Review of Site Profile for DuPont 

Deepwater Works, 

Deepwater, NJ 

Work Group on Uranium Refining AWEs 

Presented at ABRWH Meeting 

March 25–26, 2015 

Richland, WA 
DuPont Deepwater Operations

• Early 1942 – Laboratory research on producing 

UF6

• February 13, 1943 – Production started

• Production processes included:

U308from scrap

U3O8 →UO2

UO2 → UF4

UF4 → U

UF4 → UF6

2
DuPont Deepwater Operations

(continued)

• 1948 – Site Decontamination 

• December 31, 1948 – Final Site Survey

• 1949 through March 2011 – Residual Period

3
Chronology of Site Review Activities

• 1/3/2008 – Appendix B (DuPont Deepwater 

Works) to TBD-6001 issued by DCAS (OCAS 2008).

• 2/15/2011 – Technical Basis Document (TBD) for 

DuPont issued as free-standing site profile to 

replace Appendix B (DCAS 2011). TBD revised 

3/8/2011.

• 8/12/2011 – SC&A issues review of TBD 

documenting 7 Findings (SC&A 2011).

• 9/7/2012 – SC&A Findings discussed at Work 

Group Meeting.

4
Chronology of Site Review Activities

(continued)

• 3/18/2013 – DCAS provides critique of SC&A 

Findings (Neton 2013) 

• 6/6/2013 – SC&A submits response to DCAS 

critique (SC&A 2013)

• 9/27/2013 – DCAS critique and SC&A responses 

to initial Findings reviewed at Work Group 

meeting

• 10/16/2013 – Chair of Work Group presents 

status report to ABRWH on resolution of SC&A 

initial Findings (Anderson 2013)

5
Chronology of Site Review Activities

(continued)

• 12/13/2013 – NIOSH/DCAS issues Revision 1 to 

TBD reflecting prior reviews and comments (DCAS 

2013)

• 11/21/2014 – SC&A provides white paper 

describing extent to which earlier Findings have 

been resolved in Revision 1 of TBD (SC&A 2014)

• 1/22/2015 – Based on teleconference, Work 

Group determines that all issues related to 

DuPont Deepwater have been resolved

6
Chronology of Site Review Activities

(continued)

• 1/22/2015 – DCAS informed Work Group that, 

contrary to teleconference discussion, the 

calculation of the ingestion dose as presented 

in TIB-009 is dependent on hours worked. 

This correction would result in a small 

increase (9%) in the daily ingestion rate. 

NIOSH indicated that this change would be 

made in a revision to the TBD. This approach 

was acceptable to SC&A and the Work Group. 

7
Work Group Recommendation

• The Uranium Refining AWE Work Group 

considers that all Findings related to the TBD 

for DuPont Deepwater have been resolved 

and recommends that the site profile 

documented in Revision 1 dated December 

13, 2013, be approved with the caveat that 

the document be amended to ensure that 

calculation of ingestion doses be consistent 

with TIB-009.

8
References

• OCAS 2008. Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium 

Appendix B – DuPont Deepwater Works. Rev. 1, 

January 3, 2008. 

• DCAS 2011. Technical Basis Document for the DuPont 

Deepwater Works Deepwater, New Jersey. DCAS-TKBS0006. Rev. 0. February 15, 2011.

• SC&A 2011. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for 

DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ. Contract No. 

200-2009-28555, SCA-TR-SP2011-0035. August 12, 

2011. 

9
References (continued)

• Neton, James W., 2013. DuPont Deepwater 

Works, NIOSH’s Response to Findings in SC&A’s 

Review, Dated August 12, 2011. March 18, 2013. 

• SC&A 2013. SC&A Response to NIOSH’s 

Commentary on Findings Regarding the Site 

Profile for DuPont Deepwater Works. Contract 

No. 200-2009-28555. June 6, 2013.

• Anderson, Henry, 2013. DuPont Deepwater 

Works, Deepwater, New Jersey, Status of Site 

Profile Issues Resolution. October 16, 2013. 

10
References (continued)

• DCAS 2013. Technical Basis Document for the 

DuPont Deepwater Works, Deepwater, New 

Jersey. DCAS-TKBS-0006, Rev. 1. December 

13, 2013.

• SC&A 2014. Resolution of SC&A Findings 

Developed during Review of DCAS-TKBS-0006, 

Rev. 00. Contract No. 211-2014-58081. 

November 21, 2014.

