a Effective Date: 06/29/2004 [ Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 Page 11 of 19 |

160;
z=
= —
€ 10 |
g |
rs
8 so
3 Va
g A
8

40
€
5
Q

°o 20 20 a0 ae Foo
Time after separation from ore, days

Figure 3. Beta dose rate on the surface of yellowcake.
{Reproduced from US NRC 2002b]

160)

420, \
400)

_ Betadose rate, mram/hr
8

0 40 2a 30
Distance from surface, cm

Figure 4. Beta dose rate from yellowcake separated from
ore for more than 100 days as a function of distance from
the surface. [Reproduced from US NRC 2002b}

Figure 4 above shows that the beta dose rate from the surface of yellowcake decreases rapidly as a
function of distance from the surface. The rapid decrease in the beta dose rate with distance, and the
shielding afforded by shoes and clothing, reduces dose from electron exposure, particularly from
yellowcake deposited on floors.



SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION

FORM B
SECTION F :
ITEM F.1

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS



‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition _ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|

under the Energy Employees Occupational = * Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
tiness Compensation Act ‘National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007)
‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3 0 WWe have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
fadiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

F.4 0 iMWehave attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition.

{Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

Go to Part G.

G janate
All Petitioner 1aximum of three persons may sign the petition.
_ Ht3/ty 46
Sic Date
‘Signature : Date
Signature Date

Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of
fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

_
if there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.
The Appendix forms are located at the end of this document.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



BE ‘That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the
radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of
employment.
3. That in “ 1996. was diagnosed with

4. That on’ . 1996, passed away as result of
his cancer.

5. That I filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Ilness

Compensation Program Act on behalf |
6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the

likelihood of probability that my fathér’s exposure to radioactive materials was
less than 50 percent.
Further, affiant, sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
| set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to ©
be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true,

LA- 18 - 6

DATE

(2) 15 /as=
WITNESS DATE 7



[Effective Date: 06/20/2004 [Revision No.01 | Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002_ [PageS5of19__ |

According to the contract signed in October of 1951, Blockson, and later Olin Mathieson, was
tesponsible for the health and safety of the employees at the site and for conforming fo AEC health
and safety regulations and requirements. in Amendment 3, effective January 1, 1958, this statement

> was deleted. Personnel with the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
conducted records searches for information regarding the uranium recovery activities at Blockson, No
tecords of health and safety inspections by the AEC were found as a result of their search, although
there was evidence of periodic visits by AEC personne! to review and audit process operations (US
DOE 1985).

The recovery plant was put into operation on August 15, 1952, approximately 17 months after
research on the process was begun. The process was patented and the patent, USP 2743156, was
assigned to the AEC (Stolz, Jr. 1958). A one-story, 100-by-175-foot building was built specifically to
house the uranium recovery process (US DOE 1983, US DOE 1985). The recovery plant was
designed to be capable of recovering uranium from 1500 tons of phosphate daily (Stolz, Jr. 1958).
Figure 1 shows the schematic flowchart of the Blockson process for the recovery of uranium from wet

phosphoric acid.
= ee
fe Phosphate
ow ed UF
Oxidation:
filtrate Retumed
- fo Moncsodiam
[ee St
Production
Coke
Water ———_——>} >.
= | ,
i /
v4 ie
iter
. Filter Ald Recovery atte
\ jhecos
40-60%
en
Product Repreciptiation
Fitrate to Waste

Figure 1. The Blockson process for the recovery of uranium from
phosphoric acid. [Reproduced from Clegg and Foley 1958].

The Blockson Chemical Company manufactured wet-process phosphoric acid from Florida phosphate

rock (Barr et al. 1955, Clegg and Foley 1958). The Blockson plant produced technical phosphates
rather than fertilizers from wet phosphoric acid (Wilkinson 1976). In the process, the phosphate rock



FB That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the
radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of
s
» van loyment.

3. That, 1961, was diagnosed with

4, That on 1961, passed away as result of his

5. That in £2001, I filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational
Tiness Compensation Progratti Act on behalf of my father,

6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that my father’s exposure to radioactive materials was
less that 50 percent.

Further, affiant, sayeth not,

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements

set forth in this instrament are true and correct, except as.to those matters therein statedto . . -

be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true.

L2] pS

DATE

SALLE S OS
DATE



ant

BR That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the

+ tadiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of

snployment,
3. That? was diagnosed with «
4, That op 97. passed away as result of his
cancer,
5. That in 2001, I filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation Program Act on behalf of”
6. That my ciaim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that my-father’s exposure to radioactive materials was
Husband4
less than 50 percent.

Further, affiant; sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to, those matters therein stated to.
be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true,

(2-20 - 05

DATE

| Q-30-0S~

WITNESS ~ DATE



FE ‘That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the

radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of my

” busband’s employment.
3. That on or about 1986. ° was diagnosed with *
4, ‘That on or about ” 1986, passed away as result of his
cancer.

5. That I filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Comperisation Program Act on behalf of

6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that aff Bakers exposure to radioactive materials was
less than’50 percent.

Further, affiant, sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to
be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true.

[2 ~232- Doe
DATE

‘ [ /! 22] es

WYINESS DATE ¢



FE, That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the

radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period:

s employment.
3. That ir 1997 was diagnosed with
4. That or * 1997 * assed away as result of his

cancer.
5. That filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Hines
Compensation Program Act on behalf of
6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that my father’s exposure to radioactive materials was

less than 50 percent.

Further, affiant, sayeth not. ‘

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
set forth in this instrament are true.and.correct, except as to those matters therein stated to
be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same'to be ">

Ree. (5, 8005,

DATE

the (8 40057

DATE



F That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the
radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of
employment.
3. That in 1985, was diagnosed with

4. That 995 { passed away as result of his
cancers.

5. That I'filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act on behalf of

6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the

A asbane
likelihood of probability that my ba exposure to radioactive materials was
Jess than 50 percent. ,
Further, affiant, sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION
Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned cettifies that the statements ;
set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to

be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true.

1A- 20-05
DATE

13: 20: OS

WITNESS 1° DATE



[Effective Date: 66/29/2004 | Revision No. 01 | Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 [Page 18 of 18 |

lt was assumed that there was a potential to receive a shallow dose from exposure to open drums
during drum loading and sealing, According to Figure 4, the dose rate at 1 foot from the surface of
aged yellowcake Is between 1 and 2 mrem/h. Therefore, to be claimant-favorable, it was assumed
that the claimant spent 8 hours per week, 50 weeks per year at 1 foot from the surface of aged
yellowcake at a dose rate of 2 mrem/h. Again, the time of exposure was assumed to be fognormally
distributed and an exposure time of 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year was assumed to be the
95" percentile. Thus, the annual shallow dose from exposure to open drums of yellowcake is
assumed to be 0.8 rem per year with a GSD of 2.7,

The assumption was also made that workers received an annual occupationally related diagnostic x-
tay. The exposure geometry was assumed to be posterior-anterior (PA) (NIOSH 2002). Table 9
below shows the annual organ doses due to the assumed

annual diagnostic chest x-ray (Kathren et at. 2003). The Table 9. Annual organ doses due to

values in Table 9 are entered inte the NIOSH-IREP- the assumed annual diagnostic chest
program as the annual dose due to an acute exposure to xray.
photons (E=30-250 keV). The distribution is assumed to be organ Anna gose
normal with a standard deviation of 30%. Tied a
6.0 _ Estimation of Exposure to Residual Activi Evebrain see
. . Liver/gall bladderispleen | 9,026-02
After conclusion of the AEC activities in Building 55 in Urinary bladder 256-02
March of 1962, the building continued to be used for Colonirectum 25602
chemical processing and production of phosphate products Testes 505-03
from phosphate rock (US DOE 1983). Prior to the 1978 nas (le) ae
survey by Argonne National Laboratory, there were no tunes (fe J 9.02502
records of any radiological surveys or decontamination Esophagus 9.02E-02
activities at the site. The results of the 1978 survey showed Stomach 9.02E-02
that thirty-three localized areas and three larger general Bone surfaces, 9,02E-02
areas exceeded allowable fimits for uranium and radium- Remainder S.02E-02
226. In 15 of those locations, contamination was Breast a soe
determined to be removable and available for transfer to Bone marrow (male) 7 4E2
other areas. Thus, dose due to exposure to residual activity ‘Bone marrow (female) 1.72E-02

is estimated for the purpose of dose reconstruction. Skin’ 2.70601
According to this survey, the median extemal exposure rate at 1 meter was 0.03 mR/h with a
maximum of 0.3 mPvh. Therefore, to estimate potential extemal exposure to.contaminated surfaces in
the plant, the median exposure rate was multiplied by the Exposure (R) to Organ Dose (rem) photon
dose conversion factors from Appendix B of the NIOSH Extemal Dose Reconstruction implementation
Guideline (NIOSH 2002). The exposure geometry was assumed to be isotropic and the exposure rate
was divided evenly between the conversion factors for photons with energy between 30 and 250 keV
and photons with energy greater than 250 keV. Table 10 shows the calculated annual organ doses
from extemal exposure to residual radioactivity after the end of AEC operations at the site.

The organ doses in the second and third columns of Table 10 are entered into the NIOSH IREP
program assuming a chronic exposure and a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 4.0. The organ
doses in the second column are attributed to photons with E=30-250 keV and the organ doses in the
third column are attributed to photons with E>250 keV. The residual contamination exposure period is
assumed to begin on April 1, 1962 and end on the employee's last day of work in Building 55.

