Draft White Paper 

FEASIBILITY OF IDENTIFYING WORKERS WITH SPECIFIC 

PLANTS/AREAS OF FERNALD FOR IDENTIFICATION WITH 

THORIUM OPERATIONS (1953–1967) 

Contract Number 200-2009-28555 

Prepared by 

 

Bob Barton 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

October 2012 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

2 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Document No.: White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald 

(1953–1967) 

Effective Date: 

Draft – October 24, 2012 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Feasibility of Identifying Workers with Specific 

Plants/Areas of Fernald for Identification with 

Thorium Operations (1953–1967) 

Page 2 of 28 

Task Manager: 

________________________ Date:____________ 

John H. Stiver, MS, CHP 

Supersedes: 

N/A 

Project Manager: 

________________________ Date:____________ 

John H. Stiver, MS, CHP 

Peer Reviewer(s): 

 Joyce Lipsztein 

 John Stiver 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number 

Effective 

Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 10/24/2012 Initial issue 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

3 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................4 

1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................5 

2.0 Background and Milestones to Date....................................................................................5 

3.0 Brief Description of Morris (2010) Approach.....................................................................6 

4.0 Feasibility of Implementing the Approach Described in Morris 2010................................7 

4.1 Review of Semi-Random Sample of 20 Claimant Files..........................................7 

4.2 Review of HIS_20 Database for Location-Based Information (1953–1967)........14 

5.0 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................15 

References......................................................................................................................................15 

Attachment 1: Detailed Review of 20 Claimant Files..................................................................16 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

4 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy 

dpm/m3 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter 

DWE Daily Weighted Exposure 

FEMP Fernald Environmental Management Project 

FMPC Feed Materials Production Center (also known as Fernald) 

GSD geometrical standard deviation 

MAC maximum allowable concentration 

MIVRML Mobile In-Vivo Radiation Monitoring Laboratory 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NOCTS NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

PP Pilot Plant 

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

5 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Starting in 1968, thorium exposures at Fernald1 were monitored via the Mobile In-Vivo 

Radiation Monitoring Laboratory (MIVRML). However, there was no defined monitoring 

program (either bioassay or in vivo) for thorium intakes before 1968; therefore the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) had to develop an alternate method for 

reconstructing thorium doses received during 1953–1967. Before the introduction of in-vivo 

monitoring, Fernald employed an air sampling program that was used to develop Daily Weighted 

Exposures (DWEs) for various job types based on the concentration of alpha activity in the air 

(dpm/m3

). Job-specific DWEs were developed by measuring alpha air concentrations near the 

workers’ “breathing zone” on a task-by-task basis for all tasks comprising a job and normalizing 

by the amount of time taken to perform each task. In this way, the average alpha air 

concentration that workers were exposed to during a given work day could be estimated. 

Because the DWE data were derived from alpha air activity concentration measurements, the 

method can be used for estimating chronic daily intakes of uranium and thorium, their progeny, 

and other associated radionuclides. 

NIOSH has proposed to use the DWE reports to bound potential exposures to thorium during the 

period prior to in-vivo counting at Fernald (1953–1967). Various white papers and formal Work 

Group discussions have examined the feasibility of using DWE reports for reconstructing 

thorium intakes; these are summarized in Section 2. However, still unexamined is the feasibility 

of implementing this approach (as described in Morris 2009) using the worker data available for 

the timeframe 1953–1967. Therefore, this memorandum focuses on the possibility of associating 

specific individuals who worked at Fernald during the 1953–1967 timeframe with the plants and 

buildings that processed thorium during that period. 

2.0 BACKGROUND AND MILESTONES TO DATE 

In March 2008, NIOSH released the report, White Paper on the Use of FMPC DWE Reports for 

Estimation of Chronic Daily Intake (Morris 2008), which describes the available DWE reports at 

Fernald, and also how these DWE data can be used to calculate inhalation and ingestion intakes 

of alpha emitters at Fernald for the purposes of dose reconstruction. This report was first 

discussed at the March 26, 2008, Work Group meeting. NIOSH released another revision of this 

report in February 2009, adding a section comparing DWEs to uranium concentration in urine 

(Morris 2009). 

