DOE | Energy Employees Occupational! INness Compensation Program Page 1 of 1 We

es Occupational Illness Comp

Facility List

ecord found for the fac

Text size Smaller - Normal - Larger -
Largest

@ Chemical Corp
hieson Chemical Co

hieson Chemica! extracted uranium oxides out of phosphoric acid compauinds in
Atomic Energy Commission

httn://wow hss enerev eov/healthsafetv/fwsn/advocacv/faclist/showfacility cfm 9/5/2010


108

contaminated water has spilled or been pumped into Cotton Patch Bayou, which feeds
into the Houston Ship Channel. There has been one spill and two authorized discharges
into the bayou. Agrifos is a phosphate based fertilizer plant. One of the by-products of
their production process is gypsum, which sits in large piles on company premises
Around these piles of gypsum are containment walls, designed to keep the gypsum on
site in the case of rains instead of washing into the bayou or channel. On August 16, said
Chuck Wolf, spokesperson for the command center, eight inches of heavy rains fell in a
few short hours and filled up the containment wall around the gypsum storage pile. It
(essentially) overflowed the containment wall and went into Cotton Patch Bayou. Wolf
explained that the problem with the containment wall is that the water is seeping out from
underneath the wall. The people from Agrifos detected the leak, stopped the leak and
then notified the (respective) agencies, said Wolf. They were sandbagging around the
wall, and even built a coffer dam around the wall to stop the leak. That was done by
August 20. Wolf explained that the second leak occurred Sept | when heavy rainfall sat
over Pasadena again. The four inches of rainfall caused another overflow and that’s
when they started an emergency pumping operation to relieve the pressure on the
containment wall so it wouldn’t collapse. That release was stopped Friday, Sept.,” said
Wolf. The threat of Tropical Storm Humberto prompted yet another release of
contaminated water into Cotton Patch Bayou. The decision was made to release the
excess water so that the containment wall did not fail, resulting in even more phosphoric
acid contaminate leaving the site. Wolf explained that the water was being treated at the
release site with limestone gravel and soda ash, both designed to level out the pH of the
phosphoric acid which will hopefully lessen the environmental impact of the release on
aquatic life in the area. Our environmental concerns are that this is essentially a
phosphoric acid spill, said a spokesperson with the Environmental Protection Agency. It
could possibly affect the aquatic life in the Houston Ship Channel area. The Coast Guard

reported that the area was showing “impacts from the acidic release, including dead
vegetation and marine life”

Also, “In January of 2001, the EPA reported a similar situation on the same site when the
mote that contains the processed water around the gypsum pile failed after heavy rainfall,
and 36,000 pounds of phosphoric acid was reported to have left containment and flow
into a Harris County Flood Control ditch and into an outfall of Cotton Patch Bayou. The
second release has resulted in 19 million gallons of contaminated water being discharged
into Cotton Patch Bayou. The containment wall holds between 25 and 35 million
gallons, estimates officials. The spokesman explained that there is no projected impact to

public health as a result of the release.” For the remainder of the article, please see
Attachment 3.

According to an article in the September 20, 2007 edition of the Houston Chronicle, (See
Attachment 4.) six governmental agencies were, present the previous week when the
Agrifos Fertilizer Plant released contaminated water into Cotton Patch Bayou and the
Houston Chip Channel. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s on-scene
coordinator at the release said the contaminated water was not harmful to human health
and that they did not see anything that was immediately threatening to the public. The
contaminate release began Sept. 12 to help prevent the collapse of a rain-weakened


Wg

s compete on rodeo grounds. Read more on PAGE 2A

1tizen

ing Pasadena, South Houston and surrounding areas

tember 14, 2007 Vol. 60, No, 184 50 cents
pumped into hayou
:
| By JENNIFER BRANCH Agrifos is a phosphate based = Wolf d that the prob- ‘
' News Editor fertilizer plant. One of the by- lem with the containment wall is
i

products "of their production that the water is seeping out
process is gypsum, which sits in from underneath the wall.
large piles on company premis- “The people from Agrifos
detected the leak, sto] the
‘around these piles of gypsum leak and then notified the
are containment walls, designed (respective) agencies,” said
Wolf.

fr, The United States Coast
fuard, Environmental
otection Agency, Texas

to keep the Bypsum on site in the
case of rains instead of washing “They were sandbagging
into the bayou or channel. around the wall, and even built a

“On August 16,” said Chuck coffer dam around the wall to t
Wolf, spokesperson for the com- stop the leak. That was done by
mand center “eight inches of August 20.”
heavy rains fell in a few short Wolf explained that the sec-
hours and filled up the contain- ond leak occurred Sept. 1 when
ment wall around the gypsum heavy rainfall sat over Pasadena
storage pile. again.
“It (essentially) overflowed “The four inches of rainfall
the containment ‘wall and went
into Cotton Patch Bayou.” See BAYOU, PAGE 34

Bi has spilled or been
rf into Cotton Patch



9

Commission in the 1950s. These plants were the Mathieson Chemical Company in
Pasadena, Texas and the Texas City Chemicals plant (another “Covered Facility” under
the EEOICPA) in Texas City, Texas. This was part of a pilot project to extract uranium
from the phosphate ore used to manufacture fertilizer. Also, according to the article, U.S.
Department of Energy officials acknowledged that the government has no idea how many
may have come in contact with radioactive byproducts, or how and where the companies
disposed of the waste. According to an article in The Pasadena Citizen, dated September
13, 2000, (See Exhibit B.) the Agrifos Fertilizer Plant Manager stated that “to his
knowledge”, only a bench scale lab existed at the site between 1951 and 1953. He also
said “Bench lab means all the work was done in beakers and glasswear. There was
nothing that we know of involving pipelines or reactors.”. This gentleman is
commenting, in September of 2000, about a situation that happened in the early 1950s,
when he was not present. Of course he did not know about it. He was not there.
Comments of that nature are usually prefaced by a disclaimer similar to “There was
nothing that we know of.”. The present occupants of this site readily admit to the
presence of “at least 50 pounds” of uranium. That seems to be the usual figure that has
been used since the presence of uranium in the plant became known. How much uranium
is “at least 50 pounds” of uranium? Is that 60 pounds? Is that 100 pounds? Is that
50,000 pounds? Or is it more? Someone must have given out a figure and only
information concerning an alleged bench lab with glassware to imply that the presence of
uranium at Mathieson Chemical Company was harmless.

This “Lab” was in the same building where administrative employees had offices. Ihave
been told that due to this proximity, Lab employees and friends and acquaintances who
were administrative employees quite often had cordial visits during the day such as on
“breaks”. No guards were posted at this Lab. The “Lab” had no air conditioning. Does
it seem reasonable that this contract with the Government which extended from 1951 —
1953 involved only “harmless” uranium in glassware in one room? Was the work which
was required to crush the phosphoric ore and to process chemical compounds to recover
this uranium from these processes for this period of time all done using only
“glassware”?

A letter dated March 13, 1979 from Mr. William E. Mott, U. S. Department of Energy to
Mr. M. S. Davenport, Plant Manager, Olin Corporation, Pasadena, Texas (See Exhibit I)
states in part “Enclosed is a copy of a preliminary summary describing work conducted at
a portion of your facility for the AEC. Doe is still in the process of reviewing MED/AEC
operations records in order to obtain all available information. The enclosed draft is
based upon data collected to date and is submitted to you so that your review and
comment can be received in a timely manner.” This “draft” which is enclosed is a one
page document regarding the site survey which was made November 18, 1977 by Oak
Ridge Operations (OR) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) personnel. This
enclosure includes the following “Site Function — Olin Mathieson Chemical Company
had at least one contract for research and development on uranium recovery from
phosphoric acid produced at Pasadena. A pilot plant was operated during the early
1950s. Site Description — A single laboratory-type building was utilized under the AEC
contract. Owner History — The site is owned by Olin Mathieson Chemical Company.


REGION III PRESS RELEASE TEST WELLS TO MONITOR GROUND WATER AT... Page 1 of 2

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

EPA Environmental News
Contact: Patrick Gaughan (304) 234-0238

October 9, 1997-9815

TEST WELLS TO MONITOR GROUND WATER AT OLIN SUPERFUND SITE
NEAR SALTVILLE, VA

PHILADELPHIA —The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved the construction of
monitoring wells at the Olin Superfund site near Saltville, Va. The wells will tell EPA scientists if
mercury has contaminated the ground water running beneath the site.

