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

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
\llness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Continuation Page

Continuation Page — Photocopy and complete as necessary.

Attach to Form B if necessary.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



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

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

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 7 of 7

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 300 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. If you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
valid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a), you are hereby notified of the
following:

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)
(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of employees to be included in the
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the
assistance of the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Information obtained by NIOSH in connection with petitions for including additional
classes of employees in the SEC will be used to evaluate the petition and report findings to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health and HHS.

Records containing identifiable information become part of an existing NIOSH system of records under the
Privacy Act, 09-20-147 “Occupational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.
HHS/CDC/NIOSH.” These records are treated in a confidential manner, unless otherwise compelled by law.
Disclosures that NIOSH may need to make for the processing of your petition or other purposes are listed
below.

NIOSH may need to disclose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal
agencies, other government or private entities and to private sector employers to permit these entities to
retrieve records required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these
individuals can provide information to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) contractors assisting
NIOSH; (d) collaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to conduct further investigations;
(e) Federal, state and local agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a
Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquiry.

This notice applies to all forms and informational requests that you may receive from NIOSH in connection
with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

Use of the NIOSH petition forms (A and B) is voluntary but your provision of information required by these
forms is mandatory for the consideration of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fail to
provide required information may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



USA TODAY Latest news

that indicates the relative risk of a fatal cancer as a result of the tissue
exposure. In the above example calculation, a 12 rem lung dose results in an
EDE of 1.44 rem. According to the International Commission on
Radiological Protection,[12] an effective dose of 1 rem is associated with a
0,04% excess risk of cancer mortality, assuming a linear dose-response
relationship. While this risk factor is subject to uncertainties and its accuracy
is being debated in the scientific community, we used this widely applied
value as a benchmark to illustrate the risks associated with the exposures,

If the uranium activity in air were to contain more soluble compounds, the
estimated radiation doses and cancer risk would be smaller. However, forms
of soluble uranium, such as uranium hexafluoride and urany! fluoride, are
assoctated with more severe nephrotoxic effects. Nephrotoxicity — damage to
the kidney — is a well-known effect of uranium as a heavy metal. That is, it
results from uranium as a heavy metal (like lead or mercury), rather than as a
radioactive material. Severe damage to the kidneys could, in turn, cause a -
variety of other serious health problems and death.

We checked our calculations for consistency against the scant urine data that
were available for the Harshaw plant, and this check confirms our principal
conclusion that many workers were severely overexposed to uranium dust.
An extensive and definitive check is not possible, since the necessary urine
data are not available,

One more note on methodology is in order. The methods used to calculate
doses in the 1940s and 1950s were not the same as those prevalent today. We
have used dose estimation factors that are in use today’ for régulatory
purposes in the United States. Methods prevalent at the time would have
resulted in dose estimates about a factor of two lower for the same uranium
air concentration data,

2. The Simonds Saw & Steel Co.

Between 25 and 35 million pounds of uranium metal was rolled at Simonds
between March or April 1948 and 1956 (with the vast majority of the work
done between 1948 and 1952).[13] About 99 percent of this work was done
on a 16 inch mill, while the rest was done on a 10 inch mill.[14] Simonds
also rolled 30,000 to 40,000 pounds of thorium metal. Thorium was
Processed on the 10 inch mill.

The work with uranium and thorium was done approximately half-time
during the period of peak production (1948-1952), while the same machines
‘were used to rofl steel for commercial applications the rest of the time.[15]
There is ample evidence that the plant premises became seriously
contaminated during processing of radioactive materials. For instance, even
air in the lunch areas was measured to have contamination far above
allowable limits of contamination.[16] As a result, workers were certainly
exposed to radiation, for instance through re-suspended particles, even when
steel processing was going on. We have not attempted to assess the doses to
workers during steel processing. We have also not attempted to estimate the
consequences of food becoming contaminated as a result of ‘poor industrial

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 4 of 16

3/31/2008


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
December 2, 2008
Page 5 of 7

There is also ample evidence that plant authorities, as well as the
government of the United States, which contracted with these privately-
owned companies to process material for its nuclear weapons program, were
well aware at the time that workers at these plants were being overexposed
over prolonged periods of time. There is also evidence that the U.S.
government deliberately misled workers about health and safety issures by
concealing the facts of very poor working conditions from them and by
failing to undertake the needed level of radiation dose surveillance,
including frequent and widespread urine sampling, that was
warranted. A number of documents discuss inadequate controls of
contamination and recommendations for improvement that were only
sometimes taken into account.

It is unimaginable that the families of an employee that died of cancer
while working at ElectroMet during the war years are compelled to accept
the conclusions and recommendation of the Department of Labor and NIOSH
_ that the employee does not qualify as a covered employee with cancer under

EEIOCPA because a software program failed to establish that the probability
of causation value was not 50% or greater.

The statement of the Honorable John N. Hostettler, Chairman of the
Subcommittee in Congress on the implementation of the EEIOCPA stated in
his address of December 5, 2006:

The overreaching purpose of these hearings
has been to make sure the Government is fulfilling
the promises made to these workers who sacrificed
so much for their country during the Cold War. This
program was created to help them.....not as some
science experiment to provide unlimited employment
for the Government contractors’ community, and
certainly not to set these workers up to be deceived
and minimized by the Government yet again.

oe KK

Because DOE and its contractors often did not
properly monitor workers’ exposure to radiation and
other toxins and often records of worker exposure is
no longer exist, EEIOCPA provided that HHS could


USA TODAY Latest news

plant's maximum permissible concentration). Simonds Saw and Steel
Co., Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust, Visit of October 27,
1948.

[L7] We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the number of
days for which thorium was processed. Hence there is a corresponding
uncertainty conceming worker exposures to thorium. Our lowest
estimate of working time is one week of full time work for thorium,
processing based on a comparison with uranium processing rates. The
thorium throughput per hour would be about forty petcent of the
uranium throughput per hour due to the difference in mill sizes (10
inches versus 16 inches, yielding a cross-sectional area ratio of about
AO percent). A June 8, 1953 document indicates that thorium
processing rates may have been somewhere between roughly 1,000
pounds and 4,000 pounds per day, assuming that all work indicated in
a month's period was done in a single full working day. On this basis,
the total thorium processing time can be estimated to be between 10
and 40 working days — that is, two to eight weeks. Survey of
Accounting Control over Source and Fissionable Material, Simonds
Saw and Steel Company, Lockport New York, with cover letter dated
June 8, 1954.

[18] Review Summary Report, Harshaw Chemical Company,
Cleveland Ohio. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP), 20 November 1984, Enclosure 1.

[19] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office.
Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing
Uranium (A Status Report — April 1, 1949). Prepared by NYOO
Medical Division. Issued April 18, 1949. p. 24

[20] For example, see Memo from R. E. Hayden to M. Eisenbud,
“Health Survey of Harshaw Chemical Company, Area C." May 4,
1948,

[21] ICRP Publication Number 60, Oxford, 1991, p. 8.

[22] For example, see U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York
Operations Office, Health and Safety Division. Monthly report of
Field Activities, September 1950. p.6

, (23] For an explanation of the methodology of converting lung burden
to urine concentration see Franke and Gumey 1994. *

[24] Letter from W.E. Kelley, Manager, New York Operations Office,
Atomic Energy Commission, to C.S, Parke, Vice-President, The
Harshaw Chemical Company, January 28, 1948.

