REPORT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

Audit of Case PIID* from the Savannah River Site 

Contract No. 200-2004-03805 

Task Order No. 4 

SCA-TR-TASK4-CNPIID* 

Prepared by 

S. Cohen & Associates 

6858 Old Dominion Road, Suite 301 

McLean, Virginia 22101 

February 2005 

NOTICE: This information is protected by Privacy Act 5 USC §552a; disclosure to any third party without 

the written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains is strictly prohibited.
Document No. 

SCA-TR-TASK4-CNPIID* 

Effective Date: 

February 4, 2005 

S. Cohen & Associates:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 1 

AUDIT OF CASE PIID* FROM THE SAVANNAH 

RIVER SITE

Page 2 of 16 

Task Manager: ___________________ Date: 02/04/05 

 U. Hans Behling, PhD, MPH 

Project Manager: _________________ Date: 02/04/05 

 John Mauro, PhD, CHP 

Supersedes: 

Draft Rev. 0 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Summary Background Information .................................................................................... 4 

1.1 Audit Objectives ..................................................................................................... 5 

1.2 Summary of Audit Findings.................................................................................... 6 

2.0 Audit of External Doses...................................................................................................... 9 

2.1 Recorded Photons Doses......................................................................................... 9 

2.1.1 Reviewer’s Comments................................................................................ 9 

2.2 Missed Photon Doses.............................................................................................. 9 

2.2.2 Reviewer’s Comments................................................................................ 9 

2.3 Occupational Medical Dose.................................................................................. 10 

2.3.1 Reviewer’s Comments.............................................................................. 10 

2.4 Onsite Ambient Dose............................................................................................ 10 

2.4.1 Reviewer’s Comments.............................................................................. 10 

3.0 Audit of Internal Dose (Missed) ....................................................................................... 11 

3.1 Reviewer’s Comments.......................................................................................... 11 

4.0 CATI Report and Radiological Incidents ......................................................................... 13 

4.1 Reviewer’s Comments.......................................................................................... 13 

5.0 Summary Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 14

References..................................................................................................................................... 15 

Appendix A: IREP Input.............................................................................................................. 16 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 3
1.0 SUMMARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

This report presents the results of an independent audit of a dose reconstruction performed by the 

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for an energy employee that 

worked at the Savannah River Site (SRS) for a period of 5 months, from PIID*, to PIID*. The 

worker was diagnosed with esophageal cancer on PIID*. 

SRS operations played an important role in the U.S. nuclear weapons program (DOE 1997). 

SRS processes included nuclear fuel fabrication, reactor operation, radiochemical processing, 

uranium recycling, plutonium production, neutron source production, and waste management. 

The majority of the worker’s radiation exposure was received during employment as a truck 

driver assigned to onsite construction. The claimant’s spouse stated during the telephone 

interview that the claimant worked all over the site out of PIID*, including PIID*, PIID*, PIID*, 

PIID*, and the PIID*. 

Records received from the DOE were found to be sufficient for the reconstruction of external 

doses for photons. DOE records show that for the duration of employment, the claimant was 

monitored monthly for external photon/electron exposure. The records also show that the 

claimant was not monitored for internal exposure, was not given any occupational medical 

exposures (e.g., chest x-rays), and was not involved in any radiological incidents that may have 

resulted in external/internal exposures. 

In spite of the fact that the claimant was monitored for external radiation, NIOSH assigned an 

“onsite ambient” dose. Additional claimant-favorable assumptions included the assignment of 

an internal “hypothetical dose” and assignment of annual occupational medical exposures. 

NIOSH performed a dose reconstruction that included a total of 39 doses for determining the 

probability of causation (POC). Appendix A of this report is a reproduction of the IREP input, 

which identifies these doses as exposure entries #1 through #39. Throughout this report, 

reference will be made to select portions of Appendix A; for example, exposure entry #1 

identifies the measured external photon dosimeter results, while entries #2 through #33 

correspond to assigned hypothetical internal doses. 

