Draft

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

SC&A’S FOCUSED EVALUATION OF LLNL 

ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, REVISION 03, FOR TBD-5 ISSUE 

RESOLUTION 

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004, Revision 0 

Prepared by

Joseph Fitzgerald

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP 

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 

Arlington, Virginia, 22201-3324 

Saliant, Inc.

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

February 2017 

DISCLAIMER

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) technical 

support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), including its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, 

draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically 

marked as such. This document prepared by SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical 

issues. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

2 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SC&A, INC.: Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

DOCUMENT TITLE: 

SC&A’s Focused Evaluation of LLNL ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, 

Revision 03, for TBD-5 Issue Resolution

DOCUMENT NUMBER/

DESCRIPTION:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004 

REVISION NO.: 0 (Draft)

SUPERSEDES: N/A

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2017

TASK MANAGER: Joseph Fitzgerald [signature on file]

PROJECT MANAGER: John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

DOCUMENT 

REVIEWER(S): John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file] 

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 2/7/2016 Initial issue
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

3 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 SC&A’s Evaluation of TBD-5, Revision 03, Relative to SC&A’s 2007 Findings ............ 6

3.0 SC&A’s Focused Review of the Revised LLNL TBD-5 .................................................. 11

3.1 Recorded Data Issues ............................................................................................ 11

3.2 Areas of Concern .................................................................................................. 12

4.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 13

5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 14
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

4 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Advisory Board, 

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Am americium

C carbon

Cm curium 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DU depleted uranium 

ER evaluation report 

FAP fission activation product 

HTO tritiated water

I iodine 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

MDA minimum detectable activity

MT metal tritides

N nitrogen 

Na sodium 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Np neptunium 

NTS Nevada Test Site

O oxygen

OBT organically bound tritium form

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

OTIB ORAUT technical information bulletin

P phosphorus 

PPE personal protective equipment 

PPG Pacific Proving Grounds 

Pu plutonium 

S sulfur 

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

5 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Sr strontium 

SRDB Site Research Database

TBD technical basis document

Th thorium 

TRU transuranic 

U uranium 

WB whole body 

WBC whole-body count 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

6 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, Revision 03, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational 

Internal Dose, dated August 12, 2016 (NIOSH 2016b) is a major revision of Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) technical basis document (TBD)-5 for internal dose 

assignments. It clearly addresses some of the concerns contained in SC&A’s review of ORAUTTKBS-0035-5, Revision 00 (NIOSH 2005a), associated with internal dose assignments; e.g., 

items pertinent to SC&A’s Findings 1 through 8 (SC&A 2007). It also implements changes as a 

result of the current three LLNL Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) classes effective up through 

December 31, 1989. While SC&A participated in data capture activities in support of the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH’s) development of its evaluation 

report (ER) for SEC-00221, the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Advisory 

Board) has not tasked any reviews beyond the original 2007 site profile review for LLNL.

NIOSH’s LLNL SEC-00221 ER (NIOSH 2016a) is focused on the lack of specific uranium-233 

(U-233) bioassay data for workers in Building 251 up through December 31, 1989; however, for 

timeliness reasons, NIOSH “will continue to review and evaluate internal and external 

exposures other than U-233 from 1974–1989, and all internal and external exposures from 

1990–1995” (NIOSH 2016a) for the main LLNL site and Site 300. On May 2, 2016, the 

Advisory Board agreed and recommended the SEC for this period, and it was approved and 

designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on June 17, 2016. Given that 

essentially all of the key remaining exposure potentials are reserved for further evaluation by 

NIOSH and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, SC&A directed its efforts at a focused 

review of the revised TBD-5, Revision 03, specific to potential internal exposures during the 

post-SEC period of 1990–1995 and how they are currently addressed in the TBD. Clearly, this 

review can be extended by the Work Group as additional research is accomplished by NIOSH 

and the current evaluation is supplemented.

2.0 SC&A’S EVALUATION OF TBD-5, REVISION 03, RELATIVE TO 

SC&A’S 2007 FINDINGS

Some of the areas of concern addressed in SC&A’s original review of ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, 

Revision 00, associated with internal dose assignments, have been addressed in TBD-5, 

Revision 03. These are related to Findings 1–8 (SC&A 2007), involving aspects of dose 

reconstruction for internal exposures, as follows.