Further discussions of the DWE issue occurred at the April 22, 2009, Work Group meeting. In 

July 2009, SC&A provided a white paper response (SC&A 2009) to NIOSH’s DWE report, 

which was presented in detail at the January 29, 2010, Work Group meeting. In response, 

NIOSH released a third version of the DWE methodology in October 2010 (Morris 2010), which 

was subsequently discussed in-depth at the Work Group meeting on November 10, 2010. This 

issue was also discussed briefly in the February and April 2011 Work Group meetings. In April 

2011, based principally on the revised approach to quantifying uncertainty described in Morris 

1 Fernald is also referred to as the Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC) or the Fernald Environmental

Management Project (FEMP).  All three titles may appear in this document.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

6 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

 

(2010), SC&A recommended that the issue of reconstructing internal doses from thorium intakes 

was likely not a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) issue for the 1953–1967 timeframe when DWE 

data are available, and instead could be considered a site profile issue. 

3.0 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MORRIS (2010) APPROACH 

As stated in Section 1, this report is not intended to further explore the validity of using DWEs to 

reconstruct doses to workers in the 1953–1967 timeframe. Rather, this report explores potential 

issues in the implementation of the methods set forth in Morris 2010, particularly the 

identification of workers within specific plants who were potentially exposed to thorium. As 

stated in Morris (2010): 

Due to variations in job assignments is [sic] unlikely that unambiguous exposure 

scenarios can be defined for most workers. In addition, fugitive dust emissions 

have not been quantified except as a general air sampler indicator. To ensure 

thorium intake potential is not underestimated, the DWE value associated job title 

or job description with the highest DWE value in FMPC plant [sic] where 

thorium was handled for a specific year should be assigned to every worker in 

that facility. A GSD of 5 should be assumed. (Morris 2010) 

Implicit in the NIOSH methodology is a degree of granularity in the available data that would 

allow the identification of worker placement by plant and year. The principal purpose of this 

report is to investigate the extent to which this assumption holds true. 

Morris (2010) states that if DWE data are not available for a particular facility and year, the 95th

percentile of the general air sampling data for that facility can be used. In cases in which neither 

air sampling nor DWE data are available, data from subsequent years (before and after the year 

in question) should be used as a surrogate. The recommended DWE values, by plant and year, 

were given in Table 2 of Morris (2010) and are shown in Figure 1. The highlighted boxes in 

Figure 1 represent plants and years with known thorium processing operations. DWE values in 

Figure 1 are reported in units of maximum allowable concentration (MAC), which were 70 

disintegrations per minute per cubic meter of air (dpm/m3

) before 1963 and 100 dpm/m3

thereafter. 

Morris (2010) states that if further information is found that identifies additional plants that 

conducted thorium operations, available documentation would be reviewed to identify 

appropriate DWE reports. Those reports would then be used to derive thorium intakes for 

workers in those additional plants according to the methods described in Morris (2010).2

 It bears 

repeating that the approach outlined in Morris (2010), and briefly described above, requires a 

detailed knowledge of the work location of individual workers in a given year in order to 

determine whether each worker was potentially exposed to thorium. This document explores 

what information is available to identify workers with specific areas of Fernald. 

2 Note that a list of thorium workers was produced at the end of 1967 (Starkey 1967) that includes several

“thorium workers” associated with Plant 5, but Plant 5 is not included in Table 2 of Morris 2010.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

7 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Figure 1. Recreation of Table 2 from Morris 2010 Showing the Recommended DWE 

Values in Units of MAC by Plant and Year 

4.0 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING THE APPROACH 

DESCRIBED IN MORRIS 2010 

In order to explore the feasibility of implementing the approach proposed in Morris (2010), 

SC&A performed two different analyses. The first analysis is based on the review of available 

claimant records in the NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System (NOCTS), and the second takes 

a site-wide view of the overall worker records found in the HIS_20 database. Section 4.1 

describes SC&A’s review of sampled claimant files and the work location information they 

contain. Section 4.2 describes the information available in the HIS_20 database in order to 

provide insight on the worker population as a whole. 

