DRAFT 

REPORT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

COMPARISON OF SC&A’S BLIND DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

TO NIOSH’S DOSE RECONSTRUCTION OF CASE #[REDACT] 

FROM THE ROCKY FLATS PLANT 

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Prepared by 

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

April 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

2 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

S. Cohen & Associates:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on

Radiation & Worker Health Review of

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Effective Date: 

Draft – April 13, 2015

Comparison of SC&A’s Blind Dose 

Reconstruction to NIOSH’s Dose 

Reconstruction of Case #[Redact] from the 

Rocky Flats Plant

Page 2 of 30

Task Manager:

________________________ Date: ___________

Rose Gogliotti

Supersedes:

N/A

Project Manager:

________________________ Date: ___________

John Stiver, MS, CHP

Reviewer:

 Kathleen Behling

 John Stiver

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number Effective Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 4/13/2015 Initial issued.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

3 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................5

1.0 Relevant Background Information .......................................................................................7

2.0 Comparison of Methodology/Doses used by SC&A and NIOSH for Case #[Redact] ........9

2.1 Occupational External Dose Calculations .............................................................11

2.1.1 Recorded Photon/Shallow Doses ...............................................................11

2.1.2 Coworker Photon Dose ..............................................................................14

2.1.3 Missed Photon Dose ..................................................................................15

2.1.4 Recorded Neutron Dose .............................................................................16

2.1.5 Coworker Neutron Dose ............................................................................18

2.1.6 Missed Neutron Dose .................................................................................19

2.1.7 Onsite Ambient Doses ...............................................................................20

2.1.8 Occupational Medical Doses .....................................................................21

2.2 Occupational Internal Doses ..................................................................................22

2.2.1 Internal Dose Assignment ..........................................................................22

3.0 Summary Conclusions .......................................................................................................25

4.0 References ..........................................................................................................................28

Addendum A: SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction Report of Case #[Redact] ...........................30
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

4 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Comparison of SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction to NIOSH’s 

Dose Reconstruction for Case #[Redact] ......................................................................8

Table 2-1. Comparison of External Dose Data and Assumptions Used by 

SC&A and NIOSH .......................................................................................................9

Table 2-2. Comparison of Internal Dose Data and Assumptions Used by 

SC&A and NIOSH .....................................................................................................11

Table 2-3. Summary of External Dose Assignment Methods ......................................................12

Table 2-4. Comparison of Recorded Photon/Shallow Doses........................................................13

Table 2-5. Comparison of Coworker Photon Doses .....................................................................15

Table 2-6. Comparison of Missed Photon Doses..........................................................................16

Table 2-7. Comparison of Recorded Neutron Doses ....................................................................18

Table 2-8. Comparison of Coworker Neutron Doses ...................................................................19

Table 2-9. Comparison of Missed Neutron Doses ........................................................................20

Table 2-10. Comparison of Occupational Medical Doses ............................................................22

Table 2-11. Comparison of Internal Doses ...................................................................................23

Table 3-1. Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Total External and 

Internal Dose Estimates ..............................................................................................25
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

5 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

Advisory Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AP anterior-posterior

CADW Chronic Annual Dose Workbook 

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

CW coworker 

DCF dose conversion factor 

DDE deep dose equivalent 

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy 

DOL (U.S.) Department of Labor 

DR dose reconstruction 

EE energy employee 

GM geometric mean 

GSD geometric standard deviation

ICD International Classification of Diseases 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

keV kilo electron volt; 1,000 electron volts 

LAT lateral 

LOD limit of detection

L-S lumbar-spine 

MeV Million electron volts 

μCi/ml microcuries per milliliter 

mrem or mR millirem 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NDRP Neutron Dose Reconstruction Protocol 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

n/p neutron-to-photon ratio 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

PA posterior-anterior 

Pene penetrating 

POC probability of causation 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

6 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

rem Roentgen equivalent man 

RFP Rocky Flats Plant

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

SDE skin dose equivalent 

TBD technical basis document 

TIB technical information bulletin

WBC whole-body count 

y year 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

7 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

1.0 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Under Contract No. 211-2014-58081, SC&A was tasked by the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (Advisory Board) to perform six blind dose reconstructions 

(DRs) at the July 2014, DR Subcommittee meeting. SC&A was provided all of the 

Department of Energy (DOE) dosimetry records; the Department of Labor (DOL) 

correspondence, forms, and medical records; and the Computer-Assisted Telephone 

Interview (CATI) Reports that were made available to the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for constructing doses in behalf of these cases. 

SC&A used an independent approach to reconstruct occupational external and internal 

doses for the cases using the available dosimetry records and current guidance from 

NIOSH, including the spreadsheets and other tools developed by NIOSH to calculate the 

doses. 

On February 27, 2015, SC&A submitted to the Advisory Board and NIOSH a 

memorandum containing the summary results of our blind DR in behalf of Case 

#[Redact] (SC&A 2015a). The complete DR report titled SC&A’s Dose Reconstruction 

of Case #[Redact] from the Rocky Flats Plant (SC&A 2015b), which provides the 

assumptions and methodologies used to derive occupational radiation doses and the 

resultant probability of causation (POC), is included herein as Addendum A. In this 

report, SC&A presents a comparison between SC&A’s and NIOSH’s DR methodologies, 

doses, and resultant POC values for Case #[Redact]. Table 1-1 summarizes the external 

and internal occupational doses calculated by SC&A and the NIOSH-assigned doses for 

the cancers diagnosed in behalf of Case #[Redact]. The dose assignments and Interactive 

RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) Input tables were identical for cancers of the 

[redact] breast. A detailed comparison of the two methodologies used to calculate doses 

in behalf of this case is presented in Section 2. Section 3 of this report provides 

Summary Conclusions. 

It should be noted that, where appropriate, an explanation is provided regarding the 

differences in doses and why they occurred; however, SC&A does not make any value 

judgments regarding which among them may be the more preferred approach. It is our 

position that further discussions are best addressed by the DR Subcommittee. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

8 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Table 1-1. Comparison of SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction to NIOSH’s 

Dose Reconstruction for Case #[Redact] 

SC&A – [Redact] Breast [Redact]

Dose (rem)

NIOSH – [Redact] Breast 

[Redact] Dose (rem)

External Dose

 ▪ Recorded/Modeled n/p Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 0.247 0.258

 <30 keV Photons 0.027 0.059

 Neutrons by n/p 0.457 0.445

 ▪ Missed/Assigned n/p Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 0.385 0.330

 <30 keV Photons – –

 Neutrons by NDRP & n/p 1.270 0.999

 ▪ Coworker Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 1.505 1.498

 <30 keV Photons 0.724 0.709

 Neutrons 6.333 6.163

 ▪ External Environmental Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 0.016 0.018

 ▪ Occupational Medical Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 0.104 0.033

Internal Dose

 CW Pu Alpha 3.218 1.082

 CW U-234 Alpha 0.167 –

Total Dose: 14.453 11.593

Each Cancer POC: 25.02% 24.44%

Combined POC: 43.78% 42.91%
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

9 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

2.0 COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY/DOSES USED BY SC&A AND 

NIOSH FOR CASE #[REDACT] 

Case #[Redact] represents an energy employee (EE) who worked as a [Redact], [Redact], and 

[Redact] at the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) during the following periods:

 [Redact]–[Redact]

 [Redact]–[Redact]

The EE was diagnosed with [redact] breast invasive ductal carcinoma in situ (ICD-9 Code 

233.0) in [redact].

According to DOL records and the CATI report, the EE worked in the [redact], [redact], and 

[redact] Areas during the first period of employment, and in the [redact], close to Building 664, 

during the second period of employment. The EE was monitored for external photon exposure 

during most of the first employment period, and twice during the second employment period at 

the RFP.

For calculating radiation dose from employment at RFP, both DR methods primarily relied on 

guidance in the RFP Technical Basis Document (TBD) (issued as six separate documents 

numbered ORAUT-TKBS-0011-1, through ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6). Using the guidance 

provided in these documents, along with the employee’s dosimetry records, SC&A and NIOSH 

employed a best-estimate approach for calculating annual external and internal doses. SC&A 

and NIOSH both derived a POC of <50%.

A summary of the documents, assumptions, and dose parameters used by each DR method is 

provided in Tables 2-1 and 2-2: 

Table 2-1. Comparison of External Dose Data and Assumptions Used by 

SC&A and NIOSH

Parameters SC&A NIOSH

External Recorded & Coworker Dose:

Records/Guidance 

Documents

DOE records, RFP TBD-6, OCAS-IG001, OTIB-0005, and OTIB-0017.

DOE records, RFP TBD-6, OCAS-IG-001, 

OTIB-0005, OTIB-0017, and the RFP Dose 

Calculation Workbook 5.00.

Dose Determination 

Approach Best estimate methodology. Best estimate methodology.

Work Locations Plutonium buildings. Plutonium buildings.

Photon Energy Range 100% 30–250 keV 100% 30–250 keV 

Photon Organ DCFs Exposure: 1.266

Deep Dose: 0.894

Exposure: 1.266

Deep Dose: 0.894

Neutron Exposure 

Organ DCFs

<10 keV: 1.612

10–100 keV: 1.117

0.1–2 MeV: 1.180

2–10 MeV: 1.185

<10 keV: 1.612

10–100 keV: 1.117

0.1–2 MeV: 1.180

2–10 MeV: 1.185
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

10 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Table 2-1. Comparison of External Dose Data and Assumptions Used by 

SC&A and NIOSH

Parameters SC&A NIOSH

Neutron Deep dose

Organ DCFs

<10 keV: 1.411

10–100 keV: 1.111

0.1–2 MeV: 1.145

2–10 MeV: 1.12

<10 keV: 1.411

10–100 keV: 1.111

0.1–2 MeV: 1.145

2–10 MeV: 1.12

Neutron 

Energy-weighted ICRP60 Correction F.

<10 keV: 0.0755

10–100 keV: 0.0309

0.1–2 MeV: 1.31

2–10 MeV: 0.345

<10 keV: 0.0755

10–100 keV: 0.0309

0.1–2 MeV: 1.31

2–10 MeV: 0.345

Recorded Photon

Dose Distribution Normal with 30% uncertainty. Normal with 30% uncertainty, or lognormal 

with various uncertainties. 

Assigned Neutron

Dose Distribution Lognormal with 1.520 GSD. Lognormal with various uncertainties.

Coworker Photon and 

Neutron

Dose Distribution

Lognormal with 1.520 GSD. Normal, lognormal, and triangular with 

various uncertainties.

External Missed Dose:

Records/Guidance 

Documents

DOE records, RFP TBD-6, OCAS-IG001, OTIB-0005, and OTIB-0017.

