NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of 

SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Response Paper 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

May 3, 2021 

Joe Guido 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

Reviewed by Charles D. Nelson 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Page 1 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

BACKGROUND 

In Addendum 2 of the SEC-00188 Sandia National Laboratories-Albuquerque SEC evaluation 

report (ER) [NIOSH 2019], the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) provided dose reconstruction feasibility assessmentsfor 1997–2011. This time 

period was previously left unevaluated in the SEC-00188 ER covering 1963-1994 [NIOSH 

2012], and in the subsequent Addendum covering 1995-1996 [NIOSH 2018]. In those two 

reports, NIOSH defined classes of employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation 

doses with sufficient accuracy. When combined, these previously-identified classes include 

all employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and 

subcontractors who worked at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

from January 1, 1963 through December 31, 1996. 

In Addendum 2 of the SEC-00188 ER, NIOSH presented dose reconstruction feasibility 

conclusions for all personnel who worked in any area at Sandia National Laboratories in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the period from January 1, 1997 through May 21, 2011. Based 

on information obtained regarding post-1996 occupational monitoring, as well as program 

policies and procedures related to implementation of SNL-A’s radiation protection program, 

NIOSH found no part of the class for which it cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient 

accuracy. 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

On April 17, 2019, SC&A was tasked by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

(Advisory Board) with evaluating Addendum 2 of the SEC-00188 Sandia ER [ABRWH 2019]. 

On December 4, 2020, SC&A issued its findings and observations [SC&A 2020]. SC&A 

reviewed Addendum 2 with a focus on: (1) its assessment and conclusion for post-1996 internal 

dose reconstruction; and (2) remaining issues in the SEC-00188 ER for 1963–1994 related to its 

assessment and conclusions regarding occupational medical dose, environmental occupational 

dose, and external dose reconstruction [NIOSH 2012]. This Response paper provides NIOSH’s 

response to SC&A’s findings and observations. 

SUMMARY 

Four lines of inquiry comprised the core basis of SC&A’s review of Addendum 2 of the 

SEC-00188 Sandia ER. Notwithstanding the comments described herein, SC&A reached the 

following conclusions [SC&A 2020, PDF pp. 52–53]: 

1. Question 1: Is the weight of evidence presented by NIOSH in Addendum 2 (as 

supported by Addendum 1 and the original SEC-00188 ER) sufficient to support 

Page 2 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for external doses by December 31, 

1994, and for internal doses by December 31, 1996? 

SC&A concludes for external doses that there were no evident issues that would 

preclude dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy, although there still remain 

several questions about how exposures by personnel to severe radiation gradients at 

the SPR were handled by SNL, and how NIOSH will apply the available dosimetry 

data to dose reconstruction. For internal dose, the weight of evidence supports the 

feasibility of dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for the time period in 

question. 

However, SC&A was unable to verify fully the completeness of BZ monitoring results 

due to the lack of available records from which the total number of workers 

monitored via BZ, or the total number of BZ samples issued and processed, could be 

tabulated. These shortcomings are mitigated by the conservatism in NIOSH’s 

approach, including (1) conservative selection of radionuclides of interest (e.g., Pu239), (2) no credit taken for respiratory protection, and (3) the observed number of 

BZ samples per worker, which fell far short of the 200 events calculated in Addendum 

2 as necessary to exceed the 100 mrem upper bound. 

2. Question 2: Was the implementation of 10 CFR Part 835 requirements for internal 

exposure monitoring sufficiently adequate by December 31, 1996, to provide 

assurance that a 100 mrem (CEDE) annual radiation monitoring requirement was 

being adequately implemented at SNL-A such that use of that value as a bounding 

dose in NIOSH’s co-exposure model is supported? 

SC&A concludes that based on documented program implementation experience and 

oversight results before and after the end of 1996, the 10 CFR Part 835 provisions for 

radiation exposure monitoring and recordkeeping were adequately implemented to 

support the application of a 100 mrem (CEDE) maximum dose as a means to bound 

internal dose in NIOSH’s co-exposure model for SNL. 

3. Question 3: Are there any limitations or uncertainties related to dose 

reconstruction as a result of SNL-A reliance on personnel air sampling results as 

indicators for assignment of 100 mrem (CEDE) internal dose? 

From SC&A’s assessment, the weight of evidence supports the application of 

available personnel air sampling results as a means to justify the annual assignment 

of 100 mrem (CEDE) internal dose for workers who were not monitored, partially 

monitored, or solely monitored via BZ results. As previously noted, the lack of 

Page 3 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

available BZ monitoring records is mitigated by the conservatism of NIOSH’s dose 

estimation approach. 

4. Question 4: Is there evidence that security guards at SNL-A were potentially 

exposed to radioactive intakes of radionuclides that could have been in excess of 

100 mrem CEDE per year that would not have been monitored? 