The maximum internal exposure from residual radioactivity was estimated by assuming that the facility
was uniformly contaminated at the level of maximum smear result (considered removable



ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
_amployee, ) File No
» Claimant. }
AFFIDAVIT
I . being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if called as

a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1. That [aim of lawful age and'under no legal disability.
2. That I am the danghter ¢ nd have both direct and indirect

knowledge as to the following facts through both personal experience and

discussions with my father:

A The as employed at Blockson Chemical froxr
of 1947 througk £1987.

B. That -gularly worked in Building 55 at the

Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, linois from 1952 through 1962 inthe
: capacity of
Cc. Th egularly worked more than 40 hours per week
at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D. | The’ as never provided with any protective gear as
part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.
E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

' exposure to radioactive materials,



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S, Department of Health and Human Services.

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iiness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health
‘OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B ge 5 of 7

sosing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Indiv’
Complete Section F.

ual Dose —

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing

the required information related to the selection. You are not required fo complete more than one entry.

Ft Swe have aitached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area
monitoring.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.
Seckion Z.0= Sik T Sook d Ninwal (ss and? ;

X Drracgnetl mith LEUSRAP eawduckedk eocprds seardies,

pienso

Vs 0G dai e2daln “

~ er sew Ne cote neca\ §\
Nous, Man SEC soon Quy ams:

Aut.

F.2 WV We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
tadiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

Siccen 2. O- Site Descsigtinn Dpeeational AS owt csaod Pees
=e See Paanseplo A_slaicla aha ke impact?
ihen V7 mokran\ econesat of reonisra gendieccd Qoe Ye
ACC ym mek Vigna, © ‘

BS See Pace geagh Sdhise dabe mapa:
SNe cecamdn bran and salt his taapes bn hy Me

ACL, merce Surod an”

<7 ye Boh \a: Wo aic cnn iincing odes uses Gesdk we ”

Part F is continued on the following page.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Hines:

Es

E4

£5

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services |
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B 40T

fon Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/34/2007

Name of DOE or AWE Facility: Blockson Chemical Co., Building 55
Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition:

Building 55

List job tities and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be

included in this class:
2 inee: Labor. esear hi

Plant Operator, Maintenance g Pipefitter, Lead Mixer,

Operator, Supervisor HF Acid

Employment Dates relevant to this petition:

Stat 02/01/1952 End 12/31/1962
Start End
Start End

is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, ynrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: 0 Yes No

If yes, provide the date(s} of the Incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages
as necessary):

Go fo Part F.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: .



Effective Date: 06/29/2004 | Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 42 of 19

The most likely possibility of extemal exposure from surface contamination was assumed fo oceur in
the yellowcake packaging area. Because the AEC had strict material accountability procedures, the
accumulation of process material was likely controlled. However, to be claimant favorable, it was
assumed that a certain amount of yellowcake was allowed to build up between cleanings.

To estimate the quantity of yellowcake contamination on surfaces, the air concentration determined
from urinalysis results was multiplied by the indoor deposition velocity and the assumed deposition
time. The indoor deposition velocity is dependent on the physical properties of the room (air viscosity
and density, turbulence, thermal gradients, surface geometry) and the particles (diameter, shape,
density). Because these characteristics are unknown, the terminal settling velocity was calculated for
an aerosol with the ICRP 66 default particle size of 5 ym activity mean aerodynamic diameter (AMAD)
(ICRP 1994). The calculated terminal settling velocity of 0.00075 m/s was used as an estimate of the
velocity of deposition to surfaces in the building. This value is within the range of deposition velocities
(2.7E-06 to 2.7E-03 m/s) measured in various studies (US NRC 2002a) and is considered claimant-
favorable. Also, room air exchange rates, ventilation, and plant housekeeping practices are unknown
so it was assumed that there was a steady state air concentration and that surface contamination was
the result of 365 days (‘1 year) of settling.

The estimated surface contamination is multiplied by the dose coefficients for U-238 and daughter
radionuclides Th-234 and Pa-234m for contaminated ground surface from Federal Guidance Report
No. 12 (US EPA 1993). Table 5 shows maximum external dose estimates due to exposure to ground

surface contamination.
doses With the exception of dose to the skin, the annual organ
Cae ecto graund sues due to dose for each of the organs is fess than 1 mrem. These
contamination. Bold italics indicate values are significantly lower than some of the exposure
annual dose greater than 1 mrem Tates measured in a 1978 survey (US DOE 1983).
‘Annual dose According to this survey, the median extemal exposure
Organ (rem) rate at 1 meter was 0.03 mR/h with a maximum of 0.3
Adrenal 4.2E-05 mRhh. Therefore, to estimate potential external exposure
U bladder 13605 to contaminated surfaces in the plant, the median
pone Safer. S3E exposure rate was multiplied by the Exposure (R) to
Breast 165-05 Organ Dose (rem) photon dose conversion factors from
“Esophagus TES” Appendix.Bof the NIOSH Extemal Dose Reconstruction
‘Stomach wail 4.36-05 Implementation Guideline (NIOSH 2002). The exposure
[ Smait intestine 4.2605" ‘geometry was assumed to be isotropic and the exposure
Upper large intestine wall 426-05 Tate was divided evenly between the conversion factors
pet ata itesne wall Ee for photons with energy between 30 and 250 keV and
Liver 1 3E05 photons with energy greater than 250 keV. Table 6 shows
Lung 43605 the calculated annual organ doses from exposure to
Muscle 4.6E-05, contaminated surfaces during plant operations.
‘Ovaries 426-05
Pancreas 41E-05 The organ doses in the second and third columns of Table
es bone marrow aa 6 are entered into the NIOSH IREP program assuming a
Spleen ae chronic exposure and a lognormal distribution with a GSD
Testes 1.6E-05 of 4.0. The organ doses in the second column are
Thymus 4.3505 attributed to photons with E=30-250 keV and the organ
Thyroid 44E05 doses in the third column are attributed to photons with
Uterus 12E E>250 keV.



ons Effective Date: 06/29/2004 { Revision No. 04 Document No. GRAUT-TKBS-0002 Page 18 of 19
1 Laiche, T.P., and Scott, L.M., “A Radiologica! Evaluation of Phosphogypsum,” Health Physics, Vol.
60(5): pp. 691-693, 1997

Lardinoye, M.H., and Weterings, K., Unexpected °“Ra Build-up in Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid
t Plants, Health Physics, Vol. 42(4): pp. 503-514, 1982

i Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), MCNP—A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code,
{ Version 5, 2003

McGinley, Frank, Personal Communication, December 2002

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), “Exposure of the U.S.
Population from Diagnostic Medical Radiation,” NCRP Report No. 100, pg. 28, 1989

NIOSH (National institute for Occupational Safety and Health), Estimation of Ingestion intakes,
Technical information Bulletin, OCAS-TIB-00?, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 2004

| NIOSH (National instit ‘nal Dose Reconstruction

i implementatior nalysis and Support, Cincinnati,

! Ohio, 2002 Yy

: Roessler, C.E., etal,‘ te Materials,” Health Physics, Vol.
37(3): pp. 269- 4

: Scalsky, E.D., Technic te To be Used for EEOICPA Dose
i Reconsiruction .

a ‘ 21, 2003
Schieien, B., Birky, B., Qv Z \ nd Radiological Health, Third

Edition, Lippine 98
: Stolz, E.M., Jr, “Recot Jings of the 2 UN Int. Conf.
: PUAE 3, pg. 2%
U.S. DOE Worker’Adv ;

hittp://tis.eh.doe eee eee pepe sreeeeeeep tees

U.S. DOE, DOE Standard: Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Uranium Facilities, (DOE-
STD-1136-2000, Change Notice No. 3, December 2001).
ifis.eh.doe.govit ids/standard/std1136/STD 113621

U.S. DOE, FUSRAP, Radiological Survey of Chemicals Group, Olin Corporation (formerly Blockson
Chemical Company), Joliet, tllinois; Argonne National Laboratory; DOE/EV-0005/35; ANL-
OHS/HP-83-103, May 1983

U.S. DOE, FUSRAP Authority Review of the Former Blockson Chemical Company, Joliet, illinois,
4985 [Blockson Chemical Company. IL_pdf, pg. 82]

U.S. DOE, Integrated Data Base Repori—1996: U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste

inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, Revision 13; Office of Environmental
Management; DOE/RW-0006, 1997



Effective Date: 06/20/2004 | Revision No. 07 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 44 of 19

Table 7. Results of calculations of the exposure rate from a drum

of yellowcake and a drum of UF..
Exposure rate
Surface (side) 30cm (tf) im
MicroShield (mR/h) §.5E-01 8.4E-02 2.2E-02
MCNP (mrenvh) 5.6E-04 136-01 3.6E-02
UF, (mrenvh) 4.3E+00 2.4E-01

The UF, values were larger and, to be conservative, were used to estimate the annual dose. During
an interview, a claimant stated that he spent 8 hours per day, 7 or 2 days per week loading drums
‘onto trucks and boxcars. Thus, to be claimant favorable in estimating the most likely annual dose, it
was assumed the worker was 1 foot from the drum of UF, for 8 hours per day, 1 day per week, and 50
weeks per year. it was assumed that the amount of time spent loading barrels was lognormally
distributed, and the assumption that the worker was exposed 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per
year was considered to be the upper 95" percentile. Thus, the annual dose due to exposure to drums
of UF; (analog for yelloweake) was calculated to be 0.096 rem,

The organ doses were calculated by multiplying the estimated annual dese of 0.096 rem by the
“Ambient Dose Equivalent (H*(10)) to Organ Dose (H;)” photon dose conversion factors found in
Appendix B of the NIOSH Extema! Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline (NIOSH 2002).
The exposure geometry was assumed to be anterior-posterior (AP) and the dose rate was divided
equally between photons with E=30-250 keV and photons with E>250 keV. Table 8 below shows the
annual organ doses due to the potential.exposure to drums of yellowcake.

