Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an 

Exposure Matrix for Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, 

New York; Period of Operation: 1949-1952

Document Number:

DCAS-TKBS-0003 

Effective Date: 11/30/2010

Revision No.: 01 

Controlled Copy No.: ________

Page 1 of 34

Subject Experts: Sam Glover, Dave Allen 

Approval: Signature on file _Date: 11/30/2010

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

_____

Supersedes:

OCAS-TKBS-0003 Rev 00

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................

Page

1

Record of Issue/Revisions ................................................................................................................... 2

1.0 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................... 3

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

2.1 Background of rolling operations conducted by AEC 1948-1952...........................................4

2.2 Bethlehem Steel Corporation ................................................................................................6

3.0 Estimation of Internal Exposure ................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Health and Safety Laboratory Air Monitoring Program.........................................................11

3.2 Recycled Uranium at Bethlehem Steel ................................................................................ 13 

3.3 Parameters affecting intake estimates and uncertainty at Bethlehem Steel......................... 14

3.3.1 Breathing Rate ........................................................................................................... 14

3.3.2 Exposure Duration...................................................................................................... 14

3.3.3 Exposure Location...................................................................................................... 15

3.3.4 Absorption Type ......................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Inhalation Exposure Dosimetry at Lackawanna...................................................................15

3.4.1 Method of analysis...................................................................................................... 15

3.4.2 Evaluation of inhalation exposure for the 1949 -1950 time period............................... 17

3.4.3 Determination of inhalation exposure for the early 1951 time period........................... 17

3.4.4 Determination of Inhalation Exposure for the late 1951-1952 time period ................... 19

3.4.5 Determination of intakes to cobble cutters (1949 -1952)............................................. 20

3.5 Evaluation of ingestion dose................................................................................................20

3.6 Evaluation of inhalation and ingestion due to residual contamination .................................. 23

3.7 Summary of internal dose guidance for Bethlehem Steel ....................................................24

4.0 Estimation of External Exposure ............................................................................................... 26

4.1 Evaluation of external dose from uranium dust....................................................................26

4.2 Evaluation of external dose from direct contact with uranium billets .................................... 26

4.3 Evaluation of external dose from residual contamination.....................................................28

5.0 Occupational Medical Dose ...................................................................................................... 29

6.0 Occupational Environmental Dose ............................................................................................ 29

7.0 References ...............................................................................................................................30
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 2 of 34

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION

Draft 12/17/2002 0-A New document to establish the 

technical basis for the 

development of a radiation 

exposure matrix for Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation. Initiated by 

Jeri L. Anderson.

03/31/2003 03/31/2003 00 First approved issue of ORAUTTKBS-0001.

06/29/2004 06/29/2004 01 Approved issue of Revision 01. 

7/27/2006 7/27/2006 00 Approved issue of Revision 0 of 

OCAS-TKBS-003. This 

supersedes rev. 1 of the 

previous ORAUTTBKS-0001.

09/16/2010 11/29/2010 01 Revision initiated to incorporate 

SEC designation information; 

additional changes include 

deletion of unnecessary 

information throughout

document affected by SEC; 

added information regarding 

recycled uranium at BSC and 

additional rolling data to Table 1; 

corrected minor typographical 

errors; included NIOSH internal 

comments.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 3 of 34

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Technical Basis Documents and Site Profile Documents are general working documents that provide 

guidance concerning 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 and its contractors in the completion of the individual 

work required for each dose reconstruction.

This technical basis document (TBD) specifically addresses exposures incurred by workers as a result 

of a contractual agreement between Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) and the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) or its predecessors for work to be performed at BSC’s Lackawanna Plant (a designated 

atomic weapons employer (AWE) facility). Dose reconstructors should use the information in this 

TBD to evaluate the DOE derived occupational radiation dose for workers at Bethlehem Steel. These 

doses include external and internal radiation sources as well as occupationally required diagnostic xray examinations. 

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” or a “Department of Energy facility” as defined in the Energy Employee 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 7384l (5) and (12)).

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 the facility 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 weaponsrelated work. Exposures resulting from non-weapons related work, if applicable, will be covered 

elsewhere.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designated a class of employees from the 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) for inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). The 

approved class consists of all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at the Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation facility in Lackawanna, New York from January 1, 1949 to December 31, 1952, for a 

number of work days aggregated at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 4 of 34

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other 

classes of employees in the SEC.

NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not 

feasible to reconstruct radiation doses (both internal and external) from exposures to uranium 

radionuclides for all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation prior to 1951. For the period 1951-1952, NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, 

Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not feasible to reconstruct internal radiation 

doses from internal exposures to uranium radionuclides for Bethlehem Steel Corporation cobble 

cutting activities. Although NIOSH has found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation 

doses for the proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that 

may become available for an individual claim and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures. Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed at 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation during the period January 1, 1949 through December 31, 1952, but who 

do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC may be performed using these data as appropriate. 

Additionally, NIOSH considers the reconstruction of occupational medical exposures to be feasible for 

members of the class during the covered period of 1949-1952.

Many sources of information were evaluated and utilized in the preparation of this TBD. These 

include transcripts of worker outreach meetings, worker interviews and comments, multiple reviews by 

EEIOCPA HHS contractor SC&A, and information gathered at various Department of Energy record 

repositories including, but not limited to, the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) and 

Hanford.

This document is divided into 6 sections. These are: 1) Purpose and Scope; (2) Site Description and 

Operational History; (3) Estimation of Internal Exposure; (4) Estimation of External Exposure; (5) 

Occupational Medical Dose; and (6) Occupational Environmental Dose.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY

2.1 Background of rolling operations conducted by AEC 1948-1952

Bethlehem Steel Corporation was one of several steel mills that contributed to the production of 

uranium metal rods used by Hanford for the production of plutonium. The principal means of 

producing uranium rods during World War II was an extrusion process conducted at Hanford. Rolling 

of uranium metal rods was investigated at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. during and after the 

war effort to evaluate methods to improve product quality and reduce losses of product during the 

manufacturing process. Another development that promised improvements in the production of 

uranium metal rods was the successful rolling of lead dipped uranium billets by Joslyn in 1948, which, 

according to the early AEC reports, were far superior to the Hanford materials in terms of blistering. 

Hanford stopped extruding uranium rods in 1948. Rolled uranium rods manufactured offsite of 

Hanford were found to be a less expensive process and possessed metallurgical advantages over the 

extrusion process (DOE 1997).

As of 1947, postwar production of uranium was transferred to the US Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC) New York Operations Office (NYOO). Safety aspects of these operations fell under the Health 

and Safety Laboratory (HASL) for the stated reason that many of these facilities were small and 

lacked the resources for evaluating worker health (AEC 1949b). HASL (later to be renamed the 

Environmental Measurements Laboratory) had responsibility for these programs until 1954 with the 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 5 of 34

implementation of parallel production centers in St. Louis and Cincinnati and reorganization of 

uranium production responsibilities to other offices of the AEC (AEC 1958, p 10). 

During the time frame of 1947 to 1954, NYOO had broad responsibility for the procurement and 

processing of uranium for weapons production. These responsibilities included acquisition of raw ore 

materials from Africa and other sites; all aspects of its storage; processing of the raw ore; preparation 

of uranium oxide; conversion to green salt (UF4); preparation of uranium metal billets; and the rolling 

of the billets into rods. The uranium metal was delivered as billets to two mills (as of 1949), Simonds 

Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York and Vulcan Crucible Steel Company, Aliquippa, 

Pennsylvania who rolled the billets into rods which were shipped to Hanford (AEC 1949a, p3). Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Co. continued to provide additional capacity during start-up of the rollings 

at Simonds as ~150 tons of uranium per month was needed by Hanford (AEC 1948c, p 128). It is 

known that other rolling mills also participated in rolling operations during this early time period. 

Simonds Saw and Steel Co. later became the principal manufacturer of rods as Vulcan was unable to 

roll the larger billets coming from Mallinckrodt. 

During the war, permissible levels for natural uranium dust in air were set at 500 μg/m3 for insoluble 

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

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

chemical toxicity, which is equivalent to 70 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter (alpha activity of 

234U and 238U). The University based this level primarily on animal studies. The Medical Division of 

the New York Operations Office felt that a “maximum permissible level” was really unknown and 

should be based on human data. Therefore, 50 μg/m3 level was referred to as the “preferred level” 

(AEC 1949b). Many AEC contractors used the term Maximum Allowable (air) Concentration (MAC) 

interchangeably with “preferred level” and often reported air-sampling results as multiples of the MAC 

(NLO 1952b; AEC 1953). As of 1949, NYOO did not recommend the use of respirators (AEC 1949a). 

Several operations conducted as part of the uranium processing at Bethlehem Steel are important to 

have a conceptual understanding of their impact on exposure during the activities conducted at the 

Lackawanna Plant. These include:

Furnace heating: In some cases uranium was preheated in the furnace and then further heat treated

in a lead or salt bath.

