ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

SC&A REVIEW OF DOSIMETRY CODING METHODS FOR 

IDENTIFYING NEPTUNIUM WORKERS AT SAVANNAH 

RIVER SITE

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006, Revision 0 

Prepared by

Bob Barton, CHP 

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 

Arlington, Virginia 22201-3324 

Saliant, Inc.

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

April 2017 

DISCLAIMER

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) technical 

support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), including its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, 

draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically 

marked as such. This document prepared by SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical 

issues.

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

2 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SC&A, INC.: Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

DOCUMENT TITLE: SC&A Review of Dosimetry Coding Methods for Identifying 

Neptunium Workers at Savannah River Site

DOCUMENT NUMBER/

DESCRIPTION:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006 

REVISION NO.: 0 (Draft)

SUPERSEDES: N/A

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2017

TASK MANAGER: Joe Fitzgerald [signature on file]

PROJECT MANAGER: John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

DOCUMENT 

REVIEWER(S):

John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

Joe Fitzgerald [signature on file]

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 04/10/2017 Initial issue
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

3 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6

1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................. 8

2.0 General Comments and Review Approach ....................................................................... 11

3.0 Evaluation of HPA and HPD Codes Associated with Documented Uptakes of Np-237 and

Pu-238 in Identified Claimant Records............................................................................. 14

4.0 Observations Concerning Savannah River Site Monitoring Practices and Available DOE 

Claimant Records .............................................................................................................. 17

4.1 January 1959–March 1963 .................................................................................... 17

4.2 April 1963–December 1972 .................................................................................. 19

4.3 January 1973–December 1981 .............................................................................. 22

4.4 January 1982–December 1988 .............................................................................. 25

4.5 January 1989–December 1989 .............................................................................. 27

4.6 January 1990–December 2000 .............................................................................. 28

4.7 Summary of Monitoring Characteristics, 1959–2000 ........................................... 30

5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix A:.....Description of Intake Incidents for 86 Claims Included in SC&A Claimant Study

........................................................................................................................................... 34
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

4 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Am americium

CAM Continuous Air Monitor 

CATI computer-assisted telephone interview

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Cf californium 

Cm curium 

CPM counts per minute 

dpm disintegrations per minute

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

E&I Electrical and Instrumentation

EE energy employee

FP fission products 

HGVC hot gang valve corridor 

HP Health Physics

HPA Health Physics Area

HPD Health Physics Department

HPRED Health Physics Radiological Exposure Database

μCi microcurie

mrem millirem

nCi nanocurie 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Np neptunium 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

5 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

O oxygen

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

OW Open Window 

Pu plutonium 

PuFF 235-F Plutonium Fuel Form Fabrication Facility

RCG Radioactivity Concentration Guideline 

RPRT Report 

S Shielded

SRS Savannah River Site 

TWOPOS time-weighted one person-one sample 

WBC whole body count 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

6 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents SC&A’s review of ORAUT-RPRT-0077, Revision 00, Evaluation of Health 

Physics Area and Health Physics Department Codes to Identify Neptunium Workers at the 

Savannah River Site (NIOSH 2016a). In its review, SC&A identified and analyzed the 

monitoring records provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for 86 claimants who had 

confirmed intakes of neptunium-237 (Np-237) or plutonium-238 (Pu-238).1 The goal of this 

evaluation is twofold: 

1. Analyze the relationship between Health Physics Area (HPA)/Health Physics Department 

(HPD) codes and documented intake incidents (see Section 3). 

2. Evaluate Savannah River Site (SRS) external dosimetry records for the practical 

implementation of using HPA/HPD codes to identify neptunium workers for the purpose 

of assigning unmonitored intakes of neptunium (see Section 4).

1 Pu-238 exposures were included in the analysis because workers who had significant exposure potential to 

plutonium would have also had exposure potential to neptunium.

The first analysis is useful because it provides an independent verification of the analysis and 

conclusions in NIOSH 2016a. The second analysis offers perspective on how the proposed 

methodology for identifying would work in practice. SC&A’s review identified eight findings 

and nine observations. An overall summary of SC&A’s conclusions based on these findings and 

observations is discussed in the remainder of this Executive Summary. 

Examination of available HPA and HPD codes for dosimetry cycles related to documented 

intakes showed reasonable agreement with the codes identified in NIOSH 2016a. SC&A agrees 

with the main conclusions of NIOSH 2016a that the most frequently encountered HPA and HPD 

codes represent the groups of workers most likely to have exposure potential to neptunium. 

However, SC&A also identified cases where intake incidents were associated with areas and 

departments not directly related to neptunium operations (e.g., construction and maintenance 

codes). Although these types of area and department codes were observed at a much lower 

frequency when compared with the more common neptunium operational codes, SC&A does not 

necessarily agree that they represent little or no exposure potential. However, the issue of what 

constitutes suitable worker coverage for assigning unmonitored intakes of neptunium is 

inherently subjective and requires professional judgment. Therefore, the SRS Work Group 

should carefully consider what constitutes a sufficient cohort for coworker dose assignment. 

Based on the review of currently available DOE monitoring records for the 86 claimants 

identified as having confirmed intakes of Np-237 or Pu-238, it is SC&A’s opinion that there is 

considerable uncertainty in using HPA and HPD codes for assigning coworker intakes during 

some time periods. This is especially true for workers who might change work location on a 

semiregular basis but whose external dosimetry files may not adequately reflect such changes.

SC&A would note that many of the concerns discussed in Section 4 of this report may be 

partially or completely alleviated by obtaining a complete set of dosimetry records for the 

affected workers at SRS. This would include not only quarterly summary reports but also the 

actual individual cycle dosimetry reports. However, absent additional dosimetric information, 

 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

7 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SC&A recommends that the default approach be to automatically assign coworker intakes unless 

it can be clearly established that the energy employee (EE) could not have been exposed. 

