(Q) The completed form will be reviewed for completeness, internal consistency, and
compatibility with other claimant records, and with NIOSH worker profile and
site profile databases. Unlike basic reviews, advanced reviews will always
include a review of site and worker profiles.

Using the checklist provided in Section 3 and Appendix C of Volume 1
(Technical Proposal), we will determine whether NIOSH appropriately addressed
all of the reported work history and events represented by the claimant including,
but not limited to, incidents or occurrences, actual monitoring practices, and work
practices. Areas of incompatibility will be identified and documented. A plan
will then be put into place to achieve closure on incompatibilities. Unresolved
incompatibilities will be documented and carried through the audit process in
order to evaluate whether these incompatibilities could affect the outcome of the
dose reconstruction in a substantive manner (e.g., have the potential to result ina
reversal of an adjudicated decision). “

Review of Internal/External Dose Estimates and NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Procedures/
Methods

Internal and external dose estimates as well as relevant portions of NIOSH procedures and
methods for reconstructing dose for the case will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures
and checklist provided in Appendix C of Volume 1 (Technical Proposal) for external and intemal
exposures.

Up until this point, the review process is similar to the basic review described in Volume 2,
which involves the completion of checklists and inspections to determine and document whether
the dose reconstructions and supporting data are reasonable, internally consistent, and were
performed, documented, and completed in accordance with approved procedures, as delineated in
OCAS-IG-001 and -002.

The advanced review includes all the steps that comprise the basic review. However, it will also
include research that extends beyond the records and information provided with the claims
package and go into NIOSH worker profiles and relevant portions of the site profiles, including
selected source documents that were not necessarily provided as part of the claim package.

The sections that follow describe our approach to performing the additional tasks delineated in
the solicitation for an advanced review. Though each task is addressed separately, the
investigations performed in each task area are in fact highly integrated activities; i.e., it is the
juxtaposition of the information contained in the administrative record, the input to IREP, the
worker and site profiles, and interview records that will provide insight into the quality and
reliability of the dose reconstruction (and associated adjudicated decision regarding
compensation).

SC&A - Sample Task 2 12 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


10 TASK ORDER TEAM

Case Managers will be selected based on either their familiarity with the site or category of the
site and/or special technical issues associated with the exposures (e.g., the case is limited to
reviewing the dose reconstruction of a person who experienced internal exposures to inhaled
plutonium and the associated bioassay data). For the 18 sites identified in the sample problem,
we grouped the sites/cases into related categories. Table 2 presents a draft matrix that was used
to assemble the teams of personnel for each case. The information provided in Table 2, along
with the information provided in Exhibit 4-1 of Volume 1, is used to identify the teams to be
assigned to each case. For an actual TORP, the records provided with the cases should help to
better define the qualifications of the Case Managers and technical specialists that will be
assigned to each case.

For advanced reviews, a minimum of three individuals wil] be assigned to each case. These
individuals will have the following functions:

° Dose Reconstruction Reviews (possibly divided into external and internal dose
reconstruction reviewers)

. Worker Profile Reviews
° Interview Records Reviews
. Relevant Aspects of the Site Profile Reviews

One of these individuals will be the designated Case Manager. Because of the complexity of
many of the sites, the Case Manager will likely be selected based on familiarity with the site.
These individuals can draw upon any of the other specialists on the project team as needed to
perform Tasks A, B, and C for the advanced reviews, as delineated in Attachment F of the
solicitation. Table 3 presents the three person teams assigned to each of the 20 cases'in Sample
Task 2. The first person named will serve as Case Manager. The teams were assembled using
the following criteria:

° Familiarity with the site

. Familiarity with the health physics issues at the site

. Avoid overloading one individual with too many cases at any given time.
. Attempt to keep the teams together as new cases arise

We believe that, after approval of the technical and cost proposal, advanced reviews will require
about to complete, including the review, auditing the review package in accordance
with our QA procedures, and then filing and delivering the work product in accordance with our
file-management procedures. Hence, from the date of authorization, the review, documentation,
and delivery of advanced reviews will each require about . More complex cases may
require as many as . Accordingly, we believe that any given team can handle about 2
to 3 advanced reviews per quarter.