DOE records, RFP TBD-6, OCAS-IG-001, 

OTIB-0005, OTIB-0017, and the RFP Dose 

Calculation Workbook 5.00.

Dose Determination 

Approach Best estimate methodology. Best estimate methodology.

No. of zeros Photons: 27

Neutrons: 27

Photons: 21

Neutrons: 25

LOD Value

[redact]–[redact] = 0.020 mR

[redact]–[redact] = 0.020 mrem

[redact]–[redact] = 0.010 mrem

[redact]–[redact] = 0.020 mR

[redact]–[redact] = 0.020 mrem

[redact]–[redact] = 0.010 mrem

Photon Energy Range 100% 30–250 keV 100% 30–250 keV 

Photon Organ DCFs Exposure: 1.266

Deep Dose: 0.894

Exposure: 1.266

Deep Dose: 0.894

Neutron Exposure 

Organ DCFs

<10 keV: 1.612

10–100 keV: 1.117

0.1–2 MeV: 1.180

2–10 MeV: 1.185

<10 keV: 1.612

10–100 keV: 1.117

0.1–2 MeV: 1.180

2–10 MeV: 1.185

Neutron Deep dose

Organ DCFs

<10 keV: 1.411

10–100 keV: 1.111

0.1–2 MeV: 1.145

2–10 MeV: 1.12

<10 keV: 1.411

10–100 keV: 1.111

0.1–2 MeV: 1.145

2–10 MeV: 1.12

Neutron 

Energy-weighted ICRP60 Correction F.

<10 keV: 0.0755

10–100 keV: 0.0309

0.1–2 MeV: 1.31

2-10 MeV: 0.345

<10 keV: 0.0755

10–100 keV: 0.0309

0.1–2 MeV: 1.31

2-10 MeV: 0.345

Missed Photon

Dose Distribution Lognormal with 1.550 GSD. Lognormal with GSD centered around 1.52.

Missed Neutron

Dose Distribution Lognormal with 1.520 GSD. Lognormal with GSD centered around 1.52.

Shallow Dose:

Records/Guidance 

Documents

DOE records, RFP TBD-6, OCAS-IG001, OTIB-0005, and OTIB-0017.

DOE records, RFP TBD-6, OCAS-IG-001, 

OTIB-0005, OTIB-0017, and the RFP Dose 

Calculation Workbook 5.00.

Energy Range <30 keV photons. <30 keV photons.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

11 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Table 2-1. Comparison of External Dose Data and Assumptions Used by 

SC&A and NIOSH

Parameters SC&A NIOSH

Photon Organ DCFs Exposure: 0.457

Dose equivalent: 0.761

Exposure: 0.457

Dose equivalent: 0.761

Dose Distribution Normal with 30% uncertainty. Normal with 30% uncertainty.

Onsite External Dose:

Guidance Document ORAUT-PROC-0060 ORAUT-PROC-0060

Period [redact]–[redact] & [redact]–[redact] [redact]–[redact] & [redact]–[redact]

Photon Energy Range 100% 30–250 keV 100% 30–250 keV 

Photon Organ DCF 0.587 ~0.634

Dose Distribution Constant with no uncertainty. Normal & triangular.

Occupational Medical Dose:

Guidance Document RFP TBD-3 RFP TBD-3

Frequency 3 documented x-ray exams. 3 documented x-ray exams.

Dose Distribution Normal with 30% uncertainty. Normal with 30% uncertainty.

Table 2-2. Comparison of Internal Dose Data and Assumptions Used by 

SC&A and NIOSH 

Parameters SC&A NIOSH

Bioassay Internal:

Records/Guidance 

Documents Bioassay assays all background. Bioassay assays all background.

Assigned Internal:

Records/Guidance 

Documents RFP TBD-5 and CADW OTIB-0018

Dose Determination 

Approach Coworker intake from urinalyses from TBD-5. Air sampling data from OTIB-0018.

Solubility Type Used M, S, or SS to maximize dose. Used M and S to maximize dose.

Dose Distribution Constant with zero uncertainty. Lognormal with 3.000 GSD.

Environmental Internal:

Not applicable Not applicable

2.1 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE CALCULATIONS 

2.1.1 Recorded Photon/Shallow Doses 

The DOE reports contained quarterly and/or yearly badge readings. The datasheet for [redact]

lists the EE’s name and the quarterly exchanges, but it contained all blank results, while the 

recorded readings for the period [redact]–[redact] contained some positive recorded doses, and 

some zeros. A summary sheet on page 13 of the DOE records contained annual dose summaries 

for the years [redact]–[redact], plus data for one badge exchange in [redact], and one in 

[redact] (with zero deep dose and zero neutron dose recorded each year). There was no record 

of monitoring during the employment period of [redact]–[redact]. The only positive shallow 

dose readings were recorded during the period [redact]–[redact]. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

12 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Methods and Doses for Recorded/Shallow Photons 

Both DR methods assumed the EE worked primarily in the RFP plutonium area. Therefore, the 

photon energy fraction of 100% 30–250 keV was assumed for deep doses and 100% <30 keV 

photons for shallow doses, as specified in the RFP ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-9, page 36. 

Both SC&A and NIOSH selected OCAS-IG-001 DCFs that reflected Exposure (R) to Organ 

Dose values for the period [redact]–[redact], and Deep Dose Equivalent (rem) to Organ Dose 

values for the period [redact]–[redact], as previously summarized in Table 2-1. Both exposure 

and deep dose organ-to-dose conversion factors are generally referred to as dose conversion 

factors (DCFs). 

The yearly DOE records from RFP contain penetrating dose (which include photon and neutron 

doses), and skin dose (which include non-penetrating, photon, and neutron doses). Table 2-3 

summarizes the methods used to derive the various external doses from the recorded dose at the 

RFP using the information in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-14, page 29, and the equations on 

page 38: 

Table 2-3. Summary of External Dose Assignment Methods 

Penetrating photons 

30–250 keV

Non-penetrating

photons <30 keV

Neutrons in

four energy ranges

[redacted] Pene × [1/(1+n/p)] (Skin - Pene)/0.65 Pene x [(n/p)/(1+n/p)] or NDRP data

[redacted] Pene × [1/(1+n/p)] (Skin - Pene) Pene × [(n/p)/(1+n/p)]

[redacted] Penetrating (Skin - Pene) n/p = 0.42 or recorded n dose

SC&A and NIOSH used the neutron-to-photon radio (n/p) values from Tables 6-21 and 6-22 of 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 50, to derive the appropriate doses; the tables are reproduced here 

as Exhibit A. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

13 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Exhibit A. Summary of n/p Values 

(Source: ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 50) 

Using the EE’s dosimetry records and above-cited parameters, SC&A and NIOSH assigned 

photon and shallow doses as shown in Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4. Comparison of Recorded Photon/Shallow Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Recorded photon dose, 30–250 keV photons 0.247 0.258

Recorded shallow dose, <30 keV photons 0.027 0.059

The difference in recorded photon doses assigned by SC&A and NIOSH reflects the fact that 

SC&A and NIOSH handled a discrepancy in the DOE records by different methods. The 

datasheet for [redact] on page 32 of the DOE records appears to contain an error, in that the 3rd

quarter skin dose was recorded as 71 mrem and the penetrating dose was recorded as 98 mrem. 

Considering the fact that RFP at that time defined shallow dose as the skin dose minus the 

penetrating dose (ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 38), the skin dose must be greater than or equal 

to the penetrating dose (and it was for all the other recorded positive doses). 

SC&A’s Handling of the 1970 Discrepancy 

It appears that the two dose values for the 3rd quarter of [redact] may have been interchanged 

and the penetrating dose was actually 71 mrem and the skin dose was 98 mrem; SC&A used this 

assumption, as it is consistent with the other recorded doses for this EE. Another error that 

SC&A found was in the DOE records on pages 11, 12, and 13, where the summary sheets list the 

annual Deep Dose Equivalent (or DDE) and the Skin Dose Equivalent (or SDE) doses as equal to 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

14 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

each other for the years [redact]–[redact]; this is incorrect according to the details provided by 

the quarterly exchange datasheets and therefore will not be used in the DR.

NIOSH’s Handling of the 1970 Discrepancy 

NIOSH used the DDE dose of 0.146 rem recorded on page 13 of the DOE file for the 3rd quarter 

[redact] penetrating 30–250 keV photon dose. NIOSH used the recorded skin dose on page 32 

for the non-penetrating <30 keV photon dose (treating the recorded 71 mrem SKIN dose as a net 

non-penetrating dose = [shallow - pene] = 0.071 rem). 

This difference in methodology resulted in NIOSH assigning a slighter greater recorded 30–

250 keV photon dose and a larger <30 keV photon shallow dose than was assigned by SC&A. 

2.1.2 Coworker Photon Dose 

Coworker (CW) photon doses were assigned by both SC&A and NIOSH for periods the EE was 

not monitored. 

SC&A’s Coworker Penetrating Photon Dose 

SC&A used the 50th percentile plutonium CW photon dose values recommended in Table C-3, 

page 97, and Table C-4, pages 99–100, of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 (applying the parameters 

previously described) to assign photon doses during the periods the EE was not continuously 

monitored ([redact], [redact], and [redact]–[redact]), prorating the appropriate time periods. 

The CW dose values for Building 71 were used, because the EE could have been at numerous 

locations and overall Building 71 dose values provided for the most claimant-favorable dose 

assignments. 

SC&A’s Coworker Shallow Photon Dose 

SC&A used the 50th percentile uranium CW photon dose values (as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, 

pages 94–95) recommended in Table C-5, pages 100–101 (applying the parameters previously 

described) to assign shallow photon doses during periods when the EE was not continuously 

monitored ([redact], [redact], and [redact]–[redact]), prorating the appropriate time periods. 

The CW shallow dose was derived by subtracting the 50th percentile penetrating dose value from 

the 50th percentile non-penetrating dose value and assigning it as <30 keV photons, as per 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017. 

In this case, SC&A found that a lognormal distribution provided for the greater POC for photon 

doses; therefore, the CW photon doses were entered into the IREP Input tables using a lognormal 

distribution with an uncertainty of 1.520. 

NIOSH’s Coworker Photon Dose 

NIOSH used the same methodology as SC&A to assign CW photon and non-penetrating doses,

except NIOSH used normal, lognormal, and triangular distributions. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

15 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Coworker Photon Doses 

SC&A and NIOSH assigned nearly identical CW photon doses, as shown in Table 2-5. The 

small differences in the annual assigned doses resulted mainly from the method used to calculate 

the prorated work periods; i.e., by using the number of days, fraction of months, or fraction of 

year to determine the prorated time fraction. Additionally, NIOSH used the triangular 

distribution for some of the CW photon doses assignments, whereas SC&A used a lognormal 

distribution of all CW photon dose assignments.

