SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Petition SEC-00012-1 and 2 

Report Rev # Supplement Report Submittal Date: 03-30-2005 

Petition Administrative Summary 

Petition Under Evaluation 

Petition # Petition 

Type 

Submittal Date DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC-00012 83.13 07-21-2004 Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street 

Initial Class Definition 

The entire Uranium Division of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (1942-1957) 

Proposed Class Definition 

(1) All Department of Energy (DOE), DOE contractors, or subcontractors, or Atomic Weapons Employer 

(AWE) employees who worked in the Uranium Division at the Mallinckrodt Destrehan Street facility during 

the period from 1942 through 1948. (2) All Department of Energy (DOE), DOE contractors, or subcontractors, 

or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who worked in the Uranium Division at the Mallinckrodt 

Destrehan Street facility during the period from 1949 through 1957. 

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status 

NA NA NA NA 

Lead Technical Evaluator: Signature on File 3/30/05 

LaVon B. Rutherford Date 

Peer Review Completed By: Signature on File 3/30/05 

James W. Neton Date 

SEC Petition Evaluation Supplement Signature on File __ 3/30/05__ 

Approved By: Larry J. Elliott Date 
Supplement to Mallinckrodt SEC Petition Evaluation Reports 

(SEC-00012-1 and 2) 

Discussion of Issues Identified During the Advisory Board Deliberation of the 

Mallinckrodt Evaluation Reports on 2/08-2/09/2005 in St. Louis 

Introduction

During the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s review of the Mallinckrodt 

SEC Petition Evaluation Reports (SEC-00012-1 and 2), a number of issues were 

identified that were not specifically addressed in NIOSH’s evaluation. This supplement 

to the Mallinckrodt evaluation reports identifies the issues raised and provides an 

evaluation of the effect these issues might have on the proposed designation. 

Issues 

1) Identify how NIOSH is certain that it has access to data and reports identified 

in the 1972 Mason letter as being potentially lost or destroyed. 

2) A number of other items of concern are identified in the 1975 Mont Mason 

notes that were presented at the Board meeting. NIOSH should address these 

in their context and discuss whether they prevent NIOSH from reconstructing 

doses at Mallinckrodt with sufficient accuracy. 

3) Provide a summary of the content of the six additional boxes of Mallinckrodt 

data that have been retrieved and were unevaluated by NIOSH at the time of 

the St. Louis Board meeting. 

4) How will exposures for isotopes other than uranium be calculated if urine 

samples were counted for uranium only?

5) Can NIOSH estimate potential radiation exposures and doses associated with 

“blowouts”? 

Issue 1 

Identify how NIOSH is certain that it has access to data and reports identified in the 

1972 Mason letter as being potentially lost or destroyed. 

One of the issues raised by the Mallinckrodt petitioner was the potential loss or 

destruction of records. Specifically, the petitioner referenced a September 5, 1972 letter 

from Mont Mason to Dr. T. F. Mancuso, which discussed the transfer of records to Oak 

Ridge for storage. In this letter, Mr. Mason stated his concerns about possible destruction 

of key records (identified as “shelf list section V2161”, which consisted of reports 

associated with dust studies and other facility surveys) that had been classified and were 

beyond their scheduled destruction date. 

1 
NIOSH had initially believed that the documents on shelf section V2161were the dust 

box data to which Mason refers in his “Notes and Summary of Visit by M. E. Mason 

August 1975.” However, NIOSH has since recovered a records transmittal and receipt

form from the Federal Records Center that identifies the contents of “the shelf list section 

V2161.” This transmittal and receipt form identifies 22 separate documents that were 

received at the Federal Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri on December 28, 1967, in 

Box Number V-2161. These documents, which are identified by title, consist of dust 

studies conducted at various Mallinckrodt plants from 1948 to 1953, an annual report 

from the New York Operations Office (NYOO) Health and Safety Division, and a 

cumulative exposure estimate of MCW personnel employed between 1942 to 1949. 

NIOSH has obtained 21 of the 22 documents listed in the transmittal and receipt form for 

V2161. The only document not located in a search of the ORAU/CER vault was the 

document titled “Annual Report, FY 1950 – NYOO Health and Safety Division, dated 

November 13, 1950.” 

The table below identifies the documents from the Records Transmittal and Receipt form

for V2161 and whether the document is referenced in the Mallinckrodt Technical Basis 

Document (TBD). If it was not referenced, the table identifies whether the data was 

captured in the TBD through reference to another document. 

