Contract Oversight Team 

NIOSH/OCAS Assessment Report 

Assessment ID: Dates Conducted 

OCAS-COT-0015 6/07/2005 – 9/28/2005 

Assessment Type: Contract Oversight 

Assessment Team: Michael Rafky, Laurie Ishak, Robert Daniels 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest Involving ORAUT-TKBSAssessment Title: 0019-5, “Technical Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – 

Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Assessment Reviewed By: 

Signature on file 

Signature 

10/11/2005 

Date 

Grady Calhoun, CHP 

Name 

Assessment Approved By: 

Signature on file 

Signature 

10/11/2005 

Date 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, CHP 

Name 
Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

PURPOSE 

This assessment was conducted to determine whether a conflict of interest (COI) policy violation 

occurred in developing the “Technical Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – 

Occupational Internal Dose” (ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5). The concern that such a policy violation 

occurred was raised by a claimant advocate. 

SCOPE
 

This assessment focused on two specific questions: 

1.	 Did the involvement of an individual who had previously performed health physics 

work at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and subsequently served as the Subject 

Expert on ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, violate existing conflict of interest policies? 

2.	 Does the “Technical Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – 

Occupational Internal Dose” developed under the circumstances presented in question 

1 above take full advantage of and use the best available data for completing dose 

reconstructions? 

CONCLUSIONS 

Did the involvement of an individual who had previously performed health physics work at the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and subsequently served as the Subject Expert on the 

“Technical Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – Occupational Internal 

Dose,” violate existing conflict of interest policies? 

The conflict of interest policy employed during the development and approval of ORAUTTKBS-0019-5 was unclear and should be revised to better define how Subject Experts may be 

utilized in developing technical basis documents, in order to indicate what role they perform and 

what approval authority they have. 

The use of site experts to develop ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 reflects the ORAU management 

philosophy and intent of the ORAU COI policy. 

The use of site experts to develop ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 was consistent with explanations 

provided by OCAS to the ABRWH. 

The use of the terms “primary author” and “site profile authors” may have resulted in 

misperceptions regarding the roles of Subject Experts and Technical Basis Document Team 

Leaders. 

A violation of the then-current COI policy did not occur; although the language of the policy was 

ambiguous, the underlying policy intent was followed. 

2 of 27 
Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

The ORAU COI policy must be revised to more clearly define the roles of Technical Basis 

Document Team Leaders and Subject Experts, and their respective scopes of approval authority. 

In that regard, the Technical Basis Document Team Leader has the overall authority and 

responsibility to determine the content of a Technical Basis Document prior to its submission to 

OCAS for review. Individuals, regardless of their past work at DOE or AWE facilities, may be 

used as Subject Experts in preparing Technical Basis Documents. In addition to providing 

research and data for the Technical Basis Document, Subject Experts may be tasked with 

drafting the document for which they are designated a Subject Expert. Extensive technical 

review and multiple required approvals of a Subject Expert’s work, both by the Technical Basis 

Document Team Leader and thereafter at OCAS, are conducted to ensure that the document is 

technically accurate and free of bias. 

Does the “Technical Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – Occupational 

Internal Dose,” developed under the circumstances presented in question 1 above, take full 

advantage of and use the best available data for completing dose reconstructions? Specifically, 

does ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 adequately address the information contained in Paper, Allied 

Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE) International Union document “Exposure 

assessment projects at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant?” 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 relies heavily on the same source documents that are used and 

referenced in the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE) International 

Union document “Exposure assessment projects at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,” as 

well as the PACE document itself. 

For both documents, the majority of the recommended contributing isotopes and their 

distributions within most work locations were abstracted from a 1987 site exposure assessment 

report conducted by R. C. Baker. However, for these work locations, more conservative 

assumptions of 241Am and uranium enrichment, which would result in higher organ doses, are 

provided in ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5. 

Organ doses calculated from the default values in Table 5-4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 are 

higher than organ doses calculated using the average or maximum isotopic distribution values in 

Table 7.9 of the PACE document for all areas except the ash receivers, pulverizer and converter 

salvage line. 

