Draft 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

REVIEW OF THE NIOSH SITE PROFILE FOR 

DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS, DEEPWATER, NJ 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035 

Prepared by 

John J. Mauro, PhD 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

August 2011 

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: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 2 of 23

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. 

 SCA-TR-SP2011-0035 

Effective Date: 

 Draft – August 12, 2011 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

REVIEW OF THE NIOSH SITE PROFILE FOR 

DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS, DEEPWATER, NJ Page 2 of 23 

Task Manager/Lead Author: 

______________________________ Date:____________ 

John Mauro, PhD 

Supersedes: 

N/A 

Project Manager: 

______________________________ Date:____________ 

John Mauro, PhD 

Peer Reviewer(s): 

 W.C. Thurber 

 

 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 08/12/2011 Initial issue 

08/16/2011 Privacy Act-cleared as written. 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 3 of 23

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. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

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

1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................5 

2.0 Review Internal Dose during Operations.............................................................................6 

2.1 Review of the Inhalation Exposure Matrix..............................................................6 

2.1.1 Review of Raw Data ....................................................................................6 

2.1.2 Review of Default Intake Rates.................................................................10 

3.0 Review External Dose during Operations..........................................................................11 

3.1 Review of External Exposures...............................................................................11 

3.1.1 Review of the External Dose Conversion Factors.....................................11 

3.1.2 Review of the Exposure Matrix .................................................................12 

4.0 Review of Exposures during Residual Period ...................................................................14 

4.1 Review of External Exposures...............................................................................14 

4.2 Review of Internal Exposures................................................................................15 

5.0 Occupational Medical Exposures ......................................................................................16 

6.0 References..........................................................................................................................17 

Appendix A: Air Sampling Characteristics..................................................................................18 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 4 of 23

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. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer 

cm centimeter 

cm

2 square centimeter 

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

dpm/m3

 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter 

dps/g disintegrations per second per gram 

g/cm3 gram per cubic meter 

GM geometric mean 

GSD geometric standard deviation 

μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

m meter 

m3/hr cubic meter per hour 

MCNP Monte Carlo (N-Particle) or (Neutron and Photon) 

mg/day milligrams per day 

mR/hr milli Roentgen per hour 

mrad/hr millirad per hour 

mrem millirem 

mrep/hr millirep per hour 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates 

TBD Technical Basis Document 

UF4 uranium tetrafluoride 

UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

UO2 brown oxide 

UO3 orange oxide 

U3O8 black oxide (yellowcake) 

UO42H2O uranium peroxide 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 5 of 23

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. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On January 3, 2008, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (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. The facility has several names, 

including “Dye Works” and “Chambers Works.” Subsequent to authorization to proceed with 

the review of that document, the NIOSH Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

(DCAS) issued a revised site profile on March 3, 2011 (DCAS 2011a). This report presents a 

review of the revised site profile. 

At the beginning of World War II, the DuPont Chemical Company was one of the leading 

chemical manufacturing companies in the world. Of special interest to the War Department was 

the company’s experience in developing industrial-scale chemical manufacturing and DuPont’s 

practice of designing and constructing their own plants, seen as an advantage for security as well 

as project management. Uranium production prior to this was only at the laboratory-scale in 

gram quantities, while the Manhattan Project required thousands of tons. 

In the months leading up to the creation of the Army’s Manhattan Project, DuPont was hastily 

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 with 

oxygen and fluorine, and fluorine-based lubricants. Of interest to this review is the production of 

uranium from 1942 through 1944, research activities into 1947, and the associated exposure of 

the workers to ionizing radiation. As described in the site profile, DuPont worked with various 

forms of uranium and converted it to more useful forms, including conversion of black oxide 

(U3O8) and sodium diuranate to orange oxide (UO3), and then to brown oxide (UO2); production of 

uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) from uranium oxide (UO2 and UO3); production of uranium peroxide 

(UO42H2O) from scrap uranium for subsequent production of UO2; and production of UF6 from UF4; 

production of uranium metal using the magnesium process and various related research activities 

(DCAS 2011a). It does not appear that uranium ore was handled at DuPont. Hence, the primary 

concern at the facility is exposure of workers to external and internal sources of various forms of 

natural (unenriched) uranium which was separated from its ore. 

The Army sent DuPont new tasks in the form of letter contracts in rapid succession during 1942. 

The focus of these tasks was production of uranium for the war effort, but little was known about 

the safety of working with uranium and/or the need to control the “dust” (as airborne 

contamination was referred to in documents from the time period). As a result, little to no 

control of the “dust” was attempted in the early years of operation. Following shutdown, 

uranium contamination remained in the buildings that continued in use and on the ground for 

several decades, and as a result, posed a potential source of internal and external radiation 

exposure to those working in the area long after the research and production had ceased. The 

development for safety standards were not to be of much benefit to the Deepwater workers, 

because the role of Deepwater waned as the safety guidance was being implemented across the 

weapons complex.
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 6 of 23

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. 

