DOE Review 09/03/2014

Division of Compensation Analysis and

Support

Document Number: Battelle-TBD-6000 

Appendix Q

Effective Date: 09/04/2014

Revision No. 1

Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked

Uranium Metals

Appendix Q – Allegheny Ludlum Steel Company

Page 1 of 7

Document Owner: David Allen

Approval: Signature on file Date: 10/24/2014 Supersedes: Appendix Q

 James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science Revision 0 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

4/30/2007

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

4/30/2007

REV. 

NO. 

0

DESCRIPTION

Appendix to Battelle-TBD-6000 

describing the use of the TBD for 

claims at Allegheny Ludlum

08/14/2014 10/24/2014 1 Revision to update appendix based 

on revision to TBD-6000
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix Q

Revision No. 1 Effective Date: 10/24/2014 Page 2

ALLEGHENY-LUDLUM STEEL COMPANY

Q.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 Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Company located in 

Watervliet, New York. 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.

Q.2 Site Description

The Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corporation (A-L) located in Watervliet, New York, rolled 

solid uranium rods from ingots in 1951 and 1952. The rods were referred to as billets 

because additional rolling occurred elsewhere to produce the finished rods. The 

operation started as a developmental scale operation but transitioned into production 

scale work. The work included other metal working tasks such as straightening, lathe 

work, cutting with shears and stamping. 

Q.2.1 Site Activities

Uranium work at Alleghany Ludlum began on January 20th, 1951 rolling at least 25 

uranium metal ingots from 5 inch diameter to 13/16 inch diameter rods. In April of 1951, 

the AEC started an experimental rolling campaign with experimental rolling #1 at 

Simonds Saw and Steel and Bethlehem Steel. Experimental rolling #2 involved 

Allegheny Ludlum on July 22, 1951. Twenty four uranium ingots were rolled at 

Allegheny Ludlum into billets of several different sizes between about 1.5 inches and 2.5 

inches in diameter. These billets were finish rolled at Bethlehem Steel on July 29th to 1 

and 1/16th inch diameter. Experimental rollings #3, #4 and #5 continued the process of 

rough rolling into billets at Allegheny Ludlum and finish rolling at Bethlehem Steel. 

However, experimental rolling #4 consisted of two separate days at Allegheny Ludlum 

(August 23rd and September 19th) prior to the finish rolling at Bethlehem Steel (AEC 

1951). 

Experimental rolling #6 occurred at Allegheny Ludlum on November 17, 1951 but not 

enough good billets were produced to continue the experiment at Bethlehem Steel (AEC 

1951). It was intended that a salt bath furnace be used for this rolling but the furnace 

could not be constructed in time. DuPont (Savanah River) insisted no further rolling 

were worthwhile without a salt bath (Belmore 1951).

Starting on December 1, 1951, the rollings were no longer referred to as experimental but 

the number of ingots rolled was similar to the experimental rollings and the purpose was 

to gather data. A salt bath furnace was introduced at Allegheny Ludlum starting with this 
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix Q

Revision No. 1 Effective Date: 10/24/2014 Page 3

rolling. One of the effects of the salt bath was to reduce oxidation of the uranium metal 

which greatly reduced airborne contamination. All the dates for rolling at Allegheny 

Ludlum are listed in table Q.1.

Table Q.1 – Dates of Uranium Metal Rolling at Allegheny Ludlum

Dates Comments # of Ingots rolled Reference

1/20/1951 First rolling 25 SRDB 10885 pg 23

7/22/1951 Experimental rolling 

#2

24 SRDB 10885 pg 24

8/11/1951 Experimental rolling 

#3

30 SRDB 10885 pg 25

8/23/1951 Experimental rolling 

#4

10 SRDB 10885 pg 26

9/19/1951 Experimental rolling 

#4

51 SRDB 10885 pg 27

10/26/1951 Experimental rolling 

#5

100 SRDB 10885 pg 28

11/17/1951 Experimental rolling 

#6

40 SRDB 10885 pg 29

12/1/1951 Salt bath used 50 planned SRDB 86933 pg 14

12/15/1951 Salt bath used 50 planned SRDB 86933 pg 14

1/19/1952 Salt bath used 190 planned SRDB 81622 pg 3; 

81429 pg 2

2/9/1952 and 

2/10/1952

Salt bath used 200 SRDB 81622 pg 3; 

81429 pg 2; 44230

3/8/1952 Salt bath used 211 SRDB 44232; 73513 

pg 3

4/5/1952 Salt bath used 242 SRDB 67129 pg 

101; 44236 pg 5; 

