Draft Report 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

SC&A REVIEW OF NIOSH RESPONSES TO SC&A 

COMMENTS ON ORAUT-OTIB-0054, REV. 1: 

FISSION AND ACTIVATION PRODUCT ASSIGNMENT FOR 

INTERNAL DOSE-RELATED GROSS BETA 

AND GROSS GAMMA ANALYSES

Contract No. 211-2014-58081

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Prepared by 

Stephen Ostrow 

John Mauro 

Ron Buchanan 

SC&A, Inc. 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

April 2014 

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:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

2 of 26

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.

SC&A, Inc.: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Review of NIOSH 

Dose Reconstruction Program

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Effective Date:

Draft – April 10, 2014

Revision No:

0 – Draft

SC&A Review of NIOSH Responses to SC&A 

Comments on ORAUT-OTIB-0054, Rev. 1:

Fission and Activation Product Assignment for 

Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross 

Gamma Analyses

Supersedes:

N/A

Task Manager:

_____________________ Date: ____________

Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD

Reviewers:

 John Stiver

 John Mauro

 Stephen Ostrow

Project Manager:

_____________________ Date: ____________

John Stiver, MS, CHP

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number Effective Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 04/10/2014 Initial issue.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

3 of 26

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 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................4

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................5

1.0 Evaluation of NIOSH Responses to SC&A 2013 Findings ...............................................10

1.1 Findings 27–30 (1–4) .............................................................................................10

1.2 Finding 31 (5) ........................................................................................................10

1.3 Finding 32 (6) ........................................................................................................12

1.4 Finding 33 (7) ........................................................................................................12

1.5 Finding 34 (8) ........................................................................................................12

1.6 Finding 35 (9) ........................................................................................................13

1.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................13

1.6.2 Operation of Workbook 1.2.0 ....................................................................13

1.6.3 SC&A’s Evaluation ...................................................................................15

1.6.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................21

1.7 Finding 36 (10) ......................................................................................................21

2.0 References ..........................................................................................................................23

Appendix A: Example of Workbook Output Spreadsheet – IREP ...............................................24

Appendix B: Example of Workbook Output Spreadsheet – Summary .........................................25

Appendix C: Example of Workbook Output Spreadsheet – Detail 1 ...........................................26

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Findings on Rev. 1 of the OTIB, NIOSH BRS Entries, and SC&A Responses ...............6

Table 2. Comparison of Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #1 ................................16

Table 3. Comparison of Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #2 ................................17

Table 4. Comparison of Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #3 ................................20
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

4 of 26

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.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

ATR Advanced Test Reactor

Bq Becquerel 

BRS Board Review System 

Ci Curie 

d day 

DCF dose conversion factor

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

ICD International Classification of Diseases 

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

MFAP mixed fission and activation products 

μCi microcurie 

ml milliliter 

NIF normalized intake fraction 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

ORIGEN Oak Ridge Isotope Generator (computer code) 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

OTIB ORAUT Technical Information Bulletin 

pCi picocurie 

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

SRS Savannah River Site 

TRIGA Training Research and Isotope Production, General Atomics 

y year 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

5 of 26

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Note: While SC&A was in the process of reviewing NIOSH’s responses to SC&A’s comments 

on Rev. 1 of ORAUT-OTIB-0054 (ORAUT 2013), NIOSH issued Rev. 2 on March 4, 2014 

(ORAUT 2014). The Publication Record for Rev. 2 states: “Revision initiated to correct an 

error with the Pm-147 intake fractions in Tables 7-3b and 7-3c. The values had mistakenly been 

entered as zeros. No changes occurred as a result of formal internal review.” SC&A checked 

that NIOSH did indeed make that correction in Rev. 2 of those two tables, for the ATR 2 and 

ATR 3 reactors respectively. 

Based on a cursory comparison of Rev. 1 and Rev.2, SC&A did not notice any other changes to 

the documents. In addition, SC&A would not expect the Pm-147 correction to have a material 

effect on dose reconstructions. However, SC&A recommends that NIOSH make a statement to 

that effect as part of the issues resolution process, and if true, then the review of Rev. 1 in this 

document applies as well to Rev. 2. 

------------------------------------------------------------ 

Frequently, air-sampling or urinalysis data on worker exposure to mixed fission and activation 

products associated with nuclear reactors or nuclear fuel are available only in the form of gross 

beta or gross gamma activity unattributed to specific radionuclides. This is particularly true for 

exposures during the early decades of the U.S. nuclear program. For those cases, ORAUTOTIB-0054, Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta 

and Gross Gamma Analyses (hereafter referred to as “the OTIB” or “OTIB-0054”) provides 

guidance and a standard approach to the dose reconstructor on how to assign radionuclidespecific intakes to exposed workers. 

SC&A reviewed Rev. 0 of the OTIB (ORAUT 2007) in 2008 (SC&A 2008) and identified 26 

issues, some of which were subsequently resolved through work of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) Subcommittee on Procedures Review, NIOSH, and 

SC&A. The technical basis of the OTIB was substantially revised from Rev. 0 to Rev. 1 

(ORAUT 2013), leading the Subcommittee at its July 18, 2013, meeting to authorize SC&A to 

perform a full de novo review of Rev.1. SC&A presented its comprehensive technical review of 

Rev. 1 in its November 2013 report, SC&A 2013. That review produced 10 findings on Rev. 1 

of the OTIB, which NIOSH responded to on February 4, 2014, via entries to the online Board 

Review System (BRS). 

SC&A’s detailed review of Rev.1 of the OTIB is presented in SC&A 2013, which should be 

consulted in order to gain an appreciation of the background of each finding. That review 

produced 10 findings, each listed in Table 1 along with accompanying NIOSH BRS responses of 

February 4, 2014. Section 1 of this report presents SC&A’s subsequent review of NIOSH’s BRS 

responses to SC&A’s findings. The results of this latest review are also summarized in Table 1. 

It should be noted that two sets of finding numbers appear. The de novo OTIB Rev. 1 review of 

SC&A 2013 labeled its findings 1–10, but since the BRS already listed 26 findings against 

Rev. 0, the 10 new findings are numbered 27–36. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

6 of 26

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 1. Findings on Rev. 1 of the OTIB, NIOSH BRS Entries, and SC&A Responses

Finding:

BRS (SC&A 2013) 

Numbering

Finding Summary,

(a) NIOSH BRS Entry,(b) SC&A Response(c)

27 (1) SC&A Finding: SC&A is not able to evaluate the appropriateness of the input parameters 

used for the ORIGEN2 runs since they are not specified or references cited in the OTIB.

NIOSH BRS Entry: The ORIGEN2 runs and the process of down-selecting to four 

representative reactors were not affected by the revision. A separate report is planned that 

will document the reactor modeling process in detail. 

SC&A Response: SC&A will review the NIOSH reactor modeling report when it is 

available and recommends that the status of this finding remain In Progress pending that 

review.