Item 

No. Document Name

In TBD 

as Ref.

Not in TBD as 

Ref., But Data 

Captured Via 

Other Ref. 

Not in TBD as 

Ref.; Data May 

Not Be Captured 

1 An estimate of Cumulative Exposures to Radioactive 

Materials – MCW Plants 4 and 6, July 1942 to 

October 1949, dated November 20, 1950 

X

2 Dust Study at MCW Plant 4 conducted during 

September and October 1948, dated February 2, 1949 

X

3 Dust Study of Plant 6 conducted during October and 

November 1948, dated April 21, 1949 

X

4 Plant 4 Dust Study conducted during October 12 and 

November 4, 1949 dated March 1, 1950 

X

5 MCW Plant 4 Dust Study Recheck, dated June 1, 

1950 

X

6 MCW Plant 4 Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust, dated July 26, 1950 

X

7 MCW Plant 6 Dust Study conducted during August 

1950, dated August 21, 1950 

X

8 MCW Plant 6E Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, dated November 13, 1950 

X

9 Annual Report, FY 1950 – NYOO Health and Safety 

Division, dated November 13, 1950 

X

10 MCW Results of Dust Study at Plant 6E – November 

15, 1950 – February 6, 1951, dated February 26, 1951

X

2 
11 MCW Plant 7 Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust dated December 21, 1951 

X

12 MCW Results of Dust Study at Plant 6 E, dated 

January 10, 1952 

X

13 MCW Plant 6 – Dust Study, dated May 1952 X 

14 MCW Plant 6 – Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, dated May 6, 1952 

X

15 MCW Plant 7 - Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, dated December 22, 1952 

X

16 MCW Plant 6E – Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, dated January 5, 1953 

X

17 MCW Plant 7 – Dust Study, dated April, 1953 X 

18 MCW Plant 6 – Ore Room Addition, Occupational 

Exposure to Radioactive Dust, dated May 22, 1953 

X

19 MCW Plant 4 – Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, dated June 3, 1953 

X

20 MCW Plant 6 - Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust, dated June 8, 1953 

X

21 MCW Plant 7 - Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust, dated June 15, 1953 

X

22 MCW Plant 6E - Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, dated June 24, 1953 

X

As indicated by the table, three of the 22 documents from V2161 have not been 

referenced in the TBD and the data was not captured from another reference. The first 

document is the “Annual Report, FY 1950 – NYOO Health and Safety Division,” dated 

November 13, 1950. As indicated previously NIOSH has been unable to recover this 

document. The NYOO annual and monthly reports are sometimes helpful in establishing 

chronology or in documenting the reason behind a particular action, but the 

environmental health and safety data summarized in these reports usually are provided in 

more useful and comprehensive form in other documents (e.g., in the plant dust studies). 

The second document, “MCW Results of Dust Study at Plant 6 E,” is dated January 10, 

1952. The data from this document were not previously obtained for use in the TBD. 

NIOSH has compared the data to data used for the TBD to determine whether their 

inclusion would increase dose estimates. The exposure data that were used in the TBD 

were collected after the operation in the plant was in full-scale production and document 

higher exposure levels than the exposure data from this January 1952 study, which was 

conducted prior to full-scale production. Thus, using data from the January 1952 

document would lower the estimated doses calculated from the data already in the TBD. 

 

The third document not referenced in the TBD is “MCW Plant 6 – Occupational 

Exposure to Radioactive Dust,” dated May 6, 1952. NIOSH has compared the dust 

exposure data from this study to the January 1952 figures that are in the TBD and found 

3 
the data in the TBD indicate higher exposures. Thus, use of the new data would not 

increase the estimated doses calculated from the data already in the TBD. 

 

Although the data in the TBD are claimant favorable compared to the data in the two 

studies identified above, the newly obtained data will be fully analyzed and may be 

included in the next revision of the TBD. 

Based on the above information, NIOSH does not find that the records from V2161 have 

been lost or destroyed. In addition, most of the data from the documents in V2161 were 

evaluated and used, when appropriate, in rev.1 of the TBD. 

4 
Issue 2 

A number of other items of concern are identified in the 1975 Mont Mason notes 

that were presented at the board meeting. NIOSH should address these in their 

context and discuss whether they prevent NIOSH from reconstructing doses at 

Mallinckrodt with sufficient accuracy. 

During the board meeting, NIOSH presented a document “Notes and Summary of Visit 

by M. E. Mason” to support the position that key dust study documents had not been 

destroyed. In the document, a number of issues are identified by Mason with respect to 

the data for Mallinckrodt. 

