FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph and Subject Date Trans. No. 

Chapter 2-0700 Establishing Toxic Substance Exposure 

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

1 Purpose and Scope. . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

2 Rules for Establishing Exposure. 11-15 16-01

3 Sources of Evidence. . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 4 Document Acquisition Request . . 11-15 16-01

 5 Requesting the DAR . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 6 Completion of DAR. . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 7 DOE Remediation Employment . . . 11-15 16-01

 8 Site Exposure Matrices (SEM). . 11-15 16-01

 9 SEM Policy and Management. . . . 11-15 16-01

 10 SEM Searches . . . . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 11 SEM Inquiries. . . . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 12 National Office Specialist Review. . 11-15 16-01

Exhibits 

 1 DAR Cover Letter . . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 2 DAR Questionnaire. . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

 3 Establishing Causation for Asbestosis 

And Hearing Loss. . . . . . . . . . . 11-15 16-01

EEOICPA Tr. No. 16-01 i 

November 2015 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

1. Purpose and Scope. This chapter describes the 

procedures that the Division of Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) uses to 

establish toxic substance exposure under Part E of the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act (EEOICPA). 

These procedures outline means to develop for exposure to 

toxic substances at a covered Department of Energy (DOE) 

and Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Section 5 

facility. In particular, the chapter addresses the Site 

Exposure Matrices (SEM) and guidance for its use and 

explains required actions when SEM data is lacking or 

incomplete. 

2. Rules for Establishing Exposure. To establish that an 

employee was exposed to a toxic substance, the evidence of 

file must show evidence of potential or plausible exposure 

to a toxic substance and evidence of covered DOE 

contractor/subcontractor or uranium employment at a covered 

DOE/RECA facility during a covered time period. 

a. Documentation. Exposure to a toxic substance can 

be established by the submission of probative 

documentation that shows such substance was present at 

the facility where the employee worked, that there was 

a reasonable likelihood for employee exposure, and 

that the employee came into contact with such 

substance. 

b. Presence and Contact. Whenever possible, the 

claims examiner (CE) considers such issues as whether 

the substance was present, not only in the facility, 

but in the specific building(s) and/or areas where the 

employee worked, and whether the substance was used 

during the processes involved as part of the 

employee’s job duties and exposure routes (e.g., a 

welder exposed to fumes). The SEM (discussed below) 

will be especially helpful in evaluating for the 

presence of a toxic substance in a certain 

building/area/work process. 

(1) Presence of toxic substance. The CE may 

look to the SEM, facility exposure records, Data 

Acquisition Request (DAR) records, the 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Occupational History Questionnaire (OHQ), 

employee records, verified affidavits, DOE Former 

Worker Program (FWP) screening records, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) site profiles, employee submitted 

evidence, and other evidence that establishes a 

toxic substance was present at the facility where 

the employee worked. The CE may also use 

Industrial Hygienist (IH) referrals as discussed 

below. 

(2) Employee contact with a toxic substance. 

The CE’s review of the evidence described above 

may be sufficient to establish that the employee 

came in contact with the toxic substance. 

Information such as the claimant’s response to 

the OHQ performed by the Resource Center (RC), 

reviewed in conjunction with DAR records and the 

SEM, may help the CE decide what further 

development may be necessary (e.g., to determine 

whether contact was likely given the employee’s 

labor category, labor process, or given safety 

controls or risk factors that may have been 

present at the worksite). 

(3) Plausibility. When evaluating the evidence 

to determine whether a toxic substance was 

potentially present at a given facility (by 

building, area, work process, labor category) and 

whether it is likely that an employee came into 

contact with a toxic substance in the course of 

employment at a covered facility, the CE must 

determine whether such contact is plausible. 

To do so, the CE must review all evidence on file 

and decide whether it makes sense that the 

claimed exposure could have potentially occurred. 

Sometimes this evaluation will require a referral 

to an IH. 

For example, if an employee is claiming lung 

cancer due to exposure to uranium metal 

maintained exclusively in a glove box (an 

enclosure to protect the worker from uranium 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

exposure), the CE must examine whether or not an 

exposure route is plausible. 

Without evidence that the employee was involved 

in machining uranium or cleaning out the glove 

box, or that he or she was exposed in some other 

way such as a leak in the glove box, no exposure 

route (inhalation which would potentially be 

linked to lung cancer) is plausible. 

(4) Sample Evaluation of Presence and Contact. 

A chemical operator involved in cascade 

operations at K-25 claims peripheral neuropathy. 

His responses to the OHQ show he worked with a 

variety of toxic substances on a routine basis, 

including mercury. Information obtained through 

the DAR records confirms his worksite (K-33), 

which is located within K-25, and job duties. 

The CE searches SEM (see paragraph 10 below) and 

confirms the presence of mercury at the K-33 

cascade building. Further, SEM supports a link 

between mercury and peripheral neuropathy. A 

physician’s report indicates a diagnosis of 

peripheral neuropathy and mentions that the 

employee has had tingling in his arms for 

approximately a year. An accident report notes a 

major mercury spill during the time in which the 

claimant worked at K-33. 

The evidence is sufficient to establish that the 

employee had peripheral neuropathy and potential 

exposure to mercury in the course of his 

employment at a covered DOE facility. The 

mercury spill accident report lends support to 

the finding that it is plausible, given the 

facts, to assume that the claimant encountered an 

occupational exposure to a toxic substance in the 

course of his work. 

Any question as to route of exposure (e.g., 

inhalation, absorption), even if presence is 

established, should be referred to an IH, as 

outlined in paragraph 12 below. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

 c. Burden of Proof. If no medical evidence is 

submitted that would lend support to a connection 

between the claimed condition and potential exposure 

to a toxic substance (and no such evidence is 

available from the sources referenced in the previous 

section), the CE requests such evidence from the 

claimant before issuing a denial. While the CE must 

exhaust all reasonable development prior to issuing a 

denial, the claimant does bear the overall burden of 

proving his or her claim. 

d. Causation Test for Toxic Exposure. The CE must 

develop the requisite employment and exposure evidence 

to render a causation determination. Specific 

causation requirements for cancer and other conditions 

are outlined in other chapters. In general, the CE 

develops the evidence on file and a determination is 

made based upon the “at least as likely as not” 

causation test. 

While resources are provided to assist the CE, there 

is no simple one-step tool for making this 

determination. Instead, the CE must base the 

determination on the totality of evidence in the case 

file. The CE does not use studies or reports obtained 

from the Internet or other sources to justify case 

decisions, unless the National Office (NO) has 

specifically authorized such usage. In addition, the 

CE may not base a decision on a vague reference to 

“medical literature.” 

(1) Causation Test for Toxic Exposure. Evidence 

must establish a relationship between exposure to 

a toxic substance and an employee’s illness or 

death. The evidence must show that it is “at 

least as likely as not” that such exposure at a 

covered DOE/RECA facility during a covered time 

period was a significant factor in aggravating, 

contributing to, or causing the employee’s 

illness or death, and that it is “at least as 

likely as not” that exposure to a toxic 

substance(s) was related to employment at a 

covered DOE/RECA facility. 

(2) “At Least as Likely as Not.” Part E only 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

requires proof that established exposure “at 

least as likely as not” was a significant factor

in aggravating, contributing to or causing the 

employee’s illness, disease or death. As with 

Part B, “at least as likely as not” means 50% or 

greater likelihood. 

When a referral to NIOSH for a cancer claim 

related to radiation results in a probability of 

causation of greater than or equal to 50%, the 

regulations provide that this requirement has 

been met. In other cases the CE bases a 

determination on a review of the evidence of file 

as a whole, to determine if the “at least as 

likely as not” standard has been met. The CE 

weighs all of the evidence available and provides 

a clearly written rationale supporting his or her 

findings in the recommended decision. 

(3) Significant factor. The CE evaluates the 

evidence as a whole when attempting to determine 

whether or not exposure to a toxic substance was 

indeed a significant factor in contributing to, 

aggravating, or causing the claimed illness or 

death of the employee. In most instances this 

evaluation will be done on a case-by-case basis. 

In some cases a Contract Medical Consultant (CMC) 

evaluation will be necessary. The CE looks at 

the claimed exposure, the presence of such 

exposure, the duration of the verified 

employment, and any other important 

exposure/employment factors when ascertaining the 

possible role the toxic substance exposure played 

in the onset of the covered illness. 

e. Using SEM to Evaluate Causation in General. The 

SEM is not used to establish or deny causation by 

itself, but is used as a tool to assist in the 

evaluation of causation in light of the evidence as a 

whole. The purpose of this searchable database is 

twofold. First, the database details many possible 

toxic substances that may have been present at a given 

facility. Second, the database describes the 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

relationship between a specific toxic substance and a 

covered illness. 

The CE reviews the database to assist in a 

determination of whether the claimed toxic substance 

was present at the facility where employment occurred 

and whether or not a relationship exists between 

exposure to a toxic substance and a particular covered 

illness. However, the database does not serve as a 

comprehensive list of all potential toxic substances 

that could be present at a facility, and the CE must 

confirm additional claimed toxic substances through 

employment records, DAR records, DOE FWP records, and 

other means. If the CE cannot confirm the presence of 

a toxic substance through these sources, the claimant 

should be notified and given an opportunity to present 

additional evidence that establishes the presence of 

such a toxic substance. Finally, once the CE 

completes all reasonable development and carefully 

weighs the evidence on the whole, including the SEM 

findings, the CE must determine whether or not a 

referral is needed to a CMC or Industrial 

Hygienist/Toxicologist to further evaluate causation. 

