Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 120 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

challenges and would require a detailed understanding of each worker’s job functions 

over his/her employment period. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-2A 

EXCEPTS FROM ANNUAL HEALTH PROTECTION REIVEW – MAY 1964 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 121 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-2B 

EXCERPTS FROM HEALTH PROTECTION APPRAISAL REPORT – 

SEPTEMBER 1970 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 122 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding 4.5-3: Unmonitored Shallow and Deep Dose Resulting from Skin/Clothing 

Contamination

Although FMPC employees were afforded personnel dosimeters that measured the shallow and 

deep dose, such a dosimeter will not assess shallow and deep doses that reflect exposures due to 

skin and clothing contamination. The likely fact that chronic skin and clothing contamination 

existed among production workers must be assumed for the following reasons: 

(1) Workers had intimate physical contact with nearly all materials processed at FMPC. 

(2) The processing of materials created high airborne levels and surface contamination 

levels. 

(3) Anti-contamination clothing was either not provided or at best selectively issued. 

Similarly, showering at the end of a shift cannot be assumed for earlier periods of facility 

operations (see Attachment 4.5-3A). 

(4) There were no provisions to assess skin/clothing contamination as reported in a 1985 site 

visit report enclosed as Attachment 4.5-3B. Among the observations noted in 

Attachment 4.5-3B include the following: 

Observation: There are no contamination survey instruments kept at 

the work site for use in checking for skin and clothing contamination. 

Neither are there any hand and shoe counters available for use either before 

or after showering. 

Comment: This practice is totally unacceptable. Workers are forced 

to accept that the shower at the end of the day is completely effective in 

removing any skin contamination. Also, this practice does not provide any 

“triggers” for follow-up action to ascertain if the workers have taken any 

uranium into the body. Experience shows that skin and clothing 

contamination are often the first (and maybe the only) signal to loose 

contamination in the work area. 

The potential for high, unrecorded shallow and deep doses from chronic skin and clothing 

contamination must be assumed in behalf of all FMPC workers and for all periods of facility 

operations. However, given the complex processes and the many different tasks performed at 

FMPC, it is inconceivable that credible “ball-park” and bounding estimates can be derived. 

Attachment 4.5-3C is enclosed to illustrate the potential magnitude of personnel contamination 

and the difficulty associated with quantifying the resultant dose associated with a single 

event/job task. 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 123 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-3A 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 124 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-3B 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 125 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Attachment 4.5-3B (Continued) 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 126 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-3C 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 127 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding 4.5-4: Inability to Properly Account for Neutron Doses

The FMPC TBD acknowledges that at no time were workers monitored for neutrons even though 

neutron exposures must clearly be assumed; and Section 7.3.4.2 of NIOSH’s ER states that: 

. . . The only likely sources of neutron exposure were those areas of the site where 

large quantities of fluorinated uranium compounds, such as uranium fluoride or 

uranium hexafluoride, were processed or stored. [Emphasis added.] 

NIOSH Model. Section 6.3.5.1 of the TBD addresses the need to account for unmonitored 

neutron doses by means of a default neutron-to-photon dose ratio. The default η/γ ratio of 0.23 

was based on empirical data cited in a 1995 study, which paired the neutron dose rate to the 

photon dose rate for 56 individual canisters containing UF4. The 95th percentile η/γ ratio value 

for the 56 paired measurements of single UF4 canisters, as opposed to multiple or stacked 

canisters, was 0.23. 

While the use of a 95th percentile default value gives the appearance of a claimant-favorable 

approach for assigning unmonitored neutron exposure, it must also be acknowledged that this 

value was based on an unrealistic source term defined by one individual UF4 canister. In reality, 

exposure to UF4 source terms would most likely involve much larger source terms and in 

variable geometries/configurations. Due to the differential attenuation of neutrons and photons, 

the neutron-to-photon ratio will vary significantly based on the geometric configuration of the 

source term. 

