Draft

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

A Review of NIOSH’s Program Evaluation Report 

DCAS-PER-068, “Electro Metallurgical Company” 

Contract No. 75D30119C04183

Document No. SCA-TR-2023-PER068, Revision 0

Prepared by

Stephen L. Ostrow, PhD

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201-3324

January 30, 2024 

DISCLAIMER

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

technical support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health (ABRWH), including its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by 

SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically marked as such. This document prepared by 

SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical issues.

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is 

protected by the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 2 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

SC&A, Inc. technical support for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s 

review of NIOSH dose reconstruction program

Document title A Review of NIOSH’s Program Evaluation Report DCAS-PER-068, 

“Electro Metallurgical Company”

Document number SCA-TR-2023-PER068

Revision number 0 (Draft)

Supersedes NA

Effective date January 30, 2024 

Task manager Kathleen Behling [signature on file]

Project manager Bob Barton, CHP [signature on file]

Document reviewer(s) Kathleen Behling [signature on file]

Bob Barton, CHP [signature on file]

Record of revisions

Revision number Effective date Description of revision

0 (Draft) 1/30/2024 Initial issue
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 3 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table of Contents

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

1 Statement of Purpose............................................................................................... 5

2 Relevant Background Information Pertaining to Facility Operations, Potential 

Source Terms, and Worker Monitoring Protocols ..................................................... 7

2.1 Facility operations .............................................................................................. 7

2.2 Source terms...................................................................................................... 8

3 Subtask 1: Identify the Circumstances that Necessitated DCAS-PER-068 ............ 12

3.1 Chronology of events ....................................................................................... 12

3.2 SC&A’s comments ........................................................................................... 14

4 Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s Specific Methods for Corrective Action...................... 15

4.1 Overview of SC&A’s previous review of Electro Met SEC-00136..................... 15

4.2 SC&A’s comments ........................................................................................... 18

5 Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s Stated Approach for Identifying the Number of DRs 

Requiring Reevaluation of Dose............................................................................. 21

5.1 NIOSH’s selection criteria ................................................................................ 21

5.2 SC&A’s comments ........................................................................................... 21

6 Subtask 4: Conduct Audits of a Sample Set of Reevaluated DRs Mandated by 

DCAS-PER-068...................................................................................................... 22

7 References ............................................................................................................. 23
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 4 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABRWH, Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AWE atomic weapons employer 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

dpm disintegrations per minute 

DR dose reconstruction 

ER evaluation report 

GSD geometric standard deviation

m3 cubic meter

MDA used in text to indicate detection limit of the time

MED Manhattan Engineer District

mo month 

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

N/A not applicable 

NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

Pa-234m metastable protactinium-234 

PER program evaluation report

POC probability of causation

R roentgen 

R&D research and development 

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 

SRDB Site Research Database

TBD technical basis document

Th thorium

TWA time weighted average

UC Union Carbide 

UF4 uranium tetrafluoride

WG work group 

Zr zirconium
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 5 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

1 Statement of Purpose

To support dose reconstruction (DR), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) assembled a large body of 

guidance documents, workbooks, computer codes, and tools. In recognition of the fact that all 

supporting elements in DR may be subject to revisions, provisions exist for evaluating the effect 

of such programmatic revisions on the outcome of previously completed DRs. Such revisions 

may be prompted by document revisions due to new information, misinterpretation of guidance, 

changes in policy, and/or programmatic improvements. 

A program evaluation report (PER) provides a critical evaluation of the effects that a given issue 

or programmatic change may have on previously completed DRs. This includes a qualitative and 

quantitative assessment of potential impacts. Most important in this assessment is the potential 

impact on the probability of causation (POC) of previously completed DRs with POCs less than 

50 percent. 

During a teleconference by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH, 

“Board”) Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews on June 21, 2023, the Board tasked SC&A to 

review DCAS-PER-068, revision 0, “Electro Metallurgical Company” (NIOSH, 2016), 

pertaining to the Electro Metallurgical Company (“Electro Met,” “Electromet”). In conducting a 

PER review, SC&A performs the following five subtasks, each of which is discussed in this 

report: 

• Subtask 1: Assess NIOSH’s evaluation and characterization of the issue addressed in the 

PER and its potential impacts on DR. Our assessment intends to ensure that the issue was 

fully understood and characterized in the PER. 

• Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s specific methods for corrective action. When the PER 

involves a technical issue that is supported by documents (e.g., white papers, technical 

information bulletins, procedures) that have not yet been subjected to a formal SC&A 

review, subtask 2 will include a review of the scientific basis and/or sources of 

information to ensure the credibility of the corrective action and its consistency with 

current/consensus science. Conversely, if such technical documentation has been 

formalized and previously subjected to a review by SC&A, subtask 2 will simply provide 

a brief summary and conclusion of this review process. 

• Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s stated approach for identifying the universe of potentially 

affected DRs and assess the criteria by which a subset of potentially affected DRs was 

selected for reevaluation. The second step may have important implications where the 

universe of previously denied DRs is very large and, for reasons of practicality, NIOSH’s 

reevaluation is confined to a subset of DRs that, based on their scientific judgment, have 

the potential to be significantly affected by the PER. In subtask 3, SC&A will also 

evaluate the timeliness of the completion of the PER.

