Review of the Advisory 

Board-Selected Case 

Reworked for the Evaluation 

of Aluminum Company of 

America – Pennsylvania 

Technical Basis Document 

Revisions (DCAS-PER-063, 

Subtask 4)

Kathleen Behling

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews

November 3, 2021
DCAS-PER-063, “Aluminum Company of 

America – Pennsylvania (ALCOA-PN)”

◆ Issued June 2015 due to revisions to Aluminum 

Company of America – Pennsylvania (ALCOA-PN) 

site profile (Battelle-TBD-6000, appendix R)

◆ Revision increased inhalation, ingestion, and external 

doses during operational period

◆ Revision eliminated job categories and evaluates 

cases using job title of operator 

◆ SC&A reviewed DCAS-PER-063 in July 2017: no 

findings

2
DCAS-PER-063, subtask 4 – review 

of one reworked case

◆ ABRWH selected one reworked case for SC&A’s 

review April 2021, based on following criteria:

– POC between 45 percent and 50 percent

– assignment of external dose during the operational period

– assignment of internal dose during the operational period

– assignment of external dose during the residual period

– assignment of internal dose during the residual period

◆ SC&A reviewed reworked case in September 2021

3
NIOSH reworked DR

◆ NIOSH’s rework of the case:

– Used applicable DR tools 

– Recalculated all annual doses 

– Re-ran IREP 30 times at 10,000 iterations per run

◆ Revised DR report not sent to DOL because the 

compensation decision did not change

4
SC&A’s review of reworked DR

◆ SC&A’ review was limited to reevaluation of 

pathways addressed in PER

◆ External and internal doses increased due to 

ALCOA-PN site profile changes

◆ Therefore, SC&A compared the original and 

reworked case for all exposure pathways

5
Case background

◆ Energy employee (EE) worked at ALCOA-PN for 

more than three decades

◆ EE worked throughout site

◆ EE was not monitored for radiation exposure

◆ Diagnosed with qualifying cancer several years 

after employment termination

6
Comparison of NIOSH’s reworked 

doses with original doses

Dose categories Reworked vs. original dose 

percentage

External 1860% increase

Medical No change

Internal 1% reduction

Total 1055% increase

POC 905% increase

7
Original external dose calculations

◆ Used whole-body dose rates from table R.3 of 

Battelle-TBD-6000, rev. 0, appendix R, for 

operational and residual periods

◆ TBD-6000 job category: “Plant Floor High”

◆ Bladder assumed as surrogate organ for photon 

dose conversion factor (DCF) of 1.244

◆ Assigned external dose of ~0.500 rem

8
Reworked external dose calculations

◆ Used whole-body dose rates from table R.2 of 

Battelle-TBD-6000, rev. 1, appendix R, for 

operational and residual periods

◆ Bladder assumed as surrogate organ for photon 

dose conversion factor (DCF) of 1.244

◆ Assigned external dose of ~9.000 rem

◆ Significant increase in external dose resulted from 

increased dose rates during operational period

9
Original medical dose calculations

◆ Assumed preemployment, annual, and 

termination chest x-ray for operational period

◆ Urinary bladder assumed as surrogate organ 

◆ Used dose data from table 6-5 of ORAUT-OTIB0006, revision 03 PC-1

◆ Assigned external dose of >0.1 rem

10
Reworked medical dose calculations

◆ Assumed annual x-ray for each year of 

employment

◆ Urinary bladder assumed as surrogate organ 

◆ Used dose data from table A-7 of OTIB-0006, 

revision 04

◆ Assigned external dose is unchanged from 

original DR

11
Original internal dose calculations

◆ Uranium intakes from inhalation/ingestion 

calculated based on tables R.1 and R.2 of 

appendix R, rev. 1

◆ TBD-6000 job category: “Plant Floor High”

◆ Compared types M and S solubility – type M 

more claimant favorable

◆ Assigned internal dose of ~0.300 rem

12
Reworked internal dose calculations

◆ Uranium dose assigned based on inhalation/

ingestion intakes from table R.1 of TBD-6000, 

appendix R, rev. 1

◆ Doses calculated for each operational/residual year 

◆ Types M and S solubility compared – type M more 

claimant favorable

◆ Assigned internal dose nearly identical to original DR

13
SC&A’s conclusions on external dose

◆ Reworked external dose:

– Appropriate dose assigned based on appendix R, except for 

1960–1968: NIOSH slightly overestimated the dose

– Surrogate organ based on current revision of ORAUT-OTIB0005

– Doses entered into IREP correctly

◆ Reworked occupational medical dose:

– Appropriate dose assigned based on OTIB-0006

– Surrogate organ selection based on OTIB-0005

– Doses entered into IREP correctly

14
SC&A’s conclusions on internal dose

◆ Reworked internal dose:

– Appropriate intake values used as specified in 

appendix R, except for one year NIOSH estimated a 

slightly lower dose

– Input data entered into IMBA correctly

– Assumptions are claimant favorable

◆ SC&A had no findings with the selected reworked 

case impacted by PER-063

15
Questions?

16