ORAUT-OTIB-0052

Parameters to Consider When Processing 

Claims for Construction Trade Workers

Report from the Procedures Review Subcommittee

Presented to the

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Full Board Meeting Held in Knoxville, Tennessee 

December 11–12, 2012
2

ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Summary

Because of their employment and exposure practices (frequently short-term, but high 

dose rate), construction trade workers (CTWs) are very different from most other 

workers at a site. As such, exposure data from other workers may not apply to CTWs.

ORAUT-OTIB-0052 provides guidance for developing a coworker model for 

unmonitored CTWs, and presents information that compares doses received by 

monitored CTWs to doses received by all monitored workers (AMWs). CTWs were 

defined as including, but are not limited to, laborers, mechanics, masons, carpenters, 

electricians, painters, pipefitters, insulators, boilermakers, sheet-metal workers, 

operating engineers, and iron workers. 

For the DOE complex, it was generally found that the internal and external annual 

doses received by CTWs were usually bounded by those received by AMWs.

However, examination of individual DOE sites indicated that in some instances, at 

some sites, the doses received by CTWs exceeded those of AMWs. In those 

instances, ORAUT-OTIB-0052 developed a claimant-favorable adjustment factor based 

on the ratio of CTW to AMW monitored doses.
3

ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Timeline

• Aug 31, 2006 – Revision 0

• July 2007 –SC&A Review of Revision 0

• WG/Subcommittee, NIOSH, and SC&A 

discussions: Aug 29, 2007; June 24, 2008; 

July 21, 2008; Sept 4, 2008; & Oct 14, 2008

• Feb 17, 2011 – Revision 1

• July 2011 – SC&A Review of Revision 1

3
4

ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Revision 0

• Used to calculate coworker doses

• Not directly used in dose reconstructions

• Recommends CTW coworker external doses 

be 1.4 times AMW doses

• Recommends CTW coworker internal doses be 

equal to AMW doses, except for Hanford

• Based on data from SRS, Y-12, K-25, RFP, INL, 

and Hanford (over 1 million histories, with 

over 215,000 CTW histories)

4
5

OTIB-0052 Methodology –

External Dose Comparison

Site Number of 

CTWs Compared

Ratio Range

(OTIB / Actual)

Number of CTWs 

with Ratio <1

SRS 20 1.96 to 6.17 0

Rocky Flats 20 0.80 to 3.15 1

Hanford 20 0.9 to 4.2 1

Total 60 0.80 to 6.17 2 (3%)

OTIB-0052 Methodology versus Actual Dose Records

CTWs selection biased towards high dose occupations, 

e.g., pipefitters

5
6

SC&A Review Findings 

(all are closed; 2 examples detailed)

1 Does not address differences in doses received by different construction occupations.

2 The dose databases used are lacking significant data during the early operational 

years.

3 The dose databases do not always identify who were CTWs, and for CTWs, what were 

their occupations.

4 NIOSH did not make modifications to the internal dose calculation methodology, as 

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

5 Plutonium and/or uranium were used to compare internal CTW to AMW doses. What 

about other radionuclides?

6 Does not address how to determine CTW doses at sites that do not have a coworker 

OTIB.

7 Does not address how to determine neutron CTW doses.

8 All SRS external doses are from the HPAREH. Need to evaluate other dose databases, 

e.g., Fayerweather, SRSABST.

9 Evaluation is based on DOE annual exposure report. Need to address the MUD dose 

database for INL.

6
7

SC&A Review Findings (Cont’d)

10 For post-1974 ratio of penetrating doses experienced by CTWs to other workers in 

OTIB-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. 

11 Claimant favorability of OTIB-0052 approach for INL early period internal dose (to 

1965) cannot be determined.

12 The REX dose database was not used. Need to evaluate results based on the REX 

database to those given.

13 The CTW doses need to be compared consistently to either AMWs or Non-CTWs. 

Currently, different sections perform different comparisons.

14 The handling of ‘missing dose’ needs to be consistent. Currently, some sections 

include ‘missing dose’ while others do not.

15 No instructions are given as to what to do if high or low cumulative exposures are 

suspected.

16 Some construction occupations (e.g., pipefitters) receive exposures larger than the 

average CTW exposure, and may receive exposures above the 95th percentile CTW 

exposure.

7
8

Example - Finding 5: Plutonium and/or uranium were 

used to compare internal CTW to AMW doses. 

What about other radionuclides?

Finding 5 details:

..., plutonium was used as the standard for comparing the internal 

doses of CTWs to AMWs at three of the sites: Rocky Flats, ORNL, and 

Hanford, while uranium was used at Y-12, K-25, and ORNL.

Monitoring for a number of other radionuclides was performed at most 

DOE sites. For example, at Hanford the other monitored radionuclides 

include H-3, Sr-90, Cs-137, Am-241, Cm-242, and fission products.

No documentation was found in ORAUT-OTIB-0052 or in its supporting 

documentation to demonstrate that using uranium and/or plutonium 

as a standard for comparing internal doses was claimant favorable 

should the exposure be the result of the intake of another radionuclide. 

[page 77]

8
9

Finding 5: Response and Reply

NIOSH Initial Response (August 23, 2007): The underlying assumption for internal 

dose comparison is that the internal dose hazard for a site is closely tied to the 

radionuclide being handled in greatest quantity at the site. The vast majority of 

bioassay data in the DOE complex is for plutonium and uranium. Data on other 

radionuclides are limited in time frame and number of results. Consequently, 

meaningful comparisons between the groups for less prominent radionuclides were 

not judged to be feasible.

