Page 1 of 63

SEC Petition Evaluation Report

Petition SEC-00200

Report Rev #: 0 Report Submittal Date: November 6, 2012

Subject Expert(s): Monica Harrison-Maples, Joe Guido, Eugene Potter, Billy P. Smith

Site Expert(s): N/A

Petition Administrative Summary

Petition Under Evaluation

Petition # Petition 

Type

Petition

Receipt Date

Qualification 

Date

DOE/AWE Facility Name

SEC-00200 83.13 March 15, 2012 May 10, 2012 Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition 

All employees who worked in any area of the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company in Fort Wayne, 

Indiana, from 1944 through 1952.

Class Evaluated by NIOSH

All employees who worked in any area of the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company in Fort Wayne, 

Indiana, from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1952.

NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC

All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any buildings/area owned by the Joslyn Manufacturing and 

Supply Co. (or a subsequent owner) in Fort Wayne, Indiana, from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, for a 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 

included in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name

N/A N/A

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Monica HarrisonMaplesORAU Peer Review Completed By: Daniel Stempfley

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on File] 11/6/2012

Sam Glover Date

[Signature on File] 11/8/2012 SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By:

J. W. Neton Date

[Signature on File] 11/9/2012 SEC Evaluation Approved By:

Stuart L. Hinnefeld Date
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

2 of 63

This page intentionally left blank
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

3 of 63

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00200, Joslyn Manufacturing

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as 

Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000.

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition

Petition SEC-00200 was received on March 15, 2012, and qualified on May 10, 2012. The petitioner 

requested that NIOSH consider the following class: All employees who worked in any area of the 

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, from 1944 through 1952.

Class Evaluated by NIOSH

Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH expanded the petitioner-requested class. NIOSH obtained 

documentation indicating a transfer of metal between the Metallurgical Laboratory and Joslyn in May 

1943; therefore, the start date for the NIOSH-proposed class was expanded to May 1, 1943, to include 

covered work that began earlier than previously determined to be Atomic Energy Commission

operations (see Section 3.0 below). NIOSH evaluated the following class: All employees who worked 

in any area of the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, from May 1,

1943 through December 31, 1952.

NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC

Based on its full research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any buildings/area owned by 

the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. (or a subsequent owner) in Fort Wayne, Indiana, from May 

1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, 

occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure 

Cohort. 

The NIOSH-proposed class does not comprise the entire evaluated class because NIOSH finds it is 

feasible to perform sufficiently accurate dose reconstruction from January 1, 1948 through the end of 

radiological operations on December 31, 1952, using the methods described in Section 7.2 and further

defined within Battelle-TBD-6000.

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction

NIOSH finds it is not feasible to estimate internal exposures with sufficient accuracy for all workers at 

the site from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947. The limited air sampling conducted at the 

time was based on mass samples collected by electrostatic precipitation. NIOSH does not have 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

4 of 63

adequate information regarding the accuracy and uncertainties of this methodology and is not fully 

aware of the limitations and biases associated with this sample collection method. Additionally, the 

site made attempts to establish ventilation controls, using tenting structures, to reduce airborne 

contamination during grinding operations. These efforts to reduce airborne contamination were 

ultimately unsuccessful and introduce uncertainty about how the monitoring data were collected. 

There have been no personnel monitoring data located that could be used to support the limited air 

monitoring results. NIOSH is not able to establish confidence in the ability to perform sufficiently 

accurate dose reconstruction based on the available data associated with the uranium operations at 

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. beginning in May 1943 through December 1947. 

The data which Battelle-TBD-6000 bases its methods and conclusions is applicable to rolling and 

machining operations and can be sufficiently equated to the uranium operations conducted at Joslyn. 

These data were collected starting in 1948. These data were used to establish dose estimation 

procedures found in Battelle-TBD-6000, which NIOSH believes are sufficient to bound the potential 

exposures associated with work at Joslyn from January 1948 through December 1952 with sufficient 

accuracy. With the exception of the class defined for May 1943 through December 1947, per 

EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH has established that it has access to sufficient 

information to: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which radiation 

doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in plausible circumstances by any member of 

the class; or (2) estimate radiation doses more precisely than an estimate of maximum dose. 

Information available from Battelle-TBD-6000 and additional resources are sufficient to document or 

estimate the maximum internal and external potential exposure to members of the evaluated class 

under plausible circumstances during the specified period from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 

1952. 

The NIOSH dose reconstruction feasibility findings are based on the following:

NIOSH finds that it is likely feasible to reconstruct occupational medical dose for Joslyn

Manufacturing and Supply Company workers with sufficient accuracy.

Principal sources of internal radiation for members of the proposed class included exposures to 

uranium and uranium oxides released into the work environment during the production and 

shaping of uranium metal rods. The modes of exposure were inhalation and ingestion during the 

processing of these metals.

In addition, there was potential for internal exposure to airborne thorium released on two days as a 

result of experimental centerless grinding of thorium rods in 1946 and early 1947.

Based on insufficient information regarding operations and air monitoring during the years of 

process development (1943-1947), NIOSH has concluded that sufficiently accurate internal dose 

reconstruction for the period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, is not feasible. 

However, NIOSH has identified sufficient information and air monitoring data that can be 

assessed using existing dose reconstruction methods defined in Battelle-TBD-6000 to support 

bounding internal dose for the period from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

5 of 63

Principal sources of external radiation for members of the proposed class included exposures to 

gamma and beta radiation associated with handling and working in proximity to natural uranium 

and thorium metals during machining operations. The modes of exposure were direct radiation, 

submersion in potentially-contaminated air, and exposure to contaminated surfaces. 

NIOSH has determined that reconstruction of external doses for Joslyn workers is feasible using 

the assumptions and approaches presented in Battelle-TBD-6000. 

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH determined that there is insufficient information to 

either: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which radiation 

doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred under plausible circumstances by any 

member of the class; or (2) estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely 

than a maximum dose estimate for the period at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. from May 

1, 1943 through December 31, 1947.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed 

at Joslyn Manufacturing during the period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, but 

who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate.

NIOSH concludes pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), that there is sufficient information to 

either: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which radiation 

doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred under plausible circumstances by any 

member of the class; or (2) estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely 

than a maximum dose estimate for the period at Joslyn from January 1, 1948 through December 

31, 1952.

Health Endangerment Determination

NIOSH did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other resources that would 

establish that the proposed class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved exceptionally high-level exposures. However, evidence indicates that some workers in the 

proposed class may have accumulated substantial chronic exposures through episodic intakes of 

radionuclides, combined with external exposures to beta and gamma radiation. Consequently, NIOSH 

has determined that health was endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation who worked 

from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, and who were employed for at least 250 aggregated 

work days either solely under their employment or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for other SEC classes.

For the period January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952, a health endangerment determination is 

not required because NIOSH has determined that it has sufficient information to estimate dose for the 

members of the evaluated class.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

6 of 63

This page intentionally left blank
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

7 of 63

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................................ 11

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 SEC-00200 Joslyn Manufacturing Class Definitions................................................................... 12

3.1 Petitioner-Requested Class Definition and Basis................................................................ 12

3.2 Class Evaluated by NIOSH ................................................................................................. 13

3.3 NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC................................................................ 13

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH to Evaluate the Class........................................................... 13

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) ................................................................ 14

4.2 ORAU Technical Information Bulletins (OTIBs)............................................................... 15

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts.......................................................................................... 15

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions........................................................................................... 15

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database .......................................................................................... 16

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ......................................... 17

5.1 Joslyn Manufacturing Plant and Process Descriptions........................................................ 17

5.2 Radiological Exposure Sources from Joslyn Operations .................................................... 21

5.2.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources from Joslyn Operations........................... 21

5.2.1.1 Natural Uranium....................................................................................... 22

5.2.1.2 Thorium .................................................................................................... 24

5.2.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources from Joslyn Operations.......................... 24

5.2.2.1 Photon....................................................................................................... 26

5.2.2.2 Beta........................................................................................................... 26

5.2.2.3 Neutron ..................................................................................................... 27

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ............................. 27

6.1 Available Joslyn Internal Monitoring Data ......................................................................... 27

6.2 Available Joslyn External Monitoring Data ........................................................................ 34

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ...................................... 36

7.1 Pedigree of Joslyn Data ....................................................................................................... 37

7.1.1 Internal Monitoring Data Pedigree Review............................................................. 37

7.1.2 External Monitoring Data Pedigree Review............................................................ 37

7.2 Evaluation of Bounding Internal Radiation Doses at Joslyn............................................... 38

7.2.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related Internal Doses........................................ 38

7.2.1.1 Uranium Airborne Levels......................................................................... 38

7.2.1.2 Thorium Airborne Levels......................................................................... 39

7.2.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Period Internal Doses........................................ 40

7.2.3 Methods for Bounding Operational Period Internal Dose at Joslyn........................ 40

7.2.4 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................. 44

7.3 Evaluation of Bounding External Radiation Doses at Joslyn.............................................. 45
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

8 of 63

7.3.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related External Doses....................................... 45

7.3.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Period External Doses....................................... 47

7.3.3 Joslyn Occupational X-Ray Examinations.............................................................. 47

7.3.4 Methods for Bounding Operational Period External Dose at Joslyn ...................... 48

7.3.5 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion............................................ 49

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00200....................................................................... 50

7.4.1 Unmonitored Radiation Exposures.......................................................................... 50

7.4.2 Unmonitored Thorium Exposure Activities............................................................ 50

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00200.................................................. 50

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00200...................................................... 51

9.0 Class Conclusion for Petition SEC-00200 ................................................................................... 52

10.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 53

Attachment 1: Data Capture Synopsis................................................................................................... 59

Tables

Table 4-1: No. of Joslyn Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule .............................. 15

Table 5-1: AEC-Related Uranium Activities and Quantities at Joslyn................................................. 19

Table 5-2: Principal Radiation Emissions from Natural Uranium and Its Short-Lived Decay

Products............................................................................................................................... 25

Table 5-3: Principal Radiation Emissions from Th-232 and its Short-Lived Decay Products ............. 25

Table 6-1: Available Uranium Air Sample Results for the Joslyn Operational Period......................... 32

Table 6-2: Results of a 1952 Time-Weighted Average Exposure Study .............................................. 33

Table 6-3: Available Uranium-Related External Monitoring Data ....................................................... 34

Table 6-4: Available Thorium-Related External Monitoring Data ....................................................... 36

Table 7-1: Comparison of 1952 Time-Weighted Average (TWA) Study with Battelle-TBD-6000 .... 41

Table 7-2: Comparison of 1951 Air Concentrations to Battelle-TBD-6000......................................... 41

Table 7-3: Daily Intake Rates for Joslyn from Battelle-TBD-6000 ...................................................... 44

Table 7-4: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00200 ............................................................... 51
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

9 of 63

Figures

Figure 5-1: Partial View of Joslyn Manufacturing Buildings ............................................................... 18

Figure 5-2: Diagram of Joslyn Buildings.............................................................................................. 23

Figure 6-1: Lognormal Fit of All 1952 Un-weighted Air Concentration Data (GM = 323 dpm/m3, 

GSD = 8.63)......................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 6-2: Lognormal Fit of the 1952 Un-weighted Breathing Zone Air Concentration Data (GM = 

437 dpm/m3, GSD = 8.51) .................................................................................................. 30

Figure 6-3: Lognormal Fit of the 1952 Un-weighted General Area Air Concentration Data (GM = 214 

dpm/m3, GSD = 8.06) ......................................................................................................... 31

Figure 7-1: Comparison of the Lognormal Fit of the Joslyn 1952 BZ Air Concentration Data to the 

Lognormal Air Concentration Data in Battelle-TBD-6000 for the Highest Two Rolling 

Jobs...................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 7-2: Comparison of the Lognormal Fit of the Joslyn 1952 BZ Air Concentration Data to the 

GM and 95th Percentile for the 1951-1955 Roughing Roll Operator Distribution in BattelleTBD-6000............................................................................................................................ 43
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

10 of 63

This page intentionally left blank
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

11 of 63

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00200

1.0 Purpose and Scope

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for all employees who worked in any area 

of the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana, from May 1, 1943 through 

December 31, 1952. It provides information and analyses germane to considering a petition for 

adding a class of employees to the congressionally-created SEC.

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH. This report also does not contain the final determination as to whether the proposed class 

will be added to the SEC (see Section 2.0).

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA, 42 C.F.R. pt. 83,

and the guidance contained in the Division of Compensation Analysis and Support’s (DCAS) Internal 

Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, DCAS-PR-004.1

2.0 Introduction

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) add a class of employees to the SEC. The 

evaluation is intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses of the class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.

2

 

42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1) states: Radiation doses can be estimated with sufficient accuracy if NIOSH 

has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the maximum radiation dose, 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in 

plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or if NIOSH has established that it has access to 

sufficient information to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of the maximum radiation dose.

Under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), if it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses 

for members of the class, then NIOSH must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such 

radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class. The regulation requires 

NIOSH to assume that any duration of unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of 

members of a class when it has been established that the class may have been exposed to radiation 

during a discrete incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring 

during nuclear criticality incidents. If the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has 

not been established, then NIOSH is required to specify that health was endangered for those workers 

 

1 DCAS was formerly known as the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS).

2 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

12 of 63

who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days within the parameters established for the 

class or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other SEC 

classes.

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioner(s) and the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board). The Board will consider the NIOSH 

evaluation report, together with the petition, petitioner(s) comments, and other information the Board 

considers appropriate, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not 

to add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this decision process, petitioners may 

seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.

3

3.0 SEC-00200 Joslyn Manufacturing Class Definitions

The following subsections address the evolution of the class definition for SEC-00200, Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Company (often referred to as Joslyn and Joslyn Manufacturing 

throughout this report). When a petition is submitted, the requested class definition is reviewed as 

submitted. Based on its review of the available site information and data, NIOSH will make a 

determination whether to qualify for full evaluation all, some, or no part of the petitioner-requested

class. If some portion of the petitioner-requested class is qualified, NIOSH will specify that class 

along with a justification for any modification of the petitioner’s class. After a full evaluation of the 

qualified class, NIOSH will determine whether to propose a class for addition to the SEC and will 

specify that proposed class definition.

3.1 Petitioner-Requested Class Definition and Basis

Petition SEC-00200 was received on March 15, 2012, and qualified on May 10, 2012. The petitioner 

requested that NIOSH consider the following class: All employees who worked in any area of the 

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, from 1944 through 1952.