Finding 1: Dose estimation for LLNL personnel assigned to weapons testing has not been 

adequately considered. Exposure conditions related to LLNL personnel participation in weapons 

and safety testing, and subcritical or reactor experiments have not been considered in the LLNL 

site profile. This involves numerous LLNL-sponsored nuclear weapons tests, including 

atmospheric, underwater, and underground testing in the U.S. and at PPG [Pacific Proving 

Grounds]. Hundreds of personnel were involved in weapons testing and the Plowshare program.

The significance and potential dose contribution due to LLNL personnel participation in testing 

has not been considered in the site profile, which is of particular concern for those test sites 

without existing TBDs (e.g., Amchitka, Hattiesburg, PPG, etc.). NTS [Nevada Test Site]

eventually became the repository for the PPG and NTS dosimetry results; however, dose records 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

7 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

or evidence that they have been requested is not available for all claimants. There is no apparent 

explanation provided for the benefit of the dose reconstructor on when and how doses from 

testing should be considered. Scientists and support personnel were responsible for re-entries to 

collect diagnostic equipment, cloud sampling after atmospheric tests, and processing of core and 

air filter samples. They worked side by side with workers in Alaska, at the NTS during 

atmospheric testing, and at PPG during underwater and atmospheric testing. NIOSH has 

identified problems with dose reconstruction for both NTS and PPG. The TBD does not provide 

background information and guidance on how to assess potential missed dose for exposure 

during weapons tests, subcriticality test shots and experiments, and the Plowshare program at 

testing sites across the United States. There is no information on how dose reconstruction issues 

previously identified at the testing sites (e.g., from past respective site profile and Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) reviews) will be addressed.

SC&A review: TBD-5, Revision 03, contains more specific background information and 

direction regarding weapons residues and LLNL post-testing assessments (e.g., pages 23, 24, and 

90) but does not provide the dose reconstructor guidance about internal exposure of LLNL 

workers participating in LLNL-directed testing and research at NTS, Amchitka, PPG, 

Hattiesburg, and other offsite locations. Unlike weapons residue analyses, which took place at 

LLNL, these bioassays would have been conducted at these offsite locations. A similar question 

was raised during the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) SEC proceedings, and NIOSH’s 

position was that such dose records would be associated with those sites and would be reflected 

in an individual’s dose reconstruction (including inclusion in the SEC if the 250-day rule were 

satisfied [ABRWH 2011]). However, it would be helpful to dose reconstructors to reflect this 

consideration in the TBD and to verify (e.g., through sampling or Advisory Board dose 

reconstruction reviews) that these records can be located at these various sites (or successor 

cognizant organizations, in the case of Hattiesburg). 

Finding 2: Inadequate consideration has been given in the site profile to potential exposure 

received at Site 300. The site profile is incomplete in its description of activities occurring at 

Site 300 and the potential radiological exposure conditions associated with these activities. 

Minimal dose reconstruction guidance is provided for internal and environmental occupational 

dose. The assumption of semi-annual bioassay monitoring is in conflict with information 

provided by former Site 300 employees and, in some cases, results available in dosimetry files 

and electronic dosimetry databases. The LLNL Site Profile indicates that the sources of radiation 

exposure at Site 300 include accelerators, DU [depleted uranium], activation products from 

accelerators, tritium, and radiography sources when in use. Batzel ([1976]) indicated that the 

guidelines allowed for experiments with natural uranium, DU, natural thorium, tritium, and 

beryllium. Sewell (1959) specifically authorized the thorium hydrodynamics program at Site 300 

in 1959. No method for assessment of environmental dose from alpha emitters and tritium is 

available prior to 1961 and 1972, respectively. Potential extremity exposures may have occurred 

during hand contact with thorium and thorium alloy. An evaluation of non-hydroshot activities at 

Site 300 is minimally covered in the TBD, although workers were potentially exposed as a part 

of these activities. Further evaluation of the implemented monitoring for this area and its 

adequacy for the radionuclides involved in tests is necessary. Varying levels of personal 

protective equipment (PPE) were worn and bioassay was not routine, according to employees 

interviewed. In some cases, no protective clothing and/or respirators were used, and it is 

important to establish when this occurred. The work activities at the site appear to have had the 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

8 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

potential for internal exposure, with some doubt that any bioassays were taken for monitoring 

such exposure. 

