Page 1 of 32

DOE Review Release 08/28/2020

Internal Dosimetry Co-Exposure Data for 

Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory 

and the De Soto Avenue Facility

ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Rev. 01

Effective Date: 09/01/2020

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert(s): Matthew G. Arno

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Matthew G. Arno, Document Owner

Approval Date: 03/06/2020

Concurrence: Signature on File

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence Date: 03/05/2020

Concurrence: Signature on File

Scott R. Siebert, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 03/05/2020

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 03/05/2020

Approval: Signature on File

Timothy D. Taulbee, Associate Director for Science

Approval Date: 08/06/2020

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-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 2 of 32

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE

DATE

REVISION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

03/14/2014 00 New technical information bulletin to provide internal coworker data 

for SSFL workers. Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH review 

comments. Training required: As determined by the Objective 

Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno.

09/01/2020 01 Revision initiated to include adding the potential and intake rates for 

type SS plutonium. 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.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 3 of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 6

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Scope........................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Data Overview ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Bioassay Data Selection............................................................................................... 8

2.2 Analysis........................................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Plutonium ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Uranium...................................................................................................................... 10

2.5 Fission Products......................................................................................................... 10

3.0 Intake Modeling...................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Assumptions............................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Bioassay Fitting .......................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Plutonium ................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Uranium...................................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Fission Products......................................................................................................... 12

4.0 Assignment of Intakes and Doses .......................................................................................... 12

4.1 Plutonium ................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Uranium...................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Mixed Fission Products............................................................................................... 14

5.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 14

References ........................................................................................................................................ 15

ATTACHMENT A CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES .................................................................. 16

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

4-1 Type M plutonium gross alpha intake rates ............................................................................ 13

4-2 Type S plutonium gross alpha intake rates............................................................................. 13

4-3 Type SS plutonium gross alpha intake rates .......................................................................... 13

4-4 Type F uranium intake rates................................................................................................... 13

4-5 Type M uranium intake rates.................................................................................................. 14

4-6 Type S uranium intake rates .................................................................................................. 14

4-7 Unadjusted type F 90Sr intake rates based on mixed fission product bioassay ....................... 14

A-1 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of plutonium gross alpha, 1968 to 1986...... 18

A-2 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of uranium gross alpha, 1965 to 1988 ........ 18

A-3 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of fission products, 1965 to 1990................ 19

A-4 Type M plutonium intake modeling results ............................................................................. 21

A-5 Type S plutonium intake modeling results .............................................................................. 24
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 4 of 32

A-6 Type SS plutonium intake modeling results............................................................................ 26

A-7 Type F uranium intake modeling results................................................................................. 27

A-8 Type M uranium intake modeling results................................................................................ 28

A-9 Type S uranium intake modeling results................................................................................. 32

A-10 Type F strontium intake modeling results ............................................................................... 32

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type M ......................................................................................................................19

A-2 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type M ......................................................................................................................20

A-3 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type M ......................................................................................................................20

A-4 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type M ......................................................................................................................20

A-5 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................21

A-6 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................21

A-7 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S .......................................................................................................................22

A-8 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type S.......................................................................................................................22

A-9 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S.......................................................................................................................22

A-10 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type S.......................................................................................................................23

A-11 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................23

A-12 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................23

A-13 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type SS ....................................................................................................................24

A-14 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type SS ....................................................................................................................24

A-15 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type SS ....................................................................................................................25

A-16 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type SS ....................................................................................................................25

A-17 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type SS........................................................................................................................25

A-18 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type SS........................................................................................................................26

A-19 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all years, type F.............................................. 26

A-20 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type F ..........................................................................................................................27

A-21 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................27
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 5 of 32

A-22 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................28

A-23 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S.......................................................................................................................28

A-24 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1972, type S.......................................................................................................................29

A-25 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1973 

to 1979, type S.......................................................................................................................29

A-26 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1980 

to 1988, type S.......................................................................................................................29

A-27 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S.......................................................................................................................30

A-28 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1972, type S.......................................................................................................................30

A-29 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1973 

to 1979, type S.......................................................................................................................30

A-30 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1980 

to 1988, type S.......................................................................................................................31

A-31 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................31

A-32 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................31

A-33 Predicted strontium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type F ..........................................................................................................................32

A-34 Predicted strontium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type F ..........................................................................................................................32
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 6 of 32

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer

CEP Controls for Environmental Pollution

d day

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

dpm disintegrations per minute

F fast (absorption type)

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IDOT Internal Dosimetry Tool

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

L liter

M moderate (absorption type)

MDA minimum detectable activity

mL milliliter

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OPOS one person–one sample

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

pCi picocurie

S slow (absorption type)

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

SS super slow (absorption type)

SSFL Santa Susana Field Laboratory

TIB technical information bulletin

USC United States Code

μCi microcurie

μm micrometer
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 7 of 32

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.

