Mr. William E. Mott b.2

c.) The area was used aS a work area by Process Technology groups
until June, 1975 when a new building was constructed,

d.) 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.

4. OWNER HISTORY

a.) Mathieson Chemical became Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation

in August of 1954. In September of 1969 it became the Olin
Corporation.

5. RADIOLOGICAL HISTORY AND STATUS

a.) No radioactivity monitoring was done during the test period.
None was required by the then existing regulations.

b.) The equipment which consisted of vessels, pumps, and lines
was removed after completion of the project. Presumably it
was scrapped, No records relating to this are available.

c.) Unknown.

d.) The contamination in the area is what would be expected ina
phosphate producing plant. A survey made by Mr. Lewis M.
Cook of the Texas Department of Health is enclosed.

e.) No specific decontamination was under taken at any time.

6. CATAGORY AND STATUS

a.) As indicated the building is basicatly idle. There are no
plans to renovate or dismantle.

7. REFERENCES

a.) No records were retained. The above information was developed
from conversations with some of the people involved in the
project.

Please let me know if you require further clarification.
Very truly yours,
oa ~ 4 pa
Ve 5 Vee

H. E. Kaufman
Manager of Governmental Affairs

HEK/ cms

April 12, 1979

19S


- . BF

es!

CANAL

wes

‘
'

steno

° . J i
Sevag Ob
‘ Deas | |
7 2
= . é 1:
2 | =
= t _
~ E | é
é Es peo
=
TERMINAL BM
7 eee 2E
z
Fal z
* x ¥
Sal ig
\ 3
I
_ ca] meee
1
Sewage we
if Disz0sa4 ,
I
2
e

Fig. 1. Location cf the Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation in Pasadena, Texas.


OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL COMPANY
Pilot Plant be . a+:
Pasadena, Texas ~ as
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.

Radiological History and Status

This site was visited by Oak Ridge Operations (OR) and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) personne] 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. Thornton (OR) to Mr.
Davenport (Olin Mathieson), October 1977.

156

144


lAL

TE

. D

SENCH

A B c
Lain

303 dpm a in bench area
(average)*

480 dpm a in bench area
(max imum}*

1000-3000 dpm « inside sink

0.04 mrad/nr 8/y in bench aree

(average)

0.08 mrad/hr 8/y in bench arce

(maximum)

0.3 mrac/hr 6/7 inside sink

44) (average) (average)
| | 3000 dpm a inside sink 0.4 mrad/hr &/y inside sink |
| (maximum)~ (maximum)
Sestimeted activity per 100 em’.
HOOD
1

Fig. 3. Plan view of the former Olin Pilot Piant.


Fig. 2. Views of inside of room showing
jab bench with sink and chemical hood.

|e



pal

%06g3¢
aaa]

MAE I Jar
Mr. &. S. Davenport,
Plant Manacer
Olin Corporation
P. 0. Box 552
Pasadena, Texas 77501

Dear Mr. Davenport:

AS you may know, the Department of Energy (DOE) {1s involved in @ program
to characterize the radiological condition of sites formerly used by the
Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and/or Atomic Eneray Commisston (AEC) in
the development of nuclear energy. As part of this program, DOr is
preparinc a series of brief summaries cf the history of the MES/AFC
related activities and conditions at the specific sites. The summaries
are to document the activities from the initiation of a contract wit!
MED/AEC to the termination of the final MED/AEC contract. The historical
summaries alse priefly describe the current condition of each site.

Enclosed is a copy of a preliminary summary describing work conducted
at a portion of your facility for the AEC. DOF is stil? in the process of
reviewira MED/AEC onerations records fn order to obtain all available
information, The enclosed draft is based upon data collecte¢ to date and

is submitted to you so thet your review and comment can be recsived in ea
timely manner.