4.1 REVIEW OF SEMI-RANDOM SAMPLE OF 20 CLAIMANT FILES 

SC&A pulled a sample of 20 semi-randomly selected claimant files3

 for Fernald from the 

NOCTS system. Location-specific identifiers in individual claimant files were found in a 

number of different sources, including: 

 

 Uranium urinalysis sampling reports 

 Film badge investigation reports 

 Radiation exposure investigation reports 

 3 Claimants were selected to cover the higher risk job types, as well as to assure that the period of interest

(1953–1967) was well represented by the worker population.  In addition, a cross‐section of workers noted in the

1967 Starkey memo that identifies thorium workers was also selected for review (see Claimant Reference Nos. 11–

19 in Table 1 and Attachment 1).
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

8 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

 Personal clothing and monitoring reports 

 Health and safety information reports 

 Periodic physical examinations 

 Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) reports and employment records 

The first six sources on this list are found within the dosimetry files provided by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). CATI reports and employment records (the last source listed) 

were supplied by the claimant. Table 1 displays a summary of available location-specific data in 

the individual NOCTS files of the 20 claimants reviewed. Wherever possible, identifying 

information has been removed for Privacy Act compliance. A more detailed and complete 

review of the 20 selected claimant files is provided in Attachment 1. 

As shown in Table 1, most location-specific information in the claimant files is found in the 

urinalysis results. However, of the nearly 1,400 urinalyses reviewed for the sampled claimant 

population, only 180 (or roughly 13%) contained information on work location. For 16 of the 20 

sampled workers, less than 20% of their urinalysis results specified a work location; for 8 of 20 

workers, less than 10% of their urinalysis results specified a location. Urinalysis results were 

also restricted to the mid-1950s, as shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Number of Urinalysis Samples Identifying Location by Year 

Film badge investigation reports appear to be restricted to the early portion of the period. The 

only such reports in the sampled claimant files were made in 1953 and 1954 and covered 9 of the 

20 sampled workers. Radiation exposure investigation reports were much less common. Of the 

5 total reports covering 4 of the 20 surveyed claimants, 2 reports were made in 1963, and the rest 

in the mid-to-late 1950s. Film badge investigation reports only cover 1 week, and radiation 

exposure investigations and personnel clothing and monitoring reports generally only cover a 

day or two. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

9 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

NOTICE:

The claimant files contained only one personal clothing monitoring report (1955) and one health 

and safety information report (1960). One of the 20 surveyed claimants had reports documenting 

annual physicals that specified a work area and covered all the employed years of interest, 

although it is not clear whether the work designation actually covers all locations within each 

given year. 

The remainder of location-based information is contained in the CATI reports. However, these 

often do not specify timeframes for work in individual plants or, alternatively, do not indicate if 

the worker was in multiple locations. In some CATI reports, the work location was unknown. 

Furthermore, not every sampled claimant had a CATI report in their file. Many of these CATI 

reports were conducted with the claimant’s survivor, who often does not have detailed 

knowledge of the claimant’s job duties or placement. 

One claimant possessed official employment records that did specify his work location 

throughout the period of employment. However, even this official record contradicted other 

documents in the claimant’s file, such as a radiation exposure investigative report. The other 19 

sampled claimant files did not contain similar official employment records. 

Based on the records for the surveyed claimants, it appears that location-based information is 

severely limited for Fernald workers during the 1953–1967 timeframe. Furthermore, it has been 

established through interviews with Fernald workers that many workers did not perform their 

duties in one plant, but instead moved around from plant-to-plant as needed. Additional 

information can sometimes be taken from CATI reports and documents received by the 

individual claimants, but it is probably not reasonable to expect this type of information to be 

included in claimant files on a consistent basis. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No

10 of 2

Table 1. Summary - Location Information Identified in Claimant NOCTS Files for 20 Claimants S

Ref # Job Title(s)* Relevant Employment Work Location Reference from Dosimetry File Details of Dosimetry Location Information # of Work Locations in Dosimetry File In