Lead bath heating: Similar in nature to the furnace heating, uranium rods and billets were immersed 

in a molten lead bath to heat them to the desired temperature for rolling. The lead also served to 

provide a partial coating for reduction of uranium dust during the operations.

Salt bath heating: Similar in nature to the furnace heating, a molten salt bath was used to heat the 

uranium rods and billets prior to rolling. This salt also provided a protective covering which 

significantly reduced the uranium oxide formation and airborne contamination levels during rolling. 

Centerless grinding: The canning process required a precision ground uranium piece. HW-19066

describes the process of centerless grinding using a No. 3 Cincinnati Centerless Grinder using initial 

(rough) pass removing 0.005”-0.010” with finishing passes removing 0.001”-0.002”. The basic 

principle was for the cutting pressure of the grinding wheel to keep the rod in contact with the rest 

blade and the regulating wheel. The rotation of the regulating wheel causes the rod to rotate at a 

constant peripheral speed and the inclination of the regulating wheel axis moves the work from the 

front to the rear of the machine. The operation of grinding uranium required the use of a constant flow 

of coolant. 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 6 of 34

Hand grinding: Some reports indicate that grinding of the rods was a component of the work 

performed by the Lackawanna facility. Other facilities indicated the need to perform both centerless 

grinding and hand grinding of materials. Hand grinding may have been used to remove surface 

imperfections prior to rolling as well as cleanup of the slugs after they were sheared into 4” and 8” 

pieces. Since the product sent to Hanford included both rods and slugs, hand grinding was 

considered as a potential exposure source and data at Joslyn was evaluated to compare the source 

term with the assigned intake levels. 

Medart straightening: Uranium rods and in some cases slugs were straightened. In some cases 

this was done prior to centerless grinding, in others simply to improve the product straightness prior to 

shipment to Hanford where final machining was undertaken.

Billet: Large cylinder of uranium metal up to 5” in diameter and up to 2 feet in length weighing

between 125 to 500 pounds.

Rod: Uranium billets were rough rolled and then finished rolled into long, thin rods. The rods were 

often the final product shipped to Hanford.

Slug: Uranium rods were cut into 4” and 8” pieces called slugs (sometimes at Hanford, sometimes at 

a facility offsite to Hanford) which were dipped and canned for use in the reactors.

2.2 Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Bethlehem Steel Corporation was one of the largest steel manufacturers in US history, with an annual 

output of material after World War II that exceeded twice the output of the entire country of Germany

at that time (Leary 1987). Bethlehem Steel acquired the Lackawanna facility in 1922. While 

Bethlehem Steel had widespread holdings in ship building and other interests, only the facilities

located in Lackawanna, NY are the subject of this TBD. Diagrams of the site are available (Leary 

1987) to provide a reference to the scale of this 1300 acre complex which employed approximately

20,000 workers during this time period. 

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contracted with Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) to 

develop improved rolling mill pass schedules using a continuous rolling mill. These rollings were tied 

strongly to the design of the Fernald facility which was to be based on a continuous rolling mill 

technology such as that used at BSC whose design was to be developed by Birdsboro Corporation 

(Summary 1951). Many documents associated with the development of the uranium rolling program 

and its progress have been obtained by NIOSH and its contractors and may be referenced for 

additional detail including, but not limited to HW-13168, HAN-21441, HAN-30471, HAN-30686, HAN30987, HAN-31429, HW-14816, HW-20548, GEH-17116, HAN-20104, HW-24222, HW-20548, HW22474, HW-22878, and a series of unnumbered Bethlehem Steel memos obtained from Hanford 

which are contained in the NIOSH Site Research Database (SRDB). 

Programmatic goals associated with these rollings were (HW-24849): 

• To evaluate the continuous rolling mill using a source of uranium rods for the plutonium 

production program at Hanford and Savannah River; 

• Information gained during these rollings would be used for the design of the Fernald plant; 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 7 of 34

• Evaluate technological improvements leading to reduced oxidation of uranium metal by the 

use of lead bath and salt bath heating (using a combination of lithium and potassium 

carbonate salts) would reduce losses during rolling; and,

• Evaluate the metallurgical implications of heat treatments to improve quality during 

irradiations. 

Review of the historical records show that BSC conducted this work under the oversight of HASL, 

Hanford Works, and National Lead of Ohio (DOE 1985). Records indicate that BSC participated in 

both experimental and production runs. The purpose of this program included the following: 

• Finish rolling of bars rough rolled at Simonds Saw or Aliquippa Forge (Summary 1951); 

• Comparison of lead bath and salt bath heating on product and process quality;

• Heat treating rods and billets rolled or to be rolled at other facilities which in some cases also 

included grinding as part of this preparation; and,

• Production runs of uranium rods from rough rolled rods. 

The uranium billets were prepared by Mallinckrodt Chemical in St. Louis, Missouri, shipped to the 

rough rolling mill and then shipped to Lackawanna in freight cars. The freight cars, which were

spotted at the BSC plant, served as storage for the uranium billets during the week (Range 1976; 

ORNL 1980; DOE 1985). The rolling experiments generally took place on weekends because the 

mills were in full use 5 days per week. The work only involved the 10-in. bar mill and associated billet 

preparation and handling equipment (LaMastra 1976; Range 1976; Thornton 1977; ORNL 1980; DOE 

1985). Review of Hanford documents also shows that some activities involved only the heat 

treatment of metal rods and billets in the salt bath to get the proper grain structure in the metal 

preferred for irradiation of the material at Hanford. These grain structures, known as the alpha, beta 

and gamma phases, describe the metallurgical properties of the material and are not associated with 

radioactivity in this context. 

According to some accounts, material accountability practices for the project included collection of

scale, residue, fine debris, and cropped ends. Worker accounts (6-19-2006) reported the use of 

vacuum cleaners to assist in the cleanup in many areas. These materials were packaged, and 

returned to the AEC which had a documented scrap recovery program (LaMastra 1976; Range 1976; 

ORNL 1980; DOE 1985). Radiological surveys in 1976 and 1980 of the original facility and 

equipment, which were still in existence, identified no residual contamination above natural 

background levels (LaMastra 1976; ORNL 1980; DOE 1985). 

A number of documents provide conflicting information regarding the time period during which the

rollings occurred. Some references indicate that all work occurred between 1949 and 1951 

(Summary 1951; LaMastra 1976; ORNL 1980). However, other reports indicate that eight additional 

rollings occurred in 1952 (Bowman et al. 1952; Hershman 1952; NLO 1952a; DOE 1985), although 

they were reported to be production rollings. A letter from a labor representative in October 1979 

asserted that six to eight rollings took place in 1955 although no verification of these dates has been 

found (Kosanovich 1979, 2004). The work was transferred to the Fernald Plant around September 

1952 as it began pilot and then full scale operations (NLO 1952a; LaMastra 1976; Range 1976). 

Information obtained from the rolling experiments at BSC was used in the design of a rolling mill at the 

National Lead Company plant in Fernald, Ohio, which began production in 1953 (LaMastra 1976; 

Range 1976). Table 1 lists the dates of rollings at BSC for which documentation has been found.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 8 of 34

Several documents report that AEC personnel were present during all rolling operations and several 

site visit reports have been obtained that document these visits. AEC personnel conducted air and 

surface radioactivity monitoring and checked personnel involved in the rolling for contamination during 

some of these rollings (LaMastra 1976; ORNL 1980; DOE 1985). Some reports indicate that no 

records are available of these monitoring activities (LaMastra 1976; Range 1976; ORNL 1980). As of 

1976, it was believed that if monitoring records ever existed, they were not retained (LaMastra 1976). 

Uranium metal accountability records apparently were destroyed (Range 1976). Review of AEC 

historical records, however, has produced several documents containing air sampling data from the 

Health and Safety Laboratory (HASL) and National Lead Company for the rollings shown in Table 1. 

Many documents were available from the Hanford archives because the work was associated with 

improvements to the irradiation of uranium fuel for plutonium production.

While the operations involving the processing of uranium were limited to the 10” continuous rolling mill 

and associated handling facilities (Figures 1 and 2), the time lapse and complexity of the site make 

clear evaluation of exposure potential by job title difficult. The 10” continuous rolling mill and 

associated localized bar material handling facilities were completed in 1947 with monthly capacity

measured in thousands of tons of steel per month. The process was also known to create 

widespread contamination within the mill area during the processing of the uranium. Therefore all 

workers at Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna will be evaluated as having a potential for internal and 

external exposure as if they worked in the rolling mill during these operations. These evaluations are 

explained in the following sections.