Summary Recommendation: SC&A believes that the exclusion of workers who do not fit the 

HPA and HPD criteria described in in the concluding section of NIOSH 2016a from assignment 

of unmonitored neptunium coworker doses may be too restrictive and not claimant favorable in 

at least some cases. Furthermore, because of the uncertainty in the availability of HPA and HPD 

codes used to identify work locations during significant operational periods at SRS, it would be 

claimant favorable to automatically assign unmonitored intakes unless clear and convincing 

evidence exists that the EE could not have been exposed. 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

8 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

NIOSH released Revision 0 of ORAUT-RPRT-0077, Evaluation of Health Physics Area and 

Health Physics Department Codes to Identify Neptunium Workers at the Savannah River Site

(NIOSH 2016a), on November 8, 2016. The stated purpose of this report is as follows: 

[evaluate] the usefulness of Health Physics Area (HPA) and Health Physics 

Department (HPD) codes to identify workers associated with the 237Np processes 

at Savannah River Site (SRS) from 1973 through 1989. [page 5] 

This report presents SC&A’s review of the HPA and HPD code methodology presented in 

NIOSH 2016a. The remainder of this section briefly summarizes the proposed methodology for 

identifying workers potentially exposed to neptunium. Section 2 provides some general 

comments on the proposed approach as well as a description of SC&A’s evaluation methods. 

Sections 3 and 4 present the results of SC&A’s review. 

HPA and HPD codes most often appear in certain formats of external dosimetry records found in 

claimant monitoring files that DOE supplies. Figure 1 shows an example of HPA and HPD code 

listings in a dosimetry report. NIOSH 2016a, Tables 2-1 and 3-1, list of HPA and HPD code 

interpretations. Interpretation of HPA codes was based on direct communication with the SRS 

Dosimetry Records Manager (NIOSH 2014), and interpretation of HPD codes was based on a list 

of DuPont department codes dated April 1977 (DuPont 1977). 

Figure 1. Example Dosimetry Record Showing HPA and HPD Codes (Employee Names 

and Numbers Have Been Redacted)
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

9 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

The main objective of NIOSH 2016a is to correlate HPA and HPD codes with workers who are 

assumed to have the highest risk of neptunium exposure. Specifically, Section 5.0 of NIOSH

2016a states: 

The analysis in this report shows that HPA and HPD codes for operations and 

maintenance workers have a correlation in terms of neptunium facilities. 

[page 11] 

To correlate HPD and HPA codes that are likely associated with neptunium exposure, the 

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) examined the records of workers 

who had one or more of the following characteristics: 

• Were assigned HPD Code 205 (designating a subgroup of the separations department 

associated with the 235-F Plutonium Fuel Form Fabrication Facility, also known as 

“PuFF”). 

• Were monitored internally via Pu-238 and/or Np-237 bioassay (both claimants and 

nonclaimants). 

• Were identified with specific Np-237 contamination incidents. 

Based on the subsequent analysis, Section 8.0 of NIOSH 2016a concludes the following: 

All workers associated with HPD 205 are assumed to have had a significant 

exposure potential due to the mission of the group and the location of the work. 

• 92% of the intake monitoring was associated with only five HPA codes: 

2F, 2H, 3M, 5A, and 4H. 

• 71% of the intake monitoring was associated with only seven HPD codes: 

205, 500, 503, 209, 300, 601, and 300 

Most (66%) of the intake monitoring for 238Pu and 237Np is associated with seven 

combinations of HPA and HPD codes:

• HPA 2F and HPD 205 (235-F PuFF) = 43%,

• HPA 2H and HPD 205 (235-F PuFF) = 5.6%,

• HPA 3M and HPD 503 (Works Technical: Reactor Technology) = 4.3%, 

• HPA 2F and HPD 500 (Works Technical: HP) = 4.0%, 

• HPA 2H and HPD 209 (Separations: HB Line) = 3.8%, 

• HPA 2F and HPD 601 (Works Engineering: E&I) = 2.4%, and 

• HPA 3M and HPD 300 (Raw Materials) = 2.4%. 

This indicates that there was little or no known intake potential in other 

combinations of location and functional department. It suggests that the 

combination of HPA and HPD code is a powerful predictor of the recognized 

need for intake monitoring for 238Pu and 237Np. Personnel dosimetry exposure 

records contain these HPD and HPA codes for the workers. Works Technical 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

10 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Reports and site Special Hazard Investigations reports contain documentation of 

radiological worker incidents and events that occurred in the various work areas. 

When necessary, these documents can be references to determine HPD and HPA 

codes for workers. [page 18]

Although not explicitly stated, it is apparent that NIOSH intends to use the HPA and HPD codes 

(or combinations of them) shown above as a trigger for the application of unmonitored 

neptunium coworker doses. The assumed corollary is that other observed HPA and HPD codes 

would not be considered neptunium workers and, thus, would preclude the application of 

coworker intakes. 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

11 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

2.0 GENERAL COMMENTS AND REVIEW APPROACH 

As described in Section 1.0, NIOSH 2016a evaluated the correlation between HPA and HPD 

codes among workers who were likely to have the greatest exposure potential to neptunium. In 

its concluding section, NIOSH 2016a lists the HPA and HPD codes that were most often 

associated with those workers. SC&A assumes that the intent is to use only those codes (or the 

combination of them) to assign coworker intakes to unmonitored workers. However, SC&A 

believes that the report would benefit from more specific and explicit instructions to the dose 

reconstructor on how NIOSH plans to implement the proposed approach. For example, is a 

single HPA or HPD code sufficient to assign neptunium doses, or is the combination of codes 

required? Would neptunium intakes be assigned only for that badging period in which the code 

designations are identified, or would they be assigned for a longer period (such as the whole 

year)? If the EE indicates neptunium exposure but does not have dosimetry records with the 

identified codes, are unmonitored neptunium exposures still applicable? Often, such questions 

can be answered with hypothetical dose reconstructions2

; however, explicit instructions to the 

dose reconstructor would also provide clarity on how neptunium coworker intakes will be 

implemented.

