Page 1 of 18

Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, 

“Review of Site Profiles for Atomic 

Weapons Employers That Worked 

Uranium Metals: Appendix J-Joslyn”

Response Paper

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health

July 19, 2023

Mutty M. Sharfi

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

Reviewed by Alek Kranbuhl

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 2 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sanford Cohen & Associates (SC&A) was tasked by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health to conduct a review of the site profile for the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply 

Company, Battelle-TBD-6000 Appendix J [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) 2014]. In SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, SC&A performed an independent evaluation of 

uranium processing days at Joslyn from March 1, 1943, to December 31, 1952 [SC&A 2015]. 

This response paper provides a reanalysis of the same uranium processing reports originally done 

for the Joslyn site profile. 

NIOSH found several inconsistencies in the SC&A analysis that resulted in some differences in 

the number of uranium processing days. These inconsistencies include the production rate, 

number of shifts per day, and yield rates. NIOSH used the information compiled in SC&A

[2015] and reassessed the assumptions made in Battelle-TBD-6000 Appendix J [NIOSH 2014]. 

SC&A [2015] also includes a review of the internal and external dose approaches in the site 

profile. This response paper does not respond to that analysis; it covers only the SC&A analysis 

of the number of uranium processing days. 

INTRODUCTION

Section 1.2.1 of SC&A [2015] provides a year-by-year analysis of the various contracts Joslyn 

had with the Manhattan Engineer District and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) from 

March 1, 1943, to December 31, 1952. These contracts covered the rolling of uranium billets into 

rods and in some cases the machining of the rods via centerless grinding. The SC&A analysis

states that the purpose of the assessment was to determine the “maximum likely number of days 

of uranium processing during each year” (p. 8). NIOSH believes some assumptions in the SC&A

analysis do not result in likely scenarios but rather only provide maximizing estimates. The 

reanalysis in this response paper was done to perform a favorable and bounding, but realistic, 

estimate of the likely number of days of uranium processing during each year. 

To do this, the information in the site profile [NIOSH 2014] and the Special Exposure Cohort 

(SEC) petition evaluation report [NIOSH 2012] was first used to determine a uniform 

assumption that could be used across all years to provide a more consistent set of assumptions 

when information is limited. This includes determining average billet and rod weight, average 

billet-to-rod yield, and production rates for rolling and machining. These default assumptions can 

then be used to estimate favorable production times when the documentation does not provide 

details.
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 3 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

ASSESSMENT OF DEFAULT ASSUMPTIONS

Average Billet and Rod Weight 

Joslyn had several contracts with the Manhattan Engineer District between March 1, 1943, and 

December 31, 1952. Several of these contracts document individual or total numbers of billets 

and rods and their associated weights [Greninger 1943; Foote 1944; DuPont 1945; Smith 1947]. 

This information was used to calculate an average weight for billets and rods. The information 

from these sources resulted in a combined 636 billets and 1,028 rods with total weights of 

157,436 lb (78.7 t) and 129,315 lb (64.7 t), respectively. This results in average weights of 248 lb

per billet and 126 lb per rod. 

Average Billet-to-Rod Yield

Most documentation associated with Joslyn production did not provide precalculated billet-torod yields. However, given the data on billet and rod weights, that data can be combined with the 

limited job-specific billet-to-rod yield results to calculate an overall average billet-to-rod yield. 

In 1949, a letter from the head of the Metallurgy and Control Division provided a table of 

observed rolling and machining yields [Hauff 1949]. This report not only provides billet-to-rod 

yields but also billet-to-slug, rod-to-slug, solid scrap, and turning yields for Joslyn, Simonds, and 

Vulcan. The Hauff report indicates that the billet-to-rod yields across all three rolling mills 

ranged from 93.5% to 99.2% and the billet-to-slug yield ranged from 54.3% to 71.3%. Given the 

large difference in these two yields, this knowledge was considered in determining if various 

contracts were for rolling only or potentially included machining when no information was 

provided on the type of work performed. 

To determine average billet-to-rod yields, only the Joslyn data in Hauff [1949] was considered. 

In addition, the data in Hauff was combined with the billet and rod weight data [Greninger 1943; 

Foote 1944; DuPont 1945] to calculate an average Joslyn billet-to-rod yield. This analysis 

resulted in an average billet-to-rod yield value of 95% for Joslyn. 