The Mason notes were generated from a trip Mr. Mason took in 1975. He was gathering 

data for an epidemiology study he was conducting with Dr. T. F. Mancuso. Ultimately,

Mr. Mancuso ran out of funding and his study of the Mallinckrodt population of workers 

was not completed. However, the important fact to note is that the information in this trip 

report reflects an evaluation in progress. It does not reflect a completed evaluation of the 

data. Although the study was never completed, since then the site data have been 

evaluated and the issues identified by Mr. Mason revisited for other studies and 

epidemiology reports. In addition, ORAU and NIOSH have reviewed these data for the 

development of the Mallinckrodt TBD. 

Based on NIOSH’s review of the 1975 Mont Mason notes, the context of those notes, and 

the review of the data, NIOSH does not find any issues that would prevent dose 

reconstruction. 

5 
Issue 3 

Provide a summary of the content of the six additional boxes of Mallinckrodt data 

that have been retrieved and were unevaluated by NIOSH at the time of the St. 

Louis Board meeting. 

There were actually five boxes, not six, because two of the boxes, which contained 

information from Weldon Springs, were consolidated into one. A summary of the types 

of information contained in the boxes is provided below. A list of the contents of each 

folder is provided in Attachment 1. 

 

Box 1 Mallinckrodt 

Approximately 75% of the box contents are film badge reports from 1945 to 1958 (distribution: ~25% 

1945 – 1950; ~75% 1950 – 1958). The other 25% is air sampling data, breath analyses, contamination 

survey results, and radon monitoring. 

 

Box 2 Weldon Spring 

Approximately 75% of the box contents are film badge reports from 1957 to1961 (distribution is 

random). The other 25% is bioassay data 1961 – 1965 (sporadic), breathing zone air sampling data 

1963 – 1965, contamination survey data1959, and air sampling of Bldg 301. 

 

Box 3 Weldon Spring Film badge reports. 

 

Box 4 Mallinckrodt Dust Studies 

The table below indicates the plant or lab and the date for the dust studies found in this box. 

Plant 4 Plant 6 Plant 6E Plant 7 Shotgun Lab K-65 Lab 

11/53 9/53 4/53 7/56 6/53 11/52

5/56 1/53 9/55 3,4/53

6/50 5/54 7/56 3/53

9,10/48 3,4,5/52 11/50 6/54 

10,11/49 8-12/51 9/51 

5/50 11/50 -2/51 11/56 

5/50 5/53 11/53 

 5/53 

 

In addition to the dust studies the box contains annual uranium urine results for 1948 to 1958. 

 

Box 5 Mallinckrodt and Weldon Springs 

Approximately 25% of the box contents are 1946 to 1949 film badge records for Mallinckrodt. 

The other 75% are Weldon Spring Film Badge records. Approximately half of those film

badge records cover the time period from 1959 to 1965. The other half is bioassay 

reports for 1959 to 1965 and “area monitor trends” for 1965. 

 

The initial review of these documents indicates that some of the data duplicate data 

previously available to NIOSH and were already addressed in the TBD. However, some

6 
of the documents provide additional data for dose reconstruction that can be incorporated 

into the TBD. The data covering the 1946-1949 period were already incorporated in 

rev.1 of the TBD. However, the data from the 1953-1958 period are newly obtained. 

This information, which is, in large part, specific to particular operations (e.g., the results 

of enclosing particular work stations), will be incorporated into the next revision of the 

TBD. 

7 
Issue 4 

How will exposures for isotopes other than uranium be calculated if urine 

samples were counted for Uranium only? 

Section 6.0 of revision 1 of the Mallinckrodt Technical Basis Document (TBD) 

identifies assumptions and general instructions for determining intakes during the 

operating years. These assumptions and general instructions include the methods to 

be used for calculating the intakes for isotopes other than uranium. The general 

approach is based on claimant-favorable distributions of isotopes as described in the 

TBD. A portion of these instructions are included below. For detailed instructions 

refer to Section 6.0 of Rev. 1 of the TBD. 

ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

A. Urinalyses measured uranium only. For inclusion of other isotopes, the 

following may be assumed and is considered claimant-favorable. 

