Draft White Paper 

REVIEW OF DATABASE USED TO DEVELOP ORAUT-OTIB-0077: 

EXTERNAL COWORKER DOSIMETRY DATA FOR 

AREA IV OF THE SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY 

 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

Revision 1 

Prepared by 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

 March 2010 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 2 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Statement of Purpose ...........................................................................................................3 

2.0 Historical Milestones Leading Up to This Review..............................................................3 

3.0

..................................................................................................................4 

A Critical Review of the Data Used by NIOSH for Use in its SSFL External 

Coworker Model

3.1 An Overview of the Boice et al. (2006a) Dosimetric Database...............................4 

3.2 Review of the Boice et al. (2006b) Database...........................................................5 

4.0 Issues of Concern Regarding NIOSH’s Coworker Model...................................................6 

4.1

................................................................................6 

Issue #1. NIOSH May Have Misinterpreted Worker Dose Data Prepared by 

Boice et al. (2006a and 2006b)

4.2 Issue #2. The Misuse of Termination Dosimetry Data ...........................................7 

4.3

.............................8 

Issue #3. The Inclusion of Annual Exposure Data Associated with NonSSFL Employment Periods at Unspecified/Unknown Facilities

4.4

.......................................................................................................................16 

Issue #4. The Interpretation of “Blanks” and the Potential for Unaccounted 

Dose

4.5

...........................17 

Issue #5. Neutron Exposures May Either Have Been Totally Ignored or 

Substantially Under-represented in the SSFL Coworker Model

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

6.0 References..........................................................................................................................19 

 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 3 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

1.0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

The purpose of this draft report is to present an evaluation of the “Boeing” external dosimetry 

database for use as a coworker model for Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) workers, as 

defined in ORAUT-OTIB-0077 (ORAUT 2009). Our review focuses on the suitability of this 

database for use as surrogate data that comply with ORAUT-OTIB-0020 (ORAUT 2008) and 

OCAS-IG-004 (OCAS 2008). 

2.0 HISTORICAL MILESTONES LEADING UP TO THIS REVIEW 

In August of 2008, SC&A submitted a draft report entitled, Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for 

the Santa Susan Field Laboratory (SC&A 2008). In the review of ORAUT-TKBS-0038-6, 

Technical Basis Document for Atomics International – Occupational External Dosimetry

(ORAUT 2006, referred to as TBD-6), SC&A identified a total of seven findings that were 

subsequently summarized by SC&A in the Issues Resolution Matrix for the Santa Susana Site 

Profile Review and first discussed by the SSFL Work Group in August 2008, and again in April 

2009. Included among seven findings pertaining to external monitoring was Finding 4.6-1, 

which stated the following: 

. . . TBD-6 has not cited an external coworker model approach as necessary, and 

the document does not address the use of a coworker model for those individuals 

potentially exposed, but not monitored . . . 

SC&A performed a cursory review of more than 30 dose reconstructions related 

to badging of radiation workers. Several observations were made in this review. 

First, it does not appear any of the claimants, including those that were likely 

defined as radiation workers, were badged for their full employment period. . . . 

Some employees, who may or may not have worked in areas containing 

radioactive material, were not badged and therefore were assumed not to have 

worked in areas containing radioactive materials. 

In response to Finding 4.6-1 and SSFL Work Group discussions, NIOSH issued ORAUT-OTIB0077, Rev. 00 (External Coworker Dosimetry Data for Area IV of the Santa Susana Field 

Laboratory, the Canoga Avenue Facility (Vanowen Building and the De Soto Avenue Facility 

(sometimes referred to as Energy Technology Engineering Center [ETEC] or Atomics 

International) on August 3, 2009. 

SC&A reviewed ORAUT-OTIB-0077 and provided comments to the Work Group in a 

memorandum regarding Resolution of the SSFL Site Profile and SEC Issues Matrices, issued on 

November 9, 2009. At the time of our initial review of ORAUT-OTIB-0077, however, SC&A 

had not been provided the dosimetry database used by NIOSH to derive annual dose estimates 

for its coworker model, as given in Tables 2 and 3. SC&A was given access to the “Boeing” 

dosimetry database in November of 2009. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 4 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

3.0 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE DATA USED BY NIOSH FOR USE IN ITS SSFL 

EXTERNAL COWORKER MODEL 

Section 5.1 of ORAUT-OTIB-0077 identifies the origin of the data used by NIOSH and their 

limitations, as given in the following statements: 

The SSFL data was manually entered into a database for an epidemiological 

study of workers at Rocketdyne (Atomics International) covering the period 1948 

to 1999. Exposure information was compiled from the following sources: 

Rocketdyne radiation safety folders, NRC – REIRS, DOE-REMS, Landauer 

dosimetry, Individual facilities, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Air Force. 6,675 

workers were monitored for radiation exposure and of those 5,801 were included 

in the study. . . . [Boice et al. 2006a] . . . The number of data points used for 

each year is shown in Tables 2 and 3. 

