AFFIDAVIT
 DESCRIBING UNMONITORED AIRBORN EXPOSURES OF URANIUM 

AT 

NUCLEAR METALS, INC., WEST CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
 

Introduction 

I, , residing at , provide this affidavit to 

describe discrete and unmonitored radioactive material exposures that occurred during my 

employment between 1977 and 1983 at the Nuclear Metals, Inc. West Concord manufacturing 

facility. In addition, I present other information submitted with this petition in support of a Class of 

all employees who worked at NMI between 1970 and 1983. 

I will present evidence of unmonitored airborne exposures that were quite frequent and the result of 

developmental and experimental processes for improved capabilities in radioactive waste disposal 

methods, uranium recycling techniques, improved uranium heat treatment processes, UF4 reduction 

production processing, and new alloy development and foundry practices. Unmonitored and/or lost 

exposure records that apply primarily to internal exposures are of greatest concern for their potential 

to have endangered employees and result in an inability of NIOSH to accurately perform dose 

reconstructions. It is unlikely that NIOSH is aware of the scope of unmonitored exposures presented 

in this petition. 

I am particularly gratified by the support I have received from fellow workers at NMI to provide the 

time and support that was required to prepare this petition. Quite a few of these workers are 

prepared to support an outreach to these employees for additional fact finding. A listing of NMI 

employees along with initial contact information is provided in Appendix G to this affidavit. 

Supporting affidavits are provided in Appendix E. 

All photographs presented in this affidavit are from my personal collection of project photographs 

that were used to document tests and results for both internal and published technical reports. 

Copies and excerpts from these reports are provided in Appendix D. Lastly, scanned copies of all 

documents and report excerpts submitted with this petition are provided on CDRoM. A separate 

DVD is provided with a foundry practice video clip and a marketing video on NMI. 

In all cases, developmental processes that are presented here were excluded from any requirements 

for the generation of Radiation Work Permits prior to the conduct of any experiments. Such 

Radiation Work Permits were not required. This requirement could have provided advance 

consideration of unplanned fires, releases of contaminated radioactive particles and explosions and 

would have resulted in the definition of protection measures that were not implemented to mitigate 

potential exposures to airborne contamination. 

The range of unmonitored exposure events, unreported violations of safety practices, lost records 

and poor health & safety practices is but a part of many more instances for which have only a 

limited knowledge. When combined with other affidavits of unmo4nitored and unsafe activities, 

reported violations of H&S practices supported in Appendix A and I, they provide a collective 

justification for the requested SEC petition review and approval. 

Occurrences that I recall include, but are not limited to, the following specific activities. 

1 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
1. Salt Water Processing of Uranium Machine Chips Resulting in Unmonitored 

Fire and Explosion 

Location: Building D (dedicated October 1978) 

Approximate Date: early 1979 

Government Contract: Internal Funded R&D 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Test Stand Photograph 

 designed and built an experimental rig to use salt water to convert uranium machine turnings to 

uranium oxide. The process was to create a slow oxidation of the chips to convert them into stable 

and compact oxides without resorting to incineration that would have required special permits and 

local/State approvals. 

Building D had been recently completed and had absolutely no equipment as yet installed. 

The first time the rig was used filled a 30-gallon steel drum with machine turnings to which a 

salt-water spray was placed above the drum in the Plexiglas enclosure shown in the photo. As the 

water drained from the drum it was filtered and recycled. 

The process appeared to be working as 

planned when headed home for the day. 

That evening was recalled to the plant in 

response to a Concord Fire Department call 

when the fire alarm was triggered. The plant 

was filled with smoke and had managed to 

completely contaminate the new plant. The 

test rig was in shambles, the Plexiglas cover 

had melted and was blown aside by the 

explosion. 

 pieced together what had happened. The 

water was dissociated by the uranium and 

released hydrogen and oxygen. These gases 

collected in the Plexiglas dome. At the same 

time uranium chip size was shrinking as the 

surface oxides were formed and washed off 

the chips. This created in exponentially 

increasing surface to volume ratio in the chip 

that accelerated chemical oxidation and water 

dissociation. The process released increasing 

amounts of heat that further accelerated 

chemical reactions. When the chips autoignited the fire touched off the hydrogen and 

produced the explosion. 

You will notice in the photo that there were no provisions for ventilation. In addition, the 

 wore no personal respirators or Personal Air Monitors (PAMs). I have no idea 

what kind of airborne exposures received from these experiments. The rig was not rebuilt or ever 

used again. 

Plexiglas enclosure 

30 gallon drum of DU chips 

Salt water and uranium oxides 

2 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

2. Development of a Foam Encapsulation Alternative to Concrete for Machine 

Turning Packaging for Shipment and Burial Resulting in Unmonitored Fires 

and Airborne Exposures 

Location: Butler Building and External Test Stand 

Approximate Date: 1978 – 1981 

Government Contract: Internal Funded R&D 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Photographs, Appendix D 

 spanned several years to develop and evaluate WR Grace’s Hypol foam as a uranium chip 

encapsulating media during which time numerous unmonitored uranium fires were experienced. 

Much of this work was performed with assistance from and . Copies 

of a sampling test reports and photos are provided on Appendix D. Additional test 

reports are available. 

A specially design blending machine was purchased to mix Hypol resin and water with an injection 

system that allowed us to inject the mixture into a 55-gallon drum containing 100-200 pounds of 

uranium machine chips. The polyurethane foam would expand from the bottom of the container to 

the top. I can be clearly seen in the photo injecting foam into a test barrel. It is quite evident that 

was a that got directly involved in the work. 

Excess foam was vented through a expanded metal lid. This excess foam was cut by hand using a 

tree bow saw so that a lid could be fixed to the top of the drum. After encapsulating the chips in the 

 injecting foam into 55 gallon drum of DU chips 

foam, the drums were capped and placed in the heating test rig shown in the photo. This rig would 

apply a strike anywhere match shipping standard to the package. Specifically, the package would 

need to withstand an internal temperature of 170-180 oF for eight hours without auto ignition. 

 passed this standard. However, there were several occasions after power was turned off when 

the internal temperature of the package continued to rise. At a time of approximately 16-24 hours 

into the test the package would auto ignite or explode. Explosions were attributed to accumulated 

hydrogen from water dissociation. 

3 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

These fires would cause the Type K thermocouples 

to melt even though they had an upper temperature 

limit of 1900 o

F. In addition, prodigious amounts 

of smoke were generated. You can see from the 

photo that there was no provision for ventilation of 

the test area. The control area where we used 

recorders to track package temperature was located 

about 10 feet from the test pit. 

A particular processing problem and hazard was 

identified. Hypol resin contained volatile 

isocyanate compounds (see Appendix D spec sheet). 

Technician exposure to airborne isocyanates resulted in 

Crude outdoor drum heating test 

stand. 55 gallon drum inside 85 

gallon drum filled with anti-freeze. 

Insulated to reduce heat loss. 

allergic reactions and 

respiratory distress problems. 

We were not monitoring for 

Prior to switching to anti-freeze, heated quench oil was used 

to heat the test drums. This test drum was removed after 

testing and is coated in oil. The drum collapsed from a 

vacuum produced by oxidizing uranium chips that scavenged 

available oxygen inside the drum. 

airborne exposures of radioactive particulates inside the Butler building 

during the experiments or at the test site where many fires and explosions occurred. 

