Draft White Paper 

SC&A REVIEW OF “NIOSH EVALUATION OF FERNALD 

SUBCONTRACTOR BIOASSAY DATA, REVISION 1” 

Contract Number 200-2009-28555 

Prepared by 

Robert Barton III 

Harry Chmelynski 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

Saliant, Inc. 

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

January 2012 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

2 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Effective Date: 

 Draft – January 23, 2012 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

SC&A Review of “NIOSH Evaluation of Fernald 

Subcontractor Bioassay Data, Revision 1” Page 2 of 28 

Task Manager: 

________________________ Date:____________ 

John Stiver, CHP 

Supersedes: 

N/A 

Project Manager: 

________________________ Date:____________ 

John Stiver, CHP 

Peer Reviewer(s): 

 John Stiver 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 01/23/2012 Initial issue 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

3 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................5 

2.0 Analysis of Type 50 Records in HIS_20 .............................................................................7 

3.0 Lognormal Analysis of Type 50 Records for Select Years...............................................11 

4.0 General Comments.............................................................................................................16 

5.0 References..........................................................................................................................18 

Attachment 1: Description and Overview of Sample Codes found in the HIS_20 Database.......19 

Attachment 2: Comparison of Contractor (‘50 Series’) Records versus Coworker Records 

by Quarter ..........................................................................................................................21 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. List and Description of Sample Codes Used in Analysis.............................................7 

Table 2.

...............................................................................8 

Comparison of Coworker Urinalysis Values to Code 

Type 50 Records from 1960–1985

Table 3.

............................................................................11 

Comparison of HIS-20 Uranium Urinalysis Record Counts for Type 50 

and Other Codes in Selected Years

Table 4.

.....................12 

Comparison of Lognormal Distribution Parameters for HIS_20 Type 50 

Records from Contractors with Other Records for On-Site Employees

Table 5: Overview of HIS_20 Bioassay Codes ........................................................................19 

Table 6.

................................................................................22 

Comparison of Contractor versus Coworker Records by Quarter at the Median, 

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

4 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.

........................................................9 

Ratio of the Annual Arithmetic Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

’50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records

Figure 2.

........................................................9 

Ratio of the Annual Geometric Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records

Figure 3.

..............................................................................................10 

Ratio of the Annual Median Urinalysis Values for the ‘50 Series’ Records and 

the ‘Coworker’ Records

Figure 4.

............................................................................................13 

Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1959

Figure 5.

............................................................................................13 

Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1963

Figure 6.

............................................................................................14 

Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1967

Figure 7.

............................................................................................14 

Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1972

Figure 8.

...................15 

Cumulative Distribution of Ratios Shown in Bold in Table 2 Compared with 

Proposed Coworker Model Adjustment Factor for Contract Employees

Figure 9.

......................................................27 

Ratio of the Quarterly Arithmetic Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records

Figure 10.

......................................................27 

Ratio of the Quarterly Geometric Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records

Figure 11.

......................................................28 

Ratio of the Quarterly Median Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

5 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report contains a review of the paper on the uranium coworker model titled, NIOSH 

Evaluation of Fernald Subcontractor Bioassay Data, Revision 01 (NIOSH 2011). The NIOSH 

paper looks at the difference between contract employees (mostly construction workers) and 

other onsite employees. The purpose of this comparison was to address concerns that the 

coworker model developed in ORAUT-OTIB-0078 (ORAUT 2007) did not adequately cover 

potential exposures to contract employees. NIOSH has concluded that many of the contractor 

bioassay records in the HIS_20 database are denoted with a sample type code ‘50.’ These 

records were not included in the original uranium coworker model analysis because at that time, 

NIOSH held that these records were part of a “special study” and were not reflective of normal 

unmonitored operational exposures. An overview of the different record types/designations 

available in the HIS_20 database is found in Attachment 1 of this report. 

The new analysis in NIOSH 2011 shows that many of the Type 50 entries can be traced to 

hardcopy records of urine samples obtained from contract employees. This practice continued 

up to the 1990s. The omission of these records from the dataset used to estimate lognormal 

parameters for the uranium coworker model indicates that contract employees are seriously 

under-represented in the dataset. There is an open question of how to remedy the situation and 

ensure that the coworker model is bounding for contract employee exposures. NIOSH presents 

one approach to this problem in the paper under review (NIOSH 2011). 

There are two possible approaches to understanding this problem: (1) a direct comparison of the 

Type 50 contract employee records as a separate group with the records from onsite employees, 

or (2) combine the Type 50 records not included in the earlier coworker model into the dataset 

and compare the “combined” dataset with the original dataset. Both approaches may be used to 

develop new distributions for the coworker model. NIOSH has adopted the latter approach. The 

missing Type 50 records were added to the earlier dataset used to estimate the uranium coworker 

model and the model was re-estimated using the expanded dataset. A direct comparison of the 

Type 50 contract employee records as a separate group with the records from onsite employees 

was considered by NIOSH, although no analysis or associated results were presented in the 

paper. NIOSH states the following: 

The data show that until the 1980s the number of monitored subcontractors was 

relatively small compared to the site monitored population, making the geometric 

mean (GM) of the subcontractor data sensitive to a few high results. (NIOSH 

2011, p. 4) 

No quantitative evidence is provided to support this assertion. It is also noted in the white paper 

that some results appeared to be contaminated, as evidenced by differences of an order of 

magnitude between samples at the end of shift and samples taken the subsequent morning. The 

frequency with which this possible contamination was observed is not provided in the report. 