[25] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office.
Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing
Uranium (A Status Report — April 1, 1949). Prepared by NYOO
Medical Division. Issued April 18, 1949. Figure 8. Rep - "Roentgen
equivalent physical" is a historical dose unit used in the 1940s, One
rep represents the energy absorption of 93 ergs per gram of tissue. The
measurements are difficult to interpret, however, since the specific
sensitivity of the film badges to beta and gamma radiation is not know.
Hence, the depth of tissue penetration cannot be determined without
additional information. At least some parts of worker skin tissues are
likely to have been exposed to the level measured with film badges.

hittp://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 15 of 16

3/31/2008


USA TODAY Latest news Page 1 of 16

. Error processing SSI file
. Advertisement
Error pri ocgesing Error processing SSI file or
remem 9106100 Updated 11:68AM ET Ecror process
‘ isoned Workers GRAPHICS
& gisoned Places Mies across te O
. . : $76 &up
Preliminary Partial Dose Estimates from the Processing of Nuclear { Chesp US spring fares
Materials at Three Plants during the 1940s and 1950s{!)
$183+
5 teh
Bhotef
Arjun Makhijani,{2] Bernd Franke[3] and Hisham Zerriffi[4] $299
8/16/2000 eruise
$99 & up
Memorial Day wknd
aicfares
1, Introduction $200 & up
Spring flights to Europe
, $75¢night+
We analyzed some data in regard to working conditions and radiation Ailing! Puerto Valletta
exposures of workers at three nuclear materials processing facilities, pursuant
to a contract between USA Today and the Institute for Energy and Up to 60% off
Environmental Research. The plants were: tar istic hatets
$a94+
Doluse 6-day tetand
‘ Getaway
1. The Simonds Saw & Steel Co. of Lockport, New York. more deals
Sherman's Top’ 25,

2. The Harshaw Chemical Co., Cleveland, Ohio

3. “Bleéctro-Metallurgical Co., Tonawanda, New York

All three plants processed uranium during portions of the 1940s and 1950s.
Simonds also processed thorium metal. This study is a preliminary and
partial evaluation of worktr exposure in some job categories or locations, Its
purpose was to perform screening type of calculations to ascertain whether
the doses to workers in at least some locations or job categories were high
enough to cause serious health concerns. This study is necessarily limited in
scope and partial since a thorough effort would require far more
documentation and data, time, and resources than were available in this
project.

Since we did not have the data to perform individual -workerdose
assessments, or.even to determine whether such assessments could be reliably
perfomniggsa rdlatively lowdose in a particular job category may not
correspond to-a low-dose fora specific worker. We performed only partial
dose evaluations by job category. We have not.assessed-external.dases.. Job
category dose estimates would lead to the most retiable conclusions for those
workers who spent most or all their working time doing the jobs specified in

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm 3/31/2008



USA TODAY Latest news

data. If the work was carried out for several weeks, then the dose estimates
would be correspondingly higher.

Overall, it appears that exposures to specific workers who worked on thorium
may have been severe. We have not been able to assess cumulative thorium
exposures in a manner similar to uranium since we lack even minimally
adequate air concentration data over the requisite period of time. Our
estimate of thorium exposures corresponding to one week's work indicates
that for some workers, thorium exposures may have been comparable to and
perhaps greater than uranium exposures. Finally, if some workers worked on
both uranium and thorium, those exposures would be additive.

3, Harshaw Chemical Co.

Harshaw Chemical Co. conducted a number of chemical operations to
produce uranium hexafluoride for uranium enrichment operations. Part-time
operations began during the World War II Manhattan Project, during which
highly enriched uranium was used to make the nuclear bomb that was
dropped on Hiroshima. Production was scaled up after the war and
“substantially expanded" in 1947,[18]

The chemical forms of uranium present at Harshaw range from the highly
soluble (uranium hexafluoride) to the highly insoluble (uranium dioxide).
[19] Industrial hygiene was very poor, with air contamination exceeding
maximum allowable concentrations in some cases by several hundred fold,
averaged over the entire working day.[20]

Assuming that workers were exposed to the same mix of uranium compounds
as seen at Femald, as would be likely for at least some portion of the plant
personnel, the radiation doses to the lungs of workers in moderately exposed
categories would be in the hundreds of rem, cumulative (Table 1). The
calculations assumed an 8-hr work day, and 20 work days per month,
averaged over a year. In the case of the most severely exposed workers, who
either worked in highly contaminated conditions, or for long periods, and, in
the worst cases, both, cumulative lung doses were thousands of rem. If the
assumptions we have made about the solubility of uranium are correct, the
Tung dose in the highest category in Table 1 is 8,400 rem. This is equivalent
to an effective dose of about 1,000 rem, using official lung to whole body
dose equivalence factor for the lung of 0.12.[21] Using the EPA (and ICRP)
fatal cancer risk factor of 4 deaths per 10,000 rem, we can estimate that a
worker would have a 40 percent chance of dying from cancer as a result of an
exposure of 1,000 rem. This is an increase of 200 percent in fatal cancer risk
compared to unexposed persons,

Table 1, Distribution of employees by length of employment and level
of dust exposure at Harshaw Chemical Co. 1945-1949, Mean
lung doses were estimated assuming the same solubility of
uranium as found at FMPC.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium_htm

Page 7 of 16

3/31/2008



USA TODAY Latest news

methods, are as follows:
e High solubility (class D); 0.084 rem/yr
© Moderate solubility (class W): 4.2 rem/yr

¢ Low solubility (class Y): 79 rem/yr

The difference between the lowest and the highest estimate is a factor of 940.
It is apparent that if the solubility of material is not known, the results of
calculations are subject to major uncertainties. For comparison, the federal
limit of doses to any individual organ of the body, established in the early
1950s was 0.3 rem/week (or about 15 rem/year).{9]

Rather than relying on assumptions about the mixture of the materials, we
used the results of our previous analysis of historical records for the workers
at the Feed Material Production Center (FMPC) uranium facility in Fernald,
Ohio. This allows the direct determination of the solubility of the inhaled
material by comparing concentrations measured in Jung tissue and in urine
excretion.[10] This approach is justified because various processes at the
three plants analyzed in this report were all done at the Fernald plant at one
time or another. The Femald worker data suggested that on the average, the
inhaled uranium had metabolic characteristics of a mixture of material with
about 90% moderate solubility (class W) and 10% of low solubility (class
Y)...For the above example, one year of continuous inhalation of natural
uranium at the historical maximum permissible concentration of 70
disintegrations per minute per cubic meter results in a committed dose to the
tang tissue of 12 rem. We believe that using the solubility mixture that was
found for the Fernald facility provides the best estimate at the current time for
the three plants reviewed here. Our assumption is subject to review and
revision if more information about the specific mixtures of materials in the air
at these three plants becomes available. An additional factor of uncertainty is
the particle size of the material. The dose conversion factors are based on a
mean aerodynamic size of 1 micron (um). For 5 micron (um) particles, doses
could be up to 30% lower. The default assumption of a 1 micron particte size
is standard practice when no data are available.