Table 8. Annual organ doses due to exposure to drums of

rellowcake.
Annual organ dose (rem)
Photons Photons
Organ En30-250 keV | E>250 keV | - Total
Bladder 4516-02 4376-02 | 8.88E-02
: Red bone marrow. 2.30E-02 3.58E-02_ | 5.88E-02
i Bone surface 4.396-02 3.806-02_| 8.19E-02
i Breast 461-02 4646-02 | 9.24E-02
{ Coton 3.85E-02 4.196-02 | 8.04E-02
- Esophagus 251E°02 3.70E-02" |" 6.21E-02
. Eye 4.54E-02 4.36E-02 | 8.89E-02
Ovaries 3.48E-02 4.076-02_| 7.5602
Testes 5.236-02 4686-02 | 9.91E-02
Liver 3.86E-02 4246-02 | 8.11E-02
Tung 3.60E-02 4166-02 | 7.75E-02
Remainder organs 3.246-02 3.91E-02 | 7.11E-02
Skin 3.25E-02 4.14E-02_|7.39E-02
Stomach 4.56E-02 4406-02 | 8.96E-02
Thymus 5.11E-02 4.43E-02 | 9.54E-02
Thyroid 5.24E-02 4826-02 | 1.01E-01
Uterus 3.67E-02 3.89E-02 | 7.56E-02

The organ doses in the second and third columns of Table 8 are entered into the NIOSH IREP
program assuming a chronic exposure and a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 2.7. The organ
doses in the second column are attributed to photons with E=30-250 keV and the organ doses in the
third column are atiributed to photons with E>250 keV.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Heatth and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Hiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

5 of7:

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing

‘the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

Fa of 'We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
tadiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area
monitoring.

{Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.
ffidavits. Said Affidavits of former loyees
or_spouses or other related family members detail that workers at the
Rlockson Chemical plant (Building 55) were not provided with protective

thatthei posure to radioactive materaals was _not monitored
and_that there was no area monitoring conducted by either Blockson

Chemical_or the Federal Government,

F.2 Qf We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
tadiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached -
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

Part F is continued on the following page.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Effective Date: 06/29/2004 | Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 9 of 19

Considerable variation in the behavior of Us0. has been observed with some studies indicating
Absorption Type M and other studies indicating Absorption Type S. The ICRP in Publication 71
recommends the use of Absorption Type M in the absence of specific information (ICRP 1995). The
application of Absorption Type M in intake calculations using urinalysis data resulted in a daily intake
value consistent with the value estimated from the source term. The ICRP Publication 66 (CRP
1994) default values should be used for the deposition parameters.

While uranium milling is specifically excluded from the statutory definition of “atomic weapons
employer facility,” it is interesting to compare the measured uranium air concentrations obtained in the
Eidson and Damon (1984) study with the air concentrations calculated for Building 55 from urinalysis
data and source ferm estimates. Note that the UO production rate at Blockson was significantly
lower than the production rates at the uranium mills in the study. Production rates at uranium mills
average around 4000 pounds of UO; per day (Eisenbud 1987, US DOE 1997). The Blockson
process was designed to produce only about 400 pounds of Us; per day (Stolz, Jr. 1958), which is
only about 10% of the average production capacity of mils. In the uranium mill study, aerosol
samples were taken in yellowcake packaging areas before, during, and after drums of yellowcake
were filled and sealed. Four drums (containing approximately 1000 pounds of yellowcake) were
loaded in succession and sealed. Powder samples were taken from each before they were sealed
and aerosols generated by yellowcake sampling were sampled. An additional set of aerosol samples
were taken during the drum-sealing step. To obtain aerosol samples during the drum-loading step,
two of the mills loaded more than one drum simuttaneously but at different rates. Thus, assuming
there is a direct relationship between U,O, production rate and uranium air concentration, itis
possible to make a rough comparison. Table 3 compares the uranium air concentration in Building 55
to uranium air concentrations measured during the uranium mills study.

Table 3, Comparison of Blockson Building 55 uranium air concentrations calculated from urinalysis
results and source term estimates to air concentrations measured in uranium mills.

Estimated | Uranium air | Uranium air
intake rate | concentration | concentration
(pGilday) | __(pCiim*) {ug Ui")
From urinalysis results 24 25 36
From source term estimates 25 -26 38
Uranium mills study (Eidson and Damon 1984) 40-340
Uranium mills study (reduced by a factor of 10 to compare 4-34
‘to BlbcKson désighi rates) : : -
Uranium mills study (reduced by a factor of 25 to compare 16-14
toestimated Blockson production rates) . :

Ingestion intakes were estimated using guidance provided by NIOSH/OCAS (NIOSH 2004). The
amount of uranium ingested daily is based on the average activity air concentration and is estimated
to be 0.49 pCi/d, resulting in an annual ingestion intake of 123 pCi. The annual ingestion of 123 pCi
per year from March 1951 to March 1962 results in an annual dose to the most exposed organ (bone
surfaces) of less than 1 mrem and is therefore not included in this dose reconstruction.

40 Estimation of Radon Exposures

Reserved

«



F That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the

radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of

. employment.
3. Thatin 1996 was diagnosed with
4. Thato 1997, & passed away as result of 1
- |
5. That on 2003, my mother filed a claim under the Energy Employees

Occupational IIness Compensation Program Act on behalf of

6. That our claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
mi likelihood of probability that my father’s exposure to radioactive materials was

less than 50 percent.

Further, affiant, dayéth not.

‘CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to
be on information and belief and as'to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true.

- /-4- 06
DATE
~iftes

WITNESS



SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION

Subsections F.1, F.2 & F.4

Supporting Documentation



Special Exposure Cohort Petition
under the Energy Employees Occupational
Uiness Compensation Act

ecial Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safely and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires:

Bi
MrJMIS.JMs. Fitst Name Miridia Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:
BZ Adidrnce nf Germieae
— Apt® P.O, Box
City State Zp Code
B4 Telephone Number of Survivor:
B.S Entail Address of Survivor: N/A
B.6 Relationship to Employee: Spouse Q SonDaughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchitd
Go to Part C,

SS you are

C1) Name of Fmninvec:
nH MEMS. CIst Name Middle {nitial Last Name
€.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden nameflegal name change/other):
N/A
Mr/Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C3 Social Security Number of Employee
C4 Address of Employee (f living):
, EN
Street Apt# P.O. Box
City State Zip Code
C5 Telephone Number of Employee: d =
C6 Email Address of Employee:
C7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known): N/A
C.7b Dates of Employment: © 21947 Enc /1987
C.7c Employer Name: Blockson Chemical Company/Olin Chemical Company,
C.7d Work Site Location: Building 55
Joliet, Illinois
C.7e Supervisor's Name: Unknown

Go to Part E,

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner



J.D. Hess & Associates
ENERGY - REGULATORY - COMPLIANCE

TELECOPY
Tune 12,2005

Re: Energy Employees Occupational Iiness Compensation Program Act
Blockson Chemical Company, Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002

Der

Per onr recent discussion, ! have conducted a review of the subject Technical Basis Document/Exposure
Matrix. Unfortunately, 1 have not had the opportunity to obtain copies of, or review, some of the sapporting
Guidelines and Models referenced by this document. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the Exposure
Matrix fails to fully consider the actual level of worker exposure to environmental hazards associated with
the production of U;0; “yellowcake” at the Blockson Chemical Plant. -

Of primary concer is that the particle size typical of radioactive dust generated by this process is
significantly smaller than {0 micron mean diameter (i.e. PM-10). Numerous studies have determined that @
significant portion of dusts less than 5 micron colteots in tissue deep in the lungs and can cause significant
damage to surrounding tissue, It is not clear that the Matrix adequately accounts for the accumulation of
material in the lungs other than using a “calculated” chronic intake rate of 24 pCi/day using broad
assumptions that don’t necessarily reflect more recent published research. This value does not appear to
address the presence of the beta-emitting daughter isotopes Thorium-234 and Protoactinium-234. These
isotopes have short half-lives of 24 days and a few hours, respectively. The Matrix also appears to fail to
account for radioactive material that can be ingested as phlegm from previously inhaled matter.

Additionally, the assumptions of worker exposure to extemal radiation may be inappropriately drawing a

- correlation between mining operations using 1980's emissions controt technology (1.6. bagtiotises,
serubbers, etc.) and the 1950"s Blockson operation that used no dust suppression devices. It is also
inappropriate to assume that the clothing the workers wore provided protection from alpha radiation when,
according to studies done as early as 1949, cotton clothing actually retains uranium oxides and is difficult to
wash out using conventional soaps or detergents. This, in combination to the presence of sweat, lotions, or
wetness, would result in uraniuro (and its daughter isotopes) being in almost constant contact with the skin
for periods exceeding the presumed 8-hours per day. This type of exposure is reported to result in thinning
of the skin and increasing the solubility thereby increasing absorption of the radioisotopes.

Ubope that this initial review addresses some of your concems. I should be able to secure additional
docaments referenced by the Exposure Matrix in the near future.