• Subtask 4: Conduct audits of DRs affected by the PER under review. The number of 

DRs selected for audit for a given PER will vary. (It is assumed that the Board will select 

the DRs and the total number of DR audits for each PER.) 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 6 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

• Subtask 5: Prepare a written report that contains the results of DR audits under 

subtask 4, along with our review conclusions. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 7 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

2 Relevant Background Information Pertaining to Facility Operations, 

Potential Source Terms, and Worker Monitoring Protocols

2.1 Facility operations

The Electro Met technical basis document (TBD), DCAS-TKBS-0007, revision 01 (NIOSH, 

2015), provides background information on the facility and its operations. Electro Met, a Union 

Carbide (UC) subsidiary located in Niagara Falls, NY, was an existing ferro-alloy manufacturing 

plant when it was selected to participate in the nuclear weapons program. The nuclear weapons 

program portion of the plant (“Area Plant”) became operational in March 1943 under contract to 

the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), a predecessor of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC); subsequent contracts were with the AEC. The uranium operations facility occupied a 

single purpose-built, fenced-off, 50 × 219 foot, single-story building on the larger UC site. The 

mission of the Area Plant was to convert uranium tetrafluoride (UF4, also referred to as “green 

salt”) into uranium metal. It received the UF4 from the UC Linde Air Products Division Plant 

(Linde) in Tonawanda, NY, and sent the finished product and residues to several other nuclear 

weapons program sites. The final contract terminated on June 30, 1953, when Electro Met 

purchased the facility from the AEC. Under the terms of the termination contract, Electro Met 

decontaminated the site, and, after the final cleanup survey on August 14, 1953, the site was 

released.

The conversion process from UF4 to uranium metal was accomplished by mixing the UF4 with 

magnesium, putting the mixture it into a metal “bomb” lined with dolomite (a refractory 

material), and heating the bomb in a furnace to initiate a vigorous exothermic (“thermite”) 

reduction reaction. When finished, the bomb was opened, the uranium metal separated from the 

magnesium fluoride slag, and both components removed. The uranium was then cast into 110–

135 kilogram ingots, which were later recast in a vacuum reduction furnace into billets that were 

shipped off site for further processing. Electro Met also received uranium scraps from other 

facilities and remelted the scraps into ingots (DOE, 1986). 

Table 2 of TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) shows the operational history of the Electro Met 

plant, divided into three operations periods and three standby periods, with start and stop dates

and, where applicable, associated average monthly uranium metal production rates. Although the 

design capacity of the plant was 50 tons of uranium metal per month, the actual production rate 

was consistently less. The TBD notes that other nonradiological processes might have occurred 

during the standby periods. Table 2 of TBD revision 01 is adapted here for convenience as 

table 1.
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 8 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 1. Electro Metallurgical operating history

Description 

Non-uraniumrelated standby 

operations

Start 

date Stop date

Approximate uranium 

metal production 

rates, tons/mo a

Operations 1 N/A 8/13/1942 8/31/1946 44

Standby 1 Calcium metal 

production

9/1/1946 9/30/1947 N/A

Operations 2 N/A 10/1/1947 9/30/1949 26 (10/1947–6/1948)

35 (6/1948–6/1949)

Standby 2 – overall

period

N/A 10/1/1949 1/1/1951 N/A

Standby 2 – Zr period Zr production during 

standby

4/1950 9/1950 N/A

Operations 3 N/A 1/1/1951 6/30/1951 Not provided (research 

quantities)

Standby 3 N/A 6/30/1951 6/30/1953 N/A

Source: Adapted from NIOSH (2015), table 2. 

a Production average from AEC (1951), p. 38. 

TBD revision 01 observes: 

Contemporaneous reports provide that some 50-70 persons operated the Area 

Plant, others also mention that others from the plant provided support as needed 

with an estimated 30 additional persons who are not recorded including 

electricians and pipe fitters. [NIOSH, 2015, p. 21] 

When in an operational period, the Area Plant ran three shifts of workers to support production. 

NIOSH is unaware of any complete lists of all Electro Met personnel over time and notes that 

“construction workers from other companies completed work in the Area Plant during active 

operations” (NIOSH, 2015, p. 22). 

2.2 Source terms

Since Electro Met was exclusively processing uranium, uranium isotopes and members of their

decay chains (also referred to as “progeny” or “daughter products”) were the only radioisotopes 

of concern. For example, uranium-238, with a 4.3 billion year half-life, has 13 radionuclides, 

with half-lives ranging from short to very long, in its decay chain, eventually ending in stable 

lead-208. TBD revision 01 states: 

No documentation was found indicating there were other sources of radiation 

beyond what has been described at Electro Metallurgical during the covered 

period between 1942 and 1953. Processes used in the Area Plant caused uranium 

progeny to be non-uniformly distributed and/or concentrated in the materials and 

equipment causing documented high beta doses to some workers. [NIOSH, 2015, 

p. 11] 

2.2.1 Internal monitoring

Section 4.0 of the Electro Met TBD discusses internal dosimetry for the different operations and 

standby time periods (refer to table 1 of this report). Revision 1 of the NIOSH SEC-00136 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 9 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

petition evaluation report (NIOSH, 2012, p. 3) defines a class of Electro Met employees to be 

included in the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) class based on internal dose considerations: 

NIOSH finds it is not feasible to estimate internal exposures with sufficient 

accuracy for all workers at the site from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 

1947. Internal monitoring data, work area radiological monitoring data, and 

source term data are not sufficient to provide a sufficiently accurate estimate of 

the bounding internal dose during this early period at Electro Metallurgical.

As shown in table 1, the defined SEC period encompasses the entire first operations period 

(August 13, 1942–August 31, 1946), the entire first standby period (September 1, 1946–

September 30, 1947), and part of the second operations period (October 1, 1947–September 30, 

1949). TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015, p. 16) notes: 

A small group of employees at the Area Plant have bioassay data available to 

NIOSH during this period [1942–1947]. These values should be used with 

standard dose reconstruction methods to assess intake rates of uranium during the 

period. 