Based on (1) extensive interviews with security guards who worked at SNL during 

1997– 2011, (2) an onsite tour of surveillance locations, (3) review of relevant 

records pertaining to radiological incidents, and (4) a review of internal intakes of 

bioassayed personnel at SNL facilities, SC&A concurs with the conclusions of ER 

Addendum 2 that it is unlikely that security personnel would have received an intake 

for which a 100 mrem annual dose (CEDE) would have been exceeded. 

SC&A FINDING 1: INABILITY TO LOCATE PARTICULAR REFERENCES 

SC&A was unable to locate references, such as periodic health physics reports, which tabulate 

the total number of workers monitored via breathing zone nor the total number of breathing zone 

samples issued and processed. Thus, a direct evaluation of the completeness of captured 

breathing zone results is not currently feasible. 

NIOSH Response: NIOSH agrees that the dataset of raw field-monitoring data sheets is 

incomplete. This fact is acknowledged in Addendum 2, Section 7.1.1.6 [NIOSH 2019]. 

However, a limited evaluation of the completeness of the captured breathing-zone results can be 

performed using the 1997–2002 DAC-hr tracking logs [Lockheed Martin 1997a, 1998a, 2000, 

2000–2001, 2001a,b,c, 2002a,b]. These logs list BZ sample results associated with individual 

workers that were used to track internal dose based solely on breathing-zone sample data. 

NIOSH compared the individual sample entries on the 1997–2002 DAC-hr tracking logs to the 

breathing zone (BZ) sample datasheet collection for that same period [Lockheed Martin 

1997b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o, 1998b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m, 1999a,b,c,d,e,f,g, 1999–2000]. This 

comparison was performed to determine whether all the samples listed in the DAC-hr tracking 

logs are also within the dataset used by NIOSH in its Addendum 2 analysis. Table 1, column 5 

below shows the results of this analysis. Out of 965 sample entries on the 1997–2002 DAC-hr 

tracking logs, NIOSH identified 952 (or 98.7%) within the BZ data collection. These 952 

confirmed tracking-log samples are a subset of the 3,741 BZ samples available for 1997–2002 

(Sandia ER Addendum 2, Table 6-1e) [NIOSH 2019]. However, the tracking-log sampleswould 

be expected to be the most dosimetrically significant because they were the ones slated for 

internal dose-tracking purposes. From this analysis, it can be concluded that the most 

dosimetrically significant BZ samples are contained in the dataset used in NIOSH’s evaluation. 

Page 4 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Table 1. Comparison of the 1997–2002 DAC-hr Tracking Logs with the BZ Sample Datasheet Collection.a 

Month 

DAC-hr 

Tracking Log

(SRDB Ref ID) 

BZ Air Sample 

Data Sheet 

(SRDB Ref ID) 

No. Samples 

on DAC-hr 

Tracking Log 

No. Samples on DAC-hr 

Tracking Log Located in

Data Sheet Collection 

Jan 1997 175713 35231 8 8 

Feb 1997 175713 35232 6 6 

Mar 1997 175713 35230 14 14 

April 1997 175713 35233 20 20 

May 1997 175713 35234 20 20 

Jun 1997 175713 35235 20 20 

Jul 1997 175713 35236 15 15 

Aug 1997 175713 35237 21 21 

Sep 1997 175713 35238 14 14 

Oct 1997 175713 32539 16 16 

Nov 1997 175713 35245, 35246 43 43 

Dec 1997 175713 35246 24 24 

Jan 1998 175714 35320 60 60 

Feb 1998 175714 35312 163 150 

Mar 1998 175714 35309 189 189 

Apr 1998 175714 35308 162 162 

May 1998 175714 35307 4 4 

Jun 1998 175714 35306 2 2 

Jul 1998 175714 35305 5 5 

Aug 1998 175714 35304 6 6 

Sep 1998 175714 35303 8 8 

Oct 1998 175714 NA 0 0 

Nov 1998 175714 35255, 35256 22 22 

Dec 1998 175714 NA 0 0 

Jan 1999 031170 35254 5 5 

Feb 1999 031170 35253 21 21 

Mar 1999 031170 35252 21 21 

Apr 1999 031170 35251 1 1 

May 1999 031170 35250 1 1 

Jun 1999 031170 NA 0 0 

Jul 1999 031170 NA 0 0 

Aug 1999 031170 NA 0 0 

Sep 1999 031170 31060 4 4 

Oct 1999 031170 NA 0 0 

Nov 1999 031170 31060 8 8 

Dec 1999 031170 31060 6 6 

Jan 2000 136928 35532 13 13 

Feb 2000 136928 35532 1 1 

Mar 2000 NA NA NDS NA 

Apr 2000 136928 35532 8 8 

Page 5 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Month 

DAC-hr 

Tracking Log 

(SRDB Ref ID) 

BZ Air Sample 

Data Sheet 

(SRDB Ref ID) 

