Observation 4. Pages 15 and 16: It is not obvious why Table 7-1b and Table 7-1c are separated 

between the years 1951 and 1952, when the most likely method would be to separate the two 

tables into two periods of 1947–1956 (when the regression model was used) and then 1957–

1979, when the Y-12 coworker badge data from the CER were used. In addition, the statement 

on page 14, “The gamma and beta doses available from CER (see Section 6.0) were converted to 

annual data by summing the reported quarterly data for 1952 to 1979.” adds to the confusion of 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

16 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

the source of the data in Tables 7-1b and 7-1c (i.e., were the 1952–1956 data derived from the 

regression model, or from the CER coworker data?). According to Section 7.3, page 35, and 

Section 8.0, page 41, of OTIB-0044, it is clearly stated that the gamma dose data used in the 

tables for the period 1947–1956 were from the regression analyses, and that the data used for the 

period 1957–1979 were from the coworker data. This is also stated for the appropriate time 

periods in Section 9.3, page 42, and Section 10.0, page 46, of OTIB-0046 for beta doses. 

Observation 5. Page 15: It was indicated in Step 2 that missed dose was not added to the 

resultant gamma doses from OTIB-0044 for the period 1947–1951 in Table 7-1c, because missed 

dose had already been included. Does this also apply to OTIB-0046 beta doses for 1947–1951? 

Observation 6. Page 16: In Step 5 it is stated, “Beta dose 95th-percentile values for 1947 to 

1951 might need adjustment for dose reconstruction.” However, there are no definite instructions 

to the dose reconstructor concerning the necessary steps to adjust these dose values to ensure 

consistence in DR.

Observation 7. Pages 33 - 34: The units of mrem need to be added to Tables A-6 and A-7, and 

A-8, as appropriate. 

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SC&A found the approach used to derive recommended Y-12 coworker doses in OTIB-0064 to 

be reasonable and technically correct. 

SC&A’s analysis of the statistical methods used to derive coworker doses were found to be 

acceptable, with some clarification and limits as discussed by SC&A in Section 3.2.

In Section 3.3 of this report, SC&A identified seven observations that would facilitate the 

document’s readability and help to clarify the methods used to derive the coworker data, and 

make OTIB-0064 consistent with OTIB-0044 and OTIB-0046. 

5.0 REFERENCES

McLendon 1957. J.D. McLendon, Cumulative External Radiation Exposures, memorandum to 

J.S. Reece et al., Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. July 1, 1957. [SRDB 

Ref. ID 23622] 

NIOSH 2007. Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Plant in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 3 – Beta Radiation, ORAUT-OTIB-0046, Revision 00, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 22, 2007. 

NIOSH 2011. Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction Trade 

Workers, ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Revision 01, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 17, 2011. 

NIOSH 2013a. Coworker External Dosimetry Data for the Y-12 National Security Complex, 

ORAUT-OTIB-0064, Revision 02, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. April 29, 2013. 
Effective Date:

05/22/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-PR003

Page No.

17 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

NIOSH 2013b. Historical Evaluation of the Film Badge Dosimetry Program at the Y-12 Facility

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Part 1 – Gamma Radiation, ORAUT-OTIB-0044, Revision 01, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 29, 2013. 

Pearson 1896. K. Pearson, Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution; III. 

Regression, Heredity and Panmixia, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 

Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, volume 187, pp. 253–318. 

Spearman 1904. C.E. Spearman, “General Intelligence, Objectively Determined and Measured,” 

American Journal of Psychology, volume 15, number 2, pp. 201–293. 

UCNC 1957. December Health Physics Report – Mechanics Operation Division, Y-B94-8 

(Excerpt), letter to J. M. Case, Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. January 

24, 1957. [SRDB Ref. ID 23626] 

UCNC 1963. Y-12 Plant Quarterly Health Physics Report, Fourth Quarter CY 1962, Y-KB-26, 

Union Carbide Nuclear Company, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. March 20, 1963. [SRDB 

Ref. ID 23618]