1.1 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 these cases, monitoring data from other 

workers with similar exposure potential can be used to assign an internal dose to address potential 

intakes of radioactive material can be used to approximate another individual’s possible exposure

using a co-exposure study. The purpose of this TIB is to provide co-exposure intake data for Area IV 

of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) and the De Soto Avenue Facility (sometimes referred to 

as the Energy Technology Engineering Center or Atomics International). This document does not

apply to the Canoga Avenue Facility and Downey Facility because their covered periods end before 

the periods that are addressed in this document.

1.2 SCOPE

ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment [ORAUT 

2005], describes the general process for analyzing bioassay data for the assignment of doses to 

individuals based on co-exposure results. ORAUT-PLAN-0014, Coworker Data Exposure Profile 

Development [ORAUT 2004], describes the approach and processes to develop reasonable exposure 

profiles based on available dosimetric information for workers at DOE sites.

The analysis used internal exposure bioassay data from SSFL. A statistical analysis of the data was 

performed according to ORAUT [2005], its implementing procedure, ORAUT-PROC-0095, Generating 

Summary Statistics for Coworker Bioassay Data [ORAUT 2006], and the statistical methods in 

ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Analysis of Stratified Coworker Datasets [ORAUT 2014]. The results were 

entered in the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) to obtain intake rates for the 

assignment of dose distributions.

Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, 

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 5.0.

2.0 DATA OVERVIEW

This section provides information on the general selection characteristics of the data and the methods 

of analysis. More detailed radionuclide-specific information is provided in Section 3.0.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 8 of 32

2.1 BIOASSAY DATA SELECTION

Urinalysis bioassay data were obtained directly from the SSFL in the form of electronic scans of hardcopy bioassay data records. These records contain data from SSFL internal records and records from 

the analytical laboratories that performed the urinalyses. SSFL received urinalysis data from the 

laboratories and transcribed that data onto internal forms, which SSFL referred to as “8X11” and 

“McBee cards.” The methods of recording the data differed among the laboratories and SSFL internal 

records. In general, data from the laboratories were recorded in a consistent manner with few legibility 

issues. In the 1960s, the laboratory data were recorded based on the date the sample was received at 

the laboratory, which was generally within 2 weeks of the sample collection date. The McBee cards 

and 8X11 forms dated the records based on the sample collection date. In the 1990s and after, the 

laboratory data appear to use the same date as the McBee cards. The data sources can be divided 

into two broad categories, laboratory data and facility data, with the facility data consisting of the 

McBee cards and the 8X11 forms.

The facility data do not contain as much information as the laboratory data. Many positive results were 

indicated as a “+” with no value. Data indicating less than the minimum detectable activity (MDA) were 

recorded either as a zero (earlier years) or as being less than a generic MDA. In contrast, the 

laboratory data include the positive values and, commonly, MDAs.

Ideally, for a given bioassay sample, there should be both a laboratory record and a facility record that 

provide the results of the analysis. However, this is not always the case. In addition, it is not possible 

to establish a 100%-certain one-to-one correlation between facility and laboratory data. It is possible, 

especially with reported positive results in the facility data, to individually correlate records by hand 

based on professional judgment. Examination of the different data sources does reveal that neither 

source can be considered complete. There are laboratory data for which no facility data can be found 

and vice versa. This is most easily demonstrated by observed instances where a given tracking 

number (a unique number for an individual) appears only in one of the data sources for a given year.

Therefore, both data sources were used with identified duplicates excluded as discussed below.

For most of the 1960s, both data sources are available and the number of records from each source 

is comparable. Only facility data are available for February 14, 1968, through July 19, 1989. From 

July 20, 1989, forward, there are more laboratory data available than facility data.

The sample receipt date on the laboratory data form is usually a few days after the sample collection 

date on the facility form. The bioassay data records were reviewed by a Project health physicist and in 

those instances where a reasonable correlation between the facility data and the laboratory data 

could be made, the facility data were excluded as duplicate, especially because the facility data 

typically contain less detail about a given sample.

