Draft 

REVIEW OF “SITE PROFILES FOR ATOMIC WEAPONS 

EMPLOYERS THAT WORKED URANIUM METALS: 

APPENDIX J–JOSLYN”

Contract Number 211-2014-58081

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Revision 0 

Prepared by 

Robert Anigstein. PhD 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

May 12, 2015 

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 pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for 

factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 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:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 2 of 33

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.

S. Cohen & Associates:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on

Radiation & Worker Health Review of

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

Document Description:

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Effective Date: 

Draft – May 12, 2015

REVIEW OF “SITE PROFILES FOR ATOMIC 

WEAPONS EMPLOYERS THAT WORKED 

URANIUM METALS: APPENDIX J–JOSLYN”

Page 2 of 33

Task Manager:

____________________________ Date:__________

Robert Anigstein, PhD

Supersedes:

N/A

Project Manager:

____________________________ Date:__________

John Stiver, MS, CHP

Reviewers:

 John Mauro, PhD, CHP

 William C. Thurber, MS

 John Stiver, MS, CHP

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 5/12/15 Initial issue
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 3 of 33

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 Review Comments..................................................................................................................6

1.1 Site Description........................................................................................................6

1.2 Uranium Processing.................................................................................................6

1.2.1 Independent Evaluation of Uranium Processing Days ................................7

1.2.2 Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Workday Estimates ...........................16

1.3 Occupational Internal Dose....................................................................................17

1.3.1 Intakes of Uranium Dust During Rolling and Machining Operations.......17

1.3.2 Intakes of Uranium Dust in Between Rolling and Machining 

Operations..................................................................................................18

1.3.3 Total Annual Intakes of Uranium Dust......................................................19

1.4 Occupational External Dose ..................................................................................20

1.4.1 External Exposure to Penetrating Radiation from Uranium......................20

1.4.2 Skin Doses from Electrons Emitted by Uranium Metal ............................22

1.4.3 Annual External Doses from Uranium ......................................................23

1.4.4 External Exposure to Thorium Metal ........................................................25

2.0 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................26

2.1 Summary of Findings.............................................................................................27

2.2 Observations ..........................................................................................................28

References......................................................................................................................................29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Agreements Modifying Joslyn’s Subcontract with the University of Chicago ................9

Table 2. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Uranium Workdays................................................17

Table 3. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Intakes (dpm per calendar day)..............................20

Table 4. Comparison of NIOSH and SC&A Dose Rates from 

Uranium-Contaminated Floor.......................................................................................22

Table 5. Comparison of NIOSH and SC&A Electron Skin Dose Rates from Uranium 

Billet (mrad/h)...............................................................................................................23

Table 6. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH External Doses from Uranium ...............................24

Table 7. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Annual External Doses from Thorium...................26
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 4 of 33

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

Advisory Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

ANL Argonne National Laboratory

AP anteroposterior

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer

CLG centerless grinding

cm centimeter

d day

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

dpm disintegrations per minute

DR dose reconstruction

DWA daily weighted average

ElectroMet (or Eletromet) Electro Metallurgical Company

ft foot

GSI General Steel Industries

h hour

in inch

keV kiloelectronvolt

kg kilogram

m meter

mm millimeter

MED Manahattan Engineer District

MeV million electron volts

M.I.T. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NRC National Research Council (Canada)

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

pCi picocurie

P.O. purchase order
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 5 of 33

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

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

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

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.)

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SRDB Site Research Database

TBD Technical Basis Document

U of C University of Chicago

U3O8 uranium oxide

WAPD Westinghouse Atomic Power Division

wk week
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 6 of 33

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.

Review of “Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J–Joslyn”

On October 7, 2014, David Allen (NIOSH/DCAS) issued Appendix J to TBD-6000 (Allen 

2014a). In an e-mail message on March 24, 2015, Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official to the 

Advisory Board, asked SC&A to review this report. On the following day, Paul Ziemer, Chair of 

the Work Group on TBD-6000, concurred with this request.

In our review, we confine the discussion to observations and issues in areas in which we and 

NIOSH are not in agreement. Our comments include issues that affect the dose reconstruction 

methods prescribed in the appendix, as well as observations on statements in the appendix that, 

while they do not affect dose reconstructions, fail to accurately describe the site of the Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and its operations.

1.0 REVIEW COMMENTS

This review follows the sequence of topics presented by Allen (2014a). Section and table 

numbers beginning with the letter “J” are from Allen (2014a).

1.1 Site Description

In Section J.2, Allen (2014a) refers to “Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, also known 

as Joslyn Stainless Steel Company, Fort Wayne Steel Corporation, and Slater Steel.” This could 

give the erroneous impression that all four names referred to this facility during the period of 

covered operations. The company was known as “Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co.” 

throughout the covered period. Furthermore, Allen states: “These activities were conducted in 

support of the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) from March 1, 1943 through December 31, 

1952.” In fact, the Manhattan District, as it was commonly called, turned over its control of 

nuclear-related activities to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on December 31, 1946, and 

was officially abolished on August 15, 1947 (“Manhattan District History . . .” n/d). It would be 

more appropriate to refer to both MED and AEC in discussing activities that continued after 

1946. 

1.2 Uranium Processing

In Section J.2.1, “Site Activities,” under the subheading “Uranium Processing,” Allen (2014a) 

describes several uranium processing campaigns at Joslyn during 1943–1944 and 1947–1948. In 

Section J.2.3, “Production Rate,” Allen refers to the detailed listings of uranium rolling and 

machining days at Joslyn in Tables J.5/6. The number of days during which each operation (or 

both operations simultaneously) occurred in a given year is summarized in Table J.1. These data 

are used in Section J.4 to determine the intakes of uranium dust by Joslyn workers, and in 

Section J.5 to determine doses from external exposures. In the next section of the present 

review, we perform an independent estimate of the number of days spent on uranium operations 

during each year of the covered period. Following the detailed discussion of our analysis, we 

compare our results with the uranium workdays listed by Allen.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 7 of 33

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.

1.2.1 Independent Evaluation of Uranium Processing Days

Table J.5 lists the dates on which uranium billets were rolled into fuel rods at Joslyn during the 

period of covered operations: 1943–1952. Table J.6 presents a similar listing of uranium 

machining at Joslyn during this period. Each entry in Tables J.5/6 is accompanied by one or 

more references to documents in the Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) 

Site Research Data Base (SRDB). In order to perform an independent evaluation of the number 

of rolling and machining days, we reviewed each of these documents, as well as references listed 

in the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petition evaluation report (Harrison-Maples et al. 2012), 

which was cited by Allen (2014a), and other references in the SRDB, comprising a total of about 

100 documents. We did not confine our review to the specific pages cited in the NIOSH reports, 

but either visually scanned each document or performed a computer-enabled text search to find 

all relevant references to Joslyn.

Allen (2014a) separately evaluated the days devoted to rolling uranium billets into fuel rods, and 

days spent machining such rods, which may have been rolled at another facility. This distinction 

is needed for the assignment of daily intakes of uranium dust from rolling and machining on the 

basis of data for these operations listed in TBD-6000 (Allen 2011, Tables 7.8 and 7.9). 

However, since NIOSH has concluded that it cannot estimate internal doses at Joslyn with 

sufficient accuracy prior to August 1, 1948, there was no need to separate the rolling and

machining operations that occurred prior to that date, nor did we do so in the present review. 

The total days of uranium handling are used to assign external doses during the entire period of 

MED/AEC operations, so these days need to be estimated for each year during this period. 

In the following discussion, we attempt to determine the maximum likely days of uranium 

processing during each year. We note that Allen (2014a) based his analysis on a normal 

workyear comprising 250 workdays. However, Joslyn at times operated up to 20 h/d, 7 d/wk. 

We took these factors into account in determining the workdays of uranium activities for use in 

dose reconstruction.

1943

The earliest reference to uranium processing at Joslyn is by Chipman (1943), who cited the 

rolling on March 13, 1943, of three ingots cast at “M.I.T.” (Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology). The next reference is a memo by Chipman and Greninger (1943) who described 

the rolling of six billets on June 29, 1943. Both Chipman and Greninger were on the staff of the 

University of Chicago (U of C) Metallurgical Laboratory, which later became the Metallurgy 

Division of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). DeBlois (1946, Part 2) stated that Joslyn used 

32.3 tons of uranium to produce 23.5 tons of rods, the work being completed on June 25, 1943. 

Since ingots or billets (the terms appear to be used interchangeably) typically weighed 100–

200 lb each, there was clearly more production than can be inferred from Chipman’s memo. 

Later documents indicate that Joslyn could roll 3–10 tons of uranium per day. Since this was one 

of the first uranium rolling campaigns, we assume that the productivity was at the low end of the 

scale due to lack of experience. We therefore assume that Joslyn spent 11 days rolling the 

32.3 tons of uranium cited in DeBlois’ memo prior to June 25, plus 1 day on June 29.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 8 of 33

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.

On August 15, 1943, U of C issued a subcontract (Service Contract No. 7401-37-9) to Joslyn to 

perform a variety of tasks connected with the production of uranium fuel rods. The initial 

contract, issued on August 15, 1943, with a termination date of December 31, 1943, was:

to perform centerless grinding operations on rods and tubes to be furnished by the 

Contractor, together with those operations that may be preliminary and

supplementary thereto, such as straightening, centerless turning, pickling, etc., at 

the rate of twelve dollars ($12.00) per hour which rate is all inclusive of facilities, 

supplies, labor and supervision supplied by the Subcontractor. (University of 

Chicago 1943)

This initial contract did not cite a total price, nor are there any invoices or other documentation 

that would allow us to estimate the total amount of work actually performed during this period. 