Procedures for this and other actions are outlined 

below. 

f. DOE Physician Panels. Cases with positive DOE 

physician panel findings approved by DOE (signed by a 

DOE official) under the old Part D are accepted for 

causation on the basis of those findings for all 

conditions claimed under Part E that were approved by 

the panel. The CE uses the DOE physician panel 

finding as the basis for the decision and no further 

development for causation is required. 

If the positive physician panel decision is not 

approved by DOE (not signed by a DOE official) it is 

not an approved finding, however, unsigned reports 

still may contain useful information for causation 

development such as medical and exposure evidence that 

might prove useful in reaching a causation decision 

based upon all of the other evidence of file. The CE 

reviews negative panel reports like any other piece of 

medical evidence in light of the weight of the 

evidence of file as a whole. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

g. Evidentiary Requirements for Survivor Claims. 

The CE uses any and all of the medical evidence of 

file in order to develop for causation in a survivor 

claim. Not only must the evidence of file establish 

that it is at least as like as not that toxic exposure 

caused, contributed to, or aggravated a covered 

illness, the evidence must also establish that the 

covered illness caused or contributed to the death of 

the covered employee. 

h. Developing for Toxic Substance Exposure. When 

developing Part E cases the CE uses established 

development techniques in addition to certain other 

steps unique to the Part E adjudication process. The 

Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) develops medical 

conditions and employment where possible to avoid 

issuing a remand order for further development if such 

development can be conducted at the FAB with little 

additional effort. 

(1) Development Using Existing Case File 

Materials. In many instances, a Part E claim has 

a corresponding Part B and/or D case file already 

in existence. When an existing Part B and/or D 

case file exists, the CE examines the case file 

materials for medical, employment, and exposure 

evidence to assist in the causation development 

process. 

Under Part D, DOE collected exposure and 

employment data through DARs. The CE must 

examine all existing Part D case file material 

for DAR records and review all documentation 

presented with the new Part E claim filing and 

any corresponding Part B or D case file to render 

a causation determination. A filing under Part D 

is automatically considered a filing under Part 

E, without a requirement for the filing of 

another claim form. 

(2) A General Rule about Reasonable 

Development. Given the complex nature of claim 

file development under Part E, it is necessary 

for the CE to judiciously determine whether or 

not the facts warrant issuing a decision or 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

whether additional development is necessary. As 

a general rule, the CE utilizes the tools 

outlined in this chapter to the fullest extent 

possible and issues a decision once all 

development avenues have been reasonably 

explored. While the CE issues decisions 

accepting claims for benefits as soon as the 

evidence support an acceptance and all statutory 

criteria are met, denial situations must be 

heavily weighed and decisions issued only when 

additional development is unlikely to produce the 

evidence needed to reach a decision. In essence, 

the CE evaluates all of the evidence of file to 

determine whether or not it is plausible that, 

given the evidence at hand, the claimed illness 

arose out of the claimed occupational exposure to 

a toxic substance at a covered facility.

When attempting to determine whether or not 

sufficient development has been conducted, the CE 

can look to the claimed condition and the 

evidence at hand to make an informed 

determination. If the claimed condition is 

generally a condition that arises out of 

occupational exposure, it is incumbent upon the 

CE to pursue additional development whenever 

possible. However, if the condition is one that 

is unlikely to be caused by occupational 

exposure, the CE can be more certain that 

additional development might not be necessary and 

a decision can be issued. 

(3) Example. If the claimed illness is chronic 

silicosis, chronic beryllium disease (CBD), 

asbestosis, or another condition known to arise 

almost exclusively out of occupational exposure, 

but the evidence is not sufficient to accept the 

claim, the CE refrains from issuing a denial if 

additional development might establish the 

employee’s claim for benefits. 

However, if the claimed illness is heart disease, 

diabetes, arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, or 

another disease that often is caused by nonoccupational risk factors, the CE can send a 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

development letter and allow the claimant an 

opportunity to present evidence. If no evidence 

is received, the CE may issue a decision after 

weighing the evidence as a whole and determining 

that no causal link exists between the claimed 

illness and the covered Part E employment. 

3. Sources of Evidence. Establishing exposure to a toxic 

substance is a key element in developing claims filed under 

Part E. Developing for such exposure can be complex, and 

many tools are available to assist the CE in this endeavor. 

a. DAR records, which are obtained from DOE, contain 

a wealth of employment and exposure evidence. They 

contain a mixture of employment, medical, and exposure 

evidence. The CE prepares a DAR to DOE pursuant to 

the guidance in paragraphs 5 and 6 below. If the site 

information contained in SEM is reasonably complete 

and sufficient to establish the claimed exposure, no 

further exposure information should be sought from DOE 

through a DAR. The DAR can be used to obtain specific 

information if a claimant is alleging an incident that 

might not have been captured in SEM. 

b. The DOE Former Worker Program (FWP) is an ongoing 

effort to evaluate the effects of occupational 

exposures (e.g., to beryllium, asbestos, silica) on 

the health of DOE workers. These records contain 

employment, medical, and exposure data. Exposure 

information obtained from FWP work history interviews 

taken after the enactment of the EEOICPA, in October 

2000, should be used only when corroborated by other 

evidence that supports the claimed exposure (i.e., DAR 

information, SEM). 

c. The Center for Construction Research and Training 

(CPWR) can provide data for use in verifying 

contractor/subcontractor employment and exposure. 

d. Employment and exposure evidence from the 

claimant or other sources, such as verified 

affidavits, facility records, is weighed along with 

SUPERSEDED

the evidence as the whole. 
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

e. The SEM (see paragraph 8 below) provides sitespecific exposure information, information about toxic 

substances and employment processes at a given site, 

and some limited information concerning potential 

adverse health effects produced by exposure to certain 

toxic substances. 

f. DOE Physician Panel findings are also a source of 

employment, medical, and exposure information. 

g. Occupational History Questionnaire (OHQ) data 

obtained by the RC staff document the workplace 

exposure experienced by an employee. The OHQ is used 

as a piece of evidence to be evaluated along with the 

evidence of the file as a whole. 

4. Document Acquisition Request. The DAR is the process 

by which the DO gathers DOE work records on a specified 

employee. The CE reviews the case file before deciding 

which documentation to request from the DOE on the DAR 

Questionnaire. The CE must carefully consider the specific 

data needs for the individual case. Information received 

in response to the DAR may vary from site to site, but will 

contain some or all of the following information: 

 a. Radiological Dose Records. These documents are 

radiation exposure records based on readings from 

dosimetry badges or similar personal recording 

devices. They are generally taken at regular 

intervals over the employee’s employment. 

 b. Incident or Accident Reports. Any abnormal 

incidents or large plant accidental substance releases 

affecting the employee are documented in these types 

of documents.

c. Industrial Hygiene or Safety Records. Documents 

in these categories could contain periodic inspection 

reports for health and safety purposes. 

d. Pay and Salary Records. These documents include 

an employee’s pay, salary, any workers’ compensation 

SUPERSEDED

claim or other documents affecting wages. 
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Examples of records from the DOE database could 

include, but are not limited, to Official Personnel 

Files of Contractor Employees, Contractor Job 

Classification, Employee Awards Files, Notification of 

Personnel Actions, Classification Appraisals, Wage 

Survey Files, and Unemployment Compensation records. 

The CE generally does not need these types of 

documents unless wage loss is either being claimed by 

the claimant or a wage-loss claim is obvious to the CE 

from the case file. 

e. Job Descriptions. These are descriptions of the 

various employment positions at the plant and the 

duties required to perform the job. 

f. Medical Records. These include personal medical 

histories of the employee if that employee visited the 

plant infirmary (e.g., Health Unit Control Files, 

Employee Medical Folder). 

g. Other. This category includes any other 

documentation needed on a case-specific basis which 

does not fit into any of the other six categories. If 

this category is checked and a specific request is 

listed by the CE, DOE personnel may contact the DOL CE 

for clarification of the request. 

5. Requesting the DAR. After reviewing the case file, 

including the OHQ from the RC, the CE requests the DAR 

information. This is done concurrently with FWP 

development. The process for collecting the information 

differs slightly depending on whether DOE or a corporate 

verifier (CV) is receiving the DAR. The CE must also 

review SEM to determine what exposure information already 

has been assembled from DOE records and other sources. If 

exposure information necessary to develop the claim already 

exists in SEM, the CE does not request such information in 

the DAR. 

a. DAR Point of Contact (PoC) List. This list can 

be found on the NO shared drive and is divided into 

two sections: DOE DAR PoC and No Known Contact. Each 

District Director (DD) is responsible for updating and 

maintaining these records. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

The DOE DAR PoC is similar to the current DOE 

Operations Center PoCs for employment verification. 

There are some differences, however, so the CE must 

use this list when requesting DAR documentation 

directly from the DOE. A DAR Cover Letter and DAR 

Questionnaire are sent only to a DOE DAR PoC. 

b. Sites With No Known DAR PoC. For these sites, 

the CE undertakes alternate exposure development. 

