Review of Professional 

Judgements in Dose 

Reconstruction

Mark Griffon

December 13, 2017
Scope of Report 

• Questions examined in this review included:

• Where are professional judgements necessary in dose reconstructions 

(considering a DOE site and an AWE site)?

• Could the professional judgements result in some inconsistencies?

• What are possible approaches for assessing dose reconstructions (or portions 

of dose reconstructions) where professional judgments may result in 

significant inconsistencies. 
Overview of Assessment

• Selected two sites to consider types of professional judgements 

involved in dose reconstruction for DOE cases and AWE cases

• Reviewed relevant TBDs, TIBs and procedures (both site specific as 

well as many of the overarching documents)

• Reviewed relevant SC&A review reports.

• Reviewed internal guidance documents associated with the example 

sites (e.g. DR guidelines for SRS site). 

• Reviewed individual cases (from query of NOCTS database, ORAU QA 

database and cases reviewed by ABRWH)
Overview of Assessment, cont.

• Reviewed procedures mapping the DR process

• ORAUT-PROC-0106 “Roadmap to reconstructing Dose”

• Reviewed QA/QC program 

• ORAUT-PROC-0059 – “Peer Review of DRs”

• ORAUT-PROC-0077 – “DR Error Tracking and Reporting” (NIOSH / DOL 

comments)

• OCAS-PR-07 “Dose Reconstruction Review”
ORAUT-PROC-0106 – Roadmap to DR
Roadmap, continued
Roadmap, continued
Personal vs Program judgements

• Personal judgements are defined as judgements which would have to 

be made by the staff person doing the individual dose reconstruction

• Program judgements are professional judgements but they are dealt 

with directly in procedures, technical basis documents or DR 

guidelines. 
Personal Judgements

• Judgements regarding worker location for purposes of internal dose estimates 

and external dose estimates, 

• Judgements regarding job title and the associated potential for exposure, 

• Judgements in the calculation of missed external and internal dose, 

• Judgements required in reconciling discrepancies in available dosimetry data 

(e.g., annual external summary data versus cycle data), 

• Judgements in calculating internal dose based on in-vivo and/or in-vitro 

measurements for best estimate cases, and

• Judgements regarding calculating dose associated with incidents / events 

noted in the claimant interview or DOE records. 
Effects of Judgements on dose assigned

Judgement Specific Effects

Worker Location and / or Job • Effect on assignment of photon dose

• Assumed energy percentages

• Assumption of glovebox work

• Assumption regarding missed dose 

assignment (nearby dose assigned, co-worker, 

LOD/2, ambient)

• Effect on assignment of neutron dose

• Assumption regarding n/p ratio

• Assumption on energy percentages

• Assumption regarding missed dose 

assignment (nearby dose assigned, co-worker, 

LOD/2, ambient)

• Effect on assignment of internal dose

• Missed internal dose (e.g., potential exposure 

to fission products depends on location –

reactor / non-reactor area)
Effects of Judgements on dose assigned, cont.

Judgement Specific Effect

Filling gaps for ‘missed’ or ‘un-monitored’ periods • External Dose

• Use limit of detection (LOD/2)

• Use coworker data (50% or 95%)

• Use nearby data

• Internal Dose

• Estimate dose based on MDAs

• Estimate based on ratio with other monitored 

nuclides

• Co-worker data

• Extension of the missed dose estimate (based 

on MDA values) beyond the last bioassay 

result
Effects of Judgements on dose assigned, cont.

Judgement Specific Effect

Calculating internal dose based on bioassay results Judgement regarding type of intake(s) and intake 

period(s)

Judgement regarding use of in-vivo (e.g. urinalysis 

results) or in-vitro (e.g. lung count results) to 

determine intakes and organ doses

Judgement regarding the type of material (e.g., Pu/Am 

ratios, solubility)
Effects of Judgements on dose assigned, cont.

Judgement Specific Effect

Estimating doses associated with incidents / accidents 

noted in claimant interview

Judgement whether available data account for noted 

incidents / events

Judgements on how to estimate dose related to noted 

incident / event

Judgement on whether further follow-up is necessary 

(e.g., follow-up requests for additional records, followup with claimant, follow-up with noted co-workers) 
Program Judgements

• Reconstructing dose from ‘residual’ contamination

• Reconstructing dose due to highly insoluble plutonium

• Estimating uncertainty for internal and external doses

• Estimating exposures at sites lacking individual monitoring records

• Establishing the appropriate neutron / photon ratio to use to estimate 

neutron doses 
Example: External Dose Uncertainty

• Guidance in OCAS-IG-001 “External Dose Implementation Guide”

• ORAUT-PROC-006 “External Dose Reconstruction”

• ORAUT-OTIB-012 “Monte Carlo Methods for Dose Uncertainty 

Calculations” (cancelled)

• ORAUT-TKBS-0003 “SRS Technical Basis Document”

Uncertainty for measured dose is estimated based on the equation in the IG 

(Section 2.1.1.3.3 Simplified Dosimetry Uncertainty); equation depends on site 

specific information – Lc (critical limit), σ* (estimated percent standard error)
Professional Judgement Recommendations

Recommendation 1

• Assessments should be performed in the areas identified where 

personal professional judgements were made by individual dose 

reconstruction staff to determine consistency of judgements or 

assumptions.

• ORAU and/or NIOSH blind and/or focused reviews

• ABRWH blind and/or focused reviews

• Refine current approach for peer review by NIOSH
Professional Judgement Recs - continued

Recommendation 2

• A summary document should be developed for several of the program 

assumptions, including but not limited to what NIOSH has defined as global 

issues. A document similar to that produced by NIOSH regarding the 

treatment of residual contamination seems appropriate(*). 

Recommendation 3

• Since site matrices for several AWE sites, in addition to Linde Ceramics are 

based on similar types of underlying data a review and comparison for 

consistency in methods may be useful. 

* Advisory Board Review of Residual Period (002), NIOSH, Dr. James Neton, 

November 15, 2016. 
Professional Judgement Recs - continued

• Recommendation 4 – Consider more standardized approach for site 

specific DR notes or guidelines

• Recommendation 5 – Consider whether re-evaluation of cases could 

be triggered by changes in DR guidelines 

• Recommendation 6 – Consider requiring inclusion of a timeline 

and/or a case narrative within each case file

• Detail professional judgements and basis for each judgement

• Include in complex cases – all best estimate cases
Additional Recommendations

• Tracking System (combined error tracking system)

• Increased level of peer review for Best Estimate cases or cases with 

“significant” professional judgement

• Consider more systematic use of CATI and other interview 

information in aggregate form for DR
Conclusion

• Options to consider for both internal and external 

assessment of judgements that could result in significant 

inconsistencies

• Focus on how to reduce inconsistencies

• Other recommendations that could improve the DR peer 

review process