SEC Petition Evaluation Report
 

Petition SEC-00089 

Report Rev #:_ 0_ Report Submittal Date: June 4, 2008 

Subject Expert(s): Joe Guido 

Site Expert(s): NA 

Petition Administrative Summary 

Petition Under Evaluation 

Petition # Petition 

Type 

Petition 

Qualification Date 

DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC-00089 83.13 January 4, 2008 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Petitioner Class Definition 

All workers who worked in all areas at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from 1958 through 1963. 

Class Evaluated by NIOSH 

All workers who worked in any area at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from January 1, 1956 

through December 31, 1961. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class(es) to be Added to the SEC 

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked in any area at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works near Pittsburg, Kansas, from January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961, for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work 

days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status 

None NA NA NA 

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name 

NA NA 

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Karin Jessen ORAU Review Completed By: Daniel H. Stempfley 

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on file] 

LaVon Rutherford 

06/09/2008 

Date 

SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on file] 

J. W. Neton 

06/09/2008 

Date 

SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on file] 

Larry Elliott 

06/09/2008 

Date 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

This page intentionally left blank 

2 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00089, Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works 

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as 

Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. 

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition 

Petition SEC-00089, qualified on January 4, 2008, requested that NIOSH consider the following class: 

All workers who worked in all areas at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from 1958 

through 1963. The period of employment defined in the original petition was based on the covered 

period for the site as listed by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security 

at the time the petition was submitted. 

Class Evaluated by NIOSH 

NIOSH modified the petitioner-requested class timeframe based on concurrence and direction from 

the Department of Labor (DOL). The NIOSH-evaluated class includes all workers who worked in any 

area at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from January 1, 1956 through December 31, 

1961. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC 

Based on its full research, NIOSH defined a single class of employees for which NIOSH cannot 

estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSH-proposed class includes all Atomic 

Weapons Employer employees who worked in any area at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works near Pittsburg, Kansas, from January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961, for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. The class was broadly defined because NIOSH has little insight into Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works control of radioactive materials being transported between work 

areas during the covered period. Without such information, NIOSH is not able to rule out crosscontamination of work areas. Therefore, NIOSH is unable to limit the SEC class based on work 

location. Consequently, all Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works areas are included in the 

proposed SEC class. 

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction 

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH has established that it does not have access to 

sufficient information to: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which 

radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in plausible circumstances by any 

member of the class; or (2) estimate radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of maximum dose. Information from available resources is not sufficient to document or 

3 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

estimate the maximum internal and external potential exposures to members of the proposed class 

under plausible circumstances during the specified period. 

Health Endangerment Determination 

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), a health endangerment determination is required because 

NIOSH has determined that it does not have sufficient information to estimate dose for the members 

of the proposed class. 

NIOSH did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other resources that would 

establish that the proposed class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved exceptionally high-level exposures. However, evidence indicates that some workers in the 

proposed class may have accumulated substantial chronic exposures through episodic intakes of 

radionuclides, combined with external exposures to gamma, beta, and neutron radiation. 

Consequently, NIOSH has determined that health was endangered for those workers covered by this 

evaluation who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days either solely under their 

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for other SEC 

classes (excluding aggregate work day requirements). 

4 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Table of Contents 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00089, Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works .................... 3
 

1.0 Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................................................... 7
 

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7
 

3.0 Petitioner-Requested Class/Basis & NIOSH-Proposed Class/Basis .............................................. 8
 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH................................................................................................ 9 

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) .................................................................. 9 

4.2 Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs) and Procedures..................................................... 10 

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts .......................................................................................... 10 

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions ........................................................................................... 11 

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database (SRDB) ............................................................................ 11 

4.6 Other Technical Sources...................................................................................................... 11 

4.7 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners ................................................. 12
 

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ......................................... 13 

5.1 Spencer Chemical Company Plant and Process Descriptions ............................................. 13 

5.2 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Operations and Buildings........................... 14 

5.2.1 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Uranium Operations ....................... 15 

5.2.2 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Thorium Operations ....................... 17 

5.2.3 Summary of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Facilities .................... 18 

5.3 Radiological Exposure Sources from Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Operations..................................................................................................................................... 18 

5.3.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources from Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works Operations................................................................................................................ 19 

5.3.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources from Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works Operations ................................................................................ 20 

5.3.2.1 Beta........................................................................................................... 20 

5.3.2.2 Neutron ..................................................................................................... 20 

5.3.2.3 Photon....................................................................................................... 20 

5.3.3 Incidents .................................................................................................................. 20
 

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ............................. 21 

6.1 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Internal Monitoring Data ........................... 21 

6.1.1 Spencer Chemical Company Air Sampling Data .................................................... 21 

6.2 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works External Monitoring Data .......................... 23
 

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ...................................... 23
 

7.1 Pedigree of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Data......................................... 24 

7.2 Internal Radiation Doses at Spencer Chemical Company................................................... 24 

7.2.1 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................. 25 

7.3 External Radiation Doses at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works ....................... 25 

7.3.1 External Dose .......................................................................................................... 25
 

5 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

7.3.2 Occupational X-Ray Examinations ......................................................................... 26 

7.3.3 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................ 26 

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00089 ....................................................................... 26 

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00089.................................................. 28
 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00089...................................................... 29
 

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00089 ......................................................................... 30
 

10.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 31
 

Attachment One: Documentation Provided by Petitioner ..................................................................... 35 

Attachment Two: DOL Correspondence ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
 

Tables 

Table 4-1: No. of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Worksite Claims Submitted Under the Dose 

Reconstruction Rule .............................................................................................................................. 11
 

Table 5-1: Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Development Chronology .......................... 18
 

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00089 ............................................................... 29 

6 of 39 
 

 

 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00089
 

ATTRIBUTION AND ANNOTATION: This is a single-author document. All conclusions drawn from 

the data presented in this evaluation were made by the ORAU Team Lead Technical Evaluator: Karin 

Jessen, ORAU. These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. 

The rationales for all conclusions in this document are explained in the associated text. 

1.0 Purpose and Scope 

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for all employees who worked in any area 

at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961. It 

provides information and analyses germane to considering a petition for adding a class of employees 

to the congressionally-created SEC. 

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH. This report also does not contain the final determination as to whether the proposed class 

will be added to the SEC (see Section 2.0). 

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA, 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, 

and the guidance contained in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support’s (OCAS) Internal 

Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, OCAS-PR-004. 

2.0 Introduction 

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) add a class of employees to the SEC. The 

evaluation is intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses of the class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.1 

42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1) states: Radiation doses can be estimated with sufficient accuracy if NIOSH 

has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the maximum radiation dose, 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in 

plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or if NIOSH has established that it has access to 

sufficient information to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of the maximum radiation dose. 

Under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), if it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses 

for members of the class, then NIOSH must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such 

radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class The regulation requires 

NIOSH to assume that any duration of unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of 

members of a class when it has been established that the class may have been exposed to radiation 

1

 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

7 of 39 
 

 

 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

during a discrete incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring 

during nuclear criticality incidents. If the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has 

not been established, then NIOSH is required to specify that health was endangered for those workers 

who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days within the parameters established for the 

class or in combination with work days within the parameters established for other SEC classes 

(excluding aggregate work day requirements). 

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioner(s) and to the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board). The Board will consider the NIOSH 

evaluation report, together with the petition, petitioner(s) comments, and other information the Board 

considers appropriate, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not 

to add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this decision process, petitioners may 

seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.2 

3.0 Petitioner-Requested Class/Basis & NIOSH-Proposed Class/Basis 

Petition SEC-00089, qualified on January 4, 2008, requested that NIOSH consider the following class 

for addition to the SEC: All workers who worked in all areas at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works from 1958 through 1963. The period of employment defined in the original petition was based 

on the covered period for the site as listed by the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security at the 

time the petition was submitted. 

The petitioner provided information and affidavit statements in support of the petitioner’s belief that 

accurate dose reconstruction over time is impossible for the Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works employees in question. NIOSH deemed the following information and affidavit statements 

sufficient to qualify SEC-00089 for evaluation: 

In support of the petition, the SEC-00089 petitioner provided numerous Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works memos and partial Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) reports. 

The petitioner claims that radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class 

cannot be found. The petitioner also states that workers were continuously exposed to high 

concentrations of highly enriched uranium dust and powder. In addition, safe handling 

practices were not used, as workers were not adequately trained nor were they adequately 

protected as evidenced by dusty respirators. Finally, there is a lack of survey documentation, 

potentially indicating that workers were not aware of potential radiation hazards. 

2 See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

8 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

The information and statements provided by the petitioner qualified the petition for further 

consideration by NIOSH, the Board, and HHS. The details of the petition basis are addressed in 

Section 7.4. 

NIOSH modified the petitioner-requested class timeframe based on concurrence and direction from 

the DOL (Turcic, 2008) and evaluated its ability to estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy 

for the proposed worker class. The class evaluated by NIOSH includes all workers who worked in 

any area at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from January 1, 1956 through December 31, 

1961. 