SC&A - Sample Task 2 3 Soi. No. 2003-N-00768


. Areas where the overall dose reconstruction process could be improved

All audits will be documented and electronically filed in an approved relational database-
management system, and each inspection and audit finding will be accessible according to
individual claim, inquiry identification numbers, or any other field in the database.

Review Data Collection
SC&A will use the following procedure to determine:

(1) if NIOSH received all requested data for the DOE or AWE site from any relevant
source or repository, and

(2) whether the data used by NIOSH for the case were adequate to make a
determination with regard to probability of causation.

The first step in the audit will be to confirm that the checklist in Table 4 (or the equivalent) was
in fact completed by NIOSH . This checklist is defined as a mini-review that establishes
threshold criteria for use in determining whether the claim package can be docketed within our
system. We have adopted this mini-review approach based on the methods used by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for accepting regulatory products (such as safety analysis
reports and other types of license applications) for docketing and formal review. It is assumed
that this first step is required to be performed by NIOSH as part of the requirements set forth in
42 CFR 82. If these steps were not taken by NIOSH, it would be inappropriate to docket the
TORP and continue the audit.

SC&A - Sample Task 2 8 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities (continued)

a

Exposure Settings/Scenarios
Plutonium,
External | External | including NORM Thorium-232+ Other
Site Category of Facilities utron_| other TRU | (Ra/Th) | Uranium | Tritium Progeny Internal
Linde Ceramics, FUSRAP Vv v
NY
Reactors v v v
Fuel reprocessing and
material recovery v v 4 v
Savannah River | Plutonium processing v v
. Tritium processing
High- and low-level waste
management, storage and v v v v
disposal
Combustion Fuel fabrication v v
Engineering, CT
Weapons testing v v v v v
Neutron and gamma ray
Nevada Test Site interaction studies v v
levada i
Reactors v v v
Low-level waste Vv
management and disposal v v v
Maywood, NJ__| FUSRAP v 4
Harshaw . ‘
Chemical, oH _| Uranium conversion v v
SC&A - Sample Task 2 5 Sol. No, 2003-N-00768



Site

eee

Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities

Exposure Settings/Scenarios

~]

External

External

Category of Facilities gamma_| neutron

Hanford

Reactors

Plutonium,
including
other TRU

NORM

(Ra/Th) | Uranium

v

—

Tritium
ees

Thorium-232+
Progeny

Other
Internal

v

Chemical processing

v

High-level waste storage

AISYSN

v

Fuel fabrication

Plutonium finishing

Nuclear fuel testing

Environmental restoration

SISTENT STS

INEEL

Reactors

Chemical processing

Waste storage and disposal

Environmental restoration

NISNTSNTST SISSIES

NIST SN

NUSNTSN

NIST SSNS

NIST SN

Mallinckrodt,
MO

Historically uranium and
more recently
Radiopharmaceuticals and
tadiochemicals

XS

SN

Allied Chemical,
Ill

Uranium conversion

Y-12

Uranium enrichment

Weapons component
manufacturing,
disassembly and storage

Waste management

Metals and
Control, MA

Uranium oils and fuel
manufacturing

NISPO NUNN

NUMEC, PA

Nuclear fuel fabrication

NE NUSE ON TST SN

SC&A - Sample Task 2

Sol. No. 2003-N-00768



Table 3. Personnel Assigned te the Sample Task 2 Cases

1° Quarter Site 2" Quarter Site 3" Quarter Site 4° Quarter Site
Hanford Y-12 Savannah River Rocky Flats
INEEL Metals and Controls, MA _| Combustion Eng., CT LANL
Mallinckrodt, MO NUMEC, PA Nevada Test Site WR Grace, TN
Allied Chemical, IL | Linde Ceramics, NY Maywood, NJ Fantex, TX
Harshaw Chemical, OH — | Lawrence Livermore, CA

