ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller I MJW Technical Services

Page 1 of 57

DOE Review Release 05/03/2011

Document Title:

Site Profile for Simonds Saw and Steel

Document Number: ORAUT-TKBS-0032

Revision: 01

Effective Date: 04/18/2011

Type of Document: TBD

Supersedes: Revision 00 PC-1 

Subject Expert(s): Shelby L. Gubin, Robert Vogel

Approval: Richard E. Merrill Signature on File for Approval Date: 04/18/2011

Joseph S. Guido, Document Owner

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 04/13/2011

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 04/13/2011

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 04/13/2011

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 04/18/2011

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

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

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 2 of 57

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

05/31/2005 00 New Technical Basis Document: Basis for the Development of an 

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

First approved issue. Incorporated formal internal and NIOSH review 

comments. No training required. Initiated by Cindy W. Bloom.

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

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

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

Cindy W. Bloom, TBD Team Leader

Signature on File ____________06/21/2005

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Signature on File 06/21/2005

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Signature on File 06/21/2005

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Signature on File 07/08/2005

04/18/2011 01 Revision initiated to incorporate SEC-00157 information as directed 

by NIOSH. Includes information on the SEC class. Section 3.4 was 

revised to reflect the inability to reconstruct thorium exposure during 

the operational period and the associated tabulation of internal 

exposure values (Table 20). The description of the derivation of the 

external exposure dose estimates along with the associated dose 

tabulation (Table 20) was revised to remove consideration of external 

exposure from thorium during the operational period. Additional 

changes include the following: The calculation of intake quantities

from plutonium (Table 20) was revised to maintain consistency 

between trace radionuclides and those in which they are mixed. 

Deleted options of associating class S plutonium with class M 

uranium and vice versa. The site description and the associated 

dose calculations tabulated in Sections 3 and 4 (Tables 12 and 15) 

were revised to reflect the change in the end of the operational 

period and the concurrent change to the start of the residual period. 

The medical X-ray examinations section was revised. The tabulation 

in Table 20 was updated. Revised the methodology for assessment 

of internal exposure which includes the reconstruction exposure from 

thoron. Table 3 was added to show the number of rolling days for 

each year. Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 were modified to include 1957 in 

the assessment of internal intake using air monitoring data. 

Information was added to section 3.1.2 detailing air sampling results 

for rolling activities on the 10 inch mill and for uranium forging 

activities (Tables 12, 13, 14 and 15 added). Intake rates in Table 17 

were revised to account for the reduced use of engineering controls 

during the post 1952 time period (i.e., intake rates calculated for the 

initial operations period, 1948, were assigned from 1953 through 

1957). Constitutes a total rewrite of the document. Training 

required: As determined by the Objective Manager. Initiated by 

Joseph S. Guido.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 3 of 57

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

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

PAGE

5

1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................7

2.0 Site Description and Operational History.................................................................................. 8

2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................9

2.2 Process Description....................................................................................................10

2.3 Source Term...............................................................................................................11

2.4 Safety.........................................................................................................................15

2.4.1 Workplace Contamination Controls................................................................. 15

2.4.2 Air Concentrations .......................................................................................... 17

2.4.3 Contamination and Radiation Levels............................................................... 19

2.5 Incidents.....................................................................................................................19

2.6 Physical Examinations – X-Rays ................................................................................19

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

Work Categories.........................................................................................................19

2.8 Cleanup and the Residual Contamination Period........................................................20

3.0 Estimation of Internal Exposure.............................................................................................. 21

3.1 Uranium......................................................................................................................21

3.1.1 Uranium Bioassay........................................................................................... 22

3.1.2 Uranium Air Sampling ..................................................................................... 24

3.1.3 Comparison of Uranium Bioassay and Air Concentration 

Estimates........................................................................................................ 31

3.1.4 Depleted, Enriched, and Recycled Uranium.................................................... 31

3.2 Thorium ......................................................................................................................32

3.3 Occupational Internal Dose Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary.................... 32

4.0 Estimation of External Exposure ............................................................................................ 33

4.1 Submersion and Contamination Exposures ................................................................34

4.2 Billet and Rod Exposures ...........................................................................................34

4.3 Miscellaneous Information About External Dose.........................................................36

4.4 Occupational External Dose Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary................... 36

5.0 Estimation of Residual Exposure............................................................................................ 37

6.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 41

References ........................................................................................................................................42

ATTACHMENT A, COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE........................................... 50

ATTACHMENT B, GRAPHS SHOWING PREDICTED BIOASSAY FROM AIR, AND 

FITS OF COWORKER BIOASSAY ..................................................................... 56
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 4 of 57

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

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

PAGE

9

2 Some job titles involved in uranium rolling.............................................................................. 15

3 Number of assumed workdays per year................................................................................. 20

4 Number of assumed workdays and uranium-rolling days ....................................................... 20

5 Bioassay results from coworker data...................................................................................... 24

6 Inhalation intakes based on coworker data ............................................................................ 24

7 Daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations ....................................................... 25

8 Uranium inhalation exposures during rolling operations ......................................................... 27

9 Annual inhalation exposures during non-AEC operations from resuspension of 

deposited uranium dust.......................................................................................................... 27

10 Estimated amount of uranium ingested .................................................................................. 28

11 Estimated uranium intake rates based on time-weighted air concentrations........................... 28

12 Air concentrations during rolling – enriched uranium on 10′′ mill............................................. 29

13 Air concentrations during rolling – molybdenum depleted uranium on 16′′ mill........................ 29

14 Airborne uranium dust from forging – April 18, 1950 .............................................................. 30

15 Airborne uranium dust from forging – July 12, 1954 ............................................................... 30

16 Estimate of contaminant activity fractions in a recycled depleted uranium source term .......... 32

17 Internal exposure summary for operational period February 24, 1948, to December 

31, 1957................................................................................................................................. 33

18 Calculated photon dose rate for uranium billet and uranium rod............................................. 35

19 Direct radiation measurements from September 1948 ........................................................... 35

20 External exposure summary for February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957........................... 36

21 Measured radiation levels on July 10, 1957 ........................................................................... 38

22 Exposure point concentrations for surface contamination measurements .............................. 39

23 Annual internal and external exposure to residual radioactivity (pCi/d)................................... 40

24 Thoron-232 concentrations from remedial investigation ......................................................... 41

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

1 Aerial view of Simonds Saw and Steel ...................................................................................

PAGE

10

2 Simonds rolling mills and hammer forge areas....................................................................... 12

3 Simonds 16-in. rolling mill area, Building 6............................................................................. 13

4 Simonds 10-in. thorium rolling area, Building 8 ..................................................................... 14

5 Workgroups’ daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations and estimated 

weighted exposures ...............................................................................................................26
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 5 of 57

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm centimeter

d day

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

dpm disintegrations per minute (also d/m)

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

EPC Exposure Point Concentration

ft foot

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

hr hour

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

in. inch

keV kilovolt-electron, 1,000 electron volts

L liter

lb pound

m meter

MAC maximum allowable concentration

MCNP Monte Carlo n-particle

mg milligram

mrad millirad

mR milliroentgen

mrem millirem

mrep millirep

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NLO National Lead of Ohio

NYOO New York Operations Office

pCi picocurie

POC probability of causation

R roentgen

s second

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

U.S.C. United States Code
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 6 of 57

WG workgroup

yr year

μg microgram

μm micrometer

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 7 of 57

1.0

Technical basis documents and site profile documents are not official determinations made by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working 

documents that provide historic background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of 

dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event 

additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s). These documents may be used 

to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION

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

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

employer [AWE] facility” or a “Department of Energy [DOE] facility” as defined in the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 [EEOICPA; 42 U.S.C. § 7384I(5) 

and (12)]. EEOICPA, as amended, provides for employees who worked at an AWE facility during the 

contract period and/or during the residual period.

Under EEOICPA, employment at an AWE facility is categorized as either (1) during the DOE contract 

period (i.e., when the AWE was processing or producing material that emitted radiation and was used 

in the production of an atomic weapon), or (2) during the residual contamination period (i.e., periods 

that NIOSH has determined there is the potential for significant residual contamination after the period 

in which weapons-related production occurred). For contract period employment, all occupationally 

derived radiation exposures at covered facilities must be included in dose reconstructions. This 

includes radiation exposure related to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and any radiation 

exposure received from the production of commercial radioactive products that were concurrently 

manufactured by the AWE facility during the covered period. NIOSH does not consider the following 

exposures to be occupationally derived (NIOSH 2010):

• Background radiation, including radiation from naturally occurring radon present in 

conventional structures

• Radiation from X-rays received in the diagnosis of injuries or illnesses or for therapeutic 

reasons

For employment during the residual contamination period, only the radiation exposures defined in 42 

U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(4) [i.e., radiation doses received from DOE-related work] must be included in dose 

reconstructions. Doses from medical X-rays are not reconstructed during the residual contamination 

period (NIOSH 2007). It should be noted that under subparagraph A of 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(4), 

radiation associated with the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is specifically excluded from the 

employee’s radiation dose. This exclusion only applies to those AWE employees who worked during 

the residual contamination period. Also, under subparagraph B of 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(4), radiation 

from a source not covered by subparagraph A that is not distinguishable through reliable 

documentation from radiation that is covered by subparagraph A is considered part of the employee’s 

radiation dose. This site profile covers only exposures resulting from nuclear weapons-related work. 

Exposures resulting from non-weapons-related work, if applicable, will be covered elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

Through December 31, 1957, NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services 

has concurred, that it is not feasible to reconstruct internal and external radiation dose received as a 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 8 of 57

result of operations involving the use of thorium (HHS 2011). Accordingly, a special exposure cohort 

class has been designated for “All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Simonds 

Saw and Steel Co. from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1957, for a number of work days 

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

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

included in the Special Exposure Cohort”.

For any claim referred to NIOSH regarding an employee, 

• Who was employed during the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) period but because of limited 

employment during this period is not a member of the SEC, or 

• Who is a member of the SEC and whose cancer is not defined as a specified cancer under 

EEOICPA (and so is not eligible for compensation under EEOICPA without a dose 

reconstruction), 

NIOSH will continue to attempt to complete a dose reconstruction, using whatever information is 

available about that member's entire work history and available bioassay and monitoring data, and 

using the guidance in this site profile document. 

Section 2 describes the Simonds site and operations that pertain to possible radiation exposures and 

discusses radiation source terms. Section 3 provides guidance for the determination of internal 

exposure. Section 4 provides guidance for the determination of external doses from measured doses 

or for periods for which records of measured doses are missing. Section 5 discusses doses from 

residual exposure.

Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, 

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 6. 

2.0

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

February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957 (Leiton 2010), involving AEC-contracted uranium and 

thorium work. This analysis assumed that the residual contamination period was from January 1, 

1958, through the present, although the buildings were closed and the contaminated areas were 

isolated as of May 1, 1983. 

SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY

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

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

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

term included smaller amounts of thorium metal and thorium oxides.

The first known rolling of uranium at Simonds occurred February 24, 1948, prior to the contractual 

agreement with the AEC. The first contract, AT-30-1-Gen-339, negotiated with the AEC New York 

Operations Office (NYOO), was initiated in May 1948, and was renewed annually through February 

1952. AT-30-1-Gen-339 was officially closed on July 21, 1952. Simonds continued work under 

subcontract S-4 (effective March 1, 1952, through December 31, 1956) to the National Lead of Ohio 

(NLO) in Fernald, Ohio, contract AT (30-1)-1156 with NYOO (Author unknown, no date a). 

While a majority of documents state that no uranium or thorium was processed for the AEC at 

Simonds after 1956, some documents indicate that approximately 13 tons of uranium slabs were 

produced in April 1957. NLO Production Order Request # A-60 in April 1957 states that the work was 

not to be billed because it was applied to research and development (NLO 1957). In reference to 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 9 of 57

Production Order # A-60, a subsequent June 1957 memo states that 26,860 pounds of normal 

uranium forged slabs had been shipped via truck from Simonds to Superior Steel Corporation on April 

29, 1957 (McCreery 1957). This signifies that the work associated with the production order request 

had been completed. Subsequent documents indicate the final contract closure occurred sometime in 

late 1957; the exact date is unknown (Ericson 1957a,b; Zimmerman 1957).