Based on the research and reviews performed as part of this evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single 

class of employees for which it cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked in any area at Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works near Pittsburg, Kansas, from January 1, 1956 through December 

31, 1961, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely 

under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or 

more other classes of employees in the SEC. The class was accepted as a result of the feasibility 

evaluation documented in Section 7.0. 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH 

NIOSH identified and reviewed numerous data sources to determine information relevant to 

determining the feasibility of dose reconstruction for the class of employees proposed for this petition. 

This included determining the availability of information on personal monitoring, area monitoring, 

industrial processes, and radiation source materials. The following subsections summarize the data 

sources identified and reviewed by NIOSH. 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works utilized several different companies for the purpose of 

internal and/or external monitoring between 1956 and 1961. One company, Landauer, specifically 

stated that they did not have records identifying Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works as a 

customer (Jessen, 2008). Another company, Nuclear Science and Engineering, no longer exists. 

Although contact was made with successor companies, no records were found regarding Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. Another company, National Spectrographic Laboratory could 

not be located. 

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) 

A Site Profile provides specific information concerning the documentation of historical practices at 

the specified site. Dose reconstructors can use the Site Profile to evaluate internal and external 

dosimetry data for monitored and unmonitored workers, and to supplement, or substitute for, 

individual monitoring data. A Site Profile consists of an Introduction and five Technical Basis 

Documents (TBDs) that provide process history information, information on personal and area 

monitoring, radiation source descriptions, and references to primary documents relevant to the 

radiological operations at the site. The Site Profile for a small site may consist of a single document. 

Although there are no Site Profile TBDs written specifically for Spencer Chemical Company, as part 

of NIOSH’s evaluation detailed herein, it examined the following TBDs for insights: 

9 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium, Battelle-TBD6000; PDWD-3738 Rev. F0; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30671 

•	 Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, Battelle-TBD6001; Rev. F0; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30673 

4.2 Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs) and Procedures 

A Technical Information Bulletin (TIB) is a general working document that provides guidance for 

preparing dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. A Procedure provides specific 

requirements and guidance regarding EEOICPA project-level activities, including preparation of dose 

reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. NIOSH reviewed the following TIBs and 

procedures as part of its evaluation: 

•	 TIB: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, 

Rev. 03 PC-1; December 21, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20220 

•	 TIB: Estimation of Neutron Dose Rates from Alpha-Neutron Reactions in Uranium and Thorium 

Compounds, ORAUT-OTIB-0024, Rev. 00; April 7, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 19445 

•	 TIB: Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons Employer Dose Reconstructions, 

Battelle-TIB-5000, Rev. 00; April 7, 2007, SRDB Ref ID: 32016 

•	 Procedure: Occupational X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, ORAUT-PROC-0061, Rev 

00; July 21, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 29987 

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts 

To obtain additional information, NIOSH researched its NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System 

(NOCTS) database and located nine former employees who worked at Spencer between 1956 and 

1961. Of those nine employees, three employees were willing to be interviewed. During the 

interview process, one additional person (a non-claimant) was identified and willing to be 

interviewed. None of the people interviewed worked in the “nuclear” buildings, as the buildings were 

referred to. However, one interviewee did go into the “nuclear” buildings for Safety and Health 

Inspections and clean-up activities. 

•	 Personal Communication, 2008a, Personal Communication with Floor Operator; Telephone 

Interview by ORAU Team; February 20, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105337 

•	 Personal Communication, 2008b, Personal Communication with Laborer; Telephone Interview by 

ORAU Team; February 20, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105334 

•	 Personal Communication, 2008c, Personal Communication with Laborer and C Operator; 

Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; February 22, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105335 

10 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Personal Communication, 2008d, Personal Communication with Nitric Acid Department 

Employee and Former President of the United Chemical Workers Union; Telephone Interview by 

ORAU Team; February 22, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105336 

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions 

NIOSH reviewed NOCTS to locate EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide 

information relevant to the petition evaluation. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of this review. 

(NOCTS data available as of June 4, 2008) 

Table 4-1: No. of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Worksite Claims Submitted Under the Dose 

Reconstruction Rule 

Description Totals 

Total number of claims submitted for dose reconstruction 30 

Total number of claims submitted for energy employees who meet the evaluated class definition 

criteria (January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961) 30 

Number of dose reconstructions completed for energy employees who meet the evaluated class 

definition criteria 0 

Number of claims for which internal dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 0 

Number of claims for which external dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 0 

NIOSH reviewed each claim to determine whether internal and/or external personal monitoring 

records could be obtained for the employee. Thirty claims have been submitted for Spencer Chemical 

Company; none of the 30 claims have been completed. NIOSH has not located any internal or 

external monitoring data for individuals that were employed during the period evaluated in this report. 

Minimal monitoring information is available in several AEC reports, but it is general and not specific 

for individuals. NIOSH has been unable to find the original monitoring records to corroborate the 

results reported in the AEC reports. 

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database (SRDB) 

NIOSH also examined its Site Research Database (SRDB) to locate documents supporting the 

evaluation of the proposed class. One hundred ninety-four documents in this database were identified 

as pertaining to Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. These documents were evaluated for 

their relevance to this petition. The SRDB contains mostly one- or two-page copies of licenses and 

permission to ship materials, but generally, these documents do not provide much detail. Very little 

information has been found regarding dust sampling, internal and external monitoring data, 

radiological control programs, medical monitoring, and program/site descriptions or 

incidents/accidents. 

4.6 Other Technical Sources 

NIOSH completed an extensive database and internet search for information regarding Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. The database search included the DOE Legacy Management 

11 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Considered Sites database, the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) database, 

the Energy Citations database, the Atomic Energy Technical Report database, and the Hanford 

Declassified Document Retrieval System. The NIOSH internet search included OSTI OpenNet 

Advanced searches, OSTI Information Bridge Fielded searches, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) Agency-wide Documents Access and Management (ADAMS) web searches, the DOE Office 

of Human Radiation Experiments website, the DOE-National Nuclear Security AdministrationNevada Site Office-search, as well as general internet searches. 

4.7 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners 

No affidavits were provided with the petition; however, the petitioner provided several boxes of 

information, which were used to complete this report and are summarized below. A more detailed 

analysis of the petitioner-provided documents can be found in Attachment One at the end of this 

report. 

• Letters to OCAS – Jan. – May 2007 (4) 

• Durable Power of Attorney March 24, 2002 

• Employment Documents – [Name Redacted] 

• Correspondence with various agencies for records (17) 

• Database Report – Spencer 

• Inspection, May 2-5, 1961 – Jayhawk Works 

• License Application – Spencer Chemical 

• Letters – Spencer Chemical/AEC – 1962 (4) 

• Licensing Correspondence – 1959, 1962 (5) 

• Purchase Order Correspondence – Various companies 

• Compliance Inspection – 1959 

• Excerpt Annual Report to Congress – 1963 

• Excerpt Atomic Industrial Progress – 1958 

• Excerpt Major Activities in Atomic Energy Programs – 1961 

• Joplin Globe Article – January 16, 2001 

• Medical Records: [Names Redacted] 

12 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Request for Review by Physician Panel 

•	 Kansas Workers Compensation Claim information 

•	 Birth/Death/Marriage Certificates 

•	 College Transcripts 

•	 Last Will and Testament – [Name Redacted] 

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH 

The following subsections summarize the radiological operations at the Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works from January 1, 1956 to December 31, 1961, and the information available 

to NIOSH to characterize particular processes and radioactive source materials. From available 

sources NIOSH has attempted to gather process and source descriptions, information regarding the 

identity and quantities of each radionuclide of concern, and information describing both processes 

through which radiation exposures may have occurred and the physical environment in which they 

may have occurred. The information included within this evaluation report is intended only to be a 

summary of the available information. 

5.1 Spencer Chemical Company Plant and Process Descriptions 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works, formerly known as the Jayhawk Works Site, was 

originally used as an ordnance plant during World War II. During 1948, the U.S. Government 

converted the facility into Spencer Chemical Company, Kansas, which was a 1,600 acre site located in 

the southeastern corner of Kansas (Evans, 2000). Spencer Chemical Company manufactured 

ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, polyethylene, nylon, urea, methanol, and other similar 

products. Spencer had been operating as a Uranium Oxide Pilot Plant (under license SNM-154) since 

December 1, 1957 (SCC, 1959, pdf page 6; Callan, 1992). 

Since December 1957, Spencer was licensed by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to possess 

enriched uranium and thorium. The AEC licenses allowed Spencer Chemical Company to receive 

UF6 and to process it into enriched uranium oxides and uranium carbides in the physical form of fused 

ceramic pellets and finely divided powder (Callan, 1992, pdf page 4). 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works was issued at least one license as early as 1956; this 

license is listed below. 

•	 License R-218 was issued on January 20, 1956 and expired on February 1, 1959. This license 

allowed Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works to “receive and title to up to 10 kg of 

normal thorium oxide/uranium oxide mixture for the use in process research (AEC, 1958, pdf 

58).” 

13 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works was issued at least five AEC licenses between 1956 and 

1961 (Evans, 2000). 