Figure 1: 10-inch bar mill at Lackawanna circa 1950 (Walker 2005) 
Figure 2: Lackawanna continuous stand rolling mill diagram as provided by a retired employee and drafted by SC&A (SC&A 2005).
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 10 of 34

Table 1: Documented rollings at Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York

Date Day

Type or 

designation

Billets 

rolled Bath type

Air 

Sample 

Data

Reference

April 26-27, 1951 Thurs., Fri. Experimental 

#1

26 Lead/salt Y Summary 1951

AEC 1951b 

Sheets 6191, and 6192

July 29, 1951 Sunday Experimental 

#2

24 Lead/salt Y Summary 1951

Sample sheets 6425, 6436, 6437

August 27, 1951 Sunday Experimental 

#3

32 Lead/salt Summary 1951

HW-22347

September 30, 

1951

Sunday Experimental 

#4

43 Salt Y Sample sheet 6539

HW 23910

October 28, 1951 Sunday Lackawanna 

#5

93 Salt Y HW-22975

Sample sheets 6532, 6533

January 26-27, 

1952

Saturday, 

Sunday

Production 25 plus 4 

tons heat 

treated only

Salt Y AEC 1952b

HW-23399

HW-24849, HW-23269

Sample sheets 6543, 6544, 6545

February 16, 1952 Saturday Production 120

30 tons

Salt HW 23697

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

Sample sheets 6573, 6574

April 12, 1952 Saturday Production 222 Salt NLO 1952a

May 10-11, 1952 Saturday, 

Sunday

Production 461 Salt FMPC-26

August 17, 1952 Sunday Production 157 Salt Bowman 1952

August 31, 1952 Sunday Production 219 Salt Bowman 1952

September 14, 

1952

Sunday Production 303 Salt Y Schneider

Sample sheet IH33, IH34, IH35, 

IH36

September 22, 

1952

Monday Production 302 Salt Schneider

October 20, 1952 Monday Production 359 Salt FMPC-84

October 25, 1952 Saturday Production 237 Salt FMPC-84

1951: Six rolling days, plus assume one January, February, March, May, June, November, December (13 

rollings). There was no Experiment #6 at Lackawanna (cancelled after rough rolling).

1952: 10 rolling days, plus assume one for May, June, July, November, December (15 rollings)
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 11 of 34

3.0 ESTIMATION OF INTERNAL EXPOSURE

3.1 Health and Safety Laboratory Air Monitoring Program

The production of rods by US industrial facilities had been intended to be of short duration to support 

the war effort, however, it became apparent to NYOO in 1949 that these resources would be used for 

an indefinite period (AEC 1949b, p5). Concerns mounted over known exposures to radioactive 

materials which exceeded even war year standards promulgated by the University of Rochester. 

These levels were much higher than standards being proposed and which were eventually adopted. 

HASL implemented a program of air sampling at many of these facilities to evaluate and reduce the 

exposures to workers. These programs and mitigating ventilation plans for these facilities were 

discussed in the May 1948 NYOO monthly report (AEC 1948c, p140).

From the early days of operation, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HASL) of the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC) relied on time weighted average exposure measurements to assess inhalation 

hazards in the workplace. A brief description of the HASL methodology, and its relation to ICRP 75, 

is provided below.

A detailed description of the HASL methods and background on air monitoring and exposure 

assessment was provided in a 1973 write-up in the HASL manual (chapter B-04, The Application of 

Air Sampling in the Evaluation and Control of the Occupational Environment, AEC 1973). The 

detailed description of the concept of representative workplace monitoring was written by A.J. Breslin, 

Director, Health Protection Engineering Division, HASL. It should be noted that Mr. Breslin was one 

of the sample collection scientists for the Bethlehem Steel Corp uranium dust monitoring data. 

Breslin’s write-up provides a detailed discussion of the type of samples taken, how they were taken, 

how they were analyzed, and how the results should be interpreted. The discussion of sampling 

locations, designation of sampling sites and the job task analysis sheets contained in this document 

are consistent with the sampling strategy employed at both Simonds Saw and Steel (SSS) and 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC). Early HASL procedure manuals were primarily focused on the 

chemistry, so earlier versions of the text may not exist (personal communication, Dr. Isabelle 

Fisenne). The following text, excerpted from the HASL manual, provides a description of the various 

sample types that were used by HASL to evaluate representative exposure.

Breathing Zone Samples

To measure accurately the concentration to which a worker is exposed while 

performing such a task, a breathing zone (BZ) sample must be collected. The 

sampling instrument is held in the vicinity of the worker’s breathing area for the 

duration of the task. It should be held as close to his nose as possible short of 

interfering with his freedom of movement, because in situations where dust is escaping 

from a small aperture, concentration gradients around a source can be sharp. In one 

uranium plant, samples collected one foot apart at certain operations have shown 

concentration differences of twenty-fold. On the other hand, a sample collected so 

close as to interfere with the worker’s movements is invalid because the job cannot be 

- Typically, a worker performs a few operations in which he 

may come into close or direct contact with the hazardous material. Examples of these 

operations are operating a machine tool, charging a furnace, working at a chemical 

hood, changing the glove on a dry box, or any one of a hundred maintenance tasks 

that involve the dismantling of or entrance to equipment. At jobs such as these, dust 

concentrations are apt to be much greater than in the general area. Therefore, these 

activities may influence the average exposure far out of proportion to their duration.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 12 of 34

performed in the normal fashion. A small deviation in work habit may alter the dust 

concentration markedly.

General Air Sample

A GA samples is one that is collected at a fixed location during a sustained sampling 

period. To be meaningful, the sample must be collected within an occupied area but 

also it must be away from dust sources except those that may dominate the area. 

Customarily, the sampling instrument is placed at a height from four to six feet from the 

floor although in a heavily trafficked area, the instrument must be placed over the 

heads of the workers to avoid interference with the normal work routine....

s- Usually, the total time spent by a worker on operations 

requiring BZ samples constitutes a small fraction of the day. There are, of course, 

exceptions... Worker exposure during the balance of the work day may be 

characterized by samples collected of the general air (GA) in the area that he occupies.

Process Samples- There is yet another kind of air sample that is often useful, the 

process sample. It is used to identify sources of air contamination or to determine the 

relative strengths of two or more sources. Process samples are distinguished from BZ 

and GA samples by the fact that they are taken in and around process equipment at 

locations where employees normally are not

As an example, a process sample might be collected directly over a furnace to 

determine the amount of radioactivity that is carried by convection from the furnace to 

the room. The concentration at that point is not representative of an employee’s 

exposure.

exposed. For this reason they should 

never be used in the evaluation of occupational exposure.

These sampling methods meet the most current recommendations from ICRP Publication 75 (ICRP

1997) regarding the collection of representative samples for the purpose of determination of exposure. 

As indicated in the excerpts below from the HASL procedures manual, the BZ samples collected by 

HASL were held in a position to represent the breathing zone and are not associated with a fixed 

sampler. Because of this, the ICRP 75 recommendation that samples collected from area samplers 

be corrected to breathing zone would not be appropriate for these samples. General area (GA) 

samples were taken with the expressed purpose of evaluating non-localized releases to which an 

employee could be exposed during the course of the day. Finally, process samples (P) that were 

obtained during the measurement period were to assess source terms and are not indicative of 

concentrations to which workers may have been exposed. Further evidence of the breathing zone 

sampling location comes from typical operations at National Lead which states, “BZ (breathing zone) 

samples were collected by holding the sampling device in the immediate vicinity of the worker’s head, 

in front of the shoulder area.”

Samples were collected on 1 1/8” disks of Whatman #41 filter paper which provide high efficiency 

collection of particles in the particle size range. These filters have a maximum flow rate of about 20 

L/min (0.020 m3

/min). The procedure for the collection of samples at Simonds Saw and Steel on 

October 27, 1948 is discussed by the HASL representative in the report (AEC 1948a). Further 

discussion of the counting methods employed by the HASL is contained in the procedure 

“Determination of Uranium in Air Dust Samples by Alpha Counting Methods” (AEC 1949c) and by 

direct account of one of the HASL laboratory employees (personal communication, Dr. Naomi Harley, 

2004). While the current standards for documentation of calibration of the counting and sampling 

equipment have changed significantly since the early days of industrial hygiene, the relative 

contribution to uncertainty in the measured air concentration associated with these factors is very 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 13 of 34

small compared to the large changes in air concentration as a function of time and location. While 

this TBD does not use time weighted averages to determine exposure to uranium dust, HASL 

reported very good agreement in comparing time weighted averages of exposure with results 

obtained from personal lapel-mounted air samplers after they became available in the late 1960s

(Breslin 1967). This agreement provides additional support for the reliability of the data and the use of 

time-weighted average air sample results to estimate exposure. 

3.2 Recycled Uranium at Bethlehem Steel

Until 1952, all uranium used by the AEC was derived from natural sources because processes that 

recover uranium from spent fuel were not available. Plutonium was extracted using a BiPO4 process 

in the T-plant and B-plant at Hanford. This process did not extract uranium from the spent fuel. The 

uranium and the remaining waste products were collected in waste storage tanks (DOE 2000). 

In 1952, the Hanford plant began using the REDOX process to extract plutonium from spent fuel. The 

REDOX process was also capable of extracting uranium from the spent fuel for reuse. The uranyl 

nitrate (UNH) output of the REDOX plant was converted to UO3 at the UO3 plant (224-U building) at 

Hanford. Along with the UO3 plant, the U-plant began operating in 1952. This plant was used to 

extract the uranium from the previously collected waste. The plant produced UNH which was then 

sent to the UO3 plant to produce UO3 (DOE 2000). 