SC&A review: TBD-5, Revision 03, contains more specific treatment of Site 300 in terms of the 

historic bioassay monitoring program but acknowledges that radionuclide-specific application to 

individual workers would depend on judgments of exposure potential and the nuclide involved 

(i.e., those other than airborne uranium would require a different schedule at the discretion of the 

health physicist). For natural thorium, TBD-5 (page 22) states that “indications are that WB 

[whole body] counting was used to monitor for thorium intakes” and that a “worker’s job 

description should be evaluated” to determine if his recorded gross alpha bioassay analysis on 

top of regular uranium analyses actually was indicative of potential thorium exposure. Additional 

recent (2016) onsite research was conducted by NIOSH (in conjunction with SC&A) at Site 300 

to better establish these and other questions, including better source term characterization and 

operational history; the results of this additional review should be reflected in the TBD. 

Finding 3: Completeness, accuracy, and availability of data used in dose reconstruction, and 

as a basis for the internal coworker approach, not adequately addressed in the TBD.

Information available for dose reconstruction, especially for those involved in testing and 

special projects, is limited, inadequate, and sometimes not available. There are major issues 

with verifying the accuracy and usefulness of the data in MAPPER used for the coworker 

internal dose assessment method. Regarding the MAPPER database, LLNL staff members have 

indicated that some bioassays cannot be confidently associated with a specific person, and there 

are ambiguities in some analytes reported. These LLNL staff members indicated that large 

negative results are included for later periods, letters in the sample type column do not always 

indicate whether the sample was urine or fecal, and overall, that sample volume and mass must 

be interpreted carefully. There is very little discussion in the TBD about the quality of the earlier 

data (1950s–1960s). With the inconsistencies inherent in MAPPER, the use of these data for the 

internal dose coworker model is suspect and needs to be evaluated. During SC&A’s review of 

classified documents, additional bioassay results were discovered that lead to questions 

regarding the adequacy of information currently being provided in the claimant files. These 

additional bioassay results found in classified records, not available for the dose reconstructor’s 

use, could have an important effect on dose reconstruction of the individual claimant’s dose. In 

light of these shortcomings, the verification process for determining the completeness and 

consistency of the internal dosimetry information provided in hard copy to dose reconstructors 

by the site needs to be addressed. 

SC&A Review: With the 2010 addition of Attachment B to the TBD in Revision 01 (NIOSH 

2010) and carried forward with updates in Revision 03 in 2016 (NIOSH 2016b), a number of 

stated issues with MAPPER (incompleteness, accuracy, etc.) and its application in a coworker 

model have been largely addressed. For example, negative results were deleted for coworker data 

analyses (page 78). Early gross beta bioassay data (1957–1973) are not used (page 79). However, 

it is not clear from existing documentation whether an independent validation and verification of 

this database has been accomplished. There also remains the question of whether some bioassay 

data may continue to reside in classified files unavailable for dose reconstruction. 

Finding 4: The Occupational Internal Dose TBD ([NIOSH 2005a]) has given inadequate 

consideration for the impact to worker dose from secondary radionuclides. Numerous 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

9 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

radionuclides were handled at LLNL, ranging from microcurie to curie quantities. These have 

included radium, Th-228, Th-232, Am-241, U-233, Cm-244, C-252, Pu-238, C-14, Na-22, P-32, 

S-35, I-125, I-131, Sr-90, N-13, and O-15, along with other fission products and activation 

products. Much of the bioassay data in the database are identified as “gross alpha” and “gross 

beta” results, and NIOSH has not identified which, if any, of these secondary radionuclides may 

be associated with these data. NIOSH has commented that the next revision of the Internal Dose 

TBD will contain guidance on the interpretation of gross alpha, gross beta, and fission product 

bioassay results. NIOSH needs to determine if there are potential exposures to these 

radionuclides that cannot be reconstructed accurately, due to inadequacies with the available 

radionuclide-specific information. These may be similar to the inadequacies cited in NIOSH’s 

SEC evaluation report for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) (NIOSH 2007[d]). Radium 

is not identified (DOE 2004) as being used in any buildings or projects to a great extent; 

however, there is evidence that it may have been present at the site in some abundance. Exposure 

to a number of these radionuclides was not given adequate or, in some cases, any consideration 

in the internal dosimetry TBD, although some are listed as facility-specific radionuclides 

handled in particular technical areas. 

