Implications of Claimant-Favorable Approaches Used in Dose and Probability of Causation Calculations Under Eeoicpa

The collection, processing, validation, verification, formatting, filing, and storage of the required input data are some of the most important components in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. Without question, the quality and scientific validity of the reconstructed dose estimates are totally dependent on these aspects of the program. Of equal importance is that the data be filed not only in a readily accessible format, but also in one that facilitates error-free retrievability. One often unrecognized key factor is that each and every item of data must be collected with careful consideration of the use to which it is to be applied. Two important databases have been established in support of the dose reconstruction operations. They are the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support Claims Tracking System and the Site Research Database. The former contains information directly relating to individual workers. When such information is not available, surrogate sources (i.e., area monitoring data) are used to establish the "radiation environment" in which the worker was employed. This information is uploaded into the Site Research Database. Procedures for these systems entail identifying, collecting, and processing information from more than 300 Department of Energy and Atomic Weapons Employer related facilities. To date, more than one million worker-related employment and dosimetry records and more than 33,000 research documents have been uploaded into the associated computer systems.

Section: Reconstruction Of Internal Dosesmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Collection, Processing, Validation, and Verification

Martin¹,

Hoff

Gard

et al. 2008

“…In other words, there is only one chance in 100 of having a false negative; that is, of wrongfully denying compensation for a case that is as likely or not (50% probability) to be compensable. As described in another paper in this issue (Merwin et al 2008), claimant favorability goes far beyond just the designation of a 99% confidence interval. Claimant favorability is considered in the selection of all approaches and methods used, including many data and assumptions in which it is not intuitively obvious that claimant favorability would be affected.…”

Section: Ensuring Transparency and Claimant Favorabilitymentioning

confidence: 95%

The Niosh Radiation Dose Reconstruction Project: Managing Technical Challenges

Moeller¹,

Townsend

Dooley

2008

Approximately two years after promulgation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of Compensation and Analysis Support selected a contractor team to perform many aspects of the radiation dose reconstruction process. The project scope and schedule necessitated the development of an organization involving a comparatively large number of health physicists. From the initial stages, there were many technical and managerial challenges that required continuous planning, integration, and conflict resolution. This paper identifies those challenges and describes the resolutions and lessons learned. These insights are hopefully useful to managers of similar scientific projects, especially those requiring significant data, technical methods, and calculations. The most complex challenge has been to complete defensible, individualized dose reconstructions that support timely compensation decisions at an acceptable production level. Adherence to applying claimant-favorable and transparent science consistent with the requirements of the Act has been the key to establishing credibility, which is essential to this large and complex project involving tens of thousands of individual stakeholders. The initial challenges included garnering sufficient and capable scientific staff, developing an effective infrastructure, establishing necessary methods and procedures, and integrating activities to ensure consistent, quality products. The continuing challenges include maintaining the project focus on recommending a compensation determination (rather than generating an accurate dose reconstruction), managing the associated very large data and information management challenges, and ensuring quality control and assurance in the presence of an evolving infrastructure. The lessons learned concern project credibility, claimant favorability, project priorities, quality and consistency, and critical path project activities.

“…In contrast, for claims that appear likely to be noncompensable, the dose reconstructors typically apply highly claimant-favorable assumptions to ensure that the dose has been overestimated and to expedite the claim [this approach is covered in detail elsewhere in this issue by Merwin et al (2008)]. Consequently, doses reconstructed under this program represent as accurate or precise an estimate of the dose received by the worker as is needed to decide the claim.…”

Section: Through the Energy Employees Occupational Illnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As described elsewhere in this issue (Merwin et al 2008), for purposes of the described assessments, the median PC is calculated at the 99 th percent confidence level. In other words, if the PC is 50% or more at the 99 th percent confidence level (as determined by DOL), the claimant is awarded compensation.…”

Section: Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

External Dose Reconstruction Under Part B of the Energy Employees Compensation Act

Merwin¹,

Smith²,

Winslow³

et al. 2008

Self Cite

External doses reconstructed under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act include not only those that were recorded by personal dosimeters, but also those that were not recorded. Recorded doses may require corrections to account for measurement bias or limitations in the dosimeters' capabilities. Unrecorded doses that have been reconstructed include (1) those missed due to limits of detection associated with personal dosimeters, (2) external ambient doses that may have been inadvertently omitted from the monitoring results (or were not monitored altogether in the case of nonradiation workers), and (3) doses incurred as a result of medical x-ray examinations required by employers. Additionally, some workers were not monitored (or their dosimetry data are not available) even though there was a potential for exposure; doses to such workers are typically assigned based on the records of coworkers who performed the same, or similar, tasks. Additional issues that complicate the dose reconstruction process include the requirements that (1) all external doses must be partitioned according to radiation type and energy, and (2) the accompanying doses to specific body organs must be estimated. Since the external dose reconstruction process typically incorporates many claimant-favorable methodologies, parameters, and assumptions, the doses assigned do not necessarily reflect either realistic or actual estimates of the doses received, and external doses assigned to workers under the Act often are substantially higher than those contained in the dosimetry records.