Production Rate for Rolling and Machining

The production rate for rolling and machining was based on several contracts in which billet and 

rod information and job length were provided. Jobs that likely occurred during a partial day were 

not considered in the average because it was not possible to determine the fraction of the day the 

rolling activities occurred. For example, in 1944 Joslyn processed 2.5 t of billets in likely less 

than a single day [Foote 1944]. The production rate for rolling was considered for various jobs, 

as follows: 

• Klevin [1952, Appendix B]. Indicates that the plant was capable of performing 

80 rollings per shift over 2 shifts per day. Given an average billet weight of about 0.124 t 

per billet, this results in a production rate of 19.8 t of billets per day. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 4 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

• Smith [1947]. Processed 106 billets (69 G & 37 UM) for a total weight of 21,165 lb over 

the course of 2 days. This results in a production rate of 5.3 t of billets per day. 

• Taussig [1948]. Processed 33 t of billets over the course of 5 days. This results in a 

production rate of 6.6 t of billets per day. 

• Garrow [1959]. Processed 275 billets that averaged between 150 and 225 lb over the 

course of 2 days. This results in a production rate of 12.9 t of billets per day. 

• DuPont [1945]. Processed 65.4 t of billets over the course of 7 days. This results in a 

production rate of 9.3 t of billets per day. 

Based on these examples a favorable but realistic production rate of 5.3 t per day or about 

43 billets per day was chosen based on the lower end of the production rates for billets listed 

above. 

For machining production of rods, only two instances of processing time were identified: 

• Klevin [1952, Appendix B]. Provides rates for machining, centerless grinding, grinding 

down burrs, and cutting on a Cut-O-Matic. The limiting task was machining the rod to 

the required outside diameter. The production rate for that task was six rods per shift 

during 2 shifts per day. This results in a production rate of 12 rods per day.

• Simmons [1943]. Processed 158 rods over the course of 10 days. This results in a 

production rate of 15.8 rods per day. 

Based on these examples, a favorable but realistic production rate of 12 rods per day or about 

0.75 t per day was chosen based on the lower end of the production rates for the rods listed above 

and on the average rod weight. 

ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL PRODUCTION

1943 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1943: 

• Chipman [1943]. On March 13, 1943, three ingots (ingots and billets seem to be used 

interchangeably, therefore it was assumed they are the same) from Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology were processed. This represents 1 production day based on the 

date range.

• Greninger [1943]. On June 29, 1943, six billets were rolled. This represents 1 production 

day based on the date range.
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 5 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

• DeBlois [1946]. Joslyn used 32.3 t of uranium to produce 23.5 t of rods. That results in a 

yield of about 73%. This is more consistent with the yield associated with rolling and 

machining. Therefore, it was assumed both activities occurred. Assuming the Joslyn 

production rate, this results in an assumed rolling time of 7 days and machining time of 

32 days for a total of 39 production days.

• Van Echo [1943a]. A September 1, 1943, report describes centerless grinding of extruded 

uranium rods at Joslyn. The report did not specify dates, duration, or quantity. However, 

the work on September 7, 1943, listed a single table of 14 rods and indicated that the 

work took 8 hours [Van Echo 1943b]. The report refers to three tables of rod information 

(those tables were not provided); therefore, it is assumed that this work took 3 times 

longer than the September 7, 1943, work (i.e., 24 hours). Assuming 8 hours per shift and 

2 shifts per day, this work would take 2 production days. 

• Van Echo [1943b]. On September 7, 1943, 14 rods were ground in 8 hours (i.e., 

1 production day). 

• Simmons [1943]. From November 29 to December 15, 1943, records indicate that work 

was performed 7 days a week, 16 hours per day (i.e., 2 shifts) with the exception of 

1 day, November 30, when the machine was down). This results in 17 days of production. 

Combining the above work results in a total of 61 production days. Because 1943 is a partial 

year, the number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH

2011]. For work before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week.

Therefore, from March 1 to December 31, 1943, there would be 252 potential workdays 

(assuming 2 weeks of vacation). Reducing this by the number of production days results in 

191 nonproduction days for 1943.

1944 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1944: 

• Frye [1946]. In late 1943, Joslyn started a contract with the University of Chicago to 

perform rolling services (p. 4). This contract was amended multiple times [Harrell 

1944a,b,c,d, 1945] to increase the contract amount and time. There was no specific 

information on the amount of material or time of services. However, the final billed 

amount was $13,338 and the contract details indicate that the all inclusive billing rate was 

$12 per hour [Harrell 1944a,b]. Therefore, the billed amount of $13,338 represents about 

1,112 hours of work. Assuming this work occurred during two 8-hour shifts per day (i.e. 