The SSFL database contains dosimetry data for penetrating dose, which is a 

combination of gamma and fast neutron dose. Because it is difficult to separate 

statistically significant neutron dose from the penetrating dose and because 

shallow dose data is not available in the database described above, the neutron 

dose component (which represented less than 5% of the total data points 

available) was left embedded with gamma dose, resulting in penetrating dose 

values that are favorable to claimants. An analysis of average neutron dose 

revealed that the average value for any individual year was bounded by the 95th

percentile values for penetrating dose given in this OTIB. [Emphasis added.] 

As indicated in the above-cited passage, NIOSH employed a database that was compiled by 

Boice et al. (2006a) entitled, Mortality Among Radiation Workers at Rockedyne (Atomics 

International), 1948–1999. It should be noted, however, a more detailed/informative description 

of the dosimetric data used by Boice et al. (2006a) in the above-cited epidemiologic mortality 

study is presented in a companion publication by Boice et al. (2006b), which is not referenced in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0077. Our review of the NIOSH coworker model will, therefore, make reference 

to information/data contained in Boice et al. (2006b). 

3.1 An Overview of the Boice et al. (2006a) Dosimetric Database 

The Boice study was a retrospective cohort mortality study of 5,743 radiation workers with 

external exposures who were employed for at least 6 months at the Rocketdyne [Atomic 

International (AI)] facilities in the years 1948 to 1999. Because radiation doses were defined as 

“lifetime” doses, occupational exposures received at other facilities were included. Nearly 32% 

(or 1,833) of the 5,743 Rocketdyne/AI workers had also been monitored for external radiation 

exposure at other facilities, either before and/or after their employment at Rocketdyne/AI. Of the 

5,743 workers monitored for external photon exposures, about 10% (or 584 workers) were 

monitored for neutrons while at Rocketdyne/AI, with another 2% (or 81) of workers with 

neutron exposures elsewhere. Table 1 provides a summary of the distribution of exposures by 

exposure location and type of radiation. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 5 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

Table 1. Number of Workers Monitored and Not Monitored for Radiation at Rocketdyne 

by Cumulative External Radiation Dose Received Before, During, and After Rocketdyne 

Employment, Neutron Dose, Internal Lung Dose, and Total Career Dose 

(Source: Boice et al. 2006b) 

Cumulative dose (mSv) 

Employment period 0 <5 5- 10- 50- 100- ≥200 Total 

External photon radiation dose 

 - Before Rocketdyne 105 482 97 165 39 30 14 932 

 - While at Rocketdyne 693 3,231 663 925 128 58 45 5,743 

 - After Rocketdyne 744 369 53 41 12 redact redact 1,224 

 - TOTAL career, external photons 608 3,155 646 1,009 166 97 68 5,749 

Total career, neutron dose 303 314 35 11 redact redact redact 665 

Total career, external (photon & 

neutron) 605 3,149 651 1,012 165 100 69 5,751 

Inspection of Table 1 shows that 932 (or 16.1%) of the study cohort had exposure prior to 

employment with Rocketdyne/AI, and 1,224 (or 21.1%) had exposure after leaving 

Rocketdyne/AI. 

While the integration of pre-Rocketdyne/AI, Rocketdyne/AI, and post-Rocketdyne/AI exposures 

is technically sound for the epidemiologic worker study that required estimates of lifetime

occupational doses, use of these data for an SSFL coworker model is inappropriate, as explained 

in Section 4.0. 

3.2 Review of the Boice et al. (2006b) Database 

Redacted annual dose data for the 5,743 workers that represented the study cohort were 

forwarded by Boeing to NIOSH on October 28, 2008, in the form of an Excel® spreadsheet*

 that 

consisted of the following three tabs: 

 Tab #1 provides redacted demographic data, which identifies each worker by an arbitrary 

ID number from #1 through #5801. (Note: Although only 5,743 workers had recorded 

external doses, there were also 58 workers who were exclusively monitored for internal 

exposure.) Key demographic data included (1) the year of hire (by Rocketdyne/IA), 

(2) the year of termination (by Rocketdyne/AI), and (3) whether the individual had been 

monitored for internal exposure, external photon exposure, and/or external neutron 

exposure. 