We are limited to individual reports and memos that pertain to work during this time. The first 

of these is a report by Greninger and Van Echo (1943a), dated September 1, 1943, which 

described centerless grinding (CLG) of extruded uranium rods at Joslyn, but did not specify the 

dates, duration, or quantity. The operations were said to be described in three tables, but we 

could not identify these in the SRDB. Since the operation most likely took place between the 

issuance of the contract on August 15 and the date of the memo, the duration could have been 

between 1 and 17 days. The next reference is a September 7, 1943, report by the same authors 

(Greninger and Van Echo 1943b), which described the CLG of 14 extruded uranium rods. 

Because time-saving procedures were used, the rods were ground in 8 hours. This suggests that 

the previous grinding campaign could have taken longer. We thus make the claimant-favorable 

assumption that the first grinding took 2 days, the experience gained allowing Joslyn to perform 

the second operation more quickly. The next period of activity was November 29–December 15, 

a span of 17 days, comprising 16 days of CLG that ended at 11 PM on December 14, and 

preparation for shipping on December 15 (Simmons 1944a). We note that our analysis assumes 

that a single worker worked continuously for 17 days. Although he would have been entitled to 

overtime pay, we are not aware of any regulations that would have prohibited such work, nor is it 

implausible for a person to work such an extended schedule for a limited time.

The uranium workdays in 1943 are summarized as follows:

 32.3 tons rolled prior to June 25 .......................................................................................... 11 d

 6 billets rolled on June 29 ...................................................................................................... 1 d

 Rolling prior to September 1.................................................................................................. 2 d

 Rolling prior to September 7.................................................................................................. 1 d

 November 29–December 15 ................................................................................................ 17 d

 Total ..................................................................................................................................... 32 d

We thus conclude that there were 32 days of documented or inferred uranium handling at Joslyn 

during 1943. Since the covered period began on March 1, there were 44 weeks during the 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 9 of 33

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.

remainder of the year. Assuming 2 weeks of vacation leaves 210 workdays.1 Since the 17-day 

span included two weekends, we expanded the total number of workdays in 1943 to 214.

1944

There were five subsequent agreements following the initial U of C contract. Agreement 1 was 

“to continue to perform centerless grinding operations on rods and tubes to be furnished by the 

Contractor, plus preliminary and supplementary operations thereto.” Each of the subsequent 

agreements specified: Work (No Change). Each agreement listed a cumulative cost ceiling for 

the current and all prior agreements; however, no mention was made of expenditures during the 

initial contract. Given the rate of $12/h, we estimated the maximum hours worked at Joslyn 

during each contract period, based on the cost ceiling for that period. We then estimated the 

number of workdays based on the assumed length of the workday for the given time period, 

which we obtained from the Excel file Joslyn Example DR Rolling and Machining Workdays 

Calcs 2014-04-15.xlsx, which is on the DCAS restricted website, and which was used to 

calculate doses reported by Allen (2014a). Prior to 1951, the workday was assumed to be 9.6 h 

long. These five agreements and the estimated maximum number of uranium machining days in 

each period are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Agreements Modifying Joslyn’s Subcontract with the University of Chicago

Agreement

No.

Dates Cost Limit

(cumulative) Workdaysa

From To

1 1/1/44 6/30/44 $5,000

87

2 1/1/44 6/30/44 $10,000

3 7/1/44 12/31/44 $20,000 87

4 1/1/45 6/30/45 $30,000 87

5 7/1/45 6/30/46 $35,000 43

a

 Estimated on the basis of $12/h, 9.6 h/d.

As shown in the table, Agreements 1 and 2 both spanned the first 6 months of 1944; 

Agreement 2 increased the allowed cost specified in Agreement 1. The other three agreements 

extended both the period of performance and the cost. The last column shows the estimated 

uranium machining days during the period covered by each agreement. These are the maximum 

machining days during the respective periods, exclusive of any machining that might have been 

performed at the request of other organizations not covered by the U of C contract.

“Subcontract Monthly . . .” (1945) refers to a subcontract to Joslyn for “rolling mills” that was 

“cancelled in favor of P.O. [purchase order].” This confirms that the contract discussed above 

was only for CLG and other machining on rods that had been produced elsewhere, most likely by 

extrusion, and did not cover the rolling of billets into rods. Such activity was therefore in 

 

1

 Our analysis follows the self-consistent methodology of TBD-6000 as well as the NIOSH methodology of

estimating radiation exposures of Joslyn. In the NIOSH scheme, the workweek is assumed to comprise 5 workdays, with 

the length of the workday adjusted to account for the total hours in the workweek.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 10 of 33

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.

addition to the machining under the contract. Further confirmation is furnished by Greninger 

(1945): 

The type of work carried out by Joslyn for us has involved the hot rolling of 

uranium and uranium alloy billets from about 41⁄2” diameter billets to about 11⁄2” 

diameter rod (they also carry out miscellaneous straightening, grinding, etc, for us 

under a Service and Supply Subcontract).

Greninger (1945) further stated that Joslyn provided a cost estimate for each rolling job, 

confirming that this work was outside the machining contract. One day of rolling—on May 4,

1944—was ordered by Greninger (1944).

As stated previously, the workdays listed in Table 1 are maxima: this estimate assumes that the 

full value of the contract was realized by Joslyn during the period covered by each agreement, 

and that each day’s work was performed during a single shift. Given that Agreement 2, dated 

April 17, 1944, provided an additional $5,000 for the period January 1–June 30, 1944, it is 

reasonable to conclude that the workload was such that the original allocation of $5,000 for this 

period was likely to be exceeded. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that each day’s 

work was performed during more than one shift, we note that the work—a maximum of 

87 workdays in a 6-month period—could have been easily accomplished by using single shifts.

“Subcontracts—Chicago Area . . .” (1946), dated May 31, 1946, stated that Joslyn held a service 

contract issued August 15, 1943, with a termination date of June 30, 1946; the estimated cost 

was $35,000. These terms are consistent with the terms of Service Contract No. 7401-37-9 and 

its subsequent agreements, discussed previously. However, the “Subcontract” document lists an 

amount of $13,388 under “payments made by contractor” and the same amount under 

“reimbursed.” Since the subcontracts status report was prepared one month before the 

termination of the Joslyn subcontract, it is difficult to determine how much work Joslyn actually 

performed under the U of C contract—it is possible that some work had not yet been invoiced 

and paid for, or more work was done during the final month of the contract, in which case such 

work would not have been included in the amount of the payment.

At a minimum, Joslyn performed machining for U of C during the term of the contract for which 

it was paid $13,388. Given the rate of $12/h, we can infer that the work took ≈1,116 h, or 

≈116 d. Given the $20,000 ceiling under the U of C subcontract during 1944, we assume, for the 

purpose of the present analysis, that all of this work was performed during that year.

We also note specific documentation for rolling and machining that was performed by Joslyn 

during 1944. Simmons (1944a) reported CLG was performed between January 3 and 14. Fuqua 

(1944) reported rollings on May 8–9. Simmons (1944b) reported rolling and grinding on 

June 1–5. Some of these were done on behalf of duPont (see below), the rest for U of C. 

Simmons (1944c) reported rolling on June 19–20.

Joslyn had a contract with duPont, the wartime manager of the Hanford site, to roll uranium fuel 

rods for Hanford. According to duPont (1945), Joslyn rolled uranium rods under this contract on 

May 9–11, June 2, and June 22–24. King (1945) reported rollings performed on December 11–

12 and December 20–28 under the duPont contract.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 11 of 33

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.

According to duPont (1945), 

Several experimental and small-scale production rolling runs had been made 

during 1943 and 1944, initially under Metallurgical Laboratory [U of C] orders 

and supervision, but later (May - September 1944) arranged and followed by 

Construction and TNX. Most of these rolling trials were made at Joslyn Mfg. & 

Supply Co.

Harrel (1944) cited a separate U of C subcontract with Joslyn, effective October 2, 1944. He 

cited total charges of $11,801.83 up to the date of his letter—December 4, 1944.2 Since Joslyn 

most likely invoiced U of C on a monthly basis, these are probably the charges through 

November 30. The type of work performed was not cited. Since Joslyn is referred to as the 

seller, presumably U of C was purchasing rolled or finished rods. Assuming that Joslyn incurred 

similar operating costs for rolling as for CLG, we can estimate the workdays by assuming a cost 

of $12/h, which results in 983 h. Given the 60 d period during which this work was performed, 

Joslyn is assumed to have worked ≈16 h/d, or two shifts/day, 7 d/wk, which is consistent with 

their schedule during other periods of uranium metal production. It is unlikely that any one 

worker would have worked continuously during this period. However, based on interviews with 

workers at another steel plant (General Steel Industries [GSI]), working 65 h/wk during periods 

of high production was not unusual (Allen 2014b). Since the period in question spanned 

9 weeks, we will assign 61 days for this period (9 weeks × 65 h/wk ÷ 9.6 h/d ≈ 61 d).

The specifically documented uranium workdays in 1944, excluding machining performed under 

the U of C subcontract, are summarized as follows:

 May 8–11 ............................................................................................................................... 4 d

 June 1–5 ................................................................................................................................. 5 d

 June 19–24 ............................................................................................................................. 6 d

 October 2–November 30...................................................................................................... 61 d

 December 11–12, 20–28 ...................................................................................................... 11 d

 Total documented................................................................................................................. 87 d

Simmons (1944a) reported CLG and other machining being performed from 1 PM, January 3, to 

3 PM, January 8, 16 h/d, with a 6 h lapse, and again from 8 AM January 11 until midnight, 

January 13, 20 h/d, which constitutes a total of 132 h during 9 calendar days. Given a maximum 

of 1,116 h under the U of C machining subcontract, this leaves a balance of 984 h. Assuming 9.6 

h/d, this constitutes an additional 103 d. We thus estimate a maximum of 103 + 11 + 87 = 201 d 

of uranium exposure during 1944. Since December 20–28 spanned a weekend, we increase the 

total workdays during this year to 252.

