Review of the Potential for Residual Contamination at Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation

Grady Calhoun, CHP, Samuel Glover, Ph.D., and James Neton, Ph.D., CHP

May 23, 2013

Introduction

In response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107; 

Section 3151(b)), NIOSH evaluated the potential for the presence of significant radioactive 

contamination at Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities after the facility had discontinued 

nuclear weapons production activities. The Bethlehem Steel facility in Lackawanna, New York 

is an AWE facility whose operational period (i.e., the time period during which AEC activities 

were conducted) has been established by the Department of Labor as 1949 – 1952. As indicated 

by the data provided in Attachment 1, it is clear that significant quantities of uranium were 

processed during the operational period. NIOSH’s original evaluation of the post-operational 

period (i.e., after 1952), however, determined that there is little potential for significant residual 

contamination to remain at the Lackawanna facility after the cessation of AEC-related operations 

in 19521. A copy of the basis for this determination, as it appears in the 2011 report, is provided 

in Attachment 2. Consistent with the approach used to make this determination at all AWE 

facilities, NIOSH relied on information related to: 1) the nature of the operations conducted; 2) 

descriptions of clean-up activities, and; 3) available radiation contamination survey data. When 

surveys were available, the current federal guidelines for unrestricted use are used to establish 

the presence of significant radioactive contamination.

NIOSH considers contamination levels at designated facilities in excess of those indicated in 10 

C.F.R. part 835, Appendix D (Occupational Radiation Protection, Surface Contamination 

Values), an indication that there is “significant contamination” remaining in those facilities. 

Areas below the levels prescribed in Appendix D are not considered contamination areas and 

workers are allowed unrestricted and unmonitored access to these areas. The Appendix D 

contamination levels for uranium are provided in Table 1 below2.

Table 1

10 CFR 835 Appendix D Limits

Surface Radioactivity Value

disintegrations per minute / 100 cm2

Removable Total (Fixed plus Removable)

Natural Uranium 1,000 5,000

The amount of removable material is determined by swiping the area with a dry filter paper or 

other soft absorbent paper and then assessing the amount of radioactive material on the swipe 

using an appropriate radiation detection instrument.

 

1

In an early version of the report, a clerical error resulted in the inadvertent listing of the Bethlehem Steel facility as 

being contaminated to the present. The error was corrected upon discovery,

2 When contamination surveys were available, these levels were used to evaluate the presence of significant 

residual contamination at all AWE facilities. 
2

Since the original determination by NIOSH, concerns have been raised by claimants, survivors, 

and other interested parties that the original analysis did not consider the spread of contamination 

to other areas of the plant, including the sub-basement under the cooling beds and the horizontal 

structures (e.g., rafters and overhead cranes) above the rolling mill. While NIOSH has access to 

a set of survey data in around the 10-inch rolling mill, it has been argued that no such survey data 

exist for the areas beneath and above the mill. Because steel plants inherently produce large 

quantities of dust, many workers believe that it would not have been possible to adequately clean 

up the uranium that might have been dispersed throughout the plant.

Given the concerns raised by stakeholders, NIOSH has undertaken a reanalysis of its original 

determination. This reanalysis expanded on the original determination by reconsidering the 

information that was previously used, as well as any additional information that was obtained 

thereafter. To this end, NIOSH has reviewed: 1) all AEC and DOE documentation related to 

Bethlehem Steel that has been obtained to date; 2) the written statements describing conditions in 

the plant that were provided by seventy-five Bethlehem Steel workers and/or survivors; and, 3) 

the comments obtained from participants at a town hall meeting held August 13, 2012 in 

Hamburg, New York. 

Review of Affidavits Received by NIOSH

Over the past year, NIOSH received a number of affidavits from former workers and survivors of 

workers at Bethlehem Steel. Of the 75 affidavits received, 62 were from former workers and 13

were from spouses. The dates of employment for these workers varied considerably with more 

than 80% of the affiants having started employment after the covered period (i.e., after 1952). 

Each of the affidavits received by NIOSH was reviewed for information that might be used to 

evaluate the potential levels of residual contamination at Bethlehem Steel.

Twelve affidavits indicated dates of employment during the current covered period (i.e., 1949-

1952). Each of these was reviewed to determine if they contained any information that might 

discern the extent of uranium cleanup at the 10 inch bar mill area during this period. The 

following statements, taken directly from the affidavits, provide some indication of nature of 

cleanup activities at the plant:

 Laborers swept the floors in the work area, or one of the scarfers blew the dust 

and dirt into the bed of our work.

 I worked as a laborer in the bar mill area sweeping up with a broom and dust 

pan. Nothing was done for a proper cleanup until 1976.

