Page 1 of 94

DOE Review Release 12/05/2016 

Internal Coworker Dosimetry Data for the 

Savannah River Site

ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Rev. 03

Effective Date: 11/22/2016

Supersedes: Revision 02

Subject Expert(s): Matthew G. Arno, James M. Mahathy, and Nancy Chalmers

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Matthew G. Arno, Document Owner

Approval Date: 11/22/2016

Concurrence: Signature on File

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence Date: 11/22/2016

Concurrence: Signature on File

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 11/22/2016

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 11/22/2016

Approval: Signature on File

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Approval Date: 11/22/2016

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 2 of 94

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

02/08/2013 00 New technical information bulletin to provide internal coworker data 

for the Savannah River Site. Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH 

review comments. Training required: As determined by the 

Objective Manager. Initiated by Matthew Arno. 

04/01/2013 01 Revision initiated to correct the values provided in Tables 5-6, Type 

S uranium intake rates for 1968 through 2007, 5-10, changed end 

date from 2006 to 2007, A-3, plutonium bioassay data for 1955 

through 2007, and A-8, neptunium bioassay data for 1991 through 

2007. Incorporates formal internal review comments. No changes 

were made as a result of formal NIOSH review. No sections were 

deleted. Training required: As determined by the Objective 

Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno. 

12/16/2013 02 Revision initiated to add dose reconstruction guidance for 

radionuclide assignment in response to an ABRWH request. Text 

added in Section 5.0 and a new Table 5-1 added. Intake rates for 

Cm and Cf added for the pre-1995 time period. Incorporates formal 

internal and NIOSH review comments. Training required: As 

determined by the Objective Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno.

11/22/2016 03 Revision initiated to address the coworker study Implementation 

Guide requirements for americium, thorium, and tritium. Incorporates 

formal internal and NIOSH review comments. Constitutes a total 

rewrite of the document. Training required: As determined by the 

Objective Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 3 of 94

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 7

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 General Methods ..................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Data Sources................................................................................................................ 9

3.1.1 Completeness of Claims Tracking System Data........................................... 10

3.2 Stratification................................................................................................................ 10

3.2.1 Worker Classification Background................................................................ 10

3.2.2 Worker Classification Methodology .............................................................. 13

3.2.3 Worker Classification Quality Assurance...................................................... 16

3.3 Evaluation of Missed Dose ......................................................................................... 16

4.0 Radionuclide Analyses........................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Americium .................................................................................................................. 16

4.1.1 Data Adequacy ............................................................................................ 16

4.1.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ................................................................ 16

4.1.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers........................................ 17

4.1.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques .................................................. 19

4.1.1.4 Paired Measurements Sample Variance ................................... 19

4.1.2 Data Validation............................................................................................. 20

4.1.2.1 Logbook Data Completeness .................................................... 20

4.1.2.2 Data Quality .............................................................................. 20

4.1.2.3 Data Interpretation..................................................................... 21

4.1.2.4 Data Exclusion .......................................................................... 21

4.1.3 Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................... 22

4.1.4 Intake Modeling............................................................................................ 22

4.2 Tritium ........................................................................................................................ 24

4.2.1 Data Adequacy ............................................................................................ 24

4.2.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ................................................................ 24

4.2.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers........................................ 25

4.2.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques .................................................. 26

4.2.2 Data Validation............................................................................................. 26

4.2.3 Intake Modeling and Statistical Analysis....................................................... 27

4.3 Plutonium ................................................................................................................... 27

4.4 Uranium...................................................................................................................... 27

4.5 Cobalt-60.................................................................................................................... 27

4.6 Cesium-137................................................................................................................ 27

4.7 Neptunium.................................................................................................................. 28

4.8 Thorium ...................................................................................................................... 28

5.0 Guidance for Dose Reconstructors on Assignment of Intakes and Doses .............................. 31

5.1 Americium .................................................................................................................. 31

5.2 Tritium ........................................................................................................................ 34

5.3 Plutonium ................................................................................................................... 35

5.4 Uranium...................................................................................................................... 35

5.5 Cobalt-60.................................................................................................................... 35
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 4 of 94

5.6 Cesium-137................................................................................................................ 35

5.7 Neptunium.................................................................................................................. 35

5.8 Thorium ...................................................................................................................... 35

6.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 35

7.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 36

References ........................................................................................................................................ 37

ATTACHMENT A BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS ........... 41

ATTACHMENT B EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA ........................... 53

ATTACHMENT C COWORKER DATA FIGURES ....................................................................... 57

ATTACHMENT D HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES.................................................. 68

ATTACHMENT E QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS ............................................................... 76

ATTACHMENT F SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS, 

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 .................................................................... 83

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

3-1 Construction trade crafts with roll and craft codes .................................................................. 14

3-2 CTW determination job titles .................................................................................................. 14

3-3 Master Occupation Table data source QA check results ........................................................ 16

4-1 Logbook data completeness estimate .................................................................................... 20

4-2 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretions rates of americium, 1964 to 1989...................... 22

4-3 Tritium annual doses and GSDs............................................................................................. 28

4-4 Extraction efficiencies with DDCP .......................................................................................... 29

5-1 Radionuclides of concern potentially present at SRS facilities................................................ 32

5-2 Type M 241Am intake rates...................................................................................................... 34

5-3 Tritium annual doses and GSDs............................................................................................. 34

5-4 Type M thorium-232 intake rates............................................................................................ 35

5-5 Type S thorium-232 intake rates ............................................................................................ 35

A-1 SRDB Ref IDs for REAC/TS chelation data............................................................................ 42

A-2 1968 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 43

A-3 1970 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 44

A-4 Early 1971 bioassay frequencies............................................................................................ 45

A-5 Late 1971 bioassay frequencies............................................................................................. 47

A-6 1976 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 49

A-7 1985 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 50

A-8 1989 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 52

B-1 Summary of data >1 dpm/d.................................................................................................... 56

C-1 Summary of 241Am intake rates and dates.............................................................................. 64

C-2 Summary of type M 232Th intake rates and dates ................................................................... 67

C-3 Summary of type S 232Th intake rates and dates .................................................................... 67

F-1 CTW Master Table Cross Reference...................................................................................... 86

F-2 CTW Occupation Titles .......................................................................................................... 87
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 5 of 94

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

3-1 Job Plans ...............................................................................................................................12

3-2 Procedure review with Crafts, DuPont, and Construction ....................................................... 13

4-1 Special Work Permit...............................................................................................................18

4-2 nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot....................................................................... 23

4-3 CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot............................................................................. 23

4-4 Tritium bioassay sample frequency ........................................................................................ 25

4-5 TIOA-DDCP sequential stripping process .............................................................................. 29

4-6 Sample analysis procedure for extracting americium, curium, californium, plutonium, 

neptunium, and enriched uranium. ......................................................................................... 30

B-1 Coefficient of variation of count-specific results...................................................................... 54

B-2 Coefficient of variation of count-specific results, small scale .................................................. 55

C-1 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1964 to 

1967, type M. .........................................................................................................................59

C-2 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 

1970, type M. .........................................................................................................................59

C-3 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1971 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................59

C-4 Predicted 241Am bioassay resulted calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1964 to 1967, 

type M....................................................................................................................................60

C-5 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 

1970, type M ..........................................................................................................................60

C-6 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1971 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................60

C-7 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1964 to 1967, 

type M....................................................................................................................................61

C-8 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1970, 

type M....................................................................................................................................61

C-9 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1971 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................61

C-10 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1964 to 1967, 

type M....................................................................................................................................62

C-11 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1970, 

type M....................................................................................................................................62

C-12 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1971 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................62
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 6 of 94

C-13 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, all years, 

type M....................................................................................................................................63

C-14 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, all years, 

type M....................................................................................................................................63

C-15 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type M..... 63

C-16 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type M..... 64

C-17 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................64

C-18 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................65

C-19 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................65

C-20 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................65

C-21 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 

1989, type S...........................................................................................................................66

C-22 Predicted thorium bioassay resulted calculated using IMBA-derived thorium intake rates 

(line) compared with bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................66

C-23 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type S.....................................................................................................................................66

C-24 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type S.....................................................................................................................................67

D-1a Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha D&D facility on November 18 and 

19, 1981.................................................................................................................................70

D-1b Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha D&D facility on November 18 and 

19, 1981, continued................................................................................................................71

D-2a Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982 .................................................................................................. 71

D-2b Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued................................................................................. 72

D-2c Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued................................................................................. 72

D-2d Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued................................................................................. 73

D-3 Job plan describing work performed by Maintenance to prepare for work to be done by 

Construction...........................................................................................................................74

D-4a Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984..................................... 74

D-4b Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ................... 75

D-4c Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ................... 75
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 7 of 94

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AQL acceptance quality level

CPF Californium Processing Facility

cpm counts per minute

CTW construction trade worker

d day

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

DDCP dibutyl N,N-diethylcarbamylphosphonate

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

dpm disintegrations per minute

DTPA diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid

DWPF Defense Waste Processing Facility

E&I electrician and instrument

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

EU enriched uranium

FP fission product

g gram

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

HDEHP bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid-toluene

HLC high-level cave

HP health physics

HPRED Health Protection Radiation Exposure Database

hr hour

HTO tritiated water vapor

IA induced activity

ID identification (number)

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

L liter

LIP lost in process

LTPD lot tolerance percent defective

MDA minimum detectable amount or activity

MFP mixed fission product

MFPG mixed fission product-gamma

mL milliliter

nCi nanocurie

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NOCTS NIOSH-Division of Compensation Analysis and Support Claims Tracking System
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 8 of 94

NP neptunium (analysis)

NU natural uranium

OPOS one person – one sample

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

pCi picocurie

PEF 238PuO2 Experimental Facility

PRID payroll ID

PSF Plutonium Storage Facility

PuFF 238PuO2 Fuel Form Facility

PUREX plutonium-uranium extraction

QA quality assurance

RBOF Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel

REAC/TS Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site

RRF Resin Regeneration Facility

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

SRS Savannah River Site

SWDF Solid Waste Disposal Facility

TIB technical information bulletin

TIOA triisooctylamine

TWOPOS time-weighted one person – one sample

U.S.C. United States Code

WBC whole-body count

yr year

α producer’s risk (ORAU Team risk)

β consumer’s risk (DCAS risk)

μCi microcurie

μm micrometer

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 9 of 94

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Technical information bulletins (TIBs) are not official determinations made by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working documents that provide 

historical background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of dose reconstructions at 

particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event additional relevant information

is obtained about the affected site(s). TIBs may be used to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of 

individual dose reconstructions.

In this document, the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building, or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy (DOE) facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)].

ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment (ORAUT 

2005a), describes the general process NIOSH uses to analyze bioassay data for the assignment of 

doses to individuals based on coworker results. ORAUT-PLAN-0014, Coworker Data Exposure 

Profile Development (ORAUT 2004a), describes the approach and processes to develop reasonable 

exposure profiles based on available dosimetric information for workers at DOE sites. Interim 

Guidance Criteria for the Evaluation and Use of Coworker Datasets (NIOSH 2015) provides the 

criteria to evaluate the adequacy and completeness of coworker data. In the sections below, the data 

and evaluations required by the guidance are provided for each evaluated radionuclide.

Bioassay data in the NIOSH-Division of Compensation Analysis and Support Claims Tracking System 

(NOCTS) for Savannah River Site (SRS) employees was used to develop a representative database 

of coworker bioassay data using the guidance of ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Use of Claimant Datasets for 

Coworker Modeling (ORAUT 2016a), and NIOSH (2015).

A statistical analysis of the data was performed according to ORAUT-OTIB-0019 (ORAUT 2005a) and 

ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Analysis of Stratified Coworker Datasets (ORAUT 2014b). The results were 

entered in the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) computer software to obtain intake 

rates for the assignment of dose distributions.

2.0 PURPOSE

Some employees at DOE sites were not monitored for potential intakes of radioactive material, or the 

records of such monitoring are incomplete or unavailable. In such cases, data from monitored 

coworkers can be used to assign an internal dose to address potential intakes of radioactive material. 

The purpose of this TIB is to provide monitored coworker information for calculating and assigning 

occupational internal doses to employees at SRS for whom no or insufficient monitoring records exist.

Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, 

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 6.0.

3.0 GENERAL METHODS

This section provides information on the general selection characteristics of the data and methods of 

analysis. More detailed radionuclide-specific information is provided in Section 4.0. 

3.1 DATA SOURCES

There are two basic data sources for the coworker study. The first is NOCTS bioassay data from 

energy employees who worked at SRS. The second is data from laboratory logbooks for americium 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 10 of 94

 

and neptunium. For these radionuclides, there is insufficient NOCTS bioassay data available to 

perform a coworker study. The NOCTS sources are discussed in this section and the logbook data 

sources are discussed in the radionuclide-specific discussions below.

For each data source, the data entry process was subjected to quality assurance checks in 

accordance with ORAUT 2016b. This report describes a sampling plan that computes “transcription” 

error rates, which quantify the degree to which an electronic dataset agrees with the original hardcopy 

records. The sampling plan is used to select a representative sample of the data and to estimate the 

transcription error rates. Statistical sampling techniques in which a comparison of the electronic 

dataset to the original data is performed after the transcription is complete is used to confirm that the 

specified unacceptable error rates have not been exceeded and to generate error rate confidence 

intervals. Sampling plans for “critical” fields are created with an unacceptable error rate of 1% or 

higher, while plans for “all” fields have an unacceptable error rate of 5% or higher. Critical fields are 

those fields containing an analytical result or that are used to identify and individual (payroll 

identification number).

3.1.1 Completeness of Claims Tracking System Data

For the period before availability of the HPRED data (before 1991), NOCTS data was used as the 

best available compilation of data in a usable form (i.e., electronic spreadsheet or database). This 

dataset contained 260,412 tritium bioassay results and 260,607 non-tritium bioassay results for 

samples submitted by 1,520 workers between 1954 and 1990. NOCTS data is not complete. 

However, the NOCTS data is assumed to be a random sampling that can be considered a 

representative database of coworker bioassay data based on the analysis in ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Use 

of Claimant Datasets for Coworker Modeling (ORAUT 2016a). This analysis demonstrated that, for 

three evaluated cases, claimant datasets can be considered to be random samples of the complete 

dataset and that the justification provided the basis for applying this assumption to other sites and 

datasets.

3.2 STRATIFICATION

Two classifications of workers were evaluated: construction trade workers (CTWs) and nonconstruction trade workers (nonCTWs). CTWs at SRS, also referred to as building trades workers, fit 

into two categories. The first consists of workers hired by the site prime contractor tending to stay in 

mostly permanent employment, while the second consists of workers brought in temporarily and often 

for short periods to perform specific tasks. Many of the workers in the second category have repeat 

temporary employment at either SRS or other DOE sites. From the onset of construction at SRS 

through 1989, workers in the first category were employed by DuPont while workers in the second 

category were employed by subcontractors such as B.F. Shaw Company, Miller-Dunn Electric 

Company, and North Brothers Company. CTWs in the first category were assigned to DuPont Roll 

number 2. Workers in the second category were assigned to Roll 4 and some to Roll 5 and were 

assigned a two-digit craft code. For example, craft code 20 was “boilermaker” (DuPont 1954). In 

1989, Bechtel Savannah River took over construction duties at SRS. Bechtel tended to use CTWs 

hired through subcontracted companies rather than direct hire.

3.2.1 Worker Classification Background

At SRS, CTWs were deployed temporarily but frequently for short periods to perform specific tasks 

usually pertaining to facility construction and modification, system maintenance, and decontamination. 

These types of jobs were performed by workers in both categories. Workers from both categories 

worked around the site, while production and operation staff normally worked at fixed locations. While 

workers assigned to Roll 2 were employed directly by DuPont Construction and Bechtel Savannah 

River, workers in Rolls 4 and 5, or subcontractors, were employed at SRS for periods ranging from a 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 11 of 94

 

few days to years. One electrician (NOCTS Claim redacted) worked lengthy periods between 1958 

and 1975, while another (NOCTS Claim redacted) worked varying periods from 1955 through 1966. 

Workers from each of the rolls were assigned to do jobs. Some tasks, such as painting, were mostly 

performed by workers in Roll 4 and some in Roll 5, while others such as instrument maintenance were 

mostly performed by workers in Roll 2. Maintenance and decontamination type tasks shared common 

exposure profiles where workers, in some of the jobs, could be exposed to higher levels of radiation 

from surface and/or airborne contamination.

Bingham et al. (1997) stated that DOE in Congressional testimony said it is likely that the greatest 

risks to workers on its sites involve mainly the construction workers, including those who are involved 

in decommissioning, dismantling of facilities, and in maintenance or repair activities. According to 

SRS procedures, Health Physics (HP) provided the same level of job planning and monitoring to 

these tasks as it did with operation and production tasks (DuPont 1959–1971, DuPont undated a). 

HP surveyed and collected air monitoring samples in all areas where release of contamination was 

possible. NIOSH has collected air monitoring data for areas where known CTW work was performed. 

Examples of personal monitoring include monitoring of a job by a CTW on Roll 4, subsequent 

monitoring on CTW contamination in a job in H Area in 1972 (DuPont 1972), and monitoring of two 

CTW workers on Roll 2 contaminated in a similar job in F Area in 1974 (DuPont 1974). Two Roll 2 

CTW workers were exposed to high concentrations of airborne curium contamination while working in 

Savannah River Laboratory in 1978 (DuPont undated c). In 1979, a Roll 4 CTW received an intake of 

radioactive material while removing a hood at Savannah River Laboratory (DuPont undated c). These 

examples and others show that CTW workers in Rolls 2, 4, and 5 were subjected to similar potential 

paths of radiation exposure and that both were monitored. External dose and bioassay data received 

from the Department of Energy (DOE) for former SRS workers also support both of those.