It was found that worker sensitivity and the onset of allergic reactions increased with increasing 

exposure. Some with high sensitivities had to be permanently transferred to other duties. 

If the isocyanate fumes were being released to the work area it is highly probable that unmonitored 

contaminated radioactive particulates were also airborne. 

Employee performing crude DoT 

impact penetration test behind 

Building C to test for foam barrel 

puncture resistance. 

Process development fires exposed us to many 

opportunities for airborne contamination that was not 

monitored with PAMs nor were we wearing personal 

respirators. 

prepared and submitted a report to the Department of 

Social and Health Services, Olympia, WA, entitled “The 

Use of a Polyurethane Foam as a Dispersing and 

Encapsulating Medium for Depleted Uranium Machine 

Turnings”, dated 17 April, 1981. However, the final 

blow that ended any chance of using this approach 

came when shipped some developmental 

4 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

foam-uranium drums to Barnwell, SC, or Hanford, Washington disposal sites. The site photo shows 

NMI drums being dropped into a disposal pit. They had a long way to drop. When one of the drums 

was dropped a spark was generated which caused the drum to explode. assumed this explosion 

was caused by accumulated hydrogen that pressurized the drum as hydrogen was released by the 

dissociation of water by the uranium. 

3. Uranium Chemical Recycling Development Resulting in Unmonitored 

Airborne Releases of Uranium Tetrafluoride, Uranium Oxides and Uranyl 

Fluoride, and their hydrates 

Location: Building A Chemistry Laboratory (Art Dodge’s Lab) 

Approximate Date: 1980-1983 

Government Contract: M774 Machine Chip Recycling”, DoD Contract No. DAAK10-80- 

C-0246, September 1980 and June 1983. 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Photographs, USAARDC Report No. ARLCDCR-83018, Appendix D 

This recycling development work involved the treatment of uranium machine chips with HF acid in 

order to create Uranium Tetrafluoride (UF4) that could be used to reclaim usable uranium metal. An 

unfortunate by-product of the HF treatment was Uranyl Fluoride (UO2F2) and UF4 hydrates that 

contaminated the UF4 and depressed UF4 reduction yields. Excerpts from the final technical report 

can be found in Appendix D. 

Approximately 5 pound batches of uranium machine turnings were treated with gallon quantities of 

HF acid in plastic trays positioned in the acid hood. The performed 

these reactions and subsequent processing. relied on the negative pressure of the vent system to 

capture all fumes during reaction. UF4 precipitate was washed, dried and ball milled in the lab. No 

additional filter masks or PAMs were used to prevent and monitor exposures. 

Graphite Lined mini-bomb reduction vessels (approx 12” tall) 

DUAP machine chips in chemical treatment tray 

After experiments were completed over a six-month period, all lab chrome was corroded or removed 

from lab furniture and the windows were frosted from exposure to HF acid fumes. were left to 

wonder what else escaped to contaminate lab air while working there? The chemical process 

used produced an ultra fine particulate precipitate that included UF4, UO2F2 and their hydrates. The 

literature describes these uranium compounds as highly soluble and kidney targeting. This was a 

very severe situation for unmonitored airborne contamination. 

These highly soluble compounds are flushed from the human body rather quickly so there would be 

no evidence of their uptake in internal dosimetry data from the mid 1980s, as in my case. Since I 

ended up with this unmonitored exposure was probably the most damaging during 

5 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
my employment. Lastly, how can a single data point from the late 1980s be considered a 

statistically significant and accurate exposure sample? 

Small bomb reductions were made using the lab resistance heated furnace. Small derbies of uranium 

metal were removed from the graphite reduction vessel liner by using a hammer to break open the 

reduction product. There was a fine debris of uranium oxides and contaminated graphite released by 

this extraction process. 

This activity included a rather violent effort needed to break open the graphite liner with a hammer. 

No special provisions were taken, like personal respirators or PAMs to protect and monitor during 

these efforts. 

The final Technical Report produced under this contract provides evidence that these experiments 

were conducted as described. Additional reports were authored in 1980 by Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute entitled “Nuclear Waste Engineering” and “Nuclear Waste Chemistry” for work I sponsored 

with the Department of Chemistry regarding methods to inhibit the formation of Uranyl Fluoride 

during aqueous fluorination. These reports are accessible at the Gordon Public Library of Worcester 

Polytechnic Institute and describe the chemical analysis of the product we created. Excerpts from 

the report can be found in Appendix D. 

4. Continuous Induction Solutionizing of Uranium Bars and Unmonitored 

Contaminated Process Water Exposures 

Location: Building C, 1400 Ton Extrusion Press Area 

Approximate Date: 1979 

Government Contract: Internal Funded R&D 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Photograph of heat treatment activity 

 assembled a rig that was designed to continuously induction heat and 

Water quench 

DU Bar Stock 

1-1/4” dia x 12’ 

water quench large diameter uranium bars. This required to feed the rod at a controlled rate of 

15-18” per minute through an induction-heating coil that would raise bar temperature to 

approximately 1550 oF. At this temperature the bar glowed red hot and quickly oxidized on the 

surface. The rod was continuously rotated and fed into a quenching water can that sprayed water on 

the bar to quickly cool it to room temperature. 

6 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
The feed mechanism of this rig would become unstable as the soft rod would bend. Since it was 

rotating, this bent bar would lift the induction coil and quench can that would short out the induction 

coil and spray us with water contaminated with uranium oxides. 

These experiments were conducted near where the 1400-ton extrusion press abutted the foundry in 

Building C. This was so we could tap into the power supplies of one of the 100 kW motor 

generators for our induction coil. This, and other project photos provides further evidence that was 

a involved in and had first hand knowledge of the exposures 

reviewed in this petition. was not pleased when would come home all soiled from these 

experiments. 

No individual respirators, ventilation of the area or PAM monitoring was used during these 

experiments. I estimate that there were at least 12 occurrences where got drenched with 

contaminated quench water. 

5. Uranium Alloy Development and Unmonitored Exposure to Used Crucibles 

Location: Building C, Foundry 

Approximate Date: 1979 - 1982 

Government Contract: USAF ManTech Program, Contract No. F33615-82-C-5044, USAF 

Contract F0835-79-C-0267, Appendix D 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Photographs of work, DVD Video 

As part of this USAF contract, was tasked with attempting to produce a quality alloy of 6.5% 

niobium and uranium. This is difficult to do due to the very 

high melting temperature of niobium compared to uranium, 

particularly when attempting this in a vacuum induction 

furnace. Because had to take the metals to higher than 

typical temperatures while using graphite crucibles, had to 

develop improved mold and crucible coatings for the 

graphite. 

This required to bury upper body inside the 

previously used crucible in order to apply several 

applications of the new coating slurry with a brush. 

these times

During 

was exposed to high radiation levels and yet 

belt mounted dosimeter was outside the crucible and was less 

likely to record accurate exposures. No ring badge, PAM or 

personal respirator was 

used during this effort. 

When performing the melts and casting 

 removed foundry crucible residue of 

unmelted Niobium pellets and uranium. 