 I worked during the period of 1949 through 1952.... At no point was there any 

special cleaning done following the processing of radiated steel at the plant. The 

only cleaning that was done; (that I am aware of) would have been done by the 

laborers who worked for the plant. This was part of their daily routine. They used 

wheelbarrows along with brooms and shovels to clean the area. This did nothing 
3

for the steel particles that were airborne and rested in the dust on the rigging and 

beams for the crane. These areas up above the floor level could not possibly be 

cleaned. When the crane is moving the beams vibrate causing dust to fall. This 

spreads the contamination in the plant daily.

 For many years I worked in the labor pool, which meant doing all kinds of 

disposal work. Cleaning slag pits beneath the rolling mills was one of them. 

 Early in the Spring of 1952, I was a welder at the 10 inch bar mill...On Saturdays 

I stood by while they rolled uranium bars. When they finished men would vacuum 

the floors and hot bed. Men would clean up the sub-basement with brooms and 

shovels. 

 Any cleanup attempt would have been incomplete without replacing certain 

equipment e.g. Crucibles, crane rigging, conveyors, etc. To my knowledge this 

was not replaced.

From the above excerpts, there appears to be a consistent recollection among workers in the AEC 

period that some form of cleanup occurred regularly, whether it was part of the normal 

maintenance practice at the plant or in response to the rolling of uranium. This cleanup of dust 

in the plant included floor sweeping and routine removal of dust and debris that would 

accumulate in the subbasement. One worker, who recalls observing uranium rollings, has a 

specific recollection about workers vacuuming the floors and cleaning up the subbasement with 

brooms and shovels. While this could have resulted in significant intakes of uranium, the 

exposures during this period are already covered under the currently defined time period of 

1949-1952.

There were six affidavits that described exposures that might have occurred beyond the existing 

covered period. Although NIOSH has seen nothing in the captured documents that supports 

additional AEC work beyond 1952, these affidavits have been forwarded to the Department of 

Labor (DOL) for their consideration. Under EEOICPA, the DOL has the responsibility for 

defining covered time periods at AWE facilities. For completeness, the other 69 affidavits 

NIOSH received were also forwarded to DOL.

The remaining affidavits from workers who were employed outside of the covered period 

contained one or more of the following elements: 1) a belief that the plant was not or could not 

have been adequately cleaned of all uranium contamination; 2) a brief description of their work 

history at the plant; 3) a description of medical conditions that they attribute to uranium 

exposure; and 4) an expression of support for the addition of the residual contamination period.

Review of Comments from the August 2012 Town Hall Meeting in Hamburg, New York

During the town hall meeting held August 13, 2012 in Hamburg, New York, NIOSH received a 

number of comments from those in attendance. The two key issues raised by workers were 

similar to those raised in the affidavits that were received by NIOSH. That is, workers expressed 
4

concern about: 1) the adequacy of the cleanup of the area under the rolling mill; and 2) the 

potential for workers to be exposed to settled dust on elevated horizontal surfaces such as cranes 

and cat walks. Some specific points raised by participants related to these issues are provided 

below,

 Workers questioned the validity of the 1952 clean up as it was done under the 

direction of the AEC and likewise the 1976 contamination surveys that were done 

under the direction of company management were questioned.

 Concern was expressed that not all machinery that was possibly contaminated was 

disassembled and cleaned and, therefore, could be a source of potential contamination 

after the 1952 clean up.

 There are eye witness accounts of “dust clouds” that came off of the cranes when they 

were moved.

 The methods that were used for cleanup and measurement in1952 were not as 

developed as current methods and, therefore, call into question the effectiveness of 

the clean.

 There were concerns about contamination of the cat walks, roof area, and on top of 

the crane.

 A number of comments suggested that the current site be sampled for residual 

contamination.

Regarding the validity of the contamination surveys, it appears to NIOSH that industry-standard

techniques were employed by the AEC contractor, the Bethlehem Steel Environmental Staff, and 

in the subsequent survey by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In each case, the surveys detected 

no significant levels of residual contamination. It is important to note that the original surveys 

taken in 1952 followed protocols that were developed by the AEC’s Health and Safety 

Laboratory, which has a reputation in the scientific community for developing and implementing 

scientifically-sound workplace monitoring techniques.

The remaining issues related to contamination in the subbasement and in nearby structures (e.g., 

overhead cranes) are specifically evaluated and addressed in the subsequent sections of this 

review.

Review of Documented Clean-up/Contamination Reduction Activities at the Rolling Mill 

In its site research database, NIOSH has collected 396 documents related to the Bethlehem Steel 

site in Lackawanna, New York. Many of these documents are Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC) reports that describe the conditions surrounding the rolling activities conducted during the 

covered time period. Attachment 3 provides a summary of the reference documents that are 

related to the clean-up and contamination control activities. These documents provide the basis 

for the discussion contained in this section. 
5

The AEC monthly progress reports provide descriptions to indicate that the 10-inch bar mill area 

was routinely cleaned-up after rolling. Specific reports related to uranium accountability describe 

that all uranium materials were collected and shipped after the completion of rolling events. 

