ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller I MJW Technical Services

Page 1 of 27

DOE Review Release 06/21/2010

Document Title:

Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Fernald 

Environmental Management Project

Document Number: ORAUT-OTIB-0078

Revision: 01

Effective Date: 06/03/2010

Type of Document: OTIB

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert(s): Robert L. Morris, Billy P. Smith, and Thomas R. LaBone

Site Expert(s): N/A

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 06/02/2010

Robert L. Morris, Document Owner

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 06/03/2010

James P. Griffin, Deputy Project Director

Concurrence: Keith A. McCartney Signature on File for Concurrence Date: 06/02/2010

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 06/02/2010

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 06/03/2010

David S. Sundin, Deputy Director, DCAS

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

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

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 2 of 27

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

08/31/2009 00 New technical information bulletin to provide coworker data for the 

Fernald Environmental Management Project workers. Incorporates 

formal internal, NIOSH, and Advisory Board review comments. 

Training required: As determined by the Objective Manager. 

Initiated by Robert L. Morris.

06/03/2010 01 Revised to incorporate the option for dose reconstructors to use 95th

percentile intake rates in response to an Advisory Board Work Group 

issue. No changes occurred as a result of formal internal review. 

Incorporates NIOSH review comments. Training required: As 

determined by the Objective Manager. Initiated by Robert L. Morris.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 3 of 27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

1.0 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................

PAGE

6

2.0 Data and Method Overview......................................................................................................6

2.1 Bioassay Data Selection...............................................................................................6

2.2 Method Description.......................................................................................................7

3.0 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................7

4.0 Intake Modeling......................................................................................................................11

4.1 Assumptions...............................................................................................................11

4.2 Bioassay Fitting ..........................................................................................................11

5.0 Assigning Intakes and Doses ................................................................................................. 11

5.1 Intake Rate Summary.................................................................................................12

5.2 Dose Assignment .......................................................................................................13

6.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 13

References ........................................................................................................................................15

ATTACHMENT A, COWORKER DATA FIGURES ............................................................................ 16

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

2-1 Criteria applied to extract for uranium bioassay data................................................................

PAGE

6

3-1 Summary of uranium urinary excretion rate analyses, 1952 to 2006 ........................................ 7

5-1 Derived FEMP uranium intake rates for type F materials from 1952 to 2006.......................... 12

5-2 Derived FEMP uranium intake rates for type M materials from 1952 to 2006 ......................... 12

5-3 Derived FEMP uranium intake rates for type S materials from 1952 to 2006.......................... 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 4 of 27

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

A-1 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type F ...................................................................................................................

PAGE

18

A-2 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type F ................................................................................................................... 18

A-3 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 84th 

percentile, type F ................................................................................................................... 18

A-4 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th 

percentile, type F ................................................................................................................... 19

A-5 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 19

A-6 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 19

A-7 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 84th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 20

A-8 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 20

A-9 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1953, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 20

A-10 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1954 to 03/31/1956, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 21

A-11 Predicted values versus measured results, 4/1/1956 to 12/31/1958, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 21

A-12 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1959 to 12/31/1960, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 21

A-13 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1961 to 12/31/1965, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 22

A-14 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1966 to 12/31/1980, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 22

A-15 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1981 to 12/31/1986, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 22

A-16 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1987 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 23

A-17 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 06/30/1997, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 23

A-18 Predicted values versus measured results, 7/1/1997 to 12/31/1999, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................23

A-19 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................24

A-20 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................24

A-21 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 24

A-22 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1953, 84th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 25

A-23 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1954 to 12/31/1955, 84th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 25

A-24 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1956 to 12/31/1957, 84th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 25
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 5 of 27

A-25 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1958 to 12/31/1964, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................26

A-26 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1965 to 12/31/1984, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................26

A-27 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1985 to 12/31/1990, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................26

A-28 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................27

A-20 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................27
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 6 of 27

1.0

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 

historic 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.

PURPOSE

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)].

Some employees at DOE sites were not monitored for internal ionizing radiation exposure, or the 

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

be used to estimate an individual’s possible exposure. The purpose of this OTIB is to provide 

monitored coworker information for calculating and assigning occupational internal doses to 

employees at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) for whom no, or insufficient, 

bioassay monitoring records exist. FEMP was previously known as the Feed Materials Production 

Center.

2.0

Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment (ORAUT 2005) describes the 

general process that is used to analyze bioassay data for assigning doses to individuals based on 

coworker results. Coworker Data Exposure Profile Development (ORAUT 2004a) describes the 

approach and processes to be used to develop reasonable exposure profiles based on available 

dosimetric information for workers at DOE sites.

