lugust, 1961

on assembly.

rethod yields
ved counting

ween several
in alpha air
‘ements were
face velocity

- averages of
.. der different
*, Variations
10% with no
vation.
mitoring the

2g Papers

Pres-
ue
fal finches
% Jot

mer-
cury

ia

% } 30

ae

Industrial Hygiene Journal

glass fiber medium (Gelman E) is superior to
the popular H¥-70, both with Tespect, to sur-
face collection and flow resistance. While the
Whatman polystyrene paper has higher surface
retention than glass fiber, it has the disadyan-
tages of high flow resistance and being difficult
to handle without shredding. Glass fiber is
available in a variety of thieknesses; however,
the thinner stocks are too fragile to be service-
able for field use. As might be expected, the sur-
face collection efficiencies for the two HV-70 pa-
pers (9-mil and 20-mil) show greater burial
in the thicker paper. Final choice of filter media
must depend on a balance between the factors
of surface collection, flow resistance, and ease of
hendling,

Collection Efficiency of Millipore AA

The Millipore AA paper is used in the test
procedure merely to normalize all measurements
to a single reference. As such, filters are com-
pared one to another with respect to surface
collection, but always relative to Millipore AA.
The only requirements of the reference filter
then are that it have relatively high surface
retentivity for the test aerosol employed, and
that it be reproducible in performance.

It is recognized that Millipore AA paper does
not collect all the natural activity available
from atmospheric dust. In fact, Fitagerald and
Detwiler’ found that the optimum size for pene-
tration through Millipore AA was in the size
range of 0.01 micron, the same general range
in which Wilkening found most of the natural
radioactivity. However, since we have found
no reference filter significantly superior to the
“Millipore prodict in surface collection, we have
chosen this filter as a point of reference.

Comparison of Data: Natural Activity Measure-
ments versus DOP

The method just described is designed to de-
termine relative surface collection efficiencies of
filter media. It is of interest, however, to compare
filter penetration data obtained using this
method with the 03-1 DOP method. Such a
comparison is shown in Table II, DOP data are
based on the work of Smith and Suprenant?
The equipment (Figure 1) could not be operated
accurately at the lower velocities; accordingly,
2 closed-shell sample holder using larger sections
of filter paper was placed in series with the
Millipore backup filter. Otherwise the procedure
was the same.

Retention of aerosols by a filter is due to
several forces: impaction (inertial separation),
interception, electrostatic forces, and diffusion.

235

La Mer has discussed these factors in some de-
tail2® For our present purpose it is sufficient to
note that:

{1) The size of atmospheric dust particles
carrying the majority of natural airborne
activity is about one-tenth the size of the
DOP aerosol.

(2) Diffusional separation is more effective for
small particles and is greater at low veloc
ities, since the slower the aerosol passes |
through the filter the more time the par-
ticle will have for diffusion away from the
air streamline,

(3) Retention by impaction increases with
Particle size and velocity.

From Table II it is seen that the deviation be-
tween the two methods is greatest for filters such
as glass fiber, which show high efficiency for re-
taining 0.3-», DOP. Penetration of natural ac-
tivity through this medium appears to be inde-
pendent of velocity. However, because of the
small amount of activity collected on the backup
filter, the statistical errors are too large to con-
firm this observation.

Medium efficiency filters such as HV-70 show
good agreement ai low velocities. At higher ve-
locities, when separation of 0.3-p DOP ig in-
fluenced by the impaction mechanism, the agree~
ment deteriorates.

Whatman 41, which shows relatively low effi-
ciency for retaining either size aerosol, clearly
indicates that the penetration of both natural
activity and DOP is velocity dependent. Figure
3 shows the penetration-vs-velocity curve for

+ Taste I
Comparison of Penetration Measurements,
Natural Airborne Activity vs 0.3-4 DOP.

Penetration %
7 th Velocity, —
Filter medium ‘fay Nal
aetny | Oe DOP
Glass fiber 20 2 0.08
150 = 0.01
200 2 -
HV-70 ~ 4 3.5
150 - 0.1
200 2 -
Whatman 41 5 _ 8
83 2 -
20 42 a
50 eB or
160 - “a
ns 2 -
10 - ci
200 2 ot



John Till November 19, 2004

Page 14 Page 16
09:17:56 1 ‘The seven key issues are in order of priority: 09:22:47 1 asthe mumber-one priority to make an improvement on, is
09:18:00 2 1, Airmodel concems. Many people remain concemed | 09:22:53 2 it your testimony that the — that improvements in the
09:18:06 3 about, quote, disappearance factors, end of quote, 09:22:58 3 RATCHET model itself were not needed; is that correct?
09:18:10 4 hyphen, the inconsistencies between measured and 09:23:02 4 Is that correct?
09:18:14 5 predicted deposition of iodine in the 1940s, hyphen, and | 09:23:03 5 MR RADFORD: Objection, compound.
09:18:18 6 — the role weather and topogmphy may have played in the | 09:23:07 6 MR FOULDS: I'm sorry, I dido't hear that
09:18:22 7 amounts and locations of radioactive iodine deposited. j 09:23:10 7 last response. Would you read it back. i
09:18:29 8 Now, Dr. Till, in reading this, would it be 09:23:16 @ ‘THE REPORTER: I dont think he gave a 4
09:18:33 9 correct to say that as of the time of the release of 09:23:17 9 response. f
09:18:3710 Phase It - of the Phase i HEDR report in 1994, would | 09:23:1810 A. Tm going to ask you to repeat your question
09:18:4511  itbe correct to say that it could not be used, quote, 09:23:2011 again. q
09:18:4912 With confidence in Hanford health-related work, end of | 09:23:2812 Q. (BYMR FOULDS) Isit your testimony that FE
09:18:5413 quote? 09:23:3613 despite the indication in the TSP final repott that the
09:18:5714 MR RADFORD: Objection, form. 09:23:4814 air modeling needed some work to remedy disappearmee |
09:19:0015 A. I would appreciate your repeating that 09:24:0815 factors and inconsistencies between measure and
09:19:0216 question. 09:24:1216 predictions deposition of iodine in the 1940s, is it

09:19:0417 — Q (@BYMR FOULDS) Sure, Would it be correct to |09:24:1817 — yourtestimony that subsequent studies showed that such
09:19:0618 say that as of the time the Phase I! HEDR report was 09:24:2218 improvement in the RATCHET model was not necessary?
09:19:1619 released in 1994, that it could not be used, quote, With | 09:24:2619 MR. RADFORD: Objection, compound, foundation.
09:19:2420 confidence in Hanford-related work, end of quote? 09:24:2920 A. AsI mentioned, at the end of HEDR we
09:19:3121 A. I would say that when the Phase II results 09:24:3221 indicated there were a number of concems about the air
09:19:3822 were released, there was additional work that we felt | 09:24:3622 model that warranted a further look. And these were
09:19:4623  thatshould be done, These are not my words that they | 09:24:4323 looked at subsequent to the HEDR project, Andin

a

—

09319:5224  couldnot be used with confidence, of course, but—and | 09:24:4924. addition to this, the model has been reviewed, peer- - ff
r 09:19:5825 _ that following what was done, or following that report | 09:24:5625 _ reviewed, validated, and as a result has not been 5
f Page 15 Page 17f
I 09:20:02 1 in 1994, there were a mumber of additional issues that 09:25:03 1 changed. And I do not feel that it needs to be changed. be
| 09:20:12 2 were addressed by CDC and other scientists that would [| 09:25:45 2 MR. FOULDS: Would you mark this as—Iguess
09:20:20 3 haveraised this tevel of confidence in the TSP results. 09:25:49 3 the next exhibit should be 3,
09:20:29 4 — Q._Nowthe~do you know what improvements, if | 09:26:05 4 Weposition Exhibit-3 was marked.)
Lo any, have been made in the air modeling since this, 69:26:15 5 Q. (BY MR_FOULDS), Dr. Till, the xeparter has ,, -
vo ‘inal — Since the final Phase report?” 09:26:17 6 _ passed:you Exhibit 3, which is entitled Technical
' 09:21:06 7 MR RADFORD: Objection, form, ambiguous. 09:26:23 7 Steering Panel Task Report, published December 1995,
y 09:21:11 8 A. I don't know that the air modeling has been 09:26:29 8 Comparison of HEDR Atmospheric Models to Environmental
' 09:21:13 9 changed much at all. What I can tell you is that since 09:26:33 9 Data at Other Sites.
09:21:2210 that time the air model used in HEDR, which is the 09:26:3810 And 1 would direct your attention, sir, 10

09:21:2811 RATCHET model, has undergone a tremendous amount of | 09:26:4011 page 9 in which they are reviewing the Regional
09:21:3312 scrutiny, review, validation, and so forth. So I would 09:26:5722 Atmospheric Transfer Code for Hanford Emission Tracing,
09:21:4213 have to put it in that context that the RATCHET model 09:27:0413 we're using the acronym RATCHET. And the number-one

09:21:4624 has held up very well. 09:27:1214 conclusion, “Time Sequence-Vegetation Contamination
09:21:5215 As far as changes are concemed, no, they have 09:27:2315 Comparisons, Visual evaluation of the HEDRIC model is,
‘ 09:21:5516 not undergone — RATCHET has not undergone significant | 09:27:2816 that only below about 316 nanocuries of lodine-131 per
09:22:0017 changes. 09:27:3417 kilogram of vegetation does the median prediction of the

: 09:22:0118 Q (BY MR FOULDS) Well, the reason I ask isthe | 09:27:3718 model agree within the factor of three within the

list of the key issues that remain to be resolved, the 09:27:4029 measured results. At higher concentrations median model
air model was listed as the number-one concem. Now if | 09:27:4320 predictions are within an order of magnitude agreement.
T understand your response correctly, sir, you feel that 09:27:4622 Furthermore, the model undespredicts the resultant
subsequent analysis of the RATCHET model indicated that | 09:27:4922 Iodine-131 in the great majority of cases."

‘it was holding up fairly well, to use your —T'm trying 09:27:5523 ‘Now would it be your testimony that further

to use your terminology ~ or how would you expressit? | 09:27:5724 study of RATCHET indicated that that underprediction and
09:22:4525 In other words, even though this was indicated 09:28:1025 coming just within an order of magnitude at higher

5 (Pages 14 to 17)
(CCbBf345-259a-424f-8954-daclSdds4df0



Atmospheric dispersion and deposition of "1 @ 5. V. Rassoee er a, sis
tions far downwind will be relatively high, However, ‘Table 6. Variability in the fate of "| in (00 reatizations,

these higher Concentrations do not result, in 7 December 1944 through 1949,

ingly high deposition at distance because the effective Total release Deposited in Decayed in Left uady

deposition velocity is low. study area (5) stady area (9%) area (%)
Yakima, which is included in Table 5, is slightly = 257% 10" 565 96 BS

farther from the release point than Richiand. Thus. the Standard deviation 1.37 x [9° 65 090. a4

correlation betweea the organic fraction and’ time- Maxinmm 293x108 Tha 16 459

integrated air concentrations at Yakima is consistent with Minima 233x373 78 Bg

ie ape Pa
correlation for Richland: however, Table § hows that study area, ~10% decayed while in transit in the atmo-
there is no correlation, Although there is ‘no provt sphere within the study area, and the remaining 34% left

released material reac ima ; the values at specific nodes Or for shonter time periods.
year, feached Yakima only a few times each _ [ie vaciabilty in the organic iodine factor es

The footprint for median estimates of the maximum ‘Major conttibutor to the variations in the overall '"]
surface contamination at any time during the S-y period “Mass balance, Fig. 7 shows the relationship between the
is shown in Fig. 6 For most of the study area, the fraction of the I deposited in the seudy area and the
maximum surface contamination is — 10% of the total organic fraction. The variations in the organic fraction
deposition. This result is consistent With the pater of — &ccount for almost 50% of the Yattations in the total
monthly releases shown in Fig. 3. While it is highly deposition. Variations in the organic fraction account for
unlikely that the maximum surface contamination oc- similar Percentages in the amount of“ that decayed
curred simultaneously over the entire area. itis likely char during atmospheric transport within the soudy area and
the maxima for most locations in the mais portion of the the amount that left the erea. In contrast to the variation
tL footprint occurred during the last half of 1945, . shown in Fig. 7, these last two correlations were positive,

Heeb (1994) estimates that ~2.6 x 10* TBq of iy Tucreasing the Organic fraction increases the percentage
Were released from Hanford during the first 5 years of of °"T that decayed in, or departed from, the study area.

using the mass balance statistics Benerated by CONCLUSIONS

the released at Hanford was deposited within the Early HEDR Project Studies desermined that exist-

ee ing: information” was ‘sufficient tp reconstruct the '3']

ce ce ~ . feleases to the atmosphere from carly Hanford Site

a Operations and to track the }3'] through the environment.

‘Therefore. the HEDR Project developed a suite of com.

puter codes to estimate the tadionuclide releases, track

them through the environment, and estimate doses. The
RATCHET computer code is Part of this suite.

