Page 1 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company 

Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

February 22, 2017 

Prepared by: Thomas P. Tomes 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Reviewed by: James W. Neton, Ph.D., CHP 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 2 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table of Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

Surrogate Date Issues ................................................................................................................... 3

Dose Reconstruction Issues and Observations ........................................................................... 7

Additional Discussion of Open Issues ......................................................................................... 9

Response to Comments on Job Category and Work Area Assumptions ............................... 10

Updated Annual External Dose Estimates ............................................................................... 11

Updated Internal Dose Estimates .............................................................................................. 18

References .................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 30
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 3 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Introduction

NIOSH received a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition for the Carborundum Company on 

November 19, 2014. NIOSH issued an Evaluation Report (ER) on June 3, 2015, which was 

presented to the Advisory Board on Radiation Work and Health (Board) on July 23, 2015. In its 

evaluation report NIOSH concluded that dose reconstructions were feasible for both internal and 

external exposures. Subsequent reviews, discussion documents, and meetings were held. A 

complete chronological list of those meetings and documents is provided in Appendix B of this 

report. 

This report was written to address comments on the use of surrogate data. This report also 

addresses other identified Dose Reconstruction Issues and Observations and provides 

recommendations for updated doses and intakes for use in dose reconstructions (DRs), which is 

presented following the discussion of Surrogate Data Issues. 

Surrogate Date Issues

NIOSH issued a memorandum on the use of surrogate data in Carborundum dose estimates 

(Tomes, 2016b). SC&A reviewed the NIOSH memorandum against the Board’s surrogate data 

criteria and commented that the dose rates NIOSH used in some estimates are implausibly high 

(Anigstein and Mauro, 2016). 

NIOSH reviewed the SC&A comments and suggestions on the surrogate data, and provided 

updated dose estimates below. In this report the issues are referred to as Surrogate Data Issue 1 

and Surrogate Data Issue 2, for the first AWE Operational Period and second AWE Operational 

Period, respectively. 

Surrogate Data Issue 1: External Dose from Centerless Grinding in 1943 

Issue: Comment received from SC&A in memorandum of November 10, 2016, on use of 

surrogate data. SC&A commented that the external dose rates provided by DCAS in 

example dose reconstructions for the 1943 centerless grinding work are implausibly high 

using the default dose rate for machining in Battelle-TBD-6000 (TBD-6000). More 

appropriate dose rates should be selected. 

Discussion: As noted by SC&A, the DR methodology used the default dose for 

machining from Table 6.4 in TBD-6000. The 2.5 rem annual doses from exposure to 

uranium metal in TBD-6000 is based on a one foot dose rate of 2.08 mrem/hr, the highest 

of the various shapes (rectangular ingot) provided in Table 6.1. SC&A suggested NIOSH 

consider more appropriate dose rates from TBD-6000, recommending use of the dose 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 4 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

rates from the “slug” provided in Table 6.1 of TBD-6000. DCAS concurs with the SC&A 

recommendation, but proposes slightly higher doses from a more favorable application of 

the dose rate specific to Carborundum. Revised penetrating and non-penetrating doses for 

1943 are explained and provided below. The “Clerk” or “Administrative” dose category 

identified in the previous DR methods for being applicable to workers in a building 

separate from the radiological work, is being omitted in the current recommendations 

because the location of the 1943 work is unknown. 

Photon Dose 

TBD-6000 Table 6.1 provides a one foot dose rate of 0.0524 mrem/hr from a slug of 

natural uranium. The slugs modeled in that evaluation were only slightly larger than the 

slugs handled at Carborundum and should represent a favorable dose rate from a single 

slug. The dose rate is multiplied by 10 to account for an array of ten slugs that were used 

at Carborundum, resulting in a dose rate of 0.524 mrem/hr. 

Using the default assumptions and 48 hour work-week specified in TBD-6000 results in a 

dose rate of 0.00172 rem/calendar-day or 0.205 rem for an Operator for the entire 119 

days that the slugs were present at Carborundum in 1943. The General Laborer category 

was calculated using the one meter rate for slugs from Table 6.1, resulting in 0.000171 

rem/calendar-day or 0.0203 rem for the 119 days in 1943. The Supervisor dose is 50% of 

the General Laborer dose. 

Photon dose from air submersion and contaminated floors are calculated as presented in 

TBD-6000, Table 6-4, based on the air concentration assumed for Carborundum in 1943. 

Beta Dose 

Whole body beta dose for an Operator was calculated based on an assumption of ten 

times the photon dose at one foot, resulting in a rate of 0.0172 rad/calendar-day or 2.05 

rad for the 119 days in 1943. General Laborer dose is one half of the Operator dose. 

Supervisor beta dose is 10% of General Laborer Dose. 

The beta dose to the hands and forearms are the same as specified in TBD-6000, Table 

6.4. 

Table 1 shows the total doses for 1943 for the 119 days in which the slugs were on site. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 5 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 1: Carborundum 1943 External Dosesa,b

Air 

Submersion & 

Contamination, 

photon

Contamination, 

beta

Metal 

Whole 

Body, 

photon

Hands & 

Forearms, 

beta

Other 

Skin, beta

Roentgen rad rem rad rad

Operator 0.003 0.319 0.205 89.984 2.050

General 

Laborer

0.002 0.159 0.020 44.992 1.025

Supervisor 0.001 0.080 0.010 4.499 0.103

a. Doses in table assume full employment June – September 27, 1943. 

b. Doses assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. 

Surrogate Data Issue 2: External Dose from Uranium Work in 1959 Through 1967. 

Issue: Comment received from SC&A in memorandum of November 10, 2016, on use of 

surrogate data. SC&A commented that the external dose rates provided by DCAS in 

example dose calculations for work with uranium from 1959 through 1967 are 

implausibly high using the default dose rate in TBD-6000. More appropriate dose rates 

should be selected. 

Discussion: As noted by SC&A, the DR methodology used the default dose for 

machining from Table 6.4 in TBD-6000. The 2.080 rem annual doses from exposure to 

uranium metal for “1956 on” in Table 6-4 of TBD-6000 is based on a one foot dose rate 

of 2.08 mrem/hr, the highest of the various shapes (rectangular ingot) provided in Table 

6.1. SC&A suggested NIOSH consider more appropriate dose rates from TBD-6000, and 

recommended the dose rates from the “flat plate” provided in Table 6.1 of TBD-6000. 