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The advanced reviews for the 20 cases delineated in Sample Task 2 will be performed in
accordance with the SOPs provided in Section 3 and Appendix C to Volume 1 (Technical
Proposal), which describe the procedures and checklists that will be used to perform reviews of
the data collection process, claimant-interview reviews, external and internal dose-reconstruction
reviews, reviews of the relevant portions of NIOSH procedures/methods for conducting the dose
reconstruction, worker-profile reviews, and site-profile reviews. Your attention is directed
especially to Appendix C of Volume 1, which provides highly detailed checklists,
commentary, and sign-off forms for both basic and advanced reviews. These forms
represent the technical underpinning of all basic and advanced reviews that will be
performed on this project.

The output of these reviews will be reports that address items A, B, and C of Attachment F of the
solicitation. Our work products will also include completed audit forms with accompanying text
that provides the following:

. The degree to which the audit concurs with the reconstructed doses and the IREP
input distributions provided in the administrative record and other material
provided by NIOSH

. A discussion of areas where the dose reconstruction for each individual case could

be improved

SC&A - Sample Task 2 7 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


Technical Support for the Advisory Board on
Radiation and Worker Health Review of
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

Volume 3: Technical Approach to Sample Task 2
Request for Proposal (RFP) 2003-N-00768

Submitted to:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch
Attention: RFP 2003-N-00768

P.O. Box 18070, 626 Cochrans Mill Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070

Submitted by:
SC&A, Inc.

6858 Old Dominion Drive
McLean, VA 22101

June 2, 2003


Table 4. Quality Assurance Checklist No. 1 for Data/Records Entry (continued)

Performance Objective Metric | Method Pass/Fail
Did data entry employ double blind procedures to ensure Check the double blind entry
data entry quality? files.

Have back-up files been established at a secure physically Check to determine that

separated location? back-up files exist at a
physically separate and
secure location.

Have unambiguous linkages been established between Check for ability to find hard

scanned files and their corresponding hard copies? copies of scanned records.

Comments:

Assuming that the claimant package passes the mini-review, it will then be docketed and be
reviewed with respect to the procedure to review data collection, given above.

With respect to the first step in the procedure to review data collection, we will review all
correspondence between the Department of Labor and DOE regarding written requests for
information in accordance with 20 CFR Part 30 and 42 CFR Part 82.10, and any additional
records compiled by NIOSH relevant to internal and external exposures to ionizing radiation,
including exposures from medical screening x rays that were required as a condition of
employment.

At this point in the review process, no judgment will be made regarding the adequacy of the
records. We will simply check (1) NIOSH correspondence requesting records,

(2) correspondence that transmits those records, and/or (3) correspondence that provides for
reasonable closure regarding the request for records. Reasonable closure is defined as
correspondence that documents that the requested records either exist or do not exist. We expect
that there will be occasions where one party believes that the requested records were not
provided, while the other party believes that the requested records were in fact provided. These
types of disputes can arise due to a breakdown in communication, usually based on judgments
regarding what constitutes or does not constitute the composition of a given category of record.
We will make judgments regarding these matters and incorporate our findings into the audit
record.

During the second step in the data collection review procedure, we will follow the guidance
provided in 42 CFR Parts 82.15, 16, and 17. In this regard, we will review the record to
determine whether NIOSH evaluated and documented the completeness and adequacy of the
individual’s monitoring data as required by Part 82.15 (a) and (b), add monitoring data as per part

SC&A - Sample Task 2 10 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


Table 4. Quality Assurance Checklist No. 1 for Data/Records Entry

The following form will be used for docketing claims packages for auditing:

Claim No.:

Inspection No.:

Name of Inspector:

Name of Data Entry Personnel:,

Date of Inspection:

Location of Inspection:

QA Manager Sign-off/date:,
Data Entry Personnel Sign-off/Date:

Data Entry Manager Sign-off/Date:

Performance Objective Metric

[ Methoa

Was claim or inquiry date-stamped on day of arrival?

