Page 1 of 287

DOE Review Release 09/04/2020

Internal Dosimetry Co-Exposure Data for the 

Savannah River Site

ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Rev. 05

Effective Date: 09/01/2020

Supersedes: Revision 04 

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

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Matthew G. Arno, Document Owner

Approval Date: 08/24/2020

Concurrence: Signature on File

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence Date: 08/24/2020

Concurrence: Signature on File

Scott R. Siebert, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 08/24/2020

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 08/24/2020

Approval: Signature on File

Timothy D. Taulbee, Associate Director for Science 

Approval Date: 08/25/2020

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

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

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 2 of 287

 

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE

DATE

REVISION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

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

for the Savannah River Site. Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH 

review comments. Training required: As determined by the Objective 

Manager. Initiated by Matthew Arno.

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

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

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

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

2007. Incorporates formal internal review comments. No changes 

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

deleted. Training required: As determined by the Objective Manager.

Initiated by Matthew G. Arno.

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

radionuclide assignment in response to an ABRWH request. Text 

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

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

internal and NIOSH review comments. Training required: As 

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

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

Guide requirements for americium, thorium, and tritium. Incorporates 

formal internal and NIOSH review comments. Constitutes a total 

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

Objective Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno.

03/13/2019 04 Revision initiated to address the coworker study implementation 

guide requirements for plutonium, uranium, neptunium, cesium, 

cobalt, and mixed fission products. Adds executive summary.

Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH review comments.

Constitutes a total rewrite of the document. Training required: As 

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

09/01/2020 05 Revision initiated to add the intake rates for type SS plutonium, use 

the ORAUT-RPRT-0096 multiple imputation method for americium 

bioassay data, update americium and thorium intake rates, and 

reference ORAUT-RPRT-0070 for thorium intake rates. Incorporates 

formal internal and NIOSH review comments. Constitutes a total 

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

Objective Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno.

TRADEMARK INFORMATION

TEVA® is a registered trademark of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in the United States and/or other 

countries.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 3 of 287

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................20

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................23

1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................27

2.0 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................27

3.0 General Methods ......................................................................................................................27

3.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................................28

3.1.1 Completeness of Claims Tracking System Data ............................................28

3.1.2 Accuracy of Claims Tracking System Data ....................................................28

3.2 Stratification ..................................................................................................................29

3.2.1 Worker Classification Background..................................................................30

3.2.2 Worker Classification Methodology ................................................................38

3.2.3 Worker Classification Quality Assurance........................................................40

3.3 Evaluation of Missed Dose............................................................................................41

4.0 Radionuclide Analyses..............................................................................................................41

4.1 Americium .....................................................................................................................41

4.1.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................41

4.1.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................41

4.1.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................42

4.1.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................43

4.1.1.4 Paired Measurements Sample Variance.....................................44

4.1.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................44

4.1.2.1 Logbook Data Completeness ......................................................44

4.1.2.2 Data Quality.................................................................................45

4.1.2.3 Data Interpretation.......................................................................45

4.1.2.4 Data Exclusion ............................................................................45

4.1.3 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................46

4.1.4 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................46

4.2 Tritium ...........................................................................................................................49

4.2.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................49

4.2.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................49

4.2.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................50

4.2.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................50

4.2.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................51

4.2.3 Intake Modeling and Statistical Analysis ........................................................51

4.3 Plutonium ......................................................................................................................54

4.3.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................54

4.3.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................54

4.3.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................55

4.3.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................55

4.3.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................56

4.3.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality..................................................56

4.3.2.2 Data Interpretation.......................................................................56

4.3.2.3 Data Exclusion ............................................................................56

4.3.3 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................56
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 4 of 287

 

4.3.4 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................56

4.4 Uranium.........................................................................................................................64

4.4.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................64

4.4.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................64

4.4.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................65

4.4.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................65

4.4.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................66

4.4.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality..................................................66

4.4.2.2 Data Interpretation.......................................................................66

4.4.2.3 Data Exclusion ............................................................................66

4.4.3 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................66

4.4.4 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................67

4.5 Fission Products............................................................................................................72

4.5.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................72

4.5.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................72

4.5.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................72

4.5.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................72

4.5.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................72

4.5.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality..................................................72

4.5.2.2 Data Interpretation.......................................................................73

4.5.2.3 Data Exclusion ............................................................................73

4.5.3 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................73

4.5.4 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................73

4.6 Cobalt-60.......................................................................................................................75

4.6.1 Bioassay Data ................................................................................................75

4.6.2 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................75

4.6.3 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................76

4.7 Cesium-137...................................................................................................................79

4.7.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................79

4.7.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................79

4.7.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................79

4.7.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................79

4.7.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................80

4.7.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality..................................................80

4.7.2.2 Data Interpretation.......................................................................80

4.7.2.3 Data Exclusion ............................................................................80

4.7.3 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................80

4.7.4 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................80

4.8 Neptunium.....................................................................................................................83

4.8.1 Data Adequacy...............................................................................................83

4.8.1.1 Personnel Monitoring ..................................................................83

4.8.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers .........................................83

4.8.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques....................................................84

4.8.2 Data Validation ...............................................................................................84

4.8.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality..................................................84

4.8.2.2 Data Interpretation.......................................................................85

4.8.2.3 Data Exclusion ............................................................................86

4.8.3 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................86

4.8.4 Intake Modeling ..............................................................................................91

4.9 Thorium.........................................................................................................................92

5.0 Guidance for Dose Reconstructors on Assignment of Intakes and Doses ...............................94

5.1 Americium .....................................................................................................................95
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 5 of 287

5.2 Tritium ...........................................................................................................................95

5.3 Plutonium ......................................................................................................................95

5.4 Uranium.........................................................................................................................95

5.5 Fission Products............................................................................................................95

5.6 Cobalt-60 .....................................................................................................................102

5.7 Neptunium...................................................................................................................103

5.8 Thorium.......................................................................................................................103

6.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................104

7.0 Attributions and Annotations ...................................................................................................104

References .........................................................................................................................................105

ATTACHMENT A QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY ..............................................................111

ATTACHMENT B HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES .................................................137

ATTACHMENT C BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES ...........................................146

ATTACHMENT D EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA...........................159

ATTACHMENT E SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, 

DECEMBER 13, 2018 .....................................................................................164

ATTACHMENT F CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES ..................................................................187

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

3-1 Construction trade crafts with roll and craft codes ....................................................................39

3-2 CTW determination job titles.....................................................................................................39

3-3 Master Occupation Table data source QA check results..........................................................41

3-4 CTW determination QA check results.......................................................................................41

4-1 Americium logbook data summary and completeness estimate...............................................43

4-2 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of americium based on

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1963 to 1989 ....................................................................47

4-3 Tritium annual doses and GSDs ...............................................................................................52

4-4 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of plutonium based on a

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1955 to 1990 ....................................................................57

4-5 Uranium urinalysis ....................................................................................................................65

4-6 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of uranium based on a

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1953 to 1990 ....................................................................67

4-7 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of FPs based on a

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1955 to 1965 ....................................................................73

4-8 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretions rates of 60Co based on a

lognormal fit to theTWOPOS data, 1955 to 1970 .....................................................................76

4-9 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile 137Cs whole-body content based on a lognormal fit

to the TWOPOS data, 1960 to 1989.........................................................................................81

4-10 Logbook data completeness estimate ......................................................................................84

4-11 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of neptunium based on a

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1961 to 1969 ....................................................................87
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 6 of 287

 

4-12 Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile whole body burdens of neptunium based on a 

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1970 to 1989 ....................................................................87

4-13 Extraction efficiencies with DDCP.............................................................................................92

5-1 Radionuclides of concern potentially present at SRS facilities .................................................96

5-2 nonCTW type M 241Am intake rates ..........................................................................................98

5-3 CTW type M 241Am intake rates ................................................................................................98

5-4 Tritium annual doses and GSDs ...............................................................................................98

5-5 Type M plutonium gross alpha intake rates ..............................................................................99

5-6 Type S plutonium gross alpha intake rates...............................................................................99

5-7 Type SS plutonium gross alpha intake rates ............................................................................99

5-8 nonCTW type F 234U intake rates..............................................................................................99

5-9 nonCTW type M 234U intake rates...........................................................................................100

5-10 nonCTW type S 234U intake rates............................................................................................100

5-11 CTW type F 234U intake rates..................................................................................................100

5-12 CTW type M 234U intake rates ................................................................................................. 100

5-13 CTW type S 234U intake rates..................................................................................................100

5-14 Type F 233U nonCTW intake rates...........................................................................................101

5-15 Type M 233U nonCTW intake rates..........................................................................................101

5-16 Type S 233U nonCTW intake rates ..........................................................................................101

5-17 Type F 233U CTW intake rates................................................................................................. 101

5-18 Type M 233U CTW intake rates................................................................................................101

5-19 Type S 233U CTW intake rates ................................................................................................101

5-20 Type F FP (90Sr) intake rates ..................................................................................................101

5-21 Type F 137Cs nonCTW intake rates.........................................................................................102

5-22 Type F 137Cs CTW intake rates...............................................................................................102

5-23 Type M 60Co intake rates ........................................................................................................102

5-24 Type S 60Co intake rates.........................................................................................................102

5-25 Neptunium intake rates ...........................................................................................................103

5-26 Type M 232Th intake rates .......................................................................................................103

5-27 Type S 232Th intake rates........................................................................................................103

C-1 SRDB Ref IDs for REAC/TS chelation data............................................................................147

C-2 1968 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................148

C-3 1970 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................149

C-4 Early 1971 bioassay frequencies ............................................................................................150

C-5 Late 1971 bioassay frequencies .............................................................................................152

C-6 1976 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................154

C-7 1985 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................156

C-8 1989 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................158

D-1 Summary of data >1 dpm/d ....................................................................................................163

E-1 CTW Master Table cross-reference........................................................................................167

E-2 CTW occupation titles.............................................................................................................168

E-3 nonCTW occupation titles .......................................................................................................169

F-1 Summary of 241Am nonCTW intake rates and dates...............................................................207

F-2 Summary of 241Am CTW intake rates and dates.....................................................................207

F-3 Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type M............................................243

F-4 Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type S ............................................243

F-5 Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type SS..........................................243

F-6 Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates and dates, type M..................................................243

F-7 Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates and dates, type S ..................................................243

F-8 Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates and dates, type SS................................................243

F-9 Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type F...............................................259

F-10 Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type M ..............................................259

F-11 Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type S...............................................259
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 7 of 287

 

F-12 Summary of uranium CTW intake rates and dates, type F.....................................................259

F-13 Summary of uranium CTW intake rates and dates, type M ....................................................260

F-14 Summary of uranium CTW intake rates and dates, type S.....................................................260

F-15 Summary of FP (strontium) nonCTW intake rates and dates .................................................262

F-16 Summary of FP (strontium) CTW intake rates and dates .......................................................262

F-17 Summary of 60Co nonCTW type M intake rates and dates .....................................................265

F-18 Summary of 60Co nonCTW type S intake rates and dates......................................................265

F-19 Summary of 60Co CTW type M intake rates and dates ...........................................................265

F-20 Summary of 60Co CTW type S intake rates and dates............................................................266

F-21 Summary of 137Cs nonCTW type F intake rates and dates .....................................................270

F-22 Summary of 137Cs CTW type F intake rates and dates...........................................................270

F-23 Summary of 237Np nonCTW intake rates and dates................................................................282

F-24 Summary of 237Np CTW intake rates and dates......................................................................283

F-25 Summary of type M 232Th intake rates and dates ...................................................................287

F-26 Summary of type S 232Th intake rates and dates ....................................................................287

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

3-1 Maintenance work on High Level Drain Line ............................................................................32

3-2 Construction work on the High Level Drain Line.......................................................................33

3-3 Maintenance on MSMs .............................................................................................................34

3-4 Construction removing MSM covers .........................................................................................35

3-5 Job Plans ..................................................................................................................................37

3-6 Procedure review with crafts, DuPont, and construction ..........................................................38

4-1 Americium nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .......................................................48

4-2 Americium CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .............................................................48

4-3 Tritium bioassay sample frequency ..........................................................................................49

4-4 Tritium nonCTW individual dose data box and whisker plot .....................................................53

4-5 Tritium CTW individual dose data box and whisker plot ...........................................................53

4-6 Tritium prime and subcontractor stratified CTW individual dose data box and whisker plot.....54

4-7 Plutonium type M nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955...............58

4-8 Plutonium type M CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955.....................59

4-9 Plutonium type S nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955 ...............59

4-10 Plutonium type S CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955 .....................60

4-11 Plutonium type SS nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955 .............60

4-12 Plutonium type SS CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955 ...................61

4-13 Plutonium type M nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971...............61

4-14 Plutonium type M CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971.....................62

4-15 Plutonium type S nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971 ...............62

4-16 Plutonium type S CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971 .....................63

4-17 Plutonium type SS nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971 .............63

4-18 Plutonium type SS CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971 ...................64

4-19 Uranium type F nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot ...............................................69

4-20 Uranium type F CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .....................................................69

4-21 Uranium type M nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot...............................................70

4-22 Uranium type M CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot.....................................................70

4-23 Uranium type S nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot ...............................................71

4-24 Uranium type S CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .....................................................71

4-25 FP nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot ...................................................................74

4-26 FP CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .........................................................................75
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 8 of 287

 

4-27 Cobalt-60 nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type M ..........................................77

4-28 Cobalt-60 CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type M ................................................77

4-29 Cobalt-60 nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type S...........................................78

4-30 Cobalt-60 CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type S.................................................78

4-31 Cesium-137 body burden nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot................................82

4-32 Cesium-137 body burden CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot......................................82

4-33 Neptunium urinalysis nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot....................................... 88

4-34 Neptunium urinalysis CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot.............................................88

4-35 Neptunium whole-body burden nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .......................89

4-36 Neptunium whole-body burden CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot .............................89

4-37 Neptunium urinalysis nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, 1970 to 1989................90

4-38 Neptunium urinalysis CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, 1970 to 1989......................90

4-39 TIOA-DDCP sequential stripping process.................................................................................93

4-40 Sample analysis procedure for extracting americium, curium, californium, plutonium, 

neptunium, and EU ...................................................................................................................93

A-1 Wald plot for 30 individuals .....................................................................................................113

A-2 Plot to determine the minimum number of claims to be sampled ...........................................116

A-3 OC curve for 410 individuals...................................................................................................116

A-4 Sequential plot of missing records plot for 410 individuals .....................................................117

A-5 Sequential plot of missing records plot for 382 individuals .....................................................119

A-6 Plot to determine the minimum number of claims to be sampled ...........................................121

A-7 OC curve for 107 individuals...................................................................................................121

A-8 Sequential plot of missing records for 107 individuals ............................................................122

A-9 True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance (October 5, 2017) ..........131

A-10 True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance (June 1, 2017) ...............132

A-11 True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance (March 6, 2017) .............133

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

19, 1981..................................................................................................................................139

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

19, 1981, continued ................................................................................................................140

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

through early February 1982...................................................................................................140

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

through early February 1982, continued.................................................................................141

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

through early February 1982, continued.................................................................................141

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

through early February 1982, continued.................................................................................142

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

Construction............................................................................................................................143

B-4a Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984 ....................................144

B-4b Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ..................144

B-4c Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ..................145

D-1 Coefficient of variation of count-specific results......................................................................161

D-2 Coefficient of variation of count-specific results, small scale ..................................................162

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1963 to 

1965, type M ...........................................................................................................................200

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1966 to 

1967, type M ...........................................................................................................................200
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 9 of 287

 

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

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

1971, type M ...........................................................................................................................201

F-4 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

1982, type M ...........................................................................................................................201

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1983 to 

1989, type M ...........................................................................................................................201

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1963 to 

1965, type M ...........................................................................................................................202

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1966 to 

1967, type M ...........................................................................................................................202

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

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

1971, type M ...........................................................................................................................202

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

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

1982, type M ...........................................................................................................................203

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1983 to 

1989, type M ...........................................................................................................................203

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1965 to 1967, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................203

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1971, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................204

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1972 to 1982, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................204

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1983 to 1989, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................204

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1965 to 1967,

type M .....................................................................................................................................205

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1971, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................205

F-17 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1972 to 1982, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................205

F-18 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1983 to 1989, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................206

F-19 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................206
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 10 of 287

 

F-20 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................206

F-21 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type M ....207

F-22 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type M ....207

F-23 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type M ..............................................................................................................208

F-24 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type M ..............................................................................................................208

F-25 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type M ..............................................................................................................209

F-26 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type M ..............................................................................................................209

F-27 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type M ..............................................................................................................210

F-28 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type M ..............................................................................................................210

F-29 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type M ..............................................................................................................211

F-30 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type M ..............................................................................................................211

F-31 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type M ..............................................................................................................212

F-32 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type M ..............................................................................................................212

F-33 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type S ...............................................................................................................213

F-34 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type S ...............................................................................................................213

F-35 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type S ...............................................................................................................214

F-36 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type S ...............................................................................................................214

F-37 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type S ...............................................................................................................215
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 11 of 287

 

F-38 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type S ...............................................................................................................215

F-39 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type S ...............................................................................................................216

F-40 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type S ...............................................................................................................216

F-41 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type S ...............................................................................................................217

F-42 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type S ...............................................................................................................217

F-43 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type SS ............................................................................................................218

F-44 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type SS ............................................................................................................218

F-45 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type SS ............................................................................................................219

F-46 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type SS ............................................................................................................219

F-47 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type SS ............................................................................................................220

F-48 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type SS ............................................................................................................220

F-49 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type SS ............................................................................................................221

F-50 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type SS ............................................................................................................221

F-51 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type SS ............................................................................................................222

F-52 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type SS ............................................................................................................222

F-53 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type M .......................................................................................................................223

F-54 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type M .......................................................................................................................223
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 12 of 287

 

F-55 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type M .......................................................................................................................224

F-56 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type M .......................................................................................................................224

F-57 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type M .......................................................................................................................225

F-58 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type M ....................................................................................................................... 225

F-59 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type M .......................................................................................................................226

F-60 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type M .......................................................................................................................226

F-61 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type M .......................................................................................................................227

F-62 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type M .......................................................................................................................227

F-63 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type S ........................................................................................................................228

F-64 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type S ........................................................................................................................228

F-65 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type S ........................................................................................................................229

F-66 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type S ........................................................................................................................229

F-67 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type S ........................................................................................................................230

F-68 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type S ........................................................................................................................230

F-69 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type S ........................................................................................................................231

F-70 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type S ........................................................................................................................231

F-71 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type S ........................................................................................................................232
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 13 of 287

 

F-72 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type S ........................................................................................................................232

F-73 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type SS .....................................................................................................................233

F-74 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type SS .....................................................................................................................233

F-75 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type SS .....................................................................................................................234

F-76 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type SS .....................................................................................................................234

F-77 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type SS .....................................................................................................................235

F-78 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type SS .....................................................................................................................235

F-79 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type SS .....................................................................................................................236

F-80 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type SS .....................................................................................................................236

F-81 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type SS .....................................................................................................................237

F-82 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type SS .....................................................................................................................237

F-83 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 

all years, type M ......................................................................................................................238

F-84 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 

all years, type M ......................................................................................................................238

F-85 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 

all years, type S ......................................................................................................................239

F-86 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 

all years, type S ......................................................................................................................239

F-87 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 

all years, type SS ....................................................................................................................240

F-88 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 

all years, type SS ....................................................................................................................240
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 14 of 287

 

F-89 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all 

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................241

F-90 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all 

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................241

F-91 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all 

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................241

F-92 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all 

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................242

F-93 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all 

years, type SS .........................................................................................................................242

F-94 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all 

years, type SS .........................................................................................................................242

F-95 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type F ...........................................................................................................................244

F-96 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type F ...........................................................................................................................244

F-97 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................245

F-98 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................245

F-99 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................245

F-100 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................246

F-101 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................246

F-102 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................246

F-103 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW, 1953, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................247

F-104 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW, 1954, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................247

F-105 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 

1956, type S ............................................................................................................................248
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 15 of 287

 

F-106 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1957 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................248

F-107 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................249

F-108 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1981, type S ............................................................................................................................249

F-109 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 

1985, type S ............................................................................................................................250

F-110 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1986 to 

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................250

F-111 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1953, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................251

F-112 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1954, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................251

F-113 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 

1956, type S ............................................................................................................................252

F-114 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1957 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................252

F-115 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................253

F-116 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1981, type S ............................................................................................................................253

F-117 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 

1985, type S ............................................................................................................................254

F-118 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1986 to 

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................254

F-119 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 to 

1956, type S ............................................................................................................................255

F-120 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1957 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................255

F-121 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................255

F-122 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................256
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 16 of 287

 

F-123 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 to 

1957, type S ............................................................................................................................256

F-124 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1958 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................256

F-125 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................257

F-126 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................257

F-127 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................257

F-128 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................258

F-129 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................258

F-130 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................258

F-131 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, 

nonCTW all years ...................................................................................................................260

F-132 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, 

nonCTW all years ...................................................................................................................261

F-133 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, 

CTW all years .........................................................................................................................261

F-134 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, 

CTW all years .........................................................................................................................262

F-135 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................262

F-136 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................263

F-137 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................263

F-138 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................263

F-139 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type M ....264

F-140 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type M ....264
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 17 of 287

 

F-141 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type S ....264

F-142 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type S ....265

F-143 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1960 to 

1966, type F ............................................................................................................................266

F-144 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

1990, type F ............................................................................................................................266

F-145 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1960 to 

1966, type F ............................................................................................................................267

F-146 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

1990, type F ............................................................................................................................267

F-147 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1960 to 1966, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................267

F-148 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1990, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................268

F-149 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1960 to 1966, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................268

F-150 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1990, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................268

F-151 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................269

F-152 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................269

F-153 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type F ....269

F-154 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type F ....270

F-155 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1963...271

F-156 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1964 to 1967...271

F-157 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1969...272

F-158 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1970 to 1972...272

F-159 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1973 to 1974...272

F-160 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1975 to 1979...273

F-161 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1980 to 1989...273
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 18 of 287

 

F-162 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1963...273

F-163 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1964 to 1967...274

F-164 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1969...274

F-165 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1970 to 1972...274

F-166 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1973 to 1974...275

F-167 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1975 to 1979...275

F-168 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1980 to 1989...275

F-169 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1963.........276

F-170 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1970 to 1972.........276

F-171 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1973 to 1974.........276

F-172 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1975 to 1979.........277

F-173 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1980 to 1989.........277

F-174 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1963.........277

F-175 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1970 to 1972.........278

F-176 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1973 to 1974.........278

F-177 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1975 to 1979.........278

F-178 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1980 to 1989.........279

F-179 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................279

F-180 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

WBCs......................................................................................................................................280

F-181 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................280

F-182 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

WBCs......................................................................................................................................281

F-183 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................281

F-184 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, WBCs ....281
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 19 of 287

F-185 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line)

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................282

F-186 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, WBCs ....282

F-187 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type M .............................................................................................................283

F-188 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type M .............................................................................................................283

F-189 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type M .................................................................................................................284

F-190 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type M .................................................................................................................284

F-191 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type S ..............................................................................................................285

F-192 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type S ...............................................................................................................285

F-193 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type S ..................................................................................................................286

F-194 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line)

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type S ..................................................................................................................286
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 20 of 287

 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

ACD Analytical Chemistry Division

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AQL acceptance quality level

AWE atomic weapons employer

C&D Construction and Demolition

CPF Californium Processing Facility

cpm counts per minute

CTW construction trade worker

d day

D&D decontamination and decommissioning

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

DDCP dibutyl-N,N-diethylcarbamylphosphonate

DNA delayed neutron analysis

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

dpm disintegrations per minute

DTPA diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid

DU depleted uranium

E&I Electrical and Instrumentation

EU enriched uranium

F fast (absorption type)

FP fission product

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

HDEHP bis(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid

HEU highly enriched uranium

HLC high-level cave

HP Health Physics

HPRED Health Protection Radiation Exposure Database

hr hour

HTO tritiated water vapor

IA induced activity

ID identification (number)

IDOT Internal Dosimetry Tool

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

keV kiloelectron-volt, 1,000 electron-volts

KPA kinetic phosphorescence analysis

L liter

LIP lost in process

LTPD lot tolerance percent defective
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 21 of 287

 

m meter

M moderate (absorption type)

MDA minimum detectable amount

MFP mixed fission product

MFPG mixed fission product-gamma

mL milliliter

MSM Master/Slave Manipulator

nCi nanocurie

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NMD Nuclear Materials Division

NOCTS NIOSH-DCAS Claims Tracking System

NP neptunium analysis

NTA nuclear track emulsion, type A

NU natural uranium

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

pCi picocurie

ppm parts per million

PRID payroll ID (number with optional dash separator)

PUREX plutonium-uranium extraction

QA quality assurance

REAC/TS Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site

ROI region of interest

S slow (absorption type)

SCD Separation Chemistry Division

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SED Separation Engineering Division

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

SRS Savannah River Site

SS super S (absorption type)

SSN Social Security Number

T&T Transportation and Traffic Department

TIB technical information bulletin

TIOA triisooctylamine

TRU transuranic

TWOPOS time-weighted one person–one statistic

USC United States Code

WBC whole-body count

yr year

α producer’s risk (ORAU Team risk)

β consumer’s risk (DCAS risk)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 22 of 287

 

μCi microcurie 

μg microgram

μm micrometer
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 23 of 287

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Co-exposure models are used to assign dose to workers whose personal bioassay data are missing 

or who were not monitored and, in retrospect, perhaps should have been. Developing co-exposure

models is a complex task, involving the acquisition of large amounts of historical records, transcription 

and cleaning of the data, statistical analysis and modeling, and interpretation of the final models. The 

Draft Criteria for the Evaluation and Use of Coworker Datasets [National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) 2015], hereafter referred to as the Guide, was issued to establish criteria 

that would bring some degree of consistency to the co-exposure process as applied across different 

radionuclides, sites, and timespans. The Guide [NIOSH 2015] specifies aspects of the data and 

methodology that should be critically examined to determine if a useful co-exposure model can be 

constructed. 

The Guide covers several topics in relation to the development of a co-exposure study, including the 

adequacy and completeness of the data, review and analysis of the monitoring program data, and 

evaluation of stratification. The Savannah River Site (SRS) internal dose co-exposure study, as 

documented in this document, was selected as a test case for implementation of the Guide. Nine 

radionuclide groups were addressed: americium, tritium, uranium, plutonium, fission products (FPs), 137Cs, 60Co, neptunium, and thorium. Further, each dataset was stratified into two groups: construction 

trade workers (CTWs) and nonCTWs (all other workers). 

A brief overview of how the SRS co-exposure study and subsequent documentation implemented the 

requirements in the Guide is presented here. Criteria specified by the Guide are presented here as 

section headings, followed by bulleted questions that describe the issues of concern. Next is a brief 

summary of how these issues are addressed, followed by a listing of the sections where this 

information can be found.

Adequacy of Bioassay Data for Modeling (Guide Section 2.1)

• Are the measurement techniques capable of quantitatively measuring the exposure of 

interest?

• Were the monitored workers on the right bioassay program at the right time so that significant 

exposures were detected and properly assessed?

SRS had bioassay control procedures that specified which workers should be sampled for specific 

radionuclides. These included instructions for requesting and collecting urine samples. 

This document contains a section for each radionuclide that addresses data adequacy. Personnel 

monitoring programs and bioassay analytical techniques are summarized within those sections.

Descriptions of the sample chemical processing techniques and counting equipment for each nuclide 

are given. Radiochemical recovery data are presented where appropriate. When a technique did not 

isolate a single element (for instance, americium counting includes californium, curium, and thorium), 

the assumption was made that all of the activity was from the radionuclide of interest, which is 

favorable to claimants. 

Relevant sections: 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.2.3, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.2, 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.3, 

4.4.2.2, 4.5.1.1, 4.5.1.3, 4.5.2.2, 4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.3, 4.7.2.2, 4.8.1.1, 4.8.1.3, 4.8.2.2, 4.9

Quality of Data (Guide Section 2.1)

• Were results reviewed to determine if they were appropriate for use in the model?

Data were selected that were representative of the evaluated radionuclides. Many analytical methods 

were specific to certain radionuclides. In some cases, several radionuclides would be included in the 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 24 of 287

 

analysis. A urinalysis technique that was designated as “fission products” was used to monitor a 

variety of nuclides. This consisted of chemical separations followed by gross beta counting, a gross 

gamma count, or a combination of the two. Before 1966, the gross beta analysis was used in this 

study to assess FP intakes assuming 90Sr for the intake analysis. Beginning in 1966, the direct 

measurement of 137Cs in the body using a whole-body counter became prevalent, while the gross beta 

portion of the FP analyses dropped significantly. Therefore, the 137Cs body content results based on 

whole-body counts (WBCs) were used from 1966 on to assess FP intakes. Ratios are applied to the 

90Sr or 137Cs intakes at the time of dose reconstruction to address the entire FP mix.

All results were reviewed for anomalies, and those that were considered unrepresentative of the 

population were excluded. This included results from actinide samples collected within 100 days of 

chelation and those collected as a result of a significant event in which few workers would have been 

exposed. These reviews are documented in the “Data Exclusion” section for each radionuclide. Paired 

measurement sample variance in the americium results was evaluated; results are presented in 

Attachment D. 

Relevant sections: 4.1.1.4, 4.1.2.4, 4.3.2.3, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.2.3, 4.7.2.3, 4.8.2.3, Attachment D

Completeness of Data (Guide Section 2.2)

• Do the bioassay data in the available records contain enough of all the bioassay data actually 

generated to allow us to make meaningful co-exposure models?

• Are exposure conditions of the monitored workers representative of or bound those of the 

unmonitored workers to whom the intakes will be applied?

Data from the NIOSH-Division of Compensation Analysis and Support Claims Tracking System 

(NOCTS) were used as the best available compilation of data in a usable form. NOCTS data are 

assumed to be a random sampling that can be considered representative of co-exposure bioassay 

data based on the analysis in ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Use of Claimant Datasets for Coworker Modeling

[Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team (ORAUT) 2016a]. Hundreds of thousands of 

bioassay results were available for more than 1,500 workers in the evaluated timeframe. When there 

were too few monitored workers from the NOCTS dataset to develop a co-exposure model, data from 

the original bioassay logbooks were abstracted and used for the analysis. This was done for the 

Am/Cm/Cf, thorium (based on americium), and neptunium co-exposure models.

During the period of the co-exposure study, SRS had a functioning bioassay program with procedures 

that specified which workers were monitored for exposure to specific radionuclides. Selection for 

monitoring and frequency of sampling was based on work location and work activities. Attachment C 

contains tables of required bioassay frequencies by area and job. Those workers with higher 

exposure potential (operators, maintenance, etc.) were monitored more than administrative workers.

Due to this differential in monitoring practices, the co-exposure models are weighted more towards 

the exposures indicative of workers with higher exposure potential.

Relevant sections: 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, Attachment A, Attachment C

Accuracy of Data (Guide Section 2.2)

• Is the transcription of data from historic hardcopy records to computer-readable format 

accomplished with an acceptably low error rate? 

Data were transcribed from NOCTS and SRS laboratory logbooks. Checks of the accuracy of data 

transcription from these sources, including legibility of the source documents, were primarily 

performed in accordance with ORAUT-RPRT-0078, Technical Basis for Sampling Plan [ORAUT 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 25 of 287

 

2016b], and are described in Attachment A. Confidence intervals are provided for each test that was 

performed. 

Two sets of acceptance criteria for data transcription were used, one for critical fields and another for 

all checked fields (critical and noncritical). Critical fields are those determined to have the potential to 

affect the accuracy of the results. Typical critical fields were the reported result, nuclide, and payroll 

identification number (PRID). Typical noncritical fields were the individual’s name and job title. The 

plan for all checked fields used a 5% maximum allowable error rate, while the plan for critical fields 

subjected them to a stricter 1% maximum allowable error rate.

Relevant sections: 3.1.2, 3.2.3, 4.1.2.2, 4.2.2, 4.8.2.1, Attachment A

Reproducibility of Calculations (Guide Section 3.0)

• Is the documentation of calculations used in the development of co-exposure models detailed 

enough to allow all numerical results and plots to be successfully reproduced at a future date?

The statistical analysis and intake modeling efforts are discussed in the respective nuclide sections. 

The step-by-step data preparation and statistical analysis instructions are reproduced in 

Attachment E. These instructions document all operations performed on the data such that the final 

results can be recreated independently. Attachment E includes a list of all source files that were used 

for the analyses. In addition to a review as each individual assessment was performed, the entire 

process was stepped through upon completion. All calculations were reviewed to ensure both that the 

instructions were correct and that the analyses had been performed correctly.

Relevant sections: 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 

4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.9, Attachment E

Applicability of Monitoring Data to Unmonitored Workers (Guide Section 3.1)

• Was it established who was monitored and why?

This document contains sections for each radionuclide on Personnel Monitoring and Applicability to 

Unmonitored Workers. Within those respective sections are descriptions of the monitoring programs, 

including information on frequency of sampling and who was monitored. 

Bioassay sampling procedures dating back to 1965 document who was to be monitored for which 

radionuclides. Attachment C contains tables from those procedures detailing monitoring type and 

frequency by area and job classification. The procedures prioritized monitoring for those workers with 

higher exposure potential. In 1965, groups of workers with potential for intakes of tritium and/or FPs 

were specified. The procedure lists eight work groups across several buildings that were required to 

leave urine samples for FP analysis. Work groups not listed in the procedure were not considered to 

have potential for intakes. 

By 1968, SRS designed a category system to identify and track intake potential. Monitoring frequency 

was based on exposure potential and categories ranged from minimum to maximum potential.

Specific nuclides were location dependent, but workers with minimum potential might have been 

sampled for plutonium, FPs, uranium, or neptunium once every 3 years. Frequency increased with 

increasing potential, and the maximum potential groups were sampled as often as four times per year 

for plutonium and twice per year for FPs. Each category listed specific groups of workers with 

associated monitoring frequencies. Workers not included in any of the 23 categories were considered 

not to have a potential for intake and were therefore not sampled. Category definitions and work 

group designations were updated over time in subsequent versions of the bioassay control 

procedures based on missions and materials, but SRS continued to sample workers by intake 

potential. Because the workers with the highest exposure potential were part of the monitoring 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 26 of 287

 

program, any unmonitored workers would have an exposure potential that was similar to or less than 

that of the monitored workers.

The co-exposure models were stratified on the basis of the exposure potential characteristics as 

discussed in Section 3.2. 

Relevant sections: 3.2, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.5.1.1, 

4.5.1.2, 4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.2, 4.8.1.1, 4.8.1.2, Attachment C

Analysis and Application of the Modeled Data (Guide Section 3.2 & 3.3)

• Were appropriate methods used to manipulate the bioassay data and perform statistical 

analyses?

The time-weighted one person–one statistic method, as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Analysis of 

Stratified Coworker Datasets [ORAUT 2014a], was used for the statistical evaluations. For most 

analyses, time intervals of 1 year were used. No intervals greater than 3 years were used. Results are 

tabulated in the respective nuclide sections. Box and whisker plots are also provided to illustrate the 

relative range and distribution of the bioassay data. The complete set of instructions for the 

development of the statistical analyses is included in Attachment E.

General guidance on when to assign the geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviation

(GSD) or the 95th percentile is provided in Section 5.0. The decision is left to the dose reconstructor 

based on a review of the worker’s records and site information.

Relevant sections: 1.0, 4.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.4.3, 4.5.3, 4.6.2, 4.7.3, 4.8.3, 5.0, Attachment E

Stratification (Guide Section 4.0)

• Do different categories of workers warrant separate co-exposure models so as to not bias their 

dose low? 

The co-exposure modeling was stratified by CTW versus nonCTW. CTWs were determined using 

SRS payroll numbers and craft codes. A detailed discussion of these categories and how 

classification was accomplished is contained in the noted section and its subsections.

Some workers handled pure or relatively pure 60Co during the period from 1955 to 1970. A separate 

co-exposure model, using the FP urinalysis results, was developed to ensure that potential intakes 

were not underestimated.

Relevant sections: 3.2, 4.6

Summary

A series of co-exposure models were developed for application to SRS workers whose data are 

lacking for the assessment of intakes of radioactive material. The Draft Criteria for the Evaluation and 

Use of Coworker Datasets [NIOSH 2015] was applied in the development of these models. 

The discussion above summarizes the major points of the Guide and provides a brief discussion of 

how each was addressed in the development of the co-exposure models. The body of this document 

provides the details of this analysis. In answering the questions posed by the Guide about 

completeness, accuracy, and quality of the data, as well as those about the monitoring program and 

who was placed on it, it is demonstrated that the models are valid for the dose reconstruction of 

workers who were not monitored or whose monitoring data are not available. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 27 of 287

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

is obtained about the affected site(s), such as changing scientific understanding of operations, 

processes, or procedures involving radioactive materials. TIBs may be used to assist NIOSH staff in 

the completion of individual dose reconstructions.

In this document the word “facility” is used to refer to an area, building, or group of buildings that 

served a specific purpose at a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or Atomic Weapons Employer 

(AWE) facility. It does not mean, nor should it be equated to, an “AWE facility” or a “DOE facility.” The 

terms AWE and DOE facility are defined in 42 United States Code (USC) 7384l(5) and (12) of the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, respectively. 

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

2005b], describes the general process NIOSH uses to analyze bioassay data for the assignment of 

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

Profile Development [ORAUT 2004a], describes the approach and processes to develop reasonable

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

the Evaluation and Use of Coworker Datasets [NIOSH 2015] provides the criteria to evaluate the 

adequacy and completeness of co-exposure data. In the sections below, the data and evaluations 

required by the guidance are provided for each evaluated radionuclide.

Bioassay data in the (NOCTS) for (SRS) employees were used to develop a representative database 

of co-exposure bioassay data using the guidance of ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Use of Claimant Datasets 

for Coworker Modeling [ORAUT 2016a], and NIOSH [2015]. 