 

2

 It is likely that this was the subcontract that was cancelled prior to July 30, 1945 (“Subcontract Monthly . . .” 

1945).
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 12 of 33

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.

1945

Koenig (1945) reported that an order for 12 tons of rolled rods had been received from the 

District Office, and that “the possibility of having this work performed at . . . [Joslyn] is now 

being investigated.” Presumably, the order was awarded to Joslyn, since Belmore (1945a) 

reported that 25 out of a special order of 220 threaded rods were expected to be shipped by 

Joslyn during the week ending March 5 (which fell on a Monday), while Bassett and Belmore 

(1945b) reported that this order was completed on May 16. Monthly updates on the production 

of these rods provided by Belmore (1945b) and by Bassett and Belmore (1945a) indicated 

incremental progress each month. Assuming that the production of the remaining 195 rods 

began on March 1, the elapsed time would have been 11 weeks. Given the slow rate of 

production, we assume the work was performed only on weekdays, which results in a total of 

55 workdays during this period. Based on this rate of production, the entire order of 220 rods 

could have taken 62 workdays. No explanation is given for the relatively slow rate of production 

compared to later orders for similar items.

According to a report from the NRX Reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, Joslyn supplied 222 rods 

to this Canadian reactor in 1945 (Garrow 1961, Table 1). There is no specific mention of the 

production of these rods in any other document that we examined in the SRDB. Based on the 

preceding rolling experience, it is possible that the Canadian order took ≈63 d to complete. 

However, it is also possible that, despite the slight discrepancy in the number of rods, the two 

orders are one and the same. We note that in both cases, the diameter of the rods is specified to 

be 1.360 in. Alternatively, given the slow rate of production of the first order, both orders might 

have been filled simultaneously. We thus estimate a total of 63 d of uranium exposure in 1945.

1946

An internal ANL memo dated July 18, 1946, requested that Joslyn be awarded another MED 

contract (Schumar 1946a). However, we have found no record of such a contract in the SRDB. 

Consequently, we have to estimate the uranium workdays during 1946 on the basis of records of 

uranium metal shipments to and from Joslyn. 

Belmore (1946) reported that 50.9 tons of uranium billets were shipped to Joslyn during August 

1946. Beeler (1947) referred to the production of 15 tons of rods by Joslyn for Great Britain. 

These rods were made from billets produced at “Electromet” (the Electro Metallurgical 

Company, also known as ElectroMet) during the final 6 weeks of operation before the plant went 

on standby on September 1, 1946.3 According to Schumar (1946b), the billets for producing 

these rods arrived at Joslyn on August 13; the production of the rods was scheduled to begin 

September 3. It is likely, but not certain, that the billets cited by Belmore are the same ones 

referred to by Beeler and by Schumar. Since the Beeler memo, which dealt primarily with 

shipments of uranium oxide during 1946, is dated January 14, 1947, the rods were almost 

certainly produced in 1946. Other documented shipments from Joslyn during the latter part of 

that year comprise 4,407 lb (shipping weight) of rods shipped to Hanford in October (Hanford 

1946) and 11 tons of rods shipped to Hanford during November (“Monthly Report . . .” 1946), 

for a total production of 28.2 tons. We previously estimated that the production of 12 tons of 

 

3

 Date of standby period is from Glover (2012).
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 13 of 33

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.

rods required 62 d. Based on this rate, Joslyn would have required ≈146 workdays to produce 

28.2 tons of rods in 1946. 

We do not know exactly when Joslyn started to produce rods for Hanford, nor when the 

production of rods for Great Britain ended. We make the claimant-favorable assumption that 

production started on September 3 and that the final rods for Great Britain were shipped on 

December 31, a span of 17 weeks plus 1 weekday. Assuming a worker worked 5 d/wk, there 

would thus have been 86 uranium workdays during 1946, rather than the 204 days estimated 

above. 

In order to account for the 50.9 tons of billets received in August, we note that Beeler (1947, 

Appendix B) stated that in producing 1,000 lb of rods, Joslyn also produced 500 lb of uranium 

metal scrap and 500 lb of oxide. If we assume the oxide to be U3O8, 500 lb would have 

contained 424 lb of uranium. Therefore, producing 28.2 tons of rods would have created 

≈26 tons of uranium waste. The total mass of uranium in the rods and the waste would more 

than account for the mass of the billets. Since Beeler aimed to set a price on the rods, his 

estimate of waste may have been overly conservative.

We note that Garrow (1961, Table 1) listed 166 rods at the NRX Reactor that were rolled by 

Joslyn in 1946. We assume that these are the same as the 15 tons of rods produced for Great 

Britain reported by Beeler (1947), inasmuch as Schumar (1946b) referred to the 

contemporaneous “fabrication of special uranium rods for the British and Canadian 

Governments.”

1947

Smith (1947) reported that 10 tons of uranium billets were received by Joslyn on July 28, 1947. 

The billets were stored until August 4, when they were weighed; they were rolled into rods on 

August 5–6. There is no mention of machining the rods after they were rolled, which explains 

the fast production rate. Cleanup was completed on August 7 and shipment was scheduled for 

August 8. 

Based on this account, we estimate that the uranium was handled during 6 days: July 28, when 

the billets were received at Joslyn; August 4 when they were weighed; August 5–6 when they 

were rolled into rods; August 7 when cleanup took place; and August 8, when the rods were 

scheduled to be shipped. It is plausible and claimant favorable to assume 6 days of external 

exposure during this operation—the billets were presumably stored in a warehouse under armed 

guard July 29–August 3, so there was little potential for exposure during this time. This is the 

only uranium operation during 1947 for which we found any records in the SRDB, nor is there

any information that Joslyn had a contract with AEC or one of its contractors during that year.

1948

Rolling of uranium billets into rods resumed in 1948. On February 6, Greninger (1948) wrote:

We understand that the A·E·C· [sic] will arrange for the alpha-rolling of all 

Hanford billets at Joslyn Mfg. & Supply Co, Fort Wayne, Indiana, this operation 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 14 of 33

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.

to continue until such time as we are equipped either to alpha-roll or alphaextrude in the 300 Area.

Taussig (1948) wrote that Joslyn can roll 35 tons of billets in 5 days, beginning March 1. 

Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281 (1948) specified that Joslyn will roll 170 tons of uranium, starting 

on March 1 and ending no later than April 30. However, according to “Hanford Works Monthly 

Report: March, 1948” (PDF p. 54), rolling began on February 28. Supplemental Agreement 

No. 1 (1948) increased the amount to 225 tons, with the same period of performance. 

Supplemental Agreement No. 2 (1948) increased the amount to 345 tons, with the period of 

performance extended to May 31. Supplemental Agreement No. 3 (1948) increased the amount 

to 520 tons, with the period of performance extended to June 30. Supplemental Agreement No. 

4 (1948) specified the rolling of an additional 110 tons, starting on July 2 and ending no later 

than July 31. Finally, Macherey (1948) requested Joslyn to roll seven billets in early August. 

Based on the previous production rates, this would most likely have been done in one day.

We make the plausible and claimant-favorable assumption that uranium was being continuously 

handled at Joslyn from February 28 to June 30, and again from July 2 to July 31, a period that 

spans 22 weeks, or a total of 110 weekdays. Adding 1 day in August results in 111 workdays. 

This total includes 110 days during the SEC period, when NIOSH performs only partial dose 

reconstructions (DRs) based on external exposure, as well as 1 day of rolling in the post-SEC 

period, when both external and internal doses are reconstructed.

1949

Garrow (1959a) reported the fabrication of 244 uranium rods at Joslyn in 1949 for use in the 

NRX reactor. Two hundred and seventy-five billets were rolled into rods on May 26–27. 

After rolling the rods were numbered, cooled partially in air (presumably through 

the recrystallization temperature), and then finally cooled in water. The ends of 

the rods were then cropped to sound metal, and 2-1/2 inch sample lengths were 

cut from each end if the rods were long enough. Before machining the rods were 

straightened in a Medart straightener. They were then rough turned to 

1.42 inches, centreless ground to 1.375 inches, and cut to length. Both ends of the 

rod were then threaded and they were finished by centreless grinding to 

1.360 inches +- 0.002 inches. After this the rods were wiped with a wet rag and 

inspected by an NRC inspector according to Specification NRX-100-4. The rods 

were then weighed, packed in individual aluminum tubes and crated for shipment. 

(Garrow 1959a)

Although the rolling only took 2 days, the other operations described by Garrow (1959a) 

required the uranium to be on site and in process for a considerably longer time. There is no 

documentation of the total time for the production of these rods. However, Klevin (1952, 

Appendix B) presented job analysis sheets for processing uranium rods at Joslyn based on his 

site visit in January 1952. These sheets present the only detailed data on the duration of each 

operation at Joslyn and on the throughput of the uranium for each work station. We therefore 

used these data to estimate the duration of the production of fuel rods in 1949, 21⁄2 years prior to 

the operations observed by Klevin.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 15 of 33

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.

The limiting operation is CLG. This operation was staffed by one man per shift, who processed 

18 rods per shift. Since there were two shifts per day, grinding 275 rods would have required 

≈8 days. Allowing time for the other processes mentioned by Garrow (1959a), including 

weighing and packing, we estimate 9 days of uranium handling at Joslyn, since machining of 

each batch of rods could begin shortly after their rolling. Given the short duration of this work, a 

single worker could have been exposed during this whole time.