After the SEC period, two large air sampling campaigns were conducted by the AEC’s New 

York Operations Office Health and Safety Laboratory in November 1948 (AEC, 1949a) and in 

August 1949 (AEC, 1949b). UC’s Linde plant health physics personnel conducted some 

measurements at Electro Met as well (AEC, 1948), but “they appear to be ad hoc and without 

further write-up” (NIOSH, 2015, p. 16). The TBD reports: 

The time weighted average (TWA) values determined from these [August 1949] 

measurements was lower than reported from the November 1948 samples and this 

was attributed to some changes that occurred to the practices and ventilation as 

well as the fact that the facilities doors [and windows] were open in August 

[providing outside air ventilation to the facilities] unlike during the November 

measurements. [NIOSH, 2015, p. 16] 

In a claimant-favorable approach, NIOSH decided to use the higher November 1948 sampling 

data (facility windows and doors closed) for DR. TBD revision 01, table 3, lists TWA multiples 

of the preferred level (70 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter (dpm/m3)) for different 

employee job titles (NIOSH, 2015). Most of the titles had associated TWA multiples greater than

1.0, ranging up to 577.0 for a green salt room operator. In a claimant-favorable decision, NIOSH 

chose to use the green salt room operator TWA with an uncertainty of geometric standard 

deviation (GSD) of 3 as the assumed air concentration data for all operational periods. It then 

used those values to determine ingestion intakes, following the guidance of OCAS-TIB-0009, 

revision 0 (NIOSH, 2004), during both the operational and standby periods. TBD revision 01, 

table 4, summarizes the assumed uranium air concentrations and ingestion rates per day for the 

individual operations and standby periods. 

TBD revision 01 notes that “substantial floor contamination was clearly present as sweeping up 

of residues generated air borne concentrations up to 97,000 dpm/m3” (NIOSH, 2015, p. 17). 

During the standby periods, when the uranium inventory in the plant would have been reduced, 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 10 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

TBD revision 01 assigns intake rates based on the TWA for the highest nonoperational job title 

(3.0 for a repairman) to account for internal dose from uranium contamination. 

Figure 3 of TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) shows a graph of the lognormal distribution of air 

sampling data at the Area Plant, plotting air concentration data (dpm/m3) as a function of Zscore. Figure 4 shows a graph of uranium bioassay data (milligrams uranium per liter urine) as a 

function of time and operations period. Doses were calculated using either type M or type S 

solubility, and the highest of the two was used for dose determinations. 

2.2.2 External monitoring

Electro Met’s mission was to process the incoming green salt into uranium metal and then to ship 

that metal out to other facilities for further processing. As described in section 5 of the Electro

Met TBD, revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015, p. 22ff), the external radiation exposures to workers arose 

from beta and gamma radiation (not from very short range, nonpenetrating alpha radiation) from 

uranium isotopes and their progeny as they decay. 

External exposures were not uniform for all job titles. Some of the processing steps exposed 

workers to particularly high beta fields as they “concentrated uranium progeny on the surfaces of 

the metal and also surfaces and residues of the production process (e.g., molds and slag)” 

(NIOSH, 2015, p. 22). For example, AEC (1948–1953) reports furnace operators with film badge 

readings of approximately 500–700 millirem (mrem)/week and some nonpenetrating dose levels 

measured up to 1,900 millirad (mrad)/week; these are far in excess of the recommended 

maximum levels at that time. Wearing of contaminated gloves (measured exposures of up to 

2 roentgen (R)/8-hour day in 1944 and continuing afterwards) also elevated the beta dose to 

workers. Laundry washed at Linde was contaminated as well (measurements up to 15 mrad/hr 

beta on coveralls). TBD revision 01 notes, “However, since doses are being based on measured 

photon doses [rather than on beta doses], the issue of the contaminated laundry will not affect the 

assignment of dose at Electro Met” (NIOSH, 2015, p. 22). 

“Limited external dosimetry data was collected over the operating history of the Area Plant” 

(NIOSH, 2015, p. 22). In addition, the quality of the available data in the first operations period 

(August 13, 1942–August 31, 1946) is questionable, as many of the dosimeter films were fogged. 

External dosimetry improved during the second operations period (October 1, 1947–September 

30, 1949), and NIOSH has data for 58 employees representing 21 job titles from June 1948 

through September 1949. TBD revision 01 claims that “Analysis of this data set provides for a 

claimant favorable dose reconstruction method (all workers at the 95th percentile) as compared to

[the] operator category of TBD-6000 [NIOSH, 2011b]” (NIOSH, 2015, p. 23).

Table 5 of Electro Met TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) shows all the external dosimetry data by 

title for 21 job titles. For each title, the columns list the number of measurements available, the 

number with gamma measurements <detection limit of the time (MDA), the number with beta 

measurements <MDA, the percentage with gamma measurements >MDA, and the percentage 

with beta measurements >MDA; the MDA over the period was 50 mrem/week gamma and 

50 mrad/week beta. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 11 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

In addition to film badge data, Electro Met TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) also remarks that 

several hundred ring dosimeter measurements (used to register doses to hands and forearms) are 

also available, but not useful, as 

they were without worker titles and offer little information about how they were 

worn (with or without protective gear). Furthermore, the ring badges were worn 

by only a fraction of the employees and only for a limited time. [NIOSH, 2015, 

p. 26] 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 12 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

3 Subtask 1: Identify the Circumstances that Necessitated DCASPER-068

3.1 Chronology of events

The following outlines the events that led to the revision of the Electro Met TBD, which 

prompted NIOSH to issue DCAS-PER-068, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2016), assessing the revision’s 

effect on prior DRs; additional events are also included to provide appropriate background. Note 

that the six ABRWH TBD-6001/Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons Employers (AWEs) Work 

Group (WG) meetings listed in this section are those that included discussions on Electro Met. 