16 work hours per day), the $13,338 billed represents about 70 days of work [Klevin 

1952]. Although the contract extends over a long period, it is assumed all this work 

occurred in 1944. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 6 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

• Simmons [1944a]. From January 3 to January 14, 1944, Joslyn performed rolling on 

3 billets and machined 455 rods. This represents 12 production days based on the date 

range.

• Simmons [1944b , p. 130]. From February 23 to February 26, 1944, Joslyn performed

cold drawing experiments on 20 rods. This represents 4 production days based on the 

date range.

• Greninger [1944]. On May 3 and 4, 1944, Joslyn performed rolling on 10 billets and 

machined 6 rods. This represents 2 production days based on the date range. 

• DuPont [1945]. From May 9 to May 11, 1944, Joslyn performed rolling activities on 

231 billets. This represents 3 production days based on the date range. 

• Simmons [1944c], DuPont [1945]. On June 2, 1944, Joslyn performed experimental 

rolling on 23 new rolls. This represents 1 production day based on the date range. 

• Simmons [1944d]. From June 19 to June 20, 1944, Joslyn performed experimental rolling 

on 2 bars. This represents 2 production days based on the date range. 

• DuPont [1945]. From June 22 to June 24, 1944, Joslyn performed rolling on 252 billets. 

This represents 3 production days based on the date range. 

• King [1945]. From December 11 to 12, 1944, Joslyn performed rolling on 40 billets, and 

from December 20 to 28, 1944, Joslyn performed rolling on 304 billets. This represents 

11 production days based on the date range. 

• Harrell [1944e]. In December of 1944, Joslyn performed work on what seems to be a 

second contract with the University of Chicago for rolling services. There was no specific 

information on the amount of material or time of services. The final billed amount was 

$11,801.83. The same billing rate from previous contracts of $12 per hour was assumed

[Harrell 1944a,b]. Therefore, the billed amount of $11,801.83 represents about 983 hours 

of work. Assuming this work occurred during two 8-hour shifts per day (i.e. 16 work 

hours per day), the $11,802 billed represents about 62 days of work [Klevin 1952]. 

Combining the above work results in a total of 170 production days. The number of 

nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH 2011]. For work 

before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week. Therefore, for 1944, 

there would be 300 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of vacation). Reducing this by the 

number of production days results in 130 nonproduction days for 1944. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 7 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

1945 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1945: 

• Bassett and Belmore [1945a,b], Belmore [1945a,b]. This contract indicated that 220 rods 

were produced at Joslyn. This amount is consistent with the values in Table 1 of Garrow 

[1961] on NRX rod fabrication which indicates 222 rods were produced from 

Mallinckrodt ingots. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results in an assumed rolling 

time of 3 days and machining time of 19 days for a total of 22 production days. 

• Koenig [1945]. The letter indicated that a special requisition was “being investigated” for 

the processing of 12 t of rods. There is no indication this is the same work as the Belmore 

[1945a,b] work. Therefore, it is assumed this was a separate job. Assuming Joslyn’s 

production rate, this results in an assumed rolling time of 3 days and machining time of 

16 days for a total of 19 production days. 

Combining the above work results in a total of 41 production days. The number of 

nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH 2011]. For work 

before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week. Therefore, for 1945 

there would be 300 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of vacation). Reducing this by the 

number of production days results in 259 nonproduction days for 1945. 

1946 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1946: 

• Chrestia [1947]. This monthly production report indicates that 11 t of rods were produced 

at Joslyn. This amount is consistent with the values in Table 1 of Garrow [1961] on NRX 

rod fabrication, which indicates 166 rods were produced from Mallinckrodt ingots (using 

the average rod weight, this represents about 10.4 t). Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, 

this results in an assumed rolling time of 3 days. There was no indication that machining 

was performed.