1950

There is incomplete information on uranium processing at Joslyn during 1950. On July 31, 

Freitag (1950) requested that 5,500 lb of rolled uranium rods be shipped to Joslyn as soon as 

possible. Depending on their size, this could have constituted 30–50 rods. We assume that these 

rods were machined and finished at Joslyn during the month of August. Belmore (1950) 

requested that Joslyn furnish a quote for the production of 305 fuel rods for the National 

Research Council of Canada. Stroke (1950a) observed the rolling of uranium rods for the 

National Research Council on August 10 and 11. These presumably became the 280 rods 

furnished to the NRX Reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, reported by Garrow (1959b).4 Stroke 

(1950b) discussed uranium rolling experiments at Joslyn, but did not cite the dates, duration, nor 

amount of metal processed. The date had to be prior to August 9, the date of the letter to which 

Stroke was responding. Harris (1950) cited three uranium jobs in August, which included rolling 

and machining—he provided no information on the duration or amounts of material processed. 

Braiden and Gustavsen (1951) reported that 6,621 kg of uranium rods were shipped from Joslyn 

to the AEC Lake Ontario Office between January 1 and October 31.

We estimate that the rolling and finishing of 305 rods, 280 of which were accepted by the NRX 

Reactor, took about 10 days, based on the production of 275 in 1949. Each of these rods was 

produced from a billet weighing 185–200 lb (84–91 kg). Assuming that a rod constituted ≈75% 

of the mass of the billet, the rods would have had a total mass of ≈18,000 kg. These rods were 

most likely separate from the 6,621 kg of rods mentioned above. Therefore, the production of 

these latter rods constitutes another period of uranium activity. Based on their mass, we estimate 

their production took about 3 days. Still another activity was the experimental rollings cited by 

Stroke (1950b), which we conservatively assume to have taken 3 days, since each of the jobs 

mentioned by Harris was of short duration. We therefore estimate there were 16 days of 

machining and rolling during 1950. Since these activities were not continuous, any one worker 

could have been exposed for this entire period. This total number of days subsumes any 

activities for which precise documentation is lacking.

1951

“Hanford Works Monthly Report for July 1951” mentioned orientation studies on four rods 

rolled at Joslyn. Although there is no other mention of such a rolling during 1951 prior to the 

time of this report, we make the claimant-favorable assumption that these rods were produced in 

1951, and that the production included machining as well as rolling. In addition, the National 

Lead Company of Ohio, operator of the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, conducted a 

 

4

 The difference in the number of rods could have been due to the rejection of some rods that did not meet 

specifications, or to a change in the order after the request for a quote.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 16 of 33

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.

uranium dust survey during machining operations at Joslyn on October 24 (AEC 1951). Absent 

other documentation, we assign 2 days of exposure to uranium machining during 1951. We note 

that there is no order for or report of this machining operation in the SRDB, which leads us to 

believe that the records are not complete, and that there may have been other activities involving 

uranium during that year. However, absent other documentation, we have no basis for assigning 

additional uranium exposure days in 1951.

1952

Klevin (1952) reported a survey of uranium air dust concentrations during various operations at 

Joslyn. In the introduction to the report, Klevin stated that the survey was conducted on January 

8–9 and January 16, 1952. However, the nine sample sheets at the back of the report, which are 

not numbered consecutively, are dated January 8, 16, and 18. A review of the sheets indicates 

that the sample numbers and dates are consecutive and there do not appear to be any intermediate 

missing sheets. We conclude that the dates on the sheets are most likely the correct dates for the 

survey, and that the introductory statement is erroneous. In either case, it appears that uranium 

processing took place during 3 days in January.

On January 23, Malone (1952) requested the shipping of three rods to Joslyn. These rods would 

have most likely been machined sometime after that date; we therefore assign one additional day 

of machining in 1952. In a memo dated July 16, Dunlap (1952) reported planned experiments 

requiring fuel rods of three sizes. The preparation of these rods required Medart straightening 

followed by CLG at Joslyn, followed by tests at Brookhaven and “WAPD” (acronym for 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Division). The next step, presumably on the same rods, was 

drawing to a smaller diameter, further Medart straightening and CLG (presumably at Joslyn) 

further tests at Brookhaven and WAPD, Medart straightening, and cutting and deburring. Based 

on our understanding of this protocol, the rods would be sent to Joslyn three times, on three 

different days. We therefore assign 3 additional days of machining, for a total of 7 days of

machining in 1952.

1.2.2 Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Workday Estimates

Table 2 presents the results of the workday analysis discussed above. The NIOSH values are 

from Allen (2014a, Table J.1). We have combined Allen’s values for “Rolling only,” 

“Machining only,” and “Rolling + Machining” for the SEC period (March 1, 1943–July 31, 

1948) in the “Machining” column, since only external doses from uranium are calculated during 

this period, and these do not depend on the type of operation. For the later period, we combined 

“Machining” with “Rolling + Machining,” since the daily external and internal doses from these 

two scenarios are the same. Workdays when there were no uranium production or handling 

activities are listed under the heading “Inactive.” 

We observe that for every year except 1947 and the last 5 months of 1948, the SC&A workday 

estimates are significantly higher than those made by NIOSH. The reason for the difference in 

1947 is that NIOSH assumed that the uranium rods sold to the British and Canadian 

Governments, as described by Beeler (1947), were produced during that year, while we 

concluded that they were produced in 1946, since Schumar (1946b) stated that production was to 

have started on September 3 of that year. The reason for the difference in 1948 is that NIOSH 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 17 of 33

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.

based the production of rods for the Canadian NRX Reactor on the statement by Garrow (1961, 

p. 7) that “the original batches of uranium rods were rolled between 1947 and 1950” and 

assigned the entire production to the latter part of 1948, after the SEC period. However, we 

noted the listing of the number of rods delivered each year in Table 1 of the same document and 

utilized these data to apportion the production to the years in which the rods were delivered.

Table 2. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Uranium Workdays 

Year Total

workdays

SC&A NIOSH

Machininga Rolling Inactive Machininga Rolling Inactive

1943 214 32 182 18 190

1944 252 201 51 43 207

1945 250 63 187 54 196

1946 250 86 164 33 217

1947 250 6 244 12 238

Jan-Jul 1948 146 110 36 75 71

Aug-Dec 1948 104 1 103 0 10 94

1949 250 5 2 243 0 2 248

1950 250 10 6 234 3 8 239

1951 250 2 248 1 1 248

1952 250 7 243 1 3 246

a

 Sum of machining and rolling days during SEC period (March 1, 1943–July 31, 1948)

1.3 Occupational Internal Dose

1.3.1 Intakes of Uranium Dust During Rolling and Machining Operations

Allen (2014a) calculated intakes of uranium dust from rolling and machining during the postSEC period (August 1, 1948–December 31, 1952) in the following manner:

 Rolling

o Inhaled intake

 Calculate the inhaled intake of the rolling operator per workday by multiplying 

the inhaled intake per calendar day listed in TBD-6000, Table 7.8, by 1.46 

(365 d/y ÷ 250 workday/y = 1.46 d/workday).

 Multiply result by number of rolling days in a given year to obtain annual inhaled 

intake from rolling uranium.

o Ingested intake

 Calculate the ingested intake in the same manner as the inhaled intake, but use the 

ingested intake per calendar day listed TBD-6000, Table 7.9. 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 18 of 33

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.

We note that the method of calculating ingestion intakes described in TBD-6000, 

Section 7.1.6, is based on a misinterpretation of the methodology described by Neton 

(2004). Neton described a method for calculating the intake of uranium aerosols that 

settled on the surface of a coffee cup, and derived a multiplier of 0.0985 to be applied to 

the airborne activity concentration to derive the intake via this pathway during an 8 h day. 

This factor needs to be scaled linearly to be applied to a longer workday. He also 

described a method for estimating the hand-to-mouth transfer of activity on a 

contaminated surface, and derived a multiplier of 0.1 (the exact value is 0.010044), which 

is based on the ingestion continuing during a 24 h day. This factor is independent of the 

actual length of the workday. In TBD-6000, however, both ingestion factors are scaled to 

the length of the workday. Consequently, all ingestion intakes listed in Table 7.9 for time 

periods prior to 1956, when the workday was assumed to be longer than 8 h, are greater 

than the values obtained by correctly applying Neton’s methodology.

 Machining

o Calculate the inhaled and ingested intakes from machining in the same manner as 

from rolling, but use the intakes of the machining operator listed in TBD-6000, 

Tables 7.8 and 7.9.

We note that the daily inhaled intakes of the rolling and machining operators listed in TBD-6000, 

Table 7.8, were computed using the imprecise conversion factor of 2.2 dpm/pCi, rather than the 

exact value of 2.22. However, the ingested intakes listed in Table 7.9 did use the correct 

conversion factor.

1.3.2 Intakes of Uranium Dust in Between Rolling and Machining Operations 

Allen (2014a) lists the intakes of uranium dust on days when no uranium rolling or machining 

operations were performed, which are based on the resuspension of uranium aerosols deposited 

on the floor. Allen states that the contamination level was calculated according to the procedure 

in TBD-6000. This procedure is described in greater detail by Sharfi et al. (2014), who state that 

they used the method described in TBD-6000, Section 7.1.5. The latter document assumed a 

uranium airborne activity concentration of 7,000 dpm/m3, which is equal to 3,153 pCi/m3. (We 

note in passing that shifting between activities expressed in disintegrations per minute and 

picocuries in various NIOSH documents leads to needless confusion, as well as occasional errors 

and inaccuracies, as noted previously. We recommend that NIOSH adopts SI units and 

expresses activities in units of becquerels.) However, Sharfi et al. adopted an activity 

concentration of 2,491 pCi/m3, which is listed in these authors’ Table A-5, which is reproduced 

from Harrison-Maples (2014, Table 7-2). The value is identified as the geometric mean of the

machining operator in TBD-6000. It appears to have been derived from the geometric mean of 

the operator’s daily weighted average (DWA) concentration, 5,480 dpm, as listed in TBD-6000, 

Table 7.5, “Air sampling data for facilities machining uranium.” However, this value (as well as 

other values listed by Harrison-Maples, 2014, Table 7-1, Cols. 4–6) appears to have been derived 

by using the imprecise conversion factor of 2.2 dpm/pCi, rather than the exact value of 2.22. 