Table 2-5. Comparison of Coworker Photon Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Total coworker 30–250 keV photon dose 1.505 1.498

Total coworker <30 keV photon dose 0.724 0.709

2.1.3 Missed Photon Dose 

Missed photon doses were assigned by both SC&A and NIOSH. 

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Methods Used to Assign Missed Photon Dose

SC&A analyzed the number of actual zeros and potential zeros based on monthly badge 

exchange cycles using the guidance in OCAS-IG-001, page 16, to arrive at a total of 27 zeros (or 

<LOD/2 values) for photons, and no zero (or <LOD/2 values) for non-penetrating <30 keV 

photons. According to the DR report, NIOSH used 21 zeros for 30–250 keV photons. SC&A 

and NIOSH used the annual number of zeros, the DR parameters as previously described, and 

the applicable DCFs to determine the annual missed photon doses. The limit of detection (LOD) 

values from ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-12, page 40, were used, and were as follows: 

 [Redact]–[redact] = 0.020 mR

 [Redact]–[redact] = 0.020 mrem

 [Redact]–[redact] = 0.010 mrem

SC&A’s Missed Photon Dose 

SC&A used the following methods to derive missed photon dose: 

 DCFs as recommended in OCAS-IG-001. 

 Because all the recorded doses were relatively small, each quarterly recorded dose could 

have occurred within one monthly badge exchange. Therefore, missed dose was assigned 

for each monthly badge exchange that could have potentially read zero, for a total of 27 

zeros. 

 Assigned 4 potential missed doses for the last two quarters of [redact].
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

16 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

NIOSH’s Missed Photon Dose 

NIOSH used the following methods to derive missed photon dose: 

 DCFs as recommended in OCAS-IG-001.

 A best-estimate methodology to determine the number of zeros, for a total of 21 zeros. 

 Did not assign missed dose for the last two quarters of [redact].

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Missed Photon Doses 

SC&A and NIOSH assigned missed photon doses as shown in Table 2-6. The smaller missed 

photon dose assigned by NIOSH was due to the fact that: 

 NIOSH derived a fewer number of zeros using the best-estimate method, as opposed to 

counting the potential number of zeros, as was done by SC&A. 

 NIOSH did not apply any monthly zeros for the last two quarters of [redact], when the 

EE’s records listed quarterly results.

Table 2-6. Comparison of Missed Photon Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Total missed photon dose 0.385 0.330

Both DR methods entered the missed photon doses into IREP Input tables as a lognormal 

distribution. 

2.1.4 Recorded Neutron Dose 

For the employment period [redact]–[redact], the annual DOE records for RFP contained 

penetrating dose (which include photon and neutron doses) and skin dose (which included nonpenetrating, photon, and neutron doses). The RFP records did not contain separate photon and 

neutron dose records. The DOE records contained Neutron Dose Reconstruction Protocol

(NDRP) data for [redact]. For the employment period [redact]–[redact], the annual DOE 

record showed a deep dose of zero and a neutron dose of zero for each year. There was no 

record of monitoring during the employment period of [redact]–[redact].

SC&A’s Neutron Dose Assignment Methodology 

The n/p method was used to sort out the respective photon and neutron doses from positive 

recorded readings. Because the EE’s duties required the EE to be present in various operating 

locations at the RFP (i.e., the EE did not spend the majority of the time in an office building), 

CW-modeled neutron doses were assigned during periods the EE’s records contained no 

monitoring data. Missed neutron dose was assigned using the n/p method. 

[Redact]: There were no doses recorded for this year; therefore, no recorded neutron dose was 

assigned. Coworker data were used to assign neutron dose during this employment period.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

17 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

[Redact]: The DOE records contained NDRP data for [redact], in which there were four 

recorded badge exchanges with all readings less than the LOD/2 value of 0.060 rem ([redact]

neutron LOD = 120 mrem, as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-20, page 47). Therefore, 

SC&A assigned four neutron missed doses and eight months of CW neutron dose, since the EE 

was partially monitored for neutrons during [redact]; no measured or n/p-derived neutron doses 

were assigned for [redact].

[Redact]–[redact]: The n/p method was used to sort out the respective photon and neutron 

doses from positive recorded readings for this period.

[Redact]–[redact]: There were no positive doses recorded for this period; therefore, no 

recorded neutron dose was assigned. Missed dose or CW data were used to assign neutron dose 

during this employment period.

The previous Table 2-3 summarizes the methods (NDRP data, n/p values, etc.) used to derive the 

various external doses from the recorded dose at RFP. SC&A used the n/p values from 

Tables 6-21 and 6-22 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 50, to derive the appropriate doses; these 

tables were reproduced previously in this report as Exhibit A. A summary of the neutron DCFs 

(OCAS-IG-001, page 66) and energy-weighted ICRP-60 correction factors (ORAUT-TKBS0011-6, Table 6-17, page 45, and Table 6-18, page 46) is as follows: 

 Neutron Exposure Organ DCFs: 

<10 keV: 1.612 

10–100 keV: 1.117 

0.1–2 MeV: 1.180 

2–10 MeV: 1.185 

 Neutron Deep dose Organ DCFs: 

<10 keV: 1.411 

10–100 keV: 1.111 

0.1–2 MeV: 1.145 

2–10 MeV: 1.12 

 Neutron Energy-weighted ICRP-60 Correction Factors

<10 keV: 0.0755

10–100 keV: 0.0309 

0.1–2 MeV: 1.31 

2–10 MeV: 0.345 

NIOSH’s Neutron Dose Assignment Methodology 

SC&A’s analysis of the DR report and accompanying files for this case indicate that NIOSH 

used the same methods and parameters to assign neutron dose in this case as SC&A used (which 

were described above).
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

18 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Neutron Doses and Methods 

Using the EE’s dosimetry records and above-cited parameters, SC&A and NIOSH assigned 

nearly identical neutron doses, as shown in Table 2-7. 

Table 2-7. Comparison of Recorded Neutron Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Recorded neutron dose 0.457 0.445

In analyzing the neutron dose assignment calculation worksheets, SC&A found that the slight 

difference in recorded neutron dose assigned by SC&A and NIOSH resulted from rounding of 

the multiple parameters and intermediate values derived in the process of determining the final 

assigned dose from the original recorded data using the process outlined previously in Table 2-3. 

SC&A and NIOSH both assigned recorded neutron dose using a lognormal distribution. 

2.1.5 Coworker Neutron Dose 

Coworker neutron doses were assigned by both SC&A and NIOSH for periods the EE was not 

monitored. 

SC&A’s Coworker Neutron Dose 

SC&A used the 50th percentile plutonium CW neutron dose values recommended in Table C-3, 

page 97, and Table C-4, pages 99–100, of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 (applying DCFs and energyweighted ICRP factors as previously described) to assign neutron doses during periods when the 

EE was not continuously monitored ([redact], [redact], and [redact]–[redact]), prorating the 

appropriate time periods. The CW dose values for Building 71 were used, because the EE could 

have been at numerous locations and Building 71 dose values provided for the most claimantfavorable dose assignments. 

SC&A used a lognormal distribution, with an uncertainty of 1.520, to assign CW neutron dose. 

NIOSH’s Coworker Neutron Dose 

SC&A’s analysis of the DR report and accompanying files for this case indicates that NIOSH 

used the same methods and parameters to assign CW neutron dose in this case as SC&A (which 

were described above), except NIOSH used normal, lognormal, and triangular distributions. 

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Coworker Neutron Doses 

SC&A and NIOSH assigned CW neutron doses as shown in Table 2-8. The differences in the 

annual assigned doses resulted from rounding of the multiple parameters and intermediate values 

derived in the process of determining the final assigned dose from the original recorded data 

using the process outlined previously in Table 2-3. A slight difference in dose was also 

introduced based on the method used to calculate the prorated work periods; i.e., whether the 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

19 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

number of days, fraction of months, or fraction of year was used to determine the prorated time 

fraction. Additionally, NIOSH used normal, lognormal, and triangular distributions for CW

neutron doses assignments, whereas SC&A used a lognormal distribution for all CW neutron 

dose assignments. 

Table 2-8. Comparison of Coworker Neutron Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Total coworker neutron dose 6.333 6.163

2.1.6 Missed Neutron Dose 

Missed neutron doses were assigned by both SC&A and NIOSH. 

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Methods Used to Assign Missed Neutron Dose 

SC&A analyzed the number of actual zeros and potential zeros based on a monthly badge 

exchange cycle using the guidance in OCAS-IG-001, page 16, to arrive at a total of 27 zeros (or 

<LOD/2 values) for neutrons. According to the DR report, NIOSH used 25 zeros for neutron 

dose. SC&A and NIOSH used the annual number of zeros, the DR parameters as previously 

listed, and the applicable DCFs to determine the annual missed neutron doses. 

SC&A’s Missed Neutron Dose

SC&A used the following information to derive missed neutron dose: 

 DCFs, energy-weighted ICRP factors, and n/p values as previously described. 

 [Redact]: There were no doses recorded for this year; therefore, no missed neutron dose 

was assigned. Coworker data were used to assign neutron dose during this employment 

period.

 [Redact]: The DOE records contained NDRP data for [redact], in which there were four 

recorded badge exchanges with all readings <LOD/2 value of 0.060 rem ([redact]

neutron LOD = 120 mrem as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-20, page 47). 

Therefore, SC&A assigned four neutron missed doses and eight months of CW neutron 

dose, since the EE was partially monitored for neutrons during [redact].

 [Redact]–[redact]: The n/p method was applied to the missed photon doses during this 

period.

 [Redact]–[redact]: Missed neutron dose, based on missed photon dose and the n/p 

method, was assigned during this employment period. There were no positive photon or 

neutron dose values recorded during this period; therefore, only missed or CW dose was 

assigned.

 [Redact]–[redact]: There was no record of monitoring during this employment period; 

therefore, only CW neutron dose was applied.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

20 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

 Assigned the missed neutron dose with a lognormal distribution and geometric standard 

deviation (GSD) of 1.520.

NIOSH’s Missed Neutron Dose 

SC&A’s analysis of the DR report and accompanying files for this case indicates that NIOSH 

used the same methods and parameters to assign missed neutron dose in this case as SC&A 

(which were described above), except NIOSH used a lognormal distribution with a GSD 

centered around 1.520. 