28 (2) SC&A Finding: The OTIB does not provide sufficient information to allow evaluation of its 

down-select from the initial seven to the final four representative reactors chosen. 

NIOSH BRS Entry: See response to Rev. 1, Finding 1. 

SC&A Response: SC&A will review the NIOSH reactor modeling report when it is 

available and recommends that the status of this finding remain In Progress pending that 

review.

29 (3) SC&A Finding: While Rev. 0 of the OTIB (Section 5.2) provides extensive discussions of 

the ORIGEN2 runs for each reactor, Rev. 1 does not for the ORIGEN-S runs. For each of 

the nine representative reactor cases, the OTIB (Table 5-2) specifies the specific power, 

irradiation time, and burnup, and includes a basis (e.g., “maximum burnup at nominal 

power” for ATR 1), but does not say how the values were selected or cite any reference; 

Rev. 0 made extensive use, for example, of the DOE report, Source Term Estimates for 

DOE Spent Nuclear Fuels, DOE/SNF/REP-078, Rev. 0, March 2003 (DOE 2003). SC&A 

cannot fully evaluate the appropriateness of the values chosen for each case without such 

information.

NIOSH BRS Entry: See response to Rev. 1, Finding 1.

SC&A Response: SC&A will review the NIOSH reactor modeling report when it is 

available and recommends that the status of this finding remain In Progress pending that 

review.

30 (4) SC&A Finding: SC&A notes that Table 5-1 of the OTIB lists both aluminum and stainless 

steel-clad TRIGA reactors as belonging to the initial set of seven reactors. However, 

Table 5-2, which lists the four reactors chosen as references, as well as the accompanying 

text, do not indicate which cladding was assumed for the TRIGA reactor. The OTIB also 

does not indicate what fuel enrichment was chosen, give a source for the specific power or 

the chosen burnups, or provide justification for its assumptions.

NIOSH BRS Entry: The cladding type (stainless steel) can be specified in Table 5-2.

See response to Rev. 1, Finding 1.

SC&A Response: SC&A will review the NIOSH reactor modeling report when it is 

available and recommends that the status of this finding remain In Progress pending that 

review.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

7 of 26

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 1. Findings on Rev. 1 of the OTIB, NIOSH BRS Entries, and SC&A Responses

Finding:

BRS (SC&A 2013) 

Numbering

Finding Summary,

(a) NIOSH BRS Entry,(b) SC&A Response(c)

31 (5) SC&A Finding: In selecting release fractions for exposures to airborne radionuclides 

associated with reactor operations, the OTIB starts with the fuel inventory. However, it 

might have been more appropriate to use the mix of radionuclides in the gas gap or primary 

coolant as the starting point for assigning the isotopic composition in urine samples. Also, if 

a worker was involved in handling waste streams, such as ion exchange resins or HEPA or 

charcoal filters, using the isotopic mix in fuel as the starting point might not be appropriate 

and might lead to non-claimant-favorable results. These issues should be addressed in the 

OTIB.

NIOSH BRS Entry: Limiting the radionuclides to just those in the gap or coolant would not

be appropriate for fuel separations or other work activities and would likely reduce assigned 

doses. The same is true for filtration media: limiting the source term to just the volatile and 

semi-volatile species would likely reduce assigned doses. Gross gamma and gross gamma 

assays for MFAP are primarily seen for sites where large-scale fuel separations were 

performed, e.g., Hanford, INL, ORNL, and SRS. 

SC&A Response: SC&A (1) agrees with NIOSH’s response with regard to preference of 

using reactor fuel radionuclide inventory rather than gas gap inventory as a starting point; 

(2) however, not knowing the organ of concern, SC&A questions whether the Normalized 

Intake Fractions (NIFs), as used to derive radionuclide intakes based on gross beta analysis 

of urine, will always result in a claimant-favorable outcome. This requires further 

discussion and SC&A recommends that this finding remain In Progress.

32 (6) SC&A Finding: The use of effective dose conversion factors (i.e., DCFs that relate to 

effective whole-body dose) is appropriate for screening purposes if the objective of the 

OTIB was to reconstruct whole-body doses, but not necessarily claimant-favorable for organ 

doses. For example, a radionuclide that does not contribute significantly to the whole-body 

dose could be an important contributor to an organ dose and might be eliminated. For 

certain reactor scenarios, some radionuclides that were not present in Table E contribute to 

the intake in a significant way and can deliver important contributions to organ doses. The 

OTIB would benefit from some discussion of this matter.

NIOSH BRS Entry: SC&A may have misunderstood the process outlined in OTIB-54 

revision 1. The list of nuclides in Table D-1 was not created using effective dose conversion 

factors as they report. The list was created using committed organ doses. The list created in 

Table D-1 was later reduced using effective dose as recommended by SC&A’s review of 

revision 0 of OTIB-54 (Comment 13 of the March 2008 report).

SC&A Response: SC&A agrees with NIOSH and recommends that the finding be Closed.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

8 of 26

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 1. Findings on Rev. 1 of the OTIB, NIOSH BRS Entries, and SC&A Responses

Finding:

BRS (SC&A 2013) 

Numbering

Finding Summary,

(a) NIOSH BRS Entry,(b) SC&A Response(c)

33 (7) SC&A Finding: Intakes and organ doses should be calculated using the same set of 

radionuclides as used to derive the contributions to the total beta excretion rate results.

NIOSH BRS Entry: It is desirable to limit the number of associated radionuclides 

considered in the organ dose calculations to reduce the computational burden on the dose 

reconstructors. As discussed under Comment 6 above alternative methods for assigning the 

dose contributions from associated radionuclides are being evaluated. 

SC&A Response: SC&A agrees with NIOSH because, by eliminating the less important 

radionuclides, the release fractions of the more important radionuclides are increased. 

SC&A recommends that the finding be Closed.

34 (8) SC&A Finding: The OTIB explains that it was recognized that some of the methods used to 

determine the beta/gamma concentration of fission and activation products in urine would 

miss certain radionuclides, such as radioiodines. The OTIB claims that this is not a problem 

because the isotopic assignments of intake are based on the predicted relative concentrations 

of 17 radionuclides in air. Hence, these radionuclides are not missed when deriving doses. 

This seems reasonable, except if a large fraction of the activity is lost during the analysis of 

the urine samples. This, of course, would result in an underestimate of the actual gross 

beta/gamma composition of the urine, which would underestimate the radionuclide intake. 

The OTIB states that this issue was taken into consideration, and it was found to be 

important at the Savannah River Site (SRS). For this reason, a separate protocol is used in 

the SRS site profile. It is not apparent, however, how the dose reconstructor deals with 

situations where the airborne mix of radionuclides that might be associated with reactor 

operations or maintenance bears little resemblance to the mix of radionuclides in the fuel.