#

20% 20% 40% 5a% 3% 70% 80%
Organic loging
Percent of "'f deposited 25 a funciona of the

Fig. 6. Median estimates of the maximum surface contamination Fig. 7. Variation i
(KBg m7"). December 1942 through December 1949. Dercent of nroanie



- UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT

Page 138 Page 140 |r
1 Q. Did you -- did you confirm, In your own i THE WITNESS: There ~ there needs to be
2 mind, that the actual coding does not create the 2 some statement made as to there ~ we cannot, as
3 error as suggested by the printed equation 2.62? {| 3 scientists, do everything from the ground up. From
4 A. 1- reviewed the coding and looked at 4 ground zero, We have to rely on work, quality work,
5 — Doctor Stewart's — where he pointed out the error, | 5 of others, And we establish that quality by the
6 and then went back to the definitions of all the 6 peer review process and by fooking and checking each |
7 terms that made up that equation. And so, onthe | 7 one of our ~ all our work to ~ if — if we cannot
8 surface, without looking at the definition of the 8 proceed in that, if everybody tas to check
9 terms, one might conclude there was an error. But] 9 everything from the ground up, then we can throw our
10 after reviewing the definition of the terms, Fm 10 atms up and give up. I mean, we have to build on
11 _ satisfied that the equation was coded correctly in {11 what's been done before.
12 RATCHET. 12. BY MR. FOULDS:
13 Q. Okay. Oh, well —~ well, you would still B Q. Mr. Rood, isn't it also true that you
14 need the definition of G of Z prime, wouldn't you, {14 never bothered to -- or ~ or never — I shouldn't
15 to make that determination? 15 use the word bothered, because I'm not trying to be
16 A. Gf Z prime is defined within the code 16 disparaging.
17 and it's defined as Van Ramsdell had explained toa {17 Isn't it true that you never ran Stewart's
18 me. 18 mass balance file, for whatever reason, although it
19 Q. Okay. 19 was identified for you several months ago, along
20 A. And I found the definition, it ~ it can 20 with the devices on how to run it?
21 ~~ be -- if - if you have a copy of the code I can 21 MR. FOULDS: Objection. Asked and
22 point that out. 22 answered. Form. Compound.
23 MR. FOULDS: Okay. Okay. Well, that-- {23 THE WETNESS: I looked — I obtained his
24 ~~ okay. : . .24 source code to read the file. It's not really
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We're coming] 25 running it, it's reading it. I compiled iton my
Page 139 Page 141
1 __ pretty close to the end of the tape. 1 machine, and then ascertained that the file was.
2 MR. FOULDS: Yeah. Let's -- let's take a 2 binary and I couldn't read it directly on my
3 break and you can change your tape. 3 machine.
4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of { 4 At the time, our report was -- had to be put
| 5 _ tape number two.in the deposition of Arthur Rood. 5 outand, basically, rari"ouf of tirrie to look at that.
6 The time is now 3 o'clock. We're off the record. 6 We do have the mechanisms to -- as a team, to look
7 (Recess.) 7 atthat. I just have not got around to doing that.
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. 8 MR, FOULDS: Okay.
9 Here marks the beginning of tape number three inthe} 9 BY MR. FOULDS:
10 deposition of Arthur Rood. 10 Q. Now, just to summarize and finish up here.
it BY MR. FOULDS: 1i Isn't it also true you never ran a complete mass
12 Q. Mr. Rood, in review of your testimony so 12 balance comparison on RATCHET to test your theory
13 far, isn't it correct that as of the time of this 13 that summing across the nodes would be the proper,
14 — deposition, you have not reviewed the meteorological |14 or a proper, way to check mass balance?
15 data used by RATCHET to support your opinion that | 15 MR. RADFORD: Objection. Foundation.
16 the data available to RATCHET in the earliest five 16 Asked and answered.
17 years of Hanford operation, was complete enough to {17 THE WITNESS: To run -- again, I had to
18 provide adequate accuracy? 18 rely on the work — the previous work done by
19 MR. RADFORD: Objection. Foundation. 19 Ramsdell -- Ramsdell et al. in terms of their
20 Form. 20 reviewing the massive amount of data regarding mass
21 THE WITNESS: I relied on the work of HEDR {21 balance.
22 for some of my — for that opinion. 1 trusted the 22 Twas not trying to do a -- the definitive mass
23 work of HEDR for that. I think there should be some {23 balance comparison of RATCHET or — or any
24 — statement made that we cannot -- 24 — definitive mass balance. I'm looking at a ~ what
2 MR, FOULDS: Excuse me, sir. 25

we call a sanity check. And, usually, if the sanity

36 (Pages 138 to 141)



TP, Martel

im Copy No.

han TTT



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

OMB Number, 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Page 1 of 2

VS Petitioner Authorization Form
is fori is voluniagy Falta’

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 1
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: If you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
a 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.

Name of Class Member or Survivor

f
+ S Street Address of Class Merfiber or Survivor Apt. # P.O. Box
_ 7 ~ a .
: City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor
. do hereby anthariza:
Name or Petitioner. .
_ 1 Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box
City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner
i te petition the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a class of employees
. that Includes:
Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor)
for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee’s
Occupational illness Compensation Program Act (62 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385).
In providing this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have all the rights
of 2 natitinnar se nrauidad for andar 42 CFR Part 83.
LS | Abit ofClaés Member or Strvivor 7 Date/ :

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



: where SC2,(x,y) = mass deposited at x,y from puff i by washout of particles
i . A. = washout coefficient (ur!)

H Q = mass in poffi

| r = horizontal distance of x,y from the ceuter of the puff
9, = horizontal diffusion coefficient (m)

At = time period (hr).

Equation (2.58) is derived by substituting a washout coefficient for the deposition velocity in
Equation (2.58) and then integrating the equation from ground level through the vertical extent of the

puff
The total surface contamination at x,y during any period At is the sum of the contributions of all
paffs:
q SC(x,y) = >> ISCl,(x,y) + SC2,Q,y)] . (2.59)
i
2.7.5 Depletion

RATCHET maintains a mass balance. Material deposited on the surface by dry and wet
deposition is removed from the material in the puff by decreasing the total mass of the puff. Material .
is not selectively removed from the bottom of the puff. This approach, which is 2 variation of the
source-depletion modet described in Hanna et al. (1982), was used in MESOILT2.

In the atmosphere, deposition results in.a mass deficit in the layer of air next to the surface.
Source-depletion models instantaneously propagate this deficit through the full vertical extent of the
puff. This propagation is unrealistic, particularly in stable atmospheric conditions. Using the
resistance analogy to estimate deposition velocities does not deal with this problem explicitly.
However, using the resistance analogy results in lower deposition velocities during stable conditions,
which reduces the magnitude of the error.

_. . , The mass removed. from.each puff. is. determined. from analytical integration of the deposition
flux over the area covered by the puff and computation interval. The mass cemoved from each puff

to account for dry deposition of particles and dry and wet deposition of gases is computed using

H
'
H

ax @
AQ, = A f dy x1 de do 2.60)
H =O "0 .
|
i ‘Substituting the definition of x from Equation (2.29) for x and performing the integration, the
decrease in material becomes
4Q, = 24,QG@)at/f22)!"0,} @.61)
|
2.38

Pe


|
|
|
I
|

|
H
i

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Empioyeas Occupational Centers for Disease Controt and Prevention
liness Compensation Act National Institttte for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 1 of 2

Usé of this form is voluntary. Failure to use this formi will fit result in thé dei

sentnin sorocoomom ean Septin 3S ct mms
Instructions;

if you wish to petition HHS fo 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 may use this forth to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legibly.

For Further Information: If 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: 1-800-356-4674,

Authorization for individual of Entity to Petition HHS wit Behalf of 4 Glass of Employees for
Addlitiat to the Special Expositre Cohort

Lf

Name of Class Member or Survivor

; Street Address of Class Member or Survivor Apt. # P.O. Box

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

Name of Pelitioner an nee

‘Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box
idress of F

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner

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

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor}

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

in providing this Authorization, 1 tgcognize that the petitioner named above will have all the rights

42 CFR Part 83.
wee le _ =p
be oS

E

Signdttre d? ClasStviember or Survivor Date

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



x8) = QOFOGEVI28}%0,703 2.29)

where
” Q@ = mass of material (radionuclide) in the puff at time t
F@ = exponential function that describes the horizontal concentration distribution
G@) = set of terms describing the vertical concentration distribution,
6G, = diffusion coefficient that describes the spread of the puff in the horizontal
6, = diffusion coefficient that describes the spread of the puff in the vertical

F(¢) is defined by
FQ) = expl-12/Q02)} 2.30)

where = G9 + G- ~¥o)*, With x,y representing the position of the node and x,,y,
representing the horizontal position of the puff center.

‘The diffusion coefficient c, is assumed to be the same as the crosswind diffasion coefficient o, used
in Gaussian plume models.

Definition of G(z) requires further description of the modeling assumptions. The height of the
puff center above ground, which is assumed to be constant, is referred to as the effective release
height. If the release is from a stack or elevated vent, the effective release height is the actual stack
or veat height plus plume risé.

‘The ground and the top of the mixing layer are assumed to be totully reflecting surfaces for
material within the mixing layer. The top of the mixing layer is not a reffecting surface for material
above the mixing layer. Consequently, the top of the mixing layer is similar to a semipermeable
membrane.

GG) describes both the vertical diffusion of materia! and the effects of the reflection, Itisen
infinite sume that involves superposition of céntributions trom Virtual sources located below the ground
and above the top of the mixing layer. This approach follows from the discussion in Csanady (1973)
and is described in detail in Ramsdell et al. (1983). - When receptors are at ground level, as they are
in RATCHET, G@) is given by

G@ =2 > exp[-0.5@aH - b,)°0,7} @.31)

where H is the mixing-layes depth and h, is the effective release height.

The infinite sum of exponential terms rapidly converges to a limit. Only the terms with n = -1,
0, and 1 ace used in RATCHET. When the vertical diffusion coefficient becomes sufficiently large
@, * Horo, = 0.8h,, whichever is larger), material may be assumed to be uniformly distributed
in the vertical. In this case, G(z) is given by



Notes of Interview With
Bernard Saueressig on 8/15/96

to Hanford on 1951 as radiation engineer and was shift head for
radiation engineering that included the 234-5 building(the 2
pliant) until 1954, In 1957 he went to the Z plant as day
radiation monitoring (RM) supervisor for 4 years. In 1961 he went
to Purex as an operation shift supervisor responsible for Purex
headend eperations as well as for tank farm operations and
suveillance. In addition, Radiation Monitoring shift personnel
reported to him in support of the plant's radiation protection
Programs. In 1962 he assumed responsibility for the Strontium
Semiworks, a solvent exptraction Process for fission product
recovery which included loading of shielded transfer casks with
multi curies of strontium and cesium for on and off site
shipments. These operations were transferred to B plant some time
around 1965 for strontium recovery by solvent extraction and
cesium recovery by ion exchange. He continued shift operating
xesponsibilities until Jan.1974 when he became manager of the

- radiation monitoring group for the entire 200 area which included
the 2% plant... . .

The Z plant ventilation system had record samplers at
various locations. There were sampling ports in the ventilation
system ductwork, some at points before and after the HEPA
filters, and at the stack. These permitted the RM crews to draw
off a sample of the ventilation stream through a sample filter.
The sample filters used included Acropore AM 3000 and Whatman 40
: and also HV-70 types. These filters had pore size ratings from 2-
: 10 microns. We did not try to catch. those particles less‘ than two
“microns.(a Norm P, Nisick who was in radiological engineering
would possibly have a more detailed recollection of the makes and

types of sample filters used). The filter paper would be taken to
the counting room where the alpha disintegrations per minute

j (dpm) would be counted and converted into activity concentrations

‘ (microcuries per unit volume) by means of a graph that related

dpm to concentrations. We did not try to Sarthe fhe Vacuum lines, %

The samples for the 291Z%stack, which was the 200 ft. stack
for the Z plant, initially would be taken daily. The stack
samples were taken from the stack Plenum area at the base of the
stack. The sampler was a piece of Pipe with holes in it through
which the stack gas would be drawn by a vacuum pump through the
filter at the end of the piping connected to the sampling pipe.
The holes in the sampling Pipe were sized and spaced in an effort
designed to obtain an isokinetic sample (an even distribution of
the gasflow up the stack). Around the mid-70'’s a much improved
sampling system was installed at the 50 ft. level. The samples
for other sections of the ventilation duct work would also be
taken on a regular basis. Whenever they would get an abnormal
stack sample the RM crews would then backtrack through the
samples for the various upstream locations to determine the

| Mr.Saueressig had a degree in chemical engineering. He went

i
{



Exhibit L



Exhibit D



Atmospheric dispersion and deposition of 1 @ 1. ¥. Ransom x ar 373

rate of evolution of the iodine during fuel processing,
According to Heeb (1993), the Uncertainty in timing of
releases ranges from a few hours to a day or more. As 2
result. the uncertainty in release rate at a Specific time is
large, The release rate may range from 0 to several
terrabecquerels per hour. In contrast, the uncertainty in
total release over long periods, for example months or
years. is much smaller, Coefficients of variation of the
monthly release estimates are typically 0.1 or lower
(Heeb 1994),

For HEDR model runs, the iodine associated with
particles was assumed to be uniformly distribured be-

éach iodine fraction, based on these assumptions, is
shown in Table 3. Note that the sum of the fractions is
Constrained to be 100% and that the fraction for the
Particulate component is the only uniformly-distributed
fraction. The fractions for 4, and CHI are more likely to
be near the center of the tanges than near the ends. The
distribution of iodine among the three species was
changed from realization to realization but not within a
realization.