Organ doses calculated from the default values in Table 5-4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 are 

comparable to organ doses calculated using the average isotopic distributions values in Table 7.9 

of the PACE document for the ash receivers and pulverizer. 

Organ doses calculated using the default values in Table 5-4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 are less 

than the organ doses calculated using the average or maximum isotopic distributions values in 

3 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Table 7.9 of the PACE document for the converter salvage line or when using the maximum 

values cited for the ash receivers and pulverizer. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 should be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that the best 

available data are used. Specifically, the transuranic concentrations documented during 

operations at the ash receiver and pulverizer, and during the converter salvage line incident, 

should be evaluated to determine their applicability to the dose reconstruction process. 

Based on this review, there is no compelling reason to prefer existing air-sampling data to 

bioassay information for purposes of PGDP worker dose reconstruction. 

CONCERNS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Concerns are defined as “systemic breakdowns in programmatic performance supported by one 

or more findings.” Findings are defined as “deviations from a contractual or programmatic 

requirement.” Recommendations are defined as “suggestions for program improvement.” 

This assessment resulted in two findings and one recommendation: 

Finding 1 - The then-controlling conflict of interest policy was not clear and has been 

revised to better define how Subject Experts may be used in developing technical basis 

documents. 

Finding 2 - ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 shall be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure 

that the best available data are used. Specifically, the transuranic concentrations 

documented during operations at the ash receiver and pulverizer, and during the converter 

salvage line incident, should be evaluated to determine their applicability to the dose 

reconstruction process. 

Recommendation 1 – ORAU should conduct an internal assessment of all site profile 

documents following the approval and adoption of ORAUT-PLCY-0002, “Conflict of 

Interest.” Documents not meeting the requirements of this new policy should be revised 

as necessary. 

A corrective action plan to address the findings must be submitted by ORAU and approved by 

OCAS. This plan must include, but is not limited to, a description of the actions that will be 

taken as well as their projected completion dates. 

4 of 27 
Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

 SUPPORTING DISCUSSION: 

A claimant advocate raised several concerns that are discussed below. These concerns were 

provided to OCAS through e-mails and were reiterated during an interview conducted on July 

14, 2005. 

1.	 The then-current ORAU conflict of interest policy, approved in June of 2004, is included 

as Attachment 1 and was reviewed. The policy states in part: 

•	 No contractor, subcontractor, or employee will be the principle [sic] author, 

reviewer or give final approval of a dose reconstruction for claimants from a 

given DOE/AWE site, prepare a site profile for that site, or serve as the primary 

reviewer for a determination of whether or not to add a class of employees to the 

SEC from that site, if they have previously performed work that affected or 

established policies on radiation dosimetry assessments, dosimetry programs or 

records at that site. 

•	 No Individual will perform, review, or approve radiation dose reconstructions, 

site profiles or determinations of whether or not to add a class of employees to the 

SEC for co-workers, DOE facilities at which they were formerly employed, or for 

contractors by whom they have been employed. Site experts may be employed to 

advise on site specific issues and incidents as necessary. 

•	 The term “Principal Author” is neither defined nor used in Site Profile Documents, 

Dose Reconstruction Reports, or in the procedures that set forth the requirements for 

these documents’ preparation. This assessment recognizes that the use of that term 

may well have resulted in misperceptions regarding the roles and scope of authorities 

of Subject Experts and Technical Basis Document Team Leaders. 

•	 The first italicized paragraph above clearly states that individuals who have 

previously performed work that affected or established policies on radiation 

dosimetry assessments, dosimetry programs or records at a site may not prepare a site 

profile for that site. 

•	 The first sentence in the second italicized paragraph of the COI policy above states 

that no individual will perform, review, or approve site profiles for DOE facilities at 

which they were formerly employed. This statement is admittedly not consistent with 

the first paragraph. Moreover, the last sentence of the second paragraph of the COI 

policy above states that site experts may be employed to advise on site specific issues 

and incidents as necessary. This latter statement may be read to allow the 

employment of site experts as occurred on the Paducah TBD. 