No. Samples 

on DAC-hr 

Tracking Log 

No. Samples on DAC-hr 

Tracking Log Located in 

Data Sheet Collection 

May 2000 136928 35532 7 7 

Jun 2000 NA NA NDS NA 

Jul 2000 136928 35532 1 1 

Aug 2000 136928 35532 3 3 

Sep 2000 136928 35532 3 3 

Oct 2000 136978 NA 0 0 

Nov 2000 136978 NA 0 0 

Dec 2000 136978 NA 0 0 

Jan 2001 136978 NA 0 0 

Feb 2001 136978 NA 0 0 

Mar 2001 136982 136960 3 3 

Apr 2001 NA NA NDS NA 

May 2001 136978 NA 0 0 

Jun 2001 136978 NA 0 0 

Jul 2001 NA NA NDS NA 

Aug 2001 NA NA NDS NA 

Sep 2001 NA NA NDS NA 

Oct 2001 NA NA NDS NA 

Nov 2001 136911 136963 3 3 

Dec 2001 136909 35614 1 1 

Jan 2002 035843 136963 3 3 

Feb 2002 NA NA NDS NA 

Mar 2002 136929 NA 0 0 

Apr 2002 136929 NA 0 0 

May 2002 136929 136912 1 1 

Jun 2002 136929 136924 1 1 

Jul 2002 136929 136924 1 1 

Aug 2002 136929 NA 0 0 

Sep 2002 136929 NA 0 0 

Oct 2002 136929 136924, 136977 6 6 

Nov 2002 136929 136924 1 1 

Dec 2002 NA NA NDS NA 

TOTAL NA NA 965 952 

a. NA= Not Applicable; NDS= No data sheet located for month. 

Page 6 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

SC&A OBSERVATION 1: DUPLICATE SAMPLES AND TOTAL BZ SAMPLES 

SC&A identified 151 duplicate samples in the 2002 report and analyzed in NIOSH 2019a. These 

samples should not be included in reported BZ totals and should be removed from any exposure 

estimates. Furthermore, when reporting the total number of breathing zone samples, the distinct 

measurements (gross alpha, gross beta, low energy beta, and tritium) should not be counted as 

separate and distinct breathing zone samplers. These totals should be corrected in any 

subsequent revisions to the evaluation report to accurately reflect the number of individual 

workers/events who were monitored via BZ samplers. 

NIOSH Response: Table 1 in SC&A’s review [SC&A 2020] was based on tabulated data in 

Section 6 of the NIOSH ER (i.e., Table 6-1e). This tabulation lists the number of measurements 

available for each year and is not necessarily the same as either the number of individual 

analytical results (for a particular measurement type) or the number of samples collected from 

individuals. This is because gross alpha, beta/gamma, low-energy beta, and tritium results were 

sometimes recorded on separate data sheets. The presence of sample recounts also complicated 

the ability to consistently tally the number of samples available each year. For these reasons, the 

tabulation for Section 6 (i.e., Table 6-1e) is related to the number of line items of data available 

to NIOSH – with each line item potentially containing more than one result type. The actual 

number of measurements used in NIOSH’s analysis is shown in Tables 7-1b, 7-1c, and 7-1d for 

gross alpha, gross beta (including low-energy beta) and tritium, respectively. 

A more appropriate comparison between SC&A’s analysis of the number of samples for each 

year as compared to the number of measurements used in NIOSH’s analysis would be based on 

the data in Tables 7-1b, 7-1c, and 7-1d, as shown below. However, this comparison is 

complicated by the presence of “unusable measurements” which do not appear to be taken into 

account in SC&A’s analysis. The fact is that some samples in the dataset (represented by Table 

6-1e) were not used in NIOSH’s analysis. This is explained in Section 7.1.1.6, as follows: 

Some of the captured datasheets have either missing or illegible data that renders 

them unusable for the purpose of assessing potential internal exposure to the 

associated individual (e.g., for 2002, 32 of 585 records contain no duration entry 

[NIOSH 2019, PDF p. 23]. 

For example, for 2002, there were 585 available measurements; however, 32 were not usable, 

resulting in 553 usable measurements (as indicated in Tables 7-1b and 7-1c). Of these 553 usable 

measurements, NIOSH confirmed the presence of 148 duplicates (see discussion below), 

bringing the total measurement count to 405 (corrected in T able 2 below). 

Page 7 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Table 2.Comparison of NIOSH and SC&ADatasets.a,b 

Year NIOSH Dataset 

(Available BZ

results) 

Table 6-1e 

NIOSH Dataset 

(No. of alpha

measurements) 

Table 7-1b 

NIOSH Dataset 

(No. of beta 

measurements) 

Table 7-1c 

NIOSH Dataset 

(No. of H-3 

measurements) 

Table 7-1d 

SC&A Dataset 

(No. of samples) 

1997 357 357 357 0 367 

1998 1583 1581 1583 0 1568 

1999 708 708 708 0 687 

2000 336 334 336 0 336 

2001 172 172 172 0 164 

2002 585 405b 405b 0 436 

2003 0 0 0 0 0 

2004 274 131 137 119 128 

2005 388 177 177 165 176 

2006 208 75 72 88 108 

2007 231 111 170 52 111 

2008 445 189 358 8 174 

2009 76 38 74 0 38 

2010 26 23 26 0 20 

2011 0 0 0 0 0 

a. Source: NIOSH 2019; SC&A 2020. 

b. Measurementcount adjusted to remove duplicate measurements identified in SC&A’s analysis. 