Check if post mark date
corresponds with date stamp

Was claim or inquiry entered into the case file database
management system within 7 calendar days of arrival?

Compare date stamp with log
in date in database

Was the electronic or hard copy of the data or record entered
correctly into the database?

Judgment as to the
completeness and accuracy
of the data/record as entered

Were hard copies of claims or inquiries filed in accordance
with approved SOPs, including Privacy Act and security
requirements?

Determine if the hard copies
are physically located in the
designated file as required to
meet filing, privacy, and
security requirements.

Were the hard copy and electronic data and records returned
to the NIOSH in accordance with approved SOPs?

Follow up with NIOSH to
confirm receipt of returned
files

Do the data/records entry personnel meet the education,

Check training and

training, and experience requirements as required by the qualifications records
project?

Do the data/records entry personnel meet the conflict of Check COI requirements and
interest avoidance requirements as required by the project? personnel background

Is access to the electronic and hard copy files secured?

Check to ensure that
approved access controls are
in place, including controls
over the transmittal and
reproduction of the material.

SC&A - Sample Task 2 9

Sol. No. 2003-N-00768

Pass/Fail
7



Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities (continued)

_Exposure Settings/Scenarios

Plutonium,
External | External | including | NORM Thorium-232+ | Other
Site Category of Facilities amma _| neutron | other TRU_}| (Ra/Th) | Uranium | Tritium Progen; Internal
Weapons components
production v v v v v
Rocky Flats -
Plutonium recovery and V
purification
Weapons research v v v v v v
Plutonium processing v
LANL Nuclear fuel reprocessing v v v v v
Polonium and actinium v
processing
WR Grace, TN | Rare earth metal facility v v
Nuclear weapons
Pantex, TX. assembly, maintenance, v v v v v
and disassembly
Lawrence Material test accelerator v v v v v v
Livermore, CA | Nuclear weapons research v v v v v v
SC&A~ Sample Task 2 6 Sol, No, 2003-N-00768



All Task Order Request Packages (TORPs) will be logged in, technical and cost proposals will
be prepared, and work will commence upon receipt of an approved Task Order. All Task Orders
will be processed, documented, and the work products delivered under a highly transparent,
structured project management, and quality assurance process. Upon arrival at SC&A, the TORP
will be date stamped, assigned a TORP number, and placed in the dedicated project file under
Jock and key under the control of records management (see Section 2.7 of Volume 1). As a
means of tracking performance of each case or task comiprising the TORP, the technical and cost
proposal will be subdivided into individual cases, and, as required by each case, each case may
be further subdivided into individual tasks, such as dose reconstruction review, worker profile
Teview, interview record review, and site profile review. Filing and tracking the cost and
performance of each TORP will be performed under the following work breakdown structure:

Tier 1: Task Order Number
Tier 2: Case Number
Tier 3: Dose Reconstruction a
Tier 3: Worker Profile
Tier 3: Interviews
Tier 3: Site Profile

Using a relational database, we can also sort according to site (e.g., Hanford, Savannah River,
etc.), category of site (e.g., FUSRAP site, uranium processing facilities, etc.), category of
exposure (e.g., external gamma, plutonium inhalation), or any other parameter that will serve to
appropriately identify the work package.

