DRAFT 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

A REVIEW OF NIOSH’S PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT 

OCAS-PER-005, “MISINTERPRETED APPLICATION OF THE 

EXTERNAL DOSE FACTOR FOR HANFORD DOSE 

RECONSTRUCTIONS” 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013, Revision 1 

Prepared by 

Rose Gogliotti 

SC&A, Inc. 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

January 2013 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.

 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

2 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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-PR2013-0013 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program 

Effective Date: 

Draft – January 10, 2013 

A Review of NIOSH’s Program Evaluation 

Report OCAS-PER-005, “Misinterpreted 

Application of the External Dose Factor for 

Hanford Dose Reconstructions” 

Page 2 of 17 

Task Manager: 

________________________ Date: ___________ 

Steve Marschke 

Supersedes: 

Rev. 0 

Project Manager: 

________________________ Date: ___________ 

John Stiver, CHP 

Reviewer(s): 

 John Mauro 

 John Stiver 

 Steve Marschke 

 Kathleen Behling 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 12/19/2012 Initial issue 

1 (Draft) 01/10/2013 Minor changes in the text were done for clarification purposes, minor typographical 

errors corrected, and updates were made to the case status column in Appendix B. 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

3 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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 

 

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

1.0 Statement of Purpose ...........................................................................................................5 

2.0 Subtask 1: Identify the Circumstances that Necessitated OCAS-PER-005........................7 

2.1 SC&A’s Comments on TBD’s Handling of Bias....................................................8 

3.0 Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s Approach and Methods for Corrective Action....................11 

3.1 SC&A’s Comments ...............................................................................................11 

4.0 Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s Stated Approach for Identifying the Number of 

DRs Requiring Re-evaluation of Dose ..............................................................................12 

4.1 SC&A’s Comments ...............................................................................................12 

5.0 Subtask 4: Conduct Audits of a Sample-Set of DRs Affected by OCAS-PER-005.........13 

6.0 Summary Conclusions.......................................................................................................14 

7.0 References..........................................................................................................................15 

Appendix A: Summary of Cases Potentially Affected by OCAS-PER-005.................................16 

Appendix B: Current Status of PER-005 Impacted Cases............................................................17 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

4 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

Advisory Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

DR Dose Reconstruction 

DOL Department of Labor 

EE Energy Employee 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NOCTS NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

PEP Program Evaluation Plan 

PER Program Evaluation Report 

POC Probability of Causation 

Rem Roentgen equivalent man 

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

SRDB Site Research Database 

TBD Technical Basis Document 

TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeter 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

5 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

To support dose reconstruction (DR), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) have assembled a large 

body of guidance documents, workbooks, computer codes, and tools. In recognition of the fact 

that all of these supporting elements in DR may be subject to revisions, provisions exist for 

evaluating the effect of such programmatic revisions on the outcome of previously completed 

DRs. Such revisions may be prompted by document revisions due to new information, 

misinterpretation of guidance, changes in policy, and/or programmatic improvements. 

The process for evaluating potential impacts of programmatic changes on previously completed 

DRs has been proceduralized in OCAS-PR-008, Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports 

and Program Evaluation Plans (OCAS 2006b). This procedure describes the format and 

methodology to be employed in preparing a Program Evaluation Report (PER) and a Program 

Evaluation Plan (PEP). 

A PER provides a critical evaluation of the effect(s) that a given issue/programmatic change may 

have on previously completed DRs. This includes a qualitative and quantitative assessment of 

potential impacts. Most important in this assessment are the potential impacts on the Probability 

of Causation (POC) of previously completed DRs with POCs <50%. 

As needed, a PEP may be issued that serves as a formal notification of an impending PER. The 

PEP provides a preliminary description of the issue(s) that will be addressed in the PER, and 

summarizes the likely scope of the effort required to complete the PER. 

During an Advisory Board meeting on May 20, 2012, SC&A was tasked by the Advisory Board 

to conduct a review of OCAS-PER-005, Misinterpreted Application of the External Dose Factor 

for Hanford Dose Reconstructions (OCAS 2006a). In conducting a PER review, SC&A is 

committed to perform the following five subtasks, each of which is discussed in this report: 

Subtask 1: Assess NIOSH’s evaluation/characterization of the “issue” and its potential impacts 

on DR. Our assessment intends to ensure that the issue was fully understood and 

characterized in the PER. 

Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s specific methods for corrective action. In instances where the PER 

involves a technical issue that is supported by document(s) (e.g., white papers, technical 

information bulletins, procedures) that have not yet been subjected to a formal SC&A 

review, Subtask 2 will include a review of the scientific basis and/or sources of 

information to ensure the credibility of the corrective action and its consistency with 

current/consensus science. Conversely, if such technical documentation has been 

formalized and previously subjected to a review by SC&A, Subtask 2 will simply provide 

a brief summary/conclusion of this review process. 

Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s stated approach for identifying the universe of potentially 

affected DRs, and assess the criteria by which a subset of potentially affected DRs was 

selected for re-evaluation. The second step may have important implications in instances 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

6 of 17

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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:

where the universe of DRs is too large and, for reasons of practicality, NIOSH’s reevaluation is confined to a subset of DRs. In behalf of Subtask 3, SC&A will also 

evaluate the timeliness for the completion of the PER. 

Subtask 4: Conduct audits of DRs affected by the PER under review. The number of DRs 

selected for audit for a given PER will vary. The selection of the DRs and the total 

number of DR audits per PER will be made by the Advisory Board. 

Subtask 5: Prepare a comprehensive written report that contains the results of the above-stated 

subtasks, along with our review conclusions. 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

7 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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 SUBTASK 1: IDENTIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT 

NECESSITATED OCAS-PER-005 

In October 2003, Revision 00 of the Hanford Dose Reconstruction Technical Basis Document 

(TBD) ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose (ORAUT 2003), 

was issued. The document was subsequently revised in 2004 (ORAUT 2004). This revision 

(01) of the document indicates that the response of the dosimeter significantly changed 

depending on the energy spectra of the photons. This could potentially underestimate or 

overestimate true dose. Since the specifics of the exposure scenario would dictate either an overresponse or an under-response, and since this information is generally not available, the OCAS 

TBD reviewers interpreted the Hanford External Dose TBD to conclude a claimant-neutral 

position that no bias factor that reduced the recorded dose would be applied. 

ORAUT came to a different conclusion from the same information and implemented the bias 

correction factor methodology into the Hanford Best Estimate Dose Reconstruction 

Tool/Template [referred to herein as the Best-Estimate Tool (ORUAT 2005)] that was issued on 

May 3, 2005. This tool interpreted ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 to indicate that an energy employee’s 

recorded dose was overestimated from 1944–1994 by a bias ranging from 1.01 to 1.27, based on 

the dosimeter used at the time. These assumptions are summarized in Table 2-1, below. 

Table 2-1. Hanford Bias Factors 

Dosimeter Period of Use Bias Estimated Range

Two-element film 1944–1957 1.27 1.13–1.60

Multi-element film 1958–1971 1.02 0.86–1.12

Hanford TLD 1972–1983 1.12 1.04–1.16

Hanford TLD 1984–1994 1.01 0.95–1.05

Commercial TLD 1995–2003 1.00 0.95–1.05

During a June 29, 2005, DR review, OCAS identified an error on the interpretation of the 

Hanford TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6) that caused an inconsistency in the treatment of external 

best-estimate doses and an underestimate in dose. 

OCAS-PER-005, pg. 2, states: 

It is important to note that not all Hanford cases completed to date have been 

affected by this misinterpretation. Only cases using the Hanford Best Estimate 

Dose Reconstruction Tool were affected. 

As discussed below, SC&A remains concerned that dose reconstructors that did not use the BestEstimate Tool may have nonetheless reached the same conclusion as ORAUT and applied a 

dosimeter bias that reduced external dose. 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

8 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

2.1 SC&A’S COMMENTS ON TBD’S HANDLING OF BIAS 

A formal review of the Hanford External Dose TBD is outside the scope of the PER process. 