•	 License R-218 (Docket 40-2136) was issued on January 20, 1958 and expired on March 31, 1960. 

The license allowed Spencer Chemical to possess 10 kilograms of thorium oxide-uranium oxide 

mixture and 1000 kilograms of thorium oxide for research and development (Evans, 2000, pdf 

page 4). 

Note: Various sources include overlapping dates for License R-218; it is possible that the first 

License R-218 was amended or re-issued. However, NIOSH does not have documentation 

proving this to be true. 

•	 License SNM-154 (Docket 70-146) was issued on January 1958 and expired on January 31, 1964. 

This license allowed Spencer Chemical to possess up to 1,200 kilograms of uranium-235 for use 

in a Uranium Oxide Pilot Plant. 

•	 License SNM-329 (Docket 70-340) was issued on October 1, 1959 and expired on September 30, 

1962. This license allowed Spencer Chemical Company to possess up to 100 kilograms of 

uranium for chemical processing of uranium enriched to 5 percent in uranium-235. 

Note: The Material Status Report (AEC-578) for the period ending December 31, 1961, showed 

that all special nuclear material had been transferred from SNM-329. No special nuclear material 

was transferred after December 31, 1961 (Greenlee, 1962). 

•	 License C-3571 allowed the company to possess 300 pounds of uranium magnesium fluoride 

scrap material and 5,000 pounds of uranium metal or compounds for experimental work. The 

license (amended) was issued on February 28, 1958 and expired on September 1, 1958 (AEC, 

1958, pdf page 57). 

•	 License C-4352 was issued to the company, but information about this license could not be 

located. 

Spencer Chemical Company ceased operations and disposed of its licensed materials by May 12, 

1961. During the decontamination of the site, a process building was decontaminated, dismantled, 

burned, and buried. Other areas of the site were decontaminated, surveyed, and returned to 

unrestricted use (Callan, 1992). 

A memo dated September 3, 1962 (Woolsey, 1962) indicates that Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works had been purchased (sometime prior to the date of the memo) by KerrMcGee and that the operations would be moving to the State of Oklahoma. However, the only official 

purchase/sale documentation available to NIOSH for this time period provides specific information 

regarding the sale of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works to the Gulf Oil Company on 

September 24, 1963 (Purchase Agreement, 1963). 

5.2 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Operations and Buildings 

NIOSH has found only limited Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works records and 

documentation; there are inconsistencies within this documentation. In a letter dated May 20, 1964, 

written by the Assistant Director for Materials, Division of Compliance, it states that a Jayhawk 

14 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Works Engineering Manager said that all radioactive material processing was conducted in Buildings 

702 and 709; the manager specifically stated that 95 percent of the processing was conducted in 

Building 702 and the remaining 5 percent was conducted in Building 709 (Dubinski, 1964). After 

Kerr-McGee removed all the equipment associated with the processes, Building 702 was thoroughly 

washed down with soap and water and the remaining equipment was transferred to a disposal pit. 

Building 702 was then dismantled and burned in the disposal pit (Dubinski, 1964). 

In the May 1964 letter (described above), the manager states that only two buildings were used for 

processing. However, a document dated May 2-5, 1961 mentions more than two buildings. 

According to the 1961 document, the facilities at Spencer Chemical Company included the Technical 

Area, Building 702, Plant 2, a storehouse next to Plant 2, and the storage vault in Building 703. Plant 

1, the original pilot plant and processing plant, was “moth-balled.” NIOSH has not located 

documentation that specifies when these buildings were in operation. 

After Building 709 was thoroughly washed down with soap and water, the building was surveyed for 

external radiation and contamination using a civil defense Geiger counter. The smears that were 

collected during the contamination survey were sent to the Kansas State Department of Health for 

analysis. Available documentation indicates that the survey consisted of taking external radiation 

readings and smears at six locations on the facility’s floor and two at locations on the facility’s wall, 

for a total of 38 smears. The direct radiation readings were recorded as ranging from 0.05 mr/hr to 0.3 

mr/hr beta/gamma and 0.04 mr/hr to 0.06 mr/hr gamma. The analysis results of the smears ranged 

from 0 to 271 dpm/100 cm2

 removable alpha; 15 dpm/100cm2 to 874 dpm/100cm2 removable beta. 

All smears were reported as 0 for removable gamma (Dubinski, 1964). 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works operations and buildings included the following: 

•	 Uranium Operations 

o	 Uranium Pilot Plant No. 1 

o	 Uranium Pilot Plant, Building 709 

o	 Technical Operation Building (‘T’ House), Building 702 

o	 Plant 2 

o	 Storehouse (next to Plant 2) 

o	 Change Building 

o	 Building 703, Storage Vault 

•	 Thorium Operations—NIOSH has not been able to establish the specific buildings where thorium 

was used. 

5.2.1 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Uranium Operations 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works processed several types of uranium bearing materials for 

use in the nuclear energy fuel cycle. The purified uranium compounds from the process were used in 

research and development and used as actual core material for nuclear reactors. The purification was 

performed by solvent extraction, and the process was designed to produce primarily U02 from UF6 

scrap. Although the Uranium Pilot Plant was originally designed to process uranium of any 

enrichment, the original license from September 17, 1957 was modified on May 16, 1958, which 

allowed processing material containing up to 5% enrichment (AEC, 1959, pdf page 95). The 

15 of 39 
 

 

 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

maximum design processing rate was 300 pounds of uranium per day, but the processing rate was 

dependent upon the exact nature of the feed material and upon customer demand. According to the 

license, the inventory of uranium-235 was not to exceed 1,000 kg. 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works installed a small plant (located in a portion of an 

ammonia plant acquired from the Government) to recover uranium as an oxide from uranium 

hexafluoride or scrap metal. There were two treatments. One treatment was the dissolution of metal 

scrap to recover UO2. The other consisted of the heat treatment of a cylinder of uranium hexafluoride 

in a tight container, where gaseous UF6 flowed from the cylinder to a hydrolyzer through a piping 

system with remotely operated valves. Solutions from the dissolver or hydrolyzer passed through a 

two-stage solvent extraction, precipitation, filtration, drying, (and “furnacing”) to produce uranium 

oxide, which was packaged in a dry box. Processing was continuous from the solvent extraction 

through the rest of the processes (Author unknown, 1957). 

Uranium Pilot Plant No. 1 

The only information that NIOSH has located in regards to Pilot Plant No. 1 is that it was the original 

pilot plant and processing plant and was eventually “mothballed.” 

Uranium Pilot Plant, Building 709 

The purpose of Building 709, also known as the Uranium Pilot Plant, was to process several types of 

uranium-bearing materials for use in the nuclear energy fuel cycle. The Uranium Pilot Plant was 

designed to purify uranium containing products of various enrichments, with the end result being 

purified solutions or pure compounds. Pure compounds were the main objective of the Pilot Plant, 

and the ultimate goal was to create a process that would produce these compounds (AEC, 1958, pdf 

page 59). 

The Analytical Laboratory portion of the Uranium Pilot Plant was set up to perform uranium 

colorimetric analysis on the samples taken from various phases of the Pilot Plant processes and the 

settling basin. This work was performed on stainless steel trays and/or paper covered benches to 

protect the area from spills (AEC, 1958, pdf page 62). 

Technical Operation Building (‘T’ House), Building 702 

Building 702, also known as the Technical Operation Building, (referred to as the “T” house and the 

Research and Developmental Laboratory) was used to process material for enrichments greater than 

5%.3

 However, material for experimental work or new processes utilized material with enrichments 

less than 5%. Building 702 was used to produce feed uranium oxides and carbides. The process area 

was manned for one or two shifts a day, depending on work load. The ‘T’ House was a long 

rectangular building with rooms on either side of the building. It included the Pilot Plant, Hydrolysis 

room, reactor pit, Receiving room, lab analysis, general storage, processing area, laundry, ‘T’ room 

(which was the only room where 93% material was processed), lunch room, office and change area, 

and the feed preparation area for the Pilot Plant (AEC, 1961, pdf page 85). 

3

 It was difficult to decipher where the greater than 5% enrichment took place. The licenses changed, but not reference 

was made to the buildings. If we were to make assumptions, we could assume that they could process up to 5% in the 

Pilot Plant, and then used the “T” Room for enrichment greater than 5%. However, this is just an assumption. 

16 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

As previously mentioned, the 93% enriched material was processed in a special area in the ‘T’ House 

where the feed product (UF6) was converted into either ammonium diuranate (one of the oxides of 

uranium) or insoluble UF4. The insoluble uranium was removed from the reactor stream by means of 

a filter, and the unused reactant was returned to the Reaction room. The material was treated in a 

high-temperature furnace for conversion into the desired product; the final product was packaged in a 

hood (AEC, 1961, pdf pages 75-76). 

Plant 2, Building 1011 

Plant 2, also referred to as Building 1011, was used to process uranium materials having less than 5% 

enrichment. This plant processed various uranium feed types and forms (including but not limited to 

UF6, scrap metal, and/or yellow cake) for the Nuclear Fuels Section of the Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works. The final product was either normal (enrichment levels equivalent to that 

of normal uranium – a.k.a natural uranium) or enriched (less than 5%) uranium oxide (AEC, 1961, pdf 

pages 72-74). 