DATA AND METHOD OVERVIEW

2.1 BIOASSAY DATA SELECTION

The bioassay results for this analysis were obtained by extracting data from HIS-20_ORAU, a 

database of FEMP bioassay results (ORAUT 2007a). One of the database tables, 

HIS20_V_BIOASSAY, contains results for urinalyses, fecal analyses, and in vivo analyses starting in 

1952. The radionuclides in the table include 228Ac, 36Cl, 137Cs, 3

H, 210,211Pb, 210Po, 239Pu, 226,228Ra, 

90Sr, 228,230,232Th, 234,235,238U, and total uranium. The vast majority of data in the table concerns the 

uranium radionuclides. Data were extracted from the HIS20_V_BIOASSAY table using the field 

criterion in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Criteria applied to extract for uranium bioassay data.

Field name Field value

TYPE_BIOASSAY URINALYSIS

NUC_NAME U-TOTAL or 238U

SAMPLE_TYPE Not equal to 10, 50, 5C, 70, VF, VR, VC

ACT_UNITS_SU μg/L

Samples with code 10 and 70 were collected before employment or reemployment to establish the 

background for the individual and as such are not appropriate for use in a study to establish intake 

potential. Samples with code 50 and 5C were collected as a part of a special study. The V series 

(VF, VR, and VE) are visitor samples and likely not representative of the typical worker. All results in 

this series were less than the minimum detectable activity.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 7 of 27

Fifteen of the 429,338 uranium urinalysis results in ACT_UNITS-SU had units other than micrograms 

per liter; all fifteen results were discarded. Ten of these had a value for the ACTIVITY field, but no 

volume or time frame, so it was not clear if those results represented 1-liter samples or 24-hour 

samples. The other five results were isotopic samples and were excluded from the coworker study for 

expediency. The impact of discarding data from these 15 samples is judged to be negligible.

2.2 METHOD DESCRIPTION

The uranium in urine bioassay data from HIS-20_ORAU were chronologically grouped into analysis 

intervals that typically represent all of the data in a calendar quarter. During some intervals, when 

fewer results were available, the grouping represented a calendar year or a portion of a year. The 

data in each interval were fit to a lognormal distribution as described in Section 3.0. For 1991 through 

1993, fewer than 10 results per year were above the minimum detectable activity, which resulted in an 

insufficient quantity of data to generate statistics. The result of the fits resulted in excretion rates at 

the 50th and 84th-percentile values at the midpoint date of the analysis interval as shown in Table 3.1.

The excretion rates for each sample were normalized to represent 24-hour samples assuming 

1,400 ml/d urine excretion, which is the daily volume that is excreted by Reference Man in 

International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 23 (ICRP 1975). Then the intakes 

that would result in the observed excretion rates were inferred using the Integrated Modules for 

Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) computer program as described in Section 4.0.

3.0

Bioassay data statistics were generated for each analysis interval. A lognormal distribution was 

assumed [1]. After log-transforming the data, the 50th- and 84th-percentile values were determined 

for each period using the method in ORAUT (2006). The results were validated as reported by Arno 

(2007). Table 3-1 shows the statistical analysis results for uranium urinary excretion parameters.

ANALYSIS

Table 3-1. Summary of uranium urinary excretion rate analyses, 1952 to 2006.

Analysis 

interval

Midpoint date of 

analysis interval

Number of 

Bioassay Results

50th percentile 

(μg/d)

84th percentile 

(μg/d) 

Year 6/30/1952 281 15.84 62.55

Year 6/30/1953 2041 21.76 69.74

Quarter 2/15/1954 2292 28.92 122.41

Quarter 5/15/1954 1349 26.17 70.14

Quarter 8/15/1954 2492 24.72 68.50

Quarter 11/15/1954 2449 28.59 77.98

Quarter 2/15/1955 2981 35.49 94.21

Quarter 5/15/1955 2632 47.62 157.91

Quarter 8/15/1955 2606 40.05 108.75

Quarter 11/15/1955 2075 43.01 109.90

Quarter 2/15/1956 2201 45.00 105.58

Quarter 5/15/1956 2923 31.80 84.17

Quarter 8/15/1956 3218 27.28 80.02

Quarter 11/15/1956 2660 29.54 79.45

Quarter 2/15/1957 2963 26.08 73.71

Quarter 5/15/1957 4407 23.94 74.78

Quarter 8/15/1957 3893 19.92 57.86

Quarter 11/15/1957 1972 17.15 49.31

Quarter 2/15/1958 2061 22.27 61.46

Quarter 5/15/1958 1812 12.13 29.02

Quarter 8/15/1958 2355 14.08 38.78

Quarter 11/15/1958 1654 11.32 31.55
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 8 of 27

