ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller I MJW Technical Services

Page 1 of 59

DOE Review Release 10/27/2014

Site Profile for Simonds Saw and Steel

ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Rev. 02

Effective Date: 10/21/2014

Supersedes: Revision 01

Subject Expert(s): Mutty M. Sharfi, Joseph S. Guido, Thomas Tomes (NIOSH)

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 10/16/2014

Mutty M. Sharfi, Document Owner

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 10/20/2014

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence: Scott R. Siebert Signature on File for Concurrence Date: 10/16/2014

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for Concurrence Date: 10/16/2014

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 10/21/2014

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

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

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 2 of 59

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

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

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

First approved issue. Incorporated formal internal and NIOSH review 

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

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

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

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

Signature on File ____________06/21/2005

Cindy W. Bloom, TBD Team Leader

Signature on File 06/21/2005

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Signature on File 06/21/2005

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Signature on File 07/08/2005

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

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

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

revised to reflect the inability to reconstruct thorium exposure during 

the operational period and the associated tabulation of internal 

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

external exposure dose estimates along with the associated dose 

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

exposure from thorium during the operational period. Additional 

changes include the following: The calculation of intake quantities 

from plutonium (Table 20) was revised to maintain consistency 

between trace radionuclides and those in which they are mixed. 

Deleted options of associating class S plutonium with class M 

uranium and vice versa. The site description and the associated 

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

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

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

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

in Table 20 was updated. Revised the methodology for assessment 

of internal exposure which includes the reconstruction exposure from 

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

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

the assessment of internal intake using air monitoring data. 

Information was added to section 3.1.2 detailing air sampling results 

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

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

were revised to account for the reduced use of engineering controls 

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

initial operations period, 1948, were assigned from 1953 through 

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

required: As determined by the Objective Manager. Initiated by 

Joseph S. Guido.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 3 of 59

10/21/2014 02 Revision initiated to incorporate Advisory Board comments as 

directed by NIOSH. Intake rates in Table 3-13 (formerly Table 17) of 

Section 3.3 were recalculated, and intake rates for the 95th

percentile were added. Dose rates in Table 4-3 (formerly Table 20)

of Section 4.4 were recalculated for 1948, and dose rates for the 95th

percentile were added. Residual approach in Section 5.0 for internal 

and external was completely revised. Updated table and figure 

numbering to current format. Incorporates formal internal and 

NIOSH review comments. Constitutes a total rewrite of the 

document. Training required: As determined by the Objective 

Manager. Initiated by Mutty M. Sharfi.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 4 of 59

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 6

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 8

1.2 Scope........................................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Special Exposure Cohort.............................................................................................. 9

2.0 Site Description and Operational History.................................................................................. 9

2.1 Site Description .......................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Process Description.................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Source Term............................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Safety......................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Workplace Contamination Controls .............................................................. 16

2.4.2 Air Concentrations........................................................................................ 18

2.4.3 Contamination and Radiation Levels............................................................ 20

2.5 Incidents..................................................................................................................... 20

2.6 Physical Examinations: X-Rays ................................................................................. 20

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

Categories.................................................................................................................. 20

2.8 Cleanup and the Residual Contamination Period........................................................ 21

3.0 Estimation of Internal Exposure.............................................................................................. 22

3.1 Uranium...................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Uranium Bioassay........................................................................................ 23

3.1.2 Uranium Air Sampling .................................................................................. 25

3.1.3 Comparison of Uranium Bioassay and Air Concentration Estimates ............ 30

3.1.4 Depleted, Enriched, and Recycled Uranium................................................. 32

3.2 Thorium ...................................................................................................................... 33

3.3 Occupational Internal Dose Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary.................... 33

4.0 Estimation of External Exposure ............................................................................................ 34

4.1 Submersion and Contamination Exposures ................................................................ 35

4.2 Billet and Rod Exposures ........................................................................................... 36

4.3 Miscellaneous Information About External Dose......................................................... 37

4.4 Occupational External Dose Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary................... 37

5.0 Estimation of Residual Exposure............................................................................................ 39

5.1 Residual Internal Intake Rates.................................................................................... 39

5.2 Residual External Dose Rates.................................................................................... 42

5.2.1 Penetrating Dose ......................................................................................... 42

5.2.2 Nonpenetrating Dose ................................................................................... 43

6.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 44

References ........................................................................................................................................ 45

ATTACHMENT A, COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE........................................... 52

ATTACHMENT B, GRAPHS SHOWING PREDICTED BIOASSAY FROM AIR AND FITS OF 

COWORKER BIOASSAY.................................................................................... 58
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 5 of 59

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2-1 Simonds buildings where contamination has been found ....................................................... 11

2-2 Some job titles involved in uranium rolling.............................................................................. 16

2-3 Number of assumed uranium workdays per year ................................................................... 21

2-4 Number of assumed uranium workdays and uranium-rolling days.......................................... 21

3-1 Bioassay results from coworker data...................................................................................... 24

3-2 Inhalation intake rates based on coworker data ..................................................................... 25

3-3 Daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations ....................................................... 26

3-4 Uranium inhalation intake rates during rolling operations ....................................................... 27

3-5 Inhalation intake rates during non-AEC operations from resuspension of deposited 

uranium dust ..........................................................................................................................28

3-6 Estimated amount of uranium ingested .................................................................................. 28

3-7 Estimated uranium intake rates based on time-weighted air concentrations........................... 29

3-8 Air concentrations during rolling – enriched uranium, 10-in. mill............................................. 29

3-9 Air concentrations during rolling – molybdenum depleted uranium, 16-in. mill........................ 30

3-10 Airborne uranium dust from forging on April 18, 1950 ............................................................ 30

3-11 Airborne uranium dust from forging – July 12, 1954 ............................................................... 31

3-12 Estimate of contaminant activity fractions in a recycled depleted uranium source term .......... 33

3-13 Summary of internal intake rates for operational period February 24, 1948, to December 

31, 1957.................................................................................................................................34

4-1 Calculated photon dose rate for uranium billet and uranium rod............................................. 36

4-2 Direct radiation measurements from September 1948 ........................................................... 36

4-3 External annual exposure summary for February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957 ............... 37

5-1 Annual internal exposure rates during the residual period...................................................... 40

5-2 Thoron-232 and thoron air concentrations from remedial investigation................................... 41

5-3 Annual external exposure rates during the residual period..................................................... 44

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

2-1 Aerial view of Simonds Saw and Steel ................................................................................... 11

2-2 Simonds rolling mills and hammer forge areas, Buildings 6, 8, and 3..................................... 13

2-3 Simonds 16-in. rolling mill area, Building 6............................................................................. 14

2-4 Simonds 10-in. thorium rolling area, Building 8 ...................................................................... 15

3-1 Workgroups’ daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations and estimated 

weighted exposures ...............................................................................................................27
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 6 of 59

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer

cm centimeter

d day

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

dpm disintegrations per minute (also d/m)

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

ft foot

FMPC Feed Materials Production Center

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

GM geometric mean

GSD geometric standard deviation

hr hour

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

in. inch

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

keV kilovolt electron, 1,000 electron volts

L liter

lb pound

m meter

MAC maximum allowable concentration

MCNP Monte Carlo n-particle

mg milligram

mL milliliter

mo month

mR milliroentgen

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

mrep millirep

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NLO National Lead Company of Ohio

NYOO New York Operations Office

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

pCi picocurie

R roentgen
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 7 of 59

s second

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

t ton

U.S.C. United States Code

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

yr year

μg microgram

μm micrometer

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 8 of 59

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contract period and/or during the residual period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exposures to be occupationally derived (NIOSH 2010a):

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

conventional structures

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

reasons

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

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

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

period (NIOSH 2010a). It should be noted that under subparagraph A of 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(4), 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 PURPOSE

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

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

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

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

Specialty Steel. Part of the facility is now owned by Allegheny Ludlum Corporation.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 9 of 59

1.2 SCOPE

Section 2.0 describes the Simonds site and operations that pertain to possible radiation exposures 

and discusses radiation source terms. Section 3.0 provides guidance for the determination of internal 

exposure. Section 4.0 provides guidance for the determination of external doses from measured 

doses or for periods for which records of measured doses are missing. Section 5.0 discusses doses 

from residual exposure.

1.3 SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT

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

has concurred, that it is not feasible to reconstruct internal and external radiation dose received as a 

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

cohort class has been designated:

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Simonds Saw and Steel Co. 

from January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1957, for a number of work days 

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

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

classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort” (Sebelius 2011)

For any claim referred to NIOSH regarding an employee,

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

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

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

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

reconstruction),

NIOSH will continue to attempt to complete dose reconstructions using whatever information is 

available about an energy employee’s work history and available bioassay and monitoring data along 

with the guidance in this site profile document.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY

The information that follows applies to a period of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations 

at Simonds Saw and Steel from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957 (Leiton 2010), involving 

AEC-contracted uranium and thorium work. Although the buildings were closed and the contaminated 

areas were isolated as of May 1, 1983, this analysis assumed that the residual contamination period 

was from January 1, 1958, through the present.

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

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

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

term included smaller amounts of thorium metal and thorium oxides.

The first known rolling of uranium at Simonds occurred on February 24, 1948, before its contractual 

agreement with the AEC. The first contract with the AEC New York Operations Office (NYOO), AT30-1-Gen 339, was initiated in May 1948 and was renewed annually through February 1952. The 

contract was officially closed on July 21, 1952. Simonds continued work under subcontract S-4 

(effective March 1, 1952, through December 31, 1956) to the National Lead Company of Ohio (NLO) 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 10 of 59

at the Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC) in Fernald, Ohio, which had contract AT (30-1)-1156 

with NYOO (Author unknown undated).

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

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

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

not to be billed because it was applied to research and development (NLO 1957a). In reference to 

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

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

29, 1957 (McCreery 1957). This signifies that the work under the production order request had been 

completed. Subsequent documents indicate final contract closure occurred sometime in late 1957; 

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

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

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

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

occurred until July 1956 (NLO 1956).

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

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

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

Building 3) with the hammer forge shop (FBDU 1981). Wallace-Murray Corporation purchased the 

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

and, upon bankruptcy in 1982, transferred a portion of the site to Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, 

which continued operations in the transferred areas. The area that was excluded from the transfer 

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

Chapter 7 bankrupt corporation). As of March 31, 2011, the remainder of the site is owned by 

Phersas.

Vitkus (1999) described the former Simonds site as a 28-hectare (1 hectare equals 2.47 acres) area 

bordered by Ohio Street to the east, residential and commercial properties to the north, U.S. Highway

95 to the west, and the New York State Barge Canal to the south. As of 1999, the property was 

grouped into three areas:

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

the termination of AEC activities;

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

• The 3.6-hectare excised area in the southeast corner of the site, which includes nine buildings 

that existed during the AEC activities (Vitkus 1999).

Table 2-1 lists the buildings that probably existed at the time of AEC operations.

Figure 2-1 shows the Simonds site and the boundaries of the Allegheny Ludlum (black border) and 

excised area (blue border) (USACE ca. 2010).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 11 of 59

Table 2-1. Simonds buildings where contamination has been found.

Building 

number Building lettera Use

1 Manufacturing

2 Manufacturing

3 B Grinding and rolling, hammer forge shop

4 Manufacturing

5 25-cycle heat exchanger

6 A 16-in. rolling mill

8 A 10-in. rolling mill

9 Manufacturing

35 Grinding and roll staging

a. Nomenclature used in 1981 report (FBDU 1981).

Figure 2-1. Aerial view of Simonds Saw and Steel (modified from USACE ca. 

2010).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 12 of 59

2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology studies showed satisfactory results and arrangements were 

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

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

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

billets and rigged them for transfer by crane to the weigh station. According to a 1951 report on rolling 

procedures, the billets were initially either 5.125 in. diameter and 15 to 20 in. long, or 4.25 in. diameter 

and 20 to 22 in. long (Smith 1951). The rolling reduced them to rods of 0.875-in. diameter, each 

weighing approximately 200 lb. Therefore, each turning was approximately 75 to 100 billets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been cut at the shears midway in the rolling operation. After rolling, the rods were quenched (either 

pressure quenched or dipped in a tank) and transferred in bundles by crane to the shipping area.

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

(DOE 1979; Keller 1979). AEC noted that trucks rather than railcars were being used as of August 

1950, which eliminated daily handling and shoring of the load by shippers (Heatherton 1950a).

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

determine if different coatings or methods would either produce a better product or reduce worker 

exposure. AEC reported on the rolling of copper-clad uranium on March 7 or 8, 1951 (Heatherton 

1951a), which was deemed unsuccessful due to increased product problems and increased air 

concentrations.

Simonds performed hot forging of uranium and thorium metal – uranium on an experimental basis, 

and thorium mostly on a production basis. The metals were usually forged and then rolled into rods 

(Huke 1951). This was apparently the primary method for processing thorium at Simonds 

(ORAUT 2010).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was reportedly commercial work for Babcock & Wilcox and was to occur in June 1956, but the work 

was reportedly completed in July 1956 (Heatherton 1956).