While the task order filing system is being established, each key member of the project team (see
Exhibit 2-1 of Volume 1) will receive copies of the TORP for initial inspection with respect to
scope, schedule, and conflict-of-interest issues. A meeting will be held by the key members of
the project team to discuss the TORP and any supporting records and dacumentation provided
with the TORP. The meeting will be designed to accomplish the following objectives:

° Identify questions and concems to be discussed with the NIOSH Project Officer
and/or Advisory Board representatives

. Identify the Case Managers and/or Task Managers and assemble the teams for
performing the work required by each case or task contained in the TORP

. Prepare a schedule for completion and delivery of the technical and cost proposal
in response to the TORP

Under the direction of the Project Manager, a comprehensive technical and cost proposal will be
prepared and delivered to the Project Officer within 14 calendar days of receiving the TORP.
The following presents the technical proposal for this sample task order.

SC&A - Sample Task 2 2 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


2.1 Review of Data Gathering

The administrative record accompanying each case required to be reviewed under a task order
issued under this contract will be reviewed for completeness with regard to the provisions of 42
CFR 82.13 and .14. We will use these sections of Part 82 as a checklist to determine how much
of this information, as applicable to the claim, is provided in the administrative record. Based on
our review of the worker profile and site profile, as discussed below, a determination will be
made regarding the adequacy of the administrative record in terms of its accuracy and
completeness with respect to characterizing the claimant’s historical exposures. Areas where the
administrative record is incomplete, or appears to be in error or incompatible with other
information contained within the record or with the claimant’s worker profile and the site profile,
will be identified and documented.

For the information that is provided in the administrative record, we will determine the degree to
which this information was appropriately incorporated into the dose reconstruction and used as
input into IREP. For the information that is found to be lacking, in error, or incompatible with
other information in the record, a plan will be prepared that will accomplish the following
objectives:

ql) Determine the importance of the missing or erroneous information, or
incompatibilities among the information, to the dose reconstruction, and

(2) If found to be important, we will prepare and implement a plan to fill in the
record, correct the errors, and/or resolve the incompatibilities. The plan will, of
course, be highly specific to each case. However, the plan could include
additional requests for information and possibly interviews with DOE and DOE
contractor personnel near the sites.

2.2 Review of Work History Interview and Documentation Proyided by Claimant

The advanced review will be similar to the basic review and use the procedures and forms
described in Section 3 and Appendix C of Volume 1 (Technical proposal). However, in the
advanced review, areas of incomplete information and incompatibilities with the dose
reconstruction and worker and site profiles will be identified. For the information that is found
to be lacking, in error, or incompatible with other information in the record, a plan will be
prepared that will accomplish the following objectives:

(69) Determine the importance of the missing or erroneous information, or
incompatibilities among the information, to the dose reconstruction (and the
adjudicated decision if the Board requests that we explicitly address this issue),
and

(2) If found to be important, we will prepare and implement a plan to fill in the
record, correct the errors, and/or resolve the incompatibilities. The plan will, of
course, be highly specific to each case. However, with the approval of the Board,
the plan may include followup telephone conversations with claimants and

SC&A - Sample Task 2 13 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


With regard to schedule of deliverables, we have assembled the teams (see Table 3) such that all
deliverables for each quarter will be delivered within 1 to 2 months following authorization to
proceed.

Table 5. Work Hour Allocation for Sample Task 2

20 Advanced Reviews
Personnel (Work Hours)

Project Manager

QA

Records Management

Dose Reconstruction
Dose Reconstruction Team

Worker Profiles

Interview Records
Dose Reconstruction Team

Site Profiles (if required)

Uncertainty Analysis

Specialty Investigator
Total For Sample Task 2



SAMPLE TASK 2
INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW:
20 ADVANCED REVIEWS

This section presents SC&A’s work plan for the sample task provided in Attachment F of the
Solicitation. Extensive cross-reference is made to the procedures and checklists provided in
Section 3 (Technical Approach) and Appendix C of Volume 1 of this proposal.