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

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

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

have occurred until July 1956 (NLO 1956).

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

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

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

Building 3) with the hammer forge shop (Ford Bacon & Davis Inc. 1981). Wallace-Murray Corporation 

purchased the Simonds facility in 1966 and operated it until 1978. Guterl Specialty Steel purchased 

the site in 1978 and, upon bankruptcy (1982), transferred a portion of the site to Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation, which continued operations in the areas purchased. The areas excluded from the 

transfer (called the “excised area”) remains under the ownership of Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation 

(a Chapter 7 bankrupt corporation). As of March 31, 2011, the facility is owned by Phersas.

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

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

U.S. Route 95 to the west, and the New York State Barge Canal to the south. As of 1999, the 

property was grouped into three areas: 

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

termination of AEC activities

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Simonds buildings where contamination has been found. 

Building number Building lettera Use

1 Manufacturing

2 Manufacturing

3 B Grinding and rolling, hammer forge shop

4 Manufacturing

5 25-cycle heat exchanger

6 A 16-in. rolling mill

8 A 10-in. rolling mill

9 Manufacturing

35 Grinding and roll staging

a. Nomenclature used in 1981 report (Ford Bacon & Davis 1981). 

Figure 1 shows the location of the Simonds site and the boundaries of the Allegheny Ludlum and 

excised properties (Earth Tech 2010).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 10 of 57

Figure 1. Aerial view of Simonds Saw and Steel. Source: Modified version 

of an image from USACE (2010).

2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology studies showed satisfactory results and arrangements were 

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

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

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

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

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

4-1/4 in. in diameter and 20 to 22 in. long (Smith 1951). The rolling reduced them to rods of 7/8-in. 

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

billets. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 11 of 57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shipping area, where they were placed in tared H-beams, weighed, and loaded into railcars from the 

shipping dock (DOE 1979; Keller 1979). AEC noted that trucks rather than railcars were being used 

as of August 1950, which eliminated daily handling and shoring of the load by shippers (Heatherton 

1950a). The process generated a considerable amount of waste, as evidenced from a 1952 

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

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

The majority of the AEC work involved the task of rolling uranium, but occasionally tests were run to 

see if different coatings or methods would either produce a better product or reduce worker exposure. 

AEC reported on the rolling of copper-clad uranium on March 7 or 8, 1951 (Heatherton 1951a), which 

was deemed unsuccessful due to increased product problems and increased air concentrations. 

Simonds Saw and Steel performed hot forging of uranium and thorium metal - uranium on an 

experimental basis, and thorium mostly on a production basis. The metals were usually forged and 

then rolled into rods (Huke 1951). This was apparently the primary method for processing thorium at 

Simonds (Murray 2010).

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

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

a very dusty operation and, based on health considerations, recommended not using the process for 

uranium (Heatherton 1950b). A 1957 document refers to the production of 26,860 pounds of uranium 

forged slabs that had been shipped by truck to Superior Steel Corporation (McCreery 1957).

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

forging, rolling on the 16” bar mill, and finishing on the strip mill (Wunder 1956). This thorium work 

was reportedly commercial work for Babcock & Wilcox and was to occur in June 1956. However, this 

work was reportedly completed in July 1956 (Heatherton 1956).

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

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

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

enriched to the extent of about 2.5% [by mass]” (Keller 1979). 

2.3 SOURCE TERM

Numerous documents provide summaries of Simonds Saw and Steel’s operational history, including 

the estimated total quantities of uranium and thorium metals that were processed. The documents 

typically state that between 25 and 35 million pounds of uranium and approximately 30,000 to 40,000 

pounds of thorium were rolled from February 24, 1948 until operations ceased sometime in 1957

(Vitkus 1999). Information on material processing was compiled from all available Simonds-related 

documents and places the total quantities of uranium and thorium processed at 11,500 tons and 

114,000 pounds respectively (NIOSH 2010b). These values exceed the amounts stated in various 

documented historical narratives by about a factor of three. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 12 of 57

“Over 99 percent of all Simonds uranium work consisted of rolling on the 16-inch bar mill” (Keller 

1979) in Building A (Building 6). Before the NLO subcontract, as much as 500,000 or 600,000 lb of 

uranium were processed per month (Keller 1979). Several small lots of uranium bars and thorium 

ingots were run through the 10-in. rolling mill in Building A (8), and approximately 15 to 20 ingots were 

processed in the hammer forge shop in Building B (3). Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the layouts.

Figure 2. Simonds rolling mills and hammer forge areas. 

Buildings 6 (16 inch mill), 8 (10 inch mill) and 3 (forge shop) 

(DOE 1979). 

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

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

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

that a rolling turn takes up one shift (Schumann 1953), so there were about 156 days per year, two 

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

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

available only for those periods included in the reports of AEC visits. Based on the number of 

turnings reported by Keller (1979), the number of uranium rolling days can be estimated as 15, 28, 29, 

and 11 rolling days for 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956, respectively. Although not reported by Keller, 

rolling of uranium has been confirmed during at least one period in 1957 (Ericson 1957a,b; 

Zimmerman 1957). The total quantity reported to be rolled in 1957 was approximately 26,860 lbs. 

Based on what is known about uranium processing rates at Simonds, the number of days associated 

with this operation would be less than two days.

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

requirements, as high as 170 tons per month, so AEC consolidated most of its rolling operations at 

Simonds (AEC 1949a).

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

steelworkers’ union and company officials at Simonds Saw & Steel Company was reached. This will 

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

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

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

January 1950 (AEC 1949b). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 13 of 57

Figure 3. Simonds 16-in. rolling mill area, Building 6 (Klevin 

and Weinstein 1953b). 

The earliest document located regarding thorium rolling at Simonds Saw and Steel is correspondence 

dated August 1951 (Huke 1951). In relation to thorium, it states: 

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

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

billets have been rolled directly to rods on what might be termed production scale. 

Previously, billets were forged to 2” squares and then rolled. ... Most of the material 

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

The statement, “Previously, billets were forged...and then rolled...” indicates that thorium forging and 

rolling were performed prior to August 16, 1951. However, since insufficient information is available to 

determine an accurate thorium-processing start date, NIOSH assumes that thorium processing began 

coincident with the start of AEC-contracted work at Simonds in February 1948.

Tonawanda Area reported that 36 thorium billets were shipped to Simonds for rolling on 

November 19, 1951 (AEC 1951a), that no thorium metal was rolled in January 1952, and that there 

were no plans to roll thorium at Simonds for the next few months (AEC 1952). Inventory amounts of 

thorium were shown for May, September, and November 1952 (AEC 1953). In November 1952, 

8,500 lb of thorium were to be rolled (Belmore 1952). An additional thorium rolling took place in
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 14 of 57

 

 

 Figure 4. Simonds10-in. thorium rolling area, Building 8 

 (Klevin and Weinstein 1953c). 

August 1954 (Harris 1954). Documents indicate that thorium-forging work was performed in May and 

July 1956 (Magoun and Yocco 1956; NLO 1954–1956). The largest single thorium rolling known was 

performed in December 1953 (Wunder 1953, p. 6) in which 21 tons (455 ingots) of thorium were rolled 

in a three-day period. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(AEC 1949c).

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

indicated that workers switched categories. In addition, it was noted that workers could have worked 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 15 of 57

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

forging of uranium.

Table 2. Some job titles involved in uranium 

rolling. 

Assistant foreman Rod stamper

Billet loader Roller #1 (rougher)

Dippers Roller #2 (finisher)

Drag down man Run-out

Foreman Shear man 

Furnace man (heater) Shippers

Heater helper Straightener 

Hook man Stranner

Poke-in Weighers (rod)

(Pressure) quencher Weigh in (weigh up)

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

access to the areas where the AEC rolling occurred.

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

11 hours, with the typical shift lasting about 10 hours. These work hours included at least 45 minutes 

for locker room and lunchtime.

2.4 SAFETY

Early in the contract, the AEC (Wolf 1948) provided safety recommendations for the uranium rolling

operations at Simonds, including exhaust ventilation, a central vacuum cleaner, floor grating, and 

high-pressure water nozzles for descaling (page 3 of the 4 pages of recommendations was missing). 

AEC air-sampling and radiation surveys were recommended to ensure that the engineering controls 

were adequate.

2.4.1 Workplace Contamination Controls

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

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

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

incremental improvements in Simonds contamination control programs (AEC 1948c,d, 1949d,e, 1950; 

Heatherton 1950a,b, 1951b; Klevin 1951). Over time, Simonds went from no ventilation controls to 

local ventilation exhausts over the 16-in. rolls and a central vacuum cleaner to replace broom 

sweeping by December 1948. In January 1949, a local exhaust was installed over the descaler. No 

local ventilation was described for the 10-in. rolling mill or the limited forging work. As of January 

1950, a lead bath furnace was being used to reduce airborne contamination. Plexiglas shields were 

installed at some point to help contain contaminants and to direct airflow to the exhaust system. Dust 

collectors were added to the exhaust system to reduce uranium releases. Grating was used on the 

floor to minimize contact with the settling radioactive dust that could become airborne again. A 

partially legible AEC memorandum from August 5, 1948, indicates that the “mill crew” had two sets of 

clothing. The November 1948 AEC production report states that uniforms and gloves were provided 

to workers (AEC 1948e). 

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

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

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

pressure-quenching and rod-stamping areas, which were within a few feet of each other. AEC 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 16 of 57

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

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

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

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

concentration exposure estimates. 

By April 5, 1949, a large pedestal fan was used to blow air across the pressure-quenching and rodstamping areas, which reduced worker exposure in these areas, but caused a general increase of 

uranium air concentration in other mill areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inconsistency in their implementation. Available documentation indicates that after 1953, the 

engineering controls that were previously installed were not consistently used. The AEC and NLO 

constantly reminded Simonds Saw and Steel Co. to use the vacuum cleaner instead of broom 

sweeping the uranium dust areas. Simonds Saw and Steel’s use of the Plexiglas shields, floor 

grating, and ventilation system dust collectors appear to have been intermittent. Throughout the 

periodic air monitoring reports published by the AEC there are frequent accounts of the failure of 

Simonds to either implement recommended exposure control practices or to continue to adhere to 

such practices. The concerns that were conveyed by the AEC are best summarized in a November 

1954 memo in which it is stated:

On the rolling of October 9-11, 1954, a NLO Health and Safety representative was 

present. In his report, reference 5, mention was made of some of the “doubtful 

practices” noted.

This included:

1. Dropping of billets on floor prior to rolling

2. Wire brushing billets to observe temperature

3. Sweeping of floor instead of vacuum cleaning

4. Use of cloth gloves

5. Eating in vicinity during rolling

These practices have been going on for as long as anyone connected with the 

operations can remember. ... Rolling has continued with the thought that as soon as 

other facilities become more fully developed future fabrication at Simonds will be 

almost nil. It is planned to extrude the depleted uranium orders at Wolverine Tube and 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 17 of 57

extrude the thorium material at Bridgeport Brass in Adrian Michigan. Both of these 

facilities should be satisfactory from a health and safety standpoint (Polson 1954).

In addition, the practice of wearing dedicated anti-contamination clothing also appears to have been 

sporadic. AEC and NLO reports mention dedicated work clothes, but actual use of these clothes is 

not clear. Cotton gloves appear to have been worn intermittently. In later years, there is mention of 

dust masks and respirators, especially in conjunction with the enriched uranium and the thorium 

processing, but it was noted that respirator use was intermittent, if not rare, during AEC material 

processing.

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

mill would be removed rather than left for future rollings. He pointed out that cleaning up from a single 

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

would be provided with respirators. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

past but very few are worn continuously. 

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

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

respirators. Some, however, wore no protective equipment. 

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

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

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

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

than Simonds. 

2.4.2 Air Concentrations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which was the same as the preferred level. 

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

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

(AEC 1948c,d, 1949d,e, 1950; Heatherton 1950a,b, 1951b; Klevin 1951). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 18 of 57

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

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

] exists, 

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

The entire mill has a low level of uranium contamination.

