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 document 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. 

Memorandum

To: Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews

From: Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc. 

Date: March 27, 2023

Subject: Reply to NIOSH Response to SC&A Review Comments on Battelle-TIB-5000

At the September 29, 2022, teleconference meeting of the Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews

(SPR), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) presented its response 

(NIOSH, 2022) to the SC&A review (Anigstein & Gogolak, 2022) of Battelle-TIB-5000 

(Battelle, 2007). According to NIOSH (2022, p. 1): “NIOSH is currently assessing the role 

Battelle-TIB-5000 may have on other programmatic documents that provide guidance on dose 

reconstructions. Once complete, NIOSH will consider cancelling this document.” 

SC&A presented an oral reply to the NIOSH response (ABRWH, 2022, pp. 33–38). The SPR 

requested SC&A to prepare a written summary of the discussion and the SPR actions (ABRWH, 

2022, p. 45).

The SC&A review comprised 13 observations and no findings. To facilitate tracking the 

disposition of these issues, we will list each observation and the NIOSH (2022) response, 

followed by the SC&A reply and any SPR action and comments. 

Observation 1

Battelle-TIB-5000 makes extensive use of the computer program LOGNORM4, 

which is no longer publicly available. 

NIOSH response to observation 1

NIOSH concurs that LOGNORM4 is no longer being used. Currently, NIOSH 

employs a variety of freeware statistical programs (e.g. R-code) or commercial 

Excel add-ins (e.g. Vose and @Risk) for dose reconstruction tools and to perform 

various statistical analysis of datasets. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 1] 

SC&A reply on observation 1

SC&A recommended that observation 1 be closed. 

SPR action on observation 1

The SPR voted to close observation 1. 
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 2 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

Observation 2

There are more modern methods for treating censored data. 

NIOSH response to observation 2

NIOSH concurs that there are more modern methods for treating censored data.

Regression on order statistics is discussed in ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Analysis of 

Stratified Coworker Datasets [ORAUT 2014]. Multiple imputation is discussed in 

ORAUT-RPRT-0071, External Dose Coworker Methodology [ORAUT 2015], 

and ORAUT-RPRT-0096, Multiple Imputation Applied to Bioassay Co-Exposure 

Models [ORAUT 2021]. The methods, as described in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 

2.1.3, are not currently being used. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 1] 

SC&A reply on observation 2

Anigstein and Gogolak (2022, p. 10) state: “Helsel (2005 . . .) provides updated methods for 

treating censored data. A function, ros, that implements these methods can be found in the R 

package NADA.” SC&A has reviewed ORAUT (2014) and noted that the report describes 

several additional methods for treating censored data, including those discussed by Helsel (2005) 

and the R package NADA (Helsel & Lee, 2010).1

1 The present reviews of ORAUT (2014, 2015) were focused on determining if NIOSH has implemented methods 

for treating censored data that resolve the issues raised in observation 2. They do not constitute in-depth technical 

reviews of these reports, which are beyond the scope of our present task.

Analytical methods that are applicable to 

right-censored data are discussed in ORAUT (2014, attachment B). We also reviewed ORAUT 

(2015), which describes 

a new method, referred to as multiple imputation, to replace censored (<LOD) 

[limit of detection] external dosimeter readings with estimates of the dose to 

facilitate the calculation of annual external dose. This method replaces the 

previous practice of substituting <LOD readings with the LOD/2. [ORAUT, 2015, 

p. 13] 

Consequently, we agree that NIOSH has implemented more modern methods for treating 

censored data. SC&A recommends that observation 2 be closed.

Observation 3

The number of observations in the highest airborne uranium concentration group 

in 1949 is stated to be 64 by Battelle-TIB-5000, section 2.1.4.1. This value is 

inconsistent with the value of 61 shown in TIB-5000, table 2.4, and with the 119 

total observations in 1949 listed by TIB-5000. 

NIOSH response to observation 3

“NIOSH agrees that 61 is most likely the correct number for the fourth data point, as noted in the 

SC&A review, this observation did not alter any conclusions in the TIB” (NIOSH, 2022, p. 2). 
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 3 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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 reply on observation 3

SC&A recommended that observation 3 be closed. 

SPR action on observation 3

The SPR voted to close observation 3. 

Observation 4

The mirror image and preserved mean and variance methods are not supported by 

any technical background in statistical theory of which we are aware.

NIOSH response to observation 4 

NIOSH concurs that there are more modern methods for assessing data. A more 

modern method to handle the sum of normal noise and lognormal signal is the 

normal-lognormal mixture distribution. It is described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096, 

Multiple Imputation Applied to Bioassay Co-Exposure Models [ORAUT 2021]. 