Sincerely,

James D. Hess

2421 EB. Dundee Rd., Arlington Heights, iL 60004 + PHONE: (847)419-0496 EMAIL: jdhess @comeastnet



. Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S, Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Ocoupational Ceniters for Disease Control and Prevention

Illness Corapensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0638 Expires: 05/31/2007

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 7 of 7
Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 300 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. If you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Ciifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
‘valid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a), you are hereby notified of the
following:

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)
(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of employees to be included in the
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the
assistance of the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Information obtained by NIOSH in connection with petitions for including additional
classes of employees in the SEC will be used to evaluate the petition and report findings to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health and HHS. :

Records containing identifiable information become part of an existing NIOSH system of records under the
Privacy Act, 09-20-147 “Occupational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.
HHS/CDC/NIOSH.” These records are treated in a confidential manner, unless otherwise compelled by law.
Disclosures that NIOSH may need to make for the processing of your petition or other purposes are fisted
below. .

NIOSH may need to disclose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal
agencies, other government or private entities and to private sector employers to permit these entities to
retrieve records required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these
individuals can provide information to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) contractors assisting
NIOSH; (d) collaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to conduct further investigations;
{e) Federal, state and local agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a
Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquiry.

This notice applies to all forms and informational requests that you may receive from NIOSH in connection
with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

t
Use of the NIOSH petition forms (A and B) is voluntary but your provision of information required by these
forms is mandatory for the consideration of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fail to
provide required information may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational ~~ ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
tiness Compensation Act * National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

; . OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3 Ww iWe have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
tadiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the compietion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.
{Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

£4  W \Wehaveattached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
‘of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

. All Petitione . Amaximum of three pe! ay Sign the petition.
— 16 1 oe SF
Sign: Date
Signature Date
Signature Date
Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any faise statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate

- criminal provisions,.be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

-_ —
If there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.
The Appendix forms are located at the end of this document.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Effective Date: arzaz004 [Revision No. 01 __| Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 [Page 10 of 19

§.0 - Es fon of Ul ~

‘The primary radionuclides of interest for potential external exposure in Building 55 are U-238 and
daughter radionuclides Th-234 and Pa-234m. The uranium recovery process at Blockson was a by-
product process that was designed to fit into the already existent phosphate process (Stolz, Jr. 1958).
At the Blockson facility, a side-stream of the phosphoric acid was diverted to Building 55 where the
uranium was separated (Wimpfen 2002). This phosphoric acid was an intermediate product in
Blockson’s normal commercial production of technical phosphates (US DOE 1983). In the
manufacture of this phosphoric acid, phosphate rock
is digested with sulfuric acid resulting in phosphoric

acid and phosphogypsum. The uranium remains Table 4. Annual organ doses due to

with the phosphoric acid and the radium submersion in air contaminated with
ly follows the phosphogypsum (Roessler Yetlowake dust. rs
etal. 1979, Laiche and Scott 1991). Therefore, the organ meen)
potential radium exposure was due to the Rarenal 5.17608
commercial operation already in progress at Ubladder 5.32E-08.
Blockson and not due to the AEC-related work. A Bone surface 4.55E-07
radiological survey of Building 55 that was done in Brain, §.73E-08
1978 showed that contamination within the building Beat me
was primarily uranium (US DOE 1983). ‘Stomach wall 571608
‘Small intestine 4.9BE-08
For the purpose of dose reconstruction, it is Upper farge intestine wall 5.21E-08
assumed that there was a potential for external Lower large intestine wall $.07E-08
exposure from four sources: submersion in air Kidney §.83E-08
contaminated with yellowcake dust, exposure from Liver S058
contaminated surfaces, exposure from contaminated = aes aaED
skin, and exposure to drums of yellowcake. ‘Ovaries 4.95608
Pancreas 4.88E-08
For estimating extemal exposure due to submersion Red bone marrow 6036-08
in air contaminated with yellowcake dust, the Skin 3GAE06
estimated air concentration values (Table 3, from Spleen. ee
urinalysis results) and an assumed 2000-hr work Tas ee
year were combined with dose coefficients for U-238 Thyroid 6.85E-08
and daughter radionuclides Th-234 and Pa-234m Utenis - 5 ABAE-08

from Federal Guidance Report No. 12 (US EPA

4993). Table 4 shows extemal annual-organ dose estimates due to submersion of workers in air
contaminated with yellowcake dust. The cumulative dose from 1951 through 1962 is less than 1
mrem and is therefore not included in the dose estimation.

Clegg and Foley (1958) state that freshly separated yellowcake has a very low gamma emission rate;
therefore, extemal radiation is of no particular concern at this stage of the process. However, due to

ingrowth of daughter radionuclides in the yellowcake, the radiation levels increase for several months
following production (US NRC 2002b).

For accumulations of processed yellowcake dust, the surface beta dose rate from U-238 daughters is
negligible just after separation, but rises steadily until Pa-234m and Th-234 reach equilibrium
concentrations. After a few months, the beta surface dose rate is about 150 mrem/hr (US NRC
2002b). Figure 3 shows the rise in beta dose rate during 100 days after separation from ore,



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
~ lliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 2 of 2

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. If you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.

Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
valid OMB number.

Use of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this form will not resutt in the denial of any right, benefit, or
privilege to which you may be entitled.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Effective Date: 06/29/2004 | Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 je 16 of 19

Table 10. Annual organ doses due to extemal exposure to

residual radioactivity.
Annual organ dose (rem)
Photons Photons
Organ E=30-250 keV | E>250 keV Total
Bladder 4.61E02 1946-02 | 3.55E-02
Red bone marrow 4.87E-02 2.00E-02_ | 3.67E-02
Bone surface 2.81E-02 2.046-02 | 4.86E-02
Breast 2.12E-02 2.22E-02 | 4.35E-02
Colon 1,55E-02 1.90E-02_ {| 3.45E-02
Esophagus. 4.50E-02 196E-02_ | 3.46E-02
Eye 2.23E-02 2.28E-02__| 4.50E-02
Ovaries. 1.48E-02 4.88E-02_| 3.36E-02
Testes 1,90E-02 2.08E02 | 3.98E-02
Liver 1,70E-02 2.00E-02__ | 3.70E-02
Lung 4,88E-02 2.42E-02 | 3.99E-02
Remainder organs. {67E-02 4.99E-02 | 3.65E-02
Skin 2.19E-02 2.28E-02 | 4.47E-02
Stomach 4,70E-02 199E02 | 3.69E-02
Thymus 4.84E-02 2.05E-02 _{ 3.89E-02
Thyroid 4,92E-02 2.14E-02__| 4.06E-02
Uterus 4.46E-02 4.81E-02_ | 3.27E-02

contamination) of 640 dpm/100 cm?. This value was multiplied by a resuspension factor of 1E-06 m'
(US NRC 2002c). This resulted in an estimated maximum residual air concentration of 0.03 pcm’.
Assuming a breathing rate of 1.2 m®/h and a 2000-h work year results in a possible annua! inhalation
intake of 71 pCi. This value is considered negligible as it results in an annual dose of less than 10
mrem to the maximally exposed organ and is not included in the dose reconstruction.



so Sec Ww

e Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lliness Compensation Act 10-24-O5A11:271 RCVD National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

‘he beret eh este ay is yon

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet):
Except for signatures, please PRINT alt information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A— G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. [f there is more
than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A—C of the form that apply

to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed.

Page 1 of 7

{f you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please call the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:

1-800-356-4674.
QA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3
ifyou O An Energy Emptoyee (current or former), StartatC on Page2
are: {A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page2
WA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StartatA on Page 1

A Representative information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class

Are you a contact person for an organization? Q Yes (Go to A.2) a PNo (Go to A.3)

A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person.

AB Some TER n Mannan ants

McJMrs./Ms. First Name dle Initial Last Name
A4 = Addrace-

Sueet . apt P.O. Box
ny fener Zip Code

A5 Telephone Number:

A6 — Email Address: r

AT 8 Check the box at re to naicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization

if you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner.



F. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the
- 3

" radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of

employment.
3. ‘That in 2002, . was diagnosed with
4, ‘That ¢ 02. « passed away as result of his cancer,
5. That on or abor 4, 2002, I filed a claim under the Energy Employees

Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act on behalf of

6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that my-father’s exposure to radioactive materials was

less than 50 percent:
Further, affiant, ‘sayeth not.
CERTIFICATION
Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
‘Set forth in this instrument are true.and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to:

be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true.

12 fr lo
DATE

WITNESS DATE



Effective Date: 06/29/2004 | Revision No. 04 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 2 0f 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4

2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10 Annual organ doses due to external exposure to residual radioactivity.

Calculation of the quantity of UsO aerosolized per day from the estimated
amount of yellowcake produced each year ...
Estimation of the daily intake of natural uranium based on source term
Comparison of Blockson Building 55 uranium air concentrations calculated
from urinalysis results and source term estimates to air concentrations

measured in uranium mills.

Annual ongan de doses due to submersion in air contaminated with yellowcake

g
Annual organ doses due to exposure to Contaminated surfaces
Results of caiculations of the exposure rate from a drum of yellowcake and
adrum of UF,
Annual organ doses due to exposure to drums of yellowcak
Annual organ doses due to the assumed annual diagnostic chest x-ra\

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 The Blockson process for the recovery of uranium from phosphoric acid
2 Photograph of Building 55 of the Blockson Chemical Company.
3 Beta dose rate on the surface of yellowcake....
4 Beta dose rate from yellowcake separated from ore for more than 100 days

as a function of distance from the surface



an ORAU Team Document Number.