• Belmore [1946], Koenig [1946], Beeler [1947]. These references indicate that Joslyn 

performed rolling for the British government. Beeler [1947] indicates that Joslyn received 

450 billets (estimated to be 52 t) from the Electro Metallurgical Company and shipped 

15.5 t of rods to Middlesex, 7.5 t of scrap to Metal Hydrides, and 7.5 t of D-2 to DuPont 

Recovery. The Beeler report is a cost analysis for the work performed for the British 

government. Given that 450 billets would result in more than 15 t of rods, it is assumed 

that the 15.5 t of rods were a separate rolling operation from the 450 billets. Therefore, 

using Joslyn’s average yield, the 15.5 t of rods would have required an additional 16 t of 

billets. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, rolling 65 t of billets would require 13 rolling 

days. There was no indication that machining was performed. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 8 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

• Cowen [1946]. Between October 28, 1946 and November 1, 1946, Joslyn produced 

4,407.49 lb of rods. Therefore, using Joslyn’s average yield this would have required 

2.3 t of billets. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, rolling 2.3 t of billets would require 

1 rolling day. There was no indication that machining was performed. 

• Schumar and Swanson [1946]. Sometime before June 21, 1946, Joslyn performed 

straightening of approximately six composite rods. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, 

machining six rods would require 1 machining day. 

Combining the above work results in a total of 18 production days. The number of 

nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH 2011]. For work 

before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week. Therefore, for 1946, 

there would be 300 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of vacation). Reducing this by the 

number of production days results in 282 nonproduction days for 1946. 

1947 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1947: 

• Smith [1947]. On August 5 and 6, 1947, Joslyn performed rolling on 10 t of billets. This 

represents 2 production days based on the date range. 

The above work results in a total of 2 production days. The number of nonproduction days was 

based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH 2011]. For work before 1951, it was assumed

that the site averaged 6 workdays per week. Therefore, for 1947, there would be 300 potential 

workdays (assuming 2 weeks of vacation). Reducing this by the number of production days 

results in 298 nonproduction days for 1947.

1948 (January 1 to July 31) 

The approved SEC period is from March 1, 1943, to July 31, 1948 [NIOSH 2012]. Therefore, the 

analysis for 1948 was split in two. The following jobs were identified that indicated potential 

work by Joslyn from January 1 to July 31, 1948: 

• Greninger [1948]. On February 6, 1948, Greninger indicates that Joslyn would be rolling 

all Hanford’s billets. Four supplemental agreements for this work were issued [Blaeser 

1948a,b,c,d, p. 172], resulting in the contract being extended to July 31 and 630 t of 

billets to be rolled. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, the rolling would require 

120 rolling days. There was no indication that machining was performed. 

• Taussig [1948]. On February 26, 1948, Taussig indicated that Joslyn agreed to roll 

approximately 35 t of billets from Mallinckrodt Chemical Works. Taussig estimated it 

would take Joslyn about 5 days to complete the work. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 9 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

The above work results in a total of 125 production days from January 1 to July 31, 1948. The 

number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH 2011]. For 

work before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week. Before August, 

there would be 174 potential workdays (assuming 1 week of vacation). Reducing this by the 

number of production days results in 49 nonproduction days before August. 

1948 (August 1 to December 31) 

The approved SEC period is from March 1, 1943, to July 31, 1948 [NIOSH 2012]. Therefore, the

analysis for 1948 was split in two. The following jobs were identified that indicated potential 

work by Joslyn from August 1 to December 31, 1948: 

• Macherey [1948]. Before August 4, 1948, Joslyn was tasked with the rolling of 7 billets. 

Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, the rolling would require 1 rolling day. There was no 

indication that machining was performed. 

The above work results in a total of 1 rolling production day from August 1 to December 31. The 

number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH 2011]. For 

work before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week. From August 1 to 

December 31, 1948, there would be 126 potential workdays (assuming 1 week of vacation). 

Reducing this by the number of production days results in 125 nonproduction days before 

August. 

1949 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1949: 

• Garrow [1959]. The August report on batch 3 for the NRX Reactor indicates that between 

May 26, 1948, and May 27, 1949, Joslyn performed rolling on 275 billets and produced 

244 rods that were finished via centerless grinding. This amount is consistent with the 

values in Table 1 of Garrow [1961] on NRX rod fabrication, which indicates 244 rods 

were produced from Mallinckrodt ingots. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results 

in an assumed rolling time of 2 days and a machining time of 21 days. 

The above work results in a total of 2 rolling production days and 21 machining production days. 

The number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH

2011]. For work before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week.

Therefore, for 1949, there would be 300 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of vacation). 