However, because the language in the TBD regarding the dosimeter bias correction factor was 

shown to be subject to misinterpretation, SC&A examined the 2004 revision (Revision 01) of the 

TBD to identify how the initial misinterpretation occurred. SC&A found the following three 

tables in the TBD that help elucidate the source of confusion: 

Table 2-2. Overall Bias and Uncertainty due to Variation and Uncertainties Regarding 

Energy Levels and Geometry in Recorded Dose as an Estimate of Deep Dose 

Bias magnitude and range Uncertainty factors Hanford dosimetry system Overall bias a Range in bias b Systematic c Random d

Two-element film (1944–1956) 1.27 1.13–1.60 1.2 1.8 

Multi-element film (1957–1971) 1.02 0.86–1.12 1.1 1.4 

Multi-element thermoluminescent (1972–1983) 1.12 1.04–1.16 1.05 1.2 

Multi-element thermoluminescent (1984–1993) 1.01 0.95–1.05 1.05 1.2 

a. Based on the distribution of energy levels and geometry judged most likely. Divide recorded dose by the 

table’s bias value to calculate deep dose. Note that this use of bias factor does not apply to plutonium facilities. 

b. Range of overall bias factors based on alternative distributions of energy levels and geometry. 

c. Systematic uncertainty resulting from lack of knowledge regarding actual distributions of energy levels and 

geometry. 

d. Random uncertainty resulting from variation among workers in energy levels and geometry. 

Source: ORAUT 2004, Table 6-12, pg. 28. 

Table 2-3. Overall Estimates of Uncertainty for Photon Dose in Hanford 

Non-Plutonium Facilities 

Bias magnitude and range Uncertainty factors Hanford dosimetry system Period of 

Use Overall bias a Range in bias b Systematic c Random d

Non-plutonium facilities 

Two-element film 1944–1957 1.27 1.23–1.60 1.2 1.8 

Multi-element film 1958–1971 1.02 0.86–1.12 1.1 1.4 

Hanford TLD 1972–1983 1.12 1.04–1.16 1.05 1.2 

Hanford TLD 1984–1994 1.01 0.95–1.05 1.05 1.2 

Commercial TLDe 1995–2003 1.00 0.95–1.05 1.05 1.2 

a. Based on the distribution of energy levels and geometry judged most likely. Divide recorded dose by the 

table’s bias value to calculate Hp(10) dose. 

b. Range of overall bias factors based on alternative distributions of energy levels and geometry. 

c. Systematic uncertainty resulting from lack of knowledge regarding actual distributions of energy levels and 

geometry. 

d. Random uncertainty resulting from variation among workers in energy levels and geometry. 

e. Performance equal to or better than previous Hanford dosimeter. 

Source: ORAUT 2004, Table 6-32, pg. 51. 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

9 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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. Overall Estimates of Uncertainty for Photon Dose in 

Hanford Plutonium Facilities 

Bias magnitude and range Dosimeter Period of use Overall bias a Range in bias b

Beta/photon dosimeters – plutonium facilities c

Two-element film 1944–1957 ~1 0.25–2 

Multi-element film 1957–1971 ~1 0.5–1 

Hanford TLD 1972–1983 ~1 0.7–1.7 

Hanford TLD 1984–1994 ~1 0.7–1.7 

Commercial TLD 1995–2003 ~1 0.7–1.7 

a. Divide recorded dose by the table’s bias value to calculate Hp(10) dose. 

(However, no adjustment in recorded penetrating dose recommended.) 

b. Range of overall bias factors based on alternative distributions of energy levels and geometry. 

c. Estimated range in bias assuming factor of 2 increase in uncertainty 

Source: ORAUT 2004, Table 6-33, pp. 51–52.

Additionally, the following sentence appears in Attachment 6E of the TBD (ORAUT-TKBS0006-6): 

No adjustment in the recorded photon dose is recommended for multi-element or 

thermoluminescent dosimeter recorded penetrating or gamma dose with the 

exception of the penetrating dose (i.e., identified as S dose in the early years) 

recorded for the two-element film dosimeter used prior to April 1957.

Other than the above quoted tables and sentence, the TBD provided no guidance to dose 

reconstructors on how to apply dosimeter bias. Based on the excerpts above, SC&A believes 

that it is not unreasonable that a dose reconstructor could assume that a bias factor should be 

applied. The footnotes of Tables 2.2 and 2.3 clearly instruct the dose reconstructor to “[d]ivide 

recorded dose by the table's bias value to calculate deep dose.” 

If the TBD’s intent was to have dose reconstructors take a “claimant neutral position that no bias 

factor that reduced the recorded dose would be applied,” the Revision 01 of the TBD did not 

provide adequate guidance on the issue. In fact, other than the sentence in Attachment 6E and 

the footnote in Table 2.4 (Table 6-33 in the TBD) that states, “no adjustment in recorded 

penetrating dose is recommended,” the Revision 01 offers conflicting guidance at best on how to 

assess external photon dose. 