The site, a former chlorine plant located in Smyth County on the North Fork of the Holston River, is
heavily contaminated with mercury. Sediments, contaminated with mercury were dredged from the
bottom of the river and placed in containment on land. It is suspected that mercury may be leaching back
into the soil. The monitoring wells wil! reveal if mercury has entered the ground water.

The Olin Superfund site was first added to the EPA's National Priorities List of the worst hazardous

waste sites in the country in 1982, after an initial investigation revealed the presence of mercury in the
soil and river sediment.

Field work on construction of the monitoring wells will begin in mid-October and be completed,
weather permitting, by the end of November. After the wells have been installed on the old chlorine

plant area, several rounds of ground water samples will be collected over a year and a half and analyzed
for contaminants.

The primary objective of the sampling is to see what impact the mercury may have on the North Fork of
the Holston River which remains under a fish consumption advisory. Once this information has been

gathered, EPA will decide whether a long- term remedy is required at the former chlorine plant location,
and if so, what the remedy will be.

As with the remedy decision for waste ponds on the site, any potential remedy that EPA deems
necessary will be documented and made available for public comment prior to making final decisions
Olin, under EPA oversight, is continuing the investigation process into the river system.

From 1895 to 1972, the Saltville Waste Disposal Site was occupied by Olin Corporation and
predecessors, Mathieson Chemical Corporation and Mathieson Alkali Works. Olin estimated that 100
pounds of mercury a day were lost from 1951 to 1970 into the ground and the river. Wastes from the
plant were pumped into large settling basms or waste ponds.

In 1970, Olin modified its operation to cut mercury losses to a quarter pound per day. In 1970 the
Virginia State Water Control Board adopted a new standard for dissolved solids which Olin indicated

they could not meet. Olin shut down the Saltville operations in 1972. The chlorine plant was demolished
in 1973 and buried between waste ponds

http://www.epa.gov/Region3/r3press/pr98-15.htm 10/20/2010

US


sd the secorid annual evgnt.

to overgee

Anualn~ pone

i

not harmful to human health.
- “We had people monitoring
and testing to check the condi-

tions in the ship channel,”
Chris Ruhl said. “We did not

see anything that was immedi- +

ately threatening to the pub-
lie?”

The wali surrounds a 240-
acre pile of gypsum, which is
encircled by water used in the
manufactr of chemical fertil-

“Usually, the water, i is | i a
ditch and is separated from the
containment wall by a rgad.

Wall began leaking

An eight-inch rain Aug. 16
caused the ditch to overflow,
and the concrete wall began
leaking, Pierce said. The same
thing happened in early Sep-
tember. Repairs to the wall are
under way.

Last week, when Tropical
Storm Humberto, later Hurri-
cane Humberto, threatened
the Houston area with 5 to 15
inches of rain, Agrifos started
releasing water at about noon
on Sept. 12 to stave off a “cata-
strophic failure,” of the wall,
officials said.

“This is not something we
wanted to do, but we think the
release was critical to prevent-
ing a major issue,” Pierce said
Monday. “Although we regret

Guard, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Harris
County Public Health and En-
vironmental Services, Texas
pe and Wildlife =
ti Oceanographic.
smospheric “Adeninistration et
up a unified command at the
plant to oversee the release.
Throughout the three-day
release and into this week,
agency representatives and

“evel: int Cotton Pai yor

and the ship channel, Pierce
said.

Because the water’s acidity
level was temporarily lowered,
some fish died, but not in large
numbers, Pierce said.

“There was not a fish kill in
the normal sense of the word,”
he said. “But I certainly will
not say there was no impact.”

Pierce said workers treated
as much of the released water
as they could with soda ash, a
base chemical to neutralize the
acid.

in the manufacture of fertil-
izer, water is continuously re-
cycled; as it’s used up, it’s re-
placed by rain, Pierce said.

Normal rainfall amounts
typically balance out loss to
manufacturing, but this sum-
metr’s heavy raihs exceeded
storage capacity, Pierce said.

carol.christian@chron.com

FANMIE cry + FOR THE CHRONICLE

Roasting the comish

TD ORT Commissioner Steve Phelps, right, was

amnne thace uhn tant a acento 8 tet te

fal


ena EE i

Backyard chef

he’ |

Your award-winning newspaper se
www.thepasadenacitizen.com Friday, Se

CONTAMINATED WATER.
Over 19 million gallons of
water contaminated with
phosphoric acid were
pumped into Cotton Patch
Bayou as a result of a
containment wall at Agrifos
Fertilizers Inc.

Photo by Orozco

Equine eyents
_-set for Saturday

By OROZCO
orter
This Saturday and S$ \ be Pasadena Livestock Show
and Rodeo is kic! i equine events.
. . Barrel racing, pole i showing horses will be
> three of the main ever its starting on Saturday,
along with the winning/buckles, ribbons and trophies.
. _ Held ina closed on the fairgrounds of the Pasadena

* Convention Center, the show will go with or without rain, as
weather forecast nredint on ara

NT


Employees were exposed to the dangers of radiation exposure without their knowledge or
consent. Employees did not know about the presence of uranium in the plant. No
monitoring was done, no safety precautions were taken, no warning signs were posted, no
safety equipment was provided. Nothing was done to let these employees know they
were in danger. And no records were kept.

Members of the U. S. Senate took positive compassionate action when they voted to pass
the EEOICPA in 2000, to compensate DOE nuclear weapons workers who suffered
occupational illnesses as a result of exposure to the unique hazards in building the
Nation’s nuclear defense. This was great news for workers who had been employed at
certain site locations where they had been exposed to the dangers of radiation exposure.
Many workers have worked, suffered, and received well deserved compensation.
However, as in most programs which cover large numbers of people, some workers were

left out. worked, suffered, and died. I and our family and friends have been
deprived of the love, companionship, kindness, support and all the other things that go
with having with us. Many other families where a family member was an

employee of Mathieson Chemical Company faced the same situations. No employee or
survivor of employee of Mathieson Chemical Company has been compensated due to this
EEOICPA. Mathieson Chemical Company seems to be the “forgotten” plant site.

According to Senate proceedings, “At the time the bill passed in 2000, Congress
recognized that there were likely to be more situations where it was simply not feasible to
reconstruct workers’ doses because the records don’t exist, or they are inadequate,
because it might take so long to reconstruct a dose for a group of workers that they would
all be dead before we would have an answer to determine their eligibility.”, “ When
Congress passed this law, they explicitly said workers could be added to a cohort when
the records didn’t exist to make it feasible to do dose reconstruction.”, and “The
Government simply doesn’t know what went on at these facilities and to what the
workers were exposed. That makes it impossible to do timely dose reconstruction.”. In
these proceedings, statements regarding the workers were “They are faced with a
situation where the bureaucrats are asking them to go back and help them reconstruct the
dosages over 50 years ago—or more. They have no records. They are very sick people.
They are dying of multiple cancers, the kinds of cancers and other problems caused by
exposure to radioactivity. It is not feasible for them to go back and reconstruct. Without
the records, we know that these people are seriously ill and are afflicted with all kinds of
cancers.”. Since the original Act was passed, The EEOICPA has been revised several
times. No action has been taken on my claim since February 9, 2005.

Attachments (5):
(1) EEOICPA -— Facility List - Updated June 04, 2008
(2) EPA Environmental News — October 9, 1997-9815 — Test Wells To Monitor
Ground Water At Olin Superfund Site Near Saltville, Va.

Np-


making a Dose Reconstruction Report using a Technical Bulletin is appropriate for this
claim. I believe that making a Dose Reconstruction Report is not feasible.

In the 1950s, Mathieson Chemical, based on what I have been told, was already getting
phosphate rock from Florida. Mathieson Chemical already had the capability and other
components necessary for this uranium contract. The reasonable assumption is that
Mathieson Chemical Company and Blockson Chemical Company due to their business
association had the same production procedures and produced the same products. Why
not? They were in the same business and had the same objective. AEC had the patent
for processing. Why not use the Mathieson Chemical plant which was already in
business for this type of operation and was already equipped to start production? These
employees were trained as operators, pipefitters, etc.. They knew very little technical
information about chemicals and chemical compounds. They were not physicists. I’m
told that when they were told to “run” a product, they performed their jobs according to
the specifications, directions, and names of materials given to them. They were not told
of the dangers involved. (See Exhibit B and Exhibit C.) So, if everything in that
operation was so “innocent and harmless” why was it considered top secret back then and
for approximately 50 years? Employees did not know about it and I’ve been told that
the few people who did know about it were swom to secrecy. Why were the details
concerning the sudden death of a Lab employee, so mysterious?