Reducing this by the number of production days results in 277 nonproduction days for 1949. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 10 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

1950 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1950: 

• Belmore [1950]. A June 23, 1950, letter requested Joslyn to perform rolling on 

305 billets. The resulting rods were to be straightened and finished via centerless 

grinding. Assuming some nominal losses, this amount would be consistent with the 

values in Table 1 of Garrow [1961] on NRX rod fabrication, which indicates 270 rods 

were produced from Mallinckrodt ingots. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results 

in an assumed rolling time of 8 days and a machining time of 26 days. 

• Freitag [1950]. On July 31, 1950, a request was made to have 5,500 lb of rolled uranium 

rods shipped to Joslyn. This would represent about 44 rods. Assuming Joslyn’s 

production rate, this results in an assumed machining time of 4 days. 

• Harris [1950]. This letter indicates that three uranium jobs were performed at Joslyn in 

the month of August. No additional information was provided on the details of the three 

jobs. Table 1 of Garrow [1961] on NRX rod fabrication indicates that an additional job 

producing 10 rods from Mallinckrodt ingots was performed in 1950. It is assumed that 

this represents the third job in the Harris letter. Given the small size of this job, it is also 

likely this was what Stroke [1950] was referring to in his September 5 memorandum 

discussing an experiment about the rolling of uranium rods at Joslyn. Assuming Joslyn’s 

production rate, this results in an assumed rolling time of 1 day and a machining time of 1 

day. 

• Braiden and Gustavsen [1951]. This letter indicated that Joslyn shipped 6,621 kg (7.3 t) 

of uranium rods and 234 kg (0.3 t) of billets to the AEC Lake Ontario Office between 

January 1 and October 31, 1950. Assuming an average rod weight, this would represent 

about 116 rods. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results in an assumed rolling 

time of 2 days and a machining time of 10 days. 

The above work results in a total of 11 rolling production days and 41 machining production 

days. The number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH

2011]. For work before 1951, it was assumed that the site averaged 6 workdays per week.

Therefore, for 1950, there would be 300 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of vacation). 

Reducing this by the number of production days results in 248 nonproduction days for 1950. 

1951 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1951: 

• General Electric Company [1951]. This monthly report for July 1951 indicated that 

4 rods were rolled at Joslyn [p. 109]. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results in an 

assumed rolling time of 1 day and a machining time of 1 day. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 11 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

The above work results in a total of 1 rolling production day and 1 machining production day. 

The number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH

2011]. For 1951 to 1955, it was assumed that the site averaged 5.5 workdays per week 

(44 hours). Therefore, for 1951, there would be 275 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of 

vacation). Reducing this by the number of production days results in 273 nonproduction days for 

1951. 

1952 

The following jobs were identified that indicated potential work by Joslyn in 1952: 

• Klevin [1952, Appendix B]. This 1952 report provided air dust data for 3 production days 

at Joslyn on January 8, 16, and 18. The sample description for the January 8 air samples 

seems to represent rolling activities, whereas the sample descriptions for the January 16 

and 18 air samples seem to represent machining activities. Therefore, 1 rolling day and 

2 machining days were assumed. 

• Smith [1952a]. On January 23, 1952, a request was made to have 4 rods shipped to 

Joslyn. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results in an assumed machining time of 

1 day. 

• Smith [1952b, p. 231]. On April 11, 1952, a request was made to have 15 rods shipped to 

Joslyn. Assuming Joslyn’s production rate, this results in an assumed machining time of 

2 days. 

• Dunlap [1952]. This letter indicates that Joslyn was requested to assist in the preparation 

of three differently sized experimental rods. It was assumed that each diameter was 

machined on a different day. Therefore, 3 machining days were assumed. 

The above work results in a total of 1 rolling production day and 8 machining production days. 

The number of nonproduction days was based on guidance in Battelle-TBD-6000 [NIOSH

2011]. For 1951 to 1955, it was assumed that the site averaged 5.5 workdays per week 

(44 hours). Therefore, for 1951, there would be 275 potential workdays (assuming 2 weeks of 

vacation). Reducing this by the number of production days results in 268 nonproduction days for 

1952. 

SUMMARY

Table 1 provides a summary of NIOSH’s reassessment of the favorable, but realistic, number of 

rolling and machining workdays based on the information in the Joslyn site profile [NIOSH

2014], the SEC petition evaluation report [NIOSH 2012], and the SC&A review [SC&A 2015]. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 12 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

Table 1. NIOSH estimate of the number of rolling and machining workdays. 