SC&A review: Major secondary radionuclides are now addressed in TBD-5, Revision 03, by the 

coworker model: americium-241 (Am-241), curium-244 (Cm-244), carbon-14 (C-14), 

phosphorous-32 (P-32), and strontium-90 (Sr-90), in addition to various fission products and 

activation products (page 91). Of course, U-233 figured as the basis for the most recent SEC 

class. In addition, a new section was added on “Other Limited-Exposure Radionuclides.” In it, 

NIOSH acknowledges the presence of a wide scope of small-use radionuclides as part of the 

historic LLNL research program. It notes that the “internal dose potentials due to these 

radionuclides (i.e., other than plutonium, uranium, tritium, metal tritides and organically-bound 

tritium) were remote because of the requirements for handling unsealed sources in fume hoods, 

hot cells, gloveboxes, and dryboxes” (page 17). It is also noted that the whole-body counting 

program routinely scanned for a broad range of secondary radionuclides in additional to the 

primary sources, as evidenced by Table 5-9. Radium was present at LLNL and figured in at least 

one incident in 1975 (Table 5-12, page 33), but little about this operational source term is 

provided in the revised TBD-5. Additional guidance is provided for potential exposure to 

thorium-232 (Th-232), Cm-244, and neptunium-237 (Np-237) in this same section with 

reference to Table 5-11, which lists these radionuclides by work location. As acknowledged by 

NIOSH in its most recent SEC evaluation report (NIOSH 2016a), further onsite research remains 

to fully characterize these and other source terms of internal exposure significance.

Finding 5: There is limited guidance on the interpretation of bioassay data for intakes of 

tritium, metal tritides, or organically bound tritium. While OTIB-0066 ([NIOSH 2007a]) was 

issued while the SC&A review was underway, and provided generic guidance on the calculation 

of dose from intakes of special tritium compounds, it only partially addresses some of the issues 

discussed below. According to the Site Description TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0035-2) [NIOSH

2005b], Building 331 (Hydrogen/Tritium Research Facility) had the bulk of the tritium inventory 

in elemental form or metal hydrides. Metal hydrides of tritium are special chemical forms for 

tritium, and are also called metal tritides (MT). These MTs are somewhat insoluble forms of 

tritium compounds (Inkret et al. 1999, Cheng et al. 1997) that do not exhibit similar biokinetic 

behavior to the more common forms of tritium, such as tritiated water (HTO) or elemental 

tritium. Tritium from MTs does not enter the systemic compartment as quickly as HTO after 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

10 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

inhalation and, therefore, the interpretation of tritium urine bioassay data cannot be treated with 

standard tritium excretion models (McConville and Woods 1995). Due to being relatively 

insoluble, inhaled MTs deliver the highest component of dose contribution to the lungs. Tritium 

from these particles also can convert to organically bound tritium forms (OBTs) from contact 

with lung tissue and further complicate the metabolic process (DOE 2004). OBTs were not 

discussed in the TBD. It has been determined that OBTs cause a significantly larger dose than 

tritium, more routinely found in the form of tritiated water (HTO) (DOE 2004). Not addressing 

MTs or OBTs could lead to underestimating doses. Bounding techniques proposed in OTIB-0066 

([NIOSH 2007a]) cannot be effectively developed and applied without some basic understanding 

of the compounds handled and the extent to which individuals were exposed. 

SC&A review: These issues are now satisfactorily addressed in the revised TBD-5 (pages 15–

17). 

Finding 6: The Internal Dose TBD does not identify the possible chemical forms of the 

airborne radionuclides to which workers are exposed. The TBD is lacking information that 

allows for the identification of the possible chemical forms of the airborne radionuclides to 

which workers could have been exposed. This is needed in order to give guidance on the 

solubility (absorption) class to use (F, M, or S) for inhalation and intake dose assessment. The 

Occupational Internal Dose TBD ([NIOSH 2005a]) states, “Other variables such as particle 

sizes and clearance classes can be readily reconstructed from historical records.” No specific 

references are made to these historical records. There is no discussion on the potential for 

exposures to very insoluble and slowly absorbed high-fired plutonium. NIOSH has recently 

issued OTIB-0049 ([NIOSH] 2007b), which provides some assistance to the dose reconstructor 

with respect to high-fired plutonium; however, the LLNL TBDs do not identify the potential for 

this existing at the site. 

