Draft

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

A REVIEW OF NIOSH’S PROGRAM EVALUATION 

REPORT DCAS-PER-063, “ALUMINUM COMPANY 

OF AMERICA – PENNSYLVANIA (ALCOA-PN)” 

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-2017-PR008, Revision 0 

Prepared by 

Douglas Farver, CHP 

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 

Arlington, Virginia, 22201 

July 2017 

DISCLAIMER 

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

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

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

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

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

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

issues.

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

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

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

2 of 16

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

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

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

Health Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

DOCUMENT TITLE: 

A Review of NIOSH’s Program Evaluation Report DCAS-PER-063, 

“Aluminum Company of America – Pennsylvania (ALCOA-PN)”

DOCUMENT NUMBER/

DESCRIPTION:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008 

REVISION NO.: 0 (Draft)

SUPERSEDES: N/A

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2017

TASK MANAGER: Douglas Farver, CHP [signature on file]

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

DOCUMENT 

REVIEWER(S):

John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

Kathleen Behling [signature on file]

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 7/17/2017 Initial issue
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

3 of 16

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.0 Statement of Purpose .......................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Relevant Background Information ...................................................................................... 7

2.1 Overview of Facility History .................................................................................. 7

3.0 Subtask 1: Identify the Circumstances that Necessitated DCAS-PER-063 ........................ 8

4.0 Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s Specific Methods for Corrective Action ............................... 9

4.1 Job Categories ......................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Operational Phase ................................................................................................... 9

4.2.1 Occupational Internal Dose ......................................................................... 9

4.2.2 Occupational External Dose ...................................................................... 10

4.3 Residual Phase ...................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Internal ...................................................................................................... 11

4.3.2 External ..................................................................................................... 12

4.3.3 Source Depletion ....................................................................................... 13

4.4 SC&A Comments ................................................................................................. 13

5.0 Subtask 3: Evaluate the Approach for Identifying Potentially Affected Dose 

Recontructions .............................................................................................................................. 14

5.1 SC&A Comments ................................................................................................. 14

6.0 Subtask 4: Review of Cases.............................................................................................. 15

7.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 16
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

4 of 16

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABRWH or 

Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

ALCOA Aluminum Company of America 

ALCOA-PN Aluminum Company of America – Pennsylvania 

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

DF depletion factor 

dpm disintegrations per minute

DR dose reconstruction 

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

mR milliroentgen

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

pCi picocurie 

PER program evaluation report

POC probability of causation

SRDB Site Research Database

TBD technical basis document
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

5 of 16

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

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

1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

To support dose reconstruction (DR), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) have assembled a large 

body of guidance documents, workbooks, computer codes, and tools. In recognition of the fact 

that all of these supporting elements in DR may be subject to revisions, provisions exist for 

evaluating the effect of such programmatic revisions on the outcome of previously completed 

DRs. Such revisions may be prompted by document revisions due to new information, 

misinterpretation of guidance, changes in policy, and/or programmatic improvements. 

The process for evaluating potential effects of programmatic changes on previously completed 

DRs has been proceduralized in OCAS-PR-008, Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports 

and Program Evaluation Plans (NIOSH 2006a), Revision 2, dated December 6, 2006. This 

procedure describes the format and methodology to be employed in preparing a program 

evaluation report (PER) and a program evaluation plan. 

A PER provides a critical evaluation of the effects that a given issue/programmatic change may 

have on previously completed DRs. This includes qualitative and quantitative assessment of 

potential impacts. Most important in this assessment are the potential impacts on the probability 

of causation (POC) of previously completed DRs with POCs of <50%. 

During a teleconference by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s (Board’s)

Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews on January 10, 2017, SC&A was tasked by the Board to 

conduct reviews of four PERs. Included among the PERs is DCAS-PER-063, Aluminum 

Company of America – Pennsylvania (ALCOA-PN), Revision 0 (NIOSH 2015; also referred to as 

“PER-063”). In conducting a PER review, SC&A is committed to perform the following five 

subtasks, each of which is discussed in this report:

Subtask 1: Assess NIOSH’s evaluation/characterization of the “issue” and its potential impacts 

on DR. SC&A’s assessment intends to ensure that the “issue” was fully understood and 

characterized in the PER.

Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s specific methods for corrective action. In instances where the PER 

involves a technical issue that is supported by document(s) (e.g., white papers, technical 

information bulletins, procedures) that have not yet been subjected to a formal SC&A 

review, Subtask 2 will include a review of the scientific basis and/or sources of 

information to ensure the credibility of the corrective action and its consistency with 

current/consensus science. Conversely, if such technical documentation has been 

formalized and previously subjected to a review by SC&A, Subtask 2 will simply provide 

a brief summary/conclusion of this review process.

Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s stated approach for identifying the universe of potentially 

affected DRs, and assess the criteria by which a subset of potentially affected DRs was 

selected for reevaluation. The second step may have important implications in instances 

where the universe of previously denied DRs is very large and, for reasons of practicality, 

NIOSH’s reevaluation is confined to a subset of DRs that, based on their scientific 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

6 of 16

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

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

judgment, have the potential to be significantly affected by the PER. In behalf of 

Subtask 3, SC&A will also evaluate the timeliness of the completion of the PER. 

Subtask 4: Conduct audits of DRs affected by the PER under review. The number of DRs 

selected for audit for a given PER will vary. (It is assumed that the selection of the DRs 

and the total number of DR audits per PER will be made by the Advisory Board.) 

Subtask 5: Prepare a written report that contains the results of DR audits under Subtask 4, along 

with our review conclusions. 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

7 of 16

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

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

2.0 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 OVERVIEW OF FACILITY HISTORY

The Atomic Weapons Employer, Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), had one site 

located in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. The facility, also known as Aluminum Research 

Laboratories; or the New Kensington Works (of ALCOA) on Pine and 9th Streets, conducted 

uranium slug canning operations as early as May 1943 and ending in 1945 (Foley and Brown 

1992). The facility was listed as an Atomic Weapons Employer from 1943 through 1945. 

ALCOA was one of 14 facilities in the early 1940s that produced nuclear fuel for the X-10 pilot 

plant reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and the production reactors at Hanford, Washington. 

ALCOA used a unique welding process to “can” and seal uranium slugs produced by other 

facilities. Initiated in the spring of 1943, the work preceded under 15 purchase orders that 

resulted in the canning of approximately 100,000 slugs through 1945. Actual machining of 

uranium metal was apparently limited to experimental machine shop and laboratory situations 

(Young 1987). 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

8 of 16

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

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

3.0 SUBTASK 1: IDENTIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT 

NECESSITATED DCAS-PER-063

NIOSH performs DRs for the claims from the Aluminum Company of America – Pennsylvania 

(ALCOA-PN) using Appendix R to Battelle-TBD-6000, Revision 1, Site Profiles for Atomic 

Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals (NIOSH 2011, also referred to as “TBD-6000, 

Revision 1”). Revision 1 to TBD-6000 was issued on June 17, 2011. Appendix R was originally 

issued (Revision 0) on April 30, 2007 (NIOSH 2007). Revision 1 to Appendix R was issued on

March 5, 2014 (NIOSH 2014), to incorporate changes from the TBD-6000 revision and the use 

of methodology from ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Revision 01, Dose Reconstruction During Residual 

Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities (NIOSH 2012; also referred to as 

“OTIB-0070”), for the residual period. The revisions included changes to external dose values 

from contaminated surfaces, the conversion factor for photon and beta dose rates, and included 

addition of intakes from resuspension. Additionally, job classes used in Appendix R, Revision 0, 

were eliminated, and slug production doses were revised to match the values in Table 6.4 of 

TBD-6000, Revision 1. Also, the guidance from ORAUT-OTIB-0070 was added, regarding use 

of a depletion factor (DF) during this site’s residual period. 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

9 of 16

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

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

4.0 SUBTASK 2: ASSESS NIOSH’S SPECIFIC METHODS FOR 

CORRECTIVE ACTION

4.1 JOB CATEGORIES

Revision 0 to Appendix R (NIOSH 2007) contained job classifications based on the employee’s 

job function. Each claim was evaluated to determine the most appropriate job category 

corresponding to the job titles of Operator, General Laborer, Supervisor, and Clerk given in 

Tables 6.4 and 7.9 of TBD-6000, Revision 0 (NIOSH 2006c). 