NIOSH concurs with the SC&A recommendation. Revised penetrating and nonpenetrating doses for 1959-1967 are explained and provided below. 

Photon Dose from Uranium 

TBD-6000 Table 6.1 provides a one foot dose rate of 0.231 mrem/hr from a flat plate, 

which is assumed to be a favorable rate for the uranium materials handled at 

Carborundum from 1959-1967. Using the TBD-6000 assumptions for an Operator results 

in a dose from exposure to the uranium materials of 0.231 rem per year. The General 

Laborer dose category was calculated using the one meter dose rate, 0.0278 mrem/hr, and 

TBD-600 assumptions, resulting in a dose of 0.028 rem per year. The Supervisor dose is 

50% of the General Laborer dose, and the Clerical dose is 10% of the Supervisor dose. 

Beta Dose from Uranium 

Whole body beta dose for an Operator was calculated based on an assumption of ten 

times the photon dose at one foot, resulting in dose 2.310 rad per year. General Laborer 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 6 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

dose is one half of the Operator dose. Supervisor beta dose is 10% of General Laborer 

Dose. The Clerical dose category is assumed to have no beta dose from direct exposure to 

the uranium materials. 

The beta dose to the hands and forearms are the same as specified in TBD-6000, Table 

6.4. 

Photon and Beta Dose from Contamination 

Photon and beta doses from air submersion and contaminated floors also need to be 

recalculated due to a small change in the air sample analysis (discussed below). The 

dose estimate methods presented in TBD-6000 were used in conjunction with the 

Carborundum air sampling data. The 95th percentile uranium area air concentration is 

7.384 dpm/m3, which is assumed for the General Laborer category. The Operators’ air 

concentration is assumed to be twice that value, or 14.768 dpm/m3. Dose from 

contaminated surfaces for Operators are estimated from this air concentration using the 

methods specified in TBD-6000, section 6.1.2, the conversion factors in Table 3.10, and 

2,000 hours per year exposure. This results in an annual dose of 0.000023 R from 

photons and 0.0022 rad from beta particles. 

Table 2 below shows the annualized dose rates. 

Table 2: Carborundum External Doses from Uranium 1959-1967a,b,c 

Air 

Submersion & 

Contamination, 

photon

Contamination, 

beta

Uranium

Whole 

Body, 

photon

Hands & 

Forearms, 

beta

Other 

Skin, beta

R/yr rad/yr rem/yr dose (rad/yr) dose 

(rad/yr)

Operator 0.000 0.002 0.231 230 2.310

General 

Laborer

0.000 0.001 0.028 115 1.155

Supervisor 0.000 0.001 0.014 11.5 0.116

Clerical 0.000 0.000 0.001 0 0

a. Doses listed as 0.000 are rounded values. 

b. Clerical dose is for personnel known to have not worked in Building 1. 

c. Doses assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 7 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Dose Reconstruction Issues and Observations

This report responds to: (1) issues, or findings, identified as being significant by SC&A, and (2) 

SC&A comments and observations on NIOSH dose calculations. All the issues/findings have 

recommended solutions. However, two observations on dose calculations are not addressed in 

this document. SC&A recommended adjustments to the MCNP-model for external dose from 

plutonium, and they also commented on the need for NIOSH to reevaluate the appropriate 

fraction of individual radionuclides used to partition total plutonium alpha measurements. The 

comments on plutonium are still under review by NIOSH and will be addressed separately; 

NIOSH is currently using the plutonium values as presented in the July 23, 2015, methodology 

documents, although resolution of those issues could result in some changes in final dose 

estimates. Otherwise, this document provides responses to all open issues and observations that 

impact dose calculations and performance of dose reconstructions. This report lists and 

summarizes all the findings, including those that have been closed by the Work Group. 

Previous Review of Dose Methodology Issues 

As noted above NIOSH presented an SEC ER overview to the Board on July 23, 2015. At that 

time NIOSH also transferred the following supporting files to the Board’s document review 

folder on the NIOSH shared drive. 

DR Methodology Carborundum 2015-07-23 FINAL.doc 

Carborundum Methodology 2015-07-23 FINAL.xlsx 

Carborundum Example DR Report 2015-07-23 final.docx 

The first file contained dose and intake tables and a description of the dose estimation methods. 

The second file contained associated spreadsheets with the dose calculations and derivation of 

intakes. And the last file was a summary report of Example DRs based on the information in the 

other two files. At the time those were newly drafted dose estimates based on additional site 

information gathered during the SEC petition review. The Departments of Energy (DOE) and 

Labor were also in the process of modifying the dates and scope of work provided for 

Carborundum in the DOE EEOICPA Covered Facility List Database, which was done soon 

thereafter. 

After NIOSH presented the ER, the Board created the Carborundum Work Group (Work Group) 

and tasked SC&A to review the SEC petition and the NIOSH Evaluation Report. SC&A 

reviewed the ER, the three supporting files listed above, and requested, and received, supporting 

files from NIOSH on the MCNP work to model plutonium exposures. 

SC&A issued a report of their review in January 2016 (Anigstein, 2016); that report is referred to 

as the ER Review in this document. Seven findings, “Issues” 1 through 7, were identified in the 

ER Review. The chronology of the various reviews and discussions is provided in Appendix B. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 8 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Summary of Issues and Resolutions 

The issues deemed to be most significant to the ability to reconstruct doses were specifically 

listed as findings or issues by SC&A and have been specifically addressed. Additionally, SC&A 

made numerous comments on the Carborundum ER and on the supporting files containing the 

dose methods and calculations. NIOSH reviewed the SC&A ER Review and compiled a list of 

those comments deemed applicable to dose reconstructions, which is in Appendix A. 

A summary of each of the seven Issues identified by SC&A are listed below along with the 

resolution. Updated dose calculations and additional explanations are provided in subsequent 

sections. 