The correct value, based on TBD-6000, Table 7.5, is 2,468 pCi/m3. 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 19 of 33

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.

The airborne activity concentration used by Sharfi et al. (2014) and adopted by Allen (2014a) is 

claimant favorable but inaccurate. More important, neither Allen nor Sharfi et al. explain the use 

of a uranium air concentration of 2,491 pCi/m3rather than the value of 7,000 dpm/m3

(3,153 pCi/m3) cited in TBD-6000, Section 7.1.5, to calculate the surface contamination level. 

According to Allen (2014a), “Ingestion is proportional to contamination level and it is assumed 

those levels do not change between days of uranium work. Therefore, the operational ingestion 

values were also assigned for non-uranium work days.” The rates of ingestion during such days 

are specified by Sharfi et al. (2014), who state:

For each non-operational day (i.e., no rolling or machining), ingestion intakes are 

assigned to be equal to the ingestion intakes for machining during the operational 

period. This results in an ingestion intake rate of 588 pCi per non-operational 

workday prior to 1951, and 539 pCi per non-operational workday for 1951 

forward.

The ingested annual intakes listed by Sharfi et al. (2014, Table B-2) utilize this methodology—

the daily ingested intakes listed by Allen (2014a, Table J.2) are based on these values. Since the 

uranium aerosol concentrations, and hence the ingestion rates, are higher during machining 

operations than during rolling, this leads to the illogical result that the uranium ingestion rate is 

higher on days when no uranium was handled than on days when uranium billets were rolled into 

rods. A consistent and claimant-favorable assumption is to assign the highest ingestion rates—

i.e., those during machining operations—during each workday, regardless of whether machining, 

rolling, or no uranium operations were taking place.

1.3.3 Total Annual Intakes of Uranium Dust

Sharfi et al. (2014, Table B-2) list annual intakes of uranium dust by inhalation and ingestion (in 

units of picocuries) during the post-SEC period of AEC operations. We confirmed that these 

values are consistent with the methodology described above, including the number of days 

devoted to rolling and/or machining listed in their Table B-2 that are reproduced by Allen 

(2014a, Table J.1). We have independently calculated uranium intakes during this period, using 

our estimates of machining and rolling days listed in Table 2, and the values of airborne uranium 

activity concentrations based on the operator’s DWA concentrations during rolling and 

machining operations listed in TBD-6000, Tables 7.3 and 7.5. We calculated ingestion intake 

rates based on the machining operator’s DWA concentration, using the formulas presented by 

Neton (2004) for Modes 2 and 3. The results of these analyses are listed in Table 3, along with 

the corresponding values presented by Allen (2014a, Table J.2).

As shown in Table 3, the inhaled intakes for each period except August–December 1948 are 

higher in the SC&A analysis, primarily due to higher estimates of machining days during these 

periods. Our ingested intakes are consistently lower, being based on Neton’s (2004) 

methodology rather than on the values listed in TBD-6000, Table 7.9.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 20 of 33

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.

1.4 Occupational External Dose

1.4.1 External Exposure to Penetrating Radiation from Uranium

Allen (2014a, Section J.5) describes the calculation of doses from external exposure to uranium 

metal and to surfaces contaminated with uranium dust. He assumed workers were 1 ft from a 

long uranium metal billet for 10 h during every day that uranium was rolled or machined. On 

nonoperational days, he stated that “the estimated contamination levels from section J.4 were 

combined with the photon dose conversion factors from table 3.9 of TBD-6000.” The annual 

external dose rates are listed in Table J.3. We observe that TBD-6000, Table 3.9, lists exposure 

(in milliroentgens) not dose rates from submersion in uranium aerosols. Table 3.10 lists 

exposure rates from a contaminated surface. Although the calculations are explained in 

somewhat greater detail by Sharfi et al. (2014), we were able to reproduce Allen’s results only by 

examining the Excel file Joslyn Example DR Rolling and Machining Workdays Calcs 2014-04-

15.xlsx, which is on the DCAS restricted website. 

Table 3. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Intakes (dpm per calendar day)

Year

SC&A NIOSHa

Inhaled Ingested Inhaled Ingested

Aug-Dec 1948 1,092 814 3,445 858

1949 1,905 821 1,066 892

1950 3,185 821 2,235 885

1951 1,081 784 1,034 818

1952 1,859 784 1,235 816

a

 Source: Allen (2014a, Table J.2)

Examining this Excel file, we observe that NIOSH calculated the surface contamination level, in 

dpm/m2, by converting the air concentration from machining operations listed by HarrisonMaples (2014, Table 7-2) in units of pCi/m3

to units of dpm/m3. The conversion utilized the 

factor 2.22 dpm/pCi. However, since Harrison-Maples had used the incorrect factor of 

2.2 dpm/pCi, the original concentration of 5,480 dpm/m3listed in TBD-6000, Table 7.5, became 

5,530 dpm/m3. While not a significant difference, it leads to potential confusion and undermines 

confidence in the accuracy of the analysis. 

We further note that the exposure durations are inconsistent. On rolling or machining days, 

workers are assumed to have been exposed for 10 h/d, while on nonoperational days, they were 

exposed for 9.6 h/d prior to 1951 and 8.8 h/d in later years. The latter two exposure durations are 

consistent with TBD-6000, which incorporated these exposure durations in the external dose 

calculations for the various time periods (but failed to explicitly state these assumptions, much 

less justify their rationale). We recommend that NIOSH uses consistent exposure durations for 

exposures to uranium metal and to contaminated surfaces.

Finally, we note that Allen (2014a, Table J.3) added the exposures to contaminated surfaces, 

which are expressed in milliroentgens, to doses from uranium metal, which are expressed as 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 21 of 33

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.

personal dose equivalents, Hp(10), in units of millirem. This is of more than just academic 

interest: an examination of OCAS-IG-001 (OCAS 2007) shows that for every organ listed, the 

exposure-to-organ-dose factors for photons of energies 30–250 keV in the anteroposterior (AP) 

orientations are up to 50% higher than the corresponding Hp(10) dose factors.

A larger problem stems from the fact that the uranium dust that was deposited on the floor came 

primarily from the surface of the uranium metal. The surface of billets cast from natural uranium 

often has enhanced concentrations of short-lived progenies. As discussed by SC&A (2008),

Putzier (1982) reported measurements of increased beta activities on the surface 

of freshly cast uranium. He attributed this to the tendency of 234Th, in equilibrium 

with its 234mPa daughter, to migrate to the surface as well as to the interface 

between the molten metal and the mold. Whereas the beta radiation at the surface 

of uranium metal in secular equilibrium with its short-lived progeny produced 

dose rates of about 200 mrad/h, the fresh castings had rates of 2,000–

3,000 mrad/h.

Allen (2014b) cited this phenomenon in assigning doses to the skin of workers at GSI: “This 

effect is accounted for by assuming the Th-234 and Pa-234m activity is 15 times higher than 

what would be present at equilibrium.” There is no reason that the same assumption should not 

be used in the present assessment, especially since uranium billets rolled at Joslyn were produced 

by the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (the source of the uranium handled at GSI) and by 

ElectroMet. The above phenomenon, which we have called the “Putzier effect,” was observed at 

both facilities. As cited by Thurber (2011),

A similar separation occurs in the processes at Mallinckrodt Chemical Works 

Plant 4 and Electro Metallurgical Company. In these plants, uranium metal, with 

UX1-UX2 [234Th and 234mPa] in approximate equilibrium, is purified by vacuum 

recasting at a temperature which volatilizes various impurities in the metal, 

including the UX1-UX2. These impurities condense on the cooler surfaces of the 

furnace interior and this deposit is the source of intense beta exposure during 

charging, discharging, cleaning and repair of the furnaces. [AEC 1949]

To evaluate the magnitude of this effect on external dose calculations for Joslyn, we performed 

independent MCNPX simulations of doses from photons emitted by uranium dust uniformly 

distributed over the floor of the room housing a rolling mill at Joslyn. As shown in a drawing by 

Piccot (1949), this room measured 96 × 300 ft and was the largest single area depicted in this 

floor plan. The photons comprised gamma and x radiation—and bremsstrahlung x rays from β 

emissions—from natural uranium isotopes and the short-lived radioactive progenies of 235U and 

238U, assumed to be at 15 times their secular equilibrium concentrations. We note that TBD6000, Table 3.10, assumed ingrowth of uranium progenies for 100 d after chemical separation. 

The 238U progeny would be at ≈94% of their equilibrium activities while 231Th, the daughter of 

235U, which has a 25.5 h half-life, would be at essentially 100%. Because the time since 

separation of the uranium handled at Joslyn was variable and/or unknown, we performed a 

simplified, claimant-favorable analysis, assuming that the short-lived progenies were in secular 

equilibrium with their parent isotopes prior to remelting of the metal. Photon doses were 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 22 of 33

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.

expressed in terms of Hp(10) and were assessed in the center of the room at a height of 1 m 

above the floor.

We also performed MCNPX simulations of the dose to the skin from β rays emitted by the shortlived uranium progenies. We averaged the dose over a circular area with a radius of 25 cm in a 

horizontal plane at an elevation of 1 m above the center of the floor, using an F2-type fluence 

tally. The maximum energy of the β rays from the uranium progenies is 2.27 MeV—their 

maximum range in air is ≈1.025 m. We restricted the radiation source to a circular area of the 

floor with a radius of 1.05 m to avoid needlessly simulating the transport of β rays that would be 

absorbed in the air before reaching the target.

