Draft

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

A Review of NIOSH’s Program Evaluation Report 

DCAS-PER-067, “Allegheny Ludlum Appendix Q Revision” 

Contract No. 75D30119C04183

Document No. SCA-TR-2023-PR067, Revision 0

Prepared by

Amy Mangel, CHP, MS

Rose Gogliotti, MS

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201-3324

August 9, 2023 

DISCLAIMER

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

technical support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health (ABRWH), including its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by 

SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically marked as such. This document prepared by 

SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical issues.

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

by the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 2 of 14

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

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

SC&A, Inc. technical support for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s 

review of NIOSH dose reconstruction program

Document title A Review of NIOSH’s Program Evaluation Report DCAS PER 067, 

“Allegheny Ludlum Appendix Q Revision”

Document number SCA-TR-2023-PR067

Revision number 0 (Draft)

Supersedes NA

Effective date August 9, 2023 

Task manager Kathleen Behling [signature on file]

Project manager Bob Barton, CHP [signature on file]

Document reviewer(s) John Mauro, Kathy Behling, and Bob Barton, CHP [signatures on file]

Record of revisions

Revision number Effective date Description of revision

0 (Draft) 8/9/2023 Initial issue
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 3 of 14

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

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

Table of Contents

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

1 Statement of Purpose............................................................................................... 5

2 Relevant Background Information............................................................................. 6

3 Subtask 1: Identify the Circumstances that Necessitated DCAS-PER-067 .............. 7

3.1 Chronology of events ......................................................................................... 7

3.2 SC&A’s comments ............................................................................................. 7

4 Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s Specific Methods for Corrective Action........................ 8

4.1 Additional rolling campaign information.............................................................. 8

4.2 Inhalation dose estimate .................................................................................... 8

4.3 Ingestion dose estimate ................................................................................... 10

4.4 External dose estimate..................................................................................... 11

4.5 Occupational medical dose .............................................................................. 11

5 Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s Stated Approach for Identifying the Number of DRs 

Requiring Reevaluation of Dose.................................................................................... 12

5.1 NIOSH’s selection criteria ................................................................................ 12

5.2 SC&A’s comments ........................................................................................... 12

6 Subtask 4: Conduct Audits of a Sample Set of Reevaluated DRs Mandated by 

DCAS-PER-067 ............................................................................................................ 13

7 References ............................................................................................................. 14
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 4 of 14

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

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

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABRWH, Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AL Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Company 

BL Bliss and Laughlin Steel 

BZ breathing zone 

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

dpm/m3 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter 

DR dose reconstruction 

GA general area

GSD geometric standard deviation 

mrem/hr millirem per hour 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

PER program evaluation report 

POC probability of causation 

SRDB Site Research Database
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 5 of 14

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

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

1 Statement of Purpose

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

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

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

these supporting elements in DR may be subject to revisions, provisions exist for evaluating the 

effect of such programmatic revisions on the outcome of previously completed DRs. Such 

revisions may be prompted by document revisions due to new information, misinterpretation of 

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

A program evaluation report (PER) provides a critical evaluation of the effects that a given issue 

or programmatic change may have on previously completed DRs. This includes a qualitative and 

quantitative assessment of potential impacts. Most important in this assessment is the potential 

impact on the probability of causation (POC) of previously completed DRs with POCs less than 

50 percent.

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

Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews on February 16, 2023, the Board tasked SC&A to review 

DCAS-PER-067, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2016; “PER-067”) which was issued to address the 

impacts of issuing revision 1 to Appendix Q of Battelle-TBD-6000 on previously completed 

claims (NIOSH, 2014). In conducting a PER review, SC&A is committed to perform the 

following five subtasks, each of which is discussed in this report:

• Subtask 1: Assess NIOSH’s evaluation and characterization of the issue addressed in the 

PER and its potential impacts on DR. Our assessment intends to ensure that the issue was 

fully understood and characterized in the PER.

• Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s specific methods for corrective action. When the PER 

involves a technical issue that is supported by documents (e.g., white papers, technical 

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

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

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

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

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

a brief summary and conclusion of this review process.

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

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

selected for reevaluation. The second step may have important implications where the 

universe of previously denied DRs is very large and, for reasons of practicality, NIOSH’s 

reevaluation is confined to a subset of DRs that, based on their scientific judgment, have 

the potential to be significantly affected by the PER. In behalf of subtask 3, SC&A will 

also evaluate the timeliness of the completion of the PER.

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

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

the DRs and the total number of DR audits for each PER.)

• Subtask 5: Prepare a written report that contains the results of DR audits under 

subtask 4, along with our review conclusions.
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 6 of 14

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

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

2 Relevant Background Information 

The Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corporation (AL) plant in Watervliet, NY performed specialized 

metal rolling. 

The AL plant rolled solid uranium rods from ingots in 1951 and 1952. Because additional rolling 

to produce the finished rods occurred elsewhere, the rods were referred to as “billets” at the AL 

plant. The uranium rolling operation started on a developmental scale and then transitioned into 

production-scale work. Other metalworking tasks, such as straightening, lathe work, and cutting 

with shears and stamping, also occurred at the site. 

There were 16 rolling campaigns between January 20, 1951, and June 28, 1952. Starting on 

December 1, 1951, a salt bath furnace was introduced to the process, which reduced oxidation of 

the uranium metal and in turn reduced airborne contamination. At the end of operations in 1952, 

all uranium-bearing material was returned, and the site was cleaned. 

The site has an Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Atomic 

Weapons Employer covered operational period from 1951 through 1952. No exposure to residual 

contamination is assumed after 1952. It should be noted that there appears to be a typographical 

error in section Q.6 of Appendix Q, revision 1 (NIOSH, 2014; also called “the AL site profile”). 

The text states that “no residual contamination period was designated after 1951,” but SC&A 

believes this should read “no residual period was designated after 1952,” which is consistent

with when uranium rolling operations ceased at AL. 

Observation 1. Incorrect date for end of AWE operational period

When discussing the lack of a residual period, TBD-6000, Appendix Q, section Q.6, appears to 

incorrectly give the date of the end of operations as 1951 when it should be 1952. 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 7 of 14

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

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

3 Subtask 1: Identify the Circumstances that Necessitated 

DCAS-PER-067

3.1 Chronology of events

Dose reconstructions for claims from the AL plant are performed using Battelle-TBD-6000, 

“Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals” (NIOSH, 2011, 

“TBD-6000”), Appendix Q. Revision 0 of Appendix Q (NIOSH, 2007) was issued April 30, 

2007. Revision 1 of Appendix Q was issued October 24, 2014, due to a revision of TBD-6000 in 

2011. TBD-6000 was revised to include review comments and external beta dose from surface 

contamination. 

Revision 1 of Appendix Q also included additional details about the uranium rolling campaigns 

and eliminated the various job categories, such that the same estimate is used for all employees.

This change increased the inhalation dose estimates for many of the former job categories and

increased the ingestion and external dose estimates for all former job categories. 

PER-067 was issued in March 20161 to evaluate the effects on dose caused by Appendix Q, 

revision 1. 

1 PER-067 lists the authorization date of the document as March 16, 2011. Since the document addresses 

revision 1 of Appendix Q, issued in 2014, SC&A assumes the intended date of authorization is March 11, 2016.

3.2 SC&A’s comments

Programmatic revisions that may affect the outcome of previously completed DRs and mandate 

the need for a PER include any revisions to guidance documents that may result in the 

assignment of a higher dose. SC&A compared the assumptions in revision 1 to those in 

revision 0 and found that the ingestion and external dose estimates increase in all circumstances. 

It is more challenging to make a direct comparison to inhalation doses because of the many job 

categories in revision 0 that were removed in revision 1. Additionally, there is some ambiguity 

on how inhalation intakes in revision 0 should be assigned. Using what SC&A believes to be a 

reasonable interpretation of revision 0, SC&A found that most 1952 inhalation doses increase, 

while most 1951 inhalation doses decrease.