Issue 1 

This issue concerns dose estimates for X-ray Diffraction (XRD) work at Carborundum. This 

issue was closed by the Work Group after NIOSH performed an additional assessment of dose, 

noting the dose for support workers in the uranium laboratory area is higher from an XRD 

technician would receive, and thus the higher dose estimates for support workers would be used 

under the assumption definitive information on exact work location is not available for 

individual claims. However, it should be noted that, in response to comments on surrogate data, 

NIOSH is now proposing to lower the external dose from uranium. The dose assumed for XRD 

work provides a higher dose for some workers in 1959 and 1960, as shown in Tables 5 and 6 

below. 

Issue 2 

In this comment, SC&A opined that NIOSH should consider dose from thorium, based on the 

assumption that dose from residual contamination from thorium work in 1955, which is not 

covered under EEOICPA, could have contributed to internal dose during the second AWE 

Operational Period in 1959 through 1967. The issue is essentially whether NIOSH should 

consider the gross alpha air samples collected during the AEC work starting in 1959 to be part 

thorium from some unknown thorium work in 1955. This issue was discussed during the August 

18, 2016, Work Group meeting. NIOSH did not agree that the available information supported 

an assumption of a significant level of thorium contamination; however, NIOSH agreed to 

review this issue again. Upon further review, the available information indicates that 

Carborundum had a contract with GE in which it performed experimental work with uranium 

compounds in the 1950s; that work ended in 1958. There was an indication that some thorium 

work may have been done in the research laboratory in 1955. Based on available information 

NIOSH concludes that the radioactive material work in the 1950s was primarily uranium, and 

that the available information does not support an assumption of significant thorium 

contamination in the uranium work areas in 1959. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 9 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Issue 3 

Possible use of Sr-90 sources in a production process. NIOSH evaluated the use of those sources 

and concluded they were used at another Carborundum location that is not covered. Issue 3 was 

closed by the Work Group. 

Issue 4 and Issue 5 

Issues 4 and 5 were comments that medical X-ray doses should be included in dose 

reconstructions in the first and second AWE Operational Periods, respectively. NIOSH 

concurred. An annual X-ray dose will be included in DRs. ORAUT-OTIB-006 will be used as a 

guide for the dose estimates.

Issue 6 

SC&A commented that dose calculations from air submersion and surface contamination should 

be done with factors provided in TBD-6000, rather that the factors NIOSH derived from Federal 

Guidance Report No. 12 used in the Example DRs. NIOSH concurred with the SC&A 

recommendation. The new dose estimates provided in this document have been updated to 

include the TBD-6000 factors. See additional discussion of Issue 6 below. 

Issue 7 

SC&A commented on the inability to duplicate doses in previous Example DR calculations 

provided by NIOSH. The reasons for those differences was discussed during the Work Group 

meeting on August 18, 2016. NIOSH said they would provide updated Example DR calculations 

after updating dose methods in response to other SC&A comments/observations. The other 

comments were not part of the Issues identified by SC&A, but were comments made throughout 

the ER Review on various aspects of dose estimates. NIOSH has compiled responses to those 

comments in Appendix A. The dose tables below have been updated consistent with the 

responses. New Example DRs will be provided to the Work Group in conjunction with this 

report.

Additional Discussion of Open Issues

Issue 6 warrants additional discussion to describe how the issue was resolved and to present the 

calculations. 

Issue 6 (ER Finding 6) 

Issue: Comment received from SC&A in their ER Review on Inappropriate and Incorrect 

Use of FGR 12. The issue concerns the dose conversion factors NIOSH used in example 

dose reconstructions for calculation of external dose rates from air submersion and 

surface contamination. The issue was discussed during the August 18, 2016, meeting of 

the Carborundum Work Group. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 10 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Discussion: The first residual period starts at the end of September 1943. In the example 

dose reconstructions provided by NIOSH in July 2015, surface contamination at the start 

of the first residual period was calculated using the methods described in TBD-6000, 

section 6.1.2, combined with the 5480 dpm/m3air concentration assumed for centerless 

grinding at Carborundum in 1943. NIOSH then used dose conversion factors derived 

from Federal Guidance Report (FGR) No. 12 to estimate resulting external dose rates 

from residual contamination. SC&A did not agree with the use of the factors from the 

FGR, noting more appropriate factors are available in TBD-6000. Those factors are 

provided in TBD-6000, Tables 3.9 and 3.10, for dose from air submersion and surface 

contamination, respectively. NIOSH concurred with the SC&A recommendation during 

the August 18, 2016 Work Group meeting. 

Updated Dose Calculations: 

The dose from air submersion was calculated and is insignificant. Dose from surface 

contamination was recalculated using the dose factors from TBD-6000. The initial 

residual air concentration is 106.5 dpm/m3

and the derived surface contamination value is 

1.07 x 107dpm/m2, both the same as previously calculated and provided by NIOSH. The 

dose factors for both photon and beta dose rates from TBD-6000 Table 3.10 were applied 

and are included with the annual residual external doses from centerless grinding shown 

below in Table 3.

The second residual period dose from air submersion and surface contamination was also 

reassessed. The initial residual surface contamination value is 2.87 x 104

 m2. The 

resulting external doses from photons and beta particles are all <0.001 rem. 

Response to Comments on Job Category and Work Area Assumptions

SC&A provided a few comments on interpretation of job categories, assumptions of work 

locations, and instructions for dose reconstruction. The descriptions below have been updated to 

resolve those comments. Some additional language has been added to these definitions, including 

specification of a default dose category. 

Job Categories 

For the purposes of performing dose reconstructions for Carborundum, four job 

categories have been established. 

 Operators – Individuals who operated the process equipment and/or routinely 

handled radiological materials. This is the default dose category for dose 

reconstructions when there is insufficient information to place a worker in a 

lower dose category. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 11 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 General Labor/Radiological Work Support Personnel – Individuals who were in 

close contact with the radiological materials product for a portion of the working 

day. This category would include maintenance workers, laboratory workers, 

health physics monitors, etc., who may have occasionally been in contact with 

radioactive material in the performance of duties. If information in a claim is 

insufficient to determine whether or not a worker fits this description, then the 

Operator category should be used. 

 Supervisor/Non-Radiological Work Production Personnel – Individuals who 

routinely worked in the production areas and may have been periodically in the 

vicinity of where processing was occurring. This includes supervisory staff, 

engineers, and individuals who were not in contact with the radiological 

materials but who worked routinely in the production areas. If information in a 

claim is insufficient to determine that the worker did not handle radioactive 

material in the performance of their duties, then a higher dose category is 

assumed.