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Missed Neutron Doses 

SC&A and NIOSH assigned missed neutron doses as shown in Table 2-9. The smaller missed 

neutron dose assigned by NIOSH appears to be due to the fact that NIOSH used a smaller 

number of missed doses (SC&A used 27 zeros, and the DR report stated that NIOSH used 25 

zeros for assigning neutron dose). Additional small differences in the annual missed neutron 

doses resulted from rounding of the multiple parameters and intermediate values derived in the 

process of determining the final assigned dose from the original recorded data using the process 

as outlined previously in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-9. Comparison of Missed Neutron Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Total missed neutron dose 1.270 0.999

2.1.7 Onsite Ambient Doses 

According to ORAUT-PROC-0060, Attachment A, page 14, RFP onsite external ambient dose is 

to be assigned prior to 1977 and after 1999, even if other doses are assigned during these periods. 

SC&A’s External Environmental Dose 

SC&A used the best-estimate DR value of 0.004 rem/y (as recommended on page 25 of 

ORAUT-PROC-0060), the appropriate years, and prorated for time worked to assign ambient 

dose in this case. SC&A used the ambient rotational exposure geometry DCF of 0.587 for the 

breast (as per page 49 of OCAS-IG-001). SC&A derived a total external environmental dose of 

0.016 rem. The doses were entered as a constant with no uncertainty in the IREP Input tables, as 

per ORAUT-PROC-0060, page 25. 

NIOSH’s External Environmental Dose 

NIOSH used the best-estimate DR value of 0.004 rem/y (as recommended on page 25 of 

ORAUT-PROC-0060), the appropriate years, and prorated for time worked to assign ambient 

dose in this case. NIOSH did not state in the DR report or the accompanying files what DCF 

was used; however, SC&A performed some back calculations and found NIOSH used an average 

DCF of approximately 0.634 for external ambient dose in this case. NIOSH derived a total 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

21 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

external environmental dose of 0.018 rem. The doses were entered with normal or triangular 

distributions in the IREP Input tables. 

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s External Ambient Doses 

SC&A’s and NIOSH’s external ambient doses agree reasonably well. The main difference was 

the value of the DCFs used and the types of distributions applied. 

2.1.8 Occupational Medical Doses 

Both SC&A and NIOSH: 

 Calculated an occupational medical dose from diagnostic x-ray procedures required as a 

condition of employment. 

 Used the number and type of x-ray exams as provided in the EE’s DOE records. 

 Assigned doses for 3 posterior-anterior (PA) view and 1 lumbar-spine (L-S) view x-ray 

exams. 

 Used the appropriate breast x-ray dose values as recommended in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-

3, Table 3-6, page 13, for the PA views, and Table 3-7, page 14, for the 1968 lumbarspine lateral (LAT) and anterior-posterior (AP) view.

SC&A’s Method for Assigning Medical X-ray Dose

The DOE records show that the EE received a pre-hire x-ray exam in [redact], a termination 

x-ray exam in [redact], and a routine x-ray exam in [redact]. SC&A noted that the summary 

sheet on page 8 of the DOE file lists two x-ray exams in [redact], but the detailed original data 

sheets for [redact], pages 6 and 7, list only one x-ray exam on [redact]. Therefore, SC&A 

assumed that the EE had one x-ray exam in [redact]. According to ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, 

page 8, the frequency of x-ray exams at RFP varied widely; therefore, since there were x-ray 

exam records available for this EE, no additional x-ray exam doses will be assigned. SC&A 

assumed a PA and L-S LAT and AP view as listed in Table 3-7, page 14, of ORAUT-TKBS0011-3, because the original x-ray exam record was not available. However, for [redact], the 

original x-ray exam record (DOE record, pdf. 5) was available and it does not indicate that an

L-S exam was performed. Therefore, SC&A did not include an L-S exam for [redact].

NIOSH’s Method for Assigning Medical X-ray Dose 

SC&A’s analysis of the DR report and accompanying files for this case indicates that NIOSH 

used the same methods and parameters to assign medical x-ray dose in this case as SC&A (which 

were described above), except for the [redact] L-S LAT and AP dose values. 

Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Medical X-ray Doses 

SC&A’s and NIOSH’s medical x-ray doses match, except for the [redact] L-S LAT and AP dose 

values. Table 3-7, page 14 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, recommends an L-S LAT dose value of 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

22 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

4.75E-2 rem, and an L-S AP dose value of 3.6E-2 rem (these dose values appear in entries #148 

and #149, respectively, of SC&A’s IREP Input tables). However, NIOSH’s entry #150 in the 

IREP Input tables contains a dose of 7.58E-3 rem for the L-S LAT view, and entry #151 contains 

a dose of 4.78E-3 for the L-S AP view. SC&A’s investigation of the RFP Workbook 5.00 

reveals that the Xray Data tab contains the L-S AP dose value of 4.78E-3 rem in Column D, 

Row 201, and the L-S LAT dose value of 7.58E-3 rem in Column D, Row 286. These values do 

not match those provided in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, Table 3-7, page 14, for the [redact] L-S 

LAT and AP view. 

Table 2-10 shows a comparison of the occupational medical doses calculated by the two DR 

methods. 

Table 2-10. Comparison of Occupational Medical Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Total medical x-ray dose 0.104 0.033

Both methods entered annual doses into IREP as a normal distribution with an uncertainty of 

30%. 

2.2 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSES 

There were a total of three whole body counts (WBCs) performed in [redact], [redact], and 

[redact] for this EE. All results were recorded as background.

2.2.1 Internal Dose Assignment 

SC&A assigned internal intakes and resulting doses based on coworker urinalyses data 

recommended in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, September 2014. NIOSH assigned internal intakes 

and resulting doses using Internal Dose Overestimates for Facilities with Air Sampling 

Programs, ORAUT-OTIB-0018, August 2005. 

SC&A’s Internal Dose Assignment 

SC&A selected CW intake data to assign internal dose in this case, because the EE was 

monitored or assigned CW dose for all external dose assignments, and the EE had received some 

WBCs. SC&A used the CW intake data from Table D-4, page 150 (uranium Types F, M, and S); 

Table D-5 plutonium, page 150 (Type M); and Table D-6, page 151 (plutonium Type S Systemic 

intake rates) in the RFP Chronic Annual Dose Workbook (CADW) (located in the DR Tools 

folder) for the years [redact]–[redact] and [redact]–[redact]. Coworker intakes were selected 

for all the periods of employment, with full-year intakes applied to the years of partial 

employment. All potential solubility types were analyzed and the type that produced the greater 

dose was selected. This resulted in the selection of Type S U-234 and Type S plutonium (which 

consisted of Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-241, and Am-241), which are all alpha emitters. 

The total resulting dose was 0.167 rem from U-234 and 0.818 rem from the Type S plutonium 

components. However, the doses from the plutonium components were adjusted for systemic 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

23 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

organs according to ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Table 4-8, page 17, for urine bioassays (as noted in 

footnote a. of Table D-6 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, page 151). The CW intake period ending 

date in Table D-6 was used as the date of the last bioassay for each intake period in this case (as 

per the last paragraph on page 150 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5). The plutonium Type SS dose 

was 3.218 rem, and the U-234 Type S dose was 0.167 rem; the total adjusted plutonium plus 

uranium alpha dose was 3.385 rem. The plutonium and uranium annual doses were entered 

separately into the IREP Input tables with a constant distribution and an uncertainty of zero, 

since the coworker intake values were at the 95th percentile level (and per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-

5, page 51).

NIOSH’s Internal Dose Assignment 

NIOSH assigned internal intakes and resulting doses using, Internal Dose Overestimates for 

Facilities with Air Sampling Programs, ORAUT-OTIB-0018, August 2005. SC&A analyzed the 

DR report and accompanying files and found that NIOSH derived internal doses using the Rocky 

Flats alpha-emitting radionuclides in Pu chemistry operations or default for the site, 1953–1994 

air concentration value of 4E-12 μCi/ml from Table 4-1, page 10, of OTIB-0018 in the CADW 

for the period [redact]–[redact] and [redact]–[redact]. NIOSH derived both the inhaled and 

ingested doses (ingestion was included because air concentrations were used). NIOSH derived a 

total inhaled plus ingested dose of 1.082 rem from all alpha-emitting radionuclides. 

The total uranium plus plutonium annual doses were entered into the IREP Input tables with a 

lognormal distribution and a GSD of 3.000. 

Comparison of Internal Dose Assignments 

Table 2-11 shows a comparison of the internal doses assigned by the SC&A and NIOSH. 

 

Table 2-11. Comparison of Internal Doses 

SC&A (rem) NIOSH (rem)

Plutonium plus uranium dose 3.385 1.082

The difference in the internal dose assignments resulted from SC&A using the CW intake data 

from ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, as opposed to NIOSH using the air concentration data from 

ORAUT-OTIB-0018. 

SC&A’s investigation of this difference indicates that the derived internal doses before 

consideration of Type SS plutonium were very similar; i.e., SC&A derived a total internal dose 

of 0.985 rem compared to NIOSH’s assigned value of 1.082 rem. However, SC&A’s doses from 

the plutonium components were adjusted for systemic organs according to ORAUT-OTIB-0049, 

Table 4-8, page 17, for urine bioassays (as noted in footnote a. of Table D-6 of ORAUT-TKBS0011-5, page 151). NIOSH’s internal doses assigned from using ORAUT-OTIB-0018 were 

derived from using air concentration data; and according to ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Table 4-8, 

page 17, the doses would not be adjusted for Type SS plutonium. SC&A used CW data from 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, which was issued in 2014; whereas, NIOSH used data from ORAUT-
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

24 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

OTIB-0018, which was issued in 2005, before any versions of ORAUT-OTIB-0049 were issued, 

and before Type SS plutonium adjustments were made.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

25 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

3.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

Total external and internal doses and resultant POCs calculated by SC&A and NIOSH in behalf 

of Case #038531 are presented in Table 3-1 for comparison. 

Table 3-1. Comparison of SC&A’s and NIOSH’s Total External and 

Internal Dose Estimates 

SC&A

[Redact] breast

NIOSH

[Redact] breast

SC&A

[Redact] breast

NIOSH

[Redact] breast

External Dose 11.068 10.511 11.068 10.511

Internal Dose 3.385 1.082 3.385 1.082

Total Dose 14.453 11.593 14.453 11.593

Cancer POC 25.02% 24.44% 25.02% 24.44%

Combined POC - - 43.78% 42.91%

As shown in Table 3-1, SC&A’s and NIOSH’s dose estimates and resulting POCs are in close 

agreement. The key difference is reflected in internal dose assignments, where SC&A applied 

CW urinalyses data from ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, and NIOSH used air concentration data from 

ORAUT-OTIB-0018. 

A more detailed discussion of variables that contributed to key differences in dose assignments is 

presented below. 

 Handling of the 1970 External Dose Record Discrepancy 

– SC&A considered that the deep dose and the shallow dose entries may have been 

reversed. 

–NIOSH added additional dose as a possible overestimate approach. 