NIOSH BRS Entry: We never said radionuclides would be missed, rather we made the 

claimant-favorable assumption that iodines were not present in the urine. The OTIB 

accounts for chemical processing of the samples, as appropriate, and is intended for 

bioassays collected for monitoring for intakes of mixed fission and activation products (i.e., 

those associated with operations involving such source terms). The question of the assigned 

excretion understating the corresponding intake isn’t specific to OTIB-0054. Material lost 

in processing should be accounted for in the chemical recovery or other corrections applied 

by the counting lab.

The chemical recoveries associated with a given separations procedure are immaterial unless 

they differ significantly for different radioelements. For gross beta counting the chemistry 

used, if any, is largely irrelevant since most of the activity is from radiostrontium (for any 

reactor or decay time). SRS was treated individually because the gross gamma counts there 

were performed subsequent to chemical separations. OTIB-0054 only considers gross 

gamma assays for raw or minimally-processed samples. 

SC&A Response: However, the iodines and other radionuclides are taken into consideration 

based on the NIF as derived in the OTIB and presented in Table 7-3. Inspection of 

Table 7-3 reveals that I-131 is assigned a high NIF, indicating it is properly accounted for. 

SC&A agrees with NIOSH and recommends that the finding be Closed.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

9 of 26

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 1. Findings on Rev. 1 of the OTIB, NIOSH BRS Entries, and SC&A Responses

Finding:

BRS (SC&A 2013) 

Numbering

Finding Summary,

(a) NIOSH BRS Entry,(b) SC&A Response(c)

35 (9) SC&A Finding: The current OTIB workbook (Workbook 1.01) needs to be revised to 

match the current version of OTIB-0054 (Rev. 1), and then re-evaluated.

NIOSH BRS Entry: A revised tool was released for dose reconstructions on November 22, 

2013. 

SC&A Response: OTIB-0054 Workbook 1.2.0 correctly derives the intake values (except 

for Pm-147 for ATR-2 and ATR-3) when using Sr-90 or Cs-137 as the indicating 

radionuclide when used in conjunction with the Urine Activity Fraction function. However, 

the workbook appears to skip the step necessary to apply the activity ratio value (i.e., the 

fraction of the total measured activity that is due to Sr-90 or Cs-137) from Tables 7-4a or 

7-4b in all other cases, resulting in the intake values being substantially too large. This 

program error will produce intake values that are too large in the output of the Workbook 

when using gross air concentration in all cases, and also when using urine data if the Urine 

Activity Fraction is not selected. Additionally, the current version of the Workbook 

(Ver. 1.2.0) needs updating to incorporate the Pm-147 values for ATR-2 and ATR-3 listed 

in Tables 7-3b and 7-3c of Rev. 2 of the OTIB. Hence, SC&A recommends that this finding 

remain In Progress.

36 (10) SC&A Finding: Our primary concern with this OTIB is that although NIOSH developed a 

protocol that simplifies and likely overestimates the radionuclide intakes for individual 

workers, the protocol seems to be somewhat arbitrary when applied to a particular worker. 

In the process of developing the protocol, indicator radionuclides are used to derive intake 

values of the dosimetrically significant radionuclides that do not necessarily relate to the 

real intakes and excretion rates for any given worker. NIOSH does not show the degree 

of realism or conservatism built into the dose reconstruction for a given worker due to the 

scenario that was assumed by all other assumptions taken to derive the values in the tables 

presented in Section 7. The methods described in the OTIB will provide intakes and doses 

not necessarily correlated with the real ones. The differences between the intakes provided 

through the use of the document and the real ones are unknown and depend heavily on the 

scenario (periods of fuel irradiation and decay), the reactor type, and detection methods. It 

could be argued that as long as the protocol is scientifically valid and claimant favorable for 

a given worker, the approach is consistent with the letter and intent of the rule. However, 

we can envision a situation where two workers are assigned a dose using the OTIB, where in 

one case, the protocol is extremely claimant favorable and the worker is compensated, and 

in the other case, the protocol is less claimant favorable and the claim is denied. The OTIB 

would benefit from a discussion of this particular concern.

NIOSH BRS Entry: The goal was to develop a process that had little chance of 

underestimating a worker’s dose. It was never intended to be precise. Additional discussion 

of that point can be added, as requested.

SC&A Response: SC&A accepts that the basic approach used in the OTIB is claimant 

favorable, with due consideration of the question raised under Finding 31 (5), but believes 

that more discussion of the overall claimant-favorability of the strategy employed in the 

OTIB is warranted. Hence, SC&A recommends that this finding remain In Progress.

Notes 

(a) SC&A 2013 

(b) NIOSH BRS entries of February 4, 2014 

(c) See Section 1.0 of this report for elaboration 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

10 of 26

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 EVALUATION OF NIOSH RESPONSES TO SC&A 2013 FINDINGS 

NIOSH responded to SC&A’s 10 findings of SC&A 2013 via the BRS entries of February 4, 

2014. The following subsections present SC&A’s subsequent re-evaluation of the issues. 

1.1 FINDINGS 27–30 (1–4) 

These findings are all concerned with reactor modeling issues that SC&A identified in Section 5 

of the OTIB. NIOSH indicated in its February 4, 2014, BRS entries that it is preparing a reactor 

modeling report that will respond to these findings in detail. SC&A will review that report when 

it is available and recommends that the status of Findings 27–30 (1–4) remain In Progress 

pending that review. 

1.2 FINDING 31 (5)

This finding concerns whether it is more appropriate when selecting release fractions for 

exposures to airborne radionuclides associated with reactor operations to start with the fuel 

inventory, as in the OTIB, or to start with the gas gap radionuclide inventory, as SC&A suggests. 

In order to investigate this issue and to identify any further, related concerns, SC&A went 

through the first example problem of the OTIB (Attachment H) by hand. 

Table H-1 presents the results of the first step in an example analysis, indicating that, based upon 

actual gross beta bioassay results, ranging from 17 to 57 pCi/24 hours, the Sr-90 excretion rate 

ranged from 8 to 28.8 pCi/24 hours for 8 urine samples collected from July 23, 1964, to 

November 2, 1966. The conversion factor used to go from gross beta excretion rates to Sr-90 

excretion rates is 0.471, taken from Table 7-2. That conversion factor is the urine activity 

fraction that is applied to Sr-90 for samples of urine collected from a worker, and is based on the 

following assumptions: (1) ATR-1 reactor fuel; (2) the worker was associated with waste 

management operations; (3) the decay time for the isotopes was one year (i.e., the time period 

the radionuclides decayed after removal from the reactor), and (4) the urine samples underwent 

major chemical processing to maximize the capture of Sr-90 and eliminate other important beta 

emitters, such as K-40, from the sample. Without actually performing the ORIGEN (Croff 1980) 

runs for the reference ATR-1 reactor, determining what the activity might be in waste streams, 

and then going through the radiochemistry associated with urine analysis, we found that the 

results appear to be reasonable if not bounding. 