The results of our analyses are shown in Table 4. As shown in the table, our calculated Hp(10) 

dose rate is 4 times larger than the exposure rates listed in TBD-6000, while the electron skin 

dose rate is 8 times larger than the TBD-6000 dose rate.

Table 4. Comparison of NIOSH and SC&A Dose Rates from 

Uranium-Contaminated Floor

Data

Photons– per dpm(α)/m2 Electron skin dose

Value Quantity (units) mrad/h per dpm(α)/m2

NIOSHa3.94e-10 Exposure (mR/h) 3.82e-08

SC&A 1.73e-09 Hp(10) (mrem/h) 3.08e-07

Differenceb-77% -88%

a

 Source: Allen (2011, Table 3.10)

b

 NIOSH ÷ SC&A − 1

1.4.2 Skin Doses from Electrons Emitted by Uranium Metal

Allen (2014a) based doses to skin from nonpenetrating radiation from uranium metal on TBD6000, Section 6.3. The dose to the skin on the hands and forearms of an operator, assumed to be 

in contact with the metal during 50% of the workday, was assigned a value of 230 mrem/h. The 

dose to the skin on the rest of the body was based on the dose rate at a distance of 1 ft from the 

surface of the metal, which was assumed to be 10 times the dose rate from penetrating photon 

radiation from a large uranium billet. The skin doses assigned by Allen to workers at Joslyn do 

not adequately account for the Putzier effect, as discussed above.

In order to evaluate the impact of this effect, we performed independent MCNPX analyses of 

electrons emitted from such a billet to derive a realistic but bounding estimate of skin doses from 

uranium billets handled at Joslyn. We modeled the billet as a cylinder, 4.75 in (12.065 cm) in 

diameter and 28 in (71.12 cm) long, in a vertical orientation in the center of a stylized concrete 

room, represented by a hollow cylinder, 3 m high and 10 m in diameter, with 1 ft thick walls, 

floor, and ceiling. The center of the billet was 100 cm above the floor. This geometry provided 

a reasonable approximation of scatter in an actual industrial setting, while providing an axially 

symmetric geometry which enables greater computational efficiency.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 23 of 33

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.

The radiation source was a billet composed of natural uranium and the short-lived radioactive 

progenies of 235U and 238U. Only the β rays emitted by nuclides inside a 1 mm thick surface 

layer can exit the metal and thus contribute to the external electron dose. In order to account for 

the Putzier effect, we assumed that the short-lived progeny of 238U—234Th, 234mPa, 234Pa—and 

231Th, the short-lived progeny of 235U, were at concentrations equal to 15 times their secular 

equilibrium concentrations inside this surface layer.

The first simulation calculated external doses from the continuous β ray spectra of the natural 

uranium progenies, assumed to be at 15 times their secular equilibrium concentrations. We used 

F2-type fluence tallies to calculate the electron skin doses over cylindrical surfaces concentric 

with the metal rod at distances of 0.007 cm (the depth of the epithelial layer of the skin) and 1 ft 

(30.48 cm) from the metal. Each surface extended 5 cm in each direction from the center of the 

rod. The second simulation was the same as the first one, except that the source term was the 

discrete electrons emitted during the decay of the natural uranium isotopes and their short-lived 

progenies, again at 15 times their secular equilibrium concentrations. We added the MCNPX 

results from the two simulations for each distance to estimate the total dose to the skin at each 

distance from the metal. The results, along with a comparison to the electron skin doses assumed 

by NIOSH, are presented in Table 5. 

Table 5. Comparison of NIOSH and SC&A Electron Skin Dose Rates from Uranium Billet 

(mrad/h)

Data

Distance

Contact 1 ft

NIOSH 230 7.03

SC&A 1,147 93.5

Differencea-80% -92%

a

 NIOSH ÷ SC&A − 1

1.4.3 Annual External Doses from Uranium

We have combined our estimate of workdays devoted to handling uranium at Joslyn during each 

year of covered operations listed in Table 2 with the results of our analyses of external exposure 

to penetrating and nonpenetrating radiation discussed in Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 to derive Hp(10) 

and electron skin doses. The Hp(10) doses were derived using the following equations:

Db = Hp(10) dose rate from external exposure to uranium billet (mrem/y)

db1 = Hp(10) dose rate from external exposure at 1 ft from uranium billet

= 0.703 mrem/h (Allen 2011, Table 6.1)

f = fraction of workday spent in vicinity of uranium metal

= 0.5 (Allen 2011, Section 6.2)
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 24 of 33

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.

tw = length of workday (Joslyn Example DR Rolling and Machining Workdays Calcs 

2014-04-15.xlsx)

= 9.6 h/d (prior to 1951)

= 8.8 h/d (1951–1952)

TU = uranium machining + rolling days in each year (see Table 2) (d/y)

Df = Hp(10) dose rate from external exposure to contaminated floor (mrem/y)

dσ = Hp(10) dose rate from external exposure to contaminated floor

= 1.73 × 10-9 mrem/h per dpm(α)/m2

Tw = length of workyear (Joslyn Example DR Rolling and Machining Workdays Calcs 

2014-04-15.xlsx)

= 2,400 h/y (prior to 1951)

= 2,200 h/y (1951–1952)

σU = uranium contamination level (Joslyn Example DR Rolling and Machining 

Workdays Calcs 2014-04-15.xlsx)

= 1.075 × 107dpm(α)/m2

Dt = total Hp(10) dose rate from external exposure (mrem/y)

The resulting doses for each year are listed in Table 6, along with the corresponding values 

presented by Allen (2014a, Table J.3).

Table 6. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH External Doses from Uranium

Year

SC&A NIOSHa

Hp(10) Electron skin dose (rad/y) Hp(10) Electron skin dose (rem/y)

mrem/y Other skin Hands & forearms mrem/y Other skin Hands & forearms

1943 146 21.16 182.5 134 2.01 21.45

1944 723 98.23 1,111.4 311 3.84 50.27

1945 257 36.22 353.8 388 4.57 62.87

1946 335 46.55 480.0 241 3.18 38.80

1947 65 10.64 40.9 94 1.78 14.74

1948 419 57.77 617.3 604 6.63 98.40

1949 68 11.09 46.4 24 1.12 3.28

1950 99 15.13 95.8 87 1.72 13.59

1951 47 8.10 17.3 23 1.04 3.28

1952 63 10.16 42.5 37 1.17 5.57

a

 Source: Allen (2014a, Table J.3)

Our estimates of Hp(10) doses are significantly higher than those presented by Allen (2014a) in 

all but two years. Several differences account for the disparity in the results:

 Estimates of uranium workdays listed in Table 2
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 25 of 33

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.

 Assumptions regarding the length of the workday

o Allen (2014a) assumed full-time exposure at a distance of 1 ft from a uranium billet 

during a 10 h workday

o SC&A assumed 9.6 h/d and 8.8 h/d, respectively, for the two periods: prior to 1951 

and 1951–1952

o SC&A assumed the operator was 1 ft from the billets during 50% of the workday

 Assumptions regarding external exposure to the contaminated floor

o Allen (2014a) assumed exposure to the contaminated floor only on nonuranium 

workdays

o SC&A assumed exposure to the contaminated floor during every workday

 SC&A dose rates from the contaminated floor incorporate the Putzier effect

We calculated the annual electron skin dose in an analogous, self-evident manner. The dose to 

the skin, other than the skin on the hands and forearms, was calculated assuming that the worker 

spent 50% of each uranium workday at a distance of 1 ft from a uranium billet, utilizing the dose 

rate listed in Table 5. His skin was assumed to be exposed to β radiation from the contaminated 

floor during every workday of the year. The skin on the hands and forearms was assumed to be 

in contact with the uranium metal during 50% of the workday. Otherwise, the dose was 

calculated in the same manner as the dose to the other skin, except that we assumed that the skin 

was shielded from the floor when it was in contact with the uranium.

The resulting electron skin doses for each year are listed in Table 6, along with the 

corresponding values presented by Allen (2014a, Table J.3). The primary cause of the 

significant differences between the doses resulting from our analysis and that of Allen (2014a) is 

our incorporation of the Putzier effect in the dose rates from the uranium billet and the 

contaminated floor. These differences also reflect the factors listed in the discussion of the dose 

rates from penetrating (photon) radiation discussed previously.

1.4.4 External Exposure to Thorium Metal

Allen (2014a, Table J.4) listed annual external doses to Joslyn workers from exposure to thorium 

metal rods. These doses were taken from an earlier NIOSH report (Glover and Allen 2014); 

however, that reference is not cited by Allen (2014a). Our review of the earlier report (Anigstein 

2014) produced several findings regarding the accuracy of the MCNP simulations. We also 

found that the assessment of photon exposures in terms of effective doses was incompatible with 

OCAS-001 (OCAS 2007), which makes no provision for converting such doses to the organ dose 

equivalents that are required for dose reconstruction. We had therefore performed an 

independent assessment to determine the Hp(10) and air kerma dose rates, as well as electron 

dose rates to the skin. 

There were two occasions on which thorium rods were Medart-straightened and centerless 

ground at Joslyn: in June 1946 and in January 1947. In addition, Schumar (1947) wrote: “We 

have a tentative schedule with the Joslyn Manufacturing Company to roll the 3" diameter billets 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 26 of 33

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.

some time during the week of July 21 [1947].” Harrison-Maples et al. (2012) concluded that this 

last rolling never took place. We believe that, in the absence of conclusive evidence that the 

rolling was canceled, NIOSH should make the claimant-favorable assumption that it did occur. 

However, since NIOSH assumed that the thorium exposures lasted 24 h during each of the two 

years, whereas, based on reports on the processing of uranium fuel rods, each instance of thorium 

handling probably lasted 1–2 days, we agree that the exposure duration assigned by NIOSH is 

plausible and claimant favorable.