Many of the activities concerning Electro Met SEC-00136 are relevant to this PER-068 review, 

since the SEC review entailed examination of TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015). 

Battelle-TBD-6001 (“TBD-6001”), revision F0 (Battelle, 2006): The AEC employed many 

facilities, including Electro Met, as part of the effort to refine uranium from ore to a desired final 

state. TBD-6001 describes the typical processes and provides guidance applicable to DR. 

Battelle-TBD-6001, Appendix C, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2007): This is the original Electro Met 

site description, included as Appendix C to the general TBD for uranium processing facilities

(Battelle, 2006). It was later extracted as a standalone Electro Met TBD in NIOSH (2011a). 

SEC-00136 petition evaluation report, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2009): NIOSH evaluated the SEC00136 SEC 83.13-type petition for all workers in any area of Electro Met from April 1, 1943, 

through June 30, 1953 (note that the SEC-00132 petition was merged into the SEC-00136 

petition). NIOSH concluded that DR is feasible for the designated period. 

SC&A review of SEC-00136 petition evaluation report (SCA-TR-SEC2010-0010, 

revision 0) (SC&A, 2010): SC&A reviewed revision 0 of the NIOSH petition evaluation report 

for SEC-00136 (NIOSH, 2009) as requested by the ABRWH at its October 20–22, 2009, 

meeting. 

ABRWH TBD-6000 WG meeting, July 7, 2010 (ABRWH, 2010a): The meeting included a 

review of TBD-6001 issues and SC&A’s findings and observations. The Electro Met-specific 

portion of the meeting (transcript pages 158–249) was concerned with the SEC-00136 petition 

evaluation report, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2009), and was organized around discussions of SC&A’s 

findings. 

ABRWH TBD-6001 WG meeting, November 4, 2010 (ABRWH, 2010b): The Electro Met 

portion of this meeting is found on pages 158–207 of the transcript. The discussion primarily 

continued that of the July 7, 2010, meeting (ABRWH, 2010a) concerned with the SEC-00136 

petition evaluation report, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2009), especially the question of who is defined as 

a covered employee according to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL): everyone in the entire 

Electro Met plant or only those in the much smaller Area Plant (the only portion that did uranium 

work)? NIOSH mentioned that it was in the process of canceling TBD-6001 and replacing its 

Appendix C on Electro Met with an updated individual site profile of its own. 

Electro Met TBD, revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a): As stated in the Record of Issues/Revisions 

section of the TBD: “Changes Battelle-TBD-6001 Appendix [C] to a standalone document. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 13 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Change is primarily format only. Does not incorporate review comments” (p. 2). This was

basically a reformatting that does not change the technical material. 

SC&A review of SEC-00136 petition evaluation report (SCA-TR-SEC2010-0010, 

revision 1) (SC&A, 2011): SC&A revised its earlier evaluation (SC&A, 2010) of revision 0 of 

the NIOSH petition evaluation report for SEC-00136 (NIOSH, 2009). 

ABRWH Uranium Refining AWEs WG meeting, May 16, 2011 (ABRWH, 2011a): The 

Electro Met-specific discussion is included on pages 210–239 of the transcript. That discussion

included all of SC&A’s 17 findings (SC&A, 2011) on the NIOSH SEC-00136 petition 

evaluation report, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2009). 

ABRWH Uranium Refining AWEs WG meeting, August 16, 2011 (ABRWH, 2011b): The 

WG received a brief update from NIOSH on its data-gathering efforts and progress on 

responding to SC&A’s findings on the SEC-00136 petition evaluation report (NIOSH, 2009). 

ABRWH Uranium Refining AWEs WG meeting, November 21, 2011 (ABRWH, 2011c):

NIOSH stated that it had reassessed its SEC-00136 petition evaluation report (NIOSH, 2009) and 

concluded that it could not adequately reconstruct doses from 1942 to 1947 using backextrapolation from the post-1947 period (due primarily to process improvements in the latter 

period, which marked a change from conditions in the former period). NIOSH proposed adding 

an SEC class from 1942 to 1947. NIOSH maintained that they can still reconstruct doses from 

1948 through 1952. 

SEC-00136 petition evaluation report, revision 1 (NIOSH, 2012): In its 2012 revision to its 

2009 petition evaluation (NIOSH, 2009), NIOSH reevaluated the available information and 

concluded that it is not feasible to estimate internal doses with sufficient accuracy for the 

designated period due to inadequate bioassay, work area monitoring, and source term data. This 

is a change to its earlier (NIOSH, 2009) conclusion that these were feasible. However, external 

doses can be reconstructed. The revised report also changed the start date of the SEC period to 

August 13, 1942, to coincide with the start date of the MED. The end date of the SEC period, 

June 30, 1953, coincides with the end date of the facility’s contract with the AEC (the successor 

to the MED). 

ABRWH Uranium Refining AWEs WG meeting, February 14, 2012 (ABRWH, 2012): The 

WG continued to discuss SEC-00136. Based on a preliminary analysis, SC&A believed that 

NIOSH might be able to adequately reconstruct internal doses for the 1942 to 1947 time period, 

which is at odds with NIOSH’s conclusion. The WG decided to wait until this issue is resolved 

before making recommendations to the Board. 