When the missing Type 50 records are added to the original model, the coworker estimates of the 

median exposure from the pooled data go up by a factor around 1.25 to 1.6, depending on the 

year in question and whether annual or quarterly data are considered. Based on this analysis, 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

6 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NIOSH proposes to use a correction factor of 2 when the coworker model is applied to contract 

employees. SC&A is of the opinion that this approach drastically underestimates the difference 

in exposure between contract construction workers and other onsite employees. 

To determine the magnitude of the underestimation, SC&A performed two separate data 

analyses: 

 Calculation of the arithmetic mean, median, and geometric mean for the raw data on an 

annual and quarterly basis from 1960–1985 (see Section 2 for annual data and 

Attachment 2 for quarterly data). 

 Lognormal fitting and then comparison of the annual data from four select years: 1959, 

1963, 1967, and 1972 (see Section 3). 

Based on these two analyses, SC&A believes that contractor records could be higher than the 

established coworker records by a factor of 5–8 depending on the specific timeframe and 

analysis method (raw data or lognormal transformation). 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

7 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.0 ANALYSIS OF TYPE 50 RECORDS IN HIS_20 

SC&A compiled the uranium1 urinalysis data from 1960–1985 and separated it into the two 

groups of interest: the ‘50 series’ records and the records used in the formulation of the original 

coworker model (referred to as the ‘coworker group’). The actual sample type codes used for 

each group are summarized in Table 1. For a full list of available codes in the HIS_20 database, 

please refer to Attachment 1. 

Table 1. List and Description of Sample Codes Used in Analysis 

Group Codes Used in Analysis # Records Code Description 

50 7,905 Special Sample 

5A 274 Off-the-job, Overnight Composite Specimen 

5B 990 Off-the-job, Overnight Individual Sample 

5C 172 Special Correlation Sample 

5D 566 24-Hour Individual Sample from Confined Patients 

5F 212 24-Hour Individual Sample from Unconfined Patients 

5H 296 On-the-Job Individual Sample Collected in the Work Area 

5R 1,880 Recall ‘50 series’ Sample 

50 Series 

Total 10,443 

00 321 No Code 

03 86 Plant 3 

05 2 Plant 5 

20 23,484 Annual Sample 

30 65,902 Routine Sample 

40 6,262 Incident – Follow-up Sample 

49 4,746 Incident - End of Shift Sample 

R 1,852 Recall Sample 

XX 870 Not specified - likely means the same as 00 or "No Code" 

Coworker 

Total 107,499 

Using the records described in Table 1, the arithmetic mean, median, and geometric mean were 

calculated on an annual basis.2

 The results are shown in Table 2 and include the ratio of the ‘50 

series’ records to ‘coworker’ records; the calculated ratios that are higher than the suggested 

adjustment factor of 2 are highlighted. The calculated ratios are also depicted in Figures 1–3. 

As seen in the table and accompanying charts, many of the years analyzed had ratios above the 

suggested correction factor (13/26 or 50% for the arithmetic mean, 11/26 or 42% for the 

geometric mean, and 10/26 or 38% for the median). Ratios ranged up to 7 for the arithmetic 

average and up to approximately 5–6 for the geometric mean and median values. 

 1

 Though the HIS_20 database does present some isotopic-specific urinalysis results, only those designated 

as “Total Uranium” and given in units of μg/l were considered for comparison in this section. 2

 For comparisons based on quarterly data, please refer to Attachment 2. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

8 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Table 2. Comparison of Coworker Urinalysis Values to Code 