Therefore, permanent workers in Roll 2 who performed maintenance or decontamination tasks should 

be included in the same cohort as workers who performed such type of tasks from Roll 4 or 5. 

Including both groups is supported by work previously done within the DOE complex. In Surveillance 

of Former Construction Workers at Oak Ridge Reservation, the authors identified two categories of 

CTWs very similar to the two categories at SRS but included workers from both categories in one 

CTW population for surveillance and evaluation (Bingham et al. 1997). In Savannah River Building 

Trades Medical Screening Program: A Needs Assessment, the authors’ intended population was 

“building and CTWs who have been employed mainly by subcontractors at DOE sites” but included 

workers that had mostly permanent employment with the construction subcontractors. While that 

definition does not specifically include building trade workers employed by DuPont Construction, 

those workers performing building and construction trades should be included because the report’s 

goal was those “mainly” employed by subcontractors. Lastly, the website for the DOE-funded Building 

Trades National Screening Program states this as the criteria for being included as a CTW (CPWR 

2016): 

You performed construction work (for either the prime contractor or subcontractors) at 

any time in the past at any of the following: Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) or 

Department of Energy (DOE) sites associated with the research or production of nuclear 

weapons.

The population of CTWs at SRS includes people that worked for the prime and subcontracted 

construction contractors. A previous SRS employee of DuPont made the following statement in a 

worker outreach meeting in 2008 (NIOSH 2008, p. 13): 

[Name Redacted] stated that although the site profile accounts for missed dose, he 

believes that NIOSH cannot account for the missed dose for unmonitored workers who 

were in and out of the “hot” areas all the time. [Name Redacted] explained that the E&I 

mechanics were like the construction workers named in the proposed SEC [Special 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 12 of 94

 

Exposure Cohort] class in that they did not work in a specific area like the production 

workers did.

While the occupation “E&I mechanic” was cited by the former worker, other prime contractor 

craftspeople worked across the site performing maintenance type tasks. Portions of three job plans 

for a set of connected work in Building 773-A Rooms C-135/C-139 are shown in Figure 3-1. Work 

was performed by construction carpenters, E&I mechanics, and maintenance mechanics, which 

supports the premise that both DuPont and subcontracted CTWs performed similar work for short 

periods across SRS. Additional examples are shown in Attachment D.

Figure 3-1. Job Plans. 

SRS HP treated construction and DuPont Roll 2 crafts the same by procedure for job evaluation as 

evidenced in Figure 3-2. As stated, workers in the CTW population would perform frequent tasks of 

generally short duration that could nevertheless present a potential for external and internal radiation 

exposure. Bingham et al. (1997) provided the following set of workers for the Oak Ridge study.

• Carpenters

• Ironworkers

• Electricians
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 13 of 94

 

• Painters

• Asbestos Workers or Insulators

• Pipefitters or Steamfitters

• Cement Masons

• Laborers

• Bricklayers

• Boilermakers

• Mechanics or Millwrights

• Operating Engineers or Heavy Equipment Operators

• Sheet Metal Workers

• Roofers

• Truck Drivers

Figure 3-2. Procedure review with Crafts, DuPont, and Construction. 

For SRS, the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights compiled the following list in Bingham et al. (1997). It 

identified the same list, although laborers, roofers, and truck drivers were identified by their unions. 

Truck drivers meet the criteria of a CTW at Savannah River Site. They frequently hauled radioactive 

wastes to the tank farms, to the burial grounds or to the burning pits. Workers with the job title E&I

Mechanic went to areas of the site to perform installation, maintenance, and repair of control and 

measurement equipment; they had a similar exposure profile to that of electricians and mechanics.

Table 3-1 lists the job titles from SRS that should be included in CTW data population. This list 

includes all the occupations in the list of construction worker trades in ORAUT-OTIB-0052, 

Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers (ORAUT 2014c). 

SRS payroll number and craft code (DuPont 1954) are included.

3.2.2 Worker Classification Methodology

The determination of whether an individual is a CTW is based on the person’s payroll identification 

(ID) number prefix and their occupation. The payroll ID prefix is the primary designator, but the 

occupation title is used to exclude or include some occupations where the payroll ID prefix would 

otherwise erroneously indicate the person is or is not a CTW. The method consists of using the 

payroll ID number associated with the bioassay data for which a CTW determination is needed, if 

available, and an occupation title extrapolated from the datasets for which those occupation titles are 

available. For this coworker study, workers were considered CTWs if they had a Roll 4 or higher 

payroll ID prefix, except if their job title was one of the nonCTW job titles in Table 3-2. If no Roll code 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 14 of 94

 

Table 3-1. Construction trade crafts with roll and craft codes.

Craft Roll and craft code

Boilermaker Roll 4, craft code 20

Carpenter Roll 2, 4, craft code 6

Concrete Worker (or cement worker or mason) Roll 4, craft code 8

Construction Worker Roll 4

Driver Roll 2, 4, craft code 10

E&I Mechanic Roll 2

Electrician Roll 2

Heavy Equipment Operator Roll 2, 4, craft code 14

Insulator Roll 2, 4, craft code 31

Ironworker Roll 2, 4, craft code 21

Laborer Roll 2, 4, craft code 5

Mechanic Roll 2

Millwright Roll 2, 4, craft code 18

Painter Roll 2, 4, craft code 33

Pipefitter (or plumber) Roll 2, 4, craft code 26

Rigger (or Laborer) Roll 2, 4, craft code 5

Roofer Roll 2, 4

Sheetmetal Worker Roll 2, 4, craft code 21

Table 3-2. CTW determination job titles. 

CTW occupations

Boilermaker

Carpenter

Concrete worker

Construction worker

Driver

E&I Tech

Electrician

Heavy equipment operator

Insulator

Ironworker

Laborer

Maintenance

Mechanic

Painter

Rigger

Sheetmetal worker

Welder

nonCTW occupations

Machinist

Security

Engineer

Clerical

Pilot

Instructor

Manager

Human Resources

Supervisor

Escort

Laundry

HP
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 15 of 94

nonCTW occupations

Administrative Assistant

Specialist

Assistant

Layout

Reactor Operator

QA

Cafeteria

is available, the person is assumed to be Roll 2 and the designation is made based on the occupation

title. 

There are two applications of this methodology.

1. Self-contained dataset. A dataset internally containing all the data necessary to make the

CTW determination. The datasets that meet this description are the americium and neptunium

logbook data and the NOCTS whole-body count (WBC) data. In these cases, the worker’s

occupation title has been directly obtained from the worker history cards on each bioassay

date. The datasets also contain the payroll ID number, which is also verified from the worker

history cards. CTW determinations are directly made from this information.

2. Dataset without occupation titles and/or payroll ID numbers. The datasets that meet this

description are the NOCTS in vitro data (other than tritium) and the NOCTS tritium data, which

is a separate dataset. The NOCTS in vitro data is the source for plutonium, uranium, and

strontium plus fission product (FP) bioassay data. In these cases, the following procedure is

followed to make the CTW determination.

• Create a “master” occupation and payroll ID lookup table by merging:

– Americium logbook data

– Neptunium logbook data

– NOCTS WBC data

– ORAUT-RPRT-0058 in vitro data

• Determine individual’s name from NOCTS based on the claim number for a given

bioassay sample (tritium dataset only)

• For each bioassay result in the dataset (NOCTS in vitro or tritium data), find the

bioassay date preceding or closest to it within 5 years for that person in the master

lookup table. Base the lookup on the payroll ID number if available or the person’s

name otherwise.

• If a preceding or closest bioassay date within 5 years is found:

– Assign the occupation title (and payroll ID number if needed) from the bioassay

date in the master lookup table to the bioassay result.

• If no preceding or closest bioassay data within 5 years is found (person not listed in the

master lookup table):

– Manually look up the occupation title and payroll ID number (if needed) on the

bioassay date from the worker history cards.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 16 of 94

 

• Make the CTW determination based on the payroll ID number and assigned occupation 

title.

For this revision, the MFP analysis was based on the source NOCTS data rather than the ORAUTRPRT-0058 in vitro data created specifically for the MFP stratification report (ORAUT 2012b). This is 

due to changes in how MFPs were evaluated. Therefore, the only future use of this dataset is via its 

inclusion in the master lookup table described above. Similarly, the neptunium data for the neptunium 

stratification report (ORAUT 2012a) has no future use.

3.2.3 Worker Classification Quality Assurance

As discussed above, a Master Occupation Table was compiled from four data sources: americium 

logbook data, neptunium logbook data, NOCTS WBC data, and ORAUT-RPRT-0058 in vitro data. 

The data entry accuracy for each of these sources was evaluated in accordance with ORAUT-RPRT0078, Technical Basis for Sampling Plan (ORAUT 2016b); the fields containing the payroll ID number 

and the numerical sample results were evaluated with a maximum 1% allowable error rate. All other 

fields from the hardcopy records were evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable error rate. Each 

dataset passed the quality assurance (QA) check, the results of which are summarized in Table 3-3. 

The details of the results of the evaluation are contained in Attachment E.

Table 3-3. Master Occupation Table data source QA check results. 

Data source

1% check results 

(95% confidence interval)

5% check results 

(95% confidence interval)

Americium logbook data 0.59% (0.39%–0.86%) 0.69% (0.25%–1.49%)

Neptunium logbook data 0.67% (0.46%–0.95%) 1.53% (0.83%–2.59%)

NOCTS WBC data 0.62% (0.41%–0.89%) 2.17% (1.31%–3.37)

ORAUT-RPRT-0058 in vitro data 0.43% (0.27%–0.67%) 0.12% (0.0042%–0.65%)

3.3 EVALUATION OF MISSED DOSE

For individual dose reconstructions, missed dose is assigned based on results that are less than the 

minimum detectable activity or amount (MDA) or reporting level of the results and fitted dose is 

typically separately assigned based on results above this level. For internal dose coworker studies, 

missed and fitted dose are addressed simultaneously by the use of all bioassay data regardless of 

whether an entry is above or below the MDA. The actual uncensored <MDA results are used where 

available, and the techniques used to fit distributions to censored datasets in ORAUT-RPRT-0053 

(ORAUT 2014b) are used otherwise. This is consistent with the general guidelines in Section 3.4.2 of 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060 (ORAUT 2014a).

4.0 RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSES

4.1 AMERICIUM

4.1.1 Data Adequacy

4.1.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, and related administrative 

controls in a Bioassay Control procedure. The earliest available version of the procedure is 

Revision 2 dated January 2, 1968 (DuPont 1968). It indicates an americium sample size of 500 mL

was used with a “positive result” level of 1 dpm/250 mL and a resample level of 5 dpm/250 mL. The 

procedure does not specify americium sampling frequencies. The sample request process indicates 

that 24-hour composite samples required approval by an HP Senior Supervisor or above, indicating 

that routine samples were probably not 24-hour samples.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 17 of 94

In Revision 3 of the Bioassay Control procedure (DuPont 1970), the positive level for total activity from 

trivalent actinides (americium, curium, and californium) was noted as 0.3 dpm/1.5L and the sample 

value was used for the resample level. The sample size was reduced to 250 mL. An intake was 

considered confirmed if the initial bioassay results was >1 dpm/1.5L and a resample was >0.3 

dpm/1.5L. The sampling frequencies for various personnel are provided in Attachment A. The 

process for requesting samples was similar to the previous process, but approval of an HP Senior 

Supervisor or above was no longer required for 24-hour samples. Additional instructions were

provided for collecting samples in the event of suspected inhalations, ingestions, injections, skin 

contaminations, or whenever airborne contamination exceeded control guides. In 1971, additional 

guidance for construction division personnel was added but with no specific guidance for trivalent

actinides. “Other nuclides,” which would have included the trivalent actinides, were monitored as 

specified by area HP in the construction job plans (DuPont 1971a).

The periodicity of urine sampling changed throughout the 1970s for various work locations and as a 

result of the introduction of in vivo counting (DuPont 1971a, 1971b, 1976). The sampling frequencies 

for various personnel at various times are provided in Attachment A.

The 1990 Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for trivalent actinides

specified quarterly urine bioassay, an annual chest count, semiannual fecal bioassay, and personal 

air sampling (WSRC 1990). If monitored by workgroup, the urine bioassay decreased to annually 

unless a member of the workgroup had a confirmed intake. Trivalent actinide monitoring was required 

for the F-Area New Special Recovery facility. 

4.1.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vitro bioassay for trivalent actinides show urinalysis data back to about 1963. As 

discussed above in the description of the sample collection process, there was guidance for whom to 

sample by 1970, which is consistent with a substantial increase in the number of collected samples in 

1969. With additional experience and history, the number of collected samples, both by workers in 

the monitoring program and frequency of samples decreased as can be seen in Table 4-1. The 

sampling frequency decreased during this same period as detailed in Tables A-2 through A-8, 

resulting in some of the decrease in the total number of samples per year. The inference is that the 

increased sampling during the early 1970s provided the basis for selection of those worker groups, 

work locations, and job classifications for which trivalent actinide monitoring was needed and for an 

appropriate sampling frequency. The transition to workgroup monitoring in the 1980s also resulted in 

a reduction in the number of samples collected.

DuPont workers, which included Roll 2 CTWs, were part of the routine monitoring program in the 

bioassay control procedures detailed in Section 4.1.1.1. The monitoring program was based on work 

location with the radionuclides for which monitoring was performed and bioassay frequency was 

chosen based on the exposure potential in each facility. Construction division workers were not 

necessarily included in this routine monitoring program. The monitoring program for the construction 

division was different in that it was job-specific. Area HPs specified the bioassay monitoring for each 

specific job plan. Those nonCTWs in areas with the potential for exposure, a decision made during 

job plan review, were thus included in the monitoring program. Figure 4-1 shows a special work 

permit with a box to check if bioassay is required.

Both of these types of monitoring programs can be considered variations on routine, representative 

sampling. For workers normally present in an area (i.e., nonCTWs and Roll 2 CTWs), the monitoring 

is specified on an annual basis in the bioassay control procedures. For workers intermittently present 

in an area (i.e., some CTWs, the monitoring was based on the job plan). For the duration of the job 

plan and the duration of the exposure potential, the required monitoring was specified. The key point 

is that in both instances monitoring was based on exposure potential rather than being driven by 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 18 of 94

 

Figure 4-1. Special Work Permit.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 19 of 94

incidents. In either case, if an incident did occur, incident-driven sampling would have been 

performed.

SRS also used workgroup monitoring as a representative sampling method to confirm the lack of 

intakes. The bioassay frequency of individual workers was reduced while still monitoring the entire 

group. Effectively, it was assumed that a worker’s intake potential could be based on the bioassay 

data for coworkers, very similar to this coworker study. If coworker bioassay data was negative, then 

it was assumed that there was no intake for all the workers in the workgroup. If an intake (positive 

bioassay result) was confirmed, then bioassay frequencies for the entire workgroup increased. 

Indications are that this practice began in the 1980s, which is consistent with the observed decrease 

in the number of bioassay records available in NOCTS.

4.1.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

Records showing urinalysis for trivalent actinides date back at least to the mid-1960s, using liquid ion 

exchange: triisooctylamine (TIOA) followed by di-2-ethylhexyl phosphoric acid (HDEHP), deposition 

on planchets, and alpha counting. A 10% thenoyl trifluoroacetone in toluene extraction was used to 

remove solids and reduce alpha self-absorption in the samples. Tracer recoveries were greater than 

90% (Butler 1964). The early reporting levels varied from 1 to 3 dpm/1.5 L. In 1964, solid-state 

surface barrier detectors replaced the previous counting method for using alpha track counting (Butler 

and Splichal 1965). Samples were usually analyzed in batches of 20, including spikes and blanks, 

with one blank and two to four spikes in each batch. Multiple counts of a sample (assumed to be 

separate aliquots) was not common until 1969, when the logbook records also start to record 

“dpm/disc” values (DuPont 1963–1970).

In about 1970 an extraction method using the bidentate dibutyl N,N-diethylcarbamylphosphonate 

(DDCP) was developed that allowed sequential separation of plutonium, neptunium, and uranium with 

TIOA, followed by extraction of thorium, americium, curium, berkelium, californium, and einsteinium 

with bidentate. (It would also have captured fermium.) The extraction efficiency for americium was 

89 ±8% (Butler and Hall 1970). The sensitivity of that method was reported to be 0.02 ±0.01

dpm/250 mL or 0.12 dpm/1.5 L for a 24-hour count. The article states that alpha spectrometry can be 

used to identify individual radionuclides but the sensitivity appeared to be based on a gross alpha 

count (Butler and Hall 1970, pp. 3, 4). Samples were analyzed in batches of 20, including spikes and 

blanks, with one blank and two spikes in each batch (DuPont 1970–1973). In 1971, the reporting 

level using gross alpha counting on a solid-state detector was listed as 0.3 dpm/1.5 L (Taylor 2000, 

p. 4). The Butler and Hall article was a report on research and reported the limits obtainable under 

research conditions. The 0.3 dpm/1.5L reporting level provided by Taylor is assumed to be the actual 

reporting level in actual practice under production conditions. 