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

15 μg/m3

. 

Heatherton (1950b) reported that air sampling results from forge-hammering operations ranged from 

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

the breathing zones of some of the men handling the billets.

In January 1951, Simonds dip-quenched rather than pressure-quenched the rods, leaving more scale, 

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

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

due to an oversight.

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

describes the radiological conditions: 

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

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

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

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

10-inch mill ...

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

depleted material were rolled...

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

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

operation time was only about 80 minutes.

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

performing the operation without ventilating. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

than the MAC (Yoder 1954). 

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

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

than the November 25, 1952, results (NLO 1956).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 19 of 57

2.4.3 Contamination and Radiation Levels

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

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

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

1948). 

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

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

less than 2 mR/hr. The highest reading was an area on the floor near the furnace that measured 

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

1949h). 

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

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

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

gamma radiation.)

2.5 INCIDENTS

There were four incidents reported.

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

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

1949d).

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

1951a). This could have been a chip from the die head or the hammer rather than a chip of 

uranium. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.6 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS – X-RAYS

NIOSH is required to account for dose from medical X-rays performed on an EEOICPA-covered site 

(either the covered site where the AWE work was being performed or a covered site where medical 

X-rays were performed as a service). Simonds X-rays were performed off-site at a non-covered 

commercial facility (Tabershaw 1948). Therefore, the dose from medical X-rays does not need to be 

accounted for in the overall estimated dose calculation (ORAUT 2011). 

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

WORK CATEGORIES

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

1954 and decreased substantially beginning January 1, 1954. Considering the uncertainty involved in 

the determination of the number of rolling days, the value used in the remainder of this analysis for the 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 20 of 57

period beginning on January 1, 1954 is assumed to be 20% of the period year’s values (i.e. 31 per 

year). A summary of the number of rolling days per year is contained in Table 3. Table 4 lists the 

number of uranium rolling days and the number of nonrolling days for certain periods, which are 

based on the needs of subsequent analysis which will be presented later in this document. It was 

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

continued at the same level as those in 1952, although the available records indicate significant 

curtailment at the end of 1953.

Table 3. Number of assumed workdays per year. 

Period

Number of 

rolling days Period

Number of 

rolling days

02/24/1948 – 

12/31/1948

130 01/01/1953 – 

12/31/1953

31

01/01/1949 –

12/31/1949

156 01/01/1954 –

12/31/1954

31

01/01/1950 – 

12/31/1950

156 01/01/1955 – 

12/31/1955

31

01/01/1951 –

12/31/1951

156 01/01/1956 

12/31/1956

31

01/01/1952 – 

12/31/1952

156 01/01/1957 – 

12/31/1957

31

Table 4. Number of assumed workdays and uranium-rolling days. 

Start End

Rolling 

workdays

Non-rolling 

workdays Workdays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exposure categories. 

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

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

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

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

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

might be appropriate. 

2.8 CLEANUP AND THE RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION PERIOD

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

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

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

early 1954. AEC-related work was performed at Simonds in April 1957 and final contract closure 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 21 of 57

occurred sometime in late 1957; therefore, the operational year was extended by 1 year to the end of 

1957 (Leiton 2010). 

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

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

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

people employed at the Simonds site worked in Buildings A (6 and 8) and B (3). 

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

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

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

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

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

analysis techniques and reporting procedures.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exposures could have occurred through the present.

A site remedial investigation was conducted under the direction of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

starting in 2007 and completed in 2010 (USACE 2010). 

3.0

The primary sources of internal radiation exposure at Simonds were uranium and thorium dust 

produced from the manipulation and oxidation of the metals during rolling and related processes. In 

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

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

ESTIMATION OF INTERNAL EXPOSURE

The AEC measured particle sizes at Simonds using a “modified cascade impactor” (Spiegl et al. no 

date). The sampler was 3.5 ft from the floor and 4 ft from the uranium billet during roughing and 

finishing. The four mass median diameter distribution measurements ranged from 1.22 to 1.80 μm 

with indication that the values increased over time. The reported geometric standard deviation (GSD) 

of each measurement was about 2.5. When adjusted for density, these results are consistent with 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 66 default parameters for 

particle deposition (ICRP 1994a), so dose reconstructions should assume ICRP Publication 66 

defaults (including a 5-μm activity median aerodynamic diameter).

3.1 URANIUM

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

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

10 minutes and 7,000 days, respectively). Other in vitro dissolution studies of compounds found at 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 22 of 57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

available. The selection of absorption type should depend on the organ of interest. 

3.1.1 Uranium Bioassay

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

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

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

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

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

large. This analysis assumes that the 0.272-mg/L result was valid. The next largest result was 0.164 

mg/L. 

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

urinalyses results. AEC (1949h) stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sample contamination, and high internal exposures several hours before preroll sample collections 

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

collected before rolling and some were collected after rolling. About half of the geometric means 

(GMs) for urinalyses that appear to be before rolling are higher than the GMs for postrolling 

urinalyses. Information on the time that had elapsed after rolling and before a prerolling sample 

collection was not available. In addition, some postrolling samples might have been collected at the 

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

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

provide estimates of coworker uranium intakes.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 23 of 57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results dated December 14 and 15, 1950, appeared to be parts of the same set, so were combined 

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

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

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

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

be the GM and e raised to the slope value was assumed to be the GSD of the data. Results reported 

as zero were ranked, but used only indirectly in the fitting of the line. The 84th percentile was 

estimated as the GM multiplied by the GSD. Before November 17, 1949, the number of results for a 

given date ranged from 10 to 16. The statistical fit parameter (R2

) results averaged 0.86 and ranged 

from 0.65 to 0.96, and were considered adequate for this set of data. 

The daily uranium excretion in urine was calculated by multiplying the results in milligrams per liter by 

reference man’s daily urine output (1.4 L/d) (ICRP 1975). Attachment A shows the bioassay results 

used in the intake analyses. Table 5 summarizes the estimated geometric median, 84th percentile, 

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

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

December 15, 1950 to December 31, 1956. Based on the limited information available in regards to 

the activities in 1957, the intake for that year was assumed to be equal to the prior year (1956). 

Graphs showing the fits of these intake regimes are shown in Attachment B. Additional intakes and 

alternate periods were tried, but fits were not more satisfactory than those chosen. When intakes are 

estimated from bioassay data, the mode of intake is usually assumed to be inhalation, unless there is 

information that indicates that other modes of intake are more likely. When using bioassay data, the 

inhalation intake model assumes that some of the intake behaves as ingested material. In general, 

intakes from bioassay will be larger when an inhalation rather than an ingestion intake is assumed.

The intakes were calculated with Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) ExpertTM OCASEdition, Version 3.2.20, assuming an absolute uniform error of 1 and normal error distributions for 

each bioassay result. The GSDs for the intakes were calculated by dividing the intake from the 84thpercentile regime by the intake from the GM intake regime. Table 6 lists the inhalation intake 

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

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

picocuries/day by multiplying by 682.91 pCi/mg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

up by a factor of 2, which results in most of the bioassay data being less than the adjusted fit line.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 24 of 57

 Table 5. Bioassay results from coworker data.

a

Bioassay 

date

GM bioassay 

(mg/L)

84th-percentile 

bioassay (mg/L)

Maximumb

bioassay (mg/L)

11/1/1948 0.021 0.045 0.140

11/3/1948 0.022 0.042 0.090

11/4/1948 0.022 0.043 0.070

11/8/1948 0.011 0.018 0.030

11/11/1948 0.016 0.031 0.050

11/15/1948 0.016 0.035 0.050

1/6/1949 0.006 0.016 0.018

4/27/1949 0.017 0.028 0.036

11/4/1949 0.016 0.036 0.272

11/17/1949 0.001 0.010 0.164

1/6/1950 0.002 0.009 0.026

1/19/1950 0.010 0.024 0.035

5/15/1950 0.005 0.014 0.022

5/23/1950 0.008 0.019 0.034

8/14/1950 0.027 0.041 0.102

8/28/1950 0.016 0.022 0.033

9/23/1950 0.002 0.009 0.020

9/25/1950 0.011 0.018 0.024

10/20/1950 0.006 0.026 0.067

10/25/1950 0.005 0.016 0.043

11/9/1950 0.003 0.010 0.030

11/16/1950 0.005 0.014 0.028

12/14/1950 0.006 0.015 0.080

12/20/1952 0.016 0.035 0.066

12/22/1952 0.015 0.033 0.054

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

IMBA. 

b. No one worker had maximum bioassay results.

Table 6. Inhalation intakes (mg/d) based on coworker data.

a 

Start End Type Intake rate GSD (Type M) Type Intake rate GSD (Type S)

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

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

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

a. Section 3.3 details the implementation of these calculated intake rates, including consideration of exposures in 1957 

and consideration of degradation of engineering controls during the post 1952 period.

3.1.2 Uranium Air Sampling

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

1949d,e, 1950; Heatherton 1950a,b, 1951b; Klevin 1951; Klevin and Weinstein 1953a; Schumann 

1953). The air samples consisted of collection on filters of radioactive particulate from breathing 

zones, general areas, processes, and effluents. AEC (1948c) states the general method of air sample 

collection and analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All dust samples collected were counted on a flat plate alpha counter at the New York 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 25 of 57

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

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

calculations to evaluate the employees’ exposure to radioactive dust.

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

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

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

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

concentration. 

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

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

determine a daily time-weighted average air concentration for specified job categories. These air 

concentration results are further analyzed here to determine group GMs. The daily time-weighted 

average air concentrations were weighted further by the AEC-reported number of workers exposed at 

a given concentration. The GMs of the workgroups’ daily time-weighted average air concentrations 

were calculated and used to derive the intake rates. The GSDs of the job category concentrations 

and the workgroup concentrations were determined to provide an indication of the distribution of the 

data (the latter GSD includes consideration of the number of people included in each category in the 

AEC study). This analysis assumed that, because the data are limited and rigorous analyses to 

determine distribution type are not likely to be meaningful, a lognormal distribution could represent the 

time-weighted exposures and the subsequently derived annual organ doses. 

Table 7 lists the GMs and GSDs for the job category and the workgroups’ daily time-weighted average 

air concentrations. In addition, the simplified estimated intake rates assumed from review of the air 

exposures over time are presented.

Table 7. Daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations. 

Air sample collection dates

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

Number of categories 9 9 9 9 10

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

GSDs 3.0 1.9 2.9 1.8 1.8

Number of workers 32 30 28 30 40

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

GSDs 3.0 1.9 3.2 1.8 1.9

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

1/9/1950 1/10/1950

4/13, 4/14, or 

4/18 1950

5/17, 5/18, or 

5/22 1950

8/14–

16/1950

Number of categories 10 10 13 13 11

GMs (dpm/m3) 190 180 90 75 96

GSDs 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.5

Number of workers 40 40 45 45 38

GMs (dpm/m3) 205 199 88 82 89

GSDs 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.5

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

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

Number of categories 10 13 13 13 11

GMs (dpm/m3) 161 97 96 129 141

GSDs 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.4

Number of workers 38 42 42 43 34

GMs (dpm/m3) 161 100 94 125 138

GSDs 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.7

Estimated air concentration (dpm/m3) 150 150 150 150 150
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 26 of 57

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

operations before and after improvements in processes, ventilation systems, and safety practices. As 

discussed in Section 2.4.2, exposure conditions were constantly changing but had a general 

downward trend in the early years. 

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

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

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

Figure 5 shows the GMs, maximums, and minimums of the workgroups daily time-weighted average 

air concentrations for the 15 air sampling periods. The numerical results and the graph were used to 

estimate periodic intake rates, which are summarized in Table 7 and shown on the graph as 

estimated weighted exposures. A GSD of 3.0 (the largest calculated GSD associated with the data) 

was assumed to calculate the 95th-percentile estimated air concentrations shown in Figure 5.