Year

Operational 

daysa

Rolling 

days

Machining 

days

Nonoperational 

days

Total 

workdays

1943 61 n/ab n/a 191 252

1944 170 n/a n/a 130 300

1945 41 n/a n/a 259 300

1946 18 n/a n/a 282 300

1947 2 n/a n/a 298 300

01/01–07/31/1948 125 n/a n/a 49 174

08/01–12/31/1948 n/a 1 0 125 126

1949 n/a 2 21 277 300

1950 n/a 11 41 248 300

1951 n/a 1 1 273 275

1952 n/a 1 8 266 275

a. For the SEC period from March 1, 1943, to July 31, 1948, rolling and machining days were combined.

b. n/a = not applicable.

Table 2 provides the SC&A assessment of maximizing rolling and machining workdays. 

Table 2. SC&A estimate of the number of rolling and machining workdays. 

Year

Operational 

daysa

Rolling 

days

Machining 

days

Nonoperational 

days

Total 

workdays

1943 32 n/ab n/a 182 214

1944 201 n/a n/a 51 252

1945 63 n/a n/a 187 250

1946 86 n/a n/a 164 250

1947 6 n/a n/a 244 250

01/01–07/31/1948 110 n/a n/a 36 146

08/01–12/31/1948 n/a 1 0 103 104

1949 n/a 2 5 243 250

1950 n/a 6 10 234 250

1951 n/a 0 2 248 250

1952 n/a 0 7 243 250

a. For the SEC period from March 1, 1943, to July 31, 1948, rolling and machining days were combined.

b. n/a = not applicable.

The one year that shows a significant difference between the SC&A and NIOSH estimates is 

1944. The main reason for this difference is due to the SC&A assumption that the estimate of the 

number of workdays (based on the billing amount for the two University of Chicago contracts) 

was performed by one person. NIOSH found this to be an unrealistic assumption and used the 

description in Appendix B of Klevin [1952] to provide a more realistic minimum number of 

workers that would have been associated with the billed amount, resulting in a sizable reduction 

in the number of workdays. 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 13 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

REFERENCES

Bassett LG, Belmore FM [1945a]. Monthly report for M-production and research sections. 

Memorandum to the files. New York: U.S. Department of War, Corps of Engineers, Manhattan 

District. April 30. [SRDB Ref ID: 196546] 

Bassett LG, Belmore FM [1945b]. Monthly report for M-production and research sections. 

Memorandum to the files. New York: U.S. Department of War, Corps of Engineers, Manhattan 

District. May 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 196547] 

Beeler GW [1947]. Costs of oxide and uranium metal sold to Great Britain. Memorandum to 

E.E. Kirkpatrick. Washington, DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. January 14. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 90948] 

Belmore FM [1945a]. Monthly progress report - production section. Memorandum to the files. 

New York: U.S. Department of War, Corps of Engineers, Manhattan District. March 1. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 196548] 

Belmore FM [1945b]. Monthly report of the M-production and research section. New York: U.S. 

Department of War, Corps of Engineers, Manhattan District. Memorandum to the files. March 

31. [SRDB Ref ID: 196549] 

Belmore FM [1946]. Monthly report for production branch. Memorandum to the files. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. October 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 196550] 

Belmore FM [1950]. Rolling and machining of special uranium rods. Letter to A.J. Blaeser, 

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company. New York: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New 

York Directed Operations. June 23. [SRDB Ref ID: 196551] 

Blaeser AJ [1948a]. Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281 supplemental agreement 1 between U.S. AEC 

and Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. rolling of additional uranium billets. New York: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Directed Operations. May 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 196558] 

Blaeser AJ [1948b]. Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281 supplemental agreement 2 between U.S. AEC 

and Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. rolling of additional uranium billets. New York: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Directed Operations. May 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 196559] 

Blaeser AJ [1948c]. Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281 supplemental agreement 3 between U.S. AEC

and Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. revision of article III and rolling of additional uranium 

billets. New York: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Directed Operations. June 30. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 196560] 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 14 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

Blaeser AJ [1948d]. Contract AT-30-1-GEN 281 supplemental agreement 4 between U.S. AEC 

and Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. rolling of additional uranium billets. New York: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Directed Operations. September 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 

11036] 

Braiden SJ, Gustavsen SE [1951]. Survey of accounting control over source and fissionable 

materials. Tonawanda, NY: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Tonawanda Sub-Office. Survey 

no. NY-43. [SRDB Ref ID: 196562] 

Chipman J [1943]. Memorandum on rolling of Tubealloy [sic]. Memorandum. Metallurgical

Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. March 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 82362] 

Chrestia FA [1947]. Monthly report for production branch. Memorandum to the files. U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission. January 29. [SRDB Ref ID: 196552] 

Cowen HR [1946]. Monthly accountability report. Hanford Engineer Works, Richland, WA: 

General Electric Company. [SRDB Ref ID: 93775] 

DeBlois LA Jr. [1946]. Monthly material balance summary - parts 1 and 2 - August 1946. 