 Tab #2 presents year-by-year “Total External Dose” for years 1940 through 1999, as well 

as “Total Neutron Dose” for years 1948 through 1999 (in units of mrem). 

 *

 This database/spreadsheet, in redacted form, is available on the O-drive under the file name SSFL 

IEIDOSES_10-22-08_Redacted_unprotected.xls. (Note that all worker identification numbers used in this report are 

randomly assigned numbers.) 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 6 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

 Tab #3 presents annual internal doses to 16 target organs/tissues. However, these data 

are not relevant to the coworker model, and were therefore not assessed by SC&A. 

4.0 ISSUES OF CONCERN REGARDING NIOSH’S COWORKER MODEL 

Our review of dosimetry data employed by Boice et al. (2006a and 2006b) and their 

interpretation and use by NIOSH for surrogate data in the SSFL external dose coworker model 

has raised the following issues of concern. 

4.1 Issue #1. NIOSH May Have Misinterpreted Worker Dose Data Prepared by Boice 

et al. (2006a and 2006b) 

In Section 5.1 of ORAUT-OTIB-0077, NIOSH states the following: 

The SSFL database contains dosimetry data for penetrating dose, which is a 

combination of gamma and fast neutron dose. Because it is difficult to separate

statistically significant neutron dose from the penetrating dose, . . . the neutron 

dose component . . . was left embedded with gamma dose, resulting in penetrating 

dose values that are favorable to claimants. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A concludes that NIOSH may have misinterpreted dosimetry data contained in Tab #2 of 

the spreadsheet. In Tab #2, the first set of annual doses in Columns E through BL are labeled 

“Total External Dose,” which may have misled NIOSH to conclude that these values represented 

the combined dose from penetrating photons and neutrons. This erroneous conclusion may have 

been prompted the two factors: (1) the misleading label of “Total External Dose” and (2) the 

fact that for most data points representing a worker who was monitored for both photons and 

neutrons in a given year, the “Total External Dose” was well above the “Total Neutron Dose.” 

Our review of the spreadsheet data, however, revealed numerous data points where the “Total 

Neutron Dose” exceeded the “Total External Dose.” The following sample data points illustrate 

this potential misunderstanding of the data: 

Worker ID Year Total External Dose (mrem) Total Neutron Dose (mrem) 

#2968 1956 300 534 

" 1957 150 280 

#3275 1957 0 224 

#3289 1957 0 182 

#3305 1957 57 126 

#3322 1957 81 144 

#3397 1957 0 196 

#4182 1959 16 198 

#4363 1957 59 198 

" 1958 0 180 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 7 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

From this limited data set, it is clear that (1) the “Total External Dose” does not represent the 

combined photon and neutron doses, and (2) neutron doses are not “embedded” and “difficult to 

separate” as stated by NIOSH. 

4.2 Issue #2. The Misuse of Termination Dosimetry Data 

As acknowledged by NIOSH, Boice et al. (2006a) drew upon dosimetry records from a variety 

of sources, which likely included termination reports, such as the NRC Form 4 (which provides 

a cumulative Occupational Dose History of a worker). Since the epidemiologic study by Boice 

et al. (2006a) was primarily interested in establishing a “lifetime” dose, an aggregate dose for a 

select period of time would have had limited significance to the integrity of the study and was 

fully acknowledged, as given in the following statements (Boice et al. 2006b): 

Dose information was available from seven overlapping sources (Fig. 3, Table 2). 

Care was taken to assure that only non-overlapping dosimetry information was 

incorporated into the analyses. Occasionally, calendar year exposures were not 

available, and for such instances the cumulative dose, or termination dose, was 

recorded in the calendar year in which it was reported. These combinations 

occurred primarily for early doses obtained prior to employment at 

Rocketdyne/Atomics International . . . [Emphasis added.] 

For the purpose of designing a coworker model (with annual doses), the use of an aggregate 

dose is inappropriate/misleading. For example, a worker’s previous occupational exposure of 

30 rem (which may have represented 10 years of prior employment) should not be assigned to a 

single year. A sample of annual doses that must be assumed to have represented cumulative/ 

termination doses are cited in Table 2 below. 