2 SC&A understands that at the time of the release of NIOSH 2016a, the neptunium coworker model was still under 

development. However, an example dose reconstruction with placeholder intake values would still be beneficial and 

provide clarity. 

Observation 1: Section 8.0 of NIOSH 2016a would benefit from explicit instructions or 

descriptions, or both, on how NIOSH plans to implement the proposed approach of using 

HPA and HPD codes to assign Np-237 coworker intakes. Additionally, an example dose 

reconstruction using actual claimant records would help illustrate how the methodology 

would function in practice.

In principle, SC&A agrees that the combinations of HPA and HPD codes identified in NIOSH

2016a represent “powerful indicators” of the group of workers most likely to have exposure 

potential to neptunium. However, SC&A does not a priori agree that these codes (or 

combinations of codes) preclude other HPA and HPD designations from having “little or no

known” exposure potential and thus being deemed inappropriate for coworker intake assignment.

The fact that workers with other combinations of HPA and HPD codes were monitored for Pu238/Np-237, and in some cases have confirmed intakes of these radionuclides, indicates that 

other types of workers could have been exposed, even if such exposures were less probable than 

code designations presented in Section 8.0 of NIOSH 2016a. 

Clearly, the issue of what constitutes appropriate worker coverage is a matter of professional 

judgment and not necessarily a technical determination. Such philosophical judgments are 

common in any coworker model application and can vary significantly from site to site. Thus, 

SC&A feels the issue of worker coverage is of particular import and should be carefully 

considered by the SRS Work Group. 

Observation 2: The issue of what constitutes appropriate worker coverage for applying 

coworker intakes of neptunium is central to NIOSH 2016a. Such judgments are not 

necessarily technical in nature but are common in the practical implementation of any 

 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

12 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

unmonitored dose assignment. Thus, the issue of sufficient worker coverage in the context 

of using HPA and HPD codes for dose assignment should be carefully considered by the 

SRS Work Group.

As stated in Section 1.0 of NIOSH 2016a: 

Separations processes associated with 237Np are closely related to similar 

processes involving 238Pu; therefore, monitoring for exposure to 238Pu is assumed 

to be an indicator of a potential for 237Np intake. [page 5] 

SC&A agrees that, because of the purpose of the operation of interest and the proximity of 

specific activities involving Np-237 and Pu-238, exposure potentials to both contaminants are 

closely correlated. Therefore, SC&A examined the SRS Transuranic Internal Dose Registry to 

identify claimants who had confirmed uptakes of Np-237, or Pu-238, or both. NIOSH 2016a 

restricted its analysis to the period from 1973 to 1989; however, SC&A expanded the timeframe 

for evaluation to the period from 1959 to 2000. The rationale for expanding the period for 

evaluation is based on ORAUT-RPRT-0065, Revision 00, An Evaluation of Neptunium 

Operations at Savannah River Site (NIOSH 2016b), which contains the following concluding 

statement:

Final sets of stratified coworker intakes will be derived using neptunium 

urinalysis through 1969 and 1990 through 1995, and WBC data through 1989 

using TWOPOS calculation methods.... [emphasis added] [page 42]

Notably, the statement does not specify an exact start date for the application of neptunium 

intakes and only states the proposed method utilizes “urinalysis through 1969.” Based on that 

same statement, it appears coworker intake assignment is to end in 1995. However, NIOSH

2016b also provides a timeline of derived coworker intakes (shown as Figure 8-15 in NIOSH

2016b and as Figure 2 below) that spans the years from approximately 1960 to 2000. 

Documentation suggests that pilot-scale separations activities involving Pu-238 and Np-237 

began in 1959 and included at least some bioassay monitoring (Coogler et al. [n.d.]). Therefore, 

SC&A chose 1959 as the start for its analysis and 2000 as the final year evaluated.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

13 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Figure 2. Screenshot of Figure 8-15 from NIOSH 2016b 

SC&A identified 86 claimants who were employed during this expanded period and had 

confirmed uptakes of Pu-238, Np-237, or both, in the SRS Transuranic Internal Dose Registry. 

SC&A’s evaluation of these 86 claims focused on two facets:

1. Characterization of the intake incident and the correlation between the badging records 

(HPD and HPA codes) associated with the incident (see Section 3).

2. Evaluation of the monitoring practices and available dosimetry records supplied by DOE 

in the context of using the HPA/HPD dosimetry codes to identify potentially exposed 

workers (see Section 4). 

The first facet is intended provide a comparison similar to the evaluation presented in NIOSH

2016a. The second facet is intended to demonstrate and characterize the practical implementation 

of using dosimetry codes to establish work areas in general. 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

14 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

3.0 EVALUATION OF HPA AND HPD CODES ASSOCIATED WITH 

DOCUMENTED UPTAKES OF Np-237 AND Pu-238 IN IDENTIFIED 

CLAIMANT RECORDS

SC&A examined the claim files for each of the 86 EEs who were identified as having positive 

uptakes of Np-237, Pu-238, or both, during the period of interest (1959–2000). For each intake, 

SC&A reviewed (1) available monitoring records for the associated dosimeter badge codes and 

(2) related internal monitoring information, which very often contained the location of the 

incident. Appendix A has a detailed listing of all 86 claimants and associated intake incidents. 

In total, there were 173 intake incidents involving Np-237 or Pu-238 for the 86 identified 

claimants. The number of confirmed intakes by year is shown in Figure 3. Only 10 of the 173 

total intake incidents involved a confirmed intake of Np-237; the remaining 163 were related to 

Pu-238. 

Figure 3. Number of Confirmed Pu-238 and Np-237 Intakes by Year (1960–2000)

Examination of the DOE dosimetry records for the claimants involved in identified intake 

incidents revealed that only 99 of 173 (~57%) contained a dosimetry record that listed a specific 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

15 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

HPD code.3 Table 1 shows a breakdown of HPD codes identified with the intake incidents and

also presents the percentages in NIOSH 2016a, Section 5.2, for comparison. 