The petitioner provided information and affidavit statements in support of the petitioner’s belief that 

accurate dose reconstruction over time is impossible for the Joslyn workers in question. NIOSH 

deemed the following information and affidavit statements sufficient to qualify SEC-00200 for 

evaluation:

Based on a review of the available records for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company 

claimants who were employed during the petitioner-requested class period, there is an 

indication that monitoring data are not available and that it was possible that monitoring 

 

3

See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

13 of 63

was not adequately performed for those workers who had the potential for radiological 

exposures. The petitioner’s representative, in the form of an affidavit, stated:

There were thorium rollings at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. and to the best of 

my knowledge there was no monitoring.

Based on its Joslyn Manufacturing research and data capture efforts, NIOSH determined that it has 

access to limited air monitoring data and source term information for Joslyn workers during the time 

period under evaluation. However, NIOSH also determined that air monitoring records are not 

complete for all time periods or for all radionuclides. NIOSH concluded that there is sufficient 

documentation to support, for at least part of the requested time period, the petition basis that internal 

radiation exposures and radiation doses were not adequately monitored at Joslyn Manufacturing and 

Supply Company, either through personal monitoring or area monitoring. The information and 

statements provided by the petitioner qualified the petition for further consideration by NIOSH, the 

Board, and HHS. The details of the petition basis are addressed in Section 7.4.

3.2 Class Evaluated by NIOSH

Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH expanded the petitioner-requested class to include covered 

work that began earlier than originally determined to be Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

operations because NIOSH located documentation stating that uranium billets were on site as early as 

May 1943, in conjunction with Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company performing Atomic 

Weapons work under contract for the Manhattan Engineer District (MED). In addition, on July 19, 

2012, DCAS received a memo from the Department of Labor clarifying a change in the start of the 

covered period for Joslyn from 1944 to May 1943 (DOL, 2012). Therefore, NIOSH defined the 

following class for further evaluation: All employees who worked in any area of the Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana, from May 1, 1943 through December 

31, 1952. 

3.3 NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC

Based on its research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of employees for 

which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSH-proposed class 

to be added to the SEC includes all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any buildings/area 

owned by the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. (or a subsequent owner) in Fort Wayne, Indiana, 

from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within 

the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort. 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH to Evaluate the Class

As is standard practice, NIOSH completed an extensive database and Internet search for information 

regarding Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company. The database search included the DOE 

Legacy Management Considered Sites database, the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

14 of 63

Information (OSTI) database, the Energy Citations database, and the Hanford Declassified Document 

Retrieval System. In addition to general Internet searches, the NIOSH Internet search included OSTI 

OpenNet Advanced searches, OSTI Information Bridge Fielded searches, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Agency-wide Documents Access and Management (ADAMS) web searches, the 

DOE Office of Human Radiation Experiments website, and the DOE-National Nuclear Security 

Administration-Nevada Site Office-search. Attachment 1 contains a summary of Joslyn

Manufacturing documents. The summary specifically identifies data capture details and general 

descriptions of the documents retrieved.

In addition to the database and Internet searches listed above, NIOSH identified and reviewed 

numerous data sources to determine information relevant to determining the feasibility of dose 

reconstruction for the class of employees under evaluation. This included determining the availability 

of information on personal monitoring, area monitoring, industrial processes, and radiation source

materials. The following subsections summarize the data sources identified and reviewed by NIOSH.

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs)

A Site Profile provides specific information concerning the documentation of historical practices at 

the specified site. Dose reconstructors can use the Site Profile to evaluate internal and external 

dosimetry data for monitored and unmonitored workers, and to supplement, or substitute for, 

individual monitoring data. A Site Profile consists of an Introduction and five Technical Basis 

Documents (TBDs) that provide process history information, information on personal and area 

monitoring, radiation source descriptions, and references to primary documents relevant to the 

radiological operations at the site. The Site Profile for a small site may consist of a single document. 

Although Joslyn Manufacturing had a significant part in the development of rolling techniques early 

in the MED’s work, it was a small part of the overall project. No Site Profile has been developed for 

Joslyn. However, Battelle-TBD-6000 includes information and assumptions used to provide generic 

historic background information and guidance to assist the preparation of dose reconstructions for this 

category of sites. Battelle-TBD-6000 provides an exposure matrix for workers at AWE facilities that 

performed metal-working operations with uranium metal, and includes general discussions of 

operations and exposure conditions at uranium metal-working facilities. Therefore, as part of 

NIOSH’s evaluation detailed herein, it examined the following TBDs for insights into Joslyn

Manufacturing operations or related topics/operations at other sites:

Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals; Battelle-TBD-6000,

Rev.01; June 17, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 101251

Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals and Thorium MetalsAppendix BB, General Steel Industries; Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix B, Rev.00; June 25, 2007; 

SRDB Ref ID: 47713
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

15 of 63

4.2 ORAU Technical Information Bulletins (OTIBs)

An ORAU Technical Information Bulletin (OTIB) is a general working document that provides 

guidance for preparing dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. NIOSH reviewed 

the following OTIBs as part of its evaluation:

OTIB: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, ORAUTOTIB-0006, Rev. 04; June 20, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 98147

OTIB: Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays 

Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 00; January 3, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 89563

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts

To obtain additional information, NIOSH interviewed three former Joslyn employees. The interviews 

were conducted as a Worker Outreach Meeting for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company on 

July 25, 2012. Representatives of DCAS, Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc. 

(ATL), Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), and Sanford Cohen and Associates (SC&A)

were in attendance.

Personal Communication, 2012, Personal Communication with Rolling Mill Operators and 

Centerless Grinder Operator; face-to face group interview; July 25, 2012; SRDB Ref ID: 118494

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions

NIOSH reviewed its NIOSH DCAS Claims Tracking System (referred to as NOCTS) to locate 

EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to the petition 

evaluation. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of this review. (NOCTS data available as of October 9, 

2012)

Table 4-1: No. of Joslyn Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule

Description Totals

Total number of claims submitted for dose reconstruction 48

Total number of claims submitted for energy employees who worked during the period under 

evaluation (May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1952) 43

Number of dose reconstructions completed for energy employees who worked during the period 

under evaluation (i.e., the number of such claims completed by NIOSH and submitted to the 

Department of Labor for final approval)

26

Number of claims for which internal dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 0

Number of claims for which external dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 0
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

16 of 63

NIOSH reviewed each claim to determine whether internal and/or external personal monitoring 

records could be obtained for the employee. None of the claims have received responses containing 

internal or external dosimetry records. Three claims have been linked to data located in NIOSH 

record holdings, but those data are not related to radiation dosimetry. 

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database

NIOSH also examined its Site Research Database (SRDB) to locate documents supporting the 

assessment of the evaluated class. As of October 24, 2012, there were 217 documents in this database 

identified as pertaining to Joslyn. These documents were evaluated for their relevance to this petition. 

The documents include historical background on uranium rolling; grinding and cutting operations 

conducted by Joslyn on behalf of the AEC and relevant to the British and Canadian work by Joslyn; 

records of specific rolling events, including how many uranium billets were shipped to Joslyn for 

rolling; and air monitoring survey results. 

NIOSH has documentation of four radiological surveys of the former Joslyn Manufacturing and 

Supply Company performed in 1949, 1976, 2004, and 2005 respectively. Copies of the reports from 

the 1949, 1976, and 2004 surveys are included within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACE) 

preliminary assessment of Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. (Army Corps, 2005).

The 1949 survey was performed by the AEC Health and Safety Laboratory (HASL) on August 1, 

1949. The results of this survey indicated that residual levels of contamination, ranging from 6,000 

disintegrations per minute (dpm) to 30,000 dpm, existed in several areas used for AEC metal 

fabrication operations.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed a survey on October 23, 1976, to assess the 

radiological status of the site. The report associated with the ORNL survey is dated March 1980. 

ORNL reviewed the 1949 HASL survey; although ORNL was unable to contact the author, they 

concluded that "...accountability procedures at the time of operation required that all uranium scrap, 

oxides, residues, and wastes be returned to AEC, it is highly unlikely that quantities of radioactivity 

sufficient to present a potential health hazard would exist under concrete surfaces and structures" 

(Army Corps, 2005, PDF pp. 22-28). ORNL did not detect “any significant radioactivity” in their 

survey. On these bases, ORNL concluded that "no present or potential radiation-related health hazard 

exists due to MED/AEC operations and no further DOE survey is required..." (Army Corps, 2005,

PDF pp. 22-28).

In February and March of 2004, Radiation Safety Services Incorporated (RSSI) performed a limited 

radiological survey for Valbruna Steel (Army Corps, 2005, PDF pp. 40-121). This survey was 

performed with the help of an employee with direct knowledge of University of Chicago contracted 

operations. This survey included the advancement of soil borings (Borings A - D) in the EastWest 

Bay (Building 8) and in the former burn pit area outside immediately to the north of Building 8 (P-l 

through P-6). Borehole count rates showed elevated readings at depths 3-10 ft below ground surface 

(bgs) in the burn pit area, and at depths 4-9 ft bgs in the Processing Building (Building 8). The 

highest isotopic uranium concentrations were in a sample from Borehole D (4-8 ft bgs interval) which 

had uranium-235 at 2.07 pCi/g and uranium-238 at 73.5 pCi/g. Uranium-235 was less than 1 pCi/g in 

the other eight samples for which data were reported, and less than 10 pCi/g for uranium-238.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

17 of 63

In January 2005, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) performed a focused 

radiological survey of the center portion of the North-South Bay (Building 9) and an assessment of 

potential personnel exposure to residual radioactive contamination at the request of the site owner at 

that time, Fort Wayne Steel (SAIC, 2005). The survey identified additional areas of fixed 

contamination on columns and beams, but "using extremely conservative assumptions for modeling" 

concluded that "exposure is 0.02 mrem/year to an equipment operator . . . fixed equipment can be 

operated . . . with negligible risk to personnel due to exposure due to radioactive material when 

compared to other hazards in any work environment" (SAIC, 2005).

A site visit was conducted on May 26, 2006, by Earth Tech personnel in conjunction with the ACE

project staff, along with representatives of the site owner and personnel from the Indiana Departments 

of Health and Environmental Management. Input and observations from the site visit were utilized in 

developing the Field Sampling Plan. The report presents data generated from soil sampling conducted 

at Joslyn Manufacturing in July 2006 (Earth Tech, 2006).

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH

The following subsections summarize both radiological operations at the Joslyn Manufacturing and 

Supply Company from May 1, 1943 to December 31, 1952, and the information available to NIOSH 

to characterize particular processes and radioactive source materials. From available sources NIOSH 

has gathered process and controls descriptions, information regarding the identity and quantities of the 

radionuclides of concern, and information describing uranium billet heat treating, hot rolling, 

quenching, straightening, grinding, cropping, and threading operations through which radiation 

exposures may have occurred and the physical environment in which they may have occurred. The 

information included within this evaluation report is intended only to be a summary of the available 

information. 

5.1 Joslyn Manufacturing Plant and Process Descriptions

ATTRIBUTION: Section 5.1 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities and Joe Guido, MJW Corp. These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the individuals 

listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this document are explained in the 

associated text. 

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, also known as Joslyn Stainless Steel Company, Fort 

Wayne Steel Corporation, and Slater Steel, entered into a service contract (Contracts, 1943-1946; 

Contract Supplement, 1948) with the University of Chicago on August 15, 1943, to perform 

tempering, hot rolling, quenching, straightening, cooling, grinding, waste burning, and abrasive 

cutting of natural uranium billets into metal rods for use in Hanford site nuclear reactors. 

Joslyn Manufacturing was located at 2400 W. Taylor Street in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on a 23-acre site. 

Fort Wayne is located in northeastern Indiana (Army Corps, 2005, PDF p. 6). The plant is about 1.3 

miles west-southwest of downtown Fort Wayne. At the time of site operations the site included 

Buildings 1 through 11 (see Figure 5-1). Buildings 6, 7, 8, and 9 were Operational Buildings where 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

18 of 63

uranium was treated and machined. Because there were no documented controls to limit worker 

movement from any part of the site, in or out of these buildings, Buildings 1 through 11 are all 

pertinent to this evaluation. For the period under evaluation, the Joslyn Manufacturing workforce 

consisted of 100 to 200 workers with anywhere from 25 to 75 working on fabricating uranium rods for 

the AEC.

Source: Maroncelli, 2007, PDF p. 236 

Figure 5-1: Partial View of Joslyn Manufacturing Buildings

Considerable early work at Joslyn Manufacturing was for the purpose of determining the best 

procedures for rolling and machining natural uranium rods, which made it necessary that the 

procedures changed over time; however, the basic process remained fairly consistent. Natural 

uranium billets were received by rail at Joslyn Manufacturing, unloaded by an overhead crane onto carts, 

and stored in a storage area. The billets were taken, as needed, from the storage area to the tempering area, 

pre-heated in one of eight small natural-gas-atmosphere electric furnaces to a specified temperature, and 

moved to the rolling mills (an 18-inch roughing stand, 12-inch intermediate mill, and a 9-inch finishing 

mill were used) where passes occurred (Army Corps, 2005, PDF pp. 6-7). Time was allowed for the rolls

to cool between passes in order to prevent the metal from exceeding a specified temperature.

The grinding process was carried out in two widely separated parts of a large shed. The first operation 

consisted of grinding uranium rods. This process was carried out in a small shed constructed inside a 

larger shed. The fumes and dust from this smaller shed were vented into the atmosphere of the larger 

shed. The second operation was a rough cut on the uranium rods inside of the smaller shed. The rods 

were cropped and moved to the threading area, where they were milled and machined to contract 

specifications (Army Corps, 2005, PDF p. 7).

As mentioned, activities at Joslyn Manufacturing initially consisted of experimental work in the 

development of uranium rolling and centerless grinding. Table 5-1 provides activities and 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

19 of 63

approximate quantities. The total quantity processed, based on these activities, is approximately 1, 

127,000 lb. 

Table 5-1: AEC-Related Uranium Activities and Quantities at Joslyn

Time Frame Activity Quantity

6/1943 Experimental Rolling/Straightening 255 lb

7/1943 – 1/1944 Centerless Grinding 35,000 lb

3/1944 – 7/1944 Rolling 130,747 lb

01/25/1945 Special request 24,000 lb

02/03/1945 For Hanford 793 billets (assumed to weigh 260 lb each) 206,000 lb

03/01/1945 – 05/15/1945 Special Request, 220 threaded rods (assumed to weigh 120 lb each) 26,400 lb

11/01/1946 Hanford 22,000 lb

1946 Accounting related to rods supplied to Britain 60,000 lb

2/1948 – 7/1948 Rolling 600,000 lb

01/01/1950 Inventory record 15,400 lb

07/31/1950 Hanford request 5,500 lb

10/01/1951 15 rods (assumed to weigh 120 lb each) 1,800 lb

Total: 1,127,102 lb

Experimental Work-Rolling/Straightening (1943)

In a 1943 memo, Joslyn is listed as one of 11 commercial companies conducting experimental work 

involving natural uranium. Joslyn is described as performing hot rolling and cold straightening of 

‘tuballoy’ (Dean, 1943). The date of the earliest rolling at Joslyn within the current covered period 

was June 29, 1943 (Echo, 1943a; DuPont, 1945, PDF p. 65). Inventory records for this period list a 

total of 255.7 lb of uranium consisting of one 85.6 lb ingot and 2 ingots weighing a total of 170.1 lb 

(Cohen, 1943; Receipt, May1943; Chipman, 1943).