Regarding duplicate samples, NIOSH was able to confirm that the 2002 dataset contained 148 

duplicate data entries (Note: There were actually 150 duplicates, but two measurementswere 

excluded due to the lack of flow-rate information). NIOSH was not able to confirm the presence 

of duplicate samples in other years, as identified in Table 1 of the SC&A review document 

[SC&A 2020]. The 148 duplicate values identified in 2002 were caused by overlaps in the 

sample datasets contained in three individual data files [Lockheed Martin 2002c,d,e]. 

Inconsistencies in how the location code for entries from different files were coded contributed 

to the inability to recognize these previously. NIOSH repeated the original analysis using the 

updated dataset (i.e., with 148 duplicate values from 2002 removed) and confirmed that the 

presence of these duplicates did not impact the results of the analysis [ORAUT 2020a,b,c]. 

Table 3 below shows the results of this re-analysis. It should be noted that the methodology used 

by NIOSH to evaluate the dataset (specifically the imputation of non-detect results) makes the 

final dataset relatively immune from the presence of duplicate samples. This is because most of 

the sample results were negative, and these negative values were replaced by a randomlyselected value from the positive results. If the duplicate results were positive, then the inclusion 

of both results would only skew the dataset higher. In general, duplicate results were introduced 

by the presence of recounted samples and the failure to identify these as such. Sample recounts 

are unlikely to result in a higher result; therefore, the presence of both an initial count and a 

recount in the dataset would only skew the results in a positive direction. 

Page 8 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Table 3. Evaluation of BZ Dataset With andWithout Duplicate Values by Event and by Date.

a 

Case 

Original Dataset with 

Duplicates:

Mean Person Dose by 

Event in mrem (GSD) 

Revised Dataset without 

Duplicates:

Mean Person Dose by 

Event in mrem (GSD) 

Original Dataset with 

Duplicates:

Mean Person Dose by 

Date in mrem (GSD) 

Revised Dataset without 

Duplicates:

Mean Person Dose by 

Date in mrem (GSD) 

Alpha 0.48 (5.73) 0.48 (5.8) 0.52 (5.2) 0.51 (5.3) 

Beta 0.00054 (8.0) 0.00058 (7.6) 0.00066 (7.0) 0.00066 (6.9) 

Tritium 0.0065 (4.4) 0.0065 (4.4) 0.0070 (4.3) 0.0070 (4.3) 

a. Note: An event is defined two ways: a radiological work task at a given location on a given day, and all radiological 

work on a given day [NIOSH 2019, PDF p. 25]. 

Regarding the decision to analyze alpha, beta, and tritium samples separately, NIOSH believes 

that doing so is both claimant-favorable and appropriate based on the fact that each individual 

sample component was evaluated against the most-limiting DAC value for that radiation type 

plus the fact that the alpha component is two to three orders of magnitude larger than the beta 

and tritium components, as shown below: 

• Alpha: 0.52 mrem 

• Beta/gamma: 0.0007 mrem 

• T ritium: 0.007 mrem 

The same logic also applies to low-energy beta measurements, which were present in some 

portions of the dataset. 

SC&A OBSERVATION 2: INCOMPLETE DATA 

It is SC&A's opinion that the observed temporal variation in the number of captured breathing 

zone (BZ) samples suggests that the available dataset does not represent a complete set of 

monitoring records for the affected worker population. Therefore, any conclusions regarding the 

exposure potential reflected in captured breathing zone samples is likely based on incomplete 

data. However, as stated previously, the level of incompleteness is not known at this time. 

NIOSH Response: As stated in the response to Finding #1, while NIOSH agrees that the BZ 

dataset is not complete, the dataset is biased high by the fact that all of the data transmitted to the 

internal dosimetry group for DAC-hr tracking purposes is included. 

Page 9 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

SC&A OBSERVATION 3: USE OF WEBDOSE 

Comparison of breathing zone entries contained in WebDose to captured hardcopy records 

demonstrates that WebDose does not represent a complete data source reflecting who was 

monitored via breathing zone at SNL. Therefore, the use of WebDose to support the 100 mrem 

dose threshold may not be appropriate. 

NIOSH Response: NIOSH concurs that the WebDose dataset does not contain entries for every 

BZ sample collected; however, it does represent a complete assessment of the most 

highly-exposed worker population and, as such, consideration of WebDose data is one part of the 

evidence used to support the ultimate conclusion. Sandia procedure RPO-04-425 (June 5, 1996) 

required that all BZ samples with a calculated DAC-hr value exceeding 0.10 be forwarded to 

Internal Dosimetry for review[Lockheed Martin 1996]. 