 

Table 2. A Sample of “Annual Doses” that are Likely Cumulative/Termination Doses 

Worker ID # Years Employed at SSFL Year of Dose Assignment Ext. Gamma Dose (mrem) 

2704 1959–1986 1957 67,205 

1587 1962–1981 1954 63,620 

3542 1950–1984 1949 44,160 

2649 1959–1987 1957 31,275 

126 1956–1960 1948 22,458 

3205 1956–1985 1955 11,227 

4655 1958–1959 1953 11,670 

5515 1953–1984 1952 10,567 

2769 1961–1995 1952 9,541 

1233 1956–1982 1955 9,290 

1509 1953–1984 1955 8,135 

For example, Worker #2704 was not hired at SSFL until 1959, but had an assigned dose of 

67,205 mrem (or 67.2 rem) for the year 1957, which precedes his employment at SSFL by 

2 years. All other workers cited in Table 2 were equally assigned high termination doses for a 

single year that pre-dates their employment by up to 9 years. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 8 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

The inclusion of multiple year (or termination) doses for deriving yearly coworker doses cannot 

be justified technically. In addition to the obvious reason, such prior or post-SSFL exposures 

occurred at unspecified facilities and, therefore, represent surrogate data that do not comply 

with criteria specified in OCAS-IG-004 (The Use of Data from Other Facilities in the 

Completion of Dose Reconstructions Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act). 

While it can be argued that the improper inclusion of such high “termination doses” in the 

worker database/SSFL coworker model is claimant favorable, in reality, this impact is highly 

unlikely for the following reasons: 

(1) Due to the fact that the high termination doses are relatively infrequent, their inclusion 

will principally affect the 95th percentile dose (as cited in Tables 2 and 3 of OTIB-0077) 

(2) Based on guidance contained in ORAUT-OTIB-0020, dose reconstruction in behalf of 

unmonitored workers and workers with incomplete monitoring data will most likely be 

based on the 50th percentile value, which is unlikely to be affected by a limited number of 

high termination doses 

4.3 Issue #3. The Inclusion of Annual Exposure Data Associated with Non-SSFL 

Employment Periods at Unspecified/Unknown Facilities 

In a random check of the worker dosimetry database, SC&A cross referenced employment 

periods at SSFL for a given worker against assigned annual doses. Our review showed that for a 

substantial fraction of SSFL workers, employment periods (and therefore assigned annual doses) 

at SSLF were short, compared to other employment periods (and annual doses) at unknown/ 

unspecified facilities. 

For illustration, annual assigned doses for Workers #3344 and #5668 are presented in Table 3 

below. Worker #3344 was employed at SSLF for 5 years (redact), while Worker #5668 was 

employed at SSFL for 3 years (redact). 

Inspection of Table 3 shows that for Worker #3344, the first-year dose of 6,186 mrem was a 

termination dose, followed by 10 yearly doses at unknown facilities before a 5-year employment 

period at SSFL. Post-SSFL employment/exposures included 9 years with assigned doses and 

9 years with no data. 

For Worker #5668, the first assigned dose of 11,711 mrem in 1947 must also be assumed to 

represent a termination dose representing unknown/unspecified facilities and an unknown 

exposure period. This was followed by 12 annual doses received at unknown facilities prior to a 

3-year employment at SSFL (redact). For the post-SSFL employment period, 18 annual 

exposure doses are available, along with 8 years for which no data were found. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 9 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

For Workers #3344, #5668, and many others, annual exposures received at facilities other than 

SSFL dominate their annualized radiation records and involve unspecified facilities that may not 

comply with the surrogate criteria specified in OCAS-IG-004. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 10 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

Table 3. Annual Doses for Two Workers based on Employment Location 

Worker #3344 Worker #5668 

Year Ext. γ Dose (rem) Employment 

Location Ext. γ Dose (rem) Employment Location 

1947 11,711 ? 

1948 6,186 ? 10 ? 

1949 14 ? 100 ? 

1950 1,315 ? 60 ? 

1951 666 ? 110 ? 

1952 92 ? 40 ? 

1953 145 ? 150 ? 

1954 52 ? 260 ? 

1955 0 ? 200 ? 

1956 190 ? 390 ? 

1957 20 ? 154 ? 

1958 – SSFL 5,605 ? 

1959 – SSFL 8,719 ? 