We have used a rather conservative estimate for the breathing rate of 20 liters

+ per minute, averaged over a working day, corresponding to light work, Many
operations involving uranium would fall into the category of heavy work, so
that the average breathing rate over the working day for typical workers
involved in manual work may well have exceeded that assumed here,
Moreover, heavier breathing rates would likely apply to periods of work in
more contaminated areas, so that average air concentration, weighted by
breathing rate would be higher than the one we have assumed. Since the
estimated dose is directly proportional to the breathing rate, our assumption
of a 20 liters/minute breathing rate (as recommended by the ICRP for default
calculations) may result in a considerable underestimate of doses for some
workers.{i 1]

While the lung tissue is the organ that receives the largest dose from uranium
of moderate to low solubility, doses can also be expressed in terms of
“effective dose equivalent." The effective dose equivalent (EDE) is a
calculated value for which doses to various tissues are multiplied by a factor

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium. htm

Page 3 of 16

3/31/2008


\ Usa TODAY Latest news

[26] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office.
Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing
Uranium (A Status Report ~ April 1, 1949). Prepared by NYOO
Medical Division. Issued April 18, 1949. p. 68.

{27] Electro Metallurgical Company (Electromet), Niagara Falls, New
York, .Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP),
11/1985. P. 5-120 - 5-121. The site did not have continuous AEC
operations between 1946 and 1953, but rather conducted AEC
operations on specific projects for a few months or more at a time (in
one case for two years). It should also be noted that after the AEC
contract Was terminated in June 1953, Electromet continued to process
uranium and thorium for commercial use.

{28} U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office.
Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing
Uranium (A Status Report — April 1, 1949). Prepared by NYOO
Medical Division. Issued April 18, 1949. pp. 30-31 and Dust Hazards
at Electrometallurgical Company. Transmitted to Mr. E.C. Forbes,
Superintendent of Area Plant, Electrometaflurgical Company by F.M.
Belmore, Director, Production Division. New York Operations Office,
US. AEC., June 18, 1948.

{29] Arjun Makhijani, Howard Hu and Katherine Yih, eds., Nuclear
Wastelands. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, Chapter 7, p. 367.

[30] Monthly Status and Progress Report for December 1948.
Submitted by the New York Operations Office of the Atomic Energy
Commission by W.E. Kelley, Manager. January 5, 1949. p. 17

[31] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office.
Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing
Uranium (4 Status Report — April 1, 1949). Prepared by NYOO
Medical Division. Issued April 18, 1949. p. 31

[32] Letter from W.E. Kelley, Manager, New York Operations Office,
Atomic Energy Commission, to C.S. Parke, Vice-President, The
Harshaw Chemical Company, January 28, 1948.

& is Money Spor
Privacy Policy I
© Cannone 2002 USA TODAY, a division ofG Gannett Co. I ‘Tne.

Ne

hittp://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 16 of 16

3/31/2008



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

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

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Petitioner 3

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this number will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

Use this Appendix for Petitioner 3.

This appendix form is to be used as needed. Petitioner 3, or his or her representative, should complete the
parts applicable to him or her.

Refer to the General Instructions on completing petitioner information for Parts A, B, or C.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Q An Energy Employee (current or former), Start at C

If you are: | A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), Start at B

QA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), Start at A

Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

A.1 Are you a contact person for an organization? 1 Yes (Go to A.2) Q No (Go to A.3)

A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
A.3 Name of Petition Representative:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name

A4 Address:
Street Apt# P.O. Box
City State Zip Code

A5 — Telephone Number: ( ) :

A6 Email Address:

A. (Q Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization
form for this purpose is provided.

If you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



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

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
{iness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Labor Organization Information — Complete Section D ON
D.1—_ Labor Organization Information:

Page 3 of 7
if you are a labor organization

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
D.2 Name of Petition Representative:

D.3 Address of Petition Representative:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
D.4 Telephone Number of Petition Representative: ( ) :
D.5 Email Address of Petition Representative:

D.6 Period during which labor organization represented employees covered by this petition
(please attach documentation): Start End

D.7 Identity of other labor organizations that may represent or have represented this class of
employees (if known):

Go to Part E.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



USA TODAY Latest news

owned plants not studied here. Thorium processing occurred at several other
places (including the Fernald plant near Cincinnati, for instance). This is an
issue that needs to be more carefully evaluated, since it is possible that
exposures to workers, their families and to members of the general public due
to thorium processing (and possibly also thorium handling) may have been
considerable despite the relatively small amounts (compared to uranium) of
thorium that were processed.

It is clear that the effects of the nuclear weapons enterprise on society are
even vaster than heretofore acknowledged. The tasks of health monitoring
for affected populations, health care for the sick, and environmental
remediation of the legacy of nuclear weapons production will be even more
complex and larger than currently anticipated.

[1] This report was produced by the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research (www.ieer.org) under contract to USA Today,
which supplied IEER with the plant documents as well as summaries
of operating periods for the plants.

[2] Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland

[3] Bernd Franke is a scientific director at ifeu-Institut flte Energie- und
Umweltforschung GmbH in Heidelberg, Germany.

{4] Hisham Zerrifi is a senior scientist at the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research,

[5] K.F. Eckerman et al., Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and
Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation,
Submersion, and Ingestion, Federal Guidance Report Number 11.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.

{6] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, New York Operations Office.
Health Hazards in NYOO Facilities Producing and Processing
Uranium (A Status Report — April 1, 1949). Prepared by NYOO
Medical Division. Issued April 18, 1949, Appendix III of this
document details the calculation of this air concentration fimit.

{7] National Bureau of Standards, Maximunt Permissible Amounts of
Radioisotopes in the Human Body and Maximum Permissible
Concentrations in Air and Water. National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 52, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, issued
Match 20, 1953. This handbook provides concentration limits for
certain radionuclides in the body, air, and water (Table 3). The values
for uranium provided in Table 3 were agreed upon at the meeting of
the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project and members of
the Atomic Energy Commission, Rochester, NY, Sept. 27, 1949 as
cited on page 17.

{8] NBS Handbook 52, Tablé3A. While the handbook was issued in
1953, the values in the table are from October 1951

[9] NBS Handbook 52, p. 13. The handbook states that the "maximum
permissible concentration of radioisotopes in air and water and the

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 13 of 16

3/31/2008


USA TODAY Latest news

We did not have adequate data covering the entire time period of Electromet
operation, which began during the Manhattan Project and ended in 1953.{27]
We know that full time uranium metal production was occurring in the late
1940s, for which we have some data on the range of air concentrations found
in working areas, as well as air concentrations weighted over the working,
day.[28] We have performed dose calculations using these figures for one
individual over 240 working days (corresponding to a working year of 48
weeks, 5 days per week). Actual exposure for personne! who worked for a
large portion of the period for which the plant operated can be expected to be
considerably higher. However, we cannot assume that they would be a
simple multiple of the calculated doses, since air concentration data are not
available in the detail needed to make even an approximate calculation for the
entire period.

Industrial hygiene at Electromet was very poor. Many workers were
evidently severely overexposed, since highly contaminated environmental
conditions persisted in the workplace for prolonged periods. We estimate
that for production workers, committed lung doses due to exposure over a
single twelve-month period would range from over 50 rem to well over 6,000
rem. The most severely exposed workers would have a vety high probability
of contracting cancer. One would also expect to find some heavy metal
toxicity to the kidneys due to exposure to green salt.

5. Uncertainties

There are two types of uncertainties in our estimates (other than the issue of
the partial nature of the calculations themselves, which means that actual
doses would be systematicaily higher than the ones reported here). First,
there are the variations in conditions experienced among the workers, the
differences in physiology leading to different metabolic rates, and so on. For
instance, some workers at Harshaw would likely have encountered mainly
insoluble types of uranium, while others would have encountered mainly
soluble types of uranium.