Storehouse next to Plant 2 

The small storehouse next to Plant 2 was used for preparing material for shipping and storing material 

ready for shipping. This material could have been enriched, normal/natural, or depleted uranium. 

Change Building 

The Change Building was in a building separate from the Uranium Pilot Plant, located south of the 

Pilot Plant. The building had shower and laundry facilities; when the workers left the Pilot Plant for 

the day, they were required to clean and survey themselves prior to going home. 

Storage Vault, Building 703 

The Storage Vault was used to store source and special nuclear material. Although the area was not 

posted as a Radiological Area, the Storage Vault contained material that resulted in a dose rate of 10 

mr/hour. This dose rate was in excess of the 5 mrem/hour set for a radiation area (AEC, 1958, pdf 

page 58). This area was noted as the location of the bird cages (safe geometry storage 

locations/devices used to secure radioactive material). 

5.2.2 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Thorium Operations 

License R-218 (1/20/56 – 2/1/59) allowed Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works to receive up 

to 10 kg of natural thorium oxide-uranium oxide mixture for use in process research (AEC, 1958, pdf 

58). However, no information was found regarding the thorium research that might have been 

conducted at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. There were six incidents involving 

thorium and air samples were collected that showed elevated levels where the material was being used 

(Lambertus, 1962). These air samples were apparently taken in 1962 and corrective measures were 

implemented to eliminate the high airborne dust around the equipment (Lambertus, 1962). NIOSH 

found no other information regarding thorium operations. 

17 of 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

5.2.3 Summary of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Facilities 

Table 5-1 summarizes Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works processes as well as the buildings 

and dates of operations. 

Table 5-1: Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Development Chronology 

Dates1 Building Comments2 

19563-1958 Uranium Pilot Plant No. 1 Mothballed in 1958. No other data are available. 

19563

-1961 

Technical Area Building 702 

(referred to as ‘T’ house or the 

Advanced Materials Plant) 

Used to process material for enrichments greater than 5%. 

However, material for experimental work or new processes may 

have utilized material with enrichment less than 5%. This area 

was used to produce uranium oxides and carbides, uranium 

fluoride, uranium chloride compounds, and other enriched 

uranium. 

19563

-August 1, 

1959 Plant 2 

Started processing uranium materials having less than 5% 

enrichment. The feed for this plant may have been various 

forms/types of uranium product or scrap. The final products 

were either normal/natural uranium or enriched (less than 5%) 

uranium oxide. 

19563

-1961 Storehouse next to Plant 2 

This small storage building was used to prepare material for 

shipping; it was also used for storing material ready for 

shipping. Material in the storehouse could have included 

enriched, normal/natural, or depleted uranium. 

1958-1961 Building 703, storage vault 

Spencer began using Building 703 as an analytical laboratory 

and storage vault in July 1958; it was used to store source and 

special nuclear material. This area was marked as the location 

of the bird cages so that the cylinders would be in criticality safe 

positions. 

1957-1961 Building 709, Uranium Pilot 

Plant 

In February 1957, Spencer installed equipment in the Pilot Plant 

to study “reprocessing of nuclear fuels” (scrap recovery – no 

indication of operations until 1958). Spencer began commercial 

operation of the Pilot Plant in July 1958. Building 709 

processed several types of uranium bearing materials for use in 

the nuclear energy fuel cycle. 

Notes: 

Information for this table is from AEC, 1961; Barnes, 1982.
 1

 These dates are all best estimates. 

2

 NIOSH found no data to support defining the exact locations of any thorium-related work at Spencer Chemical
 

Company/Jayhawk Works. 

3

 No documentation was found indicating start dates for the Uranium Pilot Plant, Plant 2, Building 702, or the Storehouse 

next to Plant 2.
 

5.3 Radiological Exposure Sources from Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works Operations 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works was involved in the processing of enriched uranium 

hexafluoride into uranium oxides and uranium carbides in the physical form of fused ceramic pellets 

and finely divided powder. Although it is well known that Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

18 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Works was involved with uranium scrap recovery, some documentation indicates that uranium 

extrusion, rolling, and forging may have also been performed; all of these operations could have 

resulted in alpha, beta, and gamma radiation exposures. For example, the extrusion method had the 

potential to release uranium oxide into the air, the rolling method was capable of releasing large 

quantities of uranium dust into the air, the hot press forging produced relatively low air 

concentrations, and hammer forging produced higher air concentrations. With uranium scrap 

recovery, during the pressing of the briquette, heat was generated inside the pressing machine. When 

the briquette was unloaded, uranium oxide fumes could be released into the air. Sources of 

radiological exposures in the buildings resulted from surface, airborne, and re-suspended dust 

particles, depending on what operation may have been taking place. 

5.3.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources from Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works Operations 

Based on extensive data capture efforts and review of the limited information available regarding the 

processes at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works, NIOSH has concluded that Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works employees had the potential for internal radiological exposures 

while working at the site, as discussed below. 

Alpha particle emissions from the radioactive materials handled at Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works present the greatest potential for exposure through internal deposition via 

inhalation and ingestion (alpha particles do not present an external exposure hazard). The principal 

alpha-emitting radioactive materials associated with Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

operations were uranium and thorium (and associated progeny). Processed natural uranium consists 

of approximately equal activities of uranium-238 (4.20 MeV and 4.15 MeV alpha particles) and 

uranium-234 (4.77 MeV and 4.72 MeV alpha particles) (Radiological Health, 1970). There are 

smaller amounts of uranium-235 (approximately 1/20 of the activity levels of uranium-238 or 

uranium-234) with alpha particles of 4.40 MeV and 4.36 MeV. Enriched uranium also existed at 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works and posed a potential internal exposure hazard (uranium 

with a higher percentage of uranium-235 by weight). The specific activity of uranium increases with 

enrichment primarily because of the increase in the amount of uranium-234 present, rather than the 

increase in uranium-235 (for enrichment associated with gaseous diffusion). The determination of the 

enriched uranium specific activity (alpha - for internal exposure evaluation purposes) can be 

calculated and accounted for using standard methods if enrichment levels are known for the associated 

work areas (DOE, 2000). 

Thorium-232 emits alpha particles of 4.01 MeV and 3.95 MeV, and the natural thorium decay series 

includes six daughter products that also emit alpha particles, with energies ranging from 5.34 MeV to 

8.78 MeV. The abundance of these daughter product emissions depends on the state of equilibrium 

with the thorium-232 parent. Thorium-232 decays into radium-228, emitting two primary alpha 

particles of 3.95 MeV (24%) and 4.01 MeV (76%). The decay series contains several other progeny, 

most of which decay by alpha particle emission, but each has a half-life of less than 12 hours. Other 

thorium isotopes —including thorium-228 (5.52 MeV) and thorium-230 (4.62 MeV and 4.69 MeV)— 

likely existed at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works and could be considered contributors to 

the thorium dose at the site. 

19 of 39 
 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

5.3.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources from Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works Operations 

Based on extensive data capture efforts and review of the limited information regarding the processes 

at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works, NIOSH has concluded that workers at Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works had the potential for external radiological exposures while 

working at the site, as discussed below. 

5.3.2.1 Beta 

As with the alpha emitters, the majority of the beta exposures at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works could have resulted from exposure to natural thorium and its progeny, or uranium and its decay 

products. For processed natural uranium, the dominant beta radiation was likely from uranium-238 

decay products. The most energetic of these beta particles is 2.29 MeV from protactinium-234m. 

Thorium processes potentially involved unshielded contact with sources of beta radiation. While 

thorium-232 itself does not emit beta particles, five of the daughter radionuclides in the natural 

thorium decay series do have beta emissions, ranging in energy up to a maximum of 2.26 MeV 

(Radiological Health, 1970). The abundance of these daughter product emissions depends on the state 

of equilibrium with the thorium-232 parent. 

5.3.2.2 Neutron 

There are two sources of neutrons. First, neutrons result from alpha-neutron reactions where the 

reactant is fluorine (which occurs during the production of UF4 and UF6) or oxygen that is present in 

uranium oxides. Second, there is a small amount of spontaneous fission by uranium. Although 

specific information associated with neutron radiation fields has not been discovered for Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works, ORAUT-OTIB-0024 provides information associated with the 

expected neutron dose rates from various forms of uranium compounds. 

5.3.2.3 Photon 

Photons from uranium are primarily from the thorium-234 daughter of uranium-238 and are in the 

energy range of 30 - 250 KeV. There are higher-energy photons, up to 1.00 MeV, from another 

uranium-238 daughter, protactinium-234m, but the abundance of these photons is less than 1%. 

Thorium-232 itself has no photons; however, many of the daughter radionuclides in the natural 

thorium decay series do emit photons. These photons have an energy range up to a maximum of 2.61 

MeV (Radiological Health, 1970). 