The UO3 plant began operating in January 1952 with cold (non-recycled) uranium to test the plant. 

The first shipment of recycled uranium was on March 10, 1952 to the K-25 plant. At K-25, the UO3

was to be converted to UF6 for feed to the cascades; however, impurities in the UO3 from the UO3

plant caused difficulties in the conversion process. As a result, UO3 from Hanford was diverted to 

Harshaw where it was to be purified before going to K-25. Later improvements in the REDOX and 

UO3 conversion process eliminated the need for this step (DOE 2000). 

Through June 30, 1953, all shipments of recycled uranium from Hanford went to either K-25 or 

Harshaw (DOE 2003). While in the past, Harshaw had produced various chemical compounds of 

uranium, by July 1952 only UO3 was being produced and it was all being supplied to K-25 (ORAUT 

2009). K-25 did not admit any recycled uranium to the cascades until fiscal year 1953 (July 1, 1952 to 

June 30, 1953) (DOE 2003). Much of the recycled uranium at K-25 was sent to Paducah (DOE 

2003). Paducah was just finishing initial construction in 1952. The first withdrawal of product from the 

cascades at Paducah occurred in November of 1952 but recycled uranium was first fed to the 

cascades in July 1953 (ORAUT 2007). 

Until the mid 1950s, reactors at Hanford and Savannah River were fueled with uranium that originated 

from natural ores. All the recycled uranium up to that point was sent to enrichment plants either 

directly or indirectly. Enriched uranium from the enrichment plants was used in nuclear weapons and 

for other purposes but not to fuel plutonium production reactors. The plutonium reactors’ fuel chain at 

that time was then, ore to metal to reactor to plutonium/uranium separation to enrichment plant to 

weapons. The irradiated uranium was not reused to make reactor fuel and so the reactor fuel system 

was a chain rather than a cycle. In the mid 1950s, plutonium reactors began using enriched uranium 

fuel. Later, they used enriched uranium fuel with depleted uranium target material. Once enriched or 

depleted uranium use began at the plutonium reactors, recycled uranium would have been used in the 

fuel manufacturing plants and the fuel system because a cycle rather than a chain.

Therefore, recycled uranium was not introduced to the production reactor fuel plants until the mid 

1950s. The uranium rolled at Bethlehem Steel was part of the reactor fuel chain, initially testing only 

and later producing some of the uranium rods for the Savannah River reactors. Since the last 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 14 of 34

documented rolling of uranium at Bethlehem Steel was October 25, 1952, recycled uranium is not 

considered to have been present at Bethlehem Steel.

3.3 Parameters affecting intake estimates and uncertainty at Bethlehem Steel

As previously discussed, NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has 

concurred, that it is not feasible to reconstruct internal radiation from exposures to uranium 

radionuclides for all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation from January 1, 1949 – December 31, 1950. For the period 1951-1952, NIOSH has 

determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not feasible to 

reconstruct internal radiation doses from internal exposures to uranium radionuclides for Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation cobble cutting activities. Although NIOSH has found that it is not possible to 

completely reconstruct radiation doses for the proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal 

monitoring data that may become available for an individual claim and that can be interpreted using 

existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures. Therefore, dose reconstructions for 

individuals employed at Bethlehem Steel Corporation during the period January 1, 1949 through 

December 31, 1952, but who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC may be performed using these 

data as appropriate.

A number of parameters must be specified in order to determine radiation dose from inhalation and 

ingestion of uranium (e.g., breathing rate) and associated uncertainty with these estimates. The 

recommended default values from the ICRP in Publication 66, Human Respiratory Tract Model for 

Radiological Protection, shall be used unless otherwise specified. The following discussion 

addresses the parameters to be used for the reconstruction of internal dose at the Lackawanna, NY 

facility. 

3.3.1 Breathing Rate

ICRP 66 provides for two distinct types of workers, light workers and heavy workers. Both represent a 

composite of various levels of exercise. These composites represent an average breathing rate of 1.2 

m3

/hr for light workers and 1.7 m3/hr for heavy workers. This document will assume a classification of 

all workers at BSC as heavy workers with a breathing rate of 1.7 m3

/hr as a claimant favorable 

assumption using standard nasal augmenter breathing pattern. 

3.3.2 Exposure Duration

In order to determine the total amount of uranium inhaled it is necessary to multiply the airborne 

concentration by the breathing rate and the time the individual is exposed to that concentration. This 

gets even more complicated when it is realized that not only does the air concentration vary by 

location, but also by time. Also, many individuals will move about from location to location throughout 

the day including break rooms, bathrooms, lunch rooms, etc. HASL recognized this need and 

developed the methods to determine a time weighted exposure. Such a study was conducted at 

Simonds Saw and Steel. The individual tasks were timed at various locations, and these exposure 

times were combined with the air concentrations in the locations to obtain a time-weighted average air 

concentration. However, no such estimate was conducted at Bethlehem Steel.

Without a time motion study of various tasks, it is necessary to develop a claimant favorable approach 

to determine the appropriate exposure location and duration. For lack of better information, each 

individual will be assumed to be exposed for the purposes of internal dose estimation, 100% of the 

time for each 10 hour day of uranium rolling. This value will be treated as a constant for purposes of 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 15 of 34

uncertainty analysis to be discussed later. Further discussion of exposure time with respect to 

internal dose from residual contamination will be discussed later in this document.

Reports from 1951 and 1952 indicate that, with the exception of the April 1951 (Summary 1951), 

January 1952 (HW-23399), February 1952 (HW-24849), August 1952 (Bowman et al. 1952), 

September 1952 (Schneider and Yocce undated) and October 1952 rollings, activity occurred on only 

one weekend day per month. For 1951, an additional 10 hours was added to account for the 

additional weekday in April, resulting in thirteen 10-hour workdays. For 1952, in addition to the ten

documented rollings days, it was assumed that one rolling each took place in May, and June, July, 

November and December resulting in fifteen 10-hour workdays. Assumptions of 10 hour work rolling 

days are very claimant favorable estimates based on review of documented rollings which occurred at 

Lackawanna. For estimates of non-rolling day exposure to residual contamination, 50 weeks of five 

10 hour work days minus the number of rolling days were used. Residual contamination is discussed 

in greater detail later in this document. All partial months shall be treated as full months of exposure.

3.3.3 Exposure Location

As mentioned previously in this document, the exposure location can be difficult to determine. This 

estimate accounts for location uncertainty by assuming everyone was exposed in an occupation 

equivalent to the 95th percentile of the area air concentration distribution or other bounding estimates 

of intake which is explained later in this document. 

3.3.4 Absorption Type

The dose derived from inhaling radioactive material depends on the solubility of the material inhaled. 

The solubility is a parameter describing the rate at which the material is absorbed from the lungs into 

the bloodstream. The most likely form of airborne uranium at Bethlehem Steel is various uranium 

oxides. These oxides tend to be absorbed at rates that are between type M and type S parameters 

described in ICRP 66. The absorption type will affect the dose of organs; however, no one type is 

favorable to all organs. Type S (very insoluble) will cause higher doses to the respiratory tract than 

type M but lower doses to systemic organs. Therefore, since the true absorption likely falls between 

type M and type S, the most favorable solubility type for the case at hand will be used.

3.4 Inhalation Exposure Dosimetry at Lackawanna

3.4.1 Method of analysis

The air sample data from Bethlehem Steel originally consisted of a total of 191 legible air sample 

results and 13 illegible results drawn and analyzed by the HASL. These samples were collected on 

various days of rolling in 1951 and 1952. Original records were reviewed by NIOSH and its Advisory 

Board to determine some of the values because of the poor quality of some of the copies of onion skin 

type records. The final data set used for the analyses below consisted of 204 total samples with only 

1 sample being considered illegible and thus not used. Additionally, 5 samples were quality control

samples and were excluded from the analysis of air concentration.

The samples were divided into time periods based on the technology being employed (lead bath or 

salt bath heating). The following general methods were applied for the analysis of all time periods

with specific information being further discussed in individual sections. All valid results, including 

process samples, were sorted, log transformed, and plotted on a probability plot. The plot contained 

the z-score (number of standard deviations from the mean) on the X axis and the log transformed 

data on the Y axis. This allows for a linear regression to be performed on the data to determine the 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 16 of 34

best fitting straight line. This technique provides a goodness of fit value (utilizing the R squared 

parameter) as well as an equation for the straight line. The slope of the line then is equal to the log of 

the Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) and the Y intercept is equal to the log of the Geometric 

Mean (GM).

Data from the 1951-1952 time period was divided into two periods to reflect changes that occurred in 

the processing technologies (e.g., the change from lead bath and salt bath heating to only using salt 

bath heating). These analyses are explained in detail below. Figure 3 provides a graphical 

presentation of all the measured air monitoring data at Bethlehem Steel which further validates the 

need to split the period. 

The significant reduction in exposure levels during the later period (October 1951 thru December 

1952) created a situation where source terms other than the rolling operation may have been the 

limiting air concentration. It was determined that the grinding operations provided the highest 

exposure estimates as explained in the following section. In summary, there are two periods used for 

evaluation of internal dose: (1) January 1951-September, 1951; and (2) October 1951-December 

1952. 

