THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201 

NOV O2 2018 

DearThank you for your request for an administrative review of the December 21, 2016, 

determination not to add a class ofemployees from the Blockson Chemical Company, Joliet, 

Illinois, to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC), established by the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOJCPA). 

Pursuant to 42 CFR § 83. l 8(b), and because you filed a challenge to this determination, 

a panel ofthree employees ofthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 

independent ofthe National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), was 

appointed to conduct an administrative review. The panel has now completed its review of your 

challenge.

After reviewing the administrative record in this case, the panel concluded that: (1) HHS 

complied with the regulatory procedures set out in 42 CFR part 83; (2) the Secretary's prior 

decision was supported by factually accurate information; and (3) there were no errors of fact or 

of omission in the principal findings and recommendations of NIOSH and the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health. In summary, the panel concluded that your challenge to the 

December 21, 2016, decision should not be sustained and it has recommended no change to that 

decision to deny adding a class of Blockson Chemical Company employees to the SEC. 

After review ofthe administrative review panel's thorough report, I have decided not to revise 

the December 21, 2016, final decision. I am enclosing a copy ofthe administrative review 

panel's final report, which I hope you find helpful. 

Sincerely, 

[Signature on File] 

Alex M. Azar II

Enclosure 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

October 4, 2018 

The Honorable Alex M. Azar II 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Department of Health and Human Services 

200 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20201 

RE: Blockson Chemical Company Petition SEC-00225 - Special Exposure Cohort 

Administrative Review Panel 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

BACKGROUND 

The Blockson Chemical Company (also known as Olin Mathieson, but referred to as Blockson 

hereunder) in Joliet, Illinois extracted and processed uranium from phosphate ores, beginning in 

the 1950s. Radiation exposure to workers at Blockson constituted conditions that could be 

considered as possible grounds for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). As described below, successive Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) petitions, SEC-00058 (which was merged with SEC-00045) and SEC00225, were submitted to the National Institute of Occupational Sfety and Health (NIOSH) for 

review of thexposure conditions and for consideration with respect to compensation under the 

EEOICPA. 

Petition SEC-00058 

Petition SEC-00058 sought the creation of an SEC that would include All Atomic Weapons 

Employer (AWE) workers at the Blockson Chemical Company from January 1, 1951, to 

December 31, 1962. The NIOSH Evaluation Report (ER) for SEC-00058 was issued in July 

2007. That evaluation was based on the assumption that uranium production at the Blockson 

Chemical site ended in March 1962. However, in March 2010, based on information regarding 

the Blockson uranium production and contract periods, the facility listing for Blockson was 

changed by the Department of Labor (DOL)1 and/or the Department of Energy to an exposure 

1 Document SRDB 146542, p. 4 (ofpdf). The designation references the date June 20, 1960; For the purposes ofthis 

recommendation, the Panel assumes that this was a typographical error, and the intended date was June 30, 1960. 

Note that citations throughout this report correspond to the names of electronic files in the NIOSH administrative 

record. 

2 Document SRDB 106641, p. 4 (ofpdt). 
period of March 1951 through June 30. 1960. See Blockson ER Final 090815, page 9. 

Based on its own technical evaluation, NIOSH recommended that internal dose reconstruction 

for members ofthe proposed class was feasible, thus negating the need for creation of an SEC. 

However, a majority of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) found 

it was not feasible to reconstruct radiation doses associated with exposure to radon gas and its 

short-lived progeny with sufficient accuracy for the period from March 1, 1951, to June 30, 1960. 

Subsequently, both the Board and NIOSH recommended the designation of an SEC and on 

September 3, 2010, as authorized by EEOICPA, 42 U.S.C. § 7384q, the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) at that time, Kathleen Sebelius, designated Blockson petition SEC00058 for addition to the SEC. See id. at pages 9-10; see also SRDB 146542. 

This designation was made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7384 in which a class may be designated 

for addition to the SEC if the Secretary determines, upon recommendation ofthe Board, that: (1) 

it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class received; 

and (2) there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation dose may have endangered the health of 

members of the class. The basis for the decision was the determination that it was not feasible to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses encountered by employees at Blockson 

during the specified time-period. See id. 

Blockson Petition SEC~00225 

On February 24, 2015, NIOSH received another SEC petition for the Blockson Chemical 

Company site and qualified the petition for further evaluation on May 5, 2015. The petition, 

SEC-00225, requested that NIOSH evaluate whether "All maintenance and operations personnel . 

who worked in any area at Blockson Chemical Co. in Joliet. Illinois, from July 1, 1960, through . 