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

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

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

enriched to the extent of about 2.5% [by mass]” (Keller 1979).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 13 of 59

2.3 SOURCE TERM

Several documents provide summaries of Simonds operational history, including the estimated total 

quantities of uranium and thorium metals that were processed. The documents typically state that 

between 25 and 35 million lb of uranium and approximately 30,000 to 40,000 lb of thorium were rolled 

from February 24, 1948, until operations ceased sometime in 1957 (Vitkus 1999). Information on 

material processing was compiled from all available Simonds-related documents and places the total 

quantities of uranium and thorium processed at 23 million and 114,000 lb (11,500 and 57 t),

respectively (NIOSH 2010b).

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

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

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

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

20 ingots were processed in the hammer forge shop in Building B (Building 3). Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 

2-4 show the layouts.

Figure 2-2. Simonds rolling mills and hammer forge areas. Buildings 6 

(16-in. mill), 8 (10-in. mill) and 3 (forge shop) (DOE 1979).

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

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

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

that a rolling turn required an entire shift (Schumann 1953), so there were about 156 days per year, 

two shifts each day, that were devoted to AEC work from 1948 to 1952. This translates into 31 of 52 

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

dates was available only for those periods AEC included in the reports of its visits. Based on the 

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

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

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

1957b; NLO 1957b). The total quantity reported to be rolled in 1957 was approximately 26,860 lb. 

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

with this operation would be less than 2.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 14 of 59

Figure 2-3. Simonds 16-in. rolling mill area, Building 6 (Klevin 

and Weinstein 1953a).

For fiscal year 1950, Simonds agreed to meet the AEC rolling requirements, as high as 170 t/mo, so 

AEC consolidated most of its rolling operations at Simonds (AEC 1949a).

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

steelworkers’ union and company officials at Simonds Saw & Steel Company was reached,” which 

allowed the October uranium rolling to continue as scheduled (AEC 1949b). Simonds planned to roll 

160 t of uranium in November because it had negotiated a short-term contract through December 1, 

1949. No uranium was to be rolled in December 1949, but rolling was to resume in January 1950 

(AEC 1949b).

The earliest known document about thorium rolling at Simonds is correspondence dated August 1951 

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

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

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

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

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

received consisted of 3 in. diameter round billets in the range of 15-in. long.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 15 of 59

Figure 2-4. Simonds 10-in. thorium rolling area, Building 8 

(Klevin and Weinstein 1953b).

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

and rolling were performed before August 16, 1951. However, because there is not sufficient 

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

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

The AEC Tonawanda Area Office reported that 36 thorium billets were shipped to Simonds for rolling 

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

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

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

8,500 lb of thorium were to be rolled (Belmore 1952). An additional thorium rolling took place in

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

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

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

a 3-day period.

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

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

and that 57 were exposed to uranium at close quarters. Air-sampling data indicated that there were 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 16 of 59

13 to 28 rolling mill workers who were considered in the airborne uranium exposure studies on any 

one shift. Simonds worked two shifts, the maximum number of workers in any of the studies was 45 

(one study reported 48 workers but only 45 were identified in the job categories). A film badge record 

includes 21 workers in October 1949 (AEC 1949c).

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

indicated that workers switched categories. In addition, it was noted that workers could have worked 

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

forging of uranium.

Table 2-2. Some job titles involved in uranium rolling.

Assistant foreman Rod stamper

Billet loader Roller #1 (rougher)

Dippers Roller #2 (finisher)

Drag down man Run-out

Foreman Shear man 

Furnace man (heater) Shippers

Heater helper Straightener 

Hook man Stranner

Poke-in Weighers (rod)

(Pressure) quencher Weigh in (weigh up)

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

access to the areas where the AEC rolling occurred.

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

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

for locker room and lunchtime.

2.4 SAFETY

Early in the contract, the AEC provided safety recommendations for the uranium rolling operations at 

Simonds, including exhaust ventilation, a central vacuum cleaner, floor grating, and high-pressure 

water nozzles for descaling (Wolf 1948; page 3 of the 4 pages of recommendations was missing). 

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

were adequate.

2.4.1 Workplace Contamination Controls

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

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

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

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

1949e, 1950; Heatherton 1950a, 1950b, 1951b; Klevin 1951). Over time, Simonds went from no 

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

replace broom sweeping by December 1948. In January 1949, a local exhaust was installed over the 

descaler. No local ventilation was described for the 10-in. rolling mill or the limited forging work. As of 

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

shields were installed at some point to help contain contaminants and to direct airflow to the exhaust 

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

used on the floor to minimize contact with the settling radioactive dust that could become airborne 

again. A partially legible AEC memorandum from August 5, 1948, indicates that the “mill crew” had 

two sets of clothing. The November 1948 AEC production report states that uniforms and gloves 

were provided to workers (AEC 1948e).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 17 of 59

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

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

gratings had not been obtained. AEC noted inexplicably large air concentrations near the pressurequenching and rod-stamping areas, which were within a few feet of each other. AEC thought that 

perhaps the descaling machine was throwing off large chunks of uranium, which were being caught 

on the air sampler. “It was noted that occasional stinging particles were caught on the face and hands 

of the man doing the [air] sampling.” In addition, the time to quench rods had been increased from 75 

to 200 minutes per shift to improve scale removal, which factored into air concentration exposure 

estimates.

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

uranium air concentration in other mill areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noted that the lead bath would eliminate the need for brushing of uranium from the furnace, which 

reduced exposures. December 1949 was dedicated to thoroughly cleaning areas most likely to be 

contaminated. Airborne radioactivity was expected to be at its lowest level during the January rolling 

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

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

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

AEC reports discuss the effectiveness of the recommended contamination controls but noted 

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

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

constantly reminded Simonds to use the vacuum cleaner instead of broom sweeping the uranium dust 

areas. Simonds’ use of the Plexiglas shields, floor grating, and ventilation system dust collectors 

appears to have been intermittent. Throughout AEC’s periodic air monitoring reports, there are 

frequent accounts of the failure of Simonds to either implement the recommended exposure control 

practices or to continue to adhere to such practices. The concerns that were conveyed by the AEC 

are best summarized in a November 1954 memorandum that stated (Polson 1954):

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

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

practices” noted.

This included:

1. Dropping of billets on floor prior to rolling

2. Wire brushing billets to observe temperature

3. Sweeping of floor instead of vacuum cleaning

4. Use of cloth gloves

5. Eating in vicinity during rolling
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 18 of 59

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

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

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

almost nil. It is planned to extrude the depleted uranium orders at Wolverine Tube and 

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

facilities should be satisfactory from a health and safety standpoint.

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

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

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

be provided with respirators.

The wearing of dedicated anti-contamination clothing at Simonds appears to have been sporadic. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

past but very few are worn continuously.

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

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

respirators. Some, however, wore no protective equipment.

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

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

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

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

than Simonds.

2.4.2 Air Concentrations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which was the same as the preferred level.

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

controls were put in place, the air concentrations were lowered by a factor of 10 or more (AEC 1948c,

1948d, 1949d, 1949e, 1950; Heatherton 1950a, 1950b, 1951b; Klevin 1951).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 19 of 59

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

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

] exists, 

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

1. The entire mill has a low level of uranium contamination.

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

below 15 μg/m3

.

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

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

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

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

more scale, which was evident as oxide dust on the floor of the rod-stamping area and resulted in 

increased air concentrations (AEC 1949–1954, p. 118). AEC also reported that the Simonds 

Plexiglas shields were not in place due to an oversight.

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

describes the radiological conditions:

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

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

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

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

10 inch mill ....

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

depleted material were rolled ....

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

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

operation time was only about 80 minutes.

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

performing the operation without ventilating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the MAC (Yoder 1954).

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

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

the November 25, 1952, results (NLO 1956).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 20 of 59

2.4.3 Contamination and Radiation Levels

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

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

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

(Heatherton1948).

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

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

less than 2 mR/hr. The highest reading (15 mR/hr beta-gamma) was an area on the floor near the 

furnace, and elevated readings were found near East Roller #1 and the Shear (AEC 1949h).

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

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

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

gamma radiation.

2.5 INCIDENTS

There were four incidents reported:

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

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

1949d).

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

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

uranium.

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

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

4. In March 1952, there was a concern about an “allergic” reaction by a doctor and a nurse at a 

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

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

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

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

2.6 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS: X-RAYS

NIOSH is required to account for dose from medical X-rays that were performed on an EEOICPAcovered site (either the covered site where the AWE work was being performed or a covered site 

where medical X-rays were performed as a service). Simonds X-rays were performed off site at a 

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

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

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

WORK CATEGORIES

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

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

determination of the number of rolling days, the value for the remainder of this analysis for the period 

beginning on January 1, 1954, is assumed to be 20% of the period year’s values (i.e., 31 per year). A 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 21 of 59

summary of the number of rolling days per year is contained in Table 2-3. Table 2-4 lists the number 

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

needs of subsequent analyses that are presented later in this document. It was assumed that there 

were two work shifts of 10 hours each. Although the available records indicate significant curtailment 

at the end of 1953, it was assumed that operations in 1953 continued at the same level as those in 

1952.

Table 2-3. Number of assumed uranium workdays per year.

Start End

Number of 

rolling days Start End

Number of 

rolling days

02/24/1948 12/31/1948 133 01/01/1953 12/31/1953 156

01/01/1949 12/31/1949 156 01/01/1954 12/31/1954 31

01/01/1950 12/31/1950 156 01/01/1955 12/31/1955 31

01/01/1951 12/31/1951 156 01/01/1956 12/31/1956 31

01/01/1952 12/31/1952 156 01/01/1957 12/31/1957 31

Table 2-4. Number of assumed uranium workdays and uranium-rolling days.

Start End Rolling workdays Non-rolling workdays Workdays

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 120 82 202

12/01/1948 04/05/1949 52 38 90

04/05/1949 04/13/1950 156 112 268

04/13/1950 01/01/1954 585 387 972

01/01/1954 12/31/1957 125 919 1044

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

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

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

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

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

uranium or thorium production processes had much lower exposures, the mill worker exposures were 

used to bound exposures for these other workers.

Simonds workers are divided into two categories of exposure based on exposure potential. The lower 

exposure category is for those workers who typically work in administrative offices and the higher 

category is for all other workers. Administrative area workers are assumed to have the potential only 

for intermittent exposure while other workers are assumed to have continuous exposure.

2.8 CLEANUP AND THE RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION PERIOD

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

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

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

early 1954. AEC-related work was performed at Simonds in April 1957 and final contract closure 

occurred sometime in late 1957. Therefore, the operational year was extended by 1 year to the end 

of 1957 (Leiton 2010).

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

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

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

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

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

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

identified than the other isotopes, so some records could refer to it as 238U rather than natural 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 22 of 59

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

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

analysis techniques and reporting procedures.

Guterl Specialty Steel, which bought Simonds in 1978, filed for bankruptcy in 1982 and closed its 

doors on May 1, 1983. Allegheny Ludlum purchased the site in 1984. The buildings Simonds used 

for uranium and thorium rolling, and some others, were in a fenced-off area referred to in a survey by 

the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education as the excised area (Vitkus 1999), and no work 

was done there. Buildings 1 through 6, 8, 9, and 35 are in the excised area. The building walls are 

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

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

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

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

1999. The buildings were isolated at the time of closing and exhibited leaking roofs, broken windows, 

and similar conditions. Although it is likely that the contaminated buildings and surrounding areas 

have remained inaccessible to Simonds site employees since May 1, 1983, this site profile assumes 

that residual contamination exposures could have occurred through the present.

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

(USACE) from 2007 to 2010 (USACE ca. 2010).

3.0 ESTIMATION OF INTERNAL EXPOSURE

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

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

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

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

The AEC measured particle sizes at Simonds using a “modified cascade impactor” (Spiegl et al. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 URANIUM

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

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

10 minutes and 7,000 days, respectively). Other in vitro dissolution studies of compounds at uranium 

facilities have shown that oxides of uranium exhibit moderate solubility (Eidson 1994; Heffernan et al. 

2001), which suggests absorption type M (10% and 90% with clearance half-times on the order of 

10 minutes and 140 days, respectively). In vitro dissolution tests on oxides that were produced from 

uranium metal during depleted uranium armor penetrator tests have indicated multicomponent 

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

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

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

The selection of absorption type should depend on the organ of interest.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 23 of 59

3.1.1 Uranium Bioassay

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

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

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

from 0 to 0.272 mg/L. AEC assumed that the 0.272-mg/L value from November 4, 1949, was 

obviously contaminated (1950, Table 4, footnote), but the only basis for this appears to be that the 

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

was 0.164 mg/L.