5.3.3 Incidents 

No documented discrete radiological incidents or accidents that resulted in exceptionally high 

personnel exposures or overexposures (such as a criticality event) at Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works were identified or discovered by NIOSH during the data research and 

investigations performed in support of this SEC evaluation. NIOSH did discover several documented 

instances of elevated airborne radioactivity conditions (involving both thorium and uranium) at the 

site. All instances of documented elevated airborne concentrations were based on air monitoring at 

20 of 39 
 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

the working locations, including time-occupancy studies to assess the potential personnel exposures 

associated with the exposures to the associated airborne concentrations. Corrective measures were 

taken to eliminate the high airborne dust around the equipment (Lambertus, 1962). 

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated 

by NIOSH 

NIOSH has found only a limited amount of monitoring information (Author unknown, 2000). The 

information found pertaining to any type of monitoring data was from AEC Inspector Reports; no 

individual monitoring data was found. The subsections below describe the limited Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works information. 

6.1 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Internal Monitoring Data 

The section below describes Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works internal monitoring data. 

At this time, NIOSH has not been able to locate any individual monitoring records. The monitoring 

data that NIOSH has available are from AEC survey reports. 

Published AEC survey reports indicate that a urine bioassay program existed at Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works, but no individual monitoring records have been found. Approximately six 

weeks prior to a May 1961 inspection (because of problems associated with processing the 93% 

enriched uranium), Spencer’s urinalysis program changed from requiring monthly urine samples for 

Nuclear Fuels Section employees to requiring urine samples every two weeks. During this time 

period, the urinalysis service was provided by the National Spectrographic Laboratories in Mialasah, 

Florida (NIOSH also found indication that in 1958, monthly urinalysis service was provided by 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Corporation in Pittsburg) (SCC, unknown date). If a urinalysis 

result of greater than the established action limit was returned, the employee with this result was 

withdrawn from the product area until succeeding urinalysis results dropped below the action limit 

(AEC, 1961, pdf page 77). 

To date, NIOSH has not discovered or been able to gain access to the actual records associated with 

the personnel monitoring performed at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. NIOSH has 

exhausted its research trying to track down urinalysis records; this includes NIOSH research and 

follow-up with bioassay and dosimetry contractors Landauer, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 

National Spectrographic Laboratories, as well as the Kansas Department of Health (AEC, 1961, pdf 

pages 79-80). 

6.1.1 Spencer Chemical Company Air Sampling Data 

Radiological air sampling and smear surveys were conducted by Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works to determine compliance with 10 CFR 20.201, 20.103 and 20.105(b). The 

air sampling and contamination survey programs were the responsibility of a senior supervisor, and 

the actions taken for high air samples depended on the circumstances (i.e. the operation, sample result, 

and working conditions). 

21 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Air samples were taken in all parts of the ‘T’ House and Plant 2, including outside environs. 

Although these air sample data are not available, NIOSH learned that the air samples were usually 

taken as breathing zone samples or in the general area. Background samples were taken in non-work 

areas such as the office, lunch room, change room, or outside the building, away from exhaust ducts. 

The operations in which the samples were collected included: blending, transferring material between 

containers, loading in shipping containers within the hood, fusing uranium and thorium compounds, 

cleaning the mills and other equipment, crushing, grinding, screening, and dissolution (fumes). There 

were no set frequencies for the air sampling. For example, air samples in the blending operation in 

Plant 2 may have occurred at a frequency of 30 minutes in a 24-hour period, whereas the blending 

operations in the ‘T’ building may have occurred in 10 minute durations, approximately five or six 

times a day. 

Air samples were normally counted the following day, unless immediate results were required. The 

24-hour samples were counted for alpha and beta/gamma when they were pulled. Corrective 

measures were taken when high results were discovered. These corrective measures included resealing units to keep the dust confined to the interior of the unit, increasing the exhaust air flow of 

various hoods and dry box operations, and re-designing faulty equipment (AEC, 1961, pdf page 77). 

Stack discharges from the various areas were also sampled. The general air that was discharged by 

fans (not process air) was sampled and measured several times. These samples averaged less than the 

maximum permissible limit established by 10 CFR Part 20. One process air discharge sample 

measured about 0.3 grams of uranium for 14 hours of blower operation during the production of 500 

pounds of 2.5% UO2. Another sample in the same area for 19 hours of operation yielded 0.115 grams 

of uranium (AEC, 1961, pdf page 78). 

Pilot Plant air samples and radiation surveys were all conducted by responsible parties of Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. Air and survey samples were processed and analyzed at the 

Kansas City Laboratory with significant results being forwarded to Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works. The only record available is a summary of the air sampling results from 

the Kansas City, Missouri office. It is said that the radiation survey results were not recorded and the 

maximum reading in the Pilot Plant was ~0.4 mr/hr (AEC, 1958 pdf page 60). 

A May 14, 1962 memo indicates that there were elevated thorium airborne radioactivity conditions. 

In all cases, these counts were 30 minute air samples taken at a position between the worker and the 

hooded operation where the material was being utilized. This memo goes on to indicate that the air 

sample results “represent the absolute maximum intake that the worker could have received.” Time 

studies regarding the operation have indicated that the worker was in the operating position for less 

than 25 minutes during a typical 8-hour shift. During the rest of the shift, the worker was in other 

parts of the building where the air was consistently 10E-12 microcuries per ml or less. The overall 

daily exposure would be less than the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, according to the memo (Lambertus, 

1962). 

The same 1962 memo also states that there were similar events that involved elevated airborne 

concentrations of normal uranium in excess of 10 CFR Part 20, with all instances occurring at the 

fusion operation work location. Samples were taken for a 30-minute period at a position 

approximately head high between the worker and the hood where the material was being utilized. It 

22 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

was determined that the worker was in this operation position for less than 25 minutes during an 8-

hour shift. The worker’s overall daily exposure was less than the prescribed limits (Lambertus, 1962). 

To date, NIOSH has not discovered the records or associated data, other than the summaries discussed 

above, for air monitoring performed at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works during the period 

evaluated in this report. 

6.2 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works External Monitoring Data 

A May 1961 report written by the licensee states that Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

used film badges for personnel monitoring (for approximately 30-60 people, dependent on the work 

load) and that the badges were sent to R. S. Landauer Jr. and Company on a monthly basis. As a 

result of some of the film badges being returned contaminated, the site required badges to be covered 

with a plastic bag while the badge was worn in the work area, thus, preventing contamination. The 

film badge design included a beta-gamma badge with a strip of indium foil across the top edge (AEC, 

1961). 

A partial inspection report from the AEC (SCC, unknown date, pdf page 2) states that workers were 

monitored on a monthly basis with film badges provided by R. S. Landauer Company, Park Forest, 

Illinois. Records from Landauer, as discussed by the licensee in the report, indicate that records from 

August 1958 through December 1958 show no monthly exposures except for one employee. This 

employee received 35 mrem gamma and 880 beta in October and 475 mrem gamma and 7,450 mrem 

beta in December. Spencer personnel theorized that the employee’s doses resulted from the heliarc 

unit (used for fusing the uranium oxide sample to test the sintering qualities of the material), and the 

exposures were possibly caused by low energy rays from the heliarc welder. Spencer considered it 

unlikely that the readings were true beta readings. 

To date, NIOSH has not discovered the records or associated data, other than the summaries discussed 

above, relating to external exposures or dose at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works during 

the period evaluated in this report. 

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH 

The feasibility determination for the proposed class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). Under that Act and rule, NIOSH must 

establish whether or not it has access to sufficient information either to estimate the maximum 

radiation dose for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have 

been incurred under plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or to estimate the radiation 

doses to members of the class more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. If NIOSH has access to 

sufficient information for either case, NIOSH would then determine that it would be feasible to 

conduct dose reconstructions. 

In determining feasibility, NIOSH begins by evaluating whether current or completed NIOSH dose 

reconstructions demonstrate the feasibility of estimating with sufficient accuracy the potential 

23 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

radiation exposures of the class. If the conclusion is one of infeasibility, NIOSH systematically 

evaluates the sufficiency of different types of monitoring data, process and source or source term data, 

which together or individually might assure that NIOSH can estimate either the maximum doses that 

members of the class might have incurred, or more precise quantities that reflect the variability of 

exposures experienced by groups or individual members of the class. This approach is discussed in 

the OCAS SEC Petition Evaluation Internal Procedures which are available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. The next four major subsections of this Evaluation Report examine: 

•	 The sufficiency and reliability of the available data. (Section 7.1) 

•	 The feasibility of reconstructing internal radiation doses. (Section 7.2) 

•	 The feasibility of reconstructing external radiation doses. (Section 7.3) 

•	 The bases for petition SEC-00089 as submitted by the petitioner. (Section 7.4) 

7.1 Pedigree of Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works Data 

The AEC inspection reports indicate that internal and external monitoring was performed at Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. However, NIOSH did not locate any internal or external 

monitoring records for the period under this evaluation. Therefore, an internal and external data 

sufficiency and pedigree evaluation is not possible for this data type. 

7.2 Internal Radiation Doses at Spencer Chemical Company 

Principal sources of internal radiation doses for members of the proposed class included exposures to 

uranium and thorium. A discussion of the feasibility of internal dose reconstruction for the proposed 

class is provided below. 