 Clerk/Other – Individuals who worked in the environment outside of the 

production areas where radiological work was being performed. This includes 

office workers and non-radiological production workers who are clearly 

documented to be at a physically different location than the radiological work 

(e.g., a different building). If work location cannot be determined for a claim, then 

one of the other categories of exposure is to be used. 

The job titles above are the same as previously provided. They are the job titles used in TBD6000, with added descriptive titles for clarity. However, for simplicity only the TBD-6000 titles 

are used in the dose tables below. 

The location (building) for the 1943 AEC work has not been determined; therefore updated dose 

estimates below do not include Clerk dose for 1943. 

Previously, NIOSH provided residual dose and intake values for Radiological Work Areas and 

Non-Radiological Work Areas. The updated dose tables for the Residual Radiation Periods 

provided below are for all workers. Thus job category determinations are only applicable for the 

AWE Operational Period dose estimates. 

Updated Annual External Dose Estimates

This section provides dose and intake tables that have been updated from the July 23, 2015, draft 

DR Methodology provided to the Board, to include resolutions to the above listed Issues, as well 

as changes made in response to other comments and observations, as listed in Appendix A. A 

brief explanation is provided for each of the dose tables that have been updated. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 12 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Additionally, since multiple work areas and corresponding doses are provided, a summary table 

(Table 6) has been complied that contains the most favorable dose by year to be used in dose 

reconstructions. 

First AWE Operational Period 

In response to comments on surrogate data, NIOSH made changes to the external doses 

for centerless grinding in 1943, as described and shown above in Table 1. 

First Residual Period 

Annual external doses from residual contamination from the 1943 AEC work are 

provided in Table 3 below. The doses have been updated to incorporate resolution of 

comments from SC&A on external dose factors, as noted above in the Issue 6 discussion.
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 13 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 3: Residual External Dose from 1943 Centerless Grindinga 

Year Photon, R/yr Beta, rad/yr OTIB-70 

Depletion Rate

9/28/43-12/31/43 0.003 0.265 1.00E+00

1944 0.010 1.017 1.00E+00

1945 0.008 0.797 7.83E-01

1946 0.006 0.624 6.13E-01

1947 0.005 0.488 4.80E-01

1948 0.004 0.383 3.76E-01

1949 0.003 0.299 2.94E-01

1950 0.002 0.235 2.31E-01

1951 0.002 0.184 1.81E-01

1952 0.001 0.143 1.41E-01

1953 0.001 0.113 1.11E-01

1954 0.001 0.088 8.67E-02

1955 0.001 0.069 6.79E-02

1956 0.001 0.054 5.32E-02

1957 0.000 0.042 4.16E-02

1958 0.000 0.033 3.26E-02

1959 0.000 0.026 2.55E-02

1960 0.000 0.020 2.00E-02

1961 0.000 0.016 1.56E-02

1962 0.000 0.012 1.23E-02

1963 0.000 0.010 9.60E-03

1964 0.000 0.008 7.51E-03

1965 0.000 0.006 5.88E-03

1966 0.000 0.005 4.61E-03

1967 0.000 0.004 3.61E-03

1968 0.000 0.003 2.83E-03

1969 0.000 0.002 2.21E-03

1970 0.000 0.002 1.73E-03

1971 0.000 0.001 1.36E-03

1972 0.000 0.001 1.06E-03

1973-1992 0.000 0.001 8.32E-04

a. Doses assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. 

Second AWE Operational Period 

The 1959-1967 AEC contract period involved work with uranium and plutonium in 

Building 1, which was a new Research and Development building that opened in 1953. 

Uranium work started in 1959; however, the plutonium laboratory did not start operations 

until 1961. The plutonium work involved a mixture of uranium and plutonium. Both the 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 14 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

uranium laboratory and the plutonium laboratory were located on the fourth floor; 

however, the plutonium laboratory was isolated. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) work occurred 

on the second floor. 

Uranium: Annual external doses for the 1959-1967 uranium work is provided in Table 2 

above, which were updated based on comments from SC&A on surrogate data. 

Plutonium: Annual external doses for the 1961-1967 plutonium work is provided below 

in Table 4 below. The Table 4 dose estimates are the same as provided to the Board on 

July 23, 2015 with the Example DRs; however, the doses are now listed being applicable 

starting in 1961. 

Table 4: Carborundum External Doses from Plutonium 1961-1967a 

Photon Dose,

b

rem/yr

<30 keV 30-250 keV >250 keV

Operator 1.074 2.166 1.258

Laborer 0.127 0.256 0.149

Supervisor 0.063 0.128 0.074

Clerical 0.006 0.013 0.007

Neutron Dose,

c

rem/yr

10-100 keV 0.1-2 MeV 2-20 MeV

Operator 0.001 0.109 0.183

Laborer 0.000 0.013 0.022

Supervisor 0.000 0.007 0.011

Clerical 0.000 0.001 0.001

a. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 

b. Photon doses to organs are calculated using the personal dose equivalent, Hp(10), organ dose conversion 

factors. From the NIOSH External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline. 

c. Neutron dose to organs are calculated using the deep dose equivalent, Hp, slab (10), organ dose conversion 

factors from NIOSH External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline. 

XRD: NIOSH provided dose estimates to the Work Group for the Carborundum XRD 

work (Thomas, 2016). The annual dose was estimated to be 0.167 R/year, as shown in 

Table 5. Based on descriptions of job dose categories provided with this paper and the 

NIOSH XRD evaluation, an XRD technician is assigned to the Laborer category. Dose 

estimates for the Supervisor and Clerk category are also provided in Table 5. Dose for 

the Operator dose category was not provided for XRD work because the higher dose for 

an Operator would come from work in the uranium or plutonium areas of Building 1. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 15 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 5: External Photon Dose from XRD, R/yra 

Year Operator XRD Technician Supervisor Clerk

1959-1967 N/A 0.167 0.084 0.008

a. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 

Second Residual Period 

External doses from residual contamination from the 1959 - 1967 work were estimated. 

