Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

Technical Basis Document for the Baker-Perkins Company 

Saginaw, Michigan

Document Number:

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Effective Date: 05/01/2012

Revision No.: 01

Page 1 of 14

Subject Expert: David Allen

Approval: Signature of file Date: 05/01/2012

Supersedes:

DCAS-TKBS-0005 

Revision 00

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 Site Description and Operational History ............................................................................... 4

3.0 Process Description ................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 Internal Dose ........................................................................................................................... 7

5.0 External Dose ......................................................................................................................... 8

6.0 Occupational Medical Dose .................................................................................................. 12

7.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 13

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

Table 1: Airborne Concentrations and Intakes ....................................................................................... 8

Table 2: Intake Comparison .................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3: Activity of aged uranium following separation and 100 day ingrowth .................................... 9

Table 4: Uranium dose rates from drums of yellowcake ..................................................................... 10

Table 5: Daily External Dose ............................................................................................................... 12

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

Figure 1: Baker-Perkins Ko-Kneader ..................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Beta dose rate on the surface of yellowcake. ........................................................................ 11

Figure 3. Beta dose rate from yellowcake separated from ore ............................................................. 11
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 2 of 14

ISSUE

AUTHORIZATION

DATE

EFFECTIVE

DATE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION

2/17/2011 2/17/2011 0 Changes Battelle-TBD-6001 Appendix to 

a standalone document. Revises external 

dose model to eliminate dependence on 

Battelle-TBD-6001. Provides more 

detail description of other dose models. 

Incorporate review comments.

4/2/2012 5/01/2012 1 Revises internal dose model. Provides 

more detail description of quantity of 

uranium and time line of events. 

Incorporate review comments.
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 3 of 14

1.0 Introduction 

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. 

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 facility” (AWE facility) or a “Department of Energy 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 contamination period to 

receive compensation if certain requirements are met. 

Employment at an AWE facility is categorized as either (1) during the 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 outside 

of 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. NIOSH does not consider the following exposures to be occupationally-derived: 

• radiation from naturally occurring radon present in conventional structures; and 

• radiation from diagnostic X-rays received in the treatment of work-related injuries. 

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

U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(4) (i.e., radiation doses received from DOE/AEC-related work) must be 

included in dose reconstructions. Radiation dose received from DOE/AEC-related work 

includes: (1) radiation from radon consistent with NIOSH’s policies for including such radiation 

in the contract period; and, (2) medical screening X-rays, but not diagnostic X-rays for the 

treatment of work-related injuries. It should be noted that: (1) under subparagraph A of 

§ 7384n(c)(4), radiation associated with the Naval Propulsion Program is specifically excluded 

from the employee’s radiation dose; and, (2) under subparagraph B of this section, radiation from 

a source not covered by subparagraph A that cannot be reliably distinguished 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. 

The following summary is to help provide consistency in dose reconstructions and to help ensure 

that all components of dose are adequately addressed when doses are reconstructed. It also 

provides some information regarding the radiological processes and source terms, as well as 

information on the radiological controls and monitoring practices. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 4 of 14

The following information from the Department of Energy’s Office of Health, Safety and 

Security EEOICPA Find Facilities webpage defines the EEOICPA covered periods for the 

Baker-Perkins Company. 

Site: Baker-Perkins Company 

Location: Saginaw, Michigan 

Covered Period: May 14-18, 1956 

This document contains a summary of the description of the site as well as the Atomic Energy 

Commission activities performed there, and provides the technical basis to be used to evaluate 

the occupational radiation doses for EEOICPA claims. 