Analysis 

interval

Midpoint date of 

analysis interval

Number of 

Bioassay Results

50th percentile 

(μg/d)

84th percentile 

(μg/d) 

Quarter 2/15/1959 2792 14.18 42.60

Quarter 5/15/1959 3245 13.61 35.63

Quarter 8/15/1959 3118 14.10 38.81

Quarter 11/15/1959 3045 15.99 35.62

Quarter 2/15/1960 3296 17.30 39.86

Quarter 5/15/1960 3763 17.58 38.86

Quarter 8/15/1960 4707 22.77 49.63

Quarter 11/15/1960 4317 25.80 56.26

Quarter 2/15/1961 2184 20.48 41.71

Quarter 5/15/1961 1763 20.65 41.35

Quarter 8/15/1961 2532 20.78 40.45

Quarter 11/15/1961 1997 16.52 33.44

Quarter 2/15/1962 2148 15.43 34.23

Quarter 5/15/1962 2262 16.87 36.65

Quarter 8/15/1962 1676 9.16 22.58

Quarter 11/15/1962 1730 13.06 29.91

Quarter 2/15/1963 1829 14.79 34.22

Quarter 5/15/1963 2038 15.27 33.10

Quarter 8/15/1963 1880 11.78 27.13

Quarter 11/15/1963 1616 14.69 34.01

Quarter 2/15/1964 2125 13.72 36.39

Quarter 5/15/1964 1845 14.89 37.73

Quarter 8/15/1964 1477 12.69 33.20

Quarter 11/15/1964 1089 10.11 23.34

Quarter 2/15/1965 1462 10.20 25.25

Quarter 5/15/1965 1232 9.81 23.24

Quarter 8/15/1965 1662 8.97 27.39

Quarter 11/15/1965 1854 6.32 28.63

Quarter 2/15/1966 2521 10.33 50.00

Quarter 5/15/1966 1148 6.06 22.92

Quarter 8/15/1966 1203 5.45 20.26

Quarter 11/15/1966 936 5.85 18.77

Quarter 2/15/1967 1312 7.50 19.06

Quarter 5/15/1967 1516 7.07 19.05

Quarter 8/15/1967 1146 7.27 19.42

Quarter 11/15/1967 1065 8.06 20.94

Quarter 2/15/1968 785 7.72 21.16

Quarter 5/15/1968 1216 6.84 16.68

Quarter 8/15/1968 1025 5.27 14.00

Quarter 11/15/1968 1041 6.30 16.63

Quarter 2/15/1969 851 6.67 17.32

Quarter 5/15/1969 751 6.41 15.82

Quarter 8/15/1969 648 5.43 14.00

Quarter 11/15/1969 802 5.03 12.75

Quarter 2/15/1970 779 5.72 13.38

Quarter 5/15/1970 752 5.39 13.44

Quarter 8/15/1970 847 3.96 9.63

Quarter 11/15/1970 639 4.21 9.82

Quarter 2/15/1971 850 6.16 14.97

Quarter 5/15/1971 515 6.19 15.95

Quarter 8/15/1971 370 7.70 19.50

Quarter 11/15/1971 419 5.09 12.45

Quarter 2/15/1972 485 7.66 25.21
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 9 of 27

Analysis 

interval

Midpoint date of 

analysis interval

Number of 

Bioassay Results

50th percentile 

(μg/d)

84th percentile 

(μg/d) 