Comparison of the WebDose BZ rollup entries (i.e., entries with a dosimeter number beginning 

with “P”) against the available 1997–2002 DAC-hr tracking logs indicates 100% agreement 

between WebDose entries and presence on the DAC-hr tracking logs. WebDose entries for April 

2001, August 2001, and December 2002 could not be verified against the DAC-hr T racking logs 

because corresponding logs for these periods are not available. However, NIOSH was able to 

locate BZ sample datasheets for these months with names corresponding to those on the 

WebDose entries and with a “reviewed by” ID stamp [Lockheed Martin 2001d, PDF p. 130, 

2001e, PDF p. 4, 2002-2003, PDF p. 511]. NIOSH’s analysis indicates that the WebDose logs 

are a complete and accurate accounting of individuals whose BZ samples were forwarded to 

Internal Dosimetry for DAC-hr tracking. 

SC&A OBSERVATION 4: DISTRIBUTION OF BZ SAMPLES 

A substantial portion of the available breathing zone samples per year are often assigned to just 

a few individuals. 8% of the total breathing zone samples were associated with just a single 

individual though over 195 monitored individuals were identified. Nearly 80% of the identified 

individual workers in a given year had 20 breathing zone samples or less. 

NIOSH Response: NIOSH concurs with this observation and believes that the noted trend does 

not obviate the use of 100 mrem as a maximizing dose assignment to unmonitored workers. 

Page 10 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

SC&A OBSERVATION 5: 

Seventy-nine of the 194 identified individuals in the captured 82 records also participated in the 

non-tritium bioassay program during the evaluated SEC period. This includes the identified 

workers with the highest number of BZ results per year as well as the 11 workers with the 

highest number of BZ results over the entire period. Therefore, evidence suggests that workers 

who were most often monitored via BZ were also often monitored via non-tritium bioassay. 

NIOSH Response: NIOSH concurs with this observation and believes that individuals within 

the captured set of BZ monitoring records were among those with the highest potential for 

internal exposure. This conclusion is supported by their preferential inclusion in the internal 

monitoring bioassay program. 

SC&A OBSERVATION 6: FLUCTUATIONS IN EXPOSURE POTENTIAL 

SC&A's analysis of relative exposure potential demonstrates that noteworthy fluctuations in 

exposure potential can exist by year and by work area. Specifically, work in the general area 

designated by SC&A as "TA-V/6580" during the years 1997 and 1998 showed significantly 

elevated exposure potential when compared to all years and areas. However, SC&A does not 

believe these fluctuations necessarily obviate the use of 100 mrem as a maximizing dose 

assignment to unmonitored workers as several significantly conservative assumptions were 

included in the dose estimates. 

NIOSH Response: NIOSH concurs with the stated observation and does not believe these 

fluctuations obviate the use of 100 mrem as a maximizing dose assignment to unmonitored 

worker. 

SC&A OBSERVATION 7: SPR RADIATION GRADIENT DOSE 

SPR radiation gradient dose issue. The issue of exposure to severe radiation gradients would not 

be applicable to personnel working outside the immediate area of the bottom of the reactor 

vessel. However, the potential exposures to maintenance and operating personnel while 

performing close-up work on the SPR has not been sufficiently addressed and resolved. 

Page 11 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

NIOSH Response: 

The response below is intended to outline the issues associated with the development of external 

dose adjustments for SPR worker claimantswho worked during the currently-defined SEC class 

period. For reasons explained below, such adjustments are not needed for the period that is not 

included in the currently-defined SEC class (i.e., 1997–2011). 

The issue of elevated exposure to SPR workers was identified during the early 1980s [DOE 

1982]; as a result, SNL instituted a number of corrective actions related to monitoring and 

reduction of radiation exposure to SPR personnel. These actions are summarized in a July 23, 

1982 memorandum [AT&T 1982c, PDF pp. 4–5] indicating that Sandia would commit to the 

following: 

1. Dosimetry would be supplied to measure the “head” doses of personnel performing 

SPR III maintenance. 

2. Body dose information would be accepted for head measurements for the period it 

was not available since calculational efforts were not supportable. 

3. Both head and whole body doses would be reported in SNLA dosimetry records. 

4. An attempt would be made to get more uniformity in the location of dosimetry units 

were worn by SNLA personnel. 

Subsequent to the 1982 dose evaluations, Sandia instituted a dose-reduction effort for SPR 

personnel. This effort involved designing and implementing a shielding arrangement that 

provided significant dose reduction (between a factor of 5 and 30, depending on location) 

[AT&T 1982d]. An October 15, 1984 memorandum summarizes the results of the dosereduction efforts and indicates the types of changesthat were made [AT&T 1984]: 

1. Modifications to the KIVA 

2. Modifications to the SPR-III reactor stand 

3. Procurement of a remotely controlled forklift 

4. Design, fabrication and use of a personnel maintenance shield 

5. Administrative changes 

The stated goal of the program was a 33% reduction in personnel exposure during operation and 

maintenance activities. 

