DCAS‐TIB‐0010

Best‐Estimate External Dose Reconstru

for Glovebox Workers

Report from the Procedures Review Subcom

Presented to the

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker H

Idaho Falls, Idaho

July 16–17, 2013
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Summary

• Exposure geometry is a concern for

claimants who worked with glove‐

boxes. Under‐estimation couldoccur if the claimant wore his/herdosimeter on the lapel, due todistance differences between thesource, the organ of interest, and

the dosimeter.
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Summary (Co

• This TIB provides correction factors for best‐

estimate DR to organs located in the lower t

from photons emanating from gloveboxes w

dosimeter is worn on the lapel.

• NIOSH calculated the gamma flux at 30 poin

covering the chest and at 30 points covering abdomen, and then determined the ratio of 

abdomen flux to each chest flux. The mean 

was then selected as the correction factor.
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Timeline

• December 30, 2005 – NIOSH Issued Revision 2

• June 8, 2006 – SC&A Review (SCA‐TR‐TASK3‐00

• August 3, 2007 – SC&A Modified Checklist

• November 7, 2007 – NIOSH Initial Response

• October 14, 2008; March 22, 2011; April 11, 20

February 5, 2013 – Discussed at Subcommittee

Meetings; Findings Resolved

• June 18, 2010 – NIOSH Issued Revision 3

• November 8, 2011 – NIOSH Issued Revision 4
Findings Summary: DCAS‐TIB‐

• 9 Findings in total – complete histories captu

the Board Review System (BRS)

– http://app‐cinc‐dcas.cdc.gov:8106/documents/

default.aspx?mode=ASSIGNED

– Resolution spanned over 6 years (6/2006 to 2/2013)

– 6 findings are Closed

– 3 findings are In Abeyance

• The following slides provide summary inform

the resolution of each Finding – Details in BR

handout
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Review Findi

# Finding Resolution

1 The TIB lacks transparency.

The radioactive source is not

identified; neither its exactdimensions nor location aregiven, nor is the thickness ofthe walls presented.

Closed on March 22, 2011.

The requested information was proAppendix B.

2 Lower torso organs not

specified.

Closed on April 11, 2012.

The phrase “other cancers that app

region of those organs” (i.e., stomabladder, prostate, ovaries, testes, ge

added to Section 2.0 to allow for ca

sarcomas, Hodgkin’s lymphomas, or cancers that might occur anywhere

only require the adjustment if they the region defined by the specified 
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Review Findi

# Finding Resolution

3 Correction factors do not

represent worst‐case

assumptions.

Closed on October 14, 2008.

The Subcommittee is of the opinion NIOSH policy decision and has been appropriately.

4 Analysis is needlessly

complex.

Closed on October 14, 2008.

This was more of an observation tha
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Review Findi

# Finding Resolution

5 We question the design of

the analysis that compares

the particle flux over

locations on the torso,rather than modeling the

variation of dosimeterresponse with location.

Statuses of these two findings were 

In Abeyance on February 5, 2013.

The Subcommittee agrees with the u

95th percentile instead of the mean f

correction factor.

6 We question the

assumptions madeconcerning the gloveboxmodel, e.g., wall thickness,

Lexan window, etc..
Finding TIB‐0010‐05/06 Det

• Instead of the mean from the 30 by 30 array 

fluxes, SC&A believed it would be better to cthe gamma flux to each organ (e.g., stomach

bladder, prostate, ovaries, testes, genitalia) 

lapel monitor location.

• Alternatively, it was agreed to utilize the 95t

percentile from the 30 by 30 array of fluxes 

claimant‐favorable correction factor.

• Using the 95th percentile negated the need f

tuning” the assumptions utilized by NIOSH.
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Review Findi

# Finding Resolution

7 We question the use of an

anatomical illustration of a

human torso rather than

the ORNL‐developed ICRPReference Man‐based

anthropomorphicphantoms.

Closed on October 14, 2008.

Since the SC&A‐calculated correction based on the Hp(10) dose rate was tthe CF calculated using the anatomic

illustration, the additional work to m

ICRP Reference Man is not warrante

8 The use of the Attila

software is questioned.

Status changed to In Abeyance on Fe2013.The Subcommittee agrees with the u

95th percentile, instead of the mean, 

correction factor.
DCAS‐TIB‐0010 Review Findi

# Finding Resolution

9 The use of Rocky Flats to

validate the model is

questionable; Rocky Flats

data is for glovebox and non‐

glovebox workers,information is lacking

regarding the radiationsources, etc.

Closed on October 14, 2008.

RFP data was used only as a proof o

was not used in the justification of t

factor.The RFP data has been removed fro

0010.
Questions?