1960 635 SSFL 3,305 SSFL 

1961 – SSFL 2,950 SSFL 

1962 40 SSFL 2,800 SSFL 

1963 150 ? 1,560 ? 

1964 320 ? 70 ? 

1965 100 ? 40 ? 

1966 300 ? – ? 

1967 0 ? – ? 

1968 0 ? – ? 

1969 130 ? – ? 

1970 0 ? – ? 

1971 – ? – ? 

1972 – ? – ? 

1973 – ? – ? 

1974 – ? 0 ? 

1975 – ? 20 ? 

1976 – ? 90 ? 

1977 – ? 130 ? 

1978 – ? 180 ? 

1979 – ? 300 ? 

1980 90 ? 210 ? 

1981 90 ? 

1982 130 ? 

1983 40 ? 

1984 60 ? 

1985 0 ? 

1986 0 ? 

1987 0 ? 

1988 30 ? 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 11 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

NOTICE:

An extreme example of the inappropriate use of these data for an SSFL coworker model is their 

use for the early years. For example, Table 2 of ORAUT-OTIB-0077 cites that the 

recommended 50th and 95th percentile doses were based on a total of 46 data points for the year 

1948. 

SC&A extracted the 46 data points (representing “annual” doses) for 46 workers for 1948 and 

cross-referenced their employment periods at SSFL (see Table 4). 

Table 4 shows that for 1948, not one of the “46 data points” (cited in Table 2 of ORAUT-OTIB0077 for 1948) involved a worker who was actually employed/exposed at SSFL in 1948. On 

average, these 46 workers were only hired by SSFL 6.5 years after 1948. Lastly, Table 4 shows 

that at least 5 of the 46 “annual” doses likely represented termination doses representing 

unknown exposure periods. 

To further demonstrate the adverse impact of surrogate data involving non-SSFL dose data, 

SC&A evaluated dosimetry data for the year 1950. As noted in Table 2 of ORAUT-OTIB-0077, 

available dose data for 1950 included 118 annual dose data points. Based on employment 

periods at SSFL, SC&A segregated annual exposures based on whether the exposure occurred at 

SSFL or at an unknown facility. Of the 118 dose data points, 59 involved exposures at SSFL and 

59 involved unknown facilities (see Table 5). Analysis of exposure doses yielded the following 

results: 

 For the 59 annual doses received at SSFL, the average dose was 1,112 mrem. 

 For the 59 annual doses received at unknown facilities, the average dose at 462 mrem

was less than one-half those of SSFL. 

Thus, for the year 1950, the 59 workers exposed at SSFL had, on average, an exposure of 

1,112 mrem, which was more than twice the average annual exposure of 462 mrem received by 

workers who were not exposed at SSFL. Thus, the inclusion of non-SSFL exposure data has the 

effect of reducing SSFL worker doses that are more appropriate for use in the coworker dose 

model. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 12 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

Table 4. The Inclusion of Exposure at Non-SSFL Facilities in Coworker Database for 1948 

Worker ID Employment Years 

at SSFL 

External Dose for 

Year 1948 

0126 1958–1967 22458.65574 

0214 1955–1985 14930 

0336 1958–1962 0 

0500 1956–1968 0 

0600 1957–1969 0 

0715 1950–1972 255 

0808 1952–1979 0 

1003 1963–1967 320 

1198 1962–1968 50 

1378 1951–1971 0 

1428 1955–1962 0 

1490 1952–1968 80 

1677 1950–1961 30 

1805 1958–1968 80 

1863 1957–1984 280 

2047 1955–1971 105 

2456 1949–1975 1737 

2616 1962–1965 40 

2657 1952–1963 30 

2802 1959–1962 95 

2849 1955–1969 0 

2875 1958–1960 0 

2991 1949–1981 2700.606936 

3012 1956–1971 0 

3017 1954–1962 20 

3055 1954–1979 0 

3081 1955–1963 0 

3163 1949–1979 2284.5 

3165 1956–1959 100 

3166 1956–1961 50 

3200 1963–1965 30 

3212 1952–1963 60 

3270 1959–1970 30 

3275 1957–1989 55 

3306 1954–1981 30 

3333 1957–1959 320 

3344 1949–1984 6186 

3352 1951–1984 0 

3370 1957–1960 415 

3393 1952–1967 0 

3397 1957–1967 215 

3546 1959–1965 80 

3582 1949–1968 0 

3811 1951–1962 200 

4035 1956–1959 90 

5668 1957–1965 10 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 13 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