2.0 REVIEW INTERNAL DOSE DURING OPERATIONS 

Though the uranium operations at DuPont were performed early during the Manhattan Project, 

the site profile explains that 252 airborne dust samples were taken between April 3, 1944, and 

June 7, 1945, and included both general and operational areas. The site profile determined that 

the geometric mean (GM) of these data is 181 dpm/m3 and the geometric standard deviation 

(GSD) is 5.73. Based on these data, and the fact that there were no bioassay data, the site profile 

assigned the upper 95th percentile of this distribution to uranium operators and other workers 

who routinely worked with uranium; the 50th percentile to workers who did not routinely work 

with uranium, such as supervisors; and the 5th percentile value to workers who rarely worked in 

the vicinity of the uranium operations (e.g., clerical workers). The following table presents the 

internal exposure matrix, as reported in Table 1 of the DCAS 2011a: 

Table 1. Daily Intakes of Uranium 

Category Years Description Inhalation 

(dpm/day) 

Ingestion 

(dpm/day) 

Operators 1942–1948 Routinely working with uranium 25,245 438 

Supervisors/Laborers 1942–1948 Routinely in the area 1428 25 

Clerical 1942–1948 Not routinely in the area 81 1.4 

The values in Table 1 are calculated on a calendar-day basis. 

Source: Taken from DCAS 2011a, Table 1

2.1 REVIEW OF THE INHALATION EXPOSURE MATRIX 

SC&A’s approach to reviewing this exposure matrix was to first review the air sampling data; 

when and how it was collected, where it was collected, the sampling duration, and how it was 

analyzed. The distribution of the data was then reviewed, in order to assess the degree to which 

SC&A concurs with the site profile’s characterization of that data. This section concludes with 

an evaluation of the default intake values used in the matrix. 

2.1.1 Review of Raw Data 

SC&A independently compiled the data from the hardcopy reports of air concentrations 

measured at the DuPont Deepwater Works from April 1944 through June 1945. The original 

hardcopy records are in units of μg/m3

 and were converted to dpm/m3, assuming a specific 

activity of 25,280 dps/g for natural uranium. Additional details on the air sampling are provided 

in Appendix A. In the appendix, it is noted that more than 40% of the air samples were collected 

in the three work areas with the highest dust concentrations. Figure 1 shows a lognormal scatter 

plot of the 252 sample values reported on the log sheets from DuPont. The dashed line is the 

best-fitting regression line. The slope and intercept of this regression line are estimates of the 

lognormal distribution parameters mu and sigma. Despite a deviation from the regression line at 

the upper tail above the 95th percentile, the regression analysis has an R2

 of 0.986, indicating a 

relatively high degree of fit to the data. 

Table 2 contains a comparison of the lognormal distribution obtained from Figure 1 with the 

lognormal distribution from DCAS 2011a (p. 6) when all sample values (N=252), including 

blanks and non-detects, are incorporated into the analysis. The table shows the estimated 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 7 of 23

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. 

lognormal parameters mu and sigma, the GM and GSD, and the lognormal mean and 95th

percentile of the two lognormal distributions. The NIOSH estimates of the lognormal parameters 

mu and sigma are only slightly lower than those shown in Figure 1. The parameter mu differs 

only by a small amount; however, this difference is large enough to make the NIOSH estimates 

of the mean and 95th percentiles noticeably lower than the SC&A estimates. The difference 

could easily be explained by transcription differences, as the hardcopy records are very hard to 

read and interpret in some cases. 

Selected statistics from the empirical distribution are shown at the right of Table 2. (The 

empirical distribution is obtained by ranking the samples and then selecting the mid-point as the 

median.) The empirical distribution has a median and a mean that are higher than either of the 

lognormal distributions, while the empirical 95th percentile is lower than both lognormal 

distribution estimates for this parameter. 

Figure 2 shows a lognormal plot of the data when the blanks are removed. All other sample 

values (N=239) were retained for this analysis. Figure 2 is very similar to Figure 1. The dashed 

line is the best-fitting regression line. The slope and intercept of this regression line are 

estimates of the lognormal distribution parameters mu and sigma. Table 3 shows estimates 

obtained from the lognormal distribution shown in Figure 2, where the 13 samples labeled as 

blanks have been removed from the dataset. The median, mean, and 95th percentiles of the 

distribution with the blanks removed are all higher than both the SC&A and NIOSH estimates 

for these parameters shown in Table 2. 

Selected statistics from the empirical distribution are also shown in Table 3. These estimates are 

also higher than those shown in Table 2. The mean and median of the empirical distribution area 

are higher than the lognormal-based estimates, while the empirical 95th percentile is lower than 

the corresponding lognormal estimate. 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 8 of 23

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. 