Air Concentration Analyses

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

10/27/1948

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

10/27/1949

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

10/27/1950

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

10/27/1951

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

10/27/1952

Date

dpm/cubic meter

GM Weighted WG

Exposures

Minimum

Maximum

Estimated w eighted

exposures

95th

Figure 5. Workgroups’ daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations and estimated 

weighted exposures.

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

February 24, 1948, and December 31, 1957. Rolling was assumed to occur for 13 days of every 

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

The time assumption for the later period – January 1, 1954, to December 31, 1957 – was reduced to 

20% (as discussed in Section 2.7 above). 

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

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

2.22 dpm/pCi and multiplying this result by the breathing rate and the assumed number of hours 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 27 of 57

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

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

concentrations. Table 8 lists estimated annual inhalation intakes during rolling based on air 

concentrations. 

Table 8. Uranium inhalation exposures during rolling operations. 

Work period

Number of 

potential AEC 

workdays

Air 

concentration 

(pCi/m3)

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr) Hr/workday

Intake 

(pCi)

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

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

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

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

1/1/1954 12/31/1957 125 6.76E+01 1.2 10 1.02E+05

Total 2.48E+06

There was a potential for internal exposure to resuspended material from the AEC work during nonAEC operations. To estimate exposure from resuspended materials, this analysis assumed that 

surfaces in the building became contaminated by deposition of uranium dust during rolling operations. 

The level of contamination was determined by multiplying the air concentrations listed in Table 8 by 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957, was 1.11 × 107 pCi/m2

 (approximately 240,000 

dpm/100 cm2

). The assumption was made that all the surface contamination was present for the 

entire period of AEC operations. Therefore, using a resuspension factor of 1 × 10-6/m (Abu-Eid et al. 

2002), the air concentration due to resuspension would have been 11.0 pCi/m3

. This value compares 

favorably with the air concentration of 25 μg/m3 (17 pCi/m3

) reported by the AEC in 1950 during an 

extended period without rolling operations and with the assertion by AEC within that same document 

that it would be ‘impractical to reduce the airborne uranium consistently below 15 μg/m3 (10.2 pCi/m3

) 

(AEC 1950). Table 9 lists the assumed annual inhalation intake received from resuspension of 

deposited material. (Table 11 lists the intakes in Table 9 added to the intakes in Table 8.)

Table 9. Annual inhalation exposures during non-AEC operations from resuspension of deposited 

uranium dust. 

Work period

Hr/

workday

Non-U rolling 

workdays per 

work period 

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr)

Resuspended air 

concentration 

(pCi/m3)

Intake 

(pCi)

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

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

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

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

1/1/1954 12/31/1957 10 919 1.2 11.0 1.21E+05

Total 2.02E+05
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 28 of 57

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

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

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

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

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

ingestion intakes from resuspended uranium are estimates from Table 9. The ingestion intakes are 

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

calculated levels. The ingestion intakes in Table 10 apply to all workers. 

Table 10. Estimated amount of uranium ingested (pCi) (based on Tables 7 and 8). 

Work period

U rolling 

workdays

U ingestion rate 

during uranium 

rolling

(pCi/workday)

Non-U 

rolling 

workdays

U ingestion rate 

during normal 

operation 

(pCi/workday)

Intake 

(pCi)

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

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

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

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

1/1/1954 12/31/1957 125 1.51E+01 919 2.46E+00 4.15E+03

Total 4.97E+04

Estimated uranium intake rates based on air concentrations are listed in Table 11. 

Table 11. Estimated uranium intake rates based on time-weighted 

air concentrations.

Start End

Intake 

route

Absorption 

type

Intake 

(pCi/d)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1/1/1954 12/31/1957 Inhalation M, S 1.53E+02

1/1/1954 12/31/1957 Ingestion (a) 2.84E+00

a. Ingestion absorption type should be selected consistent with that for 

inhalation. 

Periodically, Simonds Saw and Steel rolled enriched uranium and depleted uranium. The maximum 

enrichment of uranium processed at Simonds is unknown. Available documents indicate that uranium 

as high as 2.5% enrichment was processed (Keller 1979). However, Fernald had two standard 

operating procedures for rolling uranium at Simonds, one for up to 2.75% enrichment (Schlitz 1954) 

and another for up to 7.2% enrichment (Schlitz 1955). Air monitoring data associated with these 

activities are summarized in Tables 12 and 13. In the enriched uranium air study, a weighted 

exposure was calculated for the brief (80-minute) activity for the lowest- and highest-exposed 

individual. These were 0.9 MAC-days and 22.0 MAC-days for the South Side Rougher and North 

Side Stranner respectively (Heatherton 1953b). These exposure rates correspond to daily weighted 

activities of 5.3 MAC and 128 MAC respectively.

Forging operations using uranium were periodically conducted. Air sampling data for uranium forging 

operations conducted on April 18, 1950 and July 12, 1956 are summarized in Tables 14 and 15. The 

April 1950 survey is discussed in an AEC air monitoring report (Heatherton 1950b) which states:
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 29 of 57

The forge-hammering operation was very dusty. Individual general air dust samples 

collected in the vicinity of the forging were from 76 to 260 times the preferred level. 

Samples collected in the breathing zones of men handling the billets with tongs were 

220 to 400 times the preferred level.

Table 12. Air concentrations during rolling – enriched uranium 

on 10′′ mill.

a

Location Air concentration (dpm/m3)

Breathing zone air concentrations

Foreman 701

Rougher, south side 372

Rougher, north side 1,061

Finisher, south side 406

Stranner, south side 5,031

Stranner, north side 9,001

Poke-in, north side 2,061

Straightener, north side 6,081

Straightener, run out 8,011

Rod stamper and straightener 2,041

General area air concentrations

Behind rod straightener 208

Mill floor during cleanup 300

Mill floor during rolling 2,867

Rod area during rolling 1,678

Furnace area during rolling 2,186

Near bull head 1,196

10 foot east of mill 83

a. Source: Information for this table, including location descriptions, is from 

Heatherton (1953b). 

Table 13. Air concentrations during rolling – molybdenum depleted 

uranium on 16′′ mill.

a

Location

Air concentration (dpm/m3)

High Low Average

Breathing zone air concentrations

Rougher, east side 20 15 18

Rougher, west side 209 5 51

Finisher, east side 452 47 192

Finisher, west side 2,866 939 1,903

General area air concentrations

Weigh-in and furnace area 440 106 297

West side of mill 193 16 58

East side of mill 460 122 336

a. Source: Information for this table, including location descriptions, is from 

Schumann (1953).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 30 of 57

Table 14. Airborne uranium dust from forging – April 18, 

1950.

a

Location/comment Air concentration (dpm/m3)

General area

Three feet above

5” billet forged to 1 15/16”

7,600

5,200

6,400

12,000

Forging 2 billets 13,000

3,800

Breathing zone

Operator, east side forge 11,000

Tong man, east side of forge 20,000

a. Source: Information for this table, including location/comment 

descriptions, is from Air and Urine Data (1949–1954, pdf pp. 58-60).

Table 15. Airborne uranium dust from forging – July 12, 1954.

a

Location/comment

Air concentration

(dpm/m3)

General area

Hammer, south

140

1,600

820

870

220

East of 7 ton hammer, between hammer 

and furnace 630

35 feet SEE of press 100

35 feet from hammer (lunch)

1100

990

850

Bench (lunch area), north 100

Bench, SW of hammer ( lunch) 27

Lunch area, SSW hammer 48

15 feet SW of hammer 160

20 feet SW of hammer 43

1 foot south of 7 ton 2,100

10,000

SE of 7 ton 15,000

6 feet 180

5 feet 72

Breathing zone

Hammer operating position downward

310

270

500

Charg. atop unit

240

370

400

NW corner of hammer-2 ingots 1,900

3,500

Around hammer

8,300

29,000

3,600

650

Opening furnace door, removing ingot 4,500
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 31 of 57

Location/comment

Air concentration

(dpm/m3)

SW of 7 ton hammer

5,600

6,000

2,200

NE of 7 ton hammer

730

770

950

4,000

a. Source: Information for this table, including location/comment 

descriptions, is from Air and Urine Data (1949–1954, pdf pp. 145-148).

Documentation of an April 1956 hammer-forging operation did not contain any monitoring data. 

However, it did provide the following descriptive information (Magoun and Yocco 1956):

No salt or other coolant or oxidation inhibitor was used in this operation. Because of 

this, appreciable amounts of uranium oxide were formed on the slabs and thrown into 

the surrounding air by the heavy blows of the forge hammer. The operating personnel 

in the area were protected by respirators during the time the forging hammer was in 

use.

3.1.3 Comparison of Uranium Bioassay and Air Concentration Estimates

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

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

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

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

operational data and the air data neither confirm nor deny the increased intake rate determined for 

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

years, but this is offset both by the processing of some enriched uranium with its higher specific 

activity (radioactivity per unit mass) and the reportedly reduced use of safety equipment, such as local 

ventilation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graphs in Attachment B show how predicted urinalysis results from air concentrations compare to 

coworker bioassay data. Graphs also show the fits of the coworker data used to obtain the three 

chronic uranium intakes summarized in Table 17. 

3.1.4 Depleted, Enriched, and Recycled Uranium

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

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

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

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

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

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

released or measured because of differences in specific activities (activity per mass). Because this 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 32 of 57

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

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

specific activity. However, because of the unknown enrichment for a given period and the unknown 

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

calculated from air data are 234U for the purpose of calculating internal organ doses. 

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

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

10 hours). The GM concentration for 80 minutes was about 2,000 dpm/m3 with a GSD of 3.0 (this is 

shown in Figure 5 as the last air sample). In reality, the actual worker exposure would have been 

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

. Heatherton 

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

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

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

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

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

28, 29, and 11 days of rolling are assumed and 31.2 is used in the intake calculations, the margin is 

not as large, but it is also likely that smaller runs were being made during this period that might not 

have consumed two full operating shifts per day. 

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

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

at the Hanford and Fernald sites, is shown in Table 16. It is unlikely that recycled uranium would 

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

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

levels for depleted uranium overestimate the contaminants in uranium of normal enrichment by about 

40%. The contaminants are assumed to be in the form of oxides.

Table 16. Estimate of contaminant activity fractions in a recycled depleted uranium 

source term (pCi contaminant per pCi uranium). 

Uranium Np-237 Pu-239 Tc-99

1 0.00182 0.00261 0.379

3.2 THORIUM

NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not 

feasible to reconstruct internal radiation dose from exposure to thorium for individuals who worked at 

Simonds Saw and Steel during the operational period (HHS 2011). 

3.3 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS AND 

SUMMARY

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

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

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

the activity fractions in Table 16. Uranium oxides can be either absorption type M or S. Neptunium 

oxides are type M. Plutonium oxides are assumed to be type M or S. 

The assumed operational exposure period is from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957, which 

this analysis assumes to be the uranium intake period. The period January 01, 1957 through 

December 31, 1957 was added in accordance with the findings of the Special Exposure Cohort 

Evaluation Report (NIOSH 2010b). The uranium intake during this period is assumed to be equal to 

that in the preceding year. For unmonitored workers or unmonitored periods, Table 17 lists intake 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 33 of 57

rate assumptions for natural uranium and thorium along with GSDs. The intake mode is chronic. The 

dose distribution is assumed to be lognormal with a geometric standard deviation of 3. Intake rates 

are based on the data shown in Table 6, however, to account for the degradation in engineering 

controls (as noted in Section 2.4.1), intake rates for the post 1952 period were set equal to those 

calculated for the initial 1948 time frame. Additionally, the intake rates for 1957 are set equal to those 

in 1956. Use of the 1948 data allows for the potential for elevated intakes which would not have been 

reflected in the available bioassay dataset (which ends in 1952) since during this initial period 

operations were conducted without engineering controls. Intakes shown in Table 17 may be applied 

to uranium workers in the 10 inch mill and forge area for this same reason.

4.0

Individual external dosimetry results for Simonds consist of doses reported for 20 workers for the 

period from October 11 to 19, 1949 (AEC 1949c). A limited exposure period of less than 2 weeks 

might not be representative of exposures received during the 9 years of AEC operations at Simonds, 

so external doses based on supplementary data are provided. 