3 The discussion of dosimetry records that do not contain an HPD code can be found in Section 4.

As seen in Table 1, the HPD code most commonly identified in both the SC&A and NIOSH

2016a analyses was 205, which represents the Separations Department located at the 235-F PuFF 

area. However, SC&A identified other HPD codes that were not directly identified in NIOSH

2016a, Section 5.2, but were associated with confirmed intakes of Np-237 or Pu-238. These 

codes represent the Works Technical Department (Laboratory Personnel), the Separations 

Department (F and H Canyons), and the Technical Department (Miscellaneous). Also identified 

in the SC&A analysis was the department Code 40 (which represents the Construction 

department). This department code would be particularly important for transient workers doing 

irregular jobs around potentially contaminated equipment, such as decontamination and repair 

activities. Additionally, SC&A identified the HPD Code 000, which is not listed in either 

NIOSH 2016a or the underlying reference used to identify the department with a specific HPD 

code (DuPont 1977). 

Table 1. HPD Codes Identified Among 99 Intake Incidents for Claims with Confirmed 

Intakes of Np-237 or Pu-238 

SC&A 

Identified 

HPD Code

SC&A Total Number 

(Percentage) HPD Description

NIOSH 

Identified 

Percentage

205 39 (39.4%) Separations – 235-F PuFF 50%

209 18 (18.2%) HB-Line 4.0%

203 12 (12.1%) Separations – H Canyons Not Listed

501 10 (10.1%) Works Technical – Laboratory Not Listed

500 7 (7.1%) Works Technical – Health Physics 5.4%

906 3 (3.0%) Miscellaneous Technical Not Listed

000 3 (3.0%) Unknown Department Code Not Listed

601 2 (2.0%) Works Engineering – Electronics and 

Instrumentation 2.4% 

602 1 (1.0%) Works Engineering – Maintenance 2.2%

200 1 (1.0%) Separations – F Canyons Not Listed

703 1 (1.0%) Service – Traffic and Transportation Not Listed

201 1 (1.0%) Separations – FB Line Not Listed

40 1 (1.0%) Construction Not Listed

Approximately 75% (129 of 173) of the intake incidents had an associated dosimetry record that

listed an HPA code.4

 Table 2 shows a breakdown of HPA codes identified with the intake 

incidents and also shows the percentages presented in NIOSH 2016a, Section 5.1, for 

comparison. 

4 The discussion of dosimetry records that do not contain an HPA code can be found in Section 4.

As seen in Table 2, the majority of HPA codes identified with Np-237 and Pu-238 exposure were 

for the general areas of 200-H and 200-F. Interestingly, the SC&A analysis found 200-H to be 

 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

16 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

the most frequently identified code (60.5% of the total), with codes associated with 200-F 

showing the next highest percentage (25.5% of the total). Conversely, the analysis in 

NIOSH 2016a showed the opposite, with 200-F codes constituting the majority (62%) and 200-H 

codes observed at the next highest frequency (12%). It is important to note that for at least two 

cases reviewed, SC&A identified area codes that are reflective of construction and maintenance 

workers (HPA codes for Carpenters and the South Gate of Central Shops). This demonstrates 

that there was exposure potential to Np-237 and Pu-238 despite the EE’s HPA code not 

comporting with the locations most commonly associated with the operations of interest. 

Table 2. HPA Codes Identified Among 129 Intake Incidents for Claims with Confirmed 

Intakes of Np-237 or Pu-238 

SC&A 

Identified 

HPA Code

SC&A Total 

Number 

(Percentage)

HPA Description

NIOSH 

Identified 

Percentage

2A, 2H 78 (60.5%) 200-H 12%

1A, 2F, 1F 33 (25.6%) 200-F, 200-F Main Gate, 200-F North 

Entrance 62% 

5A 5 (3.9%) 773-A 8.1%

4H 3 (2.3%) 232-234 F 1.9%

A03, H02 2 (1.6%) 703-A (B Wing), 200-H Main Gate Not Listed

3M 2 (1.6%) 300-M 9.2%

F02, H02, 

HB2 1 (0.8%) 200-F Main Gate, 200-H Main Gate, Unknown* Not Listed

H1 1 (0.8%) 200 Effluent Treatment Facility** Not Listed

7A 1 (0.8%) South Gate of Central Shops Less than 1%

8C 1 (0.8%) Carpenters Not Listed

F8 1 (0.8%) 235-F Not Construction Not Listed

F3 1 (0.8%) 241-F Construction Not Listed

*HPA code HB2 is not listed in NIOSH 2014. 

**According to NIOSH 2014, this code was no longer in use after 1992; however, the dosimetry record in 

question was dated January 1995. The designation “200 Effluent Treatment Facility” was in use before 1992.

Finding 1: Of the 173 documented intakes of Np-237 and Pu-238 identified among the 

claimant population, 43% had associated dosimetry records that did not identify an HPD 

code and 25% that did not identify an HPA code. 

Observation 3: When HPA and HPD codes were provided in the available external 

dosimetry records associated with confirmed intakes, the codes showed reasonable 

agreement with the analyses in Sections 5-1 and 5-2 of NIOSH 2016a. SC&A agrees that, in 

general, these codes represent the cohort of workers most likely to have been exposed to 

neptunium. However, the SC&A analysis identified HPD and HPA codes associated with 

construction trades that are likely important for the assignment of coworker doses despite 

not being seen as frequently as the HPA and HPD codes typically associated with 

operations personnel.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

17 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

4.0 OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

MONITORING PRACTICES AND AVAILABLE DOE CLAIMANT 

RECORDS

To understand and characterize the potential use of HPA and HPD codes to identify neptunium 

workers for the purpose of administering unmonitored coworker intakes, SC&A analyzed the 

available monitoring records for the 86 claimants who had confirmed intakes of Np-237 or 

Pu-238, or both. Specifically, SC&A examined the radiation monitoring records supplied by 

DOE for these claims to understand the availability and completeness of the HPA and HPD 

codes found in such records. SC&A made nine observations related to monitoring practices and 

currently available records contained in the claimant files. These observations and associated 

discussion are organized by the time periods that generally reflect changes in external monitoring 

reporting practices and formats. These time periods are as follows:

• January 1959–March 1963 (see Section 4.1) 

• April 1963–December 1972 (see Section 4.2) 

• January 1973–December 1981 (see Section 4.3) 

• January 1982–December 1988 (see Section 4.4) 

• January 1989–December 1989 (see Section 4.5) 

• January 1990–December 2000 (see Section 4.6) 

Section 4.7 provides a general overview and summary of the observed changes in monitoring 

practices as seen in the reviewed claim files.