44234

5/2/1952 and 

5/3/1952

Salt bath used 465 SRDB 73547 pg 2; 

73553 pg 4; 44236 

6/6/1952 and 

6/7/1952

Salt bath used 500 planned SRDB 66840

6/27/1952 and 

6/28/1952

Salt bath used 500 planned SRDB 66840

Q.3 Occupational Medical Dose

No information regarding occupational medical dose specific to the Allegheny Ludlum 

Site 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. 
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix Q

Revision No. 1 Effective Date: 10/24/2014 Page 4

Q.4 Occupational Internal Dose

Air monitoring data are available from two air sampling campaigns in 1951 and one air 

sampling campaign in 1952 (AEC 1951a, AEC 1952). Air monitoring in 1951 occurred 

prior to the use of a salt bath. By the 1952 monitoring, the use of a salt bath was in place 

and air concentrations were much lower. 

Air sample data was divided into pre-salt bath and post salt bath period. The data from 

each period was analyzed as a lognormal distribution and determined to have a geometric 

mean of 291 and 20.5 dpm/m3respectively. The geometric standard deviations were 17.9 

and 3.67 respectively.

Rolling occurred on 7 days prior to installing a salt bath and 13 days following the salt 

bath installation. Operators are assumed to be exposed to the pre-salt bath air 

concentration for each of the 7 days of rolling prior to the salt bath installation. 

Operators are assumed to be exposed to the post salt bath air concentration after that. It is 

further assumed that the operators were exposed the entire work day which is assumed to 

be 8.8 hours (44 hour week). The total uranium inhalation was then divided by the 

number of calendar days for each time period to obtain an average uranium intake per 

calendar day. The results are shown in table Q.2. Doses derived from these intakes 

should be entered into IREP as a lognormal distribution with a GSD listed in table Q.2 

for the applicable period.

Table Q.2 – Uranium Intakes during Rolling Days

Start Date End Date Salt 

Bath

# of 

Rolling 

Days

Air 

Concentration 

(dpm/m3)

Total 

inhaled 

U 

(dpm)

Calendar 

days

dpm/calendar 

day

GSD

1/20/1951 11/30/1951 No 7 291 21516 315 68.3 17.90

12/1/1951 6/27/1952 Yes 13 20.5 2814 210 13.4 3.67

It is also possible there was exposure to residual contamination between rolling days. To 

estimate the inhalation intakes from this exposure, the contamination levels were first 

estimated using the technique in TBD-6000. The higher airborne activity (pre-salt bath) 

was assumed to deposit for 720 hours (thirty days) at a rate of 0.00075 m/s. This resulted 

in a surface contamination level of 565,800 dpm/m2. A resuspension factor of 1x10-5 was 

applied to this value to arrive at an airborne concentration of 5.66 dpm/m3. Operators 

were assumed to be exposed to this concentration the full work day for each non-uranium 

work day. As a favorable assumption, the few days prior to the first rolling in 1951 are 

included in the estimate. The total annual inhalation activity from residual contamination 

was calculated and divided by 365 days to arrive at a value in dpm per calendar day. The 

values are listed in table Q.3 and doses derived from these intakes should be entered into 

IREP as a lognormal distribution. The higher of the two airborne concentrations were 

used for this estimate so the GSD associated with that airborne concentration will be used 

as the GSD of this intake. 
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix Q

Revision No. 1 Effective Date: 10/24/2014 Page 5

Table Q.3 – Uranium Intakes Between Rolling Days

Start Date End Date Non-U 

work days

Air 

Concentration 

(dpm/m3)

dpm/calendar 

day

GSD

1/1/1951 12/31/1952 480 (a) 5.66 39.3 17.90

(a) Assumes 250 work days per year minus uranium work days

Ingestion of uranium contamination is also a possibility at Allegheny Ludlum. In order 

to estimate this intake, OCAS-TIB-0009 was utilized. This document is based on the 

idea that the contamination levels are related to the airborne levels during operations and 

assumes the operations occurred often enough to reach a maximum level. It therefore 

provides for a factor directly related to the airborne concentration. Since rolling of 

uranium metal occurred intermittently at Allegheny Ludlum, this technique likely 

overestimates the actual ingestion intake. 

The higher of the two airborne concentrations was used to estimate the ingestion intake. 