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

urinalyses results. AEC (1949h) stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uranium urinalyses were performed by the University of Rochester in 1948. The AEC NYOO 

performed uranium urinalyses from 1949 through 1952. The uranium fusion photofluorimetry 

urinalyses at the University of Rochester and the AEC NYOO were similar to those at other AEC 

facilities. The default detection threshold for uranium urinalysis is assumed to be 10 μg/L based on a 

reported sensitivity of 5 to 10 μg/L for uranium fluorimetry urinalysis in the early years (Wilson 1959). 

The 1948 Simonds bioassay reports noted that the results of less than 0.01 mg/L were insufficient for 

reliable detection (Author unknown 1948), and the lowest non-zero result is recorded as 0.01 mg/L. 

The bioassay reports from the NYOO have non-zero results recorded as low as 0.001 mg/L.

For unmonitored workers or unmonitored periods, this site profile analyzes the bioassay results to 

provide estimates of coworker uranium intakes.

The first available bioassay samples for Simonds were dated November 1, 1948. Urinalyses were 

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

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

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

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

data sheets where the plant was listed as NYOO, were not included in the analysis. One result was 

listed as zero, the other results were associated with an NYOO employee who visited multiple AEC 

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

combined and assumed to all be dated December 14, 1950. The bioassay data for the coworker 

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

(GMs) were estimated by ranking the data, determining the z-scores, and plotting the respective 

z-score versus the natural logarithm of the data. A line was fit to the data; e raised to the line’s 

y-intercept value was assumed to be the GM, and e raised to the slope value was assumed to be the 

GSD. Results reported as zero were ranked, but used only indirectly in the fitting of the line. The 

84th percentile was estimated as the GM multiplied by the GSD. Before November 17, 1949, the 

number of results for a given date ranged from 10 to 16. The statistical fit parameter (R2

) results 

averaged 0.86 and ranged from 0.65 to 0.96, and were considered adequate for this set of data.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 24 of 59

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

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

for the intake analyses. Table 3-1 summarizes the estimated geometric median, 84th-percentile, and 

maximum uranium urinalyses that were used to derive intake rates from three chronic inhalation 

intake regimes: February 24, 1948, to December 1, 1948; December 1, 1948, to December 15, 1950; 

and December 15, 1950, to December 31, 1952. Intake rates for after 1952 were set to those for the 

initial 1948 period to account for the reduced use of engineering controls and lack of bioassay data for 

this later period. Graphs of the fits of these intake regimes are shown in Attachment B. Additional 

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

intakes are estimated from bioassay data, the mode of intake is usually assumed to be inhalation, 

unless there is information that indicates that other modes of intake are more likely. When using 

bioassay data, the inhalation intake model assumes that some of the intake behaves as ingested 

material. In general, intakes from bioassay will be larger when an inhalation rather than an ingestion 

intake is assumed.

The intake rates were calculated with the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) program

assuming an absolute uniform error of 1 and normal error distributions for each bioassay result. The 

GSDs for the intake rates were calculated by dividing the intake from the 84th-percentile regime by 

the intake from the GM regime. Table 3-2 lists the inhalation intake distributions from the analyses of 

the Simonds uranium urinalysis data, which assumes that either a type M or a type S (but not both) 

intake occurred. Intake rates are adjusted from milligrams per day to picocuries per day by 

multiplying by 682.91 pCi/mg.

Table 3-1. Bioassay results from coworker dataa

.

Bioassay 

date

GM bioassay 

(mg/L)

84th-percentile 

bioassay (mg/L)

Maximum 

bioassay (mg/L)

11/01/1948 0.021 0.045 0.140

11/03/1948 0.022 0.042 0.090

11/04/1948 0.022 0.043 0.070

11/08/1948 0.011 0.018 0.030

11/11/1948 0.016 0.031 0.050

11/15/1948 0.016 0.035 0.050

01/06/1949 0.006 0.016 0.018

04/27/1949 0.017 0.028 0.036

11/04/1949 0.016 0.036 0.272

11/17/1949 0.001 0.010 0.164

01/06/1950 0.002 0.009 0.026

01/19/1950 0.010 0.024 0.035

05/15/1950 0.005 0.014 0.022

05/23/1950 0.008 0.019 0.034

08/14/1950 0.027 0.041 0.102

08/28/1950 0.016 0.022 0.033

09/23/1950 0.002 0.009 0.020

09/25/1950 0.011 0.018 0.024

10/20/1950 0.006 0.026 0.067

10/25/1950 0.005 0.016 0.043

11/09/1950 0.003 0.010 0.030

11/16/1950 0.005 0.014 0.028

12/14/1950 0.006 0.015 0.080

12/20/1952 0.016 0.035 0.066

12/22/1952 0.015 0.033 0.054

a. Multiply results in mg/L by 1.4 L/d to obtain results in milligrams/day.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 25 of 59

Table 3-2. Inhalation intake rates (mg/d) based on coworker dataa.

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

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 M 0.422 1.98 S 12.6 1.99

12/01/1948 12/15/1950 M 0.173 2.25 S 1.76 2.58

12/15/1950 12/31/1952 M 0.329 2.16 S 5.32 2.15

01/01/1953b 12/31/1957 M 0.422 1.98 S 12.6 1.99

a. Section 3.3 and Table 3-13 provide details on the implementation of these calculated intake rates.

b. Intake rates for after 1952 were set to those calculated for the initial 1948 period to account for the reduced use of 

engineering controls and lack of bioassay data for this later period.

3.1.2 Uranium Air Sampling

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

1948d, 1949d, 1949e, 1950; Heatherton 1950a, 1950b, 1951b; Klevin 1951; Klevin and Weinstein 

1953a; Schumann 1953). The air samples consisted of collection of radioactive particulate on filters 

from breathing zones, general areas, processes, and effluents. AEC (1948c) states the general 

method of air sample collection and analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All dust samples collected were counted on a flat plate alpha counter at the New York 

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

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

calculations to evaluate the employees' exposure to radioactive dust.

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

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

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

were collected. The mean count rate was calculated and used to calculate an average air 

concentration.

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

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

concentrations to determine a daily time-weighted average air concentration for specified job 

categories. These air concentration results are further analyzed here to determine GMs for each 

workgroup. The workgroups are defined by the dates of air sample collection. The daily timeweighted average air concentrations were weighted further by the number of workers AEC reported 

as exposed at a given concentration. The GMs for each workgroups’ daily time-weighted average air 

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

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

distribution of the data (the latter GSD includes consideration of the number of workers included in 

each category in the AEC study). This analysis assumed that, because the data are limited and 

rigorous analyses to determine distribution type are not likely to be meaningful, a lognormal 

distribution should represent the time-weighted exposures.

Table 3-3 lists the GMs and GSDs, the number of job categories, and the workgroups’ daily timeweighted average air concentrations. In addition, the simplified estimated intake rates assumed from 

review of the air exposures over time are presented.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 26 of 59

Table 3-3. Daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations.

Air sample collection dates (workgroups)

10/27/1948 12/01/1948 01/10/1949 04/05/1949 05/02/1949

Number of job categories 9 9 9 9 10

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

GSD 3.0 1.9 2.9 1.8 1.8

Number of workers 32 30 28 30 40

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

GSD 3.0 1.9 3.2 1.8 1.9

Estimated air 

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

01/09/1950 01/10/1950

04/13, 04/14, 

or 04/18/1950

05/17, 05/18, 

or 05/22/1950

08/14/1950–

08/16/1950

Number of job categories 10 10 13 13 11

GM (dpm/m3) 190 180 90 75 96

GSD 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.5

Number of workers 40 40 45 45 38

GM (dpm/m3) 205 199 88 82 89

GSD 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 1.5

Estimated air 

concentration (dpm/m3) 250 250 150 150 150

01/09/1951–

01/10/1951

08/20/1950–

08/21/1951

01/01/1952–

31/1952 09/12/1952

01/04/1953–

01/21/1953

Number of job categories 10 13 13 13 11

GM (dpm/m3) 161 97 96 129 141

GSD 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.4

Number of workers 38 42 42 43 34

GM (dpm/m3) 161 100 94 125 138

GSD 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.7

Estimated air 

concentration (dpm/m3) 150 150 150 150 150

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

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

in Section 2.4.2, exposure conditions were constantly changing but had a downward trend in the early 

years.

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

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

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

Figure 3-1 shows the GMs, maximums, and minimums of the workgroups daily time-weighted average 

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

estimate periodic intake rates, which are summarized in Table 3-4 and shown on the graph as 

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

was assumed to calculate the 95th-percentile estimated air concentrations in Figure 3-1.

This analysis of intake rates based on air concentrations assumed that uranium rolling took place 

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

every month from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1953, based on 312 turnings per year and 

double shifts. The time assumption for the later period (January 1, 1954, to December 31, 1957) was 

reduced to 20% as discussed in Section 2.7.

The breathing rate is based on the default for light work in ICRP Publication 66 (ICRP 1994, Table 6, 

p. 23). Intake rates in picocuries were calculated by dividing the estimated air concentration by 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 27 of 59

Figure 3-1. Workgroups daily time-weighted average uranium air concentrations and estimated 

weighted exposures.

2.22 dpm/pCi and multiplying this result by the breathing rate and the assumed number of exposure 

hours at the given concentration. Table 3-4 lists estimated annual uranium inhalation intake rates 

during rolling based on air concentrations.

Table 3-4. Uranium inhalation intake rates during rolling operations.

Work period

Number of 

potential AEC 

workdays

Air 

concentration

(pCi/m3)

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr) Hr/workday

Intake

(pCi)

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 120 9.01E+02 1.2 10 1.30E+06

12/01/1948 04/05/1949 52 4.50E+02 1.2 10 2.81E+05

04/05/1949 04/13/1950 156 1.13E+02 1.2 10 2.11E+05

04/13/1950 01/01/1954 585 6.76E+01 1.2 10 4.74E+05

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

Total 2.37E+06

There was a potential for internal exposure to resuspended material from the AEC work during 

non-AEC operations. To estimate exposure from resuspended materials, this analysis assumed that 

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

The level of contamination was determined by multiplying the air concentrations in Table 3-4 by the 

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

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

(e.g., air viscosity and density, turbulence, thermal gradients, surface geometry, etc.). It is also 

dependent on the physical properties of the aerosol particles (e.g., diameter, shape, and density). 

Air Concentration Analyses

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

10/27/1948

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

10/27/1949

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

10/27/1950

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

10/27/1951

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

10/27/1952

Date

dpm/cubic meter

GM Weighted WG

Exposures

Minimum

Maximum

Estimated w eighted

exposures

95th
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 28 of 59

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

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

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

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

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

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

240,000 dpm/100 cm2

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

the entire period of AEC operations. Therefore, using a resuspension factor of 1 × 10-6

/m (Abu-Eid 

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

. This value 

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

) reported by the AEC in 1950 

during an extended period without rolling operations and with the assertion by AEC in that same 

document that it would be “impractical to reduce the airborne uranium consistently below 15 μg/m3

(10.2 pCi/m3

)” (AEC 1950). Table 3-5 lists the assumed inhalation intake rates from resuspension of 

deposited material. (Table 3-7 lists the intake rates in Table 3-5 added to the intake rates in Table 3-

4.)

Table 3-5. Inhalation intake rates during non-AEC operations from resuspension of deposited 

uranium dust.

Work period Hr/workday

Non-U rolling 

workdays per 

work period 

Breathing 

rate (m3/hr)

Resuspended air 

concentration 

(pCi/m3)

Intake 

(pCi)

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 10 82 1.2 11.0 1.08E+04

12/01/1948 04/05/1949 10 38 1.2 11.0 5.02E+03

04/05/1949 04/13/1950 10 112 1.2 11.0 1.48E+04

04/13/1950 01/01/1954 10 387 1.2 11.0 5.12E+04

01/01/1954 12/31/1957 10 919 1.2 11.0 1.21E+05

Total 2.03E+05

When using air concentrations to calculate inhalation intake rates, dose reconstructors should also 

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

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

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

during AEC uranium work are estimates based on the air concentrations in Table 3-3. The daily 

ingestion intake rates from resuspended uranium are estimates from Table 3-4. The ingestion intake

rates are then the sum of the products of the ingestion intake rates and the number of workdays 

exposed at the calculated levels. The ingestion intake rates in Table 3-6 apply to all workers.

Table 3-6. Estimated amount of uranium ingested (based on Tables 3-3 and 3-4).

Work period

U rolling 

workdays

U ingestion rate 

during uranium 

rolling 

(pCi/workday)

Non-U 

rolling 

workdays

U ingestion rate 

during normal 

operation 

(pCi/workday)

Intake 

(pCi)

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 120 2.01E+02 82 2.46E+00 2.43E+04

12/01/1948 04/05/1949 52 1.01E+02 38 2.46E+00 5.32E+03

04/05/1949 04/13/1950 156 2.51E+01 112 2.46E+00 4.20E+03

04/13/1950 01/01/1954 585 1.51E+01 387 2.46E+00 9.77E+03

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

Total 4.78E+04

Estimated uranium intake rates based on air concentrations are listed in Table 3-7.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 29 of 59

 Table 3-7. Estimated uranium intake rates based on time-weighted air

 concentrations.