In 1990, a change in radiochemical processing (ion exchange resin) resulted in a MDA of 0.15 dpm/L

(WSRC 2001, p. 182; Taylor et al 1995, p.79). Alpha spectrometry has been used since 1992 for 

special samples and since 1995 for routine samples with MDAs of 0.064 dpm/L for 241Am and 

0.047 dpm/L for 244Cm and 252Cf (WSRC 2001, p. 58). A review of the recorded data shows that the 

transition from gross alpha to alpha spectrometry was not clean with a few routine samples having 

alpha spectrometry in 1993 and 1994. The gross alpha results are listed as “AmCmCf” in the 

database.

4.1.1.4 Paired Measurements Sample Variance

The americium data from the logbooks contain multiple counts for each sample. Commonly making 

multiple counts began in 1969 and tapered off in the late 1980s. A review of results significantly 

greater than the MDA (i.e., greater than 1 dpm/d) was performed to identify results with significant 

variation in the individual counts. Those with significant variation were investigated further to attempt 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 20 of 94

 

to determine the reason for this variation. This evaluation is contained in Attachment B. The 

conclusion of the evaluation is that the occurrence of samples with significant intra-count variation is 

limited and that inclusion of these samples has an insignificant effect on the overall results.

Data from HPRED does not contain the level of detail necessary to evaluate paired measurements or 

even to determine if there are paired measurements. 

4.1.2 Data Validation

4.1.2.1 Logbook Data Completeness

For the period before availability of the HPRED data (before 1991), data from analytical laboratory 

logbooks was used (DuPont 1961–1969, 1963–1970, 1969, 1969–1973, 1970–1973, 1973–1978, 

1973–1979, 1978–1983, 1979–1980, 1980–1981a,b, 1981–1986, 1986–1989). The quantity of data 

from the logbooks was compared to annual bioassay summaries (DuPont 1963–1967, DuPont 1965–

1971, DuPont 1969–1981) with the number of samples in the logbooks shown as a percentage of the 

number given in the bioassay summaries. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4-1. 

The ability to compare these numbers directly is limited by the fact that the logbooks record the date 

of sample collection while the summaries indicate the number of analyzed samples and include fecal 

samples for 1969 and after. On some occasions samples were not analyzed until months after 

collection. Before 1969, the number of recorded samples in the logbooks exceeds the number in the 

summaries. Beginning in 1969, on average, about 90% of the number of samples in the summaries 

are recorded in the logbooks and fecal samples can be assumed to account for at least part of the 

difference.

Table 4-1. Logbook data completeness estimate. 

Year

Bioassay 

summary # of Am 

samples

Logbook # of Am 

samples

% in 

logbook

1963 11 19 173%

1964 72 75 104%

1965 173 201 116%

1966 295 283 96%

1967 253 298 118%

1968 480 765 159%

1969 1,194 873 73%

1970 2,730 2,150 79%

1971 2,016 1,822 90%

1972 1,820 1,595 88%

1973 1,332 1,266 95%

1974 1,274 1,127 88%

1975 891 848 95%

1976 761 775 102%

1977 593 546 92%

1978 446 430 96%

1979 664 533 80%

1980 387 254 66%

1981 344 343 100%

4.1.2.2 Data Quality

The data entry effort was evaluated in accordance with ORAUT-RPRT-0078 (ORAUT 2016b); the 

fields with the payroll ID number and the numerical sample results were evaluated with a maximum 

1% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.59% with a 95% 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 21 of 94

 

confidence interval of 0.39% to 0.86%. All other fields were evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable 

error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.69% with a 95% confidence 

interval of 0.25% to 1.49%. Therefore, the dataset passed the QA check. The details of the results of 

the evaluation are contained in Attachment E. 

4.1.2.3 Data Interpretation

A single americium urine sample was commonly counted multiple times, usually twice but as many as 

10 times was noted. The data in the logbooks consisted of one or more count rate results for each 

urine sample in units of dpm per disc, depending on how many times a sample was counted (this 

information was not used) and count-specific results in units of net dpm/1.5 L (this information was 

used). Further, a reported value for each sample, also in units of dpm/1.5 L, was usually provided. 

The result in dpm/1.5 L for each count of a sample was generally recorded as an uncensored value 

(i.e., the calculated result was recorded regardless of its value). In contrast, the “reported” values 

were generally censored (i.e., results less than some level, typically the detection or reporting limit 

were reported as a less-than result). Some dpm/1.5 L data that were less than zero were reported as 

zero.

Not all sample records included all this information, and in some instances the count-specific results 

were censored. If count-specific results were available, the valid results were averaged by the Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team to determine the sample result. This value was 

generally uncensored. If count-specific results were not available, the reported values were used, 

many of which were censored.

4.1.2.4 Data Exclusion

Individuals with uptakes of actinides are sometimes treated by chelation to accelerate the excretion of 

the radionuclides. Bioassay data influenced by chelation treatment is not suitable for use in an 

internal dose coworker study due to the altered biokinetics during chelation treatment. A listing of 

individuals who received chelation at SRS was compiled from Site Research Database (SRDB) 

chelation records from the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) (see 

Table A-1). Bioassay data for samples collected within 100 days after receiving chelation treatment 

were not used. In addition, samples marked as LIP (lost in process), those marked DTPA to indicate 

chelation, and those that lacked sufficient identifying information (e.g., sample date or worker ID 

number) were excluded.

Examination of the data revealed occasions during which individuals were involved in incidents that 

resulted in large intakes and excretions. All results for three individuals were excluded for an entire 

year due to an ingestion intake, a plutonium wound intake, and an incident that resulted in the highest 

assigned intake of 244Cm in the history of SRS. These incidents and intakes were characterized by an 

extremely high number of bioassay results, many of which were orders of magnitude higher than the 

bioassay data for other individuals and were considered unrepresentative of the potential exposure to 

an unmonitored worker and were removed. The incidents were:

• One individual was involved in an incident on March 9, 1970. This person’s bioassay data 

were excluded for the remainder of 1970.

• One individual was involved in an incident on March 16, 1972. This person’s bioassay data 

were excluded for the remainder of 1972.

• One individual had a plutonium wound intake on May 8, 1986, that affected the americium 

bioassay results. This person’s bioassay data were excluded for the remainder of 1986.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 22 of 94

 

• Three individuals had false positive results, which were excluded.

The above discussion is a general summary of the method. The detailed statistical analysis 

instructions are in Attachment F.

4.1.3 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the americium bioassay data was performed in accordance with the current 

version of ORAUT-RPRT-0053 (ORAUT 2014b) using the time-weighted one person – one statistic 

(TWOPOS) method. The data were analyzed on an annual basis except for 1981 to 1982, 1983 to 

1984, 1985 to 1986, and 1987 to 1989. These years were merged due to the small amount of CTW 

data available for those years. Table 4-2 provides the results of the statistical analysis. Box-andwhisker plots of the TWOPOS data are shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. Years fit with a binomial 

distribution are not shown because there is not enough uncensored data to create a box and whisker 

plot.

Table 4-2. 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretions rates of americium, 1964 to 1989 (dpm/d)a

. 

Effective 

bioassay 

date

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

# of 

individuals

CTW 

50th 

percentile

CTW 

84th 

percentile

CTW 

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

7/1/1964 0.9676 1.500 1.55 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A

7/1/1965 0.0646 0.459 7.10 124 N/A N/A N/A N/A

7/1/1966 1.3440 2.198 1.64 151 N/A N/A N/A N/A

7/1/1967 1.1763 1.823 1.55 182 1.2433 1.927 1.55 45

7/1/1968 0.4973 1.027 2.06 280 0.4239 1.015 2.39 89

7/1/1969 0.3072 0.782 2.55 286 0.3403 0.792 2.33 94

7/1/1970 0.2603 0.455 1.75 458 0.2363 0.344 1.45 124

7/1/1971 0.1498 0.347 2.32 556 0.1564 0.333 2.13 105

7/1/1972 0.0663 0.219 3.30 540 0.0638 0.171 2.68 112

7/1/1973 0.0308 0.123 3.98 526 0.0383 0.121 3.16 110

7/1/1974 0.0281 0.140 4.99 376 0.0362 0.123 3.40 86

7/1/1975 0.0390 0.151 3.87 377 0.0350 0.147 4.21 95

7/1/1976 0.0336 0.130 3.88 360 0.0351 0.134 3.81 89

7/1/1977 0.0460 0.178 3.87 315 0.0480 0.156 3.25 69

7/1/1978 0.0593 0.248 4.18 160 0.0488 0.237 4.85 53

7/1/1979 0.0624 0.189 3.04 211 0.0487 0.158 3.23 60

7/1/1980 0.0527 0.164 3.12 182 0.0344 0.146 4.23 40

1/1/1982 0.0359 0.151 4.20 425 0.0904 0.482 5.33 47

1/1/1984 0.0351 0.134 3.81 368 0.0557 0.230 4.13 53

1/1/1986 0.0300 0.149 4.95 339 0.0422 0.233 5.51 34

7/1/1988 0.0552 0.219 3.97 369 0.0338 0.203 6.00 23

a. N/A = not applicable.

4.1.4 Intake Modeling

Each result that was used in the intake calculations was assumed to have a normal distribution. A 

uniform absolute error of 1 was applied to all results, thereby assigning the same weight to each 

result. The IMBA program requires results to be in units of activity per day; therefore, all urinalysis 

results were normalized as needed to 24-hour samples using 1,500 mL (the volume of urine assumed 

by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 23 of 94

 

Figure 4-2. nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-3. CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Because of the nature of work at SRS, intakes could have been chronic or acute. However, a series 

of acute intakes can be approximated as a chronic intake. Therefore, intakes were assumed to be 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 24 of 94

 

chronic and to occur through inhalation with a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr and a 5-μm activity 

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

IMBA was used to fit the bioassay results to a series of inhalation intakes. Data were fit as a series of 

chronic intakes. The intake assumptions were based on observed patterns in the bioassay data. 

Periods with constant chronic intake rates were chosen by the selection of periods in which the 

bioassay results were similar. A new chronic intake period was started if the data indicated a 

significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1964 through 

1989 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

Americium intake periods were independently fit using only the bioassay results from the single intake 

period. This method likely results in an overestimate of intakes for exposures that extend through 

multiple assumed intake periods. Only the results in the intake period were selected for use in the 

fitting of each period. Excluded results are shown in light gray or red in the figures in Attachment C; 

included results are shown in dark gray or blue. The results of the statistical analysis that was used to 

calculate the intakes are provided for americium in Table 4-2. 

Results from 1965 were excluded from the nonCTW intake modeling because they were not 

consistent with the results for 1964, 1966, and 1967; this is favorable to claimants. CTW intakes for 

1964 through 1967 were based on the bioassay data for 1967 only. CTW data is not available before

1967 due to the small amount of CTW bioassay data available for that period. Visual examination of 

the nonCTW and CTW data shows similar patterns in excretion rates. Therefore, it was judged that 

1967 adequately represented the excretion rates for 1964 through 1967 for CTWs.

The solid lines in Figures C-1 to C-12 in Attachment C show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates for type M materials for nonCTWs and CTWs. Figures C-13 to C-16 show 

the 50th- and 84th-percentile predicted excretion rates, respectively, from all type M intakes for 

nonCTWs and CTWs. Table C-1 lists the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates along with the 

associated geometric standard deviations (GSDs) from the americium urinalysis.

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 overlay the urinary excretion rates predicted by the intake modeling on the box 

and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. As can be seen, the predicted geometric means (GMs) of 

the excretion rates are favorable to claimants in comparison with the GMs of the TWOPOS data.

4.2 TRITIUM

4.2.1 Data Adequacy

4.2.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

The earliest available version of the Bioassay Control procedure is Revision 2 (DuPont 1968), which

indicates a tritium sample size of one voiding with a “positive level” of 1 μCi/L and a resample level of 

5 μCi/L. The procedure does not specify required tritium sampling frequencies. Revision 3 (DuPont 

1970) contains the same information.

In Revision 5 (DuPont 1971b), there was no positive level and the confirmation level was still 5 μCi/L. 

Most 221-H and H-Area outside facilities workers submitted bioassay samples for tritium analysis

twice a year for tritium. Workers in 100 Areas, 105 Building, 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, 238-H, 241-H, and 

244-H submitted bioassay samples as specified in “local procedures.” For the construction division, 

tritium sampling was specified in the Construction Job Plans or in DPSOP 40-1. In Revisions 7 and 8, 

sampling frequency was still specified in local procedures (DuPont 1976, undated a). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 25 of 94

 

Bioassay control remained unchanged from 1978 through 1985 (DuPont 1985, p. 273) with sampling 

frequency still controlled by local procedures and construction job plans. The 1990 Internal Dosimetry 

Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for tritium specified monthly urine bioassay (WSRC 1990, 

p. 235). In the available tritium dataset, there are over 100,000 bioassay results from individuals who 

submitted more than one sample for tritium analysis on more than one occasion. One third of these 

samples were collected either daily or weekly, and two-thirds were collected within 7 days. This is 

illustrated in Figure 4-4. 

Figure 4-4. Tritium bioassay sample frequency.

4.2.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vitro bioassay for tritium show urinalysis data back to about 1954. As discussed above 

in the description of the sample collection process, there was guidance for whom to sample by 1968. 

Tritium was addressed differently from most other radionuclides in that sampling was more frequent 

and was controlled at the “local” level rather than in plantwide procedures. By 1976, overall guidance 

of whom to monitor was in place but with local control still determining precise sampling frequencies. 

By 1990, facilities with the potential for tritium exposure were using monthly sampling frequencies.

Available NOCTS tritium data on the number of monitored individuals trends the same for CTWs and 

nonCTWs with a peak in the late 1950s and early 1960s after a gradual decline through 1989 with 

intermittent increases.

DuPont workers, which included Roll 2 CTWs, were part of the routine monitoring program. The 

monitoring program was based on work location with the radionuclides for which monitoring was 

performed and bioassay frequency was chosen based on the exposure potential in each facility. 

Construction division workers were not necessarily included in this routine monitoring program. The 

monitoring program for the construction division was different in that it was job-specific. Area HPs 

specified the bioassay monitoring to be performed for each specific job plan. Those nonCTWs in 

areas with the potential for exposure, a decision made during job plan review, were thus included in 

the monitoring program. Figure 4-1 shows a special work permit with a box to check if bioassay is 

required.

Both of these types of monitoring programs can be considered to be variations in routine, 

representative sampling. For workers normally present in an area (i.e., nonCTWs and Roll 2 CTWs, 

the monitoring was specified on an annual basis in the bioassay control procedures). For workers 

intermittently present in an area (i.e., some CTWs), the monitoring was based on the job plan. For the 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 26 of 94

 

duration of the job plan and the duration of the exposure potential, the required monitoring was 

specified. The key point is that in both instances monitoring was based on exposure potential rather 

than being driven by incidents. In either case, if an incident did occur, incident-driven sampling would 

have been performed.

SRS also used workgroup monitoring as a representative sampling method to confirm the lack of 

intakes. The bioassay frequency of individual workers was reduced while still monitoring the entire 

group. Effectively, it was assumed that a worker’s intake potential could be based on the bioassay 

data for coworkers, very similar to this coworker study. If coworker bioassay data was negative, then 

it was assumed that there was no intake for all the workers in the workgroup. If an intake (positive 

bioassay result) was confirmed, then bioassay frequencies for the entire workgroup increased. 

Indications are that this practice began in the 1980s, which is consistent with the observed decrease 

in the number of bioassay records available in NOCTS.

4.2.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

From startup until 1958, tritiated water vapor (HTO) in urine was analyzed by passing hydrogen 

evolved from the urine sample through an ionization chamber; the reported MDA for this method was 

1 μCi/L. In 1958, liquid scintillation counting was initiated and remains in use. The reporting level 

remained at the value of 1 μCi/L until approximately February 1981 when it was reduced to 0.5 μCi/L. 

Based on review of bioassay results, the switch was not clean with some samples dated in December 

1980 and January 1981 reported as <0.5 μCi/L while some samples dated after February 1981 were 

reported as <1 μCi/L. 

The reporting level was reduced again to 0.1 μCi/L in about January 1986. (Again the date is not 

certain with either value being recorded for a few months before and after.) During the 1980s, 

although the reporting level of 0.5 μCi/L was generally used, some results below 0.5 are listed directly, 

(e.g., 0.4 and 0.3). The true MDA was probably well below the reporting level, and these results 

below the reporting level should be considered as real. Quality control was ensured by daily, weekly, 

monthly, and quarterly checks of the bioassay measurement process specified in the DPSOL 47-268 

procedure (WSRC 1990).

A History of Personnel Radiation Dosimetry at the Savannah River Site (Taylor et al. 1995) reports 

that the MDA consistently improved to the current level of 20,000 pCi/L (or 0.02 μCi/L). This MDA 

value was stated in the 1990 technical basis manual so was applicable at least that far back (WSRC 

1990, p. 396). It should be noted that for current analyses, tritium results of 0.05 μCi/L or less are 

reported as “<0.1μCi L-1,” and results between 0.05 μCi/L and 0.1 μCi/L are reported as “0.1 μCi L-1.” 

Results greater than 0.1 μCi/L are reported as measured (to one significant figure) (WSRC 2001, 

p. 181).

Tritium analyses are listed as “T” on the employee bioassay cards. Tritium may also be listed as 

“P-10,” especially in the 1950s. Tritium results in the 1990s were listed on the same summary form as 

external dose monitoring results. They are referred to as sample results with dates and analysis 

results, but the word “tritium” or any other radionuclide identifier is not mentioned directly. 