‘The secgnd type of uncertainty relates to the uncertainties in the
measurements of air concentrations, in fluctuations in such-concentrations
from one day to the next, in the estimates of dose conversion factors for any
particular chemical form of uranium, and in estimates of the effects of

radiation exposure,

In addition to these uncertainties, our estimates are partial since we have not
included external doses, and since we have not been able to estimate doses
over the entire working period in several cases,

Actual exposures of workers within any group could easily be several times
lower or higher than those estimated here. The limited nature of the study
and the preliminary and partial nature of the calculation does not justify
extensive effort on a formal uncertainty analysis. We recommend that a more

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 10 of 16

3/31/2008


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
December 2, 2008
Page 7 of 7

ORR RK

The AEC wrote that many employees of the various
plants involved with the Manhattan Project were
transferred from department to department and no
record made of that fact. It is impossible without
relying on the memory of individual employees and
their family, to reconstruct the dust exposure records
of many employees.

The Honorable John N. Hostettler concluded:

To the workers, I say a heartfelt thank you. Thank
you for your service to our nation. There are many
of us who do appreciate you and your family’s
contribution to our world and want to do right by
YOU... Finally, I want you to know that I have
confidence that there are many people in_ this
Government and this country who will continue to
fight for you to get the respect and care you deserve
for all you have done for us.

I respectfully implore NIOSH to take the necessary steps to designate
employees of ElectroMet as members of the “Special Exposure Cohort”

Very truly yours,


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
December 2, 2008
Page 6 of 7

designate such workers as members of the “Special
Exposure Cohort” (SEC). Under a designated SEC,
benefits are paid to workers who received on-the-job
radiation exposure for a period of time and who have

been diagnosed with one of twenty-two
“radiosensitive” cancers.

Congressman Hostettler stated that:

“When this law was enacted in 2000 (EEOICPA)
Congress did not know how many new groups of
workers might be designated as belonging in a
Special Exposure Cohort, but from hearings in this
committee we knew there was limited radiation
monitoring data and non-existent health physics
programs in the earliest years and this would make it
almost impossible to accurately reconstruct dose for
many claimants.”

How can the Department of Labor and Department of Energy assure
survivors of ElectroMet employees that the dose reconstruction software
used by NIOSH is accurate with the limited radiation monitoring data and
non-existent health physics programs at ElectroMet.

Congressman Hostettler said,

Without the ability to add workers to the Special
Exposure — Cohort, many would face an
insurmountable burden of proof, when it was the
Government who placed them in harm’s way,
frequently misled them about the hazards they were
facing, and failed to properly monitor their
exposures.

According to Congressman Hostettler,

At ElectroMet in Niagara Falls, New York, the AEC
found that most of the process workers were
exposed to uranium dust at 5 times the so-called
preferred level, and the “bomb loaders” were
exposed to 600 times the preferred level in 1948.



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

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
{liness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Petitioner 3
Survivor Information — Complete Section B if you are a Survivor or representing a Survivor.

B.1 Name of Survivor:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:

B.3 Address of Survivor:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
B.4 Telephone Number of Survivor: = ( ) -
B.5 Email Address of Survivor:

B.6 Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse Q Son/Daughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchild

Go to Part C.

Employee Information — Complete Section C.

C.1 Name of Employee:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.3 Social Security Number of Employee:
C.4_—_ Address of Employee (if living):

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: ( ) :
C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start End
C.7¢ Employer Name:
C.7d Work Site Location:

C.7e Supervisor's Name:

Sign Part G of the original petition.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



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

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
iitness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 2 of 7
Survivor Information — Complete Section B if you are a Survivor or representing a Survivor.

B14 Name of Survive: __ =

Mr/Mirs/Ms. First Name Middle Initiat Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor: _!

B.3 9 Addrece of Survivor: _ _

Street ° - : Ant # ; P.O. Box
eee tees ee = . -
City State Pin Corre

B.4. Telephone Number of Survivor: |
B.5 Email Address of Survivor:

B.6 Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse a Son/Daughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchild
Go to Part C.
c Employee Information — Complete Section C UNLESS you are a labor organization.

C.1 Name of Employee:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.3. Social Security Number of Employee: __
C.4 Address of Employee (if living):

Street Apt # P.O. Box
City State Zip Cade
C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: ) -

C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start Z 7 FF, 7 End Zz. Gb a
C.7¢ Employer Name: £z ELTLO MET ALLL IER. Cone aay
C.7d Work Site Location: Lorn, flew €
Lhitihtt, fhe, (0X
C.7e Supervisor's Name: LUPE 2 4
Go to Part E.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


USA TODAY Latest news

hygiene. Including all of these factors could substantially increase the dose
estimates.

We have also not attempted to assess the radiological consequences to
workers and the general public of processing, transporting or using stee! that
‘was fabricated on machines that were contaminated in a plant that was
contaminated, Finally, we have not estimated the exposures suffered by the
families of the workers who may have tracked significant amounts of
radioactive contamination home on their clothes, bodies, and vehicles, Doses
in some of these categories may have been significant. In particufar, doses to
workers during the periods when they were processing steel were likely to
have been significant in at least some cases, since the working environment
was severely contaminated. The re-suspension of uranium and thorium dust
during work operations as well as during clean-up of the plant premises were
not evaluated. In other words, our calculations were strictly limited to
calculating the dose to workers from uranium (and thorium) inhaled during
the days when processing of these materials was done.

We did not have data on all the radiological surveys. We have used the
available data to make estimates of doses from uranium metal processing up
until 6 August 1954. We do not have survey data covering the rest of the
period through the end of operations in December 1956. Thus, the doses
presented here are partial exposure estimates that underestimate doses to
personnel who worked through the entire period of processing. We have
made exposure estimates by job classification. If one person did the job for
the entire period, the dose estimate represents a typical expected exposure
{see below for discussion of uncertainties). If the personnel doing the job
changed, this dose estimate would not apply to any particular individual, but
rather to the sequence of individuals who did the particular job over the
specified period.

When uranium metal is rolled it becomes hot and can even catch fire. The
emissions from the operation are typically a mixture of oxides of uranium,
whose solubility range from very insoluble to moderately soluble. It may
take many months or years for highly insoluble materials to be eliminated
once lodged in the lung, while moderately soluble materials may be
eliminated within a few weeks. Figure 1 shows the lung dose estimates for
the particular jobs associated with uranium rolling operations at Simonds
during the peak production period of 1948-1952.

Figure 1

http:/Awww.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 5 of 16

3/31/2008


Law Office 01-09-09 P12:20 IN

Clelmant ID #.

DOL Batch #7 <7

DOLD.O.# 7
NIOSHIOCAS

December 2, 2008

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

RE: Employee:
File No.:
NIOSH ID:

Gentlemen:

The Department of Labor concluded that my
did not qualify as a “covered employee” with cancer under
42U.S.C. Section 7384(9)B and that the recommended claims filed by
» for survivor benefits under the EEOICPA be
denied. This denial is based upon the NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction
under EEOICPA, dated February 1, 2008. The report states the probability
of causation value of colon cancer was less than 50%, and showed that the
colon cancer was not “as least as likely as not” related to employment at the
covered facility.