In addition, as part of this PER review, SC&A read the transcript from the December 1, 2006, 

Hanford Work Group teleconference meeting (NIOSH 2006), where the bias factor issue was 

discussed. During this meeting, SC&A raised concerns over the lack of guidance provided in the 

Hanford TBD regarding how to handle the bias correction factor, and NIOSH agreed that the 

TBD was confusing. SC&A also reviewed the findings matrix that resulted from this meeting, 

where NIOSH indicated that the use of corrections, uncertainty, and bias factors would be 

clarified in the revised TBD. Therefore, SC&A reviewed the subsequent revisions to ORAUTTKBS-0006-6 to assess when the bias factor clarification was introduced into the TBD. 

A review of Revisions 2 and 3 to the Hanford Occupational External Dosimetry TBD (ORAUT 

2006, ORAUT 2007) revealed that no changes were made regarding the use of the bias factor. In 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

10 of 17

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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:

the most recent revision (ORAUT 2010), Table 6-32 from Revision 1 (Table 2.3 above), appears 

as Table 6-25 unedited. Revision 4 does, however, contain the following paragraph: 

6.5.1 Photon Dose Adjustments

No adjustment in the recorded neutron dose is considered necessary. The 1972 

AEC study stated that the photon dose of record was reasonably comparable 

between the film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (Biles 1972). The IARC study 

(Theirry-Chef et al. 2002) and Wilson et al (1990) studies have shown reasonable 

comparison in the recorded photon dose with the historical Hanford dosimeters 

with the general observation that generally earlier doses measured with the twoelement film dosimeter were likely too high. Hanford did incorporate practices to 

account for the potential underestimate of the deep dose with the two-element 

from the low-energy photon dose component in Hanford plutonium facilities... 

[Emphasis added.] 

Assuming that the word “neutron” in this paragraph was intended to be the word “photon,” this 

is the only guidance provided to DRs that the bias factor should not be assigned. Therefore, until 

Revision 04 was issued, SC&A finds it reasonable to conclude that, if a dose reconstructor did 

not use the Best-Estimate Tool, there is a potential the dosimeter bias was applied. 

Our review of TBD revisions indicated that an attempt to clarify the use of a dosimeter bias 

correction factor was not addressed until Revision 4 of the Hanford TBD. Even with this 

modification, SC&A is unclear whether the bias factor finding identified in the Hanford Work 

Group meeting (NIOSH 2006) was adequately resolved in Revision 4 and verified by SC&A and 

the Work Group. 

Finding #1: The Dosimeter Bias May have been Applied if the Best-Estimate Tool was Not 

Used. 

Based on the above assessment, SC&A believes that it is not unreasonable to conclude that dose 

reconstructors who did not use the Best-Estimate Tool may have reached the same conclusion as 

the ORAUT Dose Reconstruction Team and applied a dosimeter bias that reduced external dose. 

(It should be noted that SC&A has included this finding to help ensure that it is fully investigated 

and resolved.) 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

11 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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 SUBTASK 2: ASSESS NIOSH’S APPROACH AND METHODS FOR 

CORRECTIVE ACTION 

With the realization in June 2005 that this tool misinterpreted the intent of the TBD, NIOSH 

pursued the following corrective steps, in order to determine the universe (or maximum potential 

number) of claims that could have been impacted by misinterpretation of the external dose TBD. 

 Determined the total number of claims. As of August 3, 2005, there were 1,184 claims 

submitted from Hanford. 

 Eliminated claims that did not use the Best-Estimate Tool. As of August 3, 2005, only 

115 claims used the Best-Estimate Tool, which was roughly 10% of the total Hanford 

claims at the time. 

 Eliminated claims that required no further evaluation. Of the claims that used the BestEstimate Tool, 14 were compensable and thus did not require further evaluation, 3 claims 

were modified to remove the bias factor in the early stages of identifying the 

misinterpretation problem, and 18 claims only used a bias correction factor of 1.0 and 

therefore were unaffected by the misinterpretation. 

 Determined claims not yet submitted to the Department of Labor (DOL). On August 3, 

2005, 49 claims that used the Best-Estimate Tool were completed, but had not yet been 

sent to DOL. These claims were returned to the original dose reconstructor to remove the 

bias factor and recalculate final dose. 

 Determined claims requiring re-evaluation. The remaining 31 claims were found to 

require re-evaluation. 