RESULTS

The footprints for the time-intégrated ""{ air con-
centrations and surface deposition are consistent with the
wind roses shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 4 shows a footprint
based on the median deposition at each of the nodes from
100 model ruus. The highest values near the Hanford Site . 134 oe ~
were found to the east and southeast of the release point, Be 4 Maen owas oF toral toad. deposition (Bq mTM*),
which is consistent with the prevailing winds at the eoember ] ugh December 1949.

Hanford Meteorology Station. Farther fftin the Sire. the

highest values are found to the northeast, which fs see wr nee .
consistent with the prevailing southwest winds in the Rares in total 0'T deposition in 100 realizations of
Mid-Columbia Basin. The pattem shown in Fig. 4 is = 5

Somewhat brozder than the footprint for a Yypical model x Smet Maximma Minimum
fun because the spatial correlations in deposition within Location (633 m1") GBqmTM) Sqm) (Bq mm}
a model realization were Jost by using median values. ~ ag FTE)

Variability of the total deposition from realization to Bonner's 3s al “
realization is a function of position within the study area. ey mm 339
In the 100 realizations, the ranges of values at nodes in

Coulee City 249 $46

the main part of the footprint are generally less than a Lewiswon 18.6 3

factor of four. but the ranges for several nodes at the edge Othello *6 5 MS
OF the footprine exceed an order of magnitude. Table 4 Ped eon 766 85
shows statistics for 12 locations; the Tapges of values ar Riceville 194 1S

Yakima. WA. and The Dalles, OR (which are on the Spokane 80.1 aS

upwind edge of the footprint) can be compared with the va as was ag

Yeimg GT 26

Fable 3. Ranges of iodine species fractions.

Component anion .
an ranges at Richland. Ritzville, and Svokane. WA, and
Component Misirnam Mewmen Bouner's Fezry. ID (which are in the maia portion of the
Parucles 5% aq footprint).
Sur ne ie The way in which iodine was partitioned among the

uues species had a significant effect On time-intezrated



|

236
100

August, 1961

90

80

70 A

N
60

|

}

ie (FROM SMITH AND SUPRENANTIO)
50

PENETRATION, %

IN

40
wold

NATURAL AIRBORNE moancrvny PS

TM“

°
© 20 40 60 680

VELOCITY, fpm

100 120 140 160 180 200

MUL=12392

Ficune 3. Penetration ve velocity, 03-2 DOP and natural airborne radioactivity through

Whatman 41 filter paper.

Whatman 41 using natural activity and DOP,
Separation of 0.3-» particles by diffusional forces
is not apparent in this medium at the velocities
employed by Smith and-Suprenant. “As’ ‘the
penetration of DOP constantly decreases with
inereased velocity, this suggesta that impaction
is the principal factor involved. It appears,
however, that diffusional separation has a strong
influence on particles of the size carrying natu-
ral activity, as evidenced by the maximum in
the natural activity curve. Because of their
small size, this influence is exerted over a wide
velocity range. Impaction is also involved, but

Predominant at higher velocities than
is the case with larger particles.

At low velocities it would appear that What-
man 41 retains small particles better than 03-p
Particles. At 200 fpm, the penetration data be-
tween the two methods are in close agreement,
For those who use Whatman 41 for atanospheric
sampling, these results suggest an additional
argument for higher face velocities. Not only is
retention of 0.3-~ particles reasonably good at
200 fpm, but also it appears that very small
particles are better retained at this velocity.

Summary

A method has been described using. natural-
airborne radioactivity ‘as a test aerosol, which
is designed to compare the surface collection effi-
ciency of filters used in alpha air sampling. Of
the filters tested it appears that glass fiber is
superior to HV-70. Thin sheet polystyrene fil-
ters, although superior to glass in surface collec-
tion, have the dual disadvantage of high resist-
ance to flow and handling difficulty due to
shredding.

Although the method lacks the accuracy de-
sirable in a reference procedure for Penetration
measurements, it does provide a sereening tech-
nique for new filters for which DOP data are
lackin,

Date are presented for Whatman 41 paper
which show that the retention of particles in the
size range associated with natural activity is
quite velocity-dependent. A maximum occurs in
the penetration-vs-velocity curve showing that
both diffusion and impaction separation mecha-
nisms are involved. At low velocity (~ 5 fpm),
Whatman 41 retains natural activity with



Reconstracting Hantorti’s
Past Releases of -
Radioactive Materials: |

‘Technical Steering Panel
iS86-1995

November 1996



Exhibit H



574 Health Physics Cater 1996, ‘Volume 71, Number 4

the or- o j

" . r 350 0.705 posit 0.037 gegative j
ganic fraction account for mote than 70% of the vari. 5 ve |
ability in time-integrated air Conceurations, In co Yakima 7) 0186 positive 0.000 !

ntrast, MK _ Ret
the correlation between the Organic fraction and total : Significant
deposition is Platively high and Degative near the Han-
ford Site and decreases ag distance increases,

Fig. 5 illustrates these changes in the correlation
between organic fraction and time-integrated air concen- The changes in Correlation are explained Physically
trations and total deposition by showi 8 the mode} outpur by Considering the effect of deposition on air concentra- i
for all 100 fealizations for Richland and Bonuer’s Ferry. tion as distance increases, effecti: iti

The
The changes in Correlation between Organic fraction and locity for iodine is Uegatively Correlated with otganic
time-integrated air concentrations and total depositio, fraction. As a resu r is

i ut,
With distance are shown more quantitatively in Table 5, iodine deposition Bear the source wil} larg
Richland, Spokane, Bonner's Ferry lie near the long-term Concentrations far downwind will be fow. At the Other
Plume axis at distances of. approximately 50 km, 260 km, extreme, When the organic fraction is large, there will be
ively. telatively little deposition near the source and concentra-

to =
20% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
‘Organic loding



i

to

sinates with
ng amounts
1n the radio-
ot a gas is
md_ thoron
nto the at-
td daughter

“ay schemes
atly if at-
ration, the
md thoron
d from the
otration of
depending
given area

- changes in

tiations are
found that
- With in-
asation nu-
an increase
fess mobile
increase in
ay be as-
promoting
she atmos-
mumber of

sics_stand-
of lung re-
001 to 0.1
oe of the
icantly re-
Portant to
Inedia for
se. As the
in the size

of Semana A

Industrial Hygiene Journal

Ra 2 paa % pap & Rac
3.824 3.05m 26.8m =—«19. 72m
Scuans

Tm 4 tha © tap & tac

Rac!

ean
B99. 96%
ee

1, Radon,

RaD
20y
yaa
Rac!!

1.32m

Tac!

a x 10
66%
S48 0.16s 10.6h 60.5m ae aA
a 8
Thc''

ThD (Stable)

3.4m

_ Scusse 2. Thoron.

range of 0.01 micron and less is exceedingly abun-
dant, compared with microscopic sizes, the proba-
bility for. interaction of decay products with
these very small particles is high. Wilkening* has
found tbat the major portion of natural activity
is present on particles 0.001 to 0.04 micron in
diameter, Accordingly, nature may have supplied
ug with a test aerosol well suited for testing fil-
ters for their efficiency in retaining extremely
small particles. Its use has appealed to many
workers: Carmichael-and Tunnicliffe5 employed
natural activity to determine burial losses in an
asbestos cellulose paper. They used an electro-
static precipitator as a reference collector. Har-
ley® also used natural radon-daughter airborne
radioactivity to determine the collection effi-
ciency of aerosol sampling filters, including
Whatman 41 and membrane filters. Efficiencies
were determined by reference to total activity
collected in a static ion chamber, Hasenclever?
aixed thoron with a dust aerosol of known par-
ticle size to produce a radioactive dust. Concen-
tration of thoron daughter products was deter-
mined before and after filtration to calculate
retention efficiency.

Apparatus and Test Method

In the present method, three samples of at-
mospheric dust are collected simultaneously at
the same flow rate. The first sampler contgins 2
Millipore AA filter used as a reference collector.
The test filter, operated in parallel, is the second

filter. The third sampler, again using Millipore,
follows the test filter in series as a backup. This
filter collecis activity penetrating the test filter.
As alpha activity is collected it is detected by
ZnS (Ag) fluors coupled to photomultiplier
tubes, Integrated counts are recorded by ampli-
fier scalers. A sketch of the equipment is shown
in Figure 1.

Although the filters were originally 47 mm in
diameter, they are held in position by.a retaining.
ting which reduces the effective diameter to 43
mm. Fluors are prepared by depositing 10 mg/
em? of scintillator on polystyrene plates 24
inches in diameter by 4 inch in thickness. The

Freure 1. Equipment sketch for filter testing:
{i} Millipore reference filter collector-detector as-
sembly; (2) test filter collector-detector assembly;
(3) Millipore backup filter collector-detector as-
sembly; (4) high-voltage power supply; (5) Gast
pumps; (8) amplifier scalers.



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

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

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form 4 Page 4 of 2

: Use of tlils form is voluntary. Failure to use this fomi will fot résult in the dental OF atiy ei

i Instructions:

{f you wish to petition HHS to consider adding a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort and you
ate 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 emptoyee. You may use this formn to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legibly.

h. For Further Information: If you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
i toll-free phone number and request to speak fo someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
F Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674.

Alt thaiteation for (ndivididal or Entity to Petition HHS off Behalf of a Class of Employees for

|
Adulto tot he Special Exposures Colatt
*

_ dl
Name of Class Mem ber or Survivor

! _.. Street Address of Glass Member or Survivor Apt # P.O. Box

1 : City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor

do hereby authorize:

4
_. Name of Petitioner eee re . J

Address of Petitioner ° Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner

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

a He et .

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor)

for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee’s
Occupational Iliness 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 epejitioner as provided for under 42 CFR Part 83.

am — ~ fr ge-9§
1 Sigifélure of Class Member or Survivor Date

Name ot Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



SENT BY:774-6403 + 8-22-94 + 19:54: LYNNHOOD 1 KINKO’S~ 509 373 6603-2 7 , .

efficiency was approximately 93%. Since the generic release factors
and a plant filtration efficiency of 99% were used for B and T Plants,
the particulate releases in PNWD-2222 are low by a factor of
approximately 70.

Following the replacement of the water scrubbers with the silver
reactor/fiberglass filter assemblies (10/1950-2/1951), the overall
particulate removal efficiency of B and T Plants was in the order of
99.8% (Figure 1). The generic release factors are applicable, and the
release values in PNWD-2222 are correct,

The other issues in the reference memo are secondary and relate to
earlier comments from the EPRP. These comments were made in the
interest of seeking or attcmpting to assist the clarification of some of
the complexities associated with the treatment and/or releases of
airborne ‘radionuclides from the separations plants. If any of these
are still considered open, they should be closed.

. Mel, it has been an interesting and enjoyable project. I have
thoroughly enjoyed being a member of the Panel and our working
together. I hope our paths cross again.

‘ .
Best personal Tegards,

A. G. Blasewitz

ce: Dill Shipler -
File

|



- Exhibit J



Ensure that the Milk Producer Survey report for
the seven counties in which the work was planned

incompatible with the present dose codes. Ensure
‘that contract reviewers ‘providing oversight of this

code parameters. Gain detailed comments from
reviewers on the experimental protocol and work
plans of the contractor before implementing this
project.

Obiain adequate funding to expand the Milk
Producer Survey work to include at least 19 coun-
ties with a minimurn of 200 separate observations.

Work closely with the states prior to making any .
future changes in TSP directed work for funding or
any other reason. The TSP beliéved the public
muust be assured of continued independent over.

‘ck :

Work closely with the states’ transition group for
the retnainder of the TSP directed work. “Ensure
the transition team reviews task plans for work *
shops. :

Work with TSP members to provide peer or over.
sight xeview on work plans and other contractor
work after the TSP sunsets. Have appropriaie TSP
members review task scopes of work and report
findings to the trausition team.

Conduct the remaining dose-related work in an
open, publicly accessible, timely and independent
way. Ensure that contractor reports are publicly
available and written to easy reading standards.

Conduct a cost/benefit analysis of completing a.
comprehensive review of Hanford's unclassified
documents.

MM Request the National Academy of Sciences con-
duct a complete review of the Project work.

Key Issues Remain to be Resolved

The TSP identified seven priority tasks to be
completed before the panel could say that dose
reconsiruction models and data could be used with
confidence in Hanford health-related work. The CDC

Clearly indicated how the results are cornpatible or- -

‘work have detailed knowledge of the present dose a

~ plans these tasks to be performed by outside con. -
tractors. 7

The seven key issues are, in order of priority:

. Air model concerns, Many péople remain

concemed about, “disappearahce factors” —the
inconsistencies bétweén measured and predictec
deposition of iodine in the 1940s — and the role
‘weather and topography may have played in the
amounts and locations of radioactive iodine
deposited. ©

Feed-to-milk transfer factors. The major
‘way people were affected by airbome releases

“ was through drinking contaminated milk The

level at whicl iotline was transferred from feed
to milk (the feed-to-milk transfer factor) account

_ for one of the largest sources of uncertainty

about doses. If scientists can xeduce this uncer-
tainty, results will be significantly more reliable.