Cla

1 [redacted] 1953–1963 Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 4 samples (17%) 1956–1957 No location: 20 samples (83%) 

2 

CATI both spa date 

Film Badge 

Investigation 6 reports (1953–1954) 

2 Chemical Operator 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis Specify location: 17 samples (~15%) 1955–1958 

No location: ~100 samples (~85%) 

3 

Two dprovidlocatiotimefra

Film Badge 

Investigation 1 report (1953) 

3 Millwright 1953–1967 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 15 samples (~16%) 1956–1957 Do not specify location: ~80 samples (~84%) 

6 

Four dnumerbuildin

4 Machinist 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis 

Specify location: 0 samples (0%) No Location: ~50 samples (100%) 

0 CATI 

worked 

Film Badge 

Investigation 1 report (1953) 

5 Millwright 1953–1967 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 14 samples (~14%) 1954, 1957–1958 No location: ~85 (~85%) 

6 Claima

claima

6 Technician 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 0 samples (0%) No location: ~35 samples (100%) 

0 CATI 

was in 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No

11 of 2

Ref # Job Title(s)* Relevant Employment Work Location Reference from Dosimetry File Details of Dosimetry Location Information # of Work Locations in Dosimetry File In

Cla

Film Badge 

Investigation 3 reports (1953) 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 7 samples (~4%) 1955–1957 No location: ~155 samples (~96%) 

7 Chemical Operator 1953–1967 

Radiation Exposure 

Investigation 1 Report (1963) 

11 CATI 

locatio

8 Maintenance Man 1953–1961 Uranium Urinalysis Specify location: 15 samples (~33%) No location: 30 samples (~67%) 15 CATI 

locatio

9 [redacted] 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 13 samples (~40%) 1955–1958 No location: ~20 samples (~60%) 

13 CATI 

locatio

10 Forklift Operator 1954–1967 Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 0 samples (0%) No location: ~50 samples (100%) 

0 

CATI buildinapproxspecifi(CATI 

Film Badge 

Investigation 2 reports (1953, 1954) 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 6 samples (~11%) 1953, 1956–1958 No location: ~50 samples (~89%) 

Radiation Exposure 

Investigation 2 reports (1955, 1963) 

11 Operator* 1953–1967 

Official 

Employment 

Record Supplied by 

Claimant 

2 documents (1953–1967) 

12 

CATI differeOfficiasupplieleast oinvestiEmploclaimaplants 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No

12 of 2

Ref # Job Title(s)* Relevant Employment Work Location Reference from Dosimetry File Details of Dosimetry Location Information # of Work Locations in Dosimetry File In

Cla

Film Badge 

Investigation 8 reports (1953, 1954) 

12 Chemical Operator* 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis Specify location: 4 samples (~7%) 1956–1958 

No location: ~50 samples (93%) 

12 CATI 

locatio

Film Badge 

Investigation 7 reports (1953, 1954) 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 3 samples (~6%) 1955, 1957, 1958 No location: ~50 samples (94%) 

13 Chemical Operator* 1953–1967 

Health and Safety 

Information Report 1 report (1960) 

11 No CA

Film Badge 

Investigation 2 reports (1954) 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify Location: 9 samples (~12%) 1955–1958 No location: ~65 samples (~88%) 

14 Chemical Operator* 1953–1967 

Radiation Exposure 

Investigation 1 report (1957) 

12 CATI 

locatio

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 12 samples (~13%) 1954, 1956–1958 No location: ~80 samples 15 Chemical Operator* 1954–1967 

Radiation Exposure 

Investigation 1 report (1958) 

13 

CATI worked most o

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No

13 of 2

: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

Ho is report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Work

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Ref # Job Title(s)* Relevant Employment Work Location Reference from Dosimetry File Details of Dosimetry Location Information # of Work Locations in Dosimetry File In

Cla

NOTICE

wever, th

Film Badge 

Investigation 1 report (1953) 

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 13 samples (~22%) 1955, 1957 No Location: ~45 samples (~78%) 

16 Machine Tool Operator* 1953–1967 

Periodic Physical 

Exam 9 reports (1957, 1959–1967) 

24 CATI 

claima

Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 36 samples (~32%) 1955 

17 No location: ~75 (~68%) Machine Tool Operator* 1953–1967 Personnel and 

Clothing 

Monitoring 

1 report (1955) 

37 CATI 

plants. 