Type 50 Records from 1960–1985 

Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Median 

Year 

Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio 

1960 21.58 33.82 1.57 15.03 25.73 1.71 15 27 1.80 

1961 18.78 25.88 1.38 14.00 17.72 1.27 14 17 1.21 

1962 14.30 25.74 1.80 9.75 17.05 1.75 10 17 1.70 

1963 14.02 18.77 1.34 10.20 12.12 1.19 10 12 1.20 

1964 15.17 43.78 2.89 9.50 20.66 2.17 9 20 2.22 

1965 10.36 24.24 2.34 5.95 12.50 2.10 6 11 1.83 

1966 16.59 67.39 4.06 5.29 18.46 3.49 6 16 2.67 

1967 8.38 19.46 2.32 5.67 12.58 2.22 6 12 2.00 

1968 7.48 14.42 1.93 5.04 8.78 1.74 5 9 1.80 

1969 6.64 31.18 4.70 4.57 14.86 3.25 4 11 2.75 

1970 5.43 - NA 3.73 - NA 3 - NA 

1971 6.98 8.14 1.17 4.74 5.63 1.19 4 8 2.00 

1972 8.95 62.97 7.04 4.78 23.07 4.82 4 21 5.25 

1973 8.96 19.75 2.20 5.53 13.59 2.46 5 15.5 3.10 

1974 7.44 15.36 2.06 5.18 9.47 1.83 5 8 1.60 

1975 7.70 9.17 1.19 5.35 5.97 1.12 5 7.5 1.50 

1976 7.17 5.10 0.71 5.11 4.78 0.94 5 5 1.00 

1977 6.15 11.32 1.84 4.53 8.12 1.79 4 8.5 2.13 

1978 5.85 12.38 2.11 4.44 11.41 2.57 4 10 2.50 

1979 6.71 6.74 1.01 4.72 4.95 1.05 5 5 1.00 

1980 6.11 9.92 1.62 4.59 7.47 1.63 4 7 1.75 

1981 4.13 15.86 3.84 3.28 9.85 3.01 3 10 3.33 

1982 5.06 9.88 1.95 4.01 5.80 1.45 4 5.5 1.38 

1983 5.38 12.57 2.34 4.24 9.75 2.30 4 9 2.25 

1984 5.94 20.83 3.51 4.31 6.17 1.43 4 5 1.25 

1985 5.34 19.21 3.60 3.97 15.57 3.93 3 19 6.33 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

9 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Figure 1. Ratio of the Annual Arithmetic Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

’50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records 

Figure 2. Ratio of the Annual Geometric Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

10 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Figure 3. Ratio of the Annual Median Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records 

NIOSH 2011 states that comparisons were also made on a quarterly basis, and that the highest 

ratio when comparing the combined group (contractor + coworker) versus the original coworker 

group occurred in 1972 and was 1.61. SC&A also analyzed the data by quarter, but compared 

the direct ratio of the contractor versus coworker records instead of the combined group; this 

analysis is presented in Attachment 2. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

11 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

3.0 LOGNORMAL ANALYSIS OF TYPE 50 RECORDS FOR SELECT 

YEARS 

The previous section simply analyzed the raw data without any statistical manipulation; 

however, coworker models are constructed by fitting the raw data to a lognormal distribution to 

determine the specific parameters used in assigning coworker doses. Therefore, SC&A used the 

HIS_20 dataset to estimate separate lognormal models for the original coworker data and 

separately for the Type 50 records in the database. Due to the relatively small number of 

Type 50 records, the comparison was conducted on an annual basis. Four years were selected for 

the direct comparison. The years 1959, 1963, 1967 and 1972 were selected to span the period of 

greatest interest. All HIS_20 uranium urine records in units of mg/l were used in the 

comparison, but pre-employment records were omitted by excluding codes 10, 70 and 7R ,which 

is consistent with the original coworker model approach (ORAUT 2007, p. 2). Table 3 shows 

the relative number of records in the two groups; Type 50 and all other records. 

Table 3. Comparison of HIS-20 Uranium Urinalysis Record Counts for Type 50 

and Other Codes in Selected Years 

Sub-Group 1959 1963 1967 1972 

Type 50 1,731 2,326 106 269 

(%) 11.9% 24.0% 2.0% 12.2% 

Other Codes 12,825 7,353 5,259 1,935 

(%) 88.1% 76.0% 98.0% 87.8% 

Total 14,556 9,679 5,365 2,204 

The total count of records shows a declining trend over the 13-year period covered by the table. 

In 1963, the Type 50 records accounted for approximately one-quarter of the urine sample 

records in HIS_20, and one-eighth in 1959. The smallest record count was 106 Type 50 records 

in 1967. In 1972, the percentage of Type 50 returned to the same level as in 1959. 

Lognormal distributions were fitted to the annual datasets for each of the two groups using the 

graphical approach recommended by NIOSH. The results are shown in Figures 4 through 7 for 

1959, 1963, 1967, and 1972, respectively. In all years except 1959, the upper tail of the 

distribution of Type 50 records is higher than the distribution of other records in HIS_20. The 

relative uniformity of the upper half of the Type 50 distributions shows no evidence of a few 

“unusually high” values that NIOSH claims would unduly affect the parameter estimates. 

The figures also show the equations of the least squares regression line for each group of records. 

The intercept of the equation is an estimate of the lognormal parameter μ and the slope of the 

equation is an estimate of the lognormal parameter σ, where exp(μ) is the geometric mean (GM) 

and exp(σ) is the geometric standard deviation (GSD) of the lognormal distribution. 

A comparison of the GSD, GM, mean and 95th percentiles of the Type 50 records and onsite 

records is shown in Table 4. The table also shows the ratio of the estimate for Type 50 records 

to the estimate for the onsite records for each year and averaged over all 4 years. Note that all 

ratios are greater than 1. Every parameter in this table, including μ and σ, has a higher estimate 

for the Type 50 records. The GSD of the Type 50 records is roughly 20% higher than the GSD 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

12 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

for onsite records. Due to the higher GSD of the Type 50 records, it is not appropriate to 

compare only the GM (medians) of the two distributions, which was the only comparison used 

by NIOSH in their approach. The difference in GSDs indicates that other parameters that 

characterize the upper tails of the distributions should also be compared. The mean and 95th

percentiles are used by SC&A in this comparison. 