The methods, as described in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 2.3.1, are not currently 

being used. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 2] 

SC&A reply on observation 4

SC&A reviewed ORAUT (2021), which includes the following instructions for the analysis of 

 nonpositive data using mixture imputation: 

1. Estimate how the bioassay results in each year are distributed using a 

normal-lognormal mixture model. The imputation models are given by the 

lognormal components of the mixture and the ILs [(imputation levels)] by 

the normal components. 

2. Replace nonpositive bioassay results below the IL in all years with 

random draws from the appropriate imputation models, conditioned on the 

value being less than the IL. [ORAUT, 2021, p. 18] 

We agree that this constitutes an updated methodology for analyzing the sum of normal noise 

and lognormal signal.2

2 The present review of ORAUT (2021) was focused on determining if NIOSH has implemented methods for 

analyzing the sum of normal noise and lognormal signal that resolve the issues raised in observation 4. It does not 

constitute an in-depth technical review of this report, which is beyond the scope of our present task.

SC&A recommends that observation 4 be closed. 

Observation 5

Battelle-TIB-5000 lacks a sound basis for asserting that the NCRP assessment of 

the reliability of the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection]
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 4 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

Publication 30 models can be applied to the currently used ICRP Publication 66 

respiratory tract and biokinetic models.

NIOSH response to observation 5

“NIOSH is currently addressing this observation. We will include it in a separate report” 

(NIOSH, 2022, p. 2). 

SC&A reply on observation 5 

“[Dr.] Anigstein: . . . Observation 5: Where, obviously, it remains open. It has not been 

addressed yet” (ABRWH, 2022, p. 35). 

Observation 6

A GSD [geometric standard deviation] of 10, derived from redundant data across 

seven uranium refining plants, is excessive for a sitewide assessment of an 

individual worker. 

NIOSH response to observation 6

NIOSH concurs that the use of a GSD of 10 for an entire site, plant, or factory 

might be excessive. A GSD of 10 as described in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 3.6, 

is not currently being used. As noted in the SC&A comments, NIOSH is using a 

GSD of 5 as the default value in DRs [dose reconstructions] when no other 

uncertainty data are available [NIOSH 2011]. A minimum GSD of 3 is often used 

for biokinetic modelling. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 2] 

SC&A reply on observation 6

Dr. Anigstein: . . . Now, observation six: We concur with NIOSH’s use of GSD of 

5 as the default value in DRs when no other uncertainty data are available. 

However, NIOSH needs to provide a basis for the assertion that a minimum GSD 

of 3 is often used for biokinetic modeling. As stated in our review of BattelleTIB-5000, and I quote, Battelle cites an email correspondence from Bihl, et al., 

. . . (2006), with the title "Bases for GSD equals 3 for internal dose used by 

NIOSH. However that email according to, Tim Taulbee, . . . is not retrievable 

from 2006. So therefore, we note that, as [Dr.] Cardarelli stated, . . . NIOSH is 

developing a separate report to address the use of GSD [of] 3 for biokinetic 

modeling, but pending review of that resolution, we recommend that . . . 

observation 6 remain open. 

Dr. Taulbee: . . . This really kind of subsumed into observation 5, because it’s the 

same that — . . . 

Dr. Anigstein: The . . . two turn out to be related. [ABRWH, 2022, pp. 35–36] 
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 5 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

Observation 7

Dividing the operation—“removing covers from drums”—that was observed to 

take 24 minutes per shift, into two 12-minute periods, characterized by low and 

high radon concentrations, respectively, is arbitrary and not claimant favorable. 

NIOSH response to observation 7

NIOSH concurs that there are better statistical methods for consolidating data into 

a statistic to be used for dose reconstruction. NIOSH does not employ the results 

of the time-weighted average example in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 3.8 for dose 

reconstructions at Lake Ontario Ordinance Works (LOOW). [NIOSH, 2022, p. 3]

SC&A reply on observation 7

SC&A performed a focused review of NIOSH (2019), which describes a proposed DR

methodology for LOOW. The aim of this review was to confirm the NIOSH response to 

observation 7. According to this document, 

Substantial radon monitoring . . . occurred between 1948 and 1953, with a gap in 

monitoring between 1953 and 1974. These sample data were broken out into high, 

medium, and low categories based on their results, with a geometric mean 

established for each category. . . . 

For purposes of dose reconstruction, the indoor value of 108 pCi/L was used. 