SC&A Review: TBD-5, Revision 03, provides for the use of ORAUT-OTIB-0049 to assess 

Type SS plutonium and contains specific guidance in the form of Table B-11 to guide the dose 

reconstructor regarding percentile distribution intake rates on Types M and S solubility class 

plutonium for plutonium urine bioassay coworker data. It remains unclear as to the availability of 

solubility information on specific plutonium compounds in use at LLNL for dose reconstruction 

purposes. 

Finding 7: The Internal Dose TBD has not adequately identified and reviewed applicable 

bioassay frequencies and detection levels. In many cases, the information given for bioassay 

frequencies and detection levels is not useful, because of inaccuracy or lack of information. In 

the table showing bioassay frequencies, several in-vitro bioassays lack identification of 

radionuclides analyzed, and the frequency of whole-body counts (WBCs) for a period is missing. 

In addition, the table showing bioassay detection levels include values for in-vitro bioassay that 

disagree with historical site documents. Doses may not be calculated accurately without this 

information, and may not be claimant favorable. While the collective origins of these apparent 

discrepancies are not clear, more complete and validated information should be made available 

to dose reconstructors. 

SC&A review: Presentation of bioassay methods, frequencies, and detection levels (minimum 

detectable activities [MDAs]) was completely revamped in the revised TBD in Table 58 (in 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

11 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

vitro) and Table 59 (in vivo), which replaced the former Table 5-5 (bioassay detection levels) in 

Revision 00 to the internal dose TBD (NIOSH 2005a). The resulting two tables are more 

comprehensive and provide more detail, as well as new or revised MDAs. While SC&A did not 

validate each entry, the gaps and deficiencies noted in the original TBD (NIOSH 2005a) and 

SC&A’s original eight issues specific to this finding (pages 48–49 of SC&A’s 2007 review) are 

addressed satisfactorily.

Finding 8: No approaches are provided for determining the internal doses to workers that 

were unmonitored or inadequately monitored for plutonium, tritium, or other radionuclides.

The Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, OTIB0065 (ORAUT 2007[c]), provides an approach for determining internal dose only for uranium 

intakes by unmonitored or inadequately monitored workers, but does not address plutonium, 

tritium, or other radionuclides. This includes workers that were exposed to radionuclides prior 

to any bioassay monitoring (appears to be <1960) and those not monitored or inadequately 

monitored after applicable bioassay became available. If additional guidance is available from 

other sources, it is not referenced in the TBD. 

SC&A Review: Coworker data are now provided in Attachment B to TBD-5, Revision 03, for 

uranium, plutonium, americium, curium, and mixed fission products. 

3.0 SC&A’S FOCUSED REVIEW OF THE REVISED LLNL TBD-5 

3.1 RECORDED DATA ISSUES

SC&A performed a focused review of TBD-5, Revision 03, relative to potential exposures 

during the period 1990–1995.1

1 As noted in the introduction, NIOSH, in its ER for the most recent SEC petition, SEC-00221 (NIOSH 2016a), has 

reserved the period 1990–1995 for further research for all internal and external exposures, and for the previous 

petition period up through December 31, 1989, for all internal sources other than U-233. SC&A’s review, here, is 

focused on any source term, dosimetry, operational, or records-adequacy issues that has not been addressed

 From a review of both the revised TBD-5 and recent ER, some 

issues that complicate the use of the recorded bioassay data at LLNL are:

• Recorded gross alpha results could contain emissions from any of the many alphaemitting radionuclides (e.g., plutonium, thorium, americium, curium, actinium, and 

neptunium) present at LLNL (Miller 1979, PDF page 43).

• Gross alpha analysis results (labeled “ALPHA”) may have been recorded as just ALPHA.

• Plutonium analysis results may have been recorded as Pu-239, Pu, or ALPHA.

• Analyses for americium and curium of the eluate from the plutonium separation may 

have been recorded as Am-241 or ALPHA and contained both americium and curium. 

• Generally, there were no specific radionuclide analyses for thorium, actinium, or 

neptunium. 

 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

12 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

• If americium analysis was performed, it could include curium in the sample counting 

results (NIOSH 2016b, page 75). 

• Recorded gross beta results (labeled “BETA”) could contain emissions from any of the 

many beta-emitting radionuclides present at LLNL from weapon-residue-related fixed 

activation products (FAPs) (through 1992) and/or aged reactor FAPs. Fresh reactor FAPs 

would have been present only during reactor operations, 1957–1980. 