Revision 1 to Appendix R (NIOSH 2014) eliminates the job category determination and 

evaluates each case using the job title of the operator that has the highest internal and external 

dose parameters in Tables 6.4 and 7.8 of TBD-6000, Revision 1 (NIOSH 2011). 

4.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE

4.2.1 Occupational Internal Dose

The ALCOA-PN facility conducted uranium slug canning operations from the spring of 1943 

through 1945. Table 4-1 shows the inhalation and ingestion intake values for the operational

phase given in both revisions to Appendix R (NIOSH 2007, 2014). The inhalation intakes are 

based on an air concentration of 264 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter (dpm/m3

), the 

mean air sampling value for the stamping slug category shown in Table 7.6 of TBD-6000, 

Revision 1. The operator is assumed to have a 75% exposure time, yielding an air concentration 

of 198 dpm/m3. 

Table 4-1. Operational Phase Intake Values

Years

Appendix R, Rev.1,

Table R.1

Appendix R, Rev. 0,

Tables R.1 and R.2 (max. values)

Inhalation Intake 

(pCi/day)

Ingestion Intake 

(pCi/day)

Inhalation Intake 

(pCi/day)

Ingestion Intake 

(pCi/day)

1943 to 1945 710 15 704 6.55

Assuming a working year of 2,400 hours and a breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hour, the daily inhalation 

intake is calculated as follows:

Inhalation (pCi/day) = (198 dpm/m3

) × (1.2 m3/hr) × (2,400 hr/yr) ÷ (2.2 dpm/pCi × 365 day/yr) 

= 710 pCi/day 

The ingestion intake rate is the sum of the food contamination and incidental hand-to-mouth 

ingestion rates, as shown in Section 7.1.6 of TBD-6000, Revision 1. The ingestion intake (I) in 

picocuries per day (pCi/day) is equal to the air concentration in dpm/m3

 multiplied by the work 

hours per year and a conversion factor of 3.062×10-5. 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

10 of 16

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

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

Iing = (3.062×10-5) × (198 dpm/m3) × (2,400 hr/yr) 

Iing = 14.55 pCi/day

The inhalation and ingestion intake values are given in Tables 7.8 and 7.9 of TBD-6000, 

Revision 1 (NIOSH 2011). 

Although SC&A was able to confirm the inhalation and ingestion intake values cited in 

Appendix R, Revision 1, we were unable to determine how the Appendix R Revision 0 

inhalation and ingestion intake values were determined, because Tables 7.8 and 7.9 did not 

change from Revision 0 to Revision 1. With the issuance of PER-063, this issue is no longer a 

concern. 

4.2.2 Occupational External Dose

Table 4-2 shows estimated annual external doses for metalworking processes, as given in the 

Appendix R Revisions 0 and 1 (NIOSH 2007, 2014). With the exception of the whole-body 

photon dose in Appendix R, Revision 0, the values have remained the same, but the units have 

changed. 

Table 4-2. Operational Phase External Doses

Years

Appendix R, Rev.1,

Table R.2

Appendix R, Rev. 0,

Tables R.3 and R.4 (max. values)

Whole Body 

Photon 

(mR/yr)

Skin

(rad/yr)

Hand & 

Forearms

(rad/yr)

Whole Body 

Photon 

(mR/day)

Skin

(mrad/day) 

Hand & 

Forearms

(mrad/day)

1943 to 1945 2500 25 276 0.349 68.4 756

Skin Dose

Skin doses are estimated for (1) the hands and forearms of a worker who handles uranium metal 

(Dhands) and (2) other skin surfaces of a worker who handles the metal (Dskin). The assumptions 

used in the calculations are described in Section 6.3 of TBD-6000, Revision 1. The calculation 

for the hands and forearms assumes a contact dose rate of 230 millirem per hour (mrem/hr) for a 

48-hour work week, 50 weeks per year, and hands in contact with the surface of the metal 50% 

of the workday. 