All photon doses were less than 0.001 R/yr and all beta doses were less than 0.001 rad/yr. 

Annual External Doses for Dose Reconstructions 

The annual doses provided in Tables 1 through 5 were used to determine the most favorable dose 

for each category of worker for each year. Those doses are provided in Tables 6 and 7 for photon 

doses and electron doses, respectively. Those values are to be used for dose reconstructions. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 16 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 6: Carborundum External Photon Doses for Dose Reconstructions 

Year Operator Laborer Supervisor Clerk Units

1943a,e 0.210 0.023 0.011 N/A rem, Hp(10)

1943 0.003e N/A N/A N/A R

1944 0.010e N/A N/A N/A R

1945 0.008e N/A N/A N/A R

1946 0.006e N/A N/A N/A R

1947 0.005e N/A N/A N/A R

1948 0.004e N/A N/A N/A R

1949 0.003e N/A N/A N/A R

1950 0.002e N/A N/A N/A R

1951 0.002e N/A N/A N/A R

1952 0.001e N/A N/A N/A R

1953 0.001e N/A N/A N/A R

1954 0.001e N/A N/A N/A R

1955 0.001e N/A N/A N/A R

1956 0.001e N/A N/A N/A R

1957 <0.001 N/A N/A N/A R

1958 <0.001 N/A N/A N/A R

1959c0.231e0.167c,d0.084c,d0.008c,drem, Hp(10); R

1960c0.231e0.167c,d0.084c,d0.008c,drem, Hp(10); R

1961 Pu doseb Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1962 Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1963 Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1964 Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1965 Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1966 Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1967 Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose Pu dose

1968-end <0.001 N/A N/A N/A rem, Hp(10)

a. For efficiency purposes, the first row of 1943 dose, reported in rem, includes dose from uranium metal (in 

rem), as well as dose from air submersion and contamination (in R). The air submersion and contamination 

components have been adjusted to allow use of the Hp(10) organ factors. 

b. For Pu dose, see Table 4 for photon and neutron doses. 

c. 1959-1969 dose to Laborer, Supervisor, and Clerk is from XRD dose estimates in Roentgens. 

d. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 

e. Doses assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 17 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 7: Carborundum External Beta Doses for Dose Reconstructionsa,b

Operator Laborer Supervisor Clerk Units

1943 2.369 1.184 0.182 N/A rem

1943 0.265 N/A N/A N/A rem

1944 1.017 N/A N/A N/A rem

1945 0.797 N/A N/A N/A rem

1946 0.624 N/A N/A N/A rem

1947 0.488 N/A N/A N/A rem

1948 0.383 N/A N/A N/A rem

1949 0.299 N/A N/A N/A rem

1950 0.235 N/A N/A N/A rem

1951 0.184 N/A N/A N/A rem

1952 0.143 N/A N/A N/A rem

1953 0.113 N/A N/A N/A rem

1954 0.088 N/A N/A N/A rem

1955 0.069 N/A N/A N/A rem

1956 0.054 N/A N/A N/A rem

1957 0.042 N/A N/A N/A rem

1958 0.033 N/A N/A N/A rem

1959 2.312 1.156 0.117 <0.001 rem

1960 2.312 1.156 0.117 <0.001 rem

1961 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1962 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1963 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1964 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1965 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1966 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1967 Pu dose 1.156 Pu dose Pu dose

1968 0.003 N/A N/A N/A rem

1969 0.002 N/A N/A N/A rem

1970 0.002 N/A N/A N/A rem

1971-end 0.001 N/A N/A N/A rem

a. For dose to the hands and forearms (1943, 1959-1967 only), use dose from the appropriate year in BattelleTBD-6000, Table 6.4. 

b. Listed doses assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. Pu doses assigned as a constant 

distribution. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 18 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Updated Internal Dose Estimates

First AWE Operational Period 

Intake rates of uranium (total alpha) during the 1943 centerless grinding work are 

provided in Table 8. The Table 8 intake estimates are the same as provided to the Board 

on July 23, 2015, with the Example DRs. 

Table 8: Intakes from Centerless Grindinga,b 

Uranium Alpha Intake Rates

Job Category Inhalation

(dpm/calendar day)

Ingestion

(dpm/calendar day)

Operator 43,632 895

Labor 21,816 446

Supervisor 10,909 224

Clerk 1,090 22

a. Assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. 

b. No intakes are assigned prior to June 1, 1943, as no source material was on site. 

First Residual Period Intakes 

Intake rates of uranium (total alpha) from residual contamination from the 1943 work are 

provided below. The inhalation rate is the same as previously provided for Production 

Areas. Non-production area estimates have been omitted in the updated calculations. The 

ingestion rate has been revised upward by setting the ingestion rate at the beginning of 

the residual period equal to the ingestion rate during the operational period, then it 

gradually declines according to the depletion rate. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 19 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 9: Intakes from Residual Contamination from Centerless Grindinga 

Inhalation Ingestion

Year dpm/day dpm/day OTIB-70 Depletion 

Rate

9/28/43-12/31/43 876 895 1.00E+00

1944 876 895 1.00E+00

1945 686 701 7.83E-01

1946 537 549 6.13E-01

1947 420 430 4.80E-01

1948 329 337 3.76E-01

1949 257 263 2.94E-01

1950 202 207 2.31E-01

1951 158 162 1.81E-01

1952 123 126 1.41E-01

1953 97 99 1.11E-01

1954 76 78 8.67E-02

1955 59 61 6.79E-02

1956 47 48 5.32E-02

1957 36 37.2 4.16E-02

1958 29 29.2 3.26E-02

1959 22 22.8 2.55E-02

1960 17 17.9 2.00E-02

1961 14 14.0 1.56E-02

1962 11 11.0 1.23E-02

1963 8.4 8.6 9.60E-03

1964 6.6 6.7 7.51E-03

1965 5.2 5.3 5.88E-03

1966 4.0 4.1 4.61E-03

1967 3.2 3.23 3.61E-03

1968 2.5 2.53 2.83E-03

1969 1.9 1.98 2.21E-03

1970 1.5 1.55 1.73E-03

1971 1.2 1.21 1.36E-03

1972 0.93 0.95 1.06E-03

1973-1992 0.73 0.74 8.32E-04

a. Doses assigned as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 20 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Second AWE Operational Period 

Intake estimates for the 1959-1967 AWE Operational Period have been revised for both 

uranium and plutonium. Plutonium intake rates increased and uranium intake rates 

decreased. These changes were made after review of comments from SC&A on the 

statistical methods used to analyze and report the distribution of uranium and plutonium 

air sample data. The updated NIOSH evaluation of the air sample data is essentially 

identical to the values reported by SC&A in Appendix A of their ER Review. 