Table 1 below provides a summary of organ dose estimates/assignments derived by NIOSH that 

correspond to data contained in Appendix A. Using the dose estimate derived by NIOSH, the 

POC was determined by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be 3.91% at the 99% confidence 

interval, and on this basis, the claim was denied. 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 4
Table 1. Summary of NIOSH-Derived External/Internal Dose Estimates 

Appendix A 

Exposure Entry 

No. 

Dose 

(rem) 

External Dose: 

 ▪ Photon Measured Dosimeter 1 0.011 

 ▪ Photon Missed 34 – 35 0.23 

 ▪ Occupational Medical 38 – 39 0.070 

 ▪ Onsite Ambient 36 – 37 0.322 

Internal Dose (Hypothetical): 

 ▪ Tritium 32 – 33 0.426 

 ▪ All Other Radionuclides 2 – 31 1.181 

Total: 2.24 

1.1 AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

SC&A’s audit was performed with the following objectives: 

• To determine if NIOSH assigned doses that are consistent with monitoring 

records provided by the DOE and with information contained in the CATI report 

• To determine if the dose reconstruction process complied with applicable 

procedures that include generic procedures developed by NIOSH and ORAUT, as 

well as data/procedures that are site-specific to SRS 

• In instances when procedure(s) provide more than one option or require 

subjective decisions, determine if the process is scientifically defensible and/or 

claimant favorable. 

In pursuit of these objectives, a two-step process is followed in this audit. The first step is to 

independently duplicate and, therefore validate, doses derived by NIOSH. This step of the audit 

process is not only contractually mandated under Task 4, but provides NIOSH and the Advisory 

Board with a high level of assurance that the SC&A reviewer understands which procedures, 

models, site-specific data, and assumptions NIOSH used to perform its dose reconstruction. The 

second step of the audit critically evaluates whether the methods employed by NIOSH are 

scientifically defensible, consistent with applicable procedures, and claimant favorable. 

Lastly, in compliance with the Privacy Act, this report makes no reference to the claimant’s 

name, SSN, address, or any personal data that might reveal the identity of the claimant. 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 5
1.2 SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS 

An overview of SC&A’s audit findings for Case PIID* is provided in Table 2 in the form of a 

checklist. This checklist evaluates the data collection process, information obtained from the 

CATI interview, and all methods used in the dose reconstruction. When deficiencies are 

identified by the audit, such deficiencies are further characterized with regard to their impact(s) 

by means of the following definitions: (1) low means that the deficiency has only a marginal 

impact on dose; (2) medium means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose, but is 

unlikely to impact the compensability of the case; and (3) high means that the deficiency 

substantially impacts the dose and may also impact the compensability of the case. A full 

description of deficiencies identified in the checklist is provided in the text of the audit that 

follows. 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 6
Table 2. Case Review Checklist 

CASE PIID* ASSIGNED DOSE: 2.24 rem POC: 3.91% 

Audit Response If No, Potential Significance No. Description of Technical Elements of Review YES N/A NO LOW1 MEDIUM2 HIGH3

A. REVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION: 

A.1 Did NIOSH receive all requested data for the DOE or 

AWE site from any relevant data source? T

A.2 Is the data used by NIOSH for the case adequate to 

make a determination with regard to POC? T

B. REVIEW OF INTERVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY CLAIMANT 

B.1 Did NIOSH properly address all work history 

dates/locations of employment reported by claimant? T

B.2 Did NIOSH properly address all 

incidents/occurrences reported by claimant? T

B.3 Did NIOSH properly address monitoring/ personal 

protection/work practices reported by claimant? T

B.4 Is the interview information consistent with data used 

for dose estimate? T

C. REVIEW OF PHOTON DOSES 

C.1 Was the appropriate procedure used for determining: 

C.1.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T

C.1.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.1.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.1.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