[NIOSH, 2019, pp. 8–9] 

Since NIOSH (2019) proposes a fixed radon concentration for DRs, we agree that “NIOSH does 

not employ the results of the time-weighted average example in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 3.8 

for dose reconstructions at . . . LOOW” (NIOSH, 2022, p. 3).3

3 The present review of NIOSH (2019) was focused on determining if NIOSH has proposed DR methods for 

estimating radon exposures that resolve the issues raised in observation 7. It does not constitute an in-depth technical 

review of this methodology, which is beyond the scope of our present task.

SC&A recommends that observation 7 be closed. 

Observation 8

The procedure for assessing inadvertent ingestion for residual periods at AWE 

[Atomic Weapons Employer] sites has been updated since the issuance of 

TIB-5000. 

NIOSH response to observation 8 

NIOSH concurs that the use of OCAS-TIB-009, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes

[NIOSH 2004], to assess inadvertent ingestion during an AWE site’s residual 

period is not appropriate. During an AWE site’s residual period, NIOSH is 

currently standardizing our approach to be consistent with NUREG/CR-6755 
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 6 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

[NUREG/CR-6755 2002] which is based upon NUREG/CR-5512 (1992) 

Volume 1. Section 6.3.2 for guidance on inadvertent ingestion [NUREG/CR-5512 

1992]. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 3] 

SC&A reply on observation 8

NIOSH needs to clearly specify the hourly ingestion rate, based on hand-to-mouth transfer from 

a contaminated surface, as was discussed during the SPR teleconference meeting:

[Dr. Anigstein:] This is a technical issue that we're raising with the procedure for 

inadvertent ingestion [that] no longer uses OCAS-009. It relies on a set of 

NUREG reports, which . . . [include] NUREG CR 6755 [Biwer et al., 2002], 

which is based on in principle, NUREG CR 5512, Volume 1 [Kennedy & Strenge, 

1992]. However, we noticed that if you take together . . . NUREG CR 6755, 

NUREG[/CR-]5512, Volume 3 [Beyeler et al., 1999], which is a later revision of 

Volume 1, it came . . . 7 years later. And there are three different values for the 

ingestion rate. They’re not very different, but . . . [NUREG/CR-]6755 

recommended the mean . . . ingestion rate from contaminated surface of 1.12 [×] 

10[-4 m2

/h] . . . And [NUREG/CR-]5512, Volume 3 has a value of 1.1 [×] 10[-4] . . 

. so it’s about 2 percent less, but it’s still more favorable than the rate of simply 1 

[×] 10[-4] . . . This is in NUREG . . . [/CR-]5512, Volume 1. 

And I could just add parenthetically that Volume 3 is an update of Volume 1. It 

was . . . a different set of authors, came seven years later. So we would 

recommend that NIOSH first of all, specifies which of these three, because a dose 

reconstructor could have, based on what we’ve seen -- not have guidance as to 

which of these three values to use, and 1.1 . . . [×10-4] seems to be the more robust 

value because it’s a mean of [an] uncertainty distribution, whereas the Volume 1 

[value], it’s just a qualitative assertion. So anyway, until this has been a resolved, 

[we] recommend observation 8 remain open. [ABRWH, 2022, pp. 36–37] 

SPR action on observation 8

“[Chair Beach:] NIOSH needs to come back with observation 8, which volume they're using, 

clarifying that after Bob writes his . . . notes on that” (ABRWH, 2022, pp. 42–43). 

Observation 9

The revised guidance on dose reconstruction from occupational medical x-ray 

procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006, revision 05) should be used for the assessments 

of external doses from such procedures.

NIOSH response to observation 9

 “NIOSH concurs and is using the current version of ORAUT-OTIB-0006 when performing 

current . . . dose reconstructions [ORAUT 2018]” (NIOSH, 2022, p. 3). 

SC&A reply on observation 9

SC&A recommended that observation 9 be closed. 
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 7 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

SPR action on observation 9

The SPR voted to close observation 9. 

Observation 10

Missed doses should be assigned according to the current procedures: OCAS-IG001, revision 3, and ORAUT-OTIB-0020, revision 03. Assigning a triangular 

distribution with minimum = 0, mode = 0.5 × LOD, and maximum = LOD is not 

consistent with current guidance.

NIOSH response to observation 10

NIOSH agrees that external missed dose should not be assigned using a triangular 

distribution. Guidance associated with assignment of external missed dose is 

covered in OCAS-IG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

Guideline [NIOSH 2007] and ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Use of Coworker Dosimetry 

Data for External Dose Assignment [ORAUT 2011]. The method described in 

Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 3.14, is not currently being used. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 3] 

SC&A reply on observation 10

[Dr. Anigstein:] Missed doses . . . are now based on OCAS-IG-001 and ORAUTOTIB-20. . . . SC&A has at various times reviewed these documents. We found 

them to be acceptable, and therefore . . . [we recommend that] observation 10 

should be closed. [ABRWH, 2022, p. 37] 

SPR action on observation 10

The SPR voted to close observation 10. 