For example, SC&A performed a neutron-to-photon ratio calculation in behalf of a UF4 source 

term that is defined by 81 drums that are stacked as follows: 9 drums in a line, 3 rows deep and 

3 drums high (see Attachment 4.5-4.A). The η/γ ratio for this configuration yielded a 

deterministic value of 0.4, which is 4 times higher than the geometric mean value of 0.10 cited 

in Table 6-10 of the FMPC TBD (ORAUT-TKBS-0017-6). 

Other Unaccounted Neutron Sources. In addition to unmonitored neutrons associated with the 

alpha, neutron reactions of UF4, UF6, ThF4, etc., the TBD makes no reference to other potential 

neutron sources. Identified below are two neutron sources that have not been acknowledged by 

NIOSH. 

Attachment 4.5-4B is a Health Protection Review of FMPC dated May 19-21, 1964, which 

contains the following recommendation: 

Completion of a detailed survey of the Neutron Generator is needed for 

formulating adequate health and safety operational procedures prior to routine 

operations. The detailed survey should consider the need for additional 

personnel monitoring (e.g., neutron film, etc.), potential air contamination 

problems from tritium in target and control room, radiation levels in and around 

target room, interlocks, and similar matters unique to such a facility. [Emphasis 

added.] 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 128 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

In a Health Protection Appraisal Report dated August 1972 (enclosed herein as Attachment 4.5-

4C), the following information is provided: 

A 252Cf source has been added to the neutron activation facility. The 153 

microgram source is currently in storage; use is planned in 4-5 months. The 

procedures, interlocks, etc., in use for the Cockroft-Walton machine will also 

apply to the 252Cf source. So radiation hazard exists at present, as verified by 

survey performed by the IH&R Department. [Emphasis added.] 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 129 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-4A 

Analysis of Neutron-to-Photon Dose Ratios from UF4 at Fernald

In Section 6.3.5.1, “Development of the Neutron-to-Photon Ratio,” Faust (2004) calculated ratios 

of neutron-to-photon doses from UF4, commonly known as “green salt,” based on a series of 

disparate measurements. 

Faust relied on what appears to be a single measurement of the neutron dose rate from canisters 

of low-enriched uranium, described as 1.25% – 2%. Although Faust (2004, Table 2-6) lists 

measurements at locations “3” and “4,” the values, listed to four significant figures, are identical. 

The cited reference is: Baker, A., (1995) “Fernald Interoffice Memorandum entitled: Area 

Neutron Monitoring in the 4B Warehouse.” Since this reference was not available at the time of 

this review, we do not know the exposure geometry under which the measurement(s) was/were 

taken, nor is this information presented by Faust. 

To develop the neutron-to-photon ratio, Faust relied on photon dose rate measurements on 56 

drums of UF4. It is not clear whether the measurements were made on individual drums, isolated 

from the others, or if all 56 drums were in close proximity to one another, so that the dose rate 

was produced from the aggregate of all of the drums. The cited reference is: Fernald (2001), 

“Radiation Surveys of Bldg 38A (Chemical Warehouse). Survey # 01-10-07-0186." Like the 

Baker memo, this reference was not available at the time of this review. We can speculate that 

the photon dose rate was from a larger mass of UF4 than the neutron dose rate. Even if single 

drums, presumably with capacities of 55 gallons, were the radiation sources for the photon 

measurements, these may have contained much larger masses of UF4 than the canisters that were 

the source of the neutron doses. Although the term “canister” does not appear elsewhere in 

either the Faust report or in “Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project (FEMP) – Site Description,” ORAUT-TKBS-0017-2 (Chu 2004), it is most 

likely synonymous with “can.” Chu (2004) cites two types of containers: 55-gal drums and 10-

gal (38 L) cans. If the neutron dose measurements were performed on a 10-gal can, the 

comparison to photon dose rates from one or more 55-gal drums is invalid. Photons are much 

more strongly self-shielded by UF4 than are neutrons. Thus, the neutron dose rate outside a 

container of UF4 increases much faster with increasing mass of material than does the photon 

dose rate. 