11
SC&A Findings

• Finding: The site profile should discuss the 

degree to which the air sampling data, which 

were collected in 1944 and 1945, can be used to 

reasonably bound doses in the earlier years of 

operation (e.g., 1942–1943).

• Resolution: The first air samples taken in April 

1944 were collected near the beginning of fullscale operation, but not in the startup and testing 

phases where production rates, and associated 

airborne levels, were lower.

12
SC&A Findings (continued) 

• Finding: We would request that the site profile discuss 

the levels of surface contamination at the facility and 

explain that, at these levels, the default ingestion rate 

of 0.5 mg/day, which is inherent to TIB-009, applies to 

this facility. NIOSH should also describe how the 

ingestion intake in Table 1 was calculated.

• Resolution: TIB-009 has subsequently been approved 

for DR calculations. NIOSH explained that they do not 

vary the number of work days per year, but always 

assume 250 workdays in converting work-days to 

calendar-days. The hours worked per day will vary 

depending on the operational timeframe.

13
SC&A Findings (continued)

• Finding: It appears that uranium metal was produced at the site 

using the UF4-to-U magnesium bomb reduction process, which, 

because of the Putzier effect, could have produced uranium ingots 

that were associated with external beta radiation fields that were 

10 to 20 times greater than those adopted in the site profile. 

• Resolution: This issue was studied by the TBD-6000 Work Group 

resulting in a revision to Battelle-TBD-6000 that discussed this 

effect. The discussion, which can be found in Section 3.3.1 of TBD6000, indicates that this effect does not appear to occur during the 

metal reduction process. Rather, it is the uranium recasting process 

where the phenomenon has been observed. While DuPont did 

perform metal reduction, there is no indication that they performed 

metal recasting. 

14
SC&A Findings (continued)

• Finding: There seems to be a substantial disparity 

between the explanation of how the annual photon 

doses to operators were derived and the actual values 

employed in the site profile. 

• Resolution: In Rev. 1 to the TBD, NIOSH changed the 

methodology for calculating photon exposure to 

operators. In the revised TBD, NIOSH calculated the 

photon exposure rate to operators as a function of 

distance from drums of various sizes containing uranium 

compounds. The new approach is scientifically sound.

15
SC&A Findings (continued)

• Finding: There seems to be a substantial disparity between the 

explanation of how the annual contact doses to operators were derived 

and the actual values employed in the site profile. In addition, justification 

should be provided as to why TBD-6000 default values should not be used 

at DuPont, since no site data are available for external exposure during the 

operating period. 

• Resolution: In Rev. 1 to the TBD, NIOSH altered the calculational approach 

using the measured decay of beta dose as a function of distance from a 

yellowcake source. NIOSH then determined that the beta dose could be 

approximated by a lognormal distribution with a geometric standard 

deviation (GSD) of 5 and a median value of 1 mrem/hr at 100 cm from the 

source. Since TBD-6000 deals with exposure to large uranium metal 

masses, its use is not appropriate for the uranium compounds processed 

at DuPont. These changes resolved the Finding issues.

16
SC&A Findings (continued)

• Finding: Assuming 50% of the beta/gamma dose rate measured at 

3 ft from a surface is 50% from gamma and 50% from beta does not 

appear to be appropriate. In addition, beta dose cannot contribute 

significantly to whole-body dose. 

• Resolution: The photon exposure in Rev. 1 is based on the 

calculated exposure at 100 cm from a 55-gallon drum of uranium 

(0.28 mR/hr), and is assumed to be the median exposure for a 

lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5. The beta exposure is based 

on taking measured values at various distances from a yellowcake 

source and approximating this measured distribution by a 

lognormal distribution with a geometric mean (GM) of 1 mrem/hr 

(at 100 cm) and assuming a GSD of 5. The revised approach in Rev. 

1 addresses prior concerns and is acceptable.

17
SC&A Findings (continued)

• Finding: The development of the photon dose is convoluted 

and not scientifically sound. A simpler approach would be to 

assume the deep dose rate was 0.05 mrad/hr, based on 

measurements at 3 ft from contaminated surfaces, and pro-rate 

this dose rate between beta and gamma based on Table 3.10 of 

TBD-6000. 

• Resolution: In Rev. 1 of the TBD, the photon exposure rate was 

based on MicroShield calculations (adjusted to include 

Bremsstrahlung), assuming that the operator was at various 

distances from a 55-gallon drum of uranium during the work 

day. The approach used to develop the photon exposure is a 

significant improvement over that in Rev. 0 and is scientifically 

sound. 

18