SC&A believes that the additional information regarding uranium rolling campaigns and the 

elimination of job categories for dose estimates is sufficient justification to reevaluate worker 

doses, as defined in PER-067 (NIOSH, 2016). SC&A concurs with NIOSH’s decision to issue 

PER-067, and there are no findings. 

It is important to note that SC&A has reviewed neither revision 0 nor revision 1 of Appendix Q. 

Therefore, SC&A’s review of PER-067 includes an evaluation of Appendix Q for its guidance 

on dose reconstruction. 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 8 of 14

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

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

4 Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s Specific Methods for Corrective Action

The principal changes to the evaluation of doses in Appendix Q involve (1) the elimination of 

job categories for dose estimates and (2) the inclusion of additional rolling days, both of which 

resulted in higher inhalation, ingestion, and external dose estimates. SC&A’s review of PER-067 

focuses on these changes. Additionally, the review includes an evaluation of Appendix Q for its 

guidance on internal and external dose reconstruction because neither revision of appendix Q has 

been previously evaluated by SC&A. 

4.1 Additional rolling campaign information

NIOSH located information about three additional rolling campaigns in 1951 and information 

about specific dates and totals for uranium rolling campaigns from January through June 1952. 

Each rolling campaign is summarized in table Q.1 of Appendix Q, revision 1, along with the 

supporting references. 

4.1.1 SC&A comments

SC&A reviewed the Site Research Database (SRDB) documents cited by NIOSH for each of the 

rolling campaigns in table Q.1 of Appendix Q. Table Q.1 states that the first rolling campaign on 

January 20, 1951, rolled 25 ingots. SC&A reviewed SRDB document 10885 (AEC, 1951a) and 

found information to suggest the total number of ingots rolled may be 40. From the reference, it 

is unclear if the 15 ingots for DuPont were included in the 25 mentioned in the preceding line. 

SC&A could not find any other references that clarified this issue further. Additionally, 

revision 0 of Appendix Q included information on the 40 total ingots rolled during this 

campaign. Because the dose estimate calculations in Appendix Q are based on air concentration 

data and are not dependent upon the number of ingots rolled on a given workday, there is no 

impact to the dose estimates from this discrepancy. However, if these additional ingots required 

an additional day or two of rolling, then it would affect the dose estimates.

Observation 2: Discrepancy in the number of ingots rolled during January 20, 1951, 

campaign 

There appears to be an unknown discrepancy in the number of ingots rolled during the first 

rolling campaign. However, it is SC&A’s understanding that this does not affect the intake 

estimates.

SC&A determined that the remainder of the rolling campaign information in table Q.1 of 

Appendix Q, revision 1, was correctly summarized based on available information. 

4.2 Inhalation dose estimate

As stated in PER-067, revision 1 of Appendix Q included additional rolling campaign details and 

eliminated dose estimates based on job categories, which resulted in increased doses for many of 

the former job categories. 

Revision 1 of Appendix Q included estimates of the air concentration broken into two different 

time periods: before the implementation of a salt bath, and after implementation of a salt bath. 

AL began using a salt bath on December 1, 1951. The addition of the salt bath reduced the 

oxidation of the uranium, which reduced the amount of airborne uranium during operations. The 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 9 of 14

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

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

pre-salt bath uranium air concentration was estimated using air monitoring data from the first 

two rolling campaigns on January 21, 1951, and July 22, 1951. 

The post-salt bath uranium air concentration was estimated using air monitoring data from one 

rolling campaign on February 9, 1952. NIOSH used the geometric mean of each period’s data as 

the uranium air concentration for the inhalation intake calculations, which was 

291 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter (dpm/m3) for the pre-salt bath period, and 

20.5 dpm/m3

 for the post-salt bath period. NIOSH assumed an 8.8-hour workday to calculate the 

uranium inhalation intakes and normalized the intakes per calendar day for the pre-salt bath and 

post-salt bath time periods. 