For tritium results, the denominator used for reporting purposes has always been per liter of urine. 

(The denominator of 1.5 L was never used for tritium as it was for other radionuclides.)

4.2.2 Data Validation

Tritium data are from NOCTS bioassay data as discussed in Section 3.0. The data entry effort was 

evaluated in accordance with ORAUT-RPRT-0078 (ORAUT 2016b); all fields were evaluated with a 

maximum 5% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.69% with 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 27 of 94

 

a 95% confidence interval of 0.25% to 1.49%. Therefore, the dataset passed the QA check. The 

details of the results of the evaluation are contained in Attachment E. 

4.2.3 Intake Modeling and Statistical Analysis

Tritium was evaluated differently from the other radionuclides in this coworker study. For other 

radionuclides, intake rates were determined. For tritium, individual doses were determined and were

statistically evaluated. This is akin to the external dosimetry analysis in external dose coworker 

studies. The protocol in Technical Information Bulletin: Tritium Calculated and Missed Dose 

Estimates (ORAUT 2004b) was used to calculate the dose for each individual with the following rules 

concerning the elapsed time between consecutive samples:

• If there was a single urine sample in a calendar year and it was a less-than result (less than 

the MDA or reporting level), that result was excluded from the analysis because it was 

assumed not to be part of routine monitoring.

• Samples on the same date were ordered from lowest to highest result. 

• All dose was assigned as if it occurred on the bioassay date.

• Type 1 calculations were performed for samples separated by 40 or fewer days.

• Type 3 calculations were performed if there were no other samples within 90 days after a 

sample.

• Type 2 calculations were performed in all other situations.

The doses for a period were then plotted on a lognormal probability plot and the typical parameters 

(GM and GSD) were determined from a linear regression. Individuals who received less than 

0.001 rem at three significant digits (i.e., less than 0.0005 rem), were excluded from the statistical 

analysis. The plotting positions were calculated with i/n – 1/(2n) convention specified in ORAUTPROC-0095, Generating Summary Statistics for Coworker Bioassay Data (ORAUT 2006). Doses for 

1954 to 1990 were calculated from the NOCTS dataset, which is considered a random sample of the 

complete dataset (ORAUT 2016a). Doses for 1991 to 1995 were calculated from the HPRED dataset, 

which is considered a complete dataset. Table 4-3 lists the tritium doses and GSDs to be used for 

each year of potential tritium exposure for CTWs and nonCTWs. 

4.3 PLUTONIUM

RESERVED. Evaluation of plutonium will be added in Revision 4 of this document.

4.4 URANIUM

RESERVED. Evaluation of uranium will be added in Revision 4 of this document.

4.5 COBALT-60

RESERVED. Evaluation of 60Co will be added in Revision 4 of this document.

4.6 CESIUM-137

RESERVED. Evaluation of 137Cs will be added in Revision 4 of this document.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 28 of 94

Table 4-3. Tritium annual doses (rem) and GSDs.

Year

nonCTW 

# of individuals

nonCTW 

50th-percentile 

dose

nonCTW 

GSD

CTW 

# of individuals

CTW 

50th-percentile 

dose

CTW 

GSD

1954 89 0.012 1.83 33 0.012 1.89

1955 103 0.013 1.99 57 0.015 2.16

1956 83 0.019 2.67 53 0.016 2.52

1957 166 0.025 2.76 114 0.025 2.56

1958 243 0.035 2.45 157 0.031 2.36

1959 219 0.034 3.04 112 0.038 2.78

1960 231 0.046 3.12 151 0.042 3.07

1961 227 0.050 2.88 142 0.039 3.37

1962 247 0.051 2.84 186 0.041 2.81

1963 239 0.048 2.49 186 0.040 2.74

1964 218 0.060 3.02 158 0.054 2.84

1965 188 0.055 3.38 113 0.043 2.88

1966 182 0.046 2.89 97 0.031 3.13

1967 174 0.049 2.46 79 0.034 3.00

1968 162 0.051 2.77 91 0.030 2.97

1969 160 0.052 2.43 75 0.031 3.24

1970 156 0.042 2.63 68 0.023 3.50

1971 163 0.051 2.30 63 0.028 3.32

1972 214 0.047 2.83 80 0.033 3.33

1973 227 0.045 2.77 83 0.027 3.39

1974 205 0.048 2.65 74 0.031 3.34

1975 188 0.048 2.68 69 0.032 2.97

1976 176 0.047 2.68 69 0.030 3.27

1977 168 0.053 2.40 78 0.026 3.37

1978 170 0.048 2.45 63 0.028 2.97

1979 173 0.047 2.54 59 0.029 2.76

1980 162 0.049 2.21 68 0.024 2.79

1981 166 0.031 2.40 98 0.016 2.74

1982 188 0.027 2.40 99 0.015 2.72

1983 189 0.022 2.41 104 0.016 2.38

1984 183 0.023 2.48 93 0.015 2.75

1985 150 0.025 2.18 63 0.016 2.43

1986 144 0.008 3.33 66 0.006 3.19

1987 132 0.008 3.11 57 0.007 3.13

1988 117 0.008 2.72 47 0.006 3.53

1989 138 0.006 2.81 70 0.004 3.07

1990 136 0.006 2.78 94 0.006 2.58

4.7 NEPTUNIUM

RESERVED. Evaluation of neptunium will be added in Revision 4 of this document.

4.8 THORIUM

By 1990, thorium in urine was quantified by an offsite vendor (WSRC 1990). However, the analytical 

techniques SRS used for americium before 1990 also captured thorium (NIOSH 2012; Butler and Hall 

1970; Taylor et al 1995). Butler (1964) indicates an extraction efficiency of 93% for thorium into 20% 

HDEHP-toluene. An extraction efficiency of 97% with the TIOA-DDCP technique (Butler and Hall 

1970) was reported. DDCP extracts all the alpha-emitting actinides from thorium through einsteinium 

from the sample. The extraction efficiency for the various actinides is given in Table 4-4. For 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 29 of 94

 

practical use at SRS, the plutonium, uranium, and neptunium would be stripped first to permit 

separation of the americium, californium, and curium.

Table 4-4. Extraction efficiencies with DDCP (from

Butler and Hall 1970). 

Element Principal Valence Extracted %

Ca 2 <1

Cs 1 <1

Fe 3 95

Pm 3 99

Ce 3 99

Th 4 97

U 6 82

Np 5 92

Pu 4 98

Am 3 95

Cm 3 95

Bk 3 98

Cf 3 95

Es 3 97

The TIOA-DDCP method provides a simple, accurate method for quantitative determination of 

actinides. TIOA is used to extract the plutonium, uranium, and neptunium from the sample in an 8N 

HCl solution. Next, a sequence of nitric acid dissolution steps is performed followed by the use of 

DDCP to separate the remaining actinides. Toluene is used to return the actinides to the aqueous 

phase, which is then evaporated to dryness and counted. Separation of the thorium, berkelium, and 

einsteinium from the americium, curium, and californium was not done because they “are not present 

in biological samples in sufficient quantities to require separation or routine identification by alpha 

spectroscopy” (Butler and Hall 1970). However, if present, they would continue with the americium, 

curium, and californium. This is shown graphically in Figure 4-5. Thorium was also noted as being 

included in the americium, curium, and californium determination in 1987 (DuPont 1987, p. 60) as 

shown in Figure 4-6. Therefore, although not originally intended to measure thorium, the analytical 

technique for americium measurement would also capture any thorium present in the sample and 

establish an upper bound on the amount of thorium present.

Figure 4-5. TIOA-DDCP sequential stripping process 

(Butler and Hall 1970). 

Therefore, the americium bioassay data discussed above was also used to model thorium intakes for 

October 1972 through 1989. Separate intake modeling was performed for thorium due to the differing 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 30 of 94

 

Figure 4-6. Sample analysis procedure for extracting americium, curium, californium, 

plutonium, neptunium, and enriched uranium (DuPont 1987).

biokinetics of thorium in comparison with americium. The intake rates start in October 1972 because 

an SEC covers 232Th exposures before October 1972.

Due to the relatively uniform excretion rates, 232Th was fit as a single intake period for all of 1972 

through 1989. The results of the statistical analysis, which were used to calculate the intakes for 

thorium, are the same as those for americium (Table A-9). 

For type M thorium, the solid lines in Figures C-17 to C-20 in Attachment C show the individual fits to 

the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates for nonCTWs and CTWs. Table C-2 lists the 50th- and 

84th-percentile intake rates along with the associated GSDs from the americium urinalysis.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 31 of 94

For type S thorium, the solid lines in Figures C-21 to C-25 in Attachment C show the individual fits to 

the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates for nonCTWs and CTWs. Table C-3 lists the 50th- and 

84th-percentile intake rates along with the associated GSDs from the americium urinalysis.

5.0 GUIDANCE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTORS ON ASSIGNMENT OF INTAKES AND 

DOSES

This section describes the derived intake rates and provides guidance for assigning doses. For the 

calculation of doses to individuals from bioassay data, a minimum GSD of 3 has been used to account 

for biological variation and uncertainty in the models. It was considered inappropriate to assign a 

value less than 3 for the coworker data. Therefore, a GSD of at least 3 was assigned for each intake 

period. The GSDs for different intake periods were conservatively adjusted for consistency between 

intake periods for calculational efficiency. The 95th-percentile values were based on the adjusted 

GSD for the intake period. The original GSDs are provided in the Attachment C tables for each 

element. For input into the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP), the 50th percentile of 

the calculated intake rates should be assigned as a lognormal distribution with the associated GSDs

in the tables in this section to the majority of workers for whom coworker intakes are assigned as the 

default assumption. For cases in which there is justification that the individual could have had intakes 

larger than the 50th percentile, dose reconstructors should use the 95th-percentile intake rates input 

into IREP as a constant. The intake rates or dose for the last year listed may be extended to 

subsequent years as a measure favorable to claimans.

The following sections list the intake rates that should be used for each radionuclide and the period of 

applicability of each intake rate except for tritium. For tritium, the actual dose that should be used is 

provided. Coworker intakes should be assigned for radionuclides that could have been present at the 

worker’s location and for which the worker was not monitored. Table 5-1 lists the radionuclides 

potentially present at various SRS facilities or to which a worker who was assigned to a particular 

facility might have been exposed. Most radionuclides apply to the entire duration of the facility’s 

existence; a few radionuclides apply to limited periods as noted in the table (ORAUT 2013). The 

dosimeter codes applicable to various periods are included to assist with determining a worker’s work 

location. The dosimeter codes may be used to help identify an individual’s work location. However, 

the dosimeter codes are guidance only and claimant-specific information (telephone interview 

statements, incident reports, U.S. Department of Labor claim file information, etc.) supersedes the 

guidance provided by these dosimeters codes.

If the work location is unknown, then the radionuclides listed for “not identifiable or unknown” (the last 

line in Table 5-1) should be assigned. This might especially apply to maintenance workers sent from 

the Central Shops area to a variety of work locations and any other workers who worked in multiple 

facilities.

5.1 AMERICIUM

Table 5-2 lists the 241Am intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 

americium exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 32 of 94

Table 5-1. Radionuclides of concern potentially present at SRS facilities.

Building or facility

Dosimeter 

codesa

1961–1972

Dosimeter codesa

1973–1990

Dosimeter codesa

1991–2003

Dosimeter 

codesa

2004–present

Radionuclides of 

concern

Reactors (R, P, L, K, C) 7A, 8A, 9A, 

10A, 11A, 

1C through 6C, 1K, 1P, 

1L, 1R

C01, C02, C03, K01, L01, 

P01 

LLL, NMM, 

SDDb

3H, FP

F-Area unknown facility 1A 1F through 5F, 7F 

through 9F

F, F01 through F05, F07 

through F09

235, CLB, FBL, 

FCA

Pu, U, Am, Np, FP

F-Area A-Line 1A See F canyon See F canyon FCA U

221-F B-Line (FB- and JB-Lines) 1A 1F through 5F, 7F 

through 9F

F, F01 through F05, F07 

through F09

FBL Pu, Am

221-F Canyon 1A 1F through 5F, 7F 

through 9F

F, F01 through F05, F07 

through F09

FBL, FCA, Pu, U, FP, Np, Th 

through 1966

F-Area Outside Facilities 1B 9F F09 FCA Pu, U, FP

PuFF and PEF (235-F) 1A 5F, 8F F05, F08 235 Pu, Am, Np, Th

235-F Vaults 1A 2F, 5F, 8F 2F, F05, F08 235 Pu, U, Np, Am, Cm, Th

772-F and 772-1F Laboratories 1A 1Ac A01 CLB Pu, U, FP, Am, 3H, Np

F/H Tank Farms, Effluent 

Treatment Facility (ETF), 

Cooling Water and Retention 

Basins

None 5F, 5H F05, H05 ETP, FTF Pu, U, FP, Am, Np

H-Area unknown facility 2A 1H through 6H H01 through H06 299, HBL, HCA 3H, Pu, U, Am, FP, Np

HB Line Facility 2A 6H H06 HBL Pu, FP, Am, Np, Ud

H-Canyon and A-Line 2A 1H, 2H, 5H, 6H H, H01, H02, H05, H06 HCA Pu, U, FP, Np

221-H Area Outside Facilities 2A 9H H09 HCA 3H, Pu, U, FP, Np

232-H, HANM, HAOM, Tritium 

complex

None 6F, 4H F06, H04, T TEF, TRI 3H

300 M-Area, M Area unknown 

facility

3A 3M M03 SDDb Th, Pu, Np, Am, Cm 

1964–1965 only

704-U, 704-B None 1U, 6E, 7G U, U01, E06, G07 No active codes FP

723-A, 773-A 5A, 6N 1A, 5A A01, A02, A05, SRTC Pu, Am, Cm, Cf, Th 

October 1972 and after, 

U, Np, FP, 3H

735-A and 735-11A 6F 5D A02, A03, A09, A16, B01 SRTC (apply 

773-A intakes)

Environmental 

radionuclides, Np 1962

776-A None 1A, 15A A01, A15 SRTC (apply 

773-A intakes)

Pu, Am, Cm, Cf, Th, U 

Np 1961–1988, FP, 3H

777-M 5B 5B A33 No active codes U, FP, Np through 1984

CMX and TNX 5C 5C T01 No active codes U
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 33 of 94

Building or facility

Dosimeter 

codesa

1961–1972

Dosimeter codesa

1973–1990

Dosimeter codesa

1991–2003

Dosimeter 

codesa

2004–present

Radionuclides of 

concern

Central shops & Maintenance, 

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory

6C, 6H, 6I, 

6M, 6N, 6R, 

12D, 12E, 12I

5J, 5W, 6B,6W, 7A, 7B, 

7G, 7I, 7J, 7K, 7L, 7M, 

7N, 7R, 7Q, 7W, 8A 

through 8C, 8H, through 

8M, 8P, 8S, 8T, 1N

A12, A24, A25, A26, A27, 

A29, A34, J01, through J08, 

J12 through 41

No active codes Pu, U, FP, 3H, Am, Cm, 

Np, Th

D-Area 4A 1D, 4D D, D01, D04 SDD 3H

E-Area Solid Waste Disposal 

Facility (SWDF)

12A 12B, 4F, 3G, 8G B12, G03, F04 SSS 3H, Pu, FP, Np

New Special Recovery and 

Plutonium Storage Facility (PSF)

None See H-Area unknown 

facility

See H-Area unknown facility MPF Pu, Am, U

Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel 

(RBOF) and Resin Regeneration 

Facility (RRF)

See H-Area 

unknown 

facility

See H-Area unknown 

facility

See H-Area unknown facility RBO Pu

S-Area Defense Waste 

Processing Facility (DWPF)

None 1S, 2S, 1W, 2W S01, S02 SWM Pu, FP

Waste Certification Facility None 3G G03 SSS 3H, Pu, FP

Z-Area None 2Z Z02 ZZZ 3H, FP, Pu, Am, Cm, 

Cf, Np, Th

Not identifiable or unknowne None 7Y, 8D, 8E, 000, 

missing

R01, Y01, missing Blank, any code 

not already 

listed

Pu, U, FP, 3H, Am, Cm, 

Cf, Np, Th

a. Any code with an “X” should not be included. These indicate offsite assignment.

b. Code SDD is used both for the reactors and for 300-M area. If no other information about work location is available, the applicable radionuclides for both locations 

should be assigned.

c. Code 1A is used for both 772 and 773 before 1991. If no other information about work location is available, the applicable radionuclides for both locations should be 

assigned.

c. Unknown facility radionuclides should only be assigned if no information is available from any source about the worker’s work location. 

d. Uranium-232/233 should only be assigned for the HB-Line for January 1, 1964, through September 30, 1972.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 34 of 94

Table 5-2. Type M 241Am intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW 

50th 

percentile

CTW 

GSD

CTW 

95th 

percentile

1/1/1964 12/31/1967 124.5 3.00 759 110.3 3.00 672

1/1/1968 12/31/1970 39.8 3.00 243 37.91 3.00 231

1/1/1971 12/31/1989 3.126 3.70 26.9 3.338 4.15 34.7

5.2 TRITIUM

Table 5-3 lists the tritium doses and GSDs to be used for each year of potential tritium exposure.

Table 5-3. Tritium annual doses (rem) and GSDs.