Initially, the cleaned-up material was drummed and shipped to Lake Ontario Ordnance Works 

for storage. There are also reports of other shipments to Vitro Manufacturing and Fernald. 

Based on the experience gained from rolling uranium at Simonds Saw and Steel, the AEC 

implemented a significant contamination control measure at Bethlehem Steel. Unlike the 

original rollings at Simonds Saw and Steel, which were heated directly by a furnace, the rods at 

Bethlehem Steel were heat treated in a molten salt bath prior to rolling. As summarized in a 

1951 AEC memo, the protective coating on the rods provided by the salt bath greatly reduced the 

dust levels in the plant. 

The AEC documentation also indicates that the level of contamination was an AEC concern 

during the first “experimental rollings” conducted on April 26 and April 27, 1951. An internal 

April 24, 1951 AEC memorandum to Merrill Eisenbud states that:

We would like to have a Health and Safety Division representative to measure 

atmospheric uranium dust concentration in connection with the salt test on April 26 and 

to act as the adviser on decontamination on April 27. 

Although no contamination surveys were located following the April 1951 rollings, NIOSH has 

located surveys that were conducted after two rolling operations in 1952. A February 1952 

report of rolling operations describes a complete survey that was performed. This survey found, 

“very little” contamination in the mill area. It also found that a “considerable” amount of 

radioactive scale was found in the shear area, but that nearly all of it was readily removed by 

wiping. This report recommended, “...that more attention be given to the cleanup following the 

rolling and that reasonable care be taken to remove all loose contamination.” Subsequent 

surveys of the shear area taken in September of 1952 found no contamination in excess of 

current free release standards. Additional smears taken of the cooling table, the salt bath, the 

stands, and the floor all found no detectable contamination above current unrestricted release 

limits. Table 2 provides the results of the smear samples taken before and after cleanup of the 

September 14, 1952 rolling. Smear samples Q925 through Q935 were labeled as being taken 

after “the last rolling before cleanup,” while smears Q936 through Q949 were labeled as being 

taken after the “last rolling after cleanup.” A comparison of these results with the contamination 

limits in Table 1 reveals that all values are below the 1,000 dpm/cm2limit for removable 

uranium contamination. From inspection of Table 2 it can be seen that the highest levels of 

contamination were measured at the shear and the cooling bed. As discussed above, the shear 

area was known to collect “a considerable amount of scale” so additional attention was taken in 

the survey and subsequent cleanup of contamination in this area. 
6

Table 2

Results of Contamination Smears Taken on September 14, 1952

Sample Number Description Result

(dpm/100 cm2)

Q925 Approach to shear 404

Q926 Back table shear 679

Q927 Cooling table 285

Q928 Cooling table 103

Q929 By salt bath 6

Q930 Stand 1 1

Q931 Stand 2 9

Q932 Stand 3 6

Q933 Stand 4 5

Q934 Stand 5 9

Q935 Stand 6 0

Q936 Approach to shear 979

Q937 Back table shear 568

Q938 Cooling table 301

Q939 Cooling table 343

Q940 By salt bath 5

Q941 Stand 1 4

Q942 Stand 2 1

Q943 Stand 3 4

Q944 Stand 4 3

Q945 Stand 5 4

Q946 Stand 6 1

Q947 Floor 23

Q948 Floor 7

Q949 Floor 10

In response to Bethlehem Steel being added by the Energy Research and Development 

Administration (AEC’s successor agency) to the list of sites where uranium was handled, a

contamination survey was completed in 1976 by an employee of the Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation. The survey, which was conducted by the environmental health engineer at the 

Lackawanna facility under the guidance of the corporate radiation control engineer, was much 

more comprehensive than those taken during rolling operations. A total of 68 samples were 

collected which included the rolling equipment, shears, cooling beds, and the areas under this 

equipment. In this survey, no contamination above natural background was identified. Because 

there is no evidence that a radiological decontamination effort, in addition to that performed by 

the AEC during rolling, was conducted between the end of uranium rolling operations in 1952 
7

and this survey in 1976, it is reasonable to conclude that the uranium source term had been 

removed from both the first floor and the sub-basement. At other AWE sites, where no 

indication of cleaning was found to have occurred, levels of uranium well above background 

were easily detected in the AEC follow-up surveys in the 1970s and 80s. It should be pointed 

out that, at the time of this survey, the subbasement under the cooling bed area of the ten inch 

rolling mill area had not yet been filled in. 

An additional survey, designed to specifically determine if the site could be eliminated from 

consideration as a contaminated site, was completed in 1980 by Oak Ridge Operations Office 

and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Most of the equipment used in the operations had been 

removed but the shear and the areas around where the rolling equipment was previously located 

were surveyed. As in previous surveys, no contamination in excess of background was identified 

and the site was again deemed to meet the requirements for unrestricted use.