SCA-TR-SEC2012-0010, revision 0 (SC&A, 2012): SC&A produced an addendum to its 

previous review (SC&A, 2011) of NIOSH’s petition evaluation report for SEC-00136, revision 0 

(NIOSH, 2009), in response to NIOSH’s revised petition evaluation report (revision 1; NIOSH, 

2012). This SC&A report is characterized as a “partial review” of the revised NIOSH petition 

evaluation report, reflecting the limited amount of time SC&A had to review the new material 

and produce a report on the NIOSH revision to support a request by the AWE WG (details of the 

timeline of reports supporting WG requests appear in SC&A (2012), page 4). The SC&A 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 14 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

addendum noted two overarching issues: (1) “the ability to identify and differentiate employees 

who worked in the Area Plant where . . . [AEC and MED] activities were conducted as compared 

to employees who worked in the commercial operations that constituted the majority of the 

activities at Electro-Met” and (2) “the ability to calculate bounding doses for the ‘early 

operations’ from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1947.” Attachment A to the 2012 

SC&A report is an updated issues matrix consisting of the 17 findings of SC&A (2011). 

Electro Met TBD, revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015): This was a major revision of the original 

Electro Met TBD, including greatly expanded sections on DR guidance and incorporation of the 

SEC designation for the early days of the plant. The issuance of this revised TBD prompted 

NIOSH to investigate the effect on prior DRs and to issue DCAS-PER-068 (NIOSH, 2016).

DCAS-PER-068, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2016): NIOSH issued this PER, which this current 

SC&A report is assessing, to evaluate the effect of revision 01 of the TBD (NIOSH, 2015) on the 

previously completed DRs and to present a plan for corrective actions. 

3.2 SC&A’s comments

SC&A reviewed each of the documents leading to changes incorporated into revision 01 of the 

Electro Met TBD (NIOSH, 2015). SC&A agrees with NIOSH that these changes and their 

impacts on Electro Met worker doses mandate the need for DCAS-PER-068 (NIOSH, 2016).

There are no findings pertaining to subtask 1. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 15 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

4 Subtask 2: Assess NIOSH’s Specific Methods for Corrective Action

NIOSH produced DCAS-PER-068 (NIOSH, 2016) to report on its evaluation of the effects on its 

prior DRs of revising the Electro Met TBD to revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) and to present its plan 

for any required corrective actions. Although SC&A has not formally reviewed Battelle-TBD6001, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2007), DCAS-TKBS-0007, revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a), or

revision 01 of the TBD (NIOSH, 2015), it has tangentially examined these revisions during its

SEC-00136 evaluation. Since the WG has not asked SC&A to perform a full TBD review, this 

report conducts a limited review focusing on DCAS-PER-068.

4.1 Overview of SC&A’s previous review of Electro Met SEC-00136

Since revision 01 of the Electro Met TBD (NIOSH, 2015) was largely motivated by the papers of 

NIOSH and SC&A and the discussions at WG meetings regarding SEC-00136, it would be 

useful to this review to begin with a brief discussion of the relevant issues raised; section 3.1 of 

this report is a chronology of those events. 

NIOSH issued its SEC-00136 petition evaluation report in 2009 for all workers in any area of 

Electro Met (not just the relatively small Area Plant, where all uranium processing was done) 

from April 1, 1943, through June 30, 1953 (NIOSH, 2009). SC&A evaluated this petition in 

April 2010 (SC&A, 2010), and potential issues were identified and discussed at subsequent WG 

meetings (ABRWH, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a). Following additional interviews, SC&A produced a 

revised evaluation in 2011 containing 17 findings, summarized on pages 6–8 of the executive 

summary (SC&A, 2011). 

Following further WG discussions (ABRWH, 2011b, 2011c), NIOSH revised its SEC-00136

petition evaluation report (rev. 1) in January 2012 (NIOSH, 2012), where, notably, it (1) changed 

the SEC period to August 13, 1942, through June 30, 1953, and (2) changed its determination of

the feasibility of internal DR during the SEC period from feasible to not feasible due to 

inadequate bioassay, work area monitoring, and source term data. The revised SEC petition 

evaluation report was discussed at the February 2012 WG meeting (ABRWH, 2012). SC&A

produced, also in February 2012, an addendum to its previous review report in response (SC&A, 

2012). The 2012 SC&A evaluation report review contains an updated issues matrix of the 17 

findings, including SC&A comments; SC&A (2011) has a detailed discussion of the findings. 

For convenience in this report, table 2 is a summary of the findings and their status, taken from 

SC&A (2011) and WG discussions in ABRWH (2011a); the accompanying page numbers are 

the starting points of the discussions on the findings from the ABRWH meeting transcript.

SC&A also examined the later WG meeting transcripts (ABRWH, 2010b, 2011c, 2012) and 

noted that, although certain issues were discussed, there was no systematic review of the 17 

findings. Although there was frequent agreement on a finding (e.g., that it is resolved, not 

pertinent to an SEC evaluation, or that NIOSH needs to do further work), as far as SC&A could 

find in the transcripts, the WG did not classify any of them as either closed, open, or in 

abeyance: hence, they are all formally still open, or at least in progress. Note that these 17 

findings are based on reviews and discussions of revision 00 of the TBD (NIOSH, 2011a), not 

the latest revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015), and that SC&A has not been tasked with reviewing 

revision 01 to see if it satisfactorily resolves all the findings made on revision 00. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 16 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 2. Summary of SEC-00136 findings based on Electro Met TBD revision 00 

No.