Year

nonCTW

50th-percentile 

dose

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th-percentile

dose

CTW 

50th-percentile

dose

CTW 

GSD

CTW 95thpercentile

dose

1954 0.012 3.00 0.073 0.012 3.00 0.071

1955 0.013 3.00 0.080 0.015 3.00 0.093

1956 0.019 3.00 0.116 0.016 3.00 0.100

1957 0.025 3.00 0.151 0.025 3.00 0.154

1958 0.035 3.00 0.215 0.031 3.00 0.190

1959 0.034 3.02 0.208 0.038 3.00 0.232

1960 0.046 3.18 0.306 0.042 3.06 0.264

1961 0.050 3.00 0.304 0.039 3.36 0.284

1962 0.051 3.00 0.313 0.041 3.00 0.251

1963 0.048 3.00 0.295 0.040 3.00 0.242

1964 0.060 3.01 0.368 0.054 3.00 0.329

1965 0.055 3.37 0.403 0.043 3.00 0.261

1966 0.046 3.00 0.281 0.031 3.12 0.200

1967 0.049 3.00 0.301 0.034 3.00 0.208

1968 0.051 3.00 0.310 0.030 3.00 0.182

1969 0.052 3.00 0.315 0.031 3.24 0.215

1970 0.042 3.00 0.258 0.023 3.49 0.180

1971 0.051 3.00 0.308 0.028 3.32 0.204

1972 0.047 3.00 0.286 0.033 3.33 0.238

1973 0.045 3.00 0.276 0.027 3.50 0.212

1974 0.048 3.00 0.293 0.031 3.33 0.227

1975 0.048 3.00 0.294 0.032 3.00 0.196

1976 0.047 3.00 0.285 0.030 3.26 0.207

1977 0.053 3.00 0.326 0.026 3.37 0.192

1978 0.048 3.00 0.295 0.028 3.00 0.168

1979 0.047 3.00 0.286 0.029 3.00 0.179

1980 0.049 3.00 0.300 0.024 3.00 0.147

1981 0.031 3.00 0.188 0.016 3.00 0.100

1982 0.027 3.00 0.164 0.015 3.00 0.093

1983 0.022 3.00 0.135 0.016 3.00 0.095

1984 0.023 3.00 0.138 0.015 3.00 0.093

1985 0.025 3.00 0.150 0.016 3.00 0.095

1986 0.008 3.32 0.061 0.006 3.17 0.043

1987 0.008 3.08 0.052 0.007 3.12 0.045

1988 0.008 3.00 0.047 0.006 3.52 0.050

1989 0.006 3.00 0.036 0.004 3.07 0.027

1990 0.006 3.00 0.034 0.006 3.00 0.036
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 35 of 94

5.3 PLUTONIUM

RESERVED

5.4 URANIUM

RESERVED

5.5 COBALT-60

RESERVED 

5.6 CESIUM-137

RESERVED 

5.7 NEPTUNIUM

RESERVED

5.8 THORIUM

Tables 5-4 and 5-5 list the 232Th intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 

232Th exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs for solubility types M and S respectively. No 232Th intakes 

should be assigned for periods before October 1, 1972, because this period is covered under an SEC.

Table 5-4. Type M thorium-232 intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW 

50th 

percentile

CTW 

GSD

CTW 

95th 

percentile

10/1/1972 12/31/1989 4.813 3.86 44.5 5.172 4.35 58.2

Table 5-5. Type S thorium-232 intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW 

50th 

percentile

CTW 

GSD

CTW 

95th 

percentile

10/1/1972 12/31/1989 67.59 3.87 626.2 72.74 4.54 874.8

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The NIOSH guidance for evaluation and use of coworker datasets requires that data adequacy, 

completeness, and applicability be determined (NIOSH 2015). This requires determination that the 

bioassay techniques SRS used were valid, collected data was reliable, and the data can be 

interpreted. The bioassay analytical techniques discussed above and review of the results provide 

evidence that the techniques were valid, reliable, and can be interpreted.

The guidance requires that all or a representative sample of the potentially exposed worker population 

submit samples. The bioassay sample schedules indicate that SRS had a process in place to identify 

and collect samples from potentially exposed workers with a graded approach commensurate with the 

exposure potential and that unmonitored workers could be adequately represented by monitored 

workers.

The stratified statistical analyses established two populations of workers (CTWs and non-CTWs), 

evaluated the bioassay data from each, and determined intake rates or doses applicable to each for 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 36 of 94

 

the evaluated range of years. The intake rates or doses in Section 5.0 may be assigned to 

unmonitored workers to evaluate potential unmonitored internal dose.

7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

Where appropriate in this document, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate information, 

conclusions, and recommendations provided to assist in the process of worker dose reconstruction. 

These callouts are listed here in the Attributions and Annotations section, with information to identify 

the source and justification for each associated item. Conventional References, which are provided in 

the next section of this document, link data, quotations, and other information to documents available 

for review on the Project’s Site Research Database (SRDB).

Tom LaBone served as the initial Subject Expert for this document. Mr. LaBone was previously 

employed at SRS and his work involved management, direction or implementation of radiation 

protection and/or HP program policies, procedures or practices related to atomic weapons activities at 

the site. Preparation of this document has been overseen by a Document Owner who is fully 

responsible for the content, including all findings and conclusions. In all cases where such 

information or prior studies or writings are included or relied upon by Mr. LaBone, those materials are 

fully attributed to the source. Mr. LaBone’s Disclosure Statement is available at www.oraucoc.org. 

[1] Arno, Matthew G. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2009. 

This is based on communications with Tom LaBone indicating “<” values were recorded as 

negative results in the HPRED.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 37 of 94

REFERENCES

Bingham, E., 1997, Surveillance of Former Construction Workers at Oak Ridge Reservation: A 

Revised Needs Assessment, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, December. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 12489]

Butler, F. E., 1964, Separation of Actinides by Liquid Ion Exchange, DPSPU 64-30-18, E. I. du Pont 

de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, September. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 49523]

Butler, F. E., and R. M. Hall, 1970, “Determination of Actinides in Biological Samples with Bidentate 

Organophosphorus Extractant,” Analytical Chemistry, volume 42, number 9, pp. 1073–1076. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 119808]

Butler and Splichal, 1965, Solid-State Alpha Counters; A Replacement for Nuclear Track Counting in 

Bioassay Procedures, DPSPU 65-30-6, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, May. [SRDB Ref ID: 49245]

CPWR (CPWR - The Center for Construction Research and Training), 2016, "Who Is Eligible?," Silver 

Spring, Maryland. [SRDB Ref ID: 158892]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1954, 1954 Craft Codes, Savannah River 

Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 102063]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1959–1971, Radiation and Contamination Control 

History II, DPSOP-40, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 

52805]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1961–1969, Special Product Log Records, 2-16-

1961 to 10-13-1969, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 

51953]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1963–1967, Bioassay Control Reports, Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 116715]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1963–1970, Am., Cm Record Book, 5-29-1963 

thru 5-26-1970, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52008]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1965–1971, Monthly Reports 1965-1971, 

Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 50318]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1968, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302, 

Revision 2, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, January 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 126996]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1969, Pu & Np Record Book, Savannah River 

Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina, April 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 51973]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1969–1973, Pu-Am-Cm Record Book, 5-14-1969 

thru 10-19-1973, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 53271]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1969–1981, Monthly Reports Health Protection 

Dosimetry, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 108754]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 38 of 94

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1970, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302, 

Revision 3, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, January. [SRDB Ref ID: 126997]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1970–1973, Am., Cm Record Book, 5-27-1970 

thru 2-9-1973, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52006]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1971a, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302, 

Revision 4, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, March. [SRDB Ref ID: 126998]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1971b, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302, 

Revision 5, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, September 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 

124941]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1972, Works Technical Department Report for 

January 1972, DPSP 72-1-1, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, January. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 68265]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1973–1978, Am., Cm Record Book, 2-10-1973 

thru 4-30-1978, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52010]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1973–1979, Pu-Am Record Book, 10-22-1973 thru 

2-1-1979, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 51970]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1974, Works Technical Department Report for 

November 1974, DPSP 74-1-11, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 

68041]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1976, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302, 

Revision 7, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, October 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 131322]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1978–1983, Am., Cm Record Book, 5-1-1978 thru 

11-29-1983, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52019]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1979–1980, Pu-Am Record Book, 2-2-1979 thru 7-

7-1980, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52018]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1980–1981a, Am-Cm #5 Record Book, 8-12-1980 

thru 6-9-1981, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52012]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1980–1981b, PU-Am #3 Record Book, 8-3-80 thru 

8-22-81, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52015]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1981, Job Plans, HLC, Nov-Dec 1981, Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 157063]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1981–1986, Pu-Am Record Book, 10-23-1981 thru 

6-9-1986, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 53283]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1982, Job Plans, HLC, Jan-Apr 1982, Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 157062]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1983, Job Plans, HLC, Jan-May 1983, Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 157069]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 39 of 94

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1984, Job Plans, HLC, Jan-Apr 1984, Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 157068]

DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1985, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302T, Rev. 0.

Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, February 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 045958, p. 273]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1986–1989, Pu-Am Record Book, 6-25-1986 thru 

8-9-1989, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 52022]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), 1987, Americium-Curium-Californium, Plutonium, 

Neptunium, and Enriched Uranium Sequential Determinations, DPSOL-47-206, Rev. 1, 

Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, May 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 45029]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), undated a, Bioassay Control, DPSOL 193-302, 

Revision 8, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 129515]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), undated b, Radiation and Contamination Control 

History III, DPSOP-40, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 

86188]

DuPont (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company), undated c, Dosimetry Special Hazards Incident 

Investigations 300-399, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 

45096]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2008, SEC Worker Outreach Meeting 

for the Savannah River Site (SRS), Redacted, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 158901]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2012, SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Petition SEC-00103, Addendum #3, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, November 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 158744]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2015, Interim Guidance Criteria for the 

Evaluation and Use of Coworker Datasets, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, April 2.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004a, Coworker Data Exposure Profile 

Development, ORAUT-PLAN-0014, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 24.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004b, Technical Information Bulletin: Tritium 

Calculated and Missed Dose Estimates, ORAUT-OTIB-0011, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

June 29.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005a, Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for 

Internal Dose Assignment, ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 7.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006, Generating Summary Statistics for 

Coworker Bioassay Data, ORAUT-PROC-0095, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012a, A Comparison of Neptunium Coworker 

Models at the Savannah River Site, ORAUT-RPRT-0056, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

August 20.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 40 of 94

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012b, A Comparison of Mixed Fission and 

Activation Product Coworker Models at the Savannah River Site, ORAUT-RPRT-0058, Rev. 

00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 10.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2013, "Interview with former SRS employees 

Related to Internal Dosimetry and Location Information," documented communication, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, April 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 126806]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014a, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTOTIB-0060, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 8.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014b, Analysis of Stratified Coworker Datasets, 

ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 8.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014c, Parameters to Consider When Processing 

Claims for Construction Trade Workers, ORAUT-OTIB-0052, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

July 24.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2015 “SRS Bioassay Laboratory Information,” 

documented communication with former SRS Laboratory Director, Oak Ridge Tennessee, 

November 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 150143]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2016a, Use of Claimant Datasets for Coworker 

Modeling, ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 17.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2016b, Technical Basis for Sampling Plan, 

ORAUT-RPRT-0078, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 17.

SC&A (SC&A, Inc.), 2014, “Discussion Items and Clarifications for February 26th Work Group 

Meeting, memorandum to Savannah River Site Work Group, Vienna, Virginia, February 24. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 158936]

Taylor, G. A., K. W. Crase, T. R. La Bone, W. H. Wilkie, 1995, A History of Personnel Radiation 

Dosimetry at the Savannah River Site, WSRC-RP-95-234, Westinghouse Savannah River 

Company, Aiken, South Carolina, May. [SRDB Ref ID: 10931]

Taylor, G. A., 2000, The Evolution of Internal Dosimetry Bioassay Methods at the Savannah River 

Site, WSRC-MS-2000-00290, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, 

Aiken, South Carolina. [SRDB Ref ID: 46146]

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Corporation), 1990, Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis 

Manual, WSRC-IM-90-139, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, December 20. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11266]

WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 2001, The Savannah River Site Internal Dosimetry 

Technical Basis Manual, WSRC-IM-90139, Rev. 8, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South 

Carolina, December 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 722]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 41 of 94

 

ATTACHMENT A 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 SRDB Ref IDs for REAC/TS chelation data............................................................................ 42

A-2 1968 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 43

A-3 1970 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 44

A-4 Early 1971 bioassay frequencies............................................................................................ 45

A-5 Late 1971 bioassay frequencies............................................................................................. 47

A-6 1976 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 49

A-7 1985 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 50

A-8 1989 bioassay frequencies..................................................................................................... 52
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 42 of 94

ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Table A-1. SRDB Ref IDs for REAC/TS chelation data.

71929, 72155, 72147, 72211, 72256, 72333, 72418, 72842, 73044,

71930, 72157, 72148, 72212, 72259, 72334, 72421, 72844, 73047,

71933, 71977, 72158, 72213, 72260, 72335, 72428, 72848, 73049,

71934, 71978, 72159, 72214, 72262, 72336, 72430, 72851, 73050,

71936, 71979, 72161, 72216, 72263, 72340, 72431, 72852, 73051,

71939, 71980, 72163, 72217, 72264, 72341, 72434, 72857, 73060,

71940, 71981, 72166, 72218, 72265, 72342, 72451, 72858, 73064,

71941, 71982, 72167, 72219, 72266, 72344, 72452, 72860, 73069,

71943, 71983, 72169, 72220, 72267, 72345, 72455, 72861, 73071,

71945, 71984, 72171, 72221, 72269, 72346, 72456, 72862, 73072,

71946, 71985, 72173, 72222, 72270, 72347, 72460, 72863, 73075,

71952, 71986, 72174, 72223, 72274, 72348, 72461, 72865, 73077,

71953, 71987, 72175, 72224, 72275, 72350, 72462, 72866, 73080,

71954, 71988, 72178, 72226, 72276, 72351, 72464, 72867, 73082,

71955, 71989, 72179, 72228, 72301, 72352, 72466, 72868, 73083,

71956, 71990, 72181, 72229, 72303, 72361, 72467, 72873, 73088,

71957, 71991, 72183, 72230, 72306, 72363, 72470, 72875, 73091,

71959, 71995, 72186, 72231, 72308, 72364, 72477, 72879, 73092,

71960, 71998, 72188, 72233, 72310, 72365, 72478, 72881, 73095,

71961, 72001, 72190, 72234, 72311, 72366, 72479, 72883, 73099,

71963, 72004, 72192, 72241, 72313, 72369, 72647, 72885, 73108,

71964, 72007, 72193, 72242, 72314, 72372, 72650, 72889, 73112,

71965, 72010, 72194, 72243, 72316, 72377, 72651, 72890, 73121,

71967, 72013, 72195, 72244, 72318, 72382, 72652, 72891, 73125,

71969, 72019, 72196, 72245, 72321, 72386, 72654, 72935, 73128,

71970, 72116, 72197, 72246, 72323, 72388, 72821, 72936, 75412,

71971, 72128, 72199, 72247, 72324, 72391, 72824, 73026,

71972, 72131, 72200, 72248, 72325, 72394, 72828, 73031,

71973, 72134, 72202, 72249, 72328, 72406, 72831, 73035,

71974, 72137, 72205, 72252, 72330, 72408, 72833, 73036,

71975, 72138, 72206, 72253, 72331, 72413, 72838, 73039,

71976, 72144, 72209, 72255, 72332, 72417, 72839, 73041
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 43 of 94

Table A-2. 1968 bioassay frequencies (samples per year by analysis type) (DuPont 1968).

a

Category Description Pu FP EU U NP

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 232-H, 234-H, 284-F & -H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and 

235-F nonprocess sections; patrolmen.

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

B 221-H Fourth level. Separations senior supervisors and above; all separations technology personnel, control room operators, 

and secretaries.

1 1 1 N/A N/A

C 221-H Regulated areas and H-Area outside facilities. All personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities; all utility operators, 

janitors, power operators, and selected E&I and maintenance mechanics assigned to 221-H regulated areas.

1 2 2b N/A N/A

D 221-H maximum potential (canyons). All auxiliary operators, crane process operators, HP personnel, and selected E&I and 

maintenance mechanics.

2 2 2b N/A N/A

E B-Line, H Area. All assigned personnel. 4 1 N/A N/A 2

F 235-F. All personnel assigned to process section of building. 4 1 N/A N/A N/A

G 221-F fourth level. Separations senior supervisors and above; all separations technology personnel, control room operators, 

and secretaries.

1 1 N/A N/A N/A

H 221-F regulated areas, 723-F, 643-G and 717-A. All personnel assigned to 723-F and 634-G; all janitors, power operators, 

and selected E&I and maintenance mechanics assigned to 221-F regulated areas; all 717-A field crews assigned.

1 2 N/A N/A N/A

I 221-F maximum potential (canyons). All auxiliary operators, utility operators, crane process operators, HP personnel, and 

selected E&I and maintenance mechanics.

2 2 N/A N/A N/A

J JB-Line and B-Line, F Area. All assigned personnel. 4 1 N/A N/A N/A

K Outside facilities, F Area. All assigned personnel. 1 2 N/A 4 N/A

L 772-F, UO3 section. All assigned personnel. 1 1 1 4 N/A

M 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. 4 2 2b 1 N/A

N 313 and 320-M. N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A

O 322-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 1 1 N/A

P 322-M. Personnel processing samples from field. N/A 1 1 1 N/A

Q 321-M. Machine casting. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A

R 321-M. Service groups. N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A

S 321-M. All assigned personnel N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; control 

room and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, maintenance, and T&T personnel; all E&I, laboratory, and HP personnel 

assigned to 105 buildings; T&T personnel in central shops; reactor tech personnel as designated by supervision.