Experimental Work-Centerless Grinding (1943/1944)

An August 11, 1943 memo requested the transfer of 20 rods from the “West Stands” to Joslyn to be 

used in the “machining and grinding program to be set up there” (Crouts, 1943). It is stated that this 

work will require “very little” metal. Documentation from the period shows Joslyn as having a 

contract from August 1943 through June 1946 for $35,000 with the nature of work listed as 

“centerless grinding” (Status Report, 1943-1946, PDF p. 18). The initial experiment involved 14 

extruded rods (diameters from 1.345–1.401 inches and length from 63.25–92 inches) and took place 

on September 7, 1943 (Echo, 1943b). A larger-scale operation was conducted between November and 

December 1943 during which a total of 34,608 lb of rods were ground (Simmons, 1944, PDF p. 59;

Simmons, 1943; Greninger, 1943; Echo, 1943a). 

Production Scale Rolling (1944)

A March 25, 1944 memo recommends that “a sizeable lot, for example 30 to 40 tons of metal” be hot 

rolled, preferably at the Joslyn plant. It was believed at that time that rods produced by this method 

would not have the defects that were present in material that was extruded. Rolling was conducted 

during three periods: 60,122 lb between May 9, 1944 and May 11, 1944; 5,900 lb on June 2, 1944; 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

20 of 63

and 64,725 lb between June 22, 1944 and June 24, 1944) (DuPont, 1945, PDF p. 66; Shipping, 

May1944a; Shipping, May1944b; Shipping, Apr1944; Monthly Report, May1944; Monthly Report, 

June 1944; Shipping, Jun1944). A fourth rolling was planned for July 1944, but was cancelled 

(DuPont, 1945, PDF p. 67).

Production Scale Rolling (1948)

A February 26, 1948 memo indicated that the AEC was looking for rolling mills to handle 100 to 115 

tons of uranium billets per month. Visits were made to a number of uranium mills, including Joslyn. 

Rolling periods which appear to be associated with these requests occurred during the following 

periods: 10 tons between August 5, 1947 and August 6, 1947; 30 tons between February 28, 1948 and 

March 4, 1948; 30 tons between March 5, 1948 and March 10, 1948; 30 tons between March 19, 1948 

and March 22, 1948; 30 tons between March 27, 1948 and March 29, 1948; 90 tons during May 1948; 

and 80 tons on or about June 29, 1948 (Joslyn, 1948. PDF p. 54; Freitage, 1948; Monthly Report, Apr

1948). It is not clear if the entire 90 tons were actually rolled at Joslyn because the document which 

listed this material was published on May 5, 1948, and indicated that arrangements were being made 

with Simonds Saw and Steel Company to roll during that same month (Monthly Report, Apr1948).

Great Britain and Chalk River

Documents indicate that Joslyn rolled uranium for Great Britain in 1946 (Beeler, 1947, PDF p. 2) and 

Canada (Chalk River) in 1949 (Beeler, 1947; Koenig, 1946; Monthly Report, Feb1949). The January 

14, 1947 memo regarding costs of oxide and uranium metal sold to Great Britain is an accounting 

correction and states a charge had been submitted directly to the British Supply Office by Joslyn for 

preparing “the above rods.” A February 1949, monthly status and progress report states that Joslyn 

was preparing to submit a formal proposal for the rolling of uranium rods and machining slugs for the 

Chalk River pile (Monthly Report, Feb1949). This follows the January 1949 monthly status and 

progress report, which reported a request directed to the Washington Office by the National Research 

Council of Canada (Monthly Report, Jan1949, PDF p. 9). NYOO, in response to the request, agreed 

to make arrangements with Joslyn to fabricate slugs for the Chalk River pile. The work was to 

include rolling of uranium rods and subsequent machining. The January report indicated initial 

contacts had been made, but definitive arrangements were awaiting the receipt of revised 

specifications from Canada.

The quantity of uranium associated with the British request was 30 tons. An August 18, 1950 memo 

(Belmore, 1950a, PDF p. 14) indicated that three uranium jobs were performed at Joslyn in the month 

of August and that minimal changes in protocols for the control of airborne radioactivity were made. 

Thorium Processing

NIOSH has located records of two distinct thorium processing operations at Joslyn: (1) a June 21, 

1946 MED monthly report that describes the straightening and centerless grinding of six thorium rods 

at Joslyn, and (2) a January 21, 1947 report that describes the centerless grinding of five extruded 

thorium rods. All of these rods were extruded elsewhere, and sent to Joslyn specifically for centerless 

grinding. The MED monthly report describes six extruded myrnalloy rods, 1.530 inches in diameter 

that were straightened and centerless ground cold on a Medart straightening machine. Following 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

21 of 63

straightening, the rods were cleaned up by centerless grinding. This resulted in rods with diameters 

ranging from 1.375 inches–1.425 inches (Monthly Report, Jun1946, PDF p. 3). The rods described in 

the January 1947 report were extruded at Revere Copper and Brass on October 8, 1946. A total of 

five rods (1-7/8 inch diameter, 127 cm long) were sent to Joslyn (Macherey, 1947). Based on a 

density of 11.7 g/cm3, these rods would constitute ~26.5 kg of thorium metal per rod.

An August 11, 1947 memo discusses possible thorium rolling at Joslyn; however the memo goes on to 

state that Joslyn would not be viable for the thorium rolling work due to the need to keep thorium and

contaminating material (presumably uranium) rolling separated. It is suggested that this work be 

carried out at the Westinghouse facility (Chapman, 1947a). An August 21, 1947 memo suggesting 

that personnel be apprised of the hazards in the rolling of thorium confirms that this work was 

performed at Westinghouse (Chapman, 1947b).

5.2 Radiological Exposure Sources from Joslyn Operations

ATTRIBUTION: Section 5.2 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities; Eugene Potter and Billy Smith, M. H. Chew and Associates, Inc. These conclusions 

were peer-reviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in 

this document are explained in the associated text. 

The following subsections provide an overview of the internal and external exposure sources for the 

Joslyn class under evaluation. Joslyn handled only natural uranium metal and a limited amount of 

thorium metal for rolling or machining processes.

The primary operations performed at the Joslyn site involved heating, hot rolling, quenching, 

straightening, cooling, grinding, abrasive cutting, and threading of uranium rods and burning of 

unrecovered wastes (Army Corps, 2005, PDF p. 6).

One of the first large-scale requirements for uranium metallic products was fuel for the Hanford 

plutonium production reactors in 1943. In that year more than a dozen industrial facilities were 

contracted to roll and extrude uranium rods and then produce fuel slugs. Hanford was developing

uranium metal-working capabilities, based on lessons from Joslyn and other sites, and was beginning 

to operate fabrication facilities that provided much of the fuel needed for the Hanford production 

reactors from 1944 through 1971. The AWE sites like Joslyn developed and tested new metalworking techniques and during some years were major providers of uranium metal to AEC facilities,

while during other years they did small production runs to supplement the work performed at 

Hanford, Fernald, or Weldon Spring. The AWE facilities like Joslyn also performed specialty 

functions not handled by the large AEC facilities, which accounts for the variability in the scale of 

uranium operations at Joslyn and thus the radiological source term. 

5.2.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources from Joslyn Operations

The principal source of internal radiation doses for workers at Joslyn includes inhalation and ingestion 

of various uranium oxides that resulted from the production and shaping of uranium metal rods. 

Intake of these contaminants could have resulted from either routine or non-routine events. Routine 

operations that could have directly caused airborne radioactivity or release contamination to work 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

22 of 63

surfaces where it could have been resuspended included heating, quenching, rolling, cutting, and 

grinding. 

The potential for some airborne thorium exposure existed at Joslyn as well. Centerless grinding 

activities were performed on a small scale at Joslyn on two separate occasions. These thorium 

grinding operations were performed using a liquid coolant (Unknown, 1949) and therefore had a 

reduced potential for airborne dispersion of the thorium material during grinding operations than 

would have been the case if performed dry. The operations were performed as an experiment on a 

known quantity of thorium rods that had been extruded elsewhere.

One memo, referring to rolling samples of 3-inch diameter thorium billets, indicated that this work 

was to be performed during the week of July 21, 1947; however, no supporting documentation 

indicating this work was actually performed has been located. This was shortly before the August 11, 

1947 memo (Chapman, 1947c) discussing serious concerns with using Joslyn for thorium rolling and 

fears of contamination of the thorium due to previous rolling work. The August 11, 1947 memo

seems to indicate a possibility that the work scheduled for the week of July 21, 1947, was not carried 

out.

There is evidence that an outdoor area was used to burn waste. According to former worker reports, 

uranium wastes/residues from machining uranium rods were collected and dumped on the ground 

each day and were gone when the workers returned the next day. The work experience at Joslyn of 

these former workers began in 1948 and continued beyond the end of covered operations at the site. 

These workers could not give any testimony regarding operations prior to 1948. These workers 

related that they learned much later from a co-worker that the co-worker was in fact responsible for 

burning these scraps and wastes at the end of the day (Personal Communication, 2012).

Currently available documentation indicates that the primary periods of AEC production activities 

occurred in 1943–1945 and again in 1948–1949. Outside of these timeframes, activities were of a 

somewhat smaller scale. Engineering controls, such as ventilation for certain operations, were 

mentioned in Joslyn documentation, but did not seem to be effective (Belmore, 1950b; Klevin, 1952).

5.2.1.1 Natural Uranium

The principal sources of internal exposure to the natural uranium processed at Joslyn were from the 

inhalation of dust, oxide scale, or fumes generated during various machining operations including 

straightening, rolling, cutting and centerless grinding. These activities occurred in Buildings 6, 7, 8, 

and 9. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

23 of 63

Figure 5-2: Diagram of Joslyn Buildings

Rolling operations were capable of releasing large quantities of uranium dust into the atmosphere. 

Uranium readily oxidizes when exposed to air at temperatures above 600° F. The oxide scale formed 

on the surface spontaneously flakes off at elevated temperatures and is easily disturbed upon handling. 

The oxide formation and flaking produces high air concentrations and dust collection on the 

workplace floor and other surfaces. Any worker movement on a dusty floor will re-suspend dust into 

the air, thus creating elevated air concentrations after the rolling has stopped (Battelle-TBD-6000). 

After rolling, machining processes were used to reduce the rods to the required diameter and to finish 

the surface. These machining processes included lathe operations, centerless grinding, cutting, and 

threading. Because the metal is typically near room temperature for machining, surface oxides are not 

formed or loosened during machining to the extent that they are during rolling. The biggest generator 

of uranium dust associated with machining was probably the ignition of small chips and turnings that 

were generated during machine operations (Battelle-TBD-6000, PDF p. 16). At Joslyn, due to the 

pyrophoric nature of the uranium, a heavy flow of coolant was used over the cutting/grinding surfaces 

to minimize sparking. These measures would have also reduced the airborne concentrations to some 

degree. While the rolling operations were generally open in the mill buildings, the grinding and 

cutting operations were to be ventilated through the use of a small shed enclosure within the larger 

building. The grinder had an overhead hood connected to a fan and discharge was into the inside of 

the larger shed. During MED/AEC surveys the air concentrations around the centerless grinder were 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

24 of 63

still found to be unacceptable and apparently this ventilation was not sufficient to meet the standards 

in effect at the time.

As billets and rods were moved between the operational areas any dragging or dropping of the hot 

metal could have resulted in airborne radioactivity and the potential for intakes.

Operations and the clean-up of accumulated dust and fragments resulted in an accumulation of waste 

uranium metal that had to be accounted for. For accountability purposes, efforts were made to collect 

the residual cuttings and dust using steel pans to collect shavings and trimmings and by brushing the 

steel floor plates before, during, and after cutting work. The practice at Joslyn was to burn the waste 

material so that it would be in the less combustible oxide form for shipment back to the AEC. NIOSH 

is aware that former workers report that burning operations were performed outdoors by one 

individual (Personal Communication, 2012). These former workers reporting on burn operations had 

work history at the site beginning in 1948 through covered operations. The 1950 Kehoe report 

(SRDB 90891) describes dry burning as the most expeditious and least expensive method for disposal 

of uranium scraps by conversion to oxide and states for a quantity not exceeding 5 pounds, the scrap 

may be spread out on a steel plate in an open area and burned to oxide by the flame of an oxyacetylene torch. Burning uranium metal fines and shavings outdoors creates environmental problems, 

but would have tended to reduce the airborne concentrations versus burning in a confined area, such 

as a building.

Since Joslyn only performed work for MED/AEC through 1952, there was no potential for recycled 

uranium processing (Battelle-TBD-6000, PDF p. 14).

5.2.1.2 Thorium

Joslyn was considered for thorium rolling in 1947, but the decision was made that it could not be used 

because of possible cross-contamination with other material (most probably uranium) previously 

rolled there (Chapman, 1947c). However, two small batches of thorium rods, extruded elsewhere,

were straightened and centerless ground at Joslyn. Six thorium rods were straightened and centerless 

ground at Joslyn around June 1946 (Monthly Report, Jun1946). In a second operation, five thorium 

rods were passed through a roll straightener twice, centerless ground and straightened a third time. 

The rods were then run through the centerless grinder an unspecified number of times. As a result, the 

diameter of the rods was reduced from 1.660 inch to 1.575 inch (a reduction of 0.085 inches). This 

work occurred sometime between October 8, 1946 and January 21, 1947 (Macherey, 1947). Given 

that 14 uranium rods could be ground in 8 hours (Simmons, 1943; Echo, 1943b) it is likely that each 

of the thorium grinding operations took less than one day. Although centerless grinding could have 

created respirable particles, it was performed wet for cooling purposes (DOE, 1987) and the liquid 

coolant would act to limit the dustiness of the operation.

5.2.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources from Joslyn Operations

The principal sources of external exposure during the operational period (other than medical X-rays) 

were the direct exposure to natural uranium and thorium metal during the machining operations, 

submersion in air potentially-contaminated with uranium and thorium metal, and exposure to 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

25 of 63

contaminated surfaces. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 list the radionuclides of concern for external radiation 

from uranium and thorium during the operational period.