This section presents a detailed work plan, levels of effort (costs are provided under a separate
cover), and schedule for completing Advanced Dose Reconstruction Reviews for the 20 cases
listed in Table1, assuming that five cases are required to be delivered during each quarter. (Some
of the material restates points made in Section 3 (Technical Approach) of Volume 1 in order to
facilitate the review of this section without having to cross-reference).

Table 1. Sample Task 2

1* Quarter | No. of 2TM Quarter No. of 3" Quarter No. of | 4% Quarter
Site cases Site cases Site cases Site
Hanford 2 Y-12 2 Savannah River 1 Rocky Flats
INEEL 1 Metals and 1 Combustion Eng., CT 1 LANL
Controls, MA

Mallinckrodt, 1 NUMEC, PA 1 Nevada Test Site 1 WR Grace, TN

MO’

Allied 1 Linde Ceramics, 1 Maywood, NY 1 | Pantex, TX F

Chemical, IN NY
Harshaw Chemical, 1 Lawrence 1
OH Livermore, CA

Total 5 5 5 5

We recognize that the level of effort and time required for the performance of each advanced
review will decline as we develop more and more experience with the worker and site profiles.
Hence, the level of effort and time required to perform each advanced review, as described
below, takes into consideration the fact that, in the first year of the project, we will perform 70
basic reviews, 70 advanced reviews, 10 blind dose reconstructions, 5 worker profile reviews, and
5 site profile reviews. The level of effort for each advanced review reflects the average time
required for each advanced review among the 70 advanced reviews performed during the first
year and takes credit for “moving up the learning curve” as a result of performing all of this
work, along with the two weeks invested in preparing the technical and cost proposal.

Finally, as indicated in Section 2.1 and Section 4 of Volume 1, we have a large, highly qualified
staff to draw upon. In theory, we have the ability to assign 10, three-person teams
simultaneously to the tasks, and have the ten teams proceed in parallel. Given that it will require
an average of for each advanced review, the 20 cases could, in theory, be
completed in about . However, we recognize that, along with these 20 advanced
reviews, we may have a number of basic reviews, blind dose reconstructions, and perhaps a
review of one or more site and worker profiles, and even one or more SEC petition reviews. As
such, we will not have the luxury to move all 20 cases in parallel. Hence, we allocated resources
taking into consideration that other Task Orders may be ongoing in parallel with this one.


1.0

2.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TASK ORDER TEAM .... 2.0... cece eee eee teeter eee eees 3
TECHNICAL APPROACH .............-00:e eee e eee ee eee 7
21 Review of Data Gathering . 13
2.2 Review of Work History Tnterview and Documentation Provided by Claimant . 13
2.3 Review of Internal and External Dose Estimates 14
2.4 Work Hour Allocation and Schedule of Deliverables 14

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.

LIST OF TABLES

Sample Task 2 ...... 0. cece cece eee eee eee een tenner eens
Matrix of Required Capabilities . . .
Personnel Assigned to the Sample Task 2 Cases .........0-6 2-000 eee eee eee
Quality Assurance Checklist No. 1 for Data/Records Entry
Work Hour Allocation for Sample Task 2

SC&A - Sample Task 2 i Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


82.16, and supplement or substitute data as per Part 82.17. At this point in the review process,
we will simply check that the record indicates that the tests for adequacy as delineated in Part
82.15, 16, and 17 were, in fact, performed and documented. This will be a pass/fail evaluation.
The next step in the process will determine whether the collected data were adequate to make a
determination regarding probability of causation. When the external and internal dosimetry
records are complete and internally consistent based on inspection of the claimant’s occupational
exposure records and worker interview records, or if gaps/inconsistences can be resolved with
co-worker records, worker profile databases, and/or site profile databases (including area and
process monitoring records), one can assume the records are adequate for performing probability
of causation calculations. However, there will be circumstances in which the records compiled
under 42 CFR Parts 82.15, 16, and 17 will be incomplete and/or contradictory and, based on this
initial document review, it appears that these data limitations would prevent the completion of a
dose reconstruction. When these circumstances arise, we will withhold judgment regarding the
adequacy of data until the entire dose reconstruction process has been reviewed.