A statistical analysis of the data was performed according to ORAUT-OTIB-0019 [ORAUT 2005b], 

ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Analysis of Stratified Coworker Datasets [ORAUT 2014a], and ORAUT-RPRT0096, Multiple Imputation Applied to Bioassay Coworker Models [ORAUT 2019]. The results were 

entered in the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) and Internal Dosimetry Tool (IDOT) 

computer programs to obtain intake rates for the assignment of dose distributions.

2.0 PURPOSE

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

records of such monitoring are incomplete or unavailable. In such cases, data from monitored coexposures can be used to assign an internal dose to address potential intakes of radioactive material.

The purpose of this TIB is to provide monitored co-exposure information for calculating and assigning 

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

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

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 7.0. 

3.0 GENERAL METHODS

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

analysis. More detailed, radionuclide-specific information is provided in Section 4.0. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 28 of 287

 

3.1 DATA SOURCES

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

energy employees who worked at SRS. The second is data from laboratory logbooks for americium 

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

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

sources are discussed in the radionuclide-specific discussions below.

3.1.1 Completeness of Claims Tracking System Data

For the period before availability of the Health Protection Radiation Exposure Database (HPRED) 

data (before 1991), NOCTS data were used as the best available compilation of data in a usable form 

(i.e., electronic spreadsheet or database). This dataset contained over 260,000 tritium bioassay 

results and over 100,000 nontritium in vitro bioassay results for samples submitted by more than 

1,500 workers between 1954 and 1990. There are also records of almost 15,000 in vivo (whole-body 

or chest) counts. NOCTS data are not complete because not all workers are claimants. However, the 

NOCTS data are assumed to be a random sampling that can be considered representative of coexposure bioassay data based on the analysis in ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Use of Claimant Datasets for 

Coworker Modeling [ORAUT 2016a]. This analysis demonstrated that, for three evaluated cases, 

claimant datasets can be considered to be random samples of the complete dataset and that the 

justification provided the basis for applying this assumption to other sites and datasets. For this effort, 

bioassay data for claimants with a claim number less than 35,000 with U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL)-verified employment at SRS was used. No effort was made to find bioassay data for claimants 

with employment at SRS that was not DOL-verified or outside of verified employment periods.

Although the individuals in NOCTS are a subset of all workers at SRS, it is still desirable that the data 

for those particular individuals be complete. Reviews were performed to check that the data entry 

process from the NOCTS hardcopy records was complete. This review was performed in two steps

based on ORAUT-RPRT-0086 [ORAUT 2017c]. The first step consisted of verifying that all individuals 

with at least 1 day of verified employment at SRS during the timeframe of interest who had any 

bioassay data in their NOCTS records also had some bioassay records in the respective NOCTS in 

vivo and in vitro bioassay datasets. This was a claim-level check for the existence of any data at all 

and not a check of each bioassay datum in the records. Any missing records found during this 

process were corrected with additional data entry and the process repeated until no further missing 

records were found.

The second step consisted of selecting a sampling of NOCTS claims with bioassay data and verifying 

that all the data in the hardcopy records was in the applicable dataset, similar to the process used 

below for checking data accuracy. Using this method it was determined that the missing data rate for 

the NOCTS in vitro bioassay dataset had a point estimate of 0.79% with a 95% confidence interval of 

0.03% to 3.99%. The NOCTS in vivo dataset had a point estimate of 0.64% with a 95% confidence 

interval of 0.25% to 1.35%. Completeness testing was done during the development of ORAUTRPRT-0086 [ORAUT 2017c]; therefore the exact method of ORAUT-RPRT-0086 was not used. The 

details of the results of these evaluations are contained in Attachment A. 

3.1.2 Accuracy of Claims Tracking System Data

The NOCTS data are split into three types: in vivo bioassay data, nontritium in vitro bioassay data, 

and tritium in vitro bioassay data. The data quality on each piece was evaluated separately. The 

tritium bioassay data quality review is discussed in Section 4.2.2. For each data source, the data entry 

process was subjected to quality assurance (QA) checks in accordance with ORAUT-RPRT-0078, 

Technical Basis for Sampling Plan [ORAUT 2016b]. This report describes a sampling plan that 

computes “transcription” error rates, which quantify the degree to which an electronic dataset agrees 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 29 of 287

 

with the original hardcopy records. The sampling plan is used to select a representative sample of the 

data and to estimate the transcription error rates. Statistical sampling techniques, in which a 

comparison of the electronic dataset to the original data is performed after the transcription is 

complete, are used to confirm that the specified unacceptable error rates have not been exceeded 

and to generate error rate confidence intervals. Sampling plans for “critical” fields are created with an 

unacceptable error rate of 1% or higher, while plans for “all” fields have an unacceptable error rate of 

5% or higher. Critical fields are those fields containing an analytical result or that are used to identify 

an individual payroll identification number (PRID).

The data transcription accuracy of the in vitro bioassay data was checked in accordance with ORAUTRPRT-0078 [ORAUT 2016b]. The nuclide, result, and “<” fields were checked with a maximum 

1% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.25% with a 95% 

confidence interval of 0.13% to 0.45%. The fields checked above, sample date, and other nonblank 

data entry fields were evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a 

point estimate error rate of 0.46% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.13% to 1.17%. Therefore, the 

dataset passed the QA check. The details of the results of the evaluation are contained in 

Attachment A. 

The data transcription accuracy of the in vivo bioassay data was checked in accordance with ORAUTRPRT-0078 [ORAUT 2016b]. The nonblank fields relevant to calculating a body burden were checked 

with a maximum 1% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 

0.62% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.41% to 0.89% excluding errors associated with PRIDs that 

do not affect use of the data. The fields checked above, sample date, and other nonblank data entry 

fields were evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point 

estimate error rate of 2.17% with a 95% confidence interval of 1.21% to 3.37%. Therefore, the dataset 

passed the QA check. The details of the results of the evaluation are contained in Attachment A. 

3.2 STRATIFICATION

For co-exposure models, a priori stratification is based on either (1) differences (or similarities) of the 

radiological work being conducted (i.e., exposure potential) or (2) known differences (or similarities) in 

radiological monitoring methodology. At SRS, there are three main groups of radiological workers: 

Operations (Production), Maintenance (DuPont Construction), and Construction. For the stratification 

of the co-exposure models, NIOSH chose to stratify based on the type of radiological work being 

conducted because all three groups have a variety or hybrid of Health Physics (HP) personnel 

monitoring as discussed in more detail below. The main difference in exposure from different types of 

radiological work is based on normal operations versus off-normal operations.

In the case of SRS, there are differences in the nature of the exposure potential between CTWs 

(Maintenance and Construction) and operations workers that warrant considering them as two distinct 

cohorts or strata with regards to co-exposure models.

Operations or Production workers (chemists, physicists, operators, technicians, material handlers, 

etc.) generally work with larger quantities of radioactive materials, but the materials are well controlled 

in gloveboxes or fume hoods to prevent or minimize worker exposure. Radiological work conducted 

by CTWs, on the other hand, typically involve contaminated equipment (i.e., smaller quantities), but 

the engineered controls (e.g., gloveboxes, cabinets, fume hoods, or duct work) that contain the 

radioactive materials are sometimes intentionally compromised to conduct renovation or repair. As a 

result, the CTW exposure potential could be (1) less than operations workers, (2) equal to operations 

workers, or (3) greater than operations workers depending on the work being conducted. Further 

complicating the total exposure is the duration of the specific job. In some cases, the magnitude of the 

exposure for CTW could be greater but the duration is shorter (days or weeks). This could result in a 

similar total intake as experienced by operations but with a different delivery.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 30 of 287

 

In general, the exposure potential for CTWs is viewed as being potentially greater but of a shorter 

duration. This difference in exposure potential based on the type of work being conducted is the main 

justification for the stratification. As a result, NIOSH decided to a priori stratify the Operations and 

CTW models for SRS. 

Two classifications of workers were evaluated: CTWs and nonCTWs. CTWs at SRS, also referred to 

as building trades workers, fit into two categories. The first consists of workers hired by the site prime 

contractor tending to stay in mostly permanent employment, while the second consists of workers 

brought in temporarily and often for short periods to perform specific tasks. Many of the workers in the 

second category have repeat temporary employment at either SRS or other DOE sites. From the 

onset of construction at SRS through 1989, workers in the first category were employed by DuPont 

while workers in the second category were employed by subcontractors such as B. F. Shaw 

Company, Miller-Dunn Electric Company, and North Brothers Company. CTWs in the first category 

were assigned to DuPont Roll number 2. (Roll numbers separated workers by payroll type, e.g., 

salaried employees, hourly employees, and contracted workers.) Workers in the second category 

were assigned to Roll 4 and some to Roll 5 and were assigned a two-digit craft code. For example, 

craft code 20 was Boilermaker [DuPont 1954]. In 1989, Bechtel Savannah River took over 

construction duties at SRS. Bechtel tended to use CTWs hired through subcontracted companies 

rather than direct hire.

3.2.1 Worker Classification Background

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

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

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

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

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

River, workers in Rolls 4 and 5, or subcontractors, were employed at SRS for periods ranging from a 

few days to years. One electrician ([redacted]) worked lengthy periods between 1958 and 1975, while 

another ([redacted]) worked varying periods from 1955 through 1966. Workers from each of the rolls 

were assigned to do jobs. Some tasks such as painting were mostly performed by workers in Roll 4 

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

in Roll 2. Maintenance and decontamination tasks shared common exposure profiles where workers 

in some of the jobs could be exposed to higher levels of radiation from surface and airborne 

contamination.

Prime CTWs had similar exposure conditions to subcontractor CTWs [ORAUT 2017b], so bioassay 

data from prime CTWs and intakes based on that data may be used to assign intakes to unmonitored 

subcontractor CTWs. This is based on the conclusion that the exposure conditions and potential for 

intakes were similar among all CTWs. Similar jobs were performed by both prime and subcontractor 

CTWs. SRS Health Physics monitored jobs by prime CTWs and subcontractor CTWs for surface and 

airborne contamination and incidents. 

An important note is that not all construction work involved exposure to radioactive materials. The 

larger projects (new facilities) tended to be clean construction work, so radiological monitoring was not 

required. Maintenance work in a radiological facility tended to be mostly radiological in nature, which 

is believed to be the reason there were semi-dedicated crafts workers as part of the maintenance 

team at each of the major facilities.

Bingham [1997] stated that the DOE stated in Congressional testimony that it is likely that the greatest 

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

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

procedures, the HP Department provided the same level of job planning and monitoring to these tasks 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 31 of 287

 

as it did with operation and production tasks [DuPont 1959–1971, no date b]. HP surveyed and 

collected air monitoring samples in all areas where release of contamination was possible. NIOSH 

has collected air monitoring data for areas where known CTW work was performed. Examples of 

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

contamination in a job in H Area in 1972 [DuPont 1972], and monitoring of [redacted] on Roll 2 

contaminated in a similar job in F Area in [redacted] [DuPont 1974]. [Redacted] were exposed to high 

concentrations of airborne [redacted] contamination while working in Savannah River Laboratory in 

[redacted] [DuPont 1974–1984]. In 1979, a Roll 4 [redacted] received an intake of radioactive material 

while removing a hood at Savannah River Laboratory [DuPont 1974–1984]. These examples and 

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

radiation exposure, and that they were monitored. External dose and bioassay data received from 

DOE for former SRS prime contractor and subcontractor CTWs support both of these conclusions

(i.e., that radiation exposure and intake potential and monitoring were similar). 

Subcontractor CTWs often had limited routine monitoring because their work was split between 

routine maintenance and renovations. In addition, they were not continuously in the same work area.

The monitoring was mostly job specific and based on need and workplace indicators. Both DuPont 

and subcontractor CTWs were monitored when incidents occurred. From ORAUT-RPRT-0083 for the 

period 1980 through 1986, 67% of evaluated subcontractors had bioassay in the year they were noted 

as working on jobs with potential for intakes. Thirty-nine percent were on routine bioassay. Workers 

on short-duration jobs (less than a few days) were not likely to have been sampled unless an incident 

in the associated work area led to an incident bioassay. The team found bioassay results of 

coworkers on the same Job Plans for another 26% of the subcontractor CTWs using respiratory 

protection, although it is possible that the co-exposure bioassay was collected as a result of work on a 

different job or work location. The team identified temporary workers with bioassay [ORAUT 2017b], 

including one who was sampled after an incident [DuPont 1987b]. Therefore, 93% of subcontractor 

CTWs were either monitored or had a coworker who was monitored.

Another important note is that while there were differences in biological monitoring, ALL groups 

participated in biological monitoring for radiological intakes, especially when workplace conditions 

required follow-up. The differences are the degree to which each group had routine, job-specific, and 

incident monitoring. Workplace monitoring and radiological protection requirements appear to be 

based on exposure potential, not on group or craft. The only possible difference between DuPont 

Construction work and Subcontractor Construction work appears to be scale of work that was likely 

governed by Davis-Bacon rules. 

Based on a review of hundreds of job plans and radiological surveys for SRS, it is clear that multiple 

types of crafts workers participated on the same type of jobs with common exposure potential. For 

example, maintenance workers (DuPont Construction) were cutting a 4-inch section from the High 

Level Drain Line as shown in Figure 3-1. The pipe ends were to be plugged and taped. The workers 

wore two pair of coveralls and respirators and had continuous coverage by Health Physics during the 

job. In a similar job, subcontractor construction trades workers, pipefitters from B. F. Shaw, were 

connecting the cell line to the high-level drain line in a laboratory as shown in Figure 3-2. Like the 

maintenance workers, the pipefitters were required to wear two pair of coveralls and respirators when 

the line was being connected (i.e., line break). Health Physics also covered this job, continuously 

monitoring for contamination. This example also illustrates off-normal work that was similar in type 

and with similar exposure potentials being conducted by both DuPont construction (Maintenance) and 

subcontractor pipefitters on the highly contaminated drain lines from cells in radiological areas. The 

workplace protective clothing requirements and workplace monitoring were similar. NIOSH believes 

these two groups of workers (prime and subcontractor CTWs) should be in the same co-exposure

model.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 32 of 287

 

Figure 3-1. Maintenance work on High Level Drain Line [DuPont 1983a]. 

Repair of the Master/Slave Manipulator (MSM) arms was almost exclusively a maintenance operation 

as shown in Figure 3-3. There are multiple job plans for this type of work because the repairs 

appeared to be routine, but a new Job Plan was filled out for each repair. In general, if the 

maintenance or repair involved the clean side (nonradiologically contaminated or Master 

components), no Health Physicist coverage was needed. If any part of the slave end (contaminated 

cell side) was disturbed, a Health Physics Survey was required. Two coveralls and respirators were 

required when dictated by the Radiation Control Survey. Health Physics coverage was intermittent 

during this operation depending on the repairs being conducted. In general, very few construction 

operations mention the MSMs. One job noted removal of the MSM covers, which exposed the 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 33 of 287

 

Figure 3-2. Construction work on the High Level Drain Line [DuPont 1986]. 

workers to the cell as shown in Figure 3-4. This is a similar exposure potential to when Maintenance 

would be working on the slave end of the manipulator (i.e., an opening into the contaminated cell). In 

this instance, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, and laborers all participated in the same job. They all 

wore two coveralls and respirators. In addition, Health Physics provided monitoring throughout the 

job. Stratification by CTW type in this example is not appropriate because all of the workers had the 

same exposure potential. Due to similarity of jobs and exposures, NIOSH believes all crafts should be 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 34 of 287

 

Figure 3-3. Maintenance on MSMs [DuPont 1981, p. 80]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 35 of 287

 

Figure 3-4. Construction removing MSM covers [DuPont 1983b, p. 161]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 36 of 287

 

included in a single co-exposure model. The workplace monitoring at SRS varied depending on the 

magnitude of the exposure potential and associated risk. Health Physics monitoring and personnel 

protective equipment changed depending on this exposure potential and is quite similar to radiological 

monitoring conducted today.

Many, but not all, workers including subcontractor CTW as shown in ORAUT-RPRT-0083 should have 

some bioassay just from the routine nature of compliance monitoring or from job monitoring of 

workers. If a worker participated intermittently on jobs in radiological areas, the combination of routine, 

job-specific, and incident monitoring of coworkers should identify an upper bound of the worker’s 

radiological dose that is favorable to the claimant. 

The discussion provided illustrates that all trades workers had a similar potential for exposure and in 

some instances the exact same potential for exposure as they worked on the same job. As a result, 

stratifying by type of CTW (DuPont versus subcontractor or by craft) is not considered appropriate in 

these instances. The combining of all construction trades workers into a single stratum is considered 

appropriate for all unmonitored construction trades workers.

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

be included in the same cohort as workers from Roll 4 or 5 who performed similar tasks. Including 

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

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

similar to the two categories at SRS, but they included workers from both categories in one CTW 

population for surveillance and evaluation [Bingham 1997]. In Savannah River Building Trades 

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Screening Program states this as the criteria for being included as a CTW [CPWR 2016]: 

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

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

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

weapons.

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

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

worker outreach meeting in 2008 [NIOSH 2008, p. 13]: 

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

that NIOSH cannot account for the missed dose for unmonitored workers who were in 

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

like the construction workers named in the proposed SEC [Special Exposure Cohort] 

class in that they did not work in a specific area like the production workers did.

While the occupation Electrical and Instrumentation (E&I) Mechanic was cited by the former worker, 

other prime contractor craftspeople worked across the site performing maintenance type tasks.

Portions of three Job Plans for a set of connected work in Building 773-A Rooms C-135/C-139 are 

shown in Figure 3-5. Work was performed by construction Carpenters, E&I Mechanics, and 

Maintenance Mechanics, which supports the premise that both DuPont and subcontracted CTWs 

performed similar work for short periods across SRS. Additional examples are shown in 

Attachment B. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 37 of 287

 

Figure 3-5. Job Plans. 

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

shown in Figure 3-6. As stated, workers in the CTW population would perform frequent tasks of 

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

exposure. Bingham [1997] provided the following set of workers for the Oak Ridge study: 

• Carpenters,

• Ironworkers,
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 38 of 287

• Electricians,

• Painters,

• Asbestos Workers or Insulators,

• Pipefitters or Steamfitters,

• Cement Masons,

• Laborers,

• Bricklayers,

• Boilermakers,

• Mechanics or Millwrights,

• Operating Engineers or Heavy Equipment Operators,

• Sheet Metal Workers,

• Roofers, and

• Truck Drivers.

Figure 3-6. Procedure review with crafts, DuPont, and construction. 

For SRS, the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights compiled the list in Table 3-1 taken from Bingham 

[1997]. It identified the same list, although laborers, roofers, and truck drivers were identified by their

unions. Truck drivers met the criteria of a CTW at SRS. They frequently hauled radioactive wastes to 

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

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

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

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

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

Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction Trade Workers [ORAUT 2014b]. 

SRS PRID and craft code [DuPont 1954] are included.

3.2.2 Worker Classification Methodology

The determination of whether an individual is a CTW is based on the person’s PRID prefix and the 

occupation. The PRID prefix is the primary designator, but the occupation title is used to exclude or 

include some occupations when the PRID prefix would otherwise erroneously indicate the person is or 

is not a CTW. The method consists of using the PRID associated with the bioassay data for which a 

CTW determination is needed, if available, and an occupation title extrapolated from the datasets for 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 39 of 287

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

Craft Roll and craft code

Boilermaker Roll 4, craft code 20

Carpenter Roll 2, 4, craft code 6

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

Construction Worker Roll 4

Driver Roll 2, 4, craft code 10

E&I Mechanic Roll 2

Electrician Roll 2, 4, craft code 25

Heavy Equipment Operator Roll 2, 4, craft code 14

Insulator Roll 2, 4, craft code 31

Ironworker Roll 2, 4, craft code 21

Laborer Roll 2, 4, craft code 5

Mechanic Roll 2

Millwright Roll 2, 4, craft code 18

Painter Roll 2, 4, craft code 33

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

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

Roofer Roll 2, 4

Sheetmetal Worker Roll 2, 4, craft code 21

which those occupation titles are available. For this co-exposure study, workers were considered 

CTWs if they had a Roll 4 or Roll 6 or higher PRID prefix, except if their job title was one of the 

nonCTW job titles in Table 3-2. If no Roll code is available, the person is assumed to be Roll 2 and 

the designation is made based on the occupation title.

Table 3-2. CTW determination job titles. 

CTW occupations

Boilermaker

Carpenter

Concrete worker

Construction worker

Driver

E&I Tech

Electrician

Heavy equipment operator

Insulator

Ironworker

Laborer

Maintenance

Mechanic

Painter

Rigger

Sheetmetal worker

Welder

nonCTW occupations

Administrative Assistant

Assistant

Cafeteria

Clerical

Crane Process Operator

Engineer

Escort

HP

Human Resources

Instructor

Laundry

Layout

Machinist

Manager

Pilot

QA

Reactor Operator

Security

Specialist

Supervisor

There are two applications of this methodology: 

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

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

logbook data. In these cases, the worker’s occupation title has been directly obtained from the

worker history cards on each bioassay date. The datasets also contain the PRID, which is also
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 40 of 287

verified from the worker history cards. CTW determinations are directly made from this 

information.

2. Dataset without occupation titles and/or PRIDs. The datasets that meet this description are the

NOCTS in vivo data, NOCTS in vitro data (other than tritium), and the NOCTS tritium data,

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

and strontium plus FP bioassay data. The NOCTS in vivo dataset is the source for cesium and

part of the neptunium bioassay data. In these cases, the following procedure is followed to

make the CTW determination.

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

– Americium logbook data,

– Neptunium logbook data,

– NOCTS WBC data, and

– ORAUT-RPRT-0058 [ORAUT 2012b] in vitro data.

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

sample (tritium dataset only).

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

date preceding or closest to it within 5 years for that person in the master lookup table.

Base the lookup on the PRID if available or the person’s name otherwise.

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

– Assign the occupation title (and PRID if needed) from the bioassay date in the master

lookup table to the bioassay result.

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

master lookup table):

– Manually look up the occupation title and PRID (if needed) on the bioassay date from

the worker history cards.

• Make the CTW determination based on the PRID and assigned occupation title.

For this revision, the mixed fission product (MFP) statistical analysis was based on the source 

NOCTS data rather than the ORAUT-RPRT-0058, A Comparison of Mixed Fission and Activation 

Product Coworker Models at the Savannah River Site, in vitro data created specifically for the MFP 

stratification report [ORAUT 2012b]. This is due to changes in how MFPs were evaluated. Therefore, 

the only future use of this dataset is via its inclusion in the master lookup table described above.

Similarly, the neptunium data for the neptunium stratification report [ORAUT 2012a] have no future 

use.

3.2.3 Worker Classification Quality Assurance

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

logbook data, neptunium logbook data, NOCTS WBC data, and ORAUT-RPRT-0058 [ORAUT 2012b]

in vitro data. The data entry accuracy for each of these sources was evaluated in accordance with 

ORAUT-RPRT-0078 [ORAUT 2016b]; the fields containing the PRID and the numerical sample 

results were evaluated with a maximum 1% allowable error rate. All other fields from the hardcopy 

records were evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable error rate. Each dataset passed the QA check, 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 41 of 287

 

the results of which are summarized in Table 3-3. The details of the results of the evaluation are 

contained in Attachment A. 

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

Data source

1% check results 

(95% confidence interval)

5% check results 

(95% confidence interval)

Americium logbook data 0.42% (0.26%–0.66%) 0.92% (0.40%–1.80%)

Neptunium logbook data 0.67% (0.45%–0.96%) 0.86% (0.38%–1.67%)

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

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

In addition, the accuracy of the CTW determinations obtained using the Master Occupation Table

were checked for the NOCTS in vivo bioassay dataset, the NOCTS in vitro bioassay dataset, the 

NOCTS tritium bioassay dataset, the americium logbook dataset, and the neptunium logbook 

bioassay dataset. The results are summarized in Table 3-4. The details of the results of the evaluation 

are contained in Attachment A. 

Table 3-4. CTW determination QA check results. 

Data source

Check results

(95% confidence interval)

NOCTS in vivo data 2.95% (1.93%–4.30%)

NOCTS in vitro data 1.83% (1.05%–2.95%)

NOCTS tritium data 0.69% (0.25%–1.49%)

Neptunium logbook data 1.13% (0.55%–2.10%)

Americium logbook data 0.95% (0.42%–1.84%)

3.3 EVALUATION OF MISSED DOSE

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

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

separately assigned based on results above this level. For internal dose co-exposure studies, missed 

and fitted dose are addressed simultaneously by the use of all bioassay data in the statistical analysis 

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

used when available, and the techniques used to fit distributions to censored datasets in ORAUTRPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] are used otherwise. The results of the statistical analysis are used to 

determine intake rates that include any potential missed dose, applying the general guidelines in 

Section 3.4.2 of ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Internal Dose Reconstruction [ORAUT 2018], and treating all of 

the statistical analysis results as positive values.

4.0 RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSES 

4.1 AMERICIUM

4.1.1 Data Adequacy

4.1.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, instructions for requesting and 

collecting urine samples, and related administrative controls in the Bioassay Control procedures. The 

earliest available version of the procedure is Revision 2 dated January 2, 1968 [DuPont 1968b]. It

indicates an americium sample size of 500 mL was used with a “positive result” level of 1 dpm/250 mL 

and a resample level of 5 dpm/250 mL. The procedure does not specify americium sampling 

frequencies. The sample request process indicates that 24-hour composite samples required approval 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 42 of 287

 

by an HP Senior Supervisor or above, indicating that routine samples were probably not 24-hour 

samples.

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

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

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

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

>0.3 dpm/1.5L. The sampling frequencies for various personnel are provided in Attachment C. The 

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

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

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

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

guidance for Construction Division personnel was added but with no specific guidance for trivalent 

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

specified by area HP in the construction Job Plans [DuPont 1971a]. 

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

as a result of the introduction of in vivo counting [DuPont 1971a, 1971b, 1976]. The sampling 

frequencies for various personnel at various times are provided in Attachment C. 

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

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

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

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

for the F-Area New Special Recovery facility. 

4.1.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

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

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

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

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

monitoring program and the frequency of samples, decreased during the 1970s and 1980s as can be 

seen in Table 4-1. (Additional discussion of other results in Table 4-1 is provided in Section 4.1.2.1.)

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

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

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

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

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

a reduction in the number of samples collected.

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

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

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

chosen were based on the exposure potential of each facility. Construction Division workers were not 

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

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

specific Job Plan. Those nonCTWs in areas with the potential for exposure (a decision made during 

Job Plan review) were thus included in the monitoring program. 

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

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

is specified on an annual basis in the bioassay control procedures. For workers intermittently present 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 43 of 287

 

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

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

is that in both instances monitoring was based on exposure potential rather than being driven by

Table 4-1. Americium logbook data summary and completeness 

estimate.

Year

Monthly report # of 

Am samples

Logbook # of 

Am samples

% of summary 

samples in logbook

1963 11 19 173

1964 72 75 104

1965 173 201 116

1966 295 283 96

1967 253 298 118

1968 480 770 160

1969 1,194 918 77

1970 2,730 2,623 96

1971 2,016 2,121 105

1972 1,820 1,858 102

1973 1,332 1,342 101

1974 1,274 1,356 106

1975 891 881 99

1976 761 795 104

1977 593 570 96

1978 446 483 108

1979 664 589 89

1980 387 270 70

1981 344 356 103

1982 466 343 74

1983 413 376 91

1984 334 413 124

1985 244 435 178

1986 540 532 99

1987 420 386 92

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

performed.

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

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

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

data for coworkers, very similar to this co-exposure study. If coworker bioassay data were negative, 

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

(positive bioassay result) was confirmed, then bioassay frequencies for the entire workgroup 

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

decrease in the number of bioassay records available in NOCTS.

4.1.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

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

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

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

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

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

barrier detectors replaced the previous counting method for using alpha track counting [Butler and
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 44 of 287

 

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

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

aliquots) were not common until 1969, when the logbook records also start to record “dpm/disc” 

values [DuPont 1963–1970]. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

using gross alpha counting on a solid-state detector was listed as 0.3 dpm/1.5 L [Taylor 2000, p. 4]. 

The Butler and Hall article was a report on research and reported the limits obtainable under research 

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

level in practice under production conditions. 

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

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

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

0.047 dpm/L for 244Cm and 252Cf [WSRC 2001, p. 58]. A review of the recorded data show that the 

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

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

database.

4.1.1.4 Paired Measurements Sample Variance

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

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

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

variation in the individual counts. Those with significant variation were investigated further to attempt 

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

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

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

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

even to determine if there are paired measurements. 

4.1.2 Data Validation

4.1.2.1 Logbook Data Completeness

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

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

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

from the logbooks was compared to annual bioassay summaries [DuPont 1965–1968, 1968a, 1969–

1981, 1973–1986, 1988] with the number of samples in the logbooks shown as a percentage of the 

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

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

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

samples for 1969 and after. On some occasions, samples were not analyzed until months after
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 45 of 287

 

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

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

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

difference.

4.1.2.2 Data Quality

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

fields with the PRID and the numerical sample results were evaluated with a maximum 1% allowable 

error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.42% with a 95% confidence 

interval of 0.26% to 0.66%. All fields were evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable error rate. The QA 

check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.92% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.40% to 

1.80%. Therefore, the dataset passed the QA check. The details of the results of the evaluation are 

contained in Attachment A. 

4.1.2.3 Data Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

zero.

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

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

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

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

which were censored.

4.1.2.4 Data Exclusion

Samples marked as LIP (lost in process), those marked DTPA (diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid) 

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

worker ID number) were excluded. Individuals with intakes of actinides are sometimes treated by 

chelation to accelerate the excretion of the radionuclides. Bioassay data influenced by chelation 

treatment are not suitable for use in an internal dose co-exposure study due to the altered biokinetics 

during chelation treatment. A listing of individuals who received chelation at SRS was compiled from 

Site Research Database (SRDB) chelation records from the Radiation Emergency Assistance 

Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) (see Table C-1). Bioassay data for samples collected within 100 days

after receiving chelation treatment were not used. 

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

resulted in large intakes and excretions. All results for [redacted] individuals were excluded for an 

entire year due to an [redacted]. These incidents and intakes were characterized by an extremely high 

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

for other individuals. They were considered unrepresentative of the potential exposure to an 

unmonitored worker and were removed. The incidents were:
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 46 of 287

 

• [Redacted]. 

• [Redacted]. 

• [Redacted]. 

• [Redacted]. 

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

instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.1.3 Statistical Analysis

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

version of ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] using the time-weighted one person–one statistic 

(TWOPOS) method and the multiple imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096 [ORAUT 2019]. 

The data were analyzed on an annual basis except for 1963 to 1964 and 1988 to 1989 for the 

nonCTW data and for 1965 to 1967, 1983 to 1984, 1985 to 1986, and 1987 to 1989 for the CTW data. 

These years were merged due to the small amount of data available for them. Table 4-2 provides the 

results of the statistical analysis. Box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data are shown in Figures 

4-1 and 4-2. The box and whisker plots are overlaid with the cumulative excretion results predicted by 

the intake modeling as discussed further below. 

4.1.4 Intake Modeling

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

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

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

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

urine assumed by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

IMBA was used to fit the bioassay results to a series of chronic inhalation intakes. The intake 

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

intake rates were chosen by the selection of periods in which the bioassay results were similar, 

applying a rule of thumb that the results be within about a factor of 2. A new chronic intake period was 

started if the data indicated a significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the 

years from 1963 through 1989 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

Because americium has a very long half-life and the material is retained in the body for long periods, 

urinary excretion results are not independent. For example, an intake in the 1950s could contribute to 

excretion in the 1980s and later. To avoid potential underestimation of intakes for people who worked

for relatively short periods, each intake period was fit independently using only the bioassay results 

from that period. For a particular individual, this fitting method will result in a best estimate of dose if 

the person worked in only one period and a potential overestimate if an individual worked in multiple 

periods. Only the results in the intake period were selected for use in the fitting of each period.

Excluded results are shown as an “X” in the figures in Attachment F; included results are shown as 

dots. The results of the statistical analysis that was used to calculate the intakes are provided for 

americium in Table 4-2.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 47 of 287

 

The solid lines in Figures F-1 to F-18 in Attachment F show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates for type M materials for nonCTWs and CTWs. Figures F-19 to F-22 show 

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

nonCTWs and CTWs. Tables F-1 and F-2 list the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates with the 

associated GSDs from the americium urinalysis for nonCTWs and CTWs, respectively. 

Table 4-2. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of americium based on a 

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1963 to 1989 (dpm/d). 

Yeara 

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1963 0.295 0.901 3.05 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1964

1965 0.273 0.998 3.66 123

1966 0.457 1.365 2.99 144 0.401 1.444 3.60 52

1967 0.389 1.159 2.98 182

1968 0.215 0.620 2.89 280 0.230 0.665 2.89 88

1969 0.164 0.461 2.80 277 0.176 0.526 3.00 93

1970 0.127 0.290 2.28 448 0.117 0.255 2.19 120

1971 0.132 0.236 1.79 530 0.132 0.243 1.84 100

1972 0.074 0.178 2.40 538 0.071 0.152 2.16 108

1973 0.013 0.066 5.22 518 0.015 0.072 4.68 107

1974 0.027 0.097 3.65 367 0.027 0.093 3.47 85

1975 0.012 0.081 6.87 361 0.014 0.091 6.64 96

1976 0.026 0.083 3.24 352 0.027 0.083 3.10 90

1977 0.025 0.096 3.82 316 0.028 0.090 3.21 69

1978 0.064 0.189 2.97 164 0.059 0.168 2.86 52

1979 0.038 0.132 3.50 253 0.034 0.106 3.12 60

1980 0.042 0.106 2.50 184 0.038 0.094 2.44 40

1981 0.017 0.075 4.30 242 0.025 0.150 5.93 40

1982 0.021 0.147 7.06 315 0.027 0.193 7.23 45

1983 0.109 0.189 1.74 266 0.108 0.234 2.16 64 1984 0.028 0.105 3.71 259

1985 0.039 0.086 2.22 237 0.054 0.138 2.58 35 1986 0.046 0.138 2.98 244

1987 0.123 0.168 1.37 283

1988 0.134 0.210 1.57 26 0.136 0.232 1.70 279 1989

a. Where multiple years are noted for a single line of excretion rates, the data for these years were combined for the 

statistical analysis.

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 overlay the cumulative urinary excretion rates (lines) predicted by the intake 

modeling on the box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. As can be seen, the predicted GMs of 

the excretion rates are favorable to claimants in comparison with the GMs of the TWOPOS data.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 48 of 287

 

Figure 4-1. Americium nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-2. Americium CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 49 of 287

 

4.2 TRITIUM

4.2.1 Data Adequacy

4.2.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, instructions for requesting and 

collecting urine samples, and related administrative controls in the Bioassay Control procedures. The 

earliest available version of the Bioassay Control procedure is Revision 2 [DuPont 1968], which 

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

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

1970] contains the same information. However, tritium sampling frequencies were given in Radiation 

& Contamination Control, DPSOL 100-9707 for 1964, 1965, and 1966. Workers with the highest 

potential for intakes of 3H, reactor outage process workers, were asked to leave three samples per 

week. Other workers with a potential for intakes were required to leave one 50-mL urine sample each 

week [DuPont 1959–1971, pp. 417, 458, 920]. 

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

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

twice a year. Workers in the 100 Areas, 105 Building, 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, 238-H, 241-H, and 244-H 

submitted bioassay samples as specified in “local procedures.” For the Construction Division, tritium 

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

sampling frequency was still specified in local procedures [DuPont 1959–1971, pp. 458–460; DuPont 

1959–1971, p. 355; DuPont 1976, no date a]. 

Bioassay control remained unchanged from 1978 through 1985 [DuPont 1985, p. 273], and sampling 

frequency was still controlled by local procedures and construction Job Plans. The 1990 Internal 

Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for tritium specified monthly urine bioassay 

[WSRC 1990, p. 235]. In the available tritium dataset, there are over 100,000 bioassay results from 

individuals who submitted more than one sample for tritium analysis on more than one occasion. One 

third of these samples were collected either daily or weekly, and two-thirds were collected within 

7 days. This is illustrated in Figure 4-3. 

Figure 4-3. Tritium bioassay sample frequency.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 50 of 287

 

4.2.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

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

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

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

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

whom to monitor was in place, but local control still determined precise sampling frequencies. By 

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

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

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

intermittent increases.

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

monitoring program was based on work location, and the radionuclides for which monitoring was 

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

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

monitoring program for the Construction Division was different in that it was job specific. Area HPs 

specified the bioassay monitoring to be performed for each specific Job Plan. Those nonCTWs in 

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

the monitoring program. 

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

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

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

intermittently present in an area (i.e., some CTWs), the monitoring was based on the Job Plan. For 

the duration of the Job Plan and the duration of the exposure potential, the required monitoring was 

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

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

have been performed.

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

intakes. The bioassay frequency of individual workers was reduced, but the entire group was still 

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

data for coworkers, very similar to this co-exposure study. If coworker bioassay data were negative, it 

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

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

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

number of bioassay records available in NOCTS.

4.2.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

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

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

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

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

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

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

were reported as <1 μCi/L. 

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

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

the reporting level of 0.5 μCi/L was generally used, some results below 0.5 are listed directly, (e.g., 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 51 of 287

 

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

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

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

procedure [WSRC 1990]. 

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

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

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

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

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

“0.1 μCi L-1.” Results greater than 0.1 μCi/L are reported as measured (to one significant figure) 

[WSRC 2001, p. 181]. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.2 Data Validation

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

evaluated in accordance with ORAUT-RPRT-0078 [ORAUT 2016b]. The numerical sample result 

fields were evaluated with a maximum 1% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point 

estimate error rate of 0.32% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.18% to 0.53%. All fields were 

evaluated with a maximum 5% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error 

rate of 0.23% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.03% to 0.82%. Therefore, the dataset passed the 

QA check. The details of the results of the evaluation are contained in Attachment A. 

4.2.3 Intake Modeling and Statistical Analysis

Tritium was evaluated differently from the other radionuclides in this co-exposure study. For other 

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

statistically evaluated. This is akin to the external dosimetry analysis in external dose co-exposure

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

[ORAUT 2004b] was used to calculate the dose for each individual with the following rules concerning 

the elapsed time between consecutive samples:

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

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

assumed not to be part of routine monitoring.

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

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

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

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

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

analysis. Doses for 1954 to 1990 were calculated from the NOCTS dataset, which is considered a 

random sample of the complete dataset [ORAUT 2016a]. Doses for 1991 to 1995 were calculated 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 52 of 287

 

from the HPRED dataset, which is considered a complete dataset. Table 4-3 lists the tritium doses 

and GSDs to be used for each year of potential tritium exposure for CTWs and nonCTWs. Box and 

whisker plots of the individual calculated doses are shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5 for nonCTWs and 

CTWs, respectively. Figure 4-6 further separates the CTWs into those that worked for the prime 

contractor and those that did not. As can be seen, the subcontractor CTWs generally had lower doses 

than the prime contractor CTWs although there is substantial overlap in the distributions, justifying the 

consideration of all CTWs collectively as one population.

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

Year

nonCTW

# of individuals

nonCTW

50th percentile

nonCTW

GSD

CTW

# of individuals

CTW

50th percentile

CTW

GSD

1954 89 0.012 1.83 33 0.012 1.89

1955 103 0.013 1.99 57 0.015 2.16

1956 83 0.019 2.67 53 0.016 2.52

1957 166 0.025 2.76 114 0.025 2.56

1958 243 0.035 2.45 157 0.031 2.36

1959 219 0.034 3.04 112 0.038 2.78

1960 231 0.046 3.12 151 0.042 3.07

1961 227 0.050 2.88 142 0.039 3.37

1962 247 0.051 2.84 186 0.041 2.81

1963 239 0.048 2.49 186 0.040 2.74

1964 218 0.060 3.02 158 0.054 2.84

1965 188 0.055 3.38 113 0.043 2.88

1966 182 0.046 2.89 97 0.031 3.13

1967 174 0.049 2.46 79 0.034 3.00

1968 162 0.051 2.77 91 0.030 2.97

1969 160 0.052 2.43 75 0.031 3.24

1970 156 0.042 2.63 68 0.023 3.50

1971 163 0.051 2.30 63 0.028 3.32

1972 214 0.047 2.83 80 0.033 3.33

1973 227 0.045 2.77 83 0.027 3.39

1974 205 0.048 2.65 74 0.031 3.34

1975 188 0.048 2.68 69 0.032 2.97

1976 176 0.047 2.68 69 0.030 3.27

1977 168 0.053 2.40 78 0.026 3.37

1978 170 0.048 2.45 63 0.028 2.97

1979 173 0.047 2.54 59 0.029 2.76

1980 162 0.049 2.21 68 0.024 2.79

1981 166 0.031 2.40 98 0.016 2.74

1982 188 0.027 2.40 99 0.015 2.72

1983 189 0.022 2.41 104 0.016 2.38

1984 183 0.023 2.48 93 0.015 2.75

1985 150 0.025 2.18 63 0.016 2.43

1986 144 0.008 3.33 66 0.006 3.19

1987 132 0.008 3.11 57 0.007 3.13

1988 117 0.008 2.72 47 0.006 3.53

1989 138 0.006 2.81 70 0.004 3.07

1990 136 0.006 2.78 94 0.006 2.58
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 53 of 287

 

Figure 4-4. Tritium nonCTW individual dose data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-5. Tritium CTW individual dose data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 54 of 287

 

Figure 4-6. Tritium prime and subcontractor stratified CTW individual dose data box and whisker plot. 

4.3 PLUTONIUM

4.3.1 Data Adequacy

4.3.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, instructions for requesting and 

collecting urine samples, and related administrative controls in the Bioassay Control procedures. The 

earliest available version of the procedure is Revision 2 dated January 2, 1968 [DuPont 1968b]. It 

indicates a plutonium sample size of 250 mL was used with a positive result level of 0.1 dpm/1.5L and 

a resample level of 0.5 dpm/1.5L. The plutonium sampling frequencies are given in Table C-2 for 

various job categories and work locations. The sample request process indicates that 24-hour 

composite samples required approval by an HP Senior Supervisor or above, indicating that routine 

samples were probably not 24-hour samples.

In Revision 3 of the Bioassay Control procedure in 1970 [DuPont 1970], the positive level for 

plutonium was noted as 0.1 dpm/1.5L and the positive level was used for the resample level. An 

intake was considered confirmed if the initial bioassay result was >0.5 dpm/1.5L and a resample was 

>0.1 dpm/1.5L. The sampling frequencies for various personnel are provided in Attachment C. The 

process for requesting samples was similar to the previous process, but HP Senior Supervisor or 

above approval was no longer required for 24-hour samples. Additional instructions are provided for 

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

or whenever airborne contamination exceeded control guides. In 1971, additional guidance for 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 55 of 287

 

Construction Division personnel was added that specified that Construction Division personnel were 

sampled triennially and at termination.

The frequency of routine urine sampling changed throughout the 1970s for various work locations, 

and also as a result of the introduction of in vivo counting [DuPont 1971a, 1971b, 1976]. The sampling 

frequencies for various personnel at various times are provided in Attachment C. 

The 1990 Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for plutonium specified 

annual urine bioassay, an annual chest count, annual fecal bioassay, and personal air sampling. If 

monitored by workgroup, the fecal bioassay and personal air sampling were not performed unless a 

member of the workgroup had a confirmed intake [WSRC 1990]. 

4.3.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vitro bioassay for plutonium show urinalysis data back to 1951. As discussed above in 

the description of the sample collection process, there was guidance for whom to sample by 1970.

The amount of available plutonium bioassay data available each year in the NOCTS data are 

relatively constant from 1955 through 1989, the entire period this dataset is used.

Construction Division workers were not necessarily included in the regular monitoring program, but 

nonCTWs in all the areas with the potential for exposure were supposed to be part of the monitoring 

program. By at least 1971, Construction Division personnel submitted a urine sample at least annually 

that was analyzed for FPs, those radionuclides specified by area HP in the construction Job Plans, 

and plutonium at least triennially.

4.3.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

From the beginning of the plutonium urinalysis program in 1954 to approximately 1959, urine samples 

were radiochemically processed using bismuth phosphate and lanthanum fluoride coprecipitation and 

electroplated, and activities were determined by gross alpha track analysis of exposed nuclear track 

emulsion, type A (NTA) film. In 1959, nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide dissolution and ion exchange 

replaced the bismuth phosphate method. This was faster and used less urine but had essentially the 

same MDA. The reporting level did not change. Results were recorded as Pu or sometimes as 

238Pu/239Pu. From around 1964 to 1988, counting for gross alpha activity was performed using a 

solid-state surface barrier alpha detector. TIOA liquid extraction replaced the ion exchange chemistry 

in 1966. This method used direct evaporation on planchets instead of electrodeposition. This method 

also allowed separation of neptunium and uranium from the same sample. Sensitivity was stated at 

0.1 dpm/1.5L, which is consistent with the reporting level already in use. In or about 1981, a new 

coprecipitation technique was introduced for routine samples along with alpha spectrometry. Samplespecific determination of plutonium recovery by use of a 242Pu tracer was also introduced at that time.

Results for 238Pu and 239Pu were reported separately. The TIOA method with gross alpha counting 

continued to be used on special samples until 1988. A database was introduced in 1990 and results 

were thereafter reported as per liter. Electrodeposition was reinstated in 1994. Separation of 

plutonium+neptunium, actinides, uranium, and strontium from a single sample using TEVA and 

transuranic (TRU) resins began in 2001. Alpha-emitting plutonium and neptunium isotopes are 

electrodeposited and counted by alpha spectrometry on a single planchet [Taylor et al. 1995; Taylor 

2000]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 56 of 287

 

4.3.2 Data Validation

4.3.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality

The plutonium bioassay data for the co-exposure study were compiled from NOCTS data. The 

completeness and quality of this data source are addressed in Section 3.1 above.

4.3.2.2 Data Interpretation

Most of the plutonium urinalysis data are plutonium gross alpha measurements. During the 1980s, 

some of the samples were analyzed by alpha spectroscopy, yielding separate results for 238Pu and 

239Pu or 239/240Pu. Because the two analytical techniques overlapped in time, the spectroscopic results 

were merged with the plutonium gross alpha measurements by using only the 239Pu or 239/240Pu 

measurements and assuming a 12% 10-year decay plutonium mixture to convert to an equivalent 

plutonium gross alpha measurement. This mixture was chosen as favorable to claimants and is most 

often used during dose reconstructions.

4.3.2.3 Data Exclusion

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

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

internal dose co-exposure study due to the altered biokinetics during chelation treatment. A listing of 

individuals who received chelation at SRS was compiled from SRDB chelation records from REAC/TS 

(see Table C-1). Bioassay data for samples collected within 100 days after receiving chelation 

treatment were not used. In addition, samples marked as LIP, those marked DTPA to indicate 

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

number) were excluded.

Sample results that were given as per unit mass or with an activity specified in curies rather than dpm 

were excluded because these are fecal samples.

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

instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.3.3 Statistical Analysis

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

version of ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] using the TWOPOS method from that document and 

the multiple imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096, Multiple Imputation Applied to Bioassay 

Coworker Models [ORAUT 2019]. The data were analyzed on an annual basis. Table 4-4 provides the 

results of the statistical analysis. Box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data are shown in 

Figures 4-7 through 4-18. The box and whisker plots are overlaid with the cumulative excretion results 

predicted by the intake modeling as discussed further below. Due to the long biological retention 

period of plutonium, the cumulative excretion curves are split into two regimes: employment beginning 

in 1955 and employment beginning in 1971. 

4.3.4 Intake Modeling

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

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

result. The IMBA and IDOT programs require in vitro bioassay results to be in units of activity per day; 

therefore, all urinalysis results were normalized as needed to 24-hour samples using 1,500 mL (the 

volume of urine assumed by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 57 of 287

 

Table 4-4. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of plutonium based on a 

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1955 to 1990 (dpm/d). 

Year

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW 

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1955 0.01699 0.0537 3.16 245 0.01295 0.0370 2.86 49

1956 0.01859 0.0439 2.36 370 0.01717 0.0428 2.49 91

1957 0.01558 0.0386 2.48 360 0.01343 0.0304 2.27 93

1958 0.01727 0.0462 2.68 328 0.01308 0.0358 2.74 96

1959 0.01862 0.0554 2.98 375 0.01495 0.0519 3.47 100

1960 0.01448 0.0580 4.00 395 0.01255 0.0534 4.25 115

1961 0.00517 0.0196 3.80 402 0.00413 0.0163 3.94 124

1962 0.00220 0.0149 6.77 419 0.00165 0.0123 7.48 165

1963 0.00385 0.0198 5.14 365 0.00315 0.0224 7.12 128

1964 0.00906 0.0387 4.27 339 0.00776 0.0370 4.77 125

1965 0.00868 0.0360 4.14 433 0.00645 0.0332 5.14 167

1966 0.01401 0.0482 3.44 384 0.01284 0.0406 3.16 152

1967 0.00629 0.0387 6.14 358 0.00375 0.0263 7.00 152

1968 0.01186 0.0608 5.13 414 0.00957 0.0530 5.54 146

1969 0.03617 0.1136 3.14 296 0.03434 0.1188 3.46 108

1970 0.02776 0.0894 3.22 290 0.02591 0.0872 3.37 98

1971 0.01480 0.0582 3.94 381 0.01208 0.0564 4.67 110

1972 0.02024 0.0649 3.21 406 0.01819 0.0682 3.75 121

1973 0.00904 0.0435 4.82 402 0.00692 0.0400 5.78 123

1974 0.00828 0.0484 5.85 435 0.00610 0.0427 7.00 120

1975 0.01082 0.0587 5.43 406 0.00697 0.0370 5.30 104

1976 0.00806 0.0478 5.94 441 0.00514 0.0319 6.19 130

1977 0.00992 0.0513 5.17 458 0.00771 0.0377 4.90 118

1978 0.01776 0.0676 3.81 309 0.01556 0.0603 3.88 70

1979 0.01567 0.0638 4.07 406 0.01396 0.0523 3.74 127

1980 0.01153 0.0514 4.46 332 0.00967 0.0461 4.76 156

1981 0.00762 0.0380 4.99 437 0.00642 0.0299 4.65 206

1982 0.00236 0.0244 10.37 457 0.00167 0.0201 12.03 185

1983 0.00296 0.0321 10.83 355 0.00232 0.0292 12.61 125

1984 0.00384 0.0403 10.49 312 0.00317 0.0442 13.94 130

1985 0.00611 0.0483 7.90 277 0.00504 0.0409 8.11 117

1986 0.00672 0.0475 7.07 346 0.00546 0.0414 7.58 141

1987 0.00610 0.0392 6.42 334 0.00517 0.0389 7.53 112

1988 0.00503 0.0258 5.13 341 0.00402 0.0234 5.83 162

1989 0.00371 0.0201 5.42 360 0.00295 0.0173 5.88 157

1990 0.00270 0.0162 6.01 379 0.00251 0.0158 6.31 170

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

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

a series of chronic intakes. The intake assumptions were based on observed patterns in the bioassay 

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

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

significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1955 through 

1989 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 58 of 287

 

Because the plutonium isotopes at SRS have very long radiological half-lives, and because the 

material is retained in the body for long periods, excretion results are not independent. For example, 

an intake in the 1950s could have contributed to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. However, 

because of turnover in the workforce, the workers used to assess intakes in one period might not 

have been the same as those in a later period. To avoid potential underestimation of intakes in the 

later periods, each chronic intake was fit independently using only the bioassay results from the single 

intake period for types M, S, and SS solubility [ORAUT 2020]. This method results in an overestimate 

of the later TWOPOS results when the cumulative predicted urine sample results from multiple 

assumed intake periods are plotted. Excluded results are shown as an “X” in the figures in 

Attachment F; included results are shown as dots. The results of the statistical analysis of the 

urinalysis bioassay data that was used to calculate the intakes are provided for plutonium in 

Table 4-4.

The solid lines in Figures F-23 to F-82 in Attachment F show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates for type M, S, and SS materials for nonCTWs and CTWs. Figures F-83 to 

F-94 show the 50th- and 84th-percentile predicted excretion rates, respectively, from all type M, S,

and SS intakes for nonCTWs and CTWs. Tables F-3 through F-8 list the 50th- and 84th-percentile 

intake rates with the associated GSDs from the plutonium urinalysis for solubility types M, S, and SS 

and nonCTWs and CTWs.

Figures 4-7 through 4-18 overlay the urinary excretion rates (lines) predicted by the intake modeling 

on the box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. Predicted excretion GM from all intakes exceeds 

the actual TWOPOS results for years after 1960; the predicted excretion for 1955 to 1960 agrees well 

with the TWOPOS results. 

Figure 4-7. Plutonium type M nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 59 of 287

 

Figure 4-8. Plutonium type M CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955. 

Figure 4-9. Plutonium type S nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 60 of 287

 

Figure 4-10. Plutonium type S CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955. 

Figure 4-11. Plutonium type SS nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 61 of 287

 

Figure 4-12. Plutonium type SS CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1955. 

Figure 4-13. Plutonium type M nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 62 of 287

 

Figure 4-14. Plutonium type M CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971. 

Figure 4-15. Plutonium type S nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 63 of 287

 

Figure 4-16. Plutonium type S CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971. 

Figure 4-17. Plutonium type SS nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 64 of 287

 

Figure 4-18. Plutonium type SS CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot beginning in 1971.

4.4 URANIUM

4.4.1 Data Adequacy

4.4.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, instructions for requesting and 

collecting urine samples, and related administrative controls in the Bioassay Control procedures. Both 

fluorometric (mass) and activity measurements were used. The fluorometric measurements were 

commonly identified as “U” measurements with the activity measurements identified as “EU” (enriched 

uranium). The earliest available version of the procedure is Revision 2 dated January 2, 1968 [DuPont 

1968b]. It indicates a uranium sample size of 150 mL was used with a positive result level of 

5 μg/1.5 L or 1 dpm/1.5 L and a resample level of 15 μg/1.5 L or 15 dpm/1.5 L. The uranium sampling 

frequencies are given in Table C-2 for various job categories and work locations. The sample request 

process indicates that 24-hour composite samples required approval by an HP Senior Supervisor or 

above, indicating that routine samples were probably not 24-hour samples.

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

also as a result of the introduction of in vivo counting [DuPont 1970, 1971a, 1971b, 1976], but the 

positive levels and resample levels remained the same. The sampling frequencies for various 

personnel at various times are provided in Attachment C. The process for requesting samples was 

similar to the previous process, but HP Senior Supervisor or above approval was no longer required 

for 24-hour samples. Additional instructions were provided for collecting samples in the event of 

suspected inhalations, ingestions, injections, skin contaminations, or whenever airborne 

contamination exceeded control guides. In 1971, additional guidance for Construction Division 

personnel was added but with no specific guidance for uranium. “Other nuclides,” which would have 

included the trivalent nuclides, were monitored as specified by area HP in the construction Job Plans 

[DuPont 1971a]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 65 of 287

 

The 1990 Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for uranium specified 

semiannual urine bioassay, an annual chest count, annual fecal bioassay, and personal air sampling 

(Class Y uranium only). If monitored by workgroup, the fecal bioassay and personal air sampling were 

not performed unless a member of the workgroup had a confirmed intake [WSRC 1990]. 

4.4.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vitro bioassay for uranium show urinalysis data back to 1953. As discussed above in the 

description of the sample collection process, there was guidance for whom to sample by 1970. The 

amount of available uranium bioassay data available in the NOCTS data increases during the 

mid-1950s, remains relatively constant through the early 1970s, and then gradually diminishes 

through the 1980s.

Construction Division workers were not necessarily included in the regular monitoring program, but 

nonCTWs in all the areas with the potential for exposure were supposed to be part of the monitoring 

program. By at least 1971, Construction Division personnel submitted urine samples no less than

annually that were analyzed for FPs and those radionuclides specified by area HP in the construction 

Job Plans, which could include uranium.

4.4.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

A variety of methods have been used historically to analyze uranium at SRS. These methods and the 

associated detection capabilities are summarized in Table 4-5 [ORAUT 2005a]. 

Table 4-5. Uranium urinalysis.

a

Period Uranium mixture and reporting level Urine analysis method

Startup to mid-1960s EU 0.15 dpm/1.5 L Gross alpha for uranium, alpha track counting

Mid-1960s to 1982 EU 1 dpm/1.5 L Gross alpha for uranium on solid state 

detector

1954–1982 DU 1-5 μg/L Fluorophotometric analysis

1982–1986 U-235 0.14 ng

NU 1 μg/L

EU 1 dpm/L

DNA

DNA analysis for U-235

DNA analysis for U-235

1986–1990 EU 1 dpm/1.5 L Gross alpha for uranium on solid-state

detector.

1986–1994 DU Not found, use 1 μg/L KPA

1990–1994 EU 0.4 pCi/L (MDA) Batch alpha counting

1994–present (EU) 

(DU)

DU Use U-238b

RU Use U-238b 

HEU Use U-235b 

U-234 0.032 pCi/L (MDA)

U-235 0.036 pCi/L (MDA)

U-238 0.032 pCi/L (MDA)

Alpha spectroscopy for specific uranium 

isotopes

a. DNA = delayed neutron analysis; DU = depleted uranium; EU = enriched uranium; HEU = highly enriched uranium; KPA 

= kinetic phosphorescence analysis; NU = natural uranium; RU = recycled uranium.

b. Use the applicable isotopic ratios from the Hanford Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Document in accordance with the 

SRS site profile [ORAUT 2005a].

SRS technical documentation indicates that for earlier monitoring periods, the designations “enriched”

and “depleted” analysis for uranium referred to analysis performed by alpha counting or chemical 

measurement, respectively, and was not necessarily indicative of the degree of uranium enrichment

[ORAUT 2005a]. EU was the code used on employee bioassay cards for the gross alpha count 

method, and depleted uranium (DU) was used to designate the fluorophotometric method. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 66 of 287

 

Enriched uranium was determined starting in the mid-1950s by alkaline earth phosphate 

coprecipitation, muffling the sample, and ion exchange separation on Dowex 1-X10 with 8N HCl. The 

final material was electrodeposited and autoradiographed on Kodak NTA emulsion. This method had 

a reported sensitivity of 0.15 dpm per 1.5 L of urine. In the mid-1960s, the TIOA/gross alpha counting 

method was adopted for enriched uranium analyses. This method had an MDA of about 1 dpm/1.5 L, 

which was considered adequate at the time.

Analyses for depleted uranium were performed with the Oak Ridge fluorophotometric method before 

1982. It is unknown when this procedure was adopted at SRS. The delayed neutron analysis (DNA) 

method was adopted for both enriched and depleted uranium analyses around 1982. This method 

involved coprecipitating the uranium with calcium fluoride, activating the sample in a reactor, and 

counting the delayed neutrons emitted by the 235U. This procedure had an MDA of 0.14 ng of 235U, 

which provided a 1 μg/L MDA for natural uranium and a 1 dpm/L MDA for enrichments typically 

encountered at SRS.

With the shutdown in 1986 of the reactor facility used for DNA of uranium, the TIOA method was 

again adopted for enriched uranium and the Jarrell-Ash method for depleted uranium. KPA for 

depleted uranium was used from 1986 through 1994 [WSRC 2001]. 

4.4.2 Data Validation

4.4.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality

The uranium bioassay data for the co-exposure study were compiled from NOCTS data.

Completeness and quality of this data source are addressed in Section 3.1.1 above.

4.4.2.2 Data Interpretation

Uranium urine samples were analyzed using radiometric and/or chemical means as discussed above.

Some samples were analyzed in both manners. Based on a review of the data, the mass-based data 

(micrograms per unit volume) were assumed to be in units of μg/L through July 10, 1961, and in units 

of μg/1.5L thereafter. It was converted to activity before statistical analysis by assuming natural 

uranium (NU; 1.52 dpm/μg) through 1967 and depleted uranium (DU; 0.826 dpm/μg) thereafter

[WSRC 2000]. 

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

instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.4.2.3 Data Exclusion

Sample results that were given as per unit mass were excluded because these are fecal samples.

4.4.3 Statistical Analysis

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

version of ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] using the TWOPOS method from that document and 

the multiple imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096 [ORAUT 2019]. The data were analyzed on 

an annual basis except for CTW data from 1979 through 1990, which were fit with 2-year intervals.

These years were merged due to the small amount of CTW data available in those years. Table 4-6 

provides the results of the statistical analysis. Box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data are shown 

in Figures 4-19 through 4-24. The box and whisker plots are overlaid with the excretion results 

predicted by the intake modeling as discussed further below. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 67 of 287

Table 4-6. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of uranium based on a 

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1953 to 1990 (dpm/d). 

Yeara 

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1953 9.7345 15.298 1.57 47 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1954 3.9499 6.064 1.54 139 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1955 2.0791 2.885 1.39 341 2.0076 2.676 1.33 65

1956 1.8835 2.602 1.38 482 1.9108 2.586 1.35 89

1957 0.3510 1.768 5.04 272 0.4336 2.971 6.85 37

1958 0.5403 2.116 3.92 198 0.3495 1.589 4.55 37

1959 0.2431 1.230 5.06 258 0.1489 0.781 5.24 50

1960 0.1843 1.060 5.75 322 0.1167 0.516 4.42 53

1961 0.2222 1.040 4.68 279 0.1632 0.730 4.48 49

1962 0.3918 2.404 6.14 298 0.1787 0.939 5.26 65

1963 0.6816 3.919 5.75 324 0.3573 2.864 8.02 77

1964 0.7244 3.872 5.34 324 0.5762 3.255 5.65 80

1965 0.7557 3.951 5.23 316 0.6137 3.753 6.11 60

1966 0.6810 3.952 5.80 268 0.6399 3.966 6.20 53

1967 0.4961 3.311 6.67 259 0.7457 4.134 5.54 54

1968 0.1009 1.219 12.08 264 0.1032 1.089 10.56 60

1969 0.1414 1.326 9.38 216 0.1549 0.852 5.50 47

1970 0.3704 1.292 3.49 213 0.3043 0.979 3.22 58

1971 0.2438 0.957 3.93 266 0.2166 0.653 3.01 63

1972 0.2180 0.848 3.89 273 0.1982 0.667 3.37 62

1973 0.2022 0.844 4.17 263 0.1695 0.693 4.09 63

1974 0.1902 0.775 4.08 244 0.1797 0.777 4.33 69

1975 0.2156 0.730 3.39 241 0.3129 1.175 3.76 87

1976 0.1376 0.515 3.74 230 0.1285 0.469 3.65 59

1977 0.1269 0.510 4.02 137 0.1029 0.547 5.31 32

1978 0.1103 0.557 5.05 125 0.0770 0.383 4.98 28

1979 0.1657 0.610 3.68 127 0.1405 0.492 3.50 34 1980 0.1246 0.548 4.39 102

1981 0.1947 0.710 3.65 125 0.2008 0.791 3.94 39 1982 0.4912 1.418 2.89 122

1983 0.4221 1.448 3.43 120 0.3230 1.265 3.92 34 1984 0.3236 1.494 4.62 98

1985 0.5015 2.243 4.47 125 0.2708 0.957 3.53 37 1986 0.2009 0.588 2.93 126

1987 0.1815 0.699 3.85 122 0.1442 0.665 4.61 38 1988 0.2058 0.720 3.50 106

1989 0.1943 0.553 2.85 153 0.1513 0.584 3.86 29 1990 0.1630 0.509 3.12 134

a. Where multiple years are noted for a single line of excretion rates, the data for these years were combined for the

statistical analysis.

4.4.4 Intake Modeling

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

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

result. The IMBA program requires in vitro bioassay results to be in units of activity per day, so all 

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

assumed by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 68 of 287

 

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

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

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

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

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

significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1953 through 

1990 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

Because the uranium isotopes at SRS have very long radiological half-lives, and because the material 

is excreted over long periods for type S solubility, excretion results are not independent. For example, 

an intake in the 1950s could contribute to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. However, because 

of turnover in the workforce, the workers used to assess intakes in one period might not have been 

the same as those in a later period. To avoid potential underestimation of intakes in the later periods, 

each chronic intake was fit independently using only the bioassay results from the single intake period 

for type S solubility. This method results in an overestimate of the later TWOPOS results when the 

cumulative predicted urine sample results from multiple assumed intake periods are plotted.

Excluded results are shown as an “X” in the figures in Attachment F; included results are shown as 

dots. For types M and F solubility, this approach was not used due to the more rapid excretion of 

material; all intake periods were fit simultaneously. The results of the statistical analysis that was used 

to calculate the intakes are provided for uranium in Table 4-6. The solid lines in Figures F-95 to F-102

in Attachment F show the fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates for type F and M 

materials for nonCTWs and CTWs. The solid lines in Figures F-103 to F-126 in Attachment F show 

the individual fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates for type S materials for nonCTWs 

and CTWs. Figures F-127 to F-130 show the 50th- and 84th-percentile predicted excretion rates, 

respectively, from all type S intakes for nonCTWs and CTWs. Tables F-9 to F-14 list the 50th- and 

84th-percentile intake rates with the associated GSDs from the uranium urinalysis for solubility types 

F, M, and S, and nonCTWs and CTWs.

Figures 4-19 through 4-24 overlay the urinary excretion rates (lines) predicted by the intake modeling 

on the box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 69 of 287

 

Figure 4-19. Uranium type F nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-20. Uranium type F CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 70 of 287

 

Figure 4-21. Uranium type M nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-22. Uranium type M CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 71 of 287

 

Figure 4-23. Uranium type S nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-24. Uranium type S CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 72 of 287

 

4.5 FISSION PRODUCTS

4.5.1 Data Adequacy

4.5.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, instructions for requesting and 

collecting urine samples, and related administrative controls in the Bioassay Control procedures. The 

earliest available version of the procedure is Revision 2 dated January 2, 1968 [DuPont 1968b]. It 

indicates an FP sample size of 500 mL was used with a positive result level of 100 dpm/1.5L and a 

resample level of 200 dpm/1.5L. The FP sampling frequencies are given in Table C-2 for various job 

categories and work locations. The sample request process indicates that 24-hour composite samples 

required approval by an HP Senior Supervisor or above, indicating that routine samples were 

probably not 24-hour samples.

4.5.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vitro bioassay for FPs show urinalysis data back to 1951. As discussed above in the 

description of the sample collection process, there was guidance for whom to sample by 1970. The 

amount of available FP bioassay data available in the NOCTS data is relatively constant from 1955 

through 1989.

Construction Division workers were not necessarily included in the regular monitoring program, but 

nonCTWs in all the areas with the potential for exposure were supposed to be part of the monitoring 

program. 

4.5.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

From the beginning of the FP bioassay program until 1969, strontium was separated by alkaline earth 

phosphate coprecipitation followed by beta counting on a GM or proportional counter. Urine samples

were acidified with nitric and orthophosphoric acid and a cobalt carrier solution. Ammonium hydroxide 

was added and the FPs precipitated. The precipitate was fired dry, dissolved with nitric acid, 

transferred to a planchet, dried again, and counted. This analysis was also called FP analysis. Both 

89Sr and 90Sr would have been counted as well as radioisotopes of cerium and promethium, but it is 

favorable to claimants to assume the result is all 90Sr. Recovery was greater than 90% for strontium, 

yttrium, and cerium/promethium radioisotopes. The lower limit of sensitivity was 29 dpm/750 mL for 

90Sr/Y [Boni 1959]. Bioassay records indicate that reporting levels of 30 dpm/500mL, 60 dpm/1.5L,

and 100 dpm/1.5L for beta counting were used. 

Taylor [2000] states that from 1969 to 1997 strontium was analyzed by liquid ion exchange that 

separates the yttrium progeny followed by beta proportional counting. Yttrium-91 would have been 

included as a possible interference but 89Sr would not. However, beginning with 1966 there are

insufficient strontium results to permit statistical analysis, so whole body count records were used for 

that period. See the 137Cs section for the 1966 through 1990 FP co-exposure model. 

4.5.2 Data Validation

4.5.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality

The FP bioassay data for the co-exposure study were compiled from NOCTS data. The completeness 

and quality of this data source are addressed in Section 3.1. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 73 of 287

 

4.5.2.2 Data Interpretation

Most of the FP urinalysis data are from chemically processed gross beta measurements through 1965 

(i.e., “major chemical processing,” to use the terminology from ORAUT-OTIB-0054, Fission and 

Activation Product Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses

[ORAUT 2015]. 

4.5.2.3 Data Exclusion

Samples marked as LIP, IA (insufficient amount), gross gamma results, and those that lacked 

sufficient identifying information (e.g., sample date or worker ID number) or result information were 

excluded. Sample results that were given as per unit mass were excluded because these are fecal 

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

instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.5.3 Statistical Analysis

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

ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] using the TWOPOS method from that document and the 

multiple imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096 [ORAUT 2019]. The data were analyzed on an 

annual basis. Table 4-7 provides the results of the statistical analysis. Box and whisker plots of the 

TWOPOS data are shown in Figures 4-25 and 4-26. The box and whisker plots are overlaid with the 

excretion results predicted by the intake modeling as discussed further below. 

Table 4-7. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of FPs based on a lognormal 

fit to the TWOPOS data, 1955 to 1965 (dpm/d). 

Year

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1955 14.725 32.21 2.19 247 14.983 29.62 1.98 52

1956 17.617 41.96 2.38 333 16.642 37.76 2.27 76

1957 16.238 37.70 2.32 205 16.507 35.50 2.15 78

1958 15.598 36.10 2.31 162 15.510 38.66 2.49 105

1959 8.457 27.92 3.30 224 9.216 29.85 3.24 49

1960 7.146 21.31 2.98 345 7.126 19.43 2.73 109

1961 8.885 23.22 2.61 438 9.433 26.47 2.81 143

1962 17.376 40.43 2.33 556 18.965 45.56 2.40 256

1963 27.747 48.97 1.76 499 28.544 53.54 1.88 253

1964 28.213 50.83 1.80 494 28.956 54.23 1.87 242

1965 18.197 48.56 2.67 492 19.604 54.99 2.80 240

4.5.4 Intake Modeling

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

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

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

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

urine assumed by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 74 of 287

 

IMBA was used to fit the bioassay results to a series of inhalation intakes. The FP activity was 

assumed to be strontium activity for intake modeling. Data were fit as a series of chronic intakes. The 

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

chronic intake rates were chosen by the selection of periods in which the bioassay results were 

similar. A new chronic intake period was started if the data indicated a significant sustained change in 

the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1955 through 1965 were divided into multiple 

chronic intake periods. The results of the statistical analysis that was used to calculate the intakes are 

provided for FPs in Table 4-7. 

The solid lines in Figures F-131 to F-134 in Attachment F show the fits to the 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates for type F 90Sr for nonCTWs and CTWs, respectively. Tables F-15 and F-16 

list the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates with the associated GSDs from the FP urinalysis for 

nonCTWs and CTWs.

Figures 4-25 and 4-26 overlay the urinary excretion rates (lines) from the intake modeling on the box 

and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. 

Figure 4-25. FP nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 75 of 287

 

Figure 4-26. FP CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

4.6 COBALT-60

Cobalt-60 was evaluated for 1955 through 1970. During this period, some workers handled pure or 

relatively pure 60Co [Boswell 2000, pp. 116–117]. 

4.6.1 Bioassay Data

The FP bioassay data discussed in Section 4.5 was used to model 60Co intakes from 1955 through 

1965 based on the beta emissions from 60Co. Boni [1959] indicates the recovery for 60Co for the 

method used at the time was 85%. 

Beginning in 1966, records indicate FP urinalysis was primarily a gross gamma counting method with 

a reporting level of 1 nCi/1.5L. These data were not used for calculation of MFP co-exposure intakes 

but are used here for the 1966 to 1970 60Co analysis. These gross gamma results were divided by 2 

to account for the fact that 60Co has two 100% yield gamma rays. The detailed statistical analysis 

instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.6.2 Statistical Analysis

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

ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014b] using the TWOPOS method from that document and the 

multiple imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096 [ORAUT 2019]. The data were analyzed on an 

annual basis. Table 4-8 provides the results of the statistical analysis. Box and whisker plots of the 

TWOPOS data are shown in Figures 4-27 through 4-30. The box and whisker plots are overlaid with 

the urinary excretion predicted by the intake modeling as discussed further below. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 76 of 287

 

Table 4-8. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretions rates of 60Co based on a lognormal 

fit to the TWOPOS data, 1955 to 1970 (pCi/d). 

Year

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1955 6.63 14.51 2.19 247 6.75 13.34 1.98 52

1956 7.94 18.90 2.38 333 7.50 17.01 2.27 76

1957 7.31 16.98 2.32 205 7.44 15.99 2.15 78

1958 7.03 16.26 2.31 162 6.99 17.41 2.49 105

1959 3.81 12.58 3.30 224 4.15 13.45 3.24 49

1960 3.22 9.60 2.98 345 3.21 8.75 2.73 109

1961 4.00 10.46 2.61 438 4.25 11.92 2.81 143

1962 7.83 18.21 2.33 556 8.54 20.52 2.40 256

1963 12.50 22.06 1.76 499 12.86 24.12 1.88 253

1964 12.71 22.90 1.80 494 13.04 24.43 1.87 242

1965 8.20 21.87 2.67 492 8.83 24.77 2.80 240

1966 67.2 214.12 3.19 443 59.9 202.23 3.37 177

1967 91.9 294.15 3.20 467 97.2 314.34 3.24 192

1968 76.3 234.43 3.07 485 80.5 249.70 3.10 240

1969 69.0 215.65 3.13 391 66.7 206.84 3.10 211

1970 60.5 219.60 3.63 467 55.6 203.14 3.66 226

4.6.3 Intake Modeling

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

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

result. The IMBA program requires in vitro bioassay results to be in units of activity per day, so all 

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

assumed by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

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

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

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

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

significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1955 through 

1970 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

The solid lines in Figures F-135 to F-142 in Attachment F show the fits to the 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates for types M and S materials for nonCTWs and CTWs. Tables F-17 through 

F-20 list the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates with the associated GSDs from the 60Co urinalysis.

Figures 4-27 through 4-30 overlay the urinary excretion rates (lines) from the intake modeling on the 

box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 77 of 287

 

Figure 4-27. Cobalt-60 nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type M. 

Figure 4-28. Cobalt-60 CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 78 of 287

 

Figure 4-29. Cobalt-60 nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type S. 

Figure 4-30. Cobalt-60 CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, Type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 79 of 287

 

4.7 CESIUM-137

4.7.1 Data Adequacy

4.7.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

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

controls in the Bioassay Control procedure. The earliest version of the procedure that discussed in 

vivo bioassay is Revision 4 dated March 1971 [DuPont 1971a]. It indicates that routine chest counting 

was performed for EU, Am/Cm/Cf, and plutonium. For the Construction Division, chest counts and 

WBCs were required for new employees, employees with confirmed intakes of radionuclides other 

than tritium, employees who were involved in an incident, and upon termination if the employee had 

previously had a chest count or WBC. WBCs were also required for elevated nasal or saliva smears.

Although in vivo bioassay is not mentioned in the bioassay control procedure until 1971, in vivo counts 

were performed much earlier than that, and records of WBCs date back to 1960. The number of 

WBCs increased beginning in 1971 and it steadily became more common thereafter. By 1976 

[DuPont 1976], WBCs had effectively replaced FP urinalysis as the primary means of detecting FP 

intakes.

The 1990 Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for FPs specified 

semiannual WBCs for gamma emitters regardless of whether there was individual or workgroup 

monitoring [WSRC 1990]. 

4.7.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vivo bioassay for FPs show WBC data back to 1960. As discussed above, there was 

guidance for whom to count by 1971. The amount of available WBC data available in the NOCTS data 

is relatively limited from 1966 through 1970, rapidly increases during the early 1970s, and is relatively 

constant from the mid-1970s through 1989.

Construction Division workers were not necessarily included in the regular periodic monitoring 

program but were scheduled for baseline, termination, and incident-driven WBCs.

NonCTWs in all the areas with the potential for exposure were supposed to be part of the monitoring 

program. By at least 1976, Construction Division personnel appeared to have been part of the same 

counting frequency as other employees [DuPont 1976]. 

4.7.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

The SRS Whole Body Counting Facility was constructed in 1960. During the 1960s, a “40-cm arc” 

geometry was used where the individual being counted was seated in a chair, which positioned the 

body from the knees to the chin approximately 40 cm from the detector. A 1-m arc geometry was also 

used in special counts where higher accuracy was desired. The detector used in this configuration 

was a cylindrical NaI detector with a diameter of 8 in. and a length of 4 in. The minimum detectable 

body burden of 137Cs for this detector was 1 nCi [Taylor 1995]. 

During the early 1970s, the 40-cm arc geometry was replaced with a bed geometry using four 4- by 

4-inch NaI detectors positioned in an arc under the bed. Count-specific MDAs are calculated even 

though a nonzero 137Cs body content was generally reported. In the mid-1980s, mobile whole-body 

counters using large NaI detectors and a shadow shield were purchased to measure high-energy 

photon emitters, which includes 137Cs [Taylor 1995]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 80 of 287

 

4.7.2 Data Validation

4.7.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality

The WBC data for the co-exposure study were compiled from NOCTS data. The completeness and 

quality of this data source are addressed in Section 3.1. 

4.7.2.2 Data Interpretation

In most instances, the WBC data provide results for 137Cs. Results are variously reported as a positive 

value, an uncensored value, a “<” value, or “<MDA” with a quantified count-specific MDA. Depending 

on the WBC reporting format, the MDA at the 95% confidence level is also available. During the 

1980s, it became more common to report only radionuclides that were detected. In those instances, it 

can be assumed that a WBC without a reported 137Cs result implies that 137Cs was present at some 

value less than the detection limit (i.e., a censored result).

4.7.2.3 Data Exclusion

Results marked “New,” “New Hire,” or “New Employee” were excluded because these results are not 

indicative of occupational exposure at SRS. Results that lacked sufficient identifying information (e.g., 

sample date or worker ID number) or result information were excluded. No attempt was made to 

exclude results that could have been influenced by the consumption of wild game. The detailed 

statistical analysis instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.7.3 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the WBC data was performed in accordance with the current version of ORAUTRPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] using the TWOPOS method from that document and the multiple 

imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096 [ORAUT 2019]. The data were analyzed on an annual 

basis except for the years indicated in Table 4-9, which were merged due to the small amount of data 

available in those years. No analysis was performed for CTWs for 1960 because there was not 

enough CTW data in that year for evaluation. Table 4-9 provides the results of the statistical analysis.

Box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data are shown in Figures 4-31 and 4-32. The box and 

whisker plots are overlaid with the whole-body content predicted by the intake modeling as discussed 

further below. 

4.7.4 Intake Modeling

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

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

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

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

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

activity median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

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

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

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

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

significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1960 through 

1990 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods. The results of the statistical analysis that were 

used to calculate the intakes are provided for 137Cs in Table 4-9.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 81 of 287

Table 4-9. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile 137Cs whole-body content based on a lognormal fit to 

the TWOPOS data, 1960 to 1989 (pCi). 

Yeara 

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1960 4,954 6,926 1.40 200 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1961 4,472 5,884 1.32 34

1962 5,780 8,696 1.50 215 5,996 8,067 1.35 57

1963 8,762 12,464 1.42 151 9,634 13,846 1.44 66

1964 14,745 22,345 1.52 70

1965 13,765 21,442 1.56 33 8,588 14,187 1.65 46 1966

1967 2,014 5,667 2.81 50 4,751 11,273 2.37 35 1968 5,034 8,422 1.67 73

1969 1,242 5,052 4.07 79

1970 1,242 5,052 4.07 79 1,997 6,309 3.16 28

1971 1,441 4,165 2.89 59

1972 2,887 5,702 1.98 144 2,881 4,951 1.72 54 1973 2,384 4,581 1.92 201

1974 2,041 4,384 2.15 327 2,187 4,379 2.00 70

1975 2,047 4,769 2.33 395 2,118 4,323 2.04 88

1976 1,900 3,704 1.95 221 1,645 3,272 1.99 62

1977 1,839 4,073 2.21 327 1,338 3,137 2.34 95

1978 1,329 3,668 2.76 338 1,095 2,660 2.43 91

1979 963 2,578 2.68 308 736 2,524 3.43 66

1980 755 2,230 2.95 323 688 2,169 3.15 81

1981 654 2,176 3.33 361 646 2,003 3.10 91

1982 553 1,652 2.99 348 458 1,482 3.23 85

1983 457 1,487 3.26 292 389 1,234 3.17 92

1984 364 1,234 3.39 271 442 1,273 2.88 69

1985 669 2,015 3.01 219 545 1,877 3.44 55

1986 2,017 4,152 2.06 311 1,336 3,964 2.97 62

1987 403 1,622 4.03 371 310 996 3.21 180

1988 398 1,313 3.30 370 290 738 2.55 240

1989 349 1,044 2.99 467 300 898 2.99 240

1990 200 771 3.86 653 202 767 3.79 388

a. Where multiple years are noted for a single line of whole body content data, the data for these years were combined for

the statistical analysis.

Excluded results are shown as an “X” in the figures in Attachment F; included results are shown as 

dots. The solid lines in Figures F-143 through F-150 in Attachment F show the fits individual to the 

50th- and 84th-percentile body burdens for type F 137Cs for nonCTWs and CTWs. Figures F-151 to 

F-154 show the 50th- and 84th-percentile predicted excretion rates, respectively, from all type F 137Cs

intakes for nonCTWs and CTWs. Tables F-21 and F-22 list the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates

with the associated GSDs from the 137Cs WBCs.

Figures 4-31 and 4-32 overlay the WBCs from the intake modeling (lines) on the box and whisker 

plots of the TWOPOS data.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 82 of 287

 

Figure 4-31. Cesium-137 body burden nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-32. Cesium-137 body burden CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 83 of 287

 

4.8 NEPTUNIUM

4.8.1 Data Adequacy

4.8.1.1 Personnel Monitoring

DuPont specified bioassay operating guides, sampling frequencies, instructions for requesting and 

collecting urine samples, and related administrative controls in the Bioassay Control procedures. The 

earliest available version of the procedure is Revision 2 dated January 2, 1968 [DuPont 1968b]. It 

indicates a neptunium sample size of 250 mL was used with a positive result level of 0.1 dpm/1.5L 

and a resample level of 0.5 dpm/1.5L, the same as for plutonium. The neptunium sampling 

frequencies are given in Table C-2 for various job categories and work locations. The sample request 

process indicates that 24-hour composite samples required approval by an HP Senior Supervisor or 

above, indicating that routine samples were probably not 24-hour samples.

In Revision 3 of the Bioassay Control procedure in 1970 [DuPont 1970], the positive level for 

plutonium was noted as 0.1 dpm/1.5L and the positive level was used for the resample level, the 

same as for plutonium. An intake was considered confirmed if the initial bioassay result was 

>0.5 dpm/1.5L and a resample was >0.1 dpm/1.5L. Neptunium was no longer part of the routine 

sampling program but was sampled when requested by area HP, and it was stated that “area Health 

Physics will provide Personnel Monitoring with a list of employees requiring neptunium analysis [NP] if 

plutonium urinalysis is positive” [DuPont 1970]. The process for requesting samples was similar to the 

previous process, but HP Senior Supervisor or above approval was no longer required for 24-hour 

samples. Additional instructions were provided for collecting samples in the event of suspected 

inhalations, ingestions, injections, skin contaminations, or whenever airborne contamination exceeded 

control guides. 

Throughout the 1970s, the sample collection guidance for neptunium remained the same in that it was 

only collected from personnel designated by area HP when plutonium urinalysis samples were 

positive [DuPont 1971a, 1971b, 1976]. 

The 1990 Internal Dosimetry Technical Basis Manual monitoring program for transuranic elements 

other than plutonium, which includes neptunium, specified a worker monitoring program of quarterly 

urine bioassay, an annual chest count, semiannual fecal bioassay, and personal air sampling. If 

monitored by workgroup, annual urine bioassay and an annual chest count were specified 

[WSRC 1990]. 

4.8.1.2 Applicability to Unmonitored Workers

Records of in vitro bioassay for neptunium show urinalysis data back to 1961. As discussed above in 

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

The amount of available neptunium bioassay data in the neptunium logbooks is limited and is most 

common for the 1960s. Review of the available data and the Bioassay Control procedures indicates 

that neptunium urinalysis was largely discontinued unless a worker with the potential for neptunium 

exposure had a positive plutonium measurement.

Beginning in 1970, the co-exposure evaluation of potential neptunium intakes is based on WBC data 

due to the reduction in neptunium urinalysis sampling frequency. Although not intended as a primary 

means of detecting neptunium intakes, the WBC data are usable to estimate intakes. This is due to 

the nature of WBCs, in which the entire spectrum of data from gamma emitters is typically recorded 

rather than just specific radionuclides of interest for a particular worker.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 84 of 287

 

4.8.1.3 Bioassay Analysis Techniques

Two forms of bioassay analysis were used for neptunium. The first was urinalysis specifically 

analyzed for neptunium, and the second was WBCs from which neptunium data can be extracted.

The urinalysis method started in 1959. Neptunium was coprecipitated, ion exchanged, 

electrodeposited, and counted on NTA. In the mid-1960s, the TIOA/gross alpha method was adopted 

[Butler 1968]. In 1993, anion exchange followed by direct mounting and gross-alpha counting was 

adopted. Since 1994, extraction chromatography resin has been used to separate neptunium from 

FPs and other actinides and electrodeposition has been used to mount the sample. There are no 

suitable isotopes of neptunium available to use as tracers, so this is still a gross alpha counting 

technique [Taylor et al. 1995]. 

During the 1970s and 1980s, the primary means of measuring neptunium was via WBCs. Some 

earlier WBCs identified a region of interest (gamma ray energy range) that was associated with 

neptunium, however, the gamma-ray yield in this region of interest is relatively low. The gamma ray 

yield of neptunium and neptunium decay products in other regions of interest is higher.

Section 4.8.2.2 details how data from the other regions of interest are used to infer potential 

neptunium whole-body contents.

4.8.2 Data Validation

4.8.2.1 Data Completeness and Quality

For the 1960s, urinalysis data from analytical laboratory logbooks was used [DuPont 1956–1961, 

1961–1969, 1968–1972, 1969]. The completeness of the data from the logbooks was evaluated by 

comparing the annual bioassay summaries [DuPont 1965–1968, 1968a, 1969–1981] with the number 

of samples in the logbooks shown as a percentage of the number given in the bioassay summaries.

The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4-10. The ability to compare these numbers directly 

is limited by the fact that the logbooks record the date of sample collection while the summaries 

indicate the number of analyzed samples. On some occasions, samples were not analyzed until 

months after collection. With the exception of 1963 and 1967, the number of recorded samples in the 

logbooks is similar to the number of samples noted in the summaries. Some of the samples from 1962 

might have been analyzed in 1963, accounting for the discrepancy in that year.

Table 4-10. Logbook data completeness estimate.a

Year

Bioassay summary 

# of Np samples

Logbook # of Np 

samples

% in 

logbook

1961 N/A 618 N/A

1962 N/A 1,539 N/A

1963 898 544 61

1964 83 79 95

1965 96 92 96

1966 48 48 100

1967 17 62 365

1968 118 110 93

1969 50 51 102

a. N/A = not applicable.

A completeness test was also performed by determining whether the neptunium logbook dataset had 

bioassay data for those individuals with neptunium bioassay data in NOCTS. The test was performed 

in two parts as discussed above for the NOCTS dataset completeness evaluations with the exception 

that the second part was a 100% check and thus there is no confidence interval on the conclusions. 

The completeness check determined that the overall completeness was 2.31% missing data with a 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 85 of 287

 

missing data rate of 1.41% before 1970 and a missing data rate of 12.08% after 1969. Only the 

pre-1970 data are used for this co-exposure study. The details of the results of these evaluations are 

contained in Attachment A. 

The accuracy of the neptunium logbook data entry effort was evaluated in accordance with ORAUTRPRT-0078 [ORAUT 2016b]; the fields with the PRID and the numerical sample results were 

evaluated with a maximum 1% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error 

rate of 0.67% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.45% to 0.96%. All fields were evaluated with a 

maximum 5% allowable error rate. The QA check resulted in a point estimate error rate of 0.86% with 

a 95% confidence interval of 0.38% to 1.67%. Therefore, the dataset passed the QA check. The 

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

The neptunium WBC data for the co-exposure study was compiled from NOCTS data. The 

completeness and quality of this data source are addressed in Section 3.1. 

4.8.2.2 Data Interpretation

The neptunium urinalysis data are gross alpha measurements after chemical separation of neptunium 

from other radionuclides and are assumed to be 100% 237Np.

WBC data from NOCTS were used for 237Np during the period for which urinalysis data are very 

limited (i.e., 1970 to 1989). Unlike 137Cs, most WBC reports in NOCTS do not quantify 237Np or report 

an MDA in units of activity. However, some of the reporting methods provide sufficient information to 

determine or estimate the 237Np body content. Methods were developed to estimate 237Np for three of 

the different reporting forms used. These methods use the fact that a region of interest (ROI) used to 

report activity for radionuclides other than 237Np would also be reporting activity from 237Np or its 

decay product 233Pa. Protactinium-233 is assumed to be in equilibrium with 237Np for the basis of 

calculating chronic intakes with a minimum duration of 1 year. 

The first form, “Whole Body Counter Data,” was in use from approximately 1960 through the 

mid-1970s and was used with the 40-cm arc geometry [Taylor et al. 1995, p. 64]. Other than 137Cs and 

40K, the amounts of radionuclides present are not quantified in units of activity. The results are 

presented as net cpm. This form reports activities for 131I based on the number of counts in the ROI 

from 300 to 400 keV. Protactinium-233 has several gammas that fall totally or partially in that energy 

range: 300 keV (6.6%), 312 keV (38.6%), 340 keV (4.5%), 375 keV (0.6%), and 399 keV (1.27%) 

[Kocher 1981]. The 300- and 399-keV peaks would fall half in and half out of the ROI, so in effect 

those abundances are only half of the stated values. Therefore, the total gamma abundance in the 

300- to 400-keV ROI for 233Pa is 47.6%. It is possible to use the reported net cpm for 131I to estimate 

the 237Np body burden by assuming that 233Pa is in equilibrium with 237Np. The conversion factor from 

net counts in the 131I ROI to nanocuries of 237Np is 0.243 nCi/cpm. This conversion factor was 

determined by adjusting the 137Cs calibration factor of 0.136 nCi/cpm [Watts 1962–1967, p. 33] for the 

gamma abundances of 137Cs and 233Pa in their respective ROIs: (0.136)(0.85) ÷ 0.476. To refine the 

estimate, it is necessary to account for the Compton continuum contribution to the 131I ROI from the 

40K body burden. The 40K contribution to the 131I ROI is 0.389 count per 40K ROI net count [Watts 

1962–1967, p. 33]. Therefore, the 237Np body burden can be calculated as: 

0.243 ( ) ( 0.389 ) 237 131 40 nCi Np =× −×   I net cpm K net cpm   (4-1)

The second reporting form is untitled, and was used in the mid- and late 1970s. It is distinguishable by 

having the date, time, and name on successive lines on the left margin at the top. This form reports 

counts in the 300- to 400-keV ROI but does not associate this ROI with a particular radionuclide. For 

each ROI, gross, background, net, “CALC,” and “DIFF” values are reported. The CALC and DIFF 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 86 of 287

 

values correct the net counts to account for Compton scatter; the CALC value is the Compton scatter 

contribution and the DIFF value is the net counts minus CALC. Therefore, when using these data, 

there is no need to apply a 40K Compton scatter as with the “Whole-Body Counter Data” form. When 

the 40-cm arc geometry was being used, assumed to be in the period before February 1974, the 237Np 

body burden can be calculated as:

0.243 ( ) 237 nCi Np = × DIFF counts for 300-to-400-keV ROI (4-2)

After January 1974, when the stretcher geometry was in use, the conversion factor changes [Fleming 

1973–1979, p. 162] and the 237Np body burden can be calculated as:

0.0125 ( ) 237 nCi Np = × DIFF counts for 300-to-400-keV ROI (4-3)

The third reporting form is the “In-Vivo Count Results” form, which was in use from the late 1970s 

through the late 1980s. The ROI on this form applicable to determining 237Np is the 51Cr ROI covering 

the energy range from 290 to 349 keV. This form also reports DIFF values. In addition to the DIFF 

value, it reports the MDA in units of both nanocuries and counts. Having the MDA reported in both 

units permits the determination of a count-specific conversion factor from counts to nanocuries. The 

remaining step is the ratio of the conversion factor for 51Cr to that for 233Pa, which is 0.211 (based on 

the ratio of gamma abundances in the 51Cr ROI: 0.098 to 0.465). The 0.469 abundance is based on 

100% of the 312-keV gamma at 38.6% abundance, 95% of the 340-keV gamma at 4.5% abundance, 

and 55% of the 300-keV gamma at 6.6% abundance. Percentages are reduced from 100% to account 

for the fact that a portion of the gamma peak is outside of the region of interest. Therefore, the 237Np 

body burden can be calculated as:

0.211 ( ) ( ) ( ) 237 51 51 51 nCi Np =× × ÷ CR DIFF counts Cr MDA nCi Cr MDAcounts (4-4)

4.8.2.3 Data Exclusion

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

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

internal dose co-exposure study due to the altered biokinetics during chelation treatment. A listing of 

individuals who received chelation at SRS was compiled from SRDB chelation records from REAC/TS 

(see Table C-1). Bioassay data for samples collected within 100 days after receiving chelation 

treatment were not used. In addition, samples marked as LIP, those marked DTPA to indicate 

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

number) were excluded.

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

instructions are in Attachment E. 

4.8.3 Statistical Analysis

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

version of ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014a] using the TWOPOS method from that document and 

the multiple imputation method from ORAUT-RPRT-0096 [ORAUT 2019]. The data were analyzed on 

an annual basis except for the years indicated in Tables 4-11 and 4-12. Tables 4-11 and 4-12 provide 

the results of the statistical analysis. Box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data are shown in 

Figures 4-33 through 4-36. The box and whisker plots are overlaid with the excretion results and 

whole-body burdens predicted by the intake modeling as discussed further below. After 1969, 

insufficient urinalysis data were available for statistical analysis requiring the use of the WBC data.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 87 of 287

 

However, the urinary excretions predicted from the WBC based intakes are presented in Figures 4-37 

and 4-38 overlaid with the box and whisker plots of the available urinalysis data.

Table 4-11. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of neptunium based on a 

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1961 to 1969 (dpm/d).

a 

Year

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1961 0.01002 0.0310 3.10 273 0.00957 0.0308 3.22 39

1962 0.00136 0.0164 12.01 784 0.00112 0.0132 11.85 152

1963 0.00087 0.0150 17.30 401 0.00144 0.0283 19.63 61

1964 0.04227 0.1129 2.67 41 N/A N/A N/A 7

1965 0.05684 0.1692 2.98 43 N/A N/A N/A 4

1966 0.09036 0.3286 3.64 27 N/A N/A N/A 5

1967 0.07637 0.2371 3.11 39 N/A N/A N/A 3

1968 0.04617 0.1142 2.47 60 N/A N/A N/A 8

1969 0.04560 0.1187 2.60 30 N/A N/A N/A 5

a. N/A = not applicable.

Table 4-12. Calculated 50th- and 84th-percentile whole body burdens of neptunium based on a 

lognormal fit to the TWOPOS data, 1970 to 1989 (dpm). 

Yeara

nonCTW

50th 

percentile

nonCTW

84th 

percentile

nonCTW

GSD

nonCTW

# of 

individuals

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

84th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW # of 

individuals

1970 14,535 31,621 2.18 29

1971 9,583 19,676 2.05 42 8,342 12,230 1.47 33

1972 7,038 13,615 1.93 131

1973 5,042 10,322 2.05 171 4,702 10,450 2.22 30

1974 2,771 8,292 2.99 299 3,609 8,625 2.39 59

1975 1,001 4,888 4.88 379 1,223 5,661 4.63 84

1976 1,427 5,648 3.96 63 2,058 6,184 3.00 67 1977 1,687 5,961 3.78 216

1978 2,273 8,589 4.71 330 1,652 7,242 4.38 88

1979 969 4,562 7.35 213 635 4,446 7.01 53

1980 144 1,055 6.44 315 77 692 9.05 78

1981 140 899 4.81 352 173 840 4.86 88

1982 169 813 7.54 335 43 494 11.51 81

1983 110 832 7.64 276 94 753 7.99 85

1984 104 795 5.88 269 144 1,068 7.43 64

1985 167 984 5.48 209 159 828 5.21 53

1986 287 1,571 4.72 183 270 1,477 5.47 42

1987 431 2,034 4.59 216 650 3,079 4.74 37

1988 287 1,315 3.68 162 150 1,834 12.22 45 1989 381 1,403 3.78 170

a. Where multiple years are noted for a single line of whole body burdens, the data for these years were combined for the 

statistical analysis.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 88 of 287

 

Figure 4-33. Neptunium urinalysis nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-34. Neptunium urinalysis CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 89 of 287

 

Figure 4-35. Neptunium whole-body burden nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 

Figure 4-36. Neptunium whole-body burden CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 90 of 287

 

Figure 4-37. Neptunium urinalysis nonCTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, 1970 to 1989. 

Figure 4-38. Neptunium urinalysis CTW TWOPOS data box and whisker plot, 1970 to 1989. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 91 of 287

 

4.8.4 Intake Modeling

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

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

result. The IMBA program requires in vitro bioassay results to be in units of activity per day, so all 

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

assumed by SRS to be excreted in a 24-hour period).

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution.

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

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

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

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

significant sustained change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years from 1955 through 

1989 were divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

Because the neptunium isotopes at SRS have very long radiological half-lives, and because the 

material is excreted over long periods, excretion results are not independent. For example, an intake 

in the 1950s could have contributed to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. However, because of 

turnover in the workforce, the workers used to assess intakes in one period might not have been the 

same as those in a later period. To avoid potential underestimation of intakes in the later periods, 

each chronic intake was fit independently using only the bioassay results from the single intake 

period. This method resulted in an overestimate of the later TWOPOS results when the cumulative 

predicted urine sample results from multiple assumed intake periods are plotted. Only the results 

during the intake period were selected for use in the fitting of each period. Excluded results are shown 

as an “X” in the figures in Attachment F; included results are shown as dots. The results of the 

statistical analysis that was used to calculate the intakes are provided for neptunium in Tables 4-11 

and 4-12. 

Excluded results are shown as an “X” in the figures in Attachment F; included results are shown as 

dots. The solid lines in Figures F-155 to F-178 in Attachment F show the individual fits to the 50thand 84th-percentile excretion rates for nonCTWs and CTWs. Figures F-179 to F-186 show the 50thand 84th-percentile predicted excretion rates, respectively, from all intakes for nonCTWs and CTWs.

Tables F-23 and F-24 list the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates with the associated GSDs from 

the neptunium urinalysis for nonCTWs and CTWs.

Figures 4-33 and 4-34 overlay the urinary excretion rates (lines) predicted by the intake modeling on 

the box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. Figures 4-35 and 4-36 overlay the whole-body 

contents (lines) predicted by the intake modeling on the box and whisker plots of the TWOPOS data. 

There is not enough CTW data from 1964 through 1969 to perform statistical analysis or intake 

modeling. Therefore, the nonCTW intakes for this period were used as a surrogate due to the 

similarity of the nonCTW and CTW intake rates before and after this period. Figures 4-37 and 4-38 

depict the nonCTW-data based predicted urinary excretion rates in comparison to the limited CTW 

available.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 92 of 287

 

4.9 THORIUM

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

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

1970; Taylor et al 1995]. Butler [1964] indicates an extraction efficiency of 93% for thorium into 

20% HDEHP-toluene. An extraction efficiency of 97% with the TIOA-DDCP technique [Butler and Hall 

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

from the sample. The extraction efficiency for the various actinides is given in Table 4-13. For 

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

separation of the americium, californium, and curium.

Table 4-13. Extraction efficiencies with DDCP 

[Butler and Hall 1970]. 

Element Principal valence Extracted %

Ca 2 <1

Cs 1 <1

Fe 3 95

Pm 3 99

Ce 3 99

Th 4 97

U 6 82

Np 5 92

Pu 4 98

Am 3 95

Cm 3 95

Bk 3 98

Cf 3 95

Es 3 97

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

actinides (Figures 4-39 and 4-40). TIOA is used to extract the plutonium, uranium, and neptunium 

from the sample in an 8N HCl solution. Next, a sequence of nitric acid dissolution steps is performed 

followed by the use of DDCP to separate the remaining actinides. Toluene is used to return the 

actinides to the aqueous phase, which is then evaporated to dryness and counted. Separation of the 

thorium, berkelium, and einsteinium from the americium, curium, and californium was not done 

because they “are not present in biological samples in sufficient quantities to require separation or 

routine identification by alpha spectroscopy” [Butler and Hall 1970]. However, if present, they would 

continue with the americium, curium, and californium. This is shown graphically in Figure 4-39. 

Thorium was also noted as being included in the americium, curium, and californium determination in 

1987 [DuPont 1987b, p. 60] as shown in Figure 4-40. Therefore, although not originally intended to 

measure thorium, the analytical technique for americium measurement would also capture any 

thorium present in the sample and establish an upper bound on the amount of thorium present.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 93 of 287

 

Figure 4-39. TIOA-DDCP sequential stripping 

process [Butler and Hall 1970]. 

Figure 4-40. Sample analysis procedure for extracting americium, curium, 

californium, plutonium, neptunium, and EU [DuPont 1987b]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 94 of 287

 

Therefore, the americium bioassay data discussed in Section 4.1 were also used to model thorium 

intakes from November 1, 1972, through May 31, 1980. Separate intake modeling was performed for 

thorium due to the differing biokinetics of thorium in comparison with americium. The intake rates start 

on November 1, 1972, because an SEC class covers 232Th exposures before October 1972.

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

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

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

median aerodynamic diameter particle size distribution. IMBA was used to fit the bioassay results to 

an inhalation intake. Only the results during the intake period were selected for use in the fitting. 

The solid lines in Figures F-187 to F-194 in Attachment F show the fits to the 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates for Type M and S for nonCTWs and CTWs. Tables F-25 and F-26 list the 

50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates with the associated GSDs from the neptunium urinalysis for 

nonCTWs and CTWs.

Beginning June 1, 1980, thorium intakes are assigned based on the guidance ORAUT-RPRT-0070 

[ORAUT 2017a] which assigns intake rates of 4.87 dpm/d from inhalation and 0.1 dpm/d from 

ingestion.

5.0 GUIDANCE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTORS ON ASSIGNMENT OF INTAKES AND 

DOSES

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

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

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

value less than 3 for the co-exposure data. Therefore, a GSD of at least 3 was assigned for each 

intake period. The 95th-percentile values were based on the adjusted GSD for the intake period. The 

original GSDs are provided in the Attachment F tables for each element. For input into the Interactive 

RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP), the 50th percentile of the calculated intake rates should be 

assigned as a lognormal distribution with the associated GSDs in the tables in this section to the 

majority of workers for whom co-exposure intakes are assigned as the default assumption. For cases 

in which there is justification that the individual could have had intakes larger than the 50th percentile, 

dose reconstructors should use the 95th-percentile intake rates input into IREP as a constant. The 

intake rates or dose for the last year listed may be extended to subsequent years as a measure 

favorable to claimants.

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

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

provided. Co-exposure intakes should be assigned for radionuclides that could have been present at 

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

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

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

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

dosimeter codes applicable to various periods are included to help identify an individual’s work 

location. However, the dosimeter codes are guidance only and claimant-specific information (e.g., 

telephone interview statements, incident reports, and DOL claim file information) supersedes the 

guidance provided by the dosimeter codes.

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

in Table 5-1) should be assigned. This might especially apply to Maintenance Department workers 

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

multiple facilities.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 95 of 287

 

5.1 AMERICIUM

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 list the 241Am intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 

americium exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs respectively. 

5.2 TRITIUM

Table 5-4 lists the tritium doses and GSDs to be used for each year of potential tritium exposure.

5.3 PLUTONIUM

Tables 5-5 through 5-7 list the plutonium gross alpha intakes and associated GSDs to be used for 

each year of potential plutonium exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs. Use the isotopic composition 

from Table 4.1.1-3 of the SRS site profile [ORAUT 2005a].

5.4 URANIUM

Tables 5-8 to 5-13 list the total uranium intakes, assigned as 234U intakes and associated GSDs to be 

used for each year of potential uranium exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs. In Building 773-A from 

January 1, 1961, through September 30, 1972, and in Building 772-F and the HB-Line from January 

1, 1964, through September 30, 1972, 233U production resulted in potential exposure to 233U 

containing 8 ppm 232U. For workers in those areas and periods, use the intakes in Tables 5-14 through 

5-19 [2].

5.5 FISSION PRODUCTS

Table 5-20 lists the FP (90Sr) intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year, through 1965, of 

potential FP exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs. The listed intakes are gross beta intakes and should 

be adjusted for strontium urinary activity fraction. Before 1966, FP intakes are based on 90Sr intakes 

rather than 137Cs because the 90Sr values are more limiting. Starting in 1966, there is no 90Sr (gross 

beta) data available and therefore the 137Cs data are used. Tables 5-21 and 5-22 list the 137Cs intakes 

and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 137Cs exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs, 

respectively. Additional fission and activation product radionuclides should be assigned based on the 

90Sr or 137Cs intakes as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0047 [ORAUT 2013b]. 
 

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 96 of 287

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

Building or facility

Dosimeter 

codesa 

1961–1972

Dosimeter codesa 

1973–1990

Dosimeter codesa 

1991–2003

Dosimeter 

codesa 

2004–present

Radionuclides of 

concern

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

10A, 11A, 

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

1L, 1R

C01, C02, C03, K01, L01, 

P01 

LLL, NMM, 

SDDb 

3H, FP

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

through 9F

F, F01 through F05, F07 

through F09

235, CLB, FBL, 

FCA

Pu, U, Am, Np, FP

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

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

through 9F

F, F01 through F05, F07 

through F09

FBL Pu, Am (with Pu only)

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

through 9F

F, F01 through F05, F07 

through F09

FBL, FCA, Pu, U, FP, Th through 

1966, Am (MPPF only)

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

238PuO2 Fuel Form Facility and 

238PuO2 Experimental Facility

(235-F)

1A 5F, 8F F05, F08 235 Pu, Am, Np, Th (1975–

1981)

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

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

F/H Tank Farms, Effluent 

Treatment Facility, Cooling 

Water and Retention Basins

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

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

Old HB-Line Facility (through 

1989)

2A 6H H06 HBL Pu, FP, Am, Np, Ue

New HB-Line Facility None None H06 HBL Pu, Np

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

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

232-H, H Area New 

Manufacturing Facility, H Area 

Old Manufacturing Facility, 

Tritium complex

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

300 M-Area, M Area unknown 

facility

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

1964–1965 only, Cm 

1964–1965 only

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

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

October 1972 and after, 

U, Np, FP, 3H

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

773-A intakes)

Environmental 

radionuclides, Np 1962
 

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 97 of 287

Building or facility

Dosimeter 

codesa 

1961–1972

Dosimeter codesa 

1973–1990

Dosimeter codesa 

1991–2003

Dosimeter 

codesa 

2004–present

Radionuclides of 

concern

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

773-A intakes)

Pu, Am, Cm, Cf, Th, U 

Np 1961–1988, FP, 3H

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

CMX and TNX (Semi-works 

facilities)

5C 5C T01 No active codes U

Central Shops and Maintenance, 

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory

6C, 6H, 6I, 

6M, 6N, 6R, 

12D, 12E, 12I

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

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

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

through 8C, 8H, through 

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

A12, A24, A25, A26, A27, 

A29, A34, J01, through J08, 

J12 through 41

No active codes Pu (with Pu only), U, 

FP, 3H, Am, Cm, Np, Th

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

E-Area Solid Waste Disposal 

Facility

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

New Special Recovery and 

Plutonium Storage Facility

None See H-Area unknown 

facility

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

Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel 

and Resin Regeneration Facility

See H-Area 

unknown 

facility

See H-Area unknown 

facility

See H-Area unknown facility RBO Pu, Am, 3H

S-Area Defense Waste 

Processing Facility

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

Waste Certification Facility None 3G G03 SSS 3H, Pu, FP

Z-Area None 2Z Z02 ZZZ 3H, FP, Pu, 

Not identifiable or unknownd None 7Y, 8D, 8E, 000, 

missing

R01, Y01, missing Blank, any code 

not already 

listed

Pu, U, FP, 3H, Am, Cm, 

Cf, Np, Th

a. Any code with an “X” should not be included. These indicate offsite assignment.

b. Code SDD is used both for the reactors and for 300-M Area. If no other information about work location is available, the applicable radionuclides for both locations 

should be assigned.

c. Code 1A was used for both 772 and 773 before 1991. If no other information about work location is available, the applicable radionuclides for both locations should 

be assigned.

d. Unknown facility radionuclides should only be assigned if no information is available from any source about the worker’s work location. 

e. Uranium-232/233 should only be assigned for the HB-Line for January 1, 1964, through September 30, 1972.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 98 of 287

 

Table 5-2. nonCTW type M 241Am intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

01/01/1963 12/31/1965 32.11 3.39 239

01/01/1966 12/31/1967 57.9 3.00 353

01/01/1968 12/31/1971 16.3 3.00 99.3

01/01/1972 12/31/1982 2.327 3.62 19.3

01/01/1983 12/31/1989 7.694 3.00 46.9

Table 5-3. CTW type M 241Am intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1967 48.46 3.60 399

01/01/1968 12/31/1971 16.56 3.00 101

01/01/1972 12/31/1982 2.387 3.76 21.1

01/01/1983 12/31/1989 8.891 3.00 54.2

Table 5-4. Tritium annual doses (rem) and GSDs. 

Year

nonCTW

50th percentile 

nonCTW

GSD

nonCTW

95th percentile

CTW

50th percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th percentile

1954 0.012 3.00 0.073 0.012 3.00 0.071

1955 0.013 3.00 0.080 0.015 3.00 0.093

1956 0.019 3.00 0.116 0.016 3.00 0.100

1957 0.025 3.00 0.151 0.025 3.00 0.154

1958 0.035 3.00 0.215 0.031 3.00 0.190

1959 0.034 3.02 0.208 0.038 3.00 0.232

1960 0.046 3.18 0.306 0.042 3.06 0.264

1961 0.050 3.00 0.304 0.039 3.36 0.284

1962 0.051 3.00 0.313 0.041 3.00 0.251

1963 0.048 3.00 0.295 0.040 3.00 0.242

1964 0.060 3.01 0.368 0.054 3.00 0.329

1965 0.055 3.37 0.403 0.043 3.00 0.261

1966 0.046 3.00 0.281 0.031 3.12 0.200

1967 0.049 3.00 0.301 0.034 3.00 0.208

1968 0.051 3.00 0.310 0.030 3.00 0.182

1969 0.052 3.00 0.315 0.031 3.24 0.215

1970 0.042 3.00 0.258 0.023 3.49 0.180

1971 0.051 3.00 0.308 0.028 3.32 0.204

1972 0.047 3.00 0.286 0.033 3.33 0.238

1973 0.045 3.00 0.276 0.027 3.50 0.212

1974 0.048 3.00 0.293 0.031 3.33 0.227

1975 0.048 3.00 0.294 0.032 3.00 0.196

1976 0.047 3.00 0.285 0.030 3.26 0.207

1977 0.053 3.00 0.326 0.026 3.37 0.192

1978 0.048 3.00 0.295 0.028 3.00 0.168

1979 0.047 3.00 0.286 0.029 3.00 0.179

1980 0.049 3.00 0.300 0.024 3.00 0.147

1981 0.031 3.00 0.188 0.016 3.00 0.100

1982 0.027 3.00 0.164 0.015 3.00 0.093

1983 0.022 3.00 0.135 0.016 3.00 0.095

1984 0.023 3.00 0.138 0.015 3.00 0.093

1985 0.025 3.00 0.150 0.016 3.00 0.095

1986 0.008 3.32 0.061 0.006 3.17 0.043
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 99 of 287

 

Year

nonCTW

50th percentile 

nonCTW

GSD

nonCTW

95th percentile

CTW

50th percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th percentile

1987 0.008 3.08 0.052 0.007 3.12 0.045

1988 0.008 3.00 0.047 0.006 3.52 0.050

1989 0.006 3.00 0.036 0.004 3.07 0.027

1990 0.006 3.00 0.034 0.006 3.00 0.036

Table 5-5. Type M plutonium gross alpha intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 3.265 3.00 19.90 2.706 3.14 17.74

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 1.606 4.02 15.83 1.356 4.34 15.19

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 5.778 3.49 45.17 5.279 3.70 45.49

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 1.692 4.54 20.37 1.379 4.59 16.91

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 0.7238 6.94 17.5 0.5974 7.78 17.5

Table 5-6. Type S plutonium gross alpha intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 66.17 3.07 417.98 54.76 3.27 383.92

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 36 3.94 343.71 30.63 4.21 325.69

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 154.5 3.39 1,152.33 142.5 3.61 1,177.28

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 27.02 4.56 328.24 22.13 4.55 267.15

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 12.56 6.64 283.0 10.41 7.41 280.7

Table 5-7. Type SS plutonium gross alpha intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 454 3.00 2,766 377 3.13 2,463

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 222 4.02 2,192 188 4.33 2,095

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 787 3.52 6,237 719 3.71 6,223

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 230 4.52 2,752 188 4.58 2,297

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 99 6.94 2,397 81.6 7.79 2,391

Table 5-8. nonCTW type F 234U intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

01/01/1953 12/31/1953 36.19 3.00 220.5

01/01/1954 12/31/1954 14.27 3.00 86.95

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 7.095 3.00 43.23

01/01/1957 12/31/1962 1.035 5.47 16.92

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 2.366 5.82 42.89

01/01/1968 12/31/1981 0.6054 4.59 7.42

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 1.556 3.81 14.05

01/01/1986 12/31/1990 0.646 3.23 4.45
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 100 of 287

 

Table 5-9. nonCTW type M 234U intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

01/01/1953 12/31/1953 175.1 3.00 1,067

01/01/1954 12/31/1954 40.67 3.00 247.8

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 26.46 3.00 161.2

01/01/1957 12/31/1962 3.651 6.26 74.63

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 9.768 5.86 179

01/01/1968 12/31/1981 2.426 4.44 28.12

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 6.469 3.84 59.20

01/01/1986 12/31/1990 2.513 3.19 16.94

Table 5-10. nonCTW type S 234U intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

01/01/1953 12/31/1953 5,477 3.00 33,373

01/01/1954 12/31/1954 2,222 3.00 13,539

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 826.2 3.00 5,034

01/01/1957 12/31/1962 81.69 5.12 1,199

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 185.7 5.75 3,300

01/01/1968 12/31/1981 36.33 4.20 385.1

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 133.8 4.00 1,307

01/01/1986 12/31/1990 53.03 3.24 366.0

Table 5-11. CTW type F 234U intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 7.243 3.00 44.13

01/01/1957 12/31/1957 0.7962 12.71 52.16

01/01/1958 12/31/1962 0.7962 4.06 7.98

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 2.124 6.18 42.46

01/01/1968 12/31/1990 0.6529 4.08 6.59

Table 5-12. CTW type M 234U intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 32.09 3.00 195.5

01/01/1957 12/31/1957 2.349 18.77 292.3

01/01/1958 12/31/1962 2.349 4.98 32.96

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 8.923 6.19 179.0

01/01/1968 12/31/1990 2.625 3.98 25.43

Table 5-13. CTW type S 234U intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 821.4 3.00 5,005

01/01/1957 12/31/1957 53.65 18.19 6,338

01/01/1958 12/31/1962 53.65 4.46 626.9

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 176.2 6.00 3,356

01/01/1968 12/31/1990 35.68 3.97 344.5
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 101 of 287

 

Table 5-14. Type F 233U nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

U-232 

50th percentile

U-233 

50th percentile GSD

U-232 

95th percentile

U-233 

95th percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 0.0176 1.017 5.47 0.288 16.64

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 0.0402 2.326 5.82 0.729 42.16

01/01/1968 09/30/1972 0.0103 0.595 4.59 0.126 7.30

Table 5-15. Type M 233U nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

U-232 

50th percentile

U-233 

50th percentile GSD

U-232 

95th percentile

U-233 

95th percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 0.062 3.59 6.26 1.27 73.36

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 0.166 9.60 5.86 3.043 175.96

01/01/1968 09/30/1972 0.041 2.385 4.44 0.48 27.65

Table 5-16. Type S 233U nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

U-232 

50th percentile

U-233 

50th percentile GSD

U-232 

95th percentile

U-233 

95th percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 1.39 80.3 5.12 20.4 1,179

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 3.157 182.5 5.75 56.113 3,245

01/01/1968 09/30/1972 0.62 35.71 4.20 6.55 378.6

Table 5-17. Type F 233U CTW intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

U-232 

50th percentile

U-233 

50th percentile GSD

U-232 

95th percentile

U-233 

95th percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 0.7962 0.0135 4.06 0.14 7.84

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 2.124 0.0361 6.18 0.722 41.74

01/01/1968 09/30/1972 0.6529 0.011 4.08 0.11 6.47

Table 5-18. Type M 233U CTW intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

U-232 

50th percentile

U-233 

50th percentile GSD

U-232 

95th percentile

U-233 

95th percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 0.040 2.31 4.98 0.560 32.40

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 0.152 8.771 6.19 3.044 175.99

01/01/1968 09/30/1972 0.045 2.58 3.98 0.43 25.0

Table 5-19. Type S 233U CTW intake rates (dpm/d). 

Start End

U-232 

50th percentile

U-233 

50th percentile GSD

U-232 

95th percentile

U-233 

95th percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 0.912 52.7 4.46 10.66 616

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 3.00 173.2 6.00 57.1 3,300

01/01/1968 09/30/1972 0.607 35.1 3.97 5.86 339

Table 5-20. Type F FP (90Sr) intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 70.05 3.00 427 69.46 3.00 423

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 32.43 3.03 201 34.33 3.01 211

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 97.41 3.00 594 102.2 3.00 623
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 102 of 287

 

Table 5-21. Type F 137Cs nonCTW intake rates (pCi/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 111.3 3.00 678.2

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 42.98 3.00 261.9

01/01/1968 12/31/1968 87.45 3.00 532.9

01/01/1969 12/31/1971 18.86 3.53 149.9

01/01/1972 12/31/1977 31.86 3.00 194.1

01/01/1978 12/31/1985 9.396 3.07 59.55

01/01/1986 12/31/1986 34.84 3.00 212.3

01/01/1987 12/31/1990 2.819 4.63 35.02

Table 5-22. Type F 137Cs CTW intake rates (pCi/d). 

Start End

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 201.2 3.00 1,226

01/01/1967 12/31/1968 54.81 3.00 334.0

01/01/1969 12/31/1977 29.31 3.00 178.6

01/01/1978 12/31/1981 9.71 3.21 66.00

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 6.557 3.19 44.14

01/01/1986 12/31/1986 22.95 3.00 139.9

01/01/1987 12/31/1990 2.697 3.14 17.74

5.6 COBALT-60

Tables 5-23 and 5-24 list the FP (60Co) intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of 

potential 60Co exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs and for solubility types M and S, respectively. 

Cobalt-60 intakes should only be assigned for workers for whom there is reason to believe they 

handled purified 60Co.

Table 5-23. Type M 60Co intake rates (pCi/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 91.56 3.00 558 90.85 3.00 554

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 39.72 3.08 252 42.34 3.05 266

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 128.6 3.00 784 135 3.00 823

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 930 3.21 6,347 825.7 3.41 6,213

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 1,185 3.18 7,963 1,282 3.21 8,713

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 804.8 3.28 5,666 785.4 3.27 5,510

Table 5-24. Type S 60Co intake rates (pCi/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 365 3.00 2,224 362.3 3.00 2,208

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 146.6 3.12 953 157.3 3.10 1,014

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 503.2 3.00 3,066 529.7 3.00 3,228

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 3,654 3.21 24,889 3,248 3.41 24,414

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 4,760 3.20 32,316 5,106 3.23 35,090

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 3,137 3.28 22,175 3,068 3.27 21,569
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 103 of 287

 

5.7 NEPTUNIUM

Table 5-25 lists the neptunium intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 

neptunium exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs.

Table 5-25. Neptunium intake rates (pCi/d).

Start End

nonCTW 

50th 

percentile

nonCTW 

GSD

nonCTW 

95th 

percentile

CTW

50th 

percentile

CTW

GSD

CTW

95th 

percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1963 0.1541 5.62 2.638 0.1545 6.71 3.535

01/01/1964 12/31/1967 2.844 3.22 19.43 2.844 3.22 19.43

01/01/1968 12/31/1969 2.16 3.00 13.16 2.16 3.00 13.16

01/01/1970 12/31/1972 297.7 3.00 1,814 328.2 3.00 2,000

01/01/1973 12/31/1974 163.6 3.00 996.9 186.8 3.00 1138

01/01/1975 12/31/1979 32.76 3.98 318.3 26.36 4.47 309

01/01/1980 12/31/1989 3.183 4.88 43.21 3.119 6.24 63.44

5.8 THORIUM

Tables 5-26 and 5-27 list the 232Th intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 

232Th exposure for nonCTWs and CTWs for solubility types M and S, respectively. No 232Th intakes 

should be assigned for periods before November 1, 1972, because this period is covered under an 

SEC. 

Table 5-26. Type M 232Th intake rates (dpm/d).

nonCTW 

Start End Pathway 50th percentile GSD 95th percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 Inhalation 4.203 3.56 34.0

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Inhalation 4.87 Constant -

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Ingestion 0.1 Constant -

CTW

Start End Pathway 50th percentile GSD 95th percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 Inhalation 4.145 3.37 30.6

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Inhalation 4.87 Constant -

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Ingestion 0.1 Constant -

Table 5-27. Type S 232Th intake rates (dpm/d). 

nonCTW 

Start End Pathway 50th percentile GSD 95th percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 Inhalation 81.49 3.47 631

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Inhalation 4.87 Constant -

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Ingestion 0.1 Constant -

CTW

Start End Pathway 50th percentile GSD 95th percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 Inhalation 79.41 3.26 556

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Inhalation 4.87 Constant -

06/01/1980 12/31/1989 Ingestion 0.1 Constant -
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 104 of 287

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The NIOSH guidance for evaluation and use of co-exposure datasets requires that data adequacy, 

completeness, and applicability be determined [NIOSH 2015]. This requires determination that the 

bioassay techniques SRS used were valid, collected data were reliable, and the data can be 

interpreted. The bioassay analytical techniques discussed above and review of the results provide 

evidence that the techniques were valid, reliable, and can be interpreted.

The guidance requires that all or a representative sample of the potentially exposed worker population 

submit samples. The bioassay sample schedules indicate that SRS had a process in place to identify 

and collect samples from potentially exposed workers with a graded approach commensurate with the 

exposure potential and that unmonitored workers could be adequately represented by monitored 

workers. 

The stratified statistical analyses established two populations of workers (CTWs and nonCTWs), 

evaluated the bioassay data from each, and determined intake rates or doses applicable to each for 

the evaluated range of years. The intake rates or doses in Section 5.0 may be assigned to 

unmonitored workers to evaluate potential unmonitored internal dose.

7.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

Where appropriate in this document, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate information, 

conclusions, and recommendations provided to assist in the process of worker dose reconstruction.

These callouts are listed here in the Attributions and Annotations section, with information to identify 

the source and justification for each associated item. Conventional References, which are provided in 

the next section of this document, link data, quotations, and other information to documents available 

for review on the Project’s Site Research Database (SRDB).

Tom LaBone served as the initial Subject Expert for this document. Mr. LaBone was previously 

employed at SRS and his work involved management, direction or implementation of radiation 

protection and/or HP program policies, procedures or practices related to atomic weapons activities at 

the site. Preparation of this document has been overseen by a Document Owner who is fully 

responsible for the content, including all findings and conclusions. In all cases where such information 

or prior studies or writings are included or relied upon by Mr. LaBone, those materials are fully 

attributed to the source. Mr. LaBone’s Disclosure Statement is available at www.oraucoc.org. 

[1] Arno, Matthew G. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2009.

This is based on communications with Tom LaBone indicating “<” values were recorded as

negative results in the HPRED.

[2] Mahathy, James M. ORAU Team. Health Physicist. October 2013.

Uranium-233 was produced containing varying amounts of 232U, most of which were in the 5 to

7 ppm range [DuPont 1955–1971, pp. 458–460, 355, 1984a, 1984b]. Use of 8 ppm is a

conservative estimate of 232U content.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 105 of 287

 

REFERENCES 

Bingham E [1997]. Surveillance of former construction workers at Oak Ridge Reservation: a revised 

needs assessment. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. December. [SRDB Ref ID: 12489]

Boni AL [1959]. Rapid determination of mixed beta-gamma radionuclides in urine. Health Phys 2:186–

188. [SRDB Ref ID: 86929]

Boswell JM [2000]. Savannah River Site fiftieth anniversary, 50 years of excellence in science and 

engineering at the Savannah River Site. Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah

River Company. WSRC-MS-2000-00061. [SRDB Ref ID: 45046]

Butler FE [1964]. Separation of actinides by liquid ion exchange. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. 

I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSPU 64-30-18, September. [SRDB Ref ID: 49523]

Butler FE [1968]. Rapid bioassay methods for plutonium, neptunium, and uranium. Health Phys 

15:19–24. [SRDB Ref ID: 11379]

Butler FE and Hall RM [1970]. Determination of actinides in biological samples with bidentate 

organophosphorus extractant. Anal Chem 42(9):1073–1076. [SRDB Ref ID: 119808]

Butler HL, Splichal WF Jr. [1965]. Solid-state alpha counters; a replacement for nuclear track counting 

in bioassay procedures. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 

DPSPU 65-30-6, May. [SRDB Ref ID: 49245]

CPWR [2016]. Building trades national medical screening program who is eligible? Silver Spring, MD: 

The Center for Construction Research and Training. [SRDB Ref ID: 158892]

DuPont [1954]. Craft payroll codes. Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours 

and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 102063]

DuPont [1956–1961]. Enriched uranium, lead, mercury induced activity: LMF, PB, HG, misc. records 

5-14-1956 to 8-11-1961. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 53261]

DuPont [1959–1971]. Radiation and contamination control. Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC: E. 

I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSOP-40-Hist-Vol-2. [SRDB Ref ID: 52805]

DuPont [1961–1969]. Special product log records 2-16-1961 thru 10-13-1969. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 51953]

DuPont [1965a]. Progress report February 1965 Works Technical Department. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 68104]

DuPont [1965b]. Progress report May 1965 Works Technical Department, Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 68104]

DuPont [1965–1968]. Bioassay control reports 1965–1968. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du 

Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 116715]

DuPont [1963–1970]. Am-Cm record book 5-29-1963 thru 5-26-1970. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, 

SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52008]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 106 of 287

 

DuPont [1968a]. Monthly reports exposure evaluation and dosimetry January-December 1968. 

Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 50318]

DuPont [1968b]. Bioassay control procedure. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company. DPSOL 193-302 Rev. 2, January 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 126996]

DuPont [1968–1972]. EU record 1-8-1968 thru 11-3-1972. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du 

Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 49822]

DuPont [1969]. Plutonium - neptunium record book. Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC: E. I. du 

Pont de Nemours and Company. April 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 51973]

DuPont [1969–1973]. Pu-AmCm record book 5-14-1969 thru 10-19-1973. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 53271]

DuPont [1969–1981]. Health protection monthly summary June 1969 – December 1981. Savannah 

River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 108754]

DuPont [1970]. Bioassay control procedure. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company. DPSOL 193-302 Rev. 3, January. [SRDB Ref ID: 126997]

DuPont [1970–1973]. Am-Cm record book 5-27-1970 thru 2-9-1973. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, 

SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52006]

DuPont [1971a]. Bioassay control procedure. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company. DPSOL 193-302 Rev. 4, March. [SRDB Ref ID: 126998]

DuPont [1971b]. Bioassay control procedure. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company. DPSOL 193-302 Rev. 5, September 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 124941]

DuPont [1972]. Works technical department progress report for January 1972. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSP 72-1-1, January. [SRDB Ref ID: 68265]

DuPont [1973–1978]. Am-Cm record book 2-10-1973 thru 4-30-1978 Savannah River Plant, Aiken, 

SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52010]

DuPont [1973–1979]. Plutonium - americium record book 10-22-1973 thru 2-1-1979. Savannah River 

Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 51970]

DuPont [1973–1986]. Savannah River Plant history plantwide activities January 1973 thru December 

1986. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSP 74-454-5, 

November. [SRDB Ref ID: 89230]

DuPont [1974]. Works technical department progress report for November 1974. Savannah River 

Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSP 74-1-11. [SRDB Ref ID: 68041]

DuPont [1974–1984]. Dosimetry special hazards incident investigations 300-399. Savannah River 

Laboratory, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 45096]

DuPont [1976]. Bioassay control procedure. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company. DPSOL 193-302 Rev. 7, October 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 131322]

DuPont [1978–1983]. Am-Cm record book 5-1-1978 thru 11-29-1983. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, 

SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52019]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 107 of 287

 

DuPont [1979–1980]. Pu-Am record book 2-2-1979 thru 7-7-1980. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52018]

DuPont [1980–1981a]. Am-Cm #5 record book 8-12-1980 thru 6-9-1981. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52012]

DuPont [1980–1981b]. Pu-Am #3 record book 8-3-80 thru 8-22-81. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52015]

DuPont [1981]. Job plans and permits November – December 1981. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, 

SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 157063]

DuPont [1981–1986]. Pu-Am record book 10-23-1981 thru 6-9-1986. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, 

SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 53283]

DuPont [1982]. Job plans and permits HLC January – April 1982. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 157062]

DuPont [1983a]. Job plans and permits HLC January – May 1983. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 157069]

DuPont [1983b]. Job plans and permits HLC September – December 1983. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 157067]

DuPont [1984]. Job plans and permits HLC January – April 1984. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 157068]

DuPont [1984a]. History of the Savannah River Laboratory, Volume I – production reactor, fuel, and 

target technology. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 89232] 

DuPont [1984b]. History of the Savannah River Laboratory, Volume II – separations technology. 

Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 89523] 

DuPont [1985]. Health protection department radiation survey procedures. Savannah River Plant, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSOP 193, February 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 45958]

DuPont [1986]. Job plans HLC January – June 1986. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont 

de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 159277, p. 8]

DuPont [1986–1989]. Pu-Am record book 6-25-1986 thru 8-9-1989. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 52022]

DuPont [1987a]. Americium-curium-californium, plutonium, neptunium, and enriched uranium 

sequential determinations. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and 

Company. DPSOL-47-206 Rev. 1, May 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 45029]

DuPont [1987b]. Bioassay requests and results 1987. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont 

de Nemours and Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 113839]

DuPont [1988]. Savannah River Plant history plantwide activities January – December 1987. 

Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSP-88-454-5, October. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 89225]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 108 of 287

 

DuPont [no date a]. Bioassay control procedure. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Company. DPSOL 193-302 Rev. 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 129515]

DuPont [no date b]. Radiation and contamination control history III. Savannah River Laboratory, 

Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. DPSOP-40. [SRDB Ref ID: 86188]

Fleming RR [1973–1979]. Savannah River Site Atomic Energy Division Explosives Department R. R. 

Fleming lab notebook. Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 

DPSTN-2011. [SRDB Ref ID: 61649] 

Kocher DC [1981]. Radioactive decay data tables, a handbook of decay data for application to 

radiation dosimetry and radiological assessments. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Scientific and Technical Information. DOE/TIC-11026, April. [SRDB Ref ID: 32563]

NIOSH [2008]. Worker outreach meeting 05-22-08 1:00 PM - proceedings. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. May 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 90125] 

NIOSH [2012]. Special Exposure Cohort worker petition evaluation report SEC-00103 addendum #3

Savannah River Site (SRS) March 4, 2008. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health. SEC-00103 Addendum 3, November 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 158744]

NIOSH [2015]. Draft criteria for the evaluation and use of coworker datasets. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Rev. 4.1.1, July. [SRDB Ref ID: 171952]

ORAUT [2004a]. Coworker data exposure profile development. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-PLAN-0014 Rev. 00, November 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 166559]

ORAUT [2004b]. Technical information bulletin: tritium calculated and missed dose estimates. Oak 

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-OTIB-0011 Rev. 00, June 29. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 19430]

ORAUT [2005a]. Savannah River Site. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0003 Rev. 03, April 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 20176]

ORAUT [2005b]. Analysis of coworker bioassay data for internal dose assignment. Oak Ridge, TN: 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-OTIB-0019 Rev. 01, October 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 

19438]

ORAUT [2012a]. A comparison of neptunium coworker models at the Savannah River Site. Oak 

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0056 Rev. 00, August 20. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 117545]

ORAUT [2012b]. A comparison of mixed fission and activation product coworker models at the 

Savannah River Site. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0058 

Rev. 00, September 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 118388]

ORAUT [2013a]. Documented communication with Tom LaBone and Mitch Findley on internal 

dosimetry and location information. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. April 

29. [SRDB Ref ID: 126806]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 109 of 287

ORAUT [2013b]. Assignment of fission and activation product radionuclides for non-specific bioassays

at Savannah River Site – comparison of methods. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0047 Rev. 00, July 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 126811]

ORAUT [2014a]. Analysis of stratified coworker datasets. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0053 Rev. 02, October 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 136245]

ORAUT [2014b]. Parameters to consider when processing claims for construction trade workers. Oak

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Rev. 02, July 24. [SRDB

Ref ID: 133862]

ORAUT [2015]. Fission and activation product assignment for internal dose-related gross beta and 

gross gamma analyses. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-OTIB0054 Rev. 04, August 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 146884]

ORAUT [2016a]. Use of claimant datasets for coworker modeling. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-OTIB-0075 Rev. 01, June 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 157060]

ORAUT [2016b]. Technical basis for sampling plan. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0078 Rev. 00, June 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 156949]

ORAUT [2017a]. Evaluation of method for assessment of thorium-232 exposures at the Savannah 

River Site from 1972 from 1989. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUTRPRT-0070 Rev. 00, May 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 166846] 

ORAUT [2017b]. Evaluation of monitoring of construction workers identified in high-level cave job 

plans at the Savannah River Site. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUTRPRT-0083 Rev. 00, June 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 167136]

ORAUT [2017c]. Internal dosimetry coworker data completeness test. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0086 Rev. 00, September 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 167778]

ORAUT [2018]. Internal dose reconstruction. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Team. ORAUT-OTIB-0060 Rev. 02, April 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 171554]

ORAUT [2019]. Multiple imputation applied to bioassay coworker models. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-RPRT-0096 Rev. 00, January 24. [SRDB Red ID: 175396]

ORAUT [2020]. Estimating doses for plutonium strongly retained in the lung. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities Team. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Rev. 02, September 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 

178329] 

SC&A [2014]. SC&A discussion items and clarifications for February 26 Savannah River Site work 

group meeting. Memorandum to Savannah River Site Work Group. Vienna, VA: S. Cohen & 

Associates. February 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 158936] 

Taylor GA, Crase KW, LaBone TR, and Wilkie WH [1995]. A history of personnel radiation dosimetry 

at the Savannah River Site. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. WSRC-RP-95-234, 

May. [SRDB Ref ID: 10931] 

Taylor GA [2000]. The evolution of internal dosimetry bioassay methods at the Savannah River Site. 

Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. WSRC-MS-2000-00290. [SRDB Ref ID: 46146] 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 110 of 287

 

Watts JR [1962–1967]. Savannah River Laboratory Atomic Energy Division Explosives Department, 

Jim Watts lab notebook August 30, 1962 - October 26, 1967. Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC: 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company. August. [SRDB Ref ID: 61711] 

WSRC [1990]. Internal dosimetry technical basis manual. Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC: 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company. WSRC-IM-90-139, December 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 11266]

WSRC [2000]. Historical generation and flow of recycled uranium at the Savannah River Site. 

Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. June 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 

16499]

WSRC [2001]. The Savannah River Site internal dosimetry technical basis manual. Savannah River 

Site, Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. WSRC-IM-90139 Rev. 8, December 31. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 722]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 111 of 287

 

ATTACHMENT A 

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Wald plot for 30 individuals .....................................................................................................113

A-2 Plot to determine the minimum number of claims to be sampled ...........................................116

A-3 OC curve for 410 individuals...................................................................................................116

A-4 Sequential plot of missing records plot for 410 individuals .....................................................117

A-5 Sequential plot of missing records plot for 382 individuals .....................................................119

A-6 Plot to determine the minimum number of claims to be sampled ...........................................121

A-7 OC curve for 107 individuals...................................................................................................121

A-8 Sequential plot of missing records for 107 individuals ............................................................122

A-9 True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance (October 5, 2017) ..........131

A-10 True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance (June 1, 2017) ...............132

A-11 True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance (March 6, 2017) .............133
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 112 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Savannah River Site Internal Co-Exposure In Vitro Completeness Check

May 5, 2017

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to document activities that have occurred relating to the Dataset 

completeness check of in vitro bioassay for the Savannah River Site Internal Coworker Study 

(ORAUT-OTIB-0081).

The Database Completeness process contains two efforts. Part 1 is a claim level check that will test 

whether an individual who had at least one result in the period of interest is in fact included in the 

electronic dataset. Part 2, a result level check, will then be performed to ensure that all sample results 

for a given individual are included in the dataset. This report outlines the findings of the Part 1 and 

Part 2 completeness tests.

The NOCTS database was queried to obtain a list of SRS claims with at least 1 day of verified 

employment before 01/01/1991. This was used as the Master List of claims that will be used to 

develop a list of claims for both Part 1 and Part 2 completeness checks. A total of 3,988 unique 

NOCTS claims were part of the Master List. The Master List was compared to the list of claims in the 

transcribed in vitro database compiled for SRS. The transcribed dataset included 2,874 unique 

NOCTS claims. Therefore, 1,114 claims from the Master List were not in the transcribed dataset.

These claims were the initial basis of the Part 1 (Claim Level) completeness test (i.e., no in vitro data 

exists). The Part 1 testing plan involves a 100% review of all NOCTS data for 1,114 claims to 

determine if in vitro data before 01/01/1991 exists.

Part 1 (Claim Level) Review

The initial Part 1 review of NOCTS data for the 1,114 claims was completed on 04/10/2017. The final 

review and comparison against the Master List verified that 1,114 claims from the Master list had no 

data to be entered into the combined dataset. These 1,114 unique claim IDs will be excluded from the 

Part 2 completeness review.

In addition, a list of Claim IDs was created with data entered in the combined file but do NOT appear 

in the Master List (again the Master List is based on verified SRS employment). There were a total of 

36 claims to review in this listing. The following is a summary:

• 32 Claim IDs have verified employment outside the timeframe of interest. After reviewing the 

combined in vitro dataset: 

– 15 of 32 have only one entry with no data recorded. As part of the original data entry effort, 

claims with no data were added to the dataset as verification the claim information was 

reviewed.

– 16 of 32 claims in the dataset have only post-1990 data entered in the combined file. This 

post-1990 data will not be used in the intake modeling for OTIB-0081 Rev. 04.

– [Redacted]. 

• 4 Claim IDs in the electronic dataset were transcribed incorrectly. The appropriate Claim IDs 

were corrected and all 4 claims had existing lines in the data set. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 113 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

After accounting for all issues above, a total of 2,875 NOCTS claims will be used for the Part 2 

completeness check.

Part 2 (Result Level) Review

Part 2 of the completeness review involves detailed page-by-page review of a group of Claim IDs to 

ensure all pertinent data were entered. Based on the outcome of a working demonstration of the 

process in March 2017, it was determined that a line tally counting technique would be used, with a 

focus on three critical fields. Sample date, nuclide, and result are the key fields for the completeness 

check. If any of these three fields were missing from the electronic dataset, the entire line of data is

considered unusable.

This completeness test was done during the earliest stages of development of ORAUT-RPRT-0086

[ORAUT 2017c], so published methods are not used here. Limiting the Part 2 claim pool to those with 

in vitro data, a list of 30 claim IDs were chosen randomly from the original set of 2,875. The claim files 

for these 30 claims were checked, and a row was called missing if any of the three pieces of 

necessary information (i.e., sample date, nuclide, or result) were missing. There were 1,762 

opportunities for missing lines of data and 14 were actually missing from the dataset. Figure A-1 

below summarizes this information. This developmental test is a sequential sampling method, which 

continues until the values plotted in Figure A-1 extend below the lower diagonal line (passes the test) 

or above the upper diagonal line (fails the test). The plotted values crossed the lower diagonal line at 

the vertical red line, but this happened while checking the first claim. The test continued until a 

minimum of 30 claims were checked. 

Figure A-1. Wald plot for 30 individuals. The color of the dots is alternated from red to black going 

from one person to the next.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 114 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Results

14 missing / 1,762 opportunities = 0.79%

We are 95% confident that the missing data rate is between 0.03% and 3.99%.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 115 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS In Vivo Completeness Report

August 7, 2017

The NOCTS database was queried to obtain a list of SRS claims with at least 1 day of verified 

employment before 01/01/1991. This was used as the Master List of claims that will be used to 

develop a list of claims for both Part 1 and Part 2 completeness checks. A total of 3,988 unique 

NOCTS claims were part of the Master List. The Master List was compared to the list of claims in the 

original transcribed in vivo database compiled for SRS. The transcribed dataset included 2,810 unique 

NOCTS claims, therefore 1,178 claims from the Master List were not in the transcribed dataset. These 

claims were the initial basis of the Part 1 (Claim Level) completeness test (i.e., no in vivo data exists).

The Part 1 testing plan involves a 100% review of all 1,178 claims to determine if in vivo data before 

01/01/1991 exists.

Part 1 (Claim Level) Review

The initial Part 1 review of 1,178 claims was complete on 05/17/2017. The final review of the 1,178 

claims confirmed that no data were reported in the period of interest. These 1,178 claims were 

excluded from the Part 2 completeness check. 

During the Part 1 completeness testing, a list of Claim IDs were created with data entered in the 

transcribed dataset but do NOT appear in the Master List (this list is based on verified SRS 

employment). There were a total of 13 claims to review in this listing. Each claim contained relevant in 

vivo data before 01/01/1991 and therefore this information was assessed as part of the Part 2 

completeness testing. In summary, a total of 2,823 SRS claim files will be subject to the Part 2 

completeness.

Part 2 (Result Level) Review 

This completeness test was done during the development of ORAUT-RPRT-0086 [ORAUT 2017c], so 

published methods are not used here. Limiting the Part 2 claim pool to those claim IDs with in vivo 

data, a list of 101 claims were chosen randomly from the original set of 2,823. The NOCTS claim files 

for these 101 claims were checked, and a row was called an error if any of the pieces of necessary 

information (sample date, nuclide, result, or MDA data) were found to be missing. The initial Part 2 

review was complete on July 5. A total of 840 lines of data were evaluated for completeness, with 

31 errors noted. Of the 31 errors found, 30 were attributed to 2 of the 101 claim IDs. The point 

estimate for this review was 3.56% and the 95% confidence interval was 0.37% to 12.89%.

Considering the upper limit was above the 5% success criteria, an additional test was warranted. The 

appropriate corrections were made to the 31 errors found and RPRT-0086 was finalized for Part 2 

completeness.

Based on analysis of this original dataset and the techniques outlined in RPRT-0086, it was 

determined that the sample size would be increased to 410 claims for the secondary Part 2 

completeness test. A new list of 410 claims was randomly chosen from the original set of 2,823 

claims. The claim files for these 410 claims were checked, and a row was called missing if any of the 

pieces of necessary information were missing. There were 4,048 opportunities for missing records, 

with 26 errors noted. The point estimate for this review was 0.64% and the 95% confidence interval 

was between 0.25% and 1.35%. A summary of the effort is included below. The plots below 

summarize this information.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 116 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Figure A-2. Plot to determine the minimum number of claims to be sampled. 

Figure A-3. OC curve for 410 individuals.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 117 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Figure A-4. Sequential plot of missing records plot for 410 individuals. The color of the dots is 

alternated from red to black going from one person to the next.

Results

26 missing / 4,048 opportunities = 0.64%

We are 95% confident that the missing record rate is between 0.25% and 1.35%.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 118 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Savannah River Site Internal Co-Exposure In Vitro Completeness Check – Neptunium (Np)

March 7, 2018

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to document activities related to a Completeness Test of the Np in vitro 

logbook dataset for the Savannah River Site Internal Co-Exposure Study (ORAUT-OTIB-0081) 

Revision 04. The original dataset was transcribed before the development and approval of ORAUTRPRT-0086, Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data Completeness Test. Considering that the intake 

modeling for Np will be performed under Revision 04 of the co-exposure study document, it was 

decided that a formal Completeness Test was necessary for the Np in vitro dataset.

The Database Completeness process contains two efforts. Part 1 is a claim level check that will test 

whether an individual who had at least one result in the period of interest is in fact included in the 

electronic dataset. Part 2, a result level check, will be performed to ensure that all sample results for a 

given individual are included in the dataset. This report outlines the findings of the Part 1 and Part 2 

Completeness Tests for Np in vitro data.

Part 1 (Claim Level) Completeness Check Results

The Np in vitro database used for OTIB-0081 was compiled separately from other SRS nuclides. The 

Np dataset was transcribed from original logbooks obtained during data capture activities at SRS. The 

data were not a result of NOCTS Claim mining used for most of the other in vitro datasets. Therefore, 

the completeness testing protocol involved creating a logbook based employee list for comparison to 

NOCTS claim information. This logbook mapping process was largely completed outside of the 

completeness effort. Employee mapping involved recording variations on Last Name, First Name, 

Middle Initial, and PRID from logbooks and NOCTS documents. A Master List of SRS NOCTS Claim 

IDs with at least 1 day of employment before 1991 was developed and reviewed for the presence of at 

least one Np result. As a result of this review 382 claims were noted as containing Np results in both 

the transcribed logbook database and NOCTS claim data. These 382 claims are subject to Part 2 

completeness testing.

Part 2 (Result Level) Completeness Check Results 

Limiting the Part 2 claim pool to 382 claimants from the Claim Level test, the ORAUT developed a 

testing plan for this unique dataset. The Np in vitro data are comprised of two different entry efforts 

with slightly different reporting formats. At SRS, urinalysis was the primary method of checking for Np 

intakes during the 1960s. These results were generally recorded in separate, stand-alone Np 

logbooks. Around 1970, Np started to be “measured” by WBCs. Np urinalysis was no longer being 

routinely performed at the site. The main rationale for Np urinalysis involved a positive Pu urine result.

The assumption was that if an Np intake occurred at a level detectable in urine, an associated positive 

Pu result would be recorded as well. From a reporting standpoint in this era, Np urinalysis results 

were not recorded in standalone logbooks. Np urinalysis results were included in logbooks for Pu, Am, 

EU, etc. During the initial evaluation of Np in OTIB-0081 Revision 02, only 1961–1969 Np urinalysis 

data were considered for intake modeling. The ORAUT plans to use a similar approach in Revision

04. Post-1969 Np modeling will use WBC results in the intake modeling approach.

Although the post 1969 Np urinalysis data will be used in this co-exposure study, the ORAUT decided 

to do a census, checking all 382 claims, of the Np in vitro datasets. This will allow the exact missing 

data rate of the complete set to be calculated and eliminate the need for confidence intervals. This will 

also allow for splitting the data by era and calculating an exact missing data rate. As with previous 

completeness testing efforts, only fields critical to the co-exposure TWOPOS analysis were 

considered critical items. This was limited to ‘Date’ and ‘Result’ fields for the Np dataset. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 119 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

After evaluating each dataset, the final Part 2 completeness results for Np in vitro dataset are:

• 1,082 lines checked overall

– 25 missing (2.31%)

• 991 lines checked before 1970

– 14 missing (1.41%)

• 91 lines checked post 1969

– 11 missing (12.08%)

The Part 2 completeness test is considered a success (less than 5% overall error). The attached plot

shows the error checking for the 382 claims in question. 

Figure A-5. Sequential plot of missing records plot for 382 individuals. The color of the dots alternates 

from red to black going from one person to the next. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 120 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Savannah River Site Internal Co-Exposure In Vitro Completeness Check – 

Americium (Am)

May 6, 2020

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to document activities related to a completeness test of the americium in 

vitro logbook dataset for this revision of this document. The original dataset was transcribed before 

the development and approval of ORAUT-RPRT-0086, Internal Dosimetry Co-Exposure Data 

Completeness Test. Considering that the intake modeling for americium will be performed under 

Revision 05 of this document, it was decided that a formal completeness test was necessary for the 

americium in vitro dataset.

The database completeness process contains two efforts. Part 1 is a claim-level check that tests 

whether an individual who had at least one result in the period of interest is in fact included in the 

dataset. Part 2, a result-level check, is performed to ensure that all sample results for a given 

individual are included in the dataset. This report outlines the findings of these completeness tests for 

americium in vitro data.

Part 1 (Claim-Level) Completeness Check Results

The americium in vitro database used for this document was compiled separately from other SRS 

nuclides. The americium dataset was transcribed from original logbooks obtained during data capture 

activities at SRS. The data were not a result of extracting data from NOCTS as is used for most of the 

other in vitro datasets. Therefore, the completeness testing protocol involved creating a logbookbased employee list for comparison to NOCTS claim information. This logbook mapping process was 

largely completed outside of the completeness effort. Employee mapping involved recording 

variations on Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial, and PRID from logbooks and NOCTS documents.

A Master List of SRS NOCTS claim IDs with at least 1 day of employment before 1991 was developed 

and reviewed for the presence of at least 1 americium result. While investigating discrepancies 

between the Master List and the americium dataset, it was discovered that SRDB Ref ID 53284 was 

not entered during the original data entry effort, so it was entered before proceeding with this test. As 

a result of this review, 484 claims were noted as containing americium results in both the transcribed 

logbook dataset and NOCTS claim data. These 484 claims are subject to Part 2 completeness 

testing.

Part 2 (Result-Level) Completeness Check Results

Limiting the Part 2 claim pool to 484 claimants from the claim-level test, the ORAU Team developed a 

testing plan for this dataset. A list of 107 claims were randomly chosen from the original set of 484 

claims. The claim files for these 107 claims were checked. The plots below summarize this 

information.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 121 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Figure A-6. Plot to determine the minimum number of claims to be sampled.

Figure A-7. OC curve for 107 individuals. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 122 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Figure A-8. Sequential plot of missing records for 107 individuals. The color of the dots is 

alternated from black to red going from one person to the next. 

Results

26 missing / 1,132 opportunities = 2.30%

We are 95% confident that the missing record rate is between 1.34% and 3.65%.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 123 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS NOCTS In Vitro Data QA Summary

May 9, 2017

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

Isotope

< 

Result

Fields

Critical Fields

Last Name (nonblank

First Name (nonblank)

Middle Name (nonblank)

PR (nonblank)

Date

Units (nonblank)

Area (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 303,948

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 4,386

Sampling Plan

N = 688,390

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 874

Results

11 errors / 4,386 checked = 0.25%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical fields 

transcription error rate is between 0.13% and 0.45%.

Evaluation

The critical fields 95% confidence interval is entirely 

below 1%. There is no issue with the critical field 

transcription error rate in this SRS in vitro dataset.

Results

4 errors / 874 checked = 0.46%

We are at least 95% confident that the all fields 

transcription error rate is between 0.13% and 1.17%.

Evaluation

The all fields 95% confidence interval is entirely 

below 5%. There is no issue with the all field 

transcription error rate in this SRS in vitro dataset.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 124 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Am QA Summary

May 11, 2020

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

Payroll ID#

Pu dpm/1.5L (12 columns) (nonblank)

Pu Report (nonblank)

EU dpm/1.5L (10 columns) (nonblank)

EU Report (nonblank)

Am dpm/1.5L (10 columns) (nonblank)

Am Report (nonblank)

Np dpm/1.5L (10 columns) (nonblank)

Np Report (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 80,580

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 4,242

Results

45 errors / 4,242 checked = 1.06% 

Ignoring payroll prefix issues:

18 errors / 4,242 checked = 0.42%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical fields 

transcription error rate is between 0.26% and 0.66%.

Evaluation

The critical fields 95% confidence interval is entirely 

below 1%. There is no issue with the critical field 

transcription error rate in this SRS americium 

dataset.

Fields

Critical Fields

Employee Last Name

Employee First Initial

Employee Middle Initial

Volume

Area

Type

Bottle Date

Remarks (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 218,398

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 873

Results

9 errors / 873 checked = 1.03% 

Ignoring payroll prefix issues:

8 errors / 4,242 checked = 0.92%

We are at least 95% confident that the all fields 

transcription error rate is between 0.40% and 1.80%.

Evaluation

The all fields 95% confidence interval is entirely 

below 5%. There is no issue with the all field 

transcription error rate in this SRS americium 

dataset.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 125 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Np Logbooks QA Summary

February 26, 2018

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields Fields

Data 1

Payroll ID #

Pu results (nonblank)

Pu units (nonblank)

Np results (nonblank)

Np units (nonblank)

Data 2

Payroll ID #

dpm/1.5L (10 columns) 

(nonblank)

Report (nonblank)

Data 1

Critical fields

Area

Employee Last Name

Employee First Initial

Employee Middle Initial

Bottle Date (nonblank)

Rec’d Date (nonblank)

Comment (nonblank)

Data 2

Critical fields

Employee Last Name

Employee First Initial

Employee Middle Initial

Volume

Area

Bottle Date

Type

Remarks (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 11,079

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 3,148

Sampling Plan

N = 30,802

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 847

Results

27 errors / 3,148 checked = 0.86%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical fields 

transcription error rate is between 0.61% and 1.18%.

Excluding payroll prefix issues:

21 errors / 3,148 checked = 0.67%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical fields 

transcription error rate (excluding payroll prefix 

issues) is between 0.45% and 0.96%.

Results

8 errors / 932* checked = 0.86%

We are at least 95% confident that the all fields 

transcription error rate is between 0.38% and 1.67%.

* The sampling plan requires 847 fields to be 

checked. The other 85 fields were checked because 

of a coding error in the sampling plan. The additional 

85 fields help to narrow the confidence interval.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 126 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Critical Fields Evaluation

6 of the errors were PRID prefix issues that have no 

impact on the data use for an error rate point 

estimate of 47%. Examples of prefix issues that have 

no impact on the data use are using “0-,” “1-,” “T-,” or 

no prefix interchangeably; presence of a prefix when 

there was not a prefix on the source data and vice 

versa (although present in other locations and 

accurate); and substitution of craft codes for a Roll 

code of 4-, 5-, or 6- or vice versa. Because these 

errors have no effect on the usability of the data, they 

were excluded from the calculation of the error rate.

The critical fields 95% confidence interval (excluding 

payroll prefix issues) is entirely below 1%.

All Fields Evaluation

The all fields 95% confidence interval is entirely 

below 5%. There are no issues with the transcription 

error rates in these SRS Np logbook datasets.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 127 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS NOCTS WBC QA Summary

June 3, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

PR

Form Type (nonblank)

Nuclide

gross counts (nonblank)

bkg counts (nonblank)

net counts (nonblank)

NET c/m (nonblank)

DIFF counts (nonblank)

Result (nCi) (nonblank)

MDA @95%CL (counts) (nonblank)

MDA @95%CL (nCi) (nonblank)

Lung Burden (nCi) (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 153,989

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 4,375

Results

535 errors / 4,375 checked = 12.23%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical fields 

transcription error rate is between 11.29% and 

13.22%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 1.37%

95% confidence interval: (1.05%, 1.76%)

Counting errors in columns other than PRID and 

PRID errors that impact CTW determination:

pt. est. = 0.62% 

95% confidence interval: (0.41%, 0.89%)

Fields

Critical Fields

Last name

Fist Name

Middle Name

Occupation Title

Position Title

Date

Dept

Location

Type (WBC or CC)

Reason

Detector

Comments (nonblank)

Sampling Plan

N = 548,387

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 874

Results

45 errors / 874 checked = 5.15%

We are at least 95% confident that the all fields 

transcription error rate is between 3.78% and 6.83%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 2.17% 

95% confidence interval: (1.31%, 3.37%)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 128 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Critical Fields Evaluation

PRID issues comprise the majority of the 

transcription errors, 523 of the 535 errors identified, 

although PRID fields were less than 25% of the total 

number of critical fields sampled. There were 12 nonPRID errors out of 3,373 non-PRID critical fields 

sampled for a non-PRID error rate point estimate of 

0.4%. 

There were 523 PRID errors out of 1,002 PRID 

critical fields sampled for an error rate point estimate 

of 52%. 475 of the 523 were PRID prefix issues that 

have no impact on the data use for an error rate point 

estimate of 47%. Examples of prefix issues that have 

no impact on the data use are using “0-,” “1-,” “T-,” or 

no prefix interchangeably; presence of a prefix when 

there was not a prefix on the source data and vice 

versa (although present in other locations and 

accurate); and substitution of craft codes for a Roll 

code of 4-, 5-, or 6- or vice versa.

Of the 48 remaining (523-475) PRID errors, only 15 

of the errors affected use of the data for CTW 

determination or for proper identification of the 

person. Most of the errors were either simple 

transposition errors already caught in subsequent 

data cleanup or instances where a worker was 

promoted from operator, laboratory technician, or 

similar job to a salaried position with no change in 

CTW status. However, there is still sufficient 

information to properly identify the person by claim 

number, name, or corrected PRID. These types of 

errors, while errors, do not affect the subsequent use 

of the data. CTW status is unchanged, and the use of 

the data for calculation of bioassay statistics is not 

affected.

Therefore, the set of all errors can be refined to the 

subset of errors that affect data use. There are 27 

such errors, the 12 non-PRID errors and the 15 PRID 

errors that affect CTW determination or proper 

identification of the person. The error rate for this 

subset of errors is 0.62% with a 95 % confidence 

interval of 0.41% to 0.89%, below the desired 

1% error rate acceptance criteria.

All Fields Evaluation

As with the critical fields, PRID prefix issues that 

have no impact on the data use comprised the 

majority of the all fields errors, 26 of 45 errors.

Although the overall error rate is above the desired 

acceptance rate of 5%, excluding these PRID prefix 

errors reduces the error rate to 2.17% with a 95% 

confidence interval of 1.31% to 3.37%, below the 

desired 5% error rate acceptance criteria. Since this 

error rate is below the desired acceptance criteria, no 

further evaluation of the significance of the non-PRID 

prefix errors was performed.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 129 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Mixed FP Gamma QA Summary

June 6, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

PR

Sampling Plan

N = 12,012

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 3,282

Results

1,980 errors / 3,282 checked = 60.33%

We are at least 95% confident that the critical fields 

transcription error rate is between 58.88% and 

61.75%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 1.34% 

95% confidence interval: (1.03%, 1.72%)

Counting errors in columns other than PRID and 

PRID errors that affect CTW determination and 

person identification:

pt. est. = 0.43%

95% confidence interval: (0.27%, 0.67%)

Fields

PR

Date

Last name

Fist Name

Middle Name

Occupation Title

Sampling Plan

N = 72,072

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAU Team risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 849

Results

89 errors / 849 checked = 10.48%

We are at least 95% confident that the all fields 

transcription error rate is between 8.52% and 

12.73%.

Not counting payroll prefix issues as errors:

pt. est. = 0.12%

95% confidence interval: (0.0042%, 0.65%)
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 130 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Critical Fields Evaluation

PRID prefix issues comprise the majority of the 

transcription errors, 1,936 of the 1,980 errors 

identified. 

The 1,936 PRID prefix errors have no impact on the 

data use and have an error rate point estimate of 

59%. Examples of prefix issues that have no impact 

on the data use are using “0-,” “1-,” “T-,” or no prefix 

interchangeably; presence of a prefix when there 

was not a prefix on the source data and vice versa 

(although present in other locations and accurate); 

and substitution of craft codes for a Roll code of 4-, 

5-, or 6- or vice versa.

Of the 44 remaining (1980 to 1936) PRID errors, only 

14 of the errors affected use of the data for CTW 

determination or for proper identification of the 

person. Most of the errors were either simple 

transposition errors already caught in subsequent 

data cleanup or were instances where a worker was 

promoted from operator, laboratory technician, or 

similar job to a salaried position with no change in 

CTW status. However, there is still sufficient 

information to properly identify the person by claim 

number, name, or corrected PRID. These types of 

errors, while errors, do not affect the subsequent use

of the data. CTW status is unchanged, and the use of 

the data for calculation of bioassay statistics is not 

affected.

Therefore, the set of all errors can be refined to the 

subset of errors that affect data use. There are 14 

such errors. The error rate for this subset of errors is 

0.43% with a 95% confidence interval of 0.27% to 

0.67%, below the desired 1% error rate acceptance 

criteria.

All Fields Evaluation

As with the critical fields, PRID prefix issues that 

have no impact on the data use comprised the 

majority of the all fields errors, 88 of 89 errors.

Although the overall error rate is above the desired 

acceptance rate of 5%, excluding these PRID prefix 

errors leaves only a single error and reduces the 

error rate to 0.12% with a 95% confidence interval of 

0.0042% to 0.65%, below the desired 5% error rate 

acceptance criteria.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 131 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS In Vivo CTW QA Summary

October 5, 2017

QA of SRS in vivo data CTW determination. The CTW determinations based on the Master 

Occupation Table and the CTW Designation Instructions were checked against the worker history 

cards (or claimant interviews or personnel dosimetry quarterly reports).

All Fields Plan

Fields

Rev4CTW

Sampling Plan

N = 28,026

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 847

Figure A-9. True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance

(October 5, 2017). 

Results

25 errors / 847 checked = 2.95%

We are at least 95% confident that the classification error rate between CTW determination and the 

worker history cards is between 1.93% and 4.30%.

Evaluation

The CTW determination and worker history cards classification error rate interval is entirely below 5%.

There is no issue with the classification error rate.

Note: Most of the errors were due to individuals changing occupations from CTW to nonCTW, or vice 

versa, during their career. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 132 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS In Vitro CTW QA Summary

June 1, 2017

QA of SRS in vitro data CTW determination. The CTW determinations based on the Master 

Occupation Table and the CTW Designation Instructions were checked against the worker history 

cards (or CATI or personnel dosimetry quarterly reports).

All Fields Plan

Fields

Rev4CTW

Sampling Plan

N = 100,952

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 873

Figure A-10. True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance

(June 1, 2017).

Results

16 errors / 873 checked = 1.83%

We are at least 95% confident that the classification error rate between CTW determination and the 

worker history cards is between 1.05% and 2.95%.

Evaluation

The CTW determination and worker history cards classification error rate interval is entirely below 5%.

There is no issue with the classification error rate.

Note: Most of the errors were due to individuals changing occupations from CTW to non-CTW, or vice 

versa, during their career. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 133 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Np Logbook CTW QA Summary

March 6, 2018

QA of SRS Np logbook data CTW determination. The CTW determinations based on the Master 

Occupation Table and the CTW Designation Instructions were checked against the worker history 

cards (or CATI or personnel dosimetry quarterly reports).

All Fields Plan

Fields

Rev4CTW

Sampling Plan

N = 3,620

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 709

Figure A-11. True probability of defectives versus the probability of acceptance

(March 6, 2017).

Results

8 errors / 709 checked = 1.13%

We are at least 95% confident that the classification error rate between CTW determination and the 

worker history cards is between 0.55% and 2.10%.

Evaluation

The CTW determination and worker history cards classification error rate interval is entirely below 5%.

There is no issue with the classification error rate.

Note: Most of the errors were due to individuals changing occupations from CTW to nonCTW, or vice 

versa, during their career. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 134 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Tritium QA Summary

May 16, 2016

Critical Fields Plan All Fields Plan

Fields

Result

Fields

Result

Date

Area

Sampling Plan

N = 260,278

AQL = 0.5%

LTPD = 1%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 4,383

Sampling Plan

N = 780,834

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 874

Results

14 errors / 4,383 checked = 0.32%

We are 96.32% confident that the critical field 

transcription error rate is between 0.18% and 0.53%.

Results

2 errors / 874 checked = 0.23%

We are 97.31% confident that the all field 

transcription error rate is between 0.03% and 0.82%.

Evaluation

The critical field interval is entirely below 1%. The all field interval is entirely below 5%.

There are no issues with the transcription error rates in this SRS tritium dataset.

Note: 4 of the 14 critical field errors are results from the same claim entered as <0.05 that should be <0.5.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 135 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Tritium CTW QA Summary

July 14, 2016

QA of tritium data CTW determination. The CTW determinations based on the Master Occupation 

Table and the CTW Designation Instructions were checked against the worker history cards (or 

claimant interviews or personnel dosimetry quarterly reports).

All Fields Plan

Fields

Rev3CTW

Sampling Plan

N = 260,278

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 874

Results

6 errors / 874 checked = 0.69%

Evaluation

There is a 95% confidence that the classification error rate 

between CTW determination and the worker history cards is 

between 0.25% and 1.49%.

The CTW determination and worker history cards 

classification error rate interval is entirely below 5%. There is 

no issue with the classification error rate.

Note: Five of the errors were the CTW determination algorithm 

calling the person a CTW when the worker history cards said 

they were not; one was the algorithm calling the person a 

nonCTW when they were.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 136 of 287

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY (continued)

SRS Am Logbook CTW QA Report

May 12, 2020

QA of SRS Am logbook data CTW determination. The CTW determinations based on the Master 

Occupation Table and the CTW Designation Instructions were checked against the worker history 

cards (or claimant interviews or personnel dosimetry quarterly reports).

All Fields Plan

Fields

Rev4CTW 

Sampling Plan

N = 19,124

AQL = 2.5%

LTPD = 5%

α = 0.025 (producer’s risk or ORAUT risk)

β = 0.025 (consumer’s risk or DCAS risk)

n = 845 

Results

8 errors / 845 checked = 0.95% 

There is at least 95% confidence that the classification error 

rate between CTW determination and the worker history cards 

is between 0.42% and 1.84%.

Evaluation

The CTW determination and worker history cards 

classification error rate interval is entirely below 5%. There is 

no issue with the classification error rate.

Note: Most of the errors were due to individuals changing 

occupations from CTW to nonCTW, or vice versa, during their 

career.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 137 of 287

 

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

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

19, 1981..................................................................................................................................139

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

19, 1981, continued ................................................................................................................140

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

through early February 1982...................................................................................................140

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

through early February 1982, continued.................................................................................141

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

through early February 1982, continued.................................................................................141

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

through early February 1982, continued.................................................................................142

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

Construction............................................................................................................................143

B-4a Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984 ....................................144

B-4b Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ..................144

B-4c Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued ..................145
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 138 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Work tasks performed on the installation of the Alpha Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) 

facility on November 18 and 19, 1981, by Construction and Maintenance are shown in Figure B-1.

Work tasks performed with the modification of Cells 10 and 11 from late January 1982 through early 

February 1982 by Construction and Maintenance are shown in Figure B-2. Both groups poured 

cement in performance of respective tasks.

A Job Plan describing work performed by Maintenance to prepare for work to be done by Construction 

is shown in Figure B-3.

Work tasks performed with the modification of the Californium Processing Facility (CPF) in April 1984 

Construction, Maintenance, and E&I are shown in Figure B-4.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 139 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

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

19, 1981 [DuPont 1981]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 140 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

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

19, 1981, continued [DuPont 1981]. 

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

through early February 1982 [DuPont 1982]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 141 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

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

through early February 1982, continued [DuPont 1982]. 

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

through early February 1982, continued [DuPont 1982]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 142 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

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

through early February 1982, continued [DuPont 1982]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 143 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure B-3. Job plan describing work performed by Maintenance to prepare for work to be done by 

Construction [DuPont 1983a]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 144 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure B-4a. Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984 [DuPont 1984]. 

Figure B-4b. Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued [DuPont 

1984]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 145 of 287

ATTACHMENT B 

HIGH-LEVEL CAVE JOB PLAN EXAMPLES (continued)

Figure B-4c. Work tasks performed with the modification of the CPF in April 1984, continued [DuPont 

1984]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 146 of 287

 

ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

C-1 SRDB Ref IDs for REAC/TS chelation data............................................................................147

C-2 1968 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................148

C-3 1970 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................149

C-4 Early 1971 bioassay frequencies ............................................................................................150

C-5 Late 1971 bioassay frequencies .............................................................................................152

C-6 1976 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................154

C-7 1985 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................156

C-8 1989 bioassay frequencies .....................................................................................................158
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 147 of 287

ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Table C-1. SRDB Ref IDs for REAC/TS chelation data. 

Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID Ref ID

71929 72155 72147 72211 72256 72333 72418 72842 73044

71930 72157 72148 72212 72259 72334 72421 72844 73047

71933 71977 72158 72213 72260 72335 72428 72848 73049

71934 71978 72159 72214 72262 72336 72430 72851 73050

71936 71979 72161 72216 72263 72340 72431 72852 73051

71939 71980 72163 72217 72264 72341 72434 72857 73060

71940 71981 72166 72218 72265 72342 72451 72858 73064

71941 71982 72167 72219 72266 72344 72452 72860 73069

71943 71983 72169 72220 72267 72345 72455 72861 73071

71945 71984 72171 72221 72269 72346 72456 72862 73072

71946 71985 72173 72222 72270 72347 72460 72863 73075

71952 71986 72174 72223 72274 72348 72461 72865 73077

71953 71987 72175 72224 72275 72350 72462 72866 73080

71954 71988 72178 72226 72276 72351 72464 72867 73082

71955 71989 72179 72228 72301 72352 72466 72868 73083

71956 71990 72181 72229 72303 72361 72467 72873 73088

71957 71991 72183 72230 72306 72363 72470 72875 73091

71959 71995 72186 72231 72308 72364 72477 72879 73092

71960 71998 72188 72233 72310 72365 72478 72881 73095

71961 72001 72190 72234 72311 72366 72479 72883 73099

71963 72004 72192 72241 72313 72369 72647 72885 73108

71964 72007 72193 72242 72314 72372 72650 72889 73112

71965 72010 72194 72243 72316 72377 72651 72890 73121

71967 72013 72195 72244 72318 72382 72652 72891 73125

71969 72019 72196 72245 72321 72386 72654 72935 73128

71970 72116 72197 72246 72323 72388 72821 72936 75412

71971 72128 72199 72247 72324 72391 72824 73026 –a

71972 72131 72200 72248 72325 72394 72828 73031 –a

71973 72134 72202 72249 72328 72406 72831 73035 –a

71974 72137 72205 72252 72330 72408 72833 73036 –a

71975 72138 72206 72253 72331 72413 72838 73039 –a

71976 72144 72209 72255 72332 72417 72839 73041 –a

a. None. 
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 148 of 287

Table C-2. 1968 bioassay frequencies (samples per year by analysis type) [DuPont 1968b].a

Category Description Pu FP EU U NP

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 232-H, 234-H, 284-F & -H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and 

235-F nonprocess sections; patrolmen.

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

B 221-H Fourth level. Separations senior supervisors and above; all separations technology personnel, control room 

operators, and secretaries.

1 1 1 N/A N/A

C 221-H Regulated areas and H-Area outside facilities. All personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities; all utility 

operators, janitors, power operators, and selected E&I and maintenance mechanics assigned to 221-H regulated areas.

1 2 2b N/A N/A

D 221-H maximum potential (canyons). All auxiliary operators, crane process operators, HP personnel, and selected E&I 

and maintenance mechanics.

2 2 2b N/A N/A

E B-Line, H Area. All assigned personnel. 4 1 N/A N/A 2

F 235-F. All personnel assigned to process section of building. 4 1 N/A N/A N/A

G 221-F fourth level. Separations senior supervisors and above; all separations technology personnel, control room 

operators, and secretaries.

1 1 N/A N/A N/A

H 221-F regulated areas, 723-F, 643-G and 717-A. All personnel assigned to 723-F and 634-G; all janitors, power operators, 

and selected E&I and maintenance mechanics assigned to 221-F regulated areas; all 717-A field crews assigned.

1 2 N/A N/A N/A

I 221-F maximum potential (canyons). All auxiliary operators, utility operators, crane process operators, HP personnel, and 

selected E&I and maintenance mechanics.

2 2 N/A N/A N/A

J JB-Line and B-Line, F Area. All assigned personnel. 4 1 N/A N/A N/A

K Outside facilities, F Area. All assigned personnel. 1 2 N/A 4 N/A

L 772-F, UO3 section. All assigned personnel. 1 1 1 4 N/A

M 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. 4 2 2b 1 N/A

N 313 and 320-M. N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A

O 322-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 1 1 N/A

P 322-M. Personnel processing samples from field. N/A 1 1 1 N/A

Q 321-M. Machine casting. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A

R 321-M. Service groups. N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A

S 321-M. All assigned personnel N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; 

control room and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, maintenance, and T&T personnel; all E&I, laboratory, and HP 

personnel assigned to 105 buildings; T&T personnel in central shops; reactor tech personnel as designated by supervision.

(c) (c) (c) (c) (c)

U 773-A. Radiation control and maintenance. 1 1 N/A 1 N/A

V 773-A. Area maintenance mechanics. 1 1 1 1 N/A

W 773-A. Special group. (d) (d) (d) (d) (d)

X 700 Area. Shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by 3/700-Area survey. (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)

a. N/A = not applicable; C&D = Construction and Demolition; T&T = Transportation and Traffic. 

b. Personnel are sampled for applicable isotope at frequency shown during operation of plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX) and (HM).

c. IA and FP.

d. IA. 

e. As considered advisable by 3/700-Area survey.
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 149 of 287

Table C-3. 1970 bioassay frequencies (samples per year by analysis type) [DuPont 1970].a,b

Category Description Pu FP EU U NP

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 232-H, 234-H, 284-F & -H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and 

235-F nonprocess sections; patrolmen.

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

1 ea. 

3 yr

B 221-H Fourth level. Separations senior supervisors and above; all separations technology personnel, control room 

operators, and secretaries.

1 1 1 N/A N/A

C 221-H Regulated areas and H-Area outside facilities. All personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities; all utility 

operators, janitors, power operators, and selected E&I and Maintenance Mechanics assigned to 221-H regulated areas.

1 2 2 N/A N/A

D 221-H maximum potential (canyons). All auxiliary operators, crane process operators, HP personnel, and selected E&I 

and Maintenance Mechanics.

2 2 2 N/A N/A

E B-Line, H Area. All assigned personnel. 4 1 N/A N/A 2

F 235-F. All personnel assigned to process section of building. 4 1 N/A N/A N/A

G 221-F fourth level. Separations senior supervisors and above; all separations technology personnel, control room 

operators, and secretaries.

1 1 N/A N/A N/A

H 221-F regulated areas, 723-F, 643-G and 717-A. All personnel assigned to 723-F and 634-G; all janitors, power operators, 

and selected E&I and Maintenance Mechanics assigned to 221-F regulated areas; all 717-A field crews assigned.

1 2 N/A N/A N/A

I 221-F maximum potential (canyons). All auxiliary operators, utility operators, crane process operators, HP personnel, and 

selected E&I and Maintenance Mechanics.

2 2 N/A N/A N/A

J JB-Line and B-Line, F Area. All assigned personnel. 4 1 N/A N/A N/A

K Outside facilities, F Area. All assigned personnel. 1 2 N/A 4 N/A

L 772-F, UO3 section. All assigned personnel. 1 1 1 4 N/A

M 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. 4 2 2 1 N/A

N 313 and 320-M. N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A

O 322-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 1 1 N/A

P 322-M. Personnel processing samples from field. N/A 1 1 1 N/A

Q 321-M. Machine casting. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A

R 321-M. Service groups. N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A

S 321-M. All assigned personnel N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; 

control room and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, Maintenance, and T&T personnel; all E&I, laboratory, and HP 

personnel assigned to 105 buildings; T&T personnel in central shops; reactor tech personnel as designated by supervision.

(c) (c) (c) (c) (c)

U 773-A. Radiation control and maintenance. 1 1 N/A 1 N/A

V 773-A. Area Maintenance Mechanics. 1 1 1 1 N/A

W 773-A. Special group. (d) (d) (d) (d) (d)

X 700 Area. Shop personnel provide samples as considered advisable by 3/700-Area survey. (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)

a. N/A = not applicable; C&D = Construction and Demolition; T&T = Transportation and Traffic. 

b. NP was performed when requested by area HP. Neptunium has never been detected without at least an equal amount of plutonium.

c. Except A-Line where operators were sampled weekly.

d. Except casting area where operators were sampled monthly.

e. Samples also analyzed for IA.
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 150 of 287

Table C-4. Early 1971 bioassay frequencies (samples or counts per year by analysis type) [DuPont 1971a].a,b

Category Description

H3 

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf 

counts

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 284-F 

& -H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and nonprocess sections of 

other facilities; patrolmen.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B 221-F & -H Fourth level. Separations supervision; all 

separations technology personnel, control room operators, 

janitors, and clerical personnel.

N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C 221-H and H-Area outside facilities. All operators (except 

control room and sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected 

power, E&I and Maintenance personnel assigned to 221-H 

process areas; all personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities.

2 1 2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

D 221-H sample aisle and 772-F. All sample aisle operators; 

selected 772-F laboratory personnel.

N/A 2 2 2 N/A 1 N/A 1

E 221-H B-Line, 221-F B-Line, JB-Line & 235-F. All personnel 

assigned to process sections in building 235-F; and all assigned 

personnel in other facilities.

N/A 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

F 221-F, 723-F, and 643-G. All operators (except control room and 

sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

Maintenance personnel assigned to 221-F process areas; all 

personnel assigned to 723-F and 643-G.

N/A 1 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

G 221-F sample aisle. All 221-F sample aisle operators. N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A 1c

H F-Area outside facilities. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 2 N/A 4d N/A N/A N/A

J 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. N/A 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A

K 313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A

L 322-M. All assigned personnel.

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material 

personnel.

773-A. Reactor engineering group and 777-M assigned 

personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

M 322-M. Personnel processing samples from field.

772-F, UO3 Section. All assigned personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

N 321-M. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 N/A 4e N/A N/A 2f N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from 

C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; control 

room and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, Maintenance, and 

T&T personnel; all E&I personnel assigned to 105 buildings; T&T 

personnel in central shops; and selected reactor tech and 400-

Area personnel.

(g) N/A 1h N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

V 773-A. Analytical chemistry, high level caves, building services, 

radiation control, and Maintenance personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 N/A N/A 2 N/A 1
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 151 of 287

Category Description

H3 

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf 

counts

W 773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

X 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, & 238-H. All assigned personnel.

241-H & 244-H. Selected personnel.

(g) 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A 700 Area shop personnel provide samples as considered 

advisable by HP.

(i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i)

a. N/A = not applicable; C&D = Construction and Demolition; T&T = Transportation and Traffic. 

b. NP was performed when requested by area HP. Neptunium has never been detected without at least an equal amount of plutonium.

c. Selected personnel.

d. Except A-Line where operators were sampled weekly.

e. Except casting area where operators were sampled monthly.

f. Only personnel assigned to casting areas.

g. Samples also analyzed for IA.

h. Sample frequency established by local procedures.

i. 700 Area shop personnel provided samples as considered advisable by HP.
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 152 of 287

Table C-5. Late 1971 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type) [DuPont 1971b].a,b

Category Description

H3 

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf

counts

A Minimum potential (except HTO). Personnel assigned to 284-F 

& -H, 704-F & -H, 706-F & -H, 717-F, and nonprocess sections of 

other facilities; patrolmen.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B 221-F & -H Fourth level. Separations supervision; all 

separations technology personnel, control room operators, 

janitors, and clerical personnel.

N/A 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C 221-H and H-Area outside facilities. All operators (except 

control room and sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected 

power, E&I and Maintenance personnel assigned to 221-H 

process areas; all personnel assigned to H-Area outside facilities.

2 1 2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

D 221-H sample aisle. All 221-H sample aisle operators; selected 

772-F laboratory personnel.

N/A 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A 1

E 221-F Sample aisle. All 221-F sample aisle operators; selected 

772-F personnel.

N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A

F 221-F, 723-F, and 643-G. All operators (except control room and 

sample aisle), HP personnel, and selected power, E&I and 

Maintenance personnel assigned to 221-F process areas; all 

personnel assigned to 723-F and 643-G.

N/A 1 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

G 221-H B-Line, 221-F B-Line, JB-Line, 235-Fe. All personnel 

assigned to process sections in building 235-F, and all assigned 

personnel in other facilities.

N/A 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

H F-Area outside facilities. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 2 N/A 4c N/A N/A N/A

J 772-F (excluding UO3 section). All assigned personnel. N/A 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A 1d

K 313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A

L 322-M. All assigned personnel, including personnel processing 

samples from field.

320-M. All laboratory and selected RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 

personnel.

773-A. Reactor engineering group and 777-M assigned 

personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

M 322-M. Personnel processing samples from field.

772-F, UO3 Section. All assigned personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 1 4 N/A N/A N/A

N 321-M. All assigned personnel. N/A 1 N/A 4e N/A N/A 2f N/A

T 100 Areas, 105 Buildings. Reactor department personnel from 

C&D crews, purification, and pump room observation; control 

room and monitor operators; all 100-Area HP, Maintenance, and 

T&T personnel; all E&I personnel assigned to 105 buildings; T&T 

personnel in central shops; and selected reactor tech and 400-

Area personnel.

(g) N/A 1h N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 153 of 287

Category Description

H3 

samples

Pu 

samples

FP 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

EU 

counts

Pu/Am/

Cm/Cf

counts

V 773-A. Analytical chemistry, high level caves, building services, 

radiation control, and Maintenance personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1 N/A N/A 2 N/A 1d

W 773-A. Selected clerical, supervisory personnel, and selected 

100-Area personnel.

N/A 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

X 232-H, 234-H, 237-H, & 238-H. All assigned personnel.

241-H & 244-H. Selected personnel.

(g) 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A 700 Area. Shop personnel provide samples as considered 

advisable by HP.

(i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i)

a. N/A = not applicable; C&D = Construction and Demolition; T&T = Transportation and Traffic. 

b. NP was performed when requested by area HP. Neptunium has never been detected without at least an equal amount of plutonium.

c. Except A-Line where operators were sampled weekly.

d. Selected personnel.

e. Except casting area where operators were sampled monthly.

f. Only personnel assigned to casting areas.

g. Sample frequency established by local procedures.

h. Samples also analyzed for IA.

i. 700 Area shop personnel provided samples as considered advisable by HP.
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 154 of 287

Table C-6. 1976 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type) [DuPont 1976].a

Personnel work assignment

Pu 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

IA/FP 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

Sr 

samples

H3 

samples

FP 

samples

Days 

counts

Shift 

counts

Minimum Potential. Personnel working in tritium facilities, 

200-FH facilities not mentioned below, 723-A (EED), and 

305-M. Selected 100-Area and 773-A personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (b) N/A 1 ea. 3 yrc 1 ea. 

3 yr

221-FH. All operators, Separations Technology, HP, and 

4th-Level personnel; E&I, Maintenance, Clerical, and 

Service Department personnel assigned to process areas.

241-FH, 211-FH, 723-F, A-Line, 643-G & 244-H. All 

assigned personnel.

772-F & 235-F. Personnel assigned to nonprocess areas.

Patrol & T&T. All personnel assigned to 200-FH Areas.

773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel.

100-Areas. Selected personnel.

1 (d) (e) N/A (f) (g) N/A N/A 1 2

221-HB Line, 221-FB Line, JB-Line. All assigned 

personnel.

235-F. Personnel assigned to process areas.

772-F. Personnel assigned to process areas.

773-A. Selected ACD, SED, SCD, NMD, HLC, Radiation 

Control, Building Services, and Maintenance personnel.

4 (d) N/A N/A (f) N/A N/A (c) 1h 2

313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

322-M & 772-F (UO3 Section). All assigned personnel.

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material 

personnel.

773-A. Reactor Engineering and 777-M personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (i) (i)

321-M. All assigned personnel except those in Casting 

Area.

1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 ea. 3 yr 1
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 155 of 287

Personnel work assignment

Pu 

samples

EU 

samples

U 

samples

IA/FP 

samples

Am/Cm/Cf 

samples

Sr 

samples

H3 

samples

FP 

samples

Days 

counts

Shift 

counts

Reactor Department personnel from CH purification and 

pump room observation; control room and monitor 

operators; all 100-Area HP, Maintenance, and T&T 

personnel; E&I and service personnel assigned to 105 

buildings; T&T personnel in central shops and 618-G; 

selected reactor tech, project and 400-Area personnel.

1c N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (b) N/A 1j 1j

321-M. All personnel assigned to Casting Area. 1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 2

a. ACD = Analytical Chemistry Division; HLC = High-Level Cave; N/A = not applicable; NMD = Nuclear Materials Division; SED = Separations Engineering Division; 

SCD = Separations Chemistry Division; T&T = Transportation and Traffic. 

b. Sample frequency established in local procedures.

c. Selected personnel.

d. Selected personnel in 221-H, 211-H, and 772-F sampled for EU four times a year.

e. A-Line assigned personnel in F-Area sampled weekly; samples collected after day(s) of rest and before exposure.

f. Selected personnel in 221-F, 211-F, and 773-A sampled for Am-Cm once a year.

g. Selected personnel assigned to waste management work sampled for Sr once a year.

h. All B-Line and JB-Line personnel and 772-F laboratory attendants counted twice a year.

i. 322-M personnel processing 200-Area samples and 772-F (UO3 Section) personnel counted once a year.

j. Selected day and all shift personnel; urine sample not required if in vivo count scheduled.
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 156 of 287

Table C-7. 1985 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type) [DuPont 1985].a,b

Personnel work assignment

Pu 

samples

EU 

samples

NU 

samples

FP/IA 

samples

Am/ Cm/ Cf 

samples

Np 

samples

Sr 

samples

In vivo 

countsc

100-400 Areas. Selected day personnel and all shift Reactor 

Department CH, purification, pump observation room, and monitor 

operators.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

100-400 Areas. Reactor control room operators, HP, Maintenance, 

T&T, E&I, and service personnel assigned to 105 Building, T&T 

personnel in Central Shops and 618-G; selected Reactor Tech, 

Project, and selected 400-Area personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

100-400 Areas. Maximum potential. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

100-400 Areas. Other personnel assigned to 105 Building.

Selected 400 Area personnel.

N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

200 Area. Personnel working in tritium facilities or 200-FH facilities 

not mentioned below.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

211-FH, 723-F, 643-G, A-Line, 241-FN, 244-H. All Separations 

operators; Sep. Tech, HP, and other 4th level personnel; E&I, 

Maintenance, clerical, and service department personnel assigned 

to process areas.

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

235-F, 772-F. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-F. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1

221-H. Selected personnel. 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

643-G. Selected personnel assigned to waste management work. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

221-FB-Line, JB-Line. All assigned personnel. 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

235-F. Personnel assigned to process areas. 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

772-F. Personnel assigned to laboratories in the PUREX and Pu 

sections.

2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-F. Selected personnel. 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 1

221-H, 772-F. Selected personnel. 2 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-HB-Line. All assigned personnel. 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2

300 Areas, 313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

322-M. UO3 Sections and other selected personnel. 1 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

322-M. All other assigned personnel. 1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material personnel. N/A 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

321-M. All personnel assigned to charge prep, casting, and 

machining areas.

1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2

321-M. All other assigned personnel. 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Minimum potential. 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Selected ACD, SED, SCD, NMD, HLC, Radiation Control, 

Building Services, and Maintenance personnel.

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 157 of 287

Personnel work assignment

Pu 

samples

EU 

samples

NU 

samples

FP/IA 

samples

Am/ Cm/ Cf 

samples

Np 

samples

Sr 

samples

In vivo 

countsc

773-A. Reactor Engineering and 777-M personnel. 1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Maximum potential. Selected personnel. 2 2 4 N/A 2 N/A N/A 1

a. N/A = not applicable; T&T = Transportation and Traffic. 

b. This 1985 procedure indicates it is a duplicate of a 1978 procedure, so these frequencies apply for at least the 1978 to 1985 period.

c. The count frequency for shift employees was twice a year unless they only receive triennial plutonium urine bioassay.
ATTACHMENT C 

BIOASSAY DATA TYPES AND FREQUENCIES (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 

0

5 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 158 of 287

Table C-8. 1989 bioassay frequencies (samples per year or counts per year by analysis type)a [DuPont no date a]. 

Personnel work assignment

Pu 

samples

EU 

samples

NU 

samples

Am/Cm/ Cf 

samples

Np 

samples

Sr 

samples

In vivo

counts

100-400 Areas, All reactor area departments and construction.

Selected day personnel and all shift Reactor Department CH, purification, 

pump observation room, and monitor operators. Maintenance, T&T, E&I, 

and service personnel assigned to 105 building, T&T personnel in Central 

Shops and 618-G; selected Reactor Tech, Project, and selected 400-Area 

personnel.

1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

100-400 Areas, All reactor area departments and construction. HP, 

selected CH.

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

211-H. Selected personnel. 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

643-G. Selected personnel assigned to waste management work. N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 1 1

FB-Line. Operators and first line supervisors. SWE Mechanics. 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

FB-Line. Other assigned personnel. N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

HB-Line. Operators. 4 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

HB-Line. Other assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

235-F. Operators. 4 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

235-F. Other assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

A-Line (F). All assigned personnel. 1 N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A 1

772-F. Personnel assigned to laboratories in the PUREX and Pu sections. 2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-F. Selected personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

221-H. Selected personnel. 2 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

313-M. All assigned personnel. N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

322-M. All assigned personnel. 1 4 4 N/A N/A N/A 1

320-M. All laboratory and selected radioactive material personnel. N/A 4 4 N/A N/A N/A 1

321-M. All personnel assigned to charge prep, casting, and machining, 

and assembly weld areas.

1 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Minimum potential. 1 ea. 3 yr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

773-A. Selected ACD, SED, SCD, NMD, HLC, Radiation Control, Building 

Services, and Maintenance personnel.

2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1

773-A. Reactor Engineering and 777-M personnel. 1 ea. 3 yr 1 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

773-A. Selected clerical and supervisory personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

773-A. Maximum potential. Selected personnel. 2 2 4 2 N/A N/A 1

221-S. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

250-S. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

210-Z. All assigned personnel. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1

247-F. Personnel who perform work in process core. N/A 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

247-F. Personnel who do not perform work in process core. N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

a. N/A = not applicable; T&T = Transportation and Traffic; E&I = Electrical and Instrumentation. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 159 of 287

 

ATTACHMENT D 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

D-1 Summary of data >1 dpm/d ....................................................................................................163

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

D-1 Coefficient of variation of count-specific results......................................................................161

D-2 Coefficient of variation of count-specific results, small scale ..................................................162
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 160 of 287

ATTACHMENT D 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

An SC&A memorandum of February 24, 2014, to the SRS Work Group contains an examination of 

raw trivalent actinide (americium, curium, and californium) urinalysis data that were used to calculate 

thorium intakes for the SRS internal dose co-exposure study [SC&A 2014]. The examination focused 

on results greater than the MDA that exhibited a large variability between multiple counts of the same 

sample, or where the reported result was inconsistent with the individual sample counts. Individual 

urine samples might be counted anywhere from 1 to 10 times, with 2 or 4 times being common. Large 

variability occurs when the results of these repeat counts of the same sample are widely different. An 

inconsistent reported result occurs when the reported result does not match the average of the 

individual counts of the sample. The examination consisted of the compilation of >MDA results, 

highlighting of results with inconsistency or large variability, and identification of workers who were 

chelated. This attachment provides further evaluation of those results to determine the potential 

significance of the highlighted results as well as evaluation of the removal of chelated individuals. For 

the highlighted results, only the inconsistent and high-variability results greater than 1 dpm/d were 

evaluated further.

During the preparation of the response to SC&A’s findings, ORAUT-RPRT-0053 was revised to alter 

the one person–one sample analysis method to the TWOPOS method [ORAUT 2014a]. An additional 

change with the TWOPOS method is to consider all negative (in the numeric sense of being less than 

zero rather than less than the MDA) sample results as “<0” censored results. The impact of the highvariability and inconsistent results and removal of the chelated individuals were evaluated using the 

TWOPOS method.1

1 This evaluation was conducted before stratification of the coworker data into CTW and nonCTW strata.

Chelation accelerates the removal of actinides from the body by chemically binding with the actinide, 

which produces a chemical compound more readily eliminated through urine or feces (or both). This 

chemical process perturbs the normal bodily excretion of actinides and can also result in 

heterogeneity of the actinide concentration in the urine. SRS commonly analyzed small aliquots of 

urine samples using a sample volume of 5 or 10 mL. When a small aliquot is taken from a urine 

sample, this heterogeneity can result in markedly different radionuclide concentrations in comparison 

with a different aliquot from the same urine sample. 

Results Greater than 3 dpm/1.5L

SC&A found 220 results greater than 3 dpm/1.5L. These 220 samples were from 35 different 

individuals. Twenty-one of those individuals had received DTPA. Of these 220 results, 28 results had 

high variability between the dpm/1.5L values. An additional 20 results had inconsistent results 

between the reported and dpm/1.5L values.

Of the 28 results with high variability, 17 were from one person who had already been excluded from 

the co-exposure study; therefore, the variability in those data is not relevant. Urinalysis results 

influenced by administration of DTPA have been removed from this revision of the co-exposure study.

Therefore, the data from any other individuals whose urinalysis results were influenced by 

administration of DTPA do not need any further evaluation because they are excluded. 

After exclusion of urinalysis results influenced by administration of DTPA, 21 samples greater than 

3 dpm/1.5L remained. Of these, only five individuals not receiving DTPA had highlighted results. Two 

individuals had one sample each exhibiting high variability, two individuals had one sample each with 

an inconsistent result, and one individual had two samples with inconsistent results, one of which was 

a typographical error. These individuals had a total of 21 results >3 dpm/1.5L. 

 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 161 of 287

ATTACHMENT D 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

A broad-scale view of the trends in variability of all the trivalent actinide bioassay data without 

chelation can be seen in Figure D-1. This figure plots the coefficient of variation in the count-specific 

results for each sample as a function of sample result. Figure D-2 is a smaller scale view of the same 

data focusing on results less than 5 dpm/d. The trend line is the 95th percentile of the coefficient of 

variation, meaning only 5% of the sample results are above this line. The trend line behaves as 

expected, with higher values for very small results and decreasing as a function of increasing sample 

results. There are a few results that can be perceived to be high outliers, but most of these results 

have straightforward reasons for the high variability and will most likely be excluded in the next 

revision of the co-exposure study.

Figure D-1. Coefficient of variation of count-specific results. 

Results Between 1 and 3 dpm/1.5L

SC&A found 116 results between 1 and 3 dpm/1.5L from 49 different individuals. Twenty-one of the 

individuals received DTPA. Of the 116 results, 29 had high variability between the dpm/1.5L values.

An additional five results had inconsistent results between the reported and dpm/1.5L values. 

Of the 29 results with high variability, 14 were from [redacted] who had already been excluded from 

the co-exposure study because the high americium results were from [redacted], so the variability in 

those data is not relevant. Urinalysis results influenced by administration of DTPA have been removed 

from this revision of the co-exposure study. Therefore, the data from any other individuals whose 

urinalysis results were influenced by administration of DTPA do not need any further evaluation 

because they are excluded.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 162 of 287

ATTACHMENT D 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

Figure D-2. Coefficient of variation of count-specific results, small scale. 

After exclusion of urinalysis results influenced by administration of DTPA, 31 sample results between 

1 and 3 dpm/1.5L remained. Of these, only three individuals not receiving DTPA had highlighted 

results.

All three individuals had one result with high variability. These individuals had a total of four results 

between 1 and 3 dpm/1.5L. Only one had a result greater than 3 dpm/1.5L, and that result was not 

highlighted. 

Conclusions

Table D-1 summarizes the data SC&A reviewed that was greater than 1 dpm/d and the portion that 

had high variability. Only 4 of 52 samples >1 dpm/d unaffected by chelation had high variability. Two 

of those were characterized as highly variable due to issues with data entry rather than with the site’s 

bioassay program. This means that, of the samples used in the co-exposure study, less than 4% had 

high variability as defined by SC&A due to potential issues with the site’s bioassay program. This low 

percentage of individual disc variability and uncertainty is subsumed under the statistical analysis of 

all the samples collectively. All of the uncertainties discussed by SC&A are much less than the 

minimum GSD of 3.0 used for co-exposure study intakes. Therefore, the conclusion is that aliquot 

variability has an insignificant effect on the overall results and the data can be used as is.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 163 of 287

ATTACHMENT D 

EVALUATION OF HIGH-VARIABILITY AMERICIUM DATA (continued)

Table D-1. Summary of data >1 dpm/d. 

Sample type

Total # of 

samples

# of samples with 

high variabilitya 

All samples >3 dpm/d 220 28

Samples >3 dpm/d w/o chelation 21 2

All samples between 1 and 3 dpm/d 116 29b

Samples between 1 and 3 dpm/d w/o chelation 31 0

a. Excluding high variability due to data entry issues.

b. 14 of these 29 samples are from one person.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 164 of 287

 

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

E.1 Source Data and Data Preparation Instructions .....................................................................165

E.2 Master Occupation Table Instructions ....................................................................................166

E.3 CTW Designation Instructions ................................................................................................169

E.4 Radionuclide Instructions........................................................................................................170

E.4.1 All Nuclides .................................................................................................................170

E.4.2 Mixed Fission Products (MFPBeta/strontium).............................................................170

E.4.3 Plutonium ....................................................................................................................172

E.4.4 Uranium.......................................................................................................................174

E.4.5 Cesium-137.................................................................................................................176

E.4.6 Cobalt-60 (Mixed Fission Products Gamma) ..............................................................178

E.4.7 Neptunium...................................................................................................................179

E.4.8 Tritium .........................................................................................................................182

E.4.9 Americium ...................................................................................................................183

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

E-1 CTW Master Table cross-reference........................................................................................167

E-2 CTW occupation titles.............................................................................................................168

E-3 nonCTW occupation titles .......................................................................................................169
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 165 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

E.1 SOURCE DATA AND DATA PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

SOURCE DATA

All files in this section are at “O:\\Coworker Data\Master Sites Repository\SRS\OTIB-0081 Rev 04\stat 

instructions source data”. Text in bold are the designations used to refer to the files throughout the 

instructions.

Bioassay Data:

• NOCTS In-vitro Data: SRS combined in-vitro data 051717.xlsx

• NOCTS H3 data: SRS NOCTS Tritium_052710_postQA.mdb, using the QC copy of SRS 

NOCTS Tritium_052710 table 

• Np data: Compiled_SRS Np Logbook_WHC_07202011r0 Mike.xlsx 

• Np data2: Np data new data entry 2013-09-10_review 10616.xlsx 

• WBC data: SRS combined in-vivo data 083117.xlsx 

• MFPG WHC data: Reviewed_MFP&G data for Board_032916.xlsx

• Am data: REVIEWED_Am Final Compiled_SRS WHC_06302011r2Ready Updated 

rev4_062416.xlsx 

Bioassay Correction Files:

• NOCTS H3 corrections: Tritium data corrections 2016-07-12.xlsx 

• Np corrections: Np logbook data corrections 2016-10-03.xlsx 

• NOCTS In-vitro corrections 1: In-vitro stat corrections 2017-08-02.xlsx 

• NOCTS In-vitro corrections 2: In-vitro stat corrections 2018-11-15.xlsx 

• NOCTS In-vivo corrections: In-vivo stat corrections 2017-11-09.xlsx

• WBC corrections: WBC data corrections 2016-09-15.xlsx 

• Am corrections: Am logbook data corrections 2016-08-01.xlsx 

• MFPG corrections: MFP&G data corrections 2016-06-22.xlsx 

Occupation Tables: 

• CTW Master Update Part 1: Compiled CTW Master Update Part 1 with names_071516.xlsx

• CTW Master Update Part 2: MOT Update Part 2_completed_rereviewed 090616.xlsx

• CTW Master Update Part 2 corrections: MOT Update Part 2 corrections.xlsx

• CTW Master Update Part 3: Np data 2 nulls.xlsx

• CTW Master Update Part 4: COMPILED SRS MOT_ 032717 MM updated rev1.xlsx 

• MOT Corrections 1: MOT corrections 2018-03-06.xlsx

• MOT Corrections 2: MOT corrections 2018-08-23.xlsx 

• MOT Corrections 3: MOT corrections 2018-09-17.xlsx

• MOT Corrections 4: MOT corrections 2018-09-24.xlsx

• MOT Corrections 5: MOT corrections 2018-10-02.xlsx

Other Files:

• Chelation Data: SRS Chelation Data_Payroll ID’s added_082514.xlsx

• SRS NOCTS Names: NioshClaims_With_Names.csv 

• SRS NOCTS SSNs: SRS SSNs.csv

• In-vitro nuclide list.xlsx
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 166 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

Corrections and CTW Designations

The files listed above are combined to create files to be used for the individual nuclide co-exposure

studies. Once corrections and CTW updates have been made, rename the files and place them in 

O:\Coworker Data\Master Sites Repository\SRS\OTIB-0081 Rev 04\SRS Files Ready for Cleanup and 

Stat Analysis.

Renamed files, to be used with the individual nuclide sections below, are as follows:

• WBC data updated: SRS combined in-vivo data subset 092518 with CTW

• NOCTS In-vitro Data updated: SRS combined in-vitro data 091818 with CTW

• Np data updated: SRS Np 1 Logbook In Vitro Data_100218_with CTW

• Np data updated2: SRS Np 2 Logbook In Vitro Data_100218_with CTW

Data Corrections

For each applicable data source, make corrections as listed in the associated corrections file.

• Replace individual cell contents based on cell contents in the corrections file.

• If a cell in the corrections file contains “blank”, then delete that cell’s contents in the source 

data file.

• If the corrections file comments column contains the word “exclude” or “remove” then do not 

use that line for the statistical analysis.

• Rows are identified by the Unique ID column except as otherwise noted.

1. Correct the Np data with the Np corrections file.

2. Correct the WBC data with the WBC corrections (identify lines by the “Unique # for Rick” 

column) and the NOCTS In-vivo corrections files.

3. Correct the Am data with the Am corrections file.

4. Correct the MFPG data with the MFPG corrections file.

5. Correct the NOCTS In-vitro data with the NOCTS In-vitro corrections 1 and 2 files.

6. Correct the NOCTS H3 data with the NOCTS H3 corrections file.

7. Correct the CTW Master Update Part 2 file with the CTW Master Update Part 2 Corrections

file.

E.2 MASTER OCCUPATION TABLE INSTRUCTIONS

1. Merge the following files into one master occupation table (CTW Master). 

• Np data

• WBC data

• MFPG WHC data
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 167 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

• Am data

• CTW Master Update Part 1, 2, 3, and 4

Table E-1 lists the mapping of column identifiers from each of the source files to the CTW Master 

table. If a cell in a listed column of the source file is blank (blank or no characters other than space) 

and there is a second column identified in parentheses, use the value from the cell in that column 

instead. For the first and middle name initials, import only the first character of the name from the 

source files that provide the full first and middle name.

Table E-1. CTW Master Table cross-reference.

a

Master Np data WBC data

MFPG WHC 

data Am data

CTW Master 

Update 1 

and 2

CTW 

Master 

Update 3

CTW 

Master 

Update 4

PRID Corrected 

PRID 

(Payroll ID#)

Corrected PR 

# 

(PR)

Corrected PR 

# 

(PR)

Changed 

Payroll ID#

(Payroll ID#)

PRID PRID C PRID 

(PRID)

Last Name Corrected 

Last Name

(Employee 

Last Name)

Corrected 

last name 

(Last name)

Last name Corrected 

Last Name

(Employee 

Last Name)

Last Name Last 

Name

Last.name

First Initial Corrected FI 

(Employee 

First Initial)

Fist name First Name Corrected 

First Initial 

(Employee 

First Initial)

First Initial First Initial First.name

Middle Initial Corrected MI 

(Employee 

Middle Initial)

Corrected 

middle name 

(Middle 

Name)

Middle Name Corrected 

Middle Initial 

(Employee 

Middle Initial)

Middle Initial Middle 

Initial

Middle.na

me

SSN N/A N/A N/A N/A SSN N/A N/A

Occupation 

Title

Corrected 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Corrected 

Occupation 

(Occupation 

Title)

Corrected 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Changed 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Corrected 

Occupation 

Title 

(Occupation 

Title)

Rev4Occ C Job Title 

(Job Title)

Date Bottle Date 

(Received 

Date)

Date Date Bottle Date Date Bottle 

Date

Date

NIOSH ID N/A Claim Claim # NIOSH ID NIOSH ID N/A Claim

SRDB Ref 

ID

SRDB Ref ID N/A N/A SRDB Ref ID SRDB Ref ID N/A N/A

CTW N/A N/A N/A N/A CTW N/A N/A

WkHxFile Link to EDAR 

& WkHx 

Images

Link to EDAR 

& WkHx 

Images

Link to EDAR 

& WkHx 

Images

Link to EDAR 

& WkHx 

Images

EDAR.file OccFile C Job Hist 

Source 

(WkHxFile

Name)

WkHxPage Pageb Pagec Paged Pagee Pagef OccPage WkHxFile

Pageg 

a. SSN = Social Security Number; N/A = not applicable.

b. Page in column 18.

c. Page in column 14.

d. Page in column 23.

e. Page in column 19.

f. Page in column 15.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 168 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

g. Only if the WkHxFile source is the WkHxFileName column, otherwise leave blank.

1. Remove duplicate lines.

2. Use the first/middle/last name information (corrected and original) to assign NIOSH ID 

numbers to CTW Master table rows without a NIOSH ID number where possible. Do not 

overwrite claim numbers found in the original files.

3. For each row with a NIOSH ID number and no SSN, look up the SSN in the SRS NOCTS 

SSNs file and add to the CTW Master Table where possible. 

4. MOT corrections:

a. Change PRID [redacted] to [redacted]. 

b. For PRID [redacted], change occupation to [redacted]. 

c. Change PRID [redacted] to [redacted]. 

d. Change PRID [redacted] to [redacted]. 

e. Make the changes identified in the MOT CORRECTIONS 1 through 5 files.

5. For all rows where the PRID prefix = “3-“, set CTW = Null. 

6. For all rows where [(PRID prefix is 4 or ≥ “6“ except “30”) or any title listed in Table E-2] and 

excluding any title in Table E-3:

a. Set CTW = ‘Y’. 

b. Otherwise, set CTW = ‘N’.

Table E-2. CTW occupation titles.

a

Occupation title Occupation title

* maintenance man

boilermaker

carpenter

concrete

concrete worker

construction

construction worker

crane operator

ctw

driver

e&i tech

electrician

heavy equipment operator

insulator

iron worker

laborer

maintenance

maintenance mechanic

maintenance mechanic a

mechanic

millwright

painter

pipe fitter

pipefitter

plumber

rigger

roll 5

sheetmetal

sheetmetal worker

Welder

a. Ignore capitalization differences.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 169 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

Table E-3. nonCTW occupation titles.

a

Occupation title Occupation title

Administrative Assistant

Administrator

Assistant

Cafeteria 

CATI - Machinist

Clerical

Crane Process Operator

Designer

Engineer

Escort 

Foreman

Geologist

Health Physics

Human Resources

Instructor

Laundry

Layout

Machinist

Manager

Material Control

Operator

Pilot

QA

Radiographer

Reactor Operator

Security

Specialist

Supervisor

Technician

a. Ignore capitalization differences.

1. If the PRID is a SSN, ignore the PRID field for CTW determination.

2. Overwrite CTW results as follows:

a. Claim [redacted], for all dates, CTW = “N”.

b. Claim [redacted], for all dates, CTW = “N”.

c. Claim [redacted], CTW = “Y” before 02/01/1984, “N” on 02/01/1984 and after. 

d. PRID [redacted], for all dates, CTW = “Y”. 

e. PRID [redacted], CTW = “Y” on 11/19/1974. 

f. PRID [redacted], CTW = “Y” on 07/13/1982. 

g. PRID [redacted] 7, CTW = “Y” on 02/09/1983. 

h. Claim [redacted], PRID [redacted] or [redacted], nonCTW after 05/27/1973. 

i. Claim [redacted], PRID [redacted] or [redacted], nonCTW after 06/04/1972. 

j. Claim [redacted], PRID [redacted] or [redacted], nonCTW after 06/02/1968. 

k. Claim [redacted], PRID [redacted] or [redacted], nonCTW after 05/06/1973. 

l. Claim [redacted], PRID [redacted], for all dates, nonCTW. 

m. Claim [redacted], PRID, nonCTW after 04/15/1973. 

n. Claim [redacted], PRID [redacted], nonCTW after 11/02/1975. 

E.3 CTW DESIGNATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. For each radionuclide data set used for the co-exposure study, create a new column of data 

labeled “Rev4CTW.” 

2. For each line of data in the data set, look up the CTW designation in the CTW Master file for 

that person and date.

a. Match the person based on the following fields given in preference order:

i. NIOSH ID.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 170 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

ii. PRID.

iii. Last name and First/Middle initial.

b. Find the CTW designation date for that person in the following priority order:

i. Same date.

ii. Most closely preceding date.

iii. Most closely following date (within 5 years).

c. Use the CTW designation on above date to update the data set. (NOTE: There should be 

exact date matches for all dates in the Am, Np, and WBC data files)

d. If the person or a suitable CTW designation date cannot be found in the CTW Master file, 

mark the CTW designation as NULL.

3. Generate a list of all records where the Rev4CTW designation is NULL.

4. Manually determine the PRID and occupation for each NULL record and generate a CTW 

Master Update file with the new information.

5. Update the CTW Master table to include the data in the newly generated CTW Master Update 

file.

6. Repeat Steps 2-5 until no records have a Rev4CTW designation of NULL.

E.4 RADIONUCLIDE INSTRUCTIONS

Note: The column indicating a “less than” result has a header of “<” in some files and “X.” in others. 

This document refers to the column as “X.”

E.4.1 All Nuclides

Correct illegible dates (illegible fields are indicated with Xs):

• Exclude records with an illegible year.

• If only the day of the month is illegible, assume the 15th. 

• If only the month is illegible, assume July.

• If the month and day are illegible, assume July 1.

E.4.2 Mixed Fission Products (MFPBeta/strontium)

New corrections file: stat corrections 2018-12-05.xlsx in O:\Coworker Data\Master Sites 

Repository\SRS\OTIB-0081 Rev 04\stat instructions source data. 

Data Selection

• Use NOCTS In-vitro Data updated as the data source.

• Select records from 01/01/1955 through 12/31/1965 with an Isotope that indicates an MFP 

result. Refer to In-vitro nuclide list.xlsx for the complete list of MFP codes to be used.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 171 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

• Exclude records:

– With a blank Result and a blank X. field.

– With non-numeric results (e.g., LIP, rerun, lost), with the exception of “DL.”

– If the Units field contains:

o “LIP” or “IA.”

o Mass in the denominator (varying gram quantities). These are assumed to be fecal 

samples.

– If Date is blank or nonsensical.

– With X. = “<” and Result = 

o 300.

o 500. 

Note: this step is used to eliminate gross gamma results listed as the same isotope as gross beta 

results.

Data Cleanup

• If the Result field is blank and the X. field = “<”, assign Result as follows:

– 1955–1961: 30.

– 1962–1965: 100.

• If Result = DL (ignore capitalization differences), replace it with the number “1.” 

• Ignore (delete) uncertainties in results, e.g., “± 19.”

• If Units is blank or contains no volume, assign Units as follows: 

– 1955–1959: dpm/750 ml, 

– 1960–03/31/1966:

o If result is “<30” or “<50”: dpm/500 ml 

o If result is “<100”, “<500”, or “<60”: dpm/1.5L 

o If X. is blank: dpm/1.5L. 

• Incident corrections:

– Claim [redacted]: incident on 04/21/1962. Infer a result of <60 dpm/1.5L on 04/20/1962.

Data Adjustments

• Convert all results to units of dpm/day (dpm/1.5L).

– Do not adjust results with Volumes ≥ 1.4 liter. These are assumed to represent a full day’s 

voiding. 

– Normalize results with volumes < 1.4 liter to 1.5 liters (assumed to be one day’s voiding).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 172 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

Statistical Analysis

• Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096. 

The periods for which a similar method and reporting was used and which could be combined 

to develop an imputation model are:

– 1955–1961

– 1962–1965

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

RPRT-0053 as follows:

– Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW. 

E.4.3 Plutonium

New corrections file: In-vitro stat corrections 2018-11-15.xlsx in O:\Coworker Data\Working 

Files\SRS\Coworker Study\OTIB-0081 Rev 04\source data. 

Data Selection

• Use NOCTS In-vitro Data updated as the data source.

• Select records from 01/01/1955 through 12/31/1990 with an Isotope that indicates a total 

plutonium or Pu-239 result. Refer to In-vitro nuclide list.xlsx for the complete list of Pu codes to 

be used.

• Exclude records:

– With a blank Result and a blank X. field.

– With non-numeric results (e.g., LIP, rerun, lost). 

– If the Units field contains:

o “LIP” or “IA.”

o Mass in the denominator (varying gram quantities). These are assumed to be fecal 

samples.

– If Date is blank or nonsensical. 

– With activity units of pCi, nCi or μCi. These are assumed to be fecal samples. 

– With a date on or within 100 days following chelation for an individual. Use Chelation Data

referenced in the Source Data section above. Match individuals based on SSN.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident mid-1982. Exclude data from 10/24/1982 through 01/06/1983.

– All results for claim [redacted] beginning in Oct. 1962. Significant puncture wound incurred 

at this time so results are not representative of coworkers (co-exposure intake model 

assumes inhalation intakes).
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 173 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

Data Cleanup

• Ignore (delete) uncertainties in results, e.g., “± 19.”

• Assume the Units for Unique ID [redacted] are dpm/mL (i.e., 0.28 dpm/1,340 mL).

• If Result is blank or 0 and the X. column contains “<”, assume Result is:

– 0.05 from 1954 through 05/01/1962.

– 0.1 for 05/02/1962 and after.

• Designation of missing or incomplete (no volume) units:

– If Isotope is generic plutonium (i.e., Pu, PU, or any result with no atomic mass #), assume 

dpm/1.5L.

– If Isotope is isotope specific (e.g., Pu-239, Pu 238/239), assume dpm/L.

• Treat negative Result values as censored results, censored at the absolute value of the Result

[1]. 

• A “+” in the X. column is treated as a blank (i.e., an uncensored result). 

• Incident corrections:

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 06/08/1960. Infer a result of <0.05 dpm/day on 06/07/1960.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 01/24/1968. Infer a result of 0.1 dpm/day on 01/23/1968.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 01/13/1975. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 01/12/1975.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 03/14/1973. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 03/13/1973.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 07/12/1974. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 07/11/1974.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 07/22/1965. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 07/21/1965.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 07/05/1973. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 07/04/1973.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 05/20/1973. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 05/19/1973.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 12/02/1975. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 12/01/1975.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 08/19/1971. Infer a result of <0.1 dpm/day on 08/18/1971.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 03/11/1985. Infer a result of <0.18 dpm/day on 03/10/1985.

Data Adjustments

• Convert all results to units of dpm/day (dpm/1.5L).

– Do not adjust results with Volumes ≥ 1.4 liter. These are assumed to represent a full day’s 

voiding. 

– Normalize results with volumes < 1.4 liter to 1.5 liters (assumed to be one day’s voiding).

Statistical Analysis

• Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096. 

Gross alpha and isotopic plutonium results are imputed separately.

– The periods for which a similar method and reporting was used and which could be 

combined to develop an imputation model for gross alpha Pu results are:
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 174 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

o 1954–1959

o 1960–05/01/1962

o 05/02/1962–1965

o 1966–1990

– Isotopic Pu (any variation of “Pu239”)

o 1981–1990

• Additional data adjustment: Beginning on 01/01/1981, correct isotopic Pu results (any variation 

of “Pu239”) to Pu gross alpha by multiplying by 1.69 (10-year 12% Pu mix ratio).

– “Pu238/239” (or similar variants) are assumed to be Pu gross alpha results and are not 

adjusted.

• Perform the statistical analysis for 1955 through 1990 in accordance with the TWOPOS 

method in the latest version RPRT-0053 evaluating two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW.

E.4.4 Uranium

Data Selection

• Use NOCTS In-vitro Data updated as the data source.

• Select records from 01/01/1953 through 12/31/1990 with an Isotope that indicates a uranium 

result. Refer to In-vitro nuclide list.xlsx for the complete list of U codes to be used. Note that 

mass and activity measurements will be combined into one data set. 

• Exclude records:

– With a blank Result and a blank X. field.

– With non-numeric results (e.g., LIP, rerun, lost). 

– If the Units field contains:

o “LIP” or “IA.”

o Mass in the denominator (varying gram quantities). These are assumed to be fecal 

samples.

– If Comments.from.page contains “IA.”

– If Date is blank or nonsensical. 

Data Cleanup

• If Units is blank or nonsensical:

– Replace “?” or other special character with “u” (micro).

– If result is “<5”, assign Units = ug (mass units).

– If result is “<1”, assign Units = dpm (activity units).

– If the result is not “<5” or “<1” and 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 175 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

o Isotope = EU (any capitalization variation), assign Units = dpm (activity units). 

o Isotope ≠ EU, then Units = ug (mass units).

• If Result = 0 and Units = ug/L, set X. = < and Result = 5. (Result is assumed to be censored.)

• If Result is blank and the X. column contains “<”, assume Result is:

– 5 if Units includes “ug” (results in units of mass).

– 1 if Units includes “dpm” or “d/m” (results in units of activity).

• Ignore (delete) uncertainties in results, e.g., “± 19.”

• A “+” in the X. column should be treated as a blank (i.e., an uncensored result). 

• Incident corrections:

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 07/13/1969. Infer a result of <1 dpm/1.5L on 07/12/1969.

– Claim [redacted]: Incident on 10/31/1972. Infer a result of <5 ug/L on 10/30/1972.

Data Adjustments

• If Units includes “ug” (results in units of mass):

– 1953–07/10/1961: 

o Multiply Result by 1.5 (all Units are assumed to be per liter regardless of stated 

volume).

o If Units ≠ ug/1.5L, replace Units with ug/1.5L. 

– 07/11/1961–1990: If Units ≠ ug/1.5L, replace Units with ug/1.5L (all Units are assumed to 

be per 1.5 liter regardless of stated volume).

• If Units includes “dpm” or “d/m” (results in units of activity):

– If no volume is included in the Units, assume 1.5 L.

– Do not adjust results with volumes ≥ 1.4 liter. These are assumed to represent a full day’s 

voiding. 

– Normalize results with volumes < 1.4 liter to 1.5 liters (assumed to be one day’s voiding). 

Statistical Analysis

• Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096. 

Results with mass and activity units are imputed separately.

– If Units = ug/1.5L (mass), the periods for which a similar method and reporting was used 

and which could be combined to develop an imputation model are:

o 1953–1981

o 1982–1985

o 1986–1990
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 176 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

– If Units = dpm/1.5L (activity), the periods for which a similar method and reporting was 

used and which could be combined to develop an imputation model are:

o 1953–04/1962

o 05/1962–1981

o 1982–1985

o 1986–1990

• Additional data adjustment: If Units = ug/1.5L (results in units of mass), convert Result to Units 

of dpm/day (activity): 

– 1953–1967: Multiply Result by 1.52 dpm/ug (i.e., assume natural uranium).

– 1968–1990: Multiply Result by 0.826 dpm/ug (i.e., assume depleted uranium).

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

RPRT-0053 as follows:

– Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW. 

– For nonCTW, evaluate individual years.

– For CTW, combine (note that there are insufficient results for 1953–1954): 

o 1979–1980

o 1981–1982

o 1983–1984

o 1985–1986

o 1987–1988

o 1989–1990

E.4.5 Cesium-137

New corrections file: In-vivo stat corrections 2018-12-11.xlsx in O:\Coworker Data\Master Sites 

Repository\SRS\OTIB-0081 Rev 04\stat instructions source data. 

Data Selection

• Use WBC Data updated as the data source.

– Select records with Dates from 01/01/1960 through 12/31/1990.

– Select rows with Nuclide = Cs-137. The result is found in the column headed Result..nCi.

• Exclude records:

– With a reason of:

o “New”

o “New Hire”

o “New Employee” 

– If Date is blank or nonsensical. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 177 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

– With Nuclide = Cs-137 where the first character of Result..nCi. = X or an X appears in the 

value to the left of a digit (e.g., “0.X2”).

• For a Claim/Date combination with no Nuclide = Cs-137 record but with a record for another 

nuclide other than chest count radionuclides (Am, Cm, Pu, EU, U, U-234, U-235, U-238), infer 

a single Cs-137 result. Include Form type in the inferred record. 

– Do not infer a result if all Nuclides for the date are blank and Detector includes the word 

“Crystal,” “Phoswich,” or “Phos.” (These are indicative of chest counts rather than WBCs.) 

– If date is <01/01/1989, assign Result..nCi. = <1.

– If date is >12/31/1988, assign Result..nCi. = <2.2.

Data Cleanup

• If Comment includes “MDA activity used,” consider the result to be censored.

• When Result..nCi. contains a trailing X character (e.g., “6.5XX”), truncate after the last digit 

(6.5XX becomes 6.5). 

• For multiple rows with the same Claim and Date values and Nuclide = Cs-137:

– If multiple rows have the same Result..nCi., use only one of those results.

– If values of Result..nCi. are not equal, average the results.

– If at least one row has a Cs-137 Result..nCi. value, do not infer results for any others with 

a blank Result..nCi. (next step).

• If Result..nCi. is blank:

– Apply MDA..95.CL..nCi. value as the censoring level.

– If MDA..95.CL..nCi. is also blank:

o If date is <01/01/1989, assign Result..nCi. = <1.

o If date is >12/31/1988, assign Result..nCi. = <2.2.

Statistical Analysis

• Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096. 

The form types for which a similar method and reporting was used and which could be 

combined to develop an imputation model are:

– WBCD. This form was in use from approximately 1960 through the mid-1970s and was 

used with the 40-cm arc geometry.

– BB (through 01/1974). This form was untitled and was used in the mid- and late 1970s.

The 40-cm arc geometry was being used before February 1974.

– BB (02/1974 and later). A bed geometry was used after Jan. 1974.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 178 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

– IVCR. This was in use from the late 1970s through late 1980s.

– SSI: Used from 1975–1977. 

– ABACOS. This is the FASTSCAN report and was used from 1986 through 1990.

• Assign rows with Form type = blank, “In Vivo Request,” or “Request“ to the following 

categories:

– 1960 through 11/1974: WBCD

– 12/1974 through 05/1979: BB (02/1974 and later)

– 06/1979 through 10/1989: IVCR

– 11/1989 through 12/1990: ABACOS

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

RPRT-0053:

– Before 1989, use a generic censoring level of <1.0 for negative or zero TWOPOS results.

For 1989 and 1990, use <2.2.

– Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW.

o For CTW, combine the years (note that there are no CTW results in 1960):

 1964–1966

 1967–1968

 1969–1971

 1972–1973

o For nonCTW, combine the years:

 1960–1961

 1965–1966

 1969–1970

E.4.6 Cobalt-60 (Mixed Fission Products Gamma)

New corrections file: In-vitro stat corrections 2018-12-05.xlsx in O:\Coworker Data\Master Sites 

Repository\SRS\OTIB-0081 Rev 04\stat instructions source data.

Data Selection

• Use NOCTS In-vitro Data with corrections applied as the data source.

• Select records from 01/01/1966 through 12/31/1970 with Isotope =

– FP (IA)

– FP(IA) 

– FPIA

– IAFP

– FP-IA
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 179 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

– FP/IA

– IA

– IA-G 

– IA GAMMA

• Exclude records:

– With a blank Result.

– With a nonsensical date.

– With Units = dpm/1.5L and Result ≤ 250 (these are assumed to be beta results). 

– If Comment includes “beta”.

Data Cleanup

• If Units is blank, assign Units = nCi/1.5L.

Data Adjustments

• If Units includes “dpm” in the numerator, divide Result by 2,220 to get Units of nCi.

• Divide all Results by 2 (to account for the 2 gamma rays emitted by Co-60). 

Statistical Analysis

• Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096. 

Gross gamma results are only evaluated for a short (5-year) period, during which the gross 

beta method did not change. It is presumed that the gross gamma method also did not change 

during this period. Therefore, the period for which the data could be combined to develop an 

imputation model is:

– 1966–1970

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

RPRT-0053 as follows:

– Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW. 

– For both strata, evaluate individual years.

E.4.7 Neptunium

Two bioassay types (in vivo and in vitro) are used for neptunium analysis; they are addressed 

separately here. 

IN VIVO BIOASSAY

Data Selection

• Use WBC Data updated as the data source.

– Select records from 01/01/1970 through 12/31/1990.

– For records with the same Claim, Date, and Page:

o Form.Type = “WBCD” and Nuclide = “I-131” and “K-40” form a matched pair (one I-131 

record and one K-40 record). If one these is missing, exclude from the analysis.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 180 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

 Exclude lines with a blank net c/m field.

 For each set of lines with the same claim-page-nuclide combination and identical 

net c/m results, use only one line.

o Form.Type = “BB” and Nuclide = “I-131”

o Form.Type = “IVCR” and Nuclide = “Cr-51”

• Exclude records:

– If any values necessary to complete these calculations are missing.

– With a date on or within 100 days following chelation for an individual. Use Chelation Data

referenced in the Source Data section above. Match individuals based on SSN.

– With Claim = [redacted] and Date = 09/15/1983 (analyzer malfunction). 

– With Claim = [redacted] and Date = 09/20/1983 (analyzer malfunction). 

– With Claim = [redacted] and Date = 11/30/1983 (analyzer malfunction). 

– With Claim = [redacted] and Date = 04/01/1986 (analyzer malfunction). 

Data Adjustments

• Convert the data to nCi Np-237 as follows:

– If Form.Type = WBCD:

nCi Np-237 = 0.243 × [I-131 “NET c/m” − (K-40 “NET c/m” × 0.389)]

– If Form.Type = “BB” and Date < 01/01/1975:

nCi Np-237 = 0.01215 x (I-131 “DIFF counts”)

– If Form.Type = “BB” and Date > 12/31/1974:

nCi Np-237 = 0.0125 x (I-131 “DIFF counts”)

– If Form.Type = “IVCR”:

nCi Np-237 = 0.211 × Cr-51 “MDA @95%CL (nCi)” × 

( )

Cr-51 

Cr-51 

DIFF counts

MDA @ 95%CL counts

Statistical Analysis

• There are no censored data so multiple imputation is not needed.

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

RPRT-0053 as follows:

– For TWOPOS results of 0 (uncensored zero), replace results with <0.007 nCi.*

– Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW. 

o For nonCTW, evaluate individual years. Note that 1990 was not fit because there were 

no data meeting the selection criteria.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 181 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

o For CTW, combine:

 1970–1972

 1976–1977

 1988–1989

* This value is derived as follows: The average Cr-51 MDA is 423 counts and 14 nCi. A conversion 

constant of 0.211 and DIFF = 1 (the smallest possible positive value) yields a minimum positive 

activity of 0.007 nCi. 

IN VITRO BIOASSAY

Data Selection

• Use Np data updated and Np data2 updated as the data sources. 

• Select records from 01/01/1961 through 12/31/1969.

– For Np data updated, date = Received.Date. If Received Date is blank, use Bottle.Date. 

(This is done for consistency; only Bottle Date was reported for most years.) 

– For Np data2 updated, date = Bottle.Date (this is the only date in the file). 

• Exclude Np data updated records with:

– Rev4CTW = blank.

– Comment = “No Np result” or similar.

– Np..results is blank.

– Date is blank or has an illegible year.

– Np..results contains an “X” and does not include “<”.

– A date on or within 100 days following chelation for an individual. Use Chelation Data

referenced in the Source Data section above. Match on Payroll.ID, ignoring prefix.

– row.ID = [redacted] (considered to be a false positive result).

Data Cleanup

Np data updated

• All records are assumed to be in units of dpm/1.5L.

• If Np..results = “<0.0X” or “<0.XX” replace value with “<0.05”.

• For rows with Np..results = “<1”, replace value with “<0.1” (logbook entry error/illegibility of 

decimal place). 

Np data2 updated

• For rows with multiple reported dpm.1.5L..x. (where x is 1 or greater) values, average all 

values to determine the final result for the row.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 182 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

– Set censored values equal to the censoring level before averaging.

Statistical Analysis

• Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT-0096. 

The periods for which a similar method and reporting was used and which could be combined 

to develop an imputation model are:

– 1961–04/1962, and 05/1962 where Np..results = “<0.05”.

– 05/1962 where Np..results = “<0.1”, and 06/1962 through 1969.

• Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest version 

RPRT-0053 as follows:

– Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW and 2) nonCTW. 

– For both strata, evaluate individual years. Note that CTW 1964–1969 are not fit because 

there are only 16 results in the period. 

The following sections are unchanged from the Revision 3 analyses.

E.4.8 Tritium

NOCTS H3 Data: 

• MDA values:

– Use the result “<X” values where available if “X” is >0, 

– Otherwise use generic MDAs of:

o 1 μCi/l through 1980, 

o 0.5 μCi/l for 1981 through 1985, and

o 0.1 μCi/l for 1986 and after.

– For reported positive, nonzero values less than the generic MDA, use the reported value 

as the MDA.

• Use the “Date” (column D) as the date of sample collection.

• Use the Claim # field as the individual identifier.

• Data set exclusions and revisions:

– ID [redacted]: Change result to “<0.5”

– Exclude ID [redacted] (blank result)

– Exclude ID [redacted] (blank result)

– Change all “<0.05” and “< 0.05” results to “<0.5”

– Exclude all data from Claim # [redacted] (not an SRS worker)

• For each sample date, determine the individual’s CTW designation as described above.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 183 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

– Look up the individual name using the SRS NOCTS Names file as needed to assist with 

CTW determination.

• Calculate annual doses for each claimant in accordance with OTIB-0011 with the following 

assumptions:

– Evaluate each individual’s CTW and nonCTW data, designated using the CTW 

designations determined in the previous step, separately and treat as two different 

workers. 

– If there are more than 90 days between samples, use a Type 3 analysis under the 

assumption that the person is not routinely monitored.

– If there is a single non-detect urine sample in a calendar year, do not calculate a dose for 

that sample because it is assumed to not be part of routine monitoring.

– Order samples on the same date from lowest to highest.

– Assign all dose as if it occurred on the bioassay date.

• Statistical analysis:

– Evaluate CTW and nonCTW strata separately for 1954 through 1990.

– Sum dose for each individual for each year. Exclude from the statistical analysis any 

individual with an annual dose of less than 0.001 rem at three significant digits (i.e., less 

than 0.0005 rem). 

– Calculate GM and GSD values for the total annual doses using RPRT-0053 methodology.

E.4.9 Americium

Am logbook data:

• Dataset rows will be identified by their Unique ID # (Unique.ID).

• Unique ID # [[redacted]] has a “dpm/1.5L” value of “<”. Change that to “<0.3”.

• Do not use records:

– With “LIP” in the “report” field

– With the following anywhere in the “remarks” field 

o “LIP” 

o “Am do not report” 

o “DTPA” 

o “Am DNR”

o “Do not report”

o “DO NOT USE”

o “Lost”

o 0.383; Am LIP; Probable Contamination

o Am – LIP
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 184 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

o Am DNR

o Am DNR (Note that there is an extra space after the R in the spreadsheet)

o Am LIP

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank ,Am=.460

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.200

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.255

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.285

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.310

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.315

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.370

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.388

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.395

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.420

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.493

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.527

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=.903

o Am LIP low recovery-Hi Am Blank, Am=1.440

o Broken flask sample LIP

o Do not report

o Do not report #6 until rerun and found valid

o Do Not Report Am

o DO NOT USE, Spike

o DO NOT USE, Spike -.-010

o DTPA Program

o Flask broken - sample lost

o LIP for Am and Pu

o LIP for Am; Pu ok

o LIP. Do Not Report note at bottom of page 23.

o Lost in Process

o Not used

o Pu LIP low recovery; Am LIP

o Pu OK, Re-run AM DO NOT USE for Am

o Pu OK, Re-run AM DO NOT USE for Am, .150

o Pu ok; Am LIP see note at bottom of page and note low recoveries.

o Rerun #7 (Am) lost

– For Remarks Column comment “1st dpm/disc LIP ; flash broke” which is Unique ID 

[redacted], don’t use the blank dpm/1.5L (1) result; but use the results in the dpm/1.5L (2) 

and dpm/1.5L (3) column. 

– For Remarks Column comment “Am #1 lost; 2nd rinse onto planchet” which is Unique ID # 

[redacted], don’t use the dpm/1.5L (1) result; but use the dpm/1.5L (2) result.

– Except for the following, which are still used:

o “Pu LIP” (unless “Am LIP” is also in the remarks)

o “Pu report data LIP”

o “EU LIP”
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 185 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

o “LIP (EU)”

o “Unique ID # [redacted] dpm/1.5L (1) even though there is a comment stating 2nd rerun 

lost.

• Individual “dpm/1.5L” values with a value of “LIP” (other “dpm/1.5L” values for that record are 

still used).

• If the “report” and all “dpm/1.5L” fields are blank, 

– Data exclusions:

o Changed Payroll ID [redacted], incident on March 9, 1970, exclude all results for 1970.

o Changed Payroll ID [redacted], exclude result on May 1, 1981, false positive.

o Changed Payroll ID [redacted], exclude result on April 27, 1966, false positive.

o Changed Payroll ID [redacted], exclude result on October 19, 1976, false positive.

o Changed Payroll ID [redacted], ingestion intake on March 16, 1972, exclude all results 

for 1972.

o Changed Payroll ID [redacted], Pu wound intake on May 8, 1986, exclude all results for 

1986.

o With a type of “DTPA” or similar. 

o With no bottle date.

o With no Employee ID.

o Within 100 days after receiving chelation as indicated in the Chelation Data 

spreadsheet. Disregard PRID prefixes for matching bioassay results to the Chelation 

Data spreadsheet. If the Changed Payroll ID field is blank, use the Payroll ID field 

instead.

o With a value given as a percentage in any of the report or individual dpm/1.5L values.

o Average all reported “dpm/1.5L” values to determine the result to use

 If all “dpm/1.5L” values are blank, use the “report” value.

o Use the following censoring levels for negative/zero values:

 1963–1965: 2 dpm/1.5L

 1966–1967: 3 dpm/1.5L

 1968: 1 dpm/1.5L

 1969–1989: 0.3 dpm/1.5L
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 186 of 287

ATTACHMENT E 

SRS CO-EXPOSURE STUDY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORAUT-OTIB-0081, REVISION 4 FINAL, DECEMBER 13, 2018 (continued)

o Evaluate the censored data using multiple imputation as described in ORAUT-RPRT0096. The periods for which a similar method and reporting was used and which could 

be combined to develop an imputation model are:

 1963–1965

 1966–1967

 1968

 1969–1989

o Perform the statistical analysis in accordance with the TWOPOS method in the latest 

version of RPRT-0053 as follows:

 Evaluate two strata: 1) CTW for 1965–1989 and 2) nonCTW for 1963–1989. 

 For CTW, evaluate individual years except 1965–1967, 1983–1984, 1985–1986, 

and 1987–1989. For nonCTW, evaluate individual years except 1963–1964 and 

1988–1989. Merge grouped years.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 187 of 287

 

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

F.1 Americium Intake Modeling Results........................................................................................200

F.2 Plutonium Intake Modeling Results.........................................................................................208

F.3 Uranium Intake Modeling Results ...........................................................................................244

F.4 Strontium Intake Modeling Results .........................................................................................260

F.5 Cobalt-60 Intake Modeling Results .........................................................................................262

F.6 Cesium-137 Intake Modeling Results .....................................................................................266

F.7 Neptunium Intake Modeling Results .......................................................................................271

F.8 Thorium Intake Modeling Results ...........................................................................................283

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

F-1 Summary of 241Am nonCTW intake rates and dates...............................................................207

F-2 Summary of 241Am CTW intake rates and dates.....................................................................207

F-3 Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type M............................................243

F-4 Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type S ............................................243

F-5 Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type SS..........................................243

F-6 Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates and dates, type M..................................................243

F-7 Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates and dates, type S ..................................................243

F-8 Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates and dates, type SS................................................243

F-9 Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type F...............................................259

F-10 Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type M ..............................................259

F-11 Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates and dates, type S...............................................259

F-12 Summary of uranium CTW intake rates and dates, type F.....................................................259

F-13 Summary of uranium CTW intake rates and dates, type M ....................................................260

F-14 Summary of uranium CTW intake rates and dates, type S.....................................................260

F-15 Summary of FP (strontium) nonCTW intake rates and dates .................................................262

F-16 Summary of FP (strontium) CTW intake rates and dates .......................................................262

F-17 Summary of 60Co nonCTW type M intake rates and dates .....................................................265

F-18 Summary of 60Co nonCTW type S intake rates and dates......................................................265

F-19 Summary of 60Co CTW type M intake rates and dates ...........................................................265

F-20 Summary of 60Co CTW type S intake rates and dates............................................................266

F-21 Summary of 137Cs nonCTW type F intake rates and dates .....................................................270

F-22 Summary of 137Cs CTW type F intake rates and dates...........................................................270

F-23 Summary of 237Np nonCTW intake rates and dates................................................................282

F-24 Summary of 237Np CTW intake rates and dates......................................................................283

F-25 Summary of type M 232Th intake rates and dates ...................................................................287

F-26 Summary of type S 232Th intake rates and dates ....................................................................287
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 188 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1963 to 

1965, type M ...........................................................................................................................200

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1966 to 

1967, type M ...........................................................................................................................200

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

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

1971, type M ...........................................................................................................................201

F-4 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

1982, type M ...........................................................................................................................201

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1983 to 

1989, type M ...........................................................................................................................201

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1963 to 

1965, type M ...........................................................................................................................202

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1966 to 

1967, type M ...........................................................................................................................202

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

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

1971, type M ...........................................................................................................................202

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

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

1982, type M ...........................................................................................................................203

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1983 to 

1989, type M ...........................................................................................................................203

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1965 to 1967, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................203

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1971, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................204

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1972 to 1982, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................204

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1983 to 1989, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................204

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1965 to 1967, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................205
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 189 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1971, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................205

F-17 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1972 to 1982, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................205

F-18 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1983 to 1989, 

type M .....................................................................................................................................206

F-19 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................206

F-20 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................206

F-21 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type M ....207

F-22 Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type M ....207

F-23 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type M ..............................................................................................................208

F-24 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type M ..............................................................................................................208

F-25 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type M ..............................................................................................................209

F-26 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type M ..............................................................................................................209

F-27 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type M ..............................................................................................................210

F-28 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type M ..............................................................................................................210

F-29 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type M ..............................................................................................................211

F-30 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type M ..............................................................................................................211

F-31 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type M ..............................................................................................................212

F-32 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type M ..............................................................................................................212
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 190 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-33 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type S ...............................................................................................................213

F-34 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type S ...............................................................................................................213

F-35 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type S ...............................................................................................................214

F-36 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type S ...............................................................................................................214

F-37 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type S ...............................................................................................................215

F-38 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type S ...............................................................................................................215

F-39 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type S ...............................................................................................................216

F-40 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type S ...............................................................................................................216

F-41 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type S ...............................................................................................................217

F-42 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type S ...............................................................................................................217

F-43 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type SS ............................................................................................................218

F-44 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type SS ............................................................................................................218

F-45 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type SS ............................................................................................................219

F-46 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type SS ............................................................................................................219

F-47 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type SS ............................................................................................................220

F-48 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1955 to 1960, type SS ............................................................................................................220
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 191 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-49 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1961 to 1966, type SS ............................................................................................................221

F-50 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1967 to 1970, type SS ............................................................................................................221

F-51 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1971 to 1981, type SS ............................................................................................................222

F-52 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 

1982 to 1990, type SS ............................................................................................................222

F-53 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type M .......................................................................................................................223

F-54 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type M .......................................................................................................................223

F-55 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type M .......................................................................................................................224

F-56 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type M .......................................................................................................................224

F-57 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type M .......................................................................................................................225

F-58 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type M .......................................................................................................................225

F-59 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type M .......................................................................................................................226

F-60 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type M .......................................................................................................................226

F-61 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type M .......................................................................................................................227

F-62 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type M .......................................................................................................................227

F-63 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type S ........................................................................................................................228

F-64 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type S ........................................................................................................................228
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 192 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-65 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type S ........................................................................................................................229

F-66 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type S ........................................................................................................................229

F-67 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type S ........................................................................................................................230

F-68 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type S ........................................................................................................................230

F-69 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type S ........................................................................................................................231

F-70 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type S ........................................................................................................................231

F-71 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type S ........................................................................................................................232

F-72 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type S ........................................................................................................................232

F-73 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type SS .....................................................................................................................233

F-74 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type SS .....................................................................................................................233

F-75 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type SS .....................................................................................................................234

F-76 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type SS .....................................................................................................................234

F-77 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type SS .....................................................................................................................235

F-78 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 

to 1960, type SS .....................................................................................................................235

F-79 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 

to 1966, type SS .....................................................................................................................236

F-80 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 

to 1970, type SS .....................................................................................................................236
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 193 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-81 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 

to 1981, type SS .....................................................................................................................237

F-82 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 

to 1990, type SS .....................................................................................................................237

F-83 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 

all years, type M ......................................................................................................................238

F-84 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 

all years, type M ......................................................................................................................238

F-85 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 

all years, type S ......................................................................................................................239

F-86 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 

all years, type S ......................................................................................................................239

F-87 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 

all years, type SS ....................................................................................................................240

F-88 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 

all years, type SS ....................................................................................................................240

F-89 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all 

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................241

F-90 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all 

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................241

F-91 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all 

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................241

F-92 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all 

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................242

F-93 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all 

years, type SS .........................................................................................................................242

F-94 Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all 

years, type SS .........................................................................................................................242

F-95 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type F ...........................................................................................................................244

F-96 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type F ...........................................................................................................................244
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 194 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-97 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................245

F-98 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type M ..........................................................................................................................245

F-99 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................245

F-100 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................246

F-101 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................246

F-102 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................246

F-103 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW, 1953, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................247

F-104 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW, 1954, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................247

F-105 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 

1956, type S ............................................................................................................................248

F-106 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1957 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................248

F-107 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................249

F-108 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1981, type S ............................................................................................................................249

F-109 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 

1985, type S ............................................................................................................................250

F-110 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1986 to 

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................250

F-111 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1953, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................251

F-112 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1954, 

type S ......................................................................................................................................251
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 195 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-113 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 

1956, type S ............................................................................................................................252

F-114 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1957 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................252

F-115 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................ 253

F-116 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1981, type S ............................................................................................................................253

F-117 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 

1985, type S ............................................................................................................................254

F-118 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1986 to 

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................254

F-119 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 to 

1956, type S ............................................................................................................................255

F-120 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1957 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................255

F-121 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................255

F-122 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................256

F-123 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 to 

1957, type S ............................................................................................................................256

F-124 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1958 to 

1962, type S ............................................................................................................................256

F-125 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1963 to 

1967, type S ............................................................................................................................257

F-126 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

1990, type S ............................................................................................................................257

F-127 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................257

F-128 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

years, type S ...........................................................................................................................258
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 196 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-129 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................258

F-130 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................258

F-131 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, 

nonCTW all years ...................................................................................................................260

F-132 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, 

nonCTW all years ...................................................................................................................261

F-133 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, 

CTW all years .........................................................................................................................261

F-134 Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, 

CTW all years .........................................................................................................................262

F-135 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................262

F-136 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type M .....................................................................................................................................263

F-137 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................263

F-138 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

type S ......................................................................................................................................263

F-139 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type M ....264

F-140 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type M ....264

F-141 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type S ....264

F-142 Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type S ....265

F-143 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1960 to 

1966, type F ............................................................................................................................266

F-144 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

1990, type F ............................................................................................................................266

F-145 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1960 to 

1966, type F ............................................................................................................................267

F-146 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

1990, type F ............................................................................................................................267
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 197 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-147 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1960 to 1966, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................267

F-148 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1990, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................268

F-149 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1960 to 1966, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................268

F-150 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1990, 

type F ......................................................................................................................................268

F-151 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................269

F-152 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

type F ......................................................................................................................................269

F-153 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type F ....269

F-154 Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type F ....270

F-155 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1963...271

F-156 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1964 to 1967...271

F-157 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1969...272

F-158 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1970 to 1972...272

F-159 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1973 to 1974...272

F-160 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1975 to 1979...273

F-161 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1980 to 1989...273

F-162 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1963...273

F-163 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1964 to 1967...274

F-164 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1969...274

F-165 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1970 to 1972...274

F-166 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1973 to 1974...275

F-167 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1975 to 1979...275

F-168 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1980 to 1989...275
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 198 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-169 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1963.........276

F-170 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1970 to 1972.........276

F-171 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1973 to 1974.........276

F-172 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1975 to 1979.........277

F-173 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1980 to 1989.........277

F-174 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1963.........277

F-175 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1970 to 1972.........278

F-176 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1973 to 1974.........278

F-177 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1975 to 1979.........278

F-178 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1980 to 1989.........279

F-179 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................279

F-180 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

WBCs......................................................................................................................................280

F-181 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................280

F-182 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

WBCs......................................................................................................................................281

F-183 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................281

F-184 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, WBCs ....281

F-185 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

urinalysis results .....................................................................................................................282

F-186 Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, WBCs ....282

F-187 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type M .............................................................................................................283

F-188 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type M .............................................................................................................283
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 199 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F-189 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type M .................................................................................................................284

F-190 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type M .................................................................................................................284

F-191 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type S ..............................................................................................................285

F-192 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 

to 05/31/1980, type S ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

F-193 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type S ..................................................................................................................286

F-194 Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 

05/31/1980, type S ..................................................................................................................286
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 200 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F.1 AMERICIUM INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1963 to 1965, type M.

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1966 to 1967, type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 201 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1971, type M. 

Figure F-4. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1972 to 1982, type M. 

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 50th percentile, 1983 to 1989, type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 202 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1963 to 1965, type M.

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1966 to 1967, type M.

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1971, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 203 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1972 to 1982, type M. 

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, 1983 to 1989, type M.

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1965 to 1967, type M 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 204 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1968 to 1971, type M.

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1972 to 1982, type M. 

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, 1983 to 1989, type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 205 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1965 to 1967, type M.

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

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1968 to 1971, type M.

Figure F-17. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1972 to 1982, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 206 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-18. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, 1983 to 1989, type M.

Figure F-19. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-20. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), nonCTW 84th percentile, all years, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 207 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-21. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-22. Predicted 241Am bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 241Am intake rates (line) 

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

Table F-1. Summary of 241Am nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1963 12/31/1965 32.11 108.9 3.39 3.39 239

01/01/1966 12/31/1967 57.9 172.7 2.98 3.00 353

01/01/1968 12/31/1971 16.3 39.37 2.42 3.00 99.3

01/01/1972 12/31/1982 2.327 8.426 3.62 3.62 19.3

01/01/1983 12/31/1989 7.694 14.38 1.87 3.00 46.9

Table F-2. Summary of 241Am CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1967 48.46 174.5 3.60 3.60 399

01/01/1968 12/31/1971 16.56 40.97 2.47 3.00 101

01/01/1972 12/31/1982 2.387 8.968 3.76 3.76 21.1

01/01/1983 12/31/1989 8.891 16.76 1.89 3.00 54.2
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 208 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F.2 PLUTONIUM INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

Figure F-23. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1960, 

type M.

Figure F-24. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1966, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 209 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-25. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1970, 

type M.

Figure F-26. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1981, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 210 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-27. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1990, 

type M.

Figure F-28. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1960, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 211 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-29. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1966, 

type M.

Figure F-30. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1970, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 212 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-31. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1981, 

type M.

Figure F-32. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1990, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 213 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-33. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1960, 

type S. 

Figure F-34. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1966, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 214 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-35. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1970, 

type S. 

Figure F-36. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1981, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 215 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-37. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1990, 

type S. 

Figure F-38. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1960, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 216 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-39. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1966, 

type S. 

Figure F-40. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1970, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 217 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-41. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1981, 

type S. 

Figure F-42. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1990, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 218 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-43. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1960, 

type SS. 

Figure F 44. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1966, 

type SS.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 219 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-45. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1970, 

type SS. 

Figure F-46. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1981, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 220 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-47. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1990, 

type SS. 

Figure F-48. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1960, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 221 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-49. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1966, 

type SS. 

Figure F-50. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1970, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 222 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-51. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1971 to 1981, 

type SS. 

Figure F-52. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1990, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 223 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-53. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1960, 

type M.

Figure F-54. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1966, 

type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 224 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-55. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1970, 

type M.

Figure F-56. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 to 1981, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 225 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-57. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 to 1990, 

type M.

Figure F-58. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1960, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 226 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-59. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1966, 

type M.

Figure F-60. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1970, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 227 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-61. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 to 1981, 

type M.

Figure F-62. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 to 1990, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 228 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-63. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1960, 

type S. 

Figure F-64. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1966, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 229 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-65. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1970, 

type S. 

Figure F-66. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 to 1981, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 230 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-67. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 to 1990, 

type S. 

Figure F-68. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1960, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 231 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-69. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1966, 

type S. 

Figure F-70. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1970, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 232 of 287 

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F 71. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 to 1981, 

type S.

Figure F 72. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 to 1990, 

type S.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 233 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-73. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1960, 

type SS. 

Figure F-74. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1966, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 234 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-75. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1970, 

type SS. 

Figure F-76. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1971 to 1981, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 235 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-77. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1982 to 1990, 

type SS. 

Figure F-78. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1960, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 236 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-79. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1966, 

type SS. 

Figure F-80. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1970, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 237 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-81. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1971 to 1981, 

type SS. 

Figure F-82. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1982 to 1990, 

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 238 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-83. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

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

type M.

Figure F-84. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

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

type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 239 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-85. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

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

type S. 

Figure F-86. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

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

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 240 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-87. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

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

type SS. 

Figure F-88. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

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

type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 241 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-89. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

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

Figure F-90. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

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

Figure F-91. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 242 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-92. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type S. 

Figure F-93. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 50th percentile, all years, type SS. 

Figure F-94. Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IDOT-derived plutonium intake 

rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), CTW 84th percentile, all years, type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 243 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table F-3. Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type M.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 3.265 9.742 2.98 3.00 19.90

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 1.606 6.453 4.02 4.02 15.83

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 5.778 20.17 3.49 3.49 45.17

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 1.692 7.678 4.54 4.54 20.37

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 0.7238 5.03 6.94 6.94 17.5

Table F-4. Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type S.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 66.17 202.9 3.07 3.07 417.98

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 36 141.9 3.94 3.94 343.71

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 154.5 524.1 3.39 3.39 1,152.33

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 27.02 123.3 4.56 4.56 328.24

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 12.56 83.44 6.64 6.64 283.0

Table F-5. Summary of plutonium nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type SS.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 454 1,360 3.00 3.00 2,766

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 222 893 4.02 4.02 2,192

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 787 2,770 3.52 3.52 6,237

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 230 1,040 4.52 4.52 2,752

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 99 687 6.94 6.94 2,397

Table F-6. Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type M.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 2.706 8.487 3.14 3.14 17.74

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 1.356 5.89 4.34 4.34 15.19

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 5.279 19.55 3.70 3.70 45.49

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 1.379 6.329 4.59 4.59 16.91

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 0.5974 4.65 7.78 7.78 17.5

Table F-7. Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type S.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 54.76 178.9 3.27 3.27 383.92

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 30.63 128.9 4.21 4.21 325.69

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 142.5 514.4 3.61 3.61 1,177.28

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 22.13 100.6 4.55 4.55 267.15

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 10.41 77.13 7.41 7.41 280.7

Table F-8. Summary of plutonium CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type SS.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1960 377 1,180 3.13 3.13 2,463

01/01/1961 12/31/1966 188 814 4.33 4.33 2,095

01/01/1967 12/31/1970 719 2,670 3.71 3.71 6,223

01/01/1971 12/31/1981 188 861 4.58 4.58 2,297
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 244 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1982 12/31/1990 81.6 636 7.79 7.79 2,391

F.3 URANIUM INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

Figure F-95. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW all years, type F.

Figure F-96. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW all years, type F.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 245 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-97. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

Figure F-98. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

Figure F-99. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type F.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 246 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-100. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

Figure F-101. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

Figure F-102. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 247 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-103. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW, 1953, type S. 

Figure F-104. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW, 1954, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 248 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-105. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1956, 

type S. 

Figure F-106. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1957 to 1962, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 249 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-107. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1963 to 1967, 

type S. 

Figure F-108. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1981, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 250 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-109. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1985, 

type S. 

Figure F-110. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1986 to 1990, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 251 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-111. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1953, type S. 

Figure F-112. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1954, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 252 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-113. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1955 to 1956, 

type S. 

Figure F-114. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1957 to 1962, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 253 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-115. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1963 to 1967, 

type S. 

Figure F-116. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1981, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 254 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-117. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1982 to 1985, 

type S. 

Figure F-118. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1986 to 1990, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 255 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-119. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1956, type S. 

Figure F-120. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1957 to 1962, type S. 

Figure F-121. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1963 to 1967, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 256 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-122. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1968 to 1990, type S. 

Figure F-123. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1955 to 1957, type S. 

Figure F-124. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1958 to 1962, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 257 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-125. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1963 to 1967, type S. 

Figure F-126. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1968 to 1990, type S. 

Figure F-127. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 258 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-128. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW all years, type S. 

Figure F-129. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

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

Figure F-130. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 259 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table F-9. Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type F.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1953 12/31/1953 36.19 56.88 1.57 3.00 220.52

01/01/1954 12/31/1954 14.27 21.89 1.53 3.00 86.95

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 7.095 9.791 1.38 3.00 43.23

01/01/1957 12/31/1962 1.035 5.658 5.47 5.47 16.92

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 2.366 13.77 5.82 5.82 42.89

01/01/1968 12/31/1981 0.6054 2.778 4.59 4.59 7.42

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 1.556 5.93 3.81 3.81 14.05

01/01/1986 12/31/1990 0.646 2.087 3.23 3.23 4.45

Table F-10. Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type M.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1953 12/31/1953 175.1 275.2 1.57 3.00 1,066.97

01/01/1954 12/31/1954 40.67 61.18 1.50 3.00 247.82

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 26.46 36.24 1.37 3.00 161.23

01/01/1957 12/31/1962 3.651 22.86 6.26 6.26 74.63

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 9.768 57.23 5.86 5.86 179.01

01/01/1968 12/31/1981 2.426 10.76 4.44 4.44 28.12

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 6.469 24.85 3.84 3.84 59.20

01/01/1986 12/31/1990 2.513 8.016 3.19 3.19 16.94

Table F-11. Summary of uranium nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type S.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1953 12/31/1953 5,477 8,607 1.57 3.00 33,373.92

01/01/1954 12/31/1954 2,222 3,412 1.54 3.00 13,539.68

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 826.2 1,144 1.38 3.00 5,034.42

01/01/1957 12/31/1962 81.69 418.3 5.12 5.12 1,199.50

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 185.7 1,068 5.75 5.75 3,300.78

01/01/1968 12/31/1981 36.33 152.6 4.20 4.20 385.10

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 133.8 535 4.00 4.00 1,307.91

01/01/1986 12/31/1990 53.03 171.6 3.24 3.24 365.99

Table F-12. Summary of uranium CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type F.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 7.243 10.12 1.40 3.00 44.13

01/01/1957 12/31/1957 0.7962 10.12 12.71 12.71 52.16

01/01/1958 12/31/1962 0.7962 3.232 4.06 4.06 7.98

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 2.124 13.12 6.18 6.18 42.46

01/01/1968 12/31/1990 0.6529 2.661 4.08 4.08 6.59
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 260 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table F-13. Summary of uranium CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type M.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 32.09 44.4 1.38 3.00 195.54

01/01/1957 12/31/1957 2.349 44.1 18.77 18.77 292.34

01/01/1958 12/31/1962 2.349 11.7 4.98 4.98 32.96

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 8.923 55.24 6.19 6.19 179.03

01/01/1968 12/31/1990 2.625 10.44 3.98 3.98 25.43

Table F-14. Summary of uranium CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates, type S.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1956 821.4 975.9 1.19 3.00 5,005.17

01/01/1957 12/31/1957 53.65 975.9 18.19 18.19 6,338.69

01/01/1958 12/31/1962 53.65 239.1 4.46 4.46 626.89

01/01/1963 12/31/1967 176.2 1,057 6.00 6.00 3,356.83

01/01/1968 12/31/1990 35.68 141.6 3.97 3.97 344.50

F.4 STRONTIUM INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

Figure F-131. Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW all 

years.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 261 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-132. Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW all 

years.

Figure F-133. Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 262 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-134. Predicted FP (strontium) bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived strontium 

intake rates (line) compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW all years.

Table F-15. Summary of FP (strontium) nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 70.05 161.8 2.31 3.00 427

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 32.43 98.31 3.03 3.03 201

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 97.43 199.9 2.05 3.00 594

Table F-16. Summary of FP (strontium) CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 69.46 154.9 2.23 3.00 423

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 34.33 103.4 3.01 3.01 211

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 102.2 220.8 2.16 3.00 623

F.5 COBALT-60 INTAKE MODELING RESULTS 

Figure F-135. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW all years, type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 263 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-136. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-137. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-138. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 264 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-139. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-140. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-141. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 265 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-142. Predicted 60Co bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 60Co intake rates (line) 

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

Table F-17. Summary of 60Co nonCTW type M intake rates (pCi/d) and dates.

Start End

50th

percentile

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 91.56 212.1 2.32 3.00 558

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 39.72 122.2 3.08 3.08 252

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 128.6 262.1 2.04 3.00 784

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 930 2,989 3.21 3.21 6,347

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 1,185 3,773 3.18 3.18 7,963

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 804.8 2,636 3.28 3.28 5,666

Table F-18. Summary of 60Co nonCTW type S intake rates (pCi/d) and dates.

Start End

50th

percentile

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 365 844.4 2.31 3.00 2,224

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 146.6 457.5 3.12 3.12 953

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 503.2 1,020 2.03 3.00 3,066

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 3,654 11,730 3.21 3.21 24,889

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 4,760 15,250 3.20 3.20 32,316

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 3,137 10,300 3.28 3.28 22,175

Table F-19. Summary of 60Co CTW type M intake rates (pCi/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 90.85 203.4 2.24 3.00 554

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 42.34 129.3 3.05 3.05 266

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 135 290.1 2.15 3.00 823

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 825.7 2,816 3.41 3.41 6,213

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 1,282 4,110 3.21 3.21 8,713

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 785.4 2,567 3.27 3.27 5,510
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 266 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table F-20. Summary of 60Co CTW type S intake rates (pCi/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1955 12/31/1958 362.3 810 2.24 3.00 2,208

01/01/1959 12/31/1961 157.3 488.2 3.10 3.10 1,014

01/01/1962 12/31/1965 529.7 1,136 2.14 3.00 3,228

01/01/1966 12/31/1966 3,248 11,070 3.41 3.41 24,414

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 5,106 16,480 3.23 3.23 35,090

01/01/1968 12/31/1970 3,068 10,040 3.27 3.27 21,569

F.6 CESIUM-137 INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

Figure F-143. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1960 to 1966, type F.

Figure F-144. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1990, type F.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 267 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-145. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1960 to 1966, type F.

Figure F-146. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1967 to 1990, type F.

Figure F-147. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1960 to 1966, type F.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 268 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-148. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1990, type F.

Figure F-149. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1960 to 1966, type F.

Figure F-150. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1967 to 1990, type F.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 269 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-151. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-152. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-153. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, type F.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 270 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-154. Predicted 137Cs bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 137Cs intake rates (line) 

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

Table F-21. Summary of 137Cs nonCTW type F intake rates (pCi/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1960 12/31/1963 98.14 141.5 1.44 3.00 598.01

01/01/1964 12/31/1964 266.8 407.5 1.53 3.00 1,625.74

01/01/1965 12/31/1966 111.3 187.3 1.68 3.00 678.20

01/01/1967 12/31/1967 42.98 119.8 2.79 3.00 261.90

01/01/1968 12/31/1968 87.45 129.2 1.48 3.00 532.87

01/01/1969 12/31/1971 18.86 66.49 3.53 3.53 149.87

01/01/1972 12/31/1977 31.86 65.63 2.06 3.00 194.14

01/01/1978 12/31/1985 9.396 28.87 3.07 3.07 59.55

01/01/1986 12/31/1986 34.84 71.2 2.04 3.00 212.30

01/01/1987 12/31/1990 2.819 13.04 4.63 4.63 35.02

Table F-22. Summary of 137Cs CTW type F intake rates (pCi/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1962 91.38 122 1.34 3.00 556.82

01/01/1963 12/31/1963 162.6 237.9 1.46 3.00 990.80

01/01/1964 12/31/1966 201.2 313.8 1.56 3.00 1,226.01

01/01/1967 12/31/1968 54.81 148.6 2.71 3.00 333.98

01/01/1969 12/31/1977 29.31 63.11 2.15 3.00 178.60

01/01/1978 12/31/1981 9.71 31.13 3.21 3.21 66.00

01/01/1982 12/31/1985 6.557 20.9 3.19 3.19 44.14

01/01/1986 12/31/1986 22.95 67.8 2.95 3.00 139.85

01/01/1987 12/31/1990 2.697 8.476 3.14 3.14 17.74
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 271 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

F.7 NEPTUNIUM INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

Figure F-155. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1963.

Figure F-156. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1964 to 1967.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 272 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-157. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1969.

Figure F-158. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1970 to 1972.

Figure F-159. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1973 to 1974.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 273 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-160. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1975 to 1979.

Figure F-161. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 1980 to 1989.

Figure F-162. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1961 to 1963.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 274 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-163. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-164. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1968 to 1969.

Figure F-165. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1970 to 1972.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 275 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-166. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1973 to 1974.

Figure F-167. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1975 to 1979.

Figure F-168. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 1980 to 1989.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 276 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-169. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1963.

Figure F-170. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1970 to 1972.

Figure F-171. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1973 to 1974.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 277 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-172. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1975 to 1979.

Figure F-173. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 1980 to 1989.

Figure F-174. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1961 to 1963.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 278 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-175. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1970 to 1972.

Figure F-176. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1973 to 1974.

Figure F-177. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1975 to 1979.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 279 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-178. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 1980 to 1989.

Figure F-179. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

results.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 280 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-180. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-181. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

results.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 281 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-182. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-183. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-184. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW all years, WBCs.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 282 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-185. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

Figure F-186. Predicted 237Np bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 237Np intake rates (line) 

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

Table F-23. Summary of 237Np nonCTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1963 0.1541 0.8663 5.62 5.62 2.638

01/01/1964 12/31/1967 2.844 9.146 3.22 3.22 19.43

01/01/1968 12/31/1969 2.16 5.499 2.55 3.00 13.16

01/01/1970 12/31/1972 297.7 605.5 2.03 3.00 1,814

01/01/1973 12/31/1974 163.6 422.5 2.58 3.00 996.9

01/01/1975 12/31/1979 32.76 130.5 3.98 3.98 318.3

01/01/1980 12/31/1989 3.183 15.54 4.88 4.88 43.21
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 283 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table F-24. Summary of 237Np CTW intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

01/01/1961 12/31/1963 0.1545 1.036 6.71 6.71 3.535

01/01/1970 12/31/1972 328.2 481.2 1.47 3.00 2,000

01/01/1973 12/31/1974 186.8 435.4 2.33 3.00 1,138

01/01/1975 12/31/1979 26.36 117.7 4.47 4.47 309

01/01/1980 12/31/1989 3.119 19.47 6.24 6.24 63.44

F.8 THORIUM INTAKE MODELING RESULTS

Figure F-187. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type M.

Figure F-188. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 284 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-189. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type M.

Figure F-190. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type M.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 285 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-191. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type S. 

Figure F-192. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, nonCTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 286 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure F-193. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type S. 

Figure F-194. Predicted 232Th bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived 232Th intake rates (line) 

compared with measured bioassay results (dots), 84th percentile, CTW 11/01/1972 to 05/31/1980, 

type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0081 Revision No. 05 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 287 of 287

ATTACHMENT F 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table F-25. Summary of type M 232Th intake rates (dpm/d) and dates.

nonCTW 

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 4.203 14.97 3.56 3.56 34.0

CTW

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 4.145 13.96 3.37 3.37 30.6

Table F-26. Summary of type S 232Th intake rates (dpm/d) and dates. 

nonCTW 

Start End

50th 

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 81.49 282.8 3.47 3.47 631

CTW

Start End

50th

percentile

84th 

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th 

percentile

11/01/1972 05/31/1980 79.41 259.2 3.26 3.26 556