2.0 Site Description and Operational History 

Baker-Perkins Company was the result of the merger of two companies in the early 1900s. The 

company developed industrial mixing machines that were originally designed for and used in the 

food industry for mixing food products together. Considering the machinery’s operating 

mechanics and the characteristics of the food products that the machines processed, the transition 

of operations from food industry processing to chemical industry processing was straightforward, requiring few additional modifications to the machinery. The Saginaw factory, which 

was purchased by Baker-Perkins around 1919, produced the first “Universal” mixer, which was 

identified as a key piece of machinery for processing chemical pharmaceutical products, colors, 

paints, varnishes, paper pulp, cellulose, foundry sands and loams, rubber materials, etc. A 

company catalogue produced in the mid-1920s presented many of the Baker-Perkins food 

machines as suitable for processing chemicals. Baker Perkins continued to refine the design of 

the mixers for industrial chemical uses through World War II (Baker Perkins Historical Society, 

2009a; Baker Perkins Historical Society, 2009b).

In the 1950s, Baker-Perkins chemical machinery business offered products including heavy duty 

mixers for use in industrial operations. One line of continuous heavy duty mixer produced by 

Baker-Perkins was called the “Ko-Kneader,” shown below in Figure 1. In 1956, it was this line 

of mixer that was tested for its use in mixing uranium compounds for National Lead of Ohio 

(Fernald). These tests were performed on May 14-16, 1956, at Baker-Perkins in Saginaw, 

Michigan. Equipment used during the tests was decontaminated and cleaned on May 15-18, 

1956 (Baumann, 1956). 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 5 of 14

Figure 1: Baker-Perkins Ko-Kneader 

Source: Baker Perkins Historical Society, 2009a 

3.0 Process Description 

The tests involved mixing uranium-trioxide (orange oxide) with a water-ammonia solution and 

kneading the mixture, first in their “P” Ko-Kneader (on May 15, 1956) and then in their “K” KoKneader (on May 16, 1956). The Baker-Perkins equipment used during the test included the P100 Ko-Kneader, K-100 Ko-Kneader, Omega feeder, Proportioneers pump, and the Milton Roy 

pump. The Omega feeder was used to charge the uranium into the hopper of the Ko-Kneaders 

(configured to prevent dust generation). The Proportioneers pump and the Milton Roy pump 

were used to pump the water-ammonia solution into the Ko-Kneaders (Baumann, 1956). It was 

determined that the tests were not successful, in terms of continuous-use equipment. 

After the tests were completed, both Ko-Kneader machines and the feeder were completely 

decontaminated (using a wire brush for polishing and washing the units with dilute nitric acid 

and using a hammer/chisel and vacuum). The decontamination of the “P” Ko-Kneader began on 

May 15, 1956, after it was determined that it would not be successful in the mixing test. 

Decontamination of the “K” Ko-Kneader began on May 17, 1956. The Omega feeder had to be 

disassembled to ensure complete cleaning of the unit (Baumann, 1956). Because all equipment 

was decontaminated and cleaned after the completion of the tests, there is no defined residual 

radioactivity period for the Baker-Perkins Company site (Stout, 1991). 

Logs from the Ko-Kneader tests included the start and stop times of the uranium feed as well as 

the rates at which uranium was feed into the machine (Baumann, 1956). This information was 

used to determine that up to 1478 pounds of UO3 were feed into the two Ko-Kneaders. It was 

also determined that this amount of uranium would easily fit into a single 55 gallon drum. 

Based on the information associated with the processing of uranium-trioxide at the Feed 

Materials Production Center at Fernald, the uranium-trioxide consisted of refined natural 

uranium (Snapp, 1951, p. 9). 

Air sample data sheets included sample times and descriptions of the work. These sheets were 

combined with the test logs to develop a detailed account of the test and associated work. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 6 of 14

5/14/1956 

1:28 pm – Background air sample taken prior to opening or processing any material 

3:00 pm – Began scooping UO3 into Omega Feeder began. 