4.1 JANUARY 1959–MARCH 1963 

From 1959 through the first quarter of 1963, the dosimetry exchange cycle was on a biweekly 

basis for all 57 claims with employment during this period. Figure 4 shows an example 

screenshot of available external dosimetry during this period. It should be noted that the “cycle 

numbers” shown in Figure 4 are sequential but actually represent 2-week periods, because the 

total number of cycles in a year was consistently 26. Also of note is that a single HPD code 

appears to be used to represent a group of cycle exchanges (in this case, cycles 1–6).
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

18 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Figure 4. Example Screenshot of Dosimetry Records Format in Use from 1959 to 

March 1963 

Importantly, SC&A observed instances in which it is documented in the record that the EE was 

assigned to multiple areas during the same badging cycle (i.e., multiple HPA codes are 

indicated). This was observed to some extent in more than 80% (46 of 57) of the cases with 

employment during this period. An example of a badging period containing multiple HPA codes 

is shown in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 5, the entries for the 17th and 19th cycles have two HPA 

codes. This characteristic is especially important because it indicates that if monitored workers 

were in multiple areas during a given cycle, that information is documented in the dosimetry 

record.

Figure 5. Example of a Dosimetry Record that Indicates Two Different HPA Codes for the 

Same Cycle

Observation 4: For the period from 1959 through March 1963, badges were exchanged on 

a biweekly frequency. Approximately 80% of the cases examined during this period 

contained examples in which multiple HPA codes were identified for the same badging 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

19 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

cycle. This indicates that changes in work area were being tracked by the dosimetry branch 

and that information is available in the claimant monitoring records supplied by DOE.

4.2 APRIL 1963–DECEMBER 1972

Beginning in April 1963 and extending through 1964, dosimeters continue to be exchanged on a 

biweekly basis, as evidenced by the cycle numbering scheme. However, DOE-supplied 

monitoring records provide only quarterly summaries of these cycle reports. Beginning in 1965 

and extending through 1972, the badging exchange frequency appears to switch to monthly. As 

was the case for the earlier period, DOE provided only quarterly summary records. An example 

of the quarterly records available from April 1963 to December 1972 is shown in Figure 6. As 

seen in Figure 6, the record is identified as a “quarterly” record; however, an individual exposure 

for the “cycle” is reported in addition to the quarterly total. Each entry represents a single worker 

and contains an HPA and an HPD code. 

Of the 86 claimants identified in the SRS Transuranic Internal Dose Registry, 67 were employed 

during the period from April 1963 to December 1972. More than 95% of those claims (64 of 67) 

contained only quarterly exposure summaries in their DOE-supplied monitoring records (the 

three remaining claims are discussed later in this section). This indicates that, at minimum, any 

change in singular work location might be noted only on a quarterly basis for these workers. 

Observation 5: Beginning in April 1963 and extending through December 1972, available 

dosimetry records are reported on a quarterly basis, although dosimeters were exchanged 

on either a biweekly or monthly basis. Therefore, work location can only be assessed (at a 

minimum) on a quarterly basis for this period.

Figure 6. Example Screenshot of Quarterly Summary Report in the April 1963–

December 1972 Period (Names and Employee Numbers Have Been Redacted)

Unlike dosimetry records from before April 1963, SC&A found no evidence of workers being 

assigned multiple HPA codes (indicating multiple work areas) for a single badging cycle.

Therefore, any variability in work location during a given badging period does not appear to 

have been tracked by the dosimetry department in the available records. This obviously adds 

uncertainty in using the available HPA codes for assignment of work area. This is particularly 

true for transient workers, such as construction and maintenance workers, who may have worked 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

20 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

and been exposed in several work areas during a 3-month period but only have one HPA code 

designated in the available records. 

Finding 2: During the period from April 1963 to December 1972, SC&A found no evidence 

that multiple HPA codes were being assigned during a given badging cycle, which would 

allow for identifying worker movements among different areas. Unlike the previous period, 

it does not appear that the dosimetry department was using the HPA codes to track all 

worker movements during a given badging cycle. 

Table 3 describes the three claims that did not have quarterly dosimetry throughout this period. 

As seen in Table 3, the first claim had quarterly dosimetry reports except for 1972, in which 

individual monthly cycles were reported. However, the monthly cycles were contained on a 

single sheet and no HPA or HPD codes were present for identifying a work area. The other two 

claims did not have dosimetry cycle information before 1973, although annual summaries 

indicate positive exposures during these years. It should be noted that NIOSH has independently 

identified select quarterly reports for these two individuals from 1967 to 1970 through their own 

research.

5

 Therefore, the quarterly reports may be available but were simply not included in the 

DOE-supplied monitoring records. 

 

5 This process is known to SC&A as “hotlinking,” in which NIOSH provides documents, reports, and other records 

with the claimant’s name that have been uncovered through unrelated site research.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

21 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Table 3. Three Reviewed Cases That Have Covered Employment but no Quarterly 

Exposure Records (April 1963–December 1972) 

NOCTS 

Claim # Employment Job Title Comments

/1954–

/1991 

Mechanic 

and 

For 1972, dosimetry results for all 12 individual monthly 

cycles are provided on a single sheet of paper. However, 

HPA and HPD codes are not included on this 1972 report. 

Quarterly reports are available for remaining monitoring 

years during the period of interest.