This would be amusing if there had been no victims. However, it is not amusing because
many employees in that plant have suffered and died from cancer now believed to be due
to conditions in that plant. Why is the figure (at least 50 pounds) given so readily now?
How many pounds would “at least 50 pounds” be if an unannounced, unbiased, inspector
had arrived at that time? What else would have been in evidence other than “glassware”,
and what would have been found if other areas of the plant had been inspected? No one
knows how much uranium was in the plant. No one knows the sizes, the capacity or
durability, the locations, or how many vessels, pumps and lines, or anything else that was
used. No one knows the job duties, work assignments, routes taken, or exposure along
those routes. No one knows planned or unplanned events that occurred, or anything else
about what happened in that plant. No one really knows what actually happened in that

plant. As one of the Congressmen who worked to pass the EEOICPA said, “They simply
do not know.”. No records were kept.

The earliest documentation that I can find about activities on this site during the period
1951-1953 is Appendix A-3 Residual Radioactivity Evaluations for Individual Facilities,
page 126 of 236, (See Exhibit A) which states in part “Facility Description: Mathieson
Chemical extracted uranium oxides out of phosphoric acid compounds in a pilot study for
the Atomic Energy Commission. Discussion: Documentation describes the activities as
bench-top type experiments for extracting uranium oxides from phosphoric acid
compounds, which would most likely have been conducted under laboratory controls.
There is no description of the quantities of uranium extracted or radiological conditions
immediately after cessation of activities. But it is reasonable to believe that laboratory
work would not have resulted in widespread distribution or residual contamination post-
operations. A radiological survey was performed for the DOE in 1977, with the only

Lot


from wet process phosphoric acid produced for fertilizer manufacture. The Project
Manager was Dr. M. E. Miller, the contract number is unknown, and all records were
destroyed after legal time limits expired. The letter also states that there were no offsite
locations involved. Phosphoric acid was piped from process to the pilot plant and treated
acid returned to fertilizer processing. Less than 50 pounds of yellow cake was produced.
This was recycled back into the acid. Also, according to this letter, no radioactivity
monitoring was done during the test period. None was required by the then existing
regulations. The equipment which consisted of vessels, pumps, and lines was removed
after completion of the project. Presumably it was scrapped. Also, according to Mr.
Kaufman, no records relating to this are available. Mr. Kaufman states further that the
current status of this disposition is unknown, the contamination in the area is what would
be expected in a phosphate producing plant, a survey made by Mr. Lewis M. Cook of the
Texas Department of Health is enclosed, and no specific decontamination was undertaken
at any time. As to references, Mr. Kaufman states that, “No records were retained. The
above information was developed from conversations with some of the people involved
in the project.” Please note that this information was given on April 12, 1979 which is
more than 25 years later. (See Exhibit I.)

I also call your attention to the fact that, in these letters, this operation has changed from.
a small, one-room “bench type Lab” with “glassware” and “sink” and “chemical hood” to
a “small pilot plant” with “vessels, pumps, and lines”. A report shows that in 1977,
radioactive substances were located in a sink drain and supposedly removed to a safe
location. The report continues to state that whether that clean-up was followed up on is
unknown. Were these vessels, pumps and lines also in that one room (12 x 14 ft) in the
Administration Building which was a one-story building? Bear in mind that this room
was not air conditioned. Where was the other end of that drain? Did this drain pipe
extend out of that room? The location and dimensions of these “vessels, pumps, and
lines” or to where this drain pipe extended seem to be of no interest. Please explain. No
one seems to question the fact that no records were kept.

This site (formerly occupied by Mathieson Chemical Company, which became Olin
Mathieson Chemical Company and also known as Olin Corporation) was acquired in
1979 by Pasadena Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of Mobil Oil Corporation. In 1983
the name of the facility was changed to Mobil Mining and Minerals Company. The site
is now occupied by Agrifos Chemical Plant.

A letter dated 16 July 1980 from Mr. Edmund A. Vierzba, Environmental Control and
Analysis, Directorate to Dr. William E. Mott, Acting Director, Environmental & Safety
Engineering Division, U. S. Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland 20767,
regarding COMMENTS ON THE REPORT ENTITLED “PRELIMINARY SURVEY
OF OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, PASADENA, TEXAS” states
that “In view of the fact that the State of Texas would like additional survey assistance
from the Department of Energy, and in view of the minor contamination found, it is
suggested that no survey be conducted until after removal of the sink and drain-line is
completed. The site is currently used, but mainly for storage purposes. Contrary to the
plans at the time of the survey, there are no plans to demolish the building, according to

Jol


[00

Radiological History and Status — This site was visited by Oak Ridge Operations (OR)
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) personnel on November 18, 1977. ORNL
is preparing a letter report covering the findings of the site visit. Preliminary review of
the field notes indicate the presence of some contamination; however, levels seem minor.
Category and Status — No Survey is anticipated. ORNL is preparing a survey report.
References — 1. ORNL Field Notes from site visit, November 18, 1977. 2. Letter, “Site
Visit to Olin Mathieson,” W. T. Thomton (OR) to Mr. Davenport (Olin Mathieson,
October 1977.” These two references are not included as they were not found with this
letter. (See Exhibit I.)

Also, “The second enclosure lists the specific information that should ideally be included
in the attached summaries. As you can see, a portion of the information has not yet been
identified. The survey was done November 18, 1977 and Mr. Mott of DOE is requesting
help from Mr. Davenport of Olin Corporation in this letter dated March 13, 1979 in order
that a report may be documented. Mr. Mott stated, “I would appreciate receiving any
supplemental information you can supply that might fill in some of the incomplete areas.
I would also like to solicit any additional information regarding other facilities involved
in the feed materials program of MED/AEC.”. This enclosure is entitled “Contents of
Site Summaries” and lists questions each site summary should ideally answer under the
respective categories, as Mr. Mott suggests. For more on this, see letter dated April 12,
1979 in Exhibit I. Mr. Mott was not satisfied with this report.

Based on a letter dated March 30, 1979 to Mr. H. E. Kaufman, Manager, Governmental
Affairs and Energy, Olin Chemicals Group, from Mr. Lewis M. Cook of the Texas
Department of Health, Mr. Kaufman was told, “Thank you for coming by my office and
discussing your company’s views about phosphate mill tailings (gypsum). Because our
survey of the plant on September 20, 1978 was only a partial survey, we did not write a
report. We, as we discussed last September, were concerned about possible residual
contamination from the old Manhattan Engineering District tests conducted there many
years ago. Mr. C.R. Meyer of our regional office and I conducted a gamma ray radiation
survey in the west end of the old administration building, the areas we were told the old
Manhattan project work was carried out. We found no contamination we could attribute
to that operation.” Mr. Cook also said that they made a survey of the plant where they
found the radiation levels were not atypical of those found in other plants reported in the
literature. This “literature” is not identified. (Please see Attachment 3 of Exhibit I for
actual numbers reported by Mr. Cook.) Mr. Cook also writes, “If you require further
information or desire to discuss your plans further, please do not hesitate to call or come
by.” The “plans” are not described. These gentlemen seem to have had a friendly
relationship. Please note that this letter was written March 30, 1979. Also, please note
that the survey was made in areas they were told the old Manhattan project work was

carried out. In other words, they looked where they were told to look. What about the
other parts of the plant?