Figure 3: Plot of all air monitoring results for natural uranium from Bethlehem Steel.

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

1951 - 1952

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

225 MAC (15750 dpm/m3

)

dpm/m3 uranium

70 MAC (4900 dpm/m3)
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 17 of 34

3.4.2 Evaluation of inhalation exposure for the 1949-1950 time period

NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not 

feasible to reconstruct internal radiation from exposures to uranium radionclides for all Atomic 

Weapons Employer employees who worked at Bethlehem Steel Corporation from January 1, 1949 – 

December 31, 1950. 

 

3.4.3 Determination of inhalation exposure for the early 1951 time period

As previously discussed, the air sample data from Bethlehem Steel consists of a total of 204 air 

sample results, drawn and analyzed by the Health and Safety Laboratory and National Lead. 

Personnel from National Lead, who conducted the last analysis, were originally from HASL and used 

the same approaches and time weighted averages. These samples were collected on various days of 

rolling in 1951 and 1952. Sample types included general area, breathing zone, and process samples. 

Of the 204 samples, one sample was illegible (after reviewing the original records) and 5 were quality 

control samples which were not used for these analyses.

Evaluation of the data shows that changes in the process methods clearly impacted the air 

concentration data which was reflected in the monthly HASL reports and also reports by Hanford 

personnel participating in the development. An early period from January 1951 to September 1951 

was identified in which lead and salt bath technologies were both being evaluated at Bethlehem Steel. 

It was further recognized that the number of breathing zone samples was a much lower fraction of the 

total as compared to the Simonds Saw and Steel measurements. For this reason, a breathing zone 

sample surrogate (BZ-GA) was developed by evaluating the breathing zone to general air sample 

concentrations at Simonds Saw and Steel and applying this factor to the general air samples during 

this early 1951 period. Data analysis for this time period was then conducted using the same 

methods as previously discussed. Figure 4 shows a graphical analysis of data from this time period 

prior to augmentation. Figure 5 shows the analysis of the augmented data set (includes BZ-GA 

samples). The 225 MAC (15750 dpm m-3) air concentration represents the 95% level which shall be 

used for analysis of uranium air concentration during rollings days for this early 1951 period.

Previous sections in this TBD discuss the role that the BSC Lackawanna rolling mill played in the 

development of continuous rolling experiments for Hanford and also for the comparison of lead and 

salt bath heating. Only the first four experimental runs conducted in 1951 were known to have used 

the lead bath heating. Air sampling was conducted on three of those experiments. While it is known 

that the salt produced a more effective coating for reducing oxidation hence uranium dust, the data 

has been evaluated together for determination of the 95% air concentration data.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 18 of 34

Figure 4: Graph of the distribution and fit of uranium dust concentration data, prior to augmentation 

with BZ-GA samples, taken at Bethlehem Steel from January 1951 - September 1951 for only those 

samples obtained for the time (MAC=70 dpm m-3).

z score

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

uranium dust concentration, dpm m-3

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

95th percentile prior to augmentation (87 MAC)
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 19 of 34

Figure 5: Graph of the distribution and fit of uranium dust concentration data taken at Bethlehem Steel 

from January 1951 - September 1951 augmented to include BZ-GA samples (MAC=70 dpm m-3). 225 

MAC (1575 dpm m-3) is the air concentration level to be used for the assessment of rolling day intakes 

for this period.

z score

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

uranium dust concentration, dpm m-3

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

 95th percentile (225 MAC)

3.4.4 Determination of Inhalation Exposure for the late 1951 - 1952 time period

The majority of uranium airborne contamination in the early period at Bethlehem Steel was caused by 

the actual rolling of uranium metal. However, after the salt bath furnace was utilized, airborne 

contamination from the rolling operations was greatly decreased. The median value of all the air 

samples collected in this period is slightly less than 0.2 MAC which raises the concern regarding 

previously minor sources of airborne contamination. These other sources would have to be distant 

from the rolling operations; otherwise airborne contamination would be measured, at least partially, on 

the air samples taken near the rolling operations.

Grinding of the uranium billets to remove surface imperfections was a documented operation at 

Bethlehem Steel for some of the rollings. A single process air sample was obtained for this operation. 

The air sample (70 MAC) was actually the highest recorded at Bethlehem Steel during the later time 

frame. This value was used to estimate the air concentrations for the later period at Bethlehem Steel. 

As with previous periods, it is assumed that the operators inhaled this concentration continuously for a 

10 hour work day on which uranium rolling occurred. Based on measurements conducted at the 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 20 of 34

Joslyn Steel plant taken while grinding on uranium metal (both breathing zone and general air 

samples), air concentration ranged from 0.4 MAC to 17 MAC. Harris indicated that portable grinding 

operations result in an average daily concentration of 5.7 MAC. This indicates the 70 MAC 

concentration determined from a process sample provides an upper bound to the operation. 

While there may have been other sources of airborne contamination, however, it is likely that this 

estimate is a bounding estimate except for an exposure category of workers (cobble cutters) 

discussed below. For other sources to be bounding, they would have to produce greater than 700 

MAC-hours of exposure per day (70 MAC times 10 hours per day). This would require any other 

operation to not only create higher air concentrations, but to do so routinely. The most likely routine 

source of elevated airborne activity that has been postulated at Bethlehem Steel is the cutting of 

cobbles (Transcript November 28, 2005). 

3.4.5 Determination of intakes to cobble cutters (1949 - 1952)

NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not 

feasible to reconstruct internal radiation from exposures to uranium radionuclides for all Atomic 

Weapons Employer employees who worked at Bethlehem Steel Corporation from January 1, 1949 – 

December 31, 1950. For the period 1951-1952, NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health 

and Human Services has concurred, that it is not feasible to reconstruct internal radiation doses from 

internal exposures to uranium radionuclides for Bethlehem Steel Corporation cobble cutting activities. 

3.5 Evaluation of ingestion dose

Ingestion intakes can be most closely related to surface contamination values. Very few 

measurements exist for surface contamination. However, airborne contamination levels and surface 

contamination levels are generally related. To evaluate the relationship between air contamination 

and surface contamination, NIOSH reviewed the available air and surface contamination 

measurements at Simonds Saw and Steel and Bethlehem Steel. At Simonds Saw Steel these 

measurements were taken during a uranium rolling campaign on 10/27/48, while at Bethlehem Steel 

data were available for a rolling on 9/14/1952. The Bethlehem Steel surface contamination data were 

obtained by smears wiped over a 100 cm2 area. As such, they represent only the removable portion 

of the contamination. The Simonds Saw surface contamination data were direct measurements that 

were made with a portable instrument called a Zeuto. This type of instrument has an active surface 

area that is 3 inches by 4 inches or approximately 75 cm2

. 

Each rolling stand at both Bethlehem Steel and Simonds Saw was evaluated along with the shear at 

Bethlehem Steel. Stand #6 at Bethlehem Steel was not evaluated because the surface smear 

indicated no detectable activity. Where more than one sample was taken, the results were averaged. 

Table 2 shows the average air and surface contamination measurements for these locations. The 

surface contamination measurements at Simonds Saw were normalized to 100 cm2

. 

The values for each point are plotted in Figure 6. A clear trend can be seen in the graph, which 

indicates that the surface contamination is proportional to the air contamination. It is also worthy of 

note that this relationship is internally consistent at the two facilities. That is, high airborne activity is 

predictive of high surface contamination levels and vice versa. This means that if any large particle 

surface contamination that does not add to the air concentrations exists, the fraction of surface 

contamination represented by this is consistent across locations and sites and concentrations. Using 

this relationship, a model was developed that relates the ingestion rate to air concentrations.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 21 of 34

Table 2: Air and Surface Contamination Values

Air sample # Air concentration 

(dpm/m3

) 

Surf. Contamination 

location

Surf. Contamination 

value (dpm/100 cm2) 

Simonds Saw Data

L709 49000

L710 75000 east roller 1 50000

L711 22400 west roller 1 35000

Average 48800 Average 42500

L718 14800

L719 23800

L720 27900

L721 943

L722 836

L723 418 west roller 2 15000

average 11449.5 Average 15000

Bethlehem Steel Data

Q921 2076

Q922 2973 Shear 679

Q923 1080 Shear 404

Average 2043 Average 541.5

Q903 3 

Q905 10 Stand 1 2

Average 6.5 Average 2

Q906 10 

Q908 12 Stand 2 9 

Average 11 Average 9 

Q909 18

Q911 14 Stand 3 6

Average 16 Average 6 

Q912 13

Q913 10

Q920 6 Stand 4 5 

Average 9.7 Average 5

Q914 12

Q915 3 

Q919 12 Stand 5 9 

Average 9 Average 9 
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 22 of 34

Figure 6: Graph of observed air concentration and surface contamination levels at Simonds Saw and 

Bethlehem Steel.