Dhands = (230 mrem/h × mrad/mrem × 48 hours/week × 50 weeks/year)/2

Dhands = 276,000 mrad/year = 276 rad/year 

Also, 276 rad/year divided by 365 days/year equals 0.756 rad/day or 756 millirad per day 

(mrad/day). 

The dose to other skin on the worker’s body that is not in direct contact with uranium metal is

estimated to be 10 times the photon dose rate at 1 foot. Table 6.1 of TBD-6000, Revision 1 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

11 of 16

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

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

(NIOSH 2011), lists the dose rates from standard shapes of uranium metal. The maximum dose 

rate at 1 foot from a rectangular uranium ingot is 2.08 mrem/hour. 

Dskin = (2.08 mrem/hour × 10 mrad/mrem × 48 hours/week × 50 weeks/year)/2 

Dskin = 24,960 mrad/year = 25 rad/year 

As with the previous, if 25 rad/year is divided by 365 days/year, it yields 68.4 mrad/day.

Whole-Body Dose 

The whole-body photo dose (Dwb) is also derived using the photon dose rate at 1 foot from a 

rectangular uranium ingot. The same working-time assumptions apply. 

Dwb = (2.08 mrem/hour × mR/mrem × 48 hours/week × 50 weeks/year)/2 

Dwb = 2,496 mR/year

However, when 2,500 mR/year is divided by 365 days/year, it yields 6.84 mR/day, not 

0.349 mR/day as shown in Table R3 of Appendix R, Revision 0. Table 6.4 of TBD-6000, 

Revision 0, shows the daily doses from penetrating photon radiation for a 48-hour work week as 

6.84 mR/day. It is unclear how the whole-body photon dose of 0.349 mR/day given in Table R2 

of Appendix R, Revision 0, was derived. With the issuance of PER-063, this issue is no longer a 

concern. 

4.3 RESIDUAL PHASE

A Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) survey of ALCOA-PN was 

conducted on November 12, 1991. The results indicated no measured levels above U.S. 

Department of Energy-FUSRAP guidelines and no measured levels significantly different from 

typical background levels for the area. Therefore, no exposure to residual contamination is 

assumed after 1991. The facility’s residual phase consists of the time period from 1946 through 

1991. 

The internal and external exposures at the beginning of the residual phase, 1946, are determined 

from air sampling data for facilities where uranium slugs were produced and canned. Table 7.6 

of TBD-6000, Revision 1, shows air sample results for slug production. The air sampling data 

are used to calculate the surface contamination (Section 3.4.2 of TBD-6000, Revision 1) and 

guidance in Section 7.1.5 of TBD-6000, Revision 1, to derive the initial inhalation intake rate. 

The derived surface contamination and dose conversion factors in Section 3.4.2 are used to 

derive the external dose rates. The ingestion intake value is assumed to be the ingestion intake at 

the end of the operational phase (15 pCi/day). The external dose rate and internal intake rates are 

decreased throughout the residual period according to the guidance in OTIB-0070. 

4.3.1 Internal

Table 7.6 of TBD-6000, Revision 1, shows the air sampling data for facilities where uranium 

slugs were produced and canned. The daily weighted average air concentration for an operator is 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

12 of 16

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

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

given as 198 dpm/m3. Section 3.4 of TBD-6000, Revision 1, shows that the floor contamination 

level (Cfloor) can then be estimated as: 

Cfloor (dpm/m2) = Air Concentration (dpm/m3) × 1,944 meters

Cfloor (dpm/m2) = 198 dpm/m3 × 1,944 meters

Cfloor (dpm/m2) = 3.849 E+05 dpm/m2 

The inhalation intake rate (Ii) at the beginning of the residual time period is calculated by 

multiplying the floor contamination level by a 10-6 m-1 resuspension factor, breathing rate of 

1.2 m3/hr, and hours worked. 