Consideration of the Potential for Residual Contamination of the Subbasement and Other

Surfaces

The Subbasement

As described above, it is clear that the AEC directed efforts to clean residual contamination from

the areas immediately surrounding the processing machinery, cooling beds, and shears on the 

first floor of the plant. As pointed out by former workers, however, much of the first floor was 

covered by a grating through which steel and uranium dust could accumulate. The 

contamination levels and cleanup efforts associated with the areas in the subbasement beneath 

the first floor is not as well documented. A review of the affidavits provided by former workers, 

however, provides some insight into the handling of dust generated during the rolling process, 

whether the source of the dust is from the rolling of steel or uranium ingots.

As indicated in the affidavits, the dust and debris generated during the production of steel would 

settle not only onto machinery surfaces but also into the basement areas underneath the rolling 

line and the cooling bed. The fact that this dust and debris were periodically cleaned up and 

removed from the basement area is reported in 14 of the affidavits/statements received by 

NIOSH. Although the specific details vary, they generally describe the routine removal of dust 

and scale by sweeping and shoveling into containers such as wheelbarrows, metal boxes or 55 

gallon drums. Of particular note was one affidavit from a worker that reported being present at 

uranium rolling in the spring of 1952 in which he states:

On Saturday I stood by while they rolled uranium bars. When they finished men would 

vacuum the floors and hot bed. Men would clean up the sub-basement with brooms and 

shovels.

Based on these statements it is evident that steel and/or uranium dust that settled into the subbasement area was removed on a regular basis. Whether the removal occurred during the AEC 
8

clean-up after each rolling (as indicated by one worker) or during ongoing maintenance activities 

is not clear. Given that the last documented rolling of uranium occurred at the end of October

1952 and the covered period ends at the end of December, it is reasonable to conclude that any 

uranium deposited in the sub-basement over that two month period was removed. The additional 

two month covered period beyond the last rolling provides SEC status to all workers at the plant, 

which would include those involved in the cleanup activities in the subbasement.

Other Surfaces

As described above, surveys taken in the areas at or near the uranium rollings were found to be 

below current contamination guidelines and the dust (both uranium and steel) that accumulated 

in the subbasement was routinely removed. The question remains, however, as to the levels of 

potential contamination in areas remote to the rolling operations that were not decontaminated 

after uranium rollings. This would include surfaces on the plant floor beyond the immediate 

clean up area and elevated horizontal structures, such as those on catwalks and overhead cranes.

To evaluate the potential contamination in these areas, NIOSH reviewed the general area air 

samples that were taken during rolling operations. In all, eighty-six general area air samples 

were taken during rolling conducted in 1951 and 1952. These samples were positioned near the 

various pieces of process equipment (e.g., stands, salt bath, and cooling bed) at distances that 

ranged from eight to thirty feet. The median general air sample concentrations were found to be 

15.1 and 5.7 dpm/m3for 1951 and 1952, respectively. Using these air concentration values it is 

possible to estimate the amount of contamination that could have deposited on horizontal 

surfaces that were outside or the immediate cleanup area. 

For each of the 13 rollings considered to have occurred in 1951, there was a median general area 

air concentration of 15.1 dpm/m3. Using the terminal setting velocity of particulate of 0.00075 

m/s, the amount of uranium that settles on the ground over a 10 hour shift is 4.1 dpm/100 cm2. 

Thus, the amount of uranium that could accumulate on surfaces removed from the immediate 

area of the rolling process for 13 shifts is 4.1x13 = 53.3 dpm/100 cm2. A similar calculation for 

the 15 rollings in 1952 results in a total deposition of 23.1 dpm/100 cm2. The total deposition for 

both years is then 53 + 23 = 76 dpm/100 cm2. This value is more than an order of magnitude 

less than the 10 CFR 835 Appendix D value of 1,000 dpm/m

2

listed in Table 1 for removable 

contamination. Thus, under current regulations, this level of residual contamination would not 

be considered a contaminated area.

The above analysis assumes that there is no cleanup of the material in between rollings and that 

there is no dilution of the uranium due to mixing with steel dust that would be deposited on top 

of the uranium between rollings. If one accounts for this dilution factor, and one assumes 

uniform mixing of the material, each day of steel rolling would reduce the amount of uranium on 

the surface. The material on the surface one day after a uranium rolling would therefore be one 
9

part uranium and one part steel. On the following day, the material would be one part uranium 

and two parts steel and so on.

Conclusion

The uranium rolling operations that took place at the Bethlehem Steel plant created airborne 

radioactivity and exposed workers to internal and external radiation during the operational 

period. However, the potential for residual radioactive contamination after rolling operations 

ceased is very low. The evidence shows that an active cleanup program of the area surrounding 

the rolling operations was in place and was effective. Documentation obtained by NIOSH 

indicates that care was taken to clean up scale, scrap, fines and dust after the uranium rollings. 