3:32pm – Scooping ended and calibration of the Omega Feeder 

4:30pm – Work ended for the day 

5/15/1956 

8:30 am – Test #1 of the “P” type Ko-Kneader began 

9:19 am – Began scooping additional UO3 into Omega Feeder 

10:35 am – Test #1 of the “P” type Ko-Kneader ended 

10:42 am – Test #2 of the “P” type Ko-Kneader began 

11:19 am – Last of the UO3 emptied into the Omega Feeder

11:19 am – Test #2 ended, “P” type machine determined unsatisfactory for material 

1:04 pm – Decontamination of Ko-Kneader started 

4:30 pm – Work ended for the day 

5/16/1956 

8:30 am – Decontamination of “P” Ko-Kneader continued 

11:19 am – Decontamination of the “P” Ko-Kneader finished 

11:19 am – Test #3 of the “K” type Ko-Kneader began 

4:24 pm – Test #3 ended 

4:30 pm – Work ended for the day 

5/17/1956 

9:03 am – Decontamination of “K” Ko-Kneader and Omega feeder started 

4:30 pm – Work ended for the day 

5/18/1956 

8:30 am – Decontamination of “K” Ko-Kneader continued 

2:17 pm – Decontamination ended with steam cleaning of Omega Feeder 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 7 of 14

4.0 Internal Dose 

Air monitoring data are available for each phase of the work performed at Baker Perkins (BakerPerkins 1991). Results of both breathing zone (BZ) and general area (GA) monitoring for alpha 

radiation (alpha scintillation) were reported. The three key tasks resulting in different degrees of 

airborne uranium were scooping the uranium from the drum to the Feeder, decontaminating the 

equipment and all other tasks including operating the Ko-Kneader. There are several air samples 

available for each task and it is credible that each task was performed by the same workers for 

the duration of that task. Therefore, the air samples represent a variation in the air concentrations 

with time, not a variation of exposures to different people. It would therefore be appropriate to 

use the distribution of air sample results to estimate the intake for each individual rather than 

applying a bounding constant value. 

The first two tasks result in localized high airborne activity that dissipates into lower general area 

concentrations. Therefore exposures associated with the first two tasks are estimated with BZ air 

samples for those people actually performing the task. For those that may have been in the 

vicinity but not actively involved in hands on work, the GA samples are used. The remaining 

tasks, including operating the Ko-Kneader, do not have a single localized area of release but 

rather multiple points of release resulting in a dust level dispersed throughout the area. 

Therefore, GA samples taken during those tasks will be used to estimate the intakes for everyone 

involved in those tasks. 

For exposure estimates, each claim will be evaluated to determine the most appropriate job 

category to utilize for the internal dose estimation. Scooping the uranium and decontaminating 

the equipment could have been performed by an operator, a laborer or even maintenance 

personnel. Therefore, one category of workers will be designated for this hands-on work. It is 

likely some sort of supervision was in the vicinity but not working in a hands-on fashion. 

Therefore, the “Supervisor” job category will be estimated using GA air samples and include any 

type of worker that could perform observation or other ancillary type duties (supervisor, health 

and safety, security, etc.). The “others” category is intended to account for those not likely to be 

routinely in the area but who could have entered the area infrequently during the tests. For these 

people, the estimate will be 10% of the Supervisors intake. 

From the time line shown in section 3.0, it can be seen that the duration of the “scooping” task 

totaled 2 hours and 32 minutes over two days. Likewise, the duration of the decontamination 

task totaled 19.5 hours. The total duration of the work with radioactive materials at Baker 

Perkins started at 3 pm on 5/14/1956 and ended at 2:17 pm on 5/18/1956 for a total of 31 hours 

and 14 minutes in the work area. Therefore, the time associated with the actual testing and 

ancillary work is 9.2 hours. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 8 of 14

Table 1 provides the geometric mean (GM) and the 95th percentile of each type of air sample for 

the given operation. The duration of the operation combined with a breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr 

was used to determine the overall intake. A geometric standard deviation (GSD) was determined 

from the GM and the 95th percentile of the overall intake assuming a lognormal distribution. 