. Radioactive particles, In early Hanford

separation operations, barticles containing
radioactive ruthenium and other isotopes built
up in smokestacks arid were occasionally re-
leased. How much these particles contributed ta
doses has not been calculated, Anecdotal re-
ports and recorded measurements suggest “hot
particles” could have traveled some distance and
could have contributed radiation doses to some

- people.

. Milk distribution. The TSP remains skeptical

that there is sufficient data about dairy farming
practices and milk distribution underlying
Present dose calculations. This is especially true
for areas to the northeast of the Tri-Cities. As
muilk is so importaiit to dose, further work to
Teduce uncertainties here is essential.

. “Special populations” and others. Due to

location, work and living situations, some people
maay have experienced doses consistently differ.
ent from those most people received. Migrant
workers, “unbadged workers” and military staff
at Hanfoid, and people living out of the study
area to the northeast may all assert, with reason,
that the current dose models don't deal with
their situations. The TSP has long advocated



3Y:774-6403". . ; 9-29-94 : 19:51 : LYNNROOD 1 KINKO'S> 509 373 6603:F 9 - ae

cope

approach is sound, and it was followed in PNWD-2222 in the

i discussion of the I-131 releases from B and T Plants. But it was not
J followed in the treatment of the radioactive particulates from B and
| T Plants.

The error entered the system by ascribing the particulate
decontamination achieved at B and T Plants only to the water :
scrubbers which were installed in the dissolver off-gas lines in May, - : 3
1948, Actually, 3 different filtration devices were installed in B and
T Plants at different times: (1) water scrubbers to treat the dissolver
off-gases (May, 1948); (2) sand filters for the canyon ventilation air
(October, 1948); and (3) deep bed, fiberglass filters for the dissolver
” off-gases (October, 1950 to February, 1951). The water. scrubbers a
were by far the least efficient. Their unsatisfactory performance led ¢
to their removal from the plants and replacement with ‘the fiberglass g
filters (October, 1950 to February, 1951), :

f All of the separations plants had two major effluent air/gas streams
_ containing: radioactive particles--the canyon ventilation. air and the
dissolver off-gases. The combined cleanup of these two effluent
streams determined -the overal plant decontamination factor for
radioactive particles. .

Redox and Purex’ profited from the B and T Plants’ operating
" experience and had ail of their filtration equipment in place at
startup. B and T Plants had their various filtration devices installed :
at different times. Consequently, an accurate picture of the overall :
removal efficiency for radioactive particles at B and T Plants requires
a consideration of the installation time and removal efficiency of the
individual filter units. The general picture of the B and T Plant
situation is shown in Figure’ Neglecting this consideration has led to
the errors.

This can be illustrated by the PNWD-2222-HEDR information
regarding the release of radioactive particulates at B and T Plants
during the period of 1944 to May, 1948, In the discussion of Pu-239
release factors for B and T Plants (second paragraph, pg. 4.27), it is
stated that "Emission control equipment was assumed to have been
about 99 percent efficient, so the early period (prior to May, 1948)

-2-



"SENT BY*774-6403 + 9-22-94 2 19:51 + LYNMROOD 1 KINKO'S+ 508 373 6603;3 2

iz
- 1504 144th Place S. £. HEOR RECORD _
Mill Creek, WA 98012 - ites
September 22, 1994 File_A‘?.3
Warking Copy

Dr. Melvin W. Carter
4621 Ellisbury Drive S. E.
Atlanta, GA 30338

Dear Mel:

SUBJECT: Source Term Task Responses (September 9, 1994) to
} EPRP Outstanding Issues Cited in June 17, 1994 FAX,
Carter to Shipler

These are my comments on the subject memo. I realize that I have

L. provided exhaustive (more likely, exhausting) detail and probably

5 more than you would want, I have considered this a significant
problem and have been somewhat frustrated by its not being
“corrected. " As I have mentioned, my concern has been that technical
errors in’ the particulate releases might tend to undermine the
credibility of the 1131 source term. The reconstruction of 1-131 _

. Source, {erm was an impressive accomplishment, and it warrants high
credibility.

Since December, 1993, the -EPRP has repeatedly emphasized the point
that there is.a problem with the releases of radioactive particulates
(Ce, Ru, Sr, and Pu) from B and T Plants for the period of 1944 until
early 1951; ie., the releases are in ettor and require correction,

This issue is still unresolved.

The subject memo states that the approach used in PNWD-2222-
EDR involved: (1) establishing generic release factors for the
tadioactive particles from data available from the Operation of the
Redox, Purex, B, and T Plants; and (2) adjusting the generic release
factors, and consequently the Teleases, at B and T Plants to account
for the removal efficiency which existed at B and T Plants. This

ale.



|

|
i
|
j
|
i

234

scintillator is thermally pressed into the plastic.
Distance from fluor surface to filter surface is
approximately 0.2 inch. The photomultiplier
tube is a 2-in. RCA 6655A coupled to the fluor
with Dow Corning QC 2.0057. The photomulti-
plier tube output is fed through a gain-of-10
Pre-amplifier to an amplifier scaler. Figure 2
shows the sample collection-detection assembly.

Sampling periods varied from about 5 min-
utes to 1 hour, depending on the concentration
of airborne activity. As a vule, the sampling
time was determined by the tine required for
the reference filter scaler to collect 1000 to 2000
counts. The instrument background was nor
mally one cpm or less.

By means of bypass valves, flow rates could
be selected within the range of 6.5 to 3 cfm.
Flow rates were measured at the air inlets using
Venturi meters equipped with 0- to l-in. water
Magnehelic gauges. The lower flow limit was
established by the accuracy with which the
gauge could be read, while the upper limit was
determined by the maximum head developed by
the Gast 1550 air pump. Ventari meters ‘were
calibrated using an 18Q0-cf/ar dry pas meter,
Overall accuracy of the flow measuring system
as used was approximately 25%, A pressure tap
was installed im the test filter assembly, just
after the filter, to measure the pressure drop
across the filter at the selected flow rate (8 cfm).
Correction was made for the pressure drop
across the filter assembly itself with only the
filter support in place.

Using Millipore AA, it follows that relative to
this filter,

Z counts on test paper X 100.

" % counts on Millipore reference

= % of activity collected on test filter surface,

2 counts on Millipore backup X 100
= counts on Millipore reference

= % of penetration through test filter,

and 100 — [% surface collection + % penetra-
tion} = % burial losses within filter,

The above procedure is similar in principle to
the one employed by Carmichael and Tunnieliffe,
The difference is that the Present method detects
activity as it is collected and integrates over the
collection period. Using this technique, every
detectable (counting efficiency is about 35%)
disintegrating event occurring during the sam-
pling period is recorded. If counting began after
sampling—as in the Carmichael method—the
apparent count rate would be lower due to the
short half-tife of the activity. Thus, for equal

August, 1961

Figure. 2. Sample collection-detection assembly,

sampling periods, the integration method yields
better precision because of improved counting
statistics.

Results and Discussion

Table I shows a comparison between several
filters used or Proposed for use in alpha air
sampling. In all cases these measurements were
made at 3.0 cfm, equivalent to a face velocity
of 200 fpm.

Data shown in Table I represent averages of ©

several measurements obtained under different
concentrations of airborne activity. Variations
in surface collection were within +10% with no
significant correlation with concentration.

It appears that for alpha air monitoring the

Tapuz 1 .
Comparison éf Alpha Air-Sampling Papers

Sur ing
sure

face |PeR-| Bur. | drop,
Paper eee] | it inches
% | %) * | mer

oury

Hollingsworth & Voee (HV-70, -

mil)... m7 2] | so

‘Hollingsworth & Vose (HV-70 gauze

backing, 20-mil, material in roll 3

in. wide, for moving-tapeair moui-

tor)... 2] 2 | ae
Gelman E glass fiber (25-mil) . 2] 9) 4s
Whatman 00000 of 38 | 22 | 40 | 6

Whatman Ap/A Polystyrene (30-
mil) .. vee sete ateaeeeee

Microsoben (Pads of polystyrene
‘sheets; filter was75 mils thick) ...) 53] 3 | 43

I
{

Ind

glas.
the
face
Wh:
rete
tage
To
avai
the

- able

face
perr
int
mur
of s
han

Colt
T
pro:
tor
par
cols
‘The
ther
rete
thar
a
not
fror
Det
trat
ran,
ins
rad
no
Mil
cho

Cor

v)
ter
filte
filts
me
01
bar
Th
ace
ue

Mi
wa

sO
int



ay Br crssoaUs . + 9-22-94 5 19:53 + LYNNROOD 1 KINKO'S 509 373 6603:# 5 “oe

equipment at those Plants) would require increasing the generic ee

release factors by 3 orders of magnitude (vs. a 2 order of magnitude : ‘:
increase in PNWD-2222). This would increase the releases of these

radionuclides by an order of magnitude for this time period as

compared to the values in PNWD-2272,

we

As illustrated in Figure 1, the dissolver off-gas water scrubbers
would affect the overall particulate Temoval efficiency at B and T
Plants during two time periods: (1) May, 1948 until October, 1948, -
wherein they were the only particulate removal device installed in
the Plants; and (2) October, 1948 until October, 1950-February, 1951,
wherein they remained in the dissolver off-gas lines, and the sand
filters were in place to filter the canyon ventilation air,

The EPRP has questioned HEDR's use of a particle removal efficiency
of 99% for these water scrubbers. The question has been based upon
the following factors: an

1 1. Measurements were made of the particle size distribution of
i the radioactive aerosol at B and T Plants. The radioactive serosal
|. ° _ was determined to have a mean particle diameter of 0.2 - 0.3 micron.

High efficiency removal of sub-micron particles from air/gas streams
requires specialized equipment. It would not be expected that the B

2. Early development studies were conducted with a test
scrubber having the same design as the B and T Plant water
scrubbers and operated on the plant radioactive acrosol. The tests
were conducted with and without steam injection prior to the

- scrubber. Steam injection did improve the efficiency, but the plant
units were never operated using this technique. The test results
without steam injection ranged from 53-90%.

3. PNWD-2222 cites HW-67520 as Providing information
which established the particle removal efficiency of a water scrubber
in the Redox Plant at 99%; hence the basis for using this value for the
B and-T Plant scrubbers. The design of the Redox scrubber is not
Presented in HW-67520, and the Redox effluent air streams were

-4.TM



source and cause of the abnormal stack reading. They made a real
effort at this work of detection since they were very serious
about discovering and correcting any possible sources of stack
releases.

In the 1970's Continuous Air Monitoring(CAM) devices were
installed throughout the 2 plant rooms occupied by personnel.
These devices would sound an alarm and start a light flashing
when the air concentration exceeded a predetermined level. A
similar device was also installed in the 2912 stack and was set
to alarm just above a certain threshold.

Initally the % plant glovebox ventilation for the 9A and 9B
hoods was routed from their glove boxes, which each had a HEPA
‘filter, to one of the E-4 filter rooms(there were two such rooms
used alternatively). Both the 9A and 9B started with the forming
of an oxalate percipitate which was converted to an oxide by
going through a calciner and the the oxide was converted to a
fluoride via a fluorinator. The 9B hood handled the fluoridation
process {and later on the 9A hood handled the making of plutonium
oxide for special uses offsite and also for the FFTF). This meant
the exhaust from these gloveboxes was filtered through two HEPA
filter stages, one at the glove box and one at the E-4 room.
However because of the amount of contamination created at these
glove boxes, around the late 1950's a seperate HEPA filter unit
was established on the second floor for these glove boxes and
their exhaust was routed past the E-4 rooms, so that these glove
boxes continued to have two stages of HEPA filtration, but no
longer utilized the E-4 rooms. Then after the 1976 shutdown,
before restarting, the system was changed to route from the
second stage on the second floor through the E-4 rooms (no longer
being bypassed) so thereafter this 9AB process had three stages
of HEPA filtration, one at the glovebox, one at the second floor
{room 264) and one in one of the E~4 rooms.

The above two pages of interview notes as corrected or modified
in bold type are correct to the best of my recollection.

Kerereocd

ernard Saueressig October,

7 1996



iodide). Interference in bed efficiency because of chloride buildup was also cited by Heeb
[1994]

At times leading up to their regeneration their efficiencies decreased to less than 50%
[Pas and Soldat, 1951]. Their performance was highly variable according to Hanford
monthly operating reports and decreased as they aged and even regeneration did not correct
this. Warren [1961] stated: prior to 1957, emissions frequently contained large quantities
ofiodine. A 1951 report [Shaw,1951] states: it appears that 20% of 1-131 passes to points
not affected by Ag reactors. In March, 1953, four Ag reactors failed and higher I-131
teleases occurred [HW-27580, Mar 3]. Many iodine emissions in the multi-curie range
occurred during early 1955 owing to the malfunction of Ag reactors in REDOX and T plants
[Michels et a/,1955]. As a result, new orking limits were established at 1 Ci/d or 10 Ci/wk
maximum. However, these were frequently exceeded as it required 99.9+% removal
efficiencies and such was considered highly improbable [Browne, 1955]. For example,
1955 emissions at REDOX and T plants consistently were above 10 Ci/d and at one point
were as high as 90 Ci/d. Our current estimate of total 1955 releases of 25,300 Ci (Table 4)
corresponded to about 85 Ci/d released.