C.2 Did the DR properly account for all: 

C.2.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T

C.2.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.2.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.2.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T T

C.3 Is the recorded/assigned dose properly converted to the organ dose of interest for: 

C.3.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T

C.3.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.3.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.3.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

C.4 Is the organ dose uncertainty properly determined for: 

C.4.1 - Recorded Photon Dose? T

C.4.2 - Missed Photon Dose? T

C.4.3 - Occupational Medical Dose? T

C.4.4 - Onsite-Ambient Dose? T

D. REVIEW OF SHALLOW (i.e., 7 mg/cm2)/ELECTRON DOSES 

D.1 Was the appropriate procedure used for determining: 

D.1.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.1.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.1.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

D.2 Did the DR properly account for all: 

D.2.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.2.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.2.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

D.3 Is the recorded/assigned dose properly converted to the organ dose of interest for: 

D.3.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

 

1 Low means that the deficiency has only a marginal impact on dose. 2 Medium means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose, but is unlikely to impact the compensability of the case. 3 High means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose and may also impact the compensability of the case. 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 7
CASE PIID* ASSIGNED DOSE: 2.24 rem POC: 3.91% 

Audit Response If No, Potential Significance No. Description of Technical Elements of Review YES N/A NO LOW1 MEDIUM2 HIGH3

D.3.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.3.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

D.4 Is the organ dose uncertainty properly determined for: 

D.4.1 - Recorded Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.4.2 - Missed Shallow/Electron Dose? T

D.4.3 - Onsite Ambient Dose? T

E. REVIEW OF NEUTRON DOSES 

E.1 Was the appropriate procedure used for determining: 

E.1.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.1.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.1.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

E.2 Did the DR properly account for all: 

E.2.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.2.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.2.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

E.3 Is the recorded/assigned dose properly converted to the organ dose of interest for: 

E.3.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.3.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.3.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

E.4 Is the organ dose uncertainty properly determined for: 

E.4.1 - Recorded Neutron Dose? T

E.4.2 - Assigned Neutron Dose? T

E.4.3 - Missed Neutron Dose? T

F. REVIEW OF INTERNAL DOSE: BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL MODEL 

F.1 Is the use of the selected hypothetical internal dose 

model appropriate, based on the likely POC value? T

F.2 Is the use of a hypothetical internal dose model 

appropriate/conservative, based on claimant’s 

available bioassay data,? 

T

F.3 Was the hypothetical dose value correctly derived? T

G. REVIEW OF INTERNAL DOSE: BASED ON BIOASSAY/IMBA 

G.1 Was the appropriate procedure (or section of 

procedure) used for determining likely (>50%), 

unlikely (<50%), or undetermined POC and 

compensability? 

T

G.2 Are bioassay data sufficiently adequate for internal 

dose reconstruction? T

G.3 Are assumptions pertaining to dates of uptake 

reasonable/conservative? T

G.4 Are critical parameters (e.g., solubility class, particle 

size, etc.) used for IMBA organ dose estimates 

appropriate? 

T

G.5 Are assigned uncertainties (measurement errors) for 

bioassay data (used as input to IMBA) appropriate? T

H. Total Number of Deficiencies and Their Combined Potential Significance 1 T

_____________________________ 

1

 Low means that the deficiency has only a marginal impact on dose. 2

 Medium means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose, but is unlikely to impact the compensability of the case. 3

 High means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose and may also impact the compensability of the case. 

Savannah River Site Case #PIID* S. Cohen & Associates 8
2.0 AUDIT OF EXTERNAL DOSES 

As part of this audit, 100% of all submitted DOE records were reviewed. These records include 

(1) lifetime exposure reports that summarized exposure data by year, (2) annual exposure data, 

which identified exposures for each monitoring cycle, (3) bioassay data, and (4) radiological 

incident reports/data. 