/1952–

/1986 Construction 

No external dosimetry cycle records (monthly or quarterly) 

are available before 1973. Annual exposure summaries 

indicate positive external dose was accrued each year from 

1956 to 1972. However, annual summaries do not contain 

HPA or HPD codes that would allow for worker 

placement. It should be noted that NIOSH has identified 

quarterly reports for this EE for select quarters from 1967

to 1970; therefore, the missing dosimetry records for this 

individual may be available. 

/1954–

/1996 Lab Tech

Aside from a handful of visitor badges in the 1960s, the EE 

does not have any regular dosimetry records (individual 

cycles or quarterly summaries) until 1973. Annual 

exposure summaries indicate positive doses were accrued 

every year from 1955 to 1972 except for 1958. However, 

annual summaries do not contain HPA or HPD codes. It 

should be noted that NIOSH has identified quarterly 

reports for this EE for select quarters from 1967 to 1970; 

therefore, the missing dosimetry records for this individual 

may be available.

Observation 6: SC&A identified two cases in which no quarterly exposure reports were 

available from April 1963 to December 1972; however, annual exposure summaries 

indicate that positive doses were accrued during this timeframe. Through a process known 

as “hot-linking,” NIOSH has identified selected quarterly reports for these two individuals 

in the years 1967 to 1970. Therefore, the dosimetry records may not be missing; however, 

they are currently unavailable in the DOE-supplied records.

SC&A notes that for many cases during the period of interest (~64%), a quarterly report was 

available for each relevant monitoring quarter. However, for 23 of 64 (~36%), at least some of 

the quarterly reports appear to be missing from their available dosimetry files. For most of these 

claims with incomplete records (~70%), it is evident that DOE did not supply records for 

quarters with no accrued external dose. Examination of the remaining cases with incomplete data 

indicates the missing reports reflected positive exposures.

Finding 3: Several reviewed claims had incomplete quarterly dosimetry records (i.e., a 

summary report was not supplied for each relevant quarter). For many of those cases, it 

appears that quarterly reports that reflected no positively accrued dose were omitted by 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

22 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

DOE. In other cases, however, missing quarterly reports are representative of positive 

exposure periods, as evidenced by comparison with annual totals. 

4.3 JANUARY 1973–DECEMBER 1981

Beginning in 1973, the dose of record supplied by DOE comes from the Health Physics 

Radiological Exposure Database (HPRED). Overall, 78 claimants reviewed had covered 

employment during this period. Similar to the previous period, it appears dosimeters were 

exchanged on a monthly basis. Figure 7 shows an example of one such record from HPRED. As 

seen in Figure 7, the sections of the record where the area is to be specified for each cycle are

blank. Additionally, no HPD codes are present in this reporting format. 

In some reviewed cases, individual monthly cycle reports or quarterly reports, or both, were 

supplied in addition to the HPRED entries. However, more than 97% of the reviewed cases from 

this period (76 of 78 cases) had at least some dosimeter cycles with no area specified and no 

individual cycle report to supplement with work area information. 

Finding 4: External dosimetry cycle data extracted from HPRED for the years 1973–1981 

do not contain an area designation (HPA code) or indications of the department (HPD 

code). Some claims reviewed contained limited individual cycle reports that can be used to 

supplement the HPRED data. However, 97% of the reviewed claims had at least some 

dosimetry cycles during which no work area could be determined.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

23 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Figure 7. Screenshot of Dosimetry Records from HPRED for the Years 1976, 1977, 

and 1979 

In addition, it was observed that dosimetry data from HPRED did not include a cycle entry for 

every month of a given year. For example, in Figure 7, only January, August, and December 

dosimetry cycles are reported for the year 1977. This does not appear to indicate that the EE was 

not being monitored during the missing badge cycle; rather, it appears that only badging cycles 

with positive results for deep and/or shallow dose were reported by HPRED in available records. 

Overall, only 11 of 78 workers (~14%) had a dosimetry cycle entry for each possible monthly 

badging cycle during their employment. All badging cycles for these 14 workers reported 

positive exposures. 

SC&A compared the number of available badging cycle records against the number of potential 

badging cycles based on the covered employment for each reviewed claimant. For example, the 

worker’s records shown in Figure 7 indicate five dosimetry cycles in 1976. If the worker was 

employed for all of 1976, then the expected number of badging cycles would be 12. Therefore, 

5/12 (or ~42%) of the worker’s expected dosimetry cycle records were contained in the available 

records. 

During the period of interest, the average percentage of expected dosimetry cycle reports per 

worker that were in the workers’ monitoring files was 73% (i.e., reviewed workers had, on 

average, 73% of their expected dosimetry records in their files). The median percentage is 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

24 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

slightly higher, at approximately 81%. Figure 8 shows the rank-ordered percentage of available 

dosimetry cycle reports for each of the 78 claims reviewed. 

SC&A recognizes that the issue of missing dosimetry cycles in which no dose was accrued is 

somewhat mitigated because neptunium work generally involves relatively high external 

exposure potential. However, work that was short term, such as maintenance and construction 

activities, may still have involved intake potential without correspondingly high dosimeter 

results.

Finding 5: From 1973 to 1981, the primary external dosimetry record format is from 

HPRED. SC&A observed that some dosimetry cycles appeared to be missing for this 

period. Based on a review of the 78 claimant monitoring records with employment during 

this period, it is apparent that dosimetry cycles without a positive external dose recorded 

are not reported by HPRED. Only 14% of the reviewed claims had dosimetry cycle reports 

for each relevant monitoring cycle. For these claims, every dosimetry entry for these 

workers contained a positive result.

Figure 8. Rank Order of the Percentage of Available Dosimetry Cycle Records for 

78 Reviewed Claimants (1973–1981) 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

25 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Finally, SC&A did not observe any evidence of multiple HPA codes being assigned for the same 

dosimetry cycle. This was consistent with both the earlier period (April 1963–December 1972; 

see Section 4.2) and the period after (January 1982–June 1989; see Section 4.4).