Page 12 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

The period under evaluation in this Addendum is January 1, 1997 through May 21, 2011. The 

SPR-III facility operated between 1997 and 2000 [DOD 2005, PDF p. 47], and again from 

January through September 2006 [Lockheed Martin 2007, PDF p. 2]. For these periods of SPRIII operation, NIOSH has located evidence that Sandia evaluated the potential for non-uniform 

exposures and implemented the use of multiple dosimeters, as necessary. This is evident from 

documentation of an incident report from February 1998 [DOE 1998], as well as from NIOSH’s 

review of copies of radiological work permits for work in the SPR KIVA facility in 1998–2000 

[Lockheed Martin 1998n, 1999h, 2000b,c, 1999i]. 

The 1998 incident report [DOE 1998] documented a weakness in the issuance of real-time 

electronic dosimetry that accompanied TLD dosimeters. In particular, only one real-time monitor 

was issued and was placed at the location of the chest badge worn during the job. T his placement 

neglected to provide real-time dose monitoring for the higher-dose location (head), which was 

also monitored with a TLD badge. Consequently, the RWP dose limit was exceeded. During the 

investigation, dosimetry staff reviewed past multi-badging and found no significant difference 

between chest and head levels. Additional corrective actions related to issuance of multiple 

dosimetry badges were documented in a January 26, 1998 memo, “Radiation Protection 

Response to RPIR 98-005, Individual Exceeding RWP Dose Limit” [Lockheed Martin 1998o]. 

Corrective actions included performance of a “more detailed dose-gradient survey of the work 

area,” discussions with workers to “Determine work locations and most likely worker positions,” 

and “Compare these [work positions] to the pre-job survey and determine expected dose to 

various body position(s).” 

A review of SPR-related radiation work permits identified RWP 11133 (active September– 

October 2000), which indicated the need for multi-badging and contains copies of multi-badge 

TLD results [Lockheed Martin 2000c, PDF pp. 15–24]. The ALARA Pre-Job Review form 

attached to this RWP includes the question: “Is whole body TLD sufficient to monitor potential 

exposures?” [Lockheed Martin 2000c, PDF p. 9]. In the case of this RWP, the response is ‘no’ 

and multi-badging is specified. 

A review of Sandia dose-reporting practices during the period under evaluation (January 1,1997 

through May 21, 2011), indicates that when multiple dosimeter badges are assigned, the 

individual location results are maintained in the record-keeping system as “work area 

measurements” and that the dose of record is calculated as a weighted average of these 

individual dosimeter results. Although both the weighted value (dose of record) and the 

individual dosimeter results are part of the data provided by Sandia for EEOICPA claimants 

[NTESS 2021, PDF pp. 2–3]. NIOSH plans to document this practice in an update of the external 

dose section of the Sandia site profile document [ORAUT 2013]. 

Page 13 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Regarding the need for adjustments to external exposures that might have occurred at the SPR 

facility prior to the period under evaluation (i.e., before January 1, 1997), further review is 

necessary to develop such an adjustment if the use of a chest dosimeter is not bounding. In 

addition, a NIOSH review of a 1998 occurrence report indicates that, prior to January 1997, 

measured dose to the head might not have been considered as a component of whole-body dose 

[DOE 1998]. NIOSH intends to perform additional research to gain further understanding of this 

practice and its potential impact on the interpretation of dosimetry results. Any guidance 

determined to be necessary will be included in a revision to the external dose section of the 

Sandia site profile document [ORAUT 2013]. 

Page 14 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

REFERENCES 

ABRWH [2019]. Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 128th meeting Wednesday 

April 17, 2019. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health. April 17. SRDB Ref ID: 178877 

AT&T [1982a], Special Dosimetry for Area V. Memorandum to Tucker GE from Stanley AL. 

Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: AT&T. October 5. SRDB Ref ID: 35009 

AT&T [1982b], SPR III Head/Eye Test Dosimetry October 26, 1982. Memorandum to Tucker 

GE from Thompson DJ. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: AT&T. October 26. 

SRDB Ref ID: 35011 

AT&T [1982c]. A study of personnel radiation exposures associated with SPR III 

maintenance/repair activities. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: AT&T. July 23. 

SRDB Ref ID: 35012 

AT&T [1982d]. Evaluation of shielding provided by SPR maintenance shield September 16, 

1982. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: AT&T. September 16. SRDB Ref ID: 

35010 

AT&T [1984]. Dose reduction project overview and area dosimetry, 1984-1986. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: AT&T. October 15. SRDB Ref ID: 20340 

AT&T [1989]. Area 5 graphical representation of dose for 3312 and 6451 1987 and 1989. Sandia 

National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: AT&T. SRDB Ref ID: 23764 

DOD [2005]. Report of the Defense Science Board task force on nuclear weapon effects tests, 

evaluation, and simulation. U.S. Department of Defense. Washington, DC: Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. April. SRDB Ref ID: 80376 

DOE [1982]. Memorandum: Radiation exposure to SNLA personnel. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Memorandum from Romatowski RG (U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque 

Operations Office) to Dacey GC (Sandia National Laboratory). August 25. SRDB Ref ID: 34999 