Start End

Intake 

route

Absorption 

type

Intake 

(pCi/d)

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 Inhalation M, S 4.66E+03

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 Ingestion (

a

) 8.66E+01

12/01/1948 04/05/1949 Inhalation M, S 2.29E+03

12/01/1948 04/05/1949 Ingestion (

a

) 4.28E+01

04/05/1949 04/13/1950 Inhalation M, S 6.07E+02

04/05/1949 04/13/1950 Ingestion (

a

) 1.12E+01

04/13/1950 01/01/1954 Inhalation M,S 3.87E+02

04/13/1950 01/01/1954 Ingestion (

a

) 7.20E+00

01/01/1954 12/31/1957 Inhalation M, S 1.53E+02

01/01/1954 12/31/1957 Ingestion (

a

) 2.84E+00

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

Simonds periodically rolled enriched uranium and depleted uranium. The maximum enrichment of 

uranium is unknown. Available documents indicate that uranium as high as 2.5% enrichment was 

processed (Keller 1979). However, FMPC had two standard operating procedures for rolling uranium 

at Simonds, one for up to 2.75% enrichment (Schlitz 1954) and another for up to 7.2% enrichment 

(Schlitz 1955). Air monitoring data associated with these activities are summarized in Tables 3-8 and 

3-9. 

Table 3-8. Air concentrations during rolling – enriched uranium, 10-in. mill.

a

Location Air concentration (dpm/m3)

Breathing zone air concentrations

Foreman 701

Rougher, south side 372

Rougher, north side 1,061

Finisher, south side 406

Stranner, south side 5,031

Stranner, north side 9,001

Poke-in, north side 2,061

Straightener, north side 6,081

Straightener, run out 8,011

Rod stamper and straightener 2,041

General area air concentrations

Behind rod straightener 208

Mill floor during cleanup 300

Mill floor during rolling 2,867

Rod area during rolling 1,678

Furnace area during rolling 2,186

Near bull head 1,196

10 foot east of mill 83

a. Information for this table, including location descriptions, is from Heatherton (1953b).

In the enriched uranium air study, a weighted exposure was calculated for the brief (80-minute) 

activity for the lowest- and highest-exposed individual. These were 0.9 MAC-days and 22.0 MACdays for the South Side Rougher and North Side Stranner, respectively (Heatherton 1953b). These 

exposure rates correspond to daily weighted activities of 5.3 MAC and 128 MAC, respectively.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 30 of 59

Table 3-9. Air concentrations during rolling – molybdenum depleted uranium, 16-

in. mill.

a

Location

Air concentration (dpm/m3)

High Low Average

Breathing zone air concentrations

Rougher, east side 20 15 18

Rougher, west side 209 5 51

Finisher, east side 452 47 192

Finisher, west side 2,866 939 1,903

General area air concentrations

Weigh-in and furnace area 440 106 297

West side of mill 193 16 58

East side of mill 460 122 336

a. Information for this table, including location descriptions, is from Schumann (1953).

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

operations on April 18, 1950, and July 12, 1956, are summarized in Tables 3-10 and 3-11. The April 

1950 survey is discussed in an AEC air monitoring report (Heatherton 1950b):

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

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

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

220 to 400 times the preferred level.

Table 3-10. Airborne uranium dust from forging on April 18, 1950.

a

Location/comment Air concentration (dpm/m3)

General area

3 ft above

5 in. billet forged to 1.9375 in.

7,600

5,200

6,400

12,000

Forging 2 billets 13,000

3,800

Breathing zone

Operator, east side forge 11,000

Tong man, east side of forge 20,000

a. Information for this table, including location/comment descriptions, is from air dust and urine 

data (AEC 1949–1954, pp. 58–60).

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

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

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

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

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

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

in use.

3.1.3 Comparison of Uranium Bioassay and Air Concentration Estimates

The GM uranium intake rates based on air data were compared to the GM uranium intake rates based 

on bioassay data (calculated in Section 3.3). The GM intake rates based on air data generally fell 

between the type M and S intake rates based on bioassay data, as shown on the “Type M, GM 

bioassay” and “Type S GM bioassay” graphs in Attachment B. This would be a reasonable 

observation if workers were exposed to a source term that was not pure type M or S.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 31 of 59

Table 3-11. Airborne uranium dust from forging – July 12, 1954.

a

Location/comment

Air concentration 

(dpm/m3)

General area

Hammer, south

140

1,600

820

870

220

East of 7-t hammer, between hammer 

and furnace 630

35 ft east southeast of press 100

35 ft from hammer (lunch)

1100

990

850

Bench (lunch area), north 100

Bench, southwest of hammer (lunch) 27

Lunch area, south southwest hammer 48

15 ft southwest of hammer 160

20 ft southwest of hammer 43

1 ft south of 7-t hammer 2,100

10,000

Southeast of 7-t hammer 15,000

6 ft 180

5 ft 72

Breathing zone

Hammer operating position downward

310

270

500

Charger atop unit

240

370

400

Northwest corner of hammer-2 ingots 1,900

3,500

Around hammer

8,300

29,000

3,600

650

Opening furnace door, removing ingot 4,500

Southwest of 7-t hammer

5,600

6,000

2,200

Northeast of 7-t hammer

730

770

950

4,000

a. Information for this table, including location/comment descriptions, is from Air 

Dust and Urine Data (AEC 1949–1954, pp. 145–148).

Intakes derived from bioassay data are preferred over intakes from air sampling because excretion is 

directly related to intake and does not rely on estimates of worker exposure times at various locations. 

Although not all Simonds workers submitted bioassay samples, there are 645 bioassay sample results 

for uranium from 25 sample dates from 1948 through 1952. Reports of the air sample studies 

indicated that the number of workers considered for uranium exposure in the rolling mill was between 

28 and 45, depending on the date of the study. The number of workers submitting samples on each 

sample date was typically between 10 to 20, but it appears that on several sample dates all or nearly 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 32 of 59

all considered to be exposed to uranium submitted bioassay samples. Additionally, a few workers 

submitted samples on almost every sample date. Bioassay sample results have also been matched 

up with individuals identified in air sample reports as having high exposures.

For the above reasons, intakes derived from bioassay data will be used to assign intakes for 

unmonitored workers or for workers who do not have sufficient bioassay results to fully reconstruct 

dose.

Consideration was also given to stratification of intakes due to the varying level of intake as a function 

of job assignment or work location. The AEC air sample studies used work location and time studies 

to estimate daily weighted exposures (DWE); these data indicate that exposures varied depending on 

job assignment within the active uranium work areas. The varying level of intake is also supported by 

the varying level of bioassay sample results. Some trends of exposure based on job are suggested 

by the DWE data; however, those trends are not always consistent from one sample date to the next. 

Some of the bioassay data can be matched up with job assignments specified in air sample reports; 

however, the bioassay data also indicates that no particular job assignment is associated with the 

highest sample results on a given sample date. In consideration of these data, and the fact that there 

is no definitive way to determine a DWE for a particular unmonitored worker in the rolling mill, a 

favorable to claimant approach is used to bound intakes for unmonitored workers to assure that 

intakes are not underestimated. That information is provided in the Occupational Internal Dose 

Reconstruction Assumptions and Summary, Section 3.3.

3.1.4 Depleted, Enriched, and Recycled Uranium

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

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

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

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

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

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

or measured uranium because of differences in specific activities (activity per mass). Because this 

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 17, 1953, at the 10-in. bar mill. The operation lasted for 80 minutes (versus the typical 8 to 

10 hours). The GM concentration for 80 minutes was about 2,000 dpm/m3 with a GSD of 3.0 (this is 

shown in Figure 3-1 as the last air sample). In reality, the actual worker exposure would have been 

lower by about a factor of 6, giving a daily weighted concentration of 330 dpm/m3

. Heatherton 

(1953b) noted that there was no ventilation at the 10-in. bar mill and that air dust respirators were 

worn by all mill workers at the time of the survey. Ventilation was recommended for any future work 

at the 10-in. bar mill. Because the number of uranium rolling days in 1953 was estimated to continue 

at 156 days (versus the estimated 15 days calculated in Section 2.0), it is believed that there is a 

sufficiently large overestimate of intake to not adjust intake rates for this work. For later years, where 

28, 29, and 11 days of rolling are assumed and 31.2 is used in the intake calculations, the margin is 

not as large, but it is also likely that smaller runs were being made during this period that might not 

have consumed two full operating shifts per day.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 33 of 59

Recycled uranium might have been processed at Simonds after 1952. An estimate of contaminants 

that might contribute the most to internal doses, based on a review of recycled uranium contaminants 

at the Hanford and FMPC sites, is shown in Table 3-12. It is unlikely that recycled uranium would 

constitute the entire Simonds source term. The activity fractions are based on the specific activity of 

depleted uranium, which increases the proportion of the contaminants by activity. The contaminant 

levels for depleted uranium overestimate the contaminants in uranium of normal enrichment by about 

40%. The contaminants are assumed to be in the form of oxides.

Table 3-12. Estimate of contaminant activity fractions in a recycled depleted 

uranium source term (pCi contaminant per pCi uranium).

Uranium Np-237 Pu-239 Tc-99

1 0.00182 0.00261 0.379

3.2 THORIUM

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

feasible to reconstruct internal radiation dose from exposure to thorium for individuals who worked at 

Simonds during the operational period (Sebelius 2011).

3.3 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS AND SUMMARY

The assumed uranium photofluorimetry urinalysis detection threshold is 10 μg/L. Uranium is assumed 

to be of natural enrichment, although small amounts of both depleted and 2.5% enriched uranium 

were rolled after 1951. The recycled uranium contaminants should be accounted for after 1952 using 

the activity fractions in Table 3-12. Uranium oxides can be either absorption type M or S. Neptunium 

oxides are type M. Plutonium oxides are assumed to be type M or S.

The assumed operational exposure period is from February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957, which 

this analysis assumes to be the uranium intake period. For unmonitored workers or unmonitored 

periods, Table 3-13 lists intake rate assumptions for natural uranium. The intake mode is chronic. 

The dose distribution is assigned as a constant distribution. Intake rates are based on the data in 

Table 3-1 and derived intake rates in Table 3-2. However, to account for the degradation in 

engineering controls (as noted in Section 2.4.1), intake rates for the post-1952 period were set equal 

to those calculated for the initial 1948 time frame. Use of the 1948 data allows for the potential for 

elevated intakes that would not have been reflected in the available bioassay dataset (which ends

with 1952) because, during this initial period, operations were conducted without engineering controls.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 34 of 59

Table 3-13. Summary of internal intake rates for operational period February 24, 1948, to December 

31, 1957.

Radionuclide Start End Intake route

Absorption 

type

50thpercentile 

intakea

(pCi/d)

95thpercentile 

intakea

(pCi/d)

U-234b

Choose M or S 

intake scenario, 

not both.

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 Inhalation M 2.88E+02 8.87E+02

12/01/1948 12/15/1950 Inhalation M 1.18E+02 4.49E+02

12/15/1950 12/31/1952c Inhalation M 2.25E+02 7.98E+02

01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation M 2.88E+02 8.87E+02

02/24/1948 12/01/1948 Inhalation S 8.61E+03 2.67E+04

12/01/1948 12/15/1950 Inhalation S 1.20E+03 5.72E+03

12/15/1950 12/31/1952c Inhalation S 3.63E+03 1.28E+04

01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation S 8.61E+03 2.67E+04

Np-237 01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation M, if U is M 5.25E-01 1.61E+00

01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation M, if U is S 1.57E+01 4.86E+01

Pu-239 01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation M, if U is M 7.52E-01 2.31E+00

01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation S, if U is S 2.25E+01 6.97E+01

Tc-99 01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation M, if U is M 1.09E+02 3.36E+02

01/01/1953 12/31/1957c Inhalation M, if U is S 3.26E+03 1.01E+04

a. Assigned as a constant distribution.

b. If individual bioassay data is available, it should be used instead of the these intake rates, which are based on coworker 

assessment.

c. Intake rates for after 1952 were set to those calculated in the initial, 1948 period, to account for the reduced use of 

engineering controls and lack of bioassay data for this later period.

The 95th-percentile intake rates in Table 3-13 should be applied to all Simonds mill workers, any other 

worker whose job could have involved work in or around the rolling mills or forge shop areas, and 

workers whose job is unknown. Workers whose job would not have required work in those areas (i.e., 

office workers) should be assigned the median intake rate to allow for being occasionally exposed in 

the general area of uranium processing areas.

4.0 ESTIMATION OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

Individual external dosimetry results for Simonds consist of doses AEC reported for 20 workers for the 

period from October 11 to 19, 1949 (AEC 1949c). A limited exposure period of less than 2 weeks 

might not be representative of exposures during the 9 years of AEC operations at Simonds, so 

external doses based on supplementary data are provided.