The second enclosure lists the specific information that should ideally be
included in the attached site summaries. As you can see, a portion of the
information has not yet been identifiec. I would appreciate receiving any
supplemental information you can supply that might fill in some cf the

Ancomplete areas. I would also like to solicit any additional information

yeaardinc other facilities involved in the feer materials

prearan of
MED/AEC,

Sincerely, |

William £. Mott, Actina Director
Environmental Control Tecknolony

Division
nclosures:
re stated bec: R. E. Allen Ae ec bbteman
W. E. Mott space 4
R. W.-Ramse
ran ms ey
Aye
EcT fi! EC N
REALlen eons WEMott
3/9/79 3/ pris 343/79
3

143


Page /75"
NEW EVIDENCE

EXHIBIT 1

PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
PASADENA, TEXAS - SURVEY MADE BY ORNL NOVEMBER 18, 1977 —
DOCUMENTATION OF SURVEY DATED MARCH 1980

This is new evidence. Although this survey is alleged to have been made in 1977, it was
not documented until 1980. J did not know about it until recently and therefore did not
have access to it or these letters when I filed my claim in 2002. This is alleged to have
been the entire work area for the uranium project for the period 1951 — 1953. Comments
regarding this material are shown in other Exhibits.

Attachments:

(1) Preliminary Survey of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Pasadena,
Texas — Survey made by ORNL November 18, 1977 — Documentation of
survey dated March 1980

(2) Letter dated March 13, 1979 to Mr. M. S. Davenport, Olin Corporation from
Mr. William E. Mott, DOE

(3) Letter dated March 30, 1979 to Mr. H. E. Kaufman, Manager Governmental
Affairs and Energy, Olin Chemicals Group from Mr. Lewis M. Cook, Chief,
Environmental Surveillance Radiation Control Branch Division of
Occupational Health, Texas Department of Health

(4) Letter dated April 12, 1979 to Mr. William E. Mott, DOE from Mr. H. E.
Kaufman, Olin Chemicals Group


4

Texas Department of Health

Raymond T. Moore, M.D. 1100 West 49th Street Members of the Board
Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756

- . Robert D, Moreton, Chairm:
Philip W. Mallory, M.D. 458-7111 William j. Foran, Vice-Chai
Deputy Commissioner

Roderic M, Belt, Secretary
Johnnie M. Benson
E. Jack Brown
H, Eugene Brown
March 30, 1979 Ramiro Casso
Charles Max Cole
Francis A. Conley
Ben M. Durr

William }. Edwards
H. E. Kaufman, Manager Raymond G, Garrett

i Bob D. Glaze
Governmental Affairs and Blanchard T. Hollins
Energy

Donaid A. Horn
Olin Chemicals Group Maria LaMantia

Philip Lewis
P.O. Box 552 Ray Sanios
Pasadena, Texas 77501

Dear Mr. Kaufman:

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. Radiation levels were
generally less than 30 micro/Roentgen per hour (#R/hr) .in that building.

We also made a survey of the plant where we found radiation levels generally less than
304¢R/hr, ranging from 10 to 6004R/hr of the pipes below a circular filter. Readings
over the gypsum were around 30 — 35 sg/hr.

In short, the radiation levels were not atypical of those found in other plants reported
in the literature.

If you require further information or desire to discuss your plans further, please do not
hesitate to call or come by.

Sincegely,
Lewis M. Cook, Chief
Environmental Surveillance

Radiation Control] Branch
Division of Occupational Health

and Radiation Control


19S

CONTENTS OF SITE SUMMARIES

Each site summary should ideally answer the following questions under the
respective categories..

Name of Site or Facility where site is located, Address of Current Owner

Site Functions

What was the site used for?
What were the dates of operation?
. Who operated the site?

+ What contract number and who was the contractor during MED/AEC
operations?

angp

Physical Characteristics

a. What was physical layout of site during use?

b. What remains of old site?

Cc. What are the new physical characteristics of the site and what
led to any changes?

d. What is the description of any off-site location affected?

Owner History

a. What was the ownership history from the initiation of operations
to the present?

Radiological History and Status

a. What was tne radiological history (including contamination and
surveys performed) to the present?

b. Was any material or equipment used in the conduct of the AEC/MED
contracts removed from the site? If so what was its disposition?

c. What is the current status?

d. What is the magnitude of any expected contamination off-site
as well as on-site and what surveys were performed to date?

e. What actions were taken to decontaminate and/or certify the

site for release to the public?

Category and Status

References (List of all available material supporting the data in the
summary’)



Table 1.

