1 

DUPONT DEEPWATER WORKS, 

DEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY

STATUS OF SITE PROFILE

ISSUES RESOLUTION

Prepared by Henry Anderson, MD

Chair of the AWE Work Group

October 16, 2013
2 

BACKGROUND

• DuPont Deepwater Works was under contract to the 

Manhattan Engineering District from 1942 to 1947

• Contracted to develop industrial-scale facilities for purification 

of uranium from various ores, recovery of scrap uranium, 

manufacture of uranium metal and various uranium 

compounds. Worked with various forms of uranium and 

converted it to more useful forms, including production of 

uranium metal using the magnesium process and various 

related research activities 

• Sources of exposure included:

– External exposure to naturally occurring uranium and its short- lived progeny (Th-234 and Pa-234)

– Internal exposure from inhalation of airborne uranium and 

inadvertent ingestion of residual uranium deposited on surfaces
3 

Time Sequence of Document 

Production and Review

1. January 3, 2008 – NIOSH issued Appendix B to Battelle-TBD-6001, which 

provides data and guidance for dose reconstruction of workers at the 

DuPont facility in Deepwater, New Jersey (i.e., the original site profile)

2. March 8, 2011 – NIOSH issued Technical Basis Document for the DuPont 

Deepwater Works, Deepwater, New Jersey. DCAS-TKBS-0006, Rev. 00. 

This revision was motivated by the withdrawal of TBD-6001, which was 

the parent document for the January 3, 2008 version of the site profile.

3. August 12, 2011 – SC&A issued Review of the NIOSH Site profile for 

DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ.

4. September 7, 2012 – AWE Work Group meeting (note that there were 

many AWE Work Group meetings prior to this date, but this is the first 

meeting where DuPont was discussed).

5. March 13, 2013 – NIOSH issued DuPont Deepwater Works NIOSH 

Response to Findings in SC&A’s Review dated August 12, 2011.

6. June 6, 2013 – SC&A issued SC&A Response to NIOSH’s Commentary 

on Findings Regarding the Site Profile for DuPont Deepwater Works.

7. September 27, 2013 – AWE Work Group meeting.
4 

DATA SOURCES AND STRATEGIES 

FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

External Dose

No external dosimetry data. Exposures are based on process 

knowledge and the results of MCNP calculations. Exposure scenarios 

include:

– Submersion in a cloud 

– Standing on contaminated surfaces 

– Standing close to various sizes and types of uranium sources

NIOSH employed standard TBD-6000 methodologies, which have been 

previously reviewed and accepted by the TBD-6000 Work Group.

Internal Dose

No bioassay data. Intakes and internal exposures are based 252 airborne dust 

loadings collected from 1944 to 1945, fit the data to a lognormal distribution, 

and assigned either the full distribution or the 95th percentile of the distribution 

to the workers based on potential for exposure. 
5 

y = 1.7645x + 5.3028

R2

 = 0.9864

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Normal Score

Ln[ DPM/m3 ]

Uranium air Sampling Data for DuPont Deep Water Works for 1944 and 1945
6 

SEVEN FINDINGS AND THE 

STATUS OF THEIR RESOLUTION 

1. Issue 1: SC&A’s original concern was that air sampling data from 1944 

and 1945 may not be applicable to 1942 and 1943 activities. However, 

NIOSH correctly points out that there was virtually no uranium handling 

and processing activity prior to 1944. SC&A agrees.

Recommendation: Issue closed

2. Issue 2: SC&A’s original concern was that the ingestion pathway was not 

modeled in accordance with approved NIOSH procedures. NIOSH 

agrees and will revise the calculations.

Recommendation: Issue in abeyance until revisions are made

3. Issue 3: SC&A’s original concern was that the Putzier effect was not 

taken into consideration when modeling external doses. NIOSH pointed 

out that the Putzier effect does not apply to the uranium processing 

activities that took place at the facility. SC&A concurs.

Recommendation: Issue closed 
7

SEVEN FINDINGS AND THE STATUS OF 

THEIR RESOLUTION (continued)

4. Issues 4 and 5: SC&A was concerned that the radiation dose rate at 

specific distances was assigned as a distribution rather than as a fixed 

deterministic value, but SC&A nevertheless agreed with the results. 

NIOSH agreed to repackage the material in a manner where the 

uncertainty in the distance of the worker from the source material is 

assigned an uncertainty distribution rather than assigning an uncertainty 

distribution to the dose rate at a given distance from the source. SC&A 

agrees with this strategy.

Recommendation: Issue in abeyance until revisions are made

5. Issues 6 and 7. Each of these issues are related to the assumption that 

the radiation dose rate measured using an open window survey meter at 

1 meter from surfaces contaminated with uranium dust is assigned 50% 

photon dose and 50% beta dose. NIOSH agrees that this 1:1 photon-to- beta ratio is incorrect and will use a 1:10 ratio. SC&A agrees.

Recommendation: Issue in abeyance until revisions are made