2.1 RECORDED PHOTONS DOSES 

DOE records show that the energy employee was monitored monthly, and the only measured 

deep dose occurred in the 4th cycle of PIID* with a recorded value of 10 mrem. For the purpose 

of maximizing the POC, the parameters selected were acute exposure, AP geometry, and 30–250 

keV photon energies, with an organ dose conversion factor of 1.0. 

Applying the selected parameters to the DOE-recorded dose of 10 mrem, entry 1 of Appendix A 

would have yielded a dose of 0.010 rem. However, entry 1 recorded the dose of 0.011 rem. This 

minor difference is due to the use of the HP(10) correction factor of 1.119, as given in Table 

5.4.1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003. 

2.1.1 Reviewer’s Comments 

Given the low POC of this case, NIOSH’s choice of parameters for external measured dose are 

consistent with procedural guidance, scientifically valid, and claimant favorable. 

2.2 MISSED PHOTON DOSES 

Potential missed photon doses correspond to five zero-dosimeter readings corresponding to the 

months of PIID* and PIID*, and PIID*, PIID*, and PIID*. NIOSH assigned a missed dose of 15 

mrem for 1983 and 8 mrem for 1984, along with a geometric standard deviation of 1.52. The 

Dose Reconstruction (DR) Report, however, identifies a total missed photon dose of 0.045 rem 

(or 45 mrem). 

2.2.2 Reviewer’s Comments 

Entries #34 and #35 of Appendix A for missed photon doses do not match the combined dose of 

45 mrem cited in the text of the DR Report. It appears that the discrepancy involves the simple 

doubling of the Appendix A entries. If that was, in fact, done, entries #34 and #35 should have 

been doubled and entered as a constant (with no GSD value in Parameter 2). If the more 

standard protocol of LOD/2 had been followed for each cycle in which a zero dose was recorded, 

the total missed dose of (5 mrem/2)(5 cycles) would have yielded a total missed dose 12.5 mrem 

for PIID* and PIID* (see Table 5.5.1-1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003). 

In spite of the unresolved minor discrepancy pertaining to missed dose, either value can be 

viewed as procedurally “consistent” (since multiple options may be used), scientifically valid, 

and claimant favorable. 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 9 S. Cohen & Associates 
2.3 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE

NIOSH assumed that the claimant was given one annual chest x-ray for the years PIID* and 

PIID*. (DOE records provide no evidence that this individual was given an annual medical chest 

x-ray.) Entries #38 and #39 of Appendix A identify an organ dose of 35 mrem for each year. 

Table 2.5.1-1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003 identifies claimant-favorable, maximum-default organ 

doses for medical x-rays. Section 2.5.1 identifies the esophagus as an organ belonging to 

Group 2, and Table 2.5.1-1 identifies a dose of 35 mrem for each of the 2 years. 

 

2.3.1 Reviewer’s Comments 

The total assignment of 70 mrem for occupational medical exposure is procedurally compliant, 

scientifically valid, and claimant favorable. 

2.4 ONSITE AMBIENT DOSE 

The SRS technical basis document (TBD) identifies locations with the highest average annual 

ambient onsite dose rates. For PIID* and PIID*, these maximum values of 166 mrem and 

156 mrem, respectively, were assigned as organ doses to the energy employee. Because these 

doses are upper-bound values, they are entered as constants without an estimate of uncertainty. 

2.4.1 Reviewer’s Comments 

The missed doses of 166 mrem and 156 mrem for PIID* and PIID*, respectively, could not be 

reproduced. Table 3.4-1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003 cites maximum values (that furthermore 

account for a 50-hour workweek) of 69 mrem and 93 mrem, respectively. These values differ 

from the assigned values, and the discrepancy does not appear to involve a simple multiplier. 

Independent of the unresolved discrepancy cited above, the assignment of an onsite ambient dose 

is claimant favorable for the following reasons: 

• The energy employee had, in fact, been monitored, and there is no compelling 

reason to assume that an elevated ambient level of external radiation (EALER) 

had erroneously been recorded and subtracted by means of control badges. 

