DOE Review 05/15/2015

Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Document Number: Battelle-TBD-6000 

Appendix B

Effective Date: 06/02/2015

Revision No. 1

Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked 

Uranium Metals

Appendix B – Birdsboro Steel and Foundry Company

Page 1 of 8

Document Owner: David Allen

Approval: Signature on file Date: 06/02/2015 Supersedes: Appendix B 

 J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science Revision 0

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

8/14/2007

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

8/14/2007

REV. 

NO. 

0

DESCRIPTION

Appendix to Battelle-TBD-6000 

describing the use of the TBD for 

claims at Birdsboro Steel

4/29/2015 6/02/2015 1 Revision to update appendix based 

on revision to TBD-6000
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 2 of 8

BIRDSBORO STEEL AND FOUNDARY COMPANY

B.1 Introduction

This document serves as an appendix to Battelle-TBD-6000, Site Profiles for Atomic 

Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals (Battelle 2011). This Site Profile

presents site-specific information for the Birdsboro Steel Company located in Birdsboro, 

Pennsylvania. Sufficient information has been found to provide more appropriate 

estimates of worker radiation dose than provided for in the technical basis document 

(TBD). Where specific information is lacking, research into similar facilities described in 

the body of this Site Profile is used.

B.2 Site Description

The Birdsboro Steel Company was under contract with the Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC) to assist in the design of the rolling mill plant to be installed at the Feed Materials 

Production Center (FMPC), Fernald Ohio. While this activity is primarily design and 

engineering, two small shipments of uranium metal were sent to Birdsboro. The 

shipments were samples from test rolling of uranium metal at facilities with equipment 

similar to what was proposed for the FMPC (Bate 1952).

 

B.2.1 Site Activities

During the week of 11/15/1951, Birdsboro shipped 346 pounds of uranium metal to Lake 

Ontario Ordinance Works (LOOW). It is not known when Birdsboro received this metal 

but the shipment was described as 8 pieces of billets (AEC 1951, Malone 1951).

Birdsboro developed a basic rolling mill design based on information obtained from the 

AEC, AEC contractors and laboratories. Because of many unanswered questions the 

AEC established an experimental rolling program to gather data (Polson and Schiltz). 

The basic design was discussed and agreed to in a meeting on 2/7/1951 (Reichard 1951). 

A summary of uranium metal rolling associated with the Fernald operations lists four 

dates where uranium metal was rolled prior to the meeting (AEC 1951a). Three of these 

were at Simonds Saw and Steel which were apparently conducted for evaluation by 

DuPont. The fourth was at Allegheny-Ludlum with the added purpose to provide 

Birdsboro with data for the rolling mill design. The data appear to be primarily 

temperature data and observations. All four of these rollings consisted of rolling 5 inch 

diameter ingots into finished rods. 

On April 16

th and 17th of 1951, another rolling at Simonds Saw and Steel occurred. On 

the 16th, the ingots were again rolled into finished rods but on the 17th, the ingots were 

rolled into billets (interim product) that were to be finish rolled at Bethlehem Steel. This 

rolling campaign was also designated experimental rolling #1 per a meeting that occurred 

on April 6, 1951. Since this rolling was the first in the summary to create billets and is 

referred to as experimental rolling #1, the 346 pounds of uranium billets pieces likely
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 3 of 8

come from this rolling or a later one. This site profile will take the favorable assumption 

that the uranium came from this rolling and was received by Birdsboro on 4/17/1951. 

The metal was shipped from Birdsboro on 11/15/1951.

Additionally 5 wafers cut from rods finished at Bethlehem Steel were shipped to 

Birdsboro on 2/1/1952 (Smith 1952). The wafers totaled 11.5 pounds. No information

was found as to when the pieces were shipped out of Birdsboro. Therefore, this estimate 

will assume the wafers were at Birdsboro from 2/1/1952 until 12/31/1952 (the end of the 

covered period).