There are many other reports documenting the variable and decreasing reactor
removal efficiencies. An release of 44 Ci. in April 2 was ignored by Heeb [1994] who
reported negligible emissions during the month; similarly, in Sep 3 when 100.000 Ci in reen
metal was inadvertently loaded into the dissolvers [HW-89067].

On the other hand, Raab and Van der Cook [1970] reported that the PUREX back-up
silver reactor, which followed an acid-removal scrubber, in treating vessel and room
ventilation exhausts, operated at high efficiency for an extended period where there was
relatively low acidity and chloride content.

. _.. Therefore, in the light of this operating history for Ag reactors, the release estimates
of HEDR [Heeb94] which credit the devices with 99+% removal efficiencies are very low
and cannot be considered representative of the post-1951 actual operating performance.
Backup acid and iodine removal devices were in place in 1959-60, from which records, such
estimates were made applicable back to 1951[Warren,1961]. In should also be pointed out
that release fractions for the 1950 were based in part on historical stack sample
measurements which were proved to be erroneous and subject to analytical exrors
[Browne,1955}.

In consideration of evidence of fluctuating reactor efficiencies from 99% to less than
50%, it is our opinion that more realistic release estimates should be based on a mean
efficiency of 95% from May, 1951 to 1960. Hermann and Herrmann [1996] also
considered that removal efficiencies of 95% (i.e. worse than the 1959-60 estimates by a
factor of 4) were more realistic for the 1951-57 period. A similar conclusion was reached by
Hoffman et al [1994].

27



|
|
i
i
|
|

i
i
|
}
|
t

-q4-—:

ay

Regional Atmospheric Transport Code
for Hanford Emission Tracking

(RATCHET)

J. V. Ramsdell, jr.
C. A. Simonen

. KW, Burk

February 1994

Prepared for the Technical Steering Panel
and the Centers for Disease Contral and Prevention
under Contract 200-92-0503(CDC)/18620(BNW)

# Battelle

Pacific Northwest Laboratories

PNWD-2224 HEDR
uc-000

YORH bZZZ-GMNd



.

aArpowolpes Jo Shun asp
(  DsI0gTeWed WI soumbiy 210

(86//7) BOY : (32942) raped) 9) bo “Im ytuod

‘ . ; S77 oD ssa ag
. L
BB'L = Hoy) opouT (e775 pro tap) the 7
ays sav S4agiy “pu : %L4L “W7 >) a any aes - J,
\ shee

4Aymvay MOALIO ADL () - tsfe-asfy Furmisey:
oS = jt

296. AT Mn pelreour, wap l4
Oe Ny

373 660374 8

g seyitrg) y PY 40420 y

Aaap 1S If MUP YY OES
VILA Yung MIO AY CZ):

BO as MUL] OISMT AVL) 1

2 PEO Of Horepassus

BTM * 4D oy Mary (1)

OOD 1 KINK

LINN

apa apa Voveesuz|
B “arY) VIpAys [/ ten Ss ator Parner aay Se <-.— RN
Ny (aE ol Tee
: [rrp | 2
(eps
{AYO OTF-

~UHU0

ve - trast TOPO I / LOFT POO TT

Set DE ee!



|
|
[

Exhibit E



Po:

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

OMB Number: 0920-0639 ~ res: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form Set Page 1 of 2

poe Use of this form is voluntary. Falluve t6 use this forni will not result in tie d

‘ instructions:

If you wish to petition HHS fo consider adding a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort and you
ate 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 Pait 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: If you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request fo speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674.

Alitkotization tor Indivichial or Entity t8 Petition HHS oh Belialf of a Class of Employees for

Ad luliflott to 0 the Special Exposure Cohiott

~

: Name of Class Member or Survivor

et SUERL AGU ESS Ul LittSS-MEIHUEL OF OUFVIVUT Apt. # P.O. Box

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

Name of Petitioner,

Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner ”

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

—~

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor)

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

In providing this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have all the rights

ofa  pafitioner as provideg for under 42 CFR Part 83. p “

‘ Signature of Class Member ér Survivor Date

i
|
i

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT

Page 130 Page 132 |,

1 MR. FOULDS: Okay. 1 MR. FOULDS: Tl read from the paragraph

2 ‘BY MR. FOULDS: 2 just above the equation number 2.60. "The mass

3 Q. So T understand it's -- it’s your -- it’s 3 removed from each puff is determined by analytical
4 still your thought that somehow or another there was ] 4 integration of deposition fiux over the area covered
5 a way of establishing or coming up with the hourly 5 __ by the puff and computation interval.

6 release quantities, other than just taking the 6 "The mass removed from each puff to account for
7 monthly amounts and dividing it by a certain number | 7 — dry deposition of particles and dry and wet

8 of days and hours? & — depositon of gases is computed using,” and then he
9 A. (Nodding in the affirmative. | 9 gives the integral formula,

10 Q. Okay. 10 Then the next sentence undemeath the first

11 THE COURT REPORTER: Is that a yes? 11 formula, 2.60, is, "Substituting the deposition of X
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's a yes. 12 from equation 2.29 for X and performing the

13 MR. FOULDS: Now, let me see. DidigetS 13 integration, the decrease in material becomes,” and
14 out yet? Yeah. I think I did. Just a second. I 14 then he's got a — an algorithm — or equation, I

415 had S here some place. 15 guess, to represent the -- the decrease in

16 MR. PIERSON: So if that assumption is 16 material, And he — there's a number two in front
17 _ incorrect then what? Would it make it less 17 _ of the right side of the equation. Now, according

48 accurate? 18 to his testimony, he believes that that last

19 MR. FOULDS: Yeah. Oh, here itis. I was 19 integration was done in error and he submitted two
20 getting ready to give it to you two gentleman, 20 — different ways to do that equation.

24 Would you mark this as a (sic) exhibit, please. 21 BY MR. FOULDS:

22 (Whereupon, Exhibit-13 was marked for 22 Q. My question to you is, have you reviewed
23 identification.) 23 any of that material?

24 ~~ BY MR. FOULDS: 7 24 A. I reviewed the -- his. deposition statement
25 Q. Now, Mr. Hanna, I understand that -- 25 and followed through the mathematics and performed-|_

Page 134 Page 133

1 MR. RADFORD: Mr. Stewart -- Mr. Rood. 1 the integration myself. First, just for the record,

2 THE WITNESS: Mr. Rood. 2 that’s not an X, it's a chi (CHECK). Pronounced

3 MR. FOULDS: I'm sorry. Please forgive 3 chi. ,
4° me. 4 Q. Okay. . on
5 THE WITNESS: You are forgiven. r-S - A: Bsa concentrate. Just for the © ,

1 6 ~ BYMR. FOULDS: 6 record —

7 Q. Mr. Rood, I understand that you-read 7 Q. Sure,

8 — Doctor Stewart's deposition? 8 A. -- so we're talking the same terms. And

9 A. Most of it. 9 when I did the integration 1 - I agreed with -- 1

10 Q. Yeah. Okay. Do you recall in the early 10 came up with what Doctor Stewart came up with,
11 part of the deposition that he pointed out to what i Q. Okay.

12 he thought was an error in the formulas used by HEDR | 12 A. Now, I called Van Ramsdell and had him

13 _ to calculate the amount of the -- I'm coming to the 13 fook into this matter. He returned my call and came
14 right part here ~ the amount of the deposition -- 14 up with this resolution.

15 no ~ correction -- the amount of the depletion from 15 RATCHET has a typographical error in

16 the plume. Do you recall that? 16 equation 2.61 and an omission in equation 2.61. The
17 A. You're asking whether I recall him 17 typographical error revolves around the term G of Z.
18 questioning the correctness of equation 2.61? The 18 It should be G prime of Z. G prime of Z is given by
19 analytical integration? If -- if 1 remember 19 the form similar to what's shown on -- in equation
20 correctly, that was the equation in question. 20 2.31 on page 2.25 of the RATCHET manual.
21 Q. Well, this was on pages 225 and 238, 21 Q. Okay,
22 A. Right. Equation 2.61 is on page 238. And 22 A. Everybody there?
23 ~~ from my understanding of his — reading his 23 Q. Yes. I'm ready. Go ahead.

24 ~~ deposition, he questioned the integration that is 24 A. Okay. That - he explained to me that

|? initially introduced in equation 2.60. 25 — that two should not be there for G of Z prime.

34 (Pages 130 to 133)



“Dy. Allan Murphy
‘Department of Atmospheric Sciences .

sOregon State University . ~

‘Specialty: Meteorology, Air Pathways and Statistics

"Metnber, Environmental Transport Subcoramittee

TSP Member: May 1988 to July 1994 . a

Dr. Vietchai Nguyen

EWA, Inc. se

Specialty: Nuclear Waste Management Technology -

Member, Environmental Transport and Demography Subcommitiees
TSP Member: May 1988 to April 1990

Dr. David Price

Dept of Agricultural Economics

Washington State University

Specialty: Agriculture ;

Chair, Demography Food Habits and Agriculture Subcommittee, :
Member, Communications Subcommittee, Future of TSP Working Group
TSP Member: May 1988 to July 1994 Cos

Dr, Maurice Robkin ”

Radiological Sciences

University of Washington ‘

Specialty: Nuclear Engineering, Environmental Radioactivity ©
Chair, Source Term Subcommittee .

Member, Communications Subcommittee

Classified Document Review

TSP Member: May 1988 to July 1994

Dr. Genevieve Roessler
Associate Professor Emeritus
University of Florida
Specialty: Radiation Dosimetry :
Member, Environmental Tyansport and Quality Assurance and Technical Integration
Subcomunitiees :
Unclassified Document Review
TSP Editor :
TSP Member: May 1988 to December 1995



{. : si

| %sBalfelle

: Pacific Northwest Laboratories *
Battelle Boulevard

P.O. Box 999

January 18, 1994 Richtand. Washington 99352
Dr. John E. Till, Chaiman Telephone (5091375 4354
Technical Steering Panel
Hanford Environmental Dose

Reconstruction Project
Rt. 2, Box 122
Neeses, SC 29107

Mr. Michael R. Donnelly

Public Health Service

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2201 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop RX- 22
Seattle, WA 98121

Dear Dr, Till and Mr. Donnelly:
yeti ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT CODE FOR HANFORD EMISSION TRACKING

Enclosed is the final report, Regional Atmospheric Transport Code For Hanford Emission
: Tracking (RATCHET) (PNWD-2224 HEDR). This report describes the atmospheric model and
computer code developed for use in calculating daily time-integrated air concentrations and surface
me contamination, The output from the RATCHET code has been transferred to the Environmental
. Pathways and Dose Estimates Task for use in dose calculations. This report fulfills Milestone

:

This final RATCHET report is substantially different from the draft RATCHET report
(PNL-8003 HEDR) and is, therefore, a replacement for rather than a revision of the draft report.
Many of the changes in this final RATCHET report reflect changes that have been made in the -

wee RATCHET code and model parameterizations since the draft report was issued. Recent
information, including the results of the laypton-85 model evaluation tests and results from the
model sensitivity studies, has been added to the report. The source code for RATCHET and the
utility codes will be published separately on a diskette rather than as part of the report.

RATCHET has been subjected to an extensive review process, We have incorporated the
reviewers’ recommendations in the code and in this document. These incorporations are not
always in a directly identifiable form because so much of the draft report was either deleted or
rewritten. Thérefore, the responses to the Technical Steering Panel members’ comments are not
being issued as part of the report but are enclosed as an attachment to this letter.

ler, Manager

i aS
Hanford Environmental
Dose Reconstruction Project

DBS:pre

Enclosure '
HEDR
ce: MS Power (TSP) : PROJECT RECORD



|
|
i
i
|

Chair, Quality Assurance and ‘Tectnical Integration Subcommittee
Chair, Future of TSP Working Group

Member, Environmental Transport Subcommittee

Unclassified Document Review ~

TSP Member: May 1988 to December 1995 -

Warren Bishop

State of Washington Representative

Specialty: Public Policy

Coordinator, Native American Working Group : 7

Meraber, Demography, Communications, Budget/Fiscal and Quality Asstirance and Teetitical
Integration Subcommittees, Future of TSP Working Group

Unclassified Document Review

TSP Member: November 1988 to December 1996

-Mary Lou Blazek

State of Oregon Representative
Specialty: Health Physics .
TSP Vice Chair, May 1988 to July 1994

__ TSP Chair, July 1994 io December 1995

Chair, Communications Subcommittee

Member, Source Term Subcommittee, Future of TSP Working Group.
Classified and Unclassified Document Review

‘TSP Member: May 1988 to December 1995 .

‘Dr. Glyn Caldwell
- "Tulsa City-County Health Department

Specialty: Epidemiology
Member, Source Term, Environmental Transport, Demography, Budget/Fiscal and

Quality Assurance Subcommittees, Future of TSP Working Group
Classified and Unclassified Document Review
"TSP Member: May 1988 to December 1995



i
|
i
i
|

i
i
[
4

Pu-239 release factor for the T and B Plants was 4.0.x 1075 | (The -
release factor for prescrubber operations {1944-1948} was increased
two orders of magnitude to account for increased releases because of
the absence of off-gas scrubbers.)"