I am petitioning NIOSH to designate employees of ElectroMet in
Niagara Falls, NY as members of the “Special Exposure Cohort” for the
following reasons:

Lack of Evidence

Clearly there was no evidence before NIOSH or the Department of
Labor that colon and liver cancer were caused other than by his
exposure to radiation at the ElectroMet plant in Niagara Falls, New York.
Prior to my father’s diagnosis of colon cancer by _ he was not treating
for any medical condition at the time of his death in 1965. He devoted
almost his entire work life to the ElectroMet (April 1937 through January
1965). He was employed as a laborer, working in the furnace areas of the
ElectroMet. was not obese, did not smoke, was not suffering from
diabetes nor was he suffering from any inflammatory bowel disease. His


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

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 5 of 7

Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Individual Dose —
Complete Section F.

Complete at feast one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

Ft IMe have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area

monitoring.
(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

peau Peopuctiere (Mbr#e) HAS OCCORE ype PEC
Bre (ICES AL ECECTHOMET. CWLY ASO CTE
Vor O0 THE LRWEE OF PPI. WEE TEA TOS
Diy (he Moebwiwl SPLEAS , AS H&LA AS fF
CYWLERTEATIOUS VE bHTED OVE 6. ThE Bo khiac
Whew PRE Spi pA’ fle THE DEAL
LEDED Tt WULE EGE Pee PLO Xf APE ONE
optbtarrr, SES Vir freqrecée £FIIACHE’.

F.2 7a 1/ We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.
(OC. CYC CEL VEbAW;eow DaréA t0 L£ff(7ES
Ba SeECTEOMET JO ORE Che Goay preter =
THE GUS LITLE fVEWMBGE[ EC EO QDETAT C2.
CU C0bM« C  CECObLS WEEE ZOSC C4. DESTEVE?,
Lilie LbXbfbw¢C bla’ bby cee? Aaa
ECKCHCLOT: {FAw yt MOECe iS COL FEO CTO
SEVELLY O0EREFPUSES 70 EB b faze, (HULESIODE)
US. bavEte Minx Hd ED éireedler Hl HOU Ue [lkzi ROGET a nde.

seaenamnmans

Part F is continued on the following page.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



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

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Uiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 4 of 7

Proposed Definition of Employee Class Covered by Petition — Complete Section E.

E.1 Name of DOE or AWE Facility: LECTED ME TALLOCE CHE ( ECG A AY
£.2 Locations at the Facijity relevant fo this petition:

v1 Cad. Vz
Mibtbttp-pnics lUC Ciftleyee fl
hii. bith S. Lacivyuegveteet BiicDiex Uebl EXOSES

Te D/A-7T7AO OOST-
£.3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees inchaded ih the Bees a addition, you can list by

name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be
included in this class: LEO CELS, FCCC ACE WheeEes

LZ.

lip E We 6S S HUCWE EMCLOFEES

E.4 Employment Dates relevant to this petition:

stat _ (FALE End SIS S
Start End
Start End
£.5 Is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: 2° Yes Q No

If yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages

as necessary):
O Venus Met tad FROLCLTED Fr~
LEECTCLM ET HPaeatt (IAMMMOM FETBAFPLL ICOE,
SHE [LACEES HOLOLGE OD HX we gfe Beit SAAT
AH POM (CO ff by He FLA LES, SPO O THE
WSECT OY OF THE LUE Fite LTE PP DEA EES
WERE Ot€in SACT (OAS CE DUCED Za LETHE

(AE (COEESS UBS TN Pte Cee HOLES EAE
Wheoebiwt PREG UEC BLow-OOTS. Laced
Lb —Uyrs$ 1/8 Clb,

SEF AAO SR PIRTEEF

Go to Part F.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:


USA TODAY Latest news

The last survey points up the urgent need for control
measures, which have been previously recommended in
considerable detail to the contractor. The situation was
discussed in a conference held during the month with
the Plant Manager. A summary of the survey findings,
together with all recommendations to date, will be given
to the contractor, whose attention has been called to
contractual obligations for observing health and safety
requirements.[30]

Tn some cases, there was a hesitation to spend money to correct problems in
plants that were expected to be placed on stand-by and no Jonger be in use for
production. At least a year before the Electromet facility was to transition to
stand-by, one AEC document notes that:

In order to provide for adequate dust control, a
substantial sum of money ($50,000 to $100,000) would
have to be spent. As before, whether or not extensive
dust exposures are corrected will depend on policy
decision as to the advisability of spending funds for the
purpose of placing stand-by plants in satisfactory
medical condition.

During the next few months, minor changes in process
ventilation can be expected to alleviate the dust
exposure to some extent.[3 1}

One document points clearly to the practice of keeping information about the
health risks of their jobs from the workers. In a letter from W. E. Kelley,
Manager of the New York Operations Office of the AEC to the vice-president
of the Harshaw Chemical Company, a briefing for workers is described. In
that briefing, a staff member of the AEC spoke to the employees to "explain
to them that all of our [AEC] records indicated that no unusual hazard
existed, but that the Harshaw Company, with the assistance of the Atomic
Energy Commission, was proceeding more intensively in an effort to uncover
any possibility of danger." This was done because it was understood that
“extensive sample taking ... may upset employees and cause them to wonder

about their health and safety." However, the very next paragraph of the letter «

states that according to their carly animal studies and general knowledge of
radiation, 50 micrograms per cubic meter was the "most popular figure" of
what could be tolerated and that this level had been exceeded. Measurements
indicated levels exceeding 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter (34 out of 67
samples) and even 10,000 micrograms per cubic meter (17 out of 67
samples). Thus, it was clear that the levels of radioactive material in the air
‘were above what was coming to be understood to be the limit that was
tolerable. At the same time the workers were being told that "no unusual
hazard existed."(32]

The findings of this study may-have broad applicability to many other
privately owned plants where uranium processing was done during the 1940s
and 1950s. One of our findings, relating to the high radiation doses due to
thorium-232 exposure at the Simonds plant, has considerable importance for
some government-owned nuclear weapons plants as well as the privately

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 12 of 16°

3/31/2008


USA TODAY Latest news

formal effort, with a more complete set of data be undertaken. However,
there is enough evidence to come to a reasonably certain conclusion that due
to poor working conditions, exposures to many workers were very high and
far above then-prevailing regulations.

6. Coticlusions

Working conditions at these three plants were very poor and among the most
terrible reported for any plant in the United States, Based on our screening
calculations, doses to many workers are likely to have exceeded the dose
limit of about 15 rem per year that was established in 1949. The data and our
calculations also suggest that the highest exposed workers had a high
probability of cancer mortality as the result of the exposure. It must be
remembered that we have arrived at this conclusion even though our dose
calculations are partial and do not cover the entire periods of plant operation
and all types of doses. Other types of health problems, including kidney
damage, would also be likely among those workers exposed to the more
soluble forms of uranium.

We do not have comparable data from nuclear weapons plants that processed
uranium in the Soviet Union during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Some
external dose data for workers at a reactor and a reprocessing plant in the
southern Ural Mountains have been reported. Heretofore, we have assumed,
based on available evidence, that worker exposures were far higher in the
Soviet Union that in the United States.[29] However, the partial estimates
that we have made here are so high that this assumption may need to be
revisited for many of the workers at these forgotten nuclear weapons plants.
We should also note that the extent of the heaith damage may have extended
to the families of workers and to the general public in ways that we have not
assessed in this preliminary report.

