ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller & Associates I MJW Corporation

Page 1 of 45

Document Title:

Site Profile for Simonds Saw and Steel

Document Number: ORAUT-TKBS-0032

Revision: 00 PC-1 

Effective Date: 07/08/2005

Type of Document: TBD

Supersedes: None

Subject Experts: Shelby L. Gubin, Robert Vogel

Document Owner

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 05/18/2005

Cindy W. Bloom, TBD Team Leader

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 05/18/2005

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 05/18/2005

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 05/31/2005

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

 New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE REPLACE THE PRIOR REVISION. 

PLEASE DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 07/08/2005 Page 2 of 45

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

11/15/2004 00-A New Technical Basis Document: Basis for the Development of an 

Exposure Matrix for Simonds Saw and Steel, Lockport, New York. 

Initiated by Shelby L. Gubin.

01/09/2005 00-B Incorporated OCAS and ORAU Team comments. The more 

significant changes are listed here. The residual exposure period 

was extended. Information was removed from Section 2.4.1 to 

improve readability. The bioassay detection threshold value was 

changed. EU assumption for later bioassay data was added. RU 

instructions were clarified. The similarity between the film badge 

results and the workplace exposure assumptions was noted. 

Additional contamination information was added in Section 4.3. The 

wording regarding exposure time was corrected in Section 4.3. 

Referral to ORAUT-OTIB-0006 is made regarding medical X-ray 

exposure assumptions. Initiated by Shelby L. Gubin and Robert 

Vogel.

04/27/2005 00-C Minor editorial revisions, references corrected, added assumption of 

type M, as well as type S plutonium. A new section was added on 

coworker uranium bioassay analysis, and estimated uranium intakes 

for coworkers are now based on the uranium urinalyses. A small 

section comparing air concentration and bioassay derived intake 

rates was added. Initiated by Cindy W. Bloom.

05/10/2005 00-D Modified uncertainty approach based on informal OCAS comment. 

Added bias for coworker data, and adjusted uranium and recycled 

uranium intake numbers in Table 15. Clarified intake apportioning 

and basis for GSD in thorium section. Initiated by Cindy W. Bloom.

05/31/2005 00 First approved issue. No training required. Initiated by Cindy W. 

Bloom.

06/06/2005 00 PC-1-A Page change to correct error in Pu-239 and Np-239 end dates on 

Table 15, page 27. Initiated by Cindy W. Bloom.

07/08/2005 00 PC-1 Approved page change revision corrects Table 15 on page 27. 

No changes were needed as a result of NIOSH formal review. 

Retraining is not required. Initiated by Cindy W. Bloom.

Approval:

Cindy W. Bloom, TBD Team Leader

Signature on File__________________06/21/2005

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Signature on File__________________06/21/2005

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Signature on File__________________06/21/2005

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Signature on File__________________07/08/2005
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 3 of 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Publication Record ..............................................................................................................................

Page

2

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................5

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 6

2.0 Site Description and Operational History.....................................................................................6

2.1 Site Description.....................................................................................................................6

2.2 Process Description ..............................................................................................................7

2.3 Source Term .........................................................................................................................8

2.4 Safety..................................................................................................................................11

2.4.1 Workplace Contamination Controls ............................................................................ 11

2.4.2 Air Concentrations...................................................................................................... 13

2.4.3 Contamination and Radiation Levels .......................................................................... 14

2.5 Incidents..............................................................................................................................15

2.6 Physical Examinations – X-Rays.........................................................................................15

2.7 Summary Assumptions: Operational Period, Workdays, Work Hours, 

Work Categories .................................................................................................................16

2.8 Cleanup and the Residual Contamination Period ................................................................16

3.0 Estimation of Internal Exposure ................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Uranium ..............................................................................................................................17

3.1.1 Uranium Bioassay ...................................................................................................... 18

3.1.2 Uranium Air Sampling................................................................................................. 20

3.1.3 Comparison of Uranium Bioassay and Air Concentration Estimates........................... 24

3.1.4 Depleted, Enriched, and Recycled Uranium ............................................................... 25

3.2 Thorium...............................................................................................................................25

3.3 Occupational Internal Dose Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary............................. 26

4.0 Estimation of External Exposure ............................................................................................... 27

4.1 Summary of Available Individual Film Badge Data ..............................................................28

4.2 Submersion and Contamination Exposures.........................................................................28

4.3 Billet and Rod Exposures ....................................................................................................29

4.4 Occupationally Required Medical X-Ray .............................................................................30

4.5 Miscellaneous Information About External Dose ................................................................. 30

4.6 Occupational External Dose Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary ........................... 31

5.0 Estimation of Residual Exposure .............................................................................................. 32

References ........................................................................................................................................35

Appendix

A Coworker Bioassay Data by Sample Date........................................................................41

B Graphs showing predicted bioassay from air, and fits of coworker bioassay..................... 44
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 4 of 45

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Simonds buildings where contamination has been found .........................................................

Page

7

2 Some job titles involved in uranium rolling.............................................................................. 10

3 Number of assumed workdays and uranium-rolling days ....................................................... 16

4 Bioassay results from coworker data...................................................................................... 19

5 Inhalation intake based on coworker data .............................................................................. 20

6 Daily time-weighted average air concentrations ..................................................................... 21

7 Inhalation exposures during rolling operations ....................................................................... 23

8 Annual inhalation exposures during non-AEC operations from resuspension 

of deposited uranium dust...................................................................................................... 23

9 Estimated amount of uranium ingested .................................................................................. 24

10 Estimated uranium intake rates based on time weighted air concentrations........................... 24

11 Estimate of contaminant activity fractions in a recycled uranium source term......................... 25

12 Inhalation exposures during thorium-rolling operations .......................................................... 26

13 Inhalation exposure during non-AEC operations due to resuspension of 

deposited thorium dust........................................................................................................... 26

14 Estimated amount of thorium ingested ................................................................................... 26

15 Internal exposure summary for operational period February 24, 1948, to 

December 31, 1956................................................................................................................27

16 Calculated dose rate for uranium billet and uranium rod ........................................................ 29

17 Direct radiation measurements from September 1948 ........................................................... 30

18 External exposure summary for operational period February 24, 1948, to 

December 31, 1956................................................................................................................31

19 Measured radiation levels on July 10, 1957 ........................................................................... 32

20 Annual internal and external exposure to residual radioactivity .............................................. 34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1 Simonds rolling mills and hammer forge areas.........................................................................

Page

9

2 Simonds 16-in. rolling-mill area .............................................................................................. 10

3 Simonds 10-in. thorium-rolling area........................................................................................ 11

4 Workgroups’ daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations and 

estimated weighted exposures............................................................................................... 22
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 5 of 45

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

cm centimeter

dpm disintegrations per minute (also d/m)

ft foot

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

hr hour

Ha hectare

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

in. inch

keV kilovolt-electron, 1,000 electron volts

L liter

m meter

MAC maximum allowable concentration

MCNP Monte Carlo n-particle

mg milligram

min minute

mrad millirad

mR milliroentgen

mrem millirem

mrep millirep

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NLO National Lead of Ohio

NYOO New York Operations Office

PA posterior–anterior

pCi picocuries

R roentgen

s second

U.S.C. United States Code

yr year

μg microgram

μm micrometer
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 6 of 45

1.0

Technical Basis Documents and Site Profile Documents are general working documents that provide 

guidance concerning the preparation of dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. 

They will be revised in the event additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s). 

These documents may be used to assist the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) in the completion of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION

In this document, the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building, or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. Sections 7384l(5) and (12)].

This document provides an exposure matrix for workers at the facility listed as Simonds Saw and 

Steel Company (Simonds) in Lockport, New York. Simonds was involved primarily with the rolling of 

natural uranium rods as well as the rolling of some depleted and enriched uranium and thorium rods. 

After the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contract operations, Simonds became known as 

Guterl Specialty Steel. The facility is now owned by Allegheny Ludlum Corporation. 

2.0

The information that follows applies to a period of AEC operations at Simonds Saw and Steel from 

February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1956, involving AEC-contracted uranium and thorium work. This 

analysis assumed that the residual contamination period was from January 1, 1957, through the 

present, although the buildings were closed and the contaminated areas were isolated as of May 1, 

1983. 

SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY

The Simonds’ radiological source term consisted primarily of natural uranium metal, uranium oxides, 

and uranium’s short-lived progeny. Long-lived progeny in the uranium series prevent significant 

ingrowth past 234U in the 238U decay series and beyond 231Th in the 235U decay series. The source 

term included smaller amounts of thorium metal and thorium oxides. 

Simonds performed an experimental rolling for AEC on February 24, 1948, before entering into a 

contractual agreement with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The first contract, 

AT-30-1 Gen-339, negotiated with the AEC New York Operations Office (NYOO) was initiated in May 

of 1948, and was renewed annually through February 1952. AT-30-1-Gen-339 was officially closed 

on July 21, 1952. Simonds continued work under subcontract S-4 (effective March 1, 1952, through 

December 31, 1956) to the National Lead of Ohio (NLO) in Fernald, Ohio, contract AT (30-1)-1156 

with NYOO (Author unknown, no date a). 

In 1956, Simonds reportedly requested that NLO survey the thorium work that consisted of drop 

forging, rolling on the 16-in. bar mill, and finishing on the strip mill (Wunder 1956). This was 

reportedly commercial work for Babcock & Wilcox that was to occur in June 1956, but it might not 

have occurred until July 1956 (NLO 1956). 

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Simonds buildings most associated with AEC operations were referred to as Building A (also 

known as Buildings 6 and 8) with the 16-in. and 10-in. rolling mills and Building B (also known as 

Building 3) with the hammer forge shop (Ford Bacon & Davis Inc. 1981). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 7 of 45

Vitkus (1999) described the former Simonds site as a 28-hectare (one hectare equals 2.47 acres) 

area bordered by Ohio Street to the east, residential and commercial properties to the north, U.S. 

Route 95 to the West, and the New York State Barge Canal to the south. As of 1999, the property 

was grouped into three areas: 

• The Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, which includes four buildings constructed after the 

termination of AEC activities

• The 3.5-hectare landfill area in the northwest corner of the site

• The 3.6-hectare excised property, which includes nine buildings that existed during the AEC 

activities in the southeast corner of the site” (Vitkus 1999). 

Table 1 lists the buildings that probably existed at the time of AEC operations. 

Table 1. Simonds buildings where contamination has been found. 

Building number Building letter Use

1 Manufacturing

2 Manufacturing

3 B Grinding and rolling, hammer forge shop

4 Manufacturing

5 25-cycle heat exchanger

6 A 16-in. rolling mill

8 A 10-in. rolling mill

9 Manufacturing

35 Grinding and roll staging

2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

“An experimental [uranium] run was made at Simonds Saw & Steel on February 24” (AEC 1948a). 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology studies showed satisfactory results and arrangements were 

made to roll a carload of uranium metal beginning on March 29, 1948 (AEC 1948b). 

Materials for processing arrived, at least in the early years, in boxcars. Crated or palleted ingots or 

billets were placed in a temporary storage area. Just before rolling, workers uncrated the ingots or

billets and rigged them for transfer by crane to the weigh station. According to a report on rolling 

procedure in 1951 the billets were initially either 5-1/8-in. in diameter and 15 to 20 in. long or 4-1/4-in.

in diameter and 20 to 22 in. long (Smith 1951). The rolling reduced them to rods of 7/8-in. diameter 

each weighing approximately 200 lb. Thus, each turning was approximately 75 to 100 billets. 

After weighing, the ingots or billets were transferred into a furnace. A gas combustion furnace was 

used in the early years and occasionally thereafter. About January 1950, a heated lead bath furnace 

was installed to reduce the airborne radioactivity. The ingots or billets were loaded into the lead 

furnace, which was of a “Ferris wheel” type design for submerging and carrying the charge through 

the heated lead bath. It is not known how many billets the furnaces could handle at once, but it is 

known that each billet was in the furnace for about 40 min. The heated ingots or billets were 

transferred with tongs and a roller table (a table with rollers on top to reduce friction and ease heavy 

material transfers) to the 16-in. mill and rolled in two of its four stands. Depending on size, the bar 

could have been cut at the shears midway in the rolling operation. After rolling, the rods were 

quenched (either pressure quenched or dipped in a tank) and transferred in bundles by crane to the 

shipping area, where they were placed in tared H-beams, weighed, and loaded into railcars from the 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 8 of 45

shipping dock (DOE 1979; Keller 1979). AEC noted that trucks instead of railcars were being used as 

of August 1950, which eliminated daily handling and shoring of the load by shippers (AEC 1950a). 

The process generated a considerable amount of waste as evidenced from a 1952 Tonawanda 

Progress Report (AEC 1952): “Approximately fifty drums of [uranium-contaminated] scrap and oxide 

were received from Simonds at the completion of the January rolling.” 

The majority of the AEC work involved the straightforward task of rolling uranium, but occasionally 

tests were run to see if different coatings or methods would either produce a better product or reduce 

worker exposure. AEC reported on the rolling of copper-clad uranium on March 7 or 8, 1951 

(Heatherton 1951), which was deemed unsuccessful due to increased product problems and 

increased air concentrations, which could have been a result of the missing Plexiglas shields rather 

than the copper cladding. 

Information on the Simonds uranium forging is limited, but records indicate that “some 15 of [or?] 20 

ingots were processed in the hammer forge shop” (Keller 1979). AEC (1950b) concluded that forging

was a very dusty operation and recommended not using the process based on health considerations. 