Quarter 5/15/1972 444 4.60 13.41

Quarter 8/15/1972 342 5.52 13.60

Quarter 11/15/1972 502 6.47 15.72

Quarter 2/15/1973 579 6.89 17.59

Quarter 5/15/1973 554 6.31 15.61

Quarter 8/15/1973 633 7.40 21.34

Quarter 11/15/1973 762 7.84 23.15

Quarter 2/15/1974 705 7.08 17.46

Quarter 5/15/1974 530 6.10 14.54

Quarter 8/15/1974 575 6.16 15.43

Quarter 11/15/1974 565 7.59 20.43

Quarter 2/15/1975 628 7.50 17.88

Quarter 5/15/1975 570 7.24 18.57

Quarter 8/15/1975 576 5.88 15.12

Quarter 11/15/1975 430 7.90 18.52

Quarter 2/15/1976 537 7.90 19.18

Quarter 5/15/1976 496 6.29 15.11

Quarter 8/15/1976 468 6.47 14.35

Quarter 11/15/1976 470 5.99 15.32

Quarter 2/15/1977 465 6.88 18.35

Quarter 5/15/1977 438 6.35 13.03

Quarter 8/15/1977 426 5.14 11.95

Quarter 11/15/1977 431 5.13 11.43

Quarter 2/15/1978 426 5.53 12.61

Quarter 5/15/1978 405 6.02 13.26

Quarter 8/15/1978 376 5.92 12.70

Quarter 11/15/1978 392 6.15 13.56

Quarter 2/15/1979 379 7.20 14.82

Quarter 5/15/1979 373 6.34 14.01

Quarter 8/15/1979 449 5.42 13.63

Quarter 11/15/1979 342 5.13 13.71

Quarter 2/15/1980 825 6.20 15.59

Quarter 5/15/1980 330 5.04 12.45

Quarter 8/15/1980 321 6.32 14.44

Quarter 11/15/1980 356 6.16 13.91

Quarter 2/15/1981 373 3.92 10.12

Quarter 5/15/1981 488 3.24 8.05

Quarter 8/15/1981 424 4.02 10.38

Quarter 11/15/1981 491 4.00 10.40

Quarter 2/15/1982 424 4.85 11.40

Quarter 5/15/1982 459 4.70 12.42

Quarter 8/15/1982 591 5.01 11.29

Quarter 11/15/1982 497 5.01 12.00

Quarter 2/15/1983 670 5.37 12.96

Quarter 5/15/1983 773 4.98 13.32

Quarter 8/15/1983 734 4.27 11.14

Quarter 11/15/1983 785 4.82 12.68

Quarter 2/15/1984 735 4.72 11.94

Quarter 5/15/1984 809 5.14 13.12

Quarter 8/15/1984 824 5.47 13.26

Quarter 11/15/1984 902 5.43 13.31

Quarter 2/15/1985 1594 6.89 12.32

Quarter 5/15/1985 2112 5.49 11.49
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 10 of 27

Analysis 

interval

Midpoint date of 

analysis interval

Number of 

Bioassay Results

50th percentile 

(μg/d)

84th percentile 

(μg/d) 