For source materials in which uranium isotopes were predominant (general case)

By weight, natural uranium is about 99.3% U-238, .732% U-235, and .006% U234 (Shleien 1992). But by activity, it is about 48.9% U-238, 48.9% U-234, and 

2.26% U-235. In the absence of other information, it is not possible to tell the 

degree of equilibrium between the uranium isotopes and their daughters in a urine 

sample; hence it may be assumed conservatively that there is 100% equilibrium.

Then for each pCi of uranium measured, about 0.49 pCi is U-234, 0.49 pCi is U238, and 0.02 pCi is U-235. However, generally the U-238 portion can 

conservatively be assumed to be U-234 as well, so it can be assumed for 

simplicity that there are 0.98 pCi of U-234 and 0.02 pCi of U-235. 

Thus under the assumption that the daughters of the original U-234 are in 

equilibrium with the U-234 (but of course not the subsumed U-238), there are an 

additional 0.49 pCi of Th-230 and 0.49 pCi of Ra-226. With the daughters of the 

U-235 in equilibrium with the U-235 parent, there is an additional 0.02 pCi of Pa231. 

These conservative and claimant-favorable source terms are summarized in the 

table below and should be used when Table 28 of the TBD is used to determine 

intake. For simplification of the dose reconstruction process, the low-contributing 

isotopes may be conservatively ignored or their contributions may be folded into 

those of other isotopes, when appropriate for the organ type and intake mode. 

For each pCi of uranium measured in urine, assume: 

8 
Isotope Quantity, pCi

U-234 0.98

Th-230 0.49

Ra-226 0.49

U-235 0.023

Pa-231 0.023

Ac-227 0.023

For source material in which radium-226 was the predominant isotope

Sources in which radium was the predominant isotope are associated with the job 

titles and areas listed in Section 6.1 of the TBD. In these areas, it can be assumed 

that there was approximately 100 times more radium than uranium in the air on a 

curie basis (see Section 5.3.1). Thus the table above for uranium should still be 

assumed to apply, but an adjustment must be made for radium content after the 

uranium pCi intake has been calculated as discussed in Section 6.2 of the TBD. 

For source material that was processed to concentrate thorium

For those few workers who processed thorium (Plant 7E, 1955-1957) (see 

Sections 4.5 and 5.3.2 of the TBD) , it is unclear as to whether the urinalyses 

measured thorium or still just uranium, although apparently urinalyses were done. 

There may be indications on individual records. Thus the urinalysis results 

should be inspected on a case-by-case basis to see if any information regarding 

thorium measurement methods or content was provided in the record. If not, then 

the intake data from Table 29F of the TBD should be used instead, as appropriate. 

When Table 29F of the TBD is used, for each total pCi of assumed intake (not 

pCi in the urine), assume: 

 CEDE 

Th-230 0.990 pCi 8.80E-05

Ra-226 0.0065 pCi 2.32E-06

Th-232 0.00004 pCi 4.43E-04

Note that this table gives the CEDE (which can be assumed to be in arbitrary 

units) for comparison. Clearly, except possibly for certain organs, the intake can 

be assumed to be wholly Th-230. 

B. Air samples measured gross alpha only. For breakdown into an isotope 

distribution, the following claimant-favorable values should be assumed 

when intakes from Tables 29A-29F or concentrations from Tables 19-22 of 

the TBD are used. Again, for simplification of the dose reconstruction

process, the low-contributing isotopes may be conservatively ignored or their 

contributions may be folded into those of other isotopes, when appropriate 

for the organ type and intake mode. 

9 
For source materials in which uranium isotopes were predominant (general case)

The source terms in the table below should be used when Tables 29A-29E or 

Tables 19-22 of the TBD are used to determine intake. 

For each 1,000 dpm of gross alpha measured in air, assume: 

Isotope Quantity, dpm

U-234 489

Th-230 244

Ra-226 244

U-235 11

Pa-231 11

Ac-227 11

For each pCi of inhalation intake, assume: 

Isotope Quantity, pCi

U-234 0.489

Th-230 0.244

Ra-226 0.244

U-235 0.011

Pa-231 0.011

Ac-227 0.011

For source material in which radium-226 was the predominant isotope

For sources in which radium was the predominant isotope, it can be assumed that 

there was approximately 100 times more radium than uranium in the air on a curie 

basis (see Section 5.3.1 of the TBD). The following should be assumed for cases 

in which worker titles or functions correspond to areas where K-65 residue is 

present. This can be determined from the Table in Section 6.2, Item 3. 