Since no known contact exists, a DAR Questionnaire is 

not used. 

6. Completion of DAR. When appropriate, the CE completes 

a DAR Cover Letter and Questionnaire asking for toxic 

exposure evidence. If a particular DOE site does not have 

the ability to scan and submit documentation digitally on a 

CD, the DOE submits paper documents. 

a. Package to DOE. The package includes a cover 

letter (Exhibit 1) addressed to the DOE PoC, DAR 

Questionnaire (Exhibit 2) completed by the CE, and 

copies of Forms EE-1/EE-2 and EE-3. 

(1) The CE prints or types the identifying 

information of the employee in Blocks 1 and 2 of 

the DAR. The CE annotates any maiden names in 

Block 1. 

(2) The CE indicates the DOE facility on Form 

EE-3 in Block 3 of the DAR and any employer name 

information in Block 4. If the claimant 

indicates on Form EE-3 that he or she worked for 

multiple subcontractors at the same DOE facility, 

the CE completes a separate DAR Questionnaire for 

each subcontractor. This process helps 

distinguish between contractors or subcontractors 

for which DOE has records and those for which it 

does not. 

Similarly, if the claimant claims multiple DOE 

sites on Form EE-3, the CE completes a separate 

DAR for each DOE site, as the DAR PoC may be 

SUPERSEDED

different. 
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

(3) After reviewing the case file, the CE 

requests the records that are relevant to the 

case by checking the appropriate box(es) in Block 

5, “Types of Records Being Requested.” 

(4) If the CE has a specific question(s) that 

needs to be addressed which is not covered in the 

broader categories listed on the DAR request, the 

CE completes the “Site Specific Exposure 

Questions” section of the Questionnaire. The CE 

considers the condition(s) claimed as well as any 

specific alleged exposures. 

For example, if the claim is for aplastic anemia, 

the CE may want to ask DOE if and when arsenic or 

benzene was used in a particular building at the 

site during a particular timeframe. 

b. DAR Response. When DOE’s response is received, 

the CE documents receipt of the DAR in ECS. 

(1) DOE will have collected the documents 

requested in Block 5. The DOE checks the 

corresponding box in Block 6 immediately to the 

right of the requested category, either “Included 

on CD” or “Unavailable”, depending on whether the 

DOE has any records related to that particular 

set of records. “Included on CD” also includes 

hard copy documentation in the event the DOE 

facility does not have imaging capability. 

(2) Also, DOE will respond to any site-specific 

exposure questions posed by the CE in Block 8, 

confirming the exposure, denying the possibility 

of exposure, or indicating there is insufficient 

evidence to answer the question accurately. The 

DOE may attach a piece of evidence to the DAR 

which particularly answers a site-specific 

question or otherwise clarifies the DOE response 

to the question. In these instances, the DOE 

also checks the “SUP” or supplemental box 

signaling the special response.

(3) Once the DAR response is received, the CE 

reviews both the questionnaire and the contents 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

of the CD to confirm that all requested documents 

have been received and that the specific 

questions about exposure have been adequately 

answered. Any documents identified on the CD as 

material to the claim must be printed and placed 

in the case file. 

c. Follow-up with DOE. If DOE does not respond to 

the RC’s initial employment verification request or 

the DAR questionnaire, the CE contacts the DOE to 

determine the status of the request. 

(1) The DOE is given 30 days to respond to the 

request (Form EE-5 or DAR). If the DOE does not 

respond within that time, the CE drafts an 

inquiry to the DOE, noting the date of the 

initial request and asking the DOE to respond as 

soon as possible. The CE provides his or her 

contact information so that the DOE can quickly 

respond. 

7. DOE Remediation Employment. Since Part E provides 

coverage for DOE contractor/subcontractor employees and 

their eligible survivors, a claimant alleging DOE 

contractor/subcontractor employment due to remediation must 

prove that a contract/subcontract in fact did exist between 

the claimed employer and DOE/DOE contractor to conduct 

remediation activities for DOE at the facility in question 

during the time when DOE was conducting remediation. When 

developing for exposure in a remediation case, the CE 

should follow the same steps as is used to develop for DOE 

contractors and subcontractors. 

8. Site Exposure Matrices (SEM). The SEM is a web-based 

tool designed to assist the CE in developing for exposure 

to a toxic substance. The SEM identifies the toxic 

substances that were commonly used in each DOE and RECA 

Section 5 facility, and contains two general categories of 

information that may be searched: chemical profiles and 

site-specific information tailored to the covered facility 

or site. 

Under no circumstances is SEM used as a stand alone tool to 

deny a claim. Information in SEM can sometimes be used in 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

conjunction with other supporting case file evidence to 

approve a claim. 

a. Site-Specific Data. For a given covered facility 

or site, SEM provides information about the nature and 

location of work processes performed (e.g., fuel 

separation, instrument maintenance, or welding); the 

work groups involved (e.g., first line supervisor, 

instrument mechanic, or welder); the toxic substances 

used (e.g., plutonium nitrate, arsenic, or mercury); 

and site-specific aliases and potential exposure 

information about work processes, work groups, toxic 

substances, buildings, and areas. 

b. Potential Nature of Exposure. Data from SEM is 

interpreted to mean that a worker had a potential for 

exposure to a toxic substance. The CE must review the 

information yielded from DAR responses, DOE FWP 

records searches, and the OHQ to hone the SEM search. 

c. Employment Data. The CE must obtain as much 

background as possible to determine the type of work 

or process the employee performed, the dates of such 

work or process, the building(s) or area(s) involved, 

and the toxic substance(s) alleged to have been 

present to determine through SEM the type of chemicals 

an employee could potentially have been exposed to 

while working in a particular building and/or 

performing a certain job or process. This information 

can be gathered from the OHQ, DAR, EE-5, or other 

sources. 

d. Validity of SEM. All information in SEM is 

considered valid and factual. The toxic substance, 

work process, and facility information in SEM is 

deemed verified by DOE or other sources, and if a 

certain toxic substance is listed as present in a 

given building or facility, the data is accepted as 

fact and no additional confirmation from DOE or any 

other source is necessary. 

e. Additions to SEM. The database is continually 

updated and does not contain 100% of the toxic 

substances potentially present at a given facility. 

As a result, simply because certain information is 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

absent from SEM does not warrant a claim denial and 

also does not warrant delaying adjudication until such 

information might be included in SEM. The CE conducts 

reasonable development by reviewing the evidence as a 

whole and issues decisions once such development 

allows the CE to adjudicate a claim. 

9. SEM Policy and Management. The following paragraphs 

provide a basic outline of SEM and its use as a 

developmental tool. See the “Site Exposure Matrices 

Website User Reference Guide” (available on the Shared 

Drive, Part E folder, SEM subfolder, or accessed through 

the SEM menu) for complete and detailed instructions as to 

the use of SEM. 

 a. Policy. SEM is used as a tool to assist the CE 

in evaluating the evidence as a whole to determine the 

existence of a causal link between covered 

 employment, exposure to a toxic substance during 

such covered employment, and a resultant illness 

arising out of such exposure. 

As noted above, in certain cases it will be possible 

to accept a claim based upon the information contained 

in SEM if such information can be coupled with 

approved policy guidance as outlined below. 

Under no circumstances is a claim for benefits denied 

solely due to a lack of information contained in SEM, 

because the data for each facility will never be 100% 

complete. 

b. Management of SEM at NO. A NO SEM Point of 

Contact (PoC) manages all issues arising out of SEM 

usage. Implementation questions, requests for 

access/denial of access to SEM, and any new evidence 

that might warrant inclusion into SEM are forwarded to 

the NO SEM PoC. 

(1) The NO SEM PoC has a counterpart in the DO 

SEM PoC, who, the DD appoints to interact with 

the NO. 

When evidence of an exposure not listed in SEM is 

verified or strongly alleged (supported by 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

documentation) at a facility, the DO SEM PoC 

prepares a memorandum to the NO SEM PoC (for 

signature by the DD or designee) requesting IH 

review for possible inclusion of the toxic 

substance in SEM. All associated evidence of the 

presence of the toxic substance is attached to 

the memorandum. 

The NO SEM PoC will review the evidence with the 

NO IH and other NO staff (i.e., Medical Director, 

Toxicologist, and Health Physicists) to determine 

whether the evidence should be included in SEM. 

If so, the NO PoC advises the Web Site 

Administrator or appropriate individual to add 

the information to the database. 

 In general, the DO SEM PoC interacts with the NO 

 SEM PoC on all issues arising out of SEM 

 operations. 

(2) The DO SEM PoC obtains SEM access for DO 

staff by e-mailing the NO SEM PoC with a request 

that a staff member be granted access to the 

system and providing the employee’s name, job 

title, and e-mail address. After review, the NO 

SEM PoC advises the Web Site Administrator by email to grant access to the individual in 

question. 

The Web Site Administrator contacts all 

individuals with newly granted access through email, providing access information such as a user 

name and a temporary password. 

(3) Access is disabled when an employee resigns 

or is terminated. The DO SEM PoC provides an email to the NO SEM PoC with the name of the 

employee whose access is being disabled and the 

precise date upon which access must be denied. 