After review of the entire individual dose reconstruction, a special meeting will be held to
reassess the adequacy of the data used for determination of doses. The meeting will be recorded
and a consensus judgment will be made, including minority opinions, and the judgments will be
fully documented and transparent. The basic decision criteria that will be used to make these
determinations will be identical to those used to evaluate SEC petitions. In both cases, the
underlying decision criterion will be the inability to compile the input data required to run IREP.
In many cases, though dosimetry data are lacking, overwhelming circumstantial evidence (e.g.,
worker profile and site profile databases) may indicate that exposures could not have been large
enough to result in a probability of causation of 0.5. Under these conditions, we would conclude
that the data are adequate to make a determination with regard to probability of causation.
However, if dosimetry data are lacking, but circumstantial data, which were not considered in the
dose reconstruction, indicate that the potential existed for substantial exposures, we would
conclude that the data are not adequate to develop input distributions for IREP (using OCAS
guidelines), and, therefore, not adequate to make a determination with regard to probability of
causation. .

Review Interview and Documentation Provided by Claimant
This part of the audit will involve a two-step process:

(69) Review of the adequacy of the standardized claimant interview form from the
perspective of the claimant exposure records, worker profiles, and site profiles.

The purpose of this review will be to determine if the form requests information
that is adequate and sufficient as it relates to the issues attendant to the particular
claim. Section 3 of Volume 1 (Technical Proposal) presents the methods that we
will use to review the adequacy of the claimant interview forms as they apply toa
particular case. A report will accompany this review and assign a pass/fail to this
review.

SC&A - Sample Task 2 11 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768


claimant representatives, possible visits with the claimants and claimant
representatives, and follow up with co-workers.

A record of these findings and follow-up activities will be made part of the audit record and the
importance of the findings to the overall dose reconstruction process will be described and
discussed.

2.3. Review of Internal and External Dose Estimates

The advanced reviews will be similar to the basic reviews and use the procedures and forms
described in Section 3 and Appendix C of Volume 1 (Technical proposal). However, in the
advanced review, areas of incomplete information and incompatibilities with the interview record
and worker and site profiles will be identified. For the information that is found to be lacking, in
error, or incompatible with other information in the record, a plan will be prepared that will
accomplish the following objectives:

qd) Determine the importance of the missing or erroneous information, or
incompatibilities among the information, to the dose reconstruction and

(2) If found to be important, we will prepare and implement a plan to fill in the
record, correct the errors, and/or resolve the incompatibilities. The plan will, of
course, be highly specific to each case and may include follow-up interviews with
original dose reconstructors. In addition, visits may be scheduled and
implemented to interview co-workers, other DOE personnel, and inspect primary
records that may not have been part of the administrative record.

A record of these findings and follow-up activities will be made part of the audit record and the
importance of overall dose reconstruction process will be described and discussed.

2.4 Work Hour Allocation and Schedule of Deliverables

Table 5 presents the work hour allocation by category of personnel for the 20 cases that comprise
Sample Task 2. Since the sample task does not include supporting records, we have not
attempted to assign any specific category of specialty investigators to the tasks (i.e., we have not
assigned work hours to specific scientific specialties as delineated in the box at the bottom half of
Exhibit 2-1 of Volume 1). However, in anticipation that each case will require some level of
specialty investigation, we assigned about 10 percent of the level of effort to a non-designated
specialty investigator. We estimate that, on average, approximately will be
required to complete each advanced review. This includes the review itself, and all management,
quality assurance, and records management activities. This would appear to be a relatively low
estimate for the average level of effort per advanced review. However, we believe that most
advanced reviews will be relatively simple and likely similar to other cases, while only a few will
be complex, resulting in a relatively low overall average for each advanced review.

SC&A - Sample Task 2 14 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768