During the review, multiple results from the same date (based on sample collection date) with the 

same result or where a zero and a less-than result were reported were excluded to remove duplicates 

and leave only one result for statistical analysis. In addition, questionable reported activity units were 

encountered, such as results in units of μCi/L when pCi/L would be consistent with contemporaneous 

data or dpm/mL rather than dpm/sample. The reported units were altered to be consistent with the 

contemporaneous reporting units. As part of this, results marked as “ND,” “NDA,” or “Neg” were set to 

zero, illegible results were excluded, and the date the sample was received by the laboratory was 

used as the sample date if no sample date was available.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 9 of 32

Data from before January 1, 1965 (the end of the Special Exposure Cohort period), or after 

December 31, 2005 (the last year with a complete dataset), were not used. Other records were 

excluded from the analysis for the following reasons:

• Results with volume or mass units of grams were assumed to be fecal samples.

• Controls for Environmental Pollution (CEP)-derived data, including all data from August 4, 

1991, through June 1, 1993, and on June 20, 1993, were suspect due to quality issues with 

the laboratory. This period encompasses all CEP-derived data.

• Data with a blank or “?” for analysis type were not usable.

Some of the records have individual fields that are blank or illegible but contain sufficient information 

to proceed with the analysis. The following rules were used to adjust for blank or unusable fields [1]:

• Volumes were assumed to be 1,500 mL, and

• Units were assumed to be dpm/sample.

In addition, all sample results were adjusted from a daily urinary excretion of 1,500 mL to 1,400 mL.

2.2 ANALYSIS

Bioassay data were analyzed by year or multiyear span depending on the amount of data available for 

each radionuclide during a given period and the expected biokinetics of each radionuclide. A 

lognormal distribution was assumed. After log-transforming the data, the 50th and 84th percentiles 

were determined for each period through the use of the methods described in ORAUT-RPRT-0053

[ORAUT 2014].

In ORAUT-OTIB-0075, Use of Claimant Datasets for Coworker Modeling, arguments are presented to 

support the practice of treating a worker dataset as a simple random sample from the population of all 

monitored workers [ORAUT 2016]. A potential problem in using a worker dataset is that the workers 

who were involved in incidents usually submitted more samples than workers who submitted only 

routine (not incident-related) samples. This is problematic because a small number of workers who 

were involved in incidents can dominate the sample in a given year through the sheer number of 

samples and because the samples in the dataset are no longer independent of each other. To 

compensate for the unequal number of samples from the workers, the one person–one sample 

(OPOS) technique was used, in which only one result is used for each person for each radionuclide 

for a given year. The OPOS statistic was calculated using the maximum possible mean methodology 

in ORAUT-RPRT-0053 [ORAUT 2014].

2.3 PLUTONIUM

Two analytical techniques were used for plutonium bioassay: autoradiography (labeled PUA) and gasflow proportional counting (labeled PUB). The two techniques were distinguished beginning in 1974. 

Previous results were only indicated as PU, which was presumed to be indicative of autoradiography 

based on the earlier use of this procedure. It was assumed the A and B designations were added with 

the introduction of the gas-flow proportional counting procedure. Analysis type designations that were 

used for this study were PUA (autoradiography), PU, and Pu (unknown analytical technique, 

presumed to be autoradiography). No results were identified with an analysis type of PUB. Sufficient 

bioassay data were available to perform a statistical analysis for 1965 through 1986. Although 

plutonium bioassay data are available through 1994, there were insufficient data to perform a 

statistical analysis after 1986.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 10 of 32

2.4 URANIUM

Uranium data are presented as fluorometric (mass) and radiometric (activity) results. Samples 

analyzed fluorometrically were also analyzed radiometrically. Only the data that were reported in 

activity units were used. The analysis type designation that was used was UR. Sufficient bioassay 

data were available to perform a statistical analysis for 1965 through 1988. Although uranium 

bioassay data are available through 1993, there were insufficient data to perform a statistical analysis 

after 1988.

2.5 FISSION PRODUCTS

Beta emitter bioassay data were used to represent mixed fission products. These data should be 

evaluated in accordance with the latest revision of ORAUT-OTIB-0054, Fission and Activation Product 

Assignment for Internal Dose-Related Gross Beta and Gross Gamma Analyses [ORAUT 2015] and, 

specifically, the data should be considered to be chemically processed beta samples in accordance 

with Table 7-2 of that document. This is consistent with some of the analytical techniques that were 

used by SSFL or is favorable to claimants for the other analytical techniques that were used by SSFL. 