The NO SEM PoC e-mails the Web Site Administrator 

requesting that the access be disabled on the 

requested date, and access is terminated. Due to 

the sensitive nature of the information housed in 

SEM, it is important that the DO SEM PoC notify 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

the NO SEM PoC of the need to disable an account 

within 7 days of an employee’s departure. 

c. Additions to SEM. DEEOIC encourages claimants 

and other interested parties to submit new siterelated scientific research, studies, or information 

concerning the presence of toxic substances at covered 

facilities for evaluation and possible inclusion in 

SEM. The SEM website at https://dol-sem.com/Login.cfm

contains a link for individuals to provide comments or 

documentation of toxic substance use at a particular 

facility. 

10. SEM Searches. The CE reviews all evidence of file to 

properly craft his or her SEM query. The CE reviews 

employment evidence for job description and facility. Also, 

employment and exposure evidence in the case file (e.g., 

facility records, DAR records, OHQ responses, NIOSH/PHS/DOJ 

data about RECA claims) is reviewed to determine as best as 

possible exactly where the employee worked and what 

processes or toxic substances were used in the building or 

area in which the employee worked. In order to effectuate a 

thorough and proper search, it is necessary for the CE to 

develop SEM queries from multiple criteria, including: labor 

category; process; and health effect. While labor category 

is the preferred field to begin a search, it is not the only 

field that should be investigated. 

a. Data Fields. Various fields in SEM hold an array 

of valuable data viewable by site: the number of toxic 

substances present (with information about each 

substance); health effects or diseases known to be 

associated with a toxic substance; site history; 

buildings; processes; labor categories; known 

incidents; and exposure factors. 

All fields contain references to the document utilized 

by SEM to provide the given information. The CE 

navigates the search fields based upon the known 

evidence of file, triangulating on the necessary 

information required to assist in the development and 

determination of causation. 

A search based upon facility-wide information (e.g., 

all toxic substances known to have been present at the 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Nevada Test Site) generally will not be specific 

enough without other qualifiers such as work category 

and/or work process, and may not produce usable 

information for a causation determination. 

At a minimum, especially when searching DOE sites, the 

CE establishes the employee’s job category, work 

process, and/or building/area or employment before 

performing a SEM search. The more information a CE has 

about an employee’s occupational history when 

searching SEM, the more likely it is that the SEM 

search will prove useful in helping the CE determine 

causation. 

b. Searches of Universal Information. This set of 

fields contains the most recent scientifically based 

evidence about toxic substances and their relation to 

illnesses. The occupational disease links in SEM are 

imported from the widely accepted and well 

rationalized medical science database called Haz-Map, 

a database of the National Library of Medicine NLM). 

While the NLM database, Haz-Map, is often utilized in 

other circumstances as a resource, the CE must never 

use Haz-Map as a development or adjudicatory tool. 

Only SEM is acceptable for use in case file 

development and adjudication. It is unacceptable to 

base a decision, particularly a remand order, on any 

information contained in Haz-Map beyond the 

established links populated directly into SEM. HazMap serves many purposes for the public and medical 

professional fields and will often cite suggestive 

research that it has not accepted as a basis for 

finding a demonstrable link between a given substance 

and an occupational illness. 

(1) The “Toxic Substance Information” field is 

useful when the evidence indicates the toxic 

substance(s) to which the claimant was 

potentially exposed. When a toxic substance is 

selected, SEM provides a “chemical profile” of 

the substance, including its Chemical Abstracts 

Service (CAS) number, which identifies the 

chemical, aliases for the substance name, 

chemical and physical properties (e.g., liquid or 

gas, odor, and color), and health hazard ratings 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

assigned by sources routinely used by industrial 

hygienists to evaluate workplace substances. 

(2) The “Toxic Substance by Alias or Property” 

field is used to find a toxic substance using an 

unofficial name, or by a physical or chemical 

property. Using this link allows the CE to find 

the identity of toxic substances by keying in 

part or all of the name, unofficial name (alias), 

or description of a toxic substance using a 

physical or chemical property. The result may be 

no match, one match, or multiple matches. For 

example, searching for “yellow” will return a 

list which includes uranium dioxide, and 

searching for “yellowcake” will return a shorter 

list which still includes uranium dioxide. 

(3) The “Toxic Substance by Chemical Category” 

field is used to find a toxic substance by 

category, such as gases or metals. If the 

claimant is not specific about the substance to 

which he or she was exposed, but describes it in 

general terms, this link will allow the CE to 

review a list of substances to which the employee 

may have potentially been exposed. After 

selecting a chemical category from the drop down 

menu (gases, metals, acids, etc.), a listing of 

all toxic substances within that category at the 

site is shown. 

Example: The CE knows that the employee worked 

as a laborer in the pilot plant at the Feed 

Materials Production Center (Fernald) and is 

claiming chronic bronchitis. The OHQ indicates 

that the claimant does not recall exact 

exposures, but does recall a sharp, pungent odor 

and states that he “breathed in this gas all the 

time.” The CE selects “Gasses” from the chemical 

category drop down menu and all gasses known to 

have been present at Fernald are listed. The CE 

searches each gas and finds that sulfur dioxide 

was present in the pilot plant and that laborers 

are a labor category of possible exposure and 

that the gas has a pungent odor and that chronic 

bronchitis is a health effect of exposure. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

(4) SEM provides a list of known health effects 

produced by a given toxic substance. SEM can 

also be searched to determine whether or not a 

given facility contained a toxic substance that 

could produce the health effect claimed. When 

searching this way, the CE searches by the 

claimed illness (e.g., asthma, skin cancer) to 

determine what toxic substances at a given site 

could have potentially caused, contributed to, or 

aggravated the claimed condition. 

(a) The “Toxic substance by health effect” 

section displays the toxic substances that 

could cause the health effect or disease. 

For example, the above-described laborer 

from the Fernald Pilot Plant claims chronic 

sinusitis as a result of his or her 

employment at Fernald. A search of the 

condition “chronic sinusitis” shows that no 

toxic substances contained within the 

Fernald database match the search criteria, 

meaning that no known substances involved in 

a work process at Fernald could have induced 

chronic sinusitis. 

While this is not sufficient evidence to 

deny causation, the CE must evaluate other 

evidence to determine whether or not the 

employee’s condition was caused, contributed 

to, or aggravated by his or her employment. 

(b) The CE also can search SEM for toxic 

substances that cause a health effect by 

searching with a disease or health effect 

alias. That is, if the CE does not know the 

official name of the disease (e.g., 

pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive, a 

general term for lung ailments that can 

include emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and 

in some cases asthma) the CE can search by 

the word “lung.” This generates a search of 

all toxic substances present at a given 

facility that could affect lung function. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

The CE can review the list of substances to 

determine if they were present in the 

employee’s work process or building and 

whether these substances could potentially 

cause one of the lung diseases commonly 

referred to as COPD. 

(c) The CE uses the “Disease or Health 

Effect by Alias” search if the organ 

affected by the disease is known. Using 

this link opens a page which allows the CE 

to find health effects or diseases by keying 

in all or a portion of the formal name of a 

health effect or disease. The SEM provides 

a list of health effects or diseases, which 

contain the search text in their formal 

names. For example, searching for “liver” 

returns Hemangiosarcoma of the liver. 

 c. Searches Specific to Selected Site. This section 

contains the most recent information about covered DOE 

facilities, uranium mines, uranium mills, and uranium 

transport operations. The CE searches these site 

fields for specific information about a facility, the 

work processes performed there (e.g., PUREX fuel 

separation, instrument maintenance, welding), and the 

toxic substances involved in those work processes, 

broken down by labor category (e.g., welder, yellow 

cake operator, electrician). 

This group of searchable fields assists the CE in 

evaluating whether or not the employee’s work history 

meets the presence and contact standard in the 

causation test for toxic substance exposure set out 

above. The CE searches site-specific fields when the 

CE knows the site of employment and also when the CE 

knows the building/area of employment, the work 

process performed and/or the labor category claimed. 

(1) Site History. This section contains 

unclassified references from official DOE or DOE 

contractor web sites providing a description of 

the DOE facility or uranium mine or uranium mill. 

It provides dates of operation, known 

owners/operators, and historical reference data 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

about the site. This description is available in 

SEM for both DOE facilities and uranium mines and 

mills. 

(2) Areas. This section is only displayed if 

the selected site has defined areas. All defined 

areas are viewable by selecting a drop down menu 

identifying each known area by number and/or 

title. This section is used when the CE knows 

the area in which the employee worked. Work 

processes, labor categories, toxic substances and 

incidents will be listed for each specified area 

at the site. 

For example, the employee claims to have worked 

on the bull gang in Area 16 at the Nevada Test 

Site from 1966 to 1970 and is claiming 

occupational asthma. The CE searches the Nevada 

Test Site facility by Area and queries Area 16, 

which shows all known potential toxic substances 

in that area, all labor categories, and work 

processes. 

A search of the toxic substances present at the 

time of the claimed employment shows that of all 

substances present, cobalt can cause occupational 

asthma. A further search indicates that the bull 

gang labor category, involved in the labor 

process of reentry and mineback operations, is 

shown as a risk factor for cobalt exposure during 

the time in which employment is claimed. 

Verification of the claimed employment by DOE is 

sufficient to establish potential exposure. 