Air Concentration (dpm per m3)

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Surface Contamination (dpm per 100 cm2

)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

The computer program RESRAD-BUILD contains a model for estimating ingestion intakes from 

surface contamination levels. The model contains a parameter for the ingestion rate that is expressed 

in units of m2

/hr, which expresses the amount of contamination ingested as a portion of the 

contamination contained in an effective area. This is intended to be a multiplier for removable surface 

contamination which can be used to arrive at an hourly ingestion rate. The default distribution used 

by RESRAD is a loguniform distribution between 2.8x10-5 and 2.9x10-4 m2

/hr with a mean of 1.1x10-4

m2

/hr. This distribution is provided in NUREG/CR-5512 volume 1, while the development of this 

parameter is discussed in volume 3 of the same NUREG.

Table 3 lists the average air concentrations and the average surface contamination levels (expressed 

in dpm/m2

) measured at Simonds Saw and Bethlehem Steel. It also lists the estimated hourly 

inhalation and ingestion rates inferred from these data. The hourly inhalation rate is based on the 

assumed 1.7 m3

/hr breathing rate. The hourly ingestion rate is based on the upper bound of the 

distribution provided in NUREG/CR-5512 of 2.9x10-4 m2

/hr. The table also included the calculated 

ingestion rate as a fraction of the inhalation rate. This is simply the calculated ingestion rate divided 

by the calculated inhalation rate.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 23 of 34

Table 3: Calculated Inhalation and Ingestion Rates

Air 

Concentration 

(dpm/ m3)

Surface 

Contamination 

(dpm/ m2)

Hourly 

inhalation rate 

(dpm/hr)

Hourly 

ingestion rate 

(dpm/hr)

Fractional 

ingestion rate

48800 5666667 82960 1643.33 0.019809

11449.5 2000000 19464.15 580 0.029798

2043 54150 3473.1 15.70 0.004521

6.5 200 11.05 0.06 0.005249

11 900 18.7 0.26 0.013957

16 600 27.2 0.17 0.006397

9 900 15.3 0.26 0.017059

9.7 500 16.43 0.15 0.008824

Average 0.013202

Ingestion intakes at Bethlehem Steel will use the highest of these fractional rates (0.0298). This rate 

will be multiplied by the applicable inhalation rate to obtain the ingestion rate. In this way, the 

ingestion rate will change as the estimated conditions at the facility change. 

3.6 Evaluation of inhalation and ingestion due to residual contamination

Residual contamination of the facility following rolling operations would have been present in the form 

of uranium oxide dust on the floor and other horizontal surfaces. No surface or airborne 

contamination surveys could be found from Bethlehem Steel during days in which only steel was 

processed. However, it was noted that uranium rolling occurred primarily on weekends because the 

10” continuous bar mill was being fully utilized for steel production during the week. 

The principal product of the continuous rolling mill at Bethlehem Steel, measured in thousands of tons 

per year, was steel. On days in which Bethlehem Steel was not rolling uranium, steel was being 

produced. The production of steel generates large quantities of dust and debris. As steel is rolled, a 

coating of this dust is likely to settle on top of any uranium contamination. This would act as a 

protective layer making it less likely that the uranium would be resuspended. However, it is possible 

that as uranium contamination is resuspended in the air, it settles back to horizontal surfaces and 

essentially forms a mixture of uranium and steel. This would allow uranium to continue to be 

resuspended but only as part of a mixture. The resuspension of material requires some mode of 

force, such as ventilation, foot or vehicular traffic, etc. It is likely the same type of forces exist whether 

the mill was rolling steel or uranium. It is therefore, likely that the same mass of material is 

resuspended at any one time. As the steel debris builds up, this resuspended material is composed 

of fractionally less uranium and more steel.

The dose from residual contamination was determined based on the above concepts which result in 

the resuspension of contamination. The uranium contamination was assumed to be diluted by 

additional rollings of steel in between uranium rollings. For the purposes of this model, it has been 

assumed that an equal mass of steel is added to the uranium each day. This is a conservative 

estimate because the steel production was measured in thousands of tons per year while uranium 

was rolled only on a limited basis (on the order of a few hundred tons). The material available for 

resuspension one day after a uranium rolling would therefore be one part uranium and one part steel. 

On the following day, the material would be one part uranium and two parts steel and so on.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 24 of 34

While rolling operations could result in high localized air concentrations, air concentrations from 

resuspension of residual contamination would be more consistent throughout the area. Therefore, the 

median general air concentrations are used as the starting point. This value is then assumed to 

decrease in the days following uranium rolling as described above. The average air concentration 

due to resuspension of residual contamination can be estimated by the following expression.

117.0*

29

)ln( *

29

/

* .

30

1

.

30

1

Avg Int. Int CInt

t C

tdt

= CC = =

∫ 

Where:

CAvg. = the average air concentration through the 29 days following a rolling

CInt. = the median general air concentration on the day of rolling

t = the number of days following the day of rolling

The median general area air sample concentrations for the two time periods are listed in table 4. 

Table 4: Median General Area Air Sample Concentrations

Median general area air samples (MAC)

Bethlehem Steel (early) 0.215

Bethlehem Steel (late) 0.081

The same method was used for ingestion, however, the initial concentration was replaced by the daily 

ingestion rate on rolling days.

3.7 Summary of internal dose guidance for Bethlehem Steel

The following tables summarize the data from the previous sections for the purpose of conducting 

internal dose estimates at Bethlehem Steel. The rolling data and residual contamination has been 

averaged over the applicable time frame to determine an intake rate per calendar day. These values 

should then be applied as a continuous chronic intake to determine dose. While the typical rolling 

schedule was one per month, several months do not follow this rule. However, for ease of calculation, 

residual periods were assumed to be 20 work days per rolling. Also, exposures shall be determined 

as full month time frames for any partial month worked to account for the slightly non-uniform rollings 

schedule (e.g., if a worker was employed for part of a month, use the entire month).
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 25 of 34

Table 5: Summary of exposure values during rolling days

Time 

Period

Air

concentration 

on rolling 

days

Time

(hours/day)

Breathing 

rate

(m3

/hr)

Inhalation 

during 

rolling 

days

(dpm/day)

Average 

inhalation 

rate on 

non-rolling

(dpm/day)

Ingestion 

during 

rolling 

days

(dpm)

Average 

ingestion 

rate on 

non-rolling 

work days 

(dpm/day)

1/1/1951 – 

9/30/1951 225 MAC 10 1.7 267,750 30 7,979 1,173

10/1/1951 – 

12/31/1952 70 MAC 10 1.7 83,300 11.3 2,482 365

Table 6: Summary of inhalation exposure values for the periods 1951-1952 at Bethlehem Steel 

Time Period Number 

of rollings

Total inhalation 

from rolling 

day exposure 

(dpm)

Total Inhalation 

from residual 

contamination

(dpm)

Total 

Inhalation 

during period

(dpm)

Total 

Inhalation rate

(dpm/

calendar day)

1/1/1951 – 

9/30/1951 10 2,677,500 5,400 2,682,900 9,864

10/1/1951 – 

12/31/1952 18 1,499,400 3,378 1,502,778 3,288

 

Table 7: Summary of ingestion exposure values for the periods 1951-1952 at Bethlehem Steel 

for all workers

Time Period Number 

of rollings

Total ingestion 

during rollings 

(dpm)

Total ingestion 

during from 

residual 

contamination 

(dpm)

Total ingestion 

rate

(dpm/

calendar day)

1/1/1951 – 9/30/1951 10 79,790 234,581 1,156

10/1/1951 – 12/31/1952 18 44,682 131,365 385
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 26 of 34

4.0 ESTIMATION OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

NIOSH has determined, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services has concurred, that it is not 

feasible to reconstruct external radiation doses from exposures to uranium radionuclides for all Atomic 

Weapons Employer employees who worked at Bethlehem Steel Corporation prior to 1951. Although 

NIOSH has found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the proposed 

class, NIOSH intends to use any external monitoring data that may become available for an individual 

claim and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures. 

Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed at Bethlehem Steel Corporation during the 

period January 1, 1949 through December 31, 1952, but who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC 

may be performed using these data as appropriate.

No external dosimetry data is available for Bethlehem Steel. However, dose rates from submersion in 

a cloud of dust, direct exposure to uranium metal, and exposure to workers from skin contamination 

and reuse of their clothing are estimated below using the rolling information, residual contamination, 

and exposure rate constants for uranium materials.

4.1 Evaluation of external dose from uranium dust

Air concentrations derived in this document were combined with rolling times, number of rollings and 

the Dose Conversion Factors for 238U and the daughter radionuclides 234Th and 234mPa from Federal 

Guidance Report No. 12 (EPA 1993) to determine the external dose due to submersion in a natural 

uranium dust cloud. Only the skin is reported in Table 8 because all other doses were less than 1 

mrem. The maximum annual dose to the skin listed in Table 8 is applied to electron (E > 15 keV) 

annual dose in IREP using a constant distribution and assuming a chronic exposure.

Table 8: Annual external dose due to submersion in air contaminated 

with natural uranium dust. 