. I ORAUT-TKBS-0002
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project ive Dae: 0872
Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an Revision No.: 04

Exposure Matrix for Blockson Chemical Company, Joliet, Ilinois; eters. No.
Period of Operation: March 1, 4951 through March 31, 1962

Subject Experts: Cindy W. Bloom Supersedes:

Document Owner
Approval: Signature on File Date: 06/24/2004
Cindy W. Bloom, TBD Team Leader Revision No: 00

Approval: Signature on File Date: 06/29/2004
Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on Eile Date: 06/28/2004
Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File ________ Date: 06/29/2004
dames W. Neton, OCAS Health Science Administrator

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Record of issue/Revisions 3
4.0 Introduction... cececson 4
2.0 Site Description, Operational History, and Process....... 4

3.0 Estimation of Intemat Exposure......

4.0 Estimation of Radon Exposures.

5.0 Estimation of External Exposure.....
6.0 Estimation of Exposure to Residual Activity........



PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
. employee, } File No.
AFFIDAVIT
I seing first duly swom, deposes on oath states, that if called

as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1

2.

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

,

That ath éf lawfil age and undér no legal disability.
That I am the son of and have both direct and indirect

Knowledge as to the following facts though personal knowledge and discussions

with sy father: : |
A That vas employed at Blockson Chemical

betweer 33 and £1955,
B. That zegularly worked in Building 55 at the

Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, Ilinois as9 :

Cc. That _slarly worked more than 40 hours per
week at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.

D. That was never provided with any protective gear
as part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E, That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

. exposure to radioactive materials.



ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT |
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
ployee, ; File No.
pment, 3

AFFIDAVIT

» being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if
called as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1. That I am of lawful age and under no legal disability and have direct and personal
knowledge as to the following facts:
A.” , That I was employed at Blockson Chemical from 1947 through 1989.
B. That [regularly worked in Building 55 atthe Blockson Chemical plant in

Joliet, Hinois between the years of 1952 and 1962 in the capacity of

” That Iregularly worked more than 40 hours per week in at Blockson
Chemical during the aforementioned time frame
_ That I was never provided with any protective gear as part of my

employment with Blockson Chemical.

" ‘That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored my

exposure to radioactive materials.
That neither the govemment nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the

Tadiation levels of Building 55 during the period of my employment.



©

‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Hiness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

‘OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 1 of 7)

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this number will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitied.

General instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet):
Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A — G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. If there is more
than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A —C of the form that apply

fo them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed.

Ifyou need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please calll the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:
1-800-356-4674.

QA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3
you Q An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page 2
are: 401A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page2
wA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StartatA on Page 1

Are you a contact person for an organization? Q Yes (Go to A.2) 9K No (Go to A.3)
A. Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person

A3 Nama af Datitinn Renresentative:

MEUMTSIMS. Fist vane Middle Initiat Last Name
A4 Address:
ayn it P.O. Box
uny cnens Zip Code

AS Telephone Num’
A6  Emaif Address:

AT ¥ Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization

if you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name ot Social Security Number of First Petitioner



ENERGY. EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

' PROGRAM ACT
INRE THE MATTER OF: )
, Employee, } File No.
Clint }
AFFIDAVIT
L _ deing first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if

called as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1, That ami of lawful age and under no legal disability.
2, That am the daughter of and have both direct and indirect

knowledge as to following facts from personal experience and discussions with

my father: ~

A Ty was employed at Blockson Chemical between
1951 and 1983.

B. That” pilarly worked in Building 55 at the

Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, Tlinois between the years of 1952 and
1962 a

C. That” regularly worked more than 40 hours per week
at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.

D: That as never provided with any protective gear
as part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

, exposure to radioactive materials.



81-26-96 Po1:06 IN

January 23, 2006
SEC 00045
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH MS-C-47
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio

RE: SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION (Revised)
Dear Sir or Madam:

As you may be aware, we previously submitted a petition to have Blockson
Chemical added to the Special Exposure Cohort. During our telephone conference with
NIOSH, we were informed that our petition was deficient in several respects.

The original 30 day time period to submit our corrected petition has elapsed. As
such, we have completed a new petition and included new supporting documentation.
Alternatively, this can be considered a supplement to previously filed petition.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank von in
advance for your cooperation.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Heaith and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

‘ tliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number. 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Petitioner Authorization Form Page 1 of 2

Use of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this form will not resuit in the denial of any right, benefit,

Instructions:

if you wish to petition HHS to consider adding a class of employees fo the Special Exposure Cohort and you
are NOT either a member of that class, a survivor of a member of that class, or a labor organization
representing or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Part 83, Section 83.7(c) requires
that you obtain written authorization. You can obtain such authorization from either an employee who is a
member of the class or a survivor of such an employee. You may use this form to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legibly.

For Further information: ff you have questions about these instructions, please caill the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysts and
Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674.

Authorization for Individual or Entity to Petition HHS on Behalf of a Class of Employees for

Addition to the Speciai Exposure Cohort

I.
Nema af Clase Mamher or Survivor

Strect 4 tana a8 Plane tanmnne ae contin Ant # P.O. Box

City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor
do hereby authorize:

Name or renuutes

Adaress of retutoner APL ¥ P.U, BOX

ny, Clare aseoy UuUe UF rcuNUne!

to petition the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a class of employees
that includes:

Taine UF Uiad> WISHILET (eIIpUyeT, NUL ute erpuyee’s SUIVIVOr)

for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee’s
Occupational lliness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385).

In providing this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have all'the rights
of 2 netitioner as provided for under 42 CFR Part 83.
Ahs\er

signature of Uiass member or survivor Date “

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



[Effective Date: 06/29/2004 [Revision No. 01 | Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002__ [Page 13.0719]

Table 6. Annual organ doses due to exposure fo

contaminated surfaces.
Annual organ dose (rem)
Photons Photons
Organ E=30-260 keV_| E>250 keV Total
Bladder 1.81E-02 4.84E-02 | 3.55E-02
Red bone marrow 1.67E-02 2.00E-02 | 3.67E-02
Bone surface: 2.81E-02 2.04E-02__| 4,86E-02
Breast 2.42E-02 2.22E-02 | 4.35E-02
Colon 4.55E-02 4.90E-02 | 3.45E-02
Esophagus 4,50E-02 1,96E-02__| 3.45E-02
Eye 2.23E-02 2286-02 | 4.50E-02
Ovaries 1.48E-02 4.88E-02 | 3.36E-02
Testes 1.90E-02 2.08E-02__|_ 3.98E-02
[ Liver 1.70E-02 2.00E-02 | 3.70E-02
Lung 1,.88E-02 2.42E-02 | 3.99E-02
Remainder organs 1,.67E-02 1.99E-02 | 3.65E-02
Skin 2.19E-02 2.28E-02_| 4.47E-02
Stomach 4.70E-02 4.99E-02 | 3.69E-02
Thymus 1.84E-02 2.05E-02__|_ 3.89E-02
Thyroid 1.92E-02 2.14E-02 | 4.06E-02
Uterus 4.ABE-02 1.81E02__ | 3.27E-02

Itwas also assumed that there was a potential to receive a shallow dose from electrons due to skin
contaminated with yellowcake. The amount of skin contamination was calculated by using a
measured deposition velocity for 4-um particles to skin of 0.012 m/s (Andersson et al. 2002, Fogh et
al. 1999). For simplification, it was assumed that the material deposited on the skin during an 8-hour
period was deposited at the beginning of the shift. Several claimant interviews indicated that workers
took showers as part of their contamination contro! program, so it was assumed that the worker took a
shower at the end of the shift. The estimated amount of skin contamination was combined with
electron dose-rate conversion factors for U-238 and daughter radionuclides Th-234 and Pa-234m for
skin in contact with radionuclides (Kocher and Eckerman 1987). The worker was assumed to receive
exposure from skin contamination only during the hours worked. Based on these assumptions, the
annual dose to the skin due to electron exposure from skin contaminated with yellowcake is estimated

oe to be 0.0048 rem. However, this skin dose'is negligible compared to the shatlow dose estimated from
exposure to a drum of aged yellowcake. This scenario is described next.

There was also the potential for exposure to drums of yellowcake during drum loading, sealing and
sampling, and moving the drums to storage. It was assumed that 50 drums of yellowcake were
loaded and packed each year (1000 pounds per drum, 50,000 pounds per year). MicroShieldO
(Grove Engineering 2003) and MCNP (LANL 2003) calculations were done to estimate the exposure
to a drum of yellowcake at the surface of the drum, at 30 cm (1 ft), and at 1m. Also, NIOSH/OCAS
provided results of survey measurements of partially filled drums of UF, at the DOE facility at Femald.
Measurements were taken at the sides of the drum at the center and bottom. The mean
measurements for the center and the bottom of the drum were averaged together to get a dose rate of
1.3 mremhh at the surface. To get an estimate of the dose rate at 1 foot from the UF, drums, the
surface dose rate was divided by the average ratio of the surface to 1 foot calculated dose rates
obtained with MicroShield and MCNP. Table 7 shows the results of the calculations for the
yellowcake drums and the UF, drums.



oo
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: J
anployee, } File No.
, Claimant. )
ree
‘AREIDAVIT
L being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if

called as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1. That [arti of lawful age and inider no legal disability.
2, That Tam the wife of and have both direct and indirect

knowledge as to the following facts through personal experience and discussions

with my: husband:

A. That , born” was employed at
Blockson Chemical between , 1952 and 1980.

B. That regularly worked in Building 55 at the Blockson

Chemical plant in Joliet, Iinois between the years of 1952 and 1962 as
* the
Cc. That cegularly worked more than 40 hours per week at
. Bléckson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D. ” That was never provided with any protective gear as
part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

exposure to radioactive materials.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
|iliness-Compensation Act . National institute for Occupational Safety and Health
; OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 1 of 2

Use of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this form will not resutt in the denial of any right, benefit,

Instructions:

if you wish to petition HHS to consider adding a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort and you
are NOT either a member of that class, a survivor of a member of that class, or a labor organization
Tepresenting or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Part 83, Section 83.7(c) requires
that you obtain written authorization. You can obtain such authorization from either an employee who is a
member of the class or a survivor of such an employee. You tay use this form to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition, Please print legibly.