Table 5. Comparison of Exposure Doses Received at SSFL with 

Exposure at Unspecified Facilities for 1950 

Worker Exposure Location 

ID 

Years of Employment 

at SSFL 

External Dose 

for Year 1950 SSFL Unknown 

0001 1946–1982 810 X 

0060 1951–1970 555 X 

0126 1958–1967 0 X 

0187 1949–1955 820 X 

0213 1955–1963 407 X 

0293 1971–1977 1275 X 

0336 1958–1962 200 X 

0360 1950–1991 2644 X 

0405 1950–1952 1250 X 

0563 1946–1952 1144 X 

0600 1957–1969 0 X 

0601 1955–1971 0 X 

0808 1957–1969 70 X 

0816 1949–1958 1136 X 

0888 1959–1978 125 X 

1003 1957–1973 100 X 

1051 1952–1984 1314 X 

1056 1958–1966 75 X 

1178 1950–1951 1040 X 

1307 1949–1962 16 X 

1338 1950–1955 1110 X 

1343 1951–1976 1460 X 

1378 1951–1971 130 X 

1428 1955–1962 30 X 

1533 1948–1958 1360 X 

1543 1956–1956 50 X 

1656 1952–1982 2235 X 

1677 1950–1960 825 X 

1780 1963–1964 11.25 X 

1804 1951–1973 834.6043956 X 

1863 1957–1984 1550 X 

1878 1951–1984 0 X 

1986 1964–1967 30 X 

2047 1955–1971 65 X 

2213 1959–1967 0 X 

2243 1949–1963 1164.75 X 

2294 1948–1969 1380 X 

2579 1950–1966 445 X 

2616 1962–1965 60 X 

2619 1951–1973 1159.484127 X 

2657 1952–1963 80 X 

2660 1949–1965 740 X 

2732 1961–1969 1255 X 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 14 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

Table 5. Comparison of Exposure Doses Received at SSFL with 

Exposure at Unspecified Facilities for 1950 

Worker Exposure Location 

ID 

Years of Employment 

at SSFL 

External Dose 

for Year 1950 SSFL Unknown 

2802 1959–1962 920 X 

2875 1957–1960 0 X 

2932 1962–1964 515 X 

2967 1952–1971 20 X 

2991 1949–1981 705 X 

3012 1952–1987 80 X 

3017 1954–1962 180 X 

3045 1956–1970 120 X 

3055 1954–1979 20 X 

3073 1950–1981 95 X 

3081 1955–1963 0 X 

3143 1958–1967 100 X 

3165 1956–1970 120 X 

3166 1952–1961 80 X 

3200 1963–1965 160 X 

3212 1952–1963 130 X 

3250 1957–1986 300 X 

3260 1957–1970 0 X 

3270 1959–1970 20 X 

3275 1957–1989 1195 X 

3287 1949–1951 1030 X 

3303 1957–1963 1460 X 

3306 1954–1981 0 X 

3333 1957–1959 260 X 

3344 1949–1984 1315 X 

3370 1957–1960 415 X 

3385 1951–1999 1243.785714 X 

3393 1952–1967 560 X 

3397 1957–1958 135 X 

3433 1948–1981 965 X 

3554 1982–1984 845 X 

3582 1949–1968 1375 X 

3649 1948–1973 1663 X 

3744 1947–1968 1005 X 

3936 1949–1966 1237.5 X 

3943 1951–1973 1213 X 

3978 1941–1984 1351 X 

3982 1959–1963 3043 X 

4035 1956–1959 60 X 

4052 1950–1983 1690 X 

4094 1948–1957 1018 X 

4241 1946–1969 840 X 

4371 1950–1982 740 X 

4376 1950–1972 1765 X 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 15 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