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 ]

Figure 1. Normal Score Plot of 252 Air Concentrations at Deepwater Works, 

Including Blanks 

Table 2. Comparison of Lognormal Distributions Estimated by SC&A and NIOSH 

with Empirical Distribution, All Sample Values 

Including Blanks (N=252) 

Lognormal Distribution 

 SC&A NIOSH 

Units Empirical Distribution

mu 5.30 5.20 – –

sigma 1.76 1.75 – –

Lognormal GM 201 181 dpm/m3 228 Empirical Median 

Lognormal GSD 5.84 5.73 – –

Lognormal Mean 953 831 dpm/m3 1,074 Arithmetic Average* 

Lognormal 95th Pctl. 3,660 3,197 dpm/m3 3,018 Empirical 95th Pctl. 

 * All non-detects were set at 25 dpm/m3 to compute average. 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 9 of 23

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. 

y = 1.7032x + 5.4307

R2

 = 0.985

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Normal Score

Ln[ DPM/m3 ]

Figure 2. Normal Score Plot of 239 Air Concentrations at Deepwater Works 

with Blanks Removed 

Table 3. Comparison of Lognormal Distribution Estimated by SC&A with Empirical 

Distribution, 13 Blanks Removed 

No Blanks (N=239) 

Lognormal Distribution Units Empirical Distribution 

mu 5.43 – –

sigma 1.70 – –

Lognormal GM 228 dpm/m3 243 Empirical Median 

Lognormal GSD 5.49 – –

Lognormal Mean 974 dpm/m3 1,131 Arithmetic Average* 

Lognormal 95th Pctl. 3,760 dpm/m3 3,403 Empirical 95th Pctl. 

 * All non-detects were set at 25 dpm/m3 to compute average. 

As may be noted, our review of the air sampling data reveals similar statistics to the values 

reported in the site profile, and SC&A concurs with the values for airborne uranium 

concentrations used in the site profile. However, some discussion is needed regarding the degree 

to which the time period when the air samples were collected (i.e., 1944 to 1945) is 

representative or bounding for earlier operational time periods. 

Finding 1: The site profile should discuss the degree to which the air sampling data, which 

were collected in 1944 and 1945, can be used to reasonably bound doses in the earlier years 

of operation (e.g., 1942–1943). 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 10 of 23

 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. 

NOTICE:

2.1.2 Review of Default Intake Rates 

The default inhalation rate for operators during operations delineated in the site profile is 

25,245 dpm/day (Table 1). The following is SC&A’s attempt to match this value, given the 95th

percentile dust loading reported above: 

3,197 dpm/m3

 × 1.2 m3/hr × 2,400 hr/yr = 9.2E6 dpm/yr = 25,226 dpm/calendar-day 

As can be seen, SC&A matched the default value used by NIOSH and concurs with this default 

inhalation rate. We concur with the derived median airborne uranium concentration 

(181 dpm/m3

) and median inhalation rate as adopted in the site profile. 

With respect to the ingestion of uranium, the site profile employs OCAS-TIB-009 (OCAS 2004) 

methodologies, which SC&A accepts under the condition that the facility was not heavily 

contaminated with uranium during operations. The appropriate application of TIB-009 has been 

a source of significant discussion between SC&A and NIOSH. SC&A has taken the position that 

use of the TIB-009 approach (where the amount of activity ingested on a daily basis can be 

approximated by assuming it to be 0.2 times the activity per cubic meter of air) is appropriate 

where some surface cleanup has been done. It is not obvious that such cleanup occurred at 

DuPont Deepwater. 

 

The default ingestion rate for operators during operations delineated in the site profile is 

438 dpm/day (Table 1). The following is SC&A’s attempt to match this value, given the 95th

percentile dust loading reported above: 

3,197 dpm/m3 × 0.2 = 639 dpm/day 

This value is about 50% higher than that reported in Table 1. 

Finding 2: We would request that the site profile discuss the levels of surface 

contamination at the facility and explain that, at these levels, the default ingestion rate of 

0.5 mg/day, which is inherent to TIB-009, applies to this facility. NIOSH should also 

describe how the ingestion intake in Table 1 was calculated.
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 11 of 23

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. 