The expected value (mean) falls between the GM and the 95th percentile in all years. Note that 

the GM, mean, and 95th percentiles have increasing average ratios (averaged over the 4 years for 

which data were analyzed), indicating a greater spread moving toward the upper tail of the 

distributions. The same is true for each individual year. The average ratio ranges from 2.5 

(Type 50 is 150% higher than onsite) for the GM to an average ratio of 3.5 (Type 50 is 250% 

higher than onsite) for the 95th percentile. The highest ratios occur in 1972, when the GM, mean, 

and 95th percentiles have ratios of approximately 5, 7, and 8, respectively, indicating that the 

Type 50 record parameters range from 400% to 700% higher than the onsite record parameters. 

NIOSH also found the highest ratios were in 1972. The NIOSH approach arrived at a factor of 

only 1.24 for this year. In the end, NIOSH recommended using a correction factor of 2 for all 

years for subcontractor employees. 

The analysis above shows that the correction factor of 2 proposed by NIOSH is only a fraction of 

the actual difference between the Type 50 records assumed to be contractor urinalyses and the 

onsite employee records. Figure 8 compares the cumulative distribution of the 12 annual ratios 

shown in bold type in Table 4 (GM, mean, and 95th percentile) to the correction factor of 2 

proposed by NIOSH for subcontractor employees. The NIOSH factor is below the three average 

comparison ratios shown in Table 2 for the GM, mean, and 95th percentile. 

Table 4. Comparison of Lognormal Distribution Parameters for HIS_20 Type 50 

Records from Contractors with Other Records for On-Site Employees 

YEAR 

1959 1963 1967 1972 

Parameter Type 50 Onsite Type 50 Onsite Type 50 Onsite Type 50 Onsite 

Average 

Ratio 

Mu (μ) 2.61 2.34 2.46 2.29 2.46 1.68 3.14 1.50 

Sigma (σ) 1.11 0.96 0.91 0.83 1.08 0.92 1.24 0.97 

GSD 3.03 2.62 2.49 2.29 2.94 2.51 3.45 2.63 

Ratio* 1.15 1.09 1.17 1.31 1.18 

GM (μg/l) 13.61 10.34 11.75 9.91 11.71 5.34 23.07 4.46 

Ratio* 1.32 1.18 2.19 5.17 2.47 

Mean (μg/l) 25.12 16.47 17.83 13.96 20.94 8.16 49.60 7.12 

Ratio* 1.52 1.28 2.57 6.97 3.08 

95th Percentile 

(μg/l) 84.07 50.56 52.82 38.67 69.01 24.27 176.56 21.88 

Ratio* 1.66 1.37 2.84 8.07 3.49 

* Ratio = Type 50/Onsite
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

13 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1959

y = 1.10697x + 2.61089

R2

 = 0.98515

y = 0.96459x + 2.33650

R2

 = 0.98893

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Z-score

Log(U Concentration)

ONSITE TYPE50

Figure 4. Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1959 

1963

y = 0.82747x + 2.29402

R2

 = 0.97782

y = 0.91399x + 2.46345

R2

 = 0.97879

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Z-score

Log(U Concentration)

ONSITE TYPE50

Figure 5. Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1963 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

14 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1967

y = 0.92005x + 1.67597

R2

 = 0.97297

y = 1.07853x + 2.46018

R2

 = 0.97984

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Z-score

Log(U Concentration)

ONSITE TYPE50

Figure 6. Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1967 

1972

y = 0.96671x + 1.49533

R2

 = 0.95309

y = 1.23731x + 3.13845

R2

 = 0.98009

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Z-score

Log(U Concentration)

ONSITE TYPE50

Figure 7. Lognormal Fit of the Data for the Coworker Population and the 

Type 50 Records in 1972 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

15 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Cumulative Percentage

Value of Ratio

Distribution of Ratios for 1959,1963,1967,1972

Factor of 2 Proposed by NIOSH

Figure 8. Cumulative Distribution of Ratios Shown in Bold in Table 2 Compared with 

Proposed Coworker Model Adjustment Factor for Contract Employees 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

16 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

4.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 

NIOSH is to be commended for their efforts in furthering our understanding of the history of the 

uranium urinalysis records in HIS_20, and for recognizing the important implications of having 

first omitted Type 50 records from the uranium coworker model database. However, the current 

information about the Type 50 records in HIS_20 is far from complete. The draft report contains 

minimal details of the data analysis performed by NIOSH; only a simple time series plot of the 

ratios obtained using the NIOSH approach of comparing the combined dataset with the original 

coworker dataset. This paper would benefit from additional information, including details of the 

data analysis, as well as showing sample sizes and fitted lognormal distributions of each set of 

records, both separately and combined, by time period. This detailed information is usually 

provided in reporting of coworker model results, including plots useful for identifying the effect 

of outliers. 