In 1952, Fernald became the primary AEC site for processing uranium, and the Simonds uranium 

processing activities were significantly reduced. Simonds received odd lots that could not be easily 

processed at Fernald. “A few of the later lots of material were depleted uranium and several were 

enriched to the extent of about 2.5% [by mass]” (Keller 1979). Simonds did not process uranium and 

thorium after 1956. 

2.3 SOURCE TERM

On February 24, 1948, two 13-in. and one 29-in. billets were rolled to see if additional rolling at 

Simonds would be desirable (Taussig 1948). In total, between 25 and 35 million lb of uranium and 

approximately 30,000 to 40,000 lb of thorium were rolled from February 24, 1948, until operations 

ceased in 1956 (Vitkus 1999). “Over 99 percent of all Simonds uranium work consisted of rolling on 

the 16-inch bar mill” (Keller 1979) in Building A (Building 6). Before the NLO subcontract, up to 

500,000 or 600,000 lb of uranium were processed per month (Keller 1979). Several small lots of 

uranium bars and thorium ingots were run through the 10-in. rolling mill in Building A (8)], and 

approximately 15 to 20 ingots were processed in the hammer forge shop in Building B (3). Figures 1, 

2, and 3 show the layouts.

The processing occurred in turnings of about 15,000 to 20,000 lb each. There were approximately 

312 turnings per year from 1948 to 1952. At the end of the initial AEC contract, turnings reportedly 

decreased to 29 turnings in 1953, 56 in 1954, 58 in 1955, and 22 in 1956 (Keller 1979). It appears 

that a rolling turn takes up one shift (NLO 1953), so there were about 156 days per year, 2 shifts each 

day, devoted to AEC work from 1948 to 1952. This translates into 31 of 52 weeks or approximately 

60% of the time was spent on AEC work. Documentation of specific rolling dates was only available 

for those periods included in the reports of AEC visits. Based on the number of turnings reported by 

Keller (1979), the number of uranium-rolling days can be estimated as 15, 28, 29, and 11 rolling days 

for 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956, respectively.

For fiscal year 1950 (beginning October 1949), Simonds agreed to meet all the AEC rolling 

requirements, as high as 170 tons per month, so AEC consolidated its rolling operations at Simonds. 

(AEC 1949a) 

A national steelworkers’ strike began in October 1949. “A short-term agreement between the 

steelworkers’ union and company officials at Simonds Saw & Steel Company was reached. This will 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 9 of 45

Figure 1. Simonds rolling mills and hammer forge areas (ORNL 

1979). 

allow the October uranium rolling to take place as scheduled” (AEC 1949b). Simonds also planned to 

roll 160 tons of uranium in November because they had negotiated a short-term contract through

December 1, 1949. No uranium was to be rolled in December 1949, but rolling was to resume in 

January 1950 (AEC 1949b). 

In relation to thorium, Huke (1951) reported: 

Approximately two tons of thorium metal were rolled at Simonds Steel Co., Lockport, New 

York on August 16, 1951 ... We believe that this is the first time that thorium billets have been 

rolled directly to rods on what might be termed production scale ... Most of the material 

received consisted of 3-in. diameter round billets in the range of 15-in. long. 

Tonawanda Area reported 36 thorium billets were shipped to Simonds for rolling on November 19, 

1951 (AEC 1951a), that no thorium metal was rolled in January 1952, and that there were no plans to 

roll thorium at Simonds for the next few months (AEC 1952). Inventory amounts of thorium were 

shown for the months of May, September, and November 1952 (AEC 1953a). In November 1952, 

8,500 lb of thorium were to be rolled (Belmore 1952). An additional thorium rolling took place in 

August 1954 (Harris 1954). These rollings account for more than half of the reported 30,000 to 

40,000 lb that were processed.

In December 1948, Tabershaw (1948) mentioned a group of 150 Simonds workers. In February 

1949, Tabershaw (1949) mentioned that there were 180 Simonds workers who had been examined 

and that 57 were intimately exposed to uranium. Air-sampling data indicated that there were 13 to 28 

rolling-mill workers considered in the airborne uranium exposure studies on any one shift. Simonds 

worked two shifts and, because only a few workers worked the first shift, the maximum number of 

workers included in any of the studies was 45 (one study reported 48 workers, but only 45 were 

identified in the job categories). A film badge record includes 21 workers in October 1949 

(AEC 1949c).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 10 of 45

Figure 2. Simonds 16-in. rolling-mill area, Building 6 (AEC 1953b). 

Table 2 lists the job categories included in the AEC and NLO exposure studies, but the AEC reports 

indicated that workers switched categories. In addition, it was noted that workers could have worked 

on both the 16-in. and the 10-in. bar mill. No specific worker data were found in relation to the limited 

forging of uranium.

Table 2. Some job titles involved in uranium 

rolling. 

Foreman Roller #2 (finisher)

Assistant Foreman Shear Man 

Drag Down Man Straightener 

Hook Man Run-out

Billet loader Stranner

Weighin (Weighup) Dippers

Poke-in (Pressure) Quencher

Furnace Man (heater) Rod Stamper

Heater Helper Weighers (Rod)

Roller #1 (rougher) Shippers

The documents that relate to Simonds do not mention area access controls, so it is not clear who had 

access to the areas where the AEC rolling occurred.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 11 of 45

Figure 3. Simonds 10-in. thorium-rolling area, Building 8 (AEC 

1953c). 

As noted above, Simonds worked two shifts. AEC reports indicate that a shift lasted from 8 to 11 hr, 

with the typical shift lasting about 10 hr. These work-hours included at least 45 min for locker room 

and lunchtime. 

2.4 SAFETY

Early in the contract, the AEC (Belmore 1948a) provided safety recommendations for the 

uranium-rolling operations at Simonds, including exhaust ventilation, a central vacuum cleaner, floor 

grating, and high-pressure water nozzles for descaling (page 3 of the 4 pages of recommendations 

was missing). AEC air-sampling and radiation surveys were recommended to ensure that the 

engineering controls were adequate. Medical examinations of the workers were required. 

2.4.1

The main AEC safety recommendations for Simonds involved workplace contamination controls, 

which consisted primarily of ventilation controls and cleaning to minimize uranium dust in the 

Workplace Contamination Controls
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 12 of 45

workplace. There was little mention of external radiation safety practices. AEC reports documented 

incremental improvements in Simonds’ contamination control programs (AEC 1948c, d, 1949d,e, 

1950a,b,c, 1951b,c). Over time, Simonds went from no ventilation controls to local ventilation 

exhausts over the 16-in. rolls and a central vacuum cleaner to replace broom sweeping by December 

1948. In January 1949, a local exhaust was installed over the descaler. No local ventilation was 

described for the 10-in. rolling mill or the limited forging work. As of January 1950, a lead bath 

furnace was being used to reduce airborne contamination. Plexiglas shields were installed at some 

point to help contain contaminants and to direct airflow to the exhaust system. Dust collectors were 

added to the exhaust system to reduce uranium releases. Grating was used on the floor to minimize 

contact with the settling radioactive dust that could become airborne again. A partially legible AEC 

memorandum from August 5, 1948, indicates that the “mill crew” had two sets of clothing. The 

November 1948 AEC production report states that uniforms and gloves were provided to workers 

(AEC 1948e). 

As of January 10, 1949, the “complete ventilation had been installed, vacuum exhaust vented outside 

the mill area and exhaust fan from pressure quencher exhausted through roof“ (AEC 1949d), but the 

floor gratings had not been obtained. AEC noted inexplicably large air concentrations near the 

pressure-quenching and rod-stamping areas, which were within a few feet of each other. AEC 

thought that perhaps the descaling machine was throwing off large chunks of uranium, which were 

being caught on the air sampler. “It was noted that occasional stinging particles were caught on the 

face and hands of the man doing the [air] sampling.” In addition, the time to quench rods had been 

increased from 75 to 200 min per shift to improve scale removal, which factored into air concentration 

exposure estimates. 

By April 5, 1949, a large pedestal fan was used to blow air across the pressure-quenching and 

rod-stamping areas, which reduced worker exposure in these areas, but caused a general increase of 

uranium air concentration in other mill areas. 

By June 13, 1949, a stack ventilation dust collector was in use, although it appeared to be collecting 

only about one-tenth of the expected emissions (Reichard 1949). By September 7, 1949, the air 

velocity was increased with the expectation that the collection efficiency of the Aerodyne Concentrator 

would increase by 70% to 90% (Hershman 1949).

On July 12, 1949, AEC requested funding to install a lead bath furnace at Simonds. Uranium billets 

were being heated in a combustion gas atmosphere, where reportedly about 0.5% (by weight) of the 

billet was converted to an oxide, “most of which is eventually reprocessed to metal” (Reichard 1949). 

AEC noted that the lead bath would eliminate the brushing of uranium from the furnace and reduce 

exposures. December 1949 was dedicated to thoroughly clean areas most likely to be contaminated. 

Airborne radioactivity was expected to be at its lowest level yet during the January rolling (AEC 

1949a, 1950c), which involved a trial run of 10 tons of uranium (AEC 1949f, 1950c) and the initial use 

of the lead bath. AEC noted that the lead bath was removed by September 1954 (Klevin 1954).

By January 1950, rods were cold stamped to reduce airborne materials (AEC 1950c).

AEC reports document the effectiveness of recommended contamination controls, but noted 

inconsistency in their implementation. AEC and NLO constantly reminded Simonds to use the 

vacuum cleaner instead of broom sweeping the uranium dust areas. Use of the Plexiglas shields, 

floor grating, and ventilation system dust collectors appeared to be intermittent. 

In late 1953 Heatherton (1953a) stated that to decontaminate Simonds, the ventilation over the bar 

mill would be removed rather than leave it for future rollings. He pointed out that cleaning up from a 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 13 of 45

single thorium rolling would result in less overall costs than maintaining the ventilation and that the 

workers would be provided with respirators. 

The wearing of dedicated anticontamination clothing at Simonds appeared sporadic. AEC and NLO 

reports mention dedicated work clothes, but actual use is not clear. Cotton gloves appear to have 

been donned intermittently. In later years, there is mention of dust masks and respirators, especially 

in conjunction with the enriched uranium and the thorium processing, but it was noted that respirator 

use was intermittent, if not rare, during processing of AEC materials.

NLO’s memorandum (Polson 1954) states that during the next several rollings: 

...all operators have worn coveralls and caps supplied by NLO. Shoe covers are 

available but the men do not care to wear them. We have supplied respirators in the 

past but very few are worn continuously. 

Recently, we rolled enriched materials there (P.O. 296) and the men were concerned 

about its increased toxicity. Almost everyone wore coveralls, hats, shoecovers and 

respirators. Some, however, wore no protective equipment. 

For these past rollings, the two dust hoods over the 16-inch mill were used. There are 

no hoods over the 10-inch mill. The mill area has been cleaned after each rolling as 

well as possible considering the type of floor (steel plates). 

NLO concluded that as soon as other rolling facilities became available they would be used instead of 

Simonds. 

2.4.2

During World War II, permissible levels for uranium dust in air were set at 500 μg/m3 for insoluble 

uranium compounds and 150 μg/m3 for soluble uranium compounds. After the war, the University of 

Rochester lowered their recommendation for soluble uranium compounds to 50 μg/m3 based on the 

chemical toxicity, which is equivalent to 70 dpm/m3 of natural uranium. This level was based primarily 

on animal studies. The Medical Division of NYOO felt that a “maximum permissible level” was 

unknown and should be based on human data. Therefore, the 50 μg/m3 level was referred to as the 

“preferred level” (AEC 1949g). Some reports refer to a maximum allowable concentration (MAC), 

which was the same as the preferred level. 

Air Concentrations

From 1948 to 1951, the NYOO made several site visits to survey air quality. As better radiological 

controls were put in place, the air concentrations were lowered by a factor of 10 or more (AEC 1948c, 

d, 1949d,e, 1950a,b,c, 1951b,c). 

In response to the January 1950 survey results, AEC (1950c) reported:

The fact that a residual air contamination of the order of 25 μg/m3 [35 dpm/m3

] exists, 

even after a thorough cleaning and a full month of no rolling indicates two things: 

1. The entire mill has a low level of uranium contamination.

2. It will probably be impractical to reduce the airborne uranium level consistently 

below 15 μg/m3

. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 14 of 45

AEC (1950b) reported that air sampling results from forge-hammering operations ranged from 76 to 

260 times the preferred level in the general air and from 220 to 400 times the preferred level in the 

breathing zones of some of the men handling the billets.

In January 1951, Simonds dip-quenched instead of pressure-quenched the rods, leaving more scale, 

which was evident as oxide dust on the floor of the rod-stamping area and resulted in increased air 

concentrations (AEC 1951d). AEC also reported that the Simonds Plexiglas shields were not in place 

due to an oversight.

NLO (1953) mentions the rolling of enriched uranium in January 1953. Heatherton (1953b) describes 

the radiological conditions: 

On January 17, 1953, rolling of special “E” material was done at Simonds Saw & Steel 

Company. Rolling operations were done on the 16-inch bar mill and the 10-inch bar 

mill. Ventilation on the 16-inch mill was the same as normally used in uranium rolling 

operation at the Simonds plant. No ventilation was provided for the work on the 

10-inch mill ...

Air dust levels measured in the survey would not be noticeably different if normal or 

depleted material were rolled...