Ii (pCi/day) = (Cfloor × 10-6 m-1 × 1.2 m3/hr × 48 hr/wk × 50 wk/yr) ÷ (2.2 dpm/pCi × 

365 days/yr) 

Ii (pCi/day) = 1.38 pCi/day 

Therefore, at the beginning of the residual period, the initial inhalation intake rate is 1.38 pCi/day 

and initial ingestion intake rate is 15 pCi/day, which represents the ingestion intake rate at the 

end of the operational period. 

4.3.2 External 

The floor contamination level and dose conversion factors from natural uranium surface 

contamination, as given in Table 3.10 of TBD-6000, were used to calculate the initial gamma 

and beta dose rates. Table 4-3 shows the surface contamination dose conversion factors. 

Table 4-3. Surface Contamination Dose Conversion Factor (TBD-6000) 

Time Since 

Separation

Photon Exposure Rate

(mR/hr per dpm/m2)

Beta Dose Rate

(mrad/hr per dpm/m2)

100 days 3.94E-10 3.82E-08

The photon, or whole body, exposure rate (Dγ) is calculated as follows:

Dγ (mR/yr) = Cfloor × 3.94E-10 mR/hr per dpm/m2 × 48 hr/wk × 50 wk/yr 

Dγ (mR/yr) = 0.364 mR/yr 

Similarly, the beta exposure rate (Dβ) is used to calculate the dose rate to the skin, hands, and 

forearms:

Dβ (mrad/yr) = Cfloor × 3.82E-08 mrad/hr per dpm/m2

 × 48 hr/wk × 50 wk/yr 

Dβ (mrad/yr) = 35.3 mrad/yr 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

13 of 16

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

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

4.3.3 Source Depletion

The initial intake and dose rates were calculated for the first year of the residual time period. 

Because the facility is no longer operating, it is assumed the source on which the dose rates are 

based will decrease over time. Table 4.1 of OTIB-0070 lists source-term depletion rates during 

residual periods for various sites. The average depletion rate is 6.70E-04 d-1

. The DF decreases 

exponentially over time. 

DF = e-λt, 

where λ equals 6.70E-04 d-1 and t is the time from the beginning of the residual time period in 

days. Table 4-4 shows the internal intake rates and external dose rates for the residual phase 

adjusted for source depletion. 

Table 4-4. Exposure During the Residual Phase

Year Depletion 

Factor

Internal 

Exposures – 

Inhalation 

(pCi/day)

Internal 

Exposures 

– Ingestion 

(pCi/day)

External 

Exposures 

– Photon 

(mR/yr)

External 

Exposures 

– Skin 

(mrad/yr)

External 

Exposures 

– Hand & 

Forearms 

(mrad/yr)

1946 1.00 1.38 15 0.364 35.3 35.3

1947 0.7831 1.08 11.75 0.285 27.6 27.6

1948 0.6132 0.85 9.20 0.223 21.6 21.6

1949 0.4802 0.66 7.20 0.175 16.9 16.9

1950 0.3760 0.52 5.64 0.137 13.3 13.3

1951 0.2944 0.41 4.42 0.107 10.4 10.4

1952 0.2305 0.32 3.46 0.084 8.1 8.1

1953 0.1805 0.25 2.71 0.066 6.4 6.4

1954 0.1414 0.20 2.12 0.051 5.0 5.0

1955 0.1107 0.15 1.66 0.040 3.9 3.9

1956 0.0867 0.12 1.30 0.032 3.1 3.1

1957 0.0679 0.09 1.02 0.025 2.4 2.4

1958 0.0532 0.07 0.80 0.019 1.9 1.9

1959 0.0416 0.06 0.62 0.015 1.5 1.5

1960-1969 0.0326 0.04 0.49 0.012 1.2 1.2

1970-1979 0.0028 0.0039 0.042 0.001 0.10 0.10

1980-1991 0.0002 0.00034 0.0037 0.0001 0.009 0.009

4.4 SC&A COMMENTS

SC&A was able verify the values in Tables R1 and R2 of Appendix R, Revision 1, using the 

guidance in the revised TBD-6000 (NIOSH 2011) and OTIB-0070. SC&A has no concerns with 

Subtask 2. 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

14 of 16

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

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

5.0 SUBTASK 3: EVALUATE THE APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING 

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED DOSE RECONTRUCTIONS 

NIOSH used the following set of criteria to determine the claims that potentially could have been 

affected by the revision to Appendix R: 

1. A search for all previously completed claims from the ALCOA-PN facility 

2. Claims that resulted in a POC of less than 50% 

Using these criteria, NIOSH identified 44 claims that could potentially be affected by a revision 

to Appendix R. In DCAS-PER-063 (NIOSH 2015), NIOSH lists the following reasons for which 

cases were removed from further evaluation: 

• claims were completed using Revision 1 to Appendix R and were removed from 

further evaluation. 