Higher temperatures were required, 

necessitating the development of better 

mold wash coatings. Alternative VIM 

process to Rocky Flats eb melting trials. 

would assist the 

. had to observe the melt and make on the 

spot decisions as to hold times and peak temperatures before 

authorizing the pour. remember this period because eating, 

smoking and drinking were still permitted i Para 3 Para 7Page 

18 Para 4n the . would bring their coffee 

and newspaper to read during the lengthy melt and cast cycles. 

USAF Mantech castings – 

unalloyed DU for sheet rolling to 

reproduce Oak Ridge Y-12 

material produced for LANL. 

7 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

 would delight in demonstrating to the technique for pacifying the top crucible lid 

when they opened the furnace after cool down. This was an event since the melting process would 

distill uranium and daughter products onto the underside of the lid. This finely deposited material 

was very pyrophoric, almost explosive. They would pop the lid and hit the underside with a spray of 

water from a spray bottle. This caused instant detonation of the distilled residue and a flash of 

flame. The volume of flame that was produced would overwhelm the 4” diameter vent pipe placed 

in the general area. did not wear personal respirators during this step and I’m certain we were 

exposed to unmonitored airborne contamination. General monitoring of the work areas would not 

capture these releases. 

, a and , has provided a movie clip that shows this 

furnace lid explosion. It includes a slow motion sequence of the flame that is produced along with a 

loud explosion. It becomes quite clear from this film that the sudden release of energy from this 

typical lid reaction would overwhelm the 4” diameter flexible vent pipe that was placed in the 

general area. 

What is not shown in the video clip are the three other people watching the action and recording the 

video. While the is attired in all the safety equipment, some of which was not commonly 

worn in the late 1970s, the observers were unprotected. The is knocked down from the 

explosion and some of the observers were burned. The flame and release of airborne contamination 

would quickly overwhelm the small vent pipe placed in the area of the lid. not sure how 

much of the airborne exposure would have been captured by one PAM placed in the general area. 

 observations. 

plastic safety goggles to protect from radiation exposure. At a very young age

The final step of these casting trials was to inspect the crucible for unmelted residues as this was a 

common occurrence for these experimental alloying processes. getting very near the internal 

surfaces of the used crucible with in order to make wasn’t even wearing 

 that will require medical treatment in the future. 

Mandatory use of safety goggles was not required until after 1983 and enforcement was loose for 

many years. 

In later years learned that used crucibles would accumulate thorium and daughter products that 

made them particularly radioactive. A cool down period was introduced in later years to permit used 

crucibles to reduce rad levels before being re used. Also, a holding area and steel, then aluminum, 

covers were instituted in order to allow tooling to cool down before permitting their reuse. 

This practice was implemented after 1983, greatly increased the cost of foundry operations and was 

resisted by management for many years. 

 inadequately monitored activities exposed to unknown and high radiation levels. 

6. UF4 Reduction Process Development and Unmonitored Airborne Exposures 

Location: Building D, Reduction Facility 

Approximate Date: 1979-1982 

Government Contract: unknown 

Additional Supporting Documentation: other affidavits and Appendix I 

8 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
After the completion of Building D construction, facilities were installed to produce unalloyed 

uranium derbies from the reduction of UF4 blended with magnesium chips contained within a 

graphite-lined container. This process would yield 1800-pound derby shaped ingots. 

This was the most hazardous area to work in at NMI, West Concord. Monitoring of employee 

exposures, particularly to airborne contamination was extremely poor. Accidents that produced 

airborne contamination were frequent as process approaches and improved tooling were constantly 

being developed. hope to have affidavits by other employees who recall similar incidents that 

report here. No one had prior experience with the reduction of UF4 to uranium metal. As such, 

learned and gained experience from the many failures. 

This was particularly troublesome as the failures were dramatic, such as vessel burn throughs, or 

with extreme airborne exposure situations where PAMs and respirators were not used. Extreme 

airborne exposures were evident everywhere. This includes the areas where magnesium fluoride 

slag was removed by hand from derbies, the UF4/magnesium blending station, reduction vessel 

transfer failures (that resulted in unexpected and major spills) and packing reduction vessels to 

achieve the required packing densties. 

would have occasion to work in this area as part of my process engineering responsibilities. When 

would be working in the processing area noticed that most of the process equipment was covered 

with a light green tinted deposit of UF4. There was a device for blending UF4 (green salt) and 

magnesium chips where the 55-gallon drums of green salt were emptied into a blender. The caked 

green salt would sometimes release suddenly from the drum and create a cloud of dust in the process 

area. 

A green colored dust suppression material was used to sweep up the green salt deposits on the floor. 

Many of us suspected this color was used to hide the contamination and questioned why other colors 

of dust suppressant weren’t used. In addition, using sweeping as method would tend to re-suspend 

some of the dust, not a smart way to do it. cannot believe that this wasn’t clear evidence of high 

airborne concentrations that didn’t seem to concern anyone. work in this area did not require 

to wear a respirator. 

The was a manual intensive process where the magnesium fluoride slag byproduct was chiseled off of the derby. The ventilation station was awkward to work in so the 

technicians would remove the derby and de-slag the derby in the open air. The manual chisel 

method was dirty and hard work. never saw these with respirators or PAMs. 

Occasionally they would have respirators around their neck so it would not interfere with their 

breathing. Respirator enforcement was lax. 

Manually packing the UF4/magnesium blend into the reduction vessels was performed manually to 

make sure packing density was sufficient for good yields. This also produced high airborne 

exposures that were not, or inadequately monitored. Occasionally a would drop a filled 

vessel with the hydraulic clamping jaws used to grab and transfer vessels in the process area. When 

one of these vessels was dropped, it would fall over and spill the contents onto the floor. This 

produced a big cloud of dust and extreme airborne exposures. 

In house vacuum systems were used to vacuum up spilled UF4. On occasion this would over burden 

HEPA filters causing ventilation to fail in Building D for the reduction and machining areas. In 

addition, summer brown outs and belt drive failures would also cause vents to shut down. Power 

failures and brown outs were another safety problem as these would lead to vacuum pump failures in 

9 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
foundry furnaces. When failed to respond quickly enough to shut off key valves in a 

power failure, the loss of vacuum caused occasional furnace explosions. In one such explosion Dick 

Santangelo, the foundry foreman, was severely burned. At least on e other t refused to go 

back and work in after that accident. 

 do not recall the operation ever being shut down. Production demand for metal was so high that a 

disruption in production would idle all of the workers. There was tremendous pressure to keep the 

operation going. , a at the time, shared with some of his 

experiences. His recollection of management pressure included the threat to fire one employee that 

was complaining too much about the poor health & safety practices. has committed to 

providing an affidavit of his experiences. 

As with , there was also a problem with graphite reduction tooling that accumulated 

distilled thorium and radioactive daughter products. am not aware of any provisions that were ever 

made to allow a cooling off period for this tooling before reuse in West Concord. After the process 

was relocated to Carolina Metals, Inc. (CMI) in Barnwell, SC, believe they instituted a tooling 

rotation approach to allow used tooling to reduce radiation emissions before reuse. 

In the early months of starting the process and tooling was not mature. As 

a result, had a number of burn-through events. These were events of molten uranium metal and 

magnesium fluoride that would find a weakness in the steel encased graphite container and get 

ejected. This ejection was violent and sudden. These chemical reactions are referred to as “bomb 

reductions” in the literature. They are called this for good reason, as the chemical reaction is sudden, 

quick, and extremely exothermic. The heat release upon reaction is sufficient to maintain the entire 

contents in a molten state for a sufficient length of time to permit the dense uranium to separate from 

the molten and lighter magnesium fluoride by-product. 