3.1 SC&A’S COMMENTS 

SC&A agrees with the methodology used by NIOSH to identify the 115 potentially affected 

claims. However, as discussed previously in Section 2.0, we question whether the ‘BestEstimate Tool’ assumption accurately captures all potentially affected claims. If it is concluded 

that NIOSH has indeed captured the universe of potentially affected cases in this PER, SC&A 

can then concur with NIOSH’s approach for identifying those cases and the methodology used 

for correcting the external doses associated with those cases.
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

12 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has 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 SUBTASK 3: EVALUATE THE PER’s STATED APPROACH FOR 

IDENTIFYING THE NUMBER OF DRs REQUIRING RE-EVALUATION 

OF DOSE 

Section 1.0 of OCAS-PER-005 identified the following set of criteria for identifying those claims 

that required rework: 

1. The case used the Best-Estimate Tool to calculate external dose. 

2. All bias correction factors used in the Best-Estimate Tool were not equal to 1.00. 

Using these criteria, NIOSH identified a total of 31 cases from among 1,184 total Hanford 

claims. Since there were only approximately 3% of the cases affected, NIOSH evaluated each 

claim individually. 

During NIOSH’s evaluation, a significant error was identified in the external DR of one claim’s 

previous evaluation. This claim had not yet gone through the DOL’s final adjudication process 

because of another unrelated error that was identified by DOL. Since at the time of the 

evaluation the case was in the process of being reworked, it was excluded from the PER 

evaluation. This reduced the total number of cases requiring re-evaluation to 30. 

NIOSH re-analyzed 30 cases identified and found that, as expected, the calculated external dose 

for all 30 cases increased. This increase ranged from 78 to 4,698 mrem. None of the 30 cases 

had a POC increase to above 45%. 

4.1 SC&A’S COMMENTS 

SC&A reviewed data/information received from NIOSH with the objective of assessing the 

completeness of the criteria used to identify impacted cases. SC&A randomly selected 10 cases 

from the 84 remaining cases that NIOSH identified as not being impacted by PER-005. Of these 

cases, the following was found: 

 (4) Used workbook free of photon bias correction 

 (1) Used workbook with bias factor, but EE worked at plutonium facility where bias = 1 

 (4) Used workbook with photon bias and had a POC >50% 

 (1) Was revised and compensated under PER-012 and the original files removed 

This distribution is consistent with the information contained in Figure 1 of PER-005. SC&A’s 

review of the data found no inconsistencies/errors with the identification and selection of cases 

as specified in Section 2.0 of OCAS-PER-005. 

Observation #1

SC&A also looked at the 30 cases identified as requiring re-evaluation as a result of the PER and 

found that, although NIOSH reassessed the doses and POC for these cases (see Appendix A of 

this report), no PER letter documenting this reassessment was included in the associated DR case 

files.
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

13 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

5.0 SUBTASK 4: CONDUCT AUDITS OF A SAMPLE-SET OF DRS 

AFFECTED BY OCAS-PER-005 

SC&A contacted NIOSH in order to locate the 30 cases that were evaluated as a result of the 

PER. In addition to identifying claims 1–30 from PER-005, Table 2, NIOSH provided SC&A 

with the list of 115 potentially affected cases. Table 2 from PER-005 is reproduced in 

Appendix A. By means of the claims’ ID numbers, SC&A independently assessed the current 

status of the 30 cases in the NOCTS database. (Note: Claim ID numbers are not identified in 

this document, but are referred to by the same random numbers used by NIOSH in Table 5 of the 

PER.) The current status for the 30 cases is shown in Figure 1 and Appendix B. 

Figure 1. Current Status of PER-005 Impacted Cases 

Selection of DRs for SC&A’s audit by the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee will be limited to 

completed DRs that have been adjudicated by the DOL. Based on the above evaluation, aside 

from the compensated cases, only 4 of the 30 cases are eligible for audit, and only 1 of those 

cases has (presumably) been updated to remove the bias correction factor. These cases are 

identified by the NIOSH-assigned random numbers in Appendix B. 

