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 Augusta, Georgia 

March 12, 2013
ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Summary

Exposures to construction trade workers (CTWs) are 

different from most other workers at a site by virtue 

of nature of employment and exposure – frequently 

short term but with a high dose rate

As such, exposure data from other workers may not 

apply to CTWs

2
ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Summary, 

Continued

This procedure provides guidance for developing a coworker 

model for unmonitored CTW and compares doses received by 

monitored CTWs to doses received by all monitored workers 

(AMWs) 

For the DOE complex, most internal and external annual doses 

received by CTWs are bounded by those received by AMWs

When CTWs doses exceeded those of AMWs, OTIB-0052 

provides 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 

August 29, 2007 to October 14, 2008 –

 Five WG/SC discussions

Feb 17, 2011 – Revision 1

July 2011 – SC&A Review of Revision 1

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

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)

5
Findings Summary: OTIB-0052

16 Findings in total– complete histories captured in the 

Board Review System (BRS)

http://app-cincdcas.cdc.gov:8106/documents/default.aspx?mode=ASSIGNED

15 findings are Closed; one is in Abeyance

Resolution spanned 5 Years; July 2007 – July 2012

The following slides provide summary information on 

resolution of each Finding – Details in BRS and handout

6
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

7

# Finding Resolution

1 Does not address differences 

in doses received by 

different construction 

occupations.

November 14, 2011 - Closed

NIOSH added a paragraph to ORAUT-OTIB-0020 

explaining that for routinely exposed workers 

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

monitored), the 95th-percentile dose should be 

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 July 30, 2007 

report where on page 77 they postulate a 

reason for relatively low CTW exposure during 

early years of site operations.
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

8

# Finding Resolution

3 The dose databases do not 

always identify who were 

CTWs, and for CTWs, what 

were their occupations.

June 2008 – Closed

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response that 

the dose databases constitute the best available 

source of information for a large population. The 

Subcommittee concluded that the issue should 

be Closed.

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.

June 2008 – Closed 

While developing OTIB-0052 NIOSH determined 

that a better course of action was to use actual 

CTW bioassay data rather than assumed intakes 

based on air concentration (which was the basis 

for the CPWR discussions).
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

9

# 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 limitation on the 

use of the internal dose reconstruction portions 

of ORAUT-OTIB-0052. Closed based on the 

change made by NIOSH in Revision and SC&A's 

concurrence.

6 Does not address how to 

determine CTW doses at 

sites that do not have a 

coworker OTIB.

June 24, 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response that 

for sites lacking coworker studies, the dose for 

unmonitored CTWs is reconstructed in the same 

way as other unmonitored workers with a 

potential for exposure or intakes.
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

10

# Finding Resolution

7 Does not address how to 

determine neutron CTW 

doses.

June 24, 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response 

(provided in August 2007) that external doses 

were not intentionally differentiated according to 

gamma or neutron doses. 

8 All SRS external doses are 

from the HPAREH. Need to 

evaluate other dose 

databases, e.g., 

Fayerweather, SRSABST.

June 24, 2008 – Closed 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH Initial Response 

(provided in August 2007) that the HPAREH was 

shown to be claimant favorable relative to the 

other SRS databases. 
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

11

# Finding Resolution

9 Evaluation is based on DOE 

annual exposure report. Need 

to address the MUD dose 

database for INL.

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

Closed based on SC&A's concurrence that the 

data in the Annual Reports is equivalent to the 

MUD data for the overlapping time periods.

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.

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

Closed based on a clarifying statement that 

NIOSH added to OTIB-0052 Rev 1, Section 5.13.

11 Claimant favorability of OTIB0052 approach for INL early 

period internal dose (to 1965) 

cannot be determined.

July 14, 2011 – Closed 

Closed based on the statement that NIOSH added 

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

12

# 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 an editorial 

change to replace the current wording in Section 

6 of Rev. 01. NOTE: This agreed upon wording has 

not yet been inserted into OTIB-0052, so the 

status of this finding is In Abeyance, rather than 

Closed.

13 The CTW doses need to be 

compared consistently to 

either AMWs or Non-CTWs. 

Currently, different sections 

perform different 

comparisons.

April 10, 2012 – Closed 

NIOSH demonstrated that this had a minor effect 

on the results (i.e., less than the margin of 

uncertainty for dosimetry programs, ~30%). 

Subcommittee changed status to Closed
OTIB-0052 Review Findings

13

# Finding Resolution

14 The handling of ‘missing dose’ 

needs to be consistent. 

Currently, some sections 

include ‘missing dose’ while 

others do not.

July 31, 2012 – Closed 

NIOSH demonstrated that the inclusion of missed dose 

had a minor effect on the CTW to AMW ratio 

(i.e., less than the margin of uncertainty for dosimetry 

programs, ~30%). 

15 No instructions are given as to 

what to do if high or low 

cumulative exposures are 

suspected.

April 11, 2012 – Closed 

Transferred to OTIB-0020; Statement added to OTIB0020 to alert the dose reconstructor that certain CTWs 

may need special consideration. (See the discussion 

under Finding 1.)

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.

April 11, 2012 – Closed 

Transferred to OTIB-0020; Statement added to OTIB0020 to alert the dose reconstructor that certain CTWs 

may need special consideration. (See the discussion 

under Finding 1.)
Questions?

14