(3) Buildings. This section is searchable when 

the CE knows the official or unofficial name of 

the building in which the employee worked. This 

section lists all historical references to the 

building, hazardous chemicals present, the area 

where the building was located, work processes, 

labor categories, and known incidents involving 

the building. This search category is available 

only for DOE sites. Data for uranium mines and 

mills will simply state the site history, 

processes, and searchable labor categories. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

(a) The building information subsection 

lists all the major buildings (by number and 

title) at the site (e.g. the K-33 Process 

Building within the K-25 East Tennessee 

Technology Park). 

(b) The CE enters a building by alias, or 

common name, for a worksite that does not 

appear in the searchable buildings list 

(e.g., the K-33 Process Building above is 

also known as the “Cascade Building”). SEM 

lists the proper names and numbers of 

buildings to which the slang or common name 

could refer. This search capacity assists 

in locating a building when no formal 

building name is identified in the 

employment history. 

(4) Processes. This section lists all known 

processes at the site (e.g., carpentry, ash 

crushing, crane operations) and contains the 

related labor categories, timeframes, and toxic 

substances. This category is searchable for DOE 

facilities and uranium mines and mills. When 

searching for a labor process, the CE may know 

the type of process in which the employee was 

involved (e.g., welding, drillback core sampling, 

solvent recovery), but not the specific labor 

category involved. 

Knowing the work process can assist the CE in 

conducting a search for potential exposure to 

toxic substances, because sometimes several 

different job categories can be involved in one 

work process and a process might be spread out 

among several different buildings within a 

facility (e.g., a process operator at Portsmouth 

GDP involved in cascade operations could have 

worked in X-326, X-330 and X-333, all buildings 

in which the work process “cascade operations” 

took place). 

(a) DOE facilities list all processes known 

to have occurred at the site. For instance, 

if the CE knows an employee worked in 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Building 202-A at the Hanford Site, SEM 

indicates that the process in that building 

was PUREX fuel separation, lists all labor 

categories involved in this operation, and 

the toxic substance present when this 

operation took place. 

This assists the CE in determining the toxic 

substances to which an employee could 

potentially have been exposed, based upon 

the process listed and the timeframes in 

which the employee may have been involved in 

such processes. 

(b) For RECA mills, the following 

categories are examples of processes: 

laboratory, maintenance, and all other than 

laboratory and/or maintenance. Some mills 

did not have a laboratory component and 

therefore list fewer than three processes 

(e.g., Slick Rock in Colorado lists only 

maintenance and all processes other than 

maintenance). The CE must identify the 

labor sub category (actual work performed) 

whenever possible. 

For example, if the CE knows that an 

employee worked as a bulldozer operator at 

Grand Junction in Colorado, the CE searches 

the labor subcategory field to identify that 

job title. Once it is identified, the CE 

clicks on the bulldozer labor subcategory 

and finds that a bulldozer operator is 

classified in the labor process “all other 

than laboratory and maintenance.” All 

potential toxic substance exposure for that 

subcategory and labor process group is 

listed, and the CE can match the findings 

against the claimed/verified illness and 

exposure. 

(c) Much of the work performed at RECA 

mines was fairly uniform and easily 

categorized with regard to process. While 

SEM does not list work processes for a RECA 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

mine, labor categories exist as outlined 

below. Only exposure arising from processes 

and work that actually took place at a 

uranium mine or mill is considered when 

evaluating a claim for causation. 

(d) Individuals employed in the transport of 

uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore to 

and/or from covered RECA mines or mills are 

covered under the EEOICPA. However, when 

developing exposure for an ore transporter, 

the CE only counts exposure that could 

potentially have taken place on the premises 

of a covered RECA mine or mill. 

Exposure that could have potentially 

occurred when the ore transporter was in 

transit is not covered under the EEOICPA and 

is not considered by the CE when developing 

for causation. See EEOICPA PM 2-1100 for a 

more complete discussion of covered exposure 

under RECA. 

(5) Labor Categories. The CE can search by 

labor category if the employee’s job title or job 

title alias specific to a certain facility is 

known. It is important to narrow down employment 

verification requests and information obtained on 

Form EE-3 to determine the exact labor function 

performed by an employee if possible. 

The RC staff must make certain to obtain the most 

specific employment information that is available 

from the employee/survivor and the employment 

verifier entity when conducting initial 

employment verification. 

The CE must conduct additional development where 

necessary to further identify the exact 

definition of the employee’s functions and the 

timeframe(s) of those functions at a given site, 

seeking the greatest specificity possible. 

(a) Labor category information lists all 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

the labor classifications or work group 

titles at the site (e.g., electrician, crane 

operator, barrier operator). 

(b) If the employee’s job title does not 

appear on the drop down list of labor 

categories above, the entry on the claims 

form may be a slang or unofficial title. 

The CE may be able to find the official 

labor category, (e.g., maintenance mechanic) 

by keying in the slang or commonly used 

title (e.g., pipe fitter). 

(c) Construction worker exposures are 

separated into two categories: those due to 

toxic substances inherent to the 

construction craft, and those caused by 

performing the construction work on a DOE 

site. The CE must consider both exposure 

categories when assessing exposure for 

construction workers. 

Construction exposure is searched as its own 

category outside of the facility lists. As 

such, it does not matter where the 

construction took place. If the CE is 

searching SEM for a construction worker’s 

claim, the CE searches by toxic substance 

and by work process (e.g., adhesive work, 

brazing, carpentry) and labor category 

(e.g., electrician, millwright, iron 

worker). Searches for construction trade 

exposures contain the same toxic substances, 

work processes, and labor categories for all 

covered facilities. 

(d) For RECA mines, three labor categories 

are listed: prospecting, mining, and 

support/maintenance. The CE determines the 

duty performed (e.g., mining or maintenance) 

when searching SEM for information about a 

site listing more than one process. Some 

sites list only one possible work process 

and the CE need only confirm that employment 

is claimed or verified at the given site. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Once the work process is identified at the 

mine where employment took place, the CE can 

search a list of toxic substances to 

determine the one(s) to which an employee 

could have potentially been exposed while 

working at the mine. 

For instance, the Arrowhead #1 mine in Eagle 

County, Colorado, lists “prospecting, no 

mining” as the only work process performed 

at that site. This means that the only work 

process performed at the Arrowhead #1 site 

was prospecting for uranium and that no 

actual uranium mining operations took place 

at that site. 

The Bay Mule mine in San Miguel County, 

Colorado, lists “mining” as its only work 

process. A mixture of possible work 

processes will be listed for the RECA 

facilities depending upon what type of work 

activities actually occurred at the site. 

 

(6) Incidents. The incident information field lists 

known major incidents and accidents experienced at the 

site. The entries provide a brief descriptive title 

of the incident, the year the incident occurred, and 

the location of the incident (building or area). An 

example would be: Uranium cylinder rupture and 

release, 1976, Building X-344. 

(a) This information may assist in 

corroborating a claim if the claimant has 

referred to a particular accident or 

incident as having caused acute or extreme 

exposure to a toxic substance. Facility 

incident and accident information may be 

found in DAR responses, employment records, 

DOE FWP records, and OHQ summaries. 

(b) The CE must evaluate incidents and 

accidents with regard to the evidence of 

file as a whole. Simply corroborating a 

claimed exposure is not sufficient to 

establish causation. The CE must review the 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

medical evidence and, if necessary, seek the 

opinion of an IH or CMC about the 

possibility as to whether or not the type of 

incident or high exposure event (as viewed 

in association with the evidence as a whole) 

could prove a significant factor in causing, 

contributing to, or aggravating the claimed 

illness. Further, certain incidences of 

high or extreme exposure should be 

considered when evaluating whether or not a 

required disease latency period can be eased 

or waived entirely. 

(7) Exposure Factors. This section lists the 

safety programs, risk factors and timeframes used 

to gauge an employee’s potential exposure as it 

relates to work process, labor category, 

building, and area. 

(a) Safety programs serve as controls that 

may have reduced the likelihood of employee 

exposure to toxic substances (e.g., through 

use of respirators, protective clothing). 

(b) Risk factors are conditions or 

practices that may have increased the 

likelihood of employee exposures to toxic 

substances, such as periods of time when 

employees were not properly protected. 

(c) Timeframes reflect known periods within 

which a known correlation exists. For 

example, certain timeframes outline the 

period in which it is known that a certain 

toxic substance was present in a certain 

building (e.g., from 1956 to 1988 ammonium 

fluoride was present in Area 200 East and 

involved in the work process of PUREX fuel 

separation activities). 

Also, timeframes outline periods in which 

certain safety programs or measures were in 

place at a given building or area. This 

information may assist the CE when 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

evaluating the likelihood that a claimant 

was exposed to a toxic substance. 