3.0 REVIEW EXTERNAL DOSE DURING OPERATIONS 

There are no film badge exposure readings for workers, nor are there any external radiation 

survey data for this facility during operations. As a result, the site profile makes use of external 

dosimetry models (MCNP) to derive external exposure rates in the vicinity of the uranium as a 

function of the various chemical and physical forms and geometries of natural uranium handled 

at the site, and for a broad range of exposure scenarios (i.e., submerged in an airborne cloud of 

uranium, standing on a surface contaminated with uranium, and standing and working at various 

distances from different size sources of uranium, including contact dose rates). The following 

are some of the dose conversion factors that NIOSH derived and used as the basis for developing 

its external exposure matrix for the site: 

Scenario Dose Conversion Factor 

Submersion in a cloud of 100-day old 

separated natural uranium 2.36E-09 mR/hr per dpm (α)/m3

Standing on surface contamination of 

100-day old separated uranium 5.61E-10 mR/hr per dpm(α)/m2

30 cm from a 55 gallon drum 

containing U3O8 at a density of 7 

g/cm3 

1.3 mR/hr 

Beta surface exposure rate at contact 

with a slab of natural uranium 233 mrad/hr 

Based on these dose conversion factors, the following are the annual doses adopted for use in the 

te profile: 

Table 4. Annual Doses at D ater W

(m ) (mrad/yr) 

Hand rms 

(m

si

eepw

Skin 

orks 

s and forea Category Years Photon 

R/yr rad/yr) 

Operators 1942–1948 519 657 38,614 

Laborers 1942–1948 260 329 19,307 

S s upervisor 1942–1948 130 164 9,653 

Clerical 1942–1948 13 16 965 

 Source: Taken from DCAS 2011a, Table 8 

.1 REVIEW OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURES 

.1.1 Review of the External Dose Conversion Factors 

 gamma, 

.0E-10 mrad/hr per dpm(α)/m , which is compatible with the values derived by NIOSH. 

3

3

SC&A previously reviewed the external dose conversion factors for uranium as reported in 

TBD-6000 (see SC&A 2007). As provided in that report, SC&A independently derived the dose 

conversion factors for the testes from floors contaminated with uranium, which included

electrons, and bremstrahlung for 100-day old natural uranium, and obtained a value of 

2 4
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 12 of 23

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. 

lyses 

A 2007, we also concur with the 

xternal exposure dose conversion factors for standing 1 foot (30 cm) from a 55-gallon drum of 

te 

rofile. However, NIOSH should provide additional discussion of whether uranium ingots were 

, 

e site using the UF4 to U 

agnesium bomb reduction process, which, because of the Putzier effect, could have 

ciated with external beta radiation fields that were 

0 to 20 times greater than those adopted in the site profile. 

rators 

cm) 

ors, supervisors one-half that of laborers, and others experienced 1/10th

at experienced by supervisors. Given these assumptions, the following presents SC&A’s 

evaluation of th 2,400 

orking hours per year. 

1,200 hr/yr × 1.3 mR/hr + 1,200 hr/yr × 0.3 mR/hr = 1,920 mR/yr 

inding 4: There seems to be a substantial disparity between the explanation of how the 

ed assuming that the operators’ skin 

ands) were in contact with the drum 25% of the time. Table 5 of the TBD cites a contact dose 

rate of 203 mrad/hr fo s, the annual contact 

dose to skin of operators should be derived as follows: 

2,400 hr/yr × 0.25 × 203 mrad/hr = 121,800 mrad/yr 

We did not derive the external dose conversion factors for submersion, since previous ana

by SC&A reveal that this source of exposure is negligible. 

In addition, from the previous analyses provided in SC&

e

U3O8 or a slab of natural uranium. In addition, we concur with the external contact dose 

associated with a slab of 100-day old natural uranium. 

Hence, SC&A concurs with the external exposure dose conversion factors reported in the si

p

produced that could have had elevated levels of uranium progeny at the surface of the ingots

which could have resulted in elevated external radiation fields in the vicinity of the ingots. 

Finding 3: It appears that uranium metal was produced at th

m

produced uranium ingots that were asso

1

3.1.2 Review of the Exposure Matrix 

The site profile explains that the annual photon exposure to operators is based on the ope

spending 50% of their time 30 cm (1 foot) from the drums and 50% of their time 1 m (100 

from the drums, where the exposure rates are 1.3 and 0.3 mR/hr, respectively. The external 

exposures for other workers at the facility are expressed in terms of the exposures to the 

operators. For example, laborers are assumed to have experienced one-half the exposures

experienced by the operat

th

e external operating exposures experienced by operators, assuming

w

This value is substantially larger than the value of 519 mR/yr provided in Table 8 of the site 

profile. 

F

annual photon doses to operators were derived and the actual values employed in the site

profile. 

The site profile also states that the annual contact dose to the skin of operators, as reported in 

Table 8, is 38,614 mrad/yr, and that this value was deriv

(h

r U3O8, with which we agree. Given these assumption
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 13 of 23

 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. 

hands in contact with a slab of uranium metal, resulting 

 an annual exposure of 276,000 rad/yr. 

DuPont, since no site data are available for external exposure during 

the operating period.

NOTICE:

This value is substantially higher than the value adopted by DCAS in Table 8 of 38,814 mrad/yr. 