(c) (c) (c) (c) (c)

U 773-A. Radiation control and maintenance. 1 1 N/A 1 N/A

V 773-A. Area maintenance mechanics. 1 1 1 1 N/A

W 773-A. Special group. (d) (d) (d) (d) (d)

X 700 Area. Shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by 3/700-Area survey. (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)

a. N/A = not applicable.

b. Personnel are sampled for applicable isotope at frequency shown during operation of plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX) and (HM).

c. IA and FP.

d. IA.

e. As considered advisable by 3/700-Area survey.
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 44 of 94

Table A-3. 1970 bioassay frequencies (samples per year by analysis type) (DuPont 1970).

a,b

Category Description Pu FP EU U

Am/

Cm/

Cf

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, 238-H, 284-F & -H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 

717-F, and nonprocess sections of other facilities; patrolmen.

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

B 221-F & -H Fourth level. Separations supervision; all separations technology personnel, control room operators, janitors, and 

secretaries.

1 1 N/A N/A N/A

C 221-H and H-Area outside facilities. All operators (except control room and sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected 

power, E&I and maintenance personnel assigned to 221-H process areas; all personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities.

1 2 1 N/A N/A

D 221-H sample aisle and 772-F. All sample aisle operators; selected 772-F laboratory personnel. 2 2 2 N/A 2

E 221-H B-Line, 221-F B-Line, JB-Line & 235-F. In 235-F all personnel assigned to process sections of building; in other 

facilities all assigned personnel.

2 2 N/A N/A 2

F 221-F, 723-F, and 643-G. All operators (except control room and sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

maintenance personnel assigned to 221-F process areas; all personnel assigned to 723-F and 643-G.

1 2 N/A N/A N/A

G 221-F sample aisle. All 221-F sample aisle operators. 2 2 N/A N/A N/A

H F-Area outside facilities. All assigned personnel. 1 ea. 

3 yr

2 N/A 4c N/A

I 772-F, UO3 section. All assigned personnel. 1 ea. 

3 yr

1 1 4 N/A

J 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. 2 2 1 1 N/A

K 313-M. N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A

L 322-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 1 4 N/A

M 322-M Personnel processing samples from field. 1 ea. 

3 yr

1 1 4 N/A

N 321-M. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A 4d N/A N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; control 

room and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, maintenance, and T&T personnel; all E&I, laboratory, and HP personnel 

assigned to 105 buildings; T&T personnel in central shops; and selected reactor tech and 400-Area personnel.

N/A 1e N/A N/A N/A

U 773-A. Reactor engineering group and 777-M assigned personnel. 1 ea. 

3 yr

N/A 1 4 N/A

V 773-A. Analytical chemistry, high level caves, building services, radiation control, and maintenance personnel. 1 ea. 

3 yr

1 N/A N/A 2

W 773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel. 1 ea. 

3 yr

N/A N/A N/A 1

N/A 700-Area shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by 3/700 Area HP. (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

a. N/A = not applicable.

b. Neptunium analysis is performed when requested by area HP. Neptunium has never been detected without at least an equal amount of plutonium.

c. Except A-Line where operators are sampled weekly.

d. Except casting area where operators are sampled monthly.

e. Samples also analyzed for induced activity (IA).

f. 700-Area shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by 3/700-Area HP.
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 45 of 94

Table A-4. Early 1971 bioassay frequencies (samples or counts per year by analysis type) (DuPont 1971a).

a,b

Category DescriptionH3

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf 

counts

A

Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 284-F & -

H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and nonprocess sections of other 

facilities; patrolmen.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B

221-F & -H Fourth level. Separations supervision; all separations 

technology personnel, control room operators, janitors, and clerical 

personnel.

N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C 221-H and H-Area outside facilities. All operators (except control 

room and sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

maintenance personnel assigned to 221-H process areas; all 

personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities.

2 1 2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

D 221-H sample aisle and 772-F. All sample aisle operators; selected 

772-F laboratory personnel.

N/A 2 2 2 N/A 1 N/A 1

E 221-H B-Line, 221-F B-Line, JB-Line & 235-F. All personnel 

assigned to process sections in building 235-F; and all assigned 

personnel in other facilities.

N/A 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

F 221-F, 723-F, and 643-G. All operators (except control room and 

sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

maintenance personnel assigned to 221-F process areas; all 

personnel assigned to 723-F and 643-G.

N/A 1 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

G 221-F sample aisle. All 221-F sample aisle operators. N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A 1c

H F-Area outside facilities. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 2 N/A 4d N/A N/A N/A

J 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. N/A 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A

K 313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A

L 322-M. All assigned personnel.

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material personnel.

773-A. Reactor engineering group and 777-M assigned personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

M 322-M Personnel processing samples from field.

772-F, UO3 section. All assigned personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

N 321-M. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 N/A 4e N/A N/A 2f N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from 

C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; control room 

and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, maintenance, and T&T 

personnel; all E&I personnel assigned to 105 buildings; T&T 

personnel in central shops; and selected reactor tech and 400-Area

personnel.

(g) N/A 1h N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

V 773-A. Analytical chemistry, high level caves, building services, 

radiation control, and maintenance personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 N/A N/A 2 N/A 1

W 773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 46 of 94

Category DescriptionH3

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf 

counts

X 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, & 238-H. All assigned personnel.

241-H & 244-H. Selected personnel.

(g) 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A 700 Area shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable 

by HP.

(i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i)

a. N/A = not applicable.

b. Neptunium analysis is performed when requested by area HP. Neptunium has never been detected without at least an equal amount of plutonium.

c. Selected personnel.

d. Except A-Line where operators are sampled weekly.

e. Except casting area where operators are sampled monthly.

f. Only personnel assigned to casting areas.

g. Samples also analyzed for IA.

h. Sample frequency established by local procedures.

i. 700 Area shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by HP.
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 47 of 94

Table A-5. Late 1971 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type) (DuPont 1971b) .

a,b

Category DescriptionH3 

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf 

counts

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 284-F & -

H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and nonprocess sections of other 

facilities; patrolmen.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B 221-F & -H Fourth level. Separations supervision; all separations 

technology personnel, control room operators, janitors, and clerical 

personnel.

N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C 221-H and H-Area outside facilities. All operators (except control 

room and sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

maintenance personnel assigned to 221-H process areas; all 

personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities.

2 1 2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

D 221-H sample aisle. All 221-H sample aisle operators; selected 

772-F laboratory personnel.

N/A 2 2 2 N/A N/A 1

E 221-F Sample aisle. All 221-F sample aisle operators; selected 

772-F personnel.

N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A

F 221-F, 723-F, and 643-G. All operators (except control room and 

sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

maintenance personnel assigned to 221-F process areas; all 

personnel assigned to 723-F and 643-G.

N/A 1 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

G 221-H B-Line, 221-F B-Line, JB-Line, 235-Fe. All personnel 

assigned to process sections in building 235-F, and all assigned 

personnel in other facilities.

N/A 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

H F-Area outside facilities. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 2 N/A 4c N/A N/A N/A

J 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. N/A 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A 1d

K 313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A

L 322-M. All assigned personnel, including personnel processing 

samples from field.

320-M. All laboratory and selected RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

personnel.

773-A. Reactor engineering group and 777-M assigned personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

M 322-M Personnel processing samples from field.

772-F, UO3 section. All assigned personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

N 321-M. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 N/A 4e N/A N/A 2f N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from 

C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; control room 

and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, maintenance, and T&T 

personnel; all E&I personnel assigned to 105 buildings; T&T 

personnel in central shops; and selected reactor tech and 400-Area

personnel.

(g) N/A 1h N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 48 of 94

Category DescriptionH3 

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf 

counts

V 773-A. Analytical chemistry, high level caves, building services, 

radiation control, and maintenance personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 N/A N/A 2 N/A 1d

W 773-A. Selected clerical, supervisory personnel, and selected 100-

Area personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

X 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, & 238-H. All assigned personnel.

241-H & 244-H. Selected personnel.

(g) 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A 700 Area. Shop personnel provide samples as considered 

advisable by HP.

(i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i)

a. N/A = not applicable.

b. Neptunium analysis is performed when requested by area HP. Neptunium has never been detected without at least an equal amount of plutonium.

c. Except A-Line where operators are sampled weekly.

d. Selected personnel.

e. Except casting area where operators are sampled monthly.

f. Only personnel assigned to casting areas.

g. Sample frequency established by local procedures.

h. Samples also analyzed for IA.

i. 700 Area shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by HP.
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 49 of 94

Table A-6. 1976 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type) (DuPont 1976).

a

Personnel work assignment

Pu 

samples

Eu 

samples

U 

samples

IA/ FP 

samples

Am/ Cm/ Cf 

samples

Sr 

samples

H3 

samples

FP 

samples

Days 

counts

Shift 

counts

Minimum Potential. Personnel working in tritium facilities, 

200-FH facilities not mentioned below, 723-A (EED), and 

305-M. Selected 100-Area and 773-A personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (b) N/A 1 ea. 3 yrc 1 ea. 

3 yr

221-FH. All operators, Sep Tech, HP, and 4th level 

personnel; E&I, Maintenance. Clerical, and Service 

Department personnel assigned to process areas.

241-FH, 211-FH, 723-F, A-Line, 643-G & 244-H. All 

assigned personnel.

772-F & 235-F. Personnel assigned to nonprocess areas.

Patrol & T&T. All personnel assigned to 200-FH Areas.

773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel.

100-Areas. Selected personnel.

1 (d) (e) N/A (f) (g) N/A N/A 1 2

221-HB Line, 221-FB Line, JB-Line. All assigned 

personnel.

235-F. Personnel assigned to process areas.

772-F. Personnel assigned to process areas.

773-A. Selected ACD, SEC, SCD, NMD, HLC, Radiation 

Control, Building Services, and Maintenance personnel.

4 (d) N/A N/A (f) N/A N/A (c) 1h 2

313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

322-M & 772-F (UO3 Section). All assigned personnel.

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material

personnel.

773-A. Reactor Engineering and 777-M personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (i) (i)

321-M. All assigned personnel except those in Casting 

Area.

1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1

Reactor Department personnel from CH purification and 

pumproom observation; control room and monitor 

operators; all 100-Area HP, maintenance, and T&T 

personnel; E&I and service personnel assigned to 105 

buildings; T&T personnel in central shops and 618-G; 

selected reactor tech, project and 400-Area personnel.

1c N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (b) N/A 1j 1j

321-M. All personnel assigned to Casting Area. 1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 2

a. N/A = not applicable.

b. Sample frequency established in local procedures.

c. Selected personnel.

d. Selected personnel in 221-H, 211-H, and 772-F sampled for enriched uranium (EU) four times a year.

e. A-Line assigned personnel in F-Area sampled weekly; samples collected after day(s) of rest and before exposure.

f. Selected personnel in 221-F, 211-F, and 773-A sampled for Am-Cm once a year.

g. Selected personnel assigned to waste management work sampled for Sr once a year.

h. All B-Line and JB-Line personnel and 772-F laboratory attendants counted twice a year.

i. 322-M personnel processing 200-Area samples and 772-F (UO3 Section) personnel counted once a year.

j. Selected day and all shift personnel; urine sample not required if in-vivo count scheduled.
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 50 of 94

Table A-7. 1985 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type) (DuPont 1985)a,b. 

Personnel work assignment

Pu

samples

EU

samples

NU

samples

FP/IA

samples

Am/ Cm/ Cf

samples

Np

samples

Sr

samples

In-vivo

countsc

100-400 Areas. Selected day personnel and all shift Reactor 

Department CH, purification, pump observation room, and monitor 

operators. 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

100-400 Areas. Reactor control room operators, HP, 

Maintenance, T&T, E&I, and service personnel assigned to 105 

Building, T&T personnel in Central Shops and 618-G; selected 

Reactor Tech, Project, and selected 400-Area personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

100-400 Areas. Maximum potential. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

100-400 Areas. Other personnel assigned to 105 Building. 

Selected 400 Area personnel.

N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

200 Area. Personnel working in tritium facilities or 200-FH facilities 

not mentioned below.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

211-FH, 723-F, 643-G, A-Line, 241-FN, 244-H. All Separations 

operators; Sep. Tech, HP, and other 4th level personnel; E&I, 

Maintenance, clerical, and service department personnel assigned 

to process areas.

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

235-F, 772-F. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-F. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1

221-H. Selected personnel. 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

643-G. Selected personnel assigned to waste management work. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

221-FB-Line, JB-Line. All assigned personnel. 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

235-F. Personnel assigned to process areas. 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

772-F. Personnel assigned to laboratories in the PUREX and Pu 

sections.

2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-F. Selected personnel. 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 1

221-H, 772-F. Selected personnel. 2 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-HB-Line. All assigned personnel. 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2

300 Areas, 313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

322-M. UO3 Sections and other selected personnel. 1 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

322-M. All other assigned personnel. 1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material personnel. N/A 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

321-M. All personnel assigned to charge prep, casting, and 

machining areas.

1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2

321-M. All other assigned personnel. 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Minimum potential. 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Selected ACD, SED, SCD, NMD, HLC, Radiation Control, 

Building Services, and Maintenance personnel. 

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Reactor Engineering and 777-M personnel. 1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 51 of 94

Personnel work assignment

Pu

samples

EU

samples

NU

samples

FP/IA

samples

Am/ Cm/ Cf

samples

Np

samples

Sr

samples

In-vivo

countsc

773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Maximum potential. Selected personnel. 2 2 4 N/A 2 N/A N/A 1

a. N/A = not applicable.

b. This 1985 procedure indicates it is a duplicate of a 1978 procedure, so these frequencies apply for at least the 1978 to 1985 period.

c. The count frequency for shift employees is twice a year unless they only receive triennial plutonium urine bioassay.
ATTACHMENT A

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 52 of 94

Table A-8. 1989 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type)a (DuPont undated a).

Personnel Work Assignment

Pu

samples

EU

samples

NU

samples

Am/Cm/ 

Cf

samples

Np

samples

Sr

samples

In-vivo

counts

100-400 Areas, All reactor area departments and construction. 

Selected day personnel and all shift Reactor Department CH, purification, 

pump observation room, and monitor operators. Maintenance, T&T, E&I, 

and service personnel assigned to 105 building, T&T personnel in Central 

Shops and 618-G; selected Reactor Tech, Project, and selected 400-Area 

personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

100-400 Areas, All reactor area departments and construction. HP, 

selected CH.

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

211-H. Selected personnel. 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

643-G. Selected personnel assigned to waste management work. N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 1 1

FB-Line. Operators and first line supervisors. SWE mechanics. 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

FB-Line. Other assigned personnel. N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

HB-Line. Operators. 4 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

HB-Line. Other assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

235-F. Operators. 4 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

235-F. Other assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

A-Line (F). All assigned personnel. 1 N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A 1

772-F. Personnel assigned to laboratories in the PUREX and Pu 

sections.

2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-F. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-H. Selected personnel. 2 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A

322-M. All assigned personnel. 1 4 4 N/A N/A N/A 1

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material personnel. N/A 4 4 N/A N/A N/A 1

321-M. All personnel assigned to charge prep, casting, and machining, 

and assembly weld areas.

1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Minimum potential. 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

773-A. Selected ACD, SED, SCD, NMD, HLC, Radiation Control, 

Building Services, and Maintenance personnel.

2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1

773-A. Reactor Engineering and 777-M personnel. 1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Maximum potential. Selected personnel. 2 2 4 2 N/A N/A 1

221-S. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

250-S. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

210-Z. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

247-F. Personnel who perform work in process core. N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

247-F. Personnel who do not perform work in process core. N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

a. N/A = not applicable.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 53 of 94

 

ATTACHMENT B 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA

An SC&A memorandum of February 24, 2014, to the Savannah River Site Work Group contains an 

examination of raw trivalent actinide (americium, curium, and californium) urinalysis data that were 

used to calculate thorium intakes for the SRS internal dose coworker study (SC&A 2014). The 

examination focused on results greater than the MDA that exhibited a large variability between 

multiple counts of the same sample, or where the reported result was inconsistent with the individual 

sample counts. Individual urine samples might be counted anywhere from 1 to 10 times, with 2 or 4 

times being common. Large variability occurs when the results of these repeat counts of the same 

sample are widely different. An inconsistent reported result occurs when the reported result does not 

match the average of the individual counts of the sample. The examination consisted of the 

compilation of >MDA results, highlighting of results with inconsistency or large variability, and 

identification of workers who were chelated. This attachment provides further evaluation of those 

results to determine the potential significance of the highlighted results as well as evaluation of the 

removal of chelated individuals. For the highlighted results, only the inconsistent and high-variability 

results greater than 1 dpm/d were evaluated further.

During the preparation of the response to SC&A’s findings, ORAUT-RPRT-0053 was revised to alter 

the OPOS analysis method to the TWOPOS method (ORAUT 2014b). An additional change with the 

TWOPOS method is to consider all negative (in the numeric sense of being less than zero rather than 

less than the MDA) sample results as “<0” censored results. The impact of the high-variability and 

inconsistent results and removal of the chelated individuals were evaluated using the TWOPOS 

method.1

Chelation accelerates the removal of actinides from the body by chemically binding with the actinide, 

which produces a chemical compound more readily eliminated through urine or feces (or both). This 

chemical process perturbs the normal bodily excretion of actinides and can also result in 

heterogeneity of the actinide concentration in the urine. SRS commonly analyzed small aliquots of 

urine samples using a sample volume of 5 or 10 mL. When a small aliquot is taken from a urine 

sample, this heterogeneity can result in markedly different radionuclide concentrations in comparison 

with a different aliquot from the same urine sample. 