In light of these uncertainties in the neutron-to-photon dose ratio developed by Faust (2004), we 

performed our own analysis of this ratio, using the MCNP5 computer code (LANL 2004). The 

neutron and photon doses were calculated for three exposure geometries. The source material 

was powdered UF4, containing either natural or 2% enriched uranium. The neutron yields and 

energy spectra were calculated by use of the SOURCES-4C computer code (LANL 2002), a 

code system that determines neutron production rates and spectra from (α,n) reactions, 

spontaneous fission, and delayed neutron emission due to radionuclide decay. The results were 

reported in terms of H*(10) dose rates: the dose in an ICRU sphere at a depth of 10 mm. 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 130 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Attachment 4.5-4A (Continued) 

In geometry 1, the source is a 55-gal drum full of powdered UF4, situated in a room with a 

concrete floor, walls, and ceiling. The doses are calculated at a point 1 m above the floor and 

1 m from the outer surface of the drum. In geometry 2, the source is a collection of 81 drums. 

The drums are stacked in three horizontal layers, each layer being nine drums wide and three 

drums deep. The dose point is again 1 m above the floor, 1 m away from the central drum. 

Figure 1 shows an elevation of the three layers of drums in a concrete room, while Figure 2 

shows a plan view of the drums and the dose point. In geometry 3, the UF4 powder is in a right 

circular cone, 10 m in radius and 10 m high, on a concrete slab. The dose point is 1 m above the 

slab and 1 m from the edge of the cone. 

Figure 1. Front View of Array of Drums of UF4 in Concrete Room 

The results of the analysis are presented 

in Table 1. As shown in the table, th

neutron:photon dose ratio varies from 

0.13 for a single drum of natural uranium 

to 0.42 for an 81-drum array of 2% 

enriched uranium. Although Faust (2004) 

does not present neutron:photon dose 

ratios for natural uranium, we note that 

the geometric means of the distributions 

are 0.07 and 0.10 for depleted and lowenriched uranium, respectively. The 

lowest value in Table 1 thus exceeds this 

range, while the highest value is over four 

times higher than the value for enriched 

uranium presented by Faust. We 

therefore conclude that the 

neutron:photon dose ratios presented by Faust are neither scientifically correct nor

e 

 claimant 

favorable. 

Figure 2. Top View of Array of UF4 Drums
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 131 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Attachment 4.5-4A (Continued) 

Table 1. Dose Rates (mrem/h) from UF4 

Material Geometry Neutron Photon n/p 

Single drum 0.015 0.114 0.13 

Natural uranium Drum array 0.286 1.372 0.21 

Conical pile 0.163 1.240 0.13 

Single drum 0.026 0.119 0.22 

2% enriched U Drum array 0.601 1.445 0.42 

Conical pile 0.316 1.322 0.24 

References

Chu, S. L. T. 2004. “ORAU Team NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project: Technical Basis 

Document for the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) – Site Description,” 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-2. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/frnld2.pdf

Faust, L. G. 2004. “ORAU Team NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project: Technical Basis 

Document for the Fernald Environmental Management Project – Occupational External Dose,” 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-6. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/frnld6.pdf. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 2004. MCNP5: Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport 

Code System, Version 1.30, RSICC Code Package CCC-710 [Computer software and manual]. 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Texas A&M University. 2002. SOURCES-4C: 

Code System For Calculating alpha,n; Spontaneous Fission; and Delayed Neutron Sources and 

Spectra, RSICC Code Package CCC-661. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory. 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 132 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-4B 

Health Protection Appraisal Report Dated May 19-21, 1964 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 133 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-4C 

Health Protection Appraisal Report Dated August 1974 

 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 134 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding 4.5-5: Unmonitored Female Workers

Female workers at FMPC were not monitored for external exposure (and assumedly for internal 

exposure) for the years 1951–1960 and 1969–1978). Section 6.6.3 of the FMPC TBD 

acknowledges this deficiency and states the following: 

For unmonitored workers, 500 mrem per year will be assigned as an upper bound limit. 

