Draft White Paper 

SC&A REVIEW OF LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL 

LABORATORY SITE PROFILE MATRIX ISSUE #3 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

Prepared by 

Joyce Lipsztein 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

Saliant, Inc. 

5579 Catholic Church Road 

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

September 2012 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42CFR82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issue #3 

Page No. 

 2 of 5 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issue #3 

Effective Date: 

 Draft – September 5, 2012 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 

0 – (Draft) 

SC&A REVIEW OF LAWRENCE BERKELEY 

NATIONAL LABORATORY SITE PROFILE 

MATRIX ISSUE #3 

Page 2 of 5 

Task Manager: 

__________________________ Date:____________ 

Joseph Fitzgerald 

Supersedes: 

N/A 

Project Manager: 

__________________________ Date:____________ 

John Stiver, CHP 

Reviewer(s): 

 John Stiver 

 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 09/05/2012 Initial issue 

09/07/2012 Privacy Act-cleared version includes minor revisions to the figure titles for 

clarificatio0n purposes. 
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issue #3 

Page No. 

 3 of 5 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

SC&A REVIEW OF LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 

SITE PROFILE MATRIX ISSUE #3

SC&A reviewed the NIOSH response to Issue 3, in relation to the solubility of uranium and 

thorium compounds in the lung. 

SC&A agrees with the NIOSH response that solubility Type S, as provided by the Human 

Respiratory Model described in ICRP 66 (ICRP 1994), adequately bounds the behavior of “highfired” uranium. The same applies to thorium compounds. 

In general, for insoluble material (Class Y or Type S), the ICRP 66 model describes a more 

tenacious retention in the thoracic region than does the ICRP 30 (ICRP 1979) model. For times 

remote from inhalation, the content of the lungs as predicted by the updated model is several 

times greater than that predicted by ICRP 30. Compared with the ICRP 30 lung model, the ICRP 

66 model generally predicts lower absorption from the respiratory tract to blood for a given 

particle size, at least for particle sizes commonly encountered in the work place or environment. 

For 1-μm particles, predicted total absorption is about four times greater for Class Y than Type S 

(ORNL 2003). 

As a consequence of the differences in the kinetics of the two models, the predicted excretion 

rates are not the same. In addition, the ICRP 30 systemic models have been updated. Current 

uranium and thorium models are described in ICRP Publication 78 (ICRP 1977). 

Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate the differences in the predicted urine excretion rates of U-238, 

AMAD 1μm, using the ICRP 30 lung model and systemic models (labeled as class Y) and using 

the updated ICRP 66 lung model and ICRP 78 systemic model (labeled as Type S). 

Figure 1: Comparison of Urinary Excretion Rates of U-238: Class Y and Type S versus 

Time After Intake, AMAD = 1μm, at Early Times after Intake 

U‐238

1.00E‐06

1.00E‐05

1.00E‐04

1.00E‐03

1.00E‐02

1.00E‐01

1.00E+00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Days After Intake

24h urine Bq/Bq intake

Class Y

Type S
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issue #3 

Page No. 

 4 of 5 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Figure 2: Comparison of Urinary Excretion Rates of U-238: Class Y and Type S versus 

Time After Intake, AMAD = 1 μm, at Early and Late Times after Intake 

U‐238

1.00E‐08

1.00E‐07

1.00E‐06

1.00E‐05

1.00E‐04

1.00E‐03

1.00E‐02

1.00E‐01

1.00E+00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Days After Intake

24h urine Bq/Bq intake

Class Y

Type S

Many studies recently have been conducted to determine the solubility of various uranium 

compounds in the lung and their absorption rates to blood (Hodgson et al. 2000; Ansoborlo et al. 

2002; and Stradling et al. 2002). None of those studies have shown lung retention that cannot be 

bounded by Type S. Studies conducted with uranium dioxides and U3O8 (Ansoborlo et al. 2002) 

have shown compatibility with Type S. The only exception to the general kinetics described by 

the assignment of Types F, M and S is for uranium aluminide (UAlx), as described by Leggett et 

al. (2005). Workers exposed to UAlx during the fabrication of reactor fuel plates, who were 

removed from exposure, had urinary excretion rates that increased for a few months, peaked, and 

then declined at a rate consistent with moderately soluble uranium. 

The studies on thorium compounds are not as extensive as those on uranium compounds. 

Hodgson et al. 2000 and Hodgson et al. 2003 have concluded that the assignment of Type S was 

compatible with the kinetics of Th-232 dioxide administered to rats by intratracheal instillation. 

In conclusion, SC&A agrees with NIOSH on their response to Matrix Issue #3. 

NOTICE:
Effective Date: 

September 5, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No.: White Paper – 

SC&A Review of LBNL Issue #3 

Page No. 

 5 of 5 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

REFERENCES 

Ansoborlo, E., V. Chazel, M.H. Hengé-Napoli, P. Pihet, A. Rannou, M.R. Bailey, and N. 

Stradling, 2002. Determination of the physical and chemical properties, biokinetics, and dose 

coefficients of uranium compounds handled during nuclear fuel fabrication in France. Health 

Phys. 82 (3) 279-289. 

Hodgson, A., J.C. Moody, G.N. Stradling, M.R. Bailey, and A. Birchall, 2000. Application of 

the ICRP respiratory tract model to uranium compounds produced during the manufacture of 

nuclear fuel. Report NRPB-M1156. National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, United 

Kingdom. 

Hodgson A., G.N. Stradling, T.J. Smith, M.J. Youngman, J.C. Moody, and E. Ansoborlo, 2003. 

Biokinetics and assessment of intake of thorium dioxide. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 105, 115–118. 

ICRP 1979. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers (Part 1), ICRP Publication 30, 

Ann. ICRP 2 (3-4). International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England. 

ICRP 1994. Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Ann. 

ICRP 24 (1-3). International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England. 

ICRP 1997. Individual Monitoring for Internal Exposure of Workers, Publication 78, 

Ann. ICRP 27 (3-4). International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England. 

Leggett, R.W., K.F. Eckermann, and J.D. Boice, 2005. A respiratory model for uranium 

aluminide based on occupational data. J. Radiol. Prot. 25, 405–416. 

ORNL 2003. Dosimetric Significance of the ICRP’s Updated Guidance and Models, 1989–

2003, and Implications for U.S. Federal Guidance, ORNL/TM-2003/207. Authors: R.W. 

Leggett and K.F. Eckerman. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. August 

2003. 

Stradling, N., A. Hodgson, E. Ansoborlo, P. Berard, G. Etherington, T. Fell, E. Rance, and G. Le 

Guen, 2002. Industrial uranium compounds: exposure limits, assessment of intake and toxicity 

after inhalation. NRPB-W22, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, United 

Kingdom.