Safety Control Example: In 1999, DOE 

enforced beryllium controls such that work 

could only be performed in certain 

buildings. The employee claims beryllium 

illness from beryllium exposure in 2000, yet 

the employment evidence shows that he or she 

worked in a building where beryllium was 

never present due to DOE controls. When 

dealing with beryllium, the CE must be aware 

of the potential for residual contamination, 

and in this instance it must be 

unequivocally verified that beryllium was 

never present at the facility in question. 

d. Links Within Searchable Fields. Within SEM the 

various areas, facilities, buildings, processes, 

activities, labor categories, incidents and toxic 

substances which are known to have existed or occurred 

onsite are linked to one another. For example, such 

relationships expressed in the matrices might be: 

(1) “Toxic xxx was in building aaa at some 

time;” 

(2) “Activity bbb was performed by Labor 

Category ddd and involved work with Toxic 

yyy in Building lll;” 

(3) “Activity bbb was performed during 

Labor Process ddd and involved work with 

Toxic zzz in Building lll;” and 

(4) “Labor category ppp involved work at 

all parts of the site”). 

e. Sample SEM Search # 1. DOE verifies employment 

at the Portsmouth GDP from 1955 to 1960. Form EE-3 

indicates that the employee worked as an instrument 

mechanic in Building X-333 from 1955 to 1960. The 

verified diagnosed medical condition is aplastic 

anemia. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

A search of the SEM by Health Effect shows that 

aplastic anemia can be caused by arsenic, benzene, and 

plutonium exposure. The CE further consults the HazMap database link which provides a description of 

aplastic anemia and indicates that arsenic, benzene, 

and plutonium are among the hazardous agents that can 

cause the disease. A latency period of weeks to years 

is indicated. 

The Building information for Building X-333 lists all 

known chemicals used at that site, and arsenic, 

benzene, and plutonium are among them. The SEM 

further shows that the Labor Process of Instrument 

Maintenance took place in Building X-333 from 1953 to 

1957 and lists the Labor Category Instrument Mechanic 

as involved in this process during this timeframe. 

The CE reviews the SEM findings as well as other 

relevant evidence (medical opinions provided by 

qualified physicians that opine a link between the 

occupational exposure and the aplastic anemia, DAR 

records showing definite arsenic and benzene exposure, 

DOE FWP records, and OHQ results supporting a finding 

of potential occupational exposure to benzene, arsenic 

and plutonium) to determine whether sufficient 

evidence exists to accept the claim. In this 

instance, the evidence as a whole supports acceptance. 

f. Sample SEM Search # 2. An employee claims 

employment as a chemical operator in Building X-705 at 

the Portsmouth GDP from 1966 to 1982. DOE confirms the 

employment. The employee is claiming asthma and 

chronic bronchitis, and medical evidence diagnosing 

COPD has been received. The CE reviews the OHQ and 

finds that the claimant indicated in his interview 

that he does not know specifically what chemicals he 

was exposed to, but does recall working with an acidic 

substance with a sour, vinegar-like odor. 

The CE reviews SEM, searching by labor category and 

building, and finds that acetic acid was used in the 

employee’s work process in Building X-705 and that it 

has a sour, vinegar-like odor. A SEM search for 

health effects for acetic acid shows that it is known 

to be associated with occupational asthma. The DAR 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

record response does not show that the claimant worked 

with acetic acid in the course of his employment, but 

that he did come into contact with various solvents. 

The CE should follow up with the treating physician to 

clarify the diagnosis. The CE may consider referral 

to a CMC to review the evidence and determine whether 

or not the potential for acetic acid exposure caused 

the claimant’s lung condition. The CE will also want 

the CMC to try and specify the lung condition. 

g. RECA SEM Searches. When searching for a specific 

RECA location (mine or mill), the CE locates the 

facility by the state in which it operated, by its 

name, or by its alias. For instance, the uranium mill 

“Durango” can be found by searching mills in Colorado, 

by the name “Durango,” or by searching the site alias: 

Vanadium Corp of America, or VCA. RECA mines are also 

located in SEM by the county in which they operated. 

RECA mine and mill work process categories are more 

general than the DOE work process categories. The CE 

attempts to determine the exact labor category 

(specific job title or activity) whenever possible 

when conducting a SEM search about a RECA facility. 

Uranium mines are categorized as being either 

underground or surface mines, and typical mining 

operations include the following: drilling; blasting; 

shovel/machine digging; and hauling materials. 

11. SEM Inquiries. Whenever a SEM query is conducted, the 

 CE must document the case file to show that a SEM 

 search took place and updates ECS accordingly. 

a. Recommended Decision. Prior to issuing a 

recommended decision (RD) denying benefits, the CE 

must ensure that the most updated version of the SEM 

data is contained in the case file and referenced 

properly in the decision. 

(1) This is done by double checking the search 

initially conducted to make certain that an 

element not found in the initial search (i.e., a 

toxic substance) has not been added to the SEM 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

since the date of the initial search. The CE 

prints out the results of the new search 

immediately prior to issuing the RD. 

(2) The CE must make certain that the SEM record 

is properly preserved in the case file for FAB 

review. SEM will show the latest date on which 

an update was made to the system that changes the 

data available about a given facility. 

(3) If the date listed in SEM remains the same 

as it was when the original search was conducted, 

the CE will know that no new information has been 

added to SEM and no new search is required. 

However, if the date has been changed since the 

date of the last search, the CE must search SEM 

again to determine whether additions or changes 

will change the outcome of the SEM search and 

potentially affect the outcome of the 

adjudication. 

b. Decisions Issued As Needed. Because SEM is a 

living document that is updated as data becomes 

available, the CE does not wait for information in SEM 

 to be updated before issuing a decision. If a SEM 

SEM search is conducted and no information is 

available, or the site is not yet complete or 

searchable in the database, the CE issues a decision 

after developing the case as completely as possible, 

pursuant to normal procedures. 

c. FAB Review. FAB ensures that the SEM search was 

conducted, where applicable, during the FAB review of 

 the recommended decision. 

(1) FAB may remand the case to the DO if a SEM 

 search was needed but not conducted, or if the 

 search was conducted improperly in a way that 

 materially affects the outcome of the RD, or if 

 the SEM data relied upon by the DO was changed 

 or updated significantly enough to warrant 

 additional development or a potentially 

SUPERSEDED

 different adjudicatory outcome. 
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

(2) Before issuing the FAB Final Decision (FD), 

the FAB must ensure that the SEM record is the 

most complete and updated data available in SEM 

and that no significant changes (additions of 

toxic substances or changes in work process 

definitions or timeframes) have been made since 

the issuance of the recommended decision. 

(3) This checking of the SEM search data to 

determine whether or not a new data element was 

added that will alter the outcome of the decision 

is conducted in the same manner as set out in 

11.a above for denied recommended decisions. 

(4) The FAB CE/Hearing Representative (HR) does 

not print out a copy of the new SEM search unless

the search result differs from the search 

conducted by the DO CE. In this case, the FAB 

CE/HR prints a copy of the SEM results and scans 

to OIS. 

 

(5) If new evidence is uncovered that does alter 

the findings of the RD, a remand order may be 

necessary. However, if the SEM data is updated 

after the issuance of the recommended decision or 

the DO SEM search, and such update does not 

affect the outcome of the decision, a remand is 

not warranted. 

(6) The FAB CE/HR must clearly indicate in all 

Remand Orders and FD’s that the FAB conducted its 

own SEM search. In the discussion, the FAB is to 

state whether the search validates the findings 

of the DO or that the search produced results 

that differ from the DO search. If the results 

differ from the DO search, then FAB is to briefly 

explain its potential impact on the outcome of 

the claim (i.e. the results are the same as the 

DO CE results and has no impact on the outcome, 

or the search results differ but has no impact on 

the final outcome, or the results differ from the 

DO CE search and possibly changes the outcome of 

SUPERSEDED

the claim). 
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

d. Use of SEM Findings. When using SEM as a finding 

in an RD or a decision of the FAB, the CE/HR cites the 

technical document upon which the SEM data search 

result is founded, as well as SEM, in the decision. 

As always, the DO CE or FAB CE/HR clearly outlines the 

rationale for accepting or denying causation based 

upon all of the evidence weighed as a whole. Below is 

an example of the language approved for use when 

referencing SEM. 

Decision Language Example: Source documents used to 

compile the U.S. Department of Labor Site Exposure 

Matrices (SEM) establish that a person in the labor 

category of “Operator” at the Savannah River Site 

could potentially be exposed to the toxic substance 

asbestos. The SEM lists asbestosis as a possible 

specific health effect of exposure to asbestos and 

contains a list of the buildings at the Savannah River 

Site where that particular toxic substance is or was 

present during the years that the claimant worked 

there. The employment record provided by the 

Department of Energy (DOE) contains several numbers 

that appear to reference the employee’s work location 

including a number G160-235. The most comparable 

building listed in the SEM was 235F. Data contained 

in SEM for 235F establishes that asbestos was used in 

this building and that the labor category of 

“Operator” is associated with this building. 

12. National Office Specialist Review. If the CE 

identifies an exposure issue that requires review by an IH, 

the CE alerts his or her supervisor. Prior to seeking NO 

assistance, the CE must exhaust all reasonable exposure 

development pursuant to the guidance set out in this 

Chapter. 

If the supervisor grants approval for the referral, the CE 

prepares an e-mail to the Health Services Program Analyst 

(HSPA) requesting review. The HSPA forwards the e-mail to 

a Medical Health Science Unit (MHSU) specialist who reviews 

the contents and assigns the question to the appropriate 

specialist based upon their scientific discipline. 