Internal exposures during the operational period at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works could 

have resulted from inhalation and ingestion of dust generated by the uranium operations or 

contaminated dust that was re-suspended by foot traffic. AEC reports indicate that Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works employees submitted urinalysis samples; however, only limited internal 

data have been found. Specifically: 

•	 No internal personnel monitoring data are available for any of the Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works individuals; 

•	 No area monitoring data are available to support evaluating potential Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works personnel radiological exposures to operations conducted at the site; 

and 

•	 No source term information has been identified to permit characterizing and evaluating the 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works thorium operations, and limited data exist for 

uranium operations. 

24 of 39 
 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

7.2.1 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion 

Based on the lack of personnel or area monitoring data, and/or source term information for thorium 

exposures at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works, NIOSH has determined that the thorium 

internal dose cannot be reconstructed. Therefore, NIOSH has concluded that it cannot bound internal 

dose (cannot reconstruct internal dose with sufficient accuracy) for the proposed worker class 

evaluated in this report. Because of NIOSH’s internal dose feasibility determination for the proposed 

worker class, it did not attempt a feasibility determination with respect to uranium internal exposures. 

Currently, NIOSH has no personal monitoring data for uranium or thorium exposures and has access 

to only a limited amount of general process and radiological source term information associated with 

uranium work (such as producing UO2 from UF6, uranium recovery and quantities of radioactive 

materials indicated on material licenses for the site). Given this information, and the internal uranium 

dose reconstruction assumptions and approaches presented in Battelle TBD 6000 and Battelle TBD 

6001, it is possible for NIOSH to estimate internal uranium dose for the purpose of partial dose 

reconstructions (to be evaluated on a case by case basis). If personnel monitoring data become 

available for uranium and/or thorium exposures, NIOSH will also evaluate the use of these data for 

partial dose reconstructions. 

7.3 External Radiation Doses at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Based on five AEC licenses that were active between 1956 and 1961, the potential for external 

radiation dose from uranium and thorium compounds existed at the Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works. However, NIOSH does not know the extent of the activities that were 

performed with the uranium and thorium compounds, nor does NIOSH know the processes involved 

in the shipping operations. Documentation available to NIOSH does not describe the work processes 

or exposure conditions associated with Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. Specifically, 

NIOSH has not found information to adequately characterize the uranium-thorium operations, and 

employee dosimetry records have not been located. 

7.3.1 External Dose 

The supporting documentation available to NIOSH states that external monitoring was performed 

during the operational period at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. However, NIOSH has 

not located any individual external monitoring data for the worker class evaluated in this report. 

Based on NIOSH’s finding regarding internal dose reconstruction (inability to bound internal dose), 

NIOSH has not performed an exhaustive research effort or evaluation of its ability to bound the 

external dose (or reconstruct dose with sufficient accuracy) for the proposed worker class evaluated in 

this report. NIOSH has access to a limited amount of general process and radiological source term 

information associated with uranium work (such as producing UO2 from UF6, uranium recovery, and 

quantities of radioactive materials indicated on material licenses for the site). Given this information 

and the external uranium dose reconstruction assumptions and approaches presented in Battelle TBD 

6000 and Battelle TBD 6001, it is possible for NIOSH to estimate external dose associated with 

uranium operations for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions (to be evaluated on a case by case 

basis). If personnel external monitoring data become available, NIOSH will also evaluate the use of 

these data for partial dose reconstructions. 

25 of 39 
 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

7.3.2 Occupational X-Ray Examinations 

All personnel working with uranium were required to pass a complete medical examination, including 

a chest X-ray before starting work at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works and annually 

thereafter (SCC, 1959). A single posterior-anterior (PA) radiographic chest X-ray is assumed to have 

been required during each pre-employment and annual physical. Although no records have been 

identified that indicate that occupational medical X-rays were required at termination, for the purpose 

of partial dose reconstructions during the time period, X-ray exams will be assumed to have been 

required at termination. This assumption provides a level of conservatism to the dose reconstruction. 

Organ doses from PA chest X-ray for all time periods are available in ORAUT-OTIB-0006. NIOSH 

believes that by using this methodology, occupational medical X-ray doses can be reconstructed. 

7.3.3 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion 

NIOSH has established that it can estimate the medical X-ray exposure associated with Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works employees. NIOSH has concluded that information pertaining to 

Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works personnel external exposures is sufficient to support a 

partial dose estimate for the proposed worker class. 

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00089 

The petition basis provided in SEC-00089 states that it could not be proven that members of the 

proposed class were monitored because, based on NIOSH’s research, individual dosimetry readings 

and records are not available for any employee at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works for the 

time period beginning January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961. The following topics were 

detailed in the petition SEC-00089. Italicized statements are from the petition; the comments that 

follow are from NIOSH. 

•	 SEC-00089: Can’t prove individuals were monitored without individual dosimetry reading and 

records on every employee at Spencer Chemical Company. 

•	 SEC-00089: Correspondences sent to all Federal Agencies and companies (past and present) to 

obtain dosimetry records revealed no records sent to claimant. 

•	 SEC-00089: Based on various documents submitted with this letter it is evident that workers were 

exposed to radiation. Since there are no records of internal or external exposure the amount of 

exposure to workers is unknown. 

•	 SEC-00089: The many documented accidents along with radiological operational noncompliances of the site regarding the cavalier implementation of radiological safety procedures 

has the very high potential of inducing carcinomas in exposed Spencer Chemical Company, 

Jayhawk Works workers due to long term inhalation and ingestion of alpha radiation in the form of 

highly enriched powders and dusts from the process handled by the chemists and workers. 

•	 SEC-00089: It appears that the workers were exposed to continuous high concentrations of highly 

enriched uranium dust, alpha radiation exposure over a long period of time which is chronic 

exposure. 

26 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 SEC-00089: Since the hoods were not filtered, the hood exhausted to the atmosphere causing high 

concentrations of the highly enriched uranium dusts to become airborne radioactivity and produce 

the high risk with a high probability of exposing workers to radiation. 

•	 SEC-00089: There was a high probability of workers ingesting radionuclides due to lunch room 

being in the change room. 

•	 SEC-00089: There was a complete lack of records showing any survey reading indicating an 

absence of worker awareness to work place radiological and contamination hazards. 

•	 SEC-00089: Lack of conducting surveys and producing characterization reports and retaining 

records. 

•	 SEC-00089: There is a high probability that the workers were exposed to more radiation than was 

suspected. 

Personal internal, external monitoring, and/or area monitoring data are not always required to develop 

an exposure model for a given facility. However, if these monitoring data are not available, NIOSH 

must have access to source term information and detailed process information in order to develop a 

sufficiently accurate exposure model. NIOSH has determined that it does not have adequate internal 

and/or external monitoring data for members of the proposed class, nor does it have enough source 

term or process information applicable to the class to develop a sufficiently accurate model for dose 

reconstruction for these exposures during the associated time period. As discussed in Section 5.0, 

NIOSH has discovered very little information regarding any operations or activities at the Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works for the time period of January 1, 1956 through December 31, 

1961. For the potential uranium and thorium exposures, there appear to be limited site data available 

from the AEC license and license applications (some airborne radioactivity measurements for the 

purpose of evaluating personnel exposures). However, based on the evaluation of this report, a 

bounding dose scenario cannot be established for Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works. 

A letter from the Department of HHS to the petitioner, included in the original petition 

documentation, stated that no records were found for the claimant. A discussion between 

representatives of NIOSH and Landauer took place on October 3, 2007. The representative from 

Landauer stated that Landauer does not have records identifying Spencer Chemical 

Company/Jayhawk Works as a customer (Jessen, 2008). 

Note: Statements specific to an individual claim are not pertinent to the review and evaluation of this 

SEC proposed worker class and will not be reviewed under this SEC evaluation. 

•	 SEC-00089: It is evident that the workers were not properly trained to handle the radioactive 

materials at Jayhawks Works. 

•	 SEC-00089: This is evidence of no action being taken by site management to workers obviously 

working in air with high contamination. 

•	 SEC-00089: The workers were not adequately protected as indicated by using dusty respirators. 

27 of 39 
 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 SEC-00089: Contaminated film badges, thereby indicating that Uranium dust was in the air. 

•	 SEC-00089: There is indication of sloppy and unsafe working conditions unacceptable to 

providing a healthy working environment. 

•	 SEC-00089: Various incidents were reported where high air-borne dust samples were observed. 

Appendixes to the license application do state that protective clothing and respirators were required. 

In addition, the interviews conducted with former workers also stated that some protective clothing 

was worn and that showers may have been required at the end of the shift. Although plant safety 

procedures were absent in 1958 (Sapirie, 1959, pdf page 3), by 1959 there is an indication that a 

Health and Safety program had been implemented. Records were kept for accountability of licensed 

material and waste disposals. The facilities were found to be posted in compliance with 10 C.F.R 20. 

Air sampling was being performed and some air sampling results exist in AEC reports. However, 

only summaries appear to be available, and not all summaries for all years have been located by 

NIOSH. 