Table 5-2: Principal Radiation Emissions from Natural Uranium and Its ShortLived Decay Products

Radionuclide Half-life Beta Energy 

(MeV Max)

Photon (x or γ) 

Energy (MeV)

U-238 4.468 x 109years None x: 0.013 (8.8%)

Th-234 24.1 days

0.096 (25%) x: 0.013 (9.6%)

0.189 (73%) γ: 0.063 (3.8%)

γ: 0.093 (5.4%)

Pa-234m 1.17 minutes 2.28 (98.6%) γ: 0.765 (0.2%)

~1.4 (1.4%) γ: 01.001 (0.6%)

U-235 7.038 x 109years None

x: 0.013 (31%)

x: 0.090-0.105 (9.3%)

γ: 0.144 (10.5%)

γ: 0.163 (4.7%)

γ: 0.186 (54%)

γ: 0.205 (4.7%)

Th-231 25.5 hours

0.206 (15%) x: 0.013 (71%)

0.288 (49%) γ: 0.026 (14.7%)

0.305 (35%) γ: 0.084 (6.4%)

U-234 244,500 years None x: 0.013 (10.5%)

γ: 0.053 (0.2%)

Source: Battelle-TBD-6000, PDF p. 20. The table shows the principal radiation emissions from natural 

uranium and its short-lived decay products that were of concern for external radiation (not including 

bremsstrahlung).

Table 5-3: Principal Radiation Emissions from Th-232 and its Short-Lived Decay 

Products

(This table spans two pages)

Radionuclide Half-life Beta Energy 

(MeV Max)

Photon (x or γ) 

Energy (MeV)

Th-232 1.405 x 1010 years

None 0.059 (0.19%)

0.126 (0.04%)

Ra-228 5.71 years 0.389 (100%) 0.0067 (6 x 10-5%)

Ac-228 6.25 hours

0.983 (7%) 0.338 (11.4%)

1.014 (6.6%) 0.911 (27.7%)

1.115 (3.4%) 0.969 (16.6%)

1.17 (32%) 1.588 (3.5%)

1.74 (12%) ---

2.08 (8%) ---

(+33 more βs) ---

Th-228 1.9116 years None 0.084 (1.19%)
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

26 of 63

Table 5-3: Principal Radiation Emissions from Th-232 and its Short-Lived Decay 

Products

(This table spans two pages)

Radionuclide Half-life Beta Energy 

(MeV Max)

Photon (x or γ) 

Energy (MeV)

0.132 (0.11%)

0.166 0.08%)

0.216 (0.27%)

Bi-212 60.55 minutes

1.59 (8%) 0.040 (1%)

2.246 (48.4%) 0.727 (11.8%)

--- 1.620 (2.75%)

Tl-208 3.1 minutes

1.28 (25%) 0.277 (6%)

1.52 (21%) 0.5108 (21.6%)

1.80(50%) 0.583 (85.8%)

--- 0.860 (12%)

--- 2.614 (100%)

Notes:

Source: Handbook of Health Physics and Radiological Health (Rad Handbook, 1998). 

Intensities refer to the percentage of disintegrations of the nuclide itself, not to original parent

of the series. Gamma percents are given in terms of observable emissions, not transitions.

5.2.2.1 Photon

The majority of the photons from natural uranium metals are in the 30-250 keV energy range. Solid 

uranium objects provide considerable shielding of the lower-energy photons and harden the spectrum, 

causing the majority of the photons emitted from a solid uranium object (such as a billet or rod) to 

have energies greater than 250 keV. While it is recognized that solid uranium sources will have a 

hardened photon spectrum, exposure to a thin layer of uranium on a surface will result in a larger 

fraction of exposure to lower-energy photons (Battelle-TBD-6000).

Table 5-2 shows the primary isotopes and photon energies associated with the uranium metal. 

Exposure to these photons was possible during machining operations from direct radiation during 

metal handling and from submersion in metal-contaminated air.

Thorium has a significant number of higher-energy photons in the thorium-232 decay chain. Based 

on the half-lives of the progeny, only a partial equilibrium is possible; therefore, it is conservative to 

state that equilibrium would be reached in this decay chain. It has been assumed that radium-228 and 

thorium-228 progeny were in equilibrium with thorium-232. Therefore, air concentrations were 

assumed equal for all progeny. Under this assumption, the progeny are the major source of both 

penetrating and non-penetrating external exposure. Table 5-2 shows the primary isotopes and photon 

energies associated with thorium and its progeny.

5.2.2.2 Beta

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show the principal beta emitters and their energies for the uranium and thorium 

metal used during machining operations. As indicated in these tables, there are a significant number 

of high-energy beta radiations that represent a shallow dose exposure concern to site workers. 

Workers who handled the uranium and thorium metal would have received shallow dose exposures. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

27 of 63

The primary exposure areas would have been the hands and forearms, the neck and face, and other 

areas of the body that might not have been covered. 

5.2.2.3 Neutron

Neutrons were not measured at Joslyn and are not expected to be a source of exposure for the class 

under evaluation. Neutrons could arise from the alpha-neutron reaction (α-n) with light elements, 

interactions with the oxides, and through spontaneous fission. According to Battelle-TBD-6000,

uranium oxides would be the most common generators of (α,n) reactions. However, the quenching 

and centerless grinding of the rods would minimize this source of neutrons. Spontaneous fission 

yields and (α,n) yields in oxides are provided in Table 3.5 of Battelle-TBD-6000. Based on its 

analysis, NIOSH concludes that none of these sources would be sufficient to result in a significant 

neutron exposure to Joslyn workers; consequently, neutrons will not be discussed further in this 

evaluation.

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated 

by NIOSH

The following subsections provide an overview of the state of the available internal and external 

monitoring data for the Joslyn class under evaluation.

6.1 Available Joslyn Internal Monitoring Data

ATTRIBUTION: Section 6.1 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities; Eugene Potter, M. H. Chew and Associates, Inc.; and Joe Guido, MJW Corporation. 

These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for 

all conclusions in this document are explained in the associated text. 

Medical Records

Under the early uranium program, the DuPont Company had the responsibility for directing the 

medical examinations (Daniels, 1944; Norwood, 1944). These examinations were to consist of 

complete physical examinations, including blood counts, urinalysis, and chest X-rays. These records 

have not been located or recovered. 

Bioassay Data

No bioassay data for Joslyn workers have been located by NIOSH. References in the site 

documentation to pre- and post-job urine samples in the early 1940’s, were probably to nonradiological medical tests as part of medical monitoring (Fuqua, 1944; Taussig, 1948). Fluorometric

measurement techniques for uranium were not widely in use until the late 1940s (Stannard, 1988, PDF

p. 132) and NIOSH has found no indications of it ever being used at Joslyn. 

Blood counts were normally a part of the required physical examinations before starting work; 

however, the experimental work at Joslyn appears to have begun before performing these tests (Fuqua, 

1944). Blood counts were used in the early years to monitor potential radiation damage to the 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

28 of 63

hematopoietic system. However, it should be noted that blood count information is not normally used 

as bioassay data for the purpose of radiological dose reconstruction.

Whole-Body Counting Data

Whole-body counting, a technique employed to monitor photon-emitting radionuclides in the body, 

was not generally used until the early to mid-1960s; by that time, radioactive work had concluded at 

Joslyn. Thus, NIOSH does not have whole-body count data for Joslyn workers.

Air Sample Data

A limited number of uranium air sample results were discovered for the Joslyn operational period. 

They are listed in Table 6-1 along with their source documents. All results are from MED/AEC 

consultants who visited the site to review health and safety practices. Initially, medical doctors from 

the Metallurgical Laboratory were assigned to conduct dust studies and to recommend ventilation 

improvements and the use of protective devices, such as respirators (see references in the Table). 

There is no indication that an in-house air sampling program existed. Radioactive material rolling 

operations, grinding, etc. were performed in the same areas as normal plant operations but under 

MED/AEC supervision. The samples taken in 1952 were part of a study of time-weighted average 

(TWA) exposures. In this study, the air concentrations for various jobs and locations were weighted 

by the amounts of time spent performing the work. The results appear in Table 6-2. There were no 

air sample results specifically associated with the limited thorium work.

The un-weighted air concentration data for the 1952 study are also available. The data points are 

displayed in Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 with the lines representing the lognormal fits of the data. Figure 

6-1 shows all of the data, while Figures 6-2 and 6-3 show the breathing zone (BZ) data and general 

area (GA) data, respectively. From Figures 6-2 and 6-3 it is evident that the BZ data are significantly 

higher than the GA data.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

29 of 63

Figure 6-1: Lognormal Fit of All 1952 Un-weighted Air Concentration Data (GM = 323 dpm/m3, GSD = 8.63)
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

30 of 63

Figure 6-2: Lognormal Fit of the 1952 Un-weighted Breathing Zone Air Concentration Data (GM = 437 dpm/m3, 

GSD = 8.51)
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

31 of 63

Figure 6-3: Lognormal Fit of the 1952 Un-weighted General Area Air Concentration Data (GM = 214 dpm/m3, 

GSD = 8.06)

Operational Survey Data

Smear surveys may or may not have been routinely performed during the operational period by the 

MED/AEC or their consultants; however, NIOSH has only located a 1949 survey for the operational 

period (Piccot, 1949). This survey was conducted on August 1, 1949, after uranium rolling and 

machining operations for the AEC had ceased at Joslyn, but prior to the area being completely 

decontaminated. AEC rolling and machining appears to have concluded at Joslyn by July 1948.

According to the report, all work on uranium had ceased except for the removal of drums containing 

scraps and clean-up material that were to be shipped out the following day. Alpha contamination 

results were reported in disintegrations per minute (dpm) without the area of the reading (i.e.,

dpm/100 cm2). The 1952 survey (Klevin, 1952) gives a value of 50,000 alpha dpm/100 cm2in the 

mill area after initial clean-up. The report states that the clean-up of the working area was excellent in 

spite of the high dust concentrations and lack of dust control.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

32 of 63

Table 6-1: Available Uranium Air Sample Results for the Joslyn Operational Period

(This table spans two pages)

Date Description of Activity Location Value (pCi/m3) SRDB 

Reference

12/7/1943 Uranium - Centerless 

Grinding

GA – in path of fumes Range = 215 – 6,156

Avg = 3,185 11036

GA - outside of grinding shed 616 11036

GA - outside of grinding shed, 

after grinding stopped

68 11036

5/8/1944 Uranium - Rolling

GA – furnace area 802 5890

GA – at rolling machine 1,499 5890

GA – general room air 1,197 5890

10/24/1951 Uranium - Centerless 

Grinding/Cutting

GA – general area Range = 14 – 23

Avg = 20 11036

BZ – operator Range = 14-811

Avg = 487 11036

1/8/1952

Uranium Rolling

GA – production areas

Range = 7.8 – 3,871

Avg = 789

GM = 238

GSD = 6.5

95th %ile = 5,111

9664

BZ – production areas

Range = 14 – 39,230

Avg = 4,555

GM = 776

GSD = 7.8

95th %ile = 23,000

9664

Centerless Grinding

GA – production areas

Range = 11.8 – 133

Avg = 64.5

GM = 50.6

GSD = 2.3

95th %ile = 200

9664

BZ – production areas

Range = 4.3 – 614 

Avg = 93.6

GM = 42.4

GSD = 3.27

95th %ile = 297

9664

Cutting

GA – production areas

Range = 9.7 – 546 

Avg = 183

GM = 66.1

GSD = 5.6

95th %ile = 1117

9664

BZ – production areas

Range = 55.7 – 574 

Avg = 237

GM = 195

GSD = 1.99

95th %ile = 606

9664

Lathe Operations GA – production areas

Range = 0.8 – 6.9 

Avg = 3.6

GM = 2.6

GSD = 2.6

95th %ile = 12.9

9664
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

33 of 63

Table 6-1: Available Uranium Air Sample Results for the Joslyn Operational Period

(This table spans two pages)

Date Description of Activity Location Value (pCi/m3) SRDB 

Reference

BZ – production areas

Range = 3.7 – 164 

Avg = 43.9

GM = 18.5

GSD = 4.2

95th %ile = 196

9664

Table 6-2: Results of a 1952 Time-Weighted 

Average Exposure Study

Work Area/Job 

Description

Time Weighted 

Average Exposure

(pCi/m3)

18" Rough Roll East 3,322

18" Rough Roll West 375

Roller Forman 725

Asst Roller (Ass't 

Foreman)

725

Furnace Heaters 16

Recorder 16

12" Rough Roll East 605

12" Rough Roll West 570

Drag Down (Billet) 310

9" Finishing Roll East 16,542

9" Finishing Roll West 5,791

Quench Tank 155

Draggers 831

Rod Stamper 242

Rod Bundler 128

Lathe Operation 12

Centerless Grinder 100

Grinder (portable) 277

Cutomatic 191
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

34 of 63

6.2 Available Joslyn External Monitoring Data

ATTRIBUTION: Section 6.2 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities and Billy Smith, M. H. Chew and Associates, Inc. These conclusions were peer-reviewed 

by the individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this document are 

explained in the associated text. 

NIOSH has found no external personnel monitoring results for the Joslyn operations. The only survey 

to include area monitoring data located by NIOSH was the survey performed by HASL on August 1, 

1949, which indicated levels of contamination ranging from 6,000 dpm to 30,000 dpm in several areas 

of the facility. 

NIOSH does have documentation regarding the metal-rolling operations contracted to Joslyn by the 

government for AEC operations and for other activities. This documentation is summarized in Table 

6-3 for uranium and Table 6-4 for thorium.