This is particularly well illustrated in the February 16, 1952 “Production Report on Rolling of 

Uranium Billets at BSC”, where surveys performed after a clean-up identified contamination in 

excess of acceptable limits. It was reported that “Nearly all of it was readily removed by 

wiping.” This report made a recommendation “...that careful attention be given to the clean-up 

following each rolling operation.” A survey was documented after a later rolling on September 

16, 1952 that identified no contamination in excess of current unrestricted release limits.

Affidavits from workers indicate that the subbasement was periodically shoveled out during and 

after the operational period. These cleanup activities (whether specifically directed at removing 

uranium or part of the general cleanup of steel dust) would have removed any uranium that was 

deposited in the subbasement. In addition to the 1952 survey, a follow-up contamination survey 

was performed in 1976. As stated above, this survey, which included numerous measurements 

in the sub-basement, found no detectable contamination. The fact that surveys performed 

immediately following operations and performed in 1976 identified no significant residual 

contamination combined with the evidence of routine clean-up documented in trip reports and 

personal affidavits supports the conclusion that significant levels of residual radioactive 

contamination were not present at Bethlehem Steel after the end of AEC operations in 1952.

General area air sample data collected during uranium rolling operations were used to evaluate 

the potential levels of surface contamination that could have been deposited outside of the area 

of cleanup (e.g., the catwalk and the overhead crane). This analysis indicates that levels of 

surface contamination deposited in these areas would be less than the current regulatory limits 

that define a contaminated area. 

Based on the review of all available documentation, NIOSH believes that there is a low potential 

for the presence of significant radioactive contamination at Bethlehem Steel after the facility had 

discontinued nuclear weapons production activities. 
10

References

AEC 1953b: AEC (US Atomic Energy Commission). Investigation of Dust Sources and Their 

Effect at a Rolling Mill. March 16, 1953.

Bowman 1952: Bowman, H. T., Merrill, P. E., Schneider, C. A., and Yocco, A. S., 1952, Report 

on Trips to Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna Plant, Buffalo, N.Y., Production 

Division of National Lead Company of Ohio, September 4, 1952.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1985, FUSRAP Elimination Report for Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation, Lackawanna, New York [p. 64, Bethlehem Steel].

HW-22975: Hanford works. Experimental rolling of uranium: Lackawanna #3. HW-22975. 

Dec 13, 1951.

HW-22347: Hanford works. Trip Report: Visits to AEC New York Operations Office, 

Lackawanna Plant, Bethlehem Steel Company, Argonne National Laboratory August 24-

29, 1951. HW-22347.

HW-23399: Hanford works. Trip Report: Development of a Uranium Rolling Process for 

Fernald. HW-23399. January 29, 1952.

HW-23910: Hanford works. Trip Report: Evaluation of Uranium Rods from the Fourth 

Experimental Rolling at Lackawanna, New York. HW-23910. March 21, 1952.

Hershman, H.J., 1952, “Transmittal of the Monthly Progress Report for October, Monthly 

progress report for October 1952 covering activities at the Tonawanda Sub Office,” 

memorandum to R.J. Smith, October 21.

Kosanovich, P. (Compensation Agent, L.U. 2603), 1979, letter to Robert Anderson (Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation), October 19 [p. 36, Bethlehem Steel Site Profile.pdf].

LaMastra, A., 1976, “Investigation Report: Uranium Metal Rolling, 10” Bar Mill, Lackawanna 

Plant,” report to D. L. Webster, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, June 29. [p. 16, Bethlehem 

Steel.pdf].

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2004, Estimation of Ingestion 

Intakes, Revision 0, Technical Information Bulletin, OCAS-TIB-009, Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1952, Production Report on the Rolling of Two 

Hundred and Twenty-two Uranium Billets at Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna 

Plant on Saturday, April 12, 1952, Contract No. AT(30-1)-1156, April 28 [p. 1, NYBethlehem Steel.pdf].

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1952, Production Report on the Rolling of Two 

Hundred and Eighteen Uranium Billets at Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna 
11

Plant on March 15, 1952, Contract No. AT(30-1)-1156, March 21 [p. 37, Bethlehem 

Steel Site Profile.pdf].

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1952, Air dust data from last rolling on September 14, 

1952 at Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna Plant, Health and Safety Division, 

September 17 [pp. 12-15, Bethlehem Steel Site Profile.pdf].

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), 1980, Preliminary Survey of Bethlehem Steel, 

Lackawanna, New York, March [p. 79, Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

Range, W., 1976, letter to David M. Anderson (Bethlehem Steel Corporation), Energy Research 

and Development Administration, June 7 [p. 71, Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

Schneider, C. A., and A. S. Yocce, no date, Report on Rollings and Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation, Lackawanna Plant, Buffalo, New York, Abstract, FMPC-79, [p. 35, 

Bethlehem Steel Site Profile.pdf].