Using standard IMBA techniques, the estimated excretion rate for Sr-90 is used to estimate the 

intake rates for Sr-90 during the time period the samples were collected. It was assumed that the 

intake was for Type F uranium and the IMBA program derived an intake value of 76 pCi/day 

was obtained for the time period of January 28, 1960 through January 25, 1971. We accept this 

intake result on face value and agrees that Type F is the appropriate clearance category. 

Given the derived Sr-90 intake rate, the intake rates of other potentially important radionuclides 

were derived using the ratios for one-year-old ATR-1 material provided in Table H-2, which, in 

turn, are based on Table 7-3a of the OTIB. This is a key step in the analysis that must be 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

11 of 26

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.

understood, as the process to derive the activity fractions in Tables 7-2 and 7-3a is quite 

complex. Accordingly, SC&A went through the process described in the OTIB in some detail. 

The starting point of the investigation is Section 6.0, 

“Determination of Intake Fractions and the 

Dosimetrically Significant Radionuclides.” For the 

purpose of this portion of the review, SC&A accepts 

the radionuclide mix of the ATR-1 fuel as derived 

using ORIGEN-S and the associated parameters 

delineated in Table 5-2, and also the decay times for the 

steps in the fuel cycle delineated in Table 5-3. 

As explained in Section 6.1 of the OTIB, starting with the decayed radionuclide inventory data, 

derivation of the intake fractions begins by adding up the activity of the full list of radionuclides, 

and then removing the activity of certain radionuclides. The grounds for removal include shortlived radionuclides, noble gases, and radionuclides without dose conversion factors (DCFs) for 

committed organ dose, including those radionuclides that are inexorably associated with a 

relatively long-lived parent (e.g., Ba-137m). SC&A concurs with this screening step. 

Given the revised list of radionuclides, each radionuclide is assigned a Normalized Intake 

Fraction (NIF) by: 

 Multiplying each radionuclide available fuel activity (e.g., 10 Ci) by its release fraction 

(e.g., 0.01). This represents how much (e.g., 0.10 Ci) of a given radionuclide is available 

for intake. 

 Summing up all the activities (e.g., total curies) available for intake (e.g., 0.1 Ci + ...) 

and then dividing the individual available activity (e.g., 0.1 Ci) of a radionuclide by the 

total number of curies to obtain the NIF for each radionuclide. 

This provides radionuclide ratios that can be used to assign intakes from all the radionuclides of 

interest if the intake of one of the radionuclides is known; i.e., by urine bioassay as listed in 

Tables 7-3a-i.

This strategy for creating a selected list of normalized release fractions is scientifically sound and 

the use of conservative release fractions of nonvolatile components (i.e., 0.01 instead of 0.001) 

would not impact the derivation of Tables 7-3a-i. However, looking at the last few paragraphs of 

Section 6.1 of the OTIB, we are not sure that using a conservative release fraction for some 

radionuclides would not negatively impact the relative weight of other radionuclides when 

deriving Tables 7-1a, 7-1b, and 7-2. For example, would not using a larger than normal release 

fraction for one radionuclide diminish the projected Sr-90 activity in a urine sample in 

Table 7-1a? 

On face value, the use of 0.01 for all non-radioiodines seems to be claimant favorable, because 

many of those radionuclides actually have much lower volatility fractions on the order of 0.001. 

However, after applying these volatility fractions to the list of radionuclides, a new list of the 

activities of radionuclides is generated, where the activity of low volatility radionuclides, such as 

It is appropriate to note that in revisiting 

the OTIB, we now agree with NIOSH’s 

response to our Finding 6 (BRS Finding 

32). SC&A was incorrect in assuming 

that the effective dose was used for 

screening. NIOSH, also stated that it is 

using the committed organ doses for 

screening, which we believe is a 

scientifically sound screening strategy.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

12 of 26

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.

Co or Fe, are then overestimated because their volatility fractions are more likely to be 0.001. If 

SC&A understands the process correctly, overestimating the volatility factors for some 

radionuclides results in understating the relative contribution of the more volatile radionuclides 

that are assumed to comprise the gross beta activity in the urine, which, depending on the organ 

of concern, might not be claimant favorable. 

In summary, SC&A (1) agrees with NIOSH’s response with regard to preference of using reactor 

fuel radionuclide inventory rather than gas gap inventory as a starting point; (2) however, not 

knowing the organ of concern, SC&A questions whether the Normalized Intake Fractions 

(NIFs), as used to derive radionuclide intakes based on gross beta analysis of urine, will always 

result in a claimant-favorable outcome, and recommends that this finding remain In Progress 

pending an elaboration by NIOSH. 

1.3 FINDING 32 (6)

This SC&A comment expressed concern that part of the screening process for eliminating 

inconsequential radionuclides for explicit consideration was the use of effective DCFs. As noted 

in the boxed comment in the Section 1.2 discussion of Finding 31 (5), NIOSH explained and the 

OTIB makes it clear that committed organ DCFs were used as part of the screening process. 

SC&A agrees with NIOSH and recommends this finding be Closed. 

1.4 FINDING 33 (7)

This SC&A finding expressed concern that by screening out so many radionuclides, the 

reconstructed doses will be underestimated. NIOSH explained that, as part of the normalization 

process, by screening out the radionuclides that contribute very little to any of the organ doses, 

more weight is given to those radionuclides that could contribute significantly to any organ 

doses, and, therefore, is claimant favorable. SC&A agrees with this comment, because by 

eliminating the less important radionuclides, the release fractions of the more important 

radionuclides are increased. SC&A recommends this finding be Closed. 

1.5 FINDING 34 (8)

This SC&A finding expressed concern that the methods used to quantify the gross beta activity 

in urine would remove the radioiodines from the urine sample and underestimate the gross beta 

activity. NIOSH’s BRS response to this issue states that radioiodines, and perhaps other 

radionuclides as well, might not be counted in a gross beta analysis of urine. However, the 

iodines and other radionuclides are taken into consideration based on the NIF as derived in the 

OTIB and presented in Table 7-3. Inspection of Table 7-3 reveals that I-131 is assigned a high 

NIF, indicating it is properly accounted for. SC&A therefore agrees with NIOSH’s response and 

recommends this finding be Closed. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

13 of 26

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.

1.6 FINDING 35 (9)

1.6.1 Introduction 

SC&A evaluated the OTIB-0054 Workbook 1.2.0 in conjunction with the current Rev. 2 version 

of the OTIB.1 The sequence of the release of the OTIB and its related Workbook is as follows: 

 5/11/2007, OTIB-0054, Rev. 0 

 10/09/2007, OTIB-0054 Workbook, Ver. 1.01 

 11/19/2007, OTIB-0054, Rev. 0 PC-1

 6/13/2013, OTIB-0054, Rev. 1 

 11/21/2013, OTIB-0054 Workbook, Ver. 1.2.0 – current version 

 3/06/2014, OTIB-0054, Rev. 2 – current version 

To evaluate the current OTIB-0054 Workbook Ver. 1.2.0 (referred to as the Workbook), SC&A 

analyzed the three examples provided in Attachment H of the OTIB to verify the methodology 

and compatibility of the examples with the text and tables of the OTIB. SC&A then ran the 

intake calculations for these three examples using the Workbook. An example of the data input 

screen for the Workbook is shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Example of OTIB-0054 Workbook Ver. 1.2.0 Data Input Screen

1.6.2 Operation of Workbook 1.2.0 

Inputs 

The input screen and operation of Workbook Ver. 1.2.0 is different than the older Ver. 1.01. 