For each 1,000 dpm of gross alpha measured in air, assume: 

Isotope Quantity, dpm

U-234 9.6

Th-230 4.8

Ra-226 985

U-235 0.2

Pa-231 0.2

Ac-227 0.3

For each pCi of inhalation intake, assume: 

Isotope Quantity, pCi

U-234 .0096

10 
Th-230 .0048

Ra-226 .984

U-235 .00020

Pa-231 .00020

Ac-227 .00030

For source material that was processed to concentrate thorium

The following should be assumed for cases in which workers processed residue to 

concentrate thorium (Plant 7E, 1955-1957) (see Sections 4.5 and 5.3.2 of the 

TBD) and the dpm figures from Table 29F of the TBD are used. 

For each 1,000 dpm of gross alpha measured in air, assume: 

Isotope Quantity, dpm

Th-230 993

Ra-226 6.5

Th-232 .04

For each pCi of inhalation intake, assume: 

Isotope Quantity, pCi

Th-230 .990

Ra-226 .0065

Th-232 .000040

Note that it may be possible, for a given organ, to consider Th-230 alone. 

As identified in the opening paragraph of this issue, Section 6.0 of the TBD contains 

the details for determining intakes for isotopes other than Uranium. 

11 
Issue 5 

Can NIOSH estimate potential radiation exposures and doses associated with 

“blowouts”? 

BACKGROUND 

The term “blowout,” as used in the production of uranium, is an event that occurs during 

the reduction of uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) to uranium metal. To accomplish the 

reduction, UF4 (also known as green salt) is blended with magnesium metal and poured 

into a container known at Mallinckrodt as a “bomb”. The bomb was lined with a 

refractory material, such as magnesium fluoride, to isolate the reactants from the walls of 

the container. To initiate the exothermic reaction, the operators “fire” the mixture by 

capping and sealing the cylinder and heating the contents in a gas furnace. The reaction 

causes the fluorine to combine with the magnesium to form magnesium fluoride with the 

molten uranium forming a “derby” in the bottom of the pot. This uranium metal derby is 

then separated from the magnesium fluoride after the bomb has cooled. 

A blowout occurs when a hole is burned through the side of the bomb causing some of 

the heated contents to escape. The force for the escaping material is the result of a build 

up of pressure in the heated container. Depending on timing, the airborne material 

generated during a blowout could include various combinations of magnesium fluoride, 

magnesium metal, uranium metal and uranium tetrafluoride. 

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 

The most significant source of exposure to a worker who was present at a blowout is 

from inhalation of airborne uranium. Since the uranium used in the process has already 

been chemically purified, internal exposure to uranium progeny, such as radium and 

radon is not a consideration. The magnitude of an inhalation exposure is limited to the 

amount of uranium particulate that can be sustained in a cloud of dust and the amount of 

air a worker could breathe during such an incident. 

The existence of a routine urinalysis program after 1948 allows NIOSH to put an upper 

limit on any doses associated with blowouts or other incidents involving internal 

exposures. If NIOSH assumes all uranium excreted by workers on a routine monitoring 

program is the result of a blowout that occurred immediately after the workers submitted 

their previous sample, the resultant dose calculation will provide a maximum plausible 

estimate of the exposure incurred by a worker. The dose, in all likelihood, would be an 

overestimate because the urine samples would include uranium inhaled from other 

routine operations conducted in the plant. 

Exposures to blowouts from 1942 to 1948 can be estimated by using urine data available 

after 1948. Since the amount of material released, exposure time, and type of radioactive 

material involved with a blowout would be similar during the entire operating period, 

12 
1942 to 1957, the urine data after 1948 can be used to develop an exposure model for 

blowouts occurring during the 1942 to1948 time period. NIOSH can review the urine 

data available for individuals with a high probability of being exposed to blowouts. From

this urine data NIOSH can determine a worst case exposure scenario or, if sufficient urine 

data are available, a claimant favorable distribution could be established. 

To refine these values, NIOSH could also review the information provide by 

Mallinckrodt workers during their interviews. When such incidents were identified, 

NIOSH could specifically review the Energy Employee’s bioassay records for incident 

samples. 