Additional NIOSH 2011 Report-Specific Comments: 

 Page 3: Table 1 provides the SRDB reference numbers to hardcopy bioassay request 

cards. However, aside from a few specific references indicating only contractor records, 

no indication is made as to how many contractor cards are included in each report. Only 

the total number of records is provided. Additionally, information as to how many 

contractor records in hardcopy form are available per year would help characterize the 

available dataset. 

 Page 4 states, “There were far more subcontractor samples designated “50” (start-of-shift 

sample) than there were “59” (end-of-shift sample).” SC&A was not able to identify any 

samples in the HIS_20 database designated as Type “59” (see Attachment 1, Table 5, for 

a breakdown of samples in HIS_20 by sample type code). It is not clear whether this 

assertion was made based on hardcopy records reviewed or if there are different versions 

of the HIS_20 database available. 

 Page 6 states, “The highest quarter was the 1st quarter in 1972 when the GM of the 

coworker plus added data was 1.61 times higher than the coworker GM. It should be 

noted that of the 216 results added for this quarter, 210 were non-subcontractor 

Code 50s” [emphasis added]. It is not clear how this conclusion was reached. SC&A 

identified 2103

 ‘Type 50’ results in the HIS_20 database for the first quarter of 1972; 

however, we were not able to determine from the electronic records whether they 

represented contractor or non-contractor personnel. These 210 records do not appear to 

be contained in the hardcopy results provided in Table 1 of NIOSH 2011 to verify their 

job status. 

It is also worth noting that in the first quarter of 1972, approximately 43% of the records 

are ‘Type 50’ compared to the average quarterly value of 7% (GM of 3%). This is likely 

the reason it had such a large effect on the ratio of the combined group (contractor + 

 3

 Six additional entries were found in the hardcopy records identified in Table 1 of NIOSH 2011, giving a 

total of 216 results. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

17 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

coworker) versus only the coworker group. The actual ratio of the ‘Type 50’ records 

versus the ‘coworker’ records based on the GM for this quarter is ~4.7. As shown in 

Attachment 2, the quarterly ratios could range as high as ~6.9 for the GM. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

18 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

5.0 REFERENCES 

NIOSH 2011. NIOSH Evaluation of Fernald Subcontractor Bioassay Data – Revision 01. 

Author: E.W. Potter. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

October 7, 2011. 

ORAUT 2007. Uranium Bioassay Study for FEMP – A Proposed Attachment for ORAUTTKBS-0017-5, Rev. 1. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 

7, 2007. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

19 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 1: DESCRIPTION AND OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE CODES 

FOUND IN THE HIS_20 DATABASE 

The HIS_20 bioassay database uses a series of two character alpha-numeric codes to identify the 

circumstances around which any particular sample was taken. Though no specific reference 

document was identified by SC&A to decode these sample designations, “keys” are provided in 

the hardcopy records of claimants who have samples in the database. SC&A used these 

hardcopy records to interpret the various sample codes. An overview of the available HIS_20 

sample codes is shown in Table 5. 

Table 5: Overview of HIS_20 Bioassay Codes 

Sample 

Code Description of Code Number of Records 

First 

Year of 

Use 

Last 

Year of 

Use 

# Uranium 

Urinalysis 

Records 

(all records) 

# Urinalysis 

Records (Total 

Uranium Only) 

00 No Code 23,014 1944 2002 23,014 22,968 

01 Plant 1 468 1953 1957 468 468 

02 Plant 2 447 1953 1958 447 447 

03 Plant 3 449 1953 1961 449 449 

04 Plant 4 573 1953 1958 573 573 

05 Plant 5 2,194 1953 1961 2,194 2,194 

06 Plant 6 2,745 1953 1957 2,745 2,745 

07 Plant 7 3,879 1953 1957 3,879 3,879 

08 Plant 8 1,130 1953 1957 1,130 1,130 

09 Plant 9 189 1953 1958 189 189 

10 Pre-Employment Sample 16,386 1952 2006 16,384 15,349 

20 Annual Sample 44,484 1953 2001 44,484 44,442 

30 Routine Sample 251,969 1953 2006 251,965 232,091 

40 Incident – Follow-up 

Sample 12,544 1954 2006 12,541 12,461 

49 Incident – End of Shift 

Sample 9,642 1958 2006 9,640 9,520 

50 Special Sample 22,209 1955 2005 20,667 20,209 

60 Termination Sample 12,716 1958 2006 12,716 11,206 

70 Rehire 1,883 1958 1991 1,883 1,883 

24HR Isotopic Sample for 

Various Nuclides 136 1993 2006 15 0 

5A Off-the-Job, Overnight 

Composite Specimen 280 1961 1987 280 280 

5B Off-the-Job, Overnight 

Individual Sample 990 1961 1968 990 990 

5C Special Correlation 

Sample 172 1961 1969 172 172 

5D 

24-Hour Individual 

Sample from Confined 

Patients 

566 1961 1969 566 566 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

20 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Table 5: Overview of HIS_20 Bioassay Codes 