However, if the MHSU specialist determines that the issue 

does not warrant a referral, the e-mail is returned 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

instructing the CE to pursue further development. Once the 

issue is assigned to an IH for review, the IH conducts such 

review and responds to the CE in a timely manner. 

 a. Questions for IH. The CE outlines succinctly 

what information is known about the issue (e.g., the 

employee was a stainless steel welder at Savannah 

River from 1982 to 1985 who is diagnosed with asthma) 

and what is needed from the expert (could the employee 

have been exposed to nickel)? The CE uses the 

information in SEM and the case file as a whole to 

frame the question as carefully as possible based upon 

the claimed employment, process and illness. A 

Statement of Accepted Facts (SOAF) must accompany the 

referral to the IH. 

(1) The facility in question (narrowed down to 

building and area where possible) and the work 

performed is always a critical factor when 

querying the IH about exposure. The CE uses SEM 

whenever possible to assist in this narrowing 

process, but if no information exists in SEM, the 

CE crafts the question as best as possible based 

upon whatever evidence is available in the case 

file. 

(2) The CE may also forward a general question 

about a facility when information cannot be found 

in SEM and the facility in question is either not 

yet uploaded to SEM or the data is incomplete. 

For instance, a CE may need to know whether 

asbestos was present as a general rule in the 

Clarksville facility. The CE may ask a general 

question such as this of the IH, but should 

include as much specificity in the query as 

possible, especially labor category, processes, 

and time periods. 

b. IH Review. The IH reviews the issue framed by 

the CE and determines whether more information from 

the case file is required to answer the question, or 

if the entire case file is needed. The IH role is to 

anticipate, recognize, and evaluate hazardous 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

conditions in occupational environments, and to opine 

based upon his or her specialized knowledge. The IH 

strives to answer the question based upon the 

information outlined by the CE. 

However, if additional information is required, the IH 

may request whatever documentation from the case file 

is necessary. If required, the IH requests the entire 

case file if individual pieces of information from the 

file will not suffice to answer the question posed by 

the CE. 

(1) The IH mainly addresses issues about routes 

of exposure (e.g., whether or not a welder at a 

given facility could have been exposed to 

nickel). An IH also may verify whether or not a 

toxic substance was/could have been present 

during a certain work process (e.g., welding, or 

instrument maintenance) at a given site, or if a 

certain labor category (e.g., welder, or 

instrument mechanic) could have come into contact 

with a given toxic substance in the performance 

of his or her duty at the site. 

The IH may also be asked to determine the 

plausibility that a certain toxic substance was 

present or that a claimed exposure could have 

occurred based upon the work history and/or 

accident/incident report. 

(2) The IH also reviews SEM searches performed 

by the DO to determine whether or not they were 

performed correctly and accurately. 

c. Request for Case File. If the IH requests the 

entire case file, the CE prepares the WS/WR memorandum 

for the DD’s signature. The WS/WR memorandum is 

addressed to the Policy Branch Chief at NO. Upon 

receipt of the case file, the Policy Branch Chief 

forwards the case file to the IH for review. 

 

d. IH Memorandum. The IH renders an expert opinion 

in the form of a memorandum that addresses the issue 

as specifically as possible. The IH’s reply addresses 

the specific question posed by the CE in the eSUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

mail/SOAF/WS/WR memorandum, and employs his or her 

specialized training to make findings based upon the 

evidence of file and clearly rationalized science. 

e. CMC Referrals to IH. In certain instances, a 

case forwarded to a CMC may not contain enough 

information regarding occupational toxic exposure for 

the CMC to render an expert opinion. In these 

situations, the CMC should refer the case to an IH 

through the DO. 

(1) CMC referrals for causation which do not 

adequately identify a route and extent of 

exposure require the CMC to contact the Medical 

Scheduler (MS) via e-mail within 3 days of 

receipt of the referral package, and request an 

IH referral. If exposure data are inadequate due 

to an incomplete SEM profile, incomplete DOE 

records, or other missing information that makes 

a causation determination impossible without a 

clearer exposure evaluation, then an IH referral 

is warranted. If the Medical Scheduler is 

unavailable the CMC should then contact the 

assigned CE. 

(2) The MS forwards the CMC’s IH referral 

request via email to the assigned CE for review. 

A copy of this email is placed in the case file. 

Telephone requests for an IH referral must be 

documented ECS. 

(3) Upon receipt of the email from the MS, the 

CE forwards the case file and Statement of 

Accepted Facts (SOAF) to the Supervisor/Senior CE 

for review. If the Supervisor/Senior CE concurs 

with the need for an IH referral, he or she sends 

an email with the SOAF attached to the Health 

Services Program Analyst (HSPA) located at the 

NO, requesting an IH review and places a copy of 

the SOAF and the sent email in the claimant’s 

file. The CE enters correspondence in ECS to 

document that the case was sent to the Policy 

Branch for review. The correspondence entry 

ensures that the time taken for review by an IH 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

will not be counted as time necessary for CMC 

review. 

(a) Upon receipt of the email from the 

Supervisor/Senior CE, the HSPA assigns the 

referral to an IH. 

(b) The IH reviews the SOAF and any other 

relevant information that may be requested, 

and renders an expert opinion in the form of 

a memorandum based upon the facts of the 

claim, the information available through 

SEM, and professional judgment regarding the 

likelihood and extent of any exposure(s). 

The IH then emails a copy of the memorandum 

to the CE, Senior CE, and Supervisor. 

(c) The IH has 15 days from receipt of the 

referral to complete the memorandum. If 15 

or more days pass without receipt of the 

memo, the CE notifies the Senior 

CE/Supervisor, who then follows up with an 

email to the HSPA. 

(d) When the IH memo is received the CE 

reviews the opinion to ensure that the 

question asked has been sufficiently 

answered, gives a copy of the memorandum to 

the MS, and places a copy in the claimant’s 

file. The CE then enters the receipt date 

into ECS correspondence to indicate that the 

response was received from the Policy 

Branch. 

(e) The MS will FedEx a copy of the IH 

memorandum to the CMC for review and notify 

the CE, Senior CE, and the Supervisor via email of when this action was taken. 

(4) The CE continues to monitor and track the 

file after the IH memorandum has been furnished 

to the CMC. 

(a) The CMC has 21 days from the date of 

receipt of the IH memorandum to return a 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

completed report accompanied by a bill to 

the MS. If the CMC report is not received 

within 21 days from the date of the IH 

memorandum, the CE notifies the MS, who 

follows up with a phone call to the CMC. 

The call is documented in ECS. 

(b) If, upon review of the IH memorandum, 

the CMC has questions, the CMC contacts the 

IH via email. 

(5) If the Supervisor/Senior CE determines that 

the case does not warrant an IH referral after 

receiving the SOAF and file from the CE, the 

Supervisor/Senior CE returns the SOAF and case 

file to the CE with instructions to pursue 

further exposure development. 

(a) The CE notifies the MS via email that 

further exposure development is needed, 

places a copy of the sent email in the case 

file, and mails an exposure development 

letter to the claimant. In the letter to 

the claimant, the CE advises that exposure 

development is needed for adjudication. 

Upon mailing the request to the claimant the 

CE enters a note in ECS describing the 

action and inserts a 30-day call-up. 

(b) The MS notifies the CMC via phone that 

further exposure development is needed for 

the case. The call is documented in ECS. 

(c) After 30 days has passed with no 

response from the claimant, the CE prepares 

a second letter to the claimant (accompanied 

by a copy of the initial letter), advising 

that following the initial letter, no 

additional information has been received. 

The CE advises that an additional period of 

30 days will be granted for the submission 

of requested information, and if the 

information is not received a decision will 

SUPERSEDED

be issued. 
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

(d) The CE notifies the MS via email that 

the requested information has not been 

received, places a copy of the sent email in 

the case file. 

(e) Upon receipt of the email from the CE 

the MS prepares a letter to the CMC 

notifying that the requested information has 

not been received. In the letter, the MS 

requests the CMC to return or destroy the 

case material. A copy of this letter is 

placed in the case file. 

(f) If the claimant submits relevant 

exposure data in response to the CE’s 

request, it must be reviewed to determine if 

it is of sufficient probative value to 

request an IH referral or return to the CMC. 

If the CE determines that there is 

insufficient evidence to warrant an IH 

referral, a decision can be issued. If the 

CE determines that the new information is 

sufficiently comprehensive to obviate the 

need for IH review, referral to the CMC can 

be completed. 

f. Complex Referrals. Some referrals to NO will be 

so complex as to require IH and medical or possibly 

toxicology review. In these instances, the NO Medical 

Director and/or the NO Toxicologist may also review 

the case materials/case file to assist in addressing 

the CE’s inquiry. The proper specialist will be 

determined by an MHSU specialist at NO upon review of 

the query and/or case file materials. The NO Medical 

Director and/or Toxicologist will provide expert 

opinions in such cases where a review is necessary by 

more than one specialist at the same time. 

If an issue referred to the NO contains elements that 

might require expertise in the field of occupational 

exposure, medicine, and/or toxicology, it is forwarded 

to NO as outlined above with an initial e-mail query. 