• Maximum annual average ambient dose rates were employed, independent of 

energy employee’s work location. 

• A full annual ambient dose was used for PIID* and PIID*, even though the 

energy employee was employed for only PIID*. 

It appears that a small error was made in calculating the onsite ambient dose. This error was 

clearly in favor of the claimant, which adds an additional level of conservatism to an already 

claimant-favorable dose calculation. 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 10 S. Cohen & Associates 
3.0 AUDIT OF INTERNAL DOSE (MISSED)

According to DOE records, the energy employee was not monitored for internal exposure by 

means of in vivo and/or in vitro bioassay measurements. Consequently, there are no records that 

the individual was whole-body counted or subject to bioassays that assessed body burdens for 

tritium or any other radionuclides. 

Section 4.4.4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003, however, states that “. . . If a worker wore a dosimeter, 

then the unrecorded dose would be no greater than that for a worker who was monitored but had 

no bioassay results exceeding reporting levels.” 

For non-compensable claims, Section 4.5.1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003 provides an intake scenario 

that defines yearly doses starting with the first day of employment and ending with the year of 

cancer diagnosis for all relevant radionuclides, with the exception of tritium. Table 4.5.1-1 

identified maximum alpha and electron doses, which are to be entered as point estimates or 

constants. 

Entries #2 through #16 of Appendix A are the assigned annual alpha doses, and entries #17 

through #31 are the annual electron doses for the years PIID* through PIID*. 

Section 4.5.2 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003 provides separate guidance for estimating potential missed 

internal exposures to tritium. Due to the short biological (and therefore, effective) half-life of 

H-3, only the years of employment need to be considered. Table 4.5.3-1 identifies tritium doses 

of 355 mrem and 71 mrem for PIID* and PIID*, respectively. 

3.1 REVIEWER’S COMMENTS 

Default dose values for all radionuclides (other than tritium) representing entries #2 through #31 

of Appendix A were checked against values cited in Table 4.5.1-1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003; and 

tritium dose entries #32 and #33 were checked against values cited in Table 4.5.3-1. 

All values cited in the DR Report match those of ORAUT-TKBS-0003. Thus, the assigned 

internal doses are fully compliant with applicable procedures and are likely to be scientifically 

valid and claimant favorable, with the noted exception as explained below. 

The potential exception to scientific validity/claimant favorability reflects two issues. The first 

involves the unconfirmed assumption that all tritium exposures are those involving tritiated 

water. If intakes involved a significant fraction of organified tritium, with a biological/effective 

half-life that is about 2.3-fold higher, then the assigned doses herein may be too low. 

The second issue is considerably more complex and involves the estimated yearly doses from all 

other internal radionuclides, as defined in Table 4.5.1-1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0003, which in turn 

were derived from data contained in ORAUT-OTIB-0001. In brief, ORAUT-TIB-0001 

quantifies intakes that are based on ICRP 30 biokinetic models instead of the current ICRP 68 

models, as required in 42 CFR 82. We believe that the use of ICRP 30 calculated intakes may 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 11 S. Cohen & Associates 
not be claimant favorable for several important radionuclides, and that ICRP 68 models should 

have been used to derive intakes. 

Although the two issues cited above may impact both recorded internal dose (defined by 

bioassay data and IMBA) and assigned hypothetical doses, an agreement has been reached by 

the Advisory Board, SC&A, and NIOSH to evaluate these issues under Task 1 (i.e., Review of 

Site Profiles). 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 12 S. Cohen & Associates 
4.0 CATI REPORT AND RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENTS 

The telephone interview for the claimant was conducted with the energy employee’s survivor. 

There are several discrepancies between statements contained in the CATI report and DOE 

records/NIOSH assumptions. These include the following: 

• The claimant indicated that the energy employee did participate in an in vitro 

(urinalysis) biological radiation-monitoring program. DOE records, however, did 

not identify any bioassay records. 