5 of 27 
Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Conclusion: 

The conflict of interest policy employed during the development and approval of 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 was unclear and should be revised to better define how Subject 

Experts may be utilized in developing technical basis documents, in order to indicate 

what role they perform and what approval authority they have. 

2.	 In order to determine the intent of the then-current ORAU COI policy, the Associate 

Director for Science for the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, and the 

Director, ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH, were interviewed. Given 

their significant roles in developing the COI policy at issue, they were specifically asked 

how they believed Subject Experts may be utilized in the development of Technical Basis 

Documents, what role they perform, and what approval authority they have. 

•	 The Associate Director for Science for the Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support participated in development of the ORAU COI policy as the technical 

monitor for the contract. He stated his belief that the intent of the policy was to allow 

individuals who had been employed at facilities at which they were previously 

involved, or for which they established the radiation control practices, to contribute to 

Technical Basis Documents but not to allow them to serve as the Technical Basis 

Document Team Leader or have final approval authority over the document. 

•	 The Director, ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH, was principally 

involved in the development of the ORAU COI policy. He stated his belief that it was 

ORAU’s intent to allow individuals with previous employment at facilities to serve as 

Subject Experts on Technical Basis Documents, precisely because they are often the 

most knowledgeable about site practices and policies. He also stated that such 

individuals would not have approval authority over the document. 

Conclusion:
 

The use of site experts to develop ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 reflects the ORAU 

management philosophy and intent of the ORAU COI policy. 

3.	 In order to determine if the ORAU COI policy under discussion here is consistent with 

the explanations provided by NIOSH OCAS to the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker 

Health (ABRWH), transcripts from meetings of the ABRWH (Attachment 2) were 

reviewed. Pertinent excerpts of those transcripts are summarized below: 

•	 April 20, 2004 

The speaker is Dr. Melius. Dr. Melius asked if ORAU has created a COI policy for 

site profile documents. Dr. Neton explained that ORAU was working on a policy for 

site profile documents that wais similar to the COI plan for DRs. Dr. Neton 

explained that individuals who worked at a site could not be the primary author but 

could be used as site experts because they are the most knowledgeable about the site. 

6 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Although an official policy was not in place, ORAU was following such a policy 

voluntarily. Dr. Melius believed there needed to be transparency to that process. Mr. 

Elliott stated that anyone who works on the document will be referenced and their 

biographical sketch will be provided on the web. [p. 130, ln. 6-25, & pp. 131-133] 

•	 June 2, 2004 (Volume I): 

The speaker is Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott explained that there was a COI policy in 

place for site profile authors that mirrored the policy for dose reconstructors—i.e., 

that the person who worked at a facility could not be the primary author of a site 

profile document. [p. 48, ln. 1-25, & p. 49] 

•	 August 24, 2004 (Volume I): 

The speaker is Dr. Melius. Dr. Melius asked if the new COI plan that was signed 

applied the same COI plan to individuals who work on site profile documents that 

was being used for individuals that complete dose reconstructions. Dr. Neton 

explained that the language paralleled the language of the COI plan for DRs. Copies 

of the modified COI plan were given to the Board. [p. 47, ln. 15-25, & p. 48] 

Conclusions:
 

The use of site experts to develop ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 was consistent with 

explanations provided by OCAS to the ABRWH.
 

The use of the terms “primary author” and “site profile authors” may have resulted in 

misperceptions regarding the roles of Subject Experts and technical basis document team 

leaders. 

A violation of the then-current COI policy did not occur; although the language of the 

policy was ambiguous, the underlying policy intent was followed. 

4.	 The individual approving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 as the Technical Basis Document 

Team Leader was then employed by the company owned by the individual listed as the 

Subject Expert. A concern was raised by a claimant advocate that this too was a violation 

of the conflict of interest policy. 

•	 Upon review, the then-current COI policy was found not to address such 

arrangements. 