SC&A Reply (June 20, 2008): SC&A agrees with what is said in the NIOSH Initial 

Response. However, it is not whether a comparison between groups for less 

prominent radionuclide is “feasible,” but whether such a comparison is “necessary.” 

For example, do the plutonium/uranium doses always dominate the AMW doses, or 

do other radionuclides sometimes dominate? Also, do the AMW doses from other 

radionuclides ‘follow’ the plutonium/uranium doses in any predictable fashion? 

When AMWs have bioassay data for other radionuclides, why were these data 

collected? Was there any systematic reason?

9
10

Finding 5: Resolution

To resolve Finding 5, NIOSH placed a limitation in Revision 1 on the use of 

the internal dose reconstruction portions of ORAUT-OTIB-0052:

Intakes of less common radionuclides, those other than uranium or plutonium, are 

not assessed. Refer to the site technical basis document (TBD) for information 

about less common radionuclides...[Section 3.1]

SC&A agreed with this approach, and recommended Finding 5 be closed.

On July 14, 2011, the Subcommittee concurred and closed Finding 5.

SC&A also recommended a PER be developed to determine if any CTW 

internal doses from less common radionuclides (including tritium) were 

reconstructed using OTIB-0052 methodology between Revisions 0 and 1.

10
11

Example - Finding 1: Does not address differences in 

doses received by different construction 

occupations.

Finding 1 Example #1: SRS Construction Trade Worker 1952 to 1989 External 

Penetrating Dose (SCA-TR-TASK3-0004, Table 3.2-1)

11

Prefix Occupation

Construction Trade Worker-Years with Dose All Monitored Construction Trade 

Worker-Years

Number Percent of 

Type

Average 

Dose 

(mrem/y)

Percent 

At or 

Below

0 Dose 

Number

Average 

Dose 

(mrem/y)

Percent 

At or 

Below

30 Radiographers 761 2.5% 294.89 100.0% 428 188.74 100.0%

26 Pipefitters 2968 9.6% 211.79 97.5% 1811 131.53 97.6%

20 Boilermakers 1367 4.4% 161.28 88.0% 566 114.06 87.8%

34 Not Identified* 27 0.1% 145.19 83.6% 13 98.00 83.8%

5 Laborers 4576 14.8% 131.74 83.5% 1919 92.82 82.8%

8 Cement Mason 346 1.1% 128.90 68.7% 124 94.89 83.8%

6 Carpenters 2667 8.6% 121.98 67.6% 993 88.89 69.5%

31 Asbestos Workers 1324 4.3% 121.17 59.0% 668 80.54 62.0%

All Construction Trade 

Workers 31008 100.0% 115.72 N.A. 17876 73.40 N.A.
12

Finding 1: Continued

Finding 1 Example #2: Summary of Dose Data Returned by REMS 

(SCA-TR-TASK3-0004, Table 2.2-1)

12

Labor Category/Occupation

Number of 

Worker-Years

Average Dose 

(mrem/yr)

Monitored Measured 

Dose Monitored Measured 

Dose

All Workers All Wkr 2,053,992 398,483 14.6 75.4

All Construction Cnstrct 138,542 45,152 21.7 66.5

Carpenters Crpntr 8,884 3,696 26.5 63.6

Electricians Elctrcn 35,138 11,861 18.5 54.8

Masons Mason 593 167 9.1 32.2

Mechanics/Repairers M/R 21,029 6,505 19.4 62.6

Miners/Drillers M/D 2,131 86 1.2 30.2

Misc. Repair/Construction MR/C 50,691 14,022 14.8 53.5

Painters Paint 5,171 2,110 27.9 68.5

Pipe Fitter PipeFit 14,905 6,705 54.1 120.2

Handlers/Laborers/Helpers Labors 30,032 10,499 29.6 84.8
13

Finding 1: Response and Reply

NIOSH Initial Response (August 23, 2007): NIOSH believes that the goal of 

favorable treatment for construction trade workers who were unmonitored, or who 

were monitored but are deficient in some portion of their records for a period of 

time, has been achieved by assigning doses that are among the highest observed on 

any site. Any refinement in the model with respect to subgroups of construction 

occupations is not necessary.

SC&A Reply (June 20, 2008): SC&A believes that this is a policy decision — what 

constitutes “claimant favorable” for a generic procedure? It’s already been 

established that “claimant favorable” is in the 90% to 95% realm. The policy 

question that needs answering is 90%/95% of whom? — the entire DOE population, 

the entire site population, the site’s CTW population, a specific trade’s population.

It’s SC&A’s recommendation that this issue be transferred to OTIB-0020, where a 

statement alerting the dose reconstructor that certain construction trades (e.g., 

pipefitters) may have received higher exposures than the CTW as a whole, and 

therefore, additional ‘conservatism’ should be included in the dose reconstruction 

when the claimant belongs to one of these trades.

13
14

Finding 1: Resolution

November 14, 2011: NIOSH added the following to ORAUT-OTIB-0020:

For routinely exposed workers (i.e., workers who were expected to have been 

monitored), the 95th-percentile dose should be applied. Also note that certain 

construction trades (e.g., pipefitters) might have received higher exposures than 

construction trade workers in general; therefore, they might fall into the 

category of workers who were expected to have been monitored. 

14
15

Finding 1: Closed

SC&A agreed that this change to OTIB-0020 addressed OTIB-0052 Finding 1, 

and recommended this finding be closed.

On April 11, 2012, the Subcommittee concurred and closed Finding 1, as well 

as related Findings 15 and 16.

SC&A also recommended a PER be developed to determine if any pipefitters 

who had their doses reconstructed using OTIB-0052 methodology between 

Revisions 0 and 1 need to have their doses revised.

15