Workbook Ver. 1.2.0 is located in the DR Tools folder and can only be accessed through the use 

of the DR Tools unique password. To illustrate the use of the newer version, a summary of its 

inputs and operations will be provided: 

 

1

 SC&A reviewed Rev. 2 rather than Rev. 1 of the OTIB in this section; see Note section preceding the 

Executive Summary of this report. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

14 of 26

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.

 As the copy of the screen above indicates, you are required to enter the exposure start 

year, the end year, and the year the cancer was diagnosed. 

 Select if it is based on a Sr-90 beta or Cs-137 gamma as the indicator. 

 Enter the intake value of the gross beta or gamma indicator (in any of the units provided). 

 Select the decay time. 

 Select the reactor group type(s). 

 Select chronic or acute exposure. 

 Select the amount of urine sample processing. 

 Check if you want to include I-131 intakes. 

 Select the ICD cancer code. 

 Select the distribution function. 

 Enter the case number. 

 Select the location where the results will be saved 

After these items are entered, you click on ADD. If you want to change any of these inputs, you 

must highlight the entire line, click REMOVE, and then start over. 

Once you are satisfied that the entries are correct, you click on Get Results. 

Computations 

When the Get Results button is activated, the program goes through all the reactor types for the 

reactor group(s) you selected (ATR1, ATR2, ATR3, FFTF1, FFTF2, N1, N2, TRIGA1, 

TRIGA2), up to nine total. It then provides the output in the form of three Excel spreadsheets. 

Output 

The results are provided in three Excel spreadsheets, labeled IREP, Summary, and Detail 1. A 

brief summary of these outputs is as follows: 

IREP – This spreadsheet lists the standard IREP table data and annual doses from the reactor 

that provides for the largest dose for the organ of concern. It also provides the type of reactor, 

(e.g., ATR-2) that produced the largest dose. An Example of the IREP spreadsheet is provided 

in Appendix A of this section. 

Summary – This spreadsheet provides a summary of the input parameters used and the top 

reactor types that produced the largest doses for the organ of interest, along with the total dose 

derived for each of the reactor types. An Example of the Summary spreadsheet is provided in 

Appendix B of this section.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

15 of 26

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.

Detail 1 – This spreadsheet provides the details for each radionuclide intake used in deriving the 

dose, along with a summary of the input parameters, the reactor type that produced the largest 

dose, solubility type, and annual doses. Note that the output results for the intake values are 

always converted to Bq/year regardless of the units used in the input; this cannot be changed. 

SC&A found that the wording in Column I of this spreadsheet does not appear to be applicable 

to this version; i.e., it states: 

One column for every year Exposed, one row for every year of Latency 

Data in columns C to CE is equal to Data in column CF times the Intake (in Bq) 

for that year (row 89) 

However, there is no data Column CF, and the data in Row 89 is only for one of the many 

radionuclides analyzed. Apparently, this is a carryover from the older version of the workbook 

because it appears in that version and is only applicable there. An Example of the Detail 1

spreadsheet is provided in Appendix C of this section. 

1.6.3 SC&A’s Evaluation

There are an enormous number of possible combinations of reactor types, decay times, sample 

processing, radionuclide indicators, and applicable radionuclides to test in this Workbook and 

compare them to values in OTIB-0054 (i.e., Tables 7-1a-b, 7-2, 7-3a-i, 7-4a-b). Therefore, 

SC&A found that an efficient way to evaluate the Workbook was to run it for the three examples 

of Attachment H of the OTIB and compare the details of the results from the Workbook to those 

hand-calculated and/or listed in the OTIB. This is summarized in the following examples. 

Example #1 

This example involved an intake period of [redacted] using gross beta urinalysis for a 

[redacted] worker; therefore, according to Table 5-3, a 1-year decay would be used. The 

bioassay urinalysis gross beta results listed in Table H-1 were used to derive a chronic intake of 

161.36 pCi/d using the IMBA program (this corresponds to 76.0 pCi/d for ATR-1 as illustrated 

on page 67 of the OTIB, but the Workbook requires a gross beta input, which is 161.36 pCi/d, 

not the Sr-90 intake value of 76.0 pCi/d). Major processing of the bioassay samples was 

indicated; therefore, this would be selected during the input phase (corresponding to using 

Table 7-2 of the OTIB).

Entering these parameters into the Workbook provided the resulting three spreadsheets as 

previously described. The outputs of these spreadsheets were evaluated and compared to the 

results listed in the OTIB. SC&A condensed the output from the Detail 1 spreadsheet and 

compared it to the values in Table H-2 of the OTIB, as illustrated in Table 2.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

16 of 26

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 Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #1

Isotope Workbook

Solu. & Intake (Bq/Yr)

Workbook

pCi/day

OTIB-54

Table H-2

pCi/day

(WorkBk)/

(Table H-2)

Ce-141 Max(M)

4.66E+01 3.45E+00 3.45E+00 1.00

Ce-144 Max(M)

1.28E+04 9.50E+02 9.58E+02 0.99

Co-60 Max(S)

1.90E-01 1.41E-02 1.41E-02 1.00

Cs-134 F

5.67E+02 4.20E+01 4.20E+01 1.00

Cs-137 F

1.04E+03 7.68E+01 7.68E+01 1.00

Eu-154 M

2.29E+01 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 1.00

I-131 F

6.50E-08 4.81E-09 4.81E-09 1.00

Nb-95 Max(M)

4.19E+03 3.10E+02 3.10E+02 1.00

Pm-147 Max(M)

2.49E+03 1.84E+02 1.84E+02 1.00

Pr-143 Max(M)

1.07E-03 7.90E-05 7.90E-05 1.00

Ru-103 Max(F)

8.97E+01 6.63E+00 6.63E+00 1.00

Ru-106 Max(F)

9.42E+02 6.97E+01 6.97E+01 1.00

Sr-89 F

5.44E+02 4.02E+01 4.02E+01 1.00

Sr-90 F

1.03E+03 7.60E+01 7.60E+01 1.00

Y-90 Max(M)

1.03E+03 7.60E+01 7.60E+01 1.00

Y-91 Max(M)

1.26E+03 9.35E+01 9.35E+01 1.00

Zr-95 Max(F)

1.95E+03 1.44E+02 1.44E+02 1.00

Total: 2.07E+03 2.08E+03 1.00

Input Parameters: ATR-1 Sr-90 indictor 1 year decay

Input = 161.36 pCi/d Gross beta

Major sample proc.