A letter dated April 12, 1979 from Mr. H. E. Kaufman to Mr. William E. Mott, was in
answer to the above questionnaire sent to Mr. Kaufman, and states in part that the Olin
site near Pasadena, Texas was used to operate a small pilot plant which extracted uranium


M3

(3) Article dated Sept. 14, 2007 in Pasadena Citizen
(4) Article dated Sept. 20, 2007 in Houston Chronicle
(5) Article dated Nov. 5, 2010 in Houston Chronicle


story) and its contents. This room actually appears to be more like a big closet. In fact,
in the report dated March 1980 of the preliminary Survey of Olin Mathieson Chemical
Corporation, Pasadena, Texas which was made November 18, 1977 by Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, under “Present Use of Facilities”, “The room is currently used for
storing janitorial equipment.”. My claim was denied based on information given by
company officials that this room was the actual, complete, plant site for the pilot plant at
Mathieson Chemical to extract uranium oxides out of phosphoric acid compounds for the
Atomic Energy Commission for the time period of 1951 - 1953. Would any reasonable
person conclude that this one room operation warrants top secret security (including
sworn statements from the few who were told about it) for the period of 1951 — 1953, as
well as for approximately 25 additional years, and more, subsequent to that period?

I would like to have some information about the other parts of the plant at that time. The
survey of this site (this room) was made in 1977, documented in 1980, and still, the
general public, including former employees, were not aware of uranium being in the plant
until approximately 2000, which is almost 50 years later. Some former employees have
only recently been made aware of this. Most former employees and/or surviving spouses
have died, moved away, or have bad health problems. Please bear in mind that this
happened almost sixty years ago. At this point in time, we can not depend on the
expectation of any of us being around for do-overs. We need attention now.

A letter dated January 8, 1986 (See Exhibit J) from Mr. Edward G. Delaney, Director,
Division of Facility and Site Decommissioning Projects, Office of Nuclear Energy to Mr.
John Murray, Manager of Environmental Affairs, Mobil Mining and Minerals Company,
Pasadena, Texas (formerly the Mathieson Chemical site) Mr. Delaney states in part, ‘The
Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP), has reviewed information on the Mobil Mining and Minerals
Company (formerly Mathieson Chemical Company) to determine whether it contains
residual radioactivity traceable to activities conducted on behalf of the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) (a predecessor to DOE). The enclosed radiological survey indicated
that a sink and associated drain and workbench area are contaminated with uranium,
actinium, and radium. However, available information regarding the nature of the
operations and the contractual relationship between AEC and Mathieson is not sufficient
to establish DOE’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to
perform any remedial action required at the site. Therefore, DOE is eliminating it from
further consideration under FUSRAP. It should be noted that the survey data indicated
that the contamination does not pose a significant health hazard to workers or the general
public under the use of the site at the time of the survey. However, in accordance with
Department policy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Texas
Department of Health are being notified and provided a copy of the survey report by copy
of this letter so that they may take whatever action they deem appropriate.”. Please note
that information is not sufficient to establish authority for DOE to perform any remedial
action at the site, although remedial action should be taken. Please bear in mind that
NIOSH, based on all these unknowns, including the fact that no records are available, no
on-site information was used, and no other worksite is comparable, has determined that

103


Pasadena Citizen, September 14, 2007, Page 3A

1e front

BAYOU .

CS

from page 1

caused another overflow and
that’s when they started an
emergency pumping opera-
tion to relieve the pressure on
the containment wall so it
wouldn’t collapse. That
release was stopped Friday,
Sept.,” said Wolf.
The threat of Tropical Storm
Humberto prompted yet
another release of contami-
nated water into Cotton Patch
Bayou. The decision was
made to release the excess
water so that the containment
wall did not fail, resulting in
even more phosphoric acid
contaminate leaving the site.
Wolf explained that the water
was being treated at the
release site with limestone
gravel and soda ash, both
designed to level out the pH
of the pliosphoric acid which
‘will hopefully lessen the envi-
ronmental impact of the
release on aquatic life in the
area.

“Our environmental con-

cems are that this is essential-
ly a phosphoric acid spill,”
said a spokesperson with the
Environmental _ Protection
Agency. “It could possibly
affect the aquatic life in the
Houston Ship Channel area.”

The Coast Guard reported
that the area was showing
“impacts from the acidic
release, including dead vege-
tation and marine life”.

In January of 2001, the
EPA reported a similar situa-
‘tion on the same site when the
mote that contains the
processed water around the
gypsum pile failed after
heavy rainfall, and 36,000
pounds of phosphoric acid
‘was reported to have left con-
tainment and flow into a
Harris County Flood Control
ditch and into an outfall of
Cotton Patch Bayou.

The second release has
resulted in 19 million gallons
of contaminated water being
discharged into Cotton Patch
Bayou. The containment wall
holds between 25 and 35 mil-
lion gallons, estimates offi-
cials.

The spokesman explained
that there is no projected
impact to public health’as a

Pasadena Citizen

Friday, Sept. 14, 2007

result of the release.

According to Wolf, Agrifos
has hired engineers to come
out and study the containment
wall to see what can be done
to prevent breaches of this
nature in the future and the
EPA and Texas Coast Guard
are calling for a contingency
plan that extends beyond the
precautionary measures of
sandbags.

“During normal operating
conditions, the containment
wall would not present any
kind of problem, but because
of the rainfall, Agrifos has
been asked to develop a plan
for how to deal with this issue
and how to prevent it from
reoccurring during the next
tropical storm or hurricane,”
he said.

Terry Clawson, a
spokesman for TCEQ,
explained that the first point
of concem for any of the
agencies involved is to deal
with the problem at hand

“First we have to deal with
the emergency,” he said.
“Then several agencies,
including the TCEQ, will do
some investigating.”

WINGS

from page 1

show. As well as bringing
history alive, the event cele-
brates military aircraft inge-
nuity and salutes the men
and women in service past
and present.

“It's about patriotism,

riverbeds,

, fabric and wood, the
started the war with bi-

ese vintage

planes repres ot only the
ingenuity of American avia-
tion.

“We restore
famous aircraft.”
Bill Roach

Executive director
Wings Over Houston

“7?


Page 75"

NEW EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT G
SITE LOCATION
This is new evidence. employment began 1949 at Mathieson
Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas. His employment there ended in 1978. 1

have tried to describe this plant site as I know it, as others have told me, and from public
information | have collected. As mentioned elsewhere in my report, no records were kept
on events that transpired during the early 1950s. Company officials and Government
officials kept all information regarding uranium in the plant a high priority secret.
Employees did not know about the presence of uranium in the plant. As mentioned
elsewhere, when the earliest survey (November 8, 1977) was made, it was made from
information furnished by Mathieson officials and was not documented until March 1980.
These officials alleged that the entire AEC contract work (1951 — 1953) was done in one
12 x 14 ft room ina one story building that had no air conditioning. The diagram shown
in the survey of this room does not show any windows. This room was located in the
west end of the old administration building. Please consider the following:

The Mathieson Chemical Company located in Pasadena, Texas is a “Covered Facility”
under the EEOICPA. This is where was an employee for approximately 29
years, beginning in 1949. This facility was also known as Pasadena Chemical Corp.,
Olin Mathieson Chemical Co., and Mobil Mining and Minerals Co.. The present
occupant of this plant site is the Agrifos Fertilizer Plant. The Mathieson Chemical
Company was an Atomic Weapons Employer and extracted uranium oxides out of
phosphoric acid compounds in a pilot study for the Atomic Energy Commission. The
time period is shown as 1951-1953, with Residual Radiation 1954 — October 2009. This
information was furnished by DOE and also informs us that “There was one record found
for the facility: Mathieson Chemical Co.”. This page, taken from the EEOICPA Facility
List is noted to have been last updated on June 4, 2008. (See Attachment 1.)

The DOE Appendix A-1 Residual Radioactive Contamination — Summary of All Sites
(As of October 31, 2008), (Page 8 of 13)) shows that Mathieson Chemical Co., Pasadena,
Texas - Period Previously Listed on DOE ES&H Website, 1951-1953 - Period
Currently Listed on DOE ES&H Website, Same - Previous Evaluation Findings, Little
Potential - Previous Period of Potential Residual Contamination, N/A - Revised
Evaluation ings, Potential Exists - Revised Period of Potential Residual
Contamination - 1954-present. See Exhibit A.