Sample 

Code Description of Code Number of Records 

First 

Year of 

Use 

Last 

Year of 

Use 

# Uranium 

Urinalysis 

Records 

(all records) 

# Urinalysis 

Records (Total 

Uranium Only) 

5E Unknown – Reference 

not available 3 1987 1987 3 3 

5F 

24-Hour Individual 

Sample from Unconfined 

Patients 

212 1961 1961 212 212 

5H 

On-the-Job Individual 

Sample Collected in the 

Work Area 

296 1963 1968 296 296 

Baseline Baseline Fecal Results 

for Thorium Isotopes 3,951 1986 1999 0 0 

Follow-up 

Followup of Previous 

Sample – Usually Fecal 

Analysis 

418 1987 2002 0 0 

Incident 

Incident bioassay – 

generally fecal analysis 

for thorium isotopes 

346 1995 2006 0 0 

New Hire Self explanatory 35 1954 2002 2 2 

R Recall Sample 2,674 1963 1997 2674 2674 

Repeat Self explanatory 16 1998 2001 0 0 

Routine 

Self explanatory – 

mainly whole-body 

counts for thorium 

isotopes 

170 1995 2002 2 2 

Special Re Unknown – Reference 

not available 3 1996 1999 0 0 

Termination 

Self explanatory – whole 

-body counts for 

uranium and thorium 

isotopes 

32 1989 2001 0 0 

VE Visitor Exit Sample 3,369 1989 1999 3369 3368 

VF Visitor First Sample 3,829 1989 1999 3829 3827 

VR Visitor Routine Sample 510 1989 1998 510 510 

XX 

Not specified – likely 

means the same as 00 or 

"No Code" 

10,873 1950 1988 10873 10873 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

21 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

ATTACHMENT 2: COMPARISON OF CONTRACTOR (‘50 SERIES’) RECORDS 

VERSUS COWORKER RECORDS BY QUARTER 

Similar to the analysis presented in Section 2, SC&A broke down the HIS_20 records by quarter 

to compare the assumed contractor records (those designated as ‘Type 50’) versus those records 

originally used in the NIOSH coworker model (ORAUT 2007). Ratios of the two groups were 

calculated by quarter at the mean, median and geometric mean and presented in Table 6, along 

with the number of available records for analysis. Ratios above the suggested adjustment factor 

of 2 have been highlighted. Note that the number of records available for analysis will be 

slightly lower than shown in the Table 6 for the GM comparisons, since only positive results can 

be used. Figures 9–11 plot the ratios presented in Table 6 against the suggested correction factor 

of 2 shown in red. 

Of the 104 quarters analyzed in this attachment, 18 (or ~17%) had no ‘50 series’ data available 

for comparison. Of the remaining quarters available for analysis, approximately 40% of the 

quarters showed ratios higher than the suggested adjustment factor of 2 for all three metrics 

(arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and arithmetic median).
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

22 of 28 

Table 6. Comparison of Contractor versus Coworker Records by Quarter at the Med

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean 

Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Median # of Avail

Year Quarter Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 

1st Quarter 18.39 20.39 1.11 12.39 13.83 1.12 12 13 1.08 3296 

2nd Quarter 17.31 41.30 2.39 12.61 28.35 2.25 13 27 2.08 3763 

3rd Quarter 22.88 34.91 1.53 16.30 27.61 1.69 16 28 1.75 4707 

1960 

4th Quarter 26.32 32.98 1.25 18.59 27.62 1.49 19 28 1.47 4317 

1st Quarter 22.10 26.98 1.22 14.68 22.41 1.53 15 23 1.53 2184 

2nd Quarter 18.89 20.38 1.08 14.90 17.65 1.18 15 19 1.27 1763 

3rd Quarter 18.06 26.10 1.45 14.74 16.24 1.10 15 15 1.00 1966 

1961 

4th Quarter 15.53 25.14 1.62 11.80 16.95 1.44 12 16 1.33 1857 

1st Quarter 13.19 26.76 2.03 10.40 19.72 1.90 10 19 1.90 1858 

2nd Quarter 17.13 34.68 2.02 12.07 23.05 1.91 12 22 1.83 2204 

3rd Quarter 9.26 19.03 2.05 6.91 12.49 1.81 7 12 1.71 1604 

1962 

4th Quarter 16.60 12.45 0.75 9.43 8.65 0.92 9 8 0.89 1706 

1st Quarter 14.69 30.81 2.10 10.58 17.22 1.63 11 16.5 1.50 1785 

2nd Quarter 14.54 18.17 1.25 11.05 13.20 1.19 11 14 1.27 1983 

3rd Quarter 11.72 14.94 1.28 8.43 10.20 1.21 8 10 1.25 1758 

1963 

4th Quarter 15.16 17.38 1.15 10.95 13.21 1.21 11 13 1.18 1586 

1st Quarter 16.88 21.78 1.29 10.21 15.87 1.55 10 18 1.80 2111 

2nd Quarter 17.75 19.31 1.09 10.92 14.88 1.36 10 16 1.60 1826 

3rd Quarter 12.87 91.63 7.12 8.57 42.74 4.99 8 32.5 4.06 1391 

1964 

4th Quarter 10.44 21.95 2.10 7.47 13.19 1.77 8 11 1.38 1083 

1st Quarter 10.68 12.78 1.20 7.34 10.12 1.38 7 10 1.43 1403 

2nd Quarter 11.10 11.29 1.02 7.35 8.92 1.21 7 10 1.43 1222 

3rd Quarter 9.75 34.29 3.52 5.70 16.00 2.81 6 14 2.33 1398 

1965 

4th Quarter 10.08 23.23 2.30 4.42 11.92 2.70 5 11 2.20 1664 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