This is several times above the mean doses observed for monitored workers. 

The range of job tasks performed by female workers is largely unknown. Thus, a comprehensive 

evaluation of their potential exposures, in context with the 500 mrem per year default dose, 

cannot be assessed. However, it is known that female workers were responsible for operating the 

laundry facility. Among the items subject to laundering were heavily contaminated dust 

collector bags used throughout the FMPC facilities. 

Attachment 4.5-5 provides a glimpse of potential dose rates to which female workers may have 

been exposed while physically handling dust collector bags and other items. For a 2,000-hour 

work year, the default dose of 500 mrem per year is unlikely to represent a bounding value. 

Moreover, the default dose of 500 mrem does not address the following: (1) the shallow dose to 

the skin, (2) the extremity dose to the forearm/hands, and (3) potential internal exposure from 

airborne contamination created by handling contaminated items. (It is reasonable to assume that 

in the absence of external exposure monitoring, these female workers were also excluded from 

internal monitoring during these time periods.) 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 135 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ATTACHMENT 4.5-5 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 136 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS 

After a thorough review of SEC Petition-00046 and the large number of relevant/support 

documents, SC&A questions NIOSH’s conclusion that exposures to all members of the 

proposed class of workers at FMPC can be reconstructed in compliance with the requirements of 

42 CFR 83. 

It is SC&A’s opinion that dose reconstruction for most, if not all, workers (including nonproduction workers) would pose a myriad of challenges along with questionable results. This 

conclusion is not based on whimsical issues or subjective interpretation of data, but is largely 

based on facts and information contained in the large number of historical FMPC documents–

only a few of which were enclosed herein as attachments. 

These documents consistently characterize a facility that was deficient in the most basic 

engineering designs, radiological control practices, and worker monitoring programs. While the 

existence of these documents was acknowledged by NIOSH, their content and impacts on dose 

reconstruction were either grossly minimized or completely ignored. 

In total, SC&A identified 29 findings. Collectively, the findings describe issues that adversely 

affect all significant components that contribute to internal and external dose. While some 

findings pertain to deficiencies that impact the accuracy and/or completeness of dose estimates, a 

large fraction of findings reflect the total absence of essential data and preclude any credible 

attempt to establish upper-bound value(s). For example, data for Th-230 and Ra-226 for high 

grade ores and for RU residues are incomplete and inadequate and sometimes internally 

inconsistent. Equally, there is documented evidence that unmonitored workers (notably women 

during certain time periods) were exposed to significant levels of radiation that were, in some 

cases, recognized to be unexpectedly high, as shown in Attachment 4.1-3. NIOSH has not 

specified an appropriate way to bound their dose. 

Nowhere is the deficiency of data more apparent than for workers exposed to Th-232/Th-228 and 

their decay products. At no time were workers ever routinely monitored for thorium by means of 

in vitro/urinalysis methods; and in vivo/lung counting did not begin until 1979, which marked 

the end of thorium production (but not the end of thorium exposure). Equally, air sampling 

(including BZ air sampling) prior to 1986 was confined to spot sampling at select work locations. 

Beside their obvious limitations, these BZ spot air samples cannot be linked to any given worker. 

Collectively, findings in Section 4.3 of this report point to the fact that, for most workers, 

exposures to thorium can neither be estimated nor bounded. Equally important is the fact that a 

large component of thorium workers (representing roving maintenance/repair/operating 

personnel or members of the Project Labor Pool) cannot be identified as such. Lastly, due to lost 

records, time periods and locations for thorium processing, redrumming, and repackaging are 

incomplete and unknown. 