Because data from the different techniques were merged for analysis, the categorization of the 

different analytical techniques most favorable to claimants was used for application of ORAUT-OTIB0054.

The analysis type designations that were used were MFP (mixed fission product, chemical separation 

of alkaline earths and rare earths including strontium) if the method type was B for beta counting 

(which excludes gamma-counting data), MFPB, and MFP(B), and FP if the method type was 3A 

(mixed fission products less cesium and volatiles, assumed to indicate strontium). Sufficient bioassay 

data were available to perform a statistical analysis for 1965 through 1991. Although fission product 

bioassay data are available through 1993, there were insufficient data to perform a statistical analysis 

after 1991.

3.0 INTAKE MODELING

This section discusses intake modeling assumptions, intake fitting, and intake materials.

3.1 ASSUMPTIONS

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, assigning the same weight to each result. 

Because of the nature of work at SSFL, 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 5-μm activity median aerodynamic diameter particle 

size distribution.

For intake modeling, all plutonium activity was assumed to be 239Pu. This assumption did not affect 

the fitting of the data for intake determination because all plutonium isotopes have the same biokinetic 

behavior and the isotopes this analysis considered all have long half-lives in relation to the assumed 

intake period. 

For intake modeling, all uranium activity was assumed to be 234U. This assumption did not affect the 

fitting of the data for intake determination because all uranium isotopes have the same biokinetic 

behavior and the isotopes this analysis considered all have long half-lives in relation to the assumed 

intake period. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 68 dose 

coefficients (also referred to as dose conversion factors) for 234U are 7% to 31% larger than the dose 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 11 of 32

coefficients for 235U, 236U, and 238U (ICRP 1995). Therefore, the assumption that the intake was 100% 

234U provides a result that is favorable to claimants.

3.2 BIOASSAY FITTING

The IMBA and Internal Dosimetry Tool (IDOT) computer software were used to fit the bioassay results 

to a series of inhalation intakes. Data for each radionuclide 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 and sustained 

change in the bioassay results. By this method, the years were divided into multiple chronic intake 

periods for each radionuclide.

3.3 PLUTONIUM

Because the plutonium isotopes at SSFL 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 1960s could contribute to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. To avoid potential 

underestimation of intakes for people who worked at SSFL for relatively short periods, each chronic 

intake was fit independently using only the bioassay results from the single intake period for types M, 

S, and super S (SS) materials [ORAUT 2020]. This method resulted in an overestimate of intakes for 

exposures that extended through multiple assumed intake periods; however, these intake rates are to 

be considered best estimates. Only the results in the intake period were selected for use in the fitting 

for each period. Excluded results are shown in light gray or red in the figures in Attachment A. 

Included results are dark gray or blue. The results of the plutonium statistical analysis that was used 

to calculate the intakes are provided in Table A-1.

Insufficient bioassay data were available for 1965 and 1966 to perform a statistical analysis. The 

Nuclear Materials development facility began operation in 1967, which led to an increase in potential 

plutonium exposure and therefore plutonium urinalysis data. The 1967-to-1968 data was used to 

back-extrapolate for 1965 and 1966, when the potential plutonium exposure was less. This 

assumption is favorable to claimants. 

Plutonium Type M

The solid lines in Figures A-1 to A-4 show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion 

rates, respectively, for type M materials. Figures A-5 and A-6 show the predicted 50th- and 84thpercentile excretion rates, respectively, from all type M intakes. Table A-4 lists the 50th- and 84thpercentile intake rates determined from statistical analysis of the plutonium urinalysis data along with 

the associated geometric standard deviations (GSDs).

Plutonium Type S

The solid lines in Figures A-7 to A-10 show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile 

excretion rates, respectively, for type S materials. The same intake periods were applied for both 

percentiles because the values followed a similar pattern. Figures A-11 and A-12 show the predicted 

50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates, respectively, from all type S intakes. Table A-5 lists the 

50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates determined from statistical analysis of the plutonium urinalysis 

data along with the associated GSDs. 