If there was any monitoring of airborne exposures during these burn-throughs am unaware of their 

availability. During one such burn through, the flame escaping from the reduction furnace 

positioned below floor grade, was like the launch of a ballistic missile from a silo. 

These reactions would produce some of the highest radioactive sources from the distillation of 

lighter daughter products that would contaminate process tooling. Unmonitored Radon generation 

was also an unrecognized problem and was never monitored. 

In the late 1990s there was a radon contamination problem uncovered in the green salt storage 

facility at our sister plant, Carolina Metals. If there was a radon problem at that facility, there was 

likely an unmonitored radon problem associated with green salt at NMI West Concord. Appendix I 

includes several technical reports on Radon generation from depleted uranium authored by the NRC 

and Utah Dept. of Health. 

These reports make the interesting observation that humid, or wet storage of DU would release more 

Radon than in arid disposal environments. 

NMI used water-soluble coolants in lathes during machining and stored chips under water in 55­

gallon drums before transport to the Butler Building for waste processing. The high surface area of 

these chips in water would oxidize and cause the water to dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen. This 

would expose fresh surfaces for oxidation and perhaps greater Radon release. 

10 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
From discussions with several radiation health physicists and a review of the technical literature, 

there is a general view that the UF4 used by NMI was highly refined. As such, the prevailing view is 

that there is such a small fraction of the progeny that can decay into Radon that depleted uranium 

should not be a major source for this hazard. However, there are two technical reports that show this 

prevailing view is seriously flawed. 

In a January 2001 WISE report, updated in 2005, the DoE disclosed in 1999 the contamination of 

DU with transuranics and U-236 from spent nuclear fuel recycle between the years 1953- 1964 and 

1969-1976. This contamination, including plutonium-238 and -239, U-236, americium-241, 

neptunium-237 and technicium-99 were found in the stockpile of DU penetrators and DU armor 

used in the Kosovo conflict and elsewhere. Technetium-99 is a fission product. Further, there was 

only sporadic monitoring of plutonium concentrations in DU in the metal made from the years it was 

fed into the cascade process at Paducah. This indicates the potential for a higher percentage of the 

radionuclide progeny that can decay into radon generation in the DU processed at NMI, West 

Concord. This disclosure seriously undermines the consensus view of the limited radiation hazards 

for depleted uranium. 

[It is interesting to note that was denied online access to the DoE press releases that are referenced 

in the WISE (World Information Service on Energy) documents. Special access authentication was 

required.] 

It would also be useful to know whether NIOSH has factored this contamination into their dose 

reconstruction estimate models for NMI claimants? 

A September 2000 report authored by Radioactive Waste Management Associates and downloaded 

from the Massachusetts DPH web site indicates that 800 pounds of U235 is present in the Holding 

Basin at NMI. This Holding Basin is where neutralized nitric acid was dumped after “pickling” 

extruded DU bars to remove the copper cladding. The source of this significant quantity of 

fissionable isotope may have been the recycled fuel rod material disclosed in the WISE report. It is 

further evidence that higher levels of radionuclide progeny that can decay to radon were present in 

the uranium processed at NMI, West Concord. 

Excerpts from a recently published Health Physics text reviews the differences between fresh and 

aged DU and the prospects for radon release. Basically, aged DU has a greater likelihood for radon 

release because the stored DU has time for decay products to reach equilibrium. “DU health physics 

aspects would then become similar to those applied to uranium in general.” This is interesting in 

that the initial UF4 received at NMI, West Concord, for reduction came from old government 

stockpiles. This text opinion was also made without the knowledge that the DoE was recycling 

spent enriched fuel rod uranium in the DU cascade process that produced the UF6 and UF4 held in its 

inventory and was later released to NMI. 

Again, radon release and employee exposures were not monitored in any process area in this time 

period. It was not believed to be a significant health risk. It is unlikely that NIOSH is aware of the 

recent DoE disclosure of enriched uranium recycling and contamination of depleted uranium used by 

NMI. There was a level of complacency at NMI over the issue because of the prevailing view 

regarding the levels of radioactive nuclides contained within the highly purified depleted uranium 

that is now shown to be false. 

This enriched uranium recycling disclosure further exacerbates the concern for distilled daughter 

products that would have been present in reduction and foundry tooling. It may help explain why, 

11 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

despite repeated efforts to improve employee monitoring in the late 1980s, overexposures of 

employees continued to occur.1 

Lastly, this recent disclosure and the observations over the lack of employee monitoring and lack of 

respiratory protection, further supports our belief that NIOSH is unable to accurately assess 

employee exposures between 1970 and 1983. 

7. Patented Carousel Chip Cleaning & Drying System to Prep Machine Chips for 

Briquetting Resulting in Fires and Unmonitored Airborne Contamination 

Location: Building C, near 300 Ton Extrusion Press 

Approximate Date: 1980-1983 

Government Contract: M774 Machine Chip Recycling”, DoD Contract No. DAAK10-80- 

C-0246, September 1980 and June 1983. 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Uranium 

This activity involved a recycling process patent was awarded for cleaning and dewatering machine 

chips for subsequent vacuum induction remelting. It was important to have extremely dry briquetted 

chips in order to obtain a decent vacuum in the furnace. Patent rights were assigned to Nuclear 

Metals, Inc.

 got the idea for this approach after visiting the National Lead of Ohio Feed Materials Production 

Plant where they recycle 3% enriched fuel element uranium. built a carousel style mechanism that 

automatically transferred 5-pound baskets of uranium chips to sequential washing, degreasing and 

drying stations. ended up with very dry and clean machine chips as feed material to our 250-ton 

Briquetted DU machine turnings 

removed from foundry crucible. DU 

metal trapped in oxide layers could 

not be reclaimed. Note DU oxide 

powder everywhere in work area. 

Birdsboro briquetting process. Of course, when uranium chip are very dry they become extremely 

pyrophoric (a tendency to spontaneously burn). 

 remember demonstrating this pyrophoric property by taking a handful of dry chips and slightly 

moving my fingers. The slight movement of the chips provided enough friction so that you could 

see sparks jump from chip to chip. No ring badges were worn. or PAM 

Each station of the carousel was ventilated. However, when removed the chip basket 

frequently had fires. A basket of burning chips would be placed on the concrete floor and smothered 

12 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
with Ansul dry fire extinguishers (powdered glass) to suffocate the fire. There were no air vents in 

the working area other than where specifically mentioned. recall having parts of my clothing 

soaked with 1-1-1 Trichloroethylene during these experiments. 

Several different manufacturing technicians would assist , depending upon individual availability 

that day. wore no special personal respirators and were not equipped with PAMs. 

8. Uranium Penetrator Test Range Fragment Recycling and Unmonitored 

Airborne Exposure to Contaminated Dust 

Location: Building A Chemistry Laboratory (Art Dodge’s Lab) 

Approximate Date: 1981-1982 

Government Contract: US Air Force Armament Laboratory, Eglin AFB, Contract No. 