As can be seen from this comparison, the Workbook duplicated the values in OTIB-0054 for 

Example #1 within rounding errors. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

17 of 26

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.

Example #2 

This example involved an intake period of [redacted] using gross beta urinalysis for a 

[redacted] worker; therefore, according to Table 5-3, a 10-day decay would be used. The 

bioassay urinalysis gross beta results listed in Table H-3 were used to derive a chronic intake of 

164.0 pCi/d using the IMBA program (this corresponds to 164.0 pCi/d × 2.14E-2 = 3.51 pCi/d 

for ATR-1, as illustrated on page 69 of the OTIB, but the Workbook requires a gross beta input, 

not the Sr-90 intake value). Minor processing of the bioassay samples was indicated; therefore, 

this would be selected during the input phase (corresponding to using Table 7-1a of OTIB-0054).

Entering these parameters into the Workbook provided the resulting three spreadsheets as 

previously described. Since the Workbook provides the details of the intakes for the reactor (in 

this case ATR-2) that produces the largest dose to the organ of interest, these intakes were 

adjusted to those for ATR-1 for comparison to the values in Table H-4 (which is an illustration 

of the intake values for ATR-1). SC&A converted the ATR-2 intake value results from the 

Workbook to ATR-1 intake values by multiplying the intake values for ATR-2 by the ATR-1 

activity fraction from Table 7-3a, then dividing by the ATR-2 activity fraction from Table 7-3b,

and then multiplying this result by the ATR-1 Sr-90 activity ratio from Table 7-1a, divided by 

the ATR-2 Sr-90 activity ratio from Table 7-1a. For example, for Co-60, the conversion from 

the ATR-2 to ATR-1 intake value would be: 

Co-60 (pCi/d) = 

5.693E-3 Bq/y × 27 pCi/Bq × (1/365 d/y) × 2.05E-4/2.07E-4 × 0.0214/0.0124 = 7.20 E-4 pCi/d

After these adjustments, SC&A compared the intake values in the output of the Workbook to the 

values in Table H-4 of the OTIB, as illustrated in the Table 3. 

Table 3. Comparison of Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #2

Isotope Workbook

Solu. & Intake (Bq/Yr)

Workbook

pCi/day

OTIB-54

Table H-4

pCi/d

(WorkBk)/

(Table H-4)

Ce-141 Max(M)

4.09E+03 3.03E+02 3.02E+02 1.00

Ce-144 Max(M)

1.37E+03 1.01E+02 1.01E+02 1.00

Co-60 Max(S)

9.73E-03 7.20E-04 7.19E-04 1.00

Cs-134 F

3.55E+01 2.63E+00 2.62E+00 1.00

Cs-137 F

4.79E+01 3.55E+00 3.54E+00 1.00

Eu-154 M

1.12E+00 8.28E-02 8.28E-02 1.00

I-131 F

5.74E+04 4.25E+03 4.25E+03 1.00

Nb-95 Max(M)
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

18 of 26

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 3. Comparison of Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #2

Isotope Workbook

Solu. & Intake (Bq/Yr)

Workbook

pCi/day

OTIB-54

Table H-4

pCi/d

(WorkBk)/

(Table H-4)

3.55E+03 2.63E+02 2.63E+02 1.00

Pm-147 Max(M)

1.33E+02 9.86E+00 9.86E+00 1.00

Pr-143 Max(M)

3.61E+03 2.67E+02 2.67E+02 1.00

Ru-103 Max(F)

2.14E+03 1.58E+02 1.58E+02 1.00

Ru-106 Max(F)

8.26E+01 6.11E+00 6.10E+00 1.00

Sr-89 F

3.19E+03 2.36E+02 2.36E+02 1.00

Sr-90 F

4.75E+01 3.51E+00 3.51E+00 1.00

Y-90 Max(M)

4.74E+01 3.50E+00 3.52E+00 1.00

Y-91 Max(M)

3.82E+03 2.82E+02 2.82E+02 1.00

Zr-95 Max(F)

4.11E+03 3.04E+02 3.02E+02 1.01

Total: 6.19E+03 6.19E+03 1.00

Input Parameters: ATR-1 Sr-90 indictor 10 day decay

Input = 164.0 pCi/d Gross beta

Minimal sample prep.

As can be seen from this comparison, the Workbook duplicated the values in the OTIB for 

Example #2 within rounding errors. 

Example #3 

This example involved an intake period of [redacted] using gross gamma air sample data for a 

worker in a [redacted] area; therefore, according to Table 5-3, page 11, a 180-day decay would 

be used. The maximum gross air concentration measured during the period [redacted] was 

1E-10 μCi/ml; this corresponds to 658 pCi/d gross gamma intakes, and will be used to bound the 

intakes. 

SC&A found that the Workbook has a box that lists “Inhalation,” but the user cannot change this 

selection; i.e., the user cannot select inhalation or ingestion, as it appears that Inhalation is 

locked in the program. Therefore, as an alternative path forward, SC&A calculated the ingested 

intake values using OCAS-TIB-009, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes (OCAS 2004), i.e.: 

Ingested intake (pCi/d) = Inhaled intake (pCi/d) × 0.2 × 365 d × 1/2400m3

 Ingested intake (pCi/d) = Inhaled intake (pCi/d) × 0.0304
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

19 of 26

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.

SC&A compared the derived ingested values to those listed in Table H-5, and found them to 

match. 

Identification of Issue 

Entering the appropriate parameters into the Workbook provided the resulting three spreadsheets 

as previously described. The outputs of these spreadsheets were evaluated and compared to the 

results obtained by hand calculations using Tables 7-4b, 7-3b, and 7-3a as provided in the OTIB, 

and SC&A also compared the output of the Workbook to the intake values listed in Table H-5 of 

the OTIB. SC&A found that the Workbook listed the intake and dose values for each 

radionuclide of interest. However, these output values were much larger than what SC&A 

calculated by hand or are listed in Table H-5 of the OTIB. 

Issue #1 – Lack of Adjustment of Gross Air Input 

After identifying this issue, SC&A analyzed Example #3 in detail using the ATR group of 

reactors as the input to the Workbook (the same results as the OTIB were obtained using all nine 

reactors, but with numerous combinations and tables to consider, this assisted in identifying the 

cause of the problem). It is SC&A’s understanding of Example #3 that the Cs-137 intake value 

would be derived by multiplying the gross gamma air concentration (658 pCi/day) by the activity 

fraction from Table 7-4b (for ATR-2, this would be 1.24E-2). The Workbook indicates that of 

the ATR reactors, ATR-2 provided for the largest dose in this case. Therefore, SC&A derived a 

Cs-137 intake value of 8.16 pCi/d (corresponding to 110.3 Bq/year) by multiplying the 658 pCi/d 

intake rate times the 1.24E-2 activity ratio value for ATR-2 (180-day decay) from Table 7-4b. 