The documentation available to NIOSH did discuss the concern of Landauer and contaminated film 

badges. Landauer requested that film badges be put in plastic bags. However, these monitoring data 

are not available. 

Although these issues do not impact NIOSH’s ability to bound dose for the proposed worker class, 

further evaluation of these points was not performed by NIOSH. As previously discussed, NIOSH has 

determined that it does not have adequate internal and/or external monitoring data for members of the 

proposed class, nor does it have enough source term or process information applicable to the class to 

develop a sufficiently accurate model for dose reconstruction for these exposures during the 

associated time period. 

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00089 

This report evaluates the feasibility for completing dose reconstructions for employees at the Spencer 

Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works from January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961. NIOSH 

found that the available monitoring records, process descriptions, and source term data available are 

not sufficient to complete dose reconstructions for the proposed class of employees. 

Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the feasibility findings at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk 

Works for each exposure source during the time period of January 1, 1956 through December 31, 

1961. 

28 of 39 
 

 

 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00089 

January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961 

Source of Exposure Reconstruction Feasible Reconstruction Not Feasible 

Internal X1

 - Uranium X 

 - Thorium X 

External X2

 - Gamma X 

 - Beta X

 - Neutron X 

 - Occupational Medical X-ray X 

Notes: 

1 The internal uranium dose can be estimated in support of a partial DR for claims with non-presumptive cancers and those 

with less than 250-days of employment.

2

 The external dose associated with uranium work could be estimated in support of a partial DR for claims with nonpresumptive cancers and those with less than 250-days of employment.
 

As of March 3, 2008, a total of 30 claims have been submitted to NIOSH for individuals who worked 

at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works and are covered by the proposed class definition 

evaluated in this report. Dose reconstructions have not been completed for any of these individuals. 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00089 

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3). Under these requirements, if it is not 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH must 

also determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the 

health of members of the class. Section 83.13 requires NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

Based on lack of available data, little information on source terms and activities, very few available 

surveys, NIOSH’s evaluation determined that it is not feasible to estimate radiation dose for members 

of the proposed class with sufficient accuracy based on the sum of information available from 

available resources. 

Evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates that some workers in the class (and covered by this 

evaluation) may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures through intakes of radionuclides. 

29 of 39 
 

SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

These radionuclides may have endangered workers who were employed for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 days within the parameters established for this class or in combination with 

work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00089 

Based on its research, NIOSH accepted the petitioner-requested class (with a minor date clarification) 

to define a single class of employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient 

accuracy. The NIOSH-proposed class includes all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who 

worked in any area at Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works near Pittsburg, Kansas, from 

January 1, 1956 through December 31, 1961, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work 

days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the. The class was accepted 

because NIOSH has little insight into Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works control of 

radioactive materials being transported between work areas. Without such information, NIOSH is not 

able to rule out cross-contamination of work areas. Therefore, NIOSH is unable to limit the SEC class 

based on work location. Consequently, all Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works areas are 

included in the proposed SEC class. 

NIOSH has carefully reviewed all material sent in by the petitioner, including the specific assertions 

stated in the petition, and has responded herein (see Section 7.4). NIOSH has also reviewed available 

technical resources and many other references, including the Site Research Database (SRDB), for 

information relevant to SEC-00089. In addition, NIOSH reviewed its NOCTS dose reconstruction 

database to identify EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to 

the petition evaluation. 

These actions are based on existing, approved NIOSH processes used in dose reconstruction for 

claims under EEOICPA. NIOSH’s guiding principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to 

ensure that the assumptions used are fair, consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science. 

Simultaneously, uncertainties in the science and data must be handled to the advantage, rather than to 

the detriment, of the petitioners. When adequate personal dose monitoring information is not 

available, or is very limited, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on 

reliable science, documented experience, and relevant data to determine the feasibility of 

reconstructing the dose of an SEC petition class. NIOSH contends that it has complied with these 

standards of performance in determining that it would not be feasible to reconstruct the dose for the 

class proposed in this petition. 

30 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

10.0 References 

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391 

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392 

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000, as amended 

Battelle-TBD-6000, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium, 

PDWD-3738 Rev. F0; Battelle; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30671 

Battelle-TBD-6001, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, 

Rev. F0; Battelle; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30673 

Battelle-TIB-5000, Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons Employer Dose 

Reconstructions, Rev. 00; Battelle; April 7, 2007, SRDB Ref ID: 32016 

OCAS-PR-004, Internal Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, Rev. 0, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Cincinnati, Ohio; September 23, 

2004; SRDB Ref ID: 32022 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction From Occupationally Related X-Ray Procedures, Rev. 03 

PC-1; Oak Ridge Associated Universities; December 21, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20220 

ORAUT-OTIB-0024, Estimation of Neutron Dose Rates from Alpha-Neutron Reactions in Uranium 

and Thorium Compounds, Rev. 00; Oak Ridge Associated Universities; April 7, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 

19445 

ORAUT-PROC-0061, Occupational X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, Rev 00; Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities; July 21, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 29987 

AEC, 1958, Compliance Inspection Report for Spencer Chemical Company, inspection date of 

inspection August 1958; Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); September 11, 1958; SRDB Ref ID: 

7036, pdf pages 57-67 

AEC, 1959, Compliance Inspection Report for Spencer Chemical Company, inspection date of 

January 20, 1959; Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); March 19, 1959; SRDB Ref ID: 7036, pdf 

pages 89-99 

31 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

AEC, 1961, Compliance Inspection Report for Spencer Chemical Company, inspection date of 

inspection May 1961; Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); June 27, 1961; SRDB Ref ID: 7036, pdf 

pages 69-85 

Author unknown, 1957, Meeting with Spencer Chemical Co., August 13, 1957; unknown author; 

August 15, 1957; SRDB Ref ID: 34019 

Author unknown, 2000, Spencer Chemical Company Database Report, report printout; author 

unknown; December 15, 2000; SRDB Ref ID: 7036, pdf page 53 

Barnes, 1982, Jayhawk Nuclear Fuels Processing Plant Crestline, Kansas—Spencer Chemical 

Company, Nuclear Fuels Department, correspondence to Mr. Harold Spiker; Charles Barnes; 

December 12, 1982; SRDB Ref ID: 33423 

Callan, 1992, Region IV Review of Spencer Chemical Corporation Decommissioning Activities, 

includes an attachment that discusses Spencer’s background; L. J. Callan; November 17, 1992; SRDB 

Ref ID: 33482 

DOE, 2000, DOE Standard, Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in 

Uranium Facilities, DOE-STD-1136-2000; August 2000; SRDB Ref ID: 4617 

Dubinski, 1964, Spencer Chemical Company, Merriam, Kansas—Special Nuclear Material License 

No. SNM-154 (Docket No. 70-146); Leo Dubinski, Assistant Director for Materials, Division of 

Compliance; May 20, 1964; SRDB Ref ID: 33345 

Evans, 2000, Possible Burial of Radioactive Material, memorandum to Blair Spitzberg, includes 

attachments; Robert Evans; December 6, 2000; SRDB Ref ID: 33369 

Greenlee, 1962, Special Nuclear Material Transferred to SNM-329, correspondence to Mr. Donald A. 

Nussbaumer; N. A Greenlee, Spencer Chemical Company; November 20, 1962; SRDB Ref ID: 7036, 

pdf page 48 

Jessen, 2008, Documented Communication Between NIOSH and Landauer on Personal Monitoring 

Data for Spencer Chemical at Landauer; Karin Jessen; February 7, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41102 

Lambertus, 1962, Response to Letter Regarding May 2-5, 1961 Inspection, correspondence to Mr. 

Eber R. Price; Harold Lambertus, Spencer Chemical Company; May 14; 1962; SRDB Ref ID: 7036, 

pdf pages 24-30 

Personal Communication, 2008a, Personal Communication with Floor Operator; Telephone 

Interview by ORAU Team; February 20, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105337 

Personal Communication, 2008b, Personal Communication with Laborer; Telephone Interview by 

ORAU Team; February 20, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105334 

Personal Communication, 2008c, Personal Communication with Laborer and C Operator; Telephone 

Interview by ORAU Team; February 22, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105335 

32 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Personal Communication, 2008d, Personal Communication with Nitric Acid Department Employee 

and Former President of the United Chemical Workers Union; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; 

February 22, 2008; OSA Ref ID: 105336 

Purchase Agreement, 1963, Purchase Agreement between Gulf Oil Corporation and Owners of 

Spencer Chemical Company; September 24, 1963; SRDB Ref ID: 43009 

Radiological Health, 1970, Radiological Health Handbook, Revised Edition; Public Health Service, 

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; January 1970; Publicly Available 

Sapirie, 1959, Compliance Inspection Reports, License Nos. SNM-154, C-3571, and R-218, Spencer 

Chemical Company, Kansas City, Missouri, correspondence containing inspection reports; S. R. 