To determine the impact of our revised dose assessment on DRs performed for Joslyn, we 

calculated Hp(10) doses, as well as external doses to the skin on the hands and forearms and to 

the skin on the rest of the body, using the results of our previous analysis (Anigstein 2014) 

combined with the NIOSH assumptions about exposure duration. These results, together with 

the NIOSH assessments, are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Comparison of SC&A and NIOSH Annual External Doses from Thorium

Year

SC&A NIOSHa

Hp(10) Other skin (mrad) Hands & forearms (mrad) Eff. dose Electron skin dose (mrem)

(mrem) Electrons Electrons Air kerma mrem Other skin Hands & forearms

1946 66 27 648 1,229 52 16 120

1947 66 27 648 1,229 52 16 120

a

 Source: Allen (2014a, Table J.4)

As shown in Table 7, our external doses to the whole body are expressed in terms of Hp(10), 

while NIOSH reported effective doses, which, as stated earlier, are incompatible with OCAS-IG001 (OCAS 2007). The two quantities cannot be compared directly. The doses to skin from 

electrons are higher in our analysis, due to differences in the MCNP models. We also assessed 

the air kerma in contact with the metal. Unlike the case of uranium, the intense photon radiation 

from 232Th and its radioactive progeny makes a significant contribution to skin dose. 

Comparing these doses to the external doses from uranium listed in Table 6, we observe that the 

Hp(10) doses from thorium are comparable to those from uranium during the same years. The 

doses to the skin are far smaller and thus would not make a major contribution to DR 

assessments.

2.0 CONCLUSIONS

In Appendix J, Allen (2014a) presents a prescription for dose reconstruction assessments of 

Joslyn workers that incorporates without citation the results of two NIOSH white papers—Sharfi 

et al. (2014) and Glover and Allen (2014). Anigstein (2014) previously reviewed the latter 

report, so we only cite the highlights of our findings in the present review. However, the present 

review includes an implicit review of Sharfi et al. to the extent that their results are utilized by 

Allen. Allen makes references to TBD-6000 and to the two Joslyn SEC Petition Evaluation 

Reports: Harrison-Maples et al. (2012) and Harrison-Maples (2014).

Allen (2014a) precisely utilizes the results from the two NIOSH white papers. However, we 

disagree with the several of the results from both papers. We also find that some assumptions 
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 27 of 33

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.

used by Allen in deriving limiting doses are internally inconsistent and also inconsistent with the 

DR methods prescribed in TBD-6000.

2.1 Summary of Findings

Finding 1: Uranium Workdays

In all but 2 years of the 10-y period of MED/AEC operations at Joslyn, Allen (2014a), using 

(without citation) data tabulated by Sharfi et al. (2014), underestimated the number of days that 

uranium was processed or handled at Joslyn. The discrepancies result from a very narrow 

evaluation of the data available in the SRDB: rolling and/or machining were assumed to take 

place only on dates specifically cited in correspondence or reports. Some additional workdays 

were assumed if there was a reference to quantities or masses of uranium billets or rods. 

However, except for a passing reference by Harrison-Maples et al. (2012), no attention was paid 

to Joslyn’s contracts with the U of C. The billings under those contracts represent work that is 

not specifically cited in reports of rolling and machining. It is not surprising that the records of 

uranium-handling activities at Joslyn are not complete—this has been our experience reviewing 

other Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities. It is therefore incumbent on NIOSH to use 

all available information to make claimant-favorable assumptions about the duration and number 

of uranium operations. In the present case, we find that NIOSH did not do so.

Finding 2: Inhaled Intakes 

In all but one year of the post-SEC period, Allen (2014a) underestimated the inhaled intakes of 

uranium dust. These results stem directly from the estimates of uranium workdays, discussed in 

Finding 1.

Finding 3: Photon and Electron Dose Rates from Contaminated Floor

Allen (2014a) failed to account for the enhanced concentrations of short-lived uranium progenies 

on the surface of freshly cast uranium billets supplied to Joslyn from Mallinckrodt and 

ElectroMet, which we have called the Putzier effect. This effect would have resulted in much 

higher photon and electron dose rates, since the dust that accumulated on the contaminated floor 

during rolling operations would have come primarily from the surface of the billets.

Finding 4: Doses from External Exposure to Penetrating Radiation from Uranium

Allen (2014a) underestimated the doses from external exposure to penetrating radiation from 

uranium in 7 years of the 10-year period of MED/AEC operations. This underestimate is due to 

underestimated dose rates from the contaminated floor and to the underestimated uranium 

workdays. It is partly offset by the assumption that the worker was exposed to penetrating 

radiation from the uranium billet during his entire workday, which was assumed to have a 

duration of 10 h during the entire period. Both these assumptions are contrary to the 

methodology of calculating external doses from uranium metal prescribed in TBD-6000.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 28 of 33

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.

Finding 5: Exposures Improperly Combined with Personal Dose Equivalents Hp(10) 

Allen (2014a), in determining doses from external exposure, added the calculated exposures 

from contaminated surfaces, which are expressed in milliroentgens, to doses from uranium 

metal, which are expressed as personal dose equivalents, Hp(10), in units of millirem. This 

mixed quantity cannot be used for calculating organ doses, since there are significant differences 

between the exposure-to-organ dose and personal-dose-equivalent-to-organ dose conversion 

factors.

Finding 6: Doses to Skin from Nonpenetrating Radiation from Uranium

Allen (2014a) underestimated the doses to the skin from external exposure to nonpenetrating 

radiation from uranium in each year of MED/AEC operations. The main factors are failure to 

incorporate the Putzier effect in estimating the dose rates from electrons emitted from uranium 

metal and uranium dust on contaminated floors and an underestimate of uranium workdays.

Finding 7: External Exposure to Thorium

Allen (2014a) underestimated the doses to the skin from external exposure to thorium rods. The 

major difference is in the contact dose to the skin on the hands and forearms, which is due to an 

incorrect geometry in the NIOSH MCNP analysis (Anigstein 2014). 

2.2 Observations

We have made a number of observations and comments throughout the present review on the 

presentation of the Joslyn dose assessments, as well as on assumptions used in these analysis 

which, although they do not have a major impact on the results, are in some cases inaccurate 

and/or inconsistent with other, similar NIOSH dose assessments. These are discussed in the 

body of the report.

One general observation is that Appendix J was issued as a self-contained document that makes 

no reference to NIOSH white papers—Sharfi et al. (2014) and Glove and Allen (2014)—nor to 

the Excel file Joslyn Example DR Rolling and Machining Workdays Calcs 2014-04-15.xlsx, 

which is on the DCAS restricted website. It would not have been possible to review the 

appendix had we not had access to these documents. Allen (2014a) should include sufficient 

detail to enable an independent audit of his results without referring to other sources that are not 

cited nor publicly available.

We also observed inconsistencies in exposure durations for the various exposure scenarios. For 

example, a worker is assumed to be 1 ft from a uranium billet during 100% of the workday, but 

only 50% of the time in the case of a thorium rod. As another example, external exposure to the 

uranium billet is assumed to take place during a 10 h workday, but the exposure duration to a 

contaminated floor is 9.6 h/d before 1951 and 8.8 h/d in 1951–1952. Although these examples 

result in claimant-favorable assessments, Allen (2014a) should either explicitly explain the 

rationale for the inconsistencies or achieve consistency, both internally and with TBD-6000.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 29 of 33

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

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

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

REFERENCES

Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.) (AEC). 1949. “Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities 

Producing and Processing Uranium,” report by the New York Operations Office Medical 

Division (April 18, 1949), quoted by Thurber (2011).

Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.) (AEC). 1951. Air dust survey sample sheets. SRDB Ref. ID: 

011036, PDF p. 23.

Allen, D. 2011. “Site Profile for Atomic Worker Employers that Worked Uranium Metals,” 

Battelle-TBD-6000 Rev. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/awedocs.html#b6000

Allen, D. 2014a. “Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J–Joslyn,” Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix J, Revision No. 0. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/b-6000-apj-r0.pdf

Allen, D. 2014b. “Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix BB – General Steel Industries,” Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix BB, Revision No. 1. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/b-6000-apbb-r1.pdf

Anigstein, R. 2014. “Review of ‘Determination of External Dose from Thorium Metal 

Machining - A TBD-6000 Approach’.” 

Bassett, L. G., and F. M. Belmore. 1945a. “Monthly Report for M-Production and Research 

Sections: Memorandum to the Files.” (April 30, 1945) SRDB Ref. ID: 031145, PDF p. 193.

Bassett, L. G., and F. M. Belmore. 1945b. “Monthly Report for M-Production and Research 

Sections: Memorandum to the Files.” (May 31, 1945) SRDB Ref. ID: 031145, PDF p. 178.

Beeler, G. W. 1947. “Costs of Oxide and Uranium Metal Sold to Great Britain,” United States 

Atomic Energy Commission memo (January 14, 1947). SRDB Ref. ID: 090948.

Belmore, F. M. 1945a. “Monthly Progress Report—Production Section: Memorandum to the 

Files.” (March 1, 1945) SRDB Ref. ID: 031145, PDF p. 225.

Belmore, F. M. 1945b. “Monthly Progress Report of the M-Production and Research Section: 

Memorandum to the Files.” (March 31, 1945) SRDB Ref. ID: 031145, PDF p. 216.

Belmore, F. M. 1946. “Monthly Report for Production Branch: Memorandum to the Files.” 

(October 9, 1946) SRDB Ref. ID: 031145, PDF p. 23.

Belmore, F. M. 1950. “Rolling and Machining of Special Uranium Rods,” letter to A. J. Blaeser 

(June 23, 1950) SRDB Ref. ID: 009663, PDF p. 2.