•	 The Technical Basis Document Team Leader was interviewed to determine what he 

believed his level of authority was, considering his organizational position relative to 

the Subject Expert. He stated that although the Subject Expert on ORAUT-TKBS0019-5 wrote the bulk of the document, that individual still had to submit the 

document to the ORAU team for internal peer review. He further explained that he 

7 of 27 
Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

had the ultimate authority to approve and disapprove any and all information to be put 

into the document. Following this internal review, the document was submitted to 

OCAS for further review and approval. The OCAS review involved multiple 

iterations of comments between ORAU and OCAS. 

Conclusions: 

The ORAU COI policy must be revised to more clearly define the roles of Technical 

Basis Document Team Leaders and Subject Experts, and their respective scopes of 

approval authority. 

In that regard, the Technical Basis Document Team Leader has the overall authority and 

responsibility to determine the content of a Technical Basis Document prior to its 

submission to OCAS for review. Individuals, regardless of their past work at DOE or 

AWE facilities, may be used as Subject Experts in preparing Technical Basis Documents. 

In addition to providing research and data for the Technical Basis Document, Subject 

Experts may be tasked with drafting the document for which they are designated a 

Subject Expert. Extensive technical review and multiple required approvals of a Subject 

Expert’s work, both by the Technical Basis Document Team Leader and thereafter at 

OCAS, are conducted to ensure that the document is technically accurate and free of bias. 

5.	 Questions were raised regarding the Subject Expert’s previous involvement with the site 

in writing the 1992 document “Personnel exposure potential to transuranic materials at 

the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant” published by IT Corporation/Nuclear Sciences, 

and specifically whether or not source documents other than the above-mentioned IT 

document were used in developing ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5. 

• Interviews were conducted to gather background information concerning document 

development. Based on discussions with the Subject Expert for ORAUT-TKBS0019-5, the default activity fractions were chosen using the following general criteria: 

1) Resulting dose estimates would be reasonable and claimant favorable; and 2) The 

values would promote consistency across similar DOE facilities (e.g., K25 Site and 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant). The Subject Expert stated that the 

contributors and the Technical Basis Document Team Leader agreed to activity 

fractions that were consistent with the available literature (including the PACE 

Report) and provided claimant favorable estimates based on generic work 

descriptions across the related sites. Although the Subject Expert did not recall a 

specific assessment of the activity fractions or other related reference materials cited 

by the PACE Report, the Subject Expert stated the PACE Report was used 

extensively during the development of the site profile document at issue. The Subject 

Expert also acknowledged that ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 should be revised if additional 

information is identified that may be useful in dose reconstruction. 

Conclusion: 

8 of 27 
Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 relies heavily on the same source documents that are used and 

referenced in the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE) 

International Union document Exposure assessment projects at the Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant, as well as the PACE document itself. 

6.	 Questions were raised regarding the data contained in ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, 

specifically as compared to the PACE/University of Utah document, “Exposure 

assessment projects at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.” 

•	 These two documents were evaluated by an independent certified Health Physicist to 

determine if the best available data were used in ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5. 

Specifically, the isotopic fractions of transuranic elements prescribed in ORAUTTKBS-0019-5 were compared to those contained in the PACE document. Both 

documents rely heavily on the “Exposure assessment - uranium recycle materials in 

the Paducah Feed Plant” published by R.C. Baker in 1987 for isotopic fractions in all 

areas with the exception of the ash receivers, pulverizer, and converter salvage line. 

The isotopic fractions listed in ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 and the PACE document are 

therefore comparable for all areas other than the ash receivers, pulverizer, and 

converter salvage line. 

•	 The converter salvage line isotopic fractions for 237Np, 239Pu, 230Th and uranium used 

by PACE and the University of Utah were extracted from a 1979 radiation survey of 

the C-400 Converter Bundle Salvage Line. The values represent the arithmetic mean 

and maximum results of a series of air samples taken during “unusually high 

concentrations of airborne radioactivity”. The high airborne results were observed 

during the disassembly of contaminated converter bundles that had been placed in 

storage. Further analysis of converter disassembly work revealed that the high 

airborne activities were “unusual” and were attributed to poor decontamination of the 

bundle prior to salvaging and working dry surfaces. The report documenting this 

event states that the appropriate radiological control practices had not been followed. 