Table 6-3: Available Uranium-Related External Monitoring Data

(This table spans two pages)

SRDB Ref ID PDF Page: Notes Document 

Date Quantity of Uranium

82395 Inventory record from Metallurgy Laboratory to Joslyn May 1943 202 lb and

4 metal rods

82369 Inventory record. Listed as ingots (1) 85.6 lb and ingots

(2) 170.1 lb Jun 1943 255 lb

31576 7: Mass balance summary "completed operations" 6/25/1943 32 tons

11036 244: Accounting of test rolling and straightening 6/29/1943 3 billets

11036 41: Summary of hot rolling. Billets from MIT and 

Union Carbide 7/3/1943 Three 90 lb billets and three 200 lb billets

101163 Request to send 20 rods from West Stands 8/11/1943 20 rods

11036 84: Description of experimental centerless grinding on 

14 extruded rods 9/7/1943 14 rods

11036 223: Memo states that proposed grinding of 450 rods at 

Joslyn will begin in near future. 11/18/1943 450 rods

11036 136: Summary of work in December 1943 12/21/1943 27 rods

11036 69: Mention made of work to begin in January 12/31/1943 158 rods

11036 69: Memo accounting for material processed from 

11/26/43 to 12/15/1943 12/31/1943 2,8000 lb

11036 53: Operations began 11/29/43 and suspended on 

12/15/43. Resumed 1/5/44 and completed 1/14/44. 1/26/1944 5000 lb

82409 Internal transfer record 2/16/1944 105 lb

11036 130: From 2/25 to 2/26/44. Rods are 10 ft and are 1.2 

inch in diameter. 3/6/1944 20 rods

82390 Shipping record for rods and billets. 5/1/1944 1,150 lb

82391 Shipping record for billets. 5/2/1944 1,358 lb

82397 Shipping record 5/3/1944 2,122 lb

33190 67: Rolled 231 billets between may 9 and 11 5/9/1944 60,122 lb

31137 5: ElectroMet shipped 30 tons of double-length billets 

for rolling at Joslyn 5/13/1944 30 tons
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

35 of 63

Table 6-3: Available Uranium-Related External Monitoring Data

(This table spans two pages)

SRDB Ref ID PDF Page: Notes Document 

Date Quantity of Uranium

82383 Shipping record 5 rods. 6/1/1944 355 lb

33190 67: Rolled 23 billets into 46 rods 6/2/1944 5,900 lb

33190 67: Rolled June 22-24; 252 billets 6/22/1944 65,000 lb

101152 Record of rolling, indicating loss of material 9/15/1944 5,944lb

30859 Scrap inventory, 12/1/44 -12/28/44 12/28/1944 1400 lb

31145

237: Rolling operations with double length billets 

discontinued. 793 billets left over. 493 billets shipped to 

Hanford. 300 kept at Joslyn for special work.

2/3/1945

31145 196: 1945 progress report discussing on-going work on 

a special request for 220 rods going on at Joslyn. 3/1/1945 220 rods

93775 6: Record of receipt 10/28/1946 4407 lb

31145 16: 11 tons of rods shipped to Hanford from Joslyn Nov 1946 11 tons

90948

2: Record of cost analysis for providing material to 

Great Britain. Work is anecdotally indicated to have 

occurred about September 1946.

1/14/1947 15 tons rods from 30 

tons (450 billets)

37390

44: Arrangements completed for rolling 10 tons of UM 

and G billets. Approximately 500 slugs made from this 

rolled material are to be canned by the lead dip process.

7/1/1947 10 tons

37586 38: Alpha phase rolling of uranium February 

1948 30 tons

16511 3: Rolled between August 5 and 6; received July 28, 

1947. 9/9/1947 10 tons

37587

54: 2/28 - 3/4/48

3/5-3/10/48

3/19-3/22/48

3/27-3/29/48

March 1948

30 tons

30 tons

30 tons

30 tons

11036 19: 90 tons for Hanford. May 1948 90 tons

59249 6: Record of shipment from ElectroMet to Joslyn. 5/1/1948 95,526 lb

11036 14: Memo from Hanford requesting 80 tons of billets to 

be shipped to Joslyn (on or about 6/29/1948 6/25/1948 80 tons of billets

11996 652: Quantity of U material handled 1/1/1950 -

12/31/1950 (from Joslyn to Lake Ontario office) 1/1/1950

7,000 kg

(6,621 kg rods and ~294 

kg returned billets)

11036 15: Hanford request for 5500 lb of normal rolled 

uranium rods be shipped to Joslyn 7/31/1950 5,500 lb rods to Joslyn

11036 231: Memo requesting shipment of 15 rods to Joslyn, 

Fort Wayne. 4/11/1952 15 rods to Joslyn

11036

232: Memo requesting shipment to Joslyn. One rod is 

20 feet long the other 3 are 10 feet long. Diameter is 

13/16 inch.

1/23/1952 4 rods to Joslyn
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

36 of 63

Table 6-4: Available Thorium-Related External Monitoring Data

SRDB 

Ref ID PDF Page: Notes Document Date

Quantity 

of 

Thorium

80171 6 thorium (myrnalloy) extruded rods, 1.53 inch diameter 

straightened and centerless ground at Joslyn.

6/21/1946 6 rods

81068 Activity sometime between 10/8/1946 (date extruded) and memo 

date. Rods were 4 cm in diameter and 127 cm long. 1/21/1947 5 rods

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH

The feasibility determinations for the class of employees under evaluation in this report are governed

by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). Under that Act and rule, NIOSH must establish 

whether or not it has access to sufficient information either to estimate the maximum radiation dose 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have been incurred 

under plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or to estimate the radiation doses to

members of the class more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. If NIOSH has access to 

sufficient information for either case, NIOSH would then determine that it would be feasible to 

conduct dose reconstructions.

In determining feasibility, NIOSH begins by evaluating whether current or completed NIOSH dose 

reconstructions demonstrate the feasibility of estimating with sufficient accuracy the potential 

radiation exposures of the class. If the conclusion is one of infeasibility, NIOSH systematically 

evaluates the sufficiency of different types of monitoring data, process and source or source term data, 

which together or individually might assure that NIOSH can estimate either the maximum doses that 

members of the class might have incurred, or more precise quantities that reflect the variability of 

exposures experienced by groups or individual members of the class as summarized in Section 7.5. 

This approach is discussed in DCAS’s SEC Petition Evaluation Internal Procedures which are

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. The next four major subsections of this Evaluation 

Report examine:

The sufficiency and reliability of the available data. (Section 7.1)

The feasibility of reconstructing internal radiation doses. (Section 7.2)

The feasibility of reconstructing external radiation doses. (Section 7.3)

The bases for petition SEC-00200 as submitted by the petitioner. (Section 7.4)
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

37 of 63

7.1 Pedigree of Joslyn Data

ATTRIBUTION: Section 7.1 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities. These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. The 

rationales for all conclusions in this document are explained in the associated text. 

This subsection answers questions that need to be asked before performing a feasibility evaluation. 

Data Pedigree addresses the background, history, and origin of the data. It requires looking at site 

methodologies that may have changed over time; primary versus secondary data sources and whether 

they match; and whether data are internally consistent. All these issues form the bedrock of the 

researcher’s confidence and later conclusions about the data’s quality, credibility, reliability, 

representativeness, and sufficiency for determining the feasibility of dose reconstruction. The 

feasibility evaluation presupposes that data pedigree issues have been settled.

7.1.1 Internal Monitoring Data Pedigree Review

In this evaluation, NIOSH has determined that it lacks sufficient data relating to worker internal doses 

from AEC-related work performed at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. during part of the 

operational period; from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947. Therefore, a complete internal 

data sufficiency and pedigree evaluation is not possible for the period from May 1, 1943 through 

December 31, 1947.

Data for AEC-related uranium work, for the period from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952,

consist of work place air monitoring survey reports and information regarding work practices 

consistent with other rolling operations. These sources are copies of original reports and are therefore 

considered primary data sources. Data collection performed by AEC representatives would have been 

in accordance with standard practices using state-of-the-art methods during that time period. 

7.1.2 External Monitoring Data Pedigree Review

As discussed in Section 6.2, NIOSH has not located any documentation indicating that routine air 

sampling or external dosimetry programs for uranium or thorium were conducted during Joslyn 

operations. NIOSH did not locate any external monitoring data for the operational period under 

evaluation (May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1952). Therefore, a data sufficiency and pedigree 

evaluation is not possible for this data type for this period.

NIOSH has data consisting of source term data in the form of shipping transactions and accountability 

and contractual recordings of uranium materials to be machined by Joslyn. The data sources are 

copies of original reports and contracts and are therefore primary data sources. The data reported by 

AEC representatives would have been collected in accordance with standard practices using state-ofthe-art methods during that time period.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

38 of 63

7.2 Evaluation of Bounding Internal Radiation Doses at Joslyn

ATTRIBUTION: Section 7.2 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities and Eugene Potter, M. H. Chew and Associates, Inc. These conclusions were peerreviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this 

document are explained in the associated text. 

The principal sources of internal radiation doses for members of the class under evaluation were the 

potential inhalation and ingestion of airborne natural uranium and thorium by employees, both those 

near and those directly involved in the rolling, centerless grinding, quenching, straightening, and 

cutting of the billets and rods being machined at Joslyn. Other employees were potentially exposed to 

the re-suspension of contamination on surfaces during the course of their work with non-radioactive 

materials. The following subsections address the ability to bound internal doses, methods for 

bounding doses, and the feasibility of internal dose reconstruction.

7.2.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related Internal Doses

NIOSH did not locate urinalysis or other bioassay monitoring data for the period under evaluation, 

therefore internal exposure must be determined based solely on radiological source term and area 

monitoring data. Source term data are available through a variety of reports, requests, and memos 

over time. Area monitoring data consist solely of air monitoring reports providing snapshot images of 

airborne contamination. 

Workers not directly involved in the rolling and grinding operations were potentially exposed to 

airborne contamination during operations as well as to the re-suspension of contamination deposited 

in the buildings by radioactive material operations.

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related internal doses of members of the class under evaluation.

7.2.1.1 Uranium Airborne Levels

During the operational period, air samples were taken on at least four occasions during uranium work 

(see Section 6.1). The air samples were not consistently taken in the same areas; furthermore, 

information is generally lacking on the relationship of the sample locations to the areas occupied by 

workers with the exception of samples labeled “BZ” (i.e., breathing zone). Some of the air 

concentrations were quite high compared to the desired limit or “tolerance” values in use during the 

early part of the operational period (150 μgm uranium) (Fuqua, 1944). Comparison of air samples 

across the operational period is problematic because the tolerance levels changed, the sampling 

methods changed, uranium dust control practices changed, and practices changed in order to 

incorporate experience gained both at Joslyn and other facilities for the purposes of improving health 

conditions, reducing the potential for fire, and to better meet the specifications for the products. Early 

air samples were collected, but the reports do not provide details on the collection medium or the 

efficiency of the counting methods. The reports did mention that throughout the operations the 

engineering controls were not effective in controlling the airborne contamination (Klevin, 1952).
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

39 of 63

Under close scrutiny, the limited and intermittent air sample results collected in 1943 and 1944 do not 

meet the criteria for being sufficient to support establishing a bounding dose estimate for uranium 

internal exposures. The samples during this period are in the nature of a snapshot of the conditions 

during a time of testing and evaluation. NIOSH does not have the supporting documentation to 

establish confidence in the sampling methods or to account for uncertainties possibly introduced by 

the sampling methodologies and by the introduction of the tenting structures over the grinding 

operations. NIOSH cannot justify considering these samples either representative of the machining 

activities of the period or indicative of the highest exposures potentially available to the Joslyn

workers. 

In 1948, Joslyn entered into the largest production-scale uranium rolling campaign of its operations. 

By this time HASL had been formed as a small central laboratory facility to assist contractors who 

could not adequately perform the industrial hygiene and industrial functions necessary. This group 

was called upon frequently to aid in controlling airborne dusts and used fairly standard sampling and 

analysis protocols consistently in their operations. With the advent of HASL sampling, NIOSH has 

confidence in the procedures and protocols as well as an understanding of the uncertainty associated 

with the air sampling data from 1948 and on. This allows NIOSH to make an appropriate comparison 

between the Joslyn site specific air sample data and the data upon which Battelle-TBD- 6000 bases its 

methods and conclusions. Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix B utilizes data (Christofano, 1960) which 

were collected starting in 1948 as a foundation for its methodologies. Therefore, the data for Joslyn 

taken before 1948 and the conditions represented by that data may not be sufficiently characterized to 

analyze in comparison with the data represented in the basis for Battelle-TBD-6000.

During the steel rolling operations (non-MED/AEC work), Joslyn workers could have potentially been 

exposed to resuspended uranium from incompletely-decontaminated surfaces. Though respirators 

were recommended for workers directly involved in MED/AEC work (Fuqua, 1944; Cantril, 1944), 

there are indications (Site Visit, 1944) of poor compliance with respirator use. Respirator use was 

unlikely to have been required during non-MED/AEC work when re-suspension could have produced 

exposures. In any case, NIOSH does not consider the protection that may have been provided by 

respirator use during dose reconstructions.

7.2.1.2 Thorium Airborne Levels

There is documentation of two separate thorium grinding operations at Joslyn in 1946—one order of 

six extruded thorium rods in June 1946 and one order of five thorium rods between October 1946 and 

January 1947. The rods were to be straightened and centerless ground. NIOSH did not locate any air 

monitoring data for thorium. Each of these operations was likely to have taken less than one day to 

perform on such a small quantity of thorium rods. NIOSH has indications that these grinding 

operations would have been performed using a liquid coolant which would have reduced any airborne 

thorium contamination from the operations. The thorium mass removed from the rods by the grinding 

operations can be calculated, given the original dimensions of the rods and the specification diameter 

required of Joslyn. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

40 of 63

7.2.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Period Internal Doses

NIOSH verified with two sources that there is no residual radioactive period specified for the Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Co.: (1) Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination at 

Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities and Beryllium Vendor Facilities, Appendix A-1, Residual 

Radioactive Contamination-Summary of All Sites; and (2) Department of Energy Office of Health, 

Safety and Security Facility List Database

[http://www.hss.doe.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/showfacility.cfm].

7.2.3 Methods for Bounding Operational Period Internal Dose at Joslyn

Internal dose estimates for the operational period from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952,

can be based on the inhalation and ingestion intakes in Battelle-TBD-6000. This TBD provides an 

exposure matrix for workers at AWE facilities that performed metal-working operations with uranium 

metal. For some sites, an appendix was developed which contains site-specific information that can 

be used for dose reconstruction. For sites like Joslyn, information that can be used to perform dose 

reconstructions is provided in the main body of Battelle-TBD-6000. 

Uranium

As detailed in Section 6 and Table 6-1, uranium air sample results are available to NIOSH for the 

Joslyn operational period. The samples collected prior to 1952 were taken to determine the worst-case 

conditions rather than average or typical exposures (e.g., December 7, 1943 sample “in path of 

fumes”). They were not adjusted by the worker’s actual hours and proximity during a workday to 

estimate the actual TWA exposure. The samples taken in 1952 were part of a TWA study. In this 

study, the air concentrations for various jobs and locations were weighted by the amounts of time 

spent performing the work.