Summary (Summary of Experimental Rollings Relating to Fernald Operations), 1951 [p. 20, 

Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

Thornton, W. T., 1977, “ERDA Resurvey Program – Bethlehem Steel, Lackawanna, NY,” report 

to R. H. Kennedy, Energy Research and Development Administration, March 16 [p. 75, 

Bethlehem Steel.pdf].
12

Attachment 1

Listing of Documented Rollings at Bethlehem Steel

Date Day Type or 

designation

Billets 

rolled

Bath 

type

Air 

Sample 

Data

Reference

April 26-27, 

1951

Thursday, 

Friday

Experimental #1 26 Lead

/salt

Y Summary 1951

AEC 1951b

Sheets 6191 and 

6192

July 29, 1951 Sunday Experimental #2 24 Lead

/salt

Y Summary 1951

Sample sheets 

6425, 6436, 6437

August 27, 

1951

Sunday Experimental #3 32 Lead

/salt

Summary 1951

HW-22347

September 30, 

1951

Sunday Experimental #4 43 Salt Y HW-23910

Sample sheet 

6539

October 28, 

1951

Sunday Lackawanna

#5

93 Salt Y HW-22975

Sample sheets 

6532, 6533

January 26-27, 

1952

Saturday, 

Sunday

Production 25 plus 4 

tons heat 

treated 

only

Salt Y AEC 1952b

HW-23399

HW-24849

HW-23269

Sample sheets 

6543, 6544, 6545

February 16, 

1952

Saturday Production 120

30 tons

Salt HW2-3697

March 15, 1952 Saturday Production 218 Salt Y NLO 1952b

Sample sheets 

6573, 6574

April 12, 1952 Saturday Production 222 Salt NLO 1952a

May 10-11, 

1952

Saturday, 

Sunday

Production 461 Salt FMPC-26

August 17, 

1952

Sunday Production 157 Salt Bowman 1952

August 31, 

1952

Sunday Production 219 Salt Bowman 1952

September 14, 

1952

Sunday Production 303 Salt Y Schneider

Sample sheet 

IH33, IH34, IH35, 

IH36

September 22, 

1952

Monday Production 302 Salt Schneider

October 20, 

1952

Monday Production 359 Salt FMPC-84

October 25, 

1952

Saturday Production 237 Salt FMPC-84
13

Attachment 2

Residual Radioactivity Evaluations for Bethlehem Steel

(Excerpted from the current Residual Contamination Report)

FACILITY NAME: Bethlehem Steel 

Lackawanna, New York 

TIME PERIOD: 1949-1952 

FACILITY DESCRIPTION: DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security Website: 

In 1949, Bethlehem Steel of Lackawanna, New York developed improved rolling mill pass schedules 

for uranium billets into 1.5-inch rods to be used for reactor fuel rods to later be used at the Fernald 

plant. Bethlehem also performed uranium rolling experiments to help design the Fernald rolling mill. 

DISCUSSION: 

Documentation reviewed describes the activities as being limited in scope, principally being 

performed on weekends, which involved uranium metals being rolled into rods. 

Personnel were present during operations and provided Health and Safety coverage including 

documented monitoring for airborne radioactivity, and contamination surveys after operations. 

Radiological surveys were performed before and after cleaning of the equipment after the last rolling 

and showed no contamination in excess of current guidelines for unrestricted use. Surveys of the 

original facility and equipment, which still existed, were performed in 1976 and 1980, both of which 

identified no residual contamination above natural background levels. 

Based on the nature of the activity, accompanied with documented discussion of cropping and 

residue collection and removal for material accountability purposes; it is reasonable to assume that 

there was a low potential for widespread or significant contamination. 

INFORMATIONAL SOURCES: 

Sources of information reviewed during this evaluation included: 

• DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security Website 

• Preliminary Survey of Bethlehem Steel, March 1980 

• Survey of Rolling Mill Used by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, September 1980 

• Investigation Report: Uranium Metal Rolling, 10” Bar Mill, June 1976 

EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

Documentation reviewed indicates that there is little potential for significant residual contamination 

outside of the period in which weapons-related production occurred
14

Attachment 3

Summary of Available AEC Documents that Describe Clean-up and Contamination 

Monitoring Activities

Clean-up/Contamination Reduction Activities

The documentation NIOSH has reviewed indicates that the area was routinely cleaned-up after 

rolling. Specific reports related to uranium accountability describe that fines, croppings, and all 

uranium materials were collected and shipped after the completion of rolling events. Specific 

references of clean-up include:

 Special sampling and Analysis of XRO Oxides at Vitro, 9/3/1952, Hershman, H. J., 

(SRDB #111184)

o This memo provides a list of drums of uranium oxides that were stored at the 

Lake Ontario Ordnance Works. There are three barrels listed that contain 

uranium dusts and oxides from Bethlehem Steel which collectively add up to over 

600 pounds of material.