The appropriate specialist(s) will review the query 

and determine what additional information (including 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

the case file) is necessary to resolve the issue at 

hand. 

g. Synergistic or Additive Effect. In certain 

instances a physician might opine that a claimant’s 

radiation and toxic substance exposure together worked 

in tandem to produce a synergistic or additive effect 

that brought about a cancer. DOL has not found 

scientific evidence to date establishing a synergistic 

or additive effect between radiation and exposure to a 

toxic substance, and if the physician presents this 

finding he or she must provide actual scientific or 

medical research evidence to support the finding 

before the CE may consider the assertion.

If a physician makes this assertion the CE requests 

that the physician provide medical evidence of a 

synergistic or additive effect and a clearly 

rationalized medical opinion as to whether or not the 

effect is of a significant nature to establish that 

the combination of the radiation and the exposure to a 

toxic substance was “at least as likely as not” a 

significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or 

causing the cancer.

(1) If the physician provides rationalized 

scientific evidence revealing a synergistic or 

additive effect, the DO sends the case file to NO 

for review by a NO Health Physicist (HP) and/or 

the DEEOIC Medical Director. The HP reviews the 

physician report and all evidence of file and 

drafts a memorandum containing his or her 

professional opinion as to causation which is 

sent to the CE for use in issuing a determination 

in the case. 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION 

 OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

 DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES’ OCCUPATIONAL 

ILLNESS COMPENSATION

 (District Office Address) 

(Date)

EMPLOYEE NAME:

CLAIM FILE NUMBER:

(DAR POC Address)

To Whom It May Concern: 

A claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act (EEOICPA) has been submitted with respect to the employee named above, claiming 

employment at a Department of Energy facility. He or she is claiming that employment for the 

Department of Energy or one of its contractors or subcontractors has contributed to a covered 

illness. Your facility has been identified as having possession of or access to records which may 

identify employment and toxic substance exposure regarding this individual. 

Included as an attachment to this cover letter is a copy of the claimant’s EE-1 or EE-2 Claim for 

Benefits, the EE-3 Employment History and a Document Acquisition Request (DAR) 

Questionnaire. Marked on the attached DAR Questionnaire is the name of the employee, 

employee SSN, employer name and the facility where employment is alleged to have occurred as 

well as selected categories of documentation we hope you have at your facility. 

Please conduct a reasonable search for the requested documentation and provide a copy of those 

records in digital PDF format on a compact disc (CD) if available. You may make as many 

copies of the DAR Questionnaire as necessary. 

Please return the completed DAR Questionnaire, the CD and any hard copy documents to the 

address provided above. If you have received this request in error or if you have any other 

concerns, please feel free to contact me directly at ***-***-  or fax ** *-***-****. 

Sincerely,

Claims Examiner

Attachments:

EE-1/2 Claim for Benefits 

EE-3 Employment History 

 

Exhibit 1 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Exhibit 2 

Page 1 of 4 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Exhibit 2 

Page 2 of 4 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Exhibit 2 

Page 3 of 4 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Exhibit 2 

Page 4 of 4 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

Establishing Causation for Hearing Loss 

and Asbestosis 

Asbestosis: A Claims Examiner is to accept Part E causation 

for asbestosis once the following three criteria are 

satisfied. 

1. Medical: A medical diagnosis of asbestosis. 

2. Employment: The employee is a covered DOE 

contractor employee at a covered DOE or RECA section 5 

facility and in the course of employment was exposed to 

asbestos while at the DOE or RECA section 5 facility. 

Asbestos existed at all covered DOE and RECA section 5 

facilities. Using the Site Exposure Matrices (SEM), 

along with an examination of pertinent exposure data 

maintained in the case, a CE is to determine if there 

is a reasonable basis to conclude that the employee had 

exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the CE should 

reference EEOICPA Circular 15-05, “Occupational 

Exposure Guidance Relating to Asbestos,” for further 

guidance on asbestos exposure. If there is reason to 

doubt the employee’s exposure to asbestos because of 

the type of work performed, or other contradictory 

evidence, he or she is to request the following 

information from the claimant: 

a. Contemporaneous medical evidence discussing 

the employee’s work history and exposure to 

asbestos at the covered facility. The presence of 

pleural thickening, interstitial fibrosis, 

neoplasia, or other medical findings 

characteristic of asbestosis also helps establish 

the relationship between employment and exposure; 

Exhibit 3 

Page 1 of 5 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

 

b. Personnel or incident records disclosing 

exposure to asbestos; or 

c. Persuasive affidavits from other employees, 

with reason to know, attesting to the employee’s 

asbestos exposure and other evidence such as 

independent studies of the facility or newspaper 

articles discussing asbestos exposure at the site. 

Once the CE has collected all relevant exposure 

information, and he or she still cannot affirmatively 

conclude the extent or duration of employee’s exposure 

to asbestos, an Industrial Hygiene referral is to 

occur. 

3. Exposure/Causation: Causation will be presumed when 

the case file contains evidence that the employee was 

exposed to asbestos for at least 250 aggregate 

workdays, and there was a latency period of at least 10 

years between the start of covered DOE or RECA section 

5 employment and the onset of asbestosis. 

In a claim for an employee that does not meet the 

requirements of presumed causation because the evidence 

does not establish 250 days of asbestos exposure, or the 

latency requirement, the CE is to undertake development to 

obtain an opinion on causation from either the claimant’s 

treating physician or a Contract Medical Specialist (CMC). 

Hearing Loss: Part E causation for hearing loss can be 

presumed without referral to National Office specialists if 

all three following conditions are satisfied: 

1. Medical: The file contains a diagnosis of bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss (conductive hearing loss is 

not known to be linked to toxic substance exposure). 

2. Employment: The verified covered employment must be 

within at least one specified job category listed below 

Exhibit 3 

Page 2 of 5 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

for a period of 10 consecutive years, completed prior 

to 1990. The labor categories are the following: 

• Boilermaker 

• Chemical Operator 

• Chemist 

• Electrician/Electrical Maintenance/Lineman 

• Electroplater/Electroplating Technician 

• Garage/Auto/Equipment Mechanic 

• Guard/Security Officer/Security Patrol 

Officer (i.e., firearm cleaning activities) 

• Instrument Mechanic/ Instrument Technician 

• Janitor 

• Laboratory Analyst/Aide 

• Laboratory Technician/Technologist 

• Lubricator 

• Machinist 

• Maintenance Mechanic 

• Millwright 

• Operator (most any industrial kind, the test 

being whether the operator position is one in 

which there is potential for solvent exposure) 

• Painter 

• Pipefitter 

• Printer/Reproduction clerk 

• Refrigeration Mechanic/HVAC Mechanic

Exhibit 3 

Page 3 of 5 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

• Sheet Metal Worker 

• Utility Operator 

3. Exposure: Evidence in the file must not only 

establish that the employee worked within a certain job 

category listed above, but that the employee was 

concurrently exposed to at least one of the specified 

organic solvents listed below: 

• Toluene 

• Styrene 

• Xylene 

• Trichloroethylene 

• Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

• Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 

• Ethyl Benzene 

Hearing loss claims supported by rationalized medical 

evidence asserting a causative link between covered 

employment and exposure to OTHER solvents not listed in 

this Exhibit should be forwarded to the NO for specialist 

review. 

Challenges to the DEEOIC Conditions of Acceptance. This 

policy guidance represent the sole evidentiary basis a CE is 

to use in making a decision concerning whether it is “at 

least as likely as not” that an occupational exposure to a 

toxic substance was a significant factor in aggravating, 

contributing to or causing a diagnosed bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss. Claims filed for hearing loss 

that do not satisfy the conditions for acceptance outlined 

in this procedure cannot be accepted, because these 

standards represent the only scientific basis for 

Exhibit 3 

Page 4 of 5 

SUPERSEDED
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-0700 

 Establishing Toxic 

Part 2 – Claims Substance Exposure 

____________________________________________________________

establishing work-related hearing loss due to exposure to a 

toxic substance. 

The CE is to undertake routine development (i.e., SEM, SEM 

mailbox, IH referral, etc.) on any hearing loss claim that 

does not meet the criteria described in this procedure, 

including communicating to the claimant the evidence 

necessary for a compensable hearing loss claim. As part of 

that development, the CE is to notify the claimant of his or 

her ability to challenge the scientific underpinnings of the 

DEEOIC hearing loss policy. 

The claimant has the burden of establishing, through the 

submission of probative scientific evidence, that the 

criteria used by the program do not represent a reasonable 

consensus drawn from the body of available scientific data. 

If a claimant seeks to argue that the standard by which 

DEEOIC evaluates claims is not based on a correct 

interpretation of available scientific evidence, or that a 

toxic substance that is not listed as having a health effect 

of hearing loss exists, he or she will need to provide 

probative epidemiological data to support the claim. Any 

claimant submission of scientific documentation, including 

journals, periodicals, or other literature (including 

citations to literature) has to relate to the topic of the 

correlation between hearing loss and toxic substance 

exposure. Scientific evidence that does not relate to or 

reference hearing loss is insufficient. 

With the receipt of compelling scientific data relating to a 

challenge to the DEEOIC conditions of acceptance for hearing 

loss, the CE is to prepare a referral of the documentation 

to the Policy Branch for examination by a Health Scientist 

who will respond to whether the evidence warrants a change 

to program policy regarding hearing loss. 

Exhibit 3 

Page 5 of 5 

SUPERSEDED