PETE OLSON

22n0 District, Texas

COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,
514 CaNNon House OrFice BUILOING Ravan MEMeen
WasHINGTON, DC 20515

(202} 225-5951

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

1650 Hianway 6
Suire 150
Suan Lano, TX 77478

ina auiazeen Congress of the Gnited States

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE

wes eure aa House of Representatives
‘eet taesoos

Washington, BC 20515
October 1, 2010

Dr. James Melius, Chair

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

Dear Dr. Melius:

I am writing with an urgent request that has been brought to my attention by members of
the working group for the Texas City Chemicals (TCC) Special Exposure Cohort, SEC-00088,
that was submitted to the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on
2/10/2007.

TCC is an AWE site based on contractor work it did for the AEC during the early and
mid-1950s. The exact dates that uranium yellow cake was extracted from Florida phosphate
rock, and the amounts of uranium obtained, at this repurposed fertilizer plant (both operations
proceeded simultaneously) are presently in dispute among U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) that
provides official EEOICPA covered facility descriptions, U.S. Dept. of Labor (DOL) as lead
EEOICPA implementing agency that sets covered facility production periods, and
HHS/NIOSH/OCAS-DCAS that manages the dose reconstruction (DR) and SEC programs for
EEOICPA 2000 part B as amended.

In order to accurately model RADON gas that results from the wet phosphoric acid
extraction method for uranium yellow cake that was ostensibly used at TCC, precise information
is needed on the volume and configuration of exhaust fans, windows and doors in the uranium
"Recovery building" where the phosphate rock that was crushed and subjected to acid extraction
in another building across the street was transported for uranium extraction and conversion to
"yellow cake" ore to take place. TCC production process information is at present sparse and
needs to be more complete for NIOSH dose reconstructions to be scientifically defensible.
NIOSH admits this fact.

Was there a written AEC radiation safety protocol at TCC in the 1950s? TCC former
workers say no to this question. However, most of the 1952-56 TCC workers are deceased.

Eligible claimants and survivor-claimants from the TCC site have thus far received zero
dollars ($0) in compensation and NIOSH has completed only 3 of 17 DR (17%) during the past
nine years that claims have been processed under EEOICPA 2000 and from 2005 to the present

Visit us at: htipdhvww.house.goviolson
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER


when amendments to the Act allowed DR to extend to both the covered AEC "production
period” and the "residual contamination” period.

NIOSH proposes rewriting the TCC SEC-00088 evaluation report (ER) almost 31 months
AFTER the original report was issued. The petitioners believe this violates the letter of the ACT
wherein NIOSH is allotted only 180 days to deliver an SEC evaluation report after the SEC
petition is submitted.

As such, we are asking for the Board to request DOL to request NRC to make an
exhaustive search for any and all records concerning Texas City Chemicals AEC uranium
operations 1952-1956 and 1956 through 1978 at Borden-Smith Douglass Division and
Amoco/BP that became owners after TCC filed for bankruptcy in 1956.

Furthermore, we ask for the Board to provide an explanation what steps remain that will
be necessary for the Surrogate Data work group and the full Board to make a final
recommendation to the HHS Secretary (Mrs. Sebelius) on TCC SEC-00088? Also, what is the
timetable for concluding Surrogate Data work group and full Board deliberations and voting on
the TCC SEC-00088? The petitioners need time to plan to be in attendance at this Board session
to be able to argue their case most effectively.

VeyrRespectfully,

Pete Olson 2