However, the output of the Workbook lists a Cs-137 intake value of 8,895 Bq/y (corresponding 

to 658 pCi/day), which is the same as the gross gamma intake value; i.e., the intake value had not 

been adjusted for the activity ratio from Table 7-4b, and resulted in an intake value of 1/0.0124 = 

80.6 times the correct value. 

All the other radionuclide intake values provided by the Workbook were correctly obtained by 

using the ratio values from Table 7-3b for ATR-2, but their absolute values were also 80.6 times 

the correct values. To compare the Workbook results for ATR-2 to ATR-1 as listed in Table H-5 

for Example #3 of the OTIB, SC&A converted the ATR-2 intake value results from the 

Workbook to ATR-1 intake values by multiplying the intake values for ATR-2 by the ATR-1 

activity fraction from Table 7-3a, then dividing by the ATR-2 activity fraction from Table 7-3b,

and then multiplying this result by the ATR-1 Cs-137 activity ratio from Table 7-4b, divided by 

the ATR-2 Cs-137 activity ratio from Table 7-4b. For example, for Co-60, the conversion from 

ATR-2 to ATR-1 intake value would be: 

Co-60 (pCi/d) = 

1.735 Bq/y × 27 pCi/Bq × (1/365 d/y) × 1.93E-4/1.95E-4 × 0.0183/0.0124 = 0.187 pCi/d

This is 80 times greater than the correct hand-calculated Co-60 intake value for ATR-1 (and also 

the Co-60 intake value listed in Table H-5 of the OTIB), which is: 

Co-60 (pCi/d) = 658 pCi/d × 0.0183 × 1.93E-4 = 2.32E-3 pCi/d

A summary of this comparison of all the radionuclides of interest is listed in Table 4. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

20 of 26

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 4. Comparison of Workbook Results to OTIB-0054 for Example #3

Isotope

Workbook

ATR-2

Intake (Bq/Yr)

Workbook

*ATR 2 -> ATR 1

pCi/day

OTIB-54

Table H-5

pCi/d

(WorkBk)/

(Table H-5)

Ce-141 Max(M)

4.2430E+04 2.23E+03 2.77E+01 80.63

Ce-144 Max(M)

1.89E+05 1.85E+04 2.30E+02 80.64

Co-60 Max(S)

1.73E+00 1.87E-01 2.32E-03 80.78

Cs-134 F

4.12E+03 6.21E+02 7.70E+00 80.71

Cs-137 F

8.8952E+03 9.71E+02 1.20E+01 80.92

Eu-154 M

1.73E+02 2.20E+01 2.73E-01 80.75

I-131 F

1.63E+01 5.08E-01 6.29E-03 80.74

Nb-95 Max(M)

3.48E+05 2.55E+04 3.16E+02 80.82

Pm-147* Max(M)

0.00E+00 2.63E+03 3.26E+01 80.72

Pr-143 Max(M)

3.46E+02 1.25E+01 1.55E-01 80.82

Ru-103 Max(F)

3.78E+04 2.18E+03 2.70E+01 80.56

Ru-106 Max(F)

1.22E+04 1.23E+03 1.53E+01 80.61

Sr-89 F

9.87E+04 6.35E+03 7.87E+01 80.70

Sr-90 F

8.81E+03 9.60E+02 1.19E+01 80.71

Y-90 Max(M)

8.81E+03 9.61E+02 1.19E+01 80.79

Y-91 Max(M)

1.55E+05 1.04E+04 1.29E+02 80.55

Zr-95 Max(F)

1.90E+05 1.34E+04 1.66E+02 80.73

Total: 8.61E+04 1.07E+03 80.71

Input Parameters: ATR-2 Cs-137 indictor 180 day decay

Input = 658 pCi/d Intake from gross gamma air conc.

*ATR-1 pCi/d = ATR-2 pCi/d × (ATR-1 ratio/ATR-2 ratio) × 0.0183/0.0124

**Pm-147 derived from Cs-137: 971 pCi/d × 2.71, because ATR-2 Pm-137 = 0.00
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

21 of 26

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.

As can be seen from this comparison, all the intake values derived by the Workbook for 

Example #3 are approximately 80 times greater than those listed in Table H-5 of the OTIB, 

apparently because the activity ratio for Cs-137 was not applied. 

After this issue was identified, SC&A investigated further to find that the Workbook derives the 

correct intake values if the Urine Activity Fraction function is selected (minimal or major), but 

does not apply the activity ratio if this function is not selected (this applies to both urine and air 

input data, when using either Sr-90 or Cs-137 as the indicating radionuclide, for any of the decay 

times). Of course, the Urine Activity Fraction function cannot be used when using gross gamma 

air sample data; therefore, the intake results when using gross air sample data are always too 

large. 

Issue #2 – Pm-147 Values Not Available for ATR-2 and ATR-3 

The current version of the Workbook erroneously provides output values for Pm-147 for ATR-2 

and ATR-3 of zero (which corresponds to Tables 7-3b and 7-3c, respectively, of Rev. 01 of the 

OTIB2). However, the latest version of OTIB-0054, Rev. 02, corrects this error for Pm-147 for 

ATR-2 and ATR-3. Therefore, the current Workbook provides a zero intake and dose values 

when there should be some positive values. This omission results in a lesser dose being assigned 

than recommended in the current version of the OTIB. NIOSH is aware of this discrepancy, 

since it produced Rev. 2 of the OTIB specifically to correct the Pm-147 values in Tables 7-3b 

and 7-3c. 

1.6.4 Conclusions 

In the tests that SC&A has performed, OTIB-0054 Workbook 1.2.0 correctly derives the intake 

values (except for Pm-147 for ATR-2 and ATR-3) when using Sr-90 or Cs-137 as the indicating 

radionuclide when used in conjunction with the Urine Activity Fraction function. However, the 

workbook appears to skip the step necessary to apply the activity ratio value (i.e., the fraction of 

the total measured activity that is due to Sr-90 or Cs-137) from Tables 7-4a or 7-4b in all other 

cases, resulting in the intake values being substantially too large. This program error will 

produce intake values that are too large in the output of the Workbook when using gross air 

concentration in all cases, and also when using urine data if the Urine Activity Fraction is not 

selected. Additionally, the current version of the Workbook (Ver. 1.2.0) needs updating to 

incorporate the Pm-147 values for ATR-2 and ATR-3 listed in Tables 7-3b and 7-3c of Rev. 2 of 

the OTIB. 

1.7 FINDING 36 (10)

In this finding, SC&A expressed concern that one could envision a situation where two workers 

are assigned a dose using the OTIB methodology, where for one, the protocol is extremely 

claimant favorable and the worker is compensated, and for the other, the protocol is less claimant 

favorable and the claim is denied. SC&A stated that the OTIB would benefit from a discussion 

of this particular concern. 

 

2

 See the Note preceding the Executive Summary of this report. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

22 of 26

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.

In its February 4, 2014, BRS response, NIOSH stated, “that the goal was to develop a process 

that had little chance of underestimating a worker’s dose. It was never intended to be precise. 

Additional discussion of that point can be added, as requested.” SC&A accepts that the basic 

approach used in the OTIB is claimant favorable, with due consideration of the question raised 

under Finding 31 (5), but believes that more discussion of the overall claimant-favorability of the 

strategy employed in the OTIB is warranted. Hence, SC&A recommends that this finding 

remain In Progress. 
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

23 of 26

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 REFERENCES 

Croff 1980. Croff, A.G., ORIGEN2 – A Revised and Updated Version of the Oak Ridge Isotope 

Generation and Depletion Code, ORNL-5621, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July 1980. 

[SRDB Ref. ID: 23569] 

DOE 2003. Source Term Estimates for DOE Spent Nuclear Fuels, U.S. Department of Energy, 

DOE/SNF/REP-078, Rev. 0, March 2003. 

OCAS 2004. Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, Rev. 0, OCAS-TIB-009. Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 13, 2004. 

ORAUT 2007. Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross 

Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses, ORAUT-OTIB-0054, Rev. 0 PC-1, November 19, 2007. 

ORAUT 2013. Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross 

Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses, ORAUT-OTIB-0054, Rev. 1, June 13, 2013. 

ORAUT 2014. Fission and Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross 

Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses, ORAUT-OTIB-0054, Rev. 2, March 6, 2014. 

SC&A 2008. Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0054, “Fission and Activation Product Assignment for 

Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses,” Rev. 0, PC-1, SCA-TRTASK3-0006, Rev. 0, March 17, 2008. 

SC&A 2013. Review of ORAUT-OTIB-0054, “Fission and Activation Product Assignment for 

Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses,” Revision 1, SCA-TR-PR2013-

0084, Rev. 0, November 5, 2013.
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

24 of 26

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.

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF WORKBOOK OUTPUT SPREADSHEET – IREP

Exposure # Exposure 

Year

Exposure 

Rate Radiation Type Distribution Parameter 1 Parameter 2 Parameter 3 Tag

1 1960 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

2 1960 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

3 1961 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

4 1961 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.001 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

5 1962 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

6 1962 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

7 1963 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

8 1963 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

9 1964 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

10 1964 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

11 1965 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

12 1965 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

13 1966 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

14 1966 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

15 1967 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

16 1967 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

17 1968 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

18 1968 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

19 1969 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

20 1969 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

21 1970 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

22 1970 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

23 1971 chronic electrons E>15keV Lognormal 0.000 3.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

24 1971 chronic electrons E>15keV Constant 0.002 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

25 1960 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

26 1961 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

27 1962 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

28 1963 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

29 1964 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

30 1965 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

31 1966 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

32 1967 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

33 1968 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

34 1969 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

35 1970 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)

36 1971 chronic photons E>250keV Constant 0.000 0.000 0.000 OTIB54 Intake 1 (ATR 1,1 y)
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

25 of 26

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.

APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE OF WORKBOOK OUTPUT SPREADSHEET – SUMMARY 

OTIB-0054 Tools 

Summary

Report Output: 3/10/2014 4:43 PM NIOSH ID: [redacted] File Name:

Tool Version: 1.2.0

Prepared 

By: DRToolsUser

Database 

Version:

01.08.2014 

[Remote]

Intake 

Parameters:

Ind. RN Decay Reactor Start End Diagnosis

Years 

Employment Latency Intake Unit/Rate Mode

Exp 

Rate I-131

Urine Act. 

Frac. Distribution GSD Organ

Sr-90 1y ATR [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] 12 12 76 pCi/Day Inhalation Chronic Yes

Applied -

Major Lognormal 3 SKIN

Reactor Decay Total

ATR 1 1 y 0.018554

ATR 2 1 y 0.017445

ATR 3 1 y 0.016912
Effective Date:

April 10, 2014

Revision No.

0 - Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-PR2014-0084

Page No.

26 of 26

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.

APPENDIX C: EXAMPLE OF WORKBOOK OUTPUT SPREADSHEET – DETAIL 1

(1 of 17 radionuclides) 

Organ 

Dose for 

Unit 

intake

Ind. RN Decay Reactor Start End Diagnosis

Years 

Employment Latency Intake Unit/Rate Mode Exp Rate I-131

Urine Act. 

Frac. Distribution GSD Organ

Sr-90 1y ATR [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] 12 12 76 pCi/Day Inhalation Chronic Yes

Applied -

Major Lognormal 3 SKIN

ATR 1 1 y

Dose Total 

(rem): 0.018554

Ce-141 Max(M) SKIN

electrons 

E>15keV

One column 

for every year 

Exposed, one 

row for every 

year of 

Latency

Intake 

(Bq/Yr)

RN Dose 

(rem) YEAR SUM

Data in 

columns C to 

CE is equal to 

Data in 

column CF 

times the 

Intake (in Bq) 

for that year 

(row 89)

1 22.029654 2.039E-09 [redacted] 4.492E-08 4.492E-08

2 21.969464 2.817E-10 [redacted] 5.1E-08 6.206E-09 4.48E-08

3 21.969464 1.363E-13 [redacted] 5.099E-08 3.003E-12 6.189E-09 4.48E-08

4 21.969464 5.413E-17 [redacted] 5.099E-08 1.192E-15 2.994E-12 6.189E-09 4.48E-08

5 22.029654 2.102E-20 [redacted] 5.111E-08 4.631E-19 1.189E-15 2.994E-12 6.189E-09 4.492E-08

6 21.969464 7.968E-24 [redacted] 5.1E-08 1.755E-22 4.618E-19 1.189E-15 2.994E-12 6.206E-09 4.48E-08

7 21.969464 3.084E-27 [redacted] 5.099E-08 6.794E-26 1.751E-22 4.618E-19 1.189E-15 3.003E-12 6.189E-09 4.48E-08

8 21.969464 1.194E-30 [redacted] 5.099E-08 2.63E-29 6.775E-26 1.751E-22 4.618E-19 1.192E-15 2.994E-12 6.189E-09 4.48E-08

9 22.029654 4.622E-34 [redacted] 5.111E-08 1.018E-32 2.623E-29 6.775E-26 1.751E-22 4.631E-19 1.189E-15 2.994E-12 6.189E-09 4.492E-08

10 21.969464 1.751E-37 [redacted] 5.1E-08 3.857E-36 1.015E-32 2.623E-29 6.775E-26 1.755E-22 4.618E-19 1.189E-15 2.994E-12 6.206E-09 4.48E-08

11 21.969464 6.777E-41 [redacted] 5.099E-08 1.493E-39 3.847E-36 1.015E-32 2.623E-29 6.794E-26 1.751E-22 4.618E-19 1.189E-15 3.003E-12 6.189E-09 4.48E-08

12 21.969464 2.62E-44 [redacted] 5.099E-08 5.772E-43 1.489E-39 3.847E-36 1.015E-32 2.63E-29 6.775E-26 1.751E-22 4.618E-19 1.192E-15 2.994E-12 6.189E-09 4.48E-08