F08635-79-C-0267 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Photos and USAF AFATL Report No. AFATLTR-82-49 Appendix D 

Under this contract processed waste drums containing uranium bullet fragments, 

aluminum sabot remnants and test rand sand. When these bullets impacted the test stand at high 

velocity, the energetic impact would cause them to burn. This produced a high content of uranium 

oxides in the uranium bearing waste. The photos were taken in Art’s Chem Lab where we manually 

withdrew the waste from 30-gallon drums using a garden rake. then shoveled and scraped the 

debris into 2 feet x 3 feet 

baskets for screening and 

cleaning. This was the 

original screening step to 

separate solid fragments 

from the sand. 

Post nitric acid etch. 

There was no significant 

ventilation of the work area 

and we did not wear 

respirators or PAMs. 

exposure to uranium dust 

was unmonitored. From 

Post water rinse for first cleaning 

what recall of this activity 

were exposed to 

unknown quantities of 

contaminated dust with a 

high likelihood of 

inhalation and ingestion. 

passed away 

several years ago. 

was one of most 

liked employees. As an 

he 

was the go to guy when 

you wanted to get 

something done. The story of his placement of goldfish in an ultrasonic inspection tank during a 

Initial inspection of 55 gallon drum scrap. Waste composed 

of sand, uranium bullet fragments and aluminum sabots. 

13 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
critical customer visit in order to stick it to his boss at the time were legend. He frequently hosted 

popcorn break parties in his lab. passed away shortly after his retirement. 

9. Developmental Molten Salt Recycling of Uranium Chips and Unmonitored 

Airborne Exposure 

Location: Building C, near 300 Ton Extrusion Press 

Approximate Date: 1980-1983 

Government Contract: M774 Machine Chip Recycling”, DoD Contract No. DAAK10-80- 

C-0246, September 1980 and June 1983. 

Additional Supporting Documentation: USAARDC Report No. ARLCD-CR-83018 

As part of the US Army recycling contract, evaluated a prototype molten salt 

remelting technique for uranium machine chips. designed a small induction heated graphite 

crucible that was filled with molten salt at a temperature well above that of the uranium chips 

desired to remelt (approximately 1350 - 1550 oC). 

would drop in small quantities of machine turnings that were previously dried with the carousel 

drier discussed in Item 7. This produced occasional fires from the drying operation or with small 

quantities of stored and dried chips. 

The furnace was only equipped with a moveable 6” diameter vent that we positioned over the 

furnace. would feed chips into the top of the furnace is small batches to try to get them to sink 

beneath the molten salt before igniting. were not always successful. When the chips ignited, 

they would quickly flash and flame due to exposure and proximity to the extreme furnace 

temperatures. On occasion our machine chips were not completely dry. When these would hit the 

super heated molten salt the reaction was quite violent. This would cause the ejection of molten salt 

from the top of the crucible. Fortunately were never injured but airborne exposures are of 

concern. 

The vent was not totally effective in containing the release of airborne contamination. were not 

wearing personal respirators or PAMs. Any exposure to airborne contamination was unmonitored. 

10. Off Site Heat Treatment Experiments and Unmonitored Exposures 

Location: Cleveland 

Approximate Date: 1981 

Government Contract: Internal Funded R&D 

Additional Supporting Documentation: None 

 were tasked with transporting 1800 pounds of uranium rods to a Cleveland 

equipment vendor for the conduct of heat treatment experiments. drove the rods in a Ford 

Country Squire station wagon to Cleveland where assisted in allowing the vendor to use their 

equipment to demonstrate that their equipment could perform the required heat treatment. 

remember the station wagon bottoming out as we exited the plant driveway. were so heavy in 

the rear that the front wheels looked like they were about to leave the ground. 

 vividly recall the drive to Cleveland because it was during a gasoline crisis. The station wagon was 

so loaded down with uranium that forced to stop at every service station on the Massachusetts 

14 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
turnpike to get the maximum allowable $5 of gas. Even with these frequent stops gas tank level 

was ratcheting down and barely made Cleveland with any gas in the tank. 

The heat treatment required that the rods be heated to 1550 oF (red heat) and then transferred to a 

water quench tank. These experiments were conducted and not monitored for airborne 

contamination and exposures. did not even wear a film badge when driving the uranium to 

Cleveland or at the vendor’s plant. 

11. Off Site Ordnance Testing and Unmonitored/Unavailable Exposures 

Location: New Mexico Institute-TERA Group and Los Alamos National Labs 

Approximate Date: 1980 – 1987 

Government Contract: Various, including DoE administered DARPA contracts 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Photos and Final Technical Reports, Appendix D 

In 1980 

was the involved in all 

of these activities and advanced to an position for this increasing activity 

in the mid 1980s. In additional, several also participated 

in this testing as well as other company 

like 

 began to get involved in the development of explosive shaped charges that used depleted 

uranium components. 

. 

These activities involved off site testing of these explosive devices 

at test facilities in Socorro, New Mexico (NMIT TERA Group) 

and at Los Alamos National Laboratories. The explosions 

produced extensive amounts of particulated uranium and 

contaminated steel armor targets. This testing exposed to DU 

particulates from post-test examination of target damage and the 

reassembly of contaminated targets for photography and analysis. 

The testing caused the DU metal liners to liquefy, alloy with the 

steel targets, and produce a great amount of DU particulates. 

Other than protective booties and lab coats, no other precautions 

were taken. Targets were returned to NMI for sectioning and 

analysis. No air monitors or respirators were used when 

examining the targets. 

15 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­

Excerpt from NMI Views internal Newsletter of at a Test Range 

Uranium impact target photo 

inspection. One of many in my 

collection. 
 open claim. In addition, NIOSH has been unable to 

find most of the records of visits to Rocky Flats Plant, Y-12 Oak Ridge, Hanford Nuclear 

Reservation, NLO Feed Materials Production Center, Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratories. Many of these visits were for other uranium process related work 

in which 

Any exposure data from these tests are unavailable to NIOSH for consideration of dose estimates. 

NIOSH has informed that any record of my visits to Los Alamos National Labs are unavailable 

for consideration in dose reconstruction for 

was involved. 

12. Unmonitored Exposures - Heat Treatment Furnace Maintenance 

Location: Building C Mezzainine 

Approximate Date: 1978 - 1983 

Government Contract: Various 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Potential affidavit by Matt Justinger 

When penetrator production began at NMI the volumes of uranium that were being handled greatly 

increased. The first production round was the 30 mm GAU-8 bullet. Production of this round 

required a heat treatment and quench in an oil bath. Anyone who is familiar with this heat treatment 

approach knows that the quench reaction is quite violent and spews particulate uranium 

contamination throughout the furnace interior. 

t and 

The initial furnaces that were acquired for this production were installed on the area in 

Building C. There was no restricted access to this area that would frequently visit. recall seeing 

, , performing and activity on these 

furnaces. He would drain the oil from the furnace and physically get inside the furnace to make 

repairs. This would sometimes take him hours to complete inside a furnace that was completely and 

thoroughly contaminated with uranium. He wore no special respirator or PAM and only had his film 

badge. 

This situation is recalled for the likely airborne exposure to which he was exposed, as well as 

representative of the NMI culture at the time. There was tremendous pressure to meet production 

goals at he time. A bonus program that rewarded employees monthly based on production 

benchmarks established the prior month reinforced this pressure. At its peak in the early 1980s, 

monthly a production goal of 500,000 rounds was typical. Each round weighed approximately one 

pound. Combined uranium production goals might be 500,000 rounds of US Air Force GAU-8, 

350,000 rounds of US Navy Phalanx and 5,000 rounds of US Army large caliber ammunition. This 

represented a huge quantity of uranium that was processed each month. All three targets had to met 

to qualify for the monthly bonus. As a result, employees would do whatever was necessary to meet 

monthly production targets at the expense of safe practices. 