Braiden, S. J., and S. E. Gustavsen. 1951. “Survey of Accounting Control Over Source and 

Fissionable Materials: Tonawanda Sub-Office, Tonawanda, New York.” SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, 

PDF p. 210.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 30 of 33

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.

Chipman, J. 1943. “Memorandum on Rolling of Tubealloy.” SRDB Ref. ID: 082362

Chipman, J., and A. B. Greninger. 1943. “Hot Rolling of Metal at Joslyn Mfg. and Supply 

Company, Forth Wayne, June 29, 1943. (Chipman, Greninger, Simmons & Van Echo.) SRDB 

Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 42.

Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281. 1948. SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 185.

DeBIois, L. A., Jr. 1946. “Monthly Material Balance Summary—Parts 1 and 2—August 1946: 

Memorandum to the Files.” SRDB Ref. ID: 031576.

Dunlap, G. E. 1952. “Drawing of Enriched Uranium For CVA Reactor,” memo to files (July 16,

1952) SRDB Ref. ID: 091923.

E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Incorporated (duPont). 1945. “The Metal Fabrication 

Program for the Clinton Engineer Works and the Hanford Engineer Works.” SRDB Ref. ID: 

033190.

Freitag, H. R. 1950. “Shipment of Uranium Rods,” letter to Hanford Works, General Electric 

Company (July 31, 1950). SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 15.

Fuqua, P. A. 1944. “Inspection of Joslyn Mfg. & Supply Co., Fort Wayne, Indiana,” memo to S. 

T. Cantril (May 30, 1944). SRDB Ref. ID: 005890.

Garrow, G. C. 1959a. “The Behaviour of Batch 3 Rods in the NRX Reactor,” IOI-173. SRDB 

Ref. ID: 116843.

Garrow, G. C. 1959b. “The Behaviour of Batch 4 Rods in the NRX Reactor,” IOI-174. SRDB 

Ref. ID: 116844.

Garrow, G. C. 1961. “Summary of the Fabrication and Behaviour of Standard Uranium Rods in 

the NRX Reactor: 1947 to 1960.” SRDB Ref. ID: 112574.

Glover, S. E. 2012. “SEC Petition Evaluation Report: Petition SEC-00136, Rev. 1.” 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/sec/electromet/electroer-136-r1.pdf

Glover, S., and D. Allen. 2014. “Determination of External Dose from Thorium Metal 

Machining - A TBD-6000 Approach.” 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dps/dc-tbd6000edth-r0.pdf

Greninger, A. B., and A. Van Echo. 1943a. “Surface Finishing of Extruded Tubealloy Bars.” 

SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 80.

Greninger, A. B., and A. Van Echo. 1943b. “Experimental Centerless Grinding of 14 Extruded 

Rods at Joslyn Manufacturing Company, Fort Wayne, Indiana.” SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 

85.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 31 of 33

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.

Greninger, A. B. 1944. Letter to L. Frey, Joslyn (April 28, 1944). SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF 

p. 216.

Greninger, A. B. 1945. “In Re: Rolling of Tubealloy by Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply 

Company, Ft. Wayne, Indiana,” memo to Capt. J. H. McKinley (February 8, 1945). SRDB Ref. 

ID: 011036, PDF p. 94.

Greninger, A. B. 1948. “Alpha-Rolled Uranium,” letter to Atomic Energy Commission 

(February 6, 1948). SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 13.

Area Engineer, Hanford Engineer Works (Hanford). 1946. “Monthly Accountability Report,” 

(10/1/1946–1/11/1946). SRDB Ref. ID: 093775.

“Hanford Works Monthly Report: March, 1948.” SRDB Ref. ID: 037587.

“Hanford Works Monthly Report for July 1951.” SRDB Ref. ID: 036889.

Harrel, W. B. 1944. Letter to The Royal Indemnity Company (December 4, 1944). SRDB Ref. 

ID: 118506.

Harris, W. B. 1950. Letter to F. W. Belmore (October 18, 1950). SRDB Ref. ID: 009663, PDF p. 

15.

Harrison-Maples, M., J. Guido, E. Potter, and B. P. Smith. 2012. “SEC Petition Evaluation 

Report: Petition SEC-00200,” Rev.#:1. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/sec/joslynman/joslyner-200-r1.pdf

Harrison-Maples, M. 2014. “SEC Petition Evaluation Report: Petition SEC-00200,” Rev. #: 

Addendum. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/sec/joslynman/joslyner-200-add.pdf

King, R. P. 1945. “Metal Fabrication: Pre-Hanford Experience with Extrusion and Rolling.” 

SRDB Ref. ID: 034028, PDF p. 38.

Klevin, P. B. 1952. “Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Company: Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust,” Joslyn-1. SRDB Ref. ID: 9664.

Koenig, J. J. 1945. “Monthly Report on Metal Production Covering the Period from 14 

December 1944 to 25 January 1945: Memorandum to the Files.” (February 3, 1945) SRDB Ref. 

ID: 031145, PDF p. 237

Macherey, R. 1948. Letter to Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Company (August 2, 1948). SRDB 

Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 98.

Malone, F. N. 1952. “Uranium Rod Requisition NAA-SF-11,” memo to R. J. Smith (January 23, 

1952) SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 232.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 32 of 33

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.

“Manhattan District History: Book I, General—Vol. 1, General.” (n/d.) 

http://www.osti.gov/includes/opennet/includes/MED_scans/History%20of%20the%20Activities

%20of%20the%20Manhattan%20District%20Research.pdf

“Monthly Report for Production Branch: Memorandum to the Files.” (December 16, 1946). 

SRDB Ref. ID: 031145, PDF p. 15.

Neton, J. W. 2004. “Estimation of Ingestion Intakes,” OCAS-TIB-009, Revision No. 0. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/oc-t9-ro.pdf

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS). 2007. “External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline,” OCAS-IG-001, Revision No. 3. 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dr/oc-ig-001-r3.pdf

Piccot, A. R. 1949. “Residual Contamination Survey at Joslyn Steel Co,” memo to “The Files” 

(August 22, 1949). SRDB Ref. ID: 009663, PDF p. 6.

Putzier, E. A. 1982. “The Past 30 Years at Rocky Flats: A Summary of Experiences and 

Observations at Rocky Flats Plant Over the Past 30 Years with Emphasis on Health and Safety.”

S. Cohen & Associates (SC&A). 2008. “Review of ‘Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers That Worked Uranium and Thorium Metals - Appendix BB: General Steel 

Industries,’ Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix BB, Rev. 0.” 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-gsisp-r1.pdf

Schumar, J. 1946a. “Contract with Joslyn Manufacturing Company (Contract No. 7401-37-9),” 

memo to Dr. W. H. Zinn. SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 218.

Schumar, J. 1946b. “Delay in Fabrication of Special Uranium Rods: Memorandum to the Files.” 

SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 103.

Schumar, J. 1947. Letter to Dr. Harley A. Wilhelm, Iowa State College (July 13, 1947). SRDB 

Ref. ID: 011036, p. 100.

Sharfi, M. M., G. Potter, and B. Smith (ORAUT), S. Glover (DCAS), Reviewer. 2014. “Dose 

Reconstruction Methods for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co.,” NIOSH White Paper, Rev. 0 

(April 17, 2014). http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dps/dc-tbd6000edth-r0.pdf

Simmons, J. M. 1944a. “Centerless Grinding and Experimental Work on Tuballoy at Joslyn 

Manufacturing & Supply Company, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, January 3–14, 1944,” memo to A. B. 

Greninger (January 26, 1944). SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 53.

Simmons, J. M. 1944b. “Experimental Rolling and Grinding at Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply 

Co., Ft. Wayne, Indiana, June 1–5, 1944,” memo to A. B. Greninger (June 12, 1944). SRDB Ref. 

ID: 017594.
Effective Date:

May 12, 2015

Revision No.

0 – Draft

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2015-0050

Page No.

Page 33 of 33

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.

Simmons, J. M. 1944c. “Experimental Rolling and Grinding at Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply 

Co., Ft. Wayne, Indiana, June 19–20, 1944,” memo to A. B. Greninger (July 5, 1944). SRDB 

Ref. ID: 118502.

Smith, E. A. 1947. “Uranium Rolling at Ft. Wayne, Ind.—August 5–6, 1947.” SRDB Ref. ID: 

016511.

Stroke, F. G. 1950a. “NRC Rolling at Joslyn Manufacturing Company, Fort Wayne, Indiana,” 

memo to files (August 23, 1950). SRDB Ref. ID: 120484.

Stroke, F. G. 1950b. “Hot Rolling of Uranium Rods,” memo to Donald Sturges, Hanford 

Operations (September 5, 1950). SRDB Ref. ID: 028071.

“Subcontracts—Chicago Area, Manhattan District” (May 31, 1946). SRDB Ref. ID: 079727, 

PDF p. 4.

“Subcontract Monthly Field Progress Report—as of July 30, 1945.” SRDB Ref. ID: 079727, 

PDF p. 18.

Supplemental Agreement No. 1—Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281. 1948. SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, 

PDF p. 182.

Supplemental Agreement No. 2—Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281. 1948. SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, 

PDF p. 179.

Supplemental Agreement No. 3—Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281. 1948. SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, 

PDF p. 175.

Supplemental Agreement No. 4—Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281. 1948. SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, 

PDF p. 172.

Taussig, W. A. 1948. “Facilities for Rolling Uranium,” memo to W. E. Kelley, Manager, New 

York Office of Directed Operations (February 26, 1948). SRDB Ref. ID: 011036, PDF p. 226.

Thurber, W. C. 2011. “Review of NIOSH Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00136 

Dated July 21, 2009, Electro-Metallurgical Corporation.” 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-electromet-136-r1.pdf

University of Chicago. 1943. “Service Contract No. 7401-37-9.” SRDB Ref. ID: 11036, PDF p. 

116.