18 [redacted]* 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 3 samples (4%) 1956–1958 No location: 65 samples (96%) 

3 

CATI plants operati

19 [redacted]* 1953–1967 Uranium Urinalysis

Specify location: 6 samples (~12%) 1957–1958 No location: 45 samples (~88%) 

6 CATI 

plants. 

20 Chemical Operator 1954–1967 Uranium Urinalysis Specify location: 3 samples (~6%) No location: 45 samples (~94%) 3 CATI 

locatio

*Indicates claimant was also included in the 1967 list identifying “thorium workers” for the purpose of in-vivo counting. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

14 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

4.2 REVIEW OF HIS_20 DATABASE FOR LOCATION-BASED INFORMATION 

(1953–1967) 

To gain a better understanding of the site-wide practice of recording work location data, SC&A 

analyzed the HIS_20 database to identify workers whose urine bioassay samples also specified 

the individual plant where the sample was taken. Plant locations are denoted in the urinalysis 

database in the “sample type” column, where sample types 1–9 refer to Plants 1–9, respectively 

(samples for the pilot plant are marked “PP”). It should be noted that, when the database was 

originally compiled from hardcopy records, the plant designation was replaced with some other 

sample code, such as “routine.” These changes were sometimes noted in the “comments” 

column, which stated, “OLD SAMPLE WAS [insert plant number].” It is not clear to what 

extent this practice occurred and whether other “sample type” codes were changed without the 

corresponding comment that indicated the plant area. Nevertheless, this review attempted to 

identify the samples whose codes were changed and associate them with the correct plant areas. 

Table 2 summarizes the number of uranium urinalysis results by plant and year. As Table 2 

indicates, the practice of labeling urinalysis samples with the worker location is mainly restricted 

to the 1955–1957 timeframe and applies to approximately two thirds of the available samples for 

those years. This is consistent with the spread of urinalysis samples identified in the claimant 

sampling shown in Figure 2. No other location-based information was found in the HIS_20 

database for the period of interest. 

Table 2. Number of Urinalysis Results that Identify Location Compared to Total 

Urinalysis Results by Year 

Year Pilot 

Plant 

Plant 

1 

Plant 

2 

Plant 

3 

Plant 

4 

Plant 

5 

Plant 

6 

Plant 

7 

Plant 

8 

Plant 

9 

Sum of 

Urinalysis 

Results by 

Location 

(% Total) 

Total 

Uranium 

Urinalyses 

by Year 

1953 - - - - - 50 39 - - - 89 

(3.7%) 2,430 

1954 - - - - 35 88 89 - - - 212 (2.4%) 8,725 

1955 245 238 447 414 173 1,315 683 3,669 258 40 7,482 

(70.1%) 10,669 

1956 914 500 453 205 450 727 1,900 994 924 - 7,067 

(62.5%) 11,314 

1957 268 191 327 216 595 1,356 4,202 - 1,586 215 8,956 

(65.9%) 13,581 

1958 - - 3 2 19 73 32 - 13 - 142 

(1.4%) 9,995 

1959 - - - - - - - - - - - 14,556 

1960 - - - - - - - - - - - 19,410 

1961 - - - 85 - 2 - - - - 87 

(0.9%) 9,513 

1962 - - - - - - - - - - - 8,490 

1963 - - - - - - - - - - - 9,678 

1964 - - - - - - - - - - - 6,753 

1965 - - - - - - - - - - - 6,566 

1966 - - - - - - - - - - - 6,383 

1967 - - - - - - - - - - - 5,363 

(Dashes indicate no data are available) 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

15 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

5.0 CONCLUSION 

It is apparent from the 20 sampled claimant files and analysis of the HIS_20 database that only 

limited information is available to associate workers with specific areas on a consistent basis. 