 Monthly Progress Report for November 1951, Malone F.W., (SRDB #75068)

o “Uranium metal rods, oxide and scrap were received at LOOW from AlleghenyLudlum; Simonds, Albany; Bethlehem, Lackawanna; Knolls Atomic Power 

Laboratory at Schenectady, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 

Birdsboro Foundry, and Hanford Operations Office.” 

o “Thirteen bundles of cobbled rods and four drums of scrap from the last 

Bethlehem rolling were transferred to storage at LOOW by personnel from this 

site.” 

 AEC Monthly Report of Field Activities May - June, 1951, (SRDB # 04061). pg. 14

o This report describes use of a fused salt bath to reduce generation of airborne 

oxides during rollings of April 26 and 27, 1951.

o “For a second test, one set of rods was rolled after heating in a mixed salt bath. 

The air samples for this set were significantly lower than those for the lead bath 

test.”

 Weekly Progress Report May 5-9, 1952, Malone F.W., (SRDB #73547) states that:

o “Three truckloads of rods and scraps shipped to National Lead Co. at Fernald. 

This was the balance of the material from the April 12

th rolling at Bethlehem.”

 Records and Reports with Respect to Fissionable and Source Material, August 5, 1952, 

Bate G.A, (SRDB #67067). This report includes an investigation of material 

accountability that contains the following:
15

o “Solid scrap and floor sweepings from both plants were delivered to Lake 

Ontario Storage Area for storage under XRO accountability.”

o “In this program, the XRO Accountability Representative was required to be 

physically present at the rolling and drawing operations, usually a day in advance 

to receive incoming material and to supervise the shipment of such material from 

one plant to the next for the succeeding operation in the case of Allegheny and 

Bethlehem rolling on two consecutive days.”

o “In all cases, incoming and outgoing material, including feed, product, scrap and 

residues were weighed at Allegheny, Bethlehem, Bridgeport Brass, and Crucible 

Steel, at the start and end of each operation.”

o “At no time, as indicated on the monthly accountability reports of SF material, did 

either the unaccounted for loss or gain appear to be outside of reasonable limits. It 

would therefore appear that, on the assumption the monthly accountability report 

reflects the true state of affairs, any scale inaccuracies would be cumulative and 

that discrepancies would tend to grow each month to a total figure which would 

be outside of the normally accepted percentage of .3 of 1% for unaccounted loss 

or gain.”

 Weekly Progress report August 4-8, 1952, Hershman H. J., (SRDB #73577) states that:

o “One drum of oxide from last Natl. Lead rolling at Bethlehem was picked up at 

Bethlehem and brought to LOSA for storage.”

 Report of Analysis, USAEC, Health and Safety Division, (SRDB #17009)

o Shows analysis of “Unidentifiable material but appears to be floor sweepings 

from Simonds or Bethlehem rollings”

 Employee interview, June 1976, Fletcher H. Doran, (SRDB#14806)

o An individual that had “...firsthand knowledge of the operation because the 

contract and the development work were his prime responsibility.” reported that, 

“The operations at Lackawanna were remembered as being quite clean. At the end 

of each campaign special care was taken to recover and package scale, crops and 

other residues.” 

 Signed affidavits from workers, June 25, 2005, multiple authors, (SRDB #17619 pg. 5)

state that:

o “Clean-up crews with push brooms, shovels and wheelbarrows periodically 

removed this buildup of metal particles and steel dust but they could not reach the 

build-up on top of the motors, boxes and piers and conduit because of the height, 

limited space and configuration.” 
16

o “Men had to use shovels and brooms to just remove some of the scale and dust. 

At times they would try to get into areas with a high pressure air hose. This 

procedure would blow the dust back through the rollers where the heat would then 

carry the dust back up through the rollers into the mill.” 

o “I also witnessed the uranium rods being lifted from the salt and lead bath, read 

(sic) hot and dripping all over the salt bath and on to the floor. This also was not

cleaned up.”

 Summary Notes from Bethlehem Steel Meeting June 2006, Division of Compensation 

and Analysis Support (SRDB #27972). Former workers stated:

o “They used to roll in one or two shifts – one shift and some overtime. They 

cleaned up the dust after they did the rolling. They had big vacuum cleaners.”

o “Uranium would fall into the basement area.”

o “I worked in the subbasement when it needed to be cleaned up. We cleaned up 

scale down there. We would be shoveling it. We did not use air hoses to my 

knowledge.”

Contamination Monitoring Activities

The documentation that NIOSH has obtained indicates that contamination monitoring was 

performed during operations and after rollings were completed. Specific references include:

 Report of Rolling Operations Attended by the Health and Safety Division, 2/18/1952 

Heatherton R. C. , (SRDB #81429)

o A complete survey was performed on January 27, 1952. This survey reported that, 

“Very little contamination was detected in the mill area or the runout to the 

kickoff.” It also found that, “A considerable amount of radioactive scale was 

found in the shear area.” and that, “Nearly all of it was readily removed by 

wiping.” 

o This report recommended, “...that more attention be given to the cleanup 

following the rolling and that reasonable care be taken to remove all loose 

contamination.”

o Subsequent surveys of the shear area (SRDB #9529) taken on 9/16/52 found no 

contamination in excess of current free release standards.