Table 1: Airborne Concentrations and Intakes

Operation GM

(dpm/m3)

95th

(dpm/m3)

Duration

(hrs)

Intake (GM)

(dpm)

Intake (95th)

(dpm)

Operators

Scooping 6135 26338 2.533 18650 80066

Decontamination 491 2888 19.5 11494 67585

Testing and 

other

43.7 447 9.2 482 4935

Total intake 30626 dpm (GM); 152587 dpm (95th); GSD = 2.65

Supervisors

Scooping 879 12098 2.533 2674 36778

Decontamination 128 1873 19.5 3002 43822

Testing and 

other

43.7 447 9.2 482 4935

Total intake 6158 dpm (GM); 85536 dpm (95th); GSD = 4.95

From the total intakes, the daily intake rates were calculated and presented in Table 2. Ingestion 

intakes were assigned based on OCAS-TIB-009. For dose reconstructions, these rates should be 

used to calculate organ dose and assigned as a lognormal distribution. The intakes should only 

be assigned for each day of work between 5/14/1956 and 5/18/1956. 

Table 2: Intake Comparison 

Inhalation 

(GM) 

(dpm/day)

Ingestion (GM) 

(dpm/day)

GSD

Operator/laborer 6125 128 2.65

Supervisor 1232 26 4.95

Other 123.2 2.6 4.95

5.0 External Dose 

No external dose readings were reported in the Site Research Database related to occupational 

external dose during the five days of AEC work at Baker-Perkins. However, it was reported that 

“at least one, but no more than two ‘drums’ of orange oxide are believed to have been used in the 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 9 of 14

tests” (Baker-Perkins 1991). The material utilized for the test had been previously refined and 

thus the radioisotopes of concern include U-234, U-238 and the short lived decay products of U238 (Th-234 and Pa-234m). The uranium is assumed to be of natural enrichments with the decay 

products in 100% equilibrium. The highest external exposure potential existed when the 

uranium was contained in a drum. The remainder of the time the uranium was contained inside 

machines. These machines would provide additional shielding as well as spread the uranium 

over a larger area thus reducing the dose rate at one foot. For a bounding estimate, all workers 

will be assumed to spend their entire day one foot (30 cm) from a drum of uranium. This means 

the three worker categories in the internal dose section, operators, supervisors and others, will all 

receive the same external dose estimate. 

MCNPX (version 2.5.0) was used to determine the dose rate per curie of 238U regardless of the 

actual activity in the drum. This was later adjusted for actual source activity to compare actual 

dose rates. All radionuclides were ratioed with respect to 238U to determine the number of 

photons and electrons per decay of 238U. Anderson and Hertel (Anderson and Hertel 2005) 

showed that the short lived nuclides (234Th, 234mPa, 234Pa, and 231Th) are very close to equilibrium 

(adjusted for branching ratios) at 100 days. For the purposes of this evaluation, branching ratio 

adjusted equilibrium was assumed. ICRP Publication 74 Table A.1 was used to convert the 

photon flux to units of air kerma using the conversion factors in Table 3 below (ICRP 1996; 

Stabin and da Luz 2002). 

Table 3: Activity of aged uranium following separation and 100 day ingrowth. 

Activity Concentration 

in aged Uranium 

Metal (Bq/g)

Relative activity 

concentration 

(normalized to 238U)

238U 12200 1

234Th 12200 1

234mPa 12200 1

234Pa 19.52 0.0016

234U 12200 1

235U 555 0.045492

231Th 555 0.045492

The dose rate was determined at 77.9 cm above the ground, 30 cm from the edge of the drum for 

both the photon and beta emissions of natural uranium and its progeny. Results of these are 

provided in Table 4. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 10 of 14

Table 4: Uranium dose rates from drums of uranium oxide.