We also note that the default assumption used in Section 6.3 of TBD-6000 (DCAS 2011b) is that 

the operator spends 50% of his time with 

in

Finding 5: There seems to be a substantial disparity between the explanation of how the 

annual contact doses to operators were derived and the actual values employed in the site

profile. In addition, justification should be provided as to why TBD-6000 default values 

should not be used at 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 14 of 23

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. 

4.0 REVIEW OF EXPOSURES DURING RESIDUAL PERIOD 

The site profile explains that Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) activities continued until 1947, 

and that decontamination surveys were performed in Building 708 in 1948, which was released 

to DuPont in 1949. Building 845 was released on November 15, 1948, after decontamination, 

and Building J-19 was demolished and several feet of earth were removed between 1943 and 

1945. 

The site profile further describes beta/gamma and gross alpha surveys of the various buildings 

after decontamination, and the results of those surveys. These data were used to construct 

bounding beta and gamma external exposure rates for workers at the facilities following 

decontamination, along with internal alpha exposures associated with the resuspension and 

inhalation and ingestion of residual uranium at the facility. The following summarizes the 

exposure matrix for all workers provided in the site profile for the residual period: 

 Whole Body External Dose: 40 mrem/yr from 1949 to October 2009 

 Shallow External Dose: 40 mrem/yr from 1949 to October 2009 

 Extremity Dose: 400 mrem/yr from 1949 to October 2009 

 Uranium Inhalation: 0.329 dpm/day* from 1949 to October 2009 

 Uranium Ingestion: 0.00685 dpm/day* from 1949 to October 2009 

*Normalized to a calendar day 

4.1 REVIEW OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURES 

Section 6 of the site profile states that the highest beta/gamma dose rates observed 3 feet above 

the floor at the locations surveyed in Building 708 and Building 845 after decontamination in 

1948 were 0.05 and 0.03 mrep/hr, respectively. A subsequent survey in 1977 indicated that 

contact doses on the walls and floors were typically about 0.1 mrad per hour. To cover the full 

range of possible contact dose measurements, NIOSH favorably assumed that the contact dose 

(beta/gamma) was 0.2 mrad/hr. Using a factor of 5 for the dose reduction between the surface 

and 3 feet, the site profile assumes that all workers experienced external whole body beta plus 

gamma dose rates of 0.04 mrad/hr, and that 50% is due to photons and 50% is due to electrons. 

As stated in the site profile, “Therefore, this appendix will assume the 0.04 mrad/hr is composed of 

a whole body gamma dose rate of 0.02 mR/hr and a beta whole body dose rate of 0.02 mrad/hr” 

(DCAS 2011a, p. 13, emphasis added). 

We further note in Table 3.10 of TBD-6001 that the photon exposure rate (mR/hr) is a factor of 100 

lower than the beta dose rate (mrad/hr) at 1 meter (Battelle 2006). Therefore, if the maximum 

measured dose rate after decontamination was 0.05 mrep/hr, the photon exposure rate would be 

about 0.0005 mR/hr. This suggests that the photon exposure used by NIOSH (i.e., 0.02 mR/hr) 

is overstated by a factor of 40. 

Finding 6: Assuming 50% of the beta/gamma dose rate measured at 3 feet from a surface 

is 50% from gamma and 50% from beta does not appear to be appropriate. In addition, 

beta dose cannot contribute significantly to whole body dose. 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 15 of 23

 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. 

NOTICE:

Based on the measurements described above, the site profile further assumes that the dose rate to 

skin of the extremities (hands and forearms) is 0.2 mrad/hr. This appears to be a reasonable 

assumption, given the data. 

The site profile adopts default annual exposures during the residual period of 40 mrem/yr whole 

body and 40 mrem/yr shallow dose, based on 2,000 hours/yr exposure. The rationale for 

selecting an exposure rate of 0.02 mrem/hr whole body dose does not appear to be scientifically 

valid for the reasons described above. Use of the directly measured value of 0.05 mrep/hr would 

seem more appropriate for beta/gamma exposure at 3 feet above the surface. This dose rate 

could then be pro-rated based on the TBD-6000 dose conversion factors, assuming 99% beta and 

1% photon. This establishes a bounding photon dose rate of 1 mrem per year and a bounding 

shallow dose rate of 99 mrad/yr, as compared to the NIOISH values of 40 mrem/yr for each type 

of radiation. 

 

An alternative calculational approach would be to use the conversion factors in Table 3.10 of 

TBD-6000 and the maximum observed alpha surface contamination level of 500 dpm/100 cm2 

(DCAS 2011a, pp. 12–13). Use of this approach results in a photon exposure rate of 

2E-05 mR/hr and a beta dose rate of 2E-03 mrad/hr. Both of these values are significantly lower 

than those derived in the previous paragraph, indicating that use of the measured beta/gamma 

value of 0.05 mrep/hr is more claimant favorable. 

Finding 7: The development of the photon dose is convoluted and not scientifically sound. 