For dose reconstruction, when individual film badge data are not available or adequate to assign 

dose, this analysis provides dose estimated with the assumption that there was a potential for external 

exposure to natural uranium metal from five sources:

• Submersion in air contaminated with uranium dust,

• Exposure from contaminated surfaces,

• Exposure to electrons from the surface of the uranium billets and rods,

• Exposure to photons from the uranium billets and rods, or

• Exposure to occupationally required medical X-ray.

The majority of photons from natural uranium metals have energies in the range of 30 to 250 keV. 

Solid uranium objects provide considerable shielding of the lower energy photons and harden the 

spectrum, which causes the majority of photons from a solid uranium object, such as a billet or a rod, 

to have energies greater than 250 keV. While solid uranium sources have a hardened photon 

spectrum, exposure to a thin layer of uranium on a surface results in a larger fraction of exposure to 

lower energy photons. This analysis assumed workers were exposed to photon energies in the 30- to 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 35 of 59

250-keV range, which is favorable to claimants. Nonpenetrating dose from natural uranium consists 

primarily of electrons with energies above 15 keV. For consistent presentation, exposure or dose is 

reported as:

• Penetrating, assumed to be associated with photons with energies from 30 to 250 keV; and

• Nonpenetrating, assumed to be associated with electrons with energy of >15 keV.

The majority of photons from thorium metals have energies greater than 250 keV, and the solid matrix 

of billets and rods serves to harden the radiation energy spectrum. However, for the purpose of 

expediting dose reconstruction, it is favorable to claimants to assume workers were exposed to 

photon energies from 30 to 250 keV.

Summary of Available Individual Film Badge Data

AEC (1949c) issued 21 film badges to Simonds workers for the period from October 11 to 19, 1949. 

One of the badges was lost, so only 20 results were reported. No information was available to 

indicate when the workers actually wore the badges or where the badges were stored during off 

hours. The beta results ranged from 160 to 1,250 mR for the period, and the calculated GM was 362 

with a GSD of 1.6. The gamma results ranged from not reported to 115 mR, and the calculated GM of 

the gamma results was 53 mR with a GSD of 1.9 (assuming 20 mR as half the limit of detection for 

zero readings). A quick scoping calculation, which assumed that the badges were worn for seven

uranium rolling workdays and that there were 156 uranium rolling workdays per year, indicated annual 

GM beta and gamma doses of 8.1 and 1.2 R, respectively (95th percentile annual dose rates of 17.1 

and 3.3 R, respectively).

External exposure estimates summarized in Table 4-3 in Section 4.4, which are based on 

consideration of source term and workplace information, are consistent with the limited film badge 

data. For a 156-day uranium rolling year, the results in Table 4-3 are based on the assumptions that 

the annual nonpenetrating exposure is 8.7 R and the assumed annual penetrating exposure is 1.2 R 

(95th-percentile annual dose rates of 28.9 and 7.8 R, respectively). Although the GMs of the two 

approaches are similar, the source term analysis results in a distribution that is more favorable to 

claimants should be used because of the limited film badge results.

4.1 SUBMERSION AND CONTAMINATION EXPOSURES

AEC suspended 20 film badges about 5 ft from the floor in the Simonds rolling mill for 

192 consecutive hours “to determine the long term direct [external] radiation to individuals”

(AEC 1949h). When the badges were retrieved, they were covered with radioactive dust from the 

plant, which would probably result in an overestimate of the true area radiation levels. The maximum 

results were reported as 5.6 mR/hr beta and 0.34 mR/hr gamma. This analysis assumed that 

(1) these results represented the general levels of external exposure from submersion in air and 

contaminated surfaces at Simonds, and (2) the data distribution was lognormal. The calculated GMs 

were 1.3 mR/hr with a GSD of 2.3 for nonpenetrating radiation and 0.26 mR/hr with a GSD of 1.2 for 

penetrating radiation. This assumption does not appear to be inconsistent with the reported Zeuto 

(portable ionization chamber) beta and gamma readings at Simonds of 2 mR/hr or less for most areas 

(AEC 1949h), some of which appear to be contact readings. The analysis assumed that the beta 

reading relates to the nonpenetrating dose and that the gamma reading relates to the penetrating 

dose (Table 4-3 in Section 4.4 lists these assumed exposures during operational years). This 

analysis assumed that all workers were exposed to penetrating and nonpenetrating radiation from 

submersion in air and contamination for 10 hours each workday.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 36 of 59

4.2 BILLET AND ROD EXPOSURES

Another assumption was that workers received a deep dose due to photon exposure from the uranium 

billets and rods. The AEC work involved rolling uranium billets of 4- to 5-in. diameters and 15- to 

28-in. lengths. The billets were rolled into rods 20 ft long of approximately 1.5-in. diameter (Smith 

1951). Monte Carlo n-particle (MCNP) calculations determined the photon (including bremsstrahlung) 

dose rate at the surface, 1 ft, and 1 m from a 5-in.-diameter by 28-in.-long cylindrical billet and a 

1.405-in. diameter by 20-ft-long rod. Table 4-1 lists calculated photon dose rates for the uranium billet 

and rod (Battelle Team 2006).

Table 4-1. Calculated photon dose rate for uranium billet and 

uranium rod (mrem/hr).

Distance from source Billet dose rate Rod dose rate 

Surface 7.74 5.09

1 ft 0.703 0.285

1 m 0.108 0.0883

Several air exposure records were reviewed to estimate a worker’s time near a billet or rod versus 

being in the general area. The records indicated that for most workers the time near the uranium billet 

or rod was less than 5 hours per shift, but some workers could have spent 6.5 hours near the rods 

and billets. Because workers changed jobs, this analysis assumed that workers were near the billets 

for 3.5 hours per rolling day and near the rods for 3.5 hours per rolling day. It also assumed that the 

dose rate at 1 ft was the median dose rate and the dose rate at the surface was the 95th-percentile 

rate. The annual penetrating dose rates in Table 4-3 (Section 4.4) were calculated by multiplying the 

median photon dose rates by the number of rolling days per year and the 3.5 hours per workday near 

the billets or the rods.

Shallow doses from the billets and rods were estimated using the measurements in Table 4-2. The 

units of measure were reported based on the rep (roentgen equivalent physical), which is a historical 

unit of dose equivalence approximately equal to a rem. These measurements were taken during an 

AEC survey in September 1948 (Piccot 1948) at Aliquippa Forge. Radiation measurements at 

Simonds appear to have been similar although, in general, the proximity of the Simonds radiation 

measurement to the source is not included. However, in April 1948, Hayden (1948a) reported 

measurements as low as background, 0.1 mrep/hr, and up to 40 mrep/hr at 8 in. from a rod storage 

pile. Direct beta readings were reported as 12 mrep/hr at 2 ft above an unswept steel floor and 

4 mrep/hr after sweeping. Measurements at 2 in. from the floor dust indicated 20-mrep/hr beta 

radiation. In May 1948, Hayden (1948b) reported the maximum exposure rate near the rod cooling 

area as 0.16 mrep/hr and the radiation from the bottom of the quench tank as 25 and 8 mrep/hr at 

6 in. and 2 ft, respectively. Reported radiation levels at various Simonds locations ranged from 0.5 to 

12 mrep/ hr in October 1948 and from 0.5 to 15 mrep/hr in December 1948 (AEC 1949h). In August 

1950, Heatherton (1950a) reported radiation levels of 1 mrep/hr within 1 to 50 ft of the Simonds rolls, 

with a maximum of 10 mrep/hr.

Table 4-2. Direct radiation measurements from September 1948 (mrep/hr).

a

Location of measurement Dose rate

Billet assumptions

Contact with floor next to the quench tank where oxide scale has collected 8

Contact with floor in front of rolls where oxide scale has collected 5-10

Same location but 18 in. high 2-5

Rod assumptions

4 ft above a pile of rods in the boxcar 20

5 ft from the end of a pile of rods next to the door of the boxcar 5

2 ft from the end of the same pile 13

a. Piccot (1948).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 37 of 59

This analysis estimated the shallow dose from billets by assuming that the median dose rate was 

5 mrem/hr and that the 95th-percentile dose rate was 10 mrem/hr, giving a GSD of 1.5. For rods, the 

assumed median dose rate was 5 mrem/hr and the assumed 95th-percentile dose rate was 

20 mrem/hr, giving a GSD of 2.3. These exposure rates were multiplied by the assumed number of 

hours per workday near the rods or billets (3.5 hours) and by the number of uranium rolling days in 

the period. Table 4-3 (Section 4.4) lists the annual doses.

4.3 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT EXTERNAL DOSE

This section includes external dose information that could be of value for specific dose 

reconstructions. This analysis did not consider such information generically because of its limited 

applicability or because of limited details.

AEC noted repeated instances of exposure to particles or chips of radioactive material, including 

stinging particles on the hands and face near the descaler (AEC 1949d) and chips of material 

embedded in the skin from work in the rod stamping area (AEC 1949–1954, p. 118; Heatherton 

1951a). Consideration of exposure due to such materials should consider the guidance in ORAUTOTIB-0017, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment of Shallow Dose (ORAUT 2005).

4.4 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS AND 

SUMMARY

Table 4-3 summarizes occupational external doses during uranium operations at Simonds.

Table 4-3. External annual exposure summary for February 24, 1948, to December 31, 1957.

Exposure 

mode Exposure type

Exposure 

or dose 

rate Basis

Assumed 

exposure 

time Year

50thpercentile 

annual 

exposure 

ratea,c,d

95thpercentile 

annual 

exposure 

ratea,c,d

Submersion/ 

area 

contamination

Penetrating 0.26 mR/ 

hr

Film badge 2,500 

workhours/ 

yr

1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

0.554 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.650 R

0.748 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

0.877 R

Nonpenetrating 1.3 mR/hr Film badge 2,500 

workhours/ 

yr

1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

2.769 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

3.250 R

10.899 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R

12.792 R
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 38 of 59

Exposure 

mode Exposure type

Exposure 

or dose 

rate Basis

Assumed 

exposure 

time Year

50thpercentile 

annual 

exposure 

ratea,c,d

95thpercentile 

annual 

exposure 

ratea,c,d

Medical X-ray 1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

Not assigned

U billets Penetrating 0.703 

mrem/hr

MCNP 

calculation

3.5 hr/ 

rolling day

1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

0.327 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.384 rem

0.076 rem

0.076 rem

0.076 rem

0.076 rem

3.605 rem

4.230 rem

4.230 rem

4.230 rem

4.230 rem

4.230 rem

0.837 rem

0.837 rem

0.837 rem

0.837 rem

Nonpenetrating 5 mrep/hr Instrument 

measurement

3.5 hr/ 

rolling day

1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

2.326 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

4.532 rep

5.319 rep

5.319 rep

5.319 rep

5.319 rep

5.319 rep

1.058 rep

1.058 rep

1.058 rep

1.058 rep

U rods Penetrating 0.285 

mrem/hr

MCNP 

calculation

3.5 hr/ 

rolling day

1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

0.133 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.156 rem

0.031 rem

0.031 rem

0.031 rem

0.031 rem

2.328 rem

2.732 rem

2.732 rem

2.732 rem

2.732 rem

2.732 rem

0.543 rem

0.543 rem

0.543 rem

0.543 rem

Nonpenetrating 5 mrem/hr Instrument 

measurement

3.5 hr/ 

rolling day

1948b

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

2.326 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

2.730 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

0.543 rep

9.155 rep

10.745 rep

10.745 rep

10.745 rep

10.745 rep

10.745 rep

2.137 rep

2.137 rep

2.137 rep

2.137 rep

a. Assigned as a constant.

b. Prorated from 02/24/1948 to 12/31/1948.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 39 of 59

c. Dose Reconstructors should use the guidance in Section 4.1.2 Exposure Energy and Geometry of OCAS-IG-001 

(NIOSH 2007) for determination of the appropriate selection for DCF geometry.

d. The 95th-percentile dose rates in Table 4-3 should be applied to all Simonds mill workers, any other worker whose job 

could have involved work in or around the rolling mills or forge shop areas, and workers whose job is unknown. 

Workers whose job would not have required work in those areas (i.e., office workers) should be assigned the 50thpercentile dose rate to allow for being occasionally exposed in the general area of uranium processing areas.

5.0 ESTIMATION OF RESIDUAL EXPOSURE

The residual contamination at the former Simonds site is primarily in the “excised area,” a 9- acre 

isolated area that includes Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4/9, 5, 6, 8, and 35. The rolling mills and forge shop that 

were used for AEC work are located in the area of Buildings 3, 6, and 8 (Vitkus 1999).

Buildings 6 and 8 are not physically separated and contain the 10-in. and 16-in. rolling mills, 

respectively. The Forge Shop during the AWE operational period was in Building 3, which is open to 

Buildings 6 and 8 (as well as Building 4/9).