–This difference in methodology resulted in NIOSH assigning a slighter greater 

recorded 30–250 keV photon dose and a larger <30 keV photon shallow dose than 

SC&A assigned. 

 Dose Distribution 

– SC&A used the following dose distributions: 

 Recorded photon and shallow dose; Normal distribution with 30% uncertainty 

 Assigned neutron dose; Lognormal distribution with 1.52 GSD 

 Coworker photon and neutron dose; Lognormal distribution with 1.52 GSD 

 Missed photon dose; Lognormal distribution with 1.55 GSD 

 Missed neutron dose; Lognormal distribution with 1.52 GSD 

 Environmental external dose; Constant with no uncertainty 

 Medical x-ray dose; Normal distribution with 30% uncertainty 

 Internal environmental dose; Constant with no uncertainty. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

26 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

– NIOSH used the following dose distributions: 

 Recorded photon and shallow dose; Normal and lognormal distributions with 

various uncertainties 

 Assigned neutron dose; Lognormal distribution with various uncertainties 

 Coworker photon and neutron dose; Normal, lognormal, and triangular 

distributions with various uncertainties 

 Missed photon dose; Lognormal distribution with uncertainty centered on 1.52 

 Missed neutron dose; Lognormal distribution with uncertainty centered on 1.52 

 Environmental external dose; Normal and triangular distributions with various 

uncertainties 

 Medical x-ray dose; Normal distribution with 30% uncertainty 

 Internal environmental dose; Lognormal with 3.000 GSD 

– The difference in distributions accounted for some difference in the assigned doses, 

especially when NIOSH used a triangular distribution; e.g., coworker and 

environmental external doses. 

 Assignment of Missed External Dose 

– SC&A assigned missed dose for each potential monthly badge exchange that could 

have read zero, for a total of 27 photon and 27 neutron zeros; this included 4 potential 

missed doses for the last two quarters of [redact].

– NIOSH used a best-estimate methodology to determine the number of zeros, for a 

total of 21 photons and 25 neutron zeros. NIOSH did not assign missed dose for the 

last two quarters of [redact].

– This resulted in NIOSH assigning slightly less missed photon and neutron doses 

compared to SC&A. 

 Assignment of Onsite Ambient Dose 

– SC&A assigned external ambient dose for the period [redact]–[redact] and [redact]–

[redact] with a constant distribution and no uncertainty.

– NIOSH assigned external ambient dose for the period [redact]–[redact] and 

[redact]–[redact] with normal and triangular distributions.

– This resulted in SC&A assigning a slightly less ambient dose than NIOSH. 

 Assignment of Occupational Medical X-ray Dose 

– Both SC&A and NIOSH used the number and view of recorded exams in the DOE 

records for this EE to assign medical x-ray doses. 

– SC&A used the dose tables in RFP ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3 to assign doses. 

– NIOSH used the dose values in the RFP calculation workbook. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

27 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

– SC&A’s and NIOSH’s medical x-ray doses match, except for the [redact] L-S LAT 

and AP dose values. The L-S LAT dose assigned by NIOSH was lower than those 

listed in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, Table 3-7, page 14, for the [redact] L-S LAT and 

AP view.

 Assignment of Internal Dose

– SC&A assigned internal intakes and resulting doses based on CW urinalyses data 

recommended in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, September 2014. 

– NIOSH assigned internal intakes and resulting doses using Internal Dose 

Overestimates for Facilities with Air Sampling Programs, ORAUT-OTIB-0018, 

August 2005. 

– This difference in methodology resulted in a lower internal dose being assigned by 

NIOSH compared to SC&A’s internal dose assignment, mainly because the air 

concentration data did not need to be adjusted for Type SS plutonium, but CW

urinalyses data did, as recommended in ORAUT-OTIB-0049. 
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

28 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

4.0 REFERENCES 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1990. Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England. 

OCAS-IG-001. 2007. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 3, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 21, 2007. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2011. Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Organ, 

External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 04, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 18, 2011. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017. 2009. Technical Information Bulletin: Interpretation of Dosimetry Data 

for Assignment of Shallow Dose, Rev. 02-A, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. July 20, 2009. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0018. 2005. Internal Dose Overestimates for Facilities with Air Sampling 

Programs, Rev. 01. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 9, 2005. 

ORAUT-PROC-0060. 2006. Occupational On-Site Ambient Dose Reconstruction for DOE 

Sites, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 28, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049. 2010. Technical Information Bulletin: Estimating Doses for Plutonium 

Strongly Retained in the Lung, Rev. 01 PC-2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 29, 2010. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3. 2007. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flat Plant –

Occupational Medical Dose, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. April 23, 2007.

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5. 2014. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flat Plant –

Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. September 30, 2014.

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6. 2010. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flat Plant –

Occupational External Dosimetry, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. October 20, 2010.

SC&A 2015a. SC&A’s Memo from Doug Farver, SC&A, to the Subcommittee on Dose 

Reconstruction, Subject: 20th DR Set – Blind Dose Reconstruction Reviews, SC&A, Inc., 

Vienna, Virginia. February 27, 2015.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

29 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

SC&A 2015b. SC&A’s Blind Dose Reconstruction of Case #[Redact] from the Rocky Flats 

Plant, SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN038531, Rev. 0, SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia. February 27, 

2015.
Effective Date:

April 13, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-DRC2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

30 of 30

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

ADDENDUM A: SC&A’S BLIND DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

REPORT OF CASE #[REDACT] 
DRAFT 

REPORT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

BLIND DOSE RECONSTRUCTION OF CASE #[REDACT]

FROM THE ROCKY FLATS PLANT

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Prepared by 

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

February 2015

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

2 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

S. Cohen & Associates:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on

Radiation & Worker Health Review of

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Effective Date: 

Draft – February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

BLIND DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

OF CASE #[REDACT] FROM THE ROCKY 

FLATS PLANT

Page 2 of 24

Task Manager:

________________________ Date: _________

Douglas Farver, MS

Supersedes:

N/A

Project Manager:

________________________ Date: _________

John Stiver, CHP

Reviewers:

 Douglas Farver

 Rose Gogliotti

 Kathy Behling

 John Stiver

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number Effective Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 02/27/2015 Initial issued.
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

3 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

1.0 Summary Background Information .................................................................................... 6

1.1 SC&A Blind DR Approach .................................................................................... 6

2.0 External Doses .................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Recorded Photon Dose ............................................................................................ 9

2.2 Missed Photon Dose ............................................................................................. 10

2.3 Coworker Photon Dose ......................................................................................... 10

2.4 Assigned Neutron Dose ........................................................................................ 11

2.5 Missed Neutron Doses .......................................................................................... 13

2.6 Coworker Neutron Dose ....................................................................................... 14

2.7 Onsite External Ambient Dose ............................................................................. 14

2.8 Occupational Medical Dose .................................................................................. 15

3.0 Internal Doses ................................................................................................................... 16

4.0 CATI Report and Radiological Incidents ......................................................................... 17

5.0 Summary Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 18

References ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: IREP Input – 2011 Right or Left Breast ................................................................. 20
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

4 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AP anterior-posterior

CADW Chronic Annual Dose Workbook 

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

CW coworker 

DCF dose conversion factor

DDE Deep dose equivalent 

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy 

DOL (U.S.) Department of Labor 

DR dose reconstruction 

EE Energy Employee 

GM geometric mean 

GSD geometric standard deviation

ICD International Classification of Diseases 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

keV kiloelectron volts 

L-S lumbar-spine 

LAT lateral 

LOD limit of detection

MeV megaelectron-volt, 1 million electron-volts 

mrem millirem

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NDRP Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NP non-penetrating 

n/p neutron-to-photon dose ratio 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

PA posterior-anterior 

Pene penetrating 

POC probability of causation 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

5 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

rem Roentgen equivalent man 

RFP Rocky Flats Plant 

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

SDE SK Shallow dose equivalent – skin 

TBD technical basis document 

TIB technical information bulletin 

WBC whole-body count 

y year 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

6 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1.0 SUMMARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

This report presents the results of an independent blind dose reconstruction (DR) performed by 

S. Cohen & Associates (SC&A, Inc.) for an energy employee (EE) who worked as a [Redact], 

[Redact], and [Redact] at the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) during the following periods: 

 [Redact]–[redact]

 [Redact]–[redact]

The EE was diagnosed with [redact] breast invasive ductal carcinoma in situ (ICD-9 Code 233.0) 

in [redact].

According to Department of Labor (DOL) files and the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

(CATI) report, the EE worked in the [redact], [redact], and [redact] Areas during the first 

period of employment, and in [redact], close to Building [redact], during the second period of 

employment. The EE was monitored for external photon exposure during most of the first 

employment period, and twice during the second employment period at the RFP. 

1.1 SC&A BLIND DR APPROACH

SC&A reviewed all of the Department of Energy (DOE) records provided on behalf of this 

employee and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) procedures 

relevant to this case, which included the Technical Basis Document (TBD) for the RFP (issued 

as six separate document numbered ORAUT-TKBS-0011-1 through ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6), 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005 for surrogate organs, OCAS-IG-001 for dose conversion factors (DCFs), 

and ORAUT-OTIB-0017 for shallow doses. Using the guidance provided in these documents, 

along with the employee’s dosimetry records, SC&A calculated reasonable, claimant-favorable 

annual organ doses for each of the two cancer sites. Table 1 provides a summary of the total 

doses assigned to the cancer sites. Appendix A provides a list of SC&A’s assigned annual organ 

dose and also includes the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) input parameters, 

such as energy range, distribution type, and uncertainty for each year. 