A simpler approach would be to assume that the deep dose rate was 0.05 mrad/hr based on 

measurements at 3 feet from contaminated surfaces, and pro-rate this dose rate between 

beta and gamma based on Table 3.10 of TBD-6000. 

4.2 REVIEW OF INTERNAL EXPOSURES 

The site profile explains that, after decontamination, the alpha surveys revealed that surface 

contamination was generally less than 500 dpm/100 cm2, and that in 1977, isolated spots were 

observed with alpha readings ranging up to 5,000 dpm/100 cm2

, but the contamination was 

relatively fixed. On this basis, the site profile assumes that the average alpha surface 

contamination throughout the facility was 500 dpm/100 cm2 and the resulting airborne gross 

alpha concentration due to resuspension processes was 0.05 dpm/m3

. It was further assumed that 

all workers were exposed to this airborne uranium concentration for 2,000 hours per year. The 

site profile does not cite the resuspension factor employed, but we can assume, based on past 

experience, that 1E-6/m was used. The following is a check on this value: 

500 dpm/100 cm2 × 1E4 cm2/m2 × 1E-6/m = 0.05 dpm/m3

It appears that the site profile did, in fact, use a resuspension factor of 1E-6/m. Since this 

resuspension factor is being employed for surfaces that were decontaminated and where the 

contamination was relatively fixed, SC&A concurs with these assumptions.
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 16 of 23

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. 

5.0 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL EXPOSURES 

The site profile states there are no records regarding occupational medical exposures at 

Deepwater. As a result, the site profile adopts the default medical doses recommended in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006 (ORAUT 2005). SC&A concurs with this approach.
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 17 of 23

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. 

6.0 REFERENCES 

DCAS 2011a. Technical Basis Document for the DuPont Deepwater Works, Deepwater, New 

Jersey. DCAS-TKBS-0006, Rev. 00. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS), Cincinnati, Ohio. March 8, 

2011. 

DCAS 2011b. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals. 

Battelle-TBD-6000. Rev. 1. National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS), Cincinnati, Ohio. June 17, 2011. 

Battelle 2006. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, 

Battelle-TBD-6001, Rev. F0; Battelle Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH. December 

13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30673. 

OCAS 2004. Estimation of Ingestion Intakes. OCAS-OTIB-009, Rev. 0. National Institute for 

Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

(OCAS), Cincinnati, Ohio. April 13, 2004. 

ORAUT 2005. Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures, 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

December 21, 2005. 

SC&A 2007. Draft Review of Battelle TBD-6000, Site profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers 

that Worked Uranium and Thorium Metals, Contract No. 200-2004-03805, Task Order No. 3. 

SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. September 14, 2007.
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 18 of 23

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. 

APPENDIX A: AIR SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS 

Each of the 252 air samples collected at DuPont Deepwater Works contains information about 

what area of the plant the sample was taken, and often indicates what types of activities were 

undertaken at the time of the sample. Figure A-1 shows an example of the type of air sample 

records currently available for the site. The first two columns display identifiers such as the 

sample analysis number and the collection device number. The third column contains the 

location of the air sample (denoted by a letter such as “L” in this case) and specific information 

about the conditions/activities in that area at the time of sampling. The fourth column provides 

the uranium concentration (μg/m3), while the final column is the fraction of the allowable dust 

level. 

Figure A-1. Example Air Sample Datasheet Extracted from Mears 1945 

In many cases, the plant location is followed by a color, such as black or orange, which likely 

denotes the type of material that was being handled, such as black oxide (U3O8) or orange oxide 

(UO3). During SC&A’s independent compilation of the air sample data, the different locations 

and conditions/activities were compared, in order to characterize the sampling coverage of the 

entire dataset. 

 

Table A-1 presents an overview of the air sample data by plant area (referred to as ‘rooms’ in the 

air sampling reports), sorted by the total number of samples associated with each area. The table 

also displays the average and maximum air sample for each area. As the table shows, the three 

most frequently sampled areas (F, G, and D) also had some of the highest average and maximum 

air sample results and comprise over 40% of the available data. This would indicate that the air 

sampling was likely biased towards the dustier areas of the site. One notable exception is Area 

“J,” which only had three air samples associated with it, but had relatively high dust levels 

(Area J had the highest average value at 6,098 dpm/m3

, and the third highest maximum result at 

16,649 dpm/m3). These three data points are labeled as “black,” which likely represents work 

with black oxide. 

Attachment A-1 expands on the analysis displayed in Table 1 by including not only the area of 

the site, but also the activity description associated with each air sample. Unlike Table A-1, the 

analysis in Attachment 1 does not show as clear a relationship between the frequency of air 

sampling and the relative magnitude of results. However, it is worth noting that the four most 

commonly sampled areas/activities shown in Attachment 1 were associated with “Rooms” F, G, 

and D, which had some of the highest average and maximum uranium dust loadings. 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 19 of 23

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. 