Pieces of billets and rods from various rollings were sent to different locations for 

analysis and inspections. It is not known why Birdsboro received these pieces but it is 

assumed they were for metallurgical analysis. From experimental rolling reports, there 

appears to be interest in a number of parameters but the grain size and orientation are 

parameters likely to be analyzed in a metallurgical laboratory (Bach 1952, Bach 1952a, 

Kattner 1952, Polson and Schiltz, Riches 1955, Sanderson 1952). Evaluation of the grain 

size and orientation would likely include cutting, grinding and polishing the surface for 

observation by an optical microscope (Bach 1952). The abrasive sample preparation 

work (cutting and grinding) could be easily accomplished in one work shift for 5 to 8 

pieces of metal. While it is possible not all were processed in the same day, this site 

profile will take the favorable assumption that it took one full work day to cut the pieces 

from each shipment and that this was done the day they arrived at Birdsboro.

It is further assumed that the remaining metallurgical analyses were not dusty operations 

but did require the handling of the uranium pieces. It is assumed that the pieces were 

handled for a full work week (including the cutting) then stored until shipped off-site. 

Also, for 1951 and 1952, TBD-6000 assumes the standard work day is 8.8 hours, 

resulting in a 44 hour work week.

B.3 Occupational Medical Dose

No information regarding occupational medical dose specific to the Birdsboro was found. 

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

available is provided in ORAUT-OTIB-0006 (ORAU, 2011), the dose reconstruction 

project technical information bulletin covering diagnostic x-ray procedures. 

B.4 Occupational Internal Dose

No air sample data or other form of internal dose data from Birdsboro were found. TBD6000 provides intakes from a variety of tasks typical of uranium metal work. While one 

of those tasks is rolling uranium metal, it is not appropriate for Birdsboro since no 

uranium rolling occurred at the site. Table 7.6 of the TBD lists air samples for different 

tasks associated with slug production. These tasks include stamping, filing and cleaning 

the slugs. Table 7.5 includes tasks for lathe work, cutting, milling, drilling as well as 

sanding and grinding. The task associated with the highest airborne level is centerless 

grinding. However, centerless grinding is a process for grinding only the outside 
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 4 of 8

diameter of a cylindrical shape and normally applicable only to high volume production. 

As such, it is not a process that would be used for metallurgical sample preparation. The 

task in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 with the next highest airborne level is surface grinding. The 

geometric mean value of 3160 dpm/m3is used for this estimate.

This estimate assumed workers were exposed to the airborne activity associated with 

surface grinding the samples (3160 dpm/m3) for 8.8 hours on 4/17/1951 and again on 

2/1/1952. After the 4/17/1951 work, it is further assumed that residual contamination 

remained in the area that could cause additional intakes of uranium. To estimate these 

intakes, the surface contamination level was first calculated using the technique in TBD6000. This technique assumes the airborne activity settles to horizontal surfaces at a rate 

of 0.00075 m/s for 30 continuous days. However, airborne generating work at Birdsboro 

would have been much more limited in duration. The technique was therefore modified 

from a 30 day settling period to an 8.8 hour period. This results in a surface 

contamination of 75,082 dpm/m2after the 4/17/1951 work. Even though normal tracking 

and house keeping would reduce this value, this estimate makes the favorable assumption 

that the contamination remained at this level. After the 2/1/1952 work, additional 

contamination is added to the existing contamination using the same technique. The 

contamination level after that date is calculated to be 150,163 dpm/m2.

These contamination levels are assumed to be resuspended at a rate of 1x10-5 m-1

resulting in airborne contamination values of 0.751 dpm/m3and 1.502 dpm/m3for the 

two time periods respectively.

Ingestion of uranium contamination is also possible at Birdsboro. While OCAS-TIB0009 is often used to calculate this intake, it is not suitable for a short duration operation.