This revision in 2008 indicates that this particular plant site was more harmful to
employees than was previously believed. To me, “Revised Period of Potential Residual
Contamination — 1954-present” means Danger continues to exist. I have tried, without


[06

period determined to be during the early 1950s, and states in part, “M. S. Davenport,
Plant Manager, provided information as to the nature of work performed and the location
of facilities utilized. T. Cook, who worked in Quality Assurance also provided
information as to the history of material processed at this site. From information
obtained from review of files of contracts and in discussions held during the survey, the
work conducted at the Pasadena site involved a bench-type pilot operation designed to
extract U3 Og from phosphoric acid generated during the processing of phosphate rock.
No information was available as to the exact numbers of U3 Og produced nor as to the
radiological conditions of the facility at the culmination of the project at which time the
pilot plant was dismantled (believed to have been in 1955). The facility utilized in the
project consisted of a single room approximately 12 x 14 ft (see Fig. 2).” Also, the
survey consisted of (1) direct alpha and beta-gamma measurements and (2) collection of
residue samples from the areas of the sink where elevated alpha and beta-gamma
readings were noted (see Fig.3). The maximum direct alpha reading was 3000 dpm/100
cm on inside surfaces of the sink and presumed to be inside the drain opening of the sink.
The inside of this opening was inaccessible beyond about 15 cm, which prohibited further
assessment of the contamination level. The corresponding beta-gamma dose-rate reading
was about 0.4 mrad/hr at the same location and was also the highest reading found in the
facility. No information was obtained as to the disposition of pilot plant equipment
contained in this facility following culmination of the project. In view of survey results,
when the sink and accessible drain are removed from this facility, they should be handled
as contaminated material with disposal at an approved burial site, prior to the release of
the site for unrestricted use. (See Exhibit I.)

FUSRAP prepared an Elimination Report for this plant site in 1985 which reveals some
residual contamination in a sink and drain line that exceeds current DOE radiological
guidelines. However, on the basis of a review of available historical information, DOE
has determined that it does not have legal authority to conduct remedial actions at this
site. An investigation of AEC-related operations at the former Mathieson Chemical
Company site in Pasadena, Texas, was conducted to determine if the site was eligible for
remedial action under FUSRAP. Records of the AEC Feed Materials Division stored in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and in Suitland, Maryland, were reviewed along with contract
files. Analysis of the information collected resulted in the conclusion that the available
data was insufficient to provide DOE with authority to conduct remedial action at this site
(see March 8, 1984, letter Wallo to Whitman, in Exhibit J.). AEC had an obligation to
purchase any uranium produced, but had no responsibility for the operation of the sites or
their final condition. The contractors were handling the same materials they normally
handled in their everyday operations and AEC provided no special guidance (other than
that pertaining to uranium accountability if any was to be produced). For the same reason,
AEC did not specify any requirements for cleanup.

A letter dated June 29, 1981 to Mr. William E. Mott from Mr. M. Edgar D. Bailey, P. E.,
Director, Division of Licensing, Registration and Standards, The Texas Department of
Health, states, “We are disturbed that you feel that this site is not eligible for Department
of Energy (DOE) remedial activities. It is our opinion that the contamination present at


[65

finding of residual contamination on inside surfaces of one sink and possibly the drain
line, which poses no significant exposure to personnel based on the low activity levels
discovered. Informational Sources: Sources of information reviewed during this
evaluation included the DOE ES&H Website along with documentation provided by the
DOE ES&H Group consisting of written communications by or for the DOE and
FUSRAP documentation. Evaluation Findings: Documentation reviewed indicates that
there is little potential for significant residual contamination outside of the period in
which weapons-related production occurred.”. Please bear in mind that this evaluation
was made for the DOE in 1977 which is approximately 25 years after the time period
addressed, and was made from information furnished by officials of a company who had
kept everything secret for approximately 25 years. This is precisely the information that
would be given by those in management who would be interested in perpetuating this
dirty secret that was shared by those in power. They only gave information which would
protect them and their actions. Surveys were done using only information which was
provided by these informants. Surveys were done only in the area where investigators
were directed. This area was one smal] room. To my knowledge, articles in our local
newspapers about this survey in 1977 did not appear until approximately 2000, which is
approximately another 25 years after the survey was made.

No one knows. No records were kept. We do know now that uranium was placed in the
plant, employees did not know uranium was there, employees were exposed to uranium,
no safety precautions were taken, no warning signs were posted, no protective equipment
was used, no monitoring was done, and many employees were later diagnosed with

cancer. Some employees, as in the case of had more than one of the 22
specified cancers.

As mentioned earlier, Agrifos Fertilizer is presently located on the site which was
formerly Mathieson Chemical Company. The Plant Manager also says that he has never
seen any information pertaining to the experiments or their results. The article (dated
September 13, 2000) also states that the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission retains no records on the Mathieson Chemical Corporation, nor does the
City of Pasadena. (See Exhibit B.)

In 1977, according to the above-mentioned article, the plant was part of a federal survey
that checked for residual contamination. At that time radioactive substances were located
in a sink drain and supposedly removed to a safe location. A study of the site in more
recent years did result in the discovery of the presence of low levels of radiation. As well
as I can find out, no on-site investigation was made prior to 1977 which is over 25 years
after uranium was placed in the plant. I can find no record that these radioactive
substances were removed

On a “Preliminary Survey of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Pasadena, Texas —
Work performed by the Health and Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, the date is shown as March 1980. This report
refers to a survey performed on November 18, 1977 to assess the radiological status of
those facilities utilized under an Atomic Energy Commission raw materials contract for a


/o2

John L. Murray, Jr., Manager of Environmental Affairs with Pasadena Chemical
Corporation. There is the possibility that this site may warrant consideration as a
candidate for remedial action. It is also recommended that the State be notified of
suggested restrictions regarding the removal of the sink and drain-line.” An attachment
to this letter states, “The letter report is concise and well-written. A question and a
comment were raised by the report. 1. Is there any explanation for the high ac-227
concentration in the sink? The value of 185 pCi/g appears high for a phosphate
operation. 2. It is not clear from the report that only the bench, drain-line and sink were
found to have surface contamination above background. It should be stated that the floor
and walls were found within typical background levels, if such is the case.”. Did anyone
ever explain these two comments? (See Exhibit J.)

This letter has an enclosure titled “Preliminary Survey of Olin Mathieson Chemical
Corporation, Pasadena, Texas” This also shows “Work performed by the Health and
Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
37830” and is dated March 1980. This is the survey that was performed on November
18, 1977 by F. F. Haywood of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and W. T. Thornton of
the Department of Energy — Oak Ridge Operations Office. This survey was made “to
assess the radiological status of those facilities utilized under an Atomic Energy
Commission raw materials contract for a period determined to be during the early 1950s.
M. S. Davenport, Plant Manager, provided information as to the nature of work
performed and the location of facilities utilized. T. Cook, who worked in Quality
Assurance also provided information as to the history of material processed at this site.”.”
Also “No information was available as to the exact amounts of U30 produced nor as to
the radiological conditions of the facility at the culmination of the project at which time
the pilot plant was dismantled (believed to have been in 1955).” This survey (See Exhibit
1.) repeats the premise that the facility utilized in the project consisted of a single room
approximately 12 x 14 ft and “This survey consisted of (1) direct alpha and beta-gamma
measurements and (2) collection of residue samples from the areas of the sink where
elevated alpha and beta-gamma readings were noted”. Also “The maximum direct alpha
reading was 3000 dpm/100 cm’ on inside surfaces of the sink and presumed to be inside
the drain opening of the sink. The inside of this opening was inaccessible beyond about
15 cm, which prohibited further assessment of the contamination level. The
corresponding beta-gamma and dose-rate reading was about 0.4 mrad/hr at the same
location and was also the highest reading found in the facility. Analytical results of a
residue sample taken from the bench area around the sink and from an inside surface of
the sink are presented in Table 1. No information was obtained as to the disposition of
pilot plant equipment contained in this facility following culmination of the project.”.
Also “In view of survey results, when the sink and accessible drain are removed from this
facility, they should be handled as contaminated material with disposal at an approved
burial site, prior to the release of the site for unrestricted use.” Pages are attached
showing Fig. 1 - Location of the Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation in Pasadena,
Texas, Fig. 2 ~ Views of inside of room showing lab bench with sink and chemical hood,
and Fig. 3 — Plan view of the former Olin Pilot Plant (which is a drawing showing the
location of the hood, bench and sink (with figures) inside the room. Table 1 is shown on
the last page. This entire survey is regarding a single room (approximately 12 x 14 — one


REGION III PRESS RELEASE TEST WELLS TO MONITOR GROUND WATER AT... Page 2 of 2 L
i

The Commonwealth of Virginia and Olin signed an agreement requiring that Olin divert a 1,300-foot
section of the North Fork of the Holston River and dredge 1,000 feet of the exposed river bed. These

dredged sediments were deposited onto the former chiorine plant site, covered with a cap, and fenced
off.