Table A-1. Summary of Air Sampling Locations by Frequency and Magnitude 

Air Sample Result (dpm/m3) Plant Area # Records Percentage Average Max 

Flag if Area Results are 

Greater than Average 

Room F 49 19.4% 2026.5 32459.5 X 

Room G 29 11.5% 1388.7 5157.1 X 

Room D 27 10.7% 2505.8 28819.2 X 

Room E 27 10.7% 465.7 2654.4 

Room L 23 9.1% 488.7 3837.5 

Room A 17 6.7% 190.9 606.7 

Room C 16 6.3% 431.3 1896.0 

Blank 13 5.2% 44.3 75.8 

Room H 8 3.2% 318.5 1365.1 

Room N 7 2.8% 143.0 455.0 

Room I 6 2.4% 78.4 257.9 

Room M 6 2.4% 134.0 348.9 

Room Q 6 2.4% 303.4 1092.1 

Room B 5 2.0% 389.8 758.4 

Room O 4 1.6% 381.1 1046.6 

Room J 3 1.2% 6097.5 16684.8 X 

Room P 3 1.2% 116.3 182.0 

Office 2 0.8% 41.7 45.5 

Room K 1 0.4% 166.8 166.8 

SC&A attempted to categorize the activity/condition descriptions listed in Attachment A-1 by 

whether they represented operational samples or non-operational samples. Non-operational 

samples were assumed to be any sample that included the description “idle,” “quiet,” or being 

“outside” of a given room. A summary of how many samples fell into each category is shown in 

Table A-2. The table also includes the number of “Administrative” samples (defined as samples 

taken in the “office building”), as well as the number of blank control samples taken. As shown 

in the table, over 78% of the air samples appear to be associated with plant operations. 

Table A-2. Summary of the Number of Operational versus Non-Operational Samples 

Sample Category Number of Samples Percentage of Total 

Operational 207 78.41% 

Non-Operational 43 16.29% 

Administrative 1 0.38% 

Control Blanks 13 4.92% 

Unfortunately, information could not be found to characterize whether these air samples 

specifically represent breathing zone, general air, or process samples. The air sampling appears 

to have occurred on individual days; however, the actual length of time over which each sample 

was collected is not currently available. The individual days on which sampling occurred are 

summarized in Table 3. As shown in the table, many air sampling reports had multiple days; 

therefore, individual samples within a given report may not be able to be tied to an individual 

day. 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 20 of 23

 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. 

NOTICE:

Table A-3. Summary of Air Sampling Dates 

Dates # of Records 

5/4/44 & 5/6/44 6 

6/25/44 & 7/16/44 36 

7/3/1944 12 

8/6/1944 18 

9/24/44 - 9/26/44 12 

11/5/1944 17 

11/8/1944 78 

1/7/1945 16 

1/9/1945 12 

1/25/1945 6 

2/18/1945 18 

9/22/44, 4/8/45, 4/9/45, 4/13/45 11 

5/27/1945 & 6/7/1945 10 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 21 of 23

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. 