Building 24 is not part of the excised area; however, the southern end of Building 24 is contaminated 

and is adjacent to Building 8. Building 24 was constructed in parts over time. The southwestern 

portion is the original structure dating to 1941 and was once the loading dock of Building 8 and used 

for uranium packaging and weighing. Construction of the southeast portion of Building 24 was 

completed in 1959. At least some of the southeast section, including overhead beams, existed during 

the AEC contract period (which ended in 1957). Both of the southern portions of Building 24 have 

contaminated surfaces. Construction of the northern portion of Building 24 was completed in 1966 

and it is essentially free of contamination (DOE 1979; Earth Tech 2010).

When the Simonds property was split in 1984, Building 24 was included in the sale of the 52-acre 

parcel to Allegheny Ludlum; it was an active warehouse during the 2007 surveys (Earth Tech 2010). 

The buildings of interest in this evaluation are Buildings 3, 6, 8, and the southwest and southeast 

portions of Building 24, which occupies the entire south end of the building. The AEC operations 

occurred in all or parts of these four buildings. Although some contamination has been identified in 

other buildings, such as Building 4/9 and Building 2, it is not as notable.

5.1 RESIDUAL INTERNAL INTAKE RATES

Twenty-one general area air sample results were taken during uranium operations (some in close 

proximity to active work) in August and October of 1954 (AEC 1953–1954; NLO 1954). Ten of the 

results were from five different locations with samples collected twice during the day. Therefore, 

those air samples from the same locations were averaged to get an average air concentration for 

each location. This resulted in 16 independent location air concentration values. To determine intake

rates for 1958 (start of the residual period), the GM alpha air concentration (122 dpm/m3

) from the 

1954 data was used. Assuming a 2,500-hour work year and a 1.2-m3

/hr inhalation rate results in an 

annual intake of 3.66 × 105 dpm (1.65 × 105 pCi), or a calendar day intake rate of 1,003 dpm/d 

(452 pCi/d).

The total beta contamination measurements were analyzed for Buildings 3, 6, 8, and 24 South from 

the characterization surveys in 2007 (Earth Tech 2010). To determine intake rates for 2007, the 

95th-percentile beta surface contamination results were calculated. The 95th-percentile value of the 

total beta contamination level was estimated to be 67,000 dpm/100 cm2

, based on the values for the 

south end of Building 24 in 2007. The uranium contamination level was assumed to be equal to the 

total beta contamination level based on equilibrium of 238U, 234Th, 234Pa, and 234U in normal uranium. 

Applying a resuspension factor of 1 x 10-6

/m results in an air concentration of 6.7 dpm/m3
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 40 of 59

(3.0 × 10-12 μCi/mL). Assuming a 2,500-hour work year and a 1.2-m3/hr inhalation rate results in an 

annual intake of 20,100 dpm (9,054 pCi), or 55 dpm/d (25 pCi/d).

The intake rates above were used to calculate a source term depletion rate based on guidance in 

ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Dose Reconstruction during Residual Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons 

Employer Facilities (ORAUT 2012). The source term depletion rate was calculated to be 

1.62 × 10-4

/d.

Consideration of exposure to thorium dust could be included based on the relative fraction of thorium 

in the process material of 1%. This activity fraction was used to calculate the thorium intake rates in 

Table 5-1. Internal exposure from ingestion would be bounded based on guidance in OCAS-TIB-009, 

Estimation of Ingestion Intakes (NIOSH 2004). The contribution from recycled uranium contaminants 

can be bounded based on the uranium intake and using the nuclide ratios provided in Table 3-9.

Table 5-1. Annual internal exposure rates during the residual period.

Internal exposure rates (assign as a constant) 

Year

Uraniuma

(pCi/d)

Thoriumb

(pCi/d)

Np-237c

(pCi/d)

Pu-239c

(pCi/d)

Tc-99c

(pCi/d)

Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing.

1958 452 8.47 4.52 0.085 0.82 0.015 1.18 0.022 171.19 3.21

1959 426 7.98 4.26 0.080 0.77 0.015 1.11 0.021 161.35 3.03

1960 401 7.52 4.01 0.075 0.73 0.014 1.05 0.020 152.08 2.85

1961 378 7.09 3.78 0.071 0.69 0.013 0.99 0.019 143.34 2.69

1962 356 6.68 3.56 0.067 0.65 0.012 0.93 0.017 135.10 2.53

1963 336 6.30 3.36 0.063 0.61 0.011 0.88 0.016 127.34 2.39

1964 317 5.94 3.17 0.059 0.58 0.011 0.83 0.015 120.02 2.25

1965 298 5.60 2.98 0.056 0.54 0.010 0.78 0.015 113.12 2.12

1966 281 5.27 2.81 0.053 0.51 0.010 0.73 0.014 106.62 2.00

1967 265 4.97 2.65 0.050 0.48 0.009 0.69 0.013 100.50 1.88

1968 250 4.69 2.50 0.047 0.45 0.009 0.65 0.012 94.72 1.78

1969 236 4.42 2.36 0.044 0.43 0.008 0.61 0.012 89.28 1.67

1970 222 4.16 2.22 0.042 0.40 0.008 0.58 0.011 84.15 1.58

1971 209 3.92 2.09 0.039 0.38 0.007 0.55 0.010 79.31 1.49

1972 197 3.70 1.97 0.037 0.36 0.007 0.51 0.010 74.75 1.40

1973 186 3.49 1.86 0.035 0.34 0.006 0.49 0.009 70.46 1.32

1974 175 3.29 1.75 0.033 0.32 0.006 0.46 0.009 66.41 1.25

1975 165 3.10 1.65 0.031 0.30 0.006 0.43 0.008 62.59 1.17

1976 156 2.92 1.56 0.029 0.28 0.005 0.41 0.008 59.00 1.11

1977 147 2.75 1.47 0.028 0.27 0.005 0.38 0.007 55.61 1.04

1978 138 2.59 1.38 0.026 0.25 0.005 0.36 0.007 52.41 0.98

1979 130 2.44 1.30 0.024 0.24 0.004 0.34 0.006 49.40 0.93

1980 123 2.30 1.23 0.023 0.22 0.004 0.32 0.006 46.56 0.87

1981 116 2.17 1.16 0.022 0.21 0.004 0.30 0.006 43.88 0.82

1982 109 2.05 1.09 0.020 0.20 0.004 0.28 0.005 41.36 0.78

1983 103 1.93 1.03 0.019 0.19 0.004 0.27 0.005 38.99 0.73

1984 97 1.82 0.97 0.018 0.18 0.003 0.25 0.005 36.75 0.69

1985 91 1.71 0.91 0.017 0.17 0.003 0.24 0.004 34.63 0.65

1986 86 1.61 0.86 0.016 0.16 0.003 0.22 0.004 32.64 0.61

1987 81 1.52 0.81 0.015 0.15 0.003 0.21 0.004 30.77 0.58

1988 77 1.43 0.77 0.014 0.14 0.003 0.20 0.004 29.00 0.54

1989 72 1.35 0.72 0.014 0.13 0.002 0.19 0.004 27.33 0.51

1990 68 1.27 0.68 0.013 0.12 0.002 0.18 0.003 25.76 0.48

1991 64 1.20 0.64 0.012 0.12 0.002 0.17 0.003 24.28 0.46

1992 60 1.13 0.60 0.011 0.11 0.002 0.16 0.003 22.89 0.43

1993 57 1.07 0.57 0.011 0.10 0.002 0.15 0.003 21.57 0.40
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 41 of 59

Internal exposure rates (assign as a constant) 

Year

Uraniuma

(pCi/d)

Thoriumb

(pCi/d)

Np-237c

(pCi/d)

Pu-239c

(pCi/d)

Tc-99c

(pCi/d)

Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing. Inh. Ing.

1994 54 1.01 0.54 0.010 0.10 0.002 0.14 0.003 20.33 0.38

1995 51 0.95 0.51 0.009 0.09 0.002 0.13 0.002 19.16 0.36

1996 48 0.89 0.48 0.009 0.09 0.002 0.12 0.002 18.06 0.34

1997 45 0.84 0.45 0.008 0.08 0.002 0.12 0.002 17.02 0.32

1998 42 0.79 0.42 0.008 0.08 0.001 0.11 0.002 16.05 0.30

1999 40 0.75 0.40 0.007 0.07 0.001 0.10 0.002 15.12 0.28

2000 38 0.71 0.38 0.007 0.07 0.001 0.10 0.002 14.25 0.27

2001 35 0.66 0.35 0.007 0.06 0.001 0.09 0.002 13.44 0.25

2002 33 0.63 0.33 0.006 0.06 0.001 0.09 0.002 12.66 0.24

2003 31 0.59 0.31 0.006 0.06 0.001 0.08 0.002 11.94 0.22

2004 30 0.56 0.30 0.006 0.05 0.001 0.08 0.001 11.25 0.21

2005 28 0.52 0.28 0.005 0.05 0.001 0.07 0.001 10.60 0.20

2006 26 0.49 0.26 0.005 0.05 0.001 0.07 0.001 9.99 0.19

2007 25 0.47 0.25 0.005 0.05 0.001 0.06 0.001 9.42 0.18

2008 23 0.44 0.23 0.004 0.04 0.001 0.06 0.001 8.88 0.17

2009 22 0.41 0.22 0.004 0.04 0.001 0.06 0.001 8.37 0.16

2010 21 0.39 0.21 0.004 0.04 0.001 0.05 0.001 7.89 0.15

2011 20 0.37 0.20 0.004 0.04 0.001 0.05 0.001 7.43 0.14

a. Uranium intake should be assigned as 100% U-234. Solubility should be selected as type M or S, whichever is most 

favorable to the claimant.

b. An intake should be assigned at the indicated rate to each of the following: Th-232, Ra-228, Ac-228, Th-228, and 

Ra-224. Solubility should be selected to be favorable to the claimant, consistent with the guidance in ORAUT-OTIB0060, Internal Dose Reconstruction (ORAUT 2014).

c. Solubility for recycled uranium components should be selected consistent with that chosen for the associated uranium 

intake, consistent with ORAUT-OTIB-0060 (ORAUT 2014).

Internal exposure from thoron was calculated using thorium material concentration (Earth Tech 2010). 

These data, listed in Table 5-2, provide 95% upper confidence level values (exposure point 

concentrations) for 232Th and 228Th in each of the described media. These concentration values were 

input to the RESRAD-Build computer program using site-specific input parameters in the 2010 

Remedial Investigation Report (Earth Tech 2010, Table 6-7) to determine the corresponding thoron 

concentration and are summarized in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Thoron-232 and thoron air concentrations from remedial investigation.

Building Th-232a (pCi/g) Area (m2)

a Height (m)a

Thoronb

(WL)

Thoronc

(WLM/year)

1 0.51 802 6 0.0022 0.032

2 1.65 5700 10.5 0.0037 0.054

3 1.16 4320 10 0.0039 0.057

4/9 1.16 4400 10 0.0039 0.057

5 0.34 348 5 0.0013 0.019

6 21.90 960 10 0.074 1.088

8 3.03 2700 10 0.01 0.147

24 16.44 7500 10 0.056 0.824

35 1.33 320 5 0.0051 0.075

a. Extracted from Earth Tech (2010).

b. WL = working level; calculated using the RESRAD-Build computer program.

c. WLM = working level month = WL × 2500/170

The bounding annual exposure rate of 1.088 working level month (WLM) per year based on the 

Building 6 contamination levels should be assigned for all workers as a constant distribution.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 42 of 59

5.2 RESIDUAL EXTERNAL DOSE RATES

Dose rate measurements and characterization data from the residual period are available from 

surveys in 1957, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1999, and 2007 (Heatherton 1957; DOE 1979; FBDU 1981; 

Cottrell 1984; Vitkus 1999; Earth Tech 2010).

• 1957: Survey by NLO after clean-up and before contract termination. This survey included 

the areas where uranium was processed and stored but did not list specific number of 

measurements nor specify the completeness of the scans. Only selected spots that had the 

highest results were listed in the report. Highest 3-ft gamma dose rate was 0.080 mR/hr 

(Heatherton 1957).

• 1976: Extensive characterization survey by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) using 

grids and full scan of surfaces in contaminated areas. Highest 1-m gamma dose rate recorded 

was 0.048 mR/hr (DOE 1979).

• 1980: Engineering evaluation that cited ORNL survey data with a few additional 

measurements in the rolling mill area (FBDU 1981).

• 1984: Survey to verify conditions of plant after closure. One spot in the open area in the 

vicinity of the 10-in. mill furnace at had a 1-m dose rate of 0.120 mR/hr. In addition, a dose 

rate of 0.100 mR/hr was found in one location when the steel floor plates were removed 

(Cottrell 1984).

• 1999: 72 gamma measurements in excised area buildings. Highest dose rate at 1 m was 

0.050 mR/hr in Building 8. 260 measurements taken in the exterior areas, both in and out of 

the excised area (Vitkus 1999).