• claims were completed using a complex-wide overestimating method (ORAUTOTIB-0004), resulting in a higher dose estimate than Revision 1 to Appendix R. Those 

claims were removed from further evaluation. 

• claims were returned to NIOSH and reworked using Revision 1 to Appendix R. 

Those claims also were removed from further evaluation. 

NIOSH calculated new dose estimates for the remaining 35 claims using Appendix R, 

Revision 1, and current DR methods. 

5.1 SC&A COMMENTS

SC&A believes that this basic strategy for identifying the potentially affected cases, and the 

screening criteria used to determine which cases need to be reevaluated, are appropriate.
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

15 of 16

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

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

6.0 SUBTASK 4: REVIEW OF CASES

NIOSH identified a total of 35 reevaluated claims. The POCs for those claims are as follows:

• Twenty-seven claims yielded POCs below 45%. 

• resulted in a POC between 45% and 50%. 

• claims exceeded a POC of 50%.

In order for SC&A to satisfy its commitment under Subtask 4, a single DR may be selected for 

review, provided the employment period at the site covers both the operational and residual 

periods. Alternatively, two DRs may be selected that represent the operational period and the 

residual period separately. SC&A would like to request the opportunity to review a sample set of 

the reevaluated cases to assess whether Revision 1 to Appendix R was implemented correctly. 
Effective Date:

7/17/2017

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-PR008

Page No.

16 of 16

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

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

7.0 REFERENCES

Foley and Brown 1992. R.D. Foley and K.S. Brown, Results of the Radiological Survey at the 

Former ALCOA New Kensington Works, Pine and Ninth Streets, New Kensington, Pennsylvania 

(ANK002), ORNL/RASA-92/5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. October 1992. 

[SRDB Ref. ID 16445]

NIOSH 2006a. Preparation of Program Evaluation Reports and Program Evaluation Plans, 

OCAS-PR-008, Revision 2, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. December 6, 2006.

NIOSH 2006b. Estimating the Maximum Plausible Dose to Workers at Atomic Weapons 

Employer Facilities, ORAUT-OTIB-0004, Revision 03 PC-2, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. December 6, 2006.

NIOSH 2006c. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium 

Metals, Battelle-TBD-6000, Revision 0, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, OH. December 13, 2006.

NIOSH 2007. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium 

Metals, Appendix R – Aluminum Company of America – Pennsylvania (Alcoa 1), Battelle-TBD6000, Appendix R, Revision 0, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

OH. April 30, 2007.

NIOSH 2011. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals, 

Battelle-TBD-6000, Revision 1, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

Cincinnati, OH. June 17, 2011. 

NIOSH 2012. Dose Reconstruction During Residual Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons 

Employer Facilities, ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Revision 01, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. March 5, 2012.

NIOSH 2014. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals, 

Appendix R –Aluminum Company of America – Pennsylvania (ALCOA-PA), Battelle-TBD-6000, 

Appendix R, Revision 1, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. 

March 20, 2014. 

NIOSH 2015. Aluminum Company of America – Pennsylvania (ALCOA-PN), DCAS-PER-063, 

Revision 0, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. June 15, 2015.

Young 1987. Letter from Charles D. Young, Project Engineer, The Aerospace Corporation, to 

Andrew Wallo, III, NE-23, Division of Facility & Site Decommissioning Projects, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Recommendation for Site Visit Aluminum Company of America Site New 

Kensington, Pennsylvania. November 18, 1987. [SRDB Ref. ID 9557, pp. 8–10]