The individuals involved with this incident were wearing external radiation dosimetry 

at the time and received follow-up monitoring including urinalysis, whole body 

counts and external contamination monitoring. 

•	 The basis for activity fractions assumed for workers at the pulverizer and ash 

receivers could not be directly determined from the referenced information. 

However, available information indicated that activity fractions higher than those 

reported by ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 may be common to certain plant processes. For 

example, the Report of the Joint Task Force on Uranium Recycle Material Processing 

indicates residual ash materials shipped to the Feed Materials Production Center 

(FMPC) from PGDP in 1980 contained plutonium levels ranging from 67 ppb to 

7,757 ppb (average 1,123 ppb) compared to the 1,000 ppb Pu used by Baker and 

9 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

subsequently cited by ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5. Likewise, a 1962 health physics 

inspection report indicated 90% “trace” alpha activity (e.g., 10% uranium) in dust 

from C-337, U-3, or C-6 that was vacuumed from a disassembled converter. This 

assessment assumes that “trace” activity refers to transuranic materials, which were 

primarily 237Np. However, it is important to note that the converter disassembly work 

was infrequent, requiring approximately eight shifts over more than a two month 

period. Based on a brief review of existing records, some of which are cited in 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 and the Exposure Assessment Project at the Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant, the default values in ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 may not represent 

expected or bounding values for certain work locations. 

Conclusions: 

For both documents, the majority of the recommended contributing isotopes and their 

distributions within most work locations were abstracted from a 1987 site exposure 

assessment report conducted by R. C. Baker. However, for these work locations, more 

conservative assumptions of 241Am and uranium enrichment, which would result in 

higher organ doses, are provided in ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5. 

Organ doses calculated from the default values in Table 5-4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 

are higher than organ doses calculated using the average or maximum isotopic 

distribution values in Table 7.9 of the PACE document for all areas except the ash 

receivers, pulverizer and converter salvage line. 

Organ doses calculated from the default values in Table 5-4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 

are comparable to organ doses calculated using the average isotopic distributions values 

in Table 7.9 of the PACE document for the ash receivers and pulverizer. 

Organ doses calculated using the default values in Table 5-4 of ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 

are less than the organ doses calculated using the average or maximum isotopic 

distributions values in Table 7.9 of the PACE document for the converter salvage line or 

when using the maximum values cited for the ash receivers and pulverizer. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5 should be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that the 

best available data are used. Specifically, the transuranic concentrations documented 

during operations at the ash receiver and pulverizer, and during the converter salvage line 

incident, should be evaluated to determine their applicability to the dose reconstruction 

process. 

7.	 The claimant advocate raised another question regarding whether bioassay data should be 

preferred to air-sampling data for reconstructing doses of PGDP workers. The primary 

program governing procedures, contained in 42 C.F.R. Part 82, “Methods for Radiation 

Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

10 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA),” were reviewed to determine the hierarchy of data to 

be used. 

•	 As noted immediately above, OCAS conduct of occupational radiation dose 

reconstruction is governed by 42 C.F.R. Part 82, “Methods for Radiation Dose 

Reconstruction under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).” In accordance with 42 C.F.R. § 82.2, a hierarchy 

of methods establishes individual worker monitoring data (when complete and 

adequate) as the highest priority for internal and external dose reconstruction 

methods. Guidance for assessing internal exposures recognizes workplace area 

monitoring data as a viable source of information for dose reconstruction in the 

absence of adequate or available bioassay data. Air-sampling data are commonly 

relied upon for dose reconstruction during time periods prior to established bioassay 

programs, or for unmonitored workers with likely exposure. However, PGDP 

workers have participated in a uranium bioassay program at frequencies based on 

exposure potential since the beginning of enrichment operations, and the resulting 

bioassay data are available to dose reconstruction staff. Although few available data 

directly provide detailed results for TRU-contaminated materials, the uranium data 

can be related to potential TRU uptakes using default assumptions of isotopic 

concentrations. It must be noted that these same assumptions, in addition to others, 

are also necessary when using uranium air-sampling data for dose reconstruction. 