 Production Report on Rolling of Uranium Billets at BSC, 2/16/1952, Stewart, R. S., 

(SRDB #44231) 

o This report included in the discussion that: “In the contamination survey 

following the clean up after the rolling considerable scale which appeared to be 

uranium contaminated was found around the shear” 
17

o It then recommended that “It is recommended that careful attention be given to 

the clean-up following each rolling operation”

o Subsequent surveys of the shear area (SRDB #9529) taken on 9/16/52 found no 

contamination in excess of current free release standards.

 Contamination Survey Report, 9/16/1952, Blase, National Lead Company of Ohio 

(SRDB #9529)

o Contains removable contamination levels from multiple locations including a 

shear, cooling table salt bath, stands and floor.

o Measurements were taken both before and after clean-up of last rolling.

o All measurements were less than current unrestricted release levels.

 Investigation Report: Uranium Metal Rolling, 10” Bar Mill, Lackawanna Plant 6/29/1976, 

LaMastra, A., (SRDB #26845). Some of the findings of this report include:

o “According to comments received from National Lead personnel, from a former 

superintendent of the 10- and 12-inch Bar Mill at Lackawanna, and from ERDA, the 

Lackawanna rolling was considered “clean”. Scale, residue and cropped ends were 

collected and fine debris was vacuumed. AEC personnel were in attendance during all 

rolling operations and reportedly performed air and surface radioactive monitoring.”

o “On May 11, 56 locations on the 10-inch Bar Mill and associated equipment were 

tested for radioactive contamination using dry wipes. On May 17, 12 additional rolls 

for the 10-inch mill, some of which are believed to date back to the time of subject 

rolling, were found and wiped. All samples were analyzed for both alpha and beta 

radiation using an internal gas flow proportional counter. No radioactive 

contamination above natural background was found on any wipe.”

o “In an intensive survey made subsequent to the news item, no radioactive 

contamination was found in the mill used during the project.”

o “The high monetary value and the military use of the uranium would result in a high 

degree of accountability. This would substantiate the extensive clean-up measures 

taken during the rolling operations.”

o “In summary, there is no evidence to indicate that handling and cleanup activities 

were lax during the Lackawanna rolling operation, that there is any of the uranium 

buried on Lackawanna property or in the Buffalo area as a result of the rolling 

operation, or that there was a spread of contamination to any areas. There is no 

evidence to indicate that any person has ever been significantly exposed to radiation 

from this operation. All evidence found thus far indicates that there is no hazard at 

this operation from radioactive materials.”

It is important to note that these surveys were performed prior to the addition of the new 

concrete floor and included multiple points on the 10-inch roller, the basement area, the mill 
18

floor, and underneath the cooling bed. As stated above, no radioactive contamination above 

natural background was found.

 Radiological Clearance Report May 27, 1977, Thornton, William T., (SRDB #16443)

o “Based on radiation measurements made by Bethlehem Steel and confirmed during a 

visit by ERDA representatives to the Lackawanna Plant on August 26, 1976, it is 

concluded that no potential for radiation-related safety problems exists in the 

involved facilities and that further formal ERDA radiation surveys are not 

warranted.”

 Preliminary Survey of Bethlehem Steel, Lackawanna, New York, March 1980, Health and 

Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (SRDB #26846)

o “Rolling operations involving uranium were conducted only on weekends due to 

work commitments at the mill during the weekdays.” 

o “Apparently, all scale, residue and cropped ends were collected and fine debris was 

vacuumed as the mills were prepared for other work each week”

o “All measurements taken at this site resulted in radiation levels that were within 

typical background levels”

 Survey of Rolling Mill Used by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York, 

September 1980, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (SRDB #32735)

o “A radiological survey was performed on the surfaces of the shear. Measurements 

included a gamma-scan of all accessible equipment surfaces, a beta-gamma scan of 

selected equipment surfaces, and alpha activity at random locations on equipment 

surfaces. All measurements taken of equipment surfaces resulted in no radiation 

levels significantly above background levels.”

 Certification Docket for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 1985, Department of Energy, Office 

of Nuclear Energy, (SRDB #26846)

o “DOE has determined that the conditions at this site are in compliance with current 

radiological guidelines and standards and that no potential for radiological exposure 

to persons exists beyond those resulting from natural background.”

o “Material accountability procedures required collection of scale, residues, and 

cropped ends and vacuuming of fine debris for return to the AEC.”

o “The AEC personnel were present during all rolling operations and apparently made 

radiological surveys.”