ESTIMATION OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

Table 17. Internal exposure summary for operational period February 24, 1948, to December 31, 

1957. 

Radionuclide Start End

Intake 

route

Absorption 

type

Intake 

(pCi/d) GSD

U-234c

Choose M or S intake scenario, 

not both.

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

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

12/15/1950 12/31/1952a Inhalation M 4.49E+02 3.0

1/01/1953 12/1/1957a Inhalation M 5.76E+02 3.0

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

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

12/15/1950 12/31/1952a Inhalation S 7.26E+03 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1957a,b Inhalation S 1.72E+04 3.0

Np-237 1/1/1953 12/31/1957b Inhalation M, if U is M 1.05E+00 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1957b Inhalation M, if U is S 3.13E+01 3.0

Pu-239 1/1/1953 12/31/1957b Inhalation M, if U is M 1.50E+00 3.0

1/1/1953 12/31/1957b Inhalation S, if U is S 4.50E+01 3.0

a. Intake rates post 1952 were set to those calculated in the initial, 1948 period, in order to account for the reduced use of 

engineering controls and lack of bioassay data for this later period. 

b. Intake rates for 1957 were set equal to those calculate for 1956.

c. If individual bioassay data is available, it should be used instead of the intakes shown which are based on coworker 

assessment.

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

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

exposure to natural uranium metal from five sources: 

• Submersion in air contaminated with uranium dust

• Exposure from contaminated surfaces

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

• Exposure to photons from the uranium billets and rods

• Exposure to occupationally required medical X-ray

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

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

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

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

photon spectrum, exposure to a thin layer of uranium on a surface results in a larger fraction of 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 34 of 57

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

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

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

exposure or dose is reported as: 

• Penetrating, assumed to be associated with photons of energies 30 – 250 keV, and

• Nonpenetrating, assumed to be associated with electrons or energy > 15 keV. 

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

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

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

exposed to photon energies from 30 to 250 keV. 

Summary of Available Individual Film Badge Data

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

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

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

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

derived GMs were 362 with a GSD of 1.6. The gamma results ranged from not reported (less than 

50 mR) to 115 mR, and the derived GM and GSD for the set were 63 mR and 1.4, respectively. The 

calculated GM of the positive gamma results was 73 mR. A quick scoping calculation, which 

assumed that the badges were worn for 9 uranium rolling workdays and that there were 156 uranium 

rolling workdays per year, indicated annual beta and gamma doses of 6.3 and 1.1 R, respectively. 

Assumptions about the length of exposure periods and exposure of the badge while not in use can 

increase or reduce this scoping value by a factor of about 3. 

External exposure estimates summarized in Table 20 in Section 4.4 based on consideration of source 

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

uranium rolling year, Table 20 assumed the annual nonpenetrating exposure is 8.7 R and the 

assumed annual penetrating exposure is 1.2 R. 

4.1 SUBMERSION AND CONTAMINATION EXPOSURES

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

consecutive hours “to determine the long term direct [external] radiation to individuals” (AEC 1949h). 

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

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

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

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

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

1.3 mR/hr with a GSD of 2.3 for nonpenetrating radiation and 0.26 mR/hr with a GSD of 1.2 for 

penetrating radiation. This assumption does not appear to be inconsistent with the reported Zeuto 

(portable ionization chamber) beta and gamma readings at Simonds of 2 mR/hr or less for most areas 

(AEC 1949h), some of which appear to be contact readings. The analysis assumed that the beta 

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

dose. (Table 20 in Section 4.4 lists these assumed exposures during operational years.) This 

analysis assumed that all workers were exposed to penetrating and nonpenetrating radiation from 

submersion in air and contamination for 10 hours each workday. 

4.2 BILLET AND ROD EXPOSURES

Another assumption was that workers received a deep dose due to photon exposure from the uranium 

billets and rods. The AEC work involved rolling uranium billets of 4- to 5-in. diameters and 15 to 28 in. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 35 of 57

long. The billets were rolled into rods 20 ft long of approximately 1.5-in. diameter (Smith 1951). 

Monte Carlo n-particle (MCNP) calculations determined the photon (including bremsstrahlung) dose 

rate at the surface, 1 ft, and 1 m from a 5-in.-diameter by 28-in.-long cylindrical billet and a 1.405-in.-

diameter by 20-ft-long rod. Table 18 lists calculated photon dose rates for the uranium billet and rod

(Battelle 2006). 

Table 18. Calculated photon dose rate for uranium 

billet and uranium rod (mrem/hr). 

Distance from 

source Billet dose rate Rod dose rate 

Surface 7.74 5.09

1 ft 0.703 0.285

1 m 0.108 0.0883

Several air exposure records were reviewed to estimate a worker’s time near a billet or rod versus 

being in the general area. The records indicated that for most workers the time near the uranium billet 

or rod was less than 5 hr/shift, but some workers could have spent 6.5 hours near the rods and billets. 

Because workers changed jobs, this analysis assumed that workers were near the billets for 3.5 hr/

rolling day and near the rods for 3.5 hr/rolling day. It also assumed that the dose rate at 1 ft was the 

median dose rate, and the dose rate at the surface was the 95th-percentile rate. The annual 

penetrating dose rates in Table 20 (Section 4.4) were calculated by multiplying the median photon 

dose rates by the number of rolling days per year and the 3.5 hours per workday near the billets or the 

rods.

Shallow doses from the billets and rods were estimated using the measurements in Table 19. The 

units of measure were reported based on the rep (roentgen equivalent physical), which is a historical 

unit of dose equivalence approximately equal to a rem. These measurements were taken during an 

AEC survey in September 1948 (Belmore 1948) at Aliquippa Forge. Radiation measurements at 

Simonds appear to have been similar, although in general the proximity of the Simonds radiation 

measurement to the source is not included. However, in April 1948, Hayden (1948a) reported 

measurements as low as background, 0.1 mrep/hr, up to 40 mrep/hr at 8 in. from a rod storage pile. 

Direct beta readings were reported as 12 mrep/hr at 2 ft above an unswept steel floor and 4 mrep/hr

after sweeping. Measurements taken at 2 in. from the floor dust indicated 20-mrep/hr beta radiation. 

In May 1948, Hayden (1948b) reported the maximum exposure rate near the rod cooling area as 

0.16 mrep/hr and the radiation from the bottom of the quench tank as 25 and 8 mrep/hr at 6 in. and 

2 ft, respectively. Reported radiation levels at various Simonds locations ranged from 0.5 to 12 mrep/

hr in October 1948 and from 0.5 to 15 mrep/hr in December 1948 (AEC 1949h). In August 1950, 

Heatherton (1950a) reported radiation levels of 1 mrep/hr within 1 to 50 ft of the Simonds rolls, with a 

maximum of 10 mrep/hr. 

Table 19. Direct radiation measurements from September 1948 (mrep/hr).

a

Location of measurement Dose rate

Billet assumptions

Contact with floor next to the quench tank where oxide scale has collected 8

Contact with floor in front of rolls where oxide scale has collected 5-10

Same location but 18 in. high 2-5

Rod assumptions

4 ft above a pile of rods in the boxcar 20

5 ft from the end of a pile of rods next to the door of the boxcar 5

2 ft from the end of the same pile 13

a. Belmore (1948).

This analysis estimated the shallow dose from billets by assuming that the median dose rate was 

5 mrem/hr and that the 95th-percentile dose rate was 10 mrem/hr, giving a GSD of 1.5. For rods, the 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 36 of 57

assumed median dose rate was 5 mrem/hr, and the assumed 95th-percentile dose rate was 20 mrem/

hr, giving a GSD of 2.3. These exposure rates were multiplied by the assumed number of hours per 

workday near the rods or billets (3.5 hours) and by the number of uranium rolling days in the period. 

Table 20 (Section 4.4) lists the annual doses. 

4.3 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT EXTERNAL DOSE

This section includes external dose information that could be of value for specific dose 

reconstructions. This analysis did not consider such information generically because of its limited 

applicability or because of limited details.

AEC noted repeated instances of exposure to particles or chips of radioactive material, including 

stinging particles on the hands and face near the descaler (AEC 1949d) and chips of material 

imbedded in the skin from work in the rod stamping area (AEC 1951b; Heatherton 1951a). 

Consideration of exposure due to such materials should consider guidance contained in Interpretation 

of Dosimetry Data for Assignment of Shallow Dose (ORAUT 2005). 

4.4 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS AND 

SUMMARY

Table 20 summarizes occupational external doses during uranium operations at Simonds.

Table 20. External exposure summary for February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957. 

Exposure 

mode Exposure type

Exposure 

or dose 

rate Basis

Assumed 

exposure 

time Year

Annual 

exposure

IREP 

distribution

Submersion/

area 

contamination

Penetrating 0.26 mR/

hr

Film badge 2,500 

workhours/ 

yr

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957a 

0.582 R

0.650 R

0.650 R 

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R 

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

Lognormal

GSD 1.2

Nonpenetrating 1.3 mR/hr Film badge 2,500 

workhours/ 

yr

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957a 

2.912 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R 

3.250 R

Lognormal

GSD 2.3

Medical X-ray 1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

Not assigned
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 37 of 57

Exposure 

mode Exposure type

Exposure 

or dose 

rate Basis

Assumed 

exposure 

time Year

Annual 

exposure

IREP 

distribution

U billets Penetrating 0.703 

mrem/hr

MCNP 

calculation

3.5 hr/

rolling day

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957a 

0.352 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.076 rem

0.076 rem

0.076 rem

0.076 rem

Lognormal

GSD 4.3

Nonpenetrating 5 mrep/hr Instrument 

measurement

3.5 hr/

rolling day

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957a 

2.503 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep 

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

Lognormal

GSD 1.5

U rods Penetrating 0.285 

mrem/hr

MCNP 

calculation

3.5 hr/ 

rolling day

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957a 

0.143 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.031 rem

0.031 rem

0.031 rem

0.031 rem

Lognormal 

GSD 5.7

Nonpenetrating 5 mrem/hr Instrument 

measurement

3.5 hr/ 

rolling day

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957a 

2.503 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

Lognormal 

GSD 2.3

a. 1957 exposure values assumed to be the same as those for 1956. 

5.0

This analysis assumed that the Simonds residual dose period began on January 1, 1958 (at the end 

of uranium operations) and continued through the present. An 8-hour workday was assumed for this 

period. 

ESTIMATION OF RESIDUAL EXPOSURE

Before AEC uranium and thorium operations ended at Simonds, some cleanup was planned and 

perhaps performed. In November 1953, Blythe (1953) requested that arrangements be made for NLO 

to oversee the decontamination of Simonds. Simonds agreed to have six to eight workers for this 

work, which was to be scheduled on a weekend so it would not interfere with the rolling schedule 

(Heatherton 1953a). NLO raised a concern that additional thorium work could be requested within the 

next 6 months. AEC rolling did occur thereafter.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 38 of 57

After the Simonds AEC contract work ended, NLO surveyed Simonds in July 1957 to see the 

effectiveness of decontamination efforts (Heatherton 1957); Table 21 summarizes the results. On 

July 10, 1957, the forge area, the 16-in. bar mill, the 10-in. strip metal area, and the shipping and 

receiving areas were surveyed. All of these areas were found to be slightly above background, but at 

3 ft about the floor only two small areas exceeded 0.2 mrep/hr beta/gamma. Most contact readings 

were less than 0.5 mrep/hr (Heatherton 1957) and, while some contamination was found in 

inaccessible areas, it was estimated that a man would be exposed to less than 10 mrep/week.