Density of 

U3O8 (g cm-3)

Activity of U in 

drum (Ci)

Photon 

emission 

dose(rad/hr)

Bremsstrahlung 

dose (rad/hr)

Total dose rate 

at 30 cm 

(rad/hr)

0.5* 3.121E-02 3.96E-04 3.20E-4 7.16E-4

1 6.242E-02 5.00E-04 3.60E-04 8.60E-04

2 1.248E-01 5.54E-04 3.76E-04 9.30E-04

4 2.497E-01 5.84E-04 3.84E-04 9.69E-04

6 3.745E-01 5.84E-04 3.64E-04 9.48E-04

6.7 4.182E-01 5.81E-04 3.74E-4 9.56E-04

*The drum begins to noticeably impact the dose rates at low material concentration. 

The effect of density of the drummed uranium on the modeled dose rate was evaluated. The 

effective density of the drummed material was assumed to be variable up to 

6.7 g cm-3. 

Based on these results, the effective density of drummed uranium makes little difference in the 

calculated dose rates from 1 to 6.7 g cm-3. The introduction of significant quantities of additional 

materials essentially will provide additional shielding and reduce the effective Z of the material, 

both of which will reduce the dose rate. Furthermore, as is evidenced by the drop at 0.5 g cm-3, 

the steel shell of the drum makes a bigger impact on the dose results for low density uranium. 

This dose rate compares well with the result obtained by Anderson et al. (2005) from a bare, 

cylindrical uranium ingot at 30.48 cm (16.51 cm radius, 50.8 cm height) for a total of 1.15 

mrem/hour. Differences arise from changes to geometry and shielding from the drum walls. 

Based on the calculated values, a value of 1.0E-3 rad/hr will be used in this dose estimate. The 

photon dose will be assumed to be 100% 30 keV to 250 keV photons. Since the estimate 

assumes an individual is exposed at a distance of one foot 100% of the time, the estimate will be 

considered bounding and the dose entered into IREP as a constant distribution. 

For exposure to the skin, it is important to also consider beta dose rate. Beta dose rate from U238 daughters is negligible in uranium compounds just after separation, but rises steadily until 

Pa-234m and Th-234 reach equilibrium concentrations. After a few months, the contact beta 

dose rate is about 150 mrem/hr (NRC 2002a). Figure 2 shows the rise in beta dose rate during 

100 days after separation from ore. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 11 of 14

Figure 2. Beta dose rate on the surface of yellowcake. [Reproduced from 

NRC 2002a] 

Figure 3. Beta dose rate from yellowcake separated from ore for more than 100 

days as a function of distance from the surface. [Reproduced from US 

NRC 2002a] 

There was a potential to receive a shallow dose from exposure to open drums of uranium during 

drum unloading and loading as well as cleaning the equipment. According to Figure 3 the dose 

rate at 1 foot from the surface of aged yellowcake is between 1 and 2 mrem/hour. It is assumed 

that the production workers spent 100% of their time one foot from an open drum of uranium 

and that the shallow dose rate was 2 mrem/hour or 16 mrem during an 8 hour day. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 12 of 14

The skin of the hands and forearms could realistically be closer than the skin of the rest of the 

body. The hands could have been in close proximity to bulk uranium when the uranium was 

being scooped out of the drums. From section 3.0 it can be seen that this occurred for 

approximately 2 hours and 32 minutes during the 5 days or approximately 1⁄2 hour per day on 

average. Packaging of the mixed product appears to have occurred automatically as the KoKneader emptied into a drum. However, if some hands on work were necessary, it should have 

taken no more time to package the material than it took to unload the drums. Therefore, the 1⁄2 

hour per day is doubled and the hands are assumed to be in contact with bulk uranium for 1 hour 

per work day. 

Hands on work would also occur while cleaning the equipment. Hands on work during the 

cleaning could conceivably exceed 1 hour per day but no bulk uranium would be involved. The 

uranium being handled at that point would be uranium contamination on the surfaces of the 

equipment. As such, the dose rate would be considerably lower. The estimate for the hands and 

forearms assumes 1 hour per day at 150 mrem/hr and the remaining 7 hours per day at 2 

mrem/hour. The daily dose would then be 164 mrem/day. 