• The radionuclides in the weapon-residue samples varied considerably between the 

different NTS underground shots (NIOSH 2016b, page 24). 

3.2 AREAS OF CONCERN

In reviewing TBD-5, Revision 03, SC&A identified the following areas of concern: 

1. Beta Source Term – TBD-5, page 23, puts forward an assumption that gross beta 

bioassay results were only for weapons residue for the period up through 1992. However, 

bioassay results could have also been from workers exposed to aged FAPs and research 

radionuclides during this period. Has it been demonstrated that dose assignments from 

weapon-residue radionuclides are claimant favorable compared to aged FAPs and 

research radionuclides for all target organs of concern during this period? 

2. Weapons Residue – TBD-5, page 24, discusses the beta-emitting radionuclides that 

could have been present in the weapons residue from NTS. It appears from this 

discussion that the radionuclide mixture in the residue varied widely, depending on the 

type of underground shot and the elapsed time after detonation. On page 25 of TBD-5, 

after NIOSH considered different tissue-seeking radionuclides, NIOSH recommends that 

ruthenium-103 (Ru-103) be used as the major radionuclide to determine potential chronic 

intake from urinalysis results, and that the cerium-141 (Ce-141) and Sr-89 intakes be 

assigned as 50% of the derived Ru-103 intake. Has it been demonstrated that this 

methodology (using only Ru-103, Ce-141, and Sr-89 in these ratios) is claimant favorable 

compared to the use of the other potential radionuclides in weapons residue, such as those 

listed on page 24 of TBD-5? 

3. Other Alpha Emitters – Table 5-11, page 33, of TBD-5 lists recommended alphaemitting radionuclides to be assigned if the worker’s location indicates exposure to other 

than the primary radionuclides that were monitored. The dose reconstructor is to use the 

worker’s bioassay results for a specific radionuclide (actinium-227 [Ac-227], Np-237, 

Cm-244, or Th-232) if available. However, if they are not available, the dose 

reconstructor is to consider using the following intakes: 

• Ac-227 = coworker Pu-239 intake 

• Np-237 = coworker Pu-239 intake 

• Cm-244 = coworker Am-241 intake 

• Th-232 = coworker uranium intake. 

SC&A has the following areas of concern, or areas that need clarification:
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

13 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

• If the worker has Pu-239, Am-241, or uranium bioassays in the files, shouldn’t the 

unmonitored radionuclide (Ac-227, Np-237, Cm-244, or Th-232) be based on the 

worker’s corresponding bioassay data instead of the coworker data? 

• The recommendation to make the Ac-227, Np-237, Cm-244, or Th-232 intake 

equal to the associated indicating radionuclide (Pu-239, Am-241, or uranium) 

assumes that they were present in equal amounts. What is the basis for this 

assumption? 

4. Analyte Labels – Attachment B (coworker data) of TBD-5, as well as communication 

with LLNL personnel (Mansfield 2006), discuss issues with the labels used to identify the 

results in the MAPPER electronic database system. For example, the term “gross alpha” 

could be used to mean results from analyzing gross alphas, Pu-239, Pu-238, Am-241, etc. 

Is this unique to the MAPPER electronic database, or does this issue also apply to the 

data in the NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System files that will be used for dose 

reconstruction purposes? 

5. Am-241 Coworker Data – Section B.1, page 68, of TBD-5 states that “The MAPPER 

database had small numbers of analyses for other radionuclides, such as 241Am, curium, 

and TRU [transuranic] materials, but the numbers were too small for statistical analysis 

as an individual coworker dataset.” However, Table B-15, page 87, contains coworker 

bioassay data and Tables B-16 and B-17 contain recommended coworker Am-241 intake 

rates for the period 1957–1996. What was the source of these data if the MAPPER 

database contained too few Am-241 data entries to use for coworker data?

6. GA-# – Section 5.3.1, page 21, states that that “Claims that have “GA-1”, “GA-2”, and 

“GA-3” bioassay results are to be assessed on a case by case basis. The dose 

reconstructor should contact the site lead for any claim that has “GA-1”, “GA-2”, and 

“GA-3” bioassay results for further guidance.” What additional information might be 

available to assist the dose reconstructor in dose reconstruction for these cases (e.g., what 

additional information should the dose reconstructor request and what department at 

LLNL should be contacted to ensure consistency in dose reconstruction cases)?