13 
Attachment 1 

List of Documents found in the Mallinckrodt Boxes 

DOCUMENT

NUMBER 

SITE / 

FACILITY 

OF DATA 

CAPTURE SITE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT 

030002631 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Report/Data 1946-1947 030002632 ORO Vault MCW Conversion to the "Rad" Unit June 1956 030002633 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Summary December 1960 030002634 ORO Vault MCW Changes to the Film Badge Program August 1956 030002635 ORO Vault MCW List of Personnel and Social Security Numbers 1944-1947 030002636 ORO Vault MCW Air Sampling Data 1956-1957 030002637 ORO Vault MCW Health Hazard Report 1946 030002638 ORO Vault MCW Area and Personnel Film Badge Results 1956 030002639 ORO Vault MCW Radon and Air Sample Data 1947-1948 030002640 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Report 1954 030002643 ORO Vault MCW Breath Sample Report 1945-1947 030002644 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Data 1946 030002645 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Data 1945 030002646 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Data 1958 030002647 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Monitoring Program 1948-1956 030002648 ORO Vault MCW Radiation Survey of Reduction Pilot Plant April 1952 030002649 ORO Vault MCW Plant 4 Need for Shielding April 1952 030002650 ORO Vault MCW Radiation Study of the Shotgun Laboratory Operations April 1956 030002651 ORO Vault MCW Uranium Discharged to Atmosphere February 1956 030002652 ORO Vault MCW Breath Analysis August 1947 030002653 ORO Vault MCW Radiation Hazards in Shotgun Laboratory July 1956 030002654 ORO Vault MCW Beta Radiation in Metal Plant February 1949 030002655 ORO Vault MCW Interpretation of Contamination Survey Readings May 1949 030002656 ORO Vault MCW Beta Radiation and Contamination at Plant 4 August 1948 030002657 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Data for 1958 030002658 ORO Vault MCW Radon Monitoring Data 1952-1954 

14 
030002659 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Program 1950-1956 

030002660 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Results 1946-1950 030002661 ORO Vault MCW Radon and Gamma Levels in Plant 6 December 1956 030002662 ORO Vault MCW Radon Results 1955-1956 030002663 ORO Vault MCW Dosimetry Data Cumulative to 1955 030002664 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Results 1956-1957 030002665 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Data 1956 030002666 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Results 1955-1956 030002667 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Summaries 1954-1955 030002668 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Results 1957 030002714 ORO Vault MCW Individual Occupational Exposure Plant 6E September 1950 030002715 ORO Vault MCW Annual Uranium Urine mg/l August 1948-1958 030002716 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 6E May 4-15, 1953 030002717 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 6 December 12, 1950 030002718 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 7 November 9-13, 1956 030002719 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 7 July 17-20, 1956 030002720 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 7 March 14-18, 1955 030002721 ORO Vault MCW Dust & Urine Exposure Calculations 1942-October 1, 1949 030002722 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 7 June 28, 1954 030002723 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 4 May 17-18, 1956 030002724 ORO Vault MCW Dust Studies Plant 7 September 26-28, 1951 030002725 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 4 June 5-9, 1950 030002726 ORO Vault MCW Dust Studies Plant 6E September 27, 1955 030002727 ORO Vault MCW Dust Studies Plant 6 September 28, 1953 030002728 ORO Vault MCW Occupational Exposure to Airborne Contaminants - Plant 6E July 17-19, 1956 030002729 ORO Vault MCW

Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust - Plant 6E September 5-8 & 26-291950 

030002730 ORO Vault MCW

Occupational Exposure to Airborne Contaminants - Plant 7 November 16-18, 1953 

030002731 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 7 Week of May 11, 1953 030002732 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 6E April 6, 1953 030002733 ORO Vault MCW Dust & Urine Exposure Calculations Plant 4 1942-October 1, 1949 

15 
030002734 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study Plant 6 January 12-16, 1953 

030002735 ORO Vault MCW Occupational Exposure to Airborne Contaminants May 24-27, 1954 030002736 ORO Vault MCW Dust Study March, April, May 1952 030002737 ORO Vault MCW Dust Studies Plant 6E 1955 030002738 ORO Vault MCW Counting Room Procedures Beta Counter 030002739 ORO Vault MCW Exposure > 15,000 rep/year 1947-1948 030002740 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Reports Plant 6 1947 030002741 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Data 030002742 ORO Vault MCW Visitor Film Badge 1949-1950 030002743 ORO Vault MCW Determination of Pu in Urine 030002744 ORO Vault MCW Bioassay Urine Processing 030002745 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Dosimetry Plant 4 1948 030002746 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Dosimetry Plant 6 1948 030002747 ORO Vault MCW Film Badge Dosimetry Plant 6 1949 

 Prepared by: LaVon Rutherford 3/10/2005

 Reviewed by: James W. Neton 3/14/2005

Approved by: Larry J. Elliott 3/14/2005

16