December 31, 1991," should be added to the SEC. NIOSH determined that it could not 

differentiate doses received by different categories ofemployees, so it modified the petitionerrequested class to include all employees, i.e., "Allemployees who worked in any area at the 

. Blockson Chemical Co. site in Joliet. Illinois, during the period .from July 1, 1960, through 

December 31, l991." NIOSH determined through its research that it had access to sufficient 

monitoring records, process descriptions, and source-term data to estimate radiation doses to 

employees, thus negating the need and requirement to create an SEC. The Board confirmed their 

agreement with the NIOSH findings on October 20, 2016. See NIOSH OD Recommendation to 

HHS. 

On December 21, 2016, the Secretary of HHS at that time, Sylvia M. Burwell, determined that 

Blockson petition SEC-00225 did not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC. 

REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 

In a letter date-stamped by HHS on May 16, 2017, 

wrote to Ann ,----~=---..-.---.--.---..•--.,--..--.--........ Agnew, Executive Secretary to HHS, to discuss their earlier submitted request for an 

2 
administrative review of SEC-00225 and the fact that they subsequently learned their appeal had 

not been received in a timely matter for consideration. A copy of petitioners' appeal letter is 

attached. In their letter ofMay 16, the petitioners submitted evidence regarding the timely 

submission oftheir request for review. The request was deemed timely filed by HHS. 

The petitioners' appeal letter focused on two points: 1) the apparent failure of NIOSH and the 

Board to address the radioactive material and concomitant doses due to the continued presence of 

equipment as mentioned in the 1978 Fonnerly Utilized MED/EC Sites Remedial Action Program 

Radiological Survey ofthe site conducted by Argonne National Laboratories (ANL)3

, and 2) the 

actual date on which Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contract work at the facility ceased. 

Regarding the latter issue, which the Panel construed to be of primary importance, the petitioners 

wrote: "We still feel, at a minimum, considering the above facts, the SEC should be extended 

back to the original contract ending date of March 31, 1962." In effect, such an extension would 

increase the length of time of the exposure period from June 30, 1960, to March 31, 1962, thus 

allowing for the inclusion oftheir father into an SEC. 

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL 

In October 2017, pursuant to 42 CFR § 83. 18(b), the Secretary appointed a panel of three HHS 

personnel, independent of NIOSH, to conduct an administrative review and provide 

recommendations concerning the merits ofthe request and the resolution of the issues contested 

by the request. The undersigned, Steven L. Simon. PhD, Eric J. Bernhard, PhD, and James J. 

Cherniack, Certified Health Physicist, comprise that panel. Our collective expertise includes 

health physics, radiation exposure, radiation biology, dose assessment and dose reconstruction, 

radiation oncology, and radiation risk analysis. 

In conducting our review, pursuant to 42 CFR § 83.18(b), we examined the views and 

information submitted by the petitioner in the challenge, the NIOSH Evaluation Report, the 

report containing the recommendations of the Board, the recommendations of the Director of 

NIOSH to the Secretary, information presented or submitted to the Board, and the deliberations 

of the Board prior to the issuance of its recommendations. Since 42 CFR § 83.18(a) prohibits 

3 Document SRDB 23615. To address this issue, which the Panel interprets as not the main area of concern, the

Panel reviewed the evaluation report generated by NIOSH and found that the 1978 ANL survey was used to 

calculate the bounding doses to facility workers. See Blockson ER Final 090815, at pp. 17, 19-20, 23, 28, 30-32. In 

particular, see section 7.4.l ofthe ER (addressing "Equipment and Production Buildings Onsitc after Production 

Ended") which concludes: "For purposes of bounding exposure to AEC-rclated residues during the period under 

evaluation, the conservative assumption is made that all radiation measurements made in Building 55 arc assumed to 

indicate levels arising from residual radioactivity remaining from AEC operations." Id. at 33. In addition, the 

administrative record clearly shows that the 1978 ANL survey findings were presented to the Board by Dr. James 

Neton, Associate Director for Science, NIOSH, at the November 19, 2015 meeting of the Board. See 2015_11 _l 9 

Board transcript, at pp. 6-30; Blockson Chemical Co. SEC Presentation (November 2015, Oakland CA) (slides 13-

18). 

3 
petitioners from introducing any new information or documentation, our initial review was based 

entirely on the administrative record in this case, as described above. 

Pursuant to 42 CFR § 83.1 8(b), we considered whether HHS substantially complied with the 

regulatory procedures set out in 42 CFR part 83, and whether the Secretary's final decision was 

supported by accurate and factual information. We also reviewed the principal findings and 

recommendations of NIOSH and the Board. 