Given that NIOSH’s proposed methodology in Morris (2010) is predicated on reliable 

information about temporal and spatial worker placement, NIOSH needs to address the paucity 

of such information and modify its approach in order to assure that assigned thorium intakes are 

bounding to the workers who were potentially exposed to thorium in the 1953–1967 timeframe. 

REFERENCES

Morris, R., 2008. White Paper on the Use of FMPC DWE Reports for Estimation of Chronic 

Daily Intake Rate – Rev. 01. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. March 11, 2008. 

Morris, R., 2009. White Paper on the Use of FMPC DWE Reports for Estimation of Chronic 

Daily Intake Rate – Rev. 02. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. February 6, 2009. 

Morris, R., 2010. White Paper on the Use of FMPC DWE Reports for Estimation of Chronic 

Daily Intake Rate – Rev. 03. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. October 2010. 

SC&A 2009. Draft Review of NIOSH White Paper on the Use of FMPC DWE Reports for 

Estimation of Chronic Daily Intake Rate for Th-232 Internal Dose Reconstruction. SC&A, Inc., 

Vienna, Virginia, and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. July 24, 2009. 

Starkey, R., 1967. List of Thorium Workers. National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

December 26, 1967. SRDB REF ID: 43069.
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

16 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

ATTACHMENT 1: DETAILED REVIEW OF 20 CLAIMANT FILES 

(CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION) 

Reference Claim # 1 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/63 

Job Title(s): [redacted] 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

3006, Inspection 

Department 

Film badge 

investigation 7/[redact]/52 Lost film badge for the week 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/1956 

Inspection Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/57 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/57 

Claimant had over 20 other urinalysis 

samples that did not specify a work 

location. 

Plant 6 CATI report and 

claim application Not specified CATI and claim were filed by worker’s daughter. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

17 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #2 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/53–[redacted]/68 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5, 

A & B Areas CATI report 1953–1966 

Plant 5, Bldg. 3005 Film badge 

investigation 

11/[redact]/53– 

11//[redact]/53 Job duties: [redacted] 

Plant 5, Bldg. 3005 Film badge 

investigation 

11/[redact]/53–

11/[redact]/53 Job duties: [redacted] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

9/[redact]/54– 

9/[redact]/54 Job duties: [redacted] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

10/[redact]/54– 

10/[redact]/54 Job duties: [redacted] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

10/[redact]/54– 

11/[redact]/54 Job duties: [redacted] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

12/[redact]/54– 

12/[redact]/54 Job duties: [redacted] 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 5//[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 7//[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 8//[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/56 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 12/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 100 other urinalysis 

samples that did not specify a work 

location. 

Plant 8 CATI report Unspecified 

“Worked on the [redacted] which putting 

[sic] out fires in uranium containing 

drums” 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

18 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #3 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/82 

Job Title(s): Millwright 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

In all buildings and 

areas 

CATI report 

(/[redact]/) 

[redact]/52–

[redact]/82 

Claimant was [redacted]of the union, 

which required him to go to all areas of the 

site. 

Plant 5 and others CATI report 

(/[redact]/) 

[redact]/52–

[redact]/82 

Various buildings CATI report 

(/[redact]/) 

[redact]/52–

[redact]/82 

Used a [redacted]to get from building to 

building. 

14, 7, maybe others CATI report 

(/[redact]/) 

[redact]/52–

[redact]/82 

Plant 2-3 Urinalysis result 1/[redact]/56 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 3 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 3 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 3 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 3 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/57 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/57 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/57 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Claimant had over 80 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Production, 

Bldg. 3005 

Film badge 

investigation 

7/[redact]/53–

7/[redact]/53 Work location: recasting area 

Claimant Reference #4 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/68 

Job Title(s): Machinist 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 2-3, Pilot 

Plant, Plants 4 

through 7, Plant 9, 

all over the plant 

CATI report [redact]/52–

[redact]/68 

Report indicates claimant worked with 

thorium in Plant 9. 

Unknown Urinalysis result [redact]/53–

[redact]/68 

Claimant had over 50 urinalysis samples 

during the period of interest that did not 

specify a work location. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

19 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #5 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/69 

Job Title(s): Millwright 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

All over the plant CATI report [redact]/52–

[redact]/69 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/54 

Plant 7 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/54 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 85 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Production, Bldg. 