Quarter 8/15/1985 2101 3.53 8.48

Quarter 11/15/1985 1518 4.06 10.00

Quarter 2/15/1986 2075 5.13 9.58

Quarter 5/15/1986 2148 3.60 7.76

Quarter 8/15/1986 2141 2.54 6.26

Quarter 11/15/1986 2247 1.71 4.59

Quarter 2/15/1987 2039 1.53 4.29

Quarter 5/15/1987 2295 2.18 5.30

Quarter 8/15/1987 2083 2.02 5.89

Quarter 11/15/1987 1568 1.84 5.00

Quarter 2/15/1988 1866 2.55 5.72

Quarter 5/15/1988 1675 2.03 5.04

Quarter 8/15/1988 1626 1.43 3.55

Quarter 11/15/1988 905 1.73 3.21

Quarter 2/15/1989 1652 0.13 0.79

Quarter 5/15/1989 2830 0.24 1.03

Quarter 8/15/1989 3016 0.27 0.88

Quarter 11/15/1989 2688 1.16 2.81

Quarter 2/15/1990 2593 1.78 3.66

Quarter 5/15/1990 2714 0.48 1.66

Quarter 8/15/1990 3413 0.00 0.05

Year 7/1/1994 8297 0.01 0.06

Year 7/1/1995 10933 0.01 0.07

Year 7/1/1996 9860 0.00 0.04

Jan–

May 3/16/1997 3636 0.00 0.02

Quarter 8/1/1997 3203 0.02 0.09

Quarter 11/15/1997 2564 0.02 0.09

Quarter 2/15/1998 2832 0.03 0.09

Quarter 5/15/1998 2877 0.02 0.08

Quarter 8/15/1998 3009 0.01 0.07

Quarter 11/15/1998 2953 0.01 0.07

Quarter 2/15/1999 2998 0.01 0.06

Quarter 5/15/1999 2877 0.02 0.06

Quarter 8/15/1999 3094 0.02 0.08

Quarter 11/15/1999 2743 0.03 0.10

Quarter 2/15/2000 2754 0.02 0.09

Quarter 5/15/2000 2659 0.02 0.10

Quarter 8/15/2000 2691 0.02 0.11

Quarter 11/15/2000 2573 0.03 0.11

Quarter 2/15/2001 2510 0.03 0.11

Quarter 5/15/2001 2304 0.05 0.19

Quarter 8/15/2001 2249 0.06 0.20

Quarter 11/15/2001 2341 0.05 0.17

Quarter 2/15/2002 2304 0.04 0.13

Quarter 5/15/2002 2166 0.05 0.15

Quarter 8/15/2002 2272 0.05 0.17

Quarter 11/15/2002 2203 0.06 0.12

Quarter 2/15/2003 2166 0.03 0.11

Quarter 5/15/2003 2354 0.05 0.17

Quarter 8/15/2003 2236 0.04 0.14

Quarter 11/15/2003 1764 0.06 0.14

Quarter 2/15/2004 1709 0.04 0.11

Quarter 5/15/2004 1394 0.05 0.15
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 11 of 27

Analysis 

interval

Midpoint date of 

analysis interval

Number of 

Bioassay Results

50th percentile 

(μg/d)

84th percentile 

(μg/d) 

Quarter 8/15/2004 1483 0.06 0.15

Quarter 11/15/2004 1380 0.06 0.12

Quarter 2/15/2005 1206 0.09 0.21

Quarter 5/15/2005 1093 0.08 0.20

Quarter 8/15/2005 986 0.07 0.17

Quarter 11/15/2005 1065 0.06 0.14

Quarter 2/15/2006 1049 0.06 0.16

Quarter 5/15/2006 883 0.06 0.15

Quarter 9/1/2006 909 0.08 0.19

4.0

This section discusses intake modeling assumptions and intake fitting for three different material types 

of uranium compounds.

INTAKE MODELING

4.1 ASSUMPTIONS

Each result in the intake calculations was assumed to have normal distribution [2]. A uniform absolute 

error of 1 was applied to all results to assign the same weight to each result. Because of the nature of 

work at FEMP, it is possible that intakes could have been either chronic or acute. However, a series 

of acute intakes can be approximated as a chronic intake. Therefore, intakes were assumed to be 

chronic and to occur through inhalation using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3

/hr and a 5-μm activity 

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution (ICRP 1995).

4.2 BIOASSAY FITTING

The IMBA computer program was used to fit the bioassay results to a series of inhalation intakes. 

Data from 1952 through 2006 were fit as a series of chronic intakes. The intake assumptions were 

based on patterns observed in the bioassay data. Periods with constant chronic intake rates were 

chosen by selecting periods where the bioassay results were similar. A new chronic intake period 

was started if the data indicated a significant and sustained change in the bioassay results. By this 

method, 1952 through 2006 was divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

Because the uranium isotopes at FEMP have long radiological half-lives and the material is retained 

in the body for long periods, excretion results are not independent. For example, an intake in the 

1950s could contribute to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. To avoid potential underestimation 

of intakes for people who worked at FEMP for relatively short periods, each chronic intake was fit 

independently using only the bioassay results from the single intake period for type S solubility. For 

type M and F solubility, this approach was used where it was determined that earlier intake rates 

significantly biased later intake rates. This method results in a potential overestimate of intakes for 

exposures that extend through multiple assumed intake periods. Uranium urinalysis results were 

analyzed with IMBA to derive intake rates for 1952 to 2006. Attachment A contains the plots that 

compare predicted uranium bioassay results based on IMBA-derived uranium intake rates with the 

measured urine results. 

5.0

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

intake period below, the geometric standard deviations (GSDs) were determined by dividing the 

84th-percentile intake rates by the 50th-percentile rates. For the calculation of doses to individuals 

from bioassay data, a GSD of 3 is used to account for biological variation and uncertainty in the 

ASSIGNING INTAKES AND DOSES
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 12 of 27

models (ORAUT 2007b). The same models are used for fitting the coworker data so the same 

uncertainty applies. Therefore, a minimum GSD of 3 was assigned for each of the intake periods. 

5.1 INTAKE RATE SUMMARY

Multiple intake periods were fit to the derived 50th- and 84th-percentile uranium excretion data. 

Table 5-1 summarizes the 50th- and 95th-percentile uranium intake rates that correspond to an intake 

of type F materials inferred from the excretion rates. The 95th-percentile intake rates were calculated 

using the following equation: 95th-percentile intake = 50th-percentile intake × GSD1.645 (ORAUT 

2006b). Table 5-2 presents the same information for type M materials, and Table 5-3 presents the 

information for type S materials. For periods after 2006 in which intakes are feasible, dose 

reconstructors (DRs) should assume the 2006 intake rates. 

