Review of One Advisory Board-Selected 

Case Reworked for the Evaluation of 

Aliquippa Forge Technical Basis Document 

Revisions (DCAS-PER-045, Subtask 4)

Kathleen Behling, SC&A, Inc.

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews

February 15, 2022
2

Summary of Aliquippa Forge facility 

operational history

 Produced uranium rods from uranium billet 

 Operational period: Rolling operation started in January 1947 

and continued through the end of the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC) contract period on February 28, 1950

 Residual period: March 1, 1950, through December 31, 1987, 

and again from January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1992
3

DCAS-PER-045, “Aliquippa Forge TBD 

Revision”

 Issued April 2012 due to revisions to Aliquippa Forge site 

profile (ORAUT-TKBS-0021)

 Revision resulted from identification of new data and 

incorporating data from ORAUT-OTIB-0070, revision 01

– Increased external dose during most of the residual period

– Decreased internal dose for most years but increased for some
4

SC&A’s Review of DCAS-PER-045 

(findings 1–4)

 SC&A’s August 2014 review identified eight findings and two 

observations

 Summary of findings 1–4:

– Finding 1: Failure to account for a previous decontamination and 

decommissioning effort

– Finding 2: Backward extrapolation by means of the NIOSH-derived 

source term depletion factor is inappropriate

– Finding 3: SC&A was unable to match inhalation and ingestion rates 

given in table 3

– Finding 4: Failure to acknowledge and use a reported air sample that 

at 180 dpm/m3 was ~20-fold higher than the assumed value of 

8.94 dpm/m3
5

SC&A’s Review of DCAS-PER-045 

(findings 5–8)

 Summary of findings 5–8:

– Finding 5: NIOSH’s “conversion” of empirically measured air concentration 

8.94 dpm/m3 that was reduced more than 42-fold to a “modeled air 

concentration” represents a major error as the starting point for deriving 

inhalation and ingestion doses for years 1950 to 1995

– Finding 6: Inappropriate use of the resuspension factor 1×10-6 m-1 for postAEC work during active operations at the Aliquippa Forge facility

– Finding 7: Use of 1992 survey measurement (350 dpm/100 cm2) removable 

alpha contamination postdates the “interim decontamination efforts” 

conducted from October to December 1988

– Finding 8: NIOSH’s methodology for deriving inhalation and ingestion doses 

does not comply with the use of available data and the prioritization of 

recommended methods defined in ORAUT-OTIB-0070, revision 01
6

SC&A’s Review of DCAS-PER-045 

(observations 1 and 2)

 Summary of observations 1–2:

– Observation 1: NIOSH should rephrase the role of ORAUT-OTIB-0070 

in section 2.0 of DCAS-PER-045

– Observation 2: Neither revision 00 nor revision 01 of the Aliquippa 

Forge TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0021) was ever reviewed or audited by 

SC&A

 All findings and observations were discussed and closed at the 

Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews meeting on May 16, 

2016
7

DCAS-PER-045 subtask 4 review of one 

reworked case

 ABRWH selected one reworked case for SC&A’s review in 

April 2021, based on the following criteria:

– assignment of external dose during the residual period

– assignment of internal dose during the residual period

 SC&A reviewed the reworked case in December 2021 to 

determine if external and internal doses were correctly 

assessed in accordance with DCAS-PER-045
8

NIOSH’s reworked DR

 NIOSH’s rework of the case:

– Used applicable dose reconstruction (DR) tools 

– Recalculated all annual doses 

– Re-ran IREP

 Revised DR report not sent to U.S. Department of Labor 

because the compensation decision did not change
9

Case background

 Energy employee (EE) worked at Aliquippa Forge for two brief 

timeframes during the residual period

 EE worked throughout the site

 EE was not monitored for radiation exposure

 Diagnosed with qualifying cancers nearly 25 years after 

employment termination
10

Comparison of NIOSH’s reworked doses 

versus original doses

Dose categories Reworked vs. original dose 

percentage

External ~ 207% increase

Occupational medical No change 

Internal ~ 80% decrease

Total ~ 39% decrease

POC ~ 53% decrease
11

Original external dose calculations

 Used external exposure values from table 13 of ORAUT-TKBS0021, revision 00 PC-1 

 Doses prorated for partial years of employment

 Dose conversion factors (DCFs):

– DR report stated DCF values based on thyroid (1.440) as the surrogate 

organ 

– Doses actually calculated using the maximum thymus DCF values 

(1.692)

– This resulted in a slight overestimate of dose

 Assigned dose to all cancer sites ~0.300 rem
12

Reworked external dose calculations

 Used external exposure values from table 5-1 of TBD 

revision 01

 No prorating for partial years of employment. 

 Applied exposure DCF of 1.44 for the thyroid as the surrogate 

organ

 Assigned dose of ~1.100 rem to all cancer sites 
13

SC&A’s conclusions on external dose

 Appropriate dose values selected from table 5-1 of TBD revision 01

 Correct surrogate organ was selected, based on ORAUT-OTIB0005, revision 05

 Appropriate DCF value was applied

 No partial-year prorating applied, as an efficiency and claimantfavorable measure

 Review confirmed doses were accurately entered into IREP 

 As expected, reworked DR external dose increased from that 

calculated in the original DR

 SC&A had no findings about reworked external dose assignment
14

Original internal dose calculations

 Inhalation and ingestion intakes taken from table 13 of TBD 

revision 00 PC-1 

 Used IMBA to compare doses from uranium absorption 

types M and S, with type S resulting in the higher dose

 Assigned dose of ~2.200 rem to all cancer sites 
15

Reworked internal dose calculations

 Used inhalation and ingestion exposure values from table 5-1 

of TBD revision 01 

 Compared solubility types M and S, with type S resulting in 

higher dose

 Using CADW, calculated dose of ~0.400 rem to all cancer sites
16

SC&A’s conclusions on internal dose

 Reviewed NIOSH’s CADW files for the reworked DR and 

confirmed that correct intake values were used, based on data 

in table 5-1 of TBD revision 01 

 SC&A verified: 

– Type S solubility resulted in the higher dose

– Dose data appropriately entered in IREP table

– Doses were assessed to the date of cancer diagnoses

 SC&A had no findings about the assessment of internal dose in 

the reworked case
17

Questions?