Plutonium Type SS

The solid lines in Figures A-13 to A-16 show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile 

excretion rates, respectively, for type SS materials. The same intake periods were applied for both 

percentiles because the values followed a similar pattern. Figures A-17 and A-18 show the predicted 

50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates, respectively, from all type SS intakes. Table A-6 lists the 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 12 of 32

50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates determined from statistical analysis of the plutonium urinalysis 

data along with the associated GSDs. 

3.4 URANIUM

Because the uranium isotopes at SSFL 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 contribute to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. To avoid potential 

underestimation of intakes for people who worked at SSFL for relatively short periods, each chronic 

intake was fit independently using only the bioassay results from the single intake period for type S 

materials. This method results in an overestimate of intakes for exposures that extended through 

multiple assumed intake periods, but these intake rates are to be considered best estimates. Only the 

results in the intake period were selected for use in the fitting for each period. Excluded results are 

shown in light gray or red in the figures in Attachment A. Included results are dark gray or blue. For 

types M and F materials, this approach was not used. In 1974, the excretion rates from the statistical 

analysis were inconsistent with the contemporaneous years and were excluded to be favorable to 

claimants. In 1984 and 1985, the results are zero (statistical analysis not possible) and were similarly 

excluded. The results of the uranium statistical analysis that was used to calculate the intakes are 

provided in Table A-2.

Uranium Type F

The solid lines in Figures A-19 and A-20 show the fit to the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates, 

respectively, for type F materials. Table A-7 lists the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates determined 

from statistical analysis of the uranium urinalysis data along with the associated GSDs.

Uranium Type M

The solid lines in Figures A-21 and A-22 show the fit to the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates, 

respectively, for type M materials. Table A-8 lists the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates 

determined from statistical analysis of the uranium urinalysis data along with the associated GSDs.

Uranium Type S

The solid lines in Figures A-23 to A-30 show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile 

excretion rates, respectively, for type S materials. The same intake periods were applied for both 

percentiles because the values followed a similar pattern. Figures A-31 and A-32 show the 50th- and 

84th-percentile predicted excretion rates, respectively, from all type S intakes. Table A-9 lists the 

50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates determined from statistical analysis of the uranium urinalysis 

along with the associated GSDs.

3.5 FISSION PRODUCTS

The fission product bioassay data are a beta emitter analysis and was assumed to be 90Sr for the 

purposes of intake modeling. The results of the statistical analysis of fission product bioassay data 

that were used to calculate the intakes are provided in Table A-3. The solid lines in Figures A-33 and 

A-34 show the individual fits to the 50th- and 84th-percentile excretion rates, respectively, from all 

type F intakes. Table A-10 lists the 50th- and 84th-percentile intake rates determined from statistical 

analysis of the beta emitter urinalysis data along with the associated GSDs. 

4.0 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 was 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 of the 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 13 of 32

intake periods. The 95th-percentile values were based on the adjusted GSD for the intake period. For 

cases in which there is justification that the individual might have had larger intakes than the 50thpercentile intake rates, dose reconstructors should use the 95th-percentile intake rates input into the 

Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) as a constant. The original GSDs are provided in 

the tables for each radionuclide and absorption type in Attachment A.

The following subsections list the intake rates that should be used for each radionuclide and the 

period of applicability of each intake rate.

4.1 PLUTONIUM

Tables 4-1 through 4-3 list the plutonium intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of 

potential plutonium exposure. All data derive from urinalysis bioassay results and should be treated as 

plutonium gross alpha intakes, which can be considered to be 100% 239Pu. The 1986 intake rates can 

be extended past 1986 as a measure favorable to claimants. 

Table 4-1. Type M plutonium gross alpha intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1968 13.12 5.15 195

01/01/1969 12/31/1986 3.018 3.00 18.4

Table 4-2. Type S plutonium gross alpha intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1968 329 5.15 4,880

01/01/1969 12/31/1986 41.62 3.00 254

Table 4-3. Type SS plutonium gross alpha intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1968 1,830 5.16 27,199

01/01/1969 12/31/1986 389 3.00 2,370

4.2 URANIUM

Tables 4-4 to 4-6 list the uranium intakes and associated GSDs to be used for each year of potential 

uranium exposure. The 1988 intake rates can be extended past 1988 as a measure favorable to 

claimants. 