This is not correct. It is contradicted by the Pu-239 release factor
estimates presented in Table 4.8, page 4.28 and the overall
particulate decontamination which existed at B and T Plants at the
time the release data were obtained. The B and T Plant data were
obtained during the years 1951 and 1952. -At that time, the water
scrubbers had been removed from the dissolver off-gas lines at B
and T Plants, and the plants were outfitted with a ‘sand filter for the
canyon ventilation air and a deep bed fiberglass filter for the
dissolver off-gases. Also at that time, a great deal of monitoring data
had been obtained, which established that the overall plant
efficiency for radioactive particles was 99.8%. If a combined plant
average monthly release of 4.0 x 1077 existed with a
decontamination efficiency of 99.8% in place, then the release fact:
before this equipment existed (prior to May, 1948) was 4.0 x 107
vs. the 4.0 x 10-5 (as stated in PNWD-2222), and the releases for
this périod of time were an order of magnitude greater than the
valués in PNWD-2222.  —

The samé type of situation exists for the Ce, Ru, and Sr releases from
B and T Plants during the period of 1944 to May, 1948. The generic
release factors for. these radionuclides in particulate form were
obtained from Redox and Purex Plants, Redox and Purex had their
complete filtration systems in place at startup. These were more
efficient than the final system used in B and T Plants (from late 1950
and early 1951 to shutdown). In both Redox and Purex, there were a
high efficiency filter for the canyon ventilation air, a high efficiency
filter for the dissolver off-gases, and, in addition, the vent pipes from
all the process vessels were manifolded and the vent gases were
passed through a high efficiency filter. This provided an overall
Plant decontamination efficiency for radioactive particles of at least
99.9%.

Since the generic release factors for Ce, Ru, and Sr were obtained at
Redox and Purex Plants with a decontamination efficiency of 99.9%
Present, the translation of these factors to B and T Plants for the
period of 1944 to May, 1948 (when there was no filtration ,

-3-



coe I
ugust, 1961 | Industrial Hygiene Journal 287
greater efficiency than 03-2 DOP particles. At in the Sorting of Aerosols According to Mobility. Rev.
r ae . ‘Sci, Instr, 23: 38 (1053).
| 200 fpm, retentions for both particle-size ranges, pocuien, EL, wae P, By :M:
q are in close agreement, of Alpba-Active Dust in the Atmosphere, J, Ind. Hyp.
2 Posicol. $0: 11 (1948).
6. Hanuzy, V. EL: A Study of the Airborne Di Pro
| References ducts of Radom end Thoron, PLD. thes, Ronser
1, Boras, T., axp J. J. Notas: Observations on the Redium Polytechnic Institute (June 1952).
A Content of the Atmosphere, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. 7, Hasescurvar, D.: Uber dio Prufung von Filtera zur
Ast: U5 (1956). Abecheidung Radiosktiver Aerosol. Staub 29: 37 (2950).
2 Brrzaeuat, J. J, axo C. G. Derenen: Collection 8. Frezomearn, J, J., ano C, G. Dermmze: Optimom
Efficiency of Filter Media m the Particle Size Range of Particle Size for Pencization Through the Millipore Fil.
ul 9.005 to 6.1 Micron. Am. Ind. Hug. Assoc. Quart. 18: ter, AMA Arch. Ind, Health 15: 3 (1987).
47 (187), 9%. Gare, W. J, ax N. F, Sormmxant: Properties of
3. Sraxnanp, J. N.: “An Evaluation of Inhalstion Hazards Various Filtering Media for Atmospheric Dust Sampling.
in the Nuclear Energy Industry,” in Progress in Nuclear Proc. ASTM &8: 1182 (1958).
Energy Seriex XU, Health Physice, Vol, 1, W. K. Masiey 10, La Mux, V. K.: Studies om Filtration of Monodlisperse
and K. L, Morgan, Eds,, Pergamon Press (1959). Aerosols. NYO-s1f, Technical Information Service, Oak
4. Wuxmee, M. H.: Natural Radioactivity as a Tracer Ridge, Tean. (March $1, 1951).
Am Pouorion Lisnary Ixpex
HE BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT established its tech-
nical library and this specialized index in 1956-57 to serve the District staff and
others who have air pollution problems in the Bay Area. More than 8,000 technical re-
ports and other publications on air pollution and its control have been extensively
cross-indexed for rapid search and retrieval. This index now consists of 16,850 refer-
ence cards. It is the most comprehensive index on this subject and is currently valued
at $50,000.
2 - Complete copies of the index have been purchased by the United States Public
Health Service, Robert A, Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, and
by the New York State Air Pollution Control Board, Albany, New York. Additional
sets are available and are offered to others at prices ranging from $2,000 to $2,800
rough depending on the special features desired. The indexes are kept up-to-date by semi-
annual shipments of the additional cards at a charge of about $250 per year to the
subscriber.
Requests for further information are welcome and should be addressed to: Ben-
wg natural gaan Linsky, Air Pollution Control Officer, Bay Area Air Pollution Control Dis-
--osoh,- which trict, 1480 Mission Street, San Franeiseo 3, California: . .
lection effi-
ampling. Of
ass fiber is
styrene fil-
face collee-
high resist
ty due to
curacy de-
denetration
? data are
4i paper
icles in the
activity is”
) Occurs in
owing that
on mecha-
~5fpm), | :
vity with Hi



epee

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

. under the Energy Employees Occupational . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“ ifiness Compensation Act . National tnstitute for Occupational Safely and Health
. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Petitioner Authorization Form Page 4 of 2

use of dfs form Is voluntary. Falliire to use this frit will Not result in tie dei

{nstructions:

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
representing or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Patt 83, Section 83.7(c) requires

i 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 empioyee. You may use this form to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legtbly.

¥ For Further Information: If you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
5 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.

ior for ltidividual oF Entity to Petition HHS of Behalf of a Glass uf Eniployees for

Additisa to the Spectal Exposure Goliath

Name of Class Meniber or Survivor
; -
x _ 2
( . Street Address of Class Member or Survivor Apt. # P.O, Box

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

Name of Petitioner TD

i
H
}
j
i

Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner

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

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee’s survivor)

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 a petitioner as provided for under 42 CFR Part 83. Sb 2
g fra fes
fe

|

Signature of Class Member or Survivor Da

Name or Social Security Number of First Petilioner: : _- woe



gohn Till

November 19, 2004

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
IN RE HANFORD NUCLEAR MASTER FILE,

RESERVATION LITIGATION No. CY-91-3015-WEN

VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF: JOHN TILL, Ph.D.
Taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs

November 19, 2004

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Washington Rules
of Civil Procedure, the deposition of John Till, Ph.D.,
was taken before Barbara Birger, Registered Professional
Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public
for the State of Colorado, on November 19, 2004,
commencing at the hour of 8:58 a.m., the proceedings
being reported at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 1801
€alifornia Street, Suite 4200, Denver, Colorado.

Page Lk



gohn Till

November 19, 2004

1025

Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES 1 WHEREUPON, the followiiig proceedings were tikeli |
2  FOULDS LAW OFFICE 2 pursuant to the Washington Rules of Civil Procedure. .
3 BY TOMH. FOULDS 3 "eee
4 703 Sixth Avenue North, ‘THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record. ‘This
5 Seattle, Washington:98109 isastatement fora video deposition. Lamthe,
6 Phone: (206) 285-8390 videographer, snd my nate is Kathy Kinney. 1 amt here on
7 Fax: (206) 285-8494 behalf af Naegeli Reporting Corporation headquartered at
8 E-mail: tomfoulds@gmail.com 1LL Southwest Sth Aventis, Suite 2020, Potthind, Oregon
9  Appeating on behalf of the Plaintiffs ‘7204. . oy .
lo. 7 ‘This videoiagis deposit bisa besa’ ty -
11 HABER LAW OFFICE attomey Thomas Foulds, and is beitig Held on q
12 BYROY HABER ‘November 19, 2004, at 8:58 am, The location is 1801
13 1480 Buck Street California, Suite 4200, in Denver, Colorado,
14  Engene, Oregon 97405 ‘The case caption — the case caption is In Re
15 Phone: (541) 485-6518 ‘Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, United States
16 E-mail: --lyne.com District Court for the Easter District of Washington at
17 Fax: (541) 485-6418 ‘Spokane, Case No, CY-91-3015-WEN. The deponent is Tobn |!
18 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs Til. F
19. ‘Would counsel and all present please identify
20 . yourselves and state whom you represent.
21 MR. FOULDS: I'm Torn Foulds, Irepreseat the
22 08:58:4322 plaintiffs. :
23 08:58:4423 ‘MR. HABER: Roy Haber, l represent the q
24 08:58:4624 plaintifts, E
25 08:58: 4625 MR. RADFORD: And Lee Radford representing the
Page 3 Page 5
1 APPEARANCES CONT. defendants,
2 MOFFATT, THOMAS, BARRETT, ROCK & FIELDS ‘THE VIDEOGRAPHER: ‘The deposition fs being,
3 BYLEE RADFORD taken before Barbara Birger, court reporter, who will |
4 420 Memorial Drive now swear in the witness,
5 Idaho Falis, Idaho 83405 _. SOHNTHL, PAD, 0 fe
6 Phone? (208/523-6700 © baving been first duly swom to state the whole truth,
71 Fax: (208) 522-5011 testified as follows:
8 E-mail: kin@mottatt.com EXAMINATION
9 Appearing on bebaif of the Defendants BY-MRFOULDS:
10 Q. Dr. Till, as you know, my name is Tom Foulds,
nn and J represent the plaintiffs. This deposition —
12 perhaps you've had previous depositions ~ its really a
13 court-mandated procedure, but it's in the very informal
14 setting. But the witnesses are required to respond to
15 the best of their knowledge and as truthfully as
16 possible. -
17 Now if any one of my questions are — that you
18 can't quite understand it or you didn't hear it all,
19 anything of that nature, don't hesitate to ask me to
20 repeat it or to clarify it for you.
21 08:59:5421 ‘The attorney representing the defendants here,
22 08:59:5722 Mr. Radford, may on some occasion have an objection to
23 09:00:0123 my questions. Once he gets the objection on the record,
24 0624. then you can go abead and proceed to answer since all
25

objections — the determination of the validity of ali

2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Gcb8I345-e59a-424-8954-dacdSddsddfo



Exhibit N



, Acronyms

Table of - |
Contents a

- Preface

. Chapter 1 A Brief History of Hanford Operations
Site Selection .

. i
Sa
World War 1 Operations :

Post-War Expansion

Summary of Reactor and Fuel Separation Operations
- Hanford Site Map

Radioactive Material Releases to the Air
The Green Run .
Radioactive Material Releases to the Columbia. River.

Chapter 2 Public Concerns Force Action ‘18
. Documents Released in 1986 Reveal Extensive Radioactive Material Releases .
Decision to Conduct a Dose Reconstruction Project

Formation of the Technical Steering Panel cEsPy . -
” Efforts to Gain Credibility .

Chapter 3 A Monumental ‘Task ~ 23
: Requirements of Dose Reconstruction -

TSP Establishes Subcommittees

Phase 1 of the Project

Selecting Radioactive Materials for Study

Map of the Phase 1 Study Area

Requirements of the Air Model

Requirements of the River Model

Attempt to Estimate Iodine 131 Doses from Iodine 128 Data

The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study . .

Chapter 4 The People at Risk

35
“Air Exposure Pathway
Columbia River Exposure Pathway
Groundwater Exposure Pathway .
Monitoring of Radioactive Materials from Hanford
Finding the People At Risk
Food Consumption Near Hanford
The Milk Pathway



i
i

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

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

Use of tHils form is voluntary, Failtire to use this forni will not result ii the w

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
representing or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Pait 83, Section 83.7(c) requires
thaf 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: If you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request to speak fo someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674.

Auithotization for Individual ot Entity 46 Petition HHS on Belialf of a Glass of Employees for

Addition 6 te Special Exbostite Cohort

Name of Class Member or ‘Survivor

Street Address of Class Member or Survivor ~ Apt. # P.O. Box

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

Name of Petitioner

Address of Petitioner : Apt. # P.O. Box

Gity, State and Zip Code of Petitioner

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

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee’s survivor)

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

(n 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.
oY

Sigrtalure df Class Member or Survivor Date

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



For example, for the period: May 8 to Oct 1:
RF = 0.08, + (100-40%)(0.86-0.09) + (100-30%)(0.07) - 0.03 = 0.57

The corresponding RF over the 1944-1956 time period are given in the table below.