Memorandum to the files. October 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 31576] 

Dunlap GE [1952]. Drawing of enriched uranium for CVR Reactor. Memorandum to files. New 

York: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office. July 16. [SRDB Ref ID: 

91923] 

DuPont [1945]. The metal fabrication program for the Clinton Engineer Works and the Hanford 

Engineer Works including the dummy slug program and the unbonded slug program - Project 

1553. Wilmington, DE: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. August. [SRDB Ref ID: 33190] 

Foote F [1944]. Preparation of slugs and inspection procedure alpha rolled slugs - September 15, 

1944. Memorandum to A.B. Greninger. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of 

Chicago. November 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 101152] 

Freitag HR [1950]. Shipment of uranium rods. Letter to E.P. Lee, General Electric Company. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office. July 31. [SRDB Ref ID: 

196564] 

Frye AH Jr. [1946]. Subcontracts - Chicago Area, Manhattan District contract W-7401 ENG-37. 

Chicago, IL: U.S. Department of War, Corps of Engineers, Manhattan District. July 3. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 79727] 

Garrow GC [1959]. The behavior of batch 3 rods in the NRX reactor. Chalk River, Ontario, 

Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada. IOI-173, August. [SRDB Ref ID: 116843] 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 15 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

Garrow GC [1961]. Summary of the fabrication and behavior of standard uranium rods in the 

NRX reactor 1947 to 1960. Chalk River, Ontario, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada. IOI-210, 

February. [SRDB Ref ID: 112574] 

General Electric Company [1951]. Hanford Works monthly report for July 1951. Hanford 

Works, Richland, WA. August 24. [SRDB Ref ID: 36889] 

Greninger AB [1943]. Hot rolling of metal at Joslyn Mfg. and Supply Company, Fort Wayne, 

Indiana, June 29, 1943. Memorandum to J. Chipman. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL: 

University of Chicago. July 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 196563] 

Greninger AB [1944]. Rolling and grinding of special steel. Letter to L. Frey, Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Company. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of 

Chicago. April 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 196565] 

Greninger AB [1948]. Alpha-rolled uranium experiment proves far superior to regular canned 

slugs with respect to blistering. Letter to C. Shugg, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Office of 

Hanford Directed Operations. Hanford Works, Richland, WA: General Electric Company. 

February 6. [SRDB Ref ID: 196566] 

Harrell WB [1944a]. Subcontract no. 7401-37-9 agreement 1. Metallurgical Laboratory, 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. January 8. [SRDB Ref ID: 196569] 

Harrell WB [1944b]. Subcontract no. 7401-37-9 agreement 2. Metallurgical Laboratory, 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. April 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 196570] 

Harrell WB [1944c]. Subcontract no. 7401-37-9 agreement 3. Metallurgical Laboratory, 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. July 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 196571] 

Harrell WB [1944d]. Subcontract no. 7401-37-9 agreement 4. Metallurgical Laboratory, 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. December 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 196572] 

Harrell WB [1944e]. Indemnity insurance for University of Chicago subcontract with Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply Company. Letter to E.H. Carson, The Royal Indemnity Company. 

Clinton Laboratories, Oak Ridge, TN: University of Chicago. December 4. [SRDB Ref ID: 

118506] 

Harrell WB [1945]. Subcontract no. 7401-37-9 agreement 5. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago. July 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 196573] 

Harris WB [1950]. Uranium work at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. Fort Wayne, Indiana. 

Memorandum to F.M. Belmore. New York: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York 

Operations Office. October 18. [SRDB Ref ID: 196581] 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 16 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

Hauff TW [1949]. Rolled uranium - fabrication yields. Letter to F.C. Schlemmer, U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission, Hanford Operations Office. Hanford Works, Richland, WA: General 

Electric Company. February 22. [SRDB Ref ID: 71035] 

King RP [1945]. Metal fabrication - pre-Hanford experience with extrusion and rolling. 

Memorandum for the files. Hanford Engineer Works, Richland, WA: E. I. du Pont de Nemours 

and Company. July 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 196582] 

Klevin PB [1952]. Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Company occupational exposure to 

radioactive dust. New York: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office. 