Table 4-4. Type F uranium intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1968 17.6 3.00 107

01/01/1969 12/31/1972 8.91 3.00 54.3

01/01/1973 12/31/1979 18.87 3.00 115

01/01/1980 12/31/1988 5.666 3.00 34.5
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 14 of 32

Table 4-5. Type M uranium intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1968 75.91 3.00 463

01/01/1969 12/31/1972 34.92 3.00 213

01/01/1973 12/31/1979 78.02 3.00 475

01/01/1980 12/31/1988 21.92 3.00 134

Table 4-6. Type S uranium intake rates (dpm/d).

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1968 1,592 3.00 9,701

01/01/1969 12/31/1972 744.4 3.00 4,536

01/01/1973 12/31/1979 1,266 3.00 7,714

01/01/1980 12/31/1988 389 3.00 2,370

4.3 MIXED FISSION PRODUCTS

Intake rates in Table 4-7 were calculated from the fission product urine sample results, assuming a 

90Sr biokinetic model. Because the urine results were based on gross activity analyses, a number of 

mixed fission products were included in the analysis; therefore, these intake rates must be adjusted to 

account for the fraction of activity attributable to 90Sr. The intake rates should be treated as samples 

after major chemical processing. The resulting intake rates should then be used to assign intakes for 

all mixed fission products in accordance with ORAUT-OTIB-0054 [ORAUT 2015]. The 1991 intake 

rate can be extended past 1991 as a measure favorable to claimants. 

Table 4-7. Unadjusted type F 90Sr intake rates (dpm/d) based on 

mixed fission product bioassay. 

Start End

50th

percentile GSD

95th

percentile

01/01/1965 12/31/1991 61.05 3.00 372

5.0 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).

[1] Arno, Matthew. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team. Dose Reconstructor. 

January 2011.

These rules were developed based on examination of the data for trends in how the data were 

recorded, review of the internal dose technical basis document for SSFL, ORAUT-TKBS-0038-

5, Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the Canoga Avenue Facility, the Downey 

Facility, and the De Soto Avenue Facility (sometimes referred to as Energy Technology 

Engineering Center [ETEC] or Atomics International) – Occupational Internal Dose [ORAUT 

2010], to determine default and assumed analytical techniques and reporting conventions.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 15 of 32

REFERENCES

ICRP [1995]. Dose coefficients for intakes of radionuclides by workers. ICRP Publication 68. Ann.

ICRP 24(4). [SRDB Ref ID: 22731]

ORAUT [2004]. Coworker data exposure profile development. ORAUT-PLAN-0014 Rev. 00. Oak

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. November 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 166559]

ORAUT [2005]. Analysis of coworker bioassay data for internal dose assignment. ORAUT-OTIB-0019 

Rev. 01. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. October 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 19438]

ORAUT [2006]. Generating summary statistics for coworker bioassay data. ORAUT-PROC-0095 

Rev. 00. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. June 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 73397]

ORAUT [2010]. Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the Canoga Avenue Facility, the 

Downey Facility, and the De Soto Avenue facility (sometimes referred to as Energy Technology

Engineering Center [ETEC] or Atomics International) – occupational internal dose. ORAUT-TKBS0038-5 Rev. 01. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. April 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 

80541]

ORAUT [2014]. Analysis of stratified coworker datasets. ORAUT-RPRT-0053 Rev. 02. Oak Ridge,

TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. October 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 136245]

ORAUT [2015]. Fission and activation product assignment for internal dose-related gross beta and

gross gamma analyses. ORAUT-OTIB-0054 Rev. 04. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated

Universities Team. August 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 146884]

ORAUT [2016]. Use of claimant datasets for coworker modeling. ORAUT-OTIB-0075 Rev. 01. Oak

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. June 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 157060]

ORAUT [2020]. Estimating doses for plutonium strongly retained in the lung. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Rev. 

02. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team. September 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 178329]
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 16 of 32

 

ATTACHMENT A 

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of plutonium gross alpha, 1968 to 1986...... 18

A-2 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of uranium gross alpha, 1965 to 1988 ........ 18

A-3 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of fission products, 1965 to 1990................ 19

A-4 Type M plutonium intake modeling results ............................................................................. 21

A-5 Type S plutonium intake modeling results .............................................................................. 24

A-6 Type SS plutonium intake modeling results............................................................................ 26

A-7 Type F uranium intake modeling results................................................................................. 27

A-8 Type M uranium intake modeling results................................................................................ 28

A-9 Type S uranium intake modeling results................................................................................. 32

A-10 Type F strontium intake modeling results ............................................................................... 32

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type M ......................................................................................................................19