(page 

number a)

SC&A finding Status b 

1 (p. 210) NIOSH should discuss the issue of access controls 

explicitly in the ER to justify the basis for including all 

workers at Electro Met, rather than just those who worked 

in the Area Plant.

NIOSH requested worker 

location clarification from 

DOL. 

2 (p. 215) R&D work with uranium ores was not mentioned in NIOSH 

(2009). While the information reviewed here does not 

indicate that significant quantities of uranium-bearing 

materials other than green salt were used by Electro Met, 

NIOSH should address the scope of work that might 

actually have been done at Electro Met (and in which 

facilities).

R&D was conducted for a 

short period using small 

quantities of low-grade 

African ore. SC&A is 

satisfied. 

3 (p. 216) NIOSH should review the start and end dates for the 

operational period to ensure that all relevant 

documentation has been evaluated.

Start and end dates should 

be revised to be consistent 

in the ER and the TBD to 

reflect those of the MED 

and AEC contracts.

4 (p. 217) The NIOSH assumption that the uranium metal reduction 

process and associated industrial production and industrial 

hygiene conditions were unchanged from 1943 to 1949 

may not be correct. The changes that appear to have been 

made in 1947 would need to be investigated before this 

assumption can be used to implicitly back-extrapolate 

post-October 1947 data to the 1943–1946 period. (Refer

also to finding 17.)

Open

5 (p. 222) NIOSH should clarify the text to remove what appears to 

be an inconsistency regarding the availability of internal 

exposure data during standby periods.

NIOSH modified text in 

revised ER. Minor issue that 

was resolved between 

SC&A and NIOSH at the 

Feb. 2012 WG meeting.

6 (p. 223) NIOSH should take into account the difference between 

fixed head samplers, process samplers, and general area 

samplers and actual intake, and the uncertainties this 

creates for estimating bounding intakes.

Finding relates to how DRs

are performed; not an SEC 

issue. Issue was resolved 

between SC&A and NIOSH

at the Feb. 2012 WG 

meeting.

7 (p. 224) NIOSH needs to establish that job titles corresponded to 

the jobs actually done for the period of employment. 

NIOSH’s job title consolidation scheme would not produce 

bounding estimates for all workers in the proposed class in 

the absence of such an analysis.

SC&A and NIOSH agreed 

at the Feb. 2012 WG 

meeting that this finding 

relates to how DRs are 

performed; not an SEC 

issue.

8 (p. 225) We note that the graphical method used by NIOSH in 

Appendix C of TBD-6001 (NIOSH, 2007) to calculate the 

inhalation intakes for operators results in the lowest 

estimate of the 95th percentile among possible alternative 

calculational approaches. Arguably, in this case, the 

graphical method is not claimant favorable.

SC&A and NIOSH agreed 

at the Feb. 2012 WG 

meeting that this finding 

relates to how DRs are 

performed; not an SEC 

issue and also a global 

issue. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 17 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

No.

(page 

number a)

SC&A finding Status b 

9 (p. 230) The site-specific values for inhalation intakes for Electro

Met from Appendix C are significantly more claimant 

favorable than the generic intakes proposed in table 8.29 

of TBD-6001, rev. F0 (Battelle, 2006), which raises 

questions as to whether TBD-6001 is appropriately 

conservative for its intended purpose. This is noted for the 

record, but it is not an Electro Met finding.

SC&A and NIOSH agreed 

at the Feb. 2012 WG 

meeting that this is moot 

since TBD-6001, rev. F0 

(Battelle, 2006), is no longer 

applicable.

10

(p. 230) 

Given the high frequency of blowouts at other facilities 

using the same equipment, NIOSH should reexamine the 

possibility that blowouts occurred at Electro Met.

Additional reviews have not 

uncovered evidence of 

blowouts. 

11

(p. 232) 

NIOSH should address residual exposures in the SEC00136 petition evaluation report.Since the Area Plant was 

an AEC facility, evaluation 

of exposures during the 

residual period is not 

required. 

12

(p. 232) 

NIOSH should provide more detailed information to 

support their position in section 7.2.3 of NIOSH (2009) 

that, “considering the intake scenarios established in 

Battelle-TBD-6001 Appendix C, the calculated urinary 

excretion of uranium from these intakes was compared to 

actual data and was found to be bounding in each case”

(p. 26). Independent calculations by SC&A do not support 

this conclusion on the bounding nature of the intakes in 

Appendix C, table C.2.

The Electro Met TBD and 

the revised ER eliminated 

discussions about 

comparing actual and 

calculated excretion rates. 

NIOSH will investigate 

further.

13

(p. 234) 

The approach taken to bound external photon exposure 

values in table C.4 of TBD-6001, Appendix C, appears to 

be reasonable for the operating period beginning June 

1948. However, NIOSH must demonstrate that this 

approach is bounding for the earlier operating period, 

when essentially no film badge data are available. In 

addition, NIOSH should explicitly define in Appendix C 

how to proceed with DR when the job description is 

uncertain or unknown.

Not resolved.

14

(p. 235) 

NIOSH should state in the petition evaluation report for 

SEC-00136 and in Appendix C of TBD-6001 that

estimates of occupational medical exposure should be 

based on photofluorography, unless there is evidence that 

this technique was not used at AWE sites and only at DOE 

sites. This is a DR issue, not an SEC issue.

DR, not an SEC issue, and 

photofluorography was 

practiced only at larger AEC 

facilities. Not resolved. 

15

(p. 236) 

SC&A independently developed a database for annual 

beta and found that the 95th percentile value was in 

excellent agreement with that developed by NIOSH for 

table C.5. However, 50th and 95th percentiles were 

somewhat higher, based on the SC&A analysis. 