Time Frame

Annual Skin Dose* 

(Rem)

1951 0.001

1952 0.000

* Dose values are rounded to nearest mrem

4.2 Evaluation of external dose from direct contact with uranium billets

External doses from exposure to a uranium source were evaluated using an extended (semi-infinite 

plane) natural uranium source. Estimated surface dose rates of 230 mrad/hr at a depth of 7 mg/cm2

and 2 mrad/hr at a depth of 1000 mg/cm2 were obtained from a search of the literature (Coleman, 

Hudson, and Plato 1983; U.S. Army 1989). Conservative values for the time workers were located 

relative to the source were based on descriptions of processes and different job types (AEC 1948b). 

A triangular distribution for electron exposure from uranium was determined in the following manner:

• The minimum was estimated by assuming the worker was 1 meter from an extended uranium 

source for 1 hour (per 10-hour shift). The estimated dose rate for this scenario was 90 

mrad/hr (US Army 1989).
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 27 of 34

• Survey data of the Simonds facility were used to estimate the mode. The highest value 

measured during those surveys was 15 mrad/hr (AEC 1949b). To be claimant-favorable, this 

dose rate was assumed for an entire 10-hour shift.

• A maximum value was estimated by assuming the worker was 0.3 meter (1 foot) from an 

extended uranium source for 6 hours (150 mrad/hr) and 1 meter away for 4 hours 

(90 mrad/hr).

Table 9 summarizes annual values for estimated external shallow dose due to electron exposure from 

uranium. The target organs for this type of exposure are the skin, male genitals, and breast. In the 

case of cancer of the male genitals or female breast cancer, additional evaluation might be needed to 

consider shielding and attenuation provided by clothing.

Table 9: Estimated external shallow dose due to electron exposure from 

natural uranium source. 

Time Frame

Annual Organ Dose

(Rem)

Min. Mode Max.

1951 1.17 1.95 16.38

1952 1.35 2.25 18.90

The values in Table 9 are entered in IREP as the annual dose due to electrons (E > 15 keV) using a 

triangular distribution and assuming a chronic exposure for cases where the target organ is the skin, 

male genitals, or breast.

The deep dose rate due to photon exposure (dose rate at 1,000 mg/cm2

) from natural uranium was 

estimated to be 2 mrad/hr (U.S. Army 1989). The estimated 2-mrad/hr deep dose rate from the 

uranium source is evenly divided between photons with energies E = 30-250 keV and E > 250 keV. 

Dose conversion factors DCFmin, DCFmax, and DCFAP, for 30-250 keV photons (NIOSH 2002) were 

used to calculate the doses listed in Table 10. Dose conversion factors DCFmin, DCFmax, and DCFAP, 

for E > 250 keV photons were used to calculate the doses in Table 11. The values in Table 12 and 

Table 11 are entered into IREP as organ doses due to the appropriate energy photons, using a 

triangular distribution and assuming a chronic exposure.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 28 of 34

Table 10: Annual organ doses due to photons (30-250 keV) from natural uranium source for best 

estimate. 

Organ

Annual organ dose (rem)

1951 1952

Min Mode Max Min Mode Max

Bladder 0.005 0.122 0.131 0.005 0.122 0.131

Red bone marrow 0.008 0.062 0.109 0.008 0.062 0.109

Bone surface 0.050 0.119 0.197 0.050 0.119 0.197

Breast 0.006 0.165 0.193 0.006 0.165 0.193

Colon 0.007 0.104 0.112 0.007 0.104 0.112

Esophagus 0.004 0.068 0.095 0.004 0.068 0.095

Eye 0.000 0.123 0.141 0.000 0.123 0.141

Ovaries 0.004 0.094 0.103 0.004 0.094 0.103

Testes 0.005 0.142 0.148 0.005 0.142 0.148

Liver 0.013 0.105 0.111 0.013 0.105 0.111

Lung 0.017 0.097 0.112 0.017 0.097 0.112

Remainder organs 0.012 0.087 0.094 0.012 0.087 0.094

Skin 0.058 0.088 0.097 0.058 0.088 0.097

Stomach 0.006 0.124 0.132 0.006 0.124 0.132

Thymus 0.001 0.138 0.147 0.001 0.138 0.147

Thyroid 0.001 0.142 0.148 0.001 0.142 0.148

Uterus 0.006 0.099 0.108 0.006 0.099 0.108

Table 11: Annual organ doses due to photons (>250 keV) from natural uranium source for best estimate. 

Organ

Annual organ dose (rem)

1951 1952

Min Mode Max Min Mode Max

Bladder 0.059 0.118 0.123 0.059 0.118 0.123

Red bone marrow 0.065 0.097 0.119 0.065 0.097 0.119

Bone surface 0.073 0.103 0.116 0.073 0.103 0.116

Breast 0.072 0.121 0.147 0.072 0.121 0.147

Colon 0.058 0.113 0.116 0.058 0.113 0.116

Esophagus 0.059 0.100 0.114 0.059 0.100 0.114

Eye 0.027 0.118 0.127 0.027 0.118 0.127

Ovaries 0.056 0.110 0.125 0.056 0.110 0.125

Testes 0.063 0.127 0.137 0.063 0.127 0.137

Liver 0.063 0.115 0.117 0.063 0.115 0.117

Lung 0.069 0.113 0.119 0.069 0.113 0.119

Remainder organs 0.063 0.106 0.112 0.063 0.106 0.112

Skin 0.081 0.112 0.117 0.081 0.112 0.117

Stomach 0.063 0.119 0.125 0.063 0.119 0.125

Thymus 0.047 0.120 0.137 0.047 0.120 0.137

Thyroid 0.053 0.131 0.142 0.053 0.131 0.142

Uterus 0.055 0.105 0.106 0.055 0.105 0.106

4.3 Evaluation of external dose from residual contamination

The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the evaluation of external dose from residual 

contamination and also dose associated with the reuse of personal clothing between rollings.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 29 of 34

An estimate of surface contamination was calculated by using the terminal settling velocity of 0.00075 

m s-1 (TIB-0004, rev 2) multiplied by the rolling day concentrations and by the amount of time uranium 

was rolled in one year. The Simonds Saw and Steel concentration data was used for all years to 

simplify the calculations as it overestimates the later rolling data. This results in contamination of 

12,500,000 dpm m-2 (1,250,000 dpm 100 cm-2) which exceeds all the measured surface 

contamination levels. This value was then assumed to be constant through all years of rolling. The 

residual contamination value was converted to dose using the dose coefficients for contaminated 

ground surfaces for U-238 and progeny Pa-234m and Th-234 from Federal Guidance Report No. 12 

(US EPA 1993). The doses from contaminated sources are in the following table. Doses were only 

listed for Skin, Bone Surfaces, and all other organs. The all other organ category is the highest other 

organ rounded up to the nearest mrem. The doses in Table 12 shall be entered into IREP assuming a 

photon energy range of 50% 30-250 keV and 50% >250 keV.

Table 12: Annual dose from contaminated surfaces at Bethlehem Steel, 1951 to 1952.

Time Frame Skin

(rem)

Bone Surfaces 

(rem)

All other organs

(rem)

All years 1.771 0.010 0.005

The use of contaminated clothing following the rolling of uranium as discussed in worker interviews 

has been given careful consideration. Average dose data from contaminated clothing at Mallinckrodt 

indicate levels of 1.5 mrem/hour (AEC 1958). Bethlehem Steel doses were estimated using this as a 

bounding condition based on the types of materials handled and quantity of materials handled at 

Mallinckrodt. The dose rate was determined assuming the clothing was worn for two work weeks 

prior to cleaning. Therefore, the annual dose to the skin is determined by assuming 1.5 mrem/hour 

times 50 hours per week times 2 weeks per month times 12 months per year. This results in an 

annual dose to the skin of 1.8 rem per year which will be assigned a constant dose rate from electrons 

with an energy > 15 keV. 

5.0 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE

This TBD assumes that all workers received an annual occupationally related diagnostic chest X-ray 

(Simonds 1948). The exposure geometry was assumed to be posterior-anterior (PA) (NIOSH 2002). 

Annual X-ray data from OTIB-0006, “Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic Xray Procedures” and associated instructions shall be used for the purposes of evaluating occupational 

medical dose at Bethlehem Steel. 

6.0 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE

Occupational environmental dose provides a mechanism to account for dose that has not been 

monitored or attributed to occupational exposure. The exposures of all employees of the Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation at the Lackawanna plant will be estimated based on the 95% air concentration at 

the rolling mill for a 10 hour day. This estimate precludes the use of environmental dose which would 

be much lower than the exposures estimated. As such, no environmental dose shall be assigned to 

the workers at this facility.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 30 of 34

7.0 REFERENCES

AEC 1948a: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Simonds Saw and Steel Company, 

Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust: Visit of October 27, 1948, New York Operations 

Office [p. 138, Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf].

AEC 1948b: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Simonds Saw and Steel Company, 

Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust: Visit of October 27, 1948, New York Operations 

Office [pp. 139-153, Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf].