Nuclear Science and Engineering Corporation and Carborundum Metals performed surveys in late 

1958. The November 1958 survey results do not appear meaningful or consistent with earlier results 

(Glitzer 1958a). Alpha air activity was reported as 0 dpm with no indication of the air volume 

collected. The beta air activity was reported as 0 to 2.8 dpm. Smear samples were mostly less than 

20 dpm except in the vicinities of the rollers and quenching areas, where the maximum removable 

activity appeared to be about 42 dpm and the maximum beta activity was 114.4 dpm. A second set of 

survey results dated 13 days later showed a maximum removable alpha activity of 404 dpm. A review 

Table 21. Measured radiation levels on July 10, 1957.

a

Location

Contact (mrep/hr)

beta/gamma

Beta (mrep/hr)

3 ft from surface

Gamma (mR/hr)

3 ft from surface

10-in. bar mill bed 10 to 20 1.0 to 1.7 0.04 to 0.05

Front of shear 1 to 2 0.4 0.08

Between plates on mill floor 0.15 0.05 None detected

Forge area 0.7 to 1.2 0.2 0.02

Top of furnace 1.0 No reading No reading

a. Heatherton (1957).

of the data indicates that the alpha counting efficiency was lower than the beta counting efficiency. A 

single soil result, which is not very legible, appears to be reported as 39 mg uranium/gram of soil. 

After the November 1958 survey, the quench tank was removed and clean steel was placed over the 

floor (Author unknown, no date b). Smear samples collected by Carborundum Metals on 

December 12, 1958, were less than 10 dpm alpha and less than 25 dpm beta in the former quenching 

area (Glitzer 1958b).

ORNL performed a radiological survey in October 1976 to characterize the former Simonds site for 

FUSRAP (Author unknown, no date c). Removable contamination was not deemed excessive, but 

radiation exposures of greater than 1 mrad/hr beta/gamma were measured and 238U soil 

concentrations were about 21,000 pCi/g under the floor plates. Two soil samples were analyzed 

isotopically to check for enriched uranium (DOE 1979); the ratios were consistent with natural, not 

enriched, uranium. 

Simonds received essentially pure uranium and thorium metal (no radium) for processing. This is 

confirmed by the DOE (1979) survey, which reported two radon results of less than 0.4 pCi/L and two 

measurements to evaluate radon progeny with results of less than 0.001 Working Levels. Assuming 

100% equilibrium of the progeny (a maximizing assumption) gave results of all four samples within the 

normal range of atmospheric radon concentration of 0.1 to 0.5 pCi/L (Eisenbud 1987). Soil 

concentrations of 226Ra were equivalent to background concentrations. The largest soil concentration 

of 232Th was 11 pCi/g, and 22 of 25 thorium soil samples had concentrations of less than 3 pCi/g. It 

was noted that 238U concentrations were at least 100 times the 228Th concentration, which was 

assumed to be in equilibrium with 232Th. 

The largest directly measured alpha contamination from DOE (1979) was 4,600 dpm/100 cm2

. 

Beta/gamma levels measured within 40 ft of the 16-in. rolling mill were above 1.0 mrad/hr. On the 

16-in. rolling mill, the beta/gamma dose rates were as high as 3.5 mrad/hr. The highest external 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 39 of 57

gamma level was 0.048 mR/hr at 1 m above the floor in the rolling mill and in the forge shop (Author 

unknown, no date a).

“On February 7, 1980, DOE determined that the Simonds Steel Division site required consideration for 

remedial action” (Author unknown, no date c). Guterl Specialty Steel filed for Chapter 11 protection in 

August 1982 (Author unknown, no date c). The Simonds Steel metal-rolling operation was closed on 

May 1, 1983 (Author unknown, no date d.). Allegheny International purchased the site in March 1984 

(Author unknown, no date c). Although it is very unlikely that residual exposure occurred to site 

employees after May 1983, the contamination was still present, and this site profile assumes that 

exposure to residual radioactivity could have continued to occur.

As part of the remedial investigation completed in 2007, a detailed survey was performed of the entire 

Simonds Saw and Steel facility. Surface contamination measurements performed during this 

investigation were used to derive Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) values to be used in exposure 

and risk assessment studies. The EPC values represent 95% upper confidence limit values for each 

particular parameter reported. Table 22 presents a summary of the EPC values calculated for surface 

contamination.

Table 22. Exposure point concentrations for surface contamination 

measurements (beta) (dpm/100 cm2

). 

Building Maximum Average EPC value

1 21,000 300 600

2 140,100 200 400

3 145,900 3,500 4,600

4/9 30,700 1,100 1,300

5 2,200 1,000 1,200

8 58,300 2,600 6,800

24 124,200 5,400 9,300

35 2,800 300 400

Internal exposure during the residual period can be bounded using the methodology in ORAUT-OTIB0070 (ORAUT 2008). In this methodology, air concentrations at the beginning and end of a period are 

used with an assumption of an exponential relationship to calculate exposure rates for intervening 

periods.

The average of general area air sample results reported during air monitoring studies conducted 

between 1949 and 1953 was used as an estimate of the air concentration at the start of the residual 

period (AEC 1948c,d, 1949d,e,h, 1950; Heatherton 1950a,b, 1951b, 1953b; Klevin 1951; Klevin and 

Weinstein 1953a,b). This value was 94 μg/m3

. This air concentration, which corresponds to an intake 

rate of 422 pCi/calendar day, would represent an upper bound of the level of airborne contamination 

present at the cessation of operations, which corresponds to the beginning of the residual period. 

EPC values calculated for each of the Simonds buildings (see Table 22) can be used to establish a 

bounding estimate of the air activity at the time of these measurements (i.e. 2007). The maximum 

EPC value of 9,300 dpm/100 cm2

, applicable to Building 24, can be used to represent the bounding 

surface contamination present in the facility for performing these resuspension calculations. Using a 

resuspension factor of 1 × 10-6, and assuming that the total uranium surface activity is 1.93 times the 

total beta value, an intake rate of 5.5 pCi/calendar day would correspond to the 9,300-dpm/100-cm2

surface contamination level. The 1 × 10-6 resuspension factor is bounding given that the measured 

surface contamination levels represent total activity and the amount of removable contamination is a 

very small fraction of that value. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 40 of 57

The intake rates indicated above were used to calculate an exponential rate constant relating the two 

values, separated by a period of 24 years (1958 to 1982) based on the assumption that the source 

term would have stayed relatively constant from 1982 (when the facility ceased operations) until the 

time of the measurements. After 1982, intake rates are assumed to remain constant. This constant is 

calculated as 0.18/yr and is used to adjust the intake rates in Table 23 to account for the reduction in 

the intake rate over time.

Consideration of exposure to thorium dust could be included based on the relative fraction of thorium 

in the process material of 1%. This activity fraction is used to calculate the thorium intakes listed in 

Table 23. Internal exposure from ingestion would be bounded based on the calculated inhalation 

intake using the methodology in OCAS-TIB-009 (NIOSH 2004). The contribution from recycled 

uranium contaminants can be bounded based on the uranium intake and using the nuclide ratios 

provided in Table 13. 

To reconstruct external exposure to residual radioactivity after the end of AEC operations, this 

analysis assumed that workers were exposed to 0.08 mR/hr penetrating radiation, which was the 

upper end of the gamma exposure rate readings at 1 m in 1957. The residual penetrating radiation 

exposure was estimated by assuming that 0.08 mR/hr was the median rate and the beta/gamma 

exposure rate at 3 ft (0.4 mrep/hr) was the 95th-percentile rate, which yields a GSD of 3.5. A 

Table 23. Annual internal and external exposure to residual radioactivity (pCi/d) 

Internal exposure (assign as a constant) 

Year

Uraniuma Thoriumb Np-237e Pu-239e Tc-99e

Inh Ing Inh Ing Inh Ing Inh Ing Inh Ing

1958 4.2E+2 8.7E+0 4.2E+0 8.8E-2 7.6E-1 1.6E-2 1.1E+0 2.3E-2 1.6E+2 3.3E+0

1959 3.5E+2 7.3E+0 3.5E+0 7.3E-2 6.3E-1 1.3E-2 9.1E-1 1.9E-2 1.3E+2 2.8E+0

1960 2.9E+2 6.1E+0 2.9E+0 6.1E-2 5.3E-1 1.1E-2 7.6E-1 1.6E-2 1.1E+2 2.3E+0

1961 2.4E+2 5.1E+0 2.5E+0 5.1E-2 4.4E-1 9.2E-3 6.3E-1 1.3E-2 9.1E+1 1.9E+0

1962 2.0E+2 4.2E+0 2.0E+0 4.3E-2 3.7E-1 7.7E-3 5.3E-1 1.1E-2 7.6E+1 1.6E+0

1963 1.7E+2 3.5E+0 1.7E+0 3.6E-2 3.1E-1 6.4E-3 4.4E-1 9.2E-3 6.4E+1 1.3E+0

1964 1.4E+2 2.9E+0 1.4E+0 3.0E-2 2.6E-1 5.3E-3 3.7E-1 7.7E-3 5.3E+1 1.1E+0

1965 1.2E+2 2.4E+0 1.2E+0 2.5E-2 2.1E-1 4.5E-3 3.1E-1 6.4E-3 4.5E+1 9.1E-1

1966 9.8E+1 2.0E+0 9.9E-1 2.1E-2 1.8E-1 3.7E-3 2.6E-1 5.3E-3 3.7E+1 7.6E-1

1967 8.2E+1 1.7E+0 8.3E-1 1.7E-2 1.5E-1 3.1E-3 2.1E-1 4.4E-3 3.1E+1 6.4E-1

1968 6.8E+1 1.4E+0 6.9E-1 1.4E-2 1.2E-1 2.6E-3 1.8E-1 3.7E-3 2.6E+1 5.3E-1

1969 5.7E+1 1.2E+0 5.7E-1 1.2E-2 1.0E-1 2.2E-3 1.5E-1 3.1E-3 2.2E+1 4.5E-1

1970 4.7E+1 9.9E-1 4.8E-1 1.0E-2 8.6E-2 1.8E-3 1.2E-1 2.6E-3 1.8E+1 3.8E-1

1971 4.0E+1 8.3E-1 4.0E-1 8.3E-3 7.2E-2 1.5E-3 1.0E-1 2.2E-3 1.5E+1 3.1E-1

1972 3.3E+1 6.9E-1 3.3E-1 7.0E-3 6.0E-2 1.3E-3 8.6E-2 1.8E-3 1.3E+1 2.6E-1

1973 2.8E+1 5.7E-1 2.8E-1 5.8E-3 5.0E-2 1.0E-3 7.2E-2 1.5E-3 1.1E+1 2.2E-1

1974 2.3E+1 4.8E-1 2.3E-1 4.8E-3 4.2E-2 8.7E-4 6.0E-2 1.3E-3 8.7E+0 1.8E-1

1975 1.9E+1 4.0E-1 1.9E-1 4.0E-3 3.5E-2 7.3E-4 5.0E-2 1.0E-3 7.2E+0 1.5E-1

1976 1.6E+1 3.3E-1 1.6E-1 3.4E-3 2.9E-2 6.1E-4 4.2E-2 8.7E-4 6.1E+0 1.3E-1

1977 1.3E+1 2.8E-1 1.3E-1 2.8E-3 2.4E-2 5.1E-4 3.5E-2 7.3E-4 4.9E+0 1.1E-1

1978 1.1E+1 2.3E-1 1.1E-1 2.3E-3 2.0E-2 4.2E-4 2.9E-2 6.1E-4 4.2E+0 8.7E-2

1979 9.3E+0 1.9E-1 9.4E-2 2.0E-3 1.7E-2 3.5E-4 2.4E-2 5.1E-4 3.5E+0 7.2E-2

1980 7.7E+0 1.6E-1 7.8E-2 1.6E-3 1.4E-2 2.9E-4 2.0E-2 4.2E-4 2.9E+0 6.1E-2

1981 6.5E+0 1.3E-1 6.5E-2 1.4E-3 1.2E-2 2.5E-4 1.7E-2 3.5E-4 2.5E+0 4.9E-2

1982-

present 5.4E+0 1.1E-1 5.4E-2 1.1E-3 9.8E-3 2.0E-4 1.4E-2 2.9E-4 2.0E+0 4.2E-2

External exposure

Start End Exposure Basis R/yr IREP distribution

1/1/1958 Present Penetratingc Survey instrument 0.160 Lognormal GSD 3.5
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 41 of 57

1/1/1958 Present Non-penetratingd Survey instrument 0.400 Lognormal GSD 2.6

a. Uranium intake should be assigned as 100% U-234. Solubility should be selected as Type M or S, whichever is most

favorable to the claimant.

b. An Intake should be assigned at indicated rate to each of the following: Th-232, Th-228, and Ra-228. Solubility should 

be selected to be favorable to the claimant, consistent with the guidance in ORAUT-OTIB-0060 (ORAUT 2007). 

c. Assign as 100% 30 – 250 keV photon

d. Assign as 100% > 15 keV electron.

e. Solubility for recycled uranium components should be selected consistent with that chosen for the associated uranium 

intake, consistent with ORAUC-OTIB-0060 (ORAUT 2007).

nonpenetrating external exposure was estimated by assuming that the 0.2-mrep/hr beta/gamma 

reading at 3 ft from the floor in the forge area was the median rate and that the 1-mrep/hr beta/gamma 

reading at contact was the 95th-percentile rate, which yields a GSD of 2.6. The estimated annual 

external exposure to residual radioactivity from AEC operations at the site, listed in Table 23, was 

calculated by assuming that workers were exposed for 2,000 hr/yr. 