Attachment A-1. Summary of the Areas and Description of Activities Listed Among 

the 252 Air Samples for DuPont

Room + Process Type of Record # Records Percentage Average Max Flag Greater 

than Average 

Room F - Green Operational 14 5.6% 453.4 1744.3 

Control Blank Control Blank 13 5.2% 44.3 75.8 

Room D - Pot Room Operational 12 4.8% 2759.3 27302.4 X 

Room F - Screening Operational 11 4.4% 6028.6 32459.5 X 

Room G - Bomb 

Loading Operational 11 4.4% 1582.3 5157.1 X 

Room E - Orange Operational 10 4.0% 604.4 2654.4 

Room C - Outside Non-Operational 9 3.6% 435.7 1896.0 

Room A - Outside Non-Operational 7 2.8% 163.6 515.7 

Room A - Black Operational 6 2.4% 125.1 257.9 

Room D - Digging Operational 5 2.0% 555.1 1092.1 

Room E - Grinding Operational 5 2.0% 107.7 379.2 

Room F - Idle Non-Operational 5 2.0% 236.6 470.2 

Room G - Normal 

Conditions Operational 5 2.0% 800.9 1289.3 

Room H - Black Operational 5 2.0% 429.3 1365.1 

Room I - Grinding Operational 5 2.0% 42.5 45.5 

Room L - Charging 

Crusher Operational 5 2.0% 373.1 758.4 

Room L - Grinding Operational 5 2.0% 37.9 37.9 

Room N - Operating Operational 5 2.0% 139.5 455.0 

Room C - Residue 

Cake Operational 4 1.6% 392.5 568.8 

Room D - Normal 

Conditions Operational 4 1.6% 316.6 606.7 

Room F - Blending Operational 4 1.6% 261.6 530.9 

Room F - Outside Non-Operational 4 1.6% 237.0 591.6 

Room L - Black Operational 4 1.6% 204.8 288.2 

Room Q - Elevating Operational 4 1.6% 163.1 379.2 

Room D - Operating Operational 3 1.2% 333.7 515.7 

Room E - Loading Operational 3 1.2% 1016.3 2426.9 

Room F - Loading Operational 3 1.2% 1729.2 2654.4 X 

Room F - Unloading Operational 3 1.2% 1284.2 1501.6 X 

Room G - Dumping 

and Mixing Operational 3 1.2% 485.4 1016.3 

Room G - Operating Operational 3 1.2% 3392.6 4595.9 X 

Room H - Loading Operational 3 1.2% 134.0 212.4 

Room J - Black Operational 3 1.2% 6097.5 16684.8 X 

Room L - Crushing Operational 3 1.2% 1997.1 3837.5 X 

Room L - Feeding Operational 3 1.2% 106.2 227.5 

Room M - Operating Operational 3 1.2% 75.8 106.2 

Office Building Administrative 2 0.8% 41.7 45.5 

Room A - Normal 

Conditions Operational 2 0.8% 326.1 561.2 

Room A - While 

Dumping Operational 2 0.8% 348.9 606.7 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 22 of 23

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. 

Attachment A-1. Summary of the Areas and Description of Activities Listed Among 

the 252 Air Samples for DuPont

Room + Process Type of Record # Records Percentage Average Max Flag Greater 

than Average 

Room B - Quiet Non-Operational 2 0.8% 170.6 303.4 

Room C - Idle Non-Operational 2 0.8% 568.8 568.8 

Room E - Floor Dirty Operational 2 0.8% 409.5 667.4 

Room E - Idle Non-Operational 2 0.8% 538.5 985.9 

Room E - Outside Non-Operational 2 0.8% 364.0 606.7 

Room E - Unloading Operational 2 0.8% 128.9 151.7 

Room F - Preparing to 

Screen Operational 2 0.8% 6275.8 12513.6 X 

Room G - Dumping Operational 2 0.8% 561.2 606.7 

Room G - Idle Non-Operational 2 0.8% 303.4 303.4 

Room G - Outside Non-Operational 2 0.8% 170.6 303.4 

Room N - Black Operational 2 0.8% 151.7 151.7 

Room P - Operating Operational 2 0.8% 83.4 106.2 

Room Q - In Stack Operational 2 0.8% 584.0 1092.1 

Room B - Ether Room Operational 1 0.4% 758.4 758.4 

Room B - Idle Non-Operational 1 0.4% 348.9 348.9 

Room B - Outside Non-Operational 1 0.4% 500.5 500.5 

Room C - While 

Dumping Operational 1 0.4% 273.0 273.0 

Room D - Idle Non-Operational 1 0.4% 227.5 227.5 

Room D - Near unit 

being unloaded Operational 1 0.4% 28819.2 28819.2 X 

Room D - Near unit 

while running Operational 1 0.4% 455.0 455.0 

Room E - Getting 

started Operational 1 0.4% 60.7 60.7 

Room F - After 

Screening Operational 1 0.4% 1198.3 1198.3 X 

Room F - Cleaning 

Box & Loading Operational 1 0.4% 439.9 439.9 

Room F - No 

Description Operational 1 0.4% 227.5 227.5 

Room G - Loading Operational 1 0.4% 5157.1 5157.1 X 

Room I - Black Operational 1 0.4% 257.9 257.9 

Room K - Black Operational 1 0.4% 166.8 166.8 

Room L - After 

Crushing Operational 1 0.4% 333.7 333.7 

Room L - Near 203A Operational 1 0.4% 1683.6 1683.6 X 

Room L - Preparing to 

Feed Operational 1 0.4% 37.9 37.9 

Room M - Black Operational 1 0.4% 151.7 151.7 

Room M - Center of 

Room Operational 1 0.4% 75.8 75.8 

Room M - Idle Non-Operational 1 0.4% 348.9 348.9 

Room O - Black Operational 1 0.4% 303.4 303.4 

Room O - Dumping Operational 1 0.4% 1046.6 1046.6 

Room O - Operating Operational 1 0.4% 136.5 136.5 
Effective Date: 

August 12, 2011 

Revision No. 

 0 (Draft)

Document No. 

SCA-TR-SP2011-0035

Page No. 

 23 of 23

 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. 

Attachment A-1. Summary of the Areas and Description of Activities Listed Among 

the 252 Air Samples for DuPont

Room + Process Type of Record # Records Percentage Average Max Flag Greater 

than Average 

NOTICE:

Room O - Quiet Non-Operational 1 0.4% 37.9 37.9 

Room P - Black Operational 1 0.4% 182.0 182.0 

Appendix A Reference 

Mears 1945. Results of Dust Sample Measurements. July 17, 1945. SRBD Ref ID: 642.