Table 10: Uranium Intakes 1959-1967a,b 

Job Category Inhalation

(dpm/calendar day)

Ingestion

(dpm/calendar day)

Operator 97.10 1.94

Labor 48.55 0.971

Supervisor 24.28 0.486

Clerk 2.428 0.049

a. Intakes are assessed as 100% Uranium-234.

b. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 

c. See Table 11 for intake ratios of associated radionuclides. 

In the case of uranium intakes, 100% recycled uranium is assumed based on guidance in 

TBD-6000. The relative intakes to uranium (applied as U-234) are provided in Table 11. 

Table 11: Recycled Uranium Ratios Applied 

U-234 Pu-239 Np-237 Tc-99 Th-232 Th-228

1.00E+00 2.46E-03 1.82E-03 3.79E-01 2.73E-06 2.73E-06

Table 12: Plutonium Intakes 1961-1967a,b

Plutonium Mixture Total Alpha Intake Rates

Job Category Inhalation

(dpm/calendar day)

Ingestion

(dpm/calendar day)

Operator 7.650 0.153

Labor 3.825 0.077

Supervisor 1.913 0.038

Clerk 0.191 0.004

a. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 

b. See Table 13 for partitioning of these total alpha values into individual radionuclides. 

Intakes of individual plutonium radionuclides are assigned according to the ratios of individual 

radionuclides to the total plutonium alpha intakes shown in Table 13. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 21 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 13: Plutonium Ratios 

Pu-239:Total Alpha 0.802

Pu-240:Total Alpha 0.185

Pu-241:Total Alpha 8.168

Am-241:Total Alpha 0.013

Second Residual Period Intakes 

Intake rates of uranium (total alpha) from residual contamination from the 1959-167 

work are provided below in Table 14. The inhalation rate is the slightly lower than 

previously provided for Production Areas due to updated statistical methods to estimate 

uranium air concentration. Non-production area estimates have been omitted in the 

updated calculations. The ingestion rate has been revised upward by setting the ingestion 

rate at the beginning of the residual period equal to the ingestion rate during the 

operational period, then it gradually declines according to the depletion rate. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 22 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Table 14: Intakes from Residual Contamination from 1959-1967 Uranium Worka,b

Inhalation Ingestion

Year dpm/day dpm/day OTIB-70 Depletion 

Rate

1968 0.94 1.012 1.00E+00

1969 0.74 0.792 7.83E-01

1970 0.58 0.620 6.13E-01

1971 0.45 0.486 4.80E-01

1972 0.35 0.380 3.76E-01

1973 0.28 0.297 2.94E-01

1974 0.22 0.234 2.31E-01

1975 0.17 0.183 1.81E-01

1976 0.13 0.143 1.41E-01

1977 0.10 0.112 1.11E-01

1978 0.082 0.088 8.67E-02

1979 0.064 0.069 6.79E-02

1980 0.050 0.054 5.32E-02

1981 0.039 0.042 4.16E-02

1982 0.031 0.033 3.26E-02

1983 0.024 0.026 2.55E-02

1984 0.019 0.020 2.00E-02

1985 0.015 0.016 1.56E-02

1986 0.012 0.012 1.23E-02

1987 0.0091 0.010 9.60E-03

1988 0.0071 0.0076 7.51E-03

1989 0.0056 0.0060 5.88E-03

1990 0.0043 0.0047 4.61E-03

1991 0.0034 0.0036 3.61E-03

1992 0.0027 0.0029 2.83E-03

a. See Table 11 for intake ratios of associated radionuclides. 

b. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 23 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Updated intakes of plutonium from residual contamination are provided in Table 15. 

Intakes are higher than in the previous methodology due to updated statistical methods 

used to estimate plutonium air concentrations. 

Table 15: Intakes from Residual Contamination from 1961-1967 Plutonium Worka,b,c

Inhalation Ingestion

Year dpm/day, total 

alpha

dpm/day, total 

alpha

OTIB-70 Depletion 

Rate

1968 0.15 0.159 1.00E+00

1969 0.12 0.125 7.83E-01

1970 0.091 0.098 6.13E-01

1971 0.071 0.077 4.80E-01

1972 0.056 0.060 3.76E-01

1973 0.044 0.047 2.94E-01

1974 0.034 0.037 2.31E-01

1975 0.027 0.029 1.81E-01

1976 0.021 0.022 1.41E-01

1977 0.017 0.018 1.11E-01

1978 0.013 0.014 8.67E-02

1979 0.0101 0.011 6.79E-02

1980 0.0079 0.0085 5.32E-02

1981 0.0062 0.0066 4.16E-02

1982 0.0048 0.0052 3.26E-02

1983 0.0038 0.0041 2.55E-02

1984 0.0030 0.0032 2.00E-02

1985 0.0023 0.0025 1.56E-02

1986 0.0018 0.0020 1.23E-02

1987 0.0014 0.0015 9.60E-03

1988 0.0011 0.0012 7.51E-03

1989 0.00088 0.00094 5.88E-03

1990 0.00069 0.00073 4.61E-03

1991 0.00054 0.00058 3.61E-03

1992 0.00042 0.00045 2.83E-03

a. Intake rates have been normalized to units of dpm/calendar day. 

b. Doses assigned as a constant distribution. 

c. See Table 13 for partitioning of these total alpha values into individual radionuclides. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 24 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Assignment of Intakes 

For dose reconstruction purposes it is assumed that a worker was in either in a uranium 

area or a plutonium area. The residual uranium intakes from the 1943 centerless grinding 

work in Table 9 provide higher doses than the intakes from the later uranium work for 

Building 1 in Table 14. Therefore, Table 14 will not be used for dose reconstruction 

purposes. DRs will use either Table 9 or Table 15 for internal dose calculations, 

whichever provides the higher dose. The intake options are consolidated below in Table 

16.