We believe that this Panel was broadly charged with conducting an administrative review of the 

Secretary's detennination not to add a class of Blockson employees to SEC-00225 for the period 

of July 1, 1960 I, 1960, through December 31, 1991, and the basis for that determination Implicit in the 

SEC-00225 determination, however, is that there was no active uranium extraction during that 

period and that exposure was only from constrained (unavailable and/or undisturbed) residual 

radioactivity in the facility. However, the Panel took under consideration what we believe was 

the petitioner's actual request (though stated in indefinite terms): In SEC-00225, change the 

defined time interval to be two adjacent periods, the first being a period of exposure due to AEC 

contract work for uranium extraction (July 1, 1960, to March 31, 1962) followed by a subsequent 

period (April 1, 1962, to December 31, 1991) when exposure was only due to constrained 

residual radioactivity. Based on our interpretation ofthe petitioners' letter, we defined our tasks 

to be two-fold: (i) review the finding of NIOSH and the Board that dose reconstruction for July 

l, 1960, through December 31, 1991, was feasible under the assumption that only exposure to 

constrained or undisturbed residual radioactivity was involved, and (ii) review the documentation 

that AEC contract activities had actually ceased by June 30, 1960, as well as documentation 

related to whether there was any unconstrained residual activity ( activity available for human 

exposure) still present at Blockson after July l, 1960. 

As part of what we we, the Panel, believed to be our charge, we conducted an extensive review and 

analysis of the administrative record documents provided to us in regard to the operating status 

ofthe uranium processing operations at Blockson between July 1, 1960 and March 31, 1962. In 

those documents, we found contradictory evidence and no confrnnation that operations had 

ceased. Consequently, on May 1, 2018, we preliminarily concluded that the Secretary had 

insufficient evidence that AEC operations had ceased at Blockson. 

In September 2018, we received a copy of a letter dated September 4, 2018, from Rachel P. 

Leiton, Director, Division ofEnergy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, Department 

of Labor (DOL) to Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Aalysis and 

Support, NIOSH, giving information previously unavailable to us. That letter elucidated that the 

Department of Labor has the sole legal authority, conferred by Executive Order 13179, § 2(a)(i), 

to make determinations regarding covered periods for work sites under EEOICPA. Moreover, the 

letter explained that the DOL had made the determination that uranium processing operations 

and, therefore, AEC activities at Blockson, had ceased by June 1960, based on an official AEC 

document located in a collection of Department of Energy historical records held in Grand 

4 
Junction, Colorado. This AEC document, which is a table entitled "Receipts of U308 from 

Phosphate and Other Miscellaneous Domestic Sources," was included as Exhibit C of 

petitioners' appeal letter, and also part ofthe administrative record (Document SRDB 40645). 

Validation ofthe source of thatable had not previously been available to us for review, 

nor had we been made aware of its official provenance. The lawful and final decision by 

the DOL that uranium operations had ceased during the period for which we had earlier 

determined there was no reliable documentation considerably changes the outcome of our 

analysis and our preliminary conclusions. 

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL CONCLUSIONS 

After thorough review of the administrative record documents provided, we, the Panel, have 

come to a final conclusion regarding the petitioners' main issue on appeat.4 

We agree with the determination that estimation of dose by the NIOSH is feasible for the period 

during which exposure only occurred from constrained residual activity. This is our primary 

conclusion. 

Because we were unaware of the provenance of the main evidence establishing the official 

period of uranium extraction operations, we considered recommending the addition to the SEC 

of a class of employees who worked at Blockson between July l, 1960, and March 31, 1962. 

Such a recommendation would have been based on the conclusion that it may not have been 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class of Blockson 

employees received during this time-period. However, in light of the information provided in the 

letter from DOL, this Panel no longer supports that contention. 

In summary, this Panel supports the NIOSH finding that dose reconstruction is feasible in the 

period defined in SEC-00225 under the strict assumption that exposure resulted only from 

constrained and undisturbed residual activity, which DOL concluded was the case in designating 

the operational and residual periods at Blockson. Consequently, because we believe dose 

reconstruction was feasible during this time, this Panel supports Secretary Burwell's prior 

decision to deny SEC status for the class ofemployees who worked at Blockson duringthe 

period July 1, 1960, to March 31, 1962, and we recommend that this prior decision be upheld. 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 

The findings and conclusions presented here are based on the Panel's review of the 

administrative record available to it, and on additional ininformation provided byDOL in 

September of this year to provide context to the record. 