Table 5-1. Derived FEMP uranium intake rates for type F materials from 1952 to 2006. 

Type Dates

50th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

50th

percentile

(pCi/d)b GSD

95th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

95th 

percentile 

(pCi/d)b

F 1/1/52–12/31/52 51.2 35.0 5.02 727.7 497.4

F 1/1/53–12/31/53 86.2 58.9 3.00 525.3 358.9

F 1/1/54–12/31/54 114.2 78.0 3.00 695.9 475.3

F 1/1/55–12/31/55 156.2 106.7 3.00 951.8 650.2

F 1/1/56–12/31/56 114.2 78.0 3.00 695.9 475.3

F 1/1/57–12/31/57 86.2 58.9 3.00 525.3 358.9

F 1/1/58–12/31/59 51.2 50.0 3.00 312.0 304.5

F 1/1/60–12/31/61 79.2 77.3 3.00 482.6 471.0

F 1/1/62–12/31/64 c 51.2 82.7 3.00 312.0 503.9

F 1/1/65–12/31/84 21.4 34.6 6.44 458.2 740.8

F 1/1/85–12/31/85 21.4 34.6 3.00 130.4 210.8

F 1/1/86–12/31/90 5.40 8.7 3.10 34.7 56.0

F 1/1/91–12/31/93 5.40a 8.7 3.10a 34.7a 56.0

F 1/1/94–12/31/96 0.0211 0.034 9.26 0.8 1.3

F 1/1/97–12/31/00 0.0717 0.12 4.10 0.7 1.2

F 1/1/01–12/31/06 0.205 0.33 3.00 1.2 2.0

a. For 1991 through 1993, fewer than 10 results per year were above the minimum detectable activity, which

resulted in an insufficient quantity of data to generate a meaningful intake model. Intake rates from the 

previous interval were assumed.

b. The specific activities used to compute this column are 0.683 pCi/μg (natural uranium) for 1952 through 

1957, 0.976 pCi/μg (1% enrichment) for 1958 through 1964, and 1.616 pCi/μg (2% enrichment) for 1965 to 

the present.

c. This period spans the transition date when the 2% enrichment assumption began in 1964 (ORAUT 2004b). 

To ensure favorability to claimants, the specific activity for 2% enrichment is assumed for the full duration of 

the period. 

Table 5-2. Derived FEMP uranium intake rates for type M materials from 1952 to 2006. 

Type Dates

50th

percentile 

(μg/d)

50th

percentile

(pCi/d)b GSD

95th

percentile 

(μg/d)

95th

percentile 

(pCi/d)b

M 1/1/52–12/31/52 210 143 5.02 2,984.5 2,032.3

M 1/1/53–12/31/53 322 220 3.27 2,260.9 1,544.7

M 1/1/54–12/31/54 462 316 3.00 2,815.2 1,925.5

M 1/1/55–12/31/55 672 459 3.00 4,094.8 2,796.9

M 1/1/56–12/31/56 462 316 3.00 2,815.2 1,925.5

M 1/1/57–12/31/57 322 220 3.27 2,260.9 1,544.7

M 1/1/58–12/31/59 210 205 3.00 1,279.6 1,248.9

M 1/1/60–12/31/61 322 314 3.00 1,962.1 1,915.0

M 1/1/62–12/31/64c 210 339 3.00 1,279.6 2,065.7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 13 of 27

M 1/1/65–12/31/85 84.0 136 3.00 511.9 828.7

M 1/1/86–12/31/90 18.2 29 3.35 133.0 211.9

M 1/1/91–12/31/93 18.2a 29 3.35a 133.0a 211.9

M 1/1/94–12/31/96 0.0710 0.11 10.7 3.5 5.4

M 1/1/97–12/31/00 0.303 0.49 4.11 3.1 5.0

M 1/1/01–12/31/06 0.859 1.4 3.00 5.2 8.5

a. For 1991 through 1993, fewer than 10 results per year were above the minimum detectable activity, which resulted in an 

insufficient quantity of data to generate a meaningful intake model. Intake rates from the previous interval were 

assumed.

b. The specific activities used to compute this column are 0.683 pCi/μg of natural uranium for 1952 through 1957, 0.976

pCi/μg (1% enrichment) for 1958 through 1964, and 1.616 pCi/μg of 2% enrichment uranium for 1965 to the present.

c. This period spans the transition date when the 2% enrichment assumption began in 1964 (ORAUT 2004b). To ensure 

favorability to claimants, the specific activity for 2% enrichment is assumed for the full duration of the period. 