Conclusion:
 

Based on this review, there is no compelling reason to prefer existing air-sampling data to 

bioassay information for purposes of PGDP worker dose reconstruction. 

11 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

ATTACHMENT 1 

ORAU TEAM CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY 

A. Overview 

In any situation that involves compensation for injury, whether a tort claim, a worker’s 

compensation case, or a claim made under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), the integrity of the process must be unimpeachable. 

This is particularly true under the EEOICPA, because one branch of the U.S. government (i.e., 

DOE) was responsible for the exposures to ionizing radiation and hazardous substances and is 

also charged with providing data to assist in adjudicating claims, while other branches of the 

government (i.e., NIOSH, DOL) are responsible for administering and operating the program. 

Many of the persons working for the government on this program, whether as federal or 

contractor employees, have had previous involvement in the conduct of radiation protection 

programs at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities; or they may have previously received or are 

currently receiving financial support or compensation from DOE. 

The ORAU Team is extremely sensitive to the concerns in the stakeholder community regarding 

perceived or actual conflicts of interest (COI). We understand why the bar on perceived and 

actual conflicts of interest must be set higher for this project than is established by the COI 

provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). 

The critical consideration is not whether the potential for COI exists – it does. The most 

important factors are that the contractor have a rigorous and precise plan for identifying potential 

COI situations and avoiding them; and that NIOSH be assured the contractor will carry out that 

process with absolute integrity. Although some may view it as not desirable that persons with 

any sort of DOE affiliation be involved in dose reconstruction, preparation of site profiles, or 

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petition review, it is almost inevitable that many such persons 

must be involved, especially in the process of research. For example, health physicists who have 

expertise in the internal radiation dosimetry of plutonium must have learned their trade at DOE 

facilities simply because that is where the plutonium is. Similarly, the research effort to develop 

Site Profiles and process SEC petitions for the various sites will necessarily involve persons with 

expert knowledge of the sites, and that knowledge will usually have been gained from having 

worked there. Therefore, given these inherent potential conflicts, the contractor selected for the 

dose reconstruction project, along with NIOSH, must do everything possible to prevent or 

manage actual and perceived conflicts of interest and to disclose all potential conflicts of interest. 

ORAU, a non-profit association of universities, was chartered in 1946. In the ensuing five 

decades, we have gained unparalleled experience in maintaining the integrity of technical 

processes while working with many issues of public concern. Lessons learned from those 

experiences have been woven into the culture and structures of ORAU. 

Providing objective science-based studies and analyses that withstand the COI challenge 

is more than something we do – it’s a part of who we are. 

12 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

ORAU and its employees are committed to the highest ethical standards. All ORAU employees 

receive mandatory initial and refresher training in ethical issues. This training is mandatory not 

only for ORAU employees, but for all persons working on this project, including subcontractors, 

and was conducted during the start-up phase, with annual refreshers thereafter. Copies of the 

training materials can be provided to NIOSH for the project files. ORAU will maintain 

documentation of the successful completion of this (and other) training for all personnel working 

on this project, whether ORAU or subcontractor employees. 

B. COI Policy 

ORAU is committed to full and open disclosure as the best way to prevent conflicts of interest. 

ORAU agrees completely that “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” 

The ORAU Team will disclose, for each company and for each individual involved in dose 

reconstruction, preparation of Site Profiles, research supporting determinations of whether or not 

to add a class of employees to the SEC, or any other work done by primary authors or reviewers 

for NIOSH on dose reconstructions or SEC petitions on behalf of the EEOICPA program, 

information about their past and present work at DOE sites. In addition, the ORAU Team 

members will inform NIOSH of any new DOE work that they are awarded. ORAU and its 

subcontractors will be proactive in making its processes for avoiding COI available to all 

stakeholders. 