Finally, there is ample evidence that plant authorities as well as the
government of the United States, which contracted with these privately-
owned companies to process material for its nuclear weapons program, were
well aware at the time that workers at these plants were being severely
overexposed over prolonged periods of time. There is also evidence that the
US government deliberately misled workers about health and safety issues by
conedaling the facts of very poor working conditions from them and by
failing to undertake the needed level of radiation dose surveillance, including
frequent and widespread urine sampling, that was warranted. A number of
documents discuss inadequate controls of contamination and
recommendations for improvement that were only sometimes taken into
account. For example, in discussing the problems at Harshaw, one document
states that:

These findings [90% of plant workers being exposed to
higher than the "preferred level" of contamination with
76% exposed to 10 te.374 times that level] are
consistent with the results of other NYOO
investigations, and show that the equipment and
procedures presently used for the control of alpha-
emitting dust and fumes are completely inadequate,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.btm

Page 11 of 16

3/31/2008


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

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

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 1 of 7

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this number will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet):
Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A — G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. If there is more
than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A ~ C of the form that apply
to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please call the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:
1-877-222-8570.

——
QA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3
Ifyou Q An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page2
are: IA Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page 2
Q A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StartatA on Page 1

Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or

Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

A.1_ Are you a contact person for an organization? O Yes (Go to A.2) 1 No (Go to A.3)
A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person

A3 Name of Petition Renresentative: ay
Neeese =e
Mr./Mrs./Ms, First Name Middle Initiat Last Name
AA Address: ~
——_—--=
Street nti P.O, Box
City "Staley a. Zip Code

A.5 Telephone Number: .
A6 Email Address:

AZ Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization

if you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: ___


USA TODAY Latest news Page 2 of 16

the calculations, or working at the locations where the conditions described
were prevalent. A low dose estimate for a particular job category may not
correspond to an actual low dose, since our estimates are partial.

We have estimated doses due to inhalation of uranium by first calculating the
amount of uranium breathed in by @ worker in a typical work-day at a specific
focation or in a specific job category. In most cases, the time-weighted air
concentrations were available in the documents provided to IEER by USA
Today. The air concentration calculations were done by plant personne] at
the time by estimating the total time spent in various locations by personnel
in various job categories. For instance, a portion of the day would be at the
specific location where uranium was being machined or processed, a portion
in the general area of the processing, a portion in the lunch-room, etc. By
weighting the air concentrations in various locations with the time typically
spent in each location, the total amount of uranium that a worker was exposed
to for the day can be calculated.

The dose from this intake of uranium can then be assessed, if we know the
chemical form of the uranium, which tells us its solubility and hence
approximately how long that uranium would remain in the body. Standard
tables of "dose conversion factors” — the radiation dose per unit of a particular
radioactive material inhaled or ingested — have been published by various
scientific and regulatory bodies and provide differing factors depending on
the solubility of the material. The dose conversion factors used in the United
States are published in a 1988 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency called the Federal Guidance Report No. 11.[5] We have used these
in our calculations.

All dose calculations shown here are “committed doses." When a radioactive
material is inhaled, it is eliminated gradually from the body, and the dose is
received over a considerable period of time (depending on the solubility,
particular size, and method of incorporation into the body). The term
“committed doses” reflects the fact that exposures resulting from a single
intake are considered over the entire time that inhaled uranium remains in the

Dose estimates derived from a,given air concentration depend greatly on the
assumed solubility of the material that is inhaled, To illustrate this point, we
calculated the dose to lung tissue using the dose conversion factors in the
Federal Guidance Report No. 11 from inhalation of natural uranium over an
entire year (2000 working hours). We have assumed constant exposure at the
in-plant maximum permissible concentration of 70 disintegrations per minute
per cubic meter (dpm/m?) in the plant air that was in effect at the time these
facilities were operating.{6} The federal limit for concentration in air
prevalent since 1949 was 38 dpm/m? [7] This limit was established based on
the chemical toxicity of uranium and seems to have been ignored both by the
government and its contractors, so far as we can determine. A limit of 0.009
Ci of uranium lung burden (apparently with a 90 day biological half-life)
seems to have been established in 1951.[8]

‘The resulting doses calculated using an air concentration of 70 dpm/m?, the
prevailing radiological standard in the plants, and as caiculated by present

hitp://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm 3/31/2008


USA TODAY Latest news

Exposure category Number of months of exposure

0 to6 | 6 to 12 {12 to 24/24 to 36 [36 to 48

10 to 70 dpm/m?

# of workers 1 2 2 ) 1
estimated mean tung { 1.4 4,2 84 14 20
dose, rem

70 to 350 dpm/m?

# of workers 1 1 0 0 2
estimated mean lung | 6.3 9 38 63 88
dose, rem

350 to 1,750 dpm/m?|

# of workers 0 5 5 12 10

estimated mean lung 31 94 190 310 440
dose, rem
1,750 to 8,750
dpm/m? 0 0 0 0 0
# of workers 160 470 940 1,600 {| 2,200
estimated mean lung
dose, rem

> 8,750 dpm/m?

l# of workers 0 17 10 3 4
estimated mean Jung 600 1,800 | 3,600 | 6,000 | 8,400

dose, rem.

Note 1: To estimate mean dose, we have used the geometric mean of
the lowest and highest uranium concentration (except for the 0 to 70
catégory, where we have used the arithmetic mean, since the geometric
mean gives an implausible zero result). This use of the geometric
mean gives a lower mean dose estimate than would be obtained by the
use of an arithmetic mean. Doses corresponding to the minimum and
meximum concentrations in a category would be a factor of 2.23 lower
or higher than the geometric mean dose (except for the first row, in
which case the range is from 0 to a factor of two higher). We have
used the arithmetic mean for the number of months. The result in this
case is insensitive to the use of geometric or arithmetic mean.

Note 2: The dose for the final category was calculated using the
geometric mean of 8,750 dpm/m? and the maximum exposure
recorded, which was 25,900 dpm/m? (370 times the maximum
allowable concentration).

Note 3: No doses were calculated beyond the 48-month exposure
category. However, it is necessary to note that one worker received
exposures less than the MAC for over 48 months and eleven workers
received exposures at levels between 5 and 25 times the MAC for over
48 months.

If the uranium were to be of more soluble compounds, the estimated radiation
doses and cancer risk would be smaller and the likelihood of severe
nephrotoxic effects would be far larger. Piant documents indicate that such
kidney damage was in fact repoited.[22] Lower radiation doses and higher
nephrotoxic effects would be more likely for workers who were exposed
primarily to soluble uranium, notably uranium hexafluoride and its hydration
product, urany! fluoride.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 8 of 16

3/31/2008


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
December 2, 2008
Page 4 of 7

The USA Today article states that adequate data covering the entire
time period of the ElectroMet operations, which began during the Manhattan
Project and ended in 1953 is mostly unavailable. There was a limited
amount of data on the range of air concentrations found in working areas at
the ElectroMet, as well as air concentrations weighted over the working day.
Actual exposure for personnel who worked at ElectroMet for a large portion
of the period for which the plant operated can be expected to be
considerably higher. One cannot assume that there would be a simple
multiple of calculated doses, since air concentration data are not
available from ElectroMet in the detail needed to make even an
approximate calculation for the entire period.