Results Greater than 3 dpm/1.5L 

SC&A found 220 results greater than 3 dpm/1.5L. These 220 samples were from 35 different 

individuals. Twenty-one of those individuals had received DTPA. Of these 220 results, 28 results had 

high variability between the dpm/1.5L values. An additional 20 results had inconsistent results 

between the reported and dpm/1.5L values.

Of the 28 results with high variability, 17 were from one person who had already been excluded from 

the coworker study; therefore, the variability in those data is not relevant. Urinalysis results influenced 

by administration of DTPA have been removed from this revision of the coworker study. Therefore, 

the data from any other individuals whose urinalysis results were influenced by administration of 

DTPA do not need any further evaluation because they are excluded. 

After exclusion of urinalysis results influenced by administration of DTPA, 21 samples greater than 

3 dpm/1.5L remained. Of these, only five individuals not receiving DTPA had highlighted results. Two 

individuals had one sample each exhibiting high variability, two individuals had one sample each with 

an inconsistent result, and one individual had two samples with inconsistent results, one of which was 

a typographical error. These individuals had a total of 21 results >3 dpm/1.5L. 

 

1 This evaluation was conducted before stratification of the coworker data into CTW and non-CTW strata.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 54 of 94

ATTACHMENT B 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

A broad-scale view of the trends in variability of all the trivalent actinide bioassay data without 

chelation can be seen in Figure B-1. This figure plots the coefficient of variation in the count-specific 

results for each sample as a function of sample result. Figure B-2 is a smaller scale view of the same 

data focusing on results less than 5 dpm/d. The trend line is the 95th percentile of the coefficient of 

variation, meaning only 5% of the sample results are above this line. The trend line behaves as 

expected, with higher values for very small results and decreasing as a function of increasing sample 

results. There are a few results that can be perceived to be high outliers, but most of these results 

have straightforward reasons for the high variability and will most likely be excluded in the next 

revision of the coworker study.

Figure B-1. Coefficient of variation of count-specific results. 

Results Between 1 and 3 dpm/1.5L 

SC&A found 116 results between 1 and 3 dpm/1.5L from 49 different individuals. Twenty-one of the 

individuals received DTPA. Of the 116 results, 29 had high variability between the dpm/1.5L values. 

An additional five results had inconsistent results between the reported and dpm/1.5L values. 

Of the 29 results with high variability, 14 were from one person who had already been excluded from 

the coworker study because the high americium results were from a plutonium wound intake; 

therefore, the variability in those data is not relevant. Urinalysis results influenced by administration of 

DTPA have been removed from this revision of the coworker study. Therefore, the data from any 

other individuals whose urinalysis results were influenced by administration of DTPA do not need any 

further evaluation because they are excluded.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 55 of 94

ATTACHMENT B 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

Figure B-2. Coefficient of variation of count-specific results, small scale. 

After exclusion of urinalysis results influenced by administration of DTPA, 31 sample results between 

1 and 3 dpm/1.5L remained. Of these, only three individuals not receiving DTPA had highlighted

results. All three individuals had one result with high variability. These individuals had a total of four 

results between 1 and 3 dpm/1.5L. Only one had a result greater than 3 dpm/1.5L, and that result 

was not highlighted. 

Conclusions

Table B-1 summarizes the data SC&A reviewed that was greater than 1 dpm/d and the portion that 

had high variability. Only 4 of 52 samples >1 dpm/d unaffected by chelation had high variability. Two 

of those were characterized as highly variable due to issues with data entry rather than with the site’s 

bioassay program. This means that, of the samples used in the coworker study, less than 4% had 

high variability as defined by SC&A due to potential issues with the site’s bioassay program. This low 

percentage of individual disc variability and uncertainty is subsumed under the statistical analysis of 

all the samples collectively. All of the uncertainties discussed by SC&A are much less than the 

minimum GSD of 3.0 used for coworker study intakes. Therefore, the conclusion is that aliquot 

variability has an insignificant effect on the overall results and the data can be used as is.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 56 of 94

ATTACHMENT B

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

Table B-1. Summary of data >1 dpm/d.

Sample type

Total # of 

samples

# of samples with 

high variabilitya

All samples >3 dpm/d 220 28

Samples > 3dpm/d w/o chelation 21 2

All samples between 1 and 3 dpm/d 116 29b

Samples between 1 and 3 dpm/d w/o chelation 31 0

a. Excluding high variability due to data entry issues.

b. 14 of these 29 samples are from one person.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 57 of 94

 

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

C-1 Summary of 241Am intake rates and dates.............................................................................. 64

C-2 Summary of type M 232Th intake rates and dates ................................................................... 67

C-3 Summary of type S 232Th intake rates and dates .................................................................... 67

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

C-1 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1964 to 

1967, type M. .........................................................................................................................59

C-2 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 

1970, type M. .........................................................................................................................59

C-3 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1971 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................59

C-4 Predicted 241Am bioassay resulted calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1964 to 1967, 

type M ....................................................................................................................................60

C-5 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 

1970, type M ..........................................................................................................................60

C-6 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1971 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................60

C-7 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1964 to 1967, 

type M....................................................................................................................................61

C-8 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1970, 

type M ....................................................................................................................................61

C-9 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1971 to 1989, 

type M ....................................................................................................................................61

C-10 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1964 to 1967, 

type M ....................................................................................................................................62

C-11 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1970, 

type M ....................................................................................................................................62

C-12 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1971 to 1989, 

type M ....................................................................................................................................62
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 58 of 94

ATTACHMENT C

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

C-13 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, all years, 

type M....................................................................................................................................63

C-14 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, all years, 

type M....................................................................................................................................63

C-15 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type M..... 63

C-16 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type M..... 64

C-17 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................64

C-18 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 

1989, type M ..........................................................................................................................65

C-19 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................65

C-20 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................65

C-21 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 

1989, type S...........................................................................................................................66

C-22 Predicted thorium bioassay resulted calculated using IMBA-derived thorium intake rates 

(line) compared with bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1989, 

type M....................................................................................................................................66

C-23 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type S.....................................................................................................................................66

C-24 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, 

type S.....................................................................................................................................67
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 59 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-1. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1964 to 1967, type M. 

Figure C-2. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1970, type M. 

Figure C-3. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1971 to 1989, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 60 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-4. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1964 to 1967, type M. 

Figure C-5. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1970, type M. 

Figure C-6. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1971 to 1989, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 61 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-7. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1964 to 1967, type M. 

Figure C-8. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1970, type M. 

Figure C-9. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1971 to 1989, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 62 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-10. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1964 to 1967, type M. 

Figure C-11. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1970, type M. 

Figure C-12. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1971 to 1989, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 63 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-13. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, all years, type M. 

Figure C-14. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, all years, type M. 

Figure C-15. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 64 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-16. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type M. 

Table C-1. Summary of 241Am intake rates (dpm/d) and dates. 

nonCTW

Start End

50th

percentile

84th

percentile GSD Adj GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1964 12/31/1967 124.5 197.5 1.59 3.00 759

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 39.8 84.2 2.12 3.00 243

01/01/1971 12/31/1989 3.126 11.58 3.70 3.70 26.9

CTW

Start End

50th

percentile

84th

percentile GSD Adj GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1964 12/31/1967 110.3 171 1.55 3.00 672

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 37.91 78.69 2.08 3.00 231

01/01/1971 12/31/1989 3.338 13.85 4.15 4.15 34.7

Figure C-17. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 1989, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 65 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-18. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 1989, type M. 

Figure C-19. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, type M. 

Figure C-20. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 66 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-21. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 1989, type S. 

Figure C-22. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1972 to 1989, type S. 

Figure C-23. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 67 of 94

ATTACHMENT C 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure C-24. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1972 to 1989, type S. 

Table C-2. Summary of type M 232Th intake rates (dpm/d) and dates. 

nonCTW

Start End

50th

percentile

84th

percentile GSD Adj GSD

95th

percentile

1/1/1972 12/31/1989 4.813 18.6 3.86 3.86 44.5

CTW

Start End

50th

percentile

84th

percentile GSD Adj GSD

95th

percentile

1/1/1972 12/31/1989 5.172 22.52 4.35 4.35 58.2

Table C-3. Summary of type S 232Th intake rates (dpm/d) and dates. 

nonCTW

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD Adj GSD

95th 

percentile

1/1/1972 12/31/1989 67.59 261.6 3.87 3.87 626.2

CTW

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD Adj GSD

95th 

percentile

1/1/1972 12/31/1989 72.74 329.9 4.54 4.54 874.8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 68 of 94

 

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES TITLE PAGE

D-1a Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha D&D facility on November 18 and 

19, 1981................................................................................................................................. 70

D-1b Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha D&D facility on November 18 and 

19, 1981, continued................................................................................................................71

D-2a Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982 .................................................................................................. 71

D-2b Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued................................................................................. 72

D-2c Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued................................................................................. 72

D-2d Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued................................................................................. 73

D-3 Job plan describing work performed by Maintenance to prepare for work to be done by 

Construction...........................................................................................................................74

D-4a Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984..................................... 74

D-4b Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ................... 75

D-4c Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ................... 75
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 69 of 94

ATTACHMENT D

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) 

facility on November 18 and 19, 1981, by Construction and Maintenance are shown in Figure D-1.

Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 through early 

February 1982 by Construction and Maintenance are shown in Figure D-2. Both groups poured 

cement in performance of respective tasks.

A job plan describing work performed by Maintenance to prepare for work to be done by Construction 

is shown in Figure D-3.

Work tasks performed with the modification of the Californium Processing Facility (CPF) in April 1984 

Construction and Maintenance and E&I are shown in Figure D-4.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 70 of 94

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure D-1a. Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha D&D facility on November 18 and 

19, 1981 (DuPont 1981). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 71 of 94

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure D-1b. Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha D&D facility on November 18 and 

19, 1981, continued (DuPont 1981). 

Figure D-2a. Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982 (DuPont 1982). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 72 of 94

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure D-2b. Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued (DuPont 1982). 

Figure D-2c. Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued (DuPont 1982). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 73 of 94

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure D-2d. Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 

through early February 1982, continued (DuPont 1982). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 74 of 94

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure D-3. Job plan describing work performed by Maintenance to prepare for work to be done by 

Construction (DuPont 1983). 

Figure D-4a. Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984 (DuPont 1984). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 75 of 94

ATTACHMENT D 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure D-4b. Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued (DuPont 

1984). 

Figure D-4c. Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued (DuPont 

1984). 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 76 of 94

 

ATTACHMENT E 

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS

SRS Am QA Report

June 16, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

Payroll ID#

Pu dpm/1.5L (12 columns) (nonblank)

Pu Report (nonblank)

EU dpm/1.5L (10 columns) (nonblank)

EU Report (nonblank)

Am dpm/1.5L (10 columns) (nonblank)

Am Report (nonblank)

Np dpm/1.5L (10 columns) (nonblank)

Np Report (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 79,996

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 4,242

Results

25 errors / 4,242 checked = 0.59%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical field 

transcription error rate is between 0.39% and 0.86%.

Evaluation

The critical field interval is entirely below 1%. There 

is no issue with the critical field transcription error 

rate in this SRS americium dataset.

Fields

Critical Fields

Employee Last Name

Employee First Initial

Employee Middle Initial

Volume

Area

Occupation Title

Bottle Date

Remarks (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 216,193

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 873

Results

6 errors / 873 checked = 0.69%

We are at least 95% confident that the all field 

transcription error rate is between 0.25% and 1.49%.

Evaluation

The all field interval is entirely below 5%. There is no 

issue with the all field transcription error rate in this 

SRS americium dataset.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 77 of 94

ATTACHMENT E 

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (continued)

SRS Np Logbooks QA Report

May 25, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

Payroll ID #

Pu results (nonblank)

Pu units (nonblank)

Np results (nonblank)

Np units (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 9,746

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 3,144

Results

21 errors / 3144 checked = 0.67%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical field 

transcription error rate is between 0.46% and 0.95%.

Evaluation

The critical field interval is entirely below 1%. The all 

field interval is entirely below 5%.

There are no issues with the transcription error rates 

in this SRS tritium dataset.

Note: Of the 21 critical errors, ten were payroll ID 

prefix issues. Six of the payroll ID prefix issues had 

to do with the presence or absence of a “0-" prefix.

Fields

Critical fields

Area

Employee Last Name

Employee First Initial

Employee Middle Initial

Occupation Title

Bottle Date

Received Date

Comment (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 35,666

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 848

Results

13 errors / 848 checked = 1.53%

We are at least 95% confident that the all field 

transcription error rate is between 0.83% and 2.59%.

Evaluation

The all field interval is entirely below 5%.

There are no issues with the transcription error rates 

in this SRS tritium dataset.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 78 of 94

ATTACHMENT E 

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (continued)

SRS NOCTS WBC QA Report

June 3, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

PR

Form Type (nonblank)

Nuclide

gross counts (nonblank)

bkg counts (nonblank)

net counts (nonblank)

NET c/m (nonblank)

DIFF counts (nonblank)

Result (nCi) (nonblank)

MDA @95%CL (counts) (nonblank)

MDA @95%CL (nCi) (nonblank)

Lung Burden (nCi) (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 153,989

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 4,375

Results

535 errors / 4375 checked = 12.23%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical field 

transcription error rate is between 11.29% and 

13.22%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 1.37% interval: (1.05% , 1.76%)

Counting errors in columns other than payroll ID and 

payroll ID errors that impact CTW determination:

pt. est. = 0.62% interval: (0.41% , 0.89%)

Fields

Critical Fields

Last name

Fist Name

Middle Name

Occupation Title

Position Title

Date

Dept

Location

Type (WBC or CC)

Reason

Detector

Comments (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 548,387

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 874

Results

45 errors / 874 checked = 5.15%

We are at least 95% confident that the all field 

transcription error rate is between 3.78% and 6.83%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 2.17% interval: (1.31% , 3.37%)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 79 of 94

ATTACHMENT E

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (continued)

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Critical Fields Evaluation

Payroll ID issues comprise the majority of the 

transcription errors, 523 of the 535 errors identified, 

although PRID fields were less than 25% of the total 

number of critical fields sampled. There were 12 

non-payroll ID errors out of 3373 non-payroll ID 

critical fields sampled for a non-payroll ID error rate 

point estimate of 0.4%. 

There were 523 payroll ID errors out of 1002 payroll 

ID critical fields sampled for an error rate point 

estimate of 52%. 475 of the 523 were payroll ID 

prefix issues that have no impact on the data usage 

for an error rate point estimate of 47%. Examples of 

prefix issues that have no impact on the data usage 

are using “0-,” “1-,” “T-,” or no prefix interchangeably; 

presence of a prefix when there was not a prefix on 

the source data and vice versa (although present in 

other locations and accurate); and substitution of 

craft codes for a roll code of 4-, 5-, or 6- or vice 

versa.

Of the 48 remaining (523-475) payroll ID errors, only 

15 of the errors affected usage of the data for CTW 

determination or for proper identification of the 

person. Most of the errors were either simple 

transposition errors already caught in subsequent 

data cleanup or instances where a worker was 

promoted from operator, laboratory technician, or 

similar job to a salaried position with no change in 

CTW status. However, there is still sufficient 

information to properly identify the person by claim #, 

name, or corrected payroll ID number. These types 

of errors, while errors, do not affect the subsequent 

usage of the data. CTW status is unchanged, and 

the usage of the data for calculation of bioassay 

statistics is not affected.

Therefore, the set of all errors can be refined to the 

subset of errors that affect data usage. There are 27 

such errors, the 12 non-payroll ID errors and the 15 

payroll ID errors that affect CTW determination or 

proper identification of the person. The error rate for 

this subset of errors is 0.62% with a confidence 

interval of 0.41% to 0.89%, below the desired 1% 

error rate acceptance criteria.

All Fields Evaluation

As with the critical fields, payroll ID prefix issues that 

have no impact on the data usage comprised the 

majority of the all fields errors, 26 of 45 errors. 

Although the overall error rate is above the desired 

acceptance rate of 5%, excluding these payroll ID 

prefix errors reduces the error rate to 2.17% with a 

confidence interval of 1.31% to 3.37%, below the 

desired 5% error rate acceptance criteria. Since this 

error rate is below the desired acceptance criteria, no 

further evaluation of the significance of the nonpayroll ID prefix errors was performed.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 80 of 94

ATTACHMENT E 

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (continued)

SRS MFPG QA Report

June 6, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

PR

Sampling Plan

N = 12,012

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 3,282

Results

1980 errors / 3282 checked = 60.33%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical field 

transcription error rate is between 58.88% and 

61.75%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 1.34% interval: (1.03% , 1.72%)

Counting errors in columns other than payroll ID and 

payroll ID errors that affect CTW determination and 

person identification:

pt. est. = 0.43% interval: (0.27% , 0.67%)

Fields

PR

Date

Last name

Fist Name

Middle Name

Occupation Title

Sampling Plan

N = 72,072

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team 

risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 849

Results

89 errors / 849 checked = 10.48%

We are at least 95% confident that the all field 

transcription error rate is between 8.52% and 

12.73%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 0.12% interval: (0.0042% , 0.65%)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 81 of 94

ATTACHMENT E

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (continued)

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Critical Fields Evaluation

Payroll ID prefix issues comprise the majority of the 

transcription errors, 1936 of the 1980 errors 

identified. 