A-2 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969

to 1986, type M ......................................................................................................................20

A-3 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type M ......................................................................................................................20

A-4 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type M ......................................................................................................................20

A-5 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................21

A-6 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................21

A-7 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S .......................................................................................................................22

A-8 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type S.......................................................................................................................22

A-9 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S.......................................................................................................................22

A-10 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type S.......................................................................................................................23

A-11 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................23

A-12 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................23

A-13 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type SS ....................................................................................................................24

A-14 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type SS ....................................................................................................................24

A-15 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type SS ....................................................................................................................25
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 17 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

A-16 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1986, type SS ....................................................................................................................25

A-17 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type SS........................................................................................................................25

A-18 Predicted plutonium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type SS........................................................................................................................26

A-19 Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all years, type F.............................................. 26

A-20 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type F ..........................................................................................................................27

A-21 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................27

A-22 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type M .........................................................................................................................28

A-23 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S.......................................................................................................................28

A-24 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1969 

to 1972, type S .......................................................................................................................29

A-25 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1973 

to 1979, type S.......................................................................................................................29

A-26 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, 1980 

to 1988, type S.......................................................................................................................29

A-27 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1965 

to 1968, type S.......................................................................................................................30

A-28 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1969 

to 1972, type S....................................................................................................................... 30

A-29 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1973 

to 1979, type S.......................................................................................................................30

A-30 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, 1980 

to 1988, type S.......................................................................................................................31

A-31 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................31

A-32 Predicted uranium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type S..........................................................................................................................31

A-33 Predicted strontium bioassay results compared with actual results, 50th percentile, all 

years, type F ..........................................................................................................................32

A-34 Predicted strontium bioassay results compared with actual results, 84th percentile, all 

years, type F ..........................................................................................................................32
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 18 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table A-1. 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion 

rates of plutonium gross alpha, 1968 to 1986 (dpm/d). 

Effective

bioassay date

50th

percentile

84th

percentile

Number of

employees

01/01/1968 0.064 0.328 34

01/01/1970 0.026 0.097 31

01/01/1974 0.013 0.040 28

01/01/1976 0.037 0.049 48

01/01/1980 0.022 0.034 30

01/01/1984 0.040 0.053 48

01/01/1986 0.020 0.031 53

Table A-2. 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion 

rates of uranium gross alpha, 1965 to 1988 (dpm/d).

Effective

bioassay date

50th

percentile

84th

percentile

Number of

employees

07/01/1965 2.90 8.33 470

07/01/1966 4.52 10.83 298

07/01/1967 5.47 14.69 338

07/01/1968 6.22 14.05 269

07/01/1969 2.50 8.60 153

07/01/1970 3.41 7.79 164

07/01/1971 2.35 5.09 135

07/01/1972 1.68 5.67 122

07/01/1973 4.99 7.09 88

07/01/1974 5.95 7.53 86

07/01/1975 0.23 1.13 135

07/01/1976 5.77 8.03 166

07/01/1977 4.52 6.68 95

07/01/1978 4.89 14.14 147

07/01/1979 5.14 6.52 124

07/01/1980 1.76 3.66 109

07/01/1981 1.34 2.08 104

07/01/1982 0.22 0.86 75

07/01/1983 3.17 3.41 57

07/01/1986 2.05 3.18 34

07/01/1987 1.48 2.29 59

07/01/1988 1.44 2.24 63
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 19 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table A-3. 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion 

rates of fission products, 1965 to 1990 (dpm/d).

Effective

bioassay date

50th

percentile

84th

percentile

Number of

employees

07/01/1965 26.06 58.88 321

07/01/1966 21.04 38.26 216

07/01/1967 20.99 44.65 221

07/01/1968 19.63 30.48 154

07/01/1969 10.07 24.71 116

07/01/1970 19.34 24.40 125

07/01/1971 16.54 28.26 84

07/01/1972 14.67 23.58 75

07/01/1973 12.90 24.28 66

07/01/1974 4.65 22.27 55

07/01/1975 12.90 20.51 84

07/01/1976 18.72 29.14 67

07/01/1977 6.98 31.58 75

07/01/1978 14.25 30.33 118

07/01/1979 9.06 22.97 84

07/01/1980 5.54 17.07 82

07/01/1981 17.75 33.77 55

07/01/1982 14.67 33.51 65

07/01/1983 15.42 23.90 45

07/01/1984 3.59 14.29 65

07/01/1985 15.89 26.69 67

07/01/1986 16.15 27.12 78

07/01/1987 21.92 38.70 63

07/01/1988 24.52 29.45 65

07/01/1989 22.79 37.83 50

07/01/1990 7.67 45.77 33

03/01/1991 8.08 35.30 27

The following figures compare predicted bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived intake rates 

(lines) with actual bioassay results (dots). Excluded results are shown in light gray or red in the figures 

in Attachment A. Included results are dark gray or blue.