There are three aspects to effective disclosure/avoidance of conflict of interest: 

• Planning of the work by the contractor; 

• Oversight by NIOSH of COI performance; and 

• Disclosure of information sufficient to let the public reach its own conclusions concerning the 

resolution of potential concerns about conflict of interest. 

ORAU will construct a database that lists all DOE sites where EEOICPA team members have 

worked, and outlines all potential areas of conflict of interest. This database will be used by the 

Project Director and Task Managers in making and checking work assignments for dose 

reconstruction, preparation of site profiles, research supporting determinations of whether or not 

to add a class of employees to the SEC, or any other work done by primary authors or reviewers 

for NIOSH on dose reconstructions or SEC petitions on behalf of the EEOICPA program. All 

individuals and companies on the 

ORAU EEOICPA team will provide the necessary information to populate the database initially, 

and will promptly update it as necessary. 

Access to the database will be provided to NIOSH for oversight of this contract. 

Printouts about the persons (and their companies) performing individual dose reconstructions, 

preparation of site profiles, research supporting determinations of whether or not to add a class of 

employees to the SEC, or any other work done by primary authors or reviewers for NIOSH on 

dose reconstructions or SEC petitions on behalf of the EEOICPA program will be available upon 

13 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

request, subject to legal requirements concerning the protection of privacy interests. ORAU will 

continue to make disclosure statements available to the public via ORAU’s website. 

The database will be constructed to provide the following information to the ORAU 

EEOICPA Team, to NIOSH, and, as described above, to others: 

•	 Whether and where ORAU, a subcontractor, or individual employees of ORAU or a 

subcontractor is, was or will be (in the next 12 months) involved in managing or directing 

DOE radiation protection and health physics program policies, practices and /or 

procedures. 

•	 Whether and where ORAU, a subcontractor, or individual employees of ORAU or a 

subcontractor is, was or will be supporting, directly or indirectly, decision making in a 

radiation dosimetry program. This includes a contractor/subcontractor that is a 

management and operations / management and integration (M&O/M&I), team member 

of an M&O/M&I, or a program manager of such a program. 

•	 Whether and where ORAU, a subcontractor, or individual employees of ORAU or a 

subcontractor has broad technical support contracts or task-based contracts in place at 

DOE sites whose Statement of Work permits them to currently complete or be broadened 

to include the above radiation dosimetry work. 

•	 Whether and where ORAU, a subcontractor, or individual employees of ORAU or a 

subcontractor has an active interest in bidding for the above DOE work activities and 

such “interest” has been properly disclosed elsewhere publicly (through public 

announcements, media or other disclosures). 

•	 Whether and where any individual employees of ORAU or a subcontractor for the ORAU 

EEOICPA team have acted as expert witnesses on behalf of DOE or a DOE contractor 

with respect to worker compensation claims or law suits involving the question of 

whether radiation exposure was responsible in whole or in part for an alleged injury. 

•	 Whether any individual employees of ORAU or a subcontractor for the ORAU 

EEOICPA team have former colleagues or co-workers whose claims they may receive for 

dose reconstruction by virtue of the DOE facilities or sites assigned to them. 

•	 Whether ORAU and its subcontractors and their employees are reviewing reports, 

assessments, surveys, documents and records that they organizationally or individually 

have been responsible for authoring, developing, or submitting to DOE or its contractors. 

ORAU will further indicate if ORAU, a subcontractor, or individual employees of ORAU 

or a subcontractor was an unidentified contributor to any such reports, assessments, 

surveys, documents or records. 

14 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

To avoid potential for actual or perceived conflicts of interest in dose reconstructions or other 

activities under this contract, ORAU, its subcontractors, and the individual employees of ORAU 

or a subcontractor will subscribe to the following restrictions: 

•	 No contractor, subcontractor, or employee will be the principle author, reviewer 

or give final approval of a dose reconstruction for claimants from a given 

DOE/AWE site, prepare a site profile for that site, or serve as the primary 

reviewer for a determination of whether or not to add a class of employees to the 

SEC from that site, if they have previously performed work that affected or 

established policies on radiation dosimetry assessments, dosimetry programs or 

records at that site. 