3012 and 3006 

Film badge 

investigation 

3/[redact]/53–

3/[redact]/53 

Reference Claim #6 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/53–[redacted]/70 

Job Title(s): Technician 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

All locations, as 

required CATI report [redact]/53–

[redact]/70 

Unknown Urinalysis result [redact]/56–

[redact]/70 

Claimant had over 35 urinalysis samples 

during the period of interest that did not 

specify a work location. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

20 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #7 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/53–[redacted]/71 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5 CATI report [redact]/53–

[redact]/71 Interviewee was not sure. 

K-65 Film badge 

investigation 

[redact]/53–

[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] K-65 material 

K-65 Film badge 

investigation 

6/[redact]/53–

6/[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] K-65 material 

K-65 Film badge 

investigation 

[redact]/53–

[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] K-65 material 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/55 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/56 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/57 

Claimant had over 155 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 5 Radiation exposure 

investigation 

3/[redact]/63–

3/[redact]/63 Job description: [redact] 

Reference Claim #8 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/53–[redacted]/61 

Job Title(s): Maintenance Man 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/55 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3//[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 8 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

CATI report does not specify work location 

(CATI given by survivor). 

Claimant had over 30 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

21 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #9 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/53 – [redacted]/69 

Job Title(s): [redacted] 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

K-65, Plants 2–5, 

Pilot Plant, Water 

Treatment 

CATI report [redact]/53–

[redact]/69 

Claimant does not know if he was exposed 

to thorium. Work in K-65 may have been 

during the first 3 months of employment. 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/55 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/56 

Plant 1 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/57 

Plant 2 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

Claimant had approximately 20 other 

urinalysis samples during the period of 

interest that did not specify a work 

location. 

Reference Claim #10 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/54 – [redacted]/71 

Job Title(s): Forklift Operator 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plants 1, 5, 6, 9. All 

other buildings CATI report [redact]/54–

[redact]/71 “[redact].”

Unknown Urinalysis result NA 

Claimant had over 50 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

22 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #11 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/2001 

Job Title(s): Operator – [redacted] Worker 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Bldg. 3005, MF-5, 

4/8, 2, B Plant, PP 

3013, PP 3037, 

Plants 2, 2-3, 5, 8, 9 

– West Pilot Plant, 

Bldg. 13-A 

CATI report [redact]/52–

[redact]/2001 

Plant 5 Employment record 

from claimant 

[redact]/52–

[redact]/54 

Claimant loaned to Pilot Plant on 

[redact]/52 and again on [redact]/53; it is 

not clear how long he worked there. 

Plant 9 Employment record 

from claimant 

[redact]/54–End of 

Period 

Note: According to thorium timeline, 

processing of thorium stopped in Plant 9 in 

1956. 

Bldg. 3006 Film badge 

investigation 4/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

1/[redact]/54–

1/[redact]/54 

Plant 5 Radiation exposure 

investigation 

2/[redact]/55–

2/[redact]/55 

Conflicts with claimant-supplied 

employment records. 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 50 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 9 Radiation exposure 

investigation 

[redact]/63–

[redact]/63 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

23 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #12 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period[redacted]/52–[redacted]/76 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator – [redacted] Worker 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Pilot Plant, moved to 

Plant 9 (until 8/68), 

Plant 5 

CATI report 

([redact]) 

[redact]/52–

[redact]/76 “[name redacted] [redact])” 

Pilot Plant, Plant 9 

(1952–1968), and 

Plant 5 (1968–1976) 

CATI report 

([redact]) See location 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

7/[redact]/53–

/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

8/[redact]/53–

8//[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

[redact]/53–

[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

8/[redact]/53–

8/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

10/[redact]/53–

10/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

11/[redact]/53–

11/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

11/[redact]/53–

11/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

5/[redact]/54–

5/[redact]/54 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 1/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 50 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

24 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #13 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/83 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator – [redacted] Worker 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