In 1988, EPA and Olin signed an agreement whereby Olin constructed a treatment plant, performed
surface water management controls, and continued to conduct detailed studies of the overall site
including adjacent and downstream sections of the North Fork of the Holston.

Olin, with EPA oversight, has completed the detailed study for the waste ponds. Long-term remedies for
the ponds have been selected by EPA and documented in a Record of Decision that was signed in

September of 1995. Preliminary negotiations are underway between EPA and Olin which will lead to the
design of a remedy for the waste ponds.

http:/Awww.epa gov/Region3/r3press/pr98-15.htm 10/20/2010


at

ices

he
sive

air

at
He

ly
Ts

ad
tal,

as |
trol

va
ibly

the
nt.

not
ds,
lis

surprise visit Thursday.

® Sulfuric acid
storage, transport
broke waste laws

By MATTHEW TRESAUSUE

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

A Pasadena chemical man-
ufacturer has agreed to pay
$1.5 million in penalties for
violations of Texas and fed-
eral waste disposal laws, of-
ficials said Thursday.

The penalties stem from
Air Product LLC’s failure to
Properly store, transport and
manage’ sulfuric acid at its
Pasadena plant between 1990
and 2009, according to legal
filings by the Texas Attorney
General's Office and the U.S.
Environmental “Protection
Agency. +

The used acid is classi-

ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK — Anierican
voters sent a clear message in.
this week's midterm elections
that they reject big govern-
ment, Texas Gov. Rick Perry
said Thursday.

Appearing on NBC’s Today
show, the Republican gover-
nor said his party’s return toa
majority in the House and its
gains in the Senate indicate
that voters “want (their) free-
doms back.”

“The work’s in front of

fied as a hazardous waste
under state and federal law.
Air Products maintains that
the acid was “purposefully
produced” and not a waste,
according to legal documents
filed in Houston federal
court. "
The company sént the
Spent acid to a nearby plant
that was not a permitted stor-
age or disposal facility for
the waste. In 2007, the fluid

breached a retaining wali and”

reached the Houston Ship
Channel, officials said.

Under the settlement, Air
Products is prohibited from
sending spent acid to the
plant, Agrifos Fertilizer Inc.
It also must notify state and
federal regulators if it ships
the waste off site.

matthew.tresaugue@chron.com

Perry: Voters want ‘freedoms back’

ed as governor on Tuesday.

“T think Republicans just
need to listen to the people.
And people were very élear
on Tuesday night. We’ve got
more government than we
can‘pay for. ... We want our
freedoms back,” he said.

Perry is promoting his new
book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to
Save America from Washing-
ton. Asked if he plans to run
for president, Perry said his
zeal against big government,
shown in his book, is a good.

Some big shoes to fill

RAYDON Colvin, 3, tries on some firefighter’s gear as 3-year-ol
enjoys a field trip by St. Paul’s United Methodist Church Youth
Museum, where members of the Houston Fire Department fron

Li EZ al Qyieow te. S —oyernsex Sz lOO :
Chemical company
agrees to pay penalty

He’s tranc
for tle ho

DUS Casco r
thawas tosse
insllation of

/22


°v

This is the Corporation where no records are available for the period of 1951 when
uranium was placed in the plant through the period that uranium, toxic waste substances
and hazardous bi-products have remained in the plant. No records are available for the
Mathieson Chemical Company Plant Site which is a “Covered Facility” under the
EEOICPA. The above referenced record states “Facility Description: Mathieson
Chemical extracted uranium oxides out of phosphoric acid compounds in a pilot study for
the Atomic Energy Commission”. The earliest record is of a survey made in 1977, of one
small room, which is alleged to be the location where all the uranium contract work was
done. No records exist that these dangerous materials were removed from the plant. Will
employees at Mathieson Chemical Company be denied benefits they deserve because
company officials and others were successful in keeping no records relating to their
disgraceful conduct? Based on information which brought about the legal claims
approved under the EEOICPA, many other employers committed similar actions to
victimize their employees. Unlike Mathieson Chemical, actions by other companies have
been discovered and employees have been compensated. No one in authority appears to
be interested in the absence of records for the Mathieson plant. Mathieson Chemical is
the “forgotten plant”. The truth has not yet come out.

I have shown this information and the above history to indicate that this Company had
previously victimized its employees and had connections with several companies whose
employees had similar working conditions, and were similarly victimized by employers
These employers appeared to have no qualms about the dangers their employees faced by
continual exposure to toxic substances, sometimes without their knowledge. Many of
these victims of exposure to radiation and hazardous by-products have now been justly
recognized as such by being awarded Special Exposure Cohort status under the
EEOICPA. Without a doubt, this Mathieson Chemical Company had the resources,
professional ability, and expertise to provide records of their operation and activities had
they so desired. Why are there no records? These employees and survivors deserve more
than the Technical Bulletin estimates and assumptions on which dose reconstructions are
made. The Dose Reconstruction Report made for my claim was made without any
credible information from the plant site. Records were either not made, or were hidden
or destroyed. No on-site inspection was made prior to 1977, and this was made of only
one small room. This room is described in a letter dated March 30,1979 from Mr. Lewis
M. Cook of the Texas Department of Health as located “in the west end of the old

administration building, the areas we were told the old Manhattan project work was
carried out”. See Exhibit 1.

The company that was so successful in deception continues to victimize former
employees. The absence of records, the numerous unknowns critical to this matter, and
the massive significant effect on employees make dose reconstruction not feasible for this
group of employees. Mathieson Chemical Company should be designated (as these other

companies are designated, and for the same reasons) as a Special Exposure Cohort
Group.

According to the Houston Chronicle, dated October 3, 2000, (See Exhibit B.), two plants
in this area each produced at least 50 pounds of uranium for the Atomic Energy


containment wall. The wall surrounds a two hundred and forty (240) acre pile of waste
products which is encircled by water used in the manufacture of chemical fertilizer. Pipes
have been placed to drain liquids from the pile. Usually, water, or some type of fluid is
in a ditch and is separated from the containment wall by a road. The manager of supply
and production for the Agrifos plant said that an eight-inch rain Aug. 16 caused the ditch
to overflow, and the concrete wall began leaking. The same thing had happened in early
September. Also, officials said that the previous week when Tropical Storm Humberto,
later Hurricane Humberto, threatened the Houston area with 5 to 15 inches of rain,
Agrifos began releasing water on September 12 to stave off a “catastrophic failure” of the
wail. They thought the release was critical to preventing a major issue. They regretted
any damages that may have been done to the environment, but thought this was a
situation that required this type of action. The water’s acidity level was temporarily
lowered, causing some fish to die.

This article appears to refer to the same 240 acres as a harmless pile of gypsum in one
sentence and the possibility of a “catastrophic failure“ in another sentence. Please
consider the size of this pile of toxic waste. I mention this because other “Covered
Facility” plant sites also disposed of their waste materials in a similar manner.

Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, {llinois who was bought by Olin Mathieson
Chemical Company in 1955 had a contract with the government which was similar to the
contract Mathieson had. Mallinckrodt Chemical Company near St. Louis, Missouri had
an agreement with Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. in the early 1960s to produce certain
nuclear products for the Federal Government. These companies, in addition to Mathieson
Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas were among those “Covered Facilities” who
disposed of their waste products in a manner which seemed to be common for facilities
having these government contracts

In 2003 the state of Missouri filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages from the federal
government and companies who had owned the alleged contaminated plant site at
Hematite, Missouri (another “Covered Facility” under the EEOICPA). Mallinckrodt
Chemical Works had been one of the former owners. The state alleged that during the
1950s and 1960s nearly 60 pounds of potentially dangerous radioactive uranium,-235-
and other radioactive material was dumped into approximately 40 unlined pits from the
late 1950’s through the early 1960s. This seems to be the usual way that Atomic Worker
Employers disposed of toxic waste products. Sites contained unlined waste burial pits
and unlined evaporation ponds. The danger at Hematite was not found until December
2001, when tests found trichloroethylene — a cancer-causing chemical used as a solvent —
in the first of eight private wells used for drinking water. Each party in the lawsuit
blamed someone else, indicating that each party was complicit individually as well as
collectively as a member of this group. Each was actively involved and contributed to
the harm created. Their actions, while profitable at the time, later proved to be dangerous
and shameful. Nothing could be done with the property.

The Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois, like Mathieson Chemical Company,
was also an Atomic Weapons Employer and a “Covered Facility” under the EEOICPA.

/oF


fil

dated September 20, 2007. This is the pile of materials which includes dangerous
products from the presence of uranium in the plant in the 1950s. This is the pile of waste
which is similar to the waste piles in other areas of the country where it has been
determined that “There is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation dose may have
endangered the health of members of the class.”. This is the waste that was piled in
unlined pits, and as in similar pits in other parts of the country, could be contaminating
our water supply. This is the pile of waste materials that cannot be moved because it is
too big and there is no place to move it. No one wants the responsibility for it. This plant
is not a permitted storage or disposal facility for the waste. Do we just wait until more
damage is done and more people die?

Investigators wondered for years why radioactive technetium-99 was turning up in
drinking water wells near the Hematite site. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works was one
former occupant who used recycled uranium for fabrication there. Technetium was not
expected there because it is said to be produced only when uranium is irradiated in a
nuclear reactor. Hematite had no reactor. Technetium is said to require special disposal
because it has a half-life of 213,000 years and moves easily into soil and water.

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works has been designated as a Special Exposure Cohort under
the EEOICPA.

The owners and some inspectors say these sites are harmless. I believe that is the same
response that workers at each of the “Covered Facilities” have gotten at some time. As
everyone knows, many of those workers died many years ago due to illnesses caused by
their contaminated worksites. Some sites have not had the type of inspection required to
determine what is present. It seems that nobody knows or will say or wants to find out
what is there. The situation described above is the same situation that exists at the plant
site which was formerly Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas. The uranium
work in that plant might not have been confined to that little “12 x 14 ft room” and might
not have been so harmless.

told me many years ago that the Company had tried to find a use for this

material but had not been successful. Some employees (including ) were told
by company officials that they could take bags of this material home with them to use on
their plants and vegetable gardens. Many employees (including did take

bags of this material home with them because they had been told it might be good for
their gardens. They also used this, as top soil is used, to fill small holes in their yards and
other areas. Then the employees were told by company officials not to take this material
anymore. Some say that this material was used when a parking lot was made at the plant.
Some say that a contractor at one time wanted to use material from this pile in the
construction of a road to the plant but did not use it because the material had been tested
to be radioactive. No one will say if this material is contaminated or how harmful it is,
but the huge pile remains. Local residents, during hurricane season, cannot stop worrying
about the consequences if a tornado or category 5 hurricane would hit that area. As
indicated above, Plant Managers are not comfortable either. Why were no records kept?

Employees at this plant site had more uranium exposure than was produced in a one-
Toom operation.


bought E. R. Squibb & Sons pharmaceutical company. For the period 1951-1953
Mathieson Chemical Company at Pasadena, Texas extracted uranium oxides out of
phosphoric acid compounds in a pilot study for the Aromic Energy Commission. This
uranium was placed in the plant without the knowledge or consent of the employees.
Related activities and residual contamination subsequent to the presence of uranium
beginning in 1951 are yet to be determined although many workers who were employed
there have died of cancer.

Also in 1892, the same year the charter was obtained for Mathieson Alkali Works in
Virginia, Franklin W. Olin founded the Equitable Power Company in East Alton, Illinois.
This was a predecessor of Olin Industries. This company supplied blasting powder to
coal fields and soon expanded into small arms ammunition. The Western Cartridge
Company was formed in 1898. In 1931 Western Cartridge Company purchased the
Winchester Repeating Arms Company in New Haven, CT. which expanded production
during World War 1. Winchester-Western manufactured 15 billion rounds of ammunition
for Allied Forces in the Second World War and developed the U.S. Carbine and M-1
Rifle. By the end of the war, they employed 62,000 people, including those at plants
operated for the government. Olin also had a history of diversity. In 1944 the Olin
businesses were brought together under the new corporate name of Olin Industries, Inc
and went through a period of great expansion. In 1951 Olin acquired the properties of
Frost Lumber Industries of Louisiana and Arkansas, including 440,000 acres of
timberlands. Also about this time Olin acquired Ecusta Paper Corporation in Pisgah
Forest, NC, a leading producer of fine papers for everything from cigarettes to the Bible.
Over the years and also in different locations, Olin produced blasting powder, brass,
chlorine, caustic soda, ammunition, explosives, batteries, and expanded into the
cellophane, lumber, paper, and power tool industries, as well as copper and copper based
alloy sheet, strip, tube, fabricated products, industrial phosphates, and chemical products
(sometimes described as “specialty” chemicals).

In 1954 Olin and Mathieson merged to become the Olin Mathieson Chemical
Corporation. The company bought the Blockson Chemical Company (another “Covered
Facility” under the EEOICPA) in Joliet, Illinois in 1955, the Brown Paper Mi!l Company
in Monroe, Louisiana in 1955, and also Marquardt Aircraft at about that time. The
company also made an agreement with Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. (another “Covered
Facility” under the EEOICPA) in 1956 to form Ormet Corporation, primarily for the
production of aluminum. In the 1960s Mathieson Chemical entered into an agreement
with Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (another “Covered Facility” under the EEOICPA) to
produce certain nuclear products for the Federal Government. The Olin Mathieson
Chemical Corporation changed its name to Olin Corporation in 1969. In a current report
(2010) of data furnished by Dunn & Bradstreet, the Olin Corporation, now based in St.
Louis, Missouri, has estimated annual sales shown to be $1,764,500,000 and an estimated
total of 3600 employees. This, as stated above, is the Corporation with which Mathieson
Chemical Company had merged in 1954. It seems that this Corporation and these
companies mentioned above had common interests and a relationship that could be
accurately described as “complex” as well as “similar”.


HOUSTON) “CHRONICLE

UENABAY TOW

"HURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 + chron.com
PARK | SOUTHIHOUSTON | JACINTO Cimy

| CHANNELVIEW

SHOREACRES

3RAT

ING VICTORY; ~

3 z= FANNIE WILLIAMS PHOTOS : FOR THE CHRONICLE
|, prepares for his ride on a mechanical bull, just one of the many
ay at Bicentennial Park in Baytown.

Pasadena
plant puts
contaminate
in channel

@ Heavy rainfall
blamed for threat
to retaining wall

By CAROL CHRISTIAN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Six governmental agencies
were present last week when a
Pasadena fertilizer plant re-
leased contaminated water
into Cotton Patch Bayou and
the Houston Ship Channel.

‘The Agrifos Fertilizer Plant

. began the contaminate release

Sept. 12 to help prevent the
collapse of a rain-weakened
containment wail.

The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s on-scene
coordinator at the release said
the contaminated water was
not harmful to human health.

“We had people monitoring
and testing to check the condi-
tions in the ship channel,”
Chris Ruhl said. “We did not

see aflything that was immedi- -

ately threatening to the pub-
lic.”

AGRIFOS FERTILIZER
INC.

1s Where: Phosphate
fertilizer plant at 2001
Jackson Road; in Pasadena
singe 1998,

@ What: Heavy rain in
January 2001 contributed to
a phosphoric acid release
irito Cotton Patch Bayou
outfall.

any damages that may have
been done to the environment,
we think this was a situation
that required this type of ac-
tion.”

Several agencies on board

The U.S, Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Coast
Guard, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Harris
County Public Health and En-
vitonmental Services, Texas
Parks and Wildlife and Na-
tional Oceanographic and At-
mospheric Administration set
up a unified command at the


success, to locate records prepared by officials from this site location which would
pertain to work conditions at the plant during employment there and any
factors which would relate to the presence of uranium in the plant. To my knowledge no
records made at that time exist.

Officials of our government felt that the presence of uranium at this plant site posed a
danger to the health and welfare of these employees when this plant was added to the list
of “Covered Facilities”. Employees of these “Covered Facilities” were included in the
EEOICPA.