• 2007: Gamma dose rate surveys were performed for the Remedial Investigation Report. The 

highest result in 2007 was 63 μR/hr in Building 2, which was from a hot spot. The second 

highest of the 428 measurements in Building 2 was 13 μR/hr. Building 2 was not one of the 

areas were AEC work occurred, although it was in use at the time and some contamination 

was found. The highest result in Building 3 was 21 μR/hr, the highest for Building 24 was 

12 μR/hr, while the highest dose rate measured in the Buildings 6 and 8 rolling mill areas was 

45 μR/hr. There were 29 measurements in Building 6/8 (Earth Tech 2010).

5.2.1 Penetrating Dose

Whole-body gamma dose rates from surveys from 1957 to the present were compiled. The dose rate 

measurements from outside the excised area were lower than the dose rates considered in this 

evaluation so the numerous survey data from those areas were not considered applicable to bounding 

dose from a maximally exposed mill worker. The dose rates this analysis used for the purpose of 

bounding dose to the maximally exposed worker were those in Buildings 3, 6, and 8, which were the 

locations of the rolling mills and forge shop.

The surveys from 1957 to 1999 are in general agreement, and there is no indication of any significant 

change in dose rates from 1957 to the present; the maximum 1-m gamma dose rate on the various 

surveys varied from 48 μR/hr to 120 μR/hr. Of the many measurements, only two reported results 

exceeded 80 μR/hr after the 1957 clean-up. These results reported in the 1984 survey: 120 μR/hr 

and 100 μR/hr measurements in an open area near the 10-in. furnace and an area next to the 16-in.

rolling mill, respectively. Results indicate that these higher dose rates are spots from localized 

contamination in the dirt floor and not representative of dose rates for an area. The surveys in both 

1979 and 1984 included characterization of hot spots in the floor.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 43 of 59

Survey results from the rolling mill and forge area were compiled and analyzed to determine a 

distribution of dose rates likely to have been encountered in the work area. This resulted in 37 results

at either 1 m or 3 ft from the various surveys. The dose rate data from 2007 from Buildings 6 and 8 

was similar to the earlier data in the same areas, but not as detailed and was not included in the 

distribution. The range of results in Buildings 6 and 8 was 3 to 48 μR/hr and would be within the 

ranges of the measurements evaluated.

The number of measurements was reduced to 37 for the following reasons:

• Some building and area survey results from the 1976 and 1999 surveys listed the number of 

measurements but provided only the average and maximum results. For that situation the 

maximum dose rate was considered as a single measurement.

• Some of the survey reports (that were done to supplement earlier surveys) included previous 

survey results and new survey results; duplicate results were omitted.

• Measurements from outside of uranium process areas were not used (this eliminated many of 

the lower results).

The 37 measurements consisted of: 

• 3 results documented from the 1957 survey, which were the areas with the highest gamma 

exposure; 

• 23 measurements from a grid in the rolling mill area from the 1979 survey; 

• 8 results from the 1984 survey, which were taken to supplement the 1979 measurements in 

the contaminated area; and 

• 3 maximum building dose rates results from the 1999 survey (one each from Buildings 3, 6, 

and 8).

Some of the measurements were taken both with the steel floor plates in place and with them 

removed to characterize dose rates from the contaminated dirt floor.

The results were ranked and a lognormal distribution was fit to the data. The 95th percentile of the 

distribution is 75 μR/hr. Therefore, the 80-μR/hr dose rate from the 1957 survey provides a bounding 

dose rate. Although workers could have been exposed to isolated spots with higher dose rates, most 

of the work areas around the rolling mills and forge area measured less than 50 μR/hr.

The penetrating dose during the residual contamination period was calculated by assuming 

2,500 hours of exposure per year at 80 μR/hr, resulting in an annual whole body photon dose of 

0.200 R/yr. The value is considered bounding and should be applied as a constant in the Interactive 

RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP). Dose Reconstructors should use the guidance in Section 

4.1.2, Exposure Energy and Geometry of OCAS-IG-001 (NIOSH 2007) for determination of the 

appropriate selection for DCF geometry.

5.2.2 Nonpenetrating Dose

The 1957 survey indicated the maximum 3-ft beta dose rate was from the 10-in. bar mill bed, which 

measured between 1 and 1.7 mrep/hr, with contact beta-gamma being between 10 and 20 mrep/hr.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 44 of 59

The 1976 characterization survey recorded contact beta-gamma measurements on a 15-ft grid but no 

measurements at 3 ft; neither did subsequent surveys.

Nonpenetrating dose from electrons during the residual period were estimated based on exposure at 

the 10-in. bar mill. The midpoint of the 1.0 to 1.7 mrad/hr range of dose rates, 1.35 mrad/hr, was used 

to estimate dose for exposure for 2,500 hr/yr and resulted in an annual beta dose of 3.375 rem. The 

value is considered bounding and thus will be applied as a constant in IREP. Table 5-3 lists annual 

external exposure rates during the residual period.

Table 5-3. Annual external exposure rates during the residual period.

Annual external exposure rates

Start End Exposure Energy R/yr IREP distribution

01/01/1958 Present Penetrating 100% 30–250 keV photon 0.200 Constant

01/01/1958 Present Nonpenetrating 100% >15 keV electron 3.375 Constant

6.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

All information requiring identification was addressed via references integrated into the reference 

section of this document.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 45 of 59

REFERENCES

Abu-Eid, R. M., R. B. Codell, N. A. Eisenburg, T. E. Harris, and S. McGuire, 2002, Re-Evaluation of 

the Indoor Resuspension Factor for the Screening Analysis of the Building Occupancy 

Scenario for NRC’s License Termination Rule, NUREG-1720, Draft Report for Comment, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, , 

Washington, D.C., June. [SRDB Ref ID: 22400]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948a, Monthly Status and Progress Report for February 

1948, Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, March 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 

6287, p. 67]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948b, Monthly Status and Progress Report for March 1948, 

Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, April 6. [SRDB Ref ID: 6287, 

p. 87]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948c, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, Visit of October 27, 1948, New York Operations Office, New York, New 

York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10883]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948d, Simonds Saw & Steel Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, Visit of December 1, 1948, New York Operations Office, New York, New 

York. [SRDB Ref ID: 12442]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1948e, Monthly Status and Progress Report for November 

1948, Office of New York Directed Operations, New York, New York, December 13. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 6287, p.254]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949a, Monthly Status and Progress Report for April 1949, 

New York Operations Office, New York, New York, May 10. [SRDB Ref ID: 6291, p. 93]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949b, “Weekly Activity Report,” memorandum to W. J. 

Williams, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, September 30. [SRDB Ref ID: 

6291, p. 252]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949c, Film Badge Report, New York Operations Office, 

New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 12437]

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

Radioactive Dust, Visit of January 10-21, 1949, New York Operations Office, New York, New 

York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10908]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949e, Simonds Saw & Steel Co., Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust Visit of April 5, 1949, New York Operations Office, New York, New York,

April 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 16230]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949f, Monthly Status and Progress Report for November 

1949, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, December 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 6291, 

p. 184]

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

Processing Uranium (A Status Report - April 1, 1949), New York Operations Office, New York, 

New York, April 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 3931]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 46 of 59

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949h, Simonds Saw & Steel Co., Summary Report of Three 

Surveys (Oct. 27, 1948 - Feb. 15, 1949), New York Operations Office, New York, New York. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 249]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1949–1954, collection of air dust and urine analysis results, 

New York Operations Office, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10191]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1950, Simonds Saw & Steel Co., Occupational Exposure to 

Radioactive Dust, January 6, 9 and 10, 1950, New York Operations Office, New York, 

New York, February 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 10184]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1951, Tonawanda Area Progress Report, November 1951, 

Tonawanda Sub-Office, Model City, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 66863]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1952, Tonawanda Area Progress Report for January 1952, 

Tonawanda Sub-Office, Model City, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 9545, p. 24]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1953, Survey of Accounting Control over Source and 

Fissionable Material, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, June 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 6867]

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1953–1954, Air Dust and Urine Data, New York Operations 

Office, New York, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 10190]

Author unknown, undated, Authority Review for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Lockport, 

New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 2]

Author unknown, 1948, Uranium Content of Urine Samples from Simonds Steel Mills, Lockport, 

New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 11227]

Battelle Team, 2006, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, 

Battelle-TBD-6001, Revision F0, Richland, Washington, December 13. [SRDB Ref ID: 30673]

Belmore, F. M., 1952, “Thorium Rolling – Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to C. L. Karl 

(U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Fernald Area Office), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 

New York Operations Office, New York, New York, November 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 14653]

Blythe, D. J., 1953, “Decontamination of Simonds Saw & Steel Co., Lockport, N.Y.,” memorandum to 

R. C. Heatherton, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, November 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 

681]

Cottrell, W. D., 1984, “Radiological Survey of the Guterl Steel Facility, Lockport, New York,” letter 

to G. P. Turi (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy), Martin Marietta 

Energy Systems, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 20. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 71882]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1979, “Radiological Survey of the Former Simonds Saw and Steel 

Co., Lockport, New York, DOE/EV-0005/17, Final Report, Office of Environmental Compliance 

and Overview, Washington, D.C., November. [SRDB Ref ID: 10877]

Earth Tech, 2010, Remedial Investigation Report, Former Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation FUSRAP 

Site, Lockport, New York, July. [SRDB Ref ID: 89202]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 47 of 59

Eidson, A. F., 1994, “The effect of solubility on inhaled uranium compound clearance: A review,” 

Health Physics, volume 67, number 1, pp. 1–14. [SRDB Ref ID: 81562]

Ericson, M., 1957a, “Subcontract No. S-4 - Simonds Saw and Steel Company,” letter to W. W. 

Damewood (U. S. Atomic Energy Commission), National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, 

Ohio, October 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 81562]

Ericson, M, 1957b, untitled telegram to D. H. Mackey (Simonds Saw and Steel Company), National 

Lead Company of Ohio, Fernald, Ohio, September 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 81566]

FBDU (Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah), 1981, Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Evaluation of 

the Remedial Action Alternatives for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Company Site, 

Lockport, New York, FBDU 409-314, Salt Lake City, Utah, November. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, 

p. 191]

Harris, W. B., 1954, “Rolling of Thorium and Uranium at Simonds Saw and Steel Company,” 

memorandum to C. L. Karl (Fernald Area Office), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operation Office, New York, New York, September 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 537]

Hayden, R. E., 1948a, “Metal Rolling at the Simonds Saw and Steel Company of Lockport, 

New York”, memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, April 13. [SRDB Ref ID: 11232, p. 13]

Hayden, R. E., 1948b, “Contamination of the Simonds Saw and Steel Company at Lockport, 

New York,” memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, May 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 11229]

Heatherton, R. C., 1948, “Radiation Levels at the Simonds Steel and Saw Company, Lockport, 

New York,” memorandum to F. J. Epp, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, October 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 10225, p. 3]

Heatherton, R. C., 1950a, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust, Simonds-9, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and 

Safety Division, New York, New York, October 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 17024]

Heatherton, R. C., 1950b, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, Health and Safety 

Division, New York, New York, June 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 16310]

Heatherton, R. C., 1951a, “Trip Report – Visits to L.O.O.W. and Simonds Saw and Steel - March 7 

and 8, 1951,” memorandum to W. B. Harris, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office, New York, New York, March 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 81453]

Heatherton, R. C., 1951b, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Occupational Exposure to Radioactive 

Dust, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, 

March 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 16353]

Heatherton, R. C., 1953a, “Decontamination of Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to 

J. A. Quigley, November 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 682]

Heatherton, R. C., 1953b, “Air Survey of Special Rolling ‘E’ Material on 10” Mill, Simonds Saw & Steel 

Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, April 30. [SRDB Ref ID: 

14150]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 48 of 59

Heatherton, R. C., 1956, “Monthly Report - Industrial Hygiene & Radiation Dept., Month of July 1 

through July 31,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, August 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 81440]

Heatherton, R. C., 1957, “Trip Report to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York, July 

10, 1957,” memorandum to J. A. Quigley, National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

July 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 627]

Heffernan, T. E., J. C. Lodwick, H. Spitz, J. Neton, and M. Soldano, 2001, “Solubility of Airborne 

Uranium Compounds at the Fernald Environmental Management Project,” Health Physics, 

volume 80, number 3, pp. 255–262. [SRDB Ref ID: 7924]

Hershman, H. J., 1949, “Visit to the Simonds Saw & Steel Company,” memorandum to Files, U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, September 8. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 10876, p. 8]

Huke, F., 1951, “Rolling of Thorium,” memorandum to F. M. Belmore, U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, August 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 124]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1975, Report of the Task Group on 

Reference Man, Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. [SRDB Ref ID: 22735]

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

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. [SRDB Ref ID: 

22732]

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. [SRDB Ref ID: 11513]

Keller, E. C., 1979, untitled letter to W. E. Mott (U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Environmental 

Control Technology), Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation, Lockport, New York, January 16. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 13]

Klevin, P. B., 1951, Simonds Saw and Steel, Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust, U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, October 12. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 16314]

Klevin, P. B., 1954, “National Lead of Ohio Rolling Operations at Simonds Saw & Steel_August 5–6, 

1954,” memorandum to W. B. Harris, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations

Office, New York, New York, September 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 68]

Klevin, P. B., and M. S. Weinstein, 1953a, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Occupational Exposure 

to Uranium, Simonds-12, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New 

York, New York, February 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 17017]

Klevin, P. B., and M. S. Weinstein, 1953b, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Occupational Exposure 

to Thorium, Simonds-13, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, 

Health and Safety Division, New York, New York, February 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 17025]

Leiton, R. P., 2010, untitled letter to S. Hinnefeld (National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support), U.S. Department of Labor, Office of

Workers’ Compensation Programs, Washington, D.C., August 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 93729]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 49 of 59

Magoun, J. W., and A. S. Yocco, 1956, “Trip Report to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, 

New York, on April 19, 1956,” memorandum to A. Stewart, Jr., National Lead Company of 

Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 81543]

McCreery, P. M., 1957, “Completion of AEC Production Order #A-60,” memorandum to F. L. Cuthbert, 

June 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 81553]

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

OCAS-TIB-009, Rev. 0, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 

13.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety), 2007, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 3, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 21. 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010a, Radiation Exposures Covered 

for Dose Reconstructions Under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act, DCAS-IG-003, Rev. 1, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 5.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010b, SEC Petition Evaluation 

Report, Petition SEC-00157, Rev. 0, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, October 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 135195]

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1954, collection of analyses of lead shavings and air dust 

samples, Cincinnati, Ohio. [SRDB Ref ID: 73658]

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1954–1956, collection of Analytical Data Sheets, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. [SRDB Ref ID: 14152]

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1956, collection of Analytical Data Sheets, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

July. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 545]

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1957a, NLO Intra Plant Production Order Request, Cincinnati, 

Ohio, April 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 81554]

NLO (National Lead Company of Ohio), 1957b, “Minutes of Management Committee Meeting, April 

29, 1957,” Cincinnati, Ohio, April 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 81555]

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002, Technical Basis for Calculating Radiation Doses 

for the Building Occupancy Scenario Using the Probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code, 

NUREG/CR-6755, Washington, D.C., February. [SRDB Ref ID: 91669]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010, “Simonds Saw & Steel Co. (1948-1956),” 

documented communication with [name redacted] (former Simonds Saw & Steel employee) et 

al., Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 84727]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 50 of 59

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2011, Guidance on Assigning Occupational XRay Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 00, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, January 3.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012, Dose Reconstruction during Residual 

Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities, ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Rev. 01, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, March 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTOTIB-0060, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 

8.

Piccot, A. R., 1948, Health Physics Survey of Vulcan Crucible Steel Co., U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, September 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 9949, p. 5]

Polson, C. E., 1954, “Contamination – Simonds Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum 

to J. H. Gibarski, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, November 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 

71]

Reichard, H. F., 1949, “Trips to Simonds Saw & Steel Company and Lake Ontario Ordinance Works,” 

memorandum to Files, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New 

York, New York, June 13. [SRDB Ref ID: 10876, p. 1]

Schlitz, J. F., 1954, Standard Operating Procedure for Rolling 2.75% Enriched Metal at Simonds Saw 

and Steel Company, Production Order No. 296 (Section 1.4.3.12), FMPC-477 Special, 

National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 80177]

Schlitz, J. F., 1955, Standard Operating Procedure for Rolling 7.2% Enriched Metal at Simonds Saw 

and Steel Company, Production Order No. 532 (Section 1.4.3.20), NLCO-593 Special, 

National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 44168]

Schumann, C. E., 1953, Industrial Hygiene Survey of Uranium Rolling at Simonds Saw & Steel Co., 

National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 6866]

Sebelius, K., 2011, HHS Designation of Additional Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, Designating 

a Class of Employees from Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., 

January 6. [SRDB Ref ID: 135193]

Smith, R. J. Jr., 1951, “Current Rolling Procedure at Simonds Saw and Steel Company,” 

memorandum to W. A. Larkin (Oak Ridge Operations Office), U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New York, October 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 

4392, p. 7]

Spiegl, C. J., H. E. Stokinger, J. DeVoldre, K. Lauterbach, and S. Dzuibs, undated, Air Contamination 

During Uranium Fabrication at Simonds Saw and Steel Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 11217]

Tabershaw, I. R., 1948, untitled letter to B. S. Wolf (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, New York, New York, December 15. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 11226, p. 5]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 51 of 59

Tabershaw, I. R., 1949, “Visit to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” 

memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, 

New York, New York, February 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 10213, p. 7]

Tabershaw, I. R., 1952, “Visit to Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, New York, on Saturday, 

March 22, 1952, ... ,” memorandum to M. Eisenbud, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New 

York Operations Office, New York, New York, April 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 10213, p. 1]

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), ca. 2010, collection of Guterl Steel FUSRAP posters, Buffalo 

District, Buffalo, New York. [SRDB Ref ID: 89201]

Vitkus, T. J., 1999, Radiological Survey of the Guterl Specialty Steel Corporation, Lockport, New York, 

ORISE 99-1699, Final Report, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, December. [SRDB Ref ID: 10228]

Wilson, R. H., 1959, “The Hanford Uranium Bio-Assay Program,” Symposium on Occupational Health 

Experience and Practices in the Uranium Industry, Held in New York, New York, October 15–

17, HASL-58, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office, New York, New 

York, December. [SRDB Ref ID: 7886, p. 89]

Wolf, B. S., 1948, “Recommendation for Proposed Contract - Simonds Saw & Steel Co.,” 

memorandum to F. M. Belmore, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations 

Office, New York, New York, May 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 11232, p. 2]

Wunder, G. W., 1953, “Resume Activities Month Ending December 20, 1953,” memorandum to C. L. 

Karl (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Fernald Area Office), National Lead Company of Ohio, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. December 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 81597]

Wunder, G. W., 1956, “Request for Services at Simonds Saw and Steel Company, Lockport, 

New York,” letter to C. L. Karl (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), Simonds Saw and Steel 

Company, Lockport, New York, May 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 630]

Yoder, J. D., 1954, “Trip to Simonds Saw & Steel Company, Lockport, New York,” memorandum to 

R. C. Heatherton, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, October 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 11996, p. 

620]
ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 52 of 59

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L.

11/01/1948 11/03/1948

<0.01 mg/L insufficient for reliable detection

Pre roll

01/06/1949

Pre roll

04/27/1949

HNO3 treated

pre 3rd roll

11/04/1949

Last day of roll

11/04/1948 11/08/1948 11/11/1948 11/15/1948 11/17/1949

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.007 0.004 0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.001 0.008 0.007 0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.002 0.010 0.007 0

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.011 0.007 0

0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.009 0.017 0.011 0

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.009 0.019 0.013 0

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.010 0.019 0.013 0

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.013 0.023 0.013 0

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.013 0.023 0.014 0

0.04 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.015 0.024 0.015 0

0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.018 0.029 0.016 0

0.14 0.09 0.036 0.021 0

0.024 0

0.027 0

0.028 0

0.272 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003
ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 53 of 59

11/01/1948 11/03/1948

<0.01 mg/L insufficient for reliable detection

Pre roll

01/06/1949

Pre roll

04/27/1949

HNO3 treated

pre 3rd roll

11/04/1949

Last day of roll

11/04/1948 11/08/1948 11/11/1948 11/15/1948 11/17/1949

0.004

0.004

0.006

0.006

0.007

0.010

0.011

0.011

0.013

0.014

0.014

0.015

0.017

0.029

0.030

0.036

0.164
ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 54 of 59

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L.

Pre roll

01/06/1950

Post roll

01/19/1950 05/15/1950

Post roll

05/23/1950

Second shift less supervision

09/23/1950 09/25/1950 10/20/1950 10/25/1950

Pre roll

08/14/1950

Post roll

08/28/1950

0 0 0 0 0.015 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.016 0.009 0 0.004 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.017 0.012 0 0.005 0 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.017 0.015 0 0.005 0 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.018 0.015 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0 0.018 0.016 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0.002 0.022 0.016 0 0.009 0.002 0.002

0 0 0 0.003 0.022 0.016 0 0.009 0.004 0.004

0 0 0.001 0.003 0.024 0.016 0 0.011 0.004 0.006

0 0 0.002 0.003 0.028 0.017 0 0.013 0.004 0.006

0 0 0.003 0.006 0.028 0.017 0 0.013 0.008 0.008

0 0.001 0.005 0.013 0.028 0.017 0.002 0.014 0.012 0.010

0 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.031 0.017 0.004 0.014 0.012 0.010

0 0.002 0.007 0.014 0.033 0.019 0.005 0.015 0.022 0.010

0 0.003 0.008 0.016 0.033 0.019 0.005 0.015 0.024 0.010

0 0.006 0.008 0.016 0.035 0.019 0.005 0.016 0.027 0.017

0 0.007 0.012 0.016 0.035 0.025 0.014 0.018 0.028 0.017

0 0.008 0.014 0.016 0.037 0.033 0.014 0.023 0.044 0.019

0 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.046 0.018 0.024 0.067 0.043

0.001 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.102 0.020

0.001 0.013 0.015 0.017

0.001 0.014 0.015 0.017

0.001 0.015 0.016 0.018

0.001 0.015 0.016 0.019

0.002 0.015 0.022 0.034

0.002 0.015

0.002 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.003 0.016

0.004 0.017

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.018
ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 55 of 59

Pre roll

01/06/1950

Post roll

01/19/1950 05/15/1950

Post roll

05/23/1950

Second shift less supervision

09/23/1950 09/25/1950 10/20/1950 10/25/1950

Pre roll

08/14/1950

Post roll

08/28/1950

0.006 0.018

0.006 0.019

0.008 0.020

0.009 0.020

0.011 0.021

0.012 0.022

0.012 0.022

0.012 0.027

0.014 0.031

0.014 0.031

0.014 0.031

0.017 0.033

0.018 0.033

0.023 0.035

0.026
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 56 of 59

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE (continued)

Uranium urinalyses in mg/L.

11/09/1950 11/16/1950 12/14/1950

Samples collected at 5 p.m.

Preroll

12/20/1952

Postroll

12/22/1952

0 0 0 0.001 0.001

0 0 0 0.002 0.003

0 0 0 0.002 0.003

0 0 0 0.002 0.004

0 0 0 0.004 0.004

0 0 0 0.006 0.004

0 0 0.002 0.006 0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.006

0.004 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.004 0.012 0.008

0.006 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.010

0.015 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.015 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.030 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.010

0.006 0.006 0.013 0.011

0.006 0.007 0.013 0.012

0.006 0.007 0.014 0.012

0.009 0.007 0.015 0.013

0.009 0.008 0.015 0.013

0.009 0.008 0.016 0.014

0.009 0.008 0.016 0.014

0.009 0.009 0.016 0.015

0.009 0.009 0.017 0.015

0.009 0.010 0.017 0.015

0.011 0.011 0.017 0.015

0.013 0.011 0.017 0.016

0.015 0.015 0.017 0.016

0.015 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.015 0.018 0.017

0.017 0.016 0.020 0.018

0.017 0.017 0.021 0.018

0.020 0.019 0.022 0.019

0.022 0.024 0.023 0.020

0.028 0.080 0.023 0.021

0.023 0.022

0.023 0.022

0.024 0.022

0.024 0.025

0.024 0.025

0.024 0.026

0.027 0.026

0.027 0.027
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 57 of 59

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER BIOASSAY DATA BY SAMPLE DATE (continued)

11/09/1950 11/16/1950 12/14/1950

Samples collected at 5 p.m.

Preroll

12/20/1952

Postroll

12/22/1952

0.028 0.029

0.028 0.030

0.029 0.030

0.029 0.032

0.033 0.033

0.034 0.036

0.037 0.036

0.037 0.036

0.041 0.041

0.044 0.046

0.048 0.048

0.048 0.050

0.056 0.053

0.066 0.054
ATTACHMENT B

GRAPHS SHOWING PREDICTED BIOASSAY FROM AIR AND FITS OF COWORKER BIOASSAY

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 58 of 59

The graphs show predicted bioassay results from the estimated air intakes, superimposed on the GM, 84th-percentile, and maximum 

coworker bioassay results. Asterisks (*) identify reasonable fits. X-axis is days (0 = February 24, 1948). Y-axis is mg/day.

Type S, GM bioassay* Type M, GM bioassay

Type S, 84th-percentile bioassay Type M, 84th-percentile bioassay

Type S, maximum bioassay Type M, maximum bioassay*
ATTACHMENT B

GRAPHS SHOWING PREDICTED BIOASSAY FROM AIR AND FITS OF COWORKER BIOASSAY (continued)

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0032 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 10/21/2014 Page 59 of 59

Graphs showing fits of coworker bioassay data to three inhalation intakes. X-axis is in days (0 = February 24, 1948). Y-axis uranium 

urinalyses results in mg/day. 

Type M, GM bioassay Type S, GM bioassay

Type M, 84th-percentile bioassay Type S, 84th-percentile bioassay

Type M, maximum bioassay Type S, maximum bioassay