4.0 CONCLUSION

SC&A finds that the revised LLNL internal dose TBD, ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, Revision 03 

(NIOSH 2016b), is a substantial improvement over earlier versions and, as indicated above, 

resolves a number of SC&A’s earlier findings about Revision 00 (NIOSH 2005a) of that TBD.

However, aside from U-233 (the basis for the 2016 recommendation for an SEC for 1974–1989), 

other major radiological source terms with internal dose implications at LLNL (notably, high 

enriched uranium, thorium, neptunium, and metal tritides) remain to be fully evaluated and are 

reserved in the most recent ER (NIOSH 2016a) for further research. Therefore, SC&A awaits the 

results of that research before reaching any final conclusions about the adequacy of the current 

internal dose TBD-5, Revision 03. 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

14 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

5.0 REFERENCES

ABRWH 2011. Transcript of the meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, Work Group on Los Alamos National Laboratory, pp. 323–326. May 2, 2011. 

Batzel 1976. Memorandum from R.E. Batzel to J.A. Perkins, 300 Area Current Guidelines, 

University of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California. February 23, 

1976. [SRDB Ref. ID 53747] 

Cheng et al. 1997. Y.S. Cheng, A.R. Dahl, and H.N. Jow, “Dissolution of Metal Tritides in 

Simulated Lung Fluid,” Health Physics, Vol. 73, No. 4 (October 1997), pp. 633–638. 

DOE 2004. Radiological Control Program for Special Tritium Compounds, DOE-HDBK-1184-

2004, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. September 2004. 

Inkret et al. 1999. W.C. Inkret, M.E. Schillaci, Y.S. Cheng, M. Boyce, D.W. Efurd, T.T. Little, 

G. Miller, J.A. Musgrave, and J.R. Wermer, Internal Dosimetry for Inhalation of Hafnium 

Tritide Aerosols, LA-UR-99-6221, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

November 23, 1999. [SRDB Ref. ID 149223] 

Mansfield 2006. Letter from W. Gary Mansfield, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

Jennifer L. Hoff, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Subject: Copy of LLNL “MAPPER” 

Bioassay Results Database. May 17, 2006. [SRDB Ref. ID 28120, p. 4] 

McConville and Woods 1995. G.T. McConville and C.M. Woods, “Calculation of Tritium Dose 

from Insoluble Particulates,” Fusion Science and Technology, Vol. 28, No. 3P1 (October 1995), 

pp. 905–909. [SRDB Ref. ID 46056] 

Miller 1979. H.H. Miller, Radiochemical Procedures for Bioassay, M-104, I. A. Dupzyk, editor, 

University of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California. May 1, 1979. 

[SRDB Ref. ID 13880] 

NIOSH 2005a. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational Internal Dose, 

ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, Revision 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. October 7, 2005. 

NIOSH 2005b. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Site Description, ORAUT-TKBS0035-2, Revision 00 PC-1, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. October 26, 2005. 

NIOSH 2007a. Calculation of Dose from Special Tritium Compounds, ORAUT-OTIB-0066, 

Revision 00, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 26, 

2007. 

NIOSH 2007b. Estimating Doses for Plutonium Strongly Retained in the Lung, ORAUT-OTIB0049, Revision 00, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

February 6, 2007. 
Effective Date:

2/7/2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2017-SEC004

Page No.

15 of 15

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

NIOSH 2007c. Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, ORAUT-OTIB-0065, Revision 00, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 16, 2007. 

NIOSH 2007d. Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00051, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(LANL), Revision 0, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

February 1, 2007.

NIOSH 2010. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational Internal Dose, 

ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, Revision 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. March 16, 2010.

NIOSH 2016a. Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00221, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL), Revision 0, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. February 12, 2016.

NIOSH 2016b. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational Internal Dose, 

ORAUT-TKBS-0035-5, Revision 03, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. August 12, 2016.

SC&A 2007. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile Review SCA-TR-TASK1-

0018, Revision 1, SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. 

August 27, 2007.

Sewell 1959. Memorandum from D.C. Sewell to A.J. Hulse, Subject: Thorium Hydrodynamic 

Shots at Site 300, University of California Livermore, Livermore, California. March 11, 1959.

[SRDB Ref. ID 53748]