The shallow dose estimate is considered bounding and the dose should be entered into IREP as a 

constant distribution. The shallow dose should be considered to be 100% >15 keV electrons. 

Table 5: Daily External Dose

Job Category Year Operation Phase Daily Dose Ratea

(mrem/day)

Total Dosea

(mrem)

All workers – Photon 1956 Operations 8.0 40

All workers – Other Skin 1956 Operations 16 80

All workers –Hands and 

Forearms

1956 Operations 164 820

a) In this table, mrem, mR and mrad are used interchangeably 

The dose in Table 5 is a daily dose to be applied for employment between May 14, 1956 and 

May 18, 1956 inclusive. If the individual was employed during the entire five days, the values in 

the last column can be used. 

6.0 Occupational Medical Dose 

No documentation regarding occupational medical dose specific to Baker-Perkins was found. 

Information to be used in dose reconstructions, for which no specific information is available, is 

provided in ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT 2005). The assumed frequency 

is one PA Chest X-ray for the year 1956. Annual organ doses are entered into the NIOSH-IREP 

program as the annual dose due to an acute exposure to photons (E=30-250 keV). The 

distribution is assumed to be normal with a standard deviation of 30%. 
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 13 of 14

7.0 References

Anderson and Hertel 2005, Anderson, J.L., and Hertel, N.E., “Bremsstrahlung Doses from 

Natural Uranium Ingots,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 115 (1-4): 298-301, 2005 

Baker-Perkins 1991, Memo from D. Stout to A. Williams, Baker-Perkins Company 

Consideration Recommendation, February 19, 1991 [Ref ID 09505 pg. 10, 16-25].

Baker Perkins Historical Society, 2009a, Baker Perkins in the Chemical Machinery Business, 

website; Baker Perkins Historical Society; last accessed April 23, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 55720 

Baker Perkins Historical Society, 2009b, History of Baker Perkins in North America, website; 

Baker Perkins Historical Society; last accessed April 23, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 55718 

Battelle 2007, Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons Employer Dose 

Reconstructions, Battelle-TIB-5000 Rev 00, April 2, 2007 

Baumann, 1956, Discussion of Laboratory Test Performed by Baker-Perkins for National Lead 

of Ohio, includes laboratory test report data sheets; J. E. Baumann; May 21, 1956; SRDB Ref ID: 

63508 

DOE 2009, Office of Health, Safety and Security, EEOICPA web site. 

http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/findfacility.cfm 

ICRP 1996, “Conversion Coefficients for Use in Radiological Protection Against External 

Radiation”, ICRP Publication 74 

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

Ingestion Intakes, Rev 0, OCAS-TIB-009, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

NIOSH 2010, Radiation Exposures Covered for Dose Reconstructions Under Part B of the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Rev 1, OCAS-IG-003, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

NRC (U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2002a, “Health Physics Surveys in Uranium 

Recovery Facilities,” Regulatory Guide 8.30, Revision 1, May 2002 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team) 2005, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical 

Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray 

Procedures, Rev 03 PC-1, December 21, 2005. 

Snapp, 1951, Atomic Energy Commission-The Production of Uranium Feed Materials; Roy B. 

Snapp; May 22, 1951; SRDB Ref ID: 4125
Effective Date: 

05/01/2012

Revision No. 01 Document No.

DCAS-TKBS-0005

Page 14 of 14

Stabin and da Luz 2002, Stabin, Michael G., & da Luz, Lydia C. Q. P., “Decay Data for Internal 

and External Dose Assessment,” Health Physics, Vol. 83(4):471-475, October 2002 

Stout, 1991, Baker-Perkins Company Consideration Recommendation with Site Summary; Dan 

Stout; February 19, 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 9505, pp. 10-13