•	 No contractor, subcontractor, or employee will be the principle author, reviewer 

or give final approval of a dose reconstruction for claimants from a given 

DOE/AWE site if they have previously been involved with DOE-funded dose 

assessments or reconstructions for workers from that site. 

•	 No contractor element will participate in or review dose reconstructions or 

participate in research supporting site profiles or determinations of whether or not 

to add a class of employees to the SEC for those DOE sites or activities where it 

is the prime contractor (i.e., M&O/M&I), team member to a prime contractor, 

program manager or subcontractor managing dosimetry programs, or otherwise 

intends to be employed as such within 12 months of starting this contract. 

•	 No individual will perform, review, or approve radiation dose reconstructions, 

prepare site profiles, or conduct research supporting determinations of whether or 

not to add a class of employees to the SEC, if he or she has voluntarily acted as an 

expert witness (including a non-testifying expert) on behalf of DOE or a DOE 

contractor in defense of radiation dose claims or suits. Restrictions for an 

individual who acts under subpoena will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

•	 No individual will perform, review, or approve radiation dose reconstructions, site 

profiles, or determinations of whether or not to add a class of employees to the 

SEC for co-workers, DOE facilities at which they were formerly employed, or for 

contractors by whom they have been employed. Site experts may be employed to 

advise on site specific issues and incidents as necessary. 

•	 No contractor or subcontractor element will be permitted to perform or bid for 

collateral work on DOE radiation dosimetry program support for those sites 

where it is conducting dose reconstructions, preparing a site profile (or scheduled 

to prepare a site profile), or performing work supporting a determination of 

whether or not to add a class of employees to the SEC. 

15 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

•	 Key personnel of the ORAU team will not have a conflict of interest with respect 

to managing this project or carrying out or marketing radiation protection/health 

physics services elsewhere in DOE. 

•	 Each supervisor, dosimetrist, and reviewer, and each professional performing, 

reviewing or approving a dose reconstruction, preparing a site profile or 

performing work supporting a determination of whether or not to add a class of 

employees to the SEC, will be required to complete and sign the attached form 

agreeing to abide by the above requirements. The forms will be maintained as 

auditable records of this project. 

•	 No contractor, subcontractor, or individual will perform, review, or approve 

radiation dose reconstructions, prepare site profiles, or conduct research 

supporting determinations of whether or not to add a class of employees to the 

SEC if the company or individual has voluntarily provided expert witness services 

(including a non-testifying expert) on behalf of DOE or a contractor in defense of 

any claim filed under the EEOICPA. Restrictions for an individual who acts under 

subpoena will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

•	 A form identifying the dosimetrist who performed the dose reconstruction and the 

reviewer who approved it will be attached to each dose reconstruction and SEC 

determination, and provided to the claimant or petitioner(s) as appropriate, along 

with short biographical sketches. 

All subcontracts issued to support ORAU in EEOICPA will contain a clause to ensure that the 

subcontractor complies with ORAU policy (stated here) regarding conflict of interest. 

16 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (April 20, 2004) 

17 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (April 20, 2004) 

18 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (April 20, 2004 continued) 

19 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (April 20, 2004 continued) 

20 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (April 20, 2004 continued) 

21 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (June 2, 2004) 

22 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (June 2, 2004 continued) 

23 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (June 2, 2004 continued) 

24 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (August 24, 2004) 

25 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (August 24, 2004 continued) 

26 of 27 
 

Assessment Title Assessment ID Date Completed 

Assessment of Potential Conflict of Interest OCAS-COT-0015 October 11, 2005 

Involving ORAUT-TKBS-0019-5, “Technical 

Basis Document for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant – Occupational Internal Dose.” 

Attachment 2 (August 24, 2004 continued) 

27 of 27