To calculate the inhalation intakes on non-rolling days, NIOSH assumed the higher airborne 

activity concentration of 291 dpm/m3

 was allowed to deposit for 30 days at a rate of 

0.00075 meters per second and used a resuspension factor of 1×10-5. 

4.2.1 SC&A comments

SC&A reviewed revision 1 of Appendix Q and confirmed that additional rolling campaign 

details were included, and that all workers would now receive the same dose estimate regardless 

of job title. 

It is not clear to SC&A how the inhalation intakes would have been assigned using revision 0 of 

Appendix Q; therefore, it is difficult to determine if the inhalation intakes under revision 1 are in 

fact higher for most of the former job categories, as stated in PER-067. 

SC&A was able to locate the air monitoring data NIOSH used to calculate the estimated uranium 

air concentrations. For the pre-salt bath period, there are 38 general area (GA) measurements and 

5 breathing zone (BZ) measurements (AEC, 1951a). For the post-salt bath period, there are 

48 GA measurements (AEC, 1952). Using these data, SC&A was able to match NIOSH’s 

geometric mean calculations reported in section Q.4. SC&A also confirmed that NIOSH used the 

guidance in section 3.4.2 of TBD-6000 to calculate deposited surface contamination, which was 

then used to calculate the inhalation intakes from resuspended contamination. 

SC&A used revision 1 of TBD-6000, Appendix D, for Bliss and Laughlin (BL) (NIOSH, 2017) 

to compare NIOSH’s methodology for estimating inhalation intakes for uranium rolling 

operations. Bliss and Laughlin also performed uranium rod machining and straightening from 

1951 to 1952. According to revision 01 of Appendix D (NIOSH, 2017, pp. 2–3): 

An analysis of 20 total samples (13 BZs and 7 GAs) was conducted. The analysis 

showed that the measured air concentrations could be represented by a lognormal 

distribution with a geometric mean of 2,602 dpm/m3 with a geometric standard 

deviation (GSD) of 2.04. This was compared to the default air concentration value 

of 5,480 dpm/m3 contained in Table 7.5 of Battelle-TBD-6000 for an operator 

machining uranium. Because of the limited number of air samples, the air 

concentration value from Battelle-TBD-6000 was determined to be more 

claimant-favorable and was utilized to determine inhalation and ingestion 

quantities during years of AEC operations at Bliss and Laughlin. 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 10 of 14

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

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

SC&A notes that the number of air samples provided for both sites (AL and BL) are not 

drastically different but also notes that, in the BL case, a greater proportion of the available 

samples were BZ. In evaluation of BL data, NIOSH determined the data were insufficient to use 

and elected to assign the TBD-6000 standard values in table 7.5. There are limited air sample 

results available for AL. Only five of the 1951 air sample measurements were BZ, and none of 

the 1952 air samples were BZ. It is unclear if the available samples represent the full range of 

values that may have been encountered by workers at AL. The estimated uranium air 

concentrations for AL of 291 dpm/m3 and 20.5 dpm/m3 are significantly lower than the values 

from TBD-6000 and BL. This may reflect the fact that a greater proportion of BL air samples 

were BZ rather than GA, or it may reflect different operational processes between the two 

locations despite both involving uranium rolling operations. SC&A requests clarification on why 

the two different approaches were adopted for AL (i.e., use of the air sampling data) versus BL 

(i.e., use of standard TBD-6000 values). 

Observation 3. Inconsistency with NIOSH’s approach to calculating uranium intakes from 

air sampling data

SC&A notes that the methods to utilize air sampling data for the purpose of reconstructing 

uranium intakes are different between two uranium rolling sites (Allegheny Ludlum and Bliss 

and Laughlin) and requests clarification on the different approaches. 

4.3 Ingestion dose estimate

PER-067 states that the calculated ingestion intakes increased for all former job categories in 

revision 1 of Appendix Q. NIOSH used OCAS-TIB-009, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2004; “TIB-009”), 

and stated that it likely resulted in an overestimate of the actual ingestion intake, as TIB-009 

assumes operations occurred often enough for airborne contamination levels to reach a 

maximum. Uranium ingestion was estimated for all workdays, and the resulting intakes were 

normalized over a calendar year.

4.3.1 SC&A comments

SC&A reviewed the ingestion intakes from revision 1 of Appendix Q and confirmed that the 

intakes are higher than those previously calculated for the various job categories in revision 0. 

SC&A found that NIOSH selected the highest calculated geometric mean air concentration, 

291 dpm/m3, and multiplied it by 0.2 to calculate the ingestion rate of 58.2 dpm/workday or 

39.9 dpm/calendar day in table Q.4. The multiplier of 0.2 comes from section 5.0 of TIB-009. 

The 0.2 value is derived from the sum of modes 2 and 3 ingestion types. 

The default assumptions in TIB-009 for mode 2 ingestion (material in the air settles out onto 

food or drink, which is later ingested) assume an 8-hour workday. NIOSH used the default 

assumptions to calculate ingestion intakes of 58.2 dpm/workday (39.9 dpm/calendar day) in

Appendix Q, table Q.4. However, inhalation assumptions at AL assume an 8.8-hour workday. To 

be consistent with the calculations, SC&A believes it is more appropriate to assume an 8.8-hour 

workday for ingestion also. This would result in a 1.7 dpm/calendar day increase in the ingestion 

rate. However, SC&A further notes that assumptions such as using the higher airborne 

contamination rate would far outweigh any such effects from recalculating the TIB-009 ingestion 

factor.
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 11 of 14

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

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

Observation 4: Assumed work day length for ingestion calculations inconsistent with 

assumed work day length for inhalation calculations

SC&A notes that the TIB-009 factor is based on an 8-hour day and that it would be appropriate 

for consistency to modify the TIB-009 factor to 8.8 hours per day assumed for AlleghenyLudlum. However, this is offset by other conservative assumptions in the ingestion model. 

4.4 External dose estimate

No external dosimetry records have been located from AL. Revision 1 of Appendix Q uses the 

dose rates given in TBD-6000 to estimate occupational external dose from uranium work at AL. 

NIOSH assumed that operators are assumed to be exposed to the 1-foot dose rates in TBD-6000 

50 percent of the time, and that hands and forearms are assumed to be exposed to the contact 

dose rate 50 percent of the time. 

4.4.1 SC&A comments

SC&A reviewed the external dose calculations and confirmed that the dose estimates increased 

from revision 0 of Appendix Q. SC&A found that NIOSH used the 1-foot photon dose rate for a 

rectangular ingot from TBD-6000, table 6.1, of 2.08 millirem per hour (mrem/hr) and assumed 

that the 1-foot beta dose rate is 10 times this value, consistent with the guidance from section 6.3 

of TBD-6000 (NIOSH, 2011). SC&A also found that NIOSH used the contact beta dose rate of 

230 mrem/hr from section 6.3 of TBD-6000 to calculate the dose to the hands and forearms. 

Additionally, SC&A agrees that NIOSH’s assumptions for the fraction of time operators are 

exposed to the 1-foot and contact dose rates are consistent with sections 6.2 and 6.3 of TBD6000 (NIOSH, 2011). NIOSH also calculated external dose from deposited contamination using 

the surface contamination estimate calculated for ingestion intakes, along with the conversion 

factors from table 3.10 of TBD-6000, and assumed workers were exposed to this contamination 

for 8.8 hours a day, 250 days a year. 

4.5 Occupational medical dose

No information regarding occupational medical dose specific to AL was found in either 

revision 0 or revision 1 of Appendix Q. Therefore, Appendix Q remained unchanged in its 

guidance of referring to ORAUT-OTIB-0006, revision 04, for assigning occupational medical 

dose in DRs. It should be noted that in revision 1 of Appendix Q, NIOSH references revision 

03 PC-1 of ORAUT-OTIB-0006 but includes the date for revision 04. SC&A believes NIOSH 

intended to reference revision 04 of ORAUT-OTIB-0006 (ORAUT, 2011), as this was the 

current revision at the time revision 1 of Appendix Q was written. 

4.5.1 SC&A comments

SC&A reviewed Appendix Q and agrees with the guidance of using ORAUT-OTIB-0006, as no 

AL-specific information exists for occupational medical dose. 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 12 of 14

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

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

5 Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s Stated Approach for Identifying the 

Number of DRs Requiring Reevaluation of Dose

5.1 NIOSH’s selection criteria 

Section 3.0 of PER-067 described the following criteria NIOSH used to identify previously 

completed claims requiring reevaluation using guidance in revision 1 of Appendix Q (NIOSH, 

2014). First, NIOSH identified all previously completed claims with verified employment at AL

that had a POC of less than 50 percent. This identified 26 claims. One of these claims had been 

completed using revision 1 of Appendix Q and was removed from further evaluation. The 

remaining 25 claims were reevaluated by NIOSH using revision 1 of Appendix Q, as well as 

other applicable approved DR methods. After reevaluating the claims, NIOSH found that for 23 

claims, the POC was below 45 percent. The remaining two claims were found to have a POC

greater than 52 percent. In response to this evaluation, NIOSH stated the following: 

NIOSH will provide the Department of Labor with the list of all claims evaluated 

under this PER. Further, NIOSH will request the return of the 2 claims that would 

now result in a probability of causation greater than 50%. [NIOSH, 2016, p. 2] 

5.2 SC&A’s comments

Since NIOSH’s selection criteria included all AL claims not previously compensated, SC&A 

believes NIOSH’s selection criteria are sufficiently broad to capture all cases impacted by the 

issuance of revision 1 of Appendix Q. SC&A believes it is appropriate that NIOSH further 

limited the selection criteria to cases not already completed using revision 1 of Appendix Q. 

Additionally, SC&A believes the PER was conducted in a timely manner, as revision 1 of 

Appendix Q was issued in October 2014, and PER-067 was issued in March 2016. There are no 

findings associated with subtask 3. 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 13 of 14

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

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

6 Subtask 4: Conduct Audits of a Sample Set of Reevaluated DRs 

Mandated by DCAS-PER-067

Previous sections of this report described changes introduced in revision 1 of the AL site profile 

(NIOSH, 2014) that increased the assigned dose. SC&A recommends that the Board select two

cases of the 25 evaluated by NIOSH for additional evaluation: 

1. SC&A recommends reviewing one case involving a worker whose employment includes 

rolling campaigns with and without a salt bath. 

2. Additionally, SC&A recommends reviewing another case involving a worker whose 

previous job category (such as administrative) in the old DR led to a lower intake rate. 
Effective date: 8/9/2023 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PR067 Page 14 of 14

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

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

7 References

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (1951a). Air dust samples 1951 [SRDB record]. SRDB Ref. 

ID 009500 

Atomic Energy Commission. (1952). S2 sample data sheets 1952 Allegheny-Ludlum Co [SRDB 

record]. SRDB Ref. ID 003803 

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

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support. (2016). Allegheny Ludlum Appendix Q revision (DCAS-PER-067, rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/dc-per67-r0.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that worked uranium and thorium metals Appendix Q – Allegheny Ludlum Steel 

Company (Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix Q, rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/b-6000-apq-r0.pdf

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

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

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2014). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that worked uranium metals Appendix Q – Allegheny Ludlum Steel Company

(Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix Q, rev. 1). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/b-6000-apqr1.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2017). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that worked uranium metals – Appendix D Bliss and Laughlin Steel (Battelle-TBD6000, Appendix D, rev. 01). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/b-6000-apd-r1.pdf

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. (2011). Dose reconstruction from occupational 

medical x-ray procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006, rev. 04). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/tibs/or-t6-r4.pdf