This results in an ingestion rate per work day. That was converted to an ingestion rate 

per calendar day by dividing the annual ingestion intake by 365 days. The values are 

listed in table Q.4 and doses derived from these intakes should be entered into IREP as a 

lognormal distribution. The higher of the two airborne concentrations were used for this 

estimate so the GSD associated with that airborne concentration will be used as the GSD 

of this intake. 

Table Q.4 – Uranium Ingestion Intakes

Start Date End Date Non-U 

work days

Ingestion 

(dpm per 

work day)

Ingestion 

(dpm per 

calendar day)

GSD

1/1/1951 12/31/1952 480 (a) 58.2 39.9 17.90

(a) Assumes 250 work days per year minus uranium work days

Q.5 Occupational External Dose

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

Allegheny Ludlum. The work performed at Allegheny Ludlum involved rolling uranium 

ingots into uranium billets. Therefore, the highest photon dose rate at one foot from any 

ingot or billet in TBD-6000 table 6-1 is used to estimate the external dose. That value is 

2.08 mrem/hr one foot from a rectangular ingot. The beta dose rate at one foot is 

assumed to be 10 times that or 20.8 mrem/hr per TBD-6000. The contact dose rate is 

assumed to be 230 mrem/hr per TBD-6000. Operators are assumed to be exposed to the 

one foot levels 50% of the time. Additionally, the hands and forearms are assumed to be 

exposed to the contact dose rate 50% of the time.

The estimate for the photon dose, the beta dose for the whole body and the beta dose for 

the hands and forearms are contained in tables Q.5, Q.6 and Q.7 respectively. These 
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix Q

Revision No. 1 Effective Date: 10/24/2014 Page 6

estimates should be used as the geometric mean of a lognormal distribution. The 

geometric standard deviation is shown in the tables.

Included in the tables is an external dose estimate for doses received from residual 

contamination. These values were calculated using the contamination level estimate from 

section Q.4. These values were multiplied by the conversion factors in table 3.10 of 

TBD-6000 to derive the photon and beta dose rates. Operators are assumed to be 

exposed to these dose rates 100% of the time on each work day. These values were 

added to the dose from uranium metal and included in tables Q.5, Q.6 and Q.7.

Table Q.5 – Photon Dose

Start Date End Date # of 

Rolling 

Days

Dose 

from 

Metal 

(mrem)

Work 

Days

Dose from 

contamination 

(mrem)

Total 

Photon 

Dose 

(mrem)

GSD

1/1/1951 12/31/1951 9 82.4 250 0.49 82.89 5

1/1/1952 6/27/1952 11 100.7 123 0.241 100.94 5

6/28/1952 12/31/1952 0 0 127 0.249 0.25 5

Table Q.6 – Beta Dose to the Whole Body

Start Date End Date # of 

Rolling 

Days

Dose 

from 

Metal 

(mrem)

Work 

Days

Dose from 

contamination 

(mrem)

Total 

Beta

Dose 

(mrem)

GSD

1/1/1951 12/31/1951 9 824 250 48 872 5

1/1/1952 6/27/1952 11 1007 123 23 1030 5

6/28/1952 12/31/1952 0 0 127 24 24 5

Table Q.7 – Beta Dose to the Hands and Forearms

Start Date End Date # of 

Rolling 

Days

Dose 

from 

Metal 

(mrem)

Work 

Days

Dose from 

contamination 

(mrem)

Total 

Beta

Dose 

(mrem)

GSD

1/1/1951 12/31/1951 9 9108 250 48 9156 5

1/1/1952 6/27/1952 11 11132 123 23 11155 5

6/28/1952 12/31/1952 0 0 127 24 24 5
Document No. 

Battelle-TBD-6000; Appendix Q

Revision No. 1 Effective Date: 10/24/2014 Page 7

Q.6 Dose from Residual Contamination

Residual contamination potentially existed between operations with uranium at 

Allegheny Ludlum. However, surveys showed the potential was low and so no residual 

contamination period was designated after 1951. The periods between operations is 

accounted for in a favorable manner in sections Q.4 and Q.5. 

Q.7 References

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

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

AEC 1951a, Air sample data sheets from Allegheny Ludlum on 1/21/1951 and 

7/22/1951, SRDB 9500.

AEC 1952, Air sample data sheets from Allegheny Ludlum on 2/9/1952, SRDB 3803.

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

that Worked Uranium Metals, June 17, 2011

Belmore 1951, F. M Belmore, Memo to R. O. Hutchinson, Experimental Rolling 

Conditions, 11/20/1051, SRDB 86933 pp. 14-16.

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

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

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

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