Consequently, it is possible that the dose to 

Supervisor/Laborers could be understated by about 40% 

and the dose to Others by about 80%.

DR, not an SEC issue, but 

should be investigated. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 18 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

No.

(page 

number a)

SC&A finding Status b 

16

(p. 237) 

Use of 95th percentile exposures, as proposed in tables 

C.4 and C.5 of TBD-6001, Appendix C, adequately 

accounts for enhanced exposures from high surface 

concentrations of Th-234 and Pa-234m produced during 

melting and casting of uranium ingots, except for 

exposures to the hands and arms. Table C.5 is specific to 

“Other Skin.” Guidance should be added to Appendix C to 

specifically address exposure to the hands and arms.

Dose reconstruction, not an 

SEC issue. 

17

(p. 238) 

NIOSH needs to provide convincing arguments that 95th 

percentile values based on 1948/1949 data are bounding 

for the period prior to December 1947.

Not resolved.

a Page numbers refer to meeting minutes from the May 16, 2011, WG meeting (ABRWH, 2011a). 

b As far as SC&A can determine, the WG has not assigned a status to any of the findings; hence, they are all 

considered in progress.

SC&A was not tasked with reviewing revision 01 of the TBD but performed a cursory 

comparison of revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) to revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a) to see how it might 

affect calculated doses. The Records of Issue/Revisions section of TBD revision 01 summarizes 

the changes made from revision 00: 

Revision to incorporate Special Exposure Cohort designation information 

throughout the document. Added and revised information throughout the 

document regarding a correction in the start date for MED work. Substantial 

update of the document with re-analysis of the external and internal dosimetry 

data. Constitutes a total rewrite of the document. [NIOSH, 2015, p. 2] 

Section 2.0 of DCAS-PER-068 (NIOSH, 2016, p. 1) notes an increase in external dose estimates 

for all claims using information in revision 01 of the TBD (“The external dose from Table 7 shall 

be used to determine dose for all Electro Met employees” (NIOSH, 2015, p. 29)) compared to 

those using revision 00 (table 3; NIOSH, 2011a, p. 7). Internal dose data are summarized in 

table 4 of TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015, p. 19) and in table 2 of revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a, 

p. 6). 

4.2 SC&A’s comments

TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) is a substantial revision of TBD revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a), 

which was only a repackaging of Appendix C to Battelle-TBD-6001, revision 0 (NIOSH, 2007). 

TBD revision 01 added material on the granted SEC-00136, incorporating many more 

monitoring and other data, and updating and expanding its methods and guidance. Absent a full 

review of the TBDs, SC&A believes that revision 01 of the TBD is an improvement on what 

came previously. For example, as reported about internal monitoring in section 2.2.1 of this 

report, NIOSH made several very claimant-favorable assumptions in determining air 

concentrations and, therefore, resulting inhalation and ingestion doses: It adopted the November 

1948 air sampling dataset and chose air concentration data for a green salt room operator for all 

operational periods, which was many multiples of the TWA. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 19 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Section 2.0 of DCAS-PER-068 (NIOSH, 2016, p. 1) discusses external dose rates:

The revision [NIOSH, 2015] also incorporated a re-evaluation of data and 

information as a result of the SEC review process. One change in the revision was 

an increase in the external photon dose rates for all years. That change resulted in 

an increased external dose estimate for all claims completed using an earlier

version. 

In light of this statement, SC&A examined NIOSH’s approach to assigning external doses found 

in section 5.0 of the TBDs, comparing the approach in revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) to that in 

revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a). (Note that, as stated elsewhere in this report, SC&A’s PER review 

is not intended to be a detailed assessment of the TBDs.) The first obvious observation is that the 

revised external dose section contains much more information and guidance, expanding from 

about 1 page to about 13 pages. The revised section now contains lengthy discussions of 

operations that affected external dose, available data, a table showing external dosimetry 

monitoring by job title (table 5), and a separate section providing detailed information on how 

external dose is assigned. Some highlights of the latter are (NIOSH, 2015, p. 29): 

• Item 2: “Photon and Beta dose during operations was determined using the 95th percentile 

of all badged worker data.” 

• Item 3: “Photon dose during standby was determined using the geometric mean of all 

badged worker data.” 

• Item 4: “Non-penetrating dose to other skin is assigned based on the recommended 10 

times the photon dose to account for incorrectly worn badges.” 

• Item 5: “Beta doses to the hands and forearms during standby periods are determined 

using whole body skin doses (10 times the GM of photon dose).” 

• Item 6: “The annual dose values shall be assigned as the geometric mean for that period 

with an uncertainty equal to a GSD of 3.” 

Assigned annual external doses are given in table 3 of TBD revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a) and 

table 7 of TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015). TBD revision 00 assigns doses to three job 

categories: operators, supervisors/laborers, and others. TBD revision 01 assigns doses to all 

workers based on the guidance of items 2 and 3 in the preceding list. The resulting external doses 

are summarized here in table 3, illustrating that TBD revision 01 assigned doses are substantially

greater than those for TBD revision 00, and hence are claimant favorable. 
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 20 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 3. Comparison of TBD revision 01 and revision 00 external dose assignments

TBD revision, 

period 

Photon whole-body 

dose, mrem/year

Nonpenetrating dose 

to other skin, 

mrad/year

Nonpenetrating dose 

to hands and forearms, 

mrad/year

Rev. 00, Operations Operators: 3,934

Supervisors/Laborers: 

1,003

Others: 256

Operators: 21,030

Supervisors/Laborers: 

3,221

Others: 493

N/A

Rev. 01, Operations All: 4,403 All: 44,030 All: 276,000

Rev. 00, Standby All: 256 All: 493 N/A

Rev. 01, Standby All: 1,356 Al: 13,560 All: 13,560

Sources: TBD revision 00 (NIOSH, 2011a), table 3; TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015), table 7).
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 21 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

5 Subtask 3: Evaluate the PER’s Stated Approach for Identifying the 

Number of DRs Requiring Reevaluation of Dose

5.1 NIOSH’s selection criteria

Section 3.0 of DCAS-PER-068 describes the process NIOSH used to evaluate the effect that the 

introduction of TBD revision 01 (NIOSH, 2015) might have had on already-completed DRs. 

Since the number of previously completed DRs was small, NIOSH was able to examine all 

claims with a POC of <50 percent, which amounted to 63 cases. NIOSH then deleted from 

consideration 25 of those cases that qualified for inclusion within the SEC. After performing new 

DRs on the remaining 39 cases, NIOSH found that 19 of those still had POCs <45 percent and 20 

had POCs >52 percent.

5.2 SC&A’s comments

The selection criteria used by NIOSH for previously completed DRs that require reevaluation 

under DCAS-PER-068 are valid; i.e., NIOSH evaluated all noncompensated claims not included 

in the SEC. There are no findings associated with subtask 3.
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 22 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

6 Subtask 4: Conduct Audits of a Sample Set of Reevaluated DRs 

Mandated by DCAS-PER-068

Previous sections of this report described changes introduced in revision 01 of the Electro Met

TBD (NIOSH, 2015) that increased the dose assigned for the operational periods. NIOSH 

identified 63 previously completed claims with a POC <50 percent, eliminated 25 that are within

the SEC designation, and performed a new dose estimate on the remaining 39 claims using 

revision 01 of the TBD. This process resulted in 19 of those claims with POCs <45 percent but 

20 claims with POCs >52 percent.

SC&A recommends the Board select for additional evaluation two DRs with POCs still <45

percent after NIOSH reworked them, for production workers covering the operational periods.
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 23 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

7 References

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD-6001 Work Group. (2010a). July 7, 2010

[Transcript]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2010/wgtr070710.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD-6001 Work Group. (2010b). Thursday 

November 4, 2010 [Transcript]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2010/wgtr110410.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining Atomic Weapons 

Employers Work Group. (2011a). Monday May 16, 2011 [Transcript]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2011/wgtr051611.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining AWEs Work Group. 

(2011b). Tuesday August 16, 2011 [Transcript of teleconference meeting]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2011/wgtr081611.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Uranium Refining AWE Work Group. 

(2011c). Monday November 21, 2011 [Transcript]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2011/wgtr112111.pdf 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Uranium-Refining AWE. 

(2012). Tuesday February 14, 2012 [Transcript of teleconference meeting]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2012/wgtr021412awe.pdf 

Battelle. (2006). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that refined uranium and 

plutonium (Battelle-TBD-6001, rev. F0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/bat-6001-

r0.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2004). Estimation of ingestion intakes

(OCAS-TIB-0009, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tibs/oc-t9-ro.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that refined uranium and thorium –Appendix C Electro Metallurgical Company

(Battelle-TBD-6001, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/oc-6001-apc-r0.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2009). SEC petition evaluation report 

Petition SEC-00136 (rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/sec/electromet/electrometer.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011a). Technical basis document for the 

Electro Metallurgical Company Niagara Falls, New York (DCAS-TKBS-0007, rev. 00). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/electromet-r0.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011b). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that worked uranium metals (Battelle-TBD-6000, rev. 1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/bat-6000-r1.pdf
Effective date: 1/30/2024 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2023-PER068 Page 24 of 24

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2012). SEC petition evaluation report 

Petition SEC-00136 (rev. 1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/sec/electromet/electroer-136-r1.pdf 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2015). Technical basis document for the 

Electro Metallurgical Company Niagara Falls, New York (DCAS-TKBS-0007, rev. 01). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/electromet-r1.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2016). Electro Metallurgical Company

(DCAS-PER-068, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/dc-per68-r0.pdf

SC&A, Inc. (2010). Review of NIOSH petition evaluation report for Petition SEC-00136 dated 

July 21, 2009, Electro-Metallurgical Corporation (SCA-TR-SEC2010-0010, rev. 0). 

SC&A, Inc. (2011). Review of NIOSH petition evaluation report for Petition SEC-00136 dated 

July 21, 2009, Electro-Metallurgical Corporation (SCA-TR-SEC2010-0010, rev. 1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-electromet-136-r1.pdf

SC&A, Inc. (2012). Partial review of the revised NIOSH petition evaluation report for the 

Electro-Metallurgical Corporation, Petition SEC-00136 (SCA-TR-SEC2012-0010, rev. 0). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-electromet-136-add.pdf 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1948). Dust hazards at Electro Metallurgical Company. 

SRDB Ref. ID 085789 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1948–1953). Readings, samples, results pertaining to health 

hazards at Electrometallurgical Co.; job descriptions of hourly paid classifications [SRDB 

record]. SRDB Ref. ID 008897

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1949a). Dosimetry results March 1948 - January 1949

[SRDB record]. SRDB Ref. ID 011547 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1949b). Electro Metallurgical Co. occupational exposure to 

radioactive dust August 17-19, 1949. SRDB Ref. ID 008930 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1951). The production of uranium feed materials. SRDB Ref. 

ID 004125 

U.S. Department of Energy. (1986). History UMETCO Minerals Company formerly Electro

Metallurgical “Electromet” Company. SRDB Ref. ID 016282