ORAUT-OTIB-0052

Parameters to Consider When 

Processing Claims for Construct

Trade Workers

Report from the Procedures Review Subcom

Presented to the

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker H

Full Board Meeting Held in Augusta, Geo

March 12, 2013
ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Summ

Exposures to construction trade workers (CTWdifferent from most other workers at

a site by 

of nature of employment and exposure

– freq

short term but with

a high dose rate

As such, exposure data from other workers m

apply to CTWs
ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Summar

Continued

This procedure provides guidance for developing

a co

model for unmonitored CTW and compares doses rec

monitored CTWs to doses received by all monitored w

(AMWs)For the DOE complex, most internal and external ann

received by CTWs are bounded by those received by When CTWs doses exceeded those of AMWs, OTIB

‐00

provides

a claimant

‐favorable adjustment factor base

ratio of CTW to AMW monitored doses
ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Timelin

Aug 31, 2006

– Revision

0

July 2007 –SC&A Review of Revision

0

August 29, 2007 to October 14, 2008

–

Five WG/SC discussions

Feb 17, 2011

– Revision

1

July 2011 – SC&A Review of Revision

1
ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Revisio

Used to calculate coworker doses

Not directly used in dose reconstructions

Recommends

–

CTW coworker external doses be 1.4 times AMW 

CTW coworker internal doses be equal to AMW except for Hanford

Based on data from SRS,

Y

‐12,

K

‐25, RFP, INL, an

Hanford

(over

1 million histories, with over 215,000 CTW

histories)
Findings Summary: OTIB-00

16 Findings in total– complete histories capture

Board Review System (BRS)

http://app

‐cinc

‐

dcas.cdc.gov:8106/documents/default.aspx?mode=ASS

15 findings are Closed; one is in Abeyance

Resolution spanned

5 Years; July 2007 – July 20

The following slides provide summary informatresolution of each Finding

– Details in BRS and 
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

1 Does not address differences

in doses received bydifferent constructionoccupations.

November 14, 2011 ‐ ClosedNIOSH added

a paragraph to ORAUT

explaining that for routinely expose

(i.e., workers who were expected to 

monitored), the 95th‐percentile do

applied.

2 The dose databases used are

lacking significant data

during the early operational

years.

June 2008 ‐ Closed

NIOSH concurs with SC&A in their J

report where on page 77 they postureason for relatively low CTW expos

early years of site operations.
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

3 The dose databases do not

always identify who were

CTWs, and for CTWs, what

were their occupations.

June 2008 – ClosedSC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial R

the dose databases constitute the be

source of information for

a large pop

Subcommittee concluded that the is

be Closed.

4 NIOSH did not make

modifications to theinternal dose calculation

methodology, as they

indicated to the Center toProtect Workers' Rights(CPWR) that they would.

June 2008 – ClosedWhile developing OTIB‐0052 NIOSH 

that

a better course of action was to 

CTW bioassay data rather than assum

based on air concentration (which w

for the CPWR discussions).
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

5 Plutonium and/or uranium

were used to compare

internal CTW to AMW

doses. What about other

radionuclides?

July 14, 2011 – Closed

In Revision 1, NIOSH placed

a limitat

use of the internal dose reconstructi

of ORAUT‐OTIB‐0052. Closed based 

change made by NIOSH in Revision a

concurrence.

6 Does not address how to

determine CTW doses atsites that do not have

a

coworker OTIB.

June 24, 2008 – ClosedSC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial R

for sites lacking coworker studies, thunmonitored CTWs is reconstructed way as other unmonitored workers w

potential for exposure or intakes.
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

7 Does not address how to

determine neutron CTW

doses.

June 24, 2008 – Closed

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial R

(provided in August 2007) that exter

were not intentionally differentiated 

gamma or neutron doses.

8 All SRS external doses are

from the HPAREH. Need toevaluate other dosedatabases, e.g.,Fayerweather, SRSABST.

June 24, 2008 – ClosedSC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial R(provided in August 2007) that the H

shown to be claimant favorable relatother SRS databases.
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

9 Evaluation is based on DOE

annual exposure report. Needto address the MUD dose

database for INL.

July 14, 2011 – ClosedClosed based on SC&A's concurrence data in the Annual Reports is equiva

MUD data for the overlapping time p

10 For post‐1974 ratio of

penetrating doses experiencedby CTWs to other workers inOTIB‐0052, does not agree with

NIOSH 2005 (INL EPI study),

which indicates

a correction

factor closer to 2, and perhaps

greater for some job types.

July 14, 2011 – ClosedClosed based on

a clarifying stateme

NIOSH added to OTIB‐0052 Rev 1, Se

11 Claimant favorability of OTIB‐

0052 approach for INL early

period internal dose (to 1965)cannot be determined.

July 14, 2011 – Closed

Closed based on the statement that 

to OTIB‐0052 Rev 1, Section 5.14.
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

12 The REX dose database was

not used. Need to evaluate

results based on the REX

database to those given.

In December 2011, NIOSH proposed 

change to replace the current wordin

6 of Rev. 01. NOTE: This agreed upon 

not yet been inserted into OTIB‐0052

status of this finding is In Abeyance, Closed.

13 The CTW doses need to be

compared consistently toeither AMWs or Non‐CTWs.

Currently, different sections

perform differentcomparisons.

April 10, 2012

– Closed

NIOSH demonstrated that this had

a 

on the results (i.e., less than the maruncertainty for dosimetry programs, Subcommittee changed status to Clo
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

# Finding Resolution

14 The handling of ‘missing dose’

needs to be consistent.Currently, some sectionsinclude ‘missing dose’ while

others do not.

July 31, 2012 – Closed

NIOSH demonstrated that the inclusion o

had

a minor effect on the CTW to AMW r

(i.e., less than the margin of uncertainty f

programs, ~30%).

15 No instructions are given as to

what to do if high or lowcumulative exposures are

suspected.

April 11, 2012 – Closed

Transferred to OTIB‐0020; Statement add

0020 to alert the dose reconstructor that may need special consideration. (See the 

under Finding 1.)

16 Some construction occupations

(e.g., pipefitters) receiveexposures larger than the

average CTW exposure, and

may receive exposures above

the 95th percentile CTW

exposure.

April 11, 2012 – Closed

Transferred to OTIB‐0020; Statement add

0020 to alert the dose reconstructor that may need special consideration. (See the 

under Finding 1.)
Questions?