DOE [1998]. Occurrence report RWP hold point exceeded during Sandia pulsed reactor 

maintenance work. Sandia National Laboratories. U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque 

Operations Office. February 11. SRDB Ref ID: 167005 

Page 15 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Lockheed Martin [1996]. Radiological survey documentation Radiation Protection Operations 

Department radiation protection operating procedure RPO-04-425, issue 04. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. June 5. SRDB Ref ID: 170190 

Lockheed Martin [1997a]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report 1997. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various months in 1997. SRDB Ref ID: 175713 

Lockheed Martin [1997b]. Radiological survey form location 9830B air sample of personnel 

lapel breathing zone. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. April 

16. SRDB Ref ID: 22252 

Lockheed Martin [1997c]. Airborne radiological survey forms – breathing zone data, building 

6920, rooms 119-20, 107. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. 

Various dates in 1997. SRDB Ref ID: 31085 

Lockheed Martin [1997d]. Airborne radiological survey March 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. March. SRDB Ref ID: 35230 

Lockheed Martin [1997e]. Airborne radiological survey January 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January. SRDB Ref ID: 35231 

Lockheed Martin [1997f]. Airborne radiological survey February 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. February. SRDB Ref ID: 35232 

Lockheed Martin [1997g]. Airborne radiological survey April 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. April. SRDB Ref ID: 35233 

Lockheed Martin [1997h]. Airborne radiological survey May 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. May. SRDB Ref ID: 35234 

Lockheed Martin [1997i]. Airborne radiological survey June 1997. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. June. SRDB Ref ID: 35235 

Lockheed Martin [1997j]. Airborne radiological survey July 1997. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. July. SRDB Ref ID: 35236 

Lockheed Martin [1997k]. Airborne radiological survey August 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. August. SRDB Ref ID: 35237 

Lockheed Martin [1997l]. Airborne radiological survey September 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. September. SRDB Ref ID: 35238 

Page 16 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Lockheed Martin [1997m]. Airborne radiological survey October 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. October. SRDB Ref ID: 35239 

Lockheed Martin [1997n]. Airborne radiological survey November 1997. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. November. SRDB Ref ID: 35245 

Lockheed Martin [1997o]. Airborne radiological survey June and December 1997. Sandia 

National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. June and December. SRDB Ref ID: 

35246 

Lockheed Martin [1998a]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report 1998. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various months in 1998. SRDB Ref ID: 175714 

Lockheed Martin [1998b]. Airborne radiological survey November and December 1998. Sandia 

National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January. SRDB Ref ID: 35255 

Lockheed Martin [1998c]. Airborne radiological survey November 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. November. SRDB Ref ID: 35256 

Lockheed Martin [1998d]. Airborne radiological survey October 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. October. SRDB Ref ID: 35257 

Lockheed Martin [1998e]. Airborne radiological survey September 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. September. SRDB Ref ID: 35303 

Lockheed Martin [1998f]. Airborne radiological survey August 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. August. SRDB Ref ID: 35304 

Lockheed Martin [1998g]. Airborne radiological survey July 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. July. SRDB Ref ID: 35305 

Lockheed Martin [1998h]. Airborne radiological survey June 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. June. SRDB Ref ID: 35306 

Lockheed Martin [1998i]. Airborne radiological survey May 1998. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. May. SRDB Ref ID: 35307 

Lockheed Martin [1998j]. Airborne radiological survey April and May 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. April and May. SRDB Ref ID: 35308 

Lockheed Martin [1998k]. Airborne radiological survey March 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. March. SRDB Ref ID: 35309 

Page 17 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Lockheed Martin [1998l]. Airborne radiological survey February 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. February. SRDB Ref ID: 35312 

Lockheed Martin [1998m]. Airborne radiological survey January 1998. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January. SRDB Ref ID: 35320 

Lockheed Martin [1998n]. RWP 100 remove glory hole experiment stand from the SPR III 

reactor and move to the RMB. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed 

Martin. SRDB Ref ID: 35320 

Lockheed Martin [1998o]. Radiation protection response to RPIR 98-0005, individual exceeding 

RWP dose limit. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January 26. 

SRDB Ref ID: 184643 

Lockheed Martin [1999a]. Airborne radiological survey August 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. August. SRDB Ref ID: 35247 

Lockheed Martin [1999b]. Airborne radiological survey June 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. June. SRDB Ref ID: 35249 

Lockheed Martin [1999c]. Airborne radiological survey May 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. May. SRDB Ref ID: 35250 

Lockheed Martin [1999d]. Airborne radiological survey April 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. April. SRDB Ref ID: 35251 

Lockheed Martin [1999e]. Airborne radiological survey March 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. March. SRDB Ref ID: 35252 

Lockheed Martin [1999f]. Airborne radiological survey February 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. February. SRDB Ref ID: 35253 

Lockheed Martin [1999g]. Airborne radiological survey January 1999. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January. SRDB Ref ID: 35254 