AEC 1948c: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Simonds Saw and Steel Co. Occupational 

Exposure to Radioactive Dust, Visit of December 1, 1948. 

AEC 1949a: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing 

and Processing Uranium: A Status Report- April 1, 1949, New York Operations Office, Medical 

Division, April 18.

AEC 1949b: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Summary 

Report of Three Surveys, (October 27, 1948-February 15, 1949), New York Operations Office, 

Medical Division [p9. 250-252, Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf].

AEC 1949c: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Determination of Uranium in Air Dust Samples 

by Alpha Counting. NYOO-94, December 7, 1949.

AEC 1949d: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Simonds Saw & Steel Co. Occupational 

Exposure to Radioactive Dust. Visits of May 2-20, 1949.

AEC 1949e: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Results of Dust Samples Collected at Rolling 

Mill Area, Simonds Saw & Steel Co., July 6, 1949.

AEC 1950a: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Simonds Saw and Steel Co. Occupational 

Exposure to Radioactive Dust January 6, 9, 10, 1950. February 1, 1950.

AEC 1950b: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). Simonds Saw and Steel Co. –Visits of 

February 13, 14, 17 and 20, 1950. April 16, 1950.

AEC 1951a: AEC (US Atomic Energy Commission). Monthly Report of Field Activities, May –June 

1951.

AEC 1951b: AEC (US Atomic Energy Commission). Continuous mill uranium rolling: Lackawanna 

Plant-Bethlehem Steel Company April 26, 27, 1951 by H.F. Reichard. May 18, 1951.

AEC 1952a: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951-1952, “Air dust data from Bethlehem 

Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna Plant,” New York Operations Office, Medical Division, [pp. 4-

11, Bethlehem Steel Site Profile.pdf].

AEC 1953a: AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Simonds Saw and Steel Company, 

Occupational Exposure to Uranium, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, 

February 18 [p. 54, Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf].
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 31 of 34

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

at a Rolling Mill. March 16, 1953.

AEC 1958: Symposium on Occupational Health Experience and Practices in the Uranium Industry. 

October 15-17, 1958.

Bechtel Jacobs, 2000, Recycled Uranium Mass Balance Project Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 

BJC/OR-584, June [SRDB Ref ID: 16497]

Bolch, W.E., Farfan, E.B., Huh, C., Huston, T.E, 2001, Influences of parameter uncertainties within 

the ICRP 66 respiratory tract model: particle deposition, Health Physics, 81(4): 378-94.

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

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

National Lead Company of Ohio, September 4 [p. 23, NY-Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

Breslin 1967: Breslin, A.J., Ong, L., Glauberman, H., George, A.C., LeClare, P. The Accuracy of 

Dust Exposure Estimates Obtained from Conventional Air Sampling. American Industrial 

Hygiene Association Journal. 1967.

Coleman, R. L., Hudson, C. G., and Plato, P. A., 1983, “Depth-dose curves for 90Sr and natural and 

depleted uranium in mylar,” Health Physics, 44(4): 395-402.

DOE 1982. DOE (US Department of Energy) Environmental Measurements Laboratory Procedures 

Manual. 1982.

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

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

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2000, Review of Generation and Flow of Recycled Uranium at 

Hanford, DOE/RL-2000-43, June 30 [SRDB Ref ID: 4971]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001a, DOE Standard: Health Physics Manual of Good Practices 

for Uranium Facilities, DOE-STD-1136-2000, Change Notice No. 3, December 

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/std1136/STD11362000.pdf. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2001b, Preliminary Review of the Flow and Characteristics of 

Recycled Uranium Throughout the DOE Complex 1952-1999, Vol. 1, Project Overview, March 

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/legacy/reports/reports.html. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2003, Recycled Uranium United States Production, Enrichment, 

and Utilization, May [SRDB Ref ID: 23595]

DOE 1997 http://www.hanford.gov/doe/history/docs/rl-97-1047/index.pdf

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1993, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, 

Water, and Soil; Federal Guidance Report No. 12, Washington, D.C., September.

FMPC-26: Production Report on The Rolling of Four Hundred and Sixty-One Uranium Billets at 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna Plant on May 10 and 11, 1952.
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 32 of 34

FMPC-84: Report on Rolling at Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna Plant, Buffalo, New York, 

October 20 and 25, 1952.

Frey, H. C., and A. C. Cullen, 1995, “Distribution Development for Probabilistic Exposure 

Assessment,” Paper No. 95-94.02, Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste 

Management Association, San Antonio, Texas, June 18-23.

HW-19066: Hanford Works. Rough draft-Health Problems Associated with Investigation of Off-Plant 

Uranium Rolling. F.E. Adley May 13, 1949.

HW-22975: Hanford Works . Experimental rolling of uranium: Lackawanna #3. HW-22975. Dec 13, 

1951.

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

Plant, Bethlehem Steel Company, Argonne National Laboratory August 24-29, 1951. HW22347.

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

HW-23399. January 29, 1952.

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

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

HW-24849: Production Test 313-10506-M Irradiation of Alpha Canned Uranium Slugs from Rods Salt 

Bath Beta Heat-Treated at Lackawanna. HW-24849. June 27, 1952.

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

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

R.J. Smith, October 21.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994, Human Respiratory Tract Model 

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, p. 198.

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, p. 299.

ICRP 1997. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) ICRP 75, General Principles 

for the Radiation Protection of Workers. 

ICRP 2003. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). ICRP Supporting Guidance 

3: Guide for the Practical Application of the ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model. Pergamon 

Press, Oxford, England.

Kathren, R. L., V. E. Shockley, E. M. Thomas, and T. D. Taulbee, 2003, Technical Information 

Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures, 

Revision 2, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project, Cincinnati, Ohio.

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

Corporation), October 19 [p. 36, Bethlehem Steel Site Profile.pdf].
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 33 of 34

Leary 1987. From Fire to Rust: Business, Technology and Work at the Lackawanna Steel Plant, 

1899-1983

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

report to D. L. Webster, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, June 29. [p. 16, Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

. Leary, T.E., Sholes, E.C. Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society. 1987.

Methner 2001. Methner, M.M., Feng, H.A., Utterback, D.F. Use of Historical Uranium Air Sampling 

Data to Estimate Worker Exposure Potential to Airborne Particulate in a Uranium Processing 

Facility. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. Vol 16 (12) 2001.

Newton 1987. Newton, G.J., Hoover, M.D., Barr, E.B., Wong, B.A., Ritter, P.D. Collection and 

Characterization of Aerosols from Metal Cutting Techniques Typically Used in 

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48 (11) 922-932 (1987).

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2002, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, Revision 1, OCAS-IG-001, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

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

Revision 0, Technical Information Bulletin, OCAS-TIB-0009, Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

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

Twenty-two Uranium Billets at Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna Plant on Saturday, 

April 12, 1952, Contract No. AT(30-1)-1156, April 28 [p. 1, NY-Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

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

Eighteen Uranium Billets at Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Lackawanna Plant on March 15, 

1952, Contract No. AT(30-1)-1156, March 21 [p. 37, Bethlehem Steel Site Profile.pdf].

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

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

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

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2007, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant – Site 

Description, ORAUT-TKBS-0019-2, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 8.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2009, An Exposure Matrix for the Harshaw 

Chemical Company, Cleveland, Ohio, ORAUT-TKBS-0022, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

June 2.

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

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

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

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

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

Lackawanna Plant, Buffalo, New York, Abstract, FMPC-79, [p. 35, Bethlehem Steel Site 

Profile.pdf].
Effective Date: 11/30/2010 Revision No. 01 Document No. DCAS-TKBS-0003 Page 34 of 34

Simonds (Simonds Saw & Steel Company), 1948, Hazard Identification, Evaluation, and Mitigation, 

[pp. 461-464, Simonds Saw and Steel Company.pdf].

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

Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

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

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

Bethlehem Steel.pdf].

U.S. Army, 1989, Handbook of Safety Procedures for Processing Depleted Uranium, Chapter 3, 

Safety Considerations for Processing, Handling, and Testing of DU Components, AMC HDBK 

385-1.1-89, Department

Additional communications and reviews that were used as data sources or guidance documents for 

preparation of this report include:

SC&A 2004. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for the Bethlehem Steel Plant, Lackawanna, NY. 

SCA-TR-TASK1-001. 

SC&A 2005. Letter report by SC&A regarding the Basis for Development of an Exposure Matrix for 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York; Period of Operation: 1949-1952, Rev. 

02 Draft.

NIOSH 2004a. NIOSH comments on the SC&A Review of the Bethlehem Steel Site Profile December 

6, 2004.

NIOSH 2005a. NIOSH comments on the SC&A Review of the Bethlehem Steel Site Profile Specific 

Responses to Findings, Observations and Procedural Non-Comformances. January 25, 2005 

Transcript November 28, 2005. NIOSH and SC&A conference call regarding Bethlehem Steel TBD 

comment resolution.

Summary Notes June 19, 2006. Bethlehem Steel worker meeting.

Personal communication. Mark Hoover (NIOSH) and Sam Glover (NIOSH). July 26, 2006.