Figure A-1. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 20 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-2. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, 1969 to 1986, type M. 

Figure A-3. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type M. 

Figure A-4. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, 1969 to 1986, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 21 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-5. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, all years, type M. 

Figure A-6. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type M. 

Table A-4. Type M plutonium intake modeling results (dpm/d).a

Year(s) GM

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th

percentile

1965–1968 13.12 67.61 5.15 5.15 195

1969–1986 3.018 4.959 1.64 3.00 18.4

a. GM = geometric mean.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 22 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-7. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type S. 

Figure A-8. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th

percentile, 1969 to 1986, type S. 

Figure A-9. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 23 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-10. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th

percentile, 1969 to 1986, type S. 

Figure A-11. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, all years, type S. 

Figure A-12. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 24 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table A-5. Type S plutonium intake modeling results (dpm/d).

Year(s) GM 84th percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD 95th percentile

1965–1968 329 1,695 5.15 5.15 4,880

1969–1986 41.62 64.15 1.54 3.00 254

Figure A-13. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type SS. 

Figure A-14. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, 1969 to 1986, type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 25 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-15. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type SS. 

Figure A-16. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, 1969 to 1986, type SS. 

Figure A-17. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, all years, type SS. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 26 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-18. Predicted plutonium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type SS. 

Table A-6. Type SS plutonium intake modeling results (dpm/d).

Year(s) GM

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted 

GSD

95th

percentile

1965–1968 1,830 9,440 5.16 5.16 27,199

1969–1986 389 638 1.64 3.00 2370

Figure A-19. Predicted uranium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates 

(line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th percentile, all years, type F. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 27 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-20. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type F. 

Table A-7. Type F uranium intake modeling results (dpm/d).

Year(s) GM

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th

percentile

1965–1968 17.6 44.09 2.51 3.00 107

1969–1972 8.91 24.35 2.73 3.00 54.3

1973–1979 18.87 30.03 1.59 3.00 115

1980–1988 5.666 8.652 1.53 3.00 34.5

Figure A-21. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, all years, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 28 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-22. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type M. 

Table A-8. Type M uranium intake modeling results (dpm/d).

Year(s) GM

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th

percentile

1965–1968 75.91 190.7 2.51 3.00 463

1969–1972 34.92 93.84 2.69 3.00 213

1973–1979 78.02 124.1 1.59 3.00 475

1980–1988 21.92 33.04 1.51 3.00 134

Figure A-23. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 29 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-24. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th

percentile, 1969 to 1972, type S. 

Figure A-25. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th

percentile, 1973 to 1979, type S. 

Figure A-26. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, 1980 to 1988, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 30 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-27. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th

percentile, 1965 to 1968, type S. 

Figure A-28. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th

percentile, 1969 to 1972, type S. 

Figure A-29. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th

percentile, 1973 to 1979, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 31 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-30. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th

percentile, 1980 to 1988, type S. 

Figure A-31. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, all years, type S. 

Figure A-32. Predicted uranium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0080 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 09/01/2020 Page 32 of 32

ATTACHMENT A

CO-EXPOSURE DATA FIGURES (continued)

Table A-9. Type S uranium intake modeling results (dpm/d).

Year(s) GM

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th

percentile

1965–1968 1,592 3,930 2.47 3.00 9,701

1969–1972 744.4 1,998 2.68 3.00 4,536

1973–1979 1,266 2,101 1.66 3.00 7,714

1980–1988 389 581 1.49 3.00 2,370

Figure A-33. Predicted strontium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 50th 

percentile, all years, type F. 

Figure A-34. Predicted strontium bioassay results (line) compared with actual results (dots), 84th 

percentile, all years, type F. 

Table A-10. Type F strontium intake modeling results (dpm/d).

Year(s) GM

84th

percentile GSD

Adjusted

GSD

95th

percentile

1965–1991 61.05 124.3 2.04 3.00 372