SC&A determined the probability of causation (POC) for this case using the annual doses as 

input into the POC program; the total doses shown in Table 1 produced a POC of 43.78%. 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

7 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Table 1. Summary of SC&A-Derived External/Internal Dose Estimates

[Redact] Breast [Redact]

Entry No. Dose (rem)

External Dose –

 ▪ Recorded/Modeled n/p Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 1–4 0.247

 <30 keV Photons 5–7 0.027

 Neutrons by n/p 8–19 0.457

 ▪ Missed/Assigned n/p Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 20–25 0.385

 <30 keV Photons NA -

 Neutrons by NDRP & n/p 26–49 1.270

 ▪ Coworker Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 50–64 1.505

 <30 keV Photons 65–79 0.724

 Neutrons 80–139 6.333

 ▪ External Environmental Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 140–147 0.016

 ▪ Occupational Medical Dose:

 30–250 keV Photons 148–152 0.104

Internal Dose –

 CW Pu Alpha 153–195 3.218

 CW U-234 Alpha 196–238 0.167

Total 14.453
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

8 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.0 EXTERNAL DOSES 

To perform this DR, SC&A analyzed the DOE files containing the quarterly and annual 

summaries. The datasheet for [redact] lists the EE’s name and the quarterly exchanges, but it 

contained all blank results; while the recorded readings for the period [redact]–[redact] 

contained some positive recorded doses and some zeros. A summary sheet on page 13 of the 

DOE files contained annual summaries for the years [redact]–[redact], plus data for one badge 

exchange in [redact] and one in [redact] (with zero doses recorded). The datasheet for [redact] 

on page 32 of the DOE files appears to contain an error, in that the 3rd quarter skin dose was

recorded as 71 mrem and the penetrating dose was recorded as 98 mrem. Considering the fact 

that at this time at the RFP, the shallow dose was defined as the skin dose minus the penetrating 

dose (ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 38), the skin dose must be greater than or equal to the 

penetrating dose (and it was for all the other recorded positive doses). Therefore, it appears that 

the two values may have been interchanged and the penetrating dose was actually 71 mrem and 

the skin dose was 98 mrem; SC&A will use this assumption, as it is consistent with the other 

recorded doses for this EE. Another error that SC&A found was in the DOE files on pages 11, 

12, and 13, where the summary sheets list the annual Deep (or DDE) and the Skin (or SDE SK) 

doses as equal to each other for the years [redact]–[redact]; this is incorrect according to the 

details provided by the quarterly exchange datasheets and, therefore, will not be used in the DR. 

SC&A used the DR parameters as recommended in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 and ORAUT-OTIB0017. Because the EE’s tasks involved work in various locations at the RFP, a default energy 

range of 100% 30–250 keV photons for fresh plutonium (ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-9, 

page 36) and 100% <30 keV photon for non-penetrating dose (ORAUT-OTIB-0017, page 6) was 

used. A photon limit of detection (LOD) value of 0.020 rem was used for all years of monitored 

data (ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-12, page 40). Exposure DCFs were used for the period 

[redact]–[redact], and deep DCFs for the period [redact]–[redact], as per ORAUT-TKBS0011-6, Table 6-11, page 39. 

SC&A used 30–250 keV photon DCFs, as recommended in OCAS-IG-001 (for AP geometry),

which consisted of a breast photon exposure DCF of 1.266, and a deep DCF of 0.894. For 

<30 keV photons from plutonium, SC&A used DCFs as recommended in OCAS-IG-001 (for AP 

geometry), which consisted of a <30 keV photon breast exposure DCF of 0.457, and a deep DCF 

of 0.761. No further adjustment of the dose to the breast is recommended, as per ORAUTOTIB-0017, page 6. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 38, recommends that the following methods be used to determine 

penetrating and non-penetrating doses from recorded dose data: 

Table 2. Summary of External Dose Assignment Methods 

Penetrating Photons 30–250 keV Non-penetrating

Photons < 30 keV

Neutron

Four Energy Ranges

[redacted] Pene × [1/(1+n/p)] (Skin - Pene)/0.65 Pene x [(n/p)/(1+n/p)] or NDRP data

[redacted] Pene × [1/(1+n/p)] (Skin - Pene) Pene × [(n/p)/(1+n/p)]

[redacted] Penetrating (Skin – Pene) n/p=0.42 or recorded n dose
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

9 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

In this case, the DOE files contained Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project (NDRP) data for 

[redact], in which there were four recorded badge exchanges with all readings <LOD/2 value of 

0.060 rem (1970 neutron LOD = 120 mrem as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-20, page 47). 

Therefore, SC&A assigned 4 neutron missed doses, and 8 months of coworker (CW) neutron 

dose, since the EE was partially monitored for neutrons during [redact]. When applicable, the 

neutron-to-photon (n/p) ratio method was used for measured and missed neutron doses; the n/p 

values used in this DR were obtained from Tables 6-21 and 6-22, page 50, of ORAUT-TKBS0011-6. Because the EE’s duties required the EE to be present in various operating locations at 

the RFP (i.e., the EE did not spend the majority of the time in an office building), CW modeled 

photon and neutron doses were assigned during periods the EE’s records contained no 

monitoring data. 

2.1 RECORDED PHOTON DOSE 

SC&A used the [redact]–[redact] recorded photon dose values to assign measured photon doses 

using the parameters previously described.

Example of [redact] recorded photon dose calculations – SC&A calculated the [redact] photon 

dose to the breast as follows:

Analyzing the DOE records, SC&A found that the EE received a total penetrating dose of 

0.119 rem and skin dose of 0.146 rem (with recording errors corrected as previously 

discussed) for [redact]. The photon dose was calculated as follows: 

Photon dose = Pene × 1/(1+n/p) = 0.119 rem × 1/(1+1.61) = 0.046 rem 

30–250 keV photon dose = Photon dose × DCF × Energy f. 

= 0.046 rem × 1.266 × 1.00

= 0.058 rem (entry #1 of the IREP table) 

 <30 keV photon dose = (Skin-Pene)/0.65 × DCF × Energy f. 

= (0.146 – 0.119)/0.65 rem × 0.457 × 1.00

= 0.019 rem (entry #5 of the IREP table) 

SC&A’s calculated total 30–250 keV dose (0.247 rem) and <30 keV photon dose (0.027 rem) are 

summarized in Table 1, and the details are listed in the IREP Input table in entries #1–#4 and #5–

#7, respectively, of Appendix A.

As per ORAUT-OTIB-0017, page 10, dose to organs such as the breast can be assigned with a 

normal or constant distribution, whichever is most claimant favorable. In this case, SC&A found 

that a normal distribution provided for the greater POC; therefore, the recorded photon doses 

were entered into the IREP Input table using a normal distribution with a 30% uncertainty. 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

10 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.2 MISSED PHOTON DOSE 

SC&A analyzed the number of potential zeros based on a monthly badge exchange cycle and 

arrived at a total of 27 zeros, or <LOD/2 values, for photons. SC&A used the annual number of 

zeros, the LOD/2 value, the DR parameters as listed above, and the applicable DCFs to 

determine the annual missed photon and shallow doses. Missed dose to the breast was assigned 

as 30–250 keV photons, as per ORAUT-OTIB-0017, page 18. 

Example of [redact] missed photon dose calculations – SC&A calculated the missed [redact]

photon dose to the breast as follows:

Records show that for the four quarters of [redact], the EE had received a penetrating dose 

of 0, 0, 71 mrem, and 48 mrem (with recording errors corrected as previously discussed). 

However, the zero entries for the first and second quarters may be suspect, because they may 

have been entered without monitoring, as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 35. Therefore, 

CW dose was assigned for the first two quarters of [redact], and recorded dose and four 

potential missed doses assigned for the last two quarters of [redact]. The photon LOD was 

0.020 rem.

 Missed 30–250 keV photon dose = (# zeros × LOD/2) × DCF × Energy f. 

 = (4 × 0.010 rem) × 1.266 × 1.00

 = 0.051 rem (entry #20 of the IREP table) 

The photon missed doses were entered into IREP as a lognormal distribution (as recommended 

in ORAUT-OTIB-0017, page 10, and ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 40) with an uncertainty of 

1.520. The photon missed dose (0.385 rem) is summarized in Table 1, and assigned in the IREP 

Input table in entries #20–#25, as shown in Appendix A. 

2.3 COWORKER PHOTON DOSE 

Coworker Penetrating Photon Dose 

SC&A used the 50th percentile plutonium CW photon dose values recommended in Table C-3, 

page 97, and Table C-4, pages 99–100, of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 (applying the parameters 

previously described) to assign photon doses during the periods the EE was not continuously 

monitored ([redact], [redact], and [redact]–[redact]), prorating the appropriate time periods. 

The CW dose values for Building 71 were used, because the EE could have been at numerous 

locations and overall Building 71 dose values provided for the most claimant-favorable dose 

assignments. 

Example of [redact] coworker 30–250 keV photon dose calculations – SC&A calculated the 

[redact] CW photon dose to the breast as follows:

According to Table C-3, page 97, the 50th percentile coworker photon dose for [redact] was 

0.120 rem. This was prorated for 6 months for the 1st and 2nd quarters when the EE may not 

have been monitored. The photon dose was calculated as follows:
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

11 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

30–250 keV photon dose = CW Photon dose × Time f. × DCF × Energy f. 

= 0.120 rem × 6/12 x 1.266 × 1.00 

= 0.076 rem (entry #51 of the IREP table) 

SC&A’s calculated total penetrating photon dose (1.505 rem) is summarized in Table 1, and the 

details are listed in the IREP Input table in entries #50–#64, as shown in Appendix A. 

Coworker Shallow Photon Dose 

SC&A used the 50th percentile uranium CW photon dose values (as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, 

pages 94–95) recommended in Table C-5, pages 100–101 (applying the parameters previously 

described) to assign shallow photon doses during periods when the EE was not continuously 

monitored ([redact], [redact], and [redact]–[redact]), prorating the appropriate time periods. 

The CW shallow dose was derived by subtracting the 50th percentile penetrating dose value from 

the 50th percentile non-penetrating dose value and assigning it as <30 keV photons, as per 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017. Additionally, the shallow dose was adjusted by the correction factor of 

0.65 for the years [redact] and [redact], as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 38. 

Example of [redact] coworker <30 keV photon shallow dose calculations – SC&A calculated 

the [redact] CW shallow photon dose to the breast as follows:

According to Table C-5, page 100, the 50th percentile non-penetrating (NP) CW photon dose 

for [redact] was 0.651 rem and the penetrating (Pene dose was 0.531 rem. This was prorated 

for 6 months for the 1st and 2nd quarters when the EE may not have been monitored. The 

shallow photon dose was calculated as follows: 

<30 keV photon dose = (NP-PEN)/0.65 × Time f. × DCF × Energy f. 

 = (0.651 rem – 0.531 rem)/0.65 × 6/12 × 0.457 × 1.00 

 = 0.042 rem (entry #66 of the IREP table) 

SC&A’s calculated total shallow photon dose (0.724 rem) is summarized in Table 1, and the 

details are listed in the IREP Input table in entries #65–#79, as shown in Appendix A. 

In this case, SC&A found that a lognormal distribution provided for the greater POC for photon 

doses; therefore, the CW photon doses were entered into the IREP Input table using a lognormal 

distribution with an uncertainty of 1.520. 

2.4 ASSIGNED NEUTRON DOSE 

The DOE records show that the EE may have been monitored for neutrons along with the photon 

monitoring, with all results recorded as zero, except for [redact] when the NDRP data list four 

recorded neutron doses less than the LOD/2 value of 0.060 rem. Therefore, the n/p method was 

used to assign neutron dose for the periods the EE was monitored for photon exposures (when 

either positive photon results or zeros were recorded), except LOD data for neutrons were used 

for missed dose for the four badge exchanges in [redact] where NDRP data were available. RFP 

CW neutron dose data will be used for the periods the EE was not monitored, because the EE 

may have been exposed in the plutonium work areas. 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

12 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

The neutron energy distribution and adjustment factors as listed in Table 6-17, page 45, of 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 was applied in deriving the neutron doses; the table is reproduced here 

as Exhibit A. 