As detailed in Section 7.2.1.1, the results of the 1952 study included in Table 6-2 are the best sitespecific data available to NIOSH. The samples were taken using standard sampling protocols. The 

air concentration results from the 1952 study represent weighted average values. A study on a 

different day would produce different averages due to both differences in the work and to statistical 

variation. The values in Battelle-TBD-6000 are the geometric means (GM) and are intended to be 

applied as lognormal distributions with a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 5, to account for the 

uncertainty in the results. The results from the 1952 TWA study and air concentrations calculated for 

1951–1955 from Battelle-TBD-6000 are presented in Table 7-1. The arithmetic means (AM) for the 

Battelle-TBD-6000 data calculated from the GMs and the GSD of 5 are also presented for direct 

comparison with the TWAs. In most cases, the AM from Battelle-TDB-6000 data is higher. The 95th

percentiles are also shown to illustrate that the distributions used for dose reconstruction would 

encompass all of the TWA values.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

41 of 63

Table 7-1: Comparison of 1952 Time-Weighted Average (TWA) Study with Battelle-TBD-6000

Joslyn Work Area/Job Description TWA

(pCi/m3)

Battelle-TBD-6000

Equivalent Description

GM

(pCi/m3)

95%

(pCi/m3)

AM

(pCi/m3)

18" Rough roll east 3322 Rolling Operator 1472 20784 5375

18" Rough roll west 375 Rolling Operator 1472 20784 5375

Roller Forman 725 Rolling Supervisor 136 1918 496

Asst Roller (Ass't Foreman) 725 Rolling Supervisor 136 1918 496

Furnace Heaters 16 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

Recorder 16 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

12" Rough Roll East 605 Rolling Operator 1472 20784 5375

12" Rough Roll West 570 Rolling Operator 1472 20784 5375

Drag Down (Billet) 310 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

9" Finishing Roll East 16542 Rolling Operator 1472 20784 5375

9" Finishing Roll West 5791 Rolling Operator 1472 20784 5375

Quench Tank 155 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

Draggers 831 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

Rod Stamper 242 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

Rod Bundler 128 Rolling General Labor 271 3829 990

Lathe Operation 12 Machining Operator 2283 32238 8337

Centerless Grinder 100 Machining Operator 2283 32238 8337

Grinder (portable) 277 Machining Operator 2283 32238 8337

Cutomatic 191 Machining Operator 2283 32238 8337

Similarly, the average and maximum air concentrations for 1951 are compared to the appropriate air 

concentrations from Battelle-TBD-6000 in Table 7-2 below. TWA values like those in Table 7-1 are 

not available. Where a two-value range was available, the average was calculated. If only a single 

value was given, this value was assumed to represent the arithmetic mean. The comparison shows 

that the average calculated from Battelle-TBD-6000 is higher than the Joslyn values. Again, the 95th

percentiles are shown for the Battelle-TBD-6000 distributions.

Table 7-2: Comparison of 1951 Air Concentrations to Battelle-TBD-6000

Joslyn Work Area/Job 

Description

Average

(pCi/m3)

Maximum

(pCi/m3)

Battelle-TBD-6000

Equivalent Description

GM

(pCi/m3)

95%

(pCi/m3)

AM

(pCi/m3)

Centerless grinding 1951

general area

20 23 Machining Operator

1/1/1951 to 12/31/50

2283 32238 8337

Centerless grinding 1951

operator

605 1800 Machining Operator

1/1/1951 to 12/31/50

2283 32238 8337

Table 7-1 compares the time-weighted data for Joslyn to that in Battelle-TBD-6000. To verify that 

the time-weighted data are conservative, the 1952 un-weighted air concentration data for rolling 

operations can be compared to the air concentration data which are the basis for Battelle-TBD-6000. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

42 of 63

Figure 7-1 shows the lognormal fit of the Joslyn air concentration data and the lognormal distributions 

for the two highest-exposure rolling jobs documented in Battelle-TBD-6000. This figure shows that 

the distributions assumed in Battelle-TBD-6000 are higher for all percentiles.

Figure 7-1: Comparison of the Lognormal Fit of the Joslyn 1952 BZ Air Concentration Data to the Lognormal Air 

Concentration Data in Battelle-TBD-6000 for the Highest Two Rolling Jobs

Another view of the data is presented in Figure 7-2 which shows both the BZ data for rolling at Joslyn 

and their lognormal fit. All of the data points for the roughing roll operator are below the 95th 

percentile of the air concentration data in Battelle-TBD-6000. It is also shown that the upper 95th 

percentile of the Joslyn lognormal fit (z score = 1.645) is below the 95th percentile in Battelle-TBD6000. From this information, NIOSH concludes that the calculations in Battelle-TBD-6000 bound the 

dose from Joslyn rolling operations. Lognormal fits of the Joslyn 1952 BZ air concentration data for 

rolling, centerless grinding, cutomatic, and lathe operations all fall below the lognormal fit for rolling. 

Therefore, it is possible to use Battelle-TBD-6000 to bound the doses to all Joslyn operations 

beginning in 1948. The fact that rolling was the most hazardous operation should be expected since 

Joslyn did not treat the billets by heating in either a lead or a salt bath to reduce the surface oxidation. 

These techniques were employed successfully at other sites.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

43 of 63

Figure 7-2: Comparison of the Lognormal Fit of the Joslyn 1952 BZ Air Concentration Data to the GM and 95th

Percentile for the 1951-1955 Roughing Roll Operator Distribution in Battelle-TBD-6000

To bound the doses, the Battelle-TBD-6000 tables of inhalation and ingestion intakes are used. The 

annual intakes found in Battelle-TBD-6000 were calculated from the air concentrations by multiplying 

by the breathing rate, the hours worked per week, and the number of weeks worked per year. The 

daily intakes are then determined by dividing by 365 days. A lognormal distribution multiplied by a 

constant is also a lognormal. The intakes calculated from Battelle-TBD-6000 are therefore also 

lognormally distributed with a GSD of 5. The intake values for bounding the doses are shown in 

Table 7.8 of Battelle-TBD-6000. The values for the operations at Joslyn are reproduced below, in 

Table 7-3.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

44 of 63

Table 7-3: Daily Intake Rates for Joslyn from Battelle-TBD-6000

Work Area/Job Description

Inhalation Ingestion Inhalation Ingestion

1/1/1948-12/31/1950 1/1/1951-12/31/1952

(pCi/day) (pCi/day) (pCi/day) (pCi/day)

Rolling Operator 12671 260 11615 238

Rolling General Labor 2335 48 2140 44

Rolling Supervisor 1169 24 1072 22

Rolling Clerical 118 2.4 108 2.2

Machining Operator 19654 403 18016 369

Machining General Labor 9827 201 9008 185

Machining Supervisor 4914 101 4504 92

Machining Clerical 491 10.1 450 9.2

The burning of uranium scrap was conducted in an outside area. No air sample data are available. 

Since it was not done in a confined area, the air concentrations during this activity should be bounded 

by the values in Battelle-TBD-6000.

The uranium operations at Joslyn caused contamination to be deposited on surfaces. Indications are 

that this contamination was cleaned between operations (Klevin, 1952; Piccot, 1949). Intakes from 

the re-suspension of uranium could be calculated from the residual contamination reported in the 1949 

and 1952 surveys of the operations. 

Once bounding inhalation intakes are determined using Battelle-TBD-6000, the ingestion intakes may 

be calculated using Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, OCAS-TIB-009. These intakes have already been 

calculated and appear in Table 7.9 in Battelle-TBD-6000. The values extracted for Joslyn appear in 

Table 7-3 above with the inhalation values. Both solubility types M and S are considered to maximize 

the radiation dose to the organ(s) of interest. This results in bounding doses for Joslyn.

Thorium

All indications are that the extruded thorium rods were centerless ground on two occasions at Joslyn 

during 1946 and 1947. As these operations were in the period that NIOSH finds it is not feasible to 

reconstruct internal exposures adequately, no further exploration of reconstructing thorium exposure 

will be handled in this evaluation. 

7.2.4 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion

NIOSH concludes it is not feasible to reconstruct uranium internal radiation doses with sufficient 

accuracy for the period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947 at Joslyn.

NIOSH concludes that there are site specific data and existing dose reconstruction methods available 

in Battelle-TBD-6000 to support reconstructing internal radiation doses with sufficient accuracy for 

the period from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

45 of 63

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct internal radiation doses for the 

period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, NIOSH intends to use any internal monitoring 

data that may become available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing 

NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals 

employed at Joslyn during the period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, but who do not 

qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate.

7.3 Evaluation of Bounding External Radiation Doses at Joslyn

ATTRIBUTION: Section 7.3 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities and Billy Smith, M. H. Chew and Associates, Inc. These conclusions were peer-reviewed 

by the individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this document are 

explained in the associated text. 

The principal sources of external radiation doses for members of the evaluated class were exposure to 

gamma and beta radiation associated with handling and working in proximity to uranium and uranium 

compounds while involved in the rolling, quenching, straightening, and cutting of the materials. 

Some employees were also potentially externally exposed to the radiations from resuspended 

contamination from uranium metal surfaces and the floor during the course of their work with these 

radioactive materials. Additionally, eleven thorium rods (~57 kg) underwent centerless grinding at 

Joslyn, providing potential exposures to thorium (Macherey, 1947; Monthly Report, Jun1946, PDF p.

3). Documentation available to NIOSH indicates that the centerless grinding of thorium was 

performed over a period of several days, on an experimental basis and consisted of these small 

quantities (as compared to the production quantities of uranium). 

The following subsections address the ability to bound external doses, methods for bounding doses, 

and the feasibility of external dose reconstruction.

7.3.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related External Doses

NIOSH has not identified any external monitoring records, external area monitoring data, or personal 

dosimetry data associated with the uranium and thorium processing conducted during the period under 

evaluation. The sources of exposure at Joslyn were the beta, gamma, and X-ray radiation from the 

uranium metal, uranium oxides, and thorium metal. NIOSH has identified internal correspondence 

containing gamma and alpha hand-held instrumentation results from measurements taken at the 

various plant process that are useful in bounding external doses (Piccot, 1949).

While the specifics in regards to dates of rolling or grinding activities are sometimes unknown, the 

documented Joslyn uranium through-put is 1,127,000 pounds of uranium products. Documented 

rolling and centerless grinding activities at Joslyn are described in Section 5.1 of this report under 

subheadings for five different categories. All of the uranium processed in these categories is tabulated 

in Table 5-1. The activities identified in Table 5-1 account for 90% of the uranium materials that 

were processed through Joslyn.

The uranium was processed in specific campaigns between 1943 and 1952. The major campaigns can 

be described as experimental rolling/straightening, centerless grinding, production rolling, Great 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

46 of 63

Britain/Canada work, and special requests. Between campaigns, the plant processed non-radioactive 

steel products. The exposure to uranium can be estimated using the processing rate of uranium 

through the plant. Joslyn could process uranium, via rolling, at a rate of 90 tons per month (Monthly

Report, Apr1948). Using this rate and the total uranium through-put (1,127,000 lbs), Joslyn rolled 

uranium for a cumulative 190 days over the span of the covered period. NIOSH did not find similar 

documentation to determine the cumulative time to allocate for centerless grinding, but assumes it 

may have been similar to days for rolling operations. NIOSH estimates that time allotted to centerless 

grinding of uranium would not exceed half the quantity of days rolling uranium (i.e., 95 days). This 

provides an overall estimate of 285 days of exposure to uranium processing activities over the span of

the covered period for the Joslyn facility. NIOSH recognizes that uranium machining campaigns were 

not evenly spaced throughout the 1943 to 1952 covered period; however, this rate translates to 

monthly campaigns of an average of approximately 2.5 days/month, including the periods when there 

is no documented evidence of uranium rolling. This estimate of exposure duration can be used to 

calculate external dose from uranium metal to workers, using the methods and assumptions in Battelle 

TBD-6000.

NIOSH has identified methods in Battelle-TBD-6000 useful in support of bounding external uranium 

dose for the type of metal work performed during the operational period at Joslyn. However, NIOSH 

has not identified specific radiological data on thorium to support direct bounding of the thorium 

external exposures associated with the centerless grinding work during the very short period this work

was performed. The bounding of thorium external dose from the centerless-grinding processing of the 

eleven thorium rods (125 lbs) (Macherey, 1947; Monthly Report, Jun1946) occurred over a period of 

several days. Exposure can be estimated by using a conservative grinding period of one week (5 days) 

and applying the Battelle TBD-6000 modeling for thorium. NIOSH also has information regarding 

the radiological hazard associated with thorium relative to uranium. Using this information on the 

quantities and relative hazards, NIOSH is able to bound possible external exposure to the thorium 

machined at Joslyn. 

In light of the information above, NIOSH has concluded that sufficient data and information are 

available to estimate a bounding external dose from uranium and thorium.

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related external doses of members of the class under evaluation.

Photon

The majority of the photons from natural uranium metals are in the 30–250 keV energy range. Solid 

uranium objects provide considerable shielding of the lower-energy photons and harden the spectrum, 

causing the majority of the photons emitted from a solid uranium object (such as a billet or rod) to 

have energies greater than 250 keV. While it is recognized that solid uranium sources will have a 

hardened photon spectrum, exposure to a thin layer of uranium on a surface will result in a larger 

fraction of exposure to lower-energy photons (Battelle-TBD-6000). 

Table 5-2 shows the primary isotopes and photon energies associated with the uranium metal. 

Exposure to these photons was possible during machining operations from direct radiation during 

metal-handling and from submersion in air contaminated with the uranium metal.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

47 of 63

Thorium has a significant number of higher-energy photons in the thorium-232 decay chain. Based 

on the half-lives of the progeny, only a partial equilibrium is possible; therefore, it may be stated with 

confidence that equilibrium would be reached in this decay chain. Assuming radium-228 and 

thorium-228 progeny were in equilibrium with thorium-232, air concentrations were equal for all 

progeny. Under these assumptions, the progeny are the major source of both penetrating and 

non-penetrating external exposure. Table 5-3 shows the primary isotopes and photon energies 

associated with thorium and its progeny. The amount of thorium processed through Joslyn was 

extremely small (125 lbs).

Beta

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show the principal beta emitters and their energies for the uranium and thorium 

metal used during machining operations. As indicated in these tables, there are a significant number 

of high-energy beta radiations that represent a shallow dose exposure concern to site workers. 

Workers who handled the uranium and thorium metal would have received shallow dose exposures. 

The primary exposure areas would have been the hands and forearms, the neck and face, and other 

areas of the body that might not have been covered. 

Alternative Data Sources for Bounding External Dose

The model that NIOSH will use to bound external doses is contained in Battelle-TBD-6000 and will 

rely on the information from the 1949 HASL final survey of the Joslyn facility (Piccot, 1949) and the 

quantities of uranium and thorium materials handled and processed. From June 1943 through July 

1948, the plant processed 1,104,000 lbs of uranium. From January 1950 through October 1951, the 

plant processed ~23,000 lbs, for a total throughput of 1,127,000 lbs of uranium. Additionally, it is 

known that the plant performed experimental centerless grinding on 11 thorium rods with a total mass 

of ~125 lbs. The form of the materials received for processing was billets and rods.

7.3.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Period External Doses

NIOSH verified with two sources that there is no residual radioactive period specified for the Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Co.: (1) Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination at 

Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities and Beryllium Vendor Facilities, Appendix A-1, Residual 

Radioactive Contamination-Summary of All Sites; and (2) Department of Energy Office of Health, 

Safety and Security Facility List Database 

[http://www.hss.doe.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/showfacility.cfm].

7.3.3 Joslyn Occupational X-Ray Examinations

Documents from as early as May 1944 indicate that the AEC was aware of potential exposure hazards 

at the Joslyn facility and was making recommendations for improving the hazard and health 

monitoring of the workers. A May 1944 memo (Fuqua, 1944) recommends complete medical 

examinations before and after the job and discusses arrangements to have complete blood and urine 

“determinations and chest X-rays taken” for 75 men. The recommendation goes on to suggest that if 

operation is to continue beyond July 1, 1944, arrangements for monthly blood and urine studies be 

made. The same file contains a copy of a DuPont memo outlining procedures for invoicing medial 

examinations of Joslyn and Du Pont employees. To date, NIOSH has found no records of the X-rays 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

48 of 63

or copies of the invoices for such medical examinations. Information presented to NIOSH during a 

worker outreach meeting with previous site employees indicated that medical X-ray examinations 

were performed at local medical facilities. NIOSH has no further data regarding if medical X-ray 

examinations may have been performed onsite versus offsite. Per ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Guidance on 

Assigning Occupational X-ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-rays Administered Off Site, NIOSH has 

determined that it is applicable to reconstruct occupational medical X-ray exposures for Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Co. workers during the period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 

1952.

7.3.4 Methods for Bounding Operational Period External Dose at Joslyn

There is an established protocol for assessing external exposure when performing dose reconstructions 

(these protocol steps are discussed in the following subsections):

Photon Dose

Beta Dose

Neutron Dose

Medical X-ray Dose (as applicable per Section 7.3.3)

Operational period external dose at the Joslyn facility can be reconstructed applying the basic 

information on plant conditions and understanding of photon energies and beta energies expected 

from the natural uranium metal. Methods to address exposure to the penetrating photon and nonpenetrating photon and electron spectrum are addressed in Battelle-TBD-6000 and are to be applied in 

the case of AWE sites where estimation of dose is necessary in the absence of dosimetry data.

Photon Dose

Photon dose at Joslyn would be primarily made up of exposure to photons from the uranium metal 

being worked at the site for operators, with exposure to contaminated surfaces being a lesser 

contributor to any exposure dose. While the preferred indicator of external dose is dosimetry 

measurements, that is not the only avenue to assess photon dose. 

Section 6.2 of Battelle-TBD-6000 provides guidance on estimating external dose rates due to 

penetrating radiation emitted from the surface of uranium metal. Using the results of Monte Carlo NParticle Transport Code (MCNP) calculations performed for a number of basic shapes, it provides 

calculated dose rates for distances of 1 centimeter, 1 foot, and 1 meter from the surface of the natural 

uranium metal. These dose rates can be used to estimate the component of whole-body dose that a 

worker would receive while handling or near uranium metal, applying information that may be 

available about the specific conditions of a worker’s likely exposure. If no information is available 

about the specific conditions of exposure, Battelle-TBD-6000 provides for generic worst-case 

assumptions to be made about a worker’s exposure conditions. The methods allow for differing 

assumptions based on work assignment (i.e., operator vs. general laborer). NIOSH understands that 

exposure to the uranium metal was not a continuous exposure over the course of the year; thus,

annualized exposure calculations would be a significant overestimate of the actual exposure potential. 

The monthly exposure duration described in Section 7.3.1 of 2.5 days/month provides an annual 

exposure potential of 30 days/yr for worker exposures. 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

49 of 63

The potential exposure accrued from the presence of contamination on work surfaces would be minor 

in comparison with the primary exposure to the uranium metal.

Beta Dose

The non-penetrating beta dose is primarily associated with the hands and forearms, and then other skin 

surfaces, of a worker who handles uranium metal in close proximity. At Joslyn, the handling of the 

uranium during the rolling process was commented on as a strength of the process at that facility. 

Section 6.3 of Battelle-TBD-6000 details a method to estimate skin doses for the hands and forearms 

of a worker who handles uranium metal, as well as the other skin surfaces of such a worker. The 

assumptions, based on annual dose by job category and dose relations as described in Battelle-TBD6000 for estimating beta dose to metal workers will be used to bound the dose for the workers at 

Joslyn by applying the annual exposure duration of 30 days/yr as suggest in the photon subsection 

above.

Medical X-ray Dose

Although NIOSH has not located specific parameters associated with occupational medical X-rays 

(i.e., specific information on the X-ray devices) default values of entrance kerma, developed for the 

three most commonly-used occupational medical diagnostic procedures, are available in ORAUTOTIB-0006. These values can be used to support bounding the medical X-ray dose for the time 

period under evaluation. These default values are maximum, or upper limit, values developed from 

review of patient doses as reported in the literature, machine characteristics, and knowledge of X-ray 

procedures used during different time periods. These default values can be used in lieu of actual 

measurement data or entrance kerma derived from technique factors to bound the occupational X-ray 

exposures for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. NIOSH believes this methodology supports its 

ability to bound occupational medical X-ray doses for the Joslyn class under evaluation.

7.3.5 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion

There are methods available to NIOSH to support bounding external uranium and thorium dose for the 

operational period at Joslyn. NIOSH has identified sufficient information or data to support the 

bounding conclusion. For the operational period, NIOSH was unable to determine a worker’s actual 

work locations or whether a worker was restricted to one location. Workers may have been able to 

move about freely; therefore, all workers’ exposures will be treated similarly. The uranium and 

thorium activities at Joslyn were consistently routine over time and therefore the exposures to workers 

can be extrapolated from a snapshot in time. Therefore, NIOSH has determined that reconstruction of 

external doses for Joslyn workers with sufficient accuracy, including occupational medical dose, is 

feasible for the operational period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1952.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

50 of 63

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00200

ATTRIBUTION: Section 7.4 was completed by Monica Harrison-Maples, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities. These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. The 

rationales for all conclusions in this document are explained in the associated text. 

The following subsections evaluate the assertions made on behalf of petition SEC-00200 for the 

Joslyn site.

7.4.1 Unmonitored Radiation Exposures

SEC-00200: (F.1) Radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the 

proposed class were not monitored either through personal monitoring or through area monitoring.

NIOSH determined that it has access to only a limited number of air sample and source term 

information for Joslyn during the time period under evaluation. Medical records, bioassay data, and 

external monitoring results are not available. NIOSH has concluded that the available information is 

insufficient to bound the internal dose for Joslyn early operations from May 1, 1943 through 

December 31, 1947; however, the internal dose from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952, 

and the external dose from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1952 (the entire evaluated period) can 

be bound using the approaches described in Battelle-TBD-6000, as discussed within this evaluation 

report. 

7.4.2 Unmonitored Thorium Exposure Activities

SEC-00200: There were thorium rollings at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. and to the best of 

my knowledge there was no monitoring.

While there is evidence of the two thorium centerless grinding activities, NIOSH did not locate any 

official documentation indicating that there had in fact been thorium rolling activities at Joslyn. 

NIOSH has sufficient information regarding the thorium grinding events, including how many rods 

were worked on and the differential between the initial size of the rods and the final size, to be able to 

determine how much thorium was removed from the rods and thus available for potential internal 

exposure to workers. While NIOSH could define an upper bound of thorium internal dose given the 

information on the mass of thorium available for intake, since the grinding operations took place 

during the period recommended for inclusion into the SEC, no additional development of these 

methods at Joslyn is necessary in this evaluation report. 

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00200

This report evaluates the feasibility for completing dose reconstructions for employees at the Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Co. from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947. NIOSH found that the 

available monitoring records, process descriptions, and source term data available are not sufficient to 

complete dose reconstructions for the entire evaluated class of employees.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

51 of 63

Table 7-4 summarizes the results of the feasibility findings at Joslyn for each exposure source during 

the time period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947 and from January 1, 1948 through 

December 31, 1952.

Table 7-4: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00200

May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947;

January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952

Source of Exposure

May 1, 1943 through Dec. 31, 1947 Jan. 1, 1948 through Dec. 31, 1952

Reconstruction 

Feasible

Reconstruction 

Not Feasible

Reconstruction 

Feasible

Reconstruction 

Not Feasible

Internal1 X X

 - Uranium X X

 - Thorium X N/A

External X X

 - Gamma X X

 - Beta X X

 - Neutron N/A N/A N/A N/A

 - Occupational Medical X-ray X X

1

Internal includes an evaluation of airborne dust data

As of October 9, 2012, a total of 48 claims have been submitted to NIOSH for individuals who 

worked at Joslyn during the period under evaluation in this report. Dose reconstructions have been 

completed for 26 individuals (~54%).

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed at 

Joslyn during the period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, but who do not qualify for 

inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate.

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00200

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3). Under these requirements, if it is not 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH must 

also determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the 

health of members of the class. Section 83.13 requires NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

52 of 63

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

Based on the sum of information available from available resources, NIOSH’s evaluation determined 

that it is not feasible to estimate radiation dose with sufficient accuracy for members of the NIOSHevaluated class for the time period from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947. Therefore, the 

resulting NIOSH-proposed SEC class must include a minimum required employment period as a basis 

for specifying that health was endangered for this time period. NIOSH further determined that it is 

feasible to estimate radiation dose with sufficient accuracy for members of the NIOSH-evaluated class 

for the time period from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1952. Therefore, a health 

endangerment determination is not required for this time period.

9.0 Class Conclusion for Petition SEC-00200

Based on its full research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class to be added to the SEC includes all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any 

buildings/area owned by the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. (or a subsequent owner) in Fort

Wayne, Indiana, from May 1, 1943 through December 31, 1947, for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination 

with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included 

in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

NIOSH has carefully reviewed all material sent in by the petitioner, including the specific assertions 

stated in the petition, and has responded herein (see Section 7.4). NIOSH has also reviewed available 

technical resources and many other references, including the Site Research Database (SRDB), for 

information relevant to SEC-00200. In addition, NIOSH reviewed its NOCTS dose reconstruction 

database to identify EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to 

the petition evaluation.

These actions are based on existing, approved NIOSH processes used in dose reconstruction for 

claims under EEOICPA. NIOSH’s guiding principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to 

ensure that the assumptions used are fair, consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science. 

Simultaneously, uncertainties in the science and data must be handled to the advantage, rather than to 

the detriment, of the petitioners. When adequate personal dose monitoring information is not 

available, or is very limited, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on 

reliable science, documented experience, and relevant data to determine the feasibility of 

reconstructing the dose of an SEC petition class. NIOSH contends that it has complied with these 

standards of performance in determining the feasibility or infeasibility of reconstructing dose for the 

class under evaluation.
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

53 of 63

10.0 References

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p. 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000, as amended

Army Corps, 2005, Preliminary Assessment Joslyn Manufacturing Site Fort Wayne Indiana; U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District; August 23, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 112928

Battelle-TBD-6000, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals, 

Rev.01; Division of Compensation Analysis and Support; June 17, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 101251

Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix B, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium 

Metals and Thorium Metals-Appendix BB, General Steel Industries, Rev.00; Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (now Division of Compensation Analysis and Support); June 25, 2007; SRDB 

Ref ID: 47713

Beeler, 1947, Costs of Oxide and Uranium Metal Sold to Great Britain, correspondence to Colonel E. 

E. Kirkpatrick; C. W. Beeler, Atomic Energy Commission; January 14, 1947; SRDB Ref ID: 90948

Belmore, 1950a, Uranium Work at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, F. M. Belmore; 

October 18, 1950; SRDB Ref ID: 9663, PDF p. 15

Belmore, 1950b, Rolling and Machining of Special Uranium Rods, correspondence to Mr. Blaeser; F. 

M. Belmore; June 23, 1950; SRDB Ref ID: 9663, PDF pp. 2-5

Cantril, 1944, Air Samples at Joslyn Manufacturing Company, correspondence to G. E. Daniels; S. T. 

Cantril; May 15, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 5890, PDF p. 9

Chapman, 1947a, Thorium Fabrication at Joslyn Manufacturing, correspondence to Dr. H. W. 

Russell; T. S. Chapman; August 11, 1947; SRDB Ref ID: 87030

Chapman, 1947b, Suggesting Informing Personnel of Rolling Thorium Medical Hazards, 

correspondence to H. W. Russell; T. S. Chapman; August 21, 1947; SRDB Ref. ID: 30866
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

54 of 63

Chapman, 1947c, Thorium Fabrication, correspondence to Dr. H. W. Russell; T. S. Chapman; August 

11, 1947; SRDB Ref ID: 16811

Chipman, 1943, Rolling of Billets Supplied by Union Carbide and Carbon Company, correspondence 

to R. L. Doan; J. Chipman, Joslyn Manufacturing Company; June 30, 1945: SRDB Ref ID: 11036, 

PDF p. 244

Christofano, 1960, The Industrial Hygiene of Uranium Refining; Emil Christofano and William 

Harris; reprinted November 1960; SRDB Ref ID: 15774

Cohen, 1943, Heavy Metal Inventory for January 1, 1943–June 30, 1943; M. Cohen, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology; July 8, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 82369

Contracts, 1943-1946, Various Contract Related Information for August 1943–July, 1946; SRDB Ref 

ID: 11036, PDF pp. 107-123

Contract Supplement, 1948, Supplement Agreements No. 1-4 for Contract No. AT-30-1-GEN-281; 

dates ranging from May through September 1948; SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 172-192

Crouts, 1943, Request to Release Twenty Metal Rods to Joslyn Company, correspondence to R. L. 

Doan; E. Crouts; August 11, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 101163

Daniels, 1944, Project 9536 Purchase Order RPG-37791 Medical Examinations Joslyn 

Manufacturing & Supply Company, correspondence to R. S. Stone; C. E. Daniels; May 23, 1944; 

SRDB Ref ID: 5890, PDF. pp. 7-8 

Dean, 1943, Experimental Work at Outside Companies, correspondence; R. L. Dean, Metallurgical 

Laboratory; April 28, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 10608

DOE, 1987, Interview with Former AEC Employee as Follow-Up to Interviews with Other Employees, 

memorandum; Department of Energy (DOE); December 16, 1987; SRDB Ref ID: 11035, PDF p. 9

DOL, 2012, Site Clarification, correspondence to DCAS; Department of Labor (DOL); July 19, 2012; 

DSA Ref ID: 117272

DuPont, 1945, The Metal Fabrication Program for the Clinton Engineer Works and the Hanford 

Engineer Work—Section III Drawing, Swaging and Rolling; E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; 

SRDB Ref ID: 33190, PDF pp. 4-98 

Earth Tech, 2006, Final Radiological Analysis Report: Soil Sampling for Radiological Analysis for 

the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company; Earth Tech, Inc.; approved September 27, 2006; 

SRDB Ref ID: 82926

Echo, 1943a, Request to the Health Group to Certify the Necessity of Construction, correspondence to 

J. J. Nixon; Andrew Van Echo; November 18, 1943: SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF p. 223
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

55 of 63

Echo, 1943b, Experimental Centerless Grinding of 14 Extruded Rods at Joslyn Manufacturing 

Company, Fort Wayne, Indiana, correspondence to A. B. Greninger; Andrew Van Echo, Metallurgical 

Laboratory; September 7, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 85-86

Freitage, 1948, Shipment of Uranium Metal, correspondence; Howard R. Freitag; June 25, 1948; 

SRDB Ref ID: 11036 PDF p. 14

Fuqua, 1944, Inspection of Joslyn MFG. & Supply Co. Fort Wayne Indiana, correspondence; P. A. 

Fuqua; May 30, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 5890, PDF pp. 3-4

Greninger, 1943, Grinding Operations at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co., correspondence to J. 

J. Nickson; A. B. Greninger, Technical Division; November 30, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 

222-223

Joslyn, 1948, Technical Department Summary; Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co.; March 1948; 

SRDB Ref ID: 37587

Klevin, 1952, Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust; Paul B. Klevin; March 25, 1952; SRDB Ref ID: 9664

Koenig, 1946, Delay in Fabrication of Special Uranium Rods, memorandum to files; James J. Koenig, 

August 26, 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 103-104

Macherey, 1947, Centerless Grinding of Thorium Rods; Robert Macherey; January 21, 1947; SRDB 

Ref ID: 81068

Maroncelli, 2007, The Traveler’s Guide to Nuclear Weapons: A Journey through America’s Cold War 

Battlefields; James M. Maroncelli and Timothy L. Karpin; February 2007, second addition; SRDB 

Ref ID: 44825

Monthly Report, May1944, Semi-Monthly Report for Period May 1-15, 1944; report written by John 

R. Ruhoff; dated May 13, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 31137, PDF pp. 4-5

Monthly Report, Jun1944, Semi-Monthly Report for Period June 1-15, 1944; report written by John R. 

Ruhoff; dated June 14, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 31137, PDF pp. 2-3

Monthly Report, Jun1946, Monthly Report for June 1946; J. Schumar, C. Swanson, and G. O’Keeffe; 

June 21, 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 80171

Monthly Report, Apr1948, Monthly Status and Progress Report for April 1948; submitted by Office 

of New York Directed Operations; May 5, 1948; SRDB Ref ID 11036, PDF p. 18-20

Monthly Report, Jan1949, Monthly Status and Progress Report for January 1949; submitted by the 

New York Operations Office; February 7, 1949; SRDB Ref ID: 6291, PDF pp. 1-24

Monthly Report, Feb1949, Monthly Status and Progress Report for February 1949; submitted by the 

New York Operations Office; March 8, 1949; SRDB Ref ID: 37959
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

56 of 63

NIOSH, 2008, Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination at Atomic Weapons 

Employer Facilities and Beryllium Vendor Facilities, Appendix A-1, Residual Radioactive 

Contamination-Summary of All Sites; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support; October 31, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 100990

Norwood, 1944, Health Methods at the Joslyn Manufacturing Plant, correspondence; W. D. 

Norwood; May 4, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 12747

OCAS-TIB-009, 2004, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, Rev. 0; Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support (now Division of Compensation Analysis and Support); effective April 13, 2004; SRDB Ref 

ID: 22397

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray 

Procedures, Rev. 04; ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH; June 20, 2011; SRDB 

Ref ID: 98147

ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays 

Administered Off Site, Rev. 00; ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH; January 3, 

2011; SRDB Ref ID: 89563

Personal Communication, 2012, Documented Communication with Rolling Mill Operators and 

Centerless Grinder Operator; SEC Outreach Meeting/face-to face group interview; July 25, 2012; 

SRDB Ref ID: 118494

Piccot, 1949, Residual Contamination Survey at Joslyn Steel Co.; A. R. Piccot; August 22, 1949; 

SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 46-50; SRDB 9663, PDF pp. 6-14

Rad Handbook, 1998, Handbook of Health Physics and Radiological Health, 3rd Edition; editors 

include Bernard Schleien, Lester Slaback, and Brian Kent; 1998; SRDB Ref ID: 22737

Receipt, May1943, Memorandum of Receipt of Metal Rods from Joslyn Manufacturing Company; 

May 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 82395

SAIC, 2005, Fort Wayne Steel Corp. North-South Bay Radiological Survey and Exposure Assessment, 

Final; Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC); March 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 118662

Shipping, Apr1944, Special Materials Shipping Order to Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company; 

Dated April 29, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 82397

Shipping, May1944a, Shipping Memorandum to Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company; 

Shipment date May 1, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 82390

Shipping, May1944b, Shipping Memorandum to Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company; 

Shipment date May 2, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 82391

Shipping, Jun1944, Shipping Memorandum to Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company; Shipment 

date June 1, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 82383
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

57 of 63

Simmons, 1943, Centerless Grinding Operations at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, Fort 

Wayne, Indiana, November 29–December 16, 1943, correspondence to A. B. Greninger; J. M. 

Simmons; December 31, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 69-72

Simmons, 1944, Centerless Grinding and Experiments on Tuballoy at Joslyn Manufacturing and 

Supply Company, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, January 5-14, 1944, correspondence to A. B. Greninger; 

January 26, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 11036, PDF pp. 53-59

Site Visit, 1944, Visit to the Joslyn Manufacturing Company on May 9, 1944, correspondence; J. J. 

Nickson; May 10, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 118163

Stannard, 1988, Radioactivity and Health a History; J. Newell Stannard, School of Medicine and 

Dentistry University of Rochester; October 1988; SRDB Ref ID: 22738

Status Report, 1943-1946, Status Report Covering Subcontractors within the Jurisdiction of the 

Chicago Area Office for Years Ranging from 1943 through 1946: Subcontract Monthly Field 

Progress Reports; author unknown; SRDB Ref ID: 79727

Taussig, 1948, Facilities for Rolling Uranium, correspondence to W. E. Kelley; Walter Taussig; 

February 26, 1948; SRDB Ref ID: 11996, PDF pp. 129-131

Unknown, 1949, Centerless Grinding Operation of Uranium Rods Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply 

Co.; unknown author; August 18, 1949; SRDB Ref ID: 28410
Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

58 of 63

This page intentionally left blank
 Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

59 of 63

Attachment 1: Data Capture Synopsis

Table A1-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Data Capture Information General Description of Documents Captured Date 

Completed

Uploaded

To SRDB

Primary Site / Company Name: Joslyn Manufacturing and 

Supply Co.; May 1943-1952 AWE

Alternate Site Names: 

Joslyn Stainless Steel Company

Slater Steel Company

Slater Stainless Steel

Valbruna Slater Stainless

Physical Size of the Site: 63

Site Population: In 1944, 75 workers were involved with 

uranium rolling. In 1952, 47 workers were involved with 

uranium rolling.

No relevant documents identified. The site Environmental Safety and 

Health Associate reported that a records search has been conducted in 

response to former employee inquiries and that no records from the 

uranium rolling operations were located.

06/26/2012 0

State Contacted: Indiana Department of Homeland 

Security, (Nuclear Regulatory Commission designated 

Point of Contact)

Historical FUSRAP site information. 07/05/2012 1

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Metallurgical reports on the effects of irradiation on Joslyn rods. 07/20/2012 2

Department of Labor / Paragon Progress reports, an accountability report, a resurvey recommendation 

for Lake Ontario Ordnance Works, and a documented communication. 

12/30/2008 5

DOE Legacy Management - Grand Junction Office Progress reports, uranium rolling and grinding reports, accountability 

and material losses reports, survey reports, FUSRAP reports, inventory 

and material transfer reports, responses to Joslyn health questions, and a 

2005 SAIC North-South Bay survey.

09/13/2012 58

DOE Legacy Management - Morgantown A list of covered facilities and their operations. 06/30/2010 1

DOE Legacy Management - MoundView (Fernald 

Holdings, includes Fernald Legal Database)

Radiological survey samples and a report on uranium rolling. 04/10/2008 2

DOE Oak Ridge Operations, Records Holding Task Group A report on drawing uranium rods. 12/14/2010 1

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

(OSTI)

A NIOSH researcher's notes and a 1945 Hanford report describing 

uranium rolling at Joslyn.

08/10/2012 2
 Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

60 of 63

Table A1-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Data Capture Information General Description of Documents Captured Date 

Completed

Uploaded

To SRDB

DOE Germantown, EM File Room References to Joslyn as a facility that rolls uranium. 09/11/2002 2

Hagley Museum and Library No relevant documents identified. 10/01/2010 0

Hanford A 1946 accountability report. Note: An additional search of Hanford 

records has been requested, however, all Hanford requests are on hold 

until funding becomes available.

OPEN 1

Internet Photographs of the 1983 flood. 07/25/2012 2

Internet - Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) Metallurgy in the Development of Atomic Power. 05/22/2012 1

Internet - DOE Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data 

Resource (CEDR)

No relevant documents identified. 06/22/2012 0

Internet - DOE Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval 

System (DDRS)

Hanford progress reports referencing Joslyn, uranium rolling reports, 

trip reports to Joslyn, and health hazard inspections at Joslyn. 

08/04/2012 20

Internet - DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites No relevant documents not already in the SRDB identified. 08/09/2012 0

Internet - DOE National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) - Nevada Site Office

No relevant documents identified. 08/09/2012 0

Internet - DOE OpenNet 1948 and 1949 Hanford monthly status reports referencing Joslyn, 

references to Joslyn in the Medical Program of the Manhattan District 

history, trip reports to Joslyn, and a 1944 discussion of filter analyses.

08/09/2012 11

Internet - DOE OSTI Energy Citations No relevant documents not already in the SRDB identified. 08/06/2012 0

Internet - DOE OSTI Information Bridge Reference to Joslyn in the Clinton and Hanford metal fabrication 

program. 

08/06/2012 1

Internet - Google News articles pertaining to Joslyn, FUSRAP documents, and a search 

for former employees from a former employee's blog.

05/06/2012 15

Internet - Health Physics Journal No relevant documents identified. 06/22/2012 0

Internet - Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management Virtual File Cabinet

No relevant documents identified. 06/26/2012 0

Internet - Journal of Occupational and Environmental 

Hygiene

No relevant documents identified. 06/22/2012 0

Internet - National Academies Press (NAP) No relevant documents identified. 08/09/2012 0

Internet - NIOSH A 2006 report on radioactive and beryllium contamination at Atomic 

Weapons Employer sites.

01/25/2007 1

Internet - NRC Agency wide Document Access and 

Management (ADAMS) 

NRC staff evaluations of sites identified in a USA Today article, a 

petitioner's motion mentioning Joslyn, and service bulletins for pressure 

regulators. 

05/11/2012 5

Internet - USACE/FUSRAP No relevant documents identified. 08/09/2012 0
 Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

61 of 63

Table A1-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Data Capture Information General Description of Documents Captured Date 

Completed

Uploaded

To SRDB

Internet - US Transuranium and Uranium Registries No relevant documents identified. 08/09/2012 0

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) -

Atlanta

Progress reports, accountability reports, health and safety inspection of 

Joslyn, a listing of uranium subcontractors, and materials code symbols.

12/07/2011 8

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) -

College Park

Trip reports, rolling operations data, material balances and losses, 

thorium fabrication, and a NIOSH researcher's notes.

08/17/2010 10

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) -

Kansas City

A site survey, decontamination documents, and a site visit. 03/30/2005 5

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)

Reports on rolling and centerless grinding uranium rods, a memo on 

hazardous work performed by Metallurgical Laboratory subcontractors, 

and worker outreach meeting documents.

08/27/2012 6

New York State Archives Reference to billet length limitations at Joslyn in a 1948 Electro 

Metallurgical Company to the AEC.

03/20/2012 1

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) An evaluation of health measures at Joslyn, uranium rolling reports, 

industrial hygiene conditions, a purchase order for medical 

examinations, and Joslyn's contract with the University of Chicago. 

Note: Awaiting 6 Central Files reports.

OPEN 11

ORAU Team A technical bulletin on estimating maximum plausible dose at Atomic 

Weapons Employer sites.

02/09/2007 1

Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) A 1944 report on uranium rolling and grinding at Joslyn. 07/19/2005 1

Unknown Air samples, progress reports, uranium rolling reports, health and safety 

issues, FUSRAP reports, and an occupational exposure to radioactive 

dust report.

07/21/2004 23

US Army Corp of Engineering (USACE) FUSRAP reports. 07/31/2012 5

TOTAL 202

Table A1-2: Databases Searched for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Database/Source Keywords / Phrases Hits Selected
 Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

62 of 63

Table A1-2: Databases Searched for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Database/Source Keywords / Phrases Hits Selected

NOTE: Database search terms employed for each of the databases listed below are available in the 

Excel file called “Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co Rev 01, (83.13) 10-04-12”

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

https://www.dtic.mil/

COMPLETED 05/16/2012

See Note above 6 1

DOE CEDR

https://www.orau.gov/cedr

COMPLETED 06/22/2012

See Note above 0 0

DOE Hanford DDRS

http://www2.hanford.gov/declass/

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 16 9

DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites

http://www.lm.doe.gov/considered_Sites/

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 35 2

DOE NNSA - Nevada Site Office

www.nv.doe.gov/main/search.htm

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 0 0

DOE OpenNet

http://www.osti.gov/opennet/advancedsearch.jsp

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 81 12

DOE OSTI Energy Citations

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/

COMPLETED 08/06/2012

See Note above 531 0

DOE OSTI Information Bridge

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/advancedsearch.jsp

COMPLETED 08/06/2012

See Note above 359 1

Google

http://www.google.com

COMPLETED 05/06/2012

See Note above 13,015 7

HP Journal

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/default.aspx

COMPLETED 06/22/2012

See Note above 0 0
 Joslyn Manufacturing

SEC-00200 11-06-2012 and Supply Co.

63 of 63

Table A1-2: Databases Searched for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Database/Source Keywords / Phrases Hits Selected

Indiana Department of Environmental Management Virtual 

File Cabinet

http://www.in.gov/idem/6551.htm

COMPLETED 06/26/2012

See Note above 26 0

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 

http://www.ijoeh.com/index.php/ijoeh

COMPLETED 06/22/2012

See Note above 0 0

National Academies Press

http://www.nap.edu/

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 4,024 0

NRC ADAMS Reading Room

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 1,362 1

USACE/FUSRAP

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 6 1

U.S. Transuranium & Uranium Registries 

http://www.ustur.wsu.edu/

COMPLETED 08/09/2012

See Note above 69 0

Table A1-3: OSTI Documents Requested for Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company

Document Number Document Title Requested

Date

Received

Date

No documents requested.