... weighted exposures ranged from 5.4 to 130 times the MAC. 

Air dust respirators were worn by all mill workers at the time of rolling...The actual 

operation time was only about 80 minutes.

General air results indicate an overall contamination of the building as a result of 

performing the operation without ventilating. 

In November 1953, Heatherton (1953a) implied that no enriched uranium was rolled between January 

and November 1953. In October 1954, Yoder (1954) reported on the rolling of 36 tons of depleted 

uranium billets. Air samples collected during this visit could have been compromised because of 

missing air-sampling heads. Makeshift sample heads were made by taping the filter paper to the 

female adapter for the regular sampling heads and leaving about the same open area on the paper as 

for the normal heads. Two operations were measured slightly above the MAC, and the rest were less 

than the MAC (Yoder 1954). 

Thorium air concentration results from July 1956 are probably measurements related to the 

commercial thorium work process arranged by Babcock Wilcox. These results appear generally lower 

than the November 25, 1952, results (NLO 1956).

2.4.3

While visiting Simonds on or before October 18, 1948, to survey a broken roller for disposition 

determination, AEC measured ambient radiation levels from a few milliroentgen per hour to greater 

than 25 mR/hr about 6 ft in front of the furnace. Further investigation was recommended (Heatherton 

1948). 

Contamination and Radiation Levels

The summary report notes that alpha contamination measured from 2,500 to 40,000 dpm/100 cm2 in 

the mill area from October 1948 to January 1949. Most of the mill area beta/gamma readings were 

less than 2 mR/hr. The highest reading was an area on the floor near the furnace that measured 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 15 of 45

15 mR/hr beta/gamma, and elevated readings were found near East Roller #1 and the Shear (AEC 

1949h). 

“A radiation survey was made of the entire area surrounding the plant and all the other buildings with 

a Zeuto. Alpha readings were negligible” (AEC 1949h). (A Zeuto was a portable ionization chamber. 

The early models were used to measure alpha contamination; some models also measured beta and 

gamma radiation.)

2.5 INCIDENTS

There were four incidents reported. 

• Klevin, an AEC employee, noted while sampling air in January 1949 that his face and hands 

were occasionally stung by particles that could have come from the descaling machine (AEC 

1949d). 

• A flying chip embedded itself in the flesh of the inner thigh of a rod stamper (Heatherton 1951). 

This could have been a chip from the die head or the hammer rather than a chip of uranium. 

• A rod stamper had a chip of material taken from his wrist; AEC (1951d) reported the uranium 

mass of the chip as 1.5 μg (in the data reports, the Greek γ was used to mean micrograms).

• In March 1952, there was a concern about an "allergic" reaction by a doctor and a nurse at a 

local hospital who were treating a Simonds 10-in. bar mill worker (Tabershaw 1952). The 

rumor was enhanced by reports of several other Simonds workers who complained of 

dermatitis. The dermatitis was limited to the day shift and cleared up within a week or so. The 

dermatitis was unlikely to be a result of radiation or uranium exposure. 

2.6 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS – X-RAYS

Physical examinations for all personnel were to include an annual X-ray, urinalysis (medical, not 

radioactive), and blood analysis (Belmore 1948a). Tabershaw (1948) stated that the physical 

examinations were done at the Bewly Building in Lockport, New York, and that X-ray and laboratory

examinations were done at the local hospital. As of December 7, 1948, about 100 workers had been 

examined. Tabershaw (1948) noted, “The entire group of 150 workers will have been examined.” 

Tabershaw recommended that NYOO send a letter requesting annual X-ray examinations at 

Simonds, and on December 29, 1948, Morgan (1948) sent a letter requesting a preplacement 

physical examination of all employees including X-ray of chest, complete blood count, medical 

urinalysis, and history of radiation exposures (especially information on diagnostic radiographic

examinations and X-ray or radium therapy). Morgan further noted that X-rays of the chest should be 

repeated yearly and that additional examinations (X-ray or physical) should be based on specific 

"symptomatology.” Termination examinations were essentially repeats of the preplacement 

examinations. Morgan (1949) responded to Simonds on January 13, 1949, that the mention of a 

pelvis X-ray requirement was in error. Morgan stated further that although “no previous X-rays were 

included in the pre-placement examination, it would be well to have them included at termination.” 

Employee medical records from March 1948 indicate that X-ray examinations were included, so 

perhaps Morgan meant that the X-ray films were not available at Simonds. Tabershaw (1949) noted 

that 180 people at Simonds were examined under the clinical program for workers exposed to 

uranium, and 57 people were intimately exposed. Follow-up examinations were to be “essentially” 

limited to the 57 workers. In addition, Tabershaw (1949) stated, “The X-ray films would be kept in the 

plant in a fire proof cabinet.” 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 16 of 45

2.7 SUMMARY ASSUMPTIONS: OPERATIONAL PERIOD, WORKDAYS, WORK HOURS, 

WORK CATEGORIES

Section 2.3 of this analysis assumed there were 156 days of uranium rolling per calendar year before 

1954. Beginning January 1, 1954 and running through December 31, 1956, the number of uranium 

workdays fell to 31 per year (20% of the earlier value). Table 3 shows the number of uranium rolling 

days and the number of non-rolling days for each work period. It was assumed that there were six 

thorium-rolling days per calendar year from January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1956. It was assumed 

that there were two work shifts for 10 hours each. It was assumed that operations in 1953 continued 

at the same level as 1952, although the available records indicate significant curtailment at the end of 

1953.

Table 3. Number of assumed workdays and uranium-rolling days. 

Start End Rolling workdays

Non-rolling 

workdays Workdays

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 130 72 202

12/1/1948 4/5/1949 52 38 90

4/5/1949 4/13/1950 156 112 268

4/13/1950 1/1/1954 585 387 972

1/1/1954 1/1/1957 94 689 783

Mill workers whose duties involved or put them near the 10-in. and 16-in. bar rollers were likely to 

have the largest internal and external radiation exposures. Workers involved in experimental 

radioactive material forging were likely to have had large exposures for much shorter durations, and 

so it is reasonable to group them with the mill workers. The records made no mention of restricted 

access in any of the milling work areas, so although it is likely that workers not involved in uranium or 

thorium production processes had much lower exposures, the mill worker exposures were used to 

bound exposures for these other workers. This analysis did not divide Simonds’ workers into 

exposure categories. 

While different tasks in the mill resulted in differences in exposures, it is evident from the records that 

the mill workers did not always perform the same tasks. Workgroup exposure assignments are based 

on data that are suggestive of worker exposures and further modified by uncertainty parameters to 

ensure that the reconstructed dose distributions capture the larger exposures. Depending on the 

organ of interest and the supplemental data associated with a specific claim, additional considerations 

might be appropriate. 

2.8 CLEANUP AND THE RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION PERIOD

In November of 1953, Blythe (1953) requested that arrangements be made for NLO to oversee the 

decontamination of Simonds. NLO raised a concern that additional thorium work could be requested 

within the next 6 months, but it appears that some cleanup could have taken place in late 1953 or 

early 1954. The uranium and thorium operations at Simonds ceased by December 31, 1956, but 

there were no closeout surveys until 1957 and 1958.

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) began in 1976, and Simonds was 

revisited to determine if there was residual activity. ORNL (1979) reported on a radiological survey in 

October 1976 to characterize the property for FUSRAP. At the time of the survey about 50 of the 450 

people employed at the Simonds site worked in Buildings A (6 and 8) and B (3). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 17 of 45

A radiological survey in October 1976 identified contamination (primarily 238U) in and around onsite 

buildings. [Uranium-238 is the predominant isotope by mass in natural uranium and is more easily 

identified than the other isotopes, so some records could refer to it as 238U rather than natural 

uranium, which consists of approximately equal activities of 234U and 238U plus a smaller amount of 

235U. Reported 238U quantities could include all of the uranium activity or just part, depending on 

actual analysis techniques and reporting procedures.] 

Guterl Specialty Steel, who had bought Simonds, filed for bankruptcy in 1982 and closed its doors on 

May 1, 1983. Allegheny Ludlum purchased the site in 1984. The buildings used for uranium and 

thorium rolling and some others were in a fenced off area referred to in a survey by the Oak Ridge 

Institute for Science and Education as the excised area (Vitkus 1999), and no work was being done 

there. Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 35 are in the excised area. The building walls are brick and 

sheet-metal paneling, and the floors consist primarily of compacted dirt with some areas of concrete 

or brick. In 1999, the horizontal surfaces were found to contain excessive amounts of dust and 

debris. Buildings 6 and 8, where the rolling took place, had steel plates on the floor with dirt and 

cinders beneath. The majority of the equipment used during AEC work was still present in 1999. The 

buildings were isolated at the time of closing and exhibited leaking roofs, broken windows, and similar 

conditions. Although it is likely that the contaminated buildings/areas have remained inaccessible to 

Simonds’ site employees since May 1, 1983, this site profile assumes that residual contamination 

exposures could have occurred through the present. 

3.0

The primary sources of internal radiation exposure at Simonds Saw and Steel were uranium and 

thorium dust produced from the manipulation and oxidation of the metals during rolling and related 

processes. In the early years, natural uranium was rolled. There is reference to some use of uranium 

enriched to 2.5% or less and to depleted uranium in the later years of AEC work. 

ESTIMATION OF INTERNAL EXPOSURE

AEC measured particle sizes using a “modified cascade impactor” at Simonds on January 12 (Spiegl 

et al. no date; probably 1949 or 1950, the year was unspecified). The sampler was 3.5 ft from the 

floor and 4 ft from the uranium billet during roughing and finishing. The four mass median diameter

distribution measurements ranged from 1.22 to 1.80 μm with indication that the values increased over 

time. The reported geometric standard deviation (GSD) of each measurement was about 2.5. When 

adjusted for density, these results are consistent with International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) Publication 66 default parameters for particle deposition (ICRP 1994a), so dose 

reconstructions should assume ICRP Publication 66 defaults (including a 5 μm activity median 

aerodynamic diameter). 

3.1 URANIUM

Human and animal studies have indicated that oxides of uranium can be very insoluble (ICRP 1995), 

which indicates absorption type S (0.1% and 99.9% with clearance half-times on the order of 10 

minutes and 7000 days, respectively). Other in vitro dissolution studies of compounds found at 

uranium facilities have shown that oxides of uranium exhibit moderate solubility (Eidson 1994; 

Heffernan et al. 2001), which suggests absorption type M (10% and 90% with clearance half-times on 

the order of 10 minutes and 140 days, respectively). In vitro dissolution tests on oxides produced 

from uranium metal during depleted uranium armor penetrator tests have indicated multicomponent 

dissolution rates, with 25% of uranium dissolving with a half-time of less than or equal to 0.14 d and 

75% dissolving with a half-time of 180 d. Because there was no specific information on the solubility 

of aerosols produced during operations, this analysis assumed that both types M and S were 

available. The selection of absorption type should depend on the organ of interest. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 18 of 45

3.1.1

Individual uranium urinalysis data are available for some Simonds workers. Urine samples were not 

collected from all uranium workers at Simonds, so the lack of bioassay for an individual should not 

result in a conclusion of no internal exposure. The uranium urinalyses for Simonds workers range 

from 0 to 0.272 mg/L. AEC (1950c, Table 4, footnote) notes that the 0.272 mg/L value from 

November 4, 1949, was obviously contaminated, but the only basis for this appears to be that the 

result was large. This analysis assumes that the 0.272 mg/L result was valid. The next largest result 

was 0.164 mg/L. 

Uranium Bioassay

Many of the early samples were collected for understanding the relationship between exposures and 

urinalyses results. AEC (1949h) stated: 

In order that some correlation could be obtained between uranium exposure of 

individuals in this area and the amount of uranium found in their urine, urine samples 

were obtained from 10 different individuals for 3 days before a rolling period, each day 

during the rolling period, and 4 samples taken twice weekly after the rolling had 

ceased. [Urinalysis data that completely matched this quote have not been located.]

Although the AEC quote above indicates that multiple acute or short chronic intakes could best 

describe the exposures, the contamination of the workplace likely caused continual, albeit lower, 

intakes. Chronic exposures assumptions are used to fit the multiple intakes at Simonds. 

The uranium fusion photofluorimetry urinalyses performed by the University of Rochester and the 

AEC NYOO were similar to those performed at other AEC facilities. The default detection threshold 

for uranium urinalysis is assumed to be 10 μg/L based on a reported sensitivity of 5 to 10 μg/L for 

uranium fluorimetry urinalysis in the early years (Wilson 1958). Several early Simonds bioassay 

reports noted that the results of less than 0.01 mg/L were insufficient for reliable detection (Author 

unknown 1948). A set of bioassay results, dated November 4, 1949, includes the note “Urines had to 

be treated with concentrated HNO3” (AEC 1949i). No reason was given. AEC (1950a) thought the 

uranium urinalyses for August 14 and 28 were higher than usual possibly because they were 

associated with workers from the second shift, which reportedly had less supervision (analysis errors, 

sample contamination and high internal exposures several hours before pre-roll sample collections 

were also listed as possibilities for the elevated urinalyses). AEC noted that some results were 

collected pre rolling and some were collected post rolling. About half of the geometric means for 

urinalyses that appear to be pre rolling are higher than the geometric means for post rolling 

urinalyses. Information regarding the time that had elapsed post rolling and prior to a pre rolling 

sample collection was not available. In addition, some post rolling samples might have been collected 

at the rolling day’s end, i.e., at the very end of rolling, not after rolling. 