Sapirie; March 23, 1959; SRDB Ref ID: 33381 

SCC, unknown date, Partial Document Regarding License No. SNM-154; Spencer Chemical 

Company (SCC); unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 33379 

SCC, 1959, Application for Special Nuclear Material License; Spencer Chemical Company (SCC); 

June 22, 1959; SRDB Ref ID: 7036, pdf pages 3-19 

Woolsey, 1962, Spencer Chemical, Pittsburg, Kansas; Roger T. Woolsey; September 3, 1962; SRDB 

Ref ID: 33337 

33 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

This page intentionally left blank 

34 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

Attachment One: Documentation Provided by Petitioner 

In qualifying and evaluating the petition, NIOSH reviewed the following documents submitted by the 

petitioner: 

•	 SEC Petition for [Name One Redacted], letter to OCAS, [Name Two Redacted]; May 17, 2007; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 1-2
 

•	 Reference: [Name Three Redacted], letter to OCAS, [Name Two Redacted]; January 30, 2007; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 3
 

•	 Reference: [Name One Redacted], letter to OCAS, [Name Two Redacted]; February 7, 2007; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 4-5
 

•	 Reference: [Name One Redacted], letter to OCAS, [Name Two Redacted]; March 13, 2007; OSA 

Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 6-7
 

•	 Forms A & B, completed by claimant, [Name Two Redacted]; Unknown date; OSA Ref ID: 

103189, pdf pages 8-13
 

•	 Durable Power of Attorney, for three individuals; March 24, 2002; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf 

pages 14-19
 

•	 Form B Instructions, includes petitioner notes; Unknown date; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 

20-23
 

•	 Records of [Name One Redacted], correspondence indicating no employment records available, 

Chevron Texaco Corporation; February 28, 2002; OSA Ref ID: 103189; pdf page 25
 

•	 Military Records for [Name One Redacted], Bureau of Naval Personnel; OSA Ref ID: 103189; 

pdf pages 26-29
 

•	 Itemized Statement of Earnings, Social Security Administration; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 

30-32
 

•	 Form B, includes hand written notes; Unknown date; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 33
 

•	 Employment History for Claim Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act, completed U.S. Department of Labor form; Unknown date; OSA Ref ID: 103189, 

page 34
 

•	 Spencer Chemical Company Table of Contents, handwritten, Unknown author; Unknown date; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 35-36
 

•	 Response for a Request for Epidemiological Studies, Department of Energy; October 23, 2001; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 37
 

35 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Epidemiological Studies Pertaining to Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Plant from the 1950s 

through 1960s, letter to the Office of Epidemiological Studies, [Name Two Redacted]; August 16, 

2001; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 38 

•	 Acknowledgement of Freedom of Information Act Request, Department of Health and Human 

Services; September 28, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 39 

•	 FOIA Case Number: [Name One Redacted], response to request, Department of Health and 

Human Services; November 1, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 40-41 

•	 Transmittal of EEOICPA Information, misc doc info, Department of Health and Human Services; 

October 5, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 42 

•	 Response to Request for Personnel or Dosimetry Records, Department of Energy; March 25, 

2002; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 43 

•	 FUSRAP Database Report, report is for Spencer Chemical Company; Unknown date; OSA Ref 

ID: 103189, pdf page 44 

•	 Response to Freedom of Information Act Request, Department of Energy; September 24, 2001; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 45 

•	 Form Letter Acknowledging Freedom of Information Act Request, Department of Health and 

Human Services; August 16, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 46 

•	 Request for Personnel Records, [Name Two Redacted]; September 24, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 

103189, pdf page 47 

•	 Information Regarding Inspection on May 2-5, 1961, Spencer Chemical Company; May 14, 1962; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 48-50 

•	 Portions of Form B, various pages with handwritten notes; Unknown date; OSA Ref ID: 103189, 

pdf pages 51-62 

•	 License Application, memo and license application, Spencer Chemical Company; June 22, 1959; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 63-68 

•	 Special Nuclear Material License SNM-329, Spencer Chemical Company; November 20, 1962; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 69 

•	 Special Nuclear Material License Expired, AEC; October 25, 1962; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf 

page 70 

•	 Information Regarding Inspection on May 2-5, 1961, Division of Licensing and Regulation; April 

17, 1962; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 71-73 

36 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Materials Allocation, Division of Licensing and Regulation; February 24, 1960; OSA Ref ID: 

103189, pdf page 74 

•	 Special Nuclear Material License, memo with attached form; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 75-

76 

•	 Spencer Chemical Company Facility List, website printout, DOE; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 

77 

•	 Response to Appeal, regarding FOIA request, Nuclear Regulatory Commission; October 9, 2001; 

OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 78 

•	 License Application, memo and application, Spencer Chemical Company; June 22, 1959; OSA 

Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 79-84 

•	 Special Nuclear Material License, letter and license, Division of Licensing and Regulation; 

October 1, 1959; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 85-86 

•	 Inspection Follow-up Report, Spencer Chemical Company; May 14, 1962; OSA Ref ID: 103189, 

pdf pages 87-93 

•	 Inspection Request, first page is missing, Division of Licensing and Regulation; December 18, 

1962; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 97-98 

•	 Purchase Order, V. Prato; October 1959; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 99 

•	 Purchase Order Acknowledgement, letter, Spencer Chemical Company; October 22, 1959; OSA 

Ref ID: 103189, pdf page100 

•	 Purchase Order Response, Spencer Chemical Company; October 20, 1959; OSA Ref ID: 103189, 

pdf page 101 

•	 Purchase Order, Spencer Chemical Company to Combustion Engineering Inc.; OSA Ref ID: 

103189, pdf pages 102-103 

•	 Purchase Quotation, to Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works; 

October 15, 1959; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page, page 104 

•	 FUSRAP Notation; March 27, 1985; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 109 

•	 Compliance Inspection Report, Atomic Energy Commission; January 20, 1955; OSA Ref ID: 

103189, pdf pages 110-120 

•	 Summary for 1958, excerpt; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 121 

37 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Excerpt from the Annual Report to Congress, for 1963, Atomic Energy Commission; January 

1964; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 122-123 

•	 Excerpt from Atomic Industrial Progress and Second World Conference, Atomic Energy 

Commission; July-December 1958; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 124-127 

•	 Compliance Inspection Report, Atomic Energy Commission; May 2-5 1961; OSA Ref ID: 

103189, pdf page 129-147 

•	 Ex-Workers at Plant may get Restitution, article in the “Joplin Globe” newspaper, J. C. Smith; 

January 16, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 149-150 

•	 Letter regarding Medical Records, unsuccessful at locating medical records, St. John’s Regional 

Medical Center; June 7, 2002; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf page 152 

•	 Various Medical Records for [Name One Redacted], University of Kansas Medical Center; 

various dates; OSA Ref ID: 103189, pdf pages 153-174 

•	 May 2-5, 1961 Inspection, correspondence, Eber R. Price, Division of Licensing and Regulation; 

April 17, 1962; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf pages 143-147 

•	 Last Will and Testament of [Name Three Redacted]; October 30, 1973; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf 

pages 38-40 

•	 Portion of Form EE-3, [Name Two Redacted] completed the form; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 

41 

•	 Social Security Earnings for [Name One Redacted], request for earning records, [Name Two 

Redacted]; November 16, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 44 

•	 Form EE-7, Department of Labor form; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 45 

•	 Third Request, regarding medical records, [Name Two Redacted]; May 28, 2002; OSA Ref ID: 

103190, pdf page 48 

•	 Medical Records Request, regarding medical records, [Name Two Redacted]; May 7, 2002; OSA 

Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 49 

•	 Medical Records Request, regarding medical records, [Name Two Redacted]; March 1, 2002; 

OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 50 

•	 Request for Medical Records Received, St. John’s Regional Medical Center; September 18, 2001; 

OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 51 

•	 Second Request, First Request August 27, 2001, correspondence, [Name Two Redacted]; 

September 13, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 52 

38 of 39 
SEC-00089 06-04-08 Spencer Chemical Company/Jayhawk Works 

•	 Regarding Patient Name [Name One Redacted], correspondence regarding medical records, 

[Name Two Redacted]; August 28, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 53 

•	 Regarding [Name One Redacted], correspondence regarding medical records, St. John’s Regional 

Medical Center; March 8, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 54 

•	 Authorization for Release of Information, St. John’s Regional Medical Center form completed by 

[Name Four Redacted]; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 55 

•	 Request for Medical Records, for [Name One Redacted], [Name Five Redacted]; February 5, 

2001; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 59 

•	 Medical Records, Consultations, and Case Summary for [Name One Redacted], University of 

Kansas; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf pages 60-80 

•	 Portion of Form EE-3 for [Name One Redacted]; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 90 

•	 Response to Freedom of Information Act Request of August 16th, indicates no records found, 

Department of Health and Human Services; September 24, 2001; OSA Ref ID: 103190, pdf page 

120 

•	 EEOICPA Form A with Instructions; OSA Ref ID: 103191 

•	 EEOICPA Form B with Survivor Pages; OSA Ref ID: 103191 

•	 Turcic, 2008, DOL Correspondence Regarding Covered Years for Spencer Chemical, Peter M. 

Turcic; May 29, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 44802 

39 of 39