For Further information: tf you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
‘Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-358-4674,

Authorization for Individual or Entity to Petition HHS on Behalf of a Class of Employees for

Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

‘

Nat (7 tebe me Orensene
Street 4tArace ne Place Mamher or Survivor Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or survivor
do hereby authorize:

Name of remo: '

puurese UF cuuutEr nvr Fi, HOX,

My, Clete aMuHp LoUe OF rene!

to petition the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a class of employees
that includes:

Name OT Uiass Member (empiyee, nut ine etApIoyee s survivor)

for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee’s
Occupational tliness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385).

In providing this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have all the rights
of a petitioner as provided for under 42 CFR Part 83,
4 hs Sp
fe

I} vigualure Ul Vidds MEIIILEL OF DUNO! Date

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services |'

under the Eneray Occupationat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Uiness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Petitioner Authorization Form Page 2 of 2
Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. Kyou
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639, Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.

Persons are not required to respond to the information Collected on this form unless it displays a currently
‘valid OMB number.

Use of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this form will not resutt in the denial of any right, benefit, or
privilege fo which you may be entitled,

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
. )
Employee, ) NIOSH D:
)
Jlaimant. )
uo AFFIDAVIT

ceing first duly swom, deposes on oath states, that if
called asa witness in this matter, I would ‘competently testify as follows:
1 That I anv of lawful age and inter no legal disability.
2. That I-am the daughter of and have both direct and indirect

knowledge as to the following facts through personal experience and from

discussions with my father:

A. , That _ 7 was employed at Blockson Chemical from
1 947 to 1958,

B. That regularly worked in Building 55 at the

Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, Ilinois from 1952 through 1958 in the

” capacity of
Cc. That” vgularly worked more than 40 hours per
, week at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D. ° That as never provided with any protective gear
‘ as part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

*s exposure to radioactive materials.



Effective Date: 06/29/2004 } Revision No. 01 Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 Page 19 of 19

U.S. EPA, Extemal Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil; Federal Guidance Report No.
12, September 1993

U.S. NRC, Technical Basis for Calculating Radiation Doses for the Building Occupancy Scenario
Using the Probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code, NUREG/CR-6755, February 2002 (US
NRC 2002a)

U.S. NRC, Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities, Regulatory Guide 8.30, Revision
4, May 2002 (US NRC 2002b)

U.S. NRC, Re-evaluation of the Indoor Resuspension Factor for the Screening Analysis of the
Building Occupancy Scenario for NRC’s License Termination Rule, NUREG-1720; Draft
Report for Comment, June 2002 (US NRC 2002c)

Wilkinson, G., “Uranium Recovery from Wet Process Phosphoric Acid; History and Present Status,”
AJChE, November 1976, [Blockson Chemical Co.tL_pdf, pg. 28]

Wilson, R.H., “The Hanford Uranium Bio-assay Program,” Hanford Laboratories, General Electric
Company, Richiand, Washington; from Symposium on Occupational Health Experience and
Practices in the Uranium Industry, HASL-58, October 15-17, 1958.

Wimpfen, Sheldon, Personal Communication, November 2002



BE ‘That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the
radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of

s employment,
3. That .391, my father was diagnosed with
4, That or 1991, my father passed away as result of his cancers.

5. Thaton , 2004, | filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act on behalf of my father.

6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of ‘probability that my father’s exposure to radioactive materials was
less than 50 percent.

Further, affiant, sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION
Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements

_ Set forth in this instrument are, true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated.to

be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the samie to be trie.

4430/05

DATE

3] ao]
ATE

WITNESS ~ D.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Illness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Page 4 of 7

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Proposed Definition of Employee Class Covered by Petition — Complete Section E.

E.1 Name of DOE or AWE Facility: Blackeon Cheecical Casopeny —

E.2 Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition:

Buildian S55
roe)

£.3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be
included in this class:

AM.

E.4 Employment Dates relevant to this petition:

Stat _ \457. End (462
Start End
Start . End

£.5 Is the petition based on one or more grmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: Yes Q No
If yes, provide the date(s) of the incident{s) and a complete description (attach additional pages
as necessary):
From 1457 Morogh (467, mackecs 2 Perding 5S ey
Boe Ble bean Claamical Cm. in deliet Minis estin ched
marcel ly 2 millimnpouds © iceoio cineca sotect
4 necimmect camtrack he esatiiy mreetesss. (act Coos seed
ne ene nstomy > 100 Soak ay V5 feat lonilaing »
. IDeskers ys euilaing 5 ane srocarescerse ona eamescurc]
y da radinlenical waite iol Dheis tests ook apranidediini th
manus farmer Mine cecum, Whe bitline ned oo so< mii lakion
v ~)
ashes end usec poe cke A ldo sO 6 Kise
4k drende cd 4D = lowe mech usec. Commdi ens wnece
me ware, ia Sok, Dred: uremer use toe aie 299, odors nce oe

qenaky Vonne becouse. Ne ca Aiabin® wold 2a x" Whe Scope ty
Yoone. tin She dime Ve took Meow te anole Qooma Riete acess tem

Bes Sn ilediag,
As ace set o& Nhe yeeoudos comdibinas the majority
of the tine ee nase aco scodk on

Go to Part F.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: __



ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

; PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
imployee, } File No.
Shimane
_ AFEIDAVIT
uM - being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if called

as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1. That Yah Sf lawful age and undés no legal disability.

2. That 1am the wife of and have both direct and indirect
knowledge as to the following facts through both personal experience and
discussions with my husband:. -

A That . as employed at Blockson Chemical between
, 195] and 1966.
B. Ths’ regularly worked in Building 55 at the Blockson

Cherncal plant in Jolie, Iino between the years of 1952 and 1962 in
the capacity of

C. That «egularly worked more than 40 hours per week
‘at Blockson Chemicat during the aforementioned time frame.

D. That was never provided with any protective gear as
part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. ‘That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

exposure to radioactive materials.



ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION
PROGRAM ACT

IN RE THE MATTER OF:

Employee, File Ne

Vere

daimant,

AFFIDAVIT

_ Oeing first duly sworm, deposes on oath states, that if

called as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:

1. That Lam of lawfal age and under no legal disability.

2, That I am the wife of have both direct and indirect
knowledge as to the following facts from personal knowledge and discussions

with my husband:

A. Th vas employed at Blockson Chemical
betweer - 1948 an £1983,

B. Tha‘ i regularly worked in Building 55 at the

- ts * Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, Iinois between the years of 1952-and
1962 as
C. That regularly worked more than 40 hours per
- week at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D 6 6T Nas never provided with any protective gear
as part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

. exposure to radioactive materials.



{ Effective Date: 06/29/2004 | Revision No. 07 [Document No, ORAUT-TKES-0002 | Page 6 of 19 ]

is calcined and then digested with sulfuric acid resulting in phosphogypsum and phosphoric acid. The
phosphogypsur partitions most of the calcium and radium, and the phosphoric acid partitions around
90% of the uranium. Very little uranium is lest to the phosphogypsum. The phosphoric acid is then
converted into monosodium phosphate and other phosphorus derivatives. The uranium by-product is
precipitated from the monosodium phosphate stream. The monosodium phosphate liquor is heated
and clarified. Sodium hydrosutlfite (Na2S,0,) is added to precipitate the uranium. The liquor is filtered
and the filtrate is retumed to the phosphate-processing plant. The precipitate, containing about 5%
U30s is slurried in water in an upgrading step in which the uranium is redissolved, The uranium is
then reprecipitated as sodium uranous phosphate. The slurry is filtered and the precipitate, known as
yellowcake and containing 40 to 60% U,Oa, is dried for shipping (Clegg and Foley 1958, McGinley
2002, Wimpfen 2002). The uranium content of the phosphate rock consumed in these processes
averaged about 0.014% UsOs (Stolz, Jr. 1958).

3.0 imation of internal ure

The greatest potential for intemal exposure associated with the uranium recovery process arises in
the final packing areas. Here the essentially pure uranium compound is dried and barreled for
shipping resulting in a potentially dusty operation (Eidson and Damon 1984, US NRC 2002b, Wimpfen
2002). In all other areas of the plant, wet processes are used and the surface contamination and dust
exposures are minimal (Clegg and Foley 1958, US NRC 2002b).

A study was done (Eidson and Damon 1984) of uranium aerosols generated during yellowcake
packaging operations at four uranium mills. The study described a sequence of steps common to alt
four uranium mills:

4. No activity. This is when the piant is shut down for maintenance or ail available yellowcake
was packaged during a previous shift. Workers are generally not present during this step.

2. Drum loading. This occurs when a drum is placed under a hopper containing the dried
yellowcake. The yellowcake is allowed to fall into the drum. The amount of time workers
spend in this area varies as it depends on the size of the yellowcake inventory in the hopper.
(It is not clear whether or not a hopper was used at the Blockson Chemical facility.)

3, Drum uncovering. This step occurs when a filled. drum is removed from beneath the hopper.
In'some cases, the drum may be vibrated to compact the yellowcake before uncovering.

4. Powder sampling. This occurs when a worker takes a sample of yellowcake to analyze for
moisture content.

5. Lid sealing. This occurs when a worker places a lid on the drum and seals it

6. Other activities. This step includes maintenance and hosing area and equipment with water to
clean. Hosing the packaging area to clean is a routine operation at uranium milis.