Consequently, our main conclusions are: 

4 The Panel additionally concluded that the first issue raised by petitioners related to the 1978 ANL survey did not 

have merit. See supra, note 3. 

s 
1. HHS complied with the regulatory procedures set out in 42 CFR part 83; 

2. The Secretary's prior decision was supported by factually accurate information;

3. There were no errors of fact or of omission ithe principal findings and 

recommendations of NIOSH and the Board; 

4. The petitioners appeal, therefore, does not have merit. 

Respectfully submitted, 

[Signature on File] 

Steven L. Simon, PhD 

Staff Scientist 

Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics 

National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health 

[Signature on File] 

Eric J. Bernhard. PhD 

Chief, Radiotherapy Development Branch 

Radiation Research Program 

Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis 

National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health 

[Signature on File] 

James J. Chemiack, CHP 

Loser Safety Officer 

Engineering Branch 

Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center 

Office of Regulatory Affairs 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Attachments: 

Petitioners' Appeal Letter date-stamped May 16. 2017 (without exhibits) 

6 
. '

MAY 16 2017 

Request of Administrative Review-2017 

SEC-00225 

Dear Ann Agnew, 

Per my recent conversation with Janet East, please find attached, our original 

appeal for administrative review of SEC-00225 for Blockson Chemical -

___. We were told that the case was closed because we failed to file an 

appeal in the time required. However, we do have the letter from the U.S. Post 

Office attached indicating package as received on 1/23/2017. (a full week within 

the 30 day limit). The letter from the post office indicates it was signed for at 

11:06 am on 1/23/2017 and assigned a Firm Book ID label #5103-0SHJ8818-1756-

7334. 

I also spoke with Vanessa Jones and she could not tell where it was delivered. Vanessa also adv

Thank you in advance for your assistance,
REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - 2017 

SEC-00225 

We still have the following concernsthat were not addressed in our SEC petition for Blockson 

Chemical. 

1. The SEC petition was apparently considered due to residual contamination that would 

result from all equipmentstill being on siteas mentioned in 1978 Argonne study-See 

Exhibit B. This was also mentioned as part of the reason for SEC consideration in a letter 

from Congressman Bill Foster and from Congressman Adam Kinzinger to NlOSH - See 

Exhibit A. There was no mention made ofthe equipment still being on-site as of1978 by 

the Advisory Board and NIOSH during the Blockson SEC discussion. 

During the Advisory Board and NIOSH meeting the main topic ofdiscussion was the 

Gypsum Waste Pile on site. They all seemed to agree this was of little concern. They 

also said there was a very, very low level of contamination. barely above background 

level in approximately five locations at Blockson. This however seems to contradict the 

1978 Argonne Report that mentions over forty-seven hot spots and eleven other areas 

all clearly in excess of background levels -See Exhibit B. 

2. The one page document receipts of U308 was the sole report that was relied on to 

change Blockson ending date from 1962 to 1960, even though the first ten years of dose 

reconstructions were based on data indicating a contract end date of 1962. (This

shortened the coverage period by twenty-one months.) See exhibit C. 

Reports indicate that either party could terminate contract early, with written notice. So 

far no one has been able to provide a copy of the written notice ofrequest for early 

termination by Blockson. We have also not seen any documents supporting a contract 

end date of 1960, other than in this one page unsupported document of unknown 

origin. This one page document was considered precise and above reproach by D.O.L 

and D.O.E and·was also considered official written notice of early termination by Rachel 

Leiton, Director D.O.L 

However, we have found a 6 page report with a cover letter from US Atomic Energy 

Commission dated 1955 that seems to contradict certain items in the one page "precise

and above reproach" U308 Report. This 6 page report indicates apparent errors in the 

one page U308 Report-See Exhibit D. 

Briefly the errors are as follows and are highlighted in yellow on both reports: 

The one page report indicates production for Texas City ln March 1954, however 

all production ended in 1953, with a total of only three months of production and only 

300-400 lbs of U308 produced according to the 6 page report. The Texas City SEC even 
extended the production coverage period another twenty-one months beyond this 

date, (September 30, 1955), even though nothing was produced during leach zone 

studies. This does notseem to fit the definition of Atomic Weapons Employer as 

applied to Blockson - See Exhibit F 

The one page report indicates International Mining and Chemical produced 853 lbs of 

U308 in FY 1954, which was actually 6,242 lbs per6 page report. The one page report 

also indicates none was produced in FV 1955; which was actually 5,880 lbs produced per 

6 page report. If any part of the one page document ofunknown origin is incorrect, the 

accuracy of the entire document is questionable. 

Ombudsman Malcom Nelson D.O.L in a 2014 email response to our concerns also 

questioned the reliance of the one, one page report, stating it would be hard to imagine 

DEEOIC crediting such evidence if it were submitted by a claimant. See Exhibit E. 

We still feel, at a minimum, considering the above facts, the SEC should be extended back to 

the original contract ending date of march 31, 1962. 

. : :·~· ···~ . ·, ..;,~ -

..v....,·. . . ~·~:.~tti