It is documented that industrial hygiene at ElectroMet was very poor.
Many workers were evidently severely overexposed, since highly
contaminated environmental conditions persisted in the workplace for
prolonged periods. It is estimated that for production workers, committed
lung doses due to exposure over a single 12-month period would range from
over 50 rem to well over 6,000 rem. The most severely exposed workers

* would have a very high probability of contracting cancer. One would expect
to find some heavy metal toxicity to the kidneys due to exposure to green
salt. One can only wonder, did NIOSH’s software for dose
reconstruction take into consideration all of the facts I have
enumerated in the USA Today article.

The Article states that there are clearly uncertainties in any estimates
in that there are variations in conditions experienced among the workers;
the differences in physiology leading to different metabolic rates, and so on.
Some workers would likely have encountered mainly insoluble types of
uranium, while others would have encountered mainly soluble. There is
uncertainty in the measurements of air concentrations, in the fluctuations in
such concentrations from-one day to the next, and in the estimates of dose
conversion factors for any particular chemical form of uranium, and in the
estimates of the effects of radiation exposure.

Records within the various federal agencies show that working
conditions at ElectroMet were very poor and among the most terribly
reported for any plant in the United States. Doses to many workers at
ElectroMet are likely to have exceeded the dose limit of about 15 rem per
year that was established in 1949. The data and calculations suggest that
the highest exposed workers had a “high probability of cancer mortality as
a result of the exposure.”


This page left intentionally blank.


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

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Petitioner 2
Survivor Information —- Complete Section B if you are a Survivor or representing a Survivor.

B.1 Name of Survivor: “a }
MrIMie/Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:
B.3 9 Addrace af Survivar: = ~
Giraat 7 Ant # P.O. Box
Cc...
City State Zip Code
B.4__ Telephone Number of Survivor: ( ) -
B.5 Email Address of Survivor:
B.6 _ Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse sxSon/Daughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchild
Go to Part C. —
Employee Informati Complete Section Cc.
C.1. Name of Fmninvee: —
eretens - -
Mr/Mrs/Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name

C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial act Name
C.3 Social Security Number of Employee: «
C.4__ Address of Employee (if living):

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code

C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: ( ) :
C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start End
C.7c Employer Name:
C.7d Work Site Location:

C.7e Supervisor's Name:

Sign Part G of the original petition. A

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: __



National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
December 2, 2008
Page 3 of 7

areas, despite being “persistently instructed”, a 1949 AEC memo noted.
When AEC medical officials suggested that the commission could pay for new
ventilation, higher-ups balked at the cost. It was felt that it would only be a
few more years before federal facilities would be built to take over the work
done at ElectroMet. I enclose a copy of the USA Today articles dated August
16, 2000.

The Article states that the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, after reviewing the records available, estimated that during peak
years, workers’ annual lung doses of radiation ranged from 50 to 6000 rem
- measurements up to hundreds of times the limits of the day. Based on
conventional risk formulas, exposure toward the high end of that range,
even for just a few years, translates into a “very high probability” of
cancer and kidney ailments, the Institute reported. The cost concerns that
stymied action at ElectroMet were not unusual. More often, the major
obstacles were operational. Clearly, ElectroMet along with Monsanto
Chemical in Dayton, Ohio tended to have the biggest problems with worker
exposures. Yet, NIOSH reports that my father’s colon was only exposed to

* 9.78 rem. How certain can that figure be in view of the deplorable working
conditions at ElectroMet.

It was noted that the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
estimates that workers with the worst cumulative radiation exposures got
the equivalent of a whole-body radiation dose of about 1000 rem. The level
corresponds to a 40% chance of dying from cancer over a lifetime and a
200% increase in cancer risk compared with unexposed persons. No one
at NIOSH, DOL or DOE can explain how my father, could
have contracted colon and liver cancer other than by exposure to radiation
while working at ElectroMet.

Uranium metal was fabricated at ElectroMet from uranium tetrafiuoride
(green salt). The process involved the mixing of green salt with magnesium
metal flakes and the mixture was inserted into a furnace where the green
salt was reduced to metal. It is noted that historically, the process at
ElectroMet was typically troublesome, involving frequent blow-outs,
especially under conditions of production pressure that characterized the
first two decades of the nuclear era. The uranium would typically be a
mixture of moderately soluble and insoluble compounds, with the former
predominating, since green salt belongs in this category.


USA TODAY Latest news

fl

Workers in the same job may have had doses several times higher or lower
than this, depending on specific working times and conditions, as well as
individual differences in the metabolic behavior of uranium in the body.

The records for the period from 1953 to the end of the contract in 1956
indicate that the amount of uranium processed per year was lower by about
an order of magnitude than the early years. Air concentrations of uranium
dropped considerably in the 1953-1956 period, hence the cumulative dose in
this period would Jikely have been much lower to many or most workers than
in the previous period. Finally, we have no data for 1985 and 1956. For
these reasons, we have not included any estimate of dose for the 1953 to 1956
period, The shorter work times and lower concentrations would likely result
in lower average doses in the 1953-1956 period though this does not preclude
the possibility that individual workers may have had substantial doses in this

period.

Many workers were also exposed to thorium dust. Even though the amount of
thorium processed was almost a factor of one thousand less than uranium,
exposures to workers who processed thorium appear to have been

substantial. This is because exposure to thorium results in larger doses than
uranium per unit of radioactive contamination of air. Further, thorium doses
are far less sensitive to assumptions about solubility than uranium doses (i.c.
differences in solubility result in much smaller differences in the final dose
with thorium). Finally, radioactive decay products build up relatively rapidly
in thorium, if it is stored for a few years before processing. We have not been
able to estimate doses duc to these decay products, since we do not have data
on how long the thorium was stored after conversion to metal and prior to
rolling operations.

Thorium processing operations may have taken as little as one week and
possibly much longer.[!7] Based on available data, it is not possible for us to
estimate the total number of fuittime equivalent days for which the thorium
milling operation was conducted. We have therefore calculated thorium
doses corresponding to one week of full time work. Bone surface doses over
@ one-week exposure period would range from about 400 rem to almost 2,500
rem, depending on working conditions and thorium solubility, We do not
have a basis on which to select a mix of solubilities based on the available

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 6 of 16

3/31/2008



National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
December 2, 2008
Page 2 of 7

diet was nutritional and he had no family history of colon cancer or liver
cancer.

Flawed Dose Reconstruction

It is my understanding that to determine the probability of causation
for a cancer claim under EEOICPA, the Department of Labor utilized a
computer software application developed by NIOSH in collaboration with the
National Cancer Institute, called NIOSH - IREP. Apparently, the computer
software is a science-based tool that allows DOL to determine the probability
of cancer was caused by a person’s radiation dose from nuclear weapons
production work. The actual outcome of a claim depends on a number of
important factors such as dose estimates of the past exposures and the type
of cancer that has been diagnosed.

Records within the files of the Department of Labor, and the
Department of Energy demonstrate that at the ElectroMet radiation doses
were either not monitored or there was very little monitoring done.

* With respect to ElectroMet, dose reconstruction would require extensive data
gathering and analysis which clearly is unavailable. The software used by
NIOSH in evaluating exposure could not have included any
specific characteristics of the monitoring procedures, if any, at ElectroMet.
The software did not include any evaluation of production processes and
safety procedures and the locations and activities of exposed employees at
ElectroMet. There would have to be conducted a variety of complex analysis
to understand any of the data, even if it was available from ElectroMet.