Finding 6: For the period from January 1973 to December 1981, SC&A found no evidence 

that multiple HPA codes were being assigned during a given badging cycle that would 

allow for identifying worker movement among different work areas. Unlike the previous 

period, it does not appear the dosimetry department was using the HPA codes to track all 

worker movements during a given badging cycle.

4.4 JANUARY 1982–DECEMBER 1988

The same general record format utilizing HPRED was used for the period of 1982–1988 as was 

used for the previous period (1973–1981), with the notable difference that the area code is 

specified for all listed dosimetry cycles (see Figure 9). 

Observation 7: Beginning in January 1982 and ending in December 1988, all listed HPRED 

dose entries contain an associated area (HPA) code. No HPD codes were identified in the 

HPRED dosimetry records.

Figure 9. Screenshot of HPRED Dosimetry Record from 1981 and 1982 Showing the 

Transition from Not Reporting the Area (1981) to Reporting the Area (1982) 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

26 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Finding 5 from Section 4.3 is also relevant to the records from 1982 to 1988. Specifically, SC&A 

observed apparent gaps in the reported cycle dosimetry reports supplied for the reviewed 

claimants during this period. Only 4 of the 77 workers (~5%) from the period of interest had a 

complete set of dosimetry cycle reports during their relevant employment. The records for all 

four of these individuals showed a positive entry for every monthly dosimetry cycle. Similar to 

Finding 5, the missing cycles for the remaining workers appear to be for months in which no 

external dose was accrued. 

Similar to the analysis in Section 4.3, SC&A compared the number of reported dosimetry cycles 

to the number expected based on the EE’s employment. For the average worker, approximately 

46% of the expected monitoring cycles were included as entries in the EE’s dosimetry file 

(median percentage 39%). Figure 10 shows a rank order of each of the reviewed claimants by the 

percentage of expected dosimetry cycles that were actually reported in the individual’s 

monitoring record. 

Figure 10. Rank Order of the Percentage of Available Dosimetry Cycle Records for 

77 Reviewed Claimants (1982–1988) 

Finding 7: For 1982 to 1988, the primary external dosimetry record format is from 

HPRED. SC&A observed that some dosimetry cycles appeared to be missing during the 

period. Based on a review of the 77 claimant monitoring records with employment during 

this period, it appears that dosimetry cycles without a positive external dose recorded are 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

27 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

not reported by HPRED. Only 5% of the reviewed claims had dosimetry cycle reports for 

each relevant monitoring period, and every dosimetry entry for these workers contained a 

positive result.

Finding 6 from Section 4.3 is also relevant to the records from 1982 to 1988. SC&A did not 

observe any instances in which multiple area codes were listed for the same dosimetry cycle. 

This is consistent with the two prior evaluated periods: April 1963 to December 1972 and 

January 1973 to December 1981. 

Finding 8: For the period from January 1982 to December 1988, SC&A found no evidence 

that multiple HPA codes were being assigned during a given badging cycle, which would 

allow for identifying worker movement among different work areas. It is apparent that the 

dosimetry department was not using the HPA codes to track worker movements during a 

given badging cycle. 

4.5 JANUARY 1989–DECEMBER 1989

Available dose records beginning in 1989 also utilize HPRED, as was done from 1973 to 1988. 

Somewhat uncharacteristically, there were no reported dosimetry cycles in 1989 until April, and 

no HPA codes were used until July. The year 1989 appears to be a transition year for recordkeeping practices, including the practice of reporting of zero dose cycles. In addition, the 

practice of reporting multiple HPA codes for the same dosimetry cycle was observed beginning 

in 1989. Figures 11 and 12 show two 1989 dose records that illustrate these changes. 

Figure 11. Screenshot of 1989 Dosimetry Record (1 of 2) 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

28 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Figure 12. Screenshot of 1989 Dosimetry Record (2 of 2) 

Observation 8: Dosimetry record keeping appears to go through a transition in 1989. 

Dosimetry cycles generally were not reported in HPRED until April of that year, and HPA 

codes are not included until July. In addition, zero dose cycles were reported and multiple 

HPA codes can be observed for the same dosimetry cycle.

4.6 JANUARY 1990–DECEMBER 2000

As discussed in the previous section, a transition in reporting practices appears to have happened 

in 1989. Most importantly, multiple HPA codes were being reported for a single badging cycle 

and zero dose cycles were also reported in the HPRED printouts; this practice continued into the 

period from 1990 to 2000. Overall, 56 workers were employed during the period from 1990 to

2000, and all but one had external dosimetry. SC&A closely examined the 55 remaining workers 

with external dosimetry to judge its completeness. In SC&A’s estimation, 51 of 55 workers 

(~93%) had complete dosimetry with no observed temporal gaps. The four workers who appear 

to have at least some gaps in external dosimetry are described in Table 4.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

29 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Table 4. Four Reviewed Cases That Appear to Have Gaps in External Dosimetry, 1990–

2000 

NOCTS 

Claim #

Relevant 

Employment Job Title Comments

/1952– 

/1993 Specialist

The last observed badging cycle was in September 

1992. The EE had a routine whole body count in 

May 1993 and a termination whole body count in 

August 1993. The EE submitted a tritium bioassay as 

well as termination bioassay for plutonium and 

neptunium in August 1993. 

Notably, the EE did not record a positive external 

dose after September 1990, so the exposure potential 

may have been very low to nonexistent for the EE 

during the final year of employment. 

No additional information was identified in the CATI 

with the EE or DOL case files relevant to the final 

year of employment.

/1989– 

/1995 Operator

The last reported dosimetry cycle was in January 

1993, but covered employment extends through 

May 1995. The EE was on a regular tritium bioassay 

schedule up until May 1995 and 

 dose reported in 1994. The last routine 

plutonium bioassay was in 1992; however, there 

were several follow-up bioassays during 1993–1995. 

The EE had an investigational whole body count in 

1994 

and a termination whole body count in May 1995. 

Both whole body counts indicate the work area as 

234-H. The CATI with the EE confirms the work 

locations as 234-H and 235-H during this period. 