During the study, aerosol samples were taken in yellowcake packaging areas before, during, and after
drums of yellowcake were filled and sealed. Median aeroso} concentrations during the study ranged
from 40 to 340 xg U/m®. Results from analysis of the air samples showed that appreciable amounts
of airborne uranium would be expected to deposit in the nasopharyngeal region of the respiratory tract
if inhaled by a worker not wearing respiratory protection (Eidson and Damon 1984).



ENERGY EA EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
)
Smployee, ) File No
)
laimant. )
AFFIDAVIT

being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if
called a a witness inthis mate, would competently testy as follows:
1. Thatlam 2 of lawful age and tnider no legal disability.
2. That I'am the daughter ¢ -and have both direct and indirect
knowledge as to the following facts through personal knowledge and discussions

with my father:

A CT wos employed at Blockson Chemical from
947 through 981.

B, That? regularly worked in Building 55 at the

Bldckson Cherial plant in Jolie, Mlinois from 1952 through 1962 in the
‘ capacity 0
C. That“ egularly worked more than 40 hours per week
at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D. That vas never provided with any protective gear as

part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

“¢ . $ exposure to radioactive materials.



ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION
PROGRAM ACT

IN RE THE MATTER OF:

aployee, File No

Boerne

Jaimant

AFFIDAVIT
L being first duly sworn, deposes on oath
states, that if called as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
L That I am of lawful age and under no legal disability.
2. ‘That I am the daughter of and have both direct and indirect

knowledge as to the following facts through personal knowledge and discussions

with my father:
A. That was employed at Blockson Chemical between
1947 and 1970,
= .B. That” -egularly- worked in Building-55 at the Blockson -
: Chemical plant in Joliet, Illinois between the years of 1952 and 1962 in
the capacity of”
C. That 2 regularly worked more than 40 hours per week at

Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.

D. That” was never provided with any protective gear as

part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.
E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

-Xposure to radioactive materials.



[Effective Date: 06/29/2004 | Revision No. 01 | Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002 [Page 8 of 19]

iat es alien:
Figure 2. Photograph of Building 55 of the Blockson Chemical
Company. [Reproduced from Barr et al. 1955].

The daily air concentration of uranium activity was multiplied by the breathing rate for adult light
workers to obtain an estimated intake of 25 pCi per day of natural uranium due to inhalation. The
breathing rate was caiculated from the volume of air breathed by an adult light worker shown in Table
6 on pg. 23 of ICRP Publication 66 (ICRP 1994). The light worker category assumes an activity of 1/3
sitting and 2/3 fight exercise.

Although no air monitoring data were found for the Blockson facility, urinalysis data for 25 workers
were found for the period between 4/20/1954 and 2/20/1958. Urine samples were received by the
AEC on 10 different dates. The number of samples that were analyzed for each worker varied from 1
to 10 with values ranging between 0.000 to 0.017 mg/L. The Health and Safety Division of the AEC
New York Operation Office performed the analyses. The method of analysis was the fluorometric
method, which had a detection limit during that time period of 0.0038 mg/L (Wilson 1958). These data
were used to fit intakes foreach of the workers assuming a relative error of 30%. A chionic infialation
intake from 08/15/1952 to 03/31/1962 was assumed for each worker. The material was assumed to
be Absorption Type M (ICRP 1995) and ICRP 66 default parameters were used to calculate intakes.
The resulting calculated chronic intake rates were lognormally distributed with a median of 24 pCild
and a geometric standard deviation of 1.6.

The calculated chronic intake rate of 24 pCi/d is used to estimate intemal organ dose for workers with
ho monitoring records. The annual dose for the organ of interest should be calculated assuming
exposure to a natural uranium mixture. The start and end dates for the chronic intake should
encompass the period of time the employee worked during the potential exposure period. This period
would normally be considered to begin with the recovery plant startup in August 1952, and end when
uranium recovery operations ceased. However, to be claimant favorable, the exposure period is
assumed to begin when research on the process began, or about 17 months prior to the recovery
plant startup in August 1952. Thus, the covered period is assumed to be from March 1, 1951 through
March 31, 1962. The annual organ doses can then be entered into the NIOSH IREP program as the
annual dose due to chronic exposure to alpha radiation using a lognormal distribution with a
geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 1.6.



. Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Oocupationat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Niness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number. 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Page 3 of 7

u are a labor organizati

te Section D ONL’

Labor Organization Information
D.1 Labor Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
D.2 Name of Petition Representative:

D.3 Address of Petition Representative:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
D.4 Telephone Number of Petition Representative: ¢ )
D.5 Email Address of Petition Representative:

D.6 Period during which labor organization represented employees covered by this petition
(please attach documentation): Start End

D.7 Identity of other labor organizations that may represent or have represented this class of
employees (if known):

. Doo) 1, Goto Parte.”

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S, Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and
Illness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 7 of 7
Pubiic Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 300 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. If you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form fo this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
valid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a), you are hereby notified of the
following:

The Energy Employees Occupationat Illness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)
(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of employees to be included in the
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the
assistance of the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. information obtained by NIOSH in connection with petitions for including additional
classes of employees in the SEC will be used to evaluate the petition and report findings to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health and HHS.

Records containing identifiable information become part of an existing NIOSH system of records under the
Privacy Act, 09-20-147 “Occupational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.
HHS/CDC/NIOSH.’ These records are treated in a confidential manner, unless otherwise compelied by law.
Disclosures that NIOSH may need to make for the processing of your petition or other purposes are listed

| below.

NIOSH may need to disclose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal
agencies, other government or private entities and to private sector employers to permit these entities to
Tetrieve records required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these
individuals can provide information to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) contractors assisting
NIOSH; (d) collaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to conduct further investigations;
(e) Federal, state and local agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a
Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquiry.

This notice applies to all forms and informational requests that you may receive from NIOSH in connection
with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

Use of the NIOSH petition forms (A and B) is voluntary but your provision of information required by these
forms is mandatory for the consideration of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fail to
provide required information may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner



[Effective Date: 06/29/2004 T Revision No. 01 | Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002__] Page 17 of 19 |

REFERENCES

Andersson, K.G., Fogh, C.L., Byme, M.A., Roed, J., Goddard, A.J.H., Hotchkiss, S.A.M., “Radiation
dose implications of airborne contaminant deposition to humans,” Health Physics, 82(2), pp.
232, 2002

Barr, J.A., Jr, Ruch, J.W., and Borlik, R-F., “Recovering Uranium As By-Product in Phosphate
Processing,” presented before the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, Chicago
and reprinted from Rock Products, October 1955

Brodsky, A., “Resuspension Factors and Probabilities of Intake of Material in Process (Or ‘Is 10-6 a
Magic Number in Health Physics?’),” Healtfr Physics, 39(6): 992-1000, 1980

Clegg, J.W., and Foley, D.D., “Uranium Ore Processing,” prepared under contract with the U.S. AEC,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, inc., 1958

Eidson, A.F., and Damon, E.G., “Predicted Deposition Rates of Uranium Yellowcake Aerosols
Sampled in Uranium Mills,” Health Physics, 46(1): 165-176, 1984

Eisenbud, M., Blatz, H., and Barry, E.V., “How Important is Surface Contamination?" Nucleonics, Vol.
12 (8), p. 12, August 1954

Eisenbud, M., Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial, and Military So , Third
Edition, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA 1987

Fogh, C.L., Byme, M.A., Andersson, K.G., Bell, K.F., Roed, J., Goddard, A.J.H., Volimair, DV.,
Hotchkiss, S.A.M., Quantitative measurement of aeroso! deposition on skin, hair and clothing
for dosimetric assessment—final report, Roskilde, Denmark: Ris@ National Laboratory, Risa-
R-1075(EN), 1999 -

Frey, H.C., and Cullen, A.C., “Distribution Development for Probabilistic Exposure Assessment,”
Paper No. 95-94.02, Proceedings of the 88" Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management
Association, San Antonio, Texas, June 18-23, 1995

Grove Engineering, MiciShield Version 6.02, 2003

Kathren, R.L., Shockley, V.E., Thomas, E.M., Taulbee, T.D., Technical information Bulletin: Dose
Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-
0006, ORAU Dose Reconstruction Project, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003

Kocher, D.C., and Eckerman, KF., “Electron Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for Extemat Exposure of
the Skin from Uniformly Deposited Activity on the Body Surface,” Health Physics, 53(2): 135-
144, 1987

International Commission on Radiological Protection, “Age-dependent Doses to Members of the
Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4 Inhalation Dose Coefficients,” ICRP Publication 71,
1995

International Commission on Radiological Protection, “Human Respiratory Tract Mode! for
Radiological Protection,” ICRP Publication 68, 1994



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
fiiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
of7

Special Exposure Cohort Petitio

Survivor information — rf ing a Surv

B.1 Name of Survivor:

Mr/Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:
B.3 Address of Survivor:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
B.4_ Telephone Number of Survivor: d =
B.5 Email Address of Survivor:

B.6 _ Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse Q Son/Daughter Q Parent
O Grandparent Q Grandchild

‘ee Information —- Complete S UNLESS you ar

C1 Maen af Becton
MriMirs/Ms. First Name “ Middle Initial Last Name
C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):
NIA
Mr/Mrs.Ms. First Name Micldta Initial last Name

C.3 Social Security Number of Employee:
C.4. Address of Employee (f living):

NIA
Street Apt# P.O. Box
City State Zip Code

C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: ( ) -
C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a_ Employee Number (if known): A

C.7b Dates of Employment: Star 344 End ASDA
C7 EmployerName: ‘locksom Chhemigest C ostarmewy
C.7d Work Site Location: Sonildiag 55 Tolick TT ilines

C.7e Supervisors Name: Uo osa79

Go to Part E.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



F. _ « That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the
radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of

nployment,
That in* 1989, . was diagnosed with
That » » 1989, . passed away as result of his cancer.
That i 2001, I filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational

Ulness Compensation Program Act on behalf of”
That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that my father’s exposure to radioactive materials was

less than 50 percent.