13. Unmonitored Exposures – Uranium Liner Forming 

Location: Building C 250-Ton Birdsboro Hydraulic Press 

Approximate Date: 1978 - 1983 

Government Contract: Various 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Affidavit by John Kotyk 

A new application for depleted uranium emerged after Los Alamos Natinal Labs published a report 

on DU shaped charges for eastern gas shale penetration. Similar to the fracking method recently 

reported in the news for natural gas extraction, these shaped charges were used to increase oil well 

16 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
output by fracturing shale formations. began to develop processes to form the required 

hemispherical shells of DU. This include deep drawing plates of DU into preforms for machining. 

Initial forming trials involved heating the forming blanks in a lead bath near the 250-ton Birdsboro 

press in Building C. Later on switched to using hot oil. After heating, the hot uranium blanks 

were manually removed from the bath and placed in the tooling mounted within the hydraulic press. 

This process produced an extensive amount of fumes and smoke. There was no ventilation of the 

area or respirators or PAMs used during processing, which would take several hours per batch. 

This process definitely produced unmonitored exposures to uranium particulates. 

14. Unmonitored Exposures – Extrusion Press 

Location: Building C 

Approximate Date: 1978 - 1983 

Government Contract: Various 

Additional Supporting Documentation: N/A 

One area for cost reduction that was considered were ways to eliminate the copper cladding of 

uranium billets for extrusion into penetrator bar stock. The manufacturing technicians and set up 

some experiments to evaluate molten salt as a lubricant for extruding bare uranium rods. We would 

heat the 4-1/2” diameter x 20” length billets in the area resistance furnace to red heat extrusion 

temperature (approx 1,100 oF). Once at temperature, would roll them out of the furnace and 

apply powdered salts. The salt would immediately melt and coat the billets. would then feed the 

billet onto the extrusion loader for extrusion. 

The hot billets would emerge from the furnace highly oxidized and with occasional surface flames. 

The heat and flame allowed for uranium particulates to get suspended for possible inhalation. No 

respirators or PAMs were used and the entire transfer and salt application area was not ventilated. 

15. Concord Fire Department Service Calls 

Location: Concord Fire Department 

Approximate Date: 1970 - 1983 

Government Contract: N/A 

Additional Supporting Documentation: Concord Fire Department Records, Appendix C 

Concord Fire Department service calls to the West Concord plant have the potential to illustrate a 

number of instances of fires and explosions at NMI. It is unlikely that they were reported to the 

NRC or state authorities. hope to obtain this service call record in an attempt to prod memory 

to recall specific reasons for the emergency response. However, it can also be compared to a lack of 

other reported and unreported occurrences to the NRC and state agencies. Since there was typically 

no monitoring of employee exposures, reporting employee overexposures was not required. 

The Concord Fire Department is currently undergoing renovations. The old service call records 

were manually recorded on cards and are stored in the attic. It has been a tedious process to gather 

these records which may not be available when this petition is submitted. As soon as they are 

received, will submit them. 

17 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
16. Plant Material Handling, Employee Access and Traffic Pattern Contamination 

Location: Buildings A, B, C, D, E and Butler Building 

Approximate Date: 1970 - 1983 

Government Contract: All 

Additional Supporting Documentation: other affidavits
 

Employee foot traffic patterns in the plant prior to 1983 presented additional difficulties for 

containing contamination spread. Many product lines required the extensive movement of large 

volumes of uranium in order to access equipment in locations not optimal to minimizing material 

handling. It wasn’t until entry to all manufacturing areas required passage through a central change 

area after 1983 that contamination control was somewhat achieved. 

Prior to that time contamination control was non-existent. Employees would pass in and out of 

separate control areas to unrestricted access areas of the plant with trivial, if any, steps taken to 

minimize contamination spread. It was impossible to adequately control the spread of contamination 

by the wheels of process carts that were used to transport materials from one area to another. 

When was employed as a in 1977, was issued a pair of safety shoes, but not a 

pair of hot shoes. Hot shoes were used in later years. These would be stored at a restricted access 

entry point for you to change into when entering a hot area. The use of separate process area shoes 

was not required for the engineers. was able to enter most, or all processing areas wearing 

street shoes. The requirement for wearing disposable booties and lab coats was somewhat optional 

and not an enforced requirement until after 1983. 

Gatorade stations were prevalent in most processing areas to prevent heat exhaustion. By the mid 

1980s, these stations were moved to the entry change areas for what had become restricted access 

areas. 

In 1981 installed a classified machining and PVD coating lab in Building A for high precision 

warhead liner manufacture. had a cipher lock installed to restrict access but no clothing/shoe 

change area for about two years. that were cleared were free to enter and 

exit without changing shoes or washing hands. 

There was also considerable contamination of the main elevator in This elevator was 

used to transport waste machine chips and grinding sludge to the Butler Building for processing. 

Ex-employee, , recently informed that the elevator floor was replaced in the 

1990s because it was impossible to decontaminate and that the elevator shaft remains highly 

contaminated to this day. It was impossible with the transport patterns that were used to contain and 

restrict contamination to process areas. This corridor access to the elevator was the same path used 

by employees to gain access to the lunchroom, with no change areas in between. 

Tacky floor mat applications at some locations were totally ineffective, inadequately monitored for 

effectiveness and were quite frequently not used prior to 1983. There was no restricted access to 

chemistry lab on the second floor of during this period. Many workers would 

gather here at break times to eat, drink and smoke. would make popcorn and show 8 mm movies 

during the break. This is the same building that housed engineering and administrative offices. 

18 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 was able to enter the area in street clothes and shoes. , a 

fellow affidavit submitter to this petition, can remember coming to him so could refresh the 

drink with grain alcohol from his lab. A report got back to supervisor on what had done and 

was called to his office. didn’t get fired but was told that what 

In an attempt to provide evidence of just how loosely H&S standards were, remember a situation 

where was only employed by NMI for about a month in 1977. had an off site Christmas 

luncheon and was not much of a drinker. However, did have a few of those drinks that are served 

in a carved out pineapple. returned to the plant with one of these and went to the in 

building to offer the guys a drink. The was where we produced 30 mm GAU-8 

uranium bullets and 

had done was not a very good idea 

and not to do it again. 

 can recall having 

numerous difficulties getting shoes clean in order to get an acceptable reading. It was still 

possible to ignore the alarm and exit without difficulty because the guards were stationed a 

considerable distance away and were not tasked with ensuring that all employees were cleared by the 

automated monitoring systems. and others, did exit in frustration on many occasions after 

repeatedly, and unsuccessfully doing the best

Hand and foot monitoring was first implemented in the mid 1980s for entry and exit from the 

building from a central location in Building C. When this was first implemented 

 could to decontaminate our shoes. 

Some employees developed ways of fooling the hand and foot monitors. This included using the 

tips of your fingers to spread the hand monitor and avoiding insertion of your entire hand while 

placing your feet and shoes outside the expanded metal grid area for the feet. 