Based on this evaluation, as well as the finding from Section 2.0 of this report (i.e., questioning 

whether the use of the Best-Estimate Tool is the only avenue for introducing the bias correction 

factor), SC&A believes at this time it is inappropriate to perform case audits. Pending the 

outcome of the resolution to SC&A’s finding, a decision can be made regarding the selection of 

cases to audit under the PER-005 review. 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

14 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

6.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

In behalf of the four subtasks evaluated under OCAS-PER-005, SC&A identified one finding 

and one observation. Although SC&A is in agreement with the corrective actions taken by 

NIOSH, we believe there is a potential that the bias correction factor could have been introduced 

in DRs completed without the use of the Best-Estimate Tool. SC&A also questions whether the 

bias correction factor finding identified during the Hanford Work Group meeting was adequately 

addressed and resolved in Revision 4 of the TBD. Lastly, we observed that it does not appear 

that all appropriate paperwork (i.e., a PER letter) was included in the affected case history files. 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

15 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

7.0 REFERENCES 

Biles, M. B., 1972. "Ad Hoc Technical Committee Finding Re ARHCO," letter to T. A. Nemzak 

(Richland Operations Office), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC. November 

28. [SRDB Ref ID: 4754] 

NIOSH 2006. Transcript of the Hanford Work Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, held on 

May 5, 2005. December 1, 2006. 

OCAS 2006a. Program Evaluation Report—Misinterpreted Application of the External Dose 

Factor for Hanford Dose Reconstructions, OCAS-PER-005, Rev. 0, NIOSH’s Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 9, 2006. 

OCAS 2006b. Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation Plans, 

OCAS-PR-008, Rev. 2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support: Cincinnati, Ohio. December 6, 2006. 

ORAUT 2003. Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Rev. 00, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. October 10, 2003. 

ORAUT 2004. Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Rev. 01, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 9, 2004. 

ORAUT 2005. Hanford Best Estimate Dose Reconstruction Tool/Template, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 3, 2005. 

ORAUT 2006. Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Rev. 02, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 21, 2006. 

ORAUT 2007. Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Rev. 03, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 5, 2007. 

ORAUT 2010. Hanford Site – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6, Rev. 04, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. January 7, 2010. 

Thierry-Chef, I., F. Pernicka, M. Marshall, E. Cardis, and P. Andreo, 2002. "Study of a 

Selection of 10 Historical Types of Dosimeter: Variation of the Response to Hp(10) with Photon 

Energy and Geometry of Exposure," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, volume 102, number 2, pp. 

101–113. [SRDB Ref ID: 11296] 

Wilson, R.H., J.J. Fix, W.V. Baumgartner, and L.L. Nichols, 1990. Description and Evaluation 

of the Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Program from 1944 through 1989, PNL-7447, Battelle 

Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. September. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 4793] 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

16 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF CASES 

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY OCAS-PER-005 

(reproduced from PER-005 Table 2) 

# Cancer Type(s) 

Original 

POC 

(%) 

Revised 

POC 

(%) 

Change 

in POC 

(%) 

Dose 

in DR 

Report 

(rem) 

External% 

of Total 

Dose 

Original 

External 

Dose 

(rem) 

Revised 

External 

Dose 

(rem) 

Change 

in Dose 

(rem) 