The 1936 payroll ID prefix errors have no impact on 

the data usage and have an error rate point estimate 

of 59%. Examples of prefix issues that have no 

impact on the data usage are using “0-,” “1-,” “T-,” or 

no prefix interchangeably; presence of a prefix when 

there was not a prefix on the source data and vice 

versa (although present in other locations and 

accurate); and substitution of craft codes for a roll 

code of 4-, 5-, or 6- or vice versa.

Of the 44 remaining (1980 to 1936) payroll ID errors, 

only 14 of the errors affected usage of the data for 

CTW determination or for proper identification of the 

person. Most of the errors were either simple 

transposition errors already caught in subsequent 

data cleanup or were instances where a worker was 

promoted from operator, laboratory technician, or 

similar job to a salaried position with no change in 

CTW status. However, there is still sufficient 

information to properly identify the person by claim #, 

name, or corrected payroll ID number. These types 

of errors, while errors, do not affect the subsequent 

usage of the data. CTW status is unchanged, and 

the usage of the data for calculation of bioassay 

statistics is not affected.

Therefore, the set of all errors can be refined to the 

subset of errors that affect data usage. There are 14 

such errors. The error rate for this subset of errors is 

0.43% with a confidence interval of 0.27% to 0.67%, 

below the desired 1% error rate acceptance criteria.

All Fields Evaluation

As with the critical fields, payroll ID prefix issues that 

have no impact on the data usage comprised the 

majority of the all fields errors, 88 of 89 errors. 

Although the overall error rate is above the desired 

acceptance rate of 5%, excluding these payroll ID 

prefix errors leaves only a single error and reduces 

the error rate to 0.12 % with a confidence interval of 

0.0042% to 0.65%, below the desired 5% error rate 

acceptance criteria.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 82 of 94

ATTACHMENT E 

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (continued)

SRS Tritium CTW QA Report

July 14, 2016

QA of tritium data CTW determination. The CTW determinations based on the Master Occupation 

Table and the CTW Designation Instructions were checked against the worker history cards (or 

claimant interviews or personnel dosimetry quarterly reports).

All Fields Plan

Fields

Rev3CTW

Sampling Plan

N = 260,278

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5% 

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 874

Results

6 errors / 874 checked = 0.69%

Evaluation

There is a 95% confidence that the classification 

error rate between CTW determination and the 

worker history cards is between 0.25% and 1.49%.

The CTW determination and worker history cards 

classification error rate interval is entirely below 5%. 

There is no issue with the classification error rate.

Note: Five of the errors were the CTW determination 

algorithm calling the person a CTW when the worker 

history cards said they were not; one was the 

algorithm calling the person a non-CTW when they 

were.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 83 of 94

 

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016

SOURCE DATA AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Source Data

• “O:/Coworker Data/Working Files/SRS/Coworker Study/SRS NOCTS 

Tritium_052710_postQA.mdb” using the “QC copy of SRS NOCTS Tritium_052710” table 

(NOCTS H3 data) 

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\SRS Np logbook DE/Compiled_SRS 

Np Logbook_WHC_07202011r0 Mike.xlsx” (Np data) 

• “O:/Coworker Data/Working Files/SRS/Coworker Study/OTIB-0081 Rev 03/Tritium CTW 

Data/Np QA/Np logbook data corrections 2016-05-31 Rev1.xlsx” (Np corrections) 

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\SRS_WBC_WHC from OPOS 

14\SRS_WBC_WHC_FINAL_Compiled_101811r1 Mike Rev 1.xlsx” (WBC data)

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\coworker study re-do\MFP&G review 

32916\ Reviewed MFP&G Data for Board_032916.xlsx” (MFPG WHC data)

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 03\Am CTW 

Data\CTW review_051616\ Reviewed_Am Final Compiled_SRS WHC_06302011r2Ready 

Updated rev 4_062416.xlsx” (Am data)

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 03\Tritium CTW 

Data\CTW Update_07816\Compiled CTW Master update part 1 with names_071516.xlsx” 

(CTW Master Update Part 1) Note: repeat for successive parts as needed.

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 03\Tritium CTW 

Data\NOCTS WBC QA\WBC data corrections 2016-06-22.xlsx (WBC corrections)

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 03\Tritium CTW 

Data\Am QA\Am logbook data corrections 2016-08-01.xlsx (Am corrections)

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 03\Tritium CTW 

Data\MFPG QA\MFP&G data corrections 2016-06-22.xlsx (MFPG corrections)

• “O:/Coworker Data/Working Files/SRS/Coworker Study/Chelation Spreadsheets/SRS 

Chelation Data_Payroll ID’s added_082514.xlsx” (Chelation Data)

• “O:/Coworker Data/Working Files/SRS/Coworker Study/OTIB-0081 Rev 03/Tritium CTW 

V&V/NioshClaims_With_Names.csv” (SRS NOCTS Names)

• “O:/Coworker Data/Working Files/SRS/Coworker Study/OTIB-0081 Rev 03/Tritium CTW 

V&V/SRS SSNs.csv” (SRS NOCTS SSNs)

• “O:\Coworker Data\Working Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 03\Tritium CTW 

Data\H-3 QA\Tritium data corrections 2016-07-12.xlsx (NOCTS H3 corrections)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 84 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

Instructions

• For each applicable data source, make corrections as listed in the associated corrections file.

– Replace individual cell contents based on cell contents in the corrections file

– If a cell in the corrections file contains “blank”, then delete that cell’s contents in the 

source data file.

– If the corrections file comments column contains the word “exclude,” then do not use 

that line for the statistical analysis

• Correct the “Np data” with the “Np corrections” file.

– Identify lines by the unique ID column

• Correct the “WBC data” with the “WBC corrections” file.

– Identify lines by the “Unique # for Rick” column

• Correct the “Am data” with the “Am corrections” file.

– Identify lines by the unique ID column.

• Correct the “MFPG data” with the “MFPG corrections” file.

– Identify lines by the unique ID column

• Correct the “NOCTS In-vitro data” with the “NOCTS In-vitro corrections” file.

• Correct the “NOCTS H3 data” with the “NOCTS H3 corrections” file.

– Identify lines by the unique ID column, 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 85 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

MASTER OCCUPATION TABLE INSTRUCTIONS

1. Merge the following files into one master occupation table (CTW Master).

• Np data

• WBC data

• MFPG WHC data

• Am data

• CTW Master Update Part 1

The following table lists the mapping of column identifiers from each of the source files to the CTW 

Master table. If a cell in a listed column of the source file is blank (blank or no characters other than 

“space”) and there is a second column identified in parentheses, use the value from the cell in that 

column instead. For the first and middle name initials, import only the first character of the name from 

the source files that provide the full first and middle name.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 86 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

Table F-1. CTW Master Table Cross Reference. 

Master Np data WBC data

MFPG WHC 

data Am data

CTW Master 

Updates

PRID Corrected PRID 

(Payroll ID#)

Corrected PR #

(PR)

Corrected PR #

(PR)

Changed Payroll 

ID#

(Payroll ID#)

PRID

Last Name Corrected Last 

Name

(Employee Last 

Name)

Corrected last 

name (Last 

name)

Last name Corrected Last 

Name

(Employee Last 

Name)

Last Name

First Initial Corrected FI 

(Employee First 

Initial)

Fist name Fist Name Corrected First 

Initial 

(Employee First 

Initial)

First Initial

Middle Initial Corrected MI 

(Employee 

Middle Initial)

Corrected 

middle name 

(Middle Name)

Middle Name Corrected Middle 

Initial 

(Employee Middle 

Initial)

Middle Initial

SSN Not used Not used Not used Not used SSN

Occupation 

Title

Corrected 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Corrected 

Occupation 

(Occupation 

Title)

Corrected 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Changed 

Occupation Title 

(Occupation Title)

Corrected 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Date Bottle Date 

(Received 

Date)

Date Date Bottle Date Date

NIOSH ID Not used Claim Claim # NIOSH ID NIOSH ID

SRDB Ref ID SRDB Ref ID Not used Not used SRDB Ref ID SRDB Ref ID

CTW Not used Not used Not used Not used CTW

WkHxFile Link to EDAR & 

WkHx Images

Link to EDAR & 

WkHx Images

Link to EDAR & 

WkHx Images

Link to EDAR & 

WkHx Images

EDAR.file

WkHxPage Pagea Pageb Pagec Paged Pagee

a. Page in column 18.

b. Page in column 14.

c. Page in column 23.

d. Page in column 19.

e. Page in column 15.

2. Remove duplicate lines.

3. Use the first/middle/last name information (corrected and original) to assign NIOSH ID 

numbers to CTW Master table rows without a NIOSH ID number where possible. (Do not 

overwrite claim numbers found in the original files.)

4. For each row with a NIOSH ID number and no SSN, look up the SSN in the SRS NOCTS 

SSNs file and add to the CTW Master Table where possible. 

5. For all rows where the PRID prefix = “3-“, set CTW = Null. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 87 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

6. For all rows where:

[the (PRID prefix >= “4-”, 

Or any title listed in Table 2]

Table F-2. CTW Occupation Titles. 

Title

* maintenance man

boilermaker

carpenter

concrete

concrete worker

construction

construction worker

ctw

driver

e&i tech

electrician

heavy equipment operator

insulator

iron worker

ironworker

laborer

machinist

maintenance

maintenance mechanic

maintenance mechanic a

mechanic

painter

pipe fitter

pipefitter

plumber

rigger

roll 5

sheetmetal

sheetmetal worker

welder

and Occupation Title ≠ “CATI - Machinist”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Machinist”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Security”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Engineer”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Clerical”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Pilot”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Instructor”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Manager”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Human Resources”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Supervisor”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Escort”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Laundry”
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 88 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

and Occupation Title ≠ “Health Physics"

and Occupation Title ≠ “Administrative Assistant”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Specialist”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Assistant”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Layout”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Reactor Operator”

and Occupation Title ≠ “QA”

and Occupation Title ≠ “Cafeteria”

set CTW = ‘Y’. Otherwise, set CTW = ‘N’.

Ignore capitalization differences.

7. If the PRID is a SSN, ignore the PRID field for CTW determination.

8. Overwrite CTW results for the following claims and dates as follows:

a. Claim 20529, for all dates, CTW=”N”.

b. Claim 23342, for all dates, CTW=”N”.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 89 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

CTW DESIGNATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. For each radionuclide data set used for the coworker study, create a new column of data 

labeled “Rev 3 CTW.”

2. For each line of data in the data set, look up the CTW designation in the CTW Master file for 

that person and date.

a. Match the person based on the following fields given in preference order:

i. NIOSH ID

ii. PRID

iii. Last name and /First/Middle initial

b. Find the CTW designation date for that person in the following priority order:

i. Same date

ii. Most closely preceding date

iii. Most closely following date (if within 5 years)

c. Use the CTW designation on that date to update the data set. (NOTE: There should be 

exact date matches for all dates in the Am data, Np data, and WBC data files)

d. If the person or a suitable CTW designation date cannot be found in the CTW Master file, 

mark the CTW designation as “NULL.”

3. Generate a list of all records where the Rev 3 CTW designation is NULL.

4. Manually determine the PRID and occupation for each NULL record and generate a CTW 

Master Update file with the new information.

5. Update the CTW Master table to include the data in the newly generated CTW Master Update 

file.

6. Repeat Steps 2-5 until no records have a Rev 3 CTW designation of NULL.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 90 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

RADIONUCLIDE INSTRUCTIONS

Tritium

NOCTS H3 Data:

• MDA values:

– Use the result “<X” values where available if “X” is >0,

– Otherwise use generic MDAs of:

o 1 μCi/L through 1980,

o 0.5 μCi/L for 1981 through 1985

o 0.1 μCi/L for 1986 and after.

– For reported positive, nonzero values less than the generic MDA, use the reported 

value as the MDA.

• Use the “Date” (column D) as the date of sample collection.

• Use the Claim # field as the individual identifier.

• Data set exclusions and revisions:

– ID 16098: Change result to “<0.5”

– Exclude ID 35923 (blank result)

– Exclude ID 175849 (blank result)

– Change all “<0.05” and “< 0.05” results to “<0.5”

– Exclude all data from Claim # 16856 (not an SRS worker)

• For each sample date, determine the individual’s CTW designation as described above.

– Look up the individual name using the SRS NOCTS Names file as needed to assist

with CTW determination.

• Calculate annual doses for each claimant in accordance with OTIB-0011 with the following

assumptions:

– Evaluate each individual’s CTW and nonCTW data, designated using the CTW

designations determined in the previous step, separately and treat as two different

workers.

– If there is more than 90 days between samples, use a Type 3 analysis under the

assumption that the person is not routinely monitored.

– If there is a single non-detect urine sample in a calendar year, exclude the result

because this is assumed to not be part of routine monitoring.

– Order samples on the same date from lowest to highest.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 91 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

– Assign all dose as if it occurred on the bioassay date.

• Statistical analysis:

– Evaluate CTW and non-CTW strata separately for 1954 through 1990.

– Sum dose for each individual for each year. Exclude from the statistical analysis any 

individual with an annual dose of less than 0.001 rem at three significant digits, i.e., 

less than 0.0005 rem.

– Calculate GM and GSD values for the total annual doses using RPRT-53 methodology.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 92 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

Americium

Am logbook data:

• If the Changed Payroll ID field is blank, use the Payroll ID field instead.

• Do not use records:

– With “LIP” in the “report” field

– With the following anywhere in the “remarks” field 

o “LIP” 

o “Am do not report” 

o “DTPA” 

o “Am DNR”

o “Do not report”

o “DO NOT USE”

o “Lost”

o 0.383; Am LIP; Probable Contamination

o Am – LIP

o Am DNR

o Am DNR (Note that there is an extra space after the R in the spreadsheet)

o Am LIP

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank ,Am=.460

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.200

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.255

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.285

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.310

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.315

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.370

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.388

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.395

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.420

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.493

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.527

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.903

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=1.440

o Broken flask sample LIP

o Do not report

o Do not report #6 until rerun and found valid

o Do Not Report Am

o DO NOT USE, Spike

o DO NOT USE, Spike -.-010

o DTPA Program

o Flask broken - sample lost

o LIP for Am and Pu

o LIP for Am; Pu ok

o LIP. Do Not Report note at bottom of page 23.

o Lost in Process
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 93 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

o Not used

o Pu LIP low recovery; Am LIP

o Pu OK, Re-run AM DO NOT USE for Am

o Pu OK, Re-run AM DO NOT USE for Am, .150

o Pu ok; Am LIP see note at bottom of page and note low recoveries.

o Rerun #7 (Am) lost

o For Remarks Column comment “1st dpm/disc LIP ; flash broke” which is 

Unique ID 15640, don’t use the blank dpm/1.5L (1) result; but use the results in 

the dpm/1.5L (2) and dpm/1.5L (3) column

o For Remarks Column comment “Am #1 lost; 2nd rinse onto planchet” which is 

Unique ID # 17920, don’t use the dpm/1.5L (1) result; but use the dpm/1.5L (2) 

result.

o Except for the following which are still used:

• “Pu LIP” (unless “Am LIP” is also in the remarks)

• “Pu report data LIP”

• “EU LIP”

• “LIP (EU)”

• “Unique ID # 17259 dpm/1.5L (1) even though there is a comment 

stating 2nd rerun lost.

– Individual “dpm/1.5L” values with a value of “LIP” (other “dpm/1.5L” values for that 

record are still used).

– If the “report” and all “dpm/1.5L” fields are blank

– Data exclusions:

o Changed Payroll ID A, incident on March 9, 1970, exclude all results for 1970.

o Changed Payroll ID B, exclude result on May 1, 1981, false positive.

o Changed Payroll ID C, exclude result on April 27, 1966, false positive.

o Changed Payroll ID D, exclude result on October 19, 1976, false positive.

o Changed Payroll ID E, ingestion intake on March 16, 1972, exclude all results 

for 1972.

o Changed Payroll ID F, Pu wound intake on May 8, 1986, exclude all results for 

1986.

– With a type of “DTPA” or similar

– With no bottle date.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 11/22/2016 Page 94 of 94

ATTACHMENT F 

SRS COWORKER STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS,

REVISION 15, AUGUST 1, 2016 (continued)

– With no “Changed Payroll ID#” or “Payroll ID”

– Within 100 days after receiving chelation as indicated in the Chelation Data 

spreadsheet. Disregard PRID prefixes for matching bioassay results to the Chelation 

Data spreadsheet.

– With a value given as a percentage in any of the report or individual dpm/1.5L values.

• Average all reported “dpm/1.5L” values to determine the result to use

– If all “dpm/1.5L” values are blank, use the “report” value.

• Use the following censoring levels for negative/zero values:

– 1963-1965: 2 dpm/1.5L

– 1966-1967: 3 dpm/1.5L

– 1968: 1 dpm/1.5L

– 1969-1989: 0.3 dpm/1.5L

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

of RPRT-0053 as follows:

– Evaluate two strata; 1) CTW for 1967-1989 and 2) nonCTW for 1964-1989

– For both strata, evaluate individual years except 1981-82, 1983-84, 1985-86, and 

1987-89. Merge grouped years.