That is because the document assumes operations have continued long enough to cause 

the maximum level of contamination to buildup. Therefore, ingestion intakes at 

Birdsboro are calculated assuming the surface contamination is ingested at a rate of 

1.1x10-4 m2/hr (NUREG/CR 5512).

Tables B.1 through B.3 include values associated with the intake calculations. The 

inhalation and ingestion intake rates to be used for dose reconstruction are listed in Table 

B.3. Internal doses calculated from these intakes should be entered into IREP as the 

geometric mean of a lognormal distribution with a geometric standard deviation of 5 in 

accordance with TBD-6000.

Table B.1 – Inhalation during Metal Work

Start date End date Hours of 

sample 

preparation

Other work 

hours

Inhalation 

from 

preparation

(dpm)

Inhalation 

from 

contamination 

(dpm)

4/17/1951 12/31/1951 8.8 1561 33370 1407

1/1/1952 1/31/1952 0 186 0 167.9

2/1/1952 12/31/1952 8.8 2014 33370 3629
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 5 of 8

Table B.2 – Ingestion Intakes

Start date End date Surface 

Contamination 

(dpm/m2)

Ingestion rate 

(dpm/hr)

Total ingestion 

(dpm)

4/17/1951 12/31/1951 75082 8.26 12893

1/1/1952 1/31/1952 75082 8.26 1539

2/1/1952 12/31/1952 150163 16.52 33262

Table B.3 – Total Inhalation and Ingestion Intakes

Year Calendar 

days

Inhalation

(dpm)

Ingestion 

(dpm)

Inhalation 

rate 

(dpm/day)

Ingestion 

rate 

(dpm/day)

1951 259 34776 12893 134.3 96.0

1952 366 37166 34801 101.5 343

B.5 Occupational External Dose

No data were found related to occupational external dose from the uranium work at 

Birdsboro. The work performed at Birdsboro involved metallurgical analysis of pieces of 

uranium billets and rods. Therefore the one foot dose rates from table 6-1 are used to 

estimate the external dose. For the 1951 work, the material was 8 pieces of billets. The 

billets were produced from 5 inch diameter ingots and later used to make rods. The 

billets are then essentially thick rods somewhere between the thickness of a rod and a 5 

inch ingot. Therefore dose rates associated with either billets or rods could be 

appropriate. Since these were pieces of billets, long billets and long rods were not 

considered (it should be noted that slugs are short rods approximately 8 inches in length). 

The dose rate associated with short billets is higher so that dose rate (0.469 mrem/hr) was

be used for the 1951 work with billet pieces. The slug dose rate (0.0524 mrem/hr) was

used for the 1952 work with wafers cut from uranium rods. 

The beta dose rate to the body from the uranium is assumed to be 10 times the gamma 

dose rate per TBD-6000. Also, in accordance with TBD-6000, the contact beta dose rate 

is assumed to be 230 mrem/hr. As stated earlier, the work with the metal is assumed to 

take one full week which is assumed to be 44 working hours in 1951 and 1952. The 

technique used in TBD-6000 is used here which is to assume the operator was exposed to 

these dose rates half the time.

Table B.4 contains the calculated gamma dose from working with uranium metal while 

Table B.5 contains the beta dose from the same work.

Table B.4 – External Gamma Dose during Metal Work

Uranium work 

hours

Gamma dose rate Gamma dose

1951 44 0.469 10.3

1952 44 0.0524 1.15
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 6 of 8

Table B.5 – External Beta Dose during Metal Work

Uranium 

work hours

Skin dose 

rate

Hand dose 

rate

Skin dose Hand dose

1951 44 4.69 230 103 5060

1952 44 0.524 230 11.5 5060

After the uranium work is completed, the potential for residual uranium contamination 

remains. The contamination level (calculated in section B.4) were multiplied by the dose 

conversation factors found in Table 3.10 of TBD-6000 to derive a dose rate from the 

residual contamination. Workers are assumed to be exposed to this dose rate 

continuously from 4/17/1951 through the end of 1952. The contamination level is 

assumed to increase after 2/1/1952 as explained in section B.4. 