As an attorney, I have assisted several families who have filed
EEOICPA claims for survivor benefits on behalf of former employees of the
ElectroMet. The decisions I have reviewed from DOL are all claims for
ElectroMet employees wito have died of lung cancer. Claims for bladder
cancer and colon cancer have been denied. NIOSH must seek a new
method for evaluating radiation exposure at the ElectroMet since many
employees of ElectroMet have been diagnosed with the specific cancers
caused by exposure to radiation.

A USA Today article noted that the DOL and DOE have documents and
memos in their possession demonstrating that ElectroMet, (which processed
uranium from 1943 through 1952), radioactive dust levels often soared to
hundreds of times the prevailing safety limits. Did the NIOSH software
take this fact into consideration. Electromet failed to even vacuum work



USA TODAY Latest news

external radiation should not exceed values that wif! permit an
exposure of 0.3 rem/week to any part of the body except the epidermal
skin layer."

[10] Bernd Franke and Kevin Gurney, Estimates of Lung Burdens for
Workers at the Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, Ohio.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, July 1994,
Additional reports describing the methodology and theory are cited in
this document. The Fernald worker report was produced for the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed by the Fernald workers against
the contractor of the plant, National Lead of Ohio. The U.S.
Department of Energy (called the Atomic Energy Commission during
the decades immediately after World War II) owns the plant, which
was closed in 1989. The US government settled the lawsuit in 1994,
one week after the trial began, providing most of the workers with
medical monitoring as well as $15 million in compensation.

[11] International Commission on Radiological Protection. Limits for
Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, Annals of the ICRP, ICRP
Publication 30, Part 1, Vol 2, No. 3/4. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979,
p.9. The ICRP recommends 20 liters/minute, the value for "light
activity," as the default value in the absence of more precise
information.

{12} International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, Annals of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 60, Vol. 21, No. 1-
3. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991, p. 70.

{13] This information comes from an undated government
Memorandum, apparently generated by Oak Ridge circa 1958. It is
contained in the New York State Archives and is part of materials
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the State of New
York in preparation for a 1981 report by the New York State General
Assembly. The documents were obtained by the State from the
Environmental Protection Agency, which obtained the document in
1977-1978, The title of the page is Uranium History.

[14] Authority Review for the Former Simonds Saw and Steel Co.,
Lockport, New York. Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP), Aug. 9, 1984.

[15] According to the Uranium History, Simonds processed *
approximately 5.46 million pounds of uranitim per year in the time
period 1948-1952, Another document, Industrial Hygiene Survey of
Uranium rolling at Simonds Saw & Steel Co. by Charles E, Schumann,
Health and Safety Division, National Lead Company of Ohio,
February 5, 1953, describes the rolling procedures. Processing
approximately 300,000 pounds of uranium required 130 working hours
atid was done using two shifts of ten hours each. Therefore, processing
the annual throughput of 5.46 million pounds would require a total of
2400 hours per year. Assuming two shifts per day were always used
and a fifty week work-year, this would require approximately 24
working hours per week, We have rounded this estimate to one
significant figure and used 20‘hours per week in our calculations.

{!6] For example, one survey found that the alpha radiation
concentration in the funch area air was 1,410 dpm/m:? (20 times the

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 14 of 16

3/31/2008


USA TODAY Latest news

The results were checked against a simple calculation of the expected amount
of uranium in the urine of a hypothetical worker exposed to the level of
uranium in air that would be consistent with a lung dose of about 15 rem/yr,
The excretion in urine expected from exposure to this level and particular mix
of uranium would be about 10 micrograms per liter.{23] Urine data for six
individuals from Hatshaw are as follows[24]:

1 person: 17 micrograms per liter
2 persons: between 100 and 200 micrograms per liter
1 person; between 200 and 300 micrograms per liter

2 persons: more than 300 micrograms per liter.

These data are: consistent with our dose calculations made from uranium
concentrations prevalent in the plant and tend to support the hypothesis that
many workers were exposed to more than prevailing dose limits.

Harshaw documents also indicate that external gamma and beta doses, were
also high in some cases. Uranium emits x-rays, and the uranium decay
products include both beta and gamma emitters, leading to external radiation
exposures, Cumulative doses due to external beta-gamma radiation measured
with film badges were reported to be up 160 rep.[25] Further, thorium-234
and protactinium-234, are present in larger than usual concentrations in the
types of operations that took place at Harshaw. These two radionuclides give
rise to beta radiation exposures, We have not attempted within the scope of
this limited study to systematically quantify external exposures. However,
even a cursory review of Harshaw documents shows that for at least some
workers, these may have been high and that they would compound the
problems resulting from internal uranium exposure.

Finally, the manufacture of uranium hexafluoride involves the use of severely
toxic chemicals, including fluorine. Moreover, when uranium hexafluoride
makes contact with the humidity in air (which would be high in the Cleveland
area during at least some parts of the year), it readily combines with water
vapor to yield urany! fluoride and hydrofluoric acid. Hence, exposure to
uranium hexafluoride would also generally entail exposure to hydrofluoric
acid, which is highly toxic. . .

4, Electro-Metallurgical Co. (Electromet)

Uranium metal was fabricated at Electromet from uranium tetrafluoride (also
called "greetrsatt").[26] The process involves the mixing of green salt-with
magnesium metal flakes, and the insertion of the mixture into a furnace,
where the green salt is reduced to metal. Historically, the process was
typically troublesome, involving frequent blow-outs, especially under
conditions of production pressure that characterized the first two decades of
the nuclear cra, The uranium would typically be a mixture of moderately
soluble and insoluble compounds, with the former predominating, since green
salt belongs in this category. Electromet also conducted other operations
including thorium processing, which we are not addressing in this report.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/poison/uranium.htm

Page 9 of 16

3/31/2008


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

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

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3 A We have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation

‘deli
guidelines. AiTpekes VEA Gee ath

(Attach report to the oe ot the ae form .) Zz Zeer EE ities a E Libs ES EOE Seach

F4 0) We nk: at es AS a pind fic vor technical rort issued by’ Close aes agency raver the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

Go to Part G.

G Signature of Person(s) Submitting this Petition — Complete Section G.

All Petitioners -"~" A ninn ancl cinta thanctitinn A mavimim_of three Ww yy) sign the petition.
BEKie ~

C Date

Signature Date
Signature Date
Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

If there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.
The Appendix forms are located at the end of this document.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



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

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

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Petitioner 2

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this number will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled.

Use this Appendix for Petitioner 2.

This appendix form is to be used as needed. Petitioner 2, or his or her representative, should complete the
parts applicable to him or her.

Refer to the General Instructions on completing petitioner information for Parts A, B, or C.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

(An Energy Employee (current or former), Start at C
Start at B
Start atA

A Representative Information -- Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

If you are: |SxA Survivor (of a former Energy Employee),

(A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee),

A.1_ Are you a contact person for an organization? Q Yes (Go to A.2) OQ No (Go to A.3)

A.2_ Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person

A3 Nam- «f Detitinn Panracantativa: —_— ay) ~
Mr/iirs./Ms. First Name Middie Initial Last Name

A4 Address: -_ “4 - AL os
Stree* + _— Ant # - P.O. Box

City * State ~. 4 ZipCode

A.5 Telephone Number:
A6 Email Address:

A.7  @ Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization
form for this purpose is provided.

If you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: