Memo: Summary Statistics 1 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

MEMO 

TO: Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

FROM: Rose Gogliotti, SC&A 

DATE: January 7, 2016 

SUBJECT: Summary Statistics Representing Sets 6 through 13; Revision 3

At the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction (DRSC) meeting on June 24, 2015, the 

Subcommittee members directed SC&A to develop new summary statistics representing cases 

from Sets 6 through 13 (Tabs 101 through 334). This memo provides summary tables and 

figures for sets 6 through 13 equivalent to the information and figures included in the July 31, 

2009, Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health (ABRWH) letter to Department of Health 

and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. SC&A also included several figures 

summarizing Sets 1 through 13. At the request of the DRSC Chair, Dr. Kotelchuck, and the 

DFO Ted Katz, the original memo dated July 17, 2015, was revised on September 16, 2015, to 

include additional tables, figures, and selection criteria. At the September 24th DRSC meeting, 

SC&A and NIOSH were tasked to re-evaluate the status of these findings to determine if any 

should be withdrawn or reduced to observations based on the outcomes of issues resolution. 

This memo revision updates the tables and figures to account for that re-evaluation and DRSC 

comments. If desired by the DRSC, SC&A is prepared to supply the supporting data files and 

can generate additional tables and figures. 
Memo: Summary Statistics 2 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CASES 101 THROUGH 334

SUMMARY FIGURES 

Included herein are four tables and eight figures that summarize the characteristics of the dose 

reconstruction cases audited by the Advisory Board with the assistance of the Board’s technical 

support contractor, SC&A. These tables and figures are as follows: 

Table 1. Summary of DR Methodology Applied to Cases 101 through 334 

Table 2. Summary of Overall Case Rank 

Table 3. Summary of Findings and Observations from Cases 101 through 334 

Table 4. Finding Classification for Cases 101 through 334 

Figure 1. Breakdown of Cases 101 through 334 Reviewed by Employment Site 

Figure 2. Comparison of Cases 1 through 100 and 101 through 334 by Site 

Figure 3. Comparison of Claims Reviewed to Goal of 1% Total Claims 

Figure 4. Breakdown of Case Reviews 101 through 334 by Decade First Employed 

Figure 5. Breakdown of Case Reviews 101 through 334 by POC 

Figure 6. Breakdown of Case Reviews 101 through 334 by Years of Employment 

Figure 7. Breakdown of Case Reviews 101 through 334 by Risk Model 

Figure 8. Breakdown of Cases 1 through 334 by Risk Model 
Memo: Summary Statistics 3 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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. Summary of DR Methodology Applied to Cases 101 through 334

DR Methodology Total Percentage

Maximized 32 14%

Minimized 7 3%

Best Estimate 193 83%

Total

1 232

111

100%

1

 Although there are 234 cases in this subset, 2 cases were not 

reviewed by the DRSC. This brings the total to 232. 

Table 2. Summary of Overall Case Rank

Total Cumulative Case Rank

No Rank1 2 Low M 3 edium High4

Total Cases 232 46 122 47 17

1 No Rank is assigned to cases without any deficiencies identified. 

2 Low means that the combined deficiency of all findings has only a marginal impact on dose.

3 Medium means that the combined deficiency of all findings moderately impacts the dose. 

4 High means that the combined deficiency of all findings substantially impacts the dose.

Table 3. Summary of Findings and Observations from Cases 101 through 334 

Total

Finding Rank

Low

1 Medium2 High3

Total Findings 6264 513 91 22

Total Observations

5

241 NA NA NA

1 Low means that the deficiency has only a marginal impact on dose. 

2 Medium means that the deficiency moderately impacts the dose. 

3 High means that the deficiency substantially impacts the dose. 

4 Four findings remain open and thus were assigned their original finding rank. 

5 Observations began in the 8th set. 

Table 4. Finding Classification for Cases 101 through 334 

Classification Meaning of Classification Number of Findings

A. Was the proper judgment made regarding placing a person physically at a

work location?

13

B. Were all exposure scenarios considered (i.e., neutron,thorium)? 28

C. Were the correct external dose model and assumptions used? 253

D. Were the correct internal dose model and assumptions used? 134

E. Is it a quality concern? 95

F. It does not meet either of the above criteria. 103

Total 626
Memo: Summary Statistics 4 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

21

26

38

3

37

11

5

4

11

5

16

15

7

9

10

5

11

25

4

9

3

3

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Y-12 Plant

Sites with 2 Cases

Sites With 1 Case

Simonds Saw and Steel Co.

Savannah River Site

Rocky Flats Plant

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Pinellas Plant

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10)

ak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25)

Nevada Test Site

Mound Plant

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Idaho National Laboratory

Hanford

General Steel Industries

Feed Materials Production Center

De Soto Avenue Facility

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Bridgeport Brass-Havens

Figure 1. Breakdown of Cases 101 through 334 by Employment Site

Cases Reviewed O

Cases with multiple employment sites are counted in Figure 1 for each employment site. Therefore, the sum of all bars is greater than the number of cases reviewed.
Memo: Summary Statistics 5 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

8%, 8

12%, 12

17%, 18

6%, 6

2%, 2

1%, 1

1%, 1

2%, 2

2%, 2

2%, 2

4%, 4

4%, 4

4%, 4

1%, 1

2%, 2

1%, 1

3%, 3

3%, 3

12%, 12

9%, 9

2%, 2

4%, 4

1%, 1

7%, 21

20%, 57

1%, 3

13%, 37

4%, 11

0.4%, 1

2%, 5

1%, 4

0.4%, 1

4%, 11

2%, 5

6%, 16

5%, 15

2%, 7

3%, 9

4%, 10

1%, 2

2%, 5

4%, 11

9%, 25

1%, 4

3%, 9

1%, 3

1%, 3

1%, 4

0.4%, 1

1%, 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Y-12 Plant

Sites with One or Two Cases

Simonds Saw and Steel Co.

Savannah River Site

Rocky Flats Plant

Reduction Pilot Plant

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Pinellas Plant

Pantex Plant

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10)

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25)

Nevada Test Site

Mound Plant

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Linde Ceramics Plant

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Idaho National Laboratory

Hanford

General Steel Industries

Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC)

De Soto Avenue Facility

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Bridgeport Brass-Havens

Bethlehem Steel

Argonne National Laboratory-East

Figure 2. Comparison of Cases 1 through 100 and 101 through 334 by Site

Cases 101-334

Cases 1-100

Cases with multiple employment sites are counted in Figure 2 for each employment site. Therefore, the sum of all bars is greater than the number of cases reviewed. 
Memo: Summary Statistics 6 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

16

8

0

18

0

6

1

1

2

2

2

4

4

4

1

0

2

3

0

1

3

12

0

9

4

1

0

66

21

2

37

1

11

5

4

1

11

5

16

15

7

9

1

10

5

1

0

11

25

4

9

1

2

1

53

43

3

38

3

16

13

4

4

19

5

24

26

19

6

4

11

8

3

7

14

38

3

11

9

3

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Remaining 1%

Y-12 Plant

Weldon Spring Plant

Savannah River Site

Sandia National Laboratory

Rocky Flats Plant

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Pinellas Plant

Pantex Plant

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10)

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25)

Nevada Test Site

Mound Plant

Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., Destrehan St.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Kansas City Plant

Iowa Ordnance Plant

Idaho National Laboratory

Hanford

General Steel Industries

Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC)

Bethlehem Steel

Argonne National Laboratory - East

Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory

Figure 3. Comparison of Claims Reviewed to Goal of 1% Total Claims

Cases 1-100

Cases 101- 334

Goal: 1% of Total Claims

Cases with multiple employment sites are 

counted in Figure 3 for each employment site. 

Therefore, the sum of all bars is greater than the 

number of cases reviewed. Additionally, 

findings from cases with multiple employment 

sites are counted for each site. 

The selection goal claim statistics were provided 

by NIOSH and were used by the DRSC to select 

cases 305-334. 
Memo: Summary Statistics 7 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

0%

1930s

2%

1940s

21%

1950s

49%

1960s

18%

1970s

6%

1980s

4% 0%

0%

Figure 4. Breakdown of Cases Reviews 101 through 334 by Decade First Employed

NIOSH Case Statistics

for Population of all

Cases

First 

Employment

Period

Percent 

of Cases

1910s <0.1%

1920s 0.2%

1930s 1.2%

1940s 14.7%

1950s 33.9%

1960s 17.6%

1970s 15.6%

1980s 11.5%

1990s 4.1%

2000s 1.0%

2010s 0.1%
Memo: Summary Statistics 8 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

Figure 5. Breakdown of Case Reviews 101 through 334 by POC

POC ≥ 50

21%

45 ≤ POC <50

40≤ POC< 44.9 30%

22%

20 ≤ POC <40

20%

POC < 20

7%

NIOSH Case Statistics

for Population of all 

Cases

POC 

Range

Percent 

of Cases

< 20% 44.00%

20% - 39.9% 20.51%

40% - 44.9% 6.13%

45% - 49.9% 0.99%

50% < 28.37%
Memo: Summary Statistics 9 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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

4%

1-5

7%

5-10

9%

10-20

20-30 13%

29%

30-40

32%

≥40

6%

Figure 6. Breakdown of Case Reviews 101-334 by Years of Employment

NIOSH Case Statistics

for Population of all 

Cases

Years of 

Employment

Percent

of Cases

< 1 8.46

1-5 16.83

5-10 10.92

10 - 20 17.87

20 - 30 19.51

30 - 40 21.2

>40 5.2
Memo: Summary Statistics 10 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

18

4

6

6

2

8

7

1

8

63

7

10

45

2

6

2

1

2

15

10

5

8

18

47

2

7

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Urinary, excluding bladder

Thyroid

Stomach

Skin

Rectum

Pancreas

Other Respiratory

Other and Ill Defined

Oral Cavity and Pharynx

Non-melanoma Skin (BCC and SCC)

Malignant Melanoma

Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma

Lung

Liver

Leukemia, excluding CLL

Gallbladder

Female Genitalia

Esophagus

Colon

Breast

Brain/Nervous System

Bone

Bladder

All Male Genitalia

All Digestive

Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia

Figure 7. Breakdown of Cases 101 through 334 by Risk Model

Claims Evaluated

(Represents 28 of 33 Risk Models) 

Missing Risk Models 

• CLL 

• Connective Tissue

• Ovary

• Eye

• Other Endocrine Glands

Cases with multiple cancer sites are counted in Figure 7 for each unique cancer site. Cases with multiple cancers with the same risk model 

are counted once for each unique risk model. Therefore, the sum of all bars is greater than the number of cases reviewed. 
Memo: Summary Statistics 11 SC&A – January 7, 2016 

NOTICE: This memo 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.

Figure 8. Breakdown of Cases 1 through 334 by Risk Model

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia 12

Acute Myeloid Leukemia 1 7

All Digestive 02

All Male Genitalia 23 47

Bladder 9 18

Bone 1 8

Brain/Nervous System 4 5

Breast 8 10

Colon 15 15

Connective Tissue 0 1

Esophagus 3 2

Female Genitalia 10

Gallbladder 22

Leukemia, excluding CLL 0 6

Liver 22

Lung 7 45

Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma 4 10

Malignant Melanoma 0 7

Non-melanoma Skin (BCC and SCC) 10 63

Oral Cavity and Pharynx 0 8

Other and Ill Defined 10

Other Respiratory 2 7

Pancreas 4 8

Rectum 22

Skin 10 6

Stomach 2 6

Thyroid 3 4

Urinary, excluding bladder 2 18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Cases 1-100

(Represents 29 of 33 Risk Models) 

Cases 101-334

Missing Risk Models 

• CLL 

• Ovary

• Eye

• Other Endocrine Glands

Cases with multiple cancer sites are counted in Figure 8 for each unique cancer site. Cases with multiple cancers with the same risk model are counted once for 

each unique risk model (excluding BCC and SCC). Therefore, the sum of all bars is greater than the number of cases reviewed.