Further, affiant, sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION
Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements

set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to
be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true.

La-~Le-os”
DATE

12-0 6 OS

TINE DATE



D2

D3

D4
D5
D6

D7

Special Exposure Cohort Petition

.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heaith

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/34/2007

Section D ONLY if

Labor Organtzation information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
Name of Petition Representative:

Address of Petition Representative:

Street Apté P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
Telephone Number of Petition Representative: ( )
Email Address of Petition Representative:

Period during which labor organization represented employees covered by this petition
(please attach documentation): Start End

identity of other labor organizations that may represent or have represented this class of
employees (if known):

Go to Part E.

Name or Social! Security Number of First Petitioner: __



+

F. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored the

radiation levels and/or exposure of Building 55 during the period of

smployment.
3. That in” .996, my father was diagnosed wit
4. Tha _ > 1998, my father passed away as result of the cancer.
5. Thate 002, I filed a claim under the Energy Employees

Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act on behalf of my father,

6. That my claim was denied by the United States Department of Labor as the
likelihood of probability that my father’s exposure to radioactive materials was
less than 50 percent.

Further, affiant, sayeth not.

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements
set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated to
be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid
that she verily believes the same to be true,

[Q-|4-OC

DATE



SPECTAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION

Subsection F.3

Supporting Documentation



vat [Effective Bate: 067972004 | Revision No. 07 [Document No, ORAUT-TKBS-0002 Page 4.of 19 ] :

1.0 Introduction

Technical Basis Documents and Site Profile Documents are general working documents that provide
guidance concerning the preparation of dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites.
‘They will be revised in the event additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s).
These documents may be used to assist NIOSH in the completion of the individual work required for
each dose reconstruction.

In this document the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building or group of buildings
that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons
employer facifity” or a“ Department of Energy facility” as defined in the Energy Employee
Occupational lliness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 7384! (5) and (#2).

2.0 Site Description, 0: i isto! Py

in 1950-1951, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) approached several phosphate rock
consumers about the possibility of recovering the uranium from the phosphate rock they processed.
At the Blockson Chemical Company plant, the AEC was interested in the uranium that could be
separated from the phosphoric acid, so in early 1951, the research staff at Blockson began an
evaluation of the available research data and preliminary experimentation that the AEC made
available to them. They determined that the only economically feasible approach applicable to the
Blockson process would be fo make the uranium recovery a by-product process (Stolz, Jr. 1958).

In 1951, the AEC signed a letter contract with the Blockson Chemical Company (contract number
AT(49-1)-606) to develop a process to extract uranium from wet phosphoric acid (US DOE 1985, US
DOE 2002). The Biockson research staff began the research and it was eventually determined that
by controlling pH and reducing conditions, the uranium could be precipitated from the phosphoric acid.
After an economic evaluation of the process, a pilot plant was constructed to further test and refine
the process. Meanwhile, laboratory investigations continued on another possible method of
precipitating the uranium from the phosphoric acid. This method involved using chlorine as an
oxidizing agent and then adding sodium hydrosulfite to cause precipitation. This process was much
more successful and economical, so the pilot plant was shut down and converted. Then work began
. to upgrade the process, and a recovery. plant was designed and constructed... bee

The letter contract was later replaced by another contract (contract number AT(49-1)-611) that was
signed October 15, 1951. Under this second contract, Blockson constructed, at its own expense, @
facility (Building 55) to house uranium recovery equipment at their plant in Joliet, Illinois, The AEC.
furnished and installed the uranium recovery equipment (US DOE 1985). On August 15, 1952,
Blockson began production and delivery of uranium concentrates to the AEC (Stolz, Jr. 1958).
According to the contract, production was limited to not more than 50,000 pounds of uranium per year
(US DOE 1983, US DOE 1985). .

In 1955, Blockson was sold to the Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation who assumed the liabilities
and obligations of Blockson under all contracts, as stated in contract number AT(49-1)-611
Amendment 1. The Olin Corporation continued the uranium recovery program under contract with the

33% AEC. The actual amount of uranium produced for the AEC is not known. However, according to the
contract, the amount of uranium produced was limited to not more than 50,000 pounds per yedr. In
March 1962, the uranium recovery work was discontinued with the expiration of the coniract (US DOE
1985).



ENERGY, EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
aployee, } File No.
sina.)
AEIDAVIT
q , being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states,

that if called as a witness in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1. That Yam of lawful age‘and under no legal disability.
2. ‘That Lam the wife of and have both direct and

indirect knowledge as to the following facts through personal knowledge and

discussigas with my husband: :

A That was employed at Blockson Chemical
from 1950 through "1963.

B. That agularly worked in Building 55 at the

“Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, Illinois from 1952 through 1962 in the
capacity of”
Cc. -That igularly worked more than 40 hours per
" week at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D. That vas never provided with any protective
; Sear as part of his employment with Blockson Chemical.

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitored

-Xposure to radioactive materials.



¢

x

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT
IN RE THE MATTER OF: )
)
Employee, ) File No
>
Jaimant. )
AFFIDAVIT

_ being first duly sworn, deposes on oath states, that if
called asa wines in this matter, I would competently testify as follows:
1. That Yah of lawful age ahd under no legal disability.
2. That I am the wife of d have both direct and indirect
knowledge of the following facts from personal knowledge and discussions with

my husband:

A. That . vas employed at Blockson Chemical between
1951 and 1968. ,

B. | That gulatly worked in Building 55 at the

Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet, Ilinois between the years of 1952 and
1962 as
Cc. Th regularly worked more than 40 bours per week
at Blockson Chemical during the aforementioned time frame.
D. That vas never provided with any protective gear as
"part of his employment with Blockson Chemical,

E. That neither the government nor Blockson Chemical ever monitore-

exposure to radioactive materials.



{Effective Date: 06/29/2004 [ Revision No.07 | Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0002__ | Page7of19 |

In order to estimate worker exposure at the Blockson uranium recovery facility, the total amount of
UsOs produced from 1952 to 1962 was estimated. A report showed that by the end of 1955, Blockson
produced 1,221, 470 pounds of uranium concentrate (US DOE 1985), which is roughly 600 pounds of
UsOg per day assuming a U;Oz concentration of 60%. However, the Blockson process was

to process only 1500 tons of phosphate daily, which is approximately 400 pounds of UsOs per day.
Another document indicates that production was limited by contract to not more than 50,000 pounds
of UsOs per year (US DOE 1983). Production was stopped in March 1962 (US DOE 1985). To
estimate the source term, it was assumed that production was limited by contract to 50,000 pounds of
UsQz per year. Assuming the same rate of production in 1952 and 1962 as in 1953 through 1961, the
amount of U,Og produced is estimated at 18,900 and 12,300 pounds in 1952 and 1962, respectively.
‘These annual estimated production values were used to calculate the amount of U;O, produced per
day shown in Table 1.

Thus, the estimated total amount of U;Oz produced at Blockson from 1952 to 1962 was 480,000
pounds, which is approximately 800,000 to1,200,000 pounds of uranium concentrate (for a UsO3
concentration of 60 to 40%, respectively).

Table 1. Calculation of the quantity of UO, aerosolized per day from the estimated amount of
ellowcake produced each year.

Number of Pounds of U,O, Pounds of U;03 ‘Quantity of U;0,
days operated | produced annually | produced per day | aerosolized per day
Work year per year (tbs) (thsiday) (thsiday)
BH5H4952-12/311952 138 18,900 137 1.32E-04
1953-1961 365, 50,000 137 1.32E-04
4H/1962-3/31/4962 90 12,300. 137 1.32E-04

Table 2 shows the quantities used to calculate the daily intake by inhalation of natural uranium based
on the estimated source term. The daily concentration of uranium in the air at the Blockson plant was
calculated by assuming that 9.6E-07 (US NRC 2002c) of the U,Og produced per day was aerosolized.
This value was divided by the estimated interior volume of Building 55. The volume of the building
was estimated by using the reported dimensions of 100-by-175 feet (US DOE 1983). Although
Building 55 was reported to be a one-story building (US DOE 1985), drawings of the building that
were used to show radiotogical survey locations indicate that there were four levels. The first level
contained a loading dock and storage room, the second level contained change rooms and a lab, the
third where there was a soundproof booth, and the fourth level which consisted of catwalks that
allowed access to various parts of the process equipment (US DOE 1983). The interior height of the
building was assumed to be 30 feet: 8 feet for each of the first two levels’and 7 feet each for the third
and fourth levels. Based on the radiological survey report (US DOE 1983) and the photograph shown
below in Figure 2, this is a reasonable assumption. The estimated volume of the building was
reduced by 10% to account for equipment displacement. This gives an estimate of 13,400 m° for the
interior volume of Building 55.

Table 2. Estimation of the daily intake of natural uranium based on source term.

Quantity of natural Natural U air Activity of air | Breathing Daity
Uin air perday | concentration per day| concentration rate intake
(ug) (ugien*) (pCim’) (n'th)__|_ (pCitd)
5.1E+04 3.8 26 42 25.