Table 5. Comparison of Exposure Doses Received at SSFL with 

Exposure at Unspecified Facilities for 1950 

Worker Exposure Location 

ID 

Years of Employment 

at SSFL 

External Dose 

for Year 1950 SSFL Unknown 

4595 1950–1961 895 X 

4742 1950–1970 1145 X 

4953 1948–1952 2368 X 

5014 1950–1971 80 X 

5207 1952–1987 960 X 

5272 1949–1972 2350 X 

5647 1949–1967 1350 X 

5668 1957–1965 60 X 

5674 1948–1969 820 X 

5682 1950–1956 325 X 

5684 1949–1952 635 X 

5685 1946–1950 2781 X 

5686 1946–1952 1925 X 

5691 1949–1951 882 X 

5692 1948–1971 990 X 

5693 1948–1954 380 X 

5694 1949–1951 100 X 

5696 1949–1952 820 X 

5698 1950–1952 30 X 

5699 1949–1952 1215 X 

5701 1949–1958 793 X 

5702 1949–1952 943.375 X 

5704 1949–1951 960 X 

5705 1949–1953 2158 X 

5706 1949–1952 1520 X 

5707 1950–1951 2003 X 

5708 1950–1952 775 X 

5710 1950–1951 1910 X 

5714 1950–1954 1625 X 

5715 1950–1953 145 X 

5718 1950–1953 1070 X 
4.4 Issue #4. The Interpretation of “Blanks” and the Potential for Unaccounted Dose 

In addition to real numbers (that include “0”) for external annual doses, for many workers, there 

are intermittent “blanks” in their exposure records for time periods of employment at SSFL, as 

shown below for Workers #19 and #1. 

Examples of “Blanks” in Database

Worker #1 (1946–1982) 

Year External Dose (mrem) 

1946 – 

1947 – 

1948 – 

1949 – 

1950 810 

1951 724 

1952 92 

1953 125 

1954 2594 

1955 25 

1956 – 

1957 – 

1958 – 

1958 833 

1960 55 

1961 60 

1962 40 

1963 100 

1964 – 

1965 150 

1966 0 

1967 0 

1968 5 

1969 20 

1970 0 

1971 20 

1972 0 

1973 20 

1974 0 

1975 – 

1976 50 

1977 – 

1978 60 

1979 – 

1980 – 

1981 – 

1982 – 

Worker #19 (1957–1975) 

Year External Dose (mrem) 

1957 – 

1958 – 

1958 2950 

1960 2410 

1961 1940 

1962 1670 

1963 820 

1964 4240 

1965 – 

1966 235 

1967 400 

1968 270 

1969 180 

1970 – 

1971 150 

1972 – 

1973 – 

1974 – 

1975 – 

Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 16 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 17 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

The existence of blanks raises the following two inter-related questions: 

Question #1: If the above-cited workers were also claimants, would “blanks” be treated as 

“unmonitored periods or gaps in dosimetry records” in their dose reconstruction? 

Based on guidance presented in Section 6.0, Step 4, of ORAUT-OTIB-0077, the tentative 

answer would be to treat these blanks as incomplete monitoring data and assign the 95th

percentile values of the coworker model provided in Table 2 of (ORAUT-OTIB-0077). 

Step 4 provides the following guidance: 

Table 2 lists the results of the coworker analysis. These percentile doses should 

be used for SSFL workers for whom there are no or limited monitoring data . . . 

In general, the 50th percentile dose can be used as a best estimate of a worker’s 

dose when professional judgment indicates that the worker was probably exposed 

to intermittent low levels of external radiation. The 50th percentile dose should 

generally not be used for workers who were routinely exposed. For routinely 

exposed workers (i.e., workers who were expected to have been monitored and 

routinely exposed), the 95th percentile dose should be applied. [Emphasis added.] 

Question #2: For Workers #1 and #19, if dose reconstruction would involve the assignment of 

95th percentile coworker doses for “blanks” in their dosimetry records, is it not axiomatic that the 

current coworker model data are incomplete, since Workers #1 and #19 (and many more 

workers with “blanks”) are themselves members of the coworker model? 

Stated more simply, the question that needs to be answered is whether workers with potentially 

incomplete monitoring data can serve as members of a coworker model that, in turn, provides 

surrogate data for their incomplete monitoring data. 

4.5 Issue #5. Neutron Exposures May Either Have Been Totally Ignored or 

Substantially Under-represented in the SSFL Coworker Model 

Data used to derive the SSFL coworker model included 584 workers who had been monitored 

for neutron exposures at Rocketdyne/AI, and an additional 81 workers who were monitored for 

neutrons at other facilities (Boice et al. 2006b). At Rocketdyne/AI, exposure to neutrons may 

have resulted from the operation of 10 nuclear reactors and 7 criticality facilities. 

 Neutron doses may have been totally excluded in SSFL Coworker Model

In Issue #1 of this report, SC&A raised concerns about NIOSH’s potential 

misinterpretation of neutron doses, as stated in Section 5.1 of ORAUT-OTIB-0077: 

The SSFL database contains dosimetry data for penetrating dose, which is a 

combination of gamma and fast neutron dose. Because it was difficult to 

separate statistically significant neutron dose from the penetrating dose, . . . 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 18 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

the neutron dose component was left embedded with gamma dose, resulting in 

penetrating dose values that are favorable to claimants. [Emphasis added.] 