[redact]/53–

[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

8/[redact]/53–

8/[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

8/[redact]/53–

8//[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

8/[redact]/53–

8/[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

9/[redact]/53–

9/[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

9/[redact]/53–

9/[redact]/53 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

1/[redact]/54–

1/[redact]/54 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 11/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 50 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 9 H&S information 

report 10/60 

Reference Claim #14 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/88 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator – [redacted] Worker 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plants 5 and 9 CATI report [redact]/52–

[redact]/88 

Claimant was involved in a thorium 

blender explosion at the startup of Plant 9. 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/55 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 12/[redact]/56 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 12/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 65 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 9 Radiation exposure 

investigation 

[redact]/57–

[redact]/57 Job description: [redact] operator 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

4/[redact]/54–

4/[redact]/54 Job description: [redact] operator 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

5/[redact]/54–

5/[redact]/54 Job description: [redact] operator 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

25 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #15 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/54–[redacted]/69 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator – [redacted] Worker (Plant 8) 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

All over the site, 

most time spent in 

Plants 4 and 8 

CATI report [redact]/54–

[redact]/69 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/54 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/54 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/54 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 5/[redact]/56 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 3//[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 4 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 80 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 4 Radiation exposure 

investigation 

[redact]/58–

[redact]/58 Job description: reactor operator 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

26 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #16 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/77 

Job Title(s): Machine Tool Operator – [redacted] Worker (Plant 6) 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 9/[redact]/52 Job description: [redact] operations 

Plant 5 Film badge 

investigation 

2/[redact]/53–

2/[redact]/53 Job description: [redact] operations 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 1/[redact]/55 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 12/[redact]/57 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/55 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 1/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 12/[redact]/57 

Claimant had over 45 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 9 Periodic physical 

examination 12/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Periodic physical 

examination 2/[redact]/59 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 2/[redact]/60 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 5/[redact]/61 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 5/[redact]/62 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 7/[redact]/63 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 8/[redact]/64 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 10/[redact]/65 

Plant 6 Periodic physical 

examination 1/[redact]/67 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

27 of 28 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

Reference Claim #17 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52 – [redacted]/88 

Job Title(s): Machine Tool Operator – [redacted] Worker (Plant 9) 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plants 6 and 9 CATI report [redact]/52–

[redact]/88 

Plant 5, Bldg. 3006 Film Badge 

Investigation 9/[redact]/52 Job description: [redact] 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 1//[redact]/55 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 1/[redact]/55 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/55 

Plant 9 

Personnel and 

clothing monitoring 

report 

4/[redact]/55 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 12/[redact]/55 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 6/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 11/[redact]/56 

Plant 6 Urinalysis result 11/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7//[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 7/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/57 

Claimant had over 75 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 11/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 11/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2/[redact]/58 
Effective Date: 

October 24, 2012 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. White Paper –

Identification of Work Areas at Fernald (1953–1967) 

Page No. 

28 of 28 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.

NOTICE:

Reference Claim #18 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/79 

Job Title(s): [redacted] – [redacted] Worker (Plant 5) 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5 CATI Report [redact]/52–

[redact]/54 

Plant 9 CATI Report [redact]/54–

[redact] “[redact]...” 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 10/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 2//[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 65 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Claim Reference #19 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/52–[redacted]/80 

Job Title(s): [redacted] Operator – [redacted] Worker (Plant 2) 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plants 5, 6, and 9 CATI report [redact]/52–

[redact]/80 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/57 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 8/[redact]/57 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/57 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 1/[redact]/58 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/58 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 4/[redact]/58 

Claimant had over 45 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location. 

Reference Claim #20 

Claim ID: [redacted] 

Worker Employment Period: [redacted]/54–[redacted]/3/69 

Job Title(s): Chemical Operator 

Available work location info: 

Work Location Source Date/Time Period Any Additional Comments 

Plant 5 Urinalysis result 3/[redact]/56 

Plant 9 Urinalysis result 9/[redact]/57 

Pilot Plant Urinalysis result 11/[redact]/57 

Claimant had over 45 other urinalysis 

samples during the period of interest that 

did not specify a work location.