Joslyn-1, March 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 9664] 

Koenig JJ [1945]. Monthly report on metal production covering the period from 14 December 

1944 to 25 January 1945. Memorandum to the files. New York: U.S. Department of War, Corps 

of Engineers, Manhattan District. February 3. [SRDB Ref ID: 196555] 

Koenig JJ [1946]. Delay in fabrication of special uranium rods. Memorandum to the files. 

August 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 196574] 

Macherey RE [1948]. Seven billets of heavy metal-molybdenum alloy rolled down. Letter to J. 

Simmons, Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Company. August 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 196575] 

NIOSH [2011]. Site profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that worked uranium metals. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Battelle-TBD-6000 

Rev. 1, June 17. [SRDB Ref ID: 101251] 

NIOSH [2012]. Special Exposure Cohort petition evaluation report petition SEC-00200 Rev. 1 

Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company qualified May 10, 2012. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Petition SEC-00200 Rev. 1, December 3. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 129298] 

NIOSH [2014]. Site profiles for atomic weapons employers that worked uranium metals 

Appendix J-Joslyn. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. BattelleTBD-6000 Appendix J, Rev. 0, October 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 136130] 

SC&A [2015]. SC&A Draft: Review of “Site profiles for atomic weapons employers that worked 

uranium metals: appendix J-Joslyn.” Vienna, VA: S. Cohen and Associates. SCA-TR-SP2015-

0050 Rev. 0, May 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 195945] 

Schumar J, Swanson C [1946]. Monthly report myrnalloy rods and beryllium shapes. June 21. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 80171] 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 17 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

Simmons JM [1943]. Centerless grinding operations at Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply 

Company, Ft. Wayne, Indiana November 29 - December 15, 1943. Memorandum to A.B. 

Greninger. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. December 31. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 196577] 

Simmons JM [1944a]. Centerless grinding and experimental work on Tuballoy at Joslyn 

Manufacturing & Supply Company, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, January 3-14, 1944. Memorandum to 

A.B. Greninger. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. January 26. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 196578] 

Simmons JM [1944b]. Cold drawing of tuballoy rods at Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co., 

Ft. Wayne, Indiana, February 23-28, 1944. Memorandum to A.B. Greninger. Metallurgical 

Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. March 6. [SRDB Ref ID: 11036] 

Simmons JM [1944c]. Experimental rolling and grinding at Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co., 

Ft. Wayne, Indiana, June 1-5, 1944. Memorandum to A.B. Greninger. Metallurgical Laboratory, 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. June 12. [SRDB Ref ID: 17594] 

Simmons JM [1944d]. Experimental rolling at Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co., Ft. Wayne, 

Indiana, June 19-20, 1944. Memorandum to A.B. Greninger. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago. July 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 118502] 

Smith EA [1947]. Uranium rolling at Ft. Wayne, Ind. - August 5-6, 1947. Memorandum to T.W. 

Hauff. Hanford Engineer Works, Richland, WA: General Electric Company. HEW-7495, 

September 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 16511] 

Smith RJ Jr. [1952a]. Uranium rod, requisition NAA-SF-11. Memorandum to F.W. Malone. 

New York: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office. January 23. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 196576] 

Smith RJ Jr. [1952b]. Shipment of Uranium Rods. Memorandum to G. Hughes. April 11. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 11036] 

Stroke FG [1950]. Hot rolling of uranium rods. Memorandum to D. Sturges. New York: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office. September 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 28071] 

Taussig WA [1948]. Facilities for rolling uranium billets. Memorandum to W.E. Kelley. 

Cleveland, OH: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Cleveland Sub-Office. February 26. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 196579] 

Van Echo A [1943a]. Surface finishing of extruded Tuballoy bars. Memorandum to A.B. 

Greninger. Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. September 1. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 196567] 
Response Paper Responses to SCA-TR-SP2015-0050, Rev. 0, “Review of Site Profiles 

for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix J-Joslyn” (Rev. 0)

July 19, 2023

Page 18 of 18

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions 

with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary 

positions taken on technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any 

information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for distribution.

 

Van Echo A [1943b]. Experimental centerless grinding of 14 extruded rods at Joslyn 

Manufacturing Company, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Memorandum to A.B. Greninger. Metallurgical

Laboratory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. September 7. [SRDB Ref ID: 196568]