17. AEC/NRC Archival Records, H&S Violations and Employee Over Exposures 

Location: Buildings A, B, C, D, E, Butler Building and external grounds 

Approximate Date: 1970 - 1983 

Government Contracts: All 

Additional Supporting Documentation: other affidavits, Appendices A, B, F & I, Reports 

and articles 

An on line search was made on the NRC web site in order to uncover reported events from 

inspections, violations and employee over exposures from inadequate health and safety (H&S) 

practices. While some documents were available as pdf format files, many others appear to be 

available only as microfiche. included some of these documents as supporting information for this 

petition. Other files may have to be requested in the course of evaluating this petition. 

It is not clear how NIOSH may distinguish between AEC/DoE sponsored activity and residual 

contamination from such activity, or why this distinction may be important to the administration of 

claims. However, CP-5 enriched fuel element production and storage in the Butler Building was on 

going up to at least 1974. Other reactor fuel rod braze ring contracts requiring a Beryllium alloy 

were also active within the time period covered by this petition. Beryllium processing was constant 

during this period. DoE sponsored contract work was funded well into the 1990s and included the 

AVLIS Program for DoE laser enrichment of depleted uranium bars produced by NMI West 

Concord. A list of AEC and DoE contracts awarded to NMI West Concord are submitted with this 

petition as Appendix F. 

There was also a period in NMI’s history when Massachusetts became an “agreement” state, at 

which time occurrences of employee over exposures were no longer reported to the NRC. Robert 

Halloran was the point of contact at that time with the Massachusetts Department of Health, Division 

19 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
of Radiation Control. If needed, it may be possible to uncover further evidence of reported 

employee over exposures through this source. 

The various AEC reports from 1974 (see Appendix A) vary between outrage of “deplorable” safety 

standards, a direct quote from this correspondence, to complimentary for efforts to take corrective 

action. When you consider the observations for a lack of employee monitoring and contamination 

control in this, and other, affidavits, which is the more likely? The 2006 EPA report (Report No. 

EPA-402-R-06-011 in Appendix A) shows that past violations included the improper, and perhaps 

illegal, disposal of radioactive waste at the West Concord site. The site is now an EPA superfund 

site on the National Priority List. 

The circa 1993 assessment report by the Division of Waste Management illustrates a legacy at the 

site of gross contamination of ground water that has yet to be fully mitigated at the West Concord 

plant. The 2006 EPA report and NMI case study (see Appendix A, EPA Report No. EPA-402-R-06­

011, Page 32), and as many of us at NMI had heard stories over the years, were comprised of 

contaminated waste drums found buried at NMI West Concord. This waste was buried at NMI when 

they moved in 1958 from the Cambridge Hood Building. This represented legacy-contaminated 

waste from AEC sponsored AWE work performed at the Hood building in Cambridge, MA. The 

2004 Environmental Magazine article (Appendix I) reported 3,800 drums were found buried at the 

West Concord site. 

The 1974 AEC report previously mentioned accepted from NMI management a statement that all 

waste associated with their expiring source license was cleaned up. The AEC never independently 

verified this and this was obviously untrue as the buried drums attest. 

In the 1974 report, both Ralph Franks and Al Gilman handled responses to NRC criticisms. Neither 

of these individuals had formal training or education in radiation health physics. 

Another document that was uncovered involved administrative law proceedings against Starmet in 

South Carolina (Appendix I). Starmet was the company name that NMI changed to in the 1990s. 

This document shows a pattern of ongoing health & safety violations over an extended period of 

time and collusion by management to send and store waste in West Concord. After being told to 

stop this practice by Massachusetts authorities, management sent waste to South Carolina in 

violation of regulatory orders not to do this. There were so many violations of H&S practices that 

SC eventually imposed severe, unpaid, civil penalties and ordered their shut down. The National 

Guard was sent in to enforce this shut down. 

The documents disclose a “sham recycling company” division that was set up to facilitate the 

improper storage of wastes. Reading the litany of violations during this latter period reminded me of 

the many ignored standards in the 1974 AEC/NRC documents and criticisms. 

In a separate affidavit by , contamination from enriched uranium metallographic 

samples were never removed from equipment in the early 1970s. This residual 

contamination was still present and unknown by later hired employees, , that used this 

equipment. 

Were these the actions of responsible management? How much can trust from the official 

reports from this management, the AEC or NRC? I believe it is more accurate to say that NMI 

health and safety standards were deplorable for many years. Any comforting statements in these 

20 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
reports about a lack of inspection violations or adequacy of planned corrective actions are reputed by 

the recollections in this and other affidavits. 

For the period covered by this petition there are some fairly severe violations of safety and 

monitoring practices including the record of contamination spread from the plant to employee homes 

in 1974. (see Appendix A for various AEC reports) have a limited recall of a similar problem 

being uncovered in the early 1980s but can find no official records. 

 was repeatedly told when wished to perform off 

site evaluations of depleted uranium processing at non-licensed facilities. 

 know that depleted uranium bullets manufactured at the plant were found in an employee’s home. 

At a minimum, this demonstrated very poor control of radioactive materials containment within the 

plant. Many years ago, returned my two-pound collection of uranium bullets to NMI. also Yes,

took these from the plant. justified my ability to possess less than 15 pounds of depleted uranium 

without requiring an NRC license. This is what 

The records show a repeated failure by NMI management to take effective corrective actions that 

prevented the same violations from recurring. Reported and documented employee over exposures 

illustrates a failure to prevent such over exposures well into the 1990s. 

There is an evolution of the company during and outside the time frame of this petition that is worth 

considering. From 1970 until 1983 the company was quite small. I was the 125th employee in 1977. 

A certain critical mass in staffing is necessary for a robust H&S program. It wasn’t until after 1983 

that growing staffing levels and increased staff competency allowed for this. During the 1970 – 

1983 period, Mr. Ralph Franks and Mr. Al Gilman had responsibility for ensuring employee safety. 

Neither individual had a formal education or training in radiation health physics. 

Regardless, change was slow as business volume increased and costs associated with changes to the 

way things were done were increasing significantly. These were resisted and allowed for 

deficiencies in H&S practices longer than should have been permitted. 

Significant costs were associated with the implementation of hand and foot monitors at the main 

entry point and the closure of the entrance lobby to employee entry and exit in the mid 1980s. 

Additional expensive changes included the investment in a significant increase in graphite foundry 

tooling in order to allow for a cool down period to reduce employee exposures in the foundry. 

don’t ever recall this approach being taken for green salt reduction area tooling at West Concord that 

predated the foundry practice changes. 

The September 2000 report by Radioactive Waste Management Associates indicates that there is 

appreciable contamination, well above background levels, in the areas surrounding the NMI West 

Concord plant. It reports that unmonitored workers were exposed to airborne contamination while 

eating their lunch at outside picnic tables and walking to their cars in the parking lot. Contamination 

of exterior surfaces, like the parking lot, was most likely contaminated by a combination of foot 

traffic and airborne releases. The extent of external plant contamination, up to 0.5 km, could only 

have come as a result of airborne releases from plant ventilation exhaust. 