1 Bladder 40.69 41.56 0.87 54.36 95.00 51.63 54.07 2.44 

2 Bladder 37.79 38.46 0.67 40.75 99.30 40.46 41.84 1.38 

3 Bladder &Prostate 37.76 37.93 0.17 21.88 72.70 15.90 16.08 0.18 

4 Esophageal 41.00 42.07 1.07 37.75 80.40 30.34 32.63 2.29 

5 Esophageal 36.00 36.86 0.86 31.74 95.80 30.40 31.60 1.20 

6 Hodgkin's Disease 27.37 28.00 0.63 35.29 89.50 31.59 33.32 1.73 

7 Kidney 43.33 43.49 0.16 43.95 95.60 42.01 42.58 0.57 

8 Leukemia 36.01 36.13 0.12 14.14 66.50 9.40 9.48 0.08 

9 Lung 43.14 43.30 0.16 89.88 19.10 17.16 17.92 0.76 

10 Lung 41.09 41.15 0.06 82.53 24.40 20.15 20.91 0.75 

11 Lung 42.61 42.82 0.21 49.62 37.80 18.73 19.71 0.98 

12 Lung 43.47 43.78 0.31 63.88 38.50 24.58 25.60 1.02 

13 Lymphosarcoma 34.89 36.43 1.54 71.25 97.70 69.62 74.32 4.70 

14 Malign. Fib. Histiocytoma 29.68 29.84 0.16 15.60 86.50 13.49 13.63 0.14 

15 Multiple Cancers 41.80 44.45 2.65 8.55 98.70 8.44 8.72 0.28 

16 Multiple Myeloma 28.87 30.14 1.27 53.21 65.70 34.94 38.34 3.40 

17 Multiple Myeloma 17.68 18.45 0.77 43.95 60.10 26.42 28.14 1.72 

18 Pancreatic 40.89 42.20 1.31 84.99 88.80 75.51 79.82 4.30 

19 Prostate 29.65 30.66 1.01 44.70 99.20 44.34 46.24 1.90 

20 Prostate 43.34 43.48 0.14 59.43 63.70 37.83 38.25 0.42 

21 Prostate 41.66 43.18 1.52 71.82 79.20 56.86 60.47 3.61 

22 Prostate 37.64 38.53 0.89 58.09 97.80 56.80 59.00 2.20 

23 Prostate & Lymphoma 40.41 41.70 1.29 36.32 97.70 35.48 37.62 2.14 

24 Prostate & Renal 39.83 40.38 0.55 22.70 92.50 20.99 21.65 0.65 

25 Prostate & Skin Cancers 40.82 40.96 0.14 11.54 98.60 11.38 11.65 0.27 

26 Rectum 21.50 22.11 0.61 57.66 81.20 46.84 48.72 1.88 

27 Renal 29.40 31.16 1.76 25.17 97.50 24.54 26.83 2.28 

28 Stomach 27.35 28.40 1.05 29.90 97.40 29.14 30.83 1.69 

29 Thyroid 41.86 44.45 2.59 10.87 78.20 8.49 9.43 0.94 

30 Thyroid 42.67 43.01 0.34 5.51 66.10 3.64 3.76 0.11 

Average 0.83 
Effective Date: 

January 10, 2013

Revision No. 

1

Document No. 

SCA-TR-PR2013-0013

Page No. 

17 of 17

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

APPENDIX B: CURRENT STATUS OF PER-005 IMPACTED CASES 

# Cancer Type(s) Original POC c 

(%) 

PER Revised POC c 

(%) 

Current POC 

(%) Current Status 

1 Bladder and Skin Cancers 40.69 41.56 61.93 Compensated 

2 Bladder 37.79 38.46 37.79 SEC Pulled 

3 Bladder, Prostate, & Ureter 37.76 37.93 44.70 SEC Pulled 

4 Esophageal 41.00 42.07 53.15 Compensated 

5 Esophageal 36.00 36.86 19.20 SEC 

6 Hodgkin's Disease 27.37 28.00 53.15 Compensated 

7 Kidney 43.33 43.49 43.33 SEC 

8 Leukemia 36.01 36.13 NA SEC Compensated 

9 Lung 43.14 43.30 NA SEC Compensated 

10 Lung 41.09 41.15 NA SEC Compensated 

11 Lung 42.61 42.82 55.87 Compensated 

12 Lung 43.47 43.78 51.76 Compensated 

13 Lymphosarcoma 34.89 36.43 50.97 Compensated 

14 Malign. Fib. Histiocytoma 29.68b 29.84 NA SEC Compensation Eligible a

15 Colon 41.80b 44.45 23.77 Completed 

16 Multiple Myeloma 28.87 30.14 28.87 Completed 

17 Multiple Myeloma 17.68 18.45 16.05 SEC Pulled 

18 Pancreatic 40.89 42.20 40.89 SEC Pulled 

19 Prostate, Lung, & Pleura 29.65 30.66 58.68 Compensated 

20 Prostate 43.34 43.48 44.34 SEC Pulled 

21 Prostate 41.66 43.18 52.28 Compensated 

22 Prostate 37.64 38.53 52.25 Compensated 

23 Prostate & Lymphoma 40.41 41.70 60.29 Compensated 

24 Prostate & Renal 39.83 40.38 NA SEC Compensated 

25 Prostate & Skin Cancers 40.82 40.96 40.82 SEC Pulled 

26 Rectum 21.50 22.11 21.50 Completed 

27 Renal & Bone 29.40 31.16 29.40 SEC Pulled 

28 Stomach 27.35 28.40 27.35 Completed 

29 Thyroid 41.86 44.45 NA SEC Compensated 

30 Thyroid 42.67 43.01 42.67 SEC Pulled a Case has been pulled due to missing OCAS form 

b

 Value not reflected in claimant file 

c

 Values taken directly from PER-005