Observation 11

Ingestion should be added to the pathways of environmental doses. 

NIOSH response to observation 11

NIOSH agrees that ingestion is a possible pathway of environmental intakes and 

should be considered when developing an environmental exposure approach. 

ORAUT-PROC- 0031, Site Profile and Technical Basis Document Development

[ORAUT 2012 . . .], Section 6.7.3, call for the ingestion pathway to be evaluated 

if it is applicable to the site. [NIOSH, 2022, p. 4] 

SC&A reply on observation 11

“[Dr. Anigstein:] We confirmed that soil and water ingestion are cited as environmental 

pathways in . . . ORAUT-PROC-0031 [ORAUT 2012]. We recommend that observation [11] be 

closed” (ABRWH, 2022, p. 37). 

SPR action on observation 11

The SPR voted to close observation 11. 
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 8 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

Observation 12

Using a lognormal distribution with a mean value of 0.02 to represent an 

equilibrium factor for thoron is questionable. A bounding, site-specific 

equilibrium factor should be derived as needed, based on available data.

NIOSH response to observation 12

“The equilibrium factor, as described in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 3.17.3, is not currently being 

used. Guidance associated with the thoron equilibrium factor is provided in DCAS-TIB-011, 

Dose Conversion Factors for Radon WLM [NIOSH 2018]” (NIOSH, 2022, p. 4). 

SC&A reply on observation 12

We have reviewed NIOSH (2018) and observe that this document does not employ the 

equilibrium factor cited in Battelle-TIB-5000, section 3.17.3, which could be used to calculate a 

worker’s exposure to thoron in working level months (WLM). Furthermore, according to NIOSH 

(2018), such a calculation is not used in a DR: 

The Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) is used to determine the 

Probability of Causation (POC) that a cancer was caused by occupationally 

related radiation exposure. Annual radiation dose is the normal IREP input but in 

the case of Rn-222, a direct exposure model is also included for lung cancers. The 

exposure model was based on studies performed at uranium mines and thus 

applies to Rn-222 and its associated decay products. Rn-220 (also known as 

thoron) . . . decay products have characteristics that are sufficiently different from 

Rn-222 so that the exposure model is not applicable to Rn-220. [NIOSH, 2018, 

p. 4] 

SC&A finds that NIOSH (2018) does present guidance for calculating an individual’s exposure 

to thoron and the subsequent organ doses.4

4 The present review of NIOSH (2018) was focused on determining if NIOSH has replaced the thoron equilibrium 

factor cited in TIB-5000 and thus resolved the issues raised in observation 12. It does not constitute an in-depth 

technical review of NIOSH (2018), which is beyond the scope of our present task.

SC&A recommends that observation 12 be closed.

Observation 13

Even if the true underlying distribution of concentrations were lognormal, there is 

no real reason to assume that the distribution of the uncertainty of the 

representativeness parameter is also lognormal.

NIOSH response to observation 13

“NIOSH concurs that there are more modern methods for dealing with uncertainty distribution. 

This method, as described in Battelle-TIB-5000, Section 3.20, is not currently being used” 

(NIOSH, 2022, p. 4).
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 9 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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 reply on observation 13

[Dr. Anigstein:] NIOSH said there are more modern methods of dealing with the 

uncertain[ty] distribution. However, they don't specify what are these more 

modern methods so we can . . . evaluate NIOSH's solution to observation 13 . . . 

pending this clarification, we recommend observation 13 remain open. [ABRWH, 

2022, p. 38] 

SPR action on observation 13

“[Chair Beach:] I think NIOSH needs to answer that question on 13, what methods are being 

used” (ABRWH, 2022, p. 41).

Summary

SC&A has reviewed the NIOSH (2022) responses to our original review (Anigstein & Gogolak, 

2022) of Battelle-TIB-5000. Our review resulted in 13 observations. Based on the NIOSH 

responses, SC&A recommended closing observations 1, 3, and 9–11. At its September 29, 2022, 

teleconference meeting, the SPR voted to close these five observations. The SPR further tasked 

SC&A with reviewing several documents cited by NIOSH as resolving some of the issues raised 

in several remaining observations. Following such reviews, as discussed in the present memo, 

SC&A recommends closing observations 2, 4, 7, and 12. The SPR left observations 5 and 6 

open, pending a report from NIOSH addressing the issues raised by these observations. 