Internal exposure from thoron was calculated using thorium material concentration (building material, 

surface soil, subsurface soil, or sediment, whichever is most favorable to the claimant) (Earth Tech 

2010). These data, listed in Table 24, provide 95% upper confidence level values (EPCs) for 232Th

and 228Th in each of the described media. These concentration values were input to the RESRADBuild computer program using site-specific input parameters in the 2010 Remedial Investigation 

Report (Earth Tech 2010, Table 6-7) to determine the corresponding thoron concentration. The 

results of this assessment are summarized in Table 24. 

Table 24. Th-232 concentrations from remedial investigation (Earth Tech 2010). 

Building Th-232a (pCi/g) Area (m2)

a Height (m)b 

Thoronc

(WL)

1 0.51 802 6 0.0022

2 1.65 5700 10.5 0.0037

3 1.16 4320 10 0.0039

4/9 1.16 4400 10 0.0039

5 0.34 348 5 0.0013

6 21.90 960 10 0.074

8 3.03 2700 10 0.01

24 16.44 7500 10 0.056

35 1.33 320 5 0.0051

a. Extracted from Earth Tech (2010, Table 6-3). 

b. Extracted from Earth Tech (2010, Table 6-7). 

c. Calculated using the RESRAD-Build computer program. 

6.0

All information requiring identification was addressed via references integrated into the reference 

section of this document.

ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 42 of 57

REFERENCES

Abu-Eid, R. M., R. B. Codell, N. A. Eisenburg, T. E. Harris, and S. McGuire, 2002, Re-Evaluation of 

the Indoor Resuspension Factor for the Screening Analysis of the Building Occupancy 

Scenario for NRC’s License Termination Rule, NUREG-1720; Draft Report for Comment, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material and Safety, Division of Waste 

Management, Washington, D.C. [SRDB Ref ID: 22400]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948a, Monthly Status and Progress Report for February 

1948, Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, March 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 

6257, pp. 66-87]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948b, Monthly Status and Progress Report for March 1948,

Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, April 6. [SRDB Ref ID: 6257, 

pp. 86-106]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948c, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of October 27, 1948, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, 

New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10883] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948d, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of December 1, 1948, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, 

New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 12442] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948e, Monthly Status and Progress Report for November

1948, Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, December 13. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 6257, pp.253-272]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949a, Monthly Status and Progress Report for April 1949,

Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, December 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 

6291, pp. 93-120]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949b, Weekly Activity Report, New York Operations Office, 

September 30, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 6291, pp. 252-257]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949c, Radiological Film Badge Report, New York 

Operations Office, Radiological Laboratory, October 11-19, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref

ID: 12437] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949d, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of January 10-21, 1949, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, 

New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10908] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949e, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of April 5, 1949, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, New 

York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 16230] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949f, Monthly Status and Progress Report for November 

1949, Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, December 9. [SRDB Ref

ID: 6291, pp. 184-216]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 43 of 57

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949g, Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and 

Processing Uranium (A Status Report, April 1, 1949), New York Operations Office, Medical 

Division, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 3931]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949h, Simonds Saw & Steel Co. Summary Report of Three 

Surveys (Oct. 27, 1948 – Feb. 15, 1949). [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 249–254]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949i, Sample Requisition Sheets 1247 and 1248, New York 

Operations Office, Medical Division, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10223, pp. 7, 8, 11, 

and 12]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1950, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of January 9, 1950, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, New 

York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 4609] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951a, Tonawanda Area Progress Report November 1951,

Tonawanda Sub-Office, Model City, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 66863, pp. 14–19]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951b, “Sample Req. No. 6745,” U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, New York Operations Office, Medical Division, New York, New York, August 28. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 10191, p. 118] 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1952, Tonawanda Area Progress Report for January 1952,

Tonawanda Sub-Office, Model City, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 9545, pp. 24–27]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1953, Survey of Accounting Control over Source and 

Fissionable Material, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, June 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 6867] 

Air and Urine Data, 1949–1954. [SRDB Ref ID: 10191]

Author unknown, no date a, Authority Review for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Lockport, 

New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 2–12]

Author unknown, no date b, Evaluation of Radiation Exposures at the Former Simonds Saw and Steel 

Company Lockport, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 227–228]

Author unknown, no date c, Review Summary Report Simonds Steel Division Guterl Specialty Steel 

Corporation (the Former Simonds Saw & Steel Company, Lockport, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 

11996, pp. 639–641]

Author unknown, no date d, Guterl Steel Corporation, Lockport, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 

557–561]

Author unknown, 1948, “Uranium Content of Urine Samples from Simonds Steel Mills, Lockport, N.Y.” 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11227] 

Battelle, 2006, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium 

Metals, Battelle-TBD-6000, Revision F0, Richland, Washington, December. [SRDB Ref ID: 

30673]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 44 of 57

Belmore, F. M., 1948, untitled letter to J. O. Flower (Vulcan Crucible Steel Company), October 22, 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Directed Operations, New York, New York. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 9948, pp. 6-14] 

Belmore, F. M., 1952, “Thorium Rolling – Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to C. L. Karl

(U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Fernald Area), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office, Production Division, New York, New York, November 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 

14653] 

Blythe, D. J., 1953, “Decontamination of Simonds Saw & Steel Co., Lockport, N.Y.,” memorandum to 

R. C. Heatherton, November 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 681] 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1979, Radiological Survey of the Former Simonds Saw and Steel 

Co. Site, Lockport, New York, DOE/EV-0005/17, Office of Environmental Compliance and 

Overview, Division of Environmental Control Technology, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program, Washington, D.C., November 1979. [SRDB Ref ID: 10877] 

Earth Tech, 2010, Remedial Investigation Report, Former Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation FUSRAP 

Site, Lockport, New York, July 2010. [SRDB Ref ID: 89202] 

Eidson, A. F., 1994, “The effect of solubility on inhaled uranium compound clearance: A review,” 

Health Physics, volume 67, number 1, pp. 1–14.

Eisenbud, 1987, “Environmental radioactivity: From natural, industrial, and military sources (third 

edition)”, Academic press inc., San Diego, New York and London. 

Ericson, M., 1957a, “Subcontract No. S-4 – Simonds Saw and Steel Company,” letter to W. W. 

Damewood (U. S. Atomic Energy Commission), National Lead of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

October 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 81562]

Ericson, M, 1957b, telegram to Simonds Saw and Steel Requesting Closure of Subcontract S-4, 

National Lead Company of Ohio, Fernald, Ohio, September 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 81566]

Ford Bacon & Davis Inc., 1981, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Evaluation of the 

Remedial Action Alternatives for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Company Site, Lockport, 

New York, Salt Lake City, Utah, November. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 191–201] 

Glitzer, M. S., 1958a, untitled letter to D. H. Mackey (Simonds Saw and Steel Co.), Nuclear Science 

and Engineering Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, 

pp. 86–90] 

Glitzer, M. S., 1958b, untitled letter to D. H. Mackey (Simonds Saw and Steel Co.), Nuclear Science 

and Engineering Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, December 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, 

pp. 92–93] 

Harris, W. B., undated, “Health Hazards Involved in Processing Thorium Materials,” memorandum to 

R. L. Kirk, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety 

Laboratory, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 2791] 

Harris, W. B., 1954, “Rolling of Thorium and Uranium at Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” 

memorandum to C.L. Karl (Fernald), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Health and Safety 

Laboratory, Industrial Hygiene Branch, September 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 537–539]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 45 of 57

Hayden, R.E., 1948a, “Metal Rolling at the Simonds Saw and Steel Company of Lockport, New York”, 

memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, 

New York, New York, April 13. [SRDB Ref ID: 11232, pp. 13-14] 

Hayden, R. E., 1948b, “Contamination of the Simonds Saw and Steel Company at Lockport, New 

York,” memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations 

Office, New York, New York, May 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 11229] 

Heatherton, R. C., 1948, “Radiation Levels at the Simonds Steel and Saw Company, Lockport, New 

York,” memorandum to F. J. Epp, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations 

Office, New York, New York, October 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 10225, p. 3]

Heatherton, R. C., 1950a, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust, U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, New 

York, New York, October 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 17024]

Heatherton, R. C., 1950b, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust, U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, New 

York, New York, June 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 16310]

Heatherton, R. C., 1951a, “Trip Report – Visits to L.O.O.W. and Simonds Saw and Steel –March 7 

and 8, 1951,” memorandum to W. B. Harris, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, March 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 81453] 

Heatherton, R. C., 1951b, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust, U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, New 

York, New York, March 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 13653]

Heatherton, R. C., 1953a, “Decontamination of Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to J. 

A. Quigley, M.D., November 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 682–683]

Heatherton, R. C., 1953b, “Air Survey of Special Rolling ’E‘ Material on 10” Mill Simonds Saw & Steel 

Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, April 30. [SRDB Ref ID: 

81449] 

Heatherton, 1956, Industrial Hygiene and Radiation Department Monthly Report for July 1 

through July 31, 1956; R. C. Heatherton; August 2, 1956; SRDB Ref ID: 81440

Heatherton, R. C., 1957, “Trip Report to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York July 

10, 1957,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, July 12, National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 627–629]

Heffernan, T. E., J. C. Lodwick, H. Spitz, J. Neton, and M. Soldano, 2001, “Solubility of airborne 

uranium compounds at the Fernald Environmental Management Project,” Health Physics, 

volume 80, number 3, pp. 255–262.

Hershman, H. J., 1949, “Visit to Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to Files, U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission, Production Division, September 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 10876, pp. 8–9]

HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), 2011, Designating a Class of Employees 

from Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York, January 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 46 of 57

Huke, F.,1951, “Rolling of Thorium,” memorandum to F M. Belmore, Director (Production Division), 

August 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 124–127]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1975, Report of the Task Group on 

Reference Man, Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994, Human Respiratory Tract Model 

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1995, Age-Dependent Doses to 

Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4 Inhalation Dose Coefficients, 

Publication 71, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

Keller, T. C., 1979, untitled letter to W. E. Mott (U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Environmental 

Control Technology), Simonds Steel Division, Guterl Specialty Steel Corp, Lockport, New 

York, January 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 13–18]

Klevin, P.B., 1951, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust, U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, New York, New 

York, October 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 13614]

Klevin, P. B., 1954, "National Lead of Ohio Rolling Operations at Simonds Saw & Steel,” 

memorandum to W. B. Harris, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, 

Industrial Hygiene Branch, Health and Safety Laboratory, New York, New York, September 3. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 68–69]

Klevin, P. B., and M. S. Weinstein, 1953a, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to Uranium, 

Simonds-12, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety 

Division, February 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 17017]

Klevin, P. B., and M. S. Weinstein, 1953b, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to Thorium, 

Simonds-13, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety 

Division, New York, New York, February 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 17025]

Leiton, R. P., 2010, untitled letter to S. Hinnefeld (National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support), U.S. Department of Labor, Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs, Washington, D.C., August 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 93729] 

Magoun, J. W., and A. S. Yocco, 1956, “Trip Report to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, 

New York, on April 19, 1956,” memorandum to A. Stewart, Jr., National Lead Company of 

Ohio, April 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 81543] 

McCreery, F. M., 1957, “Completion of AEC Production Order #A-60,” memorandum to F. L. Cuthbert, 

June 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 81553] 

Murray, B., 2010, “Simonds Saw & Steel Co.(1948-1956),” documented communication with [Name 

Redacted] (former Simonds Saw & Steel employee) et al., Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

Team, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 13. [SRDB Ref ID: 84727]

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

Technical Information Bulletin, OCAS-TIB-009, Revision 0, Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 13.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 47 of 57

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010a, Radiation Exposures Covered 

for Dose Reconstructions Under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act, OCAS-IG-003, Rev. 1, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, October.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010b, Special Exposure Cohort 

Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00157, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1954–1956, collection of air dust analyses for Simonds Saw 

and Steel Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 14152]

NLO (National Lead of Ohio), 1956, Analytical Data Sheets 8800, 9801, and 9802, February 5. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 545–547]

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1957, NLO Intra Plant Production Order Request; April 1. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 81554] 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002, Technical Basis for Calculating Radiation Doses 

for the Building Occupancy Scenario Using the Probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code, 

NUREG/CR-6755, Washington, D.C. [SRDB Ref ID: 91669] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2008, Dose Reconstruction During Residual 

Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities, ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Rev. 00, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 10.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2007, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTOTIB-0060, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, February 6.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2011, Guidance on Assigning Occupational XRays Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, January 3.