Table B.6 – External Beta and Gamma Dose from Contamination

Work hours Gamma dose 

(mrem)

Beta dose

(mrem)

4/17/1951 12/31/1951 1561 0.0462 4.48

1/1/1952 1/31/1952 183 0.0054 0.526

2/1/1952 12/31/1952 2017 0.1193 11.6

Table B.7 contains the combined annual dose from work with uranium metal and from 

residual contamination. Annual external doses calculated from these should be entered 

into IREP as the geometric mean of a lognormal distribution with a geometric standard 

deviation of 5 in accordance with TBD-6000.

Table B.7 – Annual External Beta and Gamma Doses

Gamma dose Skin dose Hand dose

1951 10.4 108 5064

1952 1.28 23.6 5072

B.6 Dose from Residual Contamination

Residual contamination potentially existed between operations with uranium at 

Birdsboro. However, the limited quantity of uranium present indicates the potential was 

low and so no residual contamination period was designated after 1952. The periods 

between operations is accounted for in a favorable manner in sections B.4 and B.5. 
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 7 of 8

B.7 References

AEC 1951, Tonawanda Area Progress Report November 1951, SRDB 9545 pp. 14-19

AEC 1951a, Summary of Experimental Rollings Related to Fernald Operators, unknown 

author, 11/17/1951, SRDB 10885 pp 23-29

Bate 1952, Letter to file from G. A. Bate, Records and Reports with Respect to 

Fissionable and Source Material - Miscellaneous Information Concerning, 8/5/1952, 

SRDB 61965 pg 14.

Battelle, 2011, Battelle-TBD-6000 Rev 1, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers 

that Worked Uranium Metals, June 17, 2011

Bach 1952, J. H. Bach, Some Effects of Rolling on the Crystallography and 

Metallography of Uranium, 2/18/1952, HW-23591, SRDB 28063

Bach 1952a, J. H. Bach, J. W. Riches, M. J. Sanderson, The Effects of Rolling 

Temperature on the Structure of Uranium, 4/24/1952, HW-24222, SRDB 28061

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

https://hsspublic.energy.gov/search/facility/findfacility.aspx

Kattner 1952, W. T. Kattner, Program for Developing Uranium Fabrication Processes, 

1/16/1952, HW-23269, SRDB 28049

Malone 1951, Letter from F. W. Malone to R. J. Smith, Weekly Production Report 

November 15th 1951, 11/21/1951, SRDB 61144 pg. 3

NIOSH, 2004, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, Technical Information Bulletin, OCASTIB-009, Revision 0, April 13, 2004

NIOSH, 2007a Radiation exposures covered for Dose Reconstructions under Part B of 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Rev. 0, OCASIG-003, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio

NUREG/CR 5512 Vol. 1, Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning, 

Prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1992.

ORAU, 2011, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures, Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Revision 03 PC-1, June 

20, 2011

Polson and Schiltz, C. E. Polson and J. F. Schiltz, The Rolling of Uranium Rod, undated, 

SRDB 44130
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix B

Revision No.

1

Effective Date:

06/02/2015

Page 8 of 8

Reichard 1951, Letter to file from H. F. Reichard, Trip to Birdsboro Steel Foundary and 

Machine Company – February 7, 1951, 2/15/1951, SRDB 9545 pp, 9-10

Riches 1955, J. W. Riches, Nuclear Metallurgy Lectures Chapter 9, 5/12/1955, HW34868, SRDB 28021

Sanderson 1952, M. J. Sanderson, Evaluation of Uranium Rods from the Fourth 

Experimental Rolling at Lackawanna, New York, 3/21/1952, HW-23910, SRDB 16285.

Smith 1952, Letter from R. J. Smith to L. King, Shipment of Material, 2/1/1952, SRDB 

9545 pg 11.