Table 1
Revised I-131 Release Factor Estimates: (1944-1956;all plants)
DATE Estimated RF | HEDR-Heeb RF Ratio
Startup May 8 0.91 0.1 0.905 1.0
May 8 - Oct 8 0.59 0.08 0.285 2.07
Nov 8 - Oct 0 0.57 0.08 9.25 2.28
Nov 0 - Jan 4 0.20 0.04 0.12 1.67
Feb 1 Apr1 0.14 0.03 0.05 2.80
After May 1 0.14 0.03 0.0125 11.2 |

In the appended table (Table 3) are listed the HEDR [Heeb94] release fractions and
estimated monthly 1-131 releases (in Curies) together with our revised FIFO, ECT, LAG and
RF factors which are applied to correct the HEDR underestimates,

There are some inherent uncertainties in our correction factors which, when
combined; give overall iincertainties of the corrected 1-131 releases in Column 10, Table 3.
For the different time periods involved, the combined uncertainties, expressed as mean
deviations, and which provide estimates of the range of our corrected release computations,
are as follows:

Time Period Relative Uncertainty
1944 1948 10%
1948 1950 22%

After 1950 22%

27



Exhibit M



. . UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
Page 134 Page 136 |"
1 Okay? $0 G of Z prime is equa to Gof 2 wine 1 Q. I'm — where Is G prime of - no ~G
2 — that two. 2 prime of Z found?
3 Q. Allright. Now — 3 A. This is what I referred to earlier, that
4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You've got about 10 | 4 Mr, Ramsdell admitted a mistake in the RATCHET
5 minutes left on the tape. 5 manual. Well, a typographical error and an
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Without ~ if we 6 — omission.
7 — define in equation 2.61, replace G of Z with Gof 2 | 7 Q. Um-hmm.
8 prime, then the integration is correct and thattwo {| 8 A. Till use those terms.
9 should be there. 9 Q. Sure,
10 BY MR. FOULDS: 10 A. The typographical is that in ~ in d
i Q. Now, can-we go back to equation 2.31, and { i4 defining equation 2.61, he should have had G prime |.
12 _ tell me what that represents? And maybe I 12 ofZ,
13 misunderstood you. I thought this was the one you | 13 Q. Okay.
14 referred to. 14 A. And the omission is, he didn't define what
15 A. Oh, okay. 2.31 is the vertical term and 15 G prime of Z was.
16 __ it's a component of 2.29, which is what's 16 Q. Yeah. Right. And there's no definition
17 — substituted there. 2.29, if you can see there - 17 of ~ of G ~ G prime of Z, is there?
18 Q. Yes. 18 A. Not in the -- the RATCHET manual. That
19 A. ~is — has chi has a function of the 19 was an omission.
20 ~~ radius R,. 20 Q. Okay. .
21 Q. Um-hmm. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You've got about five
22 A, Actually, R is in terms of a distance, 22 minutes left on the tape.
23 Q. Um-hmm. 23 MR. FOULDS: Sir?
24 A. Z, that is the height and time. Okay? 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Five minutes left on
25 Now, you see there it has a term G of Zinthere. 25 the tape. a
Page 135 Page 137
1 See G of Z in equation -- t MR. FOULDS: Okay,
2 Q. Wait. Just a second. Just a second, I'm 2 BY MR, FOULDS:
3 looking for it. Yeah. GZ? 3 Q. Well, for somebody like yourself or Doctor
4 A. Right. G of Z. 4 — Stewart that further wanted to test the accuracy of
5 Qa okay. G of Z? 4 this thing; where would they go to find what the
“e° AL . Gis the function of 2. 6 — definition of G prime of Z is? Is there some other
7 Q Yeah, 7 source that it may be available?
8 A, Okay. Now, G of Z is given by equation 8 A. That Is -- I think, suffice it to say,
9 2.31. 9 _ that the mistake in the -- in ~ the -- the
10 Q. Okay. 10 typographical mistake or the omission caused much
fi A. Okay? So when he substitutes chi, given if confusion. And you wouldn't go to look at that,
12 __ by equation 2.29, he is also putting G of Z in 12 you'd just need to define each term and work through
13 there. 13 the mathematics.
14 Q. Right. Okay. 14 I suspect the reason why they went that
15 A. Okay? Now, what Ramsdell did was, define | 15 approach — and, in fact, I mean, I looked at it and
16 another term called G of Z prime. And G of Z prime | 16 said, well, why did they do that? But there --
17 _ isG of Z without that two. So in the language of {417 there was reason for it and because that's the way
18 mathematics we say, he factored the two out. 18 they worked it in the coding. It’s the way they
19 Q. So this last equation 2.61, would be 19 wanted to represent it in the coding.
20 correct without the two. Is that right? 20 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, have you had a chance
2 A. Equation 2.61 could be written two ways. [21 — to ever review their coding to determine that they
22 Could be written as it's stated here without the 22 — did work it out properly?
23 two, or as stated here with the two, but instead of | 23 A. Yes, I did review --
24 Gof Z, G prime of Z, where G ~- G prime of Zisas {24 Q. Okay.
25 ‘Ihave previously defined it. 25 A. ~ the coding.

35 (Pages 134 to 137)



i

f—

‘ds Pe torts],

~_ 0010872
- TV

segs &, 1948

Bis data dntinatad that'a afoot tes af 20-10 aock oat te cagsbie of

“giving over 99% collection of sunpended active particles at supezficing

Velocities aq high as 10 ft-fainw Courser sanés gave this dograa of
Sletmp ab volocities en the order of 1 to 2 ft, o but the olicction
efficisncy dvopsed off wepidiy at higher veleciiiesy .

SCRUSSRR Tsa78 .

gh opst tests vers conductes by Teckvical Diviaion at an Sinch
Stemstor sercther packed with € foot oP 2/2<inch Bort snddtes fcllowd by
1 foes of I/a~inch Berl saddles avy peeking ond e cyolany entreinzsz>
scperater. The test rrocedures and results arg dissuacsd in Schihis 3B avd
Sussriged in foble Ve

Tao dain indicated o collection e€ficioncy uzler S8%_ and
thder SOZ, ot superficie! ‘velocities up te i £t./cv0s (eqaivelent t aa
20 Wore fea £t.)) ond vatar rates up to 299 (gol. fain~)/(2G00 Caf te/aine)
ar S300 (2d. )/(br. fag Fee}, Sithough in tno sun vith siven injoction 2% the
rate of 1/4 (o./ir.Won2t./rine)y a edllockics efficiency of 96% mag
Sotwized, Wille these tusts sore Par fron couprehonsive, the results did
indicats tant this type ef scxubbsr ms not castle o? vary high Gegveas of

particle Tees] evan at relatively lou capacity. Fwicre stiles with’
evaluate the rerfermanco of Fihergles packings Other types of sorvbterg will

also ba ceusideted Sor teat.
CONCLUSIONS 3ep NRccwazmierrons :
SCUCS Oss 3D Recast tons

+ Tn view of the atove anatyzia and resulta, 19 is receumended that the
Targe-seale experimutal serubieg progren ko dropped and that efforts te |

Sirested toma a large scale sond Piiter Insintiation, This cecommanacticn

a accepted in a movthig held ba. July 27, 19485 Botimatas and sobedwes
prepered through the joint efforts of Feoject Engineoring, Meintonsnoc," .
Gcustructien and "3S" Divinion sime thw Line have arrived ay Deconber iy
1948 a3 an anticipated stortoup date for a 48<foot by 110-f00 cand fi2tor in

| is Bahinit D fs given a dotutled dicemssten af tts faoters conatdered ia
striving 2% tho full scale Gedign. Bodbit 8 lists sexs coments on problens
Polated toe that of the partiols contamination fn 290 Arene

&

|

70081753

TING



am

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

‘under the Energy Emplayeas Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

boa OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/34/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form . . Page 1 of 2

Use of this form is voluntary. Fallute to use tis farei will ot result in the dart
cooueunmenenmedsnenementinnimens
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
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 compieted form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legthly.

instructions:

For Further Information: If 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: 1-800-356-4674,

Aillherlation tor lidividtial or Entity to Petition HHS oft Beliaif of a Class of Employees tor

Additisi to the Spetial Expostire Cohort

Name of Ciass Member or Survivor

Street Address of Class Member. or. Survivor - Apt.#t P.O. Box

City, Stale, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor

do itereby authorize:

Address of Petitioner - Apt. # P.O, Box

City, State and Zip Code of Pefitioner

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

ate ae

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor)

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

Asproviding this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have all the rights
under 42 CFR Part 83.

oo

Signgure of Cabs Mefnber of Survivor Date
~~

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



j
|
|
|

ro

[ Special Exposure Gohort Petition

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

liness Compensation Act : National institute for Occupational Safety and Hestth
OMB Number: 0920-0639 -° Expires: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 1 of 2

Se'of tis form Is voluntary. Faiture-te use this forni will riot rasutt ih thie dental dF atiy A

Instructions:
iT 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
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 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.

ion fot Individual Petition HHS oh Behalf of a Class of Employees tor

Name of Class Member or Siinihine

Stes. nuuieys Ut Wess Member or Survivor Apt # P.O, Box

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

Name of Petitioner _ o.. De . wees

Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box
aoe

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner

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

Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor)

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

In providing this author ati |, [recognize that the petitioner named above will have ail the rights
ofa as pro v ‘ander 42 CFR Part 83.

D. 2b. 8S

Signature of Class Member or we Date

Narne or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:

ooo



|
|
i
:
‘

NOTICE: THIS MATERIAL MAY 6&
PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

Use of Natural Airborne Radioactivity to

(NTLE 17 U.S. CODR

Using natural airborne radioactivity
which is designed to compare the surface

air monitoring.

introduction

A DESIRABLE property of an alpha air-sam-

pling filter is that the collected activity be
retained on the filter surface to avoid counting
losses due to burial. Most of these filters now
in use have been tested with 0.3-micron di-2-
ethythexyl phthalate (DOP) particles (DOP-
Smoke Penetration and Air Resistance of Filters,
Military Standard 282, Method 102.9.1, May 28,
1956, Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C.). While this test is useful in rating filters
for their ability to retain particles of this size,
it does not’ provide adequate information if the
filter is to be used for sampling airborne alpha-
emitting radioisotopes, because it gives no dis-
tinction between surface collection and burial.
Depending on the burial depth and the density
of the filter, buried alpha emitters may escape
detection because of complete energy dissipation

> Within thé filfer medium. Thus it is seen that in
contrast to chemical analysis, where the only
requirement for detection is retention, direct
alpha counting is only effective for particles col-
lected on or near the filter surface. Accordingly,
a test method showing the relative surface col-
lection efficiency of filters would furnish informa-
tion of considerable value.

In principle, this method should employ an
alpha emitter, such as plutonium, generated as
ap aerosol in the particle size range typical of
air-contaminating accidents. However, in addi-
tion to the obvious difficulties in selecting a
“typical” size, there are many technieal prob-
lems associated with controlled particle-size gen-
eration. In the method described here, use is
made of the short-lived natural alpha activity
attached to atmospheric dust. This aerosol oc-
curs freely in nature. .

Presented nt the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the
American Industrial Hygiene Associstion, Detroit, Michigan,
April 1961.

Evaluate Filters for Alpha
Air Sampling
C. L. LINDEKEN
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California

as a test aerosol, 2 method is described
collection efficiency of filters used for alpha

Natural Airborne Radioactivity

Natural airborne radioactivity originates with
uranium and thorium found in varying amounts
throughout the surface of the earth. In the radio-
active decay scheme of each element a gas is
produced—redon from uranium and thoron
from thorium. These gases diffuse into the at-
mosphere where they decay into solid daughter
products. Decay schemes for each of these gases
are shown diagrammatically in Schemes 1 and 2.

These decay products become attached to-air-
borne dust particles. Each of the decay schemes
containg alpha emitters. Consequently if at-
mospheric dust is collected by filtration, the
concentration of airborne radon and thorop
daughter products can be determined from the
collected alpha activity. The concentration of
natural airborne radioactivity varies depending
on-the geographical area, ‘Within“a’ given ‘arét
the concentration also varies with changes in
meteorological conditions. Diurnal variations are
well recognized. Burke and Nolan? found that
natural airborne activity increased with in-
creases in the concentration of condensation nu-
clei, They found further that, with an increase
in the concentration of the larger less mobile
ions, there also was an accompanying increase in
intermediate and smaller ions. It may be as
sumed, therefore, that conditions promoting
buildup of large dust particles in the atmos-
phere may also tend to increase the number of
small particles.

From a medical and health physics stand-
point, there is interest in the degree of lung re-
tention of particles in the range of 0.001 to 0.3
micron** If, as suggested by some of the
authorities, these particles are significantly re-
tained in the alveoli, then it is important to
know the efficiency of our sampling media for
retaining particles in this size range. As the
number of atmospheric dust particles in the size

282

nny

Indu

Ta
54s

rang
dant
bility
tear
foun
is pr
dian
Us W
iers
amal-
worl
nate
asbe
stati
Jey®
radi
cien
Wh:
wert
coll
mix
tiele
trat
min
rete

Apr

mor
the
Mit
The



}
i
i
i
{
i

|
|
j

charcoal was a good collector of all iodine species, this comparison can now be seen to have
indicated that about 80% of the I-131 was not elemental but organic iodide.