Polson, C. E., 1954, “Contamination – Simonds Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum 

to J. H. Gibarski, November 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 71–72]

Reichard, H. E., 1949, “Trips to Simonds Saw & Steel Company and Lake Ontario Ordinance Work,” 

memorandum to Files, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Production Division, June 13. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 10876, pp. 1-2]

Rothenberg, S. A., 1951, “Trip to Lake Ontario Storage Area – December 10, 1951,” memorandum to 

H. Blatz (Radiation Branch, Health & Safety Division), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New 

York Operations Office, New York, New York, December 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 8918, pp. 4-5] 

Schlitz, J. F., 1954, Standard Operating Procedure for Rolling 2.75% Enriched Metal at Simonds Saw 

and Steel Company, Production Order No. 296 (Section 1.4.3.12), FMPC-477 Special, 

National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 80177]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 48 of 57

Schlitz, J. F., 1955, Standard Operating Procedure for Rolling 7.2% Enriched Metal at Simonds Saw 

and Steel Company, Production Order No. 532 (Section 1.4.3.20), NLCO-593 Special, 

National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 44168]

Schumann, C. E., 1953, Industrial Hygiene Survey of Uranium Rolling at Simonds Saw & Steel Co., 

National Lead of Ohio, Health & Safety Division, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 

6866]

Smith, R. J., 1951, “Current Rolling Procedure at Simonds Saw and Steel Company,” letter to W. A. 

Larkin (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge Operations Office), U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, New York Operations Office, Production Division, Operations Branch, New York, 

New York, October 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 4392, pp. 7-8] 

Spiegl, C. J., H. E. Stokinger, J. DeVoldre, K. Lauterbach, and S. Dzuibs, undated, Air Contamination 

During Uranium Fabrication at Simonds Saw and Steel Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 11217]

Tabershaw, I. R., 1948, untitled letter to B. S. Wolf, (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Liberty Mutual 

Company, Eastern Medical Division, Loss Prevention Department, New York, New York, 

December 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 11226, pp. 5-6] 

Tabershaw, I. R., 1949, “Visit to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” 

memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, 

February 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 10213, p. 7]

Tabershaw, I. R., 1952, “Visit to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport , New York, on 

Saturday, March 22, 1952,” memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 

New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, April 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 10213, pp. 1-

4] 

Taussig, W. A, 1948, “Facilities for Rolling Uranium,” memorandum to W. E. Kelley (U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission, New York Office of Directed Operations), U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, Cleveland Sub-Office, February 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 128–131]

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2010, Guterl Steel FUSRAP Site Plan Remedial Action 

Posters, Buffalo District, October. [SRDB Ref ID: 89201] 

Vitkus, T. J., 1999, Radiological Survey of the Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation, Lockport, New York, 

ORISE 99-1699, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

December. [SRDB Ref ID: 10228] 

Wilson, R. H., 1958, “The Hanford Uranium Bio-Assay Program,” Symposium on Occupational Health 

Experience and Practices in the Uranium Industry, HASL-58, U. S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, New York, New York, October 15 -17. [SRDB Ref ID: 7886, p. 89]

Wolf, B. S., 1948, “Recommendation for Proposed Contract - Simonds Saw & Steel Co.,” 

memorandum to F. M. Belmore, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, May 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 

11232, pp. 2-6] 

Wunder, G. W., 1953, “Resume Activities Month Ending December 20, 1953,” memorandum to C. L. 

Karl (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

December 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 81597] 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 49 of 57

Wunder, G. W., 1956, “Request for Services at Simonds Saw and steel Company, Lockport, New 

York,” letter to C. L. Karl (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), May 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, 

pp. 630–631]

Yoder, J. D., 1954, “Trip to Simonds Saw & Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum to 

R. C. Heatherton, October 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, pp. 620–621]

Zimmerman, R., 1957, National Lead Company of Ohio, Minutes of Management Committee Meeting, 

April 29, 1957, National Lead of Ohio, April 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 81555]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 50 of 57

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L. 

11/1/1948 11/3/1948

<0.01 mg/L insufficient for reliable detection

Pre roll

1/6/1949

Pre roll

4/27/1949

HNO3 treated

pre 3rd roll

11/4/1949

Last day of roll

11/4/1948 11/8/1948 11/11/1948 11/15/1948 11/17/1949

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.004 0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.001 0.008 0.007 0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.010 0.007 0

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.011 0.007 0

0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.017 0.011 0

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.009 0.019 0.013 0

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.010 0.019 0.013 0

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.013 0.023 0.013 0

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.013 0.023 0.014 0

0.04 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.015 0.024 0.015 0

0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.018 0.029 0.016 0

0.14 0.09 0.036 0.021 0

0.024 0

0.027 0

0.028 0

0.272 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.003

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Page 1 of 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 51 of 57

11/1/1948 11/3/1948

<0.01 mg/L insufficient for reliable detection

Pre roll

1/6/1949

Pre roll

4/27/1949

HNO3 treated

pre 3rd roll

11/4/1949

Last day of roll

11/4/1948 11/8/1948 11/11/1948 11/15/1948 11/17/1949

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.004

0.004

0.006

0.006

0.007

0.010

0.011

0.011

0.013

0.014

0.014

0.015

0.017

0.029

0.030

0.036

0.164

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 4 

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Page 2 of 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 52 of 57

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L. 

Pre roll

1/6/1950

Post roll

1/19/1950 5/15/1950

Post roll

5/23/1950

Second shift less supervision

9/23/1950 9/25/1950 10/20/1950 10/25/1950

Pre roll

8/14/1950

Post roll

8/28/1950

0 0 0 0 0.015 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.016 0.009 0 0.004 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.017 0.012 0 0.005 0 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.017 0.015 0 0.005 0 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.018 0.015 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.018 0.016 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0.002 0.022 0.016 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0.003 0.022 0.016 0 0.009 0.004 0.004

0 0 0.001 0.003 0.024 0.016 0 0.011 0.004 0.006

0 0 0.002 0.003 0.028 0.017 0 0.013 0.004 0.006

0 0 0.003 0.006 0.028 0.017 0 0.013 0.008 0.008

0 0.001 0.005 0.013 0.028 0.017 0.002 0.014 0.012 0.010

0 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.031 0.017 0.004 0.014 0.012 0.010

0 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.033 0.019 0.005 0.015 0.022 0.010

0 0.003 0.008 0.016 0.033 0.019 0.005 0.015 0.024 0.010

0 0.006 0.008 0.016 0.035 0.019 0.005 0.016 0.027 0.017

0 0.007 0.012 0.016 0.035 0.025 0.014 0.018 0.028 0.017

0 0.008 0.014 0.016 0.037 0.033 0.014 0.023 0.044 0.019

0 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.046 0.018 0.024 0.067 0.043

0.001 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.102 0.020

0.001 0.013 0.015 0.017

0.001 0.014 0.015 0.017

0.001 0.015 0.016 0.018

0.001 0.015 0.016 0.019

0.002 0.015 0.022 0.034

0.002 0.015

0.002 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Page 3 of 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 53 of 57

Pre roll

1/6/1950

Post roll

1/19/1950 5/15/1950

Post roll

5/23/1950

Second shift less supervision

9/23/1950 9/25/1950 10/20/1950 10/25/1950

Pre roll

8/14/1950

Post roll

8/28/1950

0.004 0.017

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.019

0.008 0.020

0.009 0.020

0.011 0.021

0.012 0.022

0.012 0.022

0.012 0.027

0.014 0.031

0.014 0.031

0.014 0.031

0.017 0.033

0.018 0.033

0.023 0.035

0.026

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Page 4 of 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 54 of 57

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L. 

11/9/1950 11/16/1950 12/14/1950

Samples collected at 5 p.m.

Preroll

12/20/1952

Postroll

12/22/1952

0 0 0 0.001 0.001

0 0 0 0.002 0.003

0 0 0 0.002 0.003

0 0 0 0.002 0.004

0 0 0 0.004 0.004

0 0 0 0.006 0.004

0 0 0.002 0.006 0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.010

0.015 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.015 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.030 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.006 0.006 0.013 0.011

0.006 0.007 0.013 0.012

0.006 0.007 0.014 0.012

0.009 0.007 0.015 0.013

0.009 0.008 0.015 0.013

0.009 0.008 0.016 0.014

0.009 0.008 0.016 0.014

0.009 0.009 0.016 0.015

0.009 0.009 0.017 0.015

0.009 0.010 0.017 0.015

0.011 0.011 0.017 0.015

0.013 0.011 0.017 0.016

0.015 0.015 0.017 0.016

0.015 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.016 0.020 0.018

0.017 0.017 0.021 0.018

0.020 0.019 0.022 0.019

0.022 0.024 0.023 0.020

0.028 0.080 0.023 0.021

0.023 0.022

0.023 0.022

0.024 0.022

0.024 0.025

0.024 0.025

0.024 0.026

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Page 5 of 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 55 of 57

11/9/1950 11/16/1950 12/14/1950

Samples collected at 5 p.m.

Preroll

12/20/1952

Postroll

12/22/1952

0.027 0.026

0.027 0.027

0.028 0.029

0.028 0.030

0.029 0.030

0.029 0.032

0.033 0.033

0.034 0.036

0.037 0.036

0.037 0.036

0.041 0.041

0.044 0.046

0.048 0.048

0.048 0.050

0.056 0.053

0.066 0.054

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Page 6 of 6
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 56

of 57

The graphs show predicted bioassay results from the estimated air intakes, superimposed on the GM, 84th percentile, and maximum 

coworker bioassay results. Reasonable fits are starred (*). X-axis is days (0 = February 24, 1948). Y-axis is mg/L. 

Type S, GM bioassay* Type M, GM bioassay

Type S, 84th-percentile bioassay Type M, 84th-percentile bioassay

Type S, maximum bioassay Type M, maximum bioassay*

ATTACHMENT B

GRAPHS SHOWING PREDICTED BIOASSAY FROM AIR, AND FITS OF COWORKER BIOASSAY 

Page 1 of 2 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 04/18/2011 Page 57

of 57

Graphs showing fits of coworker bioassay data to three inhalation intakes. X-axis is in days (0 = February 24, 1948). Y-axis uranium 

urinalyses results in mg/L. 

Type M, GM bioassay Type S, GM bioassay

Type M, 84th-percentile bioassay Type S, 84th-percentile bioassay 

Type M, maximum bioassay Type S, maximum bioassay

ATTACHMENT B

Page 1 of 2 

ATTACHMENT B

GRAPHS SHOWING PREDICTED BIOASSAY FROM AIR, AND FITS OF COWORKER BIOASSAY 

Page 2 of 2