23 of 28 

Table 6. Comparison of Contractor versus Coworker Records by Quarter at the Med

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean 

Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Median # of Avail

Year Quarter Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 

1st Quarter 26.51 79.71 3.01 6.95 24.32 3.50 7 24 3.43 2336 

2nd Quarter 8.86 17.83 2.01 4.51 12.66 2.81 6 14 2.33 1099 

3rd Quarter 11.74 98.71 8.41 4.08 11.31 2.77 5 10 2.00 1194 

1966 

4th Quarter 6.94 41.47 5.97 4.42 16.74 3.79 5 15.5 3.10 920 

1st Quarter 7.75 18.67 2.41 5.58 13.46 2.41 6 13 2.17 1263 

2nd Quarter 8.17 27.33 3.34 5.51 23.27 4.22 5 27 5.40 1504 

3rd Quarter 8.57 16.75 1.96 5.58 6.74 1.21 6 4.5 0.75 1143 

1967 

4th Quarter 9.21 - - 6.12 - - 6 - - 1064 

1st Quarter 9.73 14.45 1.49 6.00 9.46 1.58 5 10 2.00 782 

2nd Quarter 7.05 11.39 1.62 5.17 7.53 1.46 5 8 1.60 1192 

3rd Quarter 6.04 25.90 4.29 4.34 13.85 3.19 4 12 3.00 1016 

1968 

4th Quarter 7.70 8.08 1.05 4.95 6.25 1.26 5 7 1.40 1040 

1st Quarter 7.89 21.00 2.66 5.19 8.94 1.72 5 21 4.20 851 

2nd Quarter 6.69 19.73 2.95 4.79 11.04 2.30 5 7.5 1.50 745 

3rd Quarter 6.17 50.32 8.15 4.36 25.07 5.75 4 32 8.00 648 

1969 

4th Quarter 5.64 - - 3.96 - - 4 - - 802 

1st Quarter 6.46 - - 4.28 - - 4 - - 779 

2nd Quarter 5.86 - - 4.23 - - 4 - - 752 

3rd Quarter 4.85 - - 3.19 - - 3 - - 846 

1970 

4th Quarter 4.45 - - 3.30 - - 3 - - 638 

1st Quarter 6.60 - - 4.75 - - 5 - - 850 

2nd Quarter 7.85 7.00 0.89 4.66 5.60 1.20 4 8 2.00 515 

3rd Quarter 8.56 16.00 1.87 5.80 16.00 2.76 6 16 2.67 370 

1971 

4th Quarter 5.25 6.67 1.27 4.02 4.00 0.99 4 2 0.50 419 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

24 of 28 

Table 6. Comparison of Contractor versus Coworker Records by Quarter at the Med

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean 

Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Median # of Avail

Year Quarter Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 

1st Quarter 15.03 60.80 4.04 6.11 28.93 4.74 5 27 5.40 485 

2nd Quarter 6.89 147.50 21.40 3.90 13.50 3.47 3 11 3.67 444 

3rd Quarter 6.13 9.94 1.62 4.26 8.07 1.89 4 8 2.00 342 

1972 

4th Quarter 6.81 14.00 2.06 4.87 13.86 2.85 5 14 2.80 502 

1st Quarter 7.93 37.75 4.76 5.27 34.22 6.50 5 29.5 5.90 579 

2nd Quarter 7.08 - - 4.92 - - 4 - - 554 

3rd Quarter 9.40 17.75 1.89 5.88 14.99 2.55 5 16 3.20 633 

1973 

4th Quarter 10.76 11.75 1.09 5.95 8.16 1.37 5 8 1.60 760 

1st Quarter 7.62 14.00 1.84 5.51 11.16 2.03 5 15 3.00 705 

2nd Quarter 6.29 20.50 3.26 4.66 10.77 2.31 4 9 2.25 526 

3rd Quarter 6.83 6.63 0.97 4.67 6.08 1.30 4 7 1.75 575 

1974 

4th Quarter 8.91 - - 5.87 - - 6 - - 565 

1st Quarter 7.89 9.17 1.16 5.58 5.97 1.07 5 7.5 1.50 627 

2nd Quarter 8.25 - - 5.46 - - 5 - - 570 

3rd Quarter 6.79 - - 4.61 - - 4 - - 576 

1975 

4th Quarter 7.90 - - 5.92 - - 6 - - 430 

1st Quarter 8.82 - - 5.75 - - 5 - - 537 

2nd Quarter 6.55 5.10 0.78 4.93 4.78 0.97 4 5 1.25 496 

3rd Quarter 6.25 - - 4.93 - - 5 - - 468 

1976 

4th Quarter 6.85 - - 4.76 - - 4 - - 470 

1st Quarter 8.54 10.97 1.28 5.25 7.78 1.48 5 8 1.60 462 

2nd Quarter 5.80 19.00 3.28 4.75 19.00 4.00 5 19 3.80 438 

3rd Quarter 5.14 16.00 3.11 4.14 16.00 3.87 4 16 4.00 426 

1977 

4th Quarter 4.93 - - 4.02 - - 4 - - 431 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