The presence of this postulated 10% fraction of organic-I in the dissolvers would
also constitute about 10% of I-131 in emitted stack gases from 1944-48, 15% from May 8 to
Oct 0, 40-60% from Nov 0 to Apr 1 and 65% thereafter. The revised RF given in this
present report (shown in column 7, Table 3), reflect these substantial proportions of organic-
L-

The existence of such a large proportion of organic-I at Hanford had very serious
implications, not only for revised RF values, but also for atmospheric dispersion and
deposition, conversions by atmospheric chemistry, and pathways to human exposure and
animal uptake. Unlike the reactive (inorganic) iodine and iodide, organic-I would have
deposited more slowly at greater distances, would not as readily have been adsorbed on
airbome particulate matter, and would have been much more slowly converted to inorganic
iodine by sunlight and through atmospheric reactions.

E.5 Computation of RF, Release Factors (1944-1956):
A significant revised correction factor in this report is the RF, release factor (shown
in column 7, Table 3)
Release Factor, RF = RF gssoive, + RF orga t RE yrocessing RF condensate
where: RF gssove. is fraction released during dissolving, less that
removed by scrubbers, [ref. Work,1946]
RF. 21 is fraction of iodine released as org-I,
RE cessing iS fraction released in subsequent handling and processing, °
less that removed by sand beds
RF .cndensate iS fraction removed as stack condensate
Assi ions ese computations;
86% evolved during dissolution and air sparging (inorg + org-D)
10% of iodine was organic (not removed by scrubbers)
(assumed to be the same for B, T, REDOX and PUREX plants)
7.5% evolved after dissolution stage in subsequent processing
3% was collected as stack condensate until 1948
40% removal efficiency of water scrubbers
30% removal efficiency of sand beds

27



Exhibit K



Exhibit I



However, an even greater source of error in HEDR release estimates from 1944 and
over the lifetime of the plants was their neglect of other forms of gaseous radioiodine being
teleased.

£.4 Organic lodides;

It now appears that more than one-half of the I-131 released after filters and Ag beds
were installed, was in the form of gaseous organic iodides. The existence of such organic-1
was not considered until they were discovered in downwind air [Perkins,1964]and in stack
gases at 30-71%, [Haller & Perkins, 1967]; although Harvey [1962] and McCormack [1962]
had suggested that some organic iodine compounds were formed based on instrumental
stack monitoring. By their nature, organic iodides, or alkyl iodides such as methyl-I and
butyl-I are fairly un-reactive gaseous compounds which are readily emitted from acidic
dissolver solutions, are not absorbed by filters, scrubbers or Ag reactors and therefore, not
measurable by stack samplers. These compounds were not unknown at the time. Initially it
was speculated that the organic form was methyl-I [du Plessis and Sutter, 1969] but later it
was shown to be butyl-I by Haller and Perkins [1967] and this was also confirmed by Evans
and Jervis [1992].

Napier [2002] speculated that organic iodide was formed by reactive iodine with
organic solvents in the Purex process. However, Evans and Jervis [1992] found that,
whenever inorganic I-131 was placed in acidic solutions, organic iodide, mainly butyl-I,
formed within a few hours and moved to any gas space over the solution. In lab

experiments, the organic was not caught in traps that removed I, or HI but could only be
caught in treated activated charcoal traps. There was no added carbon for the organic-1
formation and it readily formed by iodine reactions with carbonaceous impurities in the
acidic solutions. These experiments were carried out at 10° to 107 molar concentrations,
similar to the levels in the Hanford dissolvers. The mechanisms and rates of formation of
organic iodide were elucidated in detail by Evaus, Mirbod and Jervis [1993]. Further it was
found that the rate of formation of organic iodide in acidicsolutions was greatly acceleratéd
in the presence of high radiation fields such as existed in the dissolvers [Taghipour and
Evans, 2001].

Considering the high acidity and elevated temperatures in the Hanford dissolvers, it is
conservatively estimated here that a fraction of 10% of total J-131 was in the form of organic
iodide from 1944 and throughout the operating history. Exactly this proportion of organic
iodide was measured also in 1-131 solutions by Numakura, Saeki and Tachikawa [1973].
That such appreciable levels of other forms of gaseous iodine had been overlooked was
Pointed out in two previous iodine reports [Jervis95, McNJ99}. Such gaseous organic
iodides, being much less reactive than I, and F, passed freely through fiber filters, scrubbers
or Ag reactors and were not trapped in stack samplers, hence went undetected. Maxter
[1963] stated that lab testing of caustic scrubbers (used for stack sampling) indicated a 92%
efficiency to trap I-131. However, when compared with charcoal bed samples taken at the
same time, what they had collected was actually only 20% of total iodine in the stack. Since

27



|
|

Regional Atmospheric Transport Code for

Hanford Emission Tracking (RATCHET)
Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

January 1994
. This document has been reviewed and

approved by the Technical Steering Panel.

XY i900 Sormmseny I, 19946
~E. Till, Chair Date
Steering Panel



were released to the air from reactor fuel Processing plants on Sttdy area shown in Fig. I was Selected for atmospheric
De tiantard Site in fete Washington State from dispersion and deposition modeling. ‘This rectangular
December 1944 through December 1949, The Hanford Eavi- a, 4 te

lose R. ic

eS, i >
ford Emission Tracking (RATCHET) computer code is part of Oregon to Horthem Washin ton and from the crest of the
this suite. The RATCHET code implements Lagrangian. Cascade Mountains to the eastem edge of nother Idaho,
Ganset .

major topographic
Bi0n and is sicwated with more of the

Prevailing wing direction,
SI Gnorganic 8286s, organic. Bases. and ii =
Particles), Mode] deposition Parameters are fimetions af the ‘aitlesnake Mountain is the most notable to
mixture and meteors conditions, 4 ce model is Staphic feature in the immediate vicinity of the Hanford

“Eau les: a
Sreen concentrations fa the Precipitation and the air near the boundary of the Hanforg Site and has an elevation that
ground is assumed in calculating wet deposition af gases, and exceeds 1.050 m. The southwestern Slope of Rattlesnake

irreversible washaut of the particles ig assumed. RATCHET Mountain is gende. burt the Hortheast face of Rattlesnake
explicitly treats the uncertainties in model parameters and i

logical : ip Mountain js extremely steep. The elevation of the Han-
meteorological conditions, vauttainties in “"T retease rates ford Site in the Vicinity of the Feactor. fuet processine’
and Peritioning among the meurizal species are treated by Plants is about 225 m. There is a broad valley berween
Yarying model itput. The results of 100 modet Tans for... E

for t a y
ene Rattlesnake Mountain ang the processing Planes. To the
December 1944 thron December 1949 iudfeate that hy a hee
avevage.air concentanese and depot have nneeriaintde, orth and east of the pr Scessing pI Tamu, the terra HW slope: s
. ranging from a factor of two near the center of the time. toward the Columbia River, Light Nightime drainage

3% waste The stady area is sufficienuy large thar Systematic

“2 was nsparted out of the Y 2c¢a while still ip the aig. jations in Meteorological and climatological condi-

“Health Phys. 7anses-sr oe tion oh i

Key words: NS dose Assessment; Fadiozctivity, airborne: graphical means of showing the climatological disatbu-

emissions. amespheric on of wind directions at a location. The wind foses in
he

INT: RODUCTION western edge of the Study area. and the prevailing

(See Pasco, LaCrosse. and Hanington in Fig. 2) and the

kane areg (ses Fairchitg in Fig. 2). Aanval precipj-

tation varies from a low 9f ~16 cry! peor Hanford to

More than 250 cm y7? in the Cascade Mountains on the
. ‘western edge of the study area. The annual Precipitation

* Banelle. Pacific Northwest Laborataties, P.O. Box 999. Rich. along the eastern edge of the Study area is Seserally more

land. WA 99352, ; : thea 50 om y="

(Manuscripe feCeied 17 Aveusy 1998: reviseg manuscript re.
W

CeWwed 6 Decemirer 1995. accepted § June 1996,

The size of the satdy area, the Vatiations in Meteo.
Cat7-90786/53.000

Fological Conditions, the length of tine being modeled.

Conyrght 3 1996 Health Physics Socery and the desire to mode! Uncertainty led to the extant



. - . UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
**UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT**

IN RE HANFORD NUCLEAR MASTER FILE

RESERVATION LITIGATION No. CY-91-3015-WEN

~~ DH GH & W DN

DEPOSITION OF ARTHUR S. ROOD

8 Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff

3 November 5, 2004

10 ---

il
-- 12 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Washington
13 Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of Arthur
14 S. Rood was taken before Marta M. Rice, CCR No.

15 2050, CSR No. 722, Registered Professional Reporter,
mT ag and a Notary Public for the State of Idaho, on
17 November 5, 2004, commencing at the hour of 9:20
18 a.m., the proceedings being reported at Moffatt,

19 Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, 420 Memorial Drive,
20 Idaho Falls, Idaho.
21
22

23 **UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT**

24

25

es



;

i
i
|

Chapter 13 The End. in Sight

Chapter 12 Major Project Results 101

Summary of Project Results .
Doses from the Air Pathway from Jodine 131

Doses from the Air Pathway from Key Radioactive Materials
Doses from the Columbia River Pathway

Final Source Term Report

12

Restructuring the Technical Steering Panel
' National Academy of Sciences Reviews
Final Technical Work Completed by the Technical Steering Panel
Individual Dose Work
Recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
Complete Project Work
Key Issues to be Resolved

. Appendix 1 Technical Steering Panel Members 181
' Appendix 2 Technical Steering Panel Directives 185

Appendix 3 Technical Steering Panel Meeting Dates 165
Appendix 4 Summary of Key Events in the Dose Reconstruction Project 167
Appendix 5 Annual Summary of Radioactive Materials Released to the Air

from Hanford 1944-72 171

Appendix 6 Annual Summary of Radioactive Materials Released to the
Columbia River from Hanford 1944-74 __. a LTB



Exhibit F



}
|

j

2.6 Diffusion ©

Once material is released to the atmosphere, it acts as a passive tracer. Large-scale motions
move plumes about, and small-scale atmospheric motions distribute material within plumes. The
preceding discussion of transport described how RATCHET accounts for the effects of large-scale
motions. This section describes how RATCHET accounts for the effects of the small-scale motions.
Section 2:7 describes the deposition of material on surfaces and depletion of the puffs to account for
material lost due to deposition and radioactive decay.

2.6.1 Calculation of Time-Integrated Air Concentrations

‘The second basic assumption in'puff models is that a continuous plume can be approximated by
a finite number of puffs released in succession. The concentration at a receptor is assumed to be
equal to the sum of the concentrations from all of the puffs, that is

N
x&y,2,0) = D> Xoy.2,0) 2.28)
Fa

where x = concentration
x,y,z = position of the receptor in Cartesian coardinates
= time of the concentration estimate

t
i = puff number
N = total number of puffs in the model domain.

In practice, computational rules based on puff dimensions have been established to limit the number
of terms included in the summation. These rules include assigning a finite radius to each puff and
combining puffs that overlap. The rules and RATCHET sensitivity to the rules are discussed in
Section 3.2,

f external influences such as the ground,.the concentration distribution in each of
is assumed to be Gaussian. Diffusion in the direction of the wind and cross-
wind diffasion are assumed to be equal; that is, horizontal cross sections through puffs are circular.

A corollary of this assumption is that concentrations in a horizontal: plane decrease as a fanction of
increasing distance from the puff center and are independent of the direction in which the distance is
increased. It is, therefore, possible to revise the definition of the coordinate system without changing
the relationship in Equation (2.28), The x axis of the coordinate system now may be assumed to
point toward the east, with the y axis pointing north and the vertical axis pointing upward.

Because the concentration in puffs is horizontally symmetrical, it is only necessary to know the
height of the center of a puff and the distance between the center of a puff and a node to compute the
puff’s contribution to the concentration at the node. Therefore, the concentration distribution in puffs
is defined in terms of the radial distance, r, from the puff center rather than x and y. With these
assumptions, the concentration at x,y,z at time t due to puff i is given by

2.6



RATCHET uses the following expression, which is discussed in Slinn (1984), for computing
washout of particles by rain:

A=(CBP)035P,2) @.55)

where A = washout coefficient (hr)
C = eappirical constant assumed to have a value of 0.5
E = average collision efficiency assumed to be 1.0
P, = precipitation rate (mm/hr)
P, = normalized precipitation rate (Pr/Imm/hr).

Table 2.2 shows particle washout coefficients for the default rainfall rates in RATCHET. -
During periods of snow, the washout coefficient for particles is computed using
A = 0.2P, @.56)
Scavenging of gases takes place when the temperature is near freezing. When the temperature falls
below -3°C scavenging ceases because of changes in the physical character of the precipitation,
2.7.4 Surface Contamination

Given the dry and wet deposition velocities, the surface contamination that accumulated at
any point during a short period is computed as

SCIix,y) = dy xiGx,y)At : @sn

where SCL{x,y) = mass or activity deposited (Ci/m?) at x,y from puff i
d, = total deposition velocity, dy +d» (avs)
xiicy) = gtoiltid-level concentration (Cian input
At = time period (s).

Equation 0.57 simpy sts tt sure comaminaton in en nerve eal tothe produc of «
transfer coefficient (deposition velocity), the concentration in the air, and the time period.

To this contamination, RATCHET adds the contamination resulting from the washout of
particles. This additional contamination is computed using

AQ, expl-0.5¢¢/0,77] At
2r 0,”

SC2,(x,y) = 2.58)



Exhibit G