It should further be noted that residual thorium/uranium contaminants are likely to have persisted 

long after processing ceased. Ironically, concern for residual contamination and the need for 

worker protection are amply demonstrated by the vastly improved radiological control practices 

and worker monitoring programs that were instituted only after FMPC ceased all production 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 137 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

activities in 1989 and became the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP). The 

need for post-1989 changes provides a clear indicator of a failed and deficient worker protection 

program during the 38-year production period at FMPC.
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 138 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

6.0 REFERENCES 

42 CFR 83. Title 42, Part 83, of the Code of Federal Regulations. Procedures for Designating 

Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/ Vol. 69, 

No. 104/Friday, May 28, 2004, p. 30764. 

Baker, A. 1995. “Area Neutron Monitoring in the 4B Warehouse.” Fernald Interoffice 

memorandum. 

Bassett, A.C., W.A. Goldsmith, J.M. Googin, J.G. Crawford, and K.F. Eckerman, 1989. Health 

and Safety Provisions for Recycle Uranium Processing at the FMPC, March 7, 1989. 

Bechtel Jacobs 2000. Recycled Uranium Mass balance project Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant Site Report, BJC-PGDP-167, Final Draft, Bechtel Jacobs, June 14, 2000. 

Bogar 1986. L.C. Bogar to J.A. Reafsnyder, Over-all Accountability Analysis Report, Plant 

Startup through September 30, 1086, Westinghouse, December 12, 1986. Document in the 

litigation files of Waite, Schneider, Bayless, and Chesley, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Bonfer, D.C. 1988. Thorium - A Search of Available Records at the FMPC, Westinghouse, 

November 15, 1988. 

Caldwell, R., T. Potter, E. Schnell. 1967. “Bioassay Correlation with Breathing Zone 

Sampling.” Health and Safety Department, Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, 

prepared for presentation at the 13th Annual AEC Bioassay and Analytical Chemistry 

Conference. 

DeFazio, P.G. and S.F. Audia. 1965. Ventilation for Redrumming of Thorium Residues, 

Request for Emergency Service. National Lead of Ohio, November 17, 1965. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. DOE Ohio Field Office Recycled Uranium Project 

Report, 2000. 

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

Enricihment and Utilization, DOE/SO-0003, May 2003. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004. Guide to Good Practices for Occupational 

Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities, DOE-STD-1136-2004, December 2004. 

Dolan, L.C. and C. A. Hill. 1988. History of FEMP Radionuclide Discharges, Addendum to 

FEMP-2082, Special UC-11, Westinghouse Materials Company of Ohio, December 1988. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for 

Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No. 13. 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 139 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Fernald. 2001. Radiation Surveys of Bldg 38A (Chemical Warehouse), Survey #01-10-07-0186. 

Fernald SEC Petition. 2005. SEC Petition on Fernald to the Office of Compensation and 

Analysis, SEC-00046, 2005. 

Hinnefeld, S.L. 1988. POOS History and Risk Assessment, Westinghouse, September 19, 1988. 

Klevin, P.B. to W.B. Harris. 1954. Health Hazards in Thorium Processing, March 5, 1954. 

Mead, J.C. 1972. History of FMPC Residue Recovery Operations, National Lead Company of 

Ohio, August 25, 1972. 

NIOSH. 2006. SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00046: Feed Materials 

Production Center (FMPC), October 25, 2006. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002. 2004. Technical Information Bulletin – Maximum Internal Dose 

Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims, ORAUT-OTIB-0002, July 5, 2004. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 2005. Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic XRay Procedures, Rev. 3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Kathren and 

Shockley), August 2, 2005. 

ORAUT-OTIB-0024. 2005. Estimation of Neutron Dose Rates from Alpha-Neutron Reactions in 

Uranium and Thorium Compounds, Rev. 00. National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (Bloom), April 7, 2005. 