It was reported that in 1980, drinking well SW-2A was contaminated with eight different VOC 

compounds. Up to 350 employees worked for NMI West Concord at that time and were 

contaminated by this drinking water. It does not indicate whether this specific well was tested for 

radionuclide contamination at that time. However, it reports that many other wells exhibit high 

21 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

levels of radionuclide contamination. This report has other referenced reports by the EPA, CFR and 

other sources that could provide additional information and data on this contamination. 

This overview shows that there was a distinct difference in the quality of the H&S program before 

and after 1983. The fact that eating, smoking and drinking were still permitted in many process 

areas up until the early 1980s illustrates this contrast in H&S practices. can recall seeing many 

workers eating their lunch in contaminated process areas. Was this permitted behavior consistent 

with a management that would have required process area monitoring during this period, or required 

the use of PAMs during high-risk activity for airborne contamination? From 

know this data was never collected. 

How can exposure data from the mid to late 1980s be extrapolated back to this earlier time period 

and provide an accurate assessment of dose reconstruction? Many NMI West Concord claims have 

limited data from this petition time period, particularly for internal uptakes and exposures when so 

many immature processes and hazardous developmental activities were not monitored. How can 

single point urinalysis data used in some claim dose estimates, from time periods outside the 1970­

1983 time frame, be considered a statistically accurate assessment of employee exposures? High 

solubility uranium compounds, like UF4 and UO2F2 target the kidneys and are excreted very quickly. 

They would not be present in urinalysis data from the mid to late 1980s. 

The cancer causality models used by NIOSH assume only radiation exposure and do not consider 

chemical toxicity of high solubility uranium compounds and their carcinogenic effects. This 

establishes a very high bar for cancer causality that does not reflect the true potential for 

unmonitored internal exposures and their causality related cancers. How can this be claimant 

favorable? It appears to NMI West Concord claimants that NIOSH dose reconstruction and cancer 

causality models are designed to reject as many claims as possible. 

 also reconstructed NMI West Concord employee claim statistics and reviewed many of their 

dose reconstruction reports (Appendix B). determined that there is a high probability that the 

DoL has included employees that worked at the SEC status Cambridge Hood Building in statistics 

for NMI West Concord. They may also be including an award for Beryllium exposure in with 

uranium exposure claims in the claim statistics reported by DoL. 

As a result, able to identify only one person, , who has worked 

exclusively at the NMI West Concord facility who has received an award under the EEOICPA 

Program for uranium exposure. That award was made only after his heirs engaged a lawyer to 

pursue his claim. One claimant even received a causation level of 48.9% and was rejected. 

This makes the basic statement that NIOSH protocols for establishing employment related cancer 

causality and dose reconstruction conclude that there were very limited, employment associated, 

radiation-based hazards at NMI West Concord that could have caused cancer in these employees. 

This judgment is further compromised by the recent DoE disclosure of enriched uranium fuel rod 

recycling and contamination of DU. This judgment appears to be totally unreasonable when 

considering the evidence presented in this petition. In light of the evidence submitted with this 

petition, have claimant favorable estimates for internal exposures considered the severity of these 

chronic unmonitored exposures to high solubility airborne particulates? 

Lastly, when you consider all of the unmonitored activity was permitted to engage in, was not 

unique. Radon was not on radar for concern and monitoring. However, in the mid 1980s 

became aware of potential risks and steps were taken to evaluate the issue. unaware of the 

22 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
outcome of any monitoring other than the problem was also uncovered at CMI in Barnwell, SC in 

the 1990s. What health risks were associated with these unmonitored exposures at NMI, West 

Concord? How were these exposures exacerbated by the enriched uranium contamination of DU 

recently disclosed by the DoE? The SC Department of Health & Environmental Safety may be able 

to tell us from their records of the details of radon problems at CMI. They can be contacted via email at radon@dhec.sc.gov. 

18. Summary 

In aggregate, feel there is ample evidence to seriously question the feasibility of NIOSH to estimate 

external doses, and particularly internal dose levels of radiation for individual members of the class 

with sufficient accuracy. 

 further suggest that there is a reasonable likelihood that chronic exposures to a range of uranium 

compounds through unmonitored intakes of radionuclides resulted in sufficiently high doses that 

endangered the health of members of the proposed class. It is unlikely that NIOSH has factored in 

additional radiation exposures from the DoE’s enriched uranium fuel rod recycling that 

contaminated the DU used for penetrator manufacture. In addition, there is the potential for 

unmonitored radon exposures, particularly from unexpected radionuclides present from the prior 

fission of uranium in the recycled spent fuel rods. 

Any site profile for NMI West Concord should specifically address these allegations that there was a 

fundamental lack of health and safety control, lack of employee monitoring for radioactive doses, 

lack of work area monitoring of airborne contamination, consistent lack of effective corrective action 

by management, missing employee exposure data, higher levels of U235 and other radionuclides not 

associated with typical depleted uranium concentrations, and that there were secondary exposures 

(i.e. exposure of family members) to radioactive contamination. have been unable to identify an 

official NIOSH site profile for NMI West Concord. 

These observations and supporting reports all contribute to a finding that NIOSH would be unable to 

perform internal and external dose reconstructions that are scientifically sound and claimant 

favorable. 

In particular, seek a finding that the information available from sources is not sufficient to 

document or estimate the maximum internal doses to NMI West Concord workers under plausible 

circumstances for the specified period. 

. However, while have no particular 

expertise or training in radiation health physics, present this in support as a qualified observer of 

the health concerns raised in this affidavit. 

Notarization of this affidavit is provided for all 24 pages, and includes referenced documents, 

supporting affidavits provided in Appendices A through I, CD and DVD. 

The occurrences and situations described in this affidavit are truthful and the best capable of 

recalling from at NMI, West Concord, MA. educational background 

includes 

23 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

Signed this day of , 2011 

24 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independently reconstructed DoL claim statistics for NMI Hood Building and West 

and . 

List of Appendices and Supporting Documents 

Appendix A – NRC web site search for documents relating to NRC license SMB-179 and results 

of available as pdf and microfiche documents along with copies of the following 

documents. 

February 1974 AEC Unannounced Inspection Report, List of Violations and 

Questions of Plant Operation Safety and “Deplorable” Conditions. 

March 1974 AEC Consideration of Civil Penalties Unannounced Inspection 

Report CP5 Production 

June 1978 NMI report of worker over exposure 

1982 March NMI Report on 1981 worker over exposure 

1984 May NMI report of worker over exposure 

1996 February NMI Vent Fire Report 

circa 1993 Analysis of Nuclear Metals Site (ground water contamination) by 

Performance Assessment and Hydrology Branch, Division of Waste Management, 

Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. 

1996 AEC/NRC license history of NMI, 1942 to date 

2006 EPA Report No. EPA-402-R-06-011, Page 32, of radioactive waste and drums 

buried in prior years at NMI West Concord site 

Appendix B – 

Concord employees compiled by 

Appendix C – NMI Concord Fire Department emergency service call records between 1970 and 

1983. 

Appendix D – Covers and excerpts from technical reports referenced in the affidavit by 

Appendix E – Affidavits submitted by NMI employees in support of this petition 

Appendix F – List of AEC/DoE Contracts with NMI between 1970 and 1983 

Appendix G – List of NMI employees and contact information for a future NIOSH outreach effort 

for additional information. 

Appendix H – EPA NPL Site Narrative (NMI) 

Appendix I – Radon, CMI and NMI referenced documents 

25 of 25 SEC Petition Affidavit ­