Lockheed Martin [1999h]. RWP 644 assemble/disassembly of experiments and handling of 

activated/contaminated materials by experimenters and non-SPR Staff. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. SRDB Ref ID: 181886 

Lockheed Martin [1999i]. RWP 764 assemble/disassemble experiments and handling of 

activated/contaminated materials by experimenters and non-SPR Staff. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. SRDB Ref ID: 181887 

Page 18 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Lockheed Martin [1999–2000]. Airborne radiological survey forms – breathing zone data and 

lapel filter analyses. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various 

dates in 1999–2000. SRDB Ref ID: 31060 

Lockheed Martin [2000a]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report 2000. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various months in 2000. SRDB Ref ID: 136928 

Lockheed Martin [2000b]. SPR Pre-Operational Checklist. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January 3. SRDB Ref ID: 181823 

Lockheed Martin [2000c]. RWP 1133 Dismantle SPR Reactors/Package/Store Reactor Fuel 

Plates. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. SRDB Ref ID: 

181890 

Lockheed Martin [2000–2001]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report 2000–2001. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various months in 2000–2001. SRDB Ref 

ID: 136978 

Lockheed Martin [2001a]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report 2001. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. March. SRDB Ref ID: 136982 

Lockheed Martin [2001b]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report November 2001. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. November. SRDB Ref ID: 136911 

Lockheed Martin [2001c]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report December 2001. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. December. SRDB Ref ID: 136909 

Lockheed Martin [2001d]. Radiation Protection Sample Diagnostics (7578) Building 6921 

S39244 - S51057 February–November 2001. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: 

Lockheed Martin. February–November 2001. SRDB Ref ID: 136960 

Lockheed Martin [2001e]. Airborne Radiological Survey Forms, Breathing Zone Samples From 

Building 6920, Rooms 119 and 120. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed 

Martin. Various dates in 2001. SRDB Ref ID: 35531 

Lockheed Martin [2002a]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report January 2002. Sandia National 

Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. January. SRDB Ref ID: 35843 

Lockheed Martin [2002b]. Monthly DAC-hr and dose report 2002. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various months in 2002. SRDB Ref ID: 136929 

Page 19 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

Lockheed Martin [2002c]. Radiation protection sample diagnostics (7578) building 6921 

S53361–S57592 February–July 2002. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: 

Lockheed Martin. Various dates in February–July 2002. SRDB Ref ID: 136912 

Lockheed Martin [2002d]. Radiation protection sample diagnostics (7578) building 6921 

S57875–S62947. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various 

dates in 2002. SRDB Ref ID: 136924 

Lockheed Martin [2002e]. Radiation protection sample diagnostics (3123) building 6921 rm. 111 

S59217–S61077. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various 

dates in 2002. SRDB Ref ID: 136977 

Lockheed Martin [2002–2003]. Radiation Protection Sample Diagnostics (7578) Building 6921 

S57875 - S62947. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. Various 

dates in 2002–2003. SRDB Ref ID: 136924 

Lockheed Martin [2007]. Sun sets on Sandia Pulsed Reactor. Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque, NM: Lockheed Martin. September 4. SRDB Ref ID: 171777 

NIOSH [2012]. Special exposure cohort petition evaluation report petition SEC-00188 Rev. 0 

Sandia National Laboratories – Albuquerque. Qualified October 21, 2011.Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). February 21. SRDB Ref ID: 

115521 

NIOSH [2018]. Special exposure cohort petition evaluation report petition SEC-00188 

addendum (1995-1996) Sandia National Laboratories. Qualified October 21, 2011. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). July 26. SRDB Ref 

ID: 172532 

NIOSH [2019]. SEC petition evaluation report petition SEC-00188, addendum 2 (1997-2011). 

Sandia National Laboratories – Albuquerque. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH). April 1. SRDB Ref ID: 184552 

NTESS [2021]. Sandia-AL FY21-001 Data Needs 2 and 3. Sandia National Laboratories – 

Albuquerque. Albuquerque, NM: National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, 

LLC (NTESS). January 5. SRDB Ref ID: 184521 

Page 20 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Response Paper: NIOSH Response to SC&A’s Review of SEC-00188 Sandia ER Addendum 2 

ORAUT [2020a]. Analysis of SNL alpha BZ data. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities. December 21. SRDB Ref ID: 184517 

ORAUT [2020b]. Analysis of SNL beta BZ data. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities. December 21. SRDB Ref ID: 184518 

ORAUT [2020c]. Analysis of SNL tritium BZ data. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities. December 21. SRDB Ref ID: 184519 

ORAUT [2013]. Site Profile for Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 

the Tonopah Test Range, Nevada. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities. January 

25. SRDB Ref ID: 122122 

SC&A [2020]. Review of SEC petition evaluation report: petition SEC-00188, addendum 2 

(1977-2011), for Sandia National Laboratories – Albuquerque. Arlington, VA: SC&A, Inc. 

December 4. SRDB Ref ID: 184132 

Page 21 of 21 

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.