The SPR left observation 8 open, pending clarification from NIOSH as to which rate of 

inadvertent ingestion is to be applied during the residual period at AWE sites. To recapitulate the 

SC&A oral presentation at the SPR teleconference (ABRWH, 2022, pp. 36–37), three ingestion 

rates have been presented. The earliest one was in NUREG/CR-5512, vol. 1 (Kennedy & 

Strenge, 1992), which lists a value of 1 × 10-4 square meters per hour (m2

/h). The next 

publication, NUREG/CR-5512, vol. 3 (Beyeler et al., 1999), reports an uncertainty analysis with 

a geometric mean of 1.1 × 10-4 m2/h. The third value, 1.12 × 10-4 m2/h, is from Biwer et al. 

(2002), who cite Kennedy and Strenge (1992) as their source. SC&A is of the opinion that 

Beyeler et al. provide the most robust value. 

The SPR left observation 13 open, pending clarification from NIOSH of its methods for dealing 

with uncertainty distributions.
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 10 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

References

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews. (2022). 

Thursday, September 29, 2022 [Transcript of teleconference meeting].

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2022/sctr092922-508.pdf

Anigstein, R., & Gogolak, C. V. (2022). Review of Battelle-TIB-5000: “Default assumptions and 

methods for Atomic Weapons Employer dose reconstructions” (SCA-TR-2022-PR001, rev. 0).

SC&A, Inc. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-tib5000-r0-508.pdf

Battelle Team, Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH (Battelle). (2007). Default assumptions 

and methods for Atomic Weapons Employer dose reconstructions (Battelle-TIB-5000, PNWD3741, rev. 00). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/b-t5000-r0.pdf

Beyeler, W. E., Hareland, W. A., Durán, F. A., Brown, T. J., Kalinina, E., Gallegos, D. P., & 

Davis, P. A. (1999). Residual radioactive contamination from decommissioning: parameter 

analysis (NUREG/CR-5512, vol. 3) [Draft for review]. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0824/ML082460902.pdf

Biwer, B. M., Kamboj, S., Arnish, J., Yu, C., & Chen, S. Y. (2002.) Technical basis for 

calculating radiation doses for the building occupancy scenario using the probabilistic 

RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code (NUREG/CR-6755). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0205/ML020590035.pdf

Helsel, D. R. (2005). Nondetects and data analysis; Statistics for censored environmental data.

John Wiley & Sons. 

Helsel, D. R., & Lee, L. (2010). R package NADA (Version 1.5-3). [Computer software and 

manual]. 

Kennedy, W. E., Jr., & Strenge, D. L. (1992). Residual radioactive contamination from 

decommissioning: Technical basis for translating contamination levels to annual total effective 

dose equivalent (NUREG/CR-5512. vol. 1). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0522/ML052220317.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2004). Estimation of ingestion intakes

(OCAS-TIB-009, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/oc-t9-ro.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007). External dose reconstruction 

implementation guideline (OCAS-IG-001, rev. 3). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dr/oc-ig001-r3.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that worked uranium metals (Battelle-TBD-6000, rev. 1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/bat-6000-r1.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2018). Dose conversion factors for radon 

WLM (DCAS-TIB-011, rev. 05). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/dc-t11-r5-508.pdf
Robert Anigstein, SC&A, Inc.

Reply to NIOSH, page 11 March 27, 2023 

NOTICE: This document 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. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2019). Proposed dose reconstruction 

methodology to support 83.14 SEC class proposal for Lake Ontario Ordnance Works. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2022, July 12). NIOSH response to 

SC&A review comments of Battelle-TIB-5000, “Default assumptions and methods for Atomic 

Weapons Employer dose reconstructions” [Memorandum from J. Cardarelli, II, to Subcommittee

for Procedure Reviews]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dps/dc-tib5000-071222-508.pdf

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT). (2011). Use of coworker dosimetry data for 

external dose assignment (ORAUT-OTIB-0020, rev. 03). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/or-t20-r3.pdf

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. (2012). Site profile and technical basis document 

development (ORAUT-PROC-0031, rev. 04). SRDB Ref ID 166849

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. (2014). Analysis of stratified coworker datasets

(ORAUT-RPRT-0053, rev. 02). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/orau/oraurpts/or-rprt-53-

r2.pdf

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. (2015). External dose coworker methodology

(ORAUT-RPRT-0071, rev. 00). SRDB Ref ID 145135 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. (2018). Dose reconstruction from occupational 

medical x-ray procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006, rev. 05). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/or-t6-r5-508.pdf

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. (2021). Multiple imputation applied to bioassay 

co-exposure models (ORAUT-RPRT-0096, rev. 01). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/orau/oraurpts/or-rprt-96-r1-508.pdf