14d

Racionuclides

Concentration for sample
from bench area (pCi/g)

Concentration for sample
From sink (pCi/g)

226p,
2364

227A

8.56
4.90
1.05

9.67
41.3
185



138

the sink where elevated alpha and beta-gamma readings were noted (see
Fig. 2). The maximum direct élpha.reading wes 3000 dpm/100 cm? on
inside surfaces of the sink and presumed to be inside the drzin opening
of the sink. The inside of this opening was inaccessible beyond about z
1é cm, which prohibited further assessment of the contamination jevel.
The corresponding beta-gamma dose-rate reading was about 0.4 mrad/hr at
she same location end was also the highest reading found in the facility.
Analytical resujts of a residue sample taken from the bench area
around the sink and from an insiae surface of the sink are presented in
Table 1. No information was obteined as to tne disposition of pilot
piant equipment conteined in this facility following culminetion of the

project.

5

1 view of Survey results, when the sink and accessible drain are
removed from this facility, they should be handled as contaminated
meteriag] with disposai zt an approved burial site, prior to the release
oy the site for unrestricted use.


OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Pasadena, Texas

At the request of the Department of Energy (DOE), a preliminary
survey was performed at the Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation plant in
Pasadena, Texes (see Fig. 1), on November 18, 1977, to assess the radio-
logical status of those facilities utilized under an Atomic Energy
Commission raw materials contract for e period determined to be during
the early 1950s. M. S. Devenport, 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 infor-
mation aS to the history of materia] processed at this site.

From information obteined 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 U,0,
from pnosphoric acid generated during the processing of phosphate rock
No information was available as to the exect amounts of U,0, produced
nor aS to the radiological conditions of the facility at tne culmination
of the project at which time the pilot plant wes dismantled (believed to
have been in 1955).

Present Use of Facilities

The facility utilized in the project consisted of a single room
approximately 12 x 14 ft (see Fig. 2). This room currentiy contains an
L-shaped laboratory bench (with sink} adjacent to two walls and a chemical
hood located on @ third wall. This facility was part of an old process
technology and analysis laboratory. The room is currently used for
storing janitorial equipment. Plans are currently underway to demolish
the building.

Results of Preliminary Survey

The preliminary survey was conducted by F. F. Haywood of the Oak

Ridge National Laboratory and W. T. Thornton of the Department of Energy-
Oak Ridge Operations Office. An exploratory radiation survey of the one
room was made. This survey consisted of (1) direct alpha anc beta-gamme

measurements and (2) collection of residue samples from the areas of

[37


PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF
OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Pasadena, Texas

Work performed
by the
Health and Safety Research Division
Oak Ridoe National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

March 1980

OAK RIDGE RATIONAL LABGRATORY
operated by
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
for the
BEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
as part of the
Formerly Utilized Sites--
Remedial] Action Program



/47

Trays
wlin CHEMICALS GROUP

P.O. BOX 552+ PASADENA, TEXAS 77601 + (713) 472-9641

hoavt

A.29,4

April 12, 1979

Mr. William E. Mott

Acting Director

Environmental Control Technology Division
Department of Energy

Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr. Mott:

The following information has been developed in line with the

questionaire enclosed with your letter of March 13th, 1979 on the
AEC Project at Pasadena.

1. The site is located on the Houston Ship Channel near Pasadena

Texas. The mailing address is Olin Corporation, P. 0, Box 552,
Pasadena, Texas 77501.

2. SITE FUNCTIONS

a.) The site was used to operate a small pilot plant which ex-
tracted uranium from wet process phosphoric acid produced
for fertilizer manufacture.

b.) The facility was operated from mid 1951 through mid 1953.

c.) The pilot plant was operated by Mathieson Chemical Company.
Project Manager was Dr. M. E. Miller. He reported adminis-
tratively to the Plant Manager and functionally to Dr. Carl
Prutton. (Deceased)

d.) The contract number is unknown. Ajl records were destroyed
after legal time limits expired.

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

a.) The pilot plant was located in a section of a one story
building used as a process development facility.

b.) The equipment was removed after the project was completed.
The building is still standing.