If NIOSH’s incorrect assumption (i.e., of combined/embedded gamma and neutron 

doses) was used to develop the coworker model, SC&A concludes that the current 

coworker model does not incorporate neutron exposures. As explained above (see 

Issue #1), the database established by Boice et al. (2006a and 2006b) contains separate

annual doses for photons and neutrons for the individual worker. 

 Alternatively, if SC&A’s conclusion (that the current coworker model does not 

incorporate neutron exposures) is incorrect, then at a minimum, neutron doses have been 

underestimated within the context of the coworker model for the following reasons: 

1. NTA Dosimeter Limitations. Even if NIOSH’s assumption of an embedded 

neutron dose was correct, the embedded neutron dose would, nevertheless, require 

modification. Given the absence of empirical data involving neutron spectra for 

reactors and Pu fuel storage facilities at the SSFL (as well as facilities other than 

SSFL), the lack of dosimeter calibration methods, and the relative insensitivity of 

NTA film to neutrons <500 keV (or as much as 1 MeV), there remains an 

undefined level of uncertainty for recorded/assumedly embedded neutron doses. 

2. Uncertainty regarding the choice of quality factors that were used to define 

neutron doses. Historically, neutron quality factors are well below those of ICRP60 (ICRP 1991) values currently used by NIOSH. For neutrons between 0.1 and 

2 MeV, a quality factor of 10 was used (which is one-half of the current ICRP-60 

value of 20), as had been presumed by Boice et al. (2006b, page 415): 

It was presumed that the quality factors 10 for fast neutrons and 3 for 

slow neutrons had been used to reflect the relative biological 

effectiveness of neutrons in comparison with photons . . . [Emphasis 

added.] 

5.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

While the dosimetric data compiled by Boice et al. (2006b) were reasonably suited for a 

retrospective cohort mortality study, this dataset in its current form contains numerous 

deficiencies and does not meet the standards set forth in OCAS-IG-004. 
Draft White Paper – OTIB-0077 Database Review 19 SC&A – Revised March 15, 2010 

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

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

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

NOTICE:

6.0 REFERENCES 

Boice, J. D., S.S. Cohen, M.T. Mumma, E.DD. Ellis, K.F. Eckerman, R.W. Leggett, B.B. 

Boecker, A.B. Brill and B.E. Henderson, 2006a. Mortality Among Radiation Workers at 

Rocketdyne (Atomics International) 1948 – 1999. Radiation Research, Vol. 166, pp 98-115 

[SRDB Ref ID: 39396] 

Boice, J.D., R.W. Leggett, E.D. Elis, P.W. Wallace, M. Mumma, S.S. Cohen, A.B. Brill, B. 

Chadda, B.B. Boecker, R.C. Yoder, and K.F. Eckerman. 2006b. A Comprehensive Dose 

Reconstruction Methodology for Former Rocketdyne/Atomic International Radiation Workers. 

Health Physics, Vol. 90(5): 409-430. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Radiological of Commission Protection, ICRP Publication 60 [Ann. ICRP 21

(1-3)] Oxford: Pergamon. 

OCAS (Office of Compensation, Analysis and Support) 2008. The Use of Data from Other 

Facilities in the Completion of Dose Reconstructions Under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act, OCAS-IG-004, Rev. 0, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, OCAS, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 21, 2008. 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team) 2006. Technical Basis Document for 

Atomics International – Occupational External Dosimetry, ORAUT-TKBS-0038-6, Rev. 01. 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 6, 2006. 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team) 2008. Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for 

External Dose Assignment, ORAUT-OTIB-0020, Rev. 02. Cincinnati, Ohio, December 4, 2008. 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team) 2009. External Coworker Dosimetry Data 

for Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the Canoga Avenue Facility (Vanowen 

Building, and the De Soto Avenue Facility (sometimes referred to as Energy Technology 

Engineering Center [ETEC] or Atomics International), ORAUT-OTIB-0077, Rev. 00. 

Cincinnati, Ohio, August 3, 2009. 

SC&A (S. Cohen and Associates) 2008. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for the Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory, SCA-TR-TASK1-0027, Rev. 0. SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, 

Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. August 1, 2008.