Table 5-3. Derived FEMP uranium intake rates for type S materials from 1952 to 2006. 

Type Dates

50th

percentile 

(μg/d)

50th

percentile

(pCi/d)b GSD

95th

percentile 

(μg/d)

95th percentile 

(pCi/d)b

S 1/1/52–12/31/53 8,197 5,599 3.44 62,559.5 42,731.6

S 1/1/54–12/31/56 15,042 10,274 3.00 91,657.9 62,604.3

S 1/1/57–12/31/57 7,140 4,877 3.95 68,407.0 46,725.6

S 1/1/58–12/31/58 7,140 6,968.6 3.00 43,507.4 42,463.2

S 1/1/59–12/31/60 7,772 7,585.5 3.00 47,358.4 46,221.8

S 1/1/61–12/31/65c 3,628 5,863 3.00 22,107.1 35,726.0

S 1/1/66–12/31/80 3,628 5,863 3.00 22,107.1 35,726.0

S 1/1/81–12/31/86 1,252 2,023 3.00 7,629.0 12,327.1

S 1/1/87–12/31/90 361 583 3.16 2,396.0 3,869.5

S 1/1/91–12/31/93 361a 583 3.16a 2,396.0a 3,869.5

S 1/1/94– 6/30/97 1.34 2.2 18.6 164.2 269.6

S 7/1/97–12/31/99 7.29 12 3.41 54.8 90.3

S 1/1/00–12/31/06 14.0 23 3.00 85.3 140.1

a. For 1991 through 1993, fewer than 10 results per year were above the minimum detectable activity, which resulted in an 

insufficient quantity of data to generate a meaningful intake model. Intake rates from the previous interval were 

assumed.

b. The specific activities used to compute this column are 0.683 pCi/μg of natural uranium for 1952 through 1957, 0.976

pCi/μg (1% enrichment) for 1958 through 1964, and 1.616 pCi/μg of 2% enrichment uranium for 1965 to the present.

c. This period spans the transition date when the 2% enrichment assumption began in 1964 (ORAUT 2004b). To ensure 

favorability to claimants, the specific activity for 2% enrichment is assumed for the full duration of the period. 

5.2 DOSE ASSIGNMENT

For most cases, individual doses should be calculated from the 50th-percentile intake rates. For 

cases where the 50th-percentile intake rates are not appropriate, dose reconstructors should use the 

95th-percentile intake rates applicable to the solubility class of the material that are provided in Tables 

5-1, 5-2 or 5-3. Dose reconstructors should select the material type that is the most favorable to 

claimants and also apply any other recycled uranium component calculations that are required by 

other OTIBs and procedures. 

The lognormal distribution is selected in the Interactive Radio Epidemiological Program (IREP) with 

the calculated dose entered as Parameter 1 and the associated GSD as Parameter 2. The GSD 

relates to the intake, so it is applied to all annual doses that are determined from the intake period. 

The 95th-percentile intakes are assigned as a constant distribution. 

6.0

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. 

ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 14 of 27

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.

[1] Arno, Matthew. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAU). Dose Reconstructor. 

June 18, 2007.

Lognormal distributions typically provide the best fit to the available data and are a distribution 

suitable for input into IREP. 

[2] Arno, Matthew. ORAU Team. Dose Reconstructor. June 18, 2007.

The error in individual bioassay results has a normal distribution because the dominant source 

of uncertainty is the counting statistics. Although the underlying group statistics have normal 

distribution, each result was treated as if it had a normal distribution to match what was done 

for analysis of an individual’s bioassay data and because the lognormal distribution of the data 

is addressed by analyzing both the 50th and 84th percentiles of the data.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 15 of 27

REFERENCES

Arno, M., 2007, Summary Statistics Validation Report Fernald Uranium Bioassay 1952 – 2006. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 35324]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1975, Reference Man: Anatomical, 

Physiological, and Metabolic Characteristics, Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Projection), 1995, Dose Coefficients for Intake of 

Radionuclides of Workers, Publication 68, Oxford, England, June.

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 Basis Document for the Fernald 

Environmental Management Project (FEMP) – Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS0017-5 Rev 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 28.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, 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), 2007b, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTOTIB-0060, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 6.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2007a, HIS-20_ORAU, database, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 31643]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 16 of 27

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

A-1 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type F ...................................................................................................................