The EE only had one positive dosimetry cycle from 

January 1990 to January 1993 (10 mrem OW and S 

in December 1992). So it is possible that the 

exposure potential for the EE was low enough that 

external dosimetry was not needed.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

30 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

NOCTS 

Claim #

Relevant 

Employment Job Title Comments

/1988– 

/1996, 

/1996– 

/1997, 

/1997– 

/1997, 

/1998– 

/1998, 

/1999– 

/2000 

Electrician

External badging appears to be intermittent for the 

EE during the period of interest (sometimes the EE is 

badged in successive months; other times the 

badging appears to be quarterly; in still other 

instances, the gaps are much larger).

The EE was on a consistent whole body count 

schedule throughout relevant employment. The 

CATI with the EE indicates that badging was worn 

on a routine basis. Of the 88 dosimetry cycles 

provided during the period of interest, only 15 

registered a positive exposure (~17%). Given the 

EE’s job title as an electrician, it is also possible that 

the claimant did not consistently work in radiological 

areas. 

/1978– 

/2013 

Technical 

Assistant, 

Monitoring appears sporadic during the period of 

interest. The EE has no dosimetry from 1993 to 

1995. The CATI with EE indicates a badge was worn 

at all times. There is a gap in routine whole body 

count monitoring from 1992 to 1996. Routine 

bioassay was taken in 1991 (Am/Cm/Cf, Pu-238, Pu239), and then a tritium bioassay sample was taken in 

1996. Given the pattern in internal monitoring, it is 

likely that the EE was not exposed and thus not 

monitored during portions of the period of interest.

Observation 9: For the 1990–2000 period, SC&A observed that dosimetry dose cycles with 

no positive exposure were included in the HPRED printouts. SC&A also saw evidence that 

multiple HPA codes were assigned to the same dosimetry cycle. SC&A’s examination of 55 

reviewed claims during this period indicates that about 93% of the reviewed case files had 

complete dosimetry records. The four remaining claims were closely examined, and SC&A 

believes there are plausible explanations for what appear to be gaps in the dosimetry 

monitoring (i.e., the EE did not require monitoring).

4.7 SUMMARY OF MONITORING CHARACTERISTICS, 1959–2000 

As discussed in Sections 4.1–4.6, the SRS dosimetry and reporting practices for use in workplace 

assignment changed over time. Ideally, the available dosimetry records would represent a 

comprehensive history of an individual’s work in specific radiological areas, so that any 

coworker dose assignments accurately reflect the exposure potential encountered by the 

claimant. To that end, the temporal spacing, record completeness, and indications of worker 

movement in the available monitoring records are especially important for claimant-favorable 

implementation of unmonitored intakes. Figure 13, which displays a summary for each period, 

shows that the available SRS dosimetry records satisfy these criteria to varying degrees. 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

31 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

From the beginning of the evaluated period (1959) through March 1963, the records appear to be 

complete, indicate changes in work area within a single badging cycle, and were reported on a 

biweekly schedule (the shortest observed exchange frequency; see Section 4.1). The period from 

July 1989 through December 2002 displayed similar characteristics, except that the exchange 

frequency was monthly. The characteristics of these two periods represent the ideal situation for 

correctly and fairly assigning coworker intakes.

For the period of 1982 to 1988, dosimetry is available monthly, with the area specified; however, 

there is no evidence that changes in work assignment during a given cycle were ever 

documented. In addition, it appears that dosimetry cycles that did not register a positive exposure 

were not included in the database printout. The period from 1973 to 1981 had similar 

characteristics, except that no area designation is provided in the reported cycles from HPRED. 

In some cases, supplemental records had been provided that designate the area code; however, 

the reason for inclusion of these supplemental records and their relative completeness could not 

be established during this evaluation. 

Finally, only quarterly summaries are available for the period from April 1963 through 1972, 

although it is evident that the workers were on either a biweekly or monthly badge exchange 

frequency. SC&A did not find any instances where it was noted that an employee changed work 

locations mid-quarter, based on the reporting of HPA codes. It was apparent that some quarterly 

records were not available for some reviewed claims. The missing records represented periods in 

which positive dose was accrued and periods in which no dose was accrued.

As noted previously, many of the concerns and limitations of the currently available monitoring 

records described in Section 4 might be alleviated by obtaining the full set of dosimetry cycle 

reports for affected claimants. However, at the time of this report, it is not known to SC&A 

whether such records are complete and available. Nor is it clear whether such records would 

reflect changes in location for workers who changed specific jobs on a semiregular basis for at 

least some periods of interest at SRS.
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

32 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 

Figure 13. Summary Timeline of Observed External Dosimetry Characteristics and Reporting Practices (1959–2000) 
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

33 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

5.0 REFERENCES

Coogler et al. [n.d.]. A.L. Coogler, R.C. Craft, and R.N. Tetzlaff, A Facility for the Production of 

Pu238, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aikan, South Carolina. 

Undated. [SRDB Ref. ID 113754] 

DuPont 1977. HP Department Codes April 1977 Version, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and 

Company, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. April 1977. [SRDB Ref. ID 158031] 

NIOSH 2014. SRS HPA and Department Code Designations from 1959 to 2004 and Forward, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 17, 2014. 

[SRDB Ref. ID 154268] 

NIOSH 2016a. Evaluation of Health Physics Area and Health Physics Department Codes to 

Identify Neptunium Workers at the Savannah River Site, ORAUT-RPRT-0077, Revision 00, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 8, 2016. 

[SRDB Ref. ID 163179] 

NIOSH 2016b. An Evaluation of Neptunium Operations at Savannah River Site, ORAUT-RPRT0065, Revision 00, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

September 19, 2016. [SRDB Ref. ID 160054]
Effective Date:

4/10/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC006

Page No.

34 of 34

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 

APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF INTAKE INCIDENTS FOR 86 CLAIMS INCLUDED IN SC&A 

CLAIMANT STUDY

[Appendix A is withheld in its entirety to prevent the disclosure of Privacy Act protected information.]