Mathieson Chemical Company has a long history of diversification, beginning when Neil
Mathieson, a British soda ash and bleaching powder merchant, obtained a charter in
Virginia to open an alkali plant, Mathieson Alkali Works, in 1892. Bleaching powder
was manufactured using electrolytic cells that forced chlorine to be absorbed in lime. In
1893 this company acquired the Holston Salt and Plaster Corp. in Saltville, Virginia. In
Saltville, the company produced chiorine and caustic soda which produced up to 100
pounds of methylmercury per day (the company’s own estimate) and for decades the
plant dumped its calcium chloride effluent into the soils and the North Fork of the
Holston River. In 1924 the muck dam in Saltville broke, killing 19 people. According to
the “EPA Environmental News”, from 1895 to 1972, the Saltville Waste Disposal Site
was occupied by Olin Corporation and predecessors, Mathieson Chemical Corporation
and Mathieson Alkali Works. Olin estimated that 100 pounds of mercury a day were lost
from 1951 to 1970 into the ground and the river. Wastes from the plant were pumped
into large settling basins or waste ponds. In 1970, Olin modified its operation to cut
mercury losses to a quarter pound per day. In 1970 the Virginia State Water Control
Board adopted a new standard for dissolved solids which Olin indicated they could not
meet. Olin shut down the Saltville operations in 1972. The chlorine plant was
demolished in 1973 and buried between waste ponds. In 1970 the company announced
that it would not be able to meet EPA water pollution standards and would close the
plant. The Olin Superfund site was first added to the EPA’s National Priorities List of
the worst hazardous waste sites in the country in 1982, after an initial investigation
revealed the presence of mercury in the soil and river sediment. (See Attachment 2.)

Since the early 1900s, and in different locations, Mathieson has produced ammonia,
liquid chlorine, calcium hypochlorite, alkali for pH control, carbonic gas, ammonium-
soda, chlorine used in high-octane jet and tank fuel, plastics and insulation, and a long list
of diversified chemical products and mixtures, including industrial phosphates. In 1909
the company began commercial production of liquid chlorine. In 1919 Mathieson began
producing ammonia, a byproduct of electrolytic alkali processes. In the 1930s Mathieson
began shipping caustics for use in rayon manufacture. In 1934 the company built an
ammonium-soda plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana. During the Second World War,
Mathieson chlorine was in high demand for use in many products. Starting in 1947,
Mathieson President Tom Nichols, with the help of his friend John Leppart, had
transformed Mathieson into a company with $366 million in sales by the time merger
plans with Olin materialized in 1954. In 1949 Mathieson had expanded to manufacture
fertilizers, pesticides, and sulfuric-acid for agriculture and industry. In 1952 Mathieson

%


07

the site is a direct result of the Federal Government’s nuclear energy program conducted
under the auspices of the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC). The Preliminary Survey attached to your letter clearly reflect the
presence of radionuclides that one would expect to be associated with an uranium
recovery facility of that time period.” Also “Based upon our investigation of this site, we
cannot help but conclude, even in the absence of copies of contracts between

MED or AEC and Mathieson Chemical Company, that the radioactive contamination
measured at the facility exists as a result of the contact work performed by Mathieson
Chemical Company for MED/AEC. Therefore, we cannot accept your implied
conclusion that DOE has no responsibility for remedial action at the site. We fail to see
how the inability to locate paperwork can in any way relieve DOE of its legal
responsibility (or authority) to conduct remedial action activities at this site. See Exhibit

A letter dated January 26, 1984 from Mr. John E. Baublitz, Director, Office of Nuclear
Energy to Mr. Edgar D. Bailey, Director, Texas Department of Health states in part, “I
am replying to your letter of December 6, 1983, relative to maintaining the Pasadena
Chemical Company, Pasadena, Texas, in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP). Dr. Mott’s letters of March 27, 1981, and August 11, 1981, stated
that, although the site was “designated” for remedial action on March 19, 1981 (that is, it
should be considered for remedial action), the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of
General Counsel concluded from review of available records that there is insufficient
documentation to provide us the necessary authority to conduct remedial action at the

site. Therefore, DOE has no plans to conduct remedial action at the Pasadena Chemical
Company site.

The “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Ineligibility Report ~ Former
Mathieson Chemical Company (Pasadena Chemical, Pasadena, Texas” states in part, that
the analysis of information collected indicated there was insufficient data identified to
provide DOE authority to conduct remedial action at this site. Cursory review of other
records groups further indicates that it is not likely that the contract or any other
supportive materials will be found in future records searches.”. Also “No contract for
this operation has been identified.”. This also states that drains are contaminated with
uranium and its daughter products in excess of NRC guidelines for surface contamination

at facilities released for unrestricted use; however, they presently pose no health hazard.
See Exhibit J.)

At this Mathieson Chemical Company plant site in Pasadena, Texas, a huge pile of waste
products exists. This pile can be seen for miles and is locally referred to as the “gyp
pond”, or gypsum. According to an article in the September 14, 2007 edition of the
Pasadena Citizen, I quote “The United States Coast Guard, Environmental Protection
Agency, Texas Commission on Environmental Equality, and Agrifos Fertilizer, Ind.,
among others, have set up a multi-agency command center in Pasadena in response to a
recurring incident at Agrifos.” (See Attachment 3) As I stated earlier, the Agrifos
Fertilizer Plant is presently located at the site formerly occupied by Mathieson Chemical
Company. The article further states, “According to officials, over 10 million gallons of


The Facility List for Blockson Chemical Company shows “Facility Description:
Blockson Chemical Company operated a plant which produced uranium from phosphoric
acid. The AEC contracted with Blockson for the recovery of the uranium, which was
ultimately used in weapons production. The pilot plant at Blockson which produced the
patent for production, was done in Building 40 which in no way compares to the one
room area at Mathieson Chemical which was alleged to be used. The AEC Uranium
production performed by Blockson was conducted in a brick structure known as Building
55. (See Exhibit H.) This listing is also intended to cover the AEC-funded laboratory,
pilot plant and oxidation process, which also occurred at Blockson and was related to the
work in Building 55.”. Blockson Chemical Company, also known as Olin and also
known as Olin Mathieson, also disposed of waste in this manner, as stated above. Piles
of waste became bigger as waste products were added. Blockson Chemical Company has
been designated as a Special Exposure Cohort under the EEOICPA.

I mention these companies because documentation describes them as Atomic Weapons
Employers who had contracts similar to the contract Mathieson Chemical Company had
with the government. Their business relationships show a connection. Work at their
plant sites was similar. They used the same method to dispose of their waste products.
This manner of disposal was said to be harmless until here we are many years later and
surviving former workers as well as occupants of nearby locations do not have that
feeling of safety anymore. These sites are the locations of huge piles of waste products
where chemical companies once had government contracts for work involving
radioactive materials. Nobody knows what to do with these properties. The owners
cannot find buyers. This is not residential property. It seems the only place for these piles
and ponds to go is to a special governmental disposal site, but they are too big to be
moved. It appears that these piles have not been stirred up because no one knows what
might happen. Some sources of drinking water near sites are said to be contaminated.

In an article dated November 5, 2010 in the Houston Chronicle, the title is “Chemical
Company agrees to pay penalty” and “Sulfuric acid storage, transport broke waste laws”.
The article states “A Pasadena chemical manufacturer has agreed to pay $1.5 million in
penalties for violations of Texas and federal waste disposal laws, officials said Thursday.
The penalties stem from Air Product LLC’s failure to properly store, transport and
manage sulfuric acid at its Pasadena Plant between 1990 and 2009, according to legal
filings by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The used acid is classified as a hazardous waste under state and federal law.
Air Products maintains that the acid was “purposefully produced” and not a waste,
according to legal documents filed in Houston federal court. The company sent the spent
acid to a nearby plant that was not a permitted storage or disposal facility for the waste.
In 2007, the fluid breached a retaining wall and reached the Houston Ship Channel,
officials said. Under the settlement, Air Products is prohibited from sending spent acid to
the plant, Agrifos, Fertilizer, Inc. It must also notify state and federal regulators if it
ships the waste off site.” This is the plant site which was formerly Mathieson Chemical
This retaining wall referred to is around the 240 acre pile of contaminated waste which
has been deemed to be “harmless”. This is the pile of contaminated toxic waste that is
referred to as the possibility of a “catastrophic failure” by officials in an article above

ie