PAGE

18

A-2 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type F ................................................................................................................... 18

A-3 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 84th 

percentile, type F ................................................................................................................... 18

A-4 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th 

percentile, type F ................................................................................................................... 19

A-5 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 19

A-6 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 19

A-7 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 84th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 20

A-8 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th 

percentile, type M................................................................................................................... 20

A-9 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1953, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 20

A-10 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1954 to 03/31/1956, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 21

A-11 Predicted values versus measured results, 4/1/1956 to 12/31/1958, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 21

A-12 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1959 to 12/31/1960, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 21

A-13 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1961 to 12/31/1965, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 22

A-14 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1966 to 12/31/1980, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 22

A-15 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1981 to 12/31/1986, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 22

A-16 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1987 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 23

A-17 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 06/30/1997, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 23

A-18 Predicted values versus measured results, 7/1/1997 to 12/31/1999, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................23

A-19 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................24

A-20 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................24

A-21 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 24

A-22 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1953, 84th 

percentile, type S ................................................................................................................... 25

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 1 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 17 of 27

A-23 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1954 to 12/31/1955, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................25

A-24 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1956 to 12/31/1957, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................25

A-25 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1958 to 12/31/1964, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................26

A-26 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1965 to 12/31/1984, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................26

A-27 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1985 to 12/31/1990, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................26

A-28 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................27

A-20 Predicted values versus measured results, 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th 

percentile, type S ...................................................................................................................27

This attachment shows comparisons of measured uranium urine bioassay results with predicted 

results that were calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates. Blue dots represent the 

measured values that were retained for the fit. Red dots in the type S plots represent results that 

were excluded because they were outside the Type S intake period being fit. The green lines 

represent the predicted values. The figures provide the fits as follows: 

• Figures A-1 and A-2 show the individual fits to the 50th-percentile excretion rates for type F 

material.

• Figures A-3 and A-4 show the individual fits to the 84th-percentile excretion rates for type F 

material.

• Figures A-5 and A-6 show the individual fits to the 50th-percentile excretion rates for type M 

material.

• Figures A-7 and A-8 show the individual fits to the 84th-percentile excretion rates for type M 

material.

• Figures A-9 through A-19 show the individual fits to the 50th-percentile excretion rates for type 

S material. Figure A-20 summarizes the results for the period 1952 through 1990.

• Figures A-21 through A-28 show the individual fits to the 84th-percentile excretion rates for 

type S material. Figure A-29 summarizes the type S results for the period 1952 through 1990.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 2 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 18 of 27

Figure A-1. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1952 to 

12/31/1990, 50th percentile, type F. 

Figure A-2. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type F. 

Figure A-3. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1952 to 

12/31/1990, 84th percentile, type F. 

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 3 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 19 of 27

Figure A-4. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type F.

Figure A-5. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1952 to 

12/31/1990, 50th percentile, type M.

Figure A-6. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type M.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 4 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 20 of 27

Figure A-7. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1952 to 

12/31/1990, 84th percentile, type M.

Figure A-8. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type M.

Figure A-9. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1952 to 

12/31/1953, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 5 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 21 of 27

Figure A-10. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1954 to 

03/31/1956, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-11. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 4/1/1956 to 

12/31/1958, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-12. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1959 to 

12/31/1960, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 6 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 22 of 27

Figure A-13. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1961 to 

12/31/1965, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-14. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1966 to 

12/31/1980, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-15. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1981 to 

12/31/1986, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 7 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 23 of 27

Figure A-16. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1987 to 

12/31/1990, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-17. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

06/30/1997, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-18. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 7/1/1997 to 

12/31/1999, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 8 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 24 of 27

Figure A-19. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/2000 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

 Figure A-20. Summarized results of the predicted values (line) versus the excluded

 results (red dots), 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 50th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-21. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 9 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 25 of 27

Figure A-22. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1952 to 

12/31/1953, 84th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-23. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1954 to 

12/31/1955, 84th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-24. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1956 to 

12/31/1957, 84th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 10 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 26 of 27

Figure A-25. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1958 to 

12/31/1964, 84th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-26. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1965 to 

12/31/1984, 84th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

Figure A-27. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1985 to 

12/31/1990, 84th percentile, type S. Red dots represent excluded results.

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 11 of 12
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/03/2010 Page 27 of 27

Figure A-28. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 1/1/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type S.

Figure A-29. Summarized results of the predicted values (line) versus the excluded 

results (red dots), 1/1/1952 to 12/31/1990, 84th percentile, type S. 

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

Page 12 of 12