ORAUT-PROC-0060. 2005. External On-Site Ambient Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, 

Rev. 00. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Maher), March 7, 2005. 

ORAUT-PROC-0061. 2006. Occupational X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, Rev. 00. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Griffin), July 21, 2006. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-1. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project – Introduction, Vol. 1, Rev. 00, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (Kuykendall), March 17, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-2. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project – Site Description, Vol. 2, Rev. 00, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (Kuykendall), May 20, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-3. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project – Occupational Medical Dose, Vol. 3, Rev. 00, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (Kuykendall), February 11, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-5. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project – Occupational Internal Dose, Vol. 5, Rev. 00, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (Kuykendall), May 28, 2004. 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 140 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-6. 2004. Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project – Occupational External Dose, Vol. 6, Rev. 00, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (Kuykendall), April 20, 2004. 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-4. 2006. Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental 

Management Project – Occupational Environmental Dose, Vol. 4, Rev. 01, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (Chew), February 7, 2006. 

PACE/University of Utah. 2000. Paper and Allied Chemical Workers and the University of 

Utah, Exposure Assessment Project at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Department of 

Energy, December 2000. 

Pinney, S.M. 2004. Committee Investigation Report of Thorium Blender Incident-March 15, 

1954. J.H. Noyes, et al; April 5, 1954. 

Pinney, S.M. 2006. “Letter to [Name redacted], Petitioner.” September 13, 2006. 

Pinney, S.M. and R. Hornung . 2006. Methods for Radon Exposure Estimates for Fernald 

Workers, University of Cincinnati, 2006; slide presentation of the study. 

RAC 1995, The Fernald Dosimetry Reconstruction Project, Tasks 2 and 3 Radionuclide Source 

Terms and Uncertainties, RAC Report No. CDC-5. (Radiological Assessments Corporation), 

Neeses, South Carolina, 1995. 

Ross, K.N. and J.E. Beckelheimer. 1970. “Thorium Metal Production Housekeeping,” June 8, 

1970. 

SC&A. 2005a. Second Supplemental Review of the Mallinckrodt Site Profile Revision 1 

(Effective Date March 10, 2005), Second Supplement to SCA-TR-TASK1-0002, July 1, 2005. 

SC&A. 2005b. Third Supplemental Review of the Mallinckrodt Site Profile Revision 1 

(Effective Date March 10, 2005), Third Supplement to SCA-TR-TASK1-0002. August 16, 2005. 

SC&A. 2006a. Board Procedures for Review of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions and Petition 

Evaluation Reports, Revision 1. SCA-TR-TASK5-0002, June 12, 2006. 

SC&A. 2006b. Report to the Working Group on Special Exposure Cohort Petition Review, 

Draft. January 16, 2006. 

SC&A. 2006c. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for the Fernald Environmental Management 

Project (Feed Materials Production Center), Draft. SCA-TR-TASK5-0010, November 10, 

2006. 

Spenceley, R.M. 1981. “Letter to the Department of Energy.” November 25, 1981. 
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 141 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Spenceley, R.M. 1985. Joint Task Force on Recycle Material Processing, April 29, 1985, with 

Attachments. NIOSH Site Research Query Database Document Number 4301. 

Starkey, R. H. and C. R. Chapman. 1963. “Air Dust Re-Evaluation of the Thorium Furnace – 

Plant 6,” National Lead Company of Ohio, March 26, 1963. 

Starkey, R. H and C. R. Chapman. 1968. “Problems Associated with Thorium Processing – 

Plant 8,” National Lead Company of Ohio, October 1, 1968.
Effective Date: 

June 27, 2007 

Revision No. 

1 – Draft 

Document No. 

SCA-SEC-TASK5-0056 

Page No. 

Page 142 of 142 

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been edited accordingly. 

NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board for factual accuracy or 

applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

APPENDIX A: PETITIONER/WORKER INTERVIEW 

To be provided at a later date.