Table 16: Intakes for Dose Reconstructions 

Year Intake Tables to use

1943 Tables 8 and 9

1944 Table 9

1945 Table 9

1946 Table 9

1947 Table 9

1948 Table 9

1949 Table 9

1950 Table 9

1951 Table 9

1952 Table 9

1953 Table 9

1954 Table 9

1955 Table 9

1956 Table 9

1957 Table 9

1958 Table 9

1959 Table 10a

1960 Table 10a

1961 Table 10aor Table 12

1962 Table 10aor Table 12

1963 Table 10aor Table 12

1964 Table 10aor Table 12

1965 Table 10aor Table 12

1966 Table 10aor Table 12

1967 Table 10aor Table 12

1968-1992 Table 9 or Table 15

a. Table 10 intakes also include associated radionuclides listed in Table 11. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 25 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

References

Anigstein, R. A., 2016, Review of the Carborundum Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition00223 and the NIOSH SEC Petition Evaluation Report, SC&A-TR-SEC-2016-0001, Revision 1, 

January 27, 2016. 

Anigstein, R. and Mauro, J, Review of NIOSH Use of Surrogate Data in the SEC Evaluation 

Report for Carborundum, memorandum to Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

Work Group on Carborundum Company, November 10, 2016. 

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

Revision 1, June 17, 2011. 

NIOSH, 2015, SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00223, Revision 1, June 3, 2015. 

ORAUT-OTIB-070, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction during Residual 

Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities, Revision 1, March 5, 2012. 

ORAUT-OTIB-006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures, 

Revision 4, June 20, 2011. 

Thomas, E., 2016, External Dose Assessment from X-ray Diffraction at Carborundum Company, 

Niagara Falls, NY, June 13, 2016. 

Tomes, T. P., 2016a, NIOSH Response to SC&A Findings on SEC-00223, Carborundum 

Company, Niagara Falls, NY, June 8, 2016.

Tomes, T. P., 2016b, Use of Surrogate Data at the Carborundum Company, memorandum to 

Carborundum Work Group, October 27, 2016. 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 26 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Appendix A 

SC&A Comments and Observations on NIOSH Dose Estimates 

SC&A provided numerous observations and comments on the dose estimation methods NIOSH 

used in the Example DRs. NIOSH went through the SC&A report and listed all issues deemed to 

have significance to dose calculations or interpretations needed to perform dose reconstructions. 

Those comments are summarized by category below, and a NIOSH response to each is provided. 

The summaries of the SC&A Observations below have parenthetical references to sections in the 

SC&A’s ER Review. Comments related to identified Issues/Findings are not listed because they 

have been addressed separately. 

Comments on External Dose from Plutonium 

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

NIOSH should reevaluate the assumptions 

used for plutonium source material and the 

age of the material, based on references that 

two different sources of plutonium were used 

and noting the 1959-1967 duration of the 

project. They also commented that some of 

the glovebox and other model parameters 

should be changed. (sec. 4.7, 4.8, 5.1.2, Att. 

B)

The MCNP-modeled doses were under 

revision at the time the ER was written and 

approved. NIOSH revised the MCNP model

in 2015 to address comments provided from 

SC&A on a DR review. The updated doses 

were provided in the Example DR and 

supporting files provided to the Board July 

23, 2015. 

The additional comments received on the 

MCNP assumptions are currently under 

review by NIOSH. 

Comment on Composition of Plutonium Intakes

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

SC&A commented that the assumed activity 

fractions of plutonium may need to be 

changed to consider different plutonium 

material and age of material. (sec. 4.12, 

5.2.2)

This comment affects how the total alpha 

intakes are divided into individual 

radionuclide components.

The composition of the plutonium source 

material and age is under review in 

conjunction with the comments on the 

MCNP-modeled external dose. 

Comments on Plutonium Air Concentration and Intake Estimates

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

SC&A recommended NIOSH use a 

regression of order (ROS) statistical analysis 

to evaluate plutonium air sample results (total 

NIOSH has re-evaluated the plutonium air 

sample results and agrees to use the results as 

interpreted by SC&A. The results of the 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 27 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Comments on Plutonium Air Concentration and Intake Estimates

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

alpha in air), and noted and assumed error in 

interpretation of a recorded result. SC&A 

provided an analysis of the plutonium air 

samples in Appendix A of their ER Review. 

SC&A commented that if the intake estimate 

changes, intakes in both the AWE Operational 

and Residual periods need to be updated 

accordingly. (sec. 4.10, 4.12, 4.13, 5.2.2,

5.2.3, App. A)

NIOSH ROS analysis was identical to the 

results reported by SC&A. Inhalation and 

ingestion intakes calculations for the AWE 

Operational and Residual periods have been 

updated accordingly. 

Comments on Uranium Air Concentration and Intake Estimates

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

SC&A recommended NIOSH use a 

regression of order (ROS) statistical analysis 

to evaluate uranium air sample results (total 

alpha in air). SC&A provided an analysis of 

the uranium air samples in Appendix A of 

their ER Review. 

SC&A commented that if the intake estimate 

changes, intakes in both the AWE Operational 

and Residual periods need to be updated 

accordingly. (sec. 4.13, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, App. A)

NIOSH has re-evaluated the uranium air 

sample results and agrees to use the results as 

interpreted by SC&A. The results of the 

NIOSH ROS analysis was nearly identical to 

the results reported by SC&A. Inhalation and 

ingestion intakes calculations for the AWE 

Operational and Residual periods have been 

updated accordingly. 

Various Comments on DR Assumptions and Instructions

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

(1) Comment that instructions should specify 

the Operator dose category for internal and 

external dose unless there is evidence to the 

contrary. Another comment said that more 

information and guidance is needed to 

determine job categories for assignment of 

dose. (sec. 4.14)

(1) NIOSH agrees that the Operator dose will 

be the default. When job title or other 

information is available, professional 

judgement will be used to determine the dose 

category. Additional instruction will be added 

to the updated site profile. Note: this 

comment only affects the AWE Operational 

periods. The updated dose methods for the 

residual periods have a single category of 

doses and intakes.

(2) Comment that residual periods’ external 

doses should be based on radiological 

operational areas rather than an option for 

lower dose in other areas or buildings.