For unmonitored workers or unmonitored periods, this Site Profile analyzes the bioassay results to 

provide estimates of coworkers’ uranium intakes.

The first available bioassay samples for Simonds were dated November 1, 1948: urinalyses are 

reported fairly regularly through December 15, 1950. The last available set of sample results was 

reported for December 20 and 22, 1952. No specific incidents were associated with any of the 

samples. One worker, who reportedly had two embedded metal chips removed from his skin, had no 

bioassay results dated after the two incidents. Results for two people, who were listed on data sheets 

where the plant was listed as NYOO, were not included in the analysis: one person’s result was listed 

as 0; the other results were associated with an NYOO employee who visited multiple AEC facilities. 

Results, dated December 14 and 15, 1950, appeared to be parts of the same set, so were combined 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 19 of 45

and assumed to all be dated December 14, 1950. The bioassay data used in the coworker exposure 

analysis are summarized in Appendix A. For each bioassay date, geometric means were estimated 

by ranking the data, determining the z-scores, and plotting the respective z-score versus the natural 

log of the data. A line was fit to the data, and e raised to the line’s y-intercept value was assumed to 

be the geometric mean and e raised to the slope value was assumed to be the geometric standard 

deviation (GSD) of the data. Results reported as zero were ranked, but used only indirectly in the 

fitting of the line. The 84th percentile was estimated as the geometric mean multiplied by the GSD. 

Prior to November 17, 1949 the number of results for a given date ranged from 10 to 16. The 

statistical fit parameter (R2

) results averaged 0.86 and ranged from 0.65 to 0.96, and were considered 

adequate for this set of data. 

The daily uranium excretion in urine was calculated by multiplying the results in mg/L by reference 

man’s daily urine output (1.4 L/day) (ICRP 1975). Appendix A shows the bioassay results used in the 

intake analyses. Table 4 shows a summary of the estimated geometric median, 84th percentile, and 

maximum uranium urinalyses used to derive intakes from three chronic inhalation intake regimes: 

February 24, 1948 to December 1, 1948, December 1, 1948 to December 15, 1950 and December 

15, 1950 to December 31, 1956. Graphs showing the fits of these intake regimes are shown in 

Appendix B. Additional intakes and alternate periods were tried, but fits were not more satisfactory

than those chosen. When intakes are estimated from bioassay data, the mode of intake is usually 

assumed to be inhalation, unless there is information that indicates that other modes of intake are 

more likely. When using bioassay data, the inhalation intake model assumes that some of the intake 

behaves as ingested material. In general, intakes from bioassay will be larger when an inhalation 

rather than an ingestion intake is assumed.

Table 4. Bioassay results from coworker data.

a

Bioassay date

Geometric mean 

bioassay (mg/L)

84th percentile 

bioassay (mg/L)

Maximumb

bioassay (mg/L)

11/1/1948 0.021 0.045 0.140

11/3/1948 0.022 0.042 0.090

11/4/1948 0.022 0.043 0.070

11/8/1948 0.011 0.018 0.030

11/11/1948 0.016 0.031 0.050

11/15/1948 0.016 0.035 0.050

1/6/1949 0.006 0.016 0.018

4/27/1949 0.017 0.028 0.036

11/4/1949 0.016 0.036 0.272

11/17/1949 0.001 0.010 0.164

1/6/1950 0.002 0.009 0.026

1/19/1950 0.010 0.024 0.035

5/15/1950 0.005 0.014 0.022

5/23/1950 0.008 0.019 0.034

8/14/1950 0.027 0.041 0.102

8/28/1950 0.016 0.022 0.033

9/23/1950 0.002 0.009 0.020

9/25/1950 0.011 0.018 0.024

10/20/1950 0.006 0.026 0.067

10/25/1950 0.005 0.016 0.043

11/9/1950 0.003 0.010 0.030

11/16/1950 0.005 0.014 0.028

12/14/1950 0.006 0.015 0.080

12/20/1952 0.016 0.035 0.066

12/22/1952 0.015 0.033 0.054

a. Multiply results in mg/L by 1.4 L/day to obtain results in mg/day for use in IMBA. 

b. No one worker had maximum bioassay results.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 20 of 45

The intakes were calculated with IMBA ExpertTM OCAS-Edition, Version 3.2.20, assuming an absolute 

uniform error of 1 and normal error distributions for each bioassay result. The geometric standard 

deviations (GSDs) for the intakes were calculated by dividing the intake from the 84th percentile

regime by the intake from geometric mean intake regime. Table 5 shows the inhalation intake 

distributions from the analyses of the Simonds uranium urinalysis data, assuming that either a type M 

or a type S (but not both) intake occurred. Intake rates are adjusted from mg/day to pCi/day by 

multiplying by 682.91 pCi/mg.

Table 5. Inhalation intakes based on coworker data. 

Start End Type

Intake rate

(mg/day) GSD (Type M) Type

Intake rate

(mg/day) GSD (Type S)

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 M 0.422 1.98 S 12.6 1.99

12/1/1948 12/15/1950 M 0.173 2.25 S 1.76 2.58

12/15/1950 12/31/1956 M 0.329 2.16 S 5.32 2.15

The maximum GSD is rounded up to 3 and is used for all the intake regimes. In addition, a factor is 

applied to the intake values, to account for possible biases in data measurements and applicability of 

assumed intake regimes to coworkers; for example, an unmonitored worker might be better 

represented by the larger bioassay results. Because the analyses are being used in a compensation 

program, only a positive bias factor is applied. For Simonds, a bias factor of 2 is assumed for the 

coworker intakes. The effect of the chosen bias factor is to move the calculated fit lines for the 

geometric means up by a factor of 2, which results in most of the bioassay data being less than the 

adjusted fit line.

3.1.2

Air sampling was performed at Simonds during some of the uranium rolling campaigns (AEC 1948c,d,

1949d,e, 1950a,b,c, 1951b,c, 1953b; NLO 1953). The air samples consisted of collection on filters of 

radioactive particulate from breathing zones, general areas, processes, and effluents. AEC (1948c) 

states the general method of air sample collection and analysis:

Uranium Air Sampling

The [airborne] radioactive dust samples were collected on 1-1/8-in. diameter Whatman 

#41 filter discs, using a standard Fischer pump employed by the Medical Division, 

NYOO, a Wilson pump, and a small, light, air compressor with a Universal motor. The 

rate of flow found to be most suitable for collection purposes at the concentration 

sampled was 0.0175 cubic meters per minute. The collection period varied from 30 

seconds to 45 minutes, depending upon conditions of operation and dust loading. All 

dust samples collected were counted on a flat plate alpha counter at the New York 

Health Instrument Laboratory. Attached to this report are the dust sample records, 

containing both general air and breathing zone samples which have been used in all 

calculations to evaluate the employees’ exposure to radioactive dust.

The alpha activity measured on the filter was used to determine airborne alpha activity concentrations. 

The AEC matched these air concentration determinations with information about worker categories, 

locations, tasks, and workers’ time at each location or task. For some tasks and locations, multiple 

samples were collected; the mean count rate was calculated and used to calculate an average air 

concentration. 

The AEC used the information on work tasks with the measured air concentration to determine an 

average air concentration weighted by the exposure time and summed these average air 

concentrations to determine a daily time-weighted average air concentration for specified job 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 21 of 45

categories. These air concentration results are further analyzed here to determine group geometric

means. The daily time-weighted average air concentrations were weighted further by the 

AEC-reported number of workers exposed at a given concentration. The geometric means of the 

workgroups’ daily time-weighted average air concentrations were calculated and used to derive the 

intake rates. The GSDs of both the job category concentrations and the workgroup concentrations 

were determined to provide an indication of the distribution of the data (the latter GSD includes 

consideration of the number of people included in each category in the AEC study). This analysis

assumed that, because the data are limited and rigorous analyses to determine distribution type are 

not likely to be meaningful, a lognormal distribution could represent the time-weighted exposures and 

the subsequently derived annual organ doses. 

Table 6 lists the geometric means and GSDs for the job category and the workgroups’ daily 

time-weighted average air concentrations. In addition, the simplified estimated intake rates assumed 

from review of the air exposures over time are presented.

Table 6. Daily time-weighted average air concentrations. 

Air sample collection dates

10/27/1948 12/1/1948 1/10/1949 4/5/1949 5/2/1949

Number of categories 9 9 9 9 10

 Geometric means (dpm/m3) 1,977 860 523 263 226

 GSDs 3.0 1.9 2.9 1.8 1.8

Number of workers 32 30 28 30 40

 Geometric means (dpm/m3) 1,842 853 455 266 256

 GSDs 3.0 1.9 3.2 1.8 1.9

Estimated air concentration (dpm/m3) 2,000 1,000 1,000 250 250

1/9/1950 1/10/1950

4/13, 4/14, or 

4/18, 1950

5/17, 5/18, or 

5/22, 1950 8/14-16/1950

Number of categories 10 10 13 13 11

 Geometric means (dpm/m3) 190 180 90 75 96

 GSDs 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.5

Number of workers 40 40 45 45 38

 Geometric means (dpm/m3) 205 199 88 82 89

 GSDs 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.5

Estimated air concentration (dpm/m3) 250 250 150 150 150

1/9-10/1951 8/20-21/1951 1/1-31/1952 9/12/1952 1/4-21/1953

Number of categories 10 13 13 13 11

 Geometric means (dpm/m3) 161 97 96 129 141

 GSDs 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.4

Number of workers 38 42 42 43 34

 Geometric means (dpm/m3) 161 100 94 125 138

 GSDs 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.7

Estimated air concentration (dpm/m3) 150 150 150 150 150

The air-sampling reports show time-weighted air concentrations measured at the plant during rolling 

operations both before and after improvements in processes, ventilation systems, and safety 

practices. As discussed in Section 2.4.2, exposure conditions were constantly changing but had a 

general downward trend in the early years. 

A simplified but representative set of intake rates was determined by a graphing and estimating 

technique because there were 15 sets of natural uranium air concentration data and the workgroups’ 

daily time-weighted average air concentration results were changing over time. 

Figure 4 shows the geometric means, maximums, and minimums of the workgroups daily 

time-weighted average air concentrations for the 15 air-sampling periods. The numerical results and 

the graph were used to estimate periodic intake rates, which are summarized in Table 6 and shown 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 22 of 45

on the graph as estimated weighted exposures. A GSD of 3.0 (the largest calculated GSD associated 

with the data) was assumed to calculate the 95th-percentile estimated air concentrations shown in 

Figure 4. 

Air Concentration Analyses

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

10/27/1948

1/27/19494/27/19497/27/1949

10/27/1949

1/27/19504/27/19507/27/1950

10/27/1950

1/27/19514/27/19517/27/1951

10/27/1951

1/27/19524/27/19527/27/1952

10/27/1952

Date

dpm/cubic meter

GM Weighted WG

Exposures

Minimum

Maximum

Estimated w eighted

exposures

95th

Figure 4. Workgroups’ daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations and estimated 

weighted exposures.

This analysis of intakes based on air concentrations assumed that uranium rolling took place between 

February 24, 1948, and December 31, 1956. Rolling was assumed to occur for 13 days of every 

month from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1953, based on 312 turnings/yr and double shifts. 

The time assumption for the later period—January 1, 1954, to December 31, 1956—was reduced to 

20%. 

The breathing rate is based on the default for light work shown in ICRP Publication 66 (ICRP 1994a, 

Table 6, p. 23). Intakes in picocuries were calculated by dividing the estimated air concentration by 

2.22 dpm/pCi and multiplying this result by the breathing rate and the assumed number of hours 

exposed at the given concentration. Several assumptions included in the dose reconstruction are 

likely to be overestimating assumptions, which increase the estimate of the median intakes from air 

concentrations. Table 7 lists estimated annual inhalation intakes during rolling based on air 

concentrations. 

There was a potential for internal exposure to resuspended material from the AEC work during 

non-AEC operations. To estimate exposure from resuspended materials, this analysis assumed that 

surfaces in the building became contaminated by deposition of uranium dust during rolling operations. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 23 of 45

Table 7. Inhalation exposures during rolling operations. 

Work period

Number of potential 

AEC workdays

Air concentration 

(pCi/m3)

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr) Hr/workday

Intake 

(pCi)

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 130 9.01E+02 1.2 10 1.41E+06

12/1/1948 4/5/1949 52 4.50E+02 1.2 10 2.81E+05

4/5/1949 4/13/1950 156 1.13E+02 1.2 10 2.11E+05

4/13/1950 1/1/1954 585 6.76E+01 1.2 10 4.74E+05

1/1/1954 12/31/1956 94 6.76E+01 1.2 10 7.62E+04

Total 2.45E+06

The level of contamination was determined by multiplying the air concentrations listed in Table 7 by 

the indoor deposition velocity and the assumed deposition time, which for uranium was 20 hr per 

rolling day. The indoor deposition velocity is dependent on the physical properties of the room (air 

viscosity and density, turbulence, thermal gradients, surface geometry, etc.). It is also dependent on 

the physical properties of the aerosol particles (such as diameter, shape, and density). These 

characteristics are not known, so the terminal settling velocity was calculated for an aerosol with the 

ICRP Publication 66 default particle size distribution of 5-μm activity median aerodynamic diameter 

(ICRP 1994a). The calculated terminal settling velocity was 7.5 × 10-4 m/s, which is within the range 

of deposition velocities (2.7 × 10-6 to 2.7 × 10-3 m/s) measured in various studies (NRC 2002a).

The calculated surface contamination level created from airborne dusts during the uranium rolling 

from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1956, was 1.10 × 107 pCi/m2

 (240,000 dpm/100 cm2). The 

assumption was made that all of the surface contamination was present for the entire period of AEC 

operations. Therefore, using a resuspension factor of 1 × 10-6/m (NRC 2002b), the air concentration 

due to resuspension would have been 11.0 pCi/m3

. Table 8 lists the assumed annual inhalation 

intake received from resuspension of deposited material. (Table 10 shows the intakes in Table 8 

added to the intakes in Table 7.) 

Table 8. Annual inhalation exposures during non-AEC operations from resuspension of deposited 

uranium dust. 

Work period Hr/workday

Non-U rolling workdays 

per work period 

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr)

Resuspended air 

concentration (pCi/m3)

Intake 

(pCi)

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 10 72 1.2 11.0 9.52E+03

12/1/1948 4/5/1949 10 38 1.2 11.0 5.02E+03

4/5/1949 4/13/1950 10 112 1.2 11.0 1.48E+04

4/13/1950 1/1/1954 10 387 1.2 11.0 5.12E+04

1/1/1954 12/31/1956 10 689 1.2 11.0 9.11E+04

Total 1.72E+05

When using air concentrations to calculate inhalation intakes, the dose reconstructor should also 

consider ingestion intakes. NIOSH (2004) states that the daily ingestion rate in picocuries can be 

estimated by multiplying the daily air concentration in picocuries per cubic meter by a factor of 0.2 for 

an 8-hr workday. For a 10-hr workday, the multiplier would be 0.223. The daily ingestion rates during 

AEC uranium work are estimates based on the air concentrations in Table 7. The daily ingestion 

intakes from resuspended uranium are estimates from Table 8. The ingestion intakes are then the 

sum of the products of the ingestion intake rates and the number of workdays exposed at the 

calculated levels. The ingestion intakes in Table 9 apply to all workers. 

A summary of estimated uranium intake rates based on air concentrations is shown in Table 10.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 24 of 45

Table 9. Estimated amount of uranium ingested (pCi) (based on Tables 7 and 8). 

Work period

U-rolling 

workdays

U ingestion rate 

during uranium rolling

(pCi/workday)

Non-U rolling 

workdays

U ingestion rate during 

normal operation

(pCi/workday)

Intake 

(pCi)

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 130 2.01E+02 72 2.46E+00 2.63E+04

12/1/1948 4/5/1949 52 1.01E+02 38 2.46E+00 5.32E+03

4/5/1949 4/13/1950 156 2.51E+01 112 2.46E+00 4.20E+03

4/13/1950 1/1/1954 585 1.51E+01 387 2.46E+00 9.77E+03

1/1/1954 12/31/1956 94 1.51E+01 689 2.46E+00 3.11E+03

Total 4.87E+04

Table 10. Estimated uranium intake rates based on time weighted 

air concentrations.

Start End

Intake 

route

Absorption 

type

Intake 

(pCi/d)

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 Inhalation M, S 5.04E+03

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 Ingestion (a) 9.36E+01

12/1/1948 4/5/1949 Inhalation M, S 2.29E+03

12/1/1948 4/5/1949 Ingestion (a) 4.26E+01

4/5/1949 4/13/1950 Inhalation M, S 6.05E+02

4/5/1949 4/13/1950 Ingestion (a) 1.12E+01

4/13/1950 1/1/1954 Inhalation M,S 3.87E+02

4/13/1950 1/1/1954 Ingestion (a) 7.19E+00

1/1/1954 12/31/1956 Inhalation M, S 1.53E+02

1/1/1954 12/31/1956 Ingestion (a) 2.84E+00

3.1.3

Summary estimates of uranium intakes (unadjusted for bias) shown in Section 3.3 are based on 

Simonds’ workers’ bioassay data. The estimates of intakes from air concentrations, which started 

high, decreased over time, and then leveled out tend to confirm the time pattern of intake from 

bioassay. The limited bioassay data indicate that the exposure rate might have increased in later 

years. The operational data and the air data neither confirm nor deny the increased intake rate 

determined for bioassay data in later years. There is indication that the throughput decreased 

significantly in later years, but this is offset both by the processing of some enriched uranium with its 

higher specific activity (radioactivity per unit mass) and the reportedly reduced usage of safety 

equipment, such as local ventilation. 

Comparison of Uranium Bioassay and Air Concentration Estimates

Differences in the values of intake estimates from air and bioassay data are likely due to a multitude 

of factors, but the more significant factors are the assumptions regarding the time patterns of intakes 

and the absorption types of the material. For interpretation of both the air and bioassay data, intake 

pattern assumptions were simplified based on the limited information. If the time patterns of intake 

are assumed reasonable, it appears reasonable to conclude that workers were not exposed to a 

source term that was clearly pure type M or pure type S. 

Graphs are provided in Appendix B that show how predicted urinalysis results from air concentrations 

compare to the coworker bioassay data. Graphs are also provided to show the fits of the coworker 

data used to obtain the three chronic uranium intakes summarized in Table 15. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 25 of 45

3.1.4

Records for Simonds indicate that small quantities of depleted and enriched (up to 2.5% by mass) 

uranium were processed after 1951. Because the Simonds’ air samples were counted either with 

parallel-plate alpha counters or with alpha scintillation detectors, which detect radioactivity rather than 

mass, there is no need to adjust measured air concentration results for assumed uranium enrichment 

or depletion, even when the results were reported in micrograms per cubic meter. 

Depleted, Enriched, and Recycled Uranium

Enrichment or depletion would affect assumptions about the radioactivity in the mass of the uranium

released or measured because of differences in specific activities (activity per mass). Because this 

increase or reduction is no more than a factor of 3 for these limited processing campaigns, and 

because more than 99% of the material was natural uranium, this analysis makes no adjustment for 

specific activity. But because of the unknown enrichment for a given period and the unknown fraction 

of enriched material processed for a given period, this document assumes that intakes calculated 

from air data are U234 for the purpose of calculating internal organ doses. 

Heatherton (1953b) reported the results for an air-sampling survey during enriched uranium rolling on 

January 17, 1953, at the 10-in. bar mill. The operation lasted for 80 min (versus the typical 8 to 10 

hr). The geometric mean concentration for 80 min was about 2,000 dpm/m3 with a GSD of 3.0 (this is 

shown in Figure 4 as the last air sample). In reality, the actual worker exposure would have been

lower by about a factor of 6, giving a daily weighted concentration of 330 dpm/m3

. Heatherton

(1953b) noted that there was no ventilation at the 10-in. bar mill and that air dust respirators were 

worn by all mill workers at the time of the survey. Ventilation was recommended for any future work 

on the 10-in. bar mill. Because the number of uranium-rolling days in 1953 was estimated to continue 

at 156 d (versus the estimated 15 d calculated in Section 2), it is believed that there is a sufficiently 

large overestimate of intake to not adjust intake rates for this work. For later years, where 28, 29, and 

11 d of rolling are assumed and 31.2 is used in the intake calculations, the margin is not as large, but 

it is also likely that smaller runs were being made during this period that might not have consumed 

two full operating shifts per day. 

Recycled uranium might have been processed at Simonds after 1952. An estimate of contaminants 

that might contribute the most to internal doses, based on a review of recycled uranium contaminants 

at Hanford and Fernald, is shown below. It is unlikely that recycled uranium would constitute the 

entire Simonds source term. The activity fractions are based on the specific activity of depleted

uranium, which increases the proportion of the contaminants by activity. The contaminant levels for 

depleted uranium overestimate the contaminants in uranium of normal enrichment by about 40%. 

The contaminants are assumed to be in the form of oxides.

Table 11. Estimate of contaminant activity 

fractions in a recycled depleted uranium source 

term (pCi contaminant per pCi uranium). 

Uranium Np-237 Pu-239

1 0.00182 0.00261

3.2 THORIUM

Thorium metal rapidly oxidizes, and particulates created during the metal-forming processes at 

Simonds were likely to be oxides. ICRP Publication 68 lists thorium oxides as absorption type S

(ICRP 1994b). Freshly separated thorium consists of equal amount of 232Th and 228Th. During the 

Simonds’ operational period, it is reasonable to assume that thorium intakes consisted of 50% 232Th

and 50% 228Th. The contributions of 228Ra and 224Ra to 50-yr effective dose from inhalation intake of 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 26 of 45

thorium and its progeny (excluding 220Rn) in full equilibrium are about 4% and 5%, respectively. 

Because it takes some time to reach full equilibrium, and because the air samples included activity 

from all the alpha emitters collected, and because the estimated initial fraction of 228Th was 

overestimated, ignoring contributions from 228Ra and 224Ra in the operational years would not 

significantly change the estimated dose. 

It was assumed that Simonds processed thorium from January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1956. 

Dates of thorium rollings included August 1951, November 1951, November 1952, and August 1954. 

(Huke 1951; AEC 1951a, 1953c; Belmore 1952; Harris 1954). Based on the available information, it 

appears to take about 1 day to roll 4 to 5 tons of thorium. However, the records show that Simonds 

processed various amounts: one ton of thorium on November 19, 1951 (AEC 1951a), and 4 tons on 

November 25, 1952 (Belmore 1952). This analysis assumed that there was 1 day of thorium rolling 

every 2 months from January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1956, and that the thorium rolling was done in 

a single 10-hr shift 

Simonds workers have no thorium bioassay results. A November 25, 1952, set of daily time-weighted 

average air concentrations for specified job categories was the only job specific data found. This 

analysis assumed that the November 25, 1952, air sample results could be applied to the entire 

thorium-rolling period. This assumption appears to be justified by the Harris (1954) memorandum

stating that conditions were similar to those in 1952 with an average (mean) weighted exposure 

of1,030 dpm/m3

. As in the uranium analysis above, the geometric mean and GSD of the workgroups’ 

daily time-weighted average exposure were determined from the AEC air concentration. The 

geometric mean of the workgroup exposure was used to estimate inhalation and ingestion intakes 

from rolling activities and from resuspended contamination. The GSD for the calculated workgroup 

exposure was 4.0. Tables 12, 13, and 14 show the estimated thorium inhalation intake from rolling, 

the inhalation intake from resuspension, and the ingestion intake, respectively. In Table 15, the daily 

intake rates are divided equally between 232Th and 228Th. 

Table 12. Inhalation exposures during thorium-rolling operations. 

Work period

Number of potential 

AEC workdays

Air concentration 

(pCi/m3)

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr) Hr/workday

Intake 

(pCi)

1/1/1951 12/31/1956 36 3.93E+02 1.2 10 1.70E+05

Table 13. Inhalation exposure during non-AEC operations due to resuspension of deposited thorium 

dust. 

Work period Hr/workday

Non-Th rolling workdays 

per work period 

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr)

Resuspended air 

concentration (pCi/m3)

Intake 

(pCi)

1/1/1951 12/31/1956 10 1531 1.2 0.382 7.02E+03

Table 14. Estimated amount of thorium ingested (pCi) (based on Tables 12 and 13). 

Work period

Th-rolling 

workdays

Ingestion rate 

during thorium rolling 

(pCi/workday)

Non-Th rolling 

workdays

Ingestion rate(during 

normal operation

(pCi/workday)

Intake 

(pCi)

1/1/1951 12/31/1956 36 8.77E+01 1531 8.53E-02 3.29E+03

3.3 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS AND 

SUMMARY

The assumed uranium photofluorimetry urinalysis detection threshold is 10 μg/L. Uranium is assumed 

to be of natural enrichment, although small amounts of both depleted and 2.5% enriched uranium 

were rolled after 1951. The recycled uranium contaminants should be accounted for after 1952 using 

the activity fractions in Table 11. Uranium oxides can be either absorption type M or S. Neptunium 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 PC-1 Effective Date: 07/08/2005 Page 27 of 45

oxides are type M. Plutonium oxides are assumed to be type M or S. Thorium oxide is absorption 

type S.

The assumed operational exposure period is from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1956, which 

this analysis assumes to be the uranium intake period. The assumed intake period for thorium is 

January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1956. 

For unmonitored workers or unmonitored periods

Intakes of neptunium and plutonium depend on the intakes of uranium. It is assumed that the 

solubility types of uranium and plutonium are independent. Therefore the phrases “if U is M” and “if U 

is S”, have been added to the “Absorption Type” column. This is to indicate that the intake amounts of 

neptunium and plutonium are based on the intake amount of uranium. For both uranium and 

plutonium only one absorption type is chosen for dose reconstruction. 

, Table 15 lists intake rate assumptions for natural 

uranium and thorium along with GSDs. The intake mode is chronic. The dose distribution is assumed 

to be lognormal. 

Table 15. Internal exposure summary for operational period February 24, 1948, to 

December 31, 1956. 

Radionuclide Start End

Intake 

route

Absorption 

type

Intake 

(pCi/d) GSD

Uranium-234

Choose M or S 

intake scenario, not 

both.

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 Inhalation M 5.76E+02 3.0

12/1/1948 12/15/1950 Inhalation M 2.36E+02 3.0

12/15/1950 12/31/1956 Inhalation M 4.49E+02 3.0

2/24/1948 12/1/1948 Inhalation S 1.72E+04 3.0

12/1/1948 12/15/1950 Inhalation S 2.40E+03 3.0

12/15/1950 12/31/1956 Inhalation S 7.26E+03 3.0

Neptunium-237 1/1/1953 12/31/1956 Inhalation M, if U is M 8.18E-01 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1956 Inhalation M, if U is S 1.32E+01 3.0

Plutonium-239

Choose M or S 

intake scenario, not 

both.

1/1/1953 12/31/1956 Inhalation M, if U is M 1.17E+00 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1956 Inhalation M, if U is S 4.48E+01 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1956 Inhalation S, if U is M 6.26E+00 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1956 Inhalation S, if U is S 1.90E+01 3.0

Thorium-232 1/1/1951 12/31/1956 Inhalation S 4.03E+01 4.0

1/1/1951 12/31/1956 Ingestion (a) 7.50E-01 4.0

Thorium-228 1/1/1951 12/31/1956 Inhalation S 4.03E+01 4.0

1/1/1951 12/31/1956 Ingestion (a) 7.50E-01 4.0

a. Choose same f1-value as used for inhalation per NIOSH (2004). 

4.0

Individual external dosimetry results for Simonds Steel and Saw consist of doses reported for 20 

workers for the period from October 11 to 19, 1949 (AEC 1949c). A limited exposure period of less 

than two weeks might not be representative of exposures received during the 9 years of AEC 

operations at Simonds, so external doses based on supplementary data are provided. 

ESTIMATION OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

For dose reconstruction, when individual film badge data are not available or adequate to assign 

dose, this analysis provides dose estimated with the assumption that there was a potential for external 

exposure to natural uranium metal from five sources: 

• Submersion in air contaminated with uranium dust

• Exposure from contaminated surfaces
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 28 of 45

• Exposure to electrons from the surface of the uranium billets and rods

• Exposure to photons from the uranium billets and rods

• Exposure to occupationally required medical X-ray

The majority of photons from natural uranium metals have energies in the range of 30 to 250 keV. 

Solid uranium objects provide considerable shielding of the lower energy photons and harden the 

spectrum, which causes the majority of photons emitted from a solid uranium object, such as a billet 

or a rod, to have energies greater than 250 keV. While solid uranium sources have a hardened 

photon spectrum, exposure to a thin layer of uranium on a surface results in a larger fraction of 

exposure to lower energy photons. This analysis assumed workers were exposed to photon energies 

in the 30 to 250 keV range, which is claimant favorable. Nonpenetrating dose from natural uranium 

consists primarily of electrons with energies above 15 keV. For consistent presentation, exposure or 

dose is reported as: 

• penetrating, assumed to be associated with photons of energies 30 keV or greater, and 

• nonpenetrating assumed to be associated with photons of energies less than 30 keV or with 

electrons. 

The majority of photons from thorium metals have energies greater than 250 keV, and the solid matrix 

of billets and rods serves to harden the radiation energy spectrum. However, for the purpose of 

expediting dose reconstruction, the claimant-favorable assumption is made that workers were 

exposed to photon energies from 30 to 250 keV. Nonpenetrating dose from natural thorium consists 

primarily of electrons with energies above 15 keV. The actual dose rate from thorium varies in 

relation to the age of the material. This analysis assumes that exposure rates from uranium and 

thorium materials during operations period were similar. Harris (no date) noted that thorium and 

uranium radiological hazards are similar for metal fabrication processes. 

4.1 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INDIVIDUAL FILM BADGE DATA

AEC (1949c) issued 21 film badges to Simonds workers for the period from October 11 to 19, 1949. 

One of the badges was lost, so only 20 results were reported. No information was available to 

indicate when the workers actually wore the badges or where the badges were stored during off 

hours. The beta results ranged from 160 to 1,250 mR for the period, and the calculated and derived

geometric means were both 362 with a GSD of 1.6. The gamma results ranged from not reported 

(less than 50 mR) to 115 mR, and the derived geometric mean and GSD for the set were respectively 

63 mR and 1.4. The calculated geometric mean of the positive gamma results was 73 mR. A quick 

scoping calculation, which assumed that the badges were worn for 9 uranium-rolling workdays and 

that there were 156 uranium-rolling workdays per year, indicated annual beta and gamma doses of 

6.3 and 1.1 R, respectively. Assumptions about the length of exposure periods and exposure of the 

badge while not in use can increase or reduce this scoping value by a factor of about 3. 

External exposure estimates summarized in Table 18 based on consideration of source term and 

workplace information are consistent with the limited film badge data. For a 156-day uranium rolling 

year, the Table 18 assumed annual nonpenetrating exposure is 8.7 R and the assumed annual 

penetrating exposure is 1.2 R. 

4.2 SUBMERSION AND CONTAMINATION EXPOSURES

AEC suspended 20 film badges about 5 ft from the floor in the Simonds rolling mill for 192 

consecutive hours “to determine the long term direct [external] radiation to individuals” (AEC 1949h). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 29 of 45

When the badges were retrieved, they were covered with radioactive dust from the plant, which would 

probably result in an overestimate of the true area radiation levels. The maximum results were 

reported as 5.6 mR/hr beta and 0.34 mR/hr gamma. This analysis assumed (1) that these results 

represented the general levels of external exposure from submersion in air and contaminated 

surfaces at Simonds and (2) that the data distribution was lognormal. The calculated geometric 

means were 1.3 mR/hr with a GSD of 2.3 for the nonpenetrating radiation and 0.26 mR/hr with a GSD 

of 1.2 for the penetrating radiation. This assumption does not appear to be inconsistent with the 

reported Zeuto (portable ionization chamber) beta and gamma readings at Simonds of 2 mR/hr or less 

for most areas (AEC 1949h), some of which appear to be contact readings. The analysis assumed 

that the beta reading relates to the nonpenetrating dose and that the gamma reading relates to the 

penetrating dose. (Table 18 in Section 4.6 lists these assumed exposures at Simonds during 

operational years.) This analysis assumed that all workers were exposed to penetrating and 

nonpenetrating radiation from submersion in air and contamination for 10 hr each workday. 

4.3 BILLET AND ROD EXPOSURES

Another assumption was that workers received a deep dose due to photon exposure from the uranium 

billets and rods. According to reports, the AEC work involved rolling uranium billets of 4 to 5 in. 

diameters and 15 to 28 in. long. The billets were rolled into rods 20 ft long of approximately 1.5 in. 

diameter. Monte Carlo n-particle (MCNP) calculations determined the photon (including 

bremsstrahlung) dose rate at the surface, 1 ft, and 1 m from a 5-in.-diameter by 28-in.-long cylindrical 

billet and a 1.405-in.-diameter by 20-ft-long rod. Table 16 lists calculated photon dose rates for the 

uranium billet and rod.

Table 16. Calculated photon dose rate for uranium 

billet and uranium rod. 

Distance from 

source

Billet dose 

rate (mrem/hr)

Rod dose 

rate (mrem/hr)

Surface 7.74 5.09

1 ft 0.703 0.285

1 m 0.108 0.0883

Several of the air exposure records were reviewed to estimate a worker’s time near a billet or rod

versus just being in the general area. The records indicated that for most workers the time near the 

uranium billet or rod was less than 5 hr/shift, but some workers may have spent 6.5 hr near the rods 

and billets. Because workers changed jobs, this analysis assumed that workers were near the billets 

for 3.5 hr/rolling day and near the rods for 3.5 hr/rolling day. It also assumed that the dose rate at 1 ft 

was the median dose rate, and the dose rate at the surface was the 95th-percentile rate. The annual

penetrating dose rates in Table 18 (Section 4.6) were calculated by multiplying the median photon 

dose rates by the number of rolling days per year and the 3.5 hours per workday near the billets or the 

rods. 

Shallow doses from the billets and rods were estimated using the measurements in Table 17. The 

units of measure were reported based on the rep (roentgen equivalent physical), which is a historical 

unit of dose equivalence approximately equal to a rem. These measurements were taken during an 

AEC survey in September 1948 (Belmore 1948b) at Aliquippa Forge. Radiation measurements at 

Simonds appear to have been similar, although in general the proximity of the Simonds radiation 

measurement to the source is not included. Although in April 1948, Hayden (1948a) reported 

measurements as low as background, 0.1 mrep/hr, up to 40 mrep/hr at 8 inches from a rod storage 

pile. Direct beta readings were reported as 12 mrep/h at 2 feet above an unswept steel floor and 4 

mrep/hr after sweeping. Measurements taken at 2 inches from the floor dust indicated 20 mrep/hr 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 30 of 45

beta radiation. In May 1948, Hayden (1948b) reported the maximum exposure rate near the rod 

cooling area as 0.16 mrep/hr and the radiation from the bottom of the quench tank as 25 and 8 

mrep/hr at 6-in. and 2 ft, respectively. Reported radiation levels at various Simonds locations ranged 

from 0.5 to 12 mrep/hr in October 1948 and from 0.5 to 15 mrep/hr in December 1948 (AEC 1949h). 

In August 1950, AEC (1950a) reported radiation levels of 1 mrep/hr within 1 to 50 ft of the Simonds 

rolls, with a maximum of 10 mrep/hr. 

Table 17. Direct radiation measurements from September 1948.

a

Location of measurement

Dose rate

(mrep/hr)

b

Billet assumptions

Contact with floor next to the quench tank where oxide scale has collected 8

Contact with floor in front of rolls where oxide scale has collected 5-10

Same location but 18-in. high 2-5

Rod assumptions

4 ft above a pile of rods in the boxcar 20

5 ft from the end of a pile of rods next to the door of the boxcar 5

2 ft from the end of the same pile 13

a. Belmore (1948b). 

b. A rep (roentgen-equivalent-physical) is a historical unit of dose equivalence approximately equal 

to a rem.

AEC reported thorium radiation levels from thorium being readied for shipment to Simonds as 

15 mR/hr at the surface and 2 mR/hr at 1 m from a single crate, and 20 mR/hr at the surface and 

10 mR/hr at 50 cm from an “entire pile” on December 14, 1951 (Rothenberg 1951). 

This analysis estimated the shallow dose from billets by assuming that the median dose rate was 

5 mrem/hr and that the 95th-percentile dose rate was 10 mrem/hr, giving a GSD of 1.5. For rods, the 

assumed median dose rate was 5 mrem/hr, and the assumed 95th-percentile dose rate was 

20 mrem/hr, giving a GSD of 2.3. These exposure rates were multiplied by the assumed number of 

hours per workday near the rods or billets (3.5 hours) and by the number of uranium plus thorium 

rolling-days in the period. Table 18 (Section 4.6) lists the annual doses. 

4.4 OCCUPATIONALLY REQUIRED MEDICAL X-RAY

X-ray machine characteristics, beam measurements, and example films for Simonds were 

unavailable. Available documentation indicates that chest X-ray examinations were performed prior to 

or just as AEC work was starting, and were followed by annual chest X-rays. The type of X-ray 

examination should be based on current ORAU Team guidance. Organ doses can be obtained from 

the current revision of ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT 2003).

4.5 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT EXTERNAL DOSE

This section includes external dose information that could be of value for specific dose 

reconstructions. This analysis did not consider such information generically because of its limited 

applicability or because of limited details. 

AEC noted repeated instances of exposure to particles or chips of radioactive material, including 

stinging particles on the hands and face near the descaler (AEC 1949d) and chips of material 

imbedded in the skin from work in the rod-stamping area (AEC 1951d; Heatherton 1951).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 31 of 45

4.6 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS AND 

SUMMARY

Table 18 summarizes occupational external doses during uranium operations at Simonds. 

Table 18. External exposure summary for February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1956. 

Exposure mode Exposure type

Exposure or 

dose rate Basis

Exposure time 

assumption Year

Annual 

exposure

IREP 

distribution

Submersion/

area contamination

Penetrating 0.26 mR/hr Film badge 2,500 work-hr/yr

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

0.582 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R 

0.650 R

0.650 R 

0.650 R

0.650 R

Lognormal

GSD 1.2

Non-penetrating 1.3 mR/hr Film badge 2500 work-hr/yr

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

2.912 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

Lognormal

GSD 2.3

Medical X-ray

Initial plus one 

examination 

per year

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

See ORAU 2003

U billets

Penetrating 0.703 mrem/hr MCNP calculation 3.5 hr/rolling-d 

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

0.352 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.399 rem

0.399 rem

0.399 rem

0.091 rem

0.091 rem

0.091 rem

Lognormal

GSD 4.3

Non-penetrating 5 mrep/hr Instrument 

measurement 3.5 hr/rolling-d 

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

2.503 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.835 rep

2.835 rep

2.835 rep

0.648 rep

0.648 rep

0.648 rep

Lognormal

GSD 1.5

U rods

Penetrating 0.285 mrem/hr MCNP calculation 3.5 hr/rolling-d 

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

0.143 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.162 rem

0.162 rem

0.162 rem

0.037 rem

0.037 rem

0.037 rem

Lognormal GSD 

5.7

Non-penetrating 5 mrem/hr Instrument 

measurement 3.5 hr/rolling-d 

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

2.503 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.835 rep

2.835 rep

2.835 rep

0.648 rep

0.648 rep

0.648 rep

Lognormal GSD 

2.3
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 32 of 45

5.0

This analysis assumed that the Simonds’ residual dose period began on January 1, 1957 (at the end 

of rolling operations) and continued through the present. An 8-hr workday was assumed for this 

period. 

ESTIMATION OF RESIDUAL EXPOSURE

Before AEC uranium and thorium operations ended in 1956 at Simonds, some cleanup was planned 

and perhaps performed. In November of 1953, Blythe (1953) requested that arrangements be made 

for NLO to oversee the decontamination of Simonds. Simonds agreed to have six to eight workers for 

this work, which was to be scheduled on a weekend not to interfere with the rolling schedule 

(Heatherton 1953a). NLO raised a concern that additional thorium work could be requested within the 

next 6 months. AEC rolling did occur thereafter.

After the Simonds’ AEC contract work ended, NLO surveyed Simonds in July 1957 to see the 

effectiveness of decontamination efforts (Heatherton 1957); Table 19 summarizes the results. On

July 10, 1957, the forge area, the 16-in. bar mill, the 10-in. strip metal area, and the shipping and 

receiving areas were surveyed. All of these areas were found to be slightly above background, but

Table 19. Measured radiation levels on July 10, 1957.

a

Location

Contact (mrep/hr)

Beta/gamma

Beta (mrep/hr)

3 ft from surface

Gamma (mR/hr)

3 ft from surface

10-in. bar mill bed 10 to 20 1.0 to 1.7 0.04 to 0.05

Front of shear 1 to 2 0.4 0.08

Between plates on mill floor 0.15 0.05 None detected

Forge area 0.7 to 1.2 0.2 0.02

Top of furnace 1.0 No reading No reading

a. Heatherton (1957). 

at 3 ft about the floor, only two small areas exceeded 0.2 mrep/hr beta/gamma. Most contact 

readings were less than 0.5 mrep/hr (Heatherton 1957), and it was noted that while some 

contamination was found in inaccessible areas, it was estimated that a man would be exposed to less 

than 10 mrep/week. 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Corporation and Carborundum Metals performed surveys in late 

1958. The November 1958 survey results do not appear meaningful or consistent with earlier results 

(Glitzer 1958a). Alpha air activity was reported as 0 dpm with no indication of the air volume 

collected. The beta air activity was reported as 0 to 2.8 dpm. Smear samples were mostly less than 

20 dpm except in the vicinities of the rollers and quenching areas, where the maximum removable 

activity appeared to be about 42 dpm and the maximum beta activity was 114.4 dpm. A second set of 

survey results dated 13 days later showed a maximum removable alpha activity of 404 dpm. A review 

of the data indicates that the alpha counting efficiency was lower than the beta counting efficiency. A 

single soil result, which is not very legible, appears to be reported as 39 mg uranium/gram of soil. 

After the November 1958 survey, the quench tank was removed and clean steel was placed over the 

floor (Author unknown, no date b). Smear samples collected by Carborundum Metals on December 

12, 1958, were less than 10 dpm alpha and less than 25 dpm beta in the former quenching area 

(Glitzer 1958b).

ORNL performed a radiological survey in October 1976 to characterize the former Simonds site for 

FUSRAP (Author unknown, no date c). Removable contamination was not deemed excessive, but 

radiation exposures of greater than 1 mrad/hr beta/gamma were measured and 238U soil 

concentrations were about 21,000 pCi/g underneath the floor plates. Two soil samples were analyzed 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 33 of 45

isotopically to check for enriched uranium (ORNL 1979); the ratios were consistent with natural, not 

enriched, uranium. 

Simonds received essentially pure uranium and thorium metal (no radium) for processing. This is 

confirmed by the 1979 ORNL survey, which reported two radon results of less than 0.4 pCi/liter and 

two measurements to evaluate radon progeny with results of less than 0.001 Working Levels. 

Assuming 100% equilibrium of the progeny (a maximizing assumption) gave results of all four 

samples within the normal range of atmospheric radon concentration of 0.1 to 0.5 pCi/L (Eisenbud 

1987). Soil concentrations of 226Ra were equivalent to background concentrations. The largest soil 

concentration of 232Th was 11 pCi/g, and 22 of 25 thorium soil samples had concentrations of less 

than 3 pCi/g. It was noted that 238U concentrations were at least 100 times the 228Th concentration, 

which was assumed to be in equilibrium with 232Th. 

The largest directly measured alpha contamination from ORNL (1979) was 4600 dpm/100 cm2

. 

Beta/gamma levels measured within 40 ft of the 16-in. rolling mill were above 1.0 mrad/hr. On the 

16-in. rolling mill, the beta/gamma dose rates were as high as 3.5 mrad/hr. The highest external 

gamma level was 0.048 mR/hr at 1 m above the floor in the rolling mill and in the forge shop (Author 

unknown, no date a). 

“On February 7, 1980, DOE determined that the Simonds Steel Division site required consideration for 

remedial action” (Author unknown, no date c). Guterl Specialty Steel filed for Chapter 11 protection in 

August 1982 (Author unknown, no date c). The Simonds Steel metal-rolling operation was closed on 

May 1, 1983 (Author unknown, no date d.) Allegheny International purchased the site in March 1984 

(Author unknown, no date c). Although it is very unlikely that residual exposure occurred to site 

employees after May 1983, the contamination was still present, and this document assumes that 

exposure to residual radioactivity could have continued to occur. 

To calculate internal exposure from residual activity this analysis assumed that the median uranium 

exposure was from uniform contamination of the buildings to a level of 4,600 dpm/100 cm2

. Using a 

resuspension factor of 1 × 10-6/m (NRC 2002b) and an air intake rate of 2,400 m3

/yr, the calculated 

uranium annual inhalation intake was 497 pCi. Uranium enrichment does not need to be addressed 

during this period, because measurements were based on radioactivity, not mass, and because 

sample analyses indicate the uranium contamination was not enriched. It is assumed that recycled 

uranium contaminants would be an inconsequential component of residual contamination. Using the 

method described in Section 3.0, the calculated annual ingestion intake was 10.4 pCi. It was 

assumed that the 232Th and 228Th intakes were each 1% of the uranium intakes. Even though 224Ra

and 228Ra would be much closer to equilibrium with the thorium during the residual exposure period, 

their contribution to internal dose was sufficiently small to be ignored. 

To reconstruct external exposure to residual radioactivity after the end of AEC operations, this 

analysis assumed that workers were exposed to 0.08 mR/hr penetrating radiation, which was the 

upper end of the gamma exposure rate readings at 1 m in 1957. The residual penetrating radiation 

exposure was estimated by assuming that the 0.08 mR/hr was the median rate and the beta/gamma 

exposure rate at 3 ft (0.4 mrep/hr) was the 95th-percentile rate, which yields a GSD of 3.5. A 

nonpenetrating external exposure was estimated by assuming that the 0.2-mrep/hr beta/gamma 

reading at 3 ft from the floor in the forge area was the median rate and that the 1-mrep/hr beta/gamma 

reading at contact was the 95th-percentile rate, which yields a GSD of 2.6. The estimated annual 

external exposure to residual radioactivity from AEC operations at the site, listed in Table 20, was

calculated by assuming that workers were exposed for 2,000 hr/yr. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 34 of 45

Assumptions about residual exposures should be consistent with assumptions from the operational 

period.

Table 20 summarizes residual period intake rates and external exposure rates. 

Table 20. Annual internal and external exposure to residual radioactivity. 

Internal exposure

Source Start End Exposure Absorption type Intake (pCi/d) IREP distribution

U-234 1/1/1957 Present Inhalation M, S 1.4E+00 Lognormal GSD 5

1/1/1957 Present Ingestion (a) 2.8E-02 Lognormal GSD 5

Th-232 1/1/1957 Present Inhalation S 1.4E-02 Lognormal GSD 5

1/1/1957 Present Ingestion (a) 2.8E-04 Lognormal GSD 5

Th-228 1/1/1957 Present Inhalation S 1.4E-02 Lognormal GSD 5

1/1/1957 Present Ingestion (a) 2.8E-04 Lognormal GSD 5

External Exposure

N/A Start End Exposure Basis R/yr IREP distribution

1/1/1957 Present Penetrating Survey instrument 0.160 Lognormal GSD 3.5

1/1/1957 Present Non-penetrating Survey instrument 0.400 Lognormal GSD 2.6

a. Choose same f1-value as used for inhalation per NIOSH (2004).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 35 of 45

REFERENCES

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948a, Monthly Status and Progress Report for February 

1948, Office of New York Directed Operations, March 5. [pp. 66–87 of Brookhaven and AWE 

Reports - 1948.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948b, Monthly Status and Progress Report for March 1948,

Office of New York Directed Operations, April 6. [pp. 86–106 of Brookhaven and AWE 

Reports - 1948.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948c, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of October 27, 1948. 

[Eml2Box195SimondSaw&Steel1OccExpRadDustOct48.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948d, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of December 1, 1948. [030000548.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948e, Monthly Status and Progress Report for November

1948, Office of New York Directed Operations, December 13. [pp.253-272 of Brookhaven and 

AWE Reports – 1948.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949a, Monthly Status and Progress Report for April 1949,

Office of New York Directed Operations, December 9. [pp. 93-120 of Brookhaven and AWE 

Reports - 1949.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949b, Weekly Activity Report, New York Operations Office, 

September 30, New York, New York. [pp. 252-257 of Brookhaven and AWE Reports - 

1949.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949c, Radiological Film Badge Report, New York 

Operations Office, Radiological Laboratory, October 11-19, New York, New York. 

[250000128.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949d, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of January 10-21, 1949. 

[Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel3OccExpRadDustJan49.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949e, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of April 5, 1949. 

[Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel5OccExpRadDustApr49.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949f, Monthly Status and Progress Report for November 

1949, Office of New York Directed Operations, December 9. [pp. 184–216 of Brookhaven and 

AWE Reports - 1949.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949g, Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and 

Processing Uranium: A Status Report, April 1, 1949, New York Operations Office, Medical 

Division, New York, New York. [Health Hard in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing 

Uranium.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 36 of 45

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949h, Simonds Saw & Steel Co. Summary Report of Three 

Surveys (Oct. 27, 1948 – Feb. 15, 1949), 1949. [pp. 249–254 of Simonds Saw and Steel 

Company.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949i, Sample Requisition Sheets 1247 and1248, Medical 

Division, New York, New York. [pp. 7, 8, 11 and 12 of 

Eml2Box24SimondSaw&SteeCoUrine_Blood49_50.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1950a, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, October 24. [Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel9OccExpRadDustOct50.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1950b, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, June 21. [Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel8OccExpRadDustApril_May50.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1950c, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of January 9, 1950. 

[Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel7OccExpRadDustJan50.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951a, Monthly Progress Report for November, Tonawanda 

Sub-Office, Model City, New York. [pp. 14–19 of Birdsboro Steel and Foundry.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951b, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, March 20. [Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel10OccExpRadDustMar51.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951c, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, October 12. [Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel11OccExpRadDustOct51.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951d, “Sample Req. No. 6745,” U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, New York, New York, August 28. 

[EMLBox23SimondsSaw&SteelLockportNYMultiSample49_54.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1952, Monthly Progress Report for January, Tonawanda 

Sub-Office, Model City, New York. [pp. 24–27 of Birdsboro Steel and Foundry.pdf] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1953a, Survey of Accounting Control over Source and 

Fissionable Material, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, June 14. [061953.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1953b, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Uranium, Simonds-12, February 18. 

[Eml2Box19SimondSaw&Steel12OccExpUraniumFeb53.pdf]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1953c, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Thorium, Simonds-13, February 20. [Eml2X24SimondSaw&SteelOccExpThorium.pdf]

Author unknown, no date a, Authority Review for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Lockport, 

New York. [pp. 2–12 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Author unknown, no date b, Evaluation of Radiation Exposures at the Former Simons Saw and Steel 

Company Lockport, New York. [pp. 227–228 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 37 of 45

Author unknown, no date c, Review Summary Report Simonds Steel Division Guterl Specialty Steel 

Corporation (the Former Simonds Saw & Steel Company, Lockport, New York. [pp. 639–641 

Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Author unknown, no date d, Guterl Steel Corporation, Lockport, New York. [pp. 557–561 Simonds 

Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Author unknown, 1948, “Uranium Content of Urine Samples from Simonds Steel Mills, Lockport, 

N.Y.,” [handwritten note: “Trans letter 12/27/48” but no letter found to date]. [pp.2-4 of 

260000136.pdf]

Belmore, F. M., 1948a, “Recommendation for Proposed Contract - Simonds Saw & Steel Co.,” 

memorandum to B. E. Wolf, May 17. [260000138.pdf]

Belmore, F. M., 1948b, no subject, letter to J. O. Flower (Vulcan Crucible Steel Company), October 

22, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York. 

[260000126.pdf]

Belmore, F. M., 1952, “Thorium Rolling – Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to C. L. 

Karl, Area Manager (Fernald), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, 

Production Division, November 20. [NY.PDF.12-7.pdf] 

Blythe, D. J., 1953, “Decontamination of Simonds Saw & Steel Co., Lockport, N.Y.,” memorandum to 

R. C. Heatherton, November 5. [p. 681 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1979, Radiological Survey of the Former Simonds Saw and Steel 

Co. Site, Lockport, New York, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, Washington, 

D.C., November 1979. [010002547.pdf]

Eidson, A. F., 1994, “The effect of solubility on inhaled uranium compound clearance: A review,” 

Health Physics, volume 67, number 1, pp. 1–14. 

Ford Bacon & Davis Inc., 1981, “Excerpts from Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Evaluation 

of the Remedial Action Alternatives for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Company Site, 

Lockport, New York,” November. [pp. 191–201 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

Glitzer, M. S., 1958a, no subject, memorandum to D. H. Mackey (Simonds Saw and Steel Co.), 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 25. 

[pp. 86–90 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

Glitzer, M. S., 1958b, no subject, memorandum to D. H. Mackey (Simonds Saw and Steel Co.), 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, December 3. 

[pp. 92–93 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

Harris, W. B., no date, “Health Hazards Involved in Processing Thorium Materials,” memorandum to 

R. L. Kirk. [FEMP\06-26-03 – Data Capture\010000591\000006.pdf]

Harris, W. B., 1954, “Rolling of Thorium and Uranium at Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” 

memorandum to C.L. Karl (Fernald), September 3. [pp. 537–539 of Simonds Saw and Steel 

Company.pdf] 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 38 of 45

Hayden, R.E., 1948a, memorandum to M. Eisenbud, “Metal Rolling at the Simonds Saw and Steel 

Company of Lockport, New York”, United States Government, April 13 [260000138.pdf]

Hayden, R. E., 1948b, “Contamination of the Simonds Saw and Steel Company at Lockport, New 

York,” memorandum to M. Eisenbud, May 19, U.S. Government. [260000137.pdf]

Heatherton, R. C., 1948, “Radiation Levels at the Simonds Steel and Saw Company, Lockport, New 

York,” memorandum to F. J. Epp, October 18. [p. 3 of 240000126.pdf] 

Heatherton, R. C., 1951, “Trip Report – Visits to L.O.O.W. and Simonds Saw and Steel –March 7 and 

8, 1951,” memorandum to W. B. Harris, March 14. [pp. 18–20 of 260000015.pdf] 

Heatherton, R. C., 1953a, “Decontamination of Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to J.

A. Quigley, M.D., November 18. [pp. 682–683 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Heatherton, R. C., 1953b, “Air Survey of Special Rolling “E” Material on 10’ Mill Simonds Saw & Steel 

Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, April 30. [220000084.pdf] 

Heatherton, R. C., 1957, “Trip Report to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York July 

10, 1957,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, July 12, National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. [pp. 627–629 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

Heffernan, T. E., J. C. Lodwick, H. Spitz, J. Neton, and M. Soldano, 2001, “Solubility of airborne 

uranium compounds at the Fernald Environmental Management Project,” Health Physics, 

volume 80, number 3, pp. 255–262.

Hershman, H. J., 1949, “Visit to Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to file, U.S. 

Government, Production Division, September 8. [pp. 8–9 of Simonds Saw & Steel NY.pdf]

Huke, F.,1951, “Rolling of Thorium,” memorandum to F M. Belmore, Director (Production Division), 

August 24. [pp. 124–127 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1975, Report of the Task Group on 

Reference Man, Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994a, Human Respiratory Tract Model 

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994b, Dose Coefficients for Intakes of 

Radionuclides by Workers, Publication 68, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1995, Age-Dependent Doses to 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4 Inhalation Dose Coefficients, 

Publication 71, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

Keller, T. C., 1979, no subject, letter to W. E. Mott (U.S. Department of Energy), January 16, Guterl 

Specialty Steel. [pp. 13–18 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 

Klevin, P. B., 1954, "National Lead of Ohio Rolling Operations at Simonds Saw & Steel,” letter to W.

B. Harris (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), September 3. [pp. 68–69 of Simonds Saw & 

Steel Company. pdf]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 39 of 45

Morgan, J. P., 1948, “Medical Program,” letter to A. D. Potts (Simonds Saw and Steel Company),

December 29, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. [pp. 3–4 of 260000135.pdf] 

Morgan, J. P., 1949, “Medical Program,” letter to R. A. Ferris, Personnel Manager (Simonds Saw and 

Steel Company), January 13, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. [p. 2 of 260000135.pdf] 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2004, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, 

Technical Information Bulletin, OCAS-TIB-009, Revision 0, Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 13. 

NLO (National Lead of Ohio), 1953, Industrial Hygiene Survey of Uranium Rolling at Simonds Saw & 

Steel Co., February 5. [051953.pdf]

NLO (National Lead of Ohio), 1956, Analytical Data Sheets 8800, 9801, and 9802, February 5. 

[pp. 545–547 of Simonds Saw & Steel Company.pdf]

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002a, Technical Basis for Calculating Radiation Doses 

for the Building Occupancy Scenario Using the Probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code, 

NUREG/CR-6755, Washington, D.C.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002b, Re-Evaluation of the Indoor Resuspension 

Factor for the Screening Analysis of the Building Occupancy Scenario for NRC’s License 

Termination Rule, NUREG-1720; Draft Report for Comment, Washington, D.C.

ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated Universities), 2003, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose 

Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Revision 2, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

December 29. 

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 1979, Radiological Survey of the Former Simonds Saw and 

Steel Company Lockport, New York, DOE/EV-0005/17, UC-70, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

November. [010002547.pdf]

Polson, C. E., 1954, “Contamination – Simonds Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum 

to J. H. Gibarski, November 22. [pp. 71–72 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Reichard, H. E., 1948, “Trip to Simonds Saw & Steel Company – July 28, and 29, 1948,” 

memorandum to file, August 5, U.S. Government. [pp. 6–7 of Simonds Saw & Steel NY.pdf] 

Reichard, H. E., 1949, “Trips to Simonds Saw & Steel Company and Lake Ontario Ordinance Work,” 

memorandum to file, June 13. [pp. 1–2 of Simonds Saw & Steel NY.pdf]

Rothenberg, S. A., 1951, “Trip to Lake Ontario Storage Area – December 10, 1951,” memorandum to 

H. Blatz, Chief (Radiation Branch, Health & Safety Division), December 14, U.S. Government. 

[260000014.pdf]

Smith, R. J., 1951, letter to W. A. Larkin, “Current Rolling Procedure at Simonds Saw and Steel 

Company,” October 11. [240000053.pdf]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 40 of 45

Spiegl, C. J., H. E. Stokinger, J. DeVoldre, K. Lauterbach, and S. Dzuibs, no date, Air Contamination 

During Uranium Fabrication at Simonds Saw and Steel Company, S.M.3 (Toxic Limits), S.M. 

(Special Materials), January 12. [260000131.pdf]

Tabershaw, I. R., 1948, no subject, letter to B. S. Wolf, (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), December 

15, Liberty Mutual Company, Loss Prevention Department, New York, New York. 

[260000135.pdf] 

Tabershaw, I. R., 1949, “Visit to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” 

memorandum to M. Eisenbud, Chief (Health and Safety Branch), February 11, Health and 

Safety Division. 

[p. 7 of EmlBoxSimonds Saw and SteelUrineAnalysisResultsFile2/000001.pdf] 

Tabershaw, I. R., 1952, “Visit to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport , New York, on 

Saturday, March 22, 1952,” memorandum to M. Eisenbud, Director (Health and Safety 

Division), April 2, Health and Safety Division. 

[EmlBoxSimonds Saw and SteelUrineAnalysisResultsFile2/000001.pdf] 

Taussig, W. A, 1948, “Facilities for Rolling Uranium,” memorandum to W. E. Kelley, Manager (New 

York Office of Directed Operations), Cleveland Sub-Office, February 26. [pp. 128–131 of 

Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Vitkus, T. J., 1999, Radiological Survey of the Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation, Lockport, New York, 

December. [002511.pdf]

Wilson, R. H., 1958, “The Hanford Uranium Bio-Assay Program,” Symposium on Occupational Health 

Experience and Practices in the Uranium Industry, HASL-58, U. S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, New York, New York, October 15 -17 [p. 87 of 001760.pdf]

Wunder, G. W., 1956, “Request for Services at Simonds Saw and steel Company, Lockport, New 

York,” letter to C. L. Karl (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), May 31. [p. 630–631 of Simonds 

Saw and Steel Company.pdf]

Yoder, J. D., 1954, “Trip to Simonds Saw & Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum to 

R. C. Heatherton, October 28. [pp. 620–621 of Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf] 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 41 of 45

Appendix A

Coworker Bioassay Data by Sample Date

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L

<0.01 mg/L insufficient for reliable detection HNO3 treated

Pre roll Pre roll Pre 3rd Roll Last day of Roll

11/1/1948 11/3/1948 11/4/1948 11/8/1948 11/11/1948 11/15/1948 1/6/1949 4/27/1949 11/4/1949 11/17/1949

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.004 0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.001 0.008 0.007 0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.010 0.007 0

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.011 0.007 0

0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.017 0.011 0

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.009 0.019 0.013 0

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.010 0.019 0.013 0

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.013 0.023 0.013 0 

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.013 0.023 0.014 0

0.04 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.015 0.024 0.015 0

0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.018 0.029 0.016 0

0.14 0.09 0.036 0.021 0

0.024 0 

0.027 0

0.028 0

0.272 0

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0 

0

0

0

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.006

0.006

0.007

0.010

0.011

0.011

0.013

0.014

0.014

0.015

0.017

0.029

0.030

0.036

0.164
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 42 of 45

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L

Second shift less 

supervision.

Pre roll Post roll Post roll Pre roll Post roll

1/6/1950 1/19/1950 5/15/1950 5/23/1950 8/14/1950 8/28/1950 9/23/1950 9/25/1950 10/20/1950 10/25/1950

0 0 0 0 0.015 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.016 0.009 0 0.004 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.017 0.012 0 0.005 0 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.017 0.015 0 0.005 0 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.018 0.015 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.018 0.016 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0.002 0.022 0.016 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0.003 0.022 0.016 0 0.009 0.004 0.004

0 0 0.001 0.003 0.024 0.016 0 0.011 0.004 0.006

0 0 0.002 0.003 0.028 0.017 0 0.013 0.004 0.006

0 0 0.003 0.006 0.028 0.017 0 0.013 0.008 0.008

0 0.001 0.005 0.013 0.028 0.017 0.002 0.014 0.012 0.010

0 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.031 0.017 0.004 0.014 0.012 0.010 

0 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.033 0.019 0.005 0.015 0.022 0.010

0 0.003 0.008 0.016 0.033 0.019 0.005 0.015 0.024 0.010

0 0.006 0.008 0.016 0.035 0.019 0.005 0.016 0.027 0.017

0 0.007 0.012 0.016 0.035 0.025 0.014 0.018 0.028 0.017

0 0.008 0.014 0.016 0.037 0.033 0.014 0.023 0.044 0.019

0 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.046 0.018 0.024 0.067 0.043

0.001 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.102 0.020

0.001 0.013 0.015 0.017

0.001 0.014 0.015 0.017

0.001 0.015 0.016 0.018

0.001 0.015 0.016 0.019

0.002 0.015 0.022 0.034

0.002 0.015

0.002 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.004 0.017 

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.019

0.008 0.020

0.009 0.020 

0.011 0.021

0.012 0.022

0.012 0.022

0.012 0.027

0.014 0.031

0.014 0.031

0.014 0.031

0.017 0.033

0.018 0.033

0.023 0.035

0.026
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 43 of 45

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L

Samples collected at 5 p.m.

Preroll Postroll

11/9/1950 11/16/1950 12/14/1950 12/20/1952 12/22/1952

0 0 0 0.001 0.001

0 0 0 0.002 0.003

0 0 0 0.002 0.003

0 0 0 0.002 0.004

0 0 0 0.004 0.004

0 0 0 0.006 0.004

0 0 0.002 0.006 0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.010

0.015 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.015 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.030 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.010 

0.006 0.006 0.013 0.011

0.006 0.007 0.013 0.012

0.006 0.007 0.014 0.012

0.009 0.007 0.015 0.013

0.009 0.008 0.015 0.013

0.009 0.008 0.016 0.014

0.009 0.008 0.016 0.014

0.009 0.009 0.016 0.015

0.009 0.009 0.017 0.015

0.009 0.010 0.017 0.015

0.011 0.011 0.017 0.015

0.013 0.011 0.017 0.016

0.015 0.015 0.017 0.016

0.015 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.016 0.020 0.018

0.017 0.017 0.021 0.018

0.020 0.019 0.022 0.019

0.022 0.024 0.023 0.020

0.028 0.080 0.023 0.021

0.023 0.022

0.023 0.022

0.024 0.022

0.024 0.025

0.024 0.025

0.024 0.026

0.027 0.026

0.027 0.027

0.028 0.029

0.028 0.030

0.029 0.030

0.029 0.032

0.033 0.033

0.034 0.036

0.037 0.036

0.037 0.036

0.041 0.041

0.044 0.046

0.048 0.048

0.048 0.050 

0.056 0.053

0.066 0.054
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 44 of 45

Appendix B

Graphs showing predicted bioassay from air, and fits of coworker bioassay 

The graphs show predicted bioassay results from the estimated air intakes, superimposed on the geometric mean (GM), 84th

percentile and maximum coworker bioassay results. Reasonable fits are starred (*). X-axis is days (0=2/24/1948). Y-axis is mg/L. 

Type S, GM bioassay*

Type S, 84th percentile bioassay

Type S, maximum bioassay

Type M, GM bioassay

Type M, 84th percentile bioassay

Type M, maximum bioassay* 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 00 Effective Date: 05/31/2005 Page 45 of 45

Graphs showing fits of coworker bioassay data to 3 inhalation intakes. X-axis is in days (0=2/24/1948). Y-axis uranium urinalyses 

results in mg/L.

Type M, GM bioassay

Type M, 84th percentile bioassay

Type M, maximum bioassay

Type S, GM bioassay

Type S, 84th percentile bioassay

Type S, maximum bioassay