Exhibit A. Summary of Neutron Adjustment Factors 

(From ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 45) 

SC&A used the recorded photon dose values that were >LOD/2 of 0.010 rem to assign neutron 

doses using the n/p values from Tables 6-21 and 6-22 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 50; the 

tables are reproduced here as Exhibit B. 

Exhibit B. Summary n/p Values 

(From ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 50) 

Example of [redact] assigned neutron dose calculations – SC&A calculated the [redact]

assigned neutron dose to the breast as follows:
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

13 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Analyzing the DOE records, it appears that for [redact], the EE received a total penetrating 

dose of 0.176 rem. The assigned 0.1–2 MeV neutron dose was calculated as follows:

 0.1–2 MeV neutron dose = Pene × [(n/p)/(1+n/p)] × DCFeff

 = 0.176 rem × [1.61/(1+1.61)] × 1.546 

 = 0.168 rem (entry #14 of the IREP Input table) 

The dose values for the other three neutron energy bands were derived in a similar manner. 

The assigned neutron doses were entered into the IREP as a lognormal distribution (as per 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 93) with an uncertainty of 1.520. SC&A assigned a total of 

0.457 rem in entries #8–#19 of the IREP Input table, as summarized in Table 1 and detailed in 

Appendix A. 

2.5 MISSED NEUTRON DOSES 

SC&A used the number of photon zeros and <LOD/2 values as previously described to assign 

missed neutron dose, since all neutron doses were recorded as zero (except for the [redact]

NDRP data when four badge exchanges were recorded with values <LOD/2). The total number 

of missed neutron doses was 27 (i.e., 27 photon – 4 photon 1970 + 4 neutron NDRP 1970 = 27.

Example of [redact] missed neutron dose calculations based on NDRP data – SC&A calculated 

the missed [redact] neutron dose based on the NDRP data as follows:

Records show that for the four badge exchanges in [redact], 10 mrem, 0 mrem, 12 mrem, 

and 13 mrem of neutron dose were recorded, all below the neutron LOD/2 value of 60 mrem,

as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, Table 6-20, page 47. The derived 0.1–2 MeV missed neutron 

dose was calculated as follows:

 0.1–2 MeV neutron dose = (#neutron zeros × LOD/2 rem) × DCFeff

 = (4 × 0.060 rem) × 1.546 

 = 0.371 rem (entry #38 of the IREP Input table) 

The dose values for the other three neutron energy ranges were derived in a similar manner. 

Example of [redact] assigned missed neutron dose calculations based on photon data and n/p –

SC&A calculated the [redact] assigned missed neutron dose based on the missed photon dose 

data and the n/p method as follows:

Records show that for [redact], the EE had one badge exchange with a recorded result of 

zero. The assigned 0.1–2 MeV missed neutron dose was calculated as follows:

 0.1–2 MeV neutron dose = (#photon zeros × LOD/2 rem) × n/p × DCFeff

 = (1 × 0.010 rem) × 0.42 × 1.500 

 = 0.006 rem (entry #42 of the IREP Input table) 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

14 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

The dose values for the other three neutron energy bands were derived in a similar manner. 

The missed neutron doses were entered into the IREP as a lognormal distribution (as 

recommended in ORAUT-OTIB-0017, page 10, and ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6, page 40) with an 

uncertainty of 1.520. SC&A assigned a total of 1.270 rem in entries #26–#49 of the IREP Input 

tables, as summarized in Table 1 and shown in Appendix A. 

2.6 COWORKER NEUTRON DOSE 

SC&A used the 50th percentile plutonium CW neutron dose values recommended in Table C-3, 

page 97, and Table C-4, pages 99–100, of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 (applying the parameters 

previously described) to assign neutron doses during periods when the EE was not continuously 

monitored ([redact], [redact], and [redact]–[redact]), prorating the appropriate time periods. 

The CW dose values for Building 71 were used, because the EE could have been at numerous 

locations and Building 71 dose values provided for the most claimant-favorable dose 

assignments. 

Example of [redact] coworker neutron dose calculations – SC&A calculated the [redact] CW

neutron dose to the breast as follows:

Four badge exchanges for [redact] were accounted for in the NDRP data (and assigned as 

missed dose because they were <LOD/2); therefore, 8 months of CW neutron data were

assigned for [redact]. According to Table C-3, page 97, the 50th percentile coworker neutron 

dose for [redact] was 1.675 rem. This was prorated for 8 months for [redact] when the EE 

may not have been monitored for neutrons. The 0.1–2 MeV neutron dose was calculated as 

follows:

0.1–2 MeV neutron dose = CW Neutron dose × Time f. × DCFeff

= 1.675 rem × 8/12 × 1.546 

= 1.726 rem (entry #111 of the IREP table) 

The dose values for the other three neutron energy bands were derived in a similar manner. 

SC&A’s calculated CW neutron dose (6.333 rem) is summarized in Table 1, and the details are 

listed in the IREP Input table in entries #80–#139, as shown in Appendix A. 

In this case, SC&A found that a lognormal distribution provided for the greater POC; therefore, 

the CW neutron doses were entered into the IREP Input table using a lognormal distribution with 

an uncertainty of 1.520. 

2.7 ONSITE EXTERNAL AMBIENT DOSE 

According to ORAUT-PROC-0060, Attachment A, page 14, RFP onsite external ambient dose is 

to be assigned prior to 1977 and after 1999, even if other doses are assigned during these periods. 

SC&A used the best-estimate DR value of 0.004 rem/y (as recommended on page 25 of 

ORAUT-PROC-0060), the appropriate years, and prorated for time worked to assign ambient 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

15 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

dose in this case. SC&A used an ambient rotational exposure geometry DCF of 0.587 for the 

breast (as per page 49 of OCAS-IG-001). SC&A derived a total external environmental dose of 

0.016 rem, which was assigned in entries #140–#147 of the IREP Input table, as summarized in 

Table 1, with details shown in Appendix A. The doses were entered as a constant with no 

uncertainty in the IREP Input table, as per ORAUT-PROC-0060, page 25. 

2.8 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE 

Records 

The DOE records show that the EE received a pre-hire x-ray exam in [redact], a termination 

x-ray exam in [redact], and a routine x-ray exam in [redact]. SC&A noted that the summary 

sheet on page 8 of the DOE file lists two x-ray exams in [redact], but the detailed original 

datasheets for [redact], pages 6 and 7, list only one x-ray exam on [redact]. Therefore, SC&A 

will assume that the EE had one x-ray exam in [redact]. According to ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, 

page 8, the frequency of x-ray exams at the RFP varied widely; therefore, since there were x-ray 

exam records available for this EE, no additional x-ray exam doses will be assigned. SC&A 

assumed a posterior/anterior (PA) and lumbar-spine (L-S) lateral (LAT) and anterior-posterior 

(AP) view as listed in Table 3-7, page 14, of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, because the original x-ray 

exam record was not available. However, for [redact], the original x-ray exam record (DOE 

file, pdf. 5) was available and it does not indicate that an L-S exam was performed. Therefore, 

SC&A did not include an L-S exam for [redact].

SC&A used the appropriate breast x-ray dose values as recommended in ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3,

Table 3-6, page 13, for the PA view, and Table 3-7, page 14, for the 1968 L-S LAT and AP view 

to assign x-ray doses in this case. Table 3 summarizes these assigned doses. 

Table 3. Summary of Occupational Medical Doses 

(From TKBS-0011-3, Tables 3-6, 3-7, p.13 & 14) 

Dose (rem) View

[redact] 9.80E-03 PA

[redact] 4.90E-03 PA

[redact] 5.80E-03 PA

[redact] 4.75E-02 L-S LAT

[redact] 3.60E-02 L-S AP

Total: 0.104

The 0.104 rem dose assigned is summarized in Table 1 and detailed in the IREP Input table in 

entries #148–#152, as shown in Appendix A. The annual occupational medical dose values were 

entered into the IREP as a normal distribution with 30% uncertainty and a photon energy range 

of 30–250 keV, as per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3, pages 7 and 16.
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

16 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

3.0 INTERNAL DOSES 

There were three whole-body counts (WBCs) performed in [redact], [redact], and [redact] for 

this EE. All results were recorded as background. Therefore, in view of the external monitoring 

records, the EE’s documented work areas (as opposed to office buildings) of the RFP, and the 

use of external CW data, SC&A used CW intake data to derive internal dose assignments in this 

case. 

Coworker Intakes 

SC&A used the CW intake data from Table D-4 (uranium Types F, M, and S), Table D-5 

(plutonium Type M), and Table D-6, (plutonium Type S) in the Chronic Annual Dose Workbook 

(CADW) for the RFP in the DR Tools folder for the years [redact]–[redact] and [redact]–

[redact]. Coworker intakes were selected for the entire periods of employment, with full-year 

intakes applied to those years of partial employment. All potential solubility types were 

analyzed and the type that produced the greater dose was selected. This resulted in the selection 

of Type S U-234 and Type S plutonium (which consisted of Pu-239, Pu-238, Pu-241, and 

Am-241), all alpha emitters. The total resulting dose was 0.167 rem from U-234 and 0.818 rem 

from the Type S plutonium components. However, the doses from the plutonium components 

were adjusted for systemic organs according to ORAUT-OTIB-0049, Table 4-8, page 17, and for 

urine bioassays (as noted in footnote a. of Table D-6 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, page 151). The 

CW intake period ending date in Table D-6 was used as the date of the last bioassay for each 

intake period in this case (as per the last paragraph on page 150 of ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5). The 

total uranium and adjusted plutonium alpha dose was 3.385 rem. The plutonium Type SS dose 

(3.218 rem) was entered into the IREP Input table in entries #153–#195, and the U-234 Type S 

dose (0.167 rem) in entries #196–#238, both with a constant distribution and an uncertainty of 

zero, since the CW intake values were at the 95th percentile level (per ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5, 

page 51). 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

17 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

4.0 CATI REPORT AND RADIOLOGICAL INCIDENTS 

SC&A reviewed the EE’s DOE records and CATI report (which was provided by the EE) to 

determine if the EE was involved in any radiological incidents. The EE indicated that the EE 

had to go through the production areas to get to other areas of the plant, and may have been 

exposed. Coworker and/or recorded dosimetry data were used to assign dose in this case; 

therefore, these DR methods would adequately assign doses to cover these exposures. 