25 of 28 

Table 6. Comparison of Contractor versus Coworker Records by Quarter at the Med

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean 

Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Median # of Avail

Year Quarter Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 

1st Quarter 5.61 - - 4.19 - - 4 - - 426 

2nd Quarter 6.12 9.00 1.47 4.51 9.00 2.00 4 9 2.25 405 

3rd Quarter 5.57 13.50 2.42 4.46 11.92 2.67 4 11.5 2.88 376 

1978 

4th Quarter 6.11 12.00 1.96 4.65 11.66 2.51 5 11 2.20 392 

1st Quarter 6.74 3.25 0.48 5.31 3.22 0.61 5 3 0.60 379 

2nd Quarter 6.29 5.20 0.83 4.74 4.92 1.04 5 4 0.80 373 

3rd Quarter 7.48 6.78 0.91 4.78 4.88 1.02 4 6 1.50 328 

1979 

4th Quarter 6.38 10.17 1.59 4.05 7.72 1.90 4 5 1.25 342 

1st Quarter 6.69 7.20 1.08 4.48 6.69 1.50 4 7 1.75 376 

2nd Quarter 5.64 11.16 1.98 4.21 8.04 1.91 4 7 1.75 329 

3rd Quarter 6.10 7.71 1.27 5.00 6.64 1.33 5 7 1.40 321 

1980 

4th Quarter 5.94 10.63 1.79 4.73 7.42 1.57 5 5 1.00 356 

1st Quarter 4.59 7.75 1.69 3.42 6.54 1.91 3 5 1.67 373 

2nd Quarter 3.36 10.00 2.98 2.90 6.43 2.22 2 9 4.50 488 

3rd Quarter 3.99 20.22 5.07 3.39 12.65 3.73 3 13 4.33 416 

1981 

4th Quarter 4.68 13.27 2.84 3.47 8.48 2.44 3 10 3.33 490 

1st Quarter 5.14 1.00 0.19 4.00 1.00 0.25 4 1 0.25 424 

2nd Quarter 5.13 9.24 1.80 4.07 5.35 1.31 4 5 1.25 459 

3rd Quarter 4.98 6.00 1.21 3.91 5.79 1.48 4 6 1.50 591 

1982 

4th Quarter 5.01 27.50 5.48 4.08 27.50 6.75 4 27.5 6.88 497 

1st Quarter 5.63 14.65 2.60 4.46 11.69 2.62 4 12 3.00 670 

2nd Quarter 5.74 4.83 0.84 4.42 4.89 1.11 4 3.5 0.88 773 

3rd Quarter 4.70 9.00 1.91 3.80 6.53 1.72 3 9 3.00 734 

1983 

4th Quarter 5.43 - - 4.29 - - 4 - - 785 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

26 of 28 

: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Ho is report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Table 6. Comparison of Contractor versus Coworker Records by Quarter at the Med

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean 

Arithmetic Mean Geometric Mean Median # of Avail

NOTICE

wever, th

Year Quarter Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 50 Series Ratio Coworker 

1st Quarter 5.26 3.00 0.57 3.96 3.00 0.76 4 3 0.75 735 

2nd Quarter 6.69 5.00 0.75 4.35 4.16 0.96 4 4.5 1.13 809 

3rd Quarter 5.73 70.32 12.27 4.44 12.18 2.75 4 8 2.00 824 

1984 

4th Quarter 6.02 8.07 1.34 4.45 5.74 1.29 4 5 1.25 900 

1st Quarter 8.04 12.33 1.53 4.96 12.21 2.46 4 13 3.25 1594 

2nd Quarter 5.85 32.14 5.49 4.30 29.77 6.93 4 32 8.00 2112 

3rd Quarter 3.51 19.65 5.60 3.23 13.90 4.30 3 19 6.33 2100 

1985 

4th Quarter 4.30 5.95 1.38 3.55 6.46 1.82 3 3.5 1.17 1518 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

27 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Figure 9. Ratio of the Quarterly Arithmetic Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records 

Figure 10. Ratio of the Quarterly Geometric Mean Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records 
Effective Date: 

January 23, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Subcontractor Bioassay Data 

Page No. 

28 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Figure 11. Ratio of the Quarterly Median Urinalysis Values for the 

‘50 Series’ Records and the ‘Coworker’ Records 

NOTICE: