Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-062 

Effective Date: 11/02/2017 

Revision No. 0 

ORAUT-OTIB-0052 Page 1 of 6

Author: Signature on file Date: 11/02/2017 Dave Allen, HP Team Leader

Approval: Signature on file Date: 11/02/2017 

 J. W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Supersedes: none 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE

DATE

REV. NO. DESCRIPTION

11/02/2017 11/02/2017 0 New document to determine the effect of 

revisions 1 and 2 to ORAUT-OTIB-0052

(Construction Trade Workers) on 

previously completed claims.

1.0 Description

On 8/31/2006, the ORAU Technical Information Bulletin (ORAUT-OTIB-0052) was 

issued titled “Parameters to Consider When Processing Claims for Construction Trade 

Workers” (OTIB-52). A PER (OCAS-PER-0014) was issued on 11/27/2007 evaluating 

the effect of issuing this document on previously completed claims. Also, in 2007 a 

review of OTIB-52 was issued by the Advisory Board’s contractor. Revision 1 to OTIB52 was issued on 2/17/2011 to close some of the findings from that review. An 

additional revision (revision 2) was issued on 7/24/2014 and the last finding of the OTIB 

review was closed on 11/25/2014. 

Both revisions to OTIB-52 added language to clarify guidance for the dose reconstruction

of Construction trade Workers (CTWs) but no values were changed. This PER is being 

prepared to consider the effect on previously completed claims of the change to guidance 

in both revisions of the OTIB. 

2.0 Issue Evaluation 

OTIB-52 provides for a correction factor if co-worker doses are to be used for CTWs. 

The correction factor is intended to be a favorable upward correction of the co-worker 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-062 

Effective Date: 11/02/2017 Revision No.: 0 Page 2 of 6

doses to account for the CTWs having a different exposure potential than the population 

of other site workers. The correction factors do not apply to data from dosimetry actually 

worn by the CTW. Therefore, the evaluation of claims had to include a case-by-case 

review to determine if co-worker doses were actually assigned. 

3.0 Plan for Resolving Corrective Action 

3.1 Establishing a List of Sites 

To establish the population of claims to be evaluated, the first step was to identify a list of 

sites for which coworker data had been developed using monitored site workers. Next, 

those sites for which a site specific PER is planed were excluded. This issue will become 

part of those site specific PERs. Table 1 lists the sites for which coworker data has been 

developed. The second column includes a “Yes” next to those included in this PER. 

Also, a PER number is included next to those for which a PER was completed and the 

evaluation of doses considered the revisions to OTIB-52. 

Table 1 – Applicable Sites

Site Included in this PER

Ames Laboratory

Albany Research Center

Area IV – Santa Susana Field Laboratory

Bridgeport Brass Company PER-61

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Canoga Avenue Facility

Clinton Engineering Works Yes

De Soto Avenue Facility

Downey Facility

Electro Metallurgical Company PER-68

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC)

Feed Materials Production Center (Fernald)

Hanford

K-25 (Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant)

Kansas City Plant Yes

Lake Ontario Ordnance Works Yes

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

X-10 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-062 

Effective Date: 11/02/2017 Revision No.: 0 Page 3 of 6

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant PER-49

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Rocky Flats Plant

Sandia National Laboratories – Albuquerque, NM Yes

Savannah River Site

Y-12 Plant

Extrusion Plant Yes

Nevada Test Site (1945-1957) Yes

Pacific Proving Grounds Yes

Pantex Plant

Pinellas Plant

United Nuclear Corp.

Weldon Spring Plant Yes

3.2 Develop Population of Claims

The eight sites identified for evaluation under this PER collectively totaled 2486 claims. 

For each claim, a keyword search was conducted on both the Dose Reconstruction Report 

and the NOCTS database to determine if they could be classified as Construction Trade 

Workers. The keywords for which the search was conducted are provided in Attachment 

A. This process identified 1438 claims that met the search criteria. 

An additional text search was conducted on the Dose Reconstruction Reports for claims 

from all sites (excluding those already identified above) to determine if there was any 

mention of the site names that are the subject of this PER. This search identified 754 

additional claims to consider. The keywords listed in Attachment A were searched for in

these 754 claims. This eliminated 223 claims from further consideration, resulting in 531 

remaining claims. 

The total population of claims with CTW employment needing further evaluation was 

then 1969 claims (1438 + 531). 

3.3 Reductions to the Population of Claims Needing Evaluation 

The following additional factors that could be used to reduce the population further were 

considered. 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-062 

Effective Date: 11/02/2017 Revision No.: 0 Page 4 of 6

169 claims were removed that were duplicated between the two lists. This occurred 

when covered employment was listed at one site but another site on the list was 

mentioned in the dose reconstruction report. 

260 claims were removed because they had a probability of causation (POC) greater than 

50%. 

59 claims were removed because they were completed after revision 2 of OTIB-52 was 

issued. 

23 claims were removed because they were either in progress (a new dose reconstruction 

would use the current version of OTIB-52) or they had been pulled from dose 

reconstruction. 

163 claims were removed because they qualified for compensation under an SEC and no 

longer needed a dose reconstruction for that determination. 

267 claims were removed with Nevada Test Site (NTS) employment only after 1957. 

Coworker assignments at NTS only occurred between 1945 and 1957. 

22 claims were removed that did not have Clinton Engineering Works employment in 

1948 or 1949. These are the only years that coworker doses are assigned at this site.

These reductions created a total of 970 claims being removed from the population of 

claims resulting in a total of 1006 claims to be further evaluation. 

3.4 Results

The 1006 claims were evaluated to determine if coworker doses were assigned and if so, 

whether the energy employee should have been considered a construction trade worker. 

Those meeting both criteria were reviewed further to determine if the OTIB-52 correction 

factor had already been applied. If not, the dose for each was recalculated using revision 

2 of OTIB-0052 as well as the current revision of any other applicable documents. 

Of the 1006 claims, 1 claim resulted in a recalculated POC of greater than 52%, while 

992 resulted in a POC below 45% or no change. One claim resulted in a POC between 

45-50%. For this claim, IREP was run 30 times at 10,000 iterations per NIOSH 

procedures. The resulting POC was less than 50%. 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-062 

Effective Date: 11/02/2017 Revision No.: 0 Page 5 of 6

An additional 12 claims were returned to NIOSH for a new dose reconstruction prior to 

evaluation under this PER. Those claims were reworked using current methods including 

revision 2 of OTIB-0052 so they were removed from further evaluation under this PER. 

NIOSH will provide the Department of Labor with the list of all the claims evaluated 

under this PER. Further, NIOSH will request the return of the 1 claim that would now 

result in a probability of causation greater than 50%.
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-062 

Effective Date: 11/02/2017 Revision No.: 0 Page 6 of 6

Attachment A

Below is the list of keywords used during the keyword search portion of this 

PER evaluation.

Craft iron teamster plast maint crane

boil Skill pipe f equip engineer radiographer

asbestos rigger sheet metal linem ship

plumb construction machinist insulator weld mason

tile black millw heavy electric operating

cement truck paint brick laborer pipef

carp