SC&A did not find any further documentation of radiological incidents that would impact the 

radiation doses assigned in this case. 
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

18 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

5.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

This DR used best-estimate methods to obtain reasonable external (11.068 rem) and internal dose 

(3.385 rem) assignments, for a total dose assignment of 14.453 rem. 

The total combined POC for the two cancers was calculated using the IREP (v.5.7.1) and 

determined to be 43.78%.
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

19 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

REFERENCES 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1971, Protection Against 

Neutron Radiation, NCRP Report 38, Bethesda, Maryland, January 4. 

OCAS-IG-001. 2007. External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev. 3, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 21, 2007 

ORAUT-OTIB-0005. 2006. Technical Information Bulletin: Internal Dosimetry Organ, 

External Dosimetry Organ, and IREP Model Selection by ICD-9 Code, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 10, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0017. 2009. Technical Information Bulletin: Interpretation of Dosimetry Data 

for Assignment of Shallow Dose, Rev. 02-A, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. July 20, 2009. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0049. 2010. Technical Information Bulletin: Estimating Doses for Plutonium 

Strongly Retained in the Lung, Rev. 01 PC-2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. November 29, 2010. 

ORAUT-PROC-0060. 2006. Occupational On-Site Ambient Dose Reconstruction for DOE 

Sites, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 28, 2006. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-3. 2007. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flat Plant – 

Occupational Medical Dose, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. April 23, 2007.

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5. 2014. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flat Plant – 

Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. September 30, 2014.

ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6. 2010. Technical Basis Document for the Rocky Flat Plant – 

Occupational External Dosimetry, Rev. 02 PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. October 20, 2010.
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

20 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

APPENDIX A: IREP INPUT – [REDACT] [REDACT] BREAST

CLAIMANT CANCER DIAGNOSES

Primary Cancer #1

Primary 

Cancer #2

Primary 

Cancer #3

Secondary 

Cancer #1

Secondary 

Cancer #2

Secondary 

Cancer #3

Cancer Type

Breast invasive 

ductal carcinoma in 

situ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Date of Diagnosis [redact] N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

EXPOSURE 

INFORMATION

Number of exposures

238

Exp. #

Exposure 

Year

Exposure 

Rate Radiation Type

Dose 

Distribution 

Type

Parameter 

1

Parameter 

2

Parameter 

3

1 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 0.058 0.017 0.000

2 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 0.085 0.026 0.000

3 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 0.064 0.019 0.000

4 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 0.040 0.012 0.000

5 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Normal 0.019 0.006 0.000

6 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Normal 0.004 0.001 0.000

7 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Normal 0.004 0.001 0.000

8 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.013 1.520 0.000

9 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.008 1.520 0.000

10 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.005 1.520 0.000

11 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.004 1.520 0.000

12 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

13 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

14 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.168 1.520 0.000

15 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.103 1.520 0.000

16 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.064 1.520 0.000

17 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.044 1.520 0.000

18 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.027 1.520 0.000

19 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.017 1.520 0.000

20 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.051 1.550 0.000

21 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.101 1.550 0.000

22 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.101 1.550 0.000

23 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.114 1.550 0.000

24 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.009 1.550 0.000

25 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.009 1.550 0.000

26 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.029 1.520 0.000

27 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.016 1.520 0.000

28 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.013 1.520 0.000

29 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.014 1.520 0.000

an30 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.000 1.520 0.000

31 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.000 1.520 0.000

32 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.008 1.520 0.000

33 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.004 1.520 0.000

34 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.004 1.520 0.000

35 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.004 1.520 0.000

36 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.000 1.520 0.000

37 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.000 1.520 0.000

38 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.371 1.520 0.000

39 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.199 1.520 0.000

40 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.163 1.520 0.000
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

21 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix A: IREP Input – [Redact] [Redact] Breast (continued)

Exp. # Exposure 

Year

Exposure 

Rate Radiation Type

Dose 

Distribution 

Type

Parameter 

1

Parameter 

2

Parameter 

3

41 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.184 1.520 0.000

42 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.006 1.520 0.000

43 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.006 1.520 0.000

44 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.098 1.520 0.000

45 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.053 1.520 0.000

46 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.043 1.520 0.000

47 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.049 1.520 0.000

48 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

49 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

50 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.737 1.520 0.000

51 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.076 1.520 0.000

52 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.068 1.520 0.000

53 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.081 1.520 0.000

54 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.094 1.520 0.000

55 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.050 1.520 0.000

56 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.053 1.520 0.000

57 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.050 1.520 0.000

58 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.066 1.520 0.000

59 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.054 1.520 0.000

60 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.046 1.520 0.000

61 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.045 1.520 0.000

62 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.038 1.520 0.000

63 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.038 1.520 0.000

64 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Lognormal 0.011 1.520 0.000

65 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.100 1.520 0.000

66 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.042 1.520 0.000

67 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.045 1.520 0.000

68 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.047 1.520 0.000

69 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.065 1.520 0.000

70 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.053 1.520 0.000

71 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.044 1.520 0.000

72 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.043 1.520 0.000

73 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.048 1.520 0.000

74 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.046 1.520 0.000

75 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.043 1.520 0.000

76 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.042 1.520 0.000

77 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.046 1.520 0.000

78 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.046 1.520 0.000

79 [redact] acute photons E<30 keV Lognormal 0.014 1.520 0.000

80 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.191 1.520 0.000

81 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.136 1.520 0.000

82 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.003 1.520 0.000

83 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.004 1.520 0.000

84 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.005 1.520 0.000

85 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.003 1.520 0.000

86 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.003 1.520 0.000

87 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.003 1.520 0.000

88 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.003 1.520 0.000

89 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.003 1.520 0.000

90 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

91 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

92 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

22 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix A: IREP Input – [Redact] [Redact] Breast (continued)

Exp. # Exposure 

Year

Exposure 

Rate Radiation Type

Dose 

Distribution 

Type

Parameter 

1

Parameter 

2

Parameter 

3

93 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

94 [redact] chronic neutrons E<10 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

95 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.054 1.520 0.000

96 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.039 1.520 0.000

97 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

98 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

99 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

100 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

101 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

102 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

103 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

104 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

105 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

106 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

107 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

108 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.001 1.520 0.000

109 [redact] chronic neutrons E=10–100 keV Lognormal 0.000 1.520 0.000

110 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 2.425 1.520 0.000

111 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 1.726 1.520 0.000

112 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.048 1.520 0.000

113 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.057 1.520 0.000

114 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.066 1.520 0.000

115 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.036 1.520 0.000

116 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.038 1.520 0.000

117 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.036 1.520 0.000

118 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.047 1.520 0.000

119 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.038 1.520 0.000

120 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.033 1.520 0.000

121 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.032 1.520 0.000

122 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.027 1.520 0.000

123 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.027 1.520 0.000

124 [redact] chronic neutrons E=100 keV–2 MeV Lognormal 0.008 1.520 0.000

125 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.642 1.520 0.000

126 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.457 1.520 0.000

127 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.012 1.520 0.000

128 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.015 1.520 0.000

129 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.017 1.520 0.000

130 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.009 1.520 0.000

131 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.010 1.520 0.000

132 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.009 1.520 0.000

133 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.012 1.520 0.000

134 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.010 1.520 0.000

135 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.009 1.520 0.000

136 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.008 1.520 0.000

137 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.007 1.520 0.000

138 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.007 1.520 0.000

139 [redact] chronic neutrons E=2–20 MeV Lognormal 0.002 1.520 0.000

140 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

141 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

142 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

143 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

144 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

23 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix A: IREP Input – [Redact] [Redact] Breast (continued)

Exp. # Exposure 

Year

Exposure 

Rate Radiation Type

Dose 

Distribution 

Type

Parameter 

1

Parameter 

2

Parameter 

3

145 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

146 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

147 [redact] chronic photons E=30–250 keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000

148 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 4.75E-02 0.014 0.000

149 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 3.60E-02 0.011 0.000

150 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 9.80E-03 0.003 0.000

151 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 4.90E-03 0.001 0.000

152 [redact] acute photons E=30–250 keV Normal 5.80E-03 0.002 0.000

153 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000

154 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.015 0.000 0.000

155 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.023 0.000 0.000

156 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.028 0.000 0.000

157 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.032 0.000 0.000

158 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.057 0.000 0.000

159 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.061 0.000 0.000

160 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.064 0.000 0.000

161 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.065 0.000 0.000

162 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.065 0.000 0.000

163 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.066 0.000 0.000

164 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.066 0.000 0.000

165 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.066 0.000 0.000

166 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.067 0.000 0.000

167 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.067 0.000 0.000

168 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.068 0.000 0.000

169 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.069 0.000 0.000

170 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.070 0.000 0.000

171 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.071 0.000 0.000

172 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.071 0.000 0.000

173 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.072 0.000 0.000

174 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.073 0.000 0.000

175 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.075 0.000 0.000

176 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.076 0.000 0.000

177 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.078 0.000 0.000

178 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.087 0.000 0.000

179 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.089 0.000 0.000

180 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.091 0.000 0.000

181 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.092 0.000 0.000

182 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.093 0.000 0.000

183 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.094 0.000 0.000

184 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.095 0.000 0.000

185 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.096 0.000 0.000

186 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.096 0.000 0.000

187 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.099 0.000 0.000

188 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.100 0.000 0.000

189 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.101 0.000 0.000

190 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.101 0.000 0.000

191 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.102 0.000 0.000

192 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.103 0.000 0.000

193 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.104 0.000 0.000

194 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.104 0.000 0.000

195 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.105 0.000 0.000

196 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000
Effective Date:

February 27, 2015

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-BDR2015-CN[Redact]

Page No.

24 of 24

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix A: IREP Input – [Redact] [Redact] Breast (continued)

Exp. # Exposure 

Year

Exposure 

Rate Radiation Type

Dose 

Distribution 

Type

Parameter 

1

Parameter 

2

Parameter 

3

197 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000

198 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

199 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000

200 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.003 0.000 0.000

201 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.003 0.000 0.000

202 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.003 0.000 0.000

203 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

204 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

205 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

206 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

207 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

208 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

209 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

210 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

211 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

212 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

213 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

214 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

215 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

216 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

217 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

218 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

219 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

220 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

221 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

222 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

223 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

224 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

225 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

226 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

227 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

228 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

229 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

230 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

231 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

232 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

233 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

234 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

235 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

236 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

237 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

238 [redact] chronic alpha Constant 0.004 0.000 0.000

OTHER ADVANCED FEATURES

Sample Size Random Seed

2000 99

User Defined Uncertainty Distribution

Dose Distribution Type Parameter 1 Parameter 2 Parameter 3

Lognormal 1.000 1.000 0.000

SKIN CANCER INPUTS Not used for

cancer selected:

Breast

Ethnic Origin : [redact]