• The claimant also stated that the covered employee was required to have a 

medical x-ray as a condition of employment. However, DOE records provide no 

evidence of any chest x-ray examinations. 

• With regard to radiological incidents, the employee’s survivor stated that the 

covered employee was involved in cleaning up spills when they happened and 

recalled several times when the employee had to be “scrubbed” due to 

contamination. There were no DOE records produced that identified any 

radiological incidents associated with the claimant. 

4.1 REVIEWER’S COMMENTS 

Although the DOE records did not identify any in vitro bioassays or medical x-rays, NIOSH’s 

dose reconstruction calculated organ doses for both a hypothetical intake scenario and chest 

x-ray examinations for PIID* and PIID*, based on information provided in ORAUT-TKBS0003. These organ dose calculations are based on worst-case assumptions and are considered 

claimant favorable. 

Regarding the issue of potential radiological incidents, it is unclear whether NIOSH attempted to 

resolve this discrepancy by contacting the employee’s supervisor, who, based on the interview, 

still works at the Savannah River Site. However, once again, the large assigned hypothetical 

internal dose can reasonably be assumed to exceed any potential unaccounted dose from 

radiological incident(s). 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 13 S. Cohen & Associates 
5.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

With the exception of minor errors, the dose reconstruction performed by NIOSH for the 

claimant complies with applicable procedures, is scientifically valid, and claimant favorable. 

The two issues, which may require discussion/resolution, are generic issues that may not only 

affect this case, but potentially many SRS cases, including (1) the failure to consider tritium in 

organic form, and (2) the use of ICRP 30 biokinetic models for deriving hypothetical internal 

exposure to all radionuclides other than tritium. 

Another generic concern that is not confined to this DR Report, but characterizes all 20 cases 

that SC&A has reviewed to date, is the brevity of the DR reports. In its current form, the NIOSH 

dose reconstruction report, at best, provides only a brief summary explanation for assigned 

doses. In some instances, the explanation is confined to a mere reference of a procedure/TBD. 

The failure to explain how individual categories of internal/external exposures were derived, and 

the absence of a well-defined paper trail, pose limitations on NIOSH’s internal QA review 

process. Similarly, these shortcomings force SC&A reviewers to engage in time-consuming 

speculations regarding the choice of procedures, methodology, and parameters selected by the 

dose reconstructor. 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 14 S. Cohen & Associates 
REFERENCES 

Department of Energy (U.S.) (DOE). 1997. “Integrated Data Base Report − 1996: U.S. Spent 

Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics.” Revision 13. 

Office of Environmental Management. DOE/RW-0006. 

42 CFR 82. 2002. “Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.” Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol. 67, 

No 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22314. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1980. “Limits for Intake of 

Radionuclides by Workers, Supplement to Part 2.” ICRP Publication 30. Annals of the ICRP 

Vol. 5(1/6). Pergamon Press: Oxford, England.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1995. “Dose Coefficients for 

Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers.” ICRP Publication 68. Annals of the ICRP Vol. 24(2). 

Pergamon Press: Oxford, England.

ORAUT-OTIB-0001. 2003. “Technical Information Bulletin: Maximum Internal Dose 

Estimates for Savannah River Site (SRS) Claims,” Rev. 00. Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0003. 2003. “Technical Information Bulletin: Savannah River Site Tritium 

Dose Assignment,” Rev. 00. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2004. “Technical Information Bulletin: IMBA Organ, External Dosimetry 

Organ, and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code,” Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0003. 2003. “Technical Basis Document for the Savannah River Site,” Rev. 01. 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team: Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 15 S. Cohen & Associates 
APPENDIX A: IREP INPUT 

Table below has been deleted – please see hard copy marked ‘#8 – Savannah River Site 

Savannah River Site Case PIID* 16 S. Cohen & Associates