(2) NIOSH agrees. The updated dose tables 

provide only a single set of residual dose and 

intake rates for all residual years. 

Additionally, the non-operational area dose 

category (Clerk) has been omitted in the 
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 28 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Various Comments on DR Assumptions and Instructions

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

updated tables for the 1st AWE Operational 

Period because the 1943 work location is 

unknown.

(3) Comment that the work location providing 

the largest dose should be assigned for 

external dose and internal dose independently, 

such that a dose reconstructor should not 

determine the most favorable location based 

on a combination of external doses and 

internal doses. (sec. 5.1.2)

(3) NIOSH considered the options and 

discussion by SC&A. Consideration was also 

given to the difficulty in implementing a 

requirement to determine the most favorable 

work location for a given claim, a given 

organ, and for claims with multiple cancers. 

Therefore, updated tables are provided that 

list maximum external doses by year and 

maximum intake rates by year without linking 

the two, in agreement with the SC&A 

comment.

(4) Comment that SC&A concurs that 

external dose from uranium work or from 

plutonium work, not both, should be assigned 

to Operators and support dose categories. 

However, they argue that the non-radiological 

areas (Clerk dose category) should be 

assigned dose from both. (sec. 5.1.2)

(4) NIOSH disagrees. The dose for the Clerk 

category is defined as a function of the dose 

from the other worker categories. Regardless, 

the Clerk category has been removed from the 

1943 dose estimates, and the updated external 

dose estimates for the Clerk category in 1959-

1967 is 0.001 rem; it is insignificant

compared to the estimate for Pu areas. This 

comment is not applicable to the updated dose 

estimates in the residual years.

(5) SC&A commented that the instructions on 

selection of appropriate category of DCFs for 

photon and neutron dose from plutonium 

work is not clear enough. (sec. 5.1.2)

(5) The updated site profile will use more 

clear descriptions of the DCF category. These 

are provided as footnotes to Table 4 in this 

document.

6) SC&A commented that in 1959-1967 

workers should be assigned intakes from both 

plutonium and uranium because work was not 

performed in discreet areas. (sec. 5.2.2)

(6) NIOSH disagrees. Uranium work began in 

1959 in the uranium lab. The first plutonium 

work began in 1961 in an isolated plutonium 

lab, so plutonium is not considered a source 

of exposure until 1961. Starting in 1961, 

workers may have worked in the uranium lab 

or in the plutonium lab, which involved a 

mixture of plutonium and uranium. However, 

NIOSH has no means to divide ones work 

hours into fractions of one area or another. 

Therefore, for 1961-1967 doses are to be 

assigned to whichever location provides the 

highest doses.
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 29 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Comments on Calculations

SC&A Observation NIOSH Response

(1) SC&A had multiple comments on the use 

of the incorrect category of organ dose 

conversion factors (DCFs) in the Example 

DRs. (sec. 4.16, 5.1.1, 6.3)

The updated doses in this report explicitly 

state the correct dose units and appropriate 

conversion factors. NOTE: the previous 

Example DRs had combined multiple dose 

components, with different dose quantities 

reported, into a single annual dose, then 

applied the most favorable organ DCF. It was 

favorable, but resulted in some overestimates.

(2) SC&A commented that there was a large 

error in the NIOSH calculation for skin dose 

in the spreadsheet for 1943. (sec. 5.1.1)

NIOSH checked the calculation. There was no 

error; however, two components of the total 

skin dose were combined in the spreadsheet 

cell that was referred by SC&A. NOTE: the 

values have been updated based on other 

comments.

(3) SC&A commented that the methodology 

document cited TBD-6000 to support an 

assumption that non-operational area doses 

were 10% of operational area doses in the 

residual period. (sec. 4.17)

NIOSH has eliminated the non-operational 

dose category from residual period dose 

estimates; therefore, the comment is not 

applicable to the updated dose estimates.

(4) SC&A commented that factors applied for 

depletion of contamination should end after 

30 years. (sec. 5.2.3)

(4) NIOSH agrees and has provided updated 

calculations.

(5) SC&A commented that dose from Pu 

should not be assigned in 1959 and 1960. 

(sec. 6.1)

(5) NIOSH agrees and has provided updated 

dose tables.
NIOSH Evaluation of Carborundum Company - Response to Site Profile Issues and Comments 

Page 30 of 30

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in 

discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final 

NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents 

preliminary positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and 

redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Appendix B

Chronological List of Previous Reports and Discussion Documents and Meetings with 

NIOSH, the Board, and SC&A on Review of Petition SEC-00223

SEC Petition 00223 received by NIOSH on November 19, 2014. 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00223, Revision 0, NIOSH, May 26, 2015. 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00223, Revision 1, NIOSH, June 3, 2015. 

NOTE: Revision 1 was issued to correct a date and document number for an interview described 

in Section 4.3 and in the References section. 

Review of the Carborundum Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition-00223 and the NIOSH SEC 

Petition Evaluation Report, SC&A, Revision 0, January 25, 2016. 

Review of the Carborundum Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition-00223 and the NIOSH SEC 

Petition Evaluation Report, SC&A, Revision 1, January 27, 2016. 

NOTE: In revision 1 SC&A revised the discussion of an issue and updated the References. All 

responses from NIOSH were based on revision 1. 

NIOSH Response to SC&A Findings on SEC-00223, Carborundum Company, Niagara Falls, 

NY, NIOSH, June 8, 2016. 

External Dose Assessment from X-ray Diffraction at Carborundum Company, Niagara Falls, 

NY, Response Paper, Rev. 01, NIOSH June 13, 2016. 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Carborundum Work Group, Transcripts of 

August 18, 2016, teleconference. 

Use of Surrogate Data at the Carborundum Company, NIOSH memorandum to Carborundum 

Work Group, October 27, 2016. 

Review of NIOSH Use of Surrogate Data in the SEC Evaluation Report for Carborundum, 

SC&A memorandum to Carborundum Work Group, November 10, 2016. 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Carborundum Work Group, Transcripts of 

November 17, 2016, teleconference. 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Carborundum Work Group, Transcripts of 

November 30, 2016, meeting, discussion on Carborundum, pp. 74-113.