U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS =,

DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES’ OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION
SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE

719 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 601

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104

TELEPHONE: (206) 373-6750

TOLL-FREE: 1-888-805-3401

EMPLOYEE:

CLAIMANTS:

FILE NUMBER:
DATE OF FILING:

DATE OF ISSUANCE:
APR 15 2005

NOTICE OF RECOMMENDED DECISION

This is the Recommended Decision of the District Office concerning your claim for
compensation under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The District Office recommends denial of your claim
under Part B for survivor benefits for the condition of lung cancer. The District Office
defers determination of entitlement to benefits under Part E (formerly Part D) of the
EEOICPA.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

filed a Part B claim (EE-1) for benefits on 01/31/2002. Prior to the
adjudication of her claim, the employee, * ‘died.
filed a Part B claim
(EE-2) for benefits on 07/06/2004, 07/06/2004, 07/12/2004, 07/19/2004, and 07/26/2004,
respectively, seeking benefits pursuant to the EEOICPA as the survivors of covered a /
employee for the condition of lung cancer.

submitted an EE-3 indicating that she was employed with Westinghouse
Hanford, Boeing Computer Services and Lockhead Martin Services at the Hanford Site,
Richland, Washington. The EE-3 indicates a dosimetry badge was worn.

The Department of Energy (DOE) confirmed that was a DOE employee at
the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, from to it ie)
and from ° to The Department of Energy confirmed that

she was monitored through the use of a dosimetry badge for exposure to radiation.

submitted a medical report from , M.D., dated 06/04/2001
indicating a diagnosis of small'cell lung cancer. Also submitted was a pathology report



NOTICE OF RECOMMENDED DECISION AND CLAIMANT RIGHTS
The District Office has issued a recommended decision in regard to your claim under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. This notice explains how to file
objections to the recommended decision. This notice also explains what to do if you agree with the
recommended decision and want the FAB to issue a final decision before the 60-day period has
ended. Read the instructions contained in this notice carefully.

IF YOU WISH TO OBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED DECISION:

If you disagree with all or part of the recommended decision, you MUST file specific
objections to it within sixty (60) days from the date of the recommended decision by
writing to the Final Adjudication Branch at:

Rosanne Dummer, District Manager
Final Adjudication Branch

719 Second Ave, Suite 501

Seattle, WA 98104

Your objections MUST clearly state the reasons for your disagreement and indicate the
specific findings of fact and/or conclusions of law with which you disagree, including any
objections to any dose reconstruction performed. If you want an informal oral hearing on
your objections, at which you will be given the opportunity to present both oral testimony
and written evidence in support of your claim, you MUST request a hearing when you file
your objections. If you do not include a request for a hearing with your objections, the Final
‘Adjudication Branch will consider your objections through a review of the written record,
which will also give you the opportunity to present written evidence in support of your
claim. If you fail to file any specific objections to the recommended decision, it will be
affirmed by the Final Adjudication Branch and your right to challenge the
recommended decision will be waived for all purposes, even if you have requested an
oral hearing. Any recommended decision that is pending a hearing or review of the written
record for more than one year from the date the Final Adjudication Branch receives the
claim file will be affirmed.

IF YOU AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDED DECISION:

If you agree with the recommended decision and wish for it to be affirmed in a final decision
without change, you may submit a written statement waiving your right to object to it to the
Final Adjudication Branch, at the above address. This action will allow the Final
Adjudication Branch to issue a final decision on your claim before the end of the sixty-day
period for filing objections. If you wish to object to only part of the recommended decision
and waive any objections to the remaining parts of the decision, you may do so. In that
situation, the Final Adjudication Branch may issue a final decision affirming the parts of the
recommended decision to which you do not object.

Be sure to print your name, file number and the date of the recommended decision in any
correspondence submitted to the Final Adjudication Branch.



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES’ OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION
SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE,

719 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 601

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104

TELEPHONE: (206) 373-6750

TOLL-FREE: 1-888-805-3401

APR 15 2009 File Number:
Employee:

Dear Ms. Martin:

Enclosed is the Notice of Recommended Decision of the District Office concerning your
claim for compensation under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The District Office recommends denial
of your claim for benefits. Please note that this is onlya RECOMMENDED Decision; this
is not a Final Decision. The Recommended Decision has been forwarded to the Final
Adjudication Branch (FAB) for their review and issuance of the Final Decision.

Please read the Notice of Recommended Decision and Claimant Rights carefully.

If you agree with the Recommended Decision and wish to waivesany objections to it, you
must follow the instructions for doing so provided in the section entitled "If You Agree with
the Recommended Decision."

« Ifyou submit the attached Waiver Sheet (or a statement waiving the right to object)
to the Final Adjudication Branch at 719 Second Ave, Suite 501, Seattle, WA 98104,
a final decision can be issued before the end of the sixty (60) day period for filing
objections.

Ifyou fail to submit a Waiver Sheet or statement, the final decision cannot be issued
until after the end of the sixty (60) day period.

Failure to submit the Waiver Sheet or statement may delay the issuance of the lump
sum payment to those claimants who are eligible to receive this benefit.

If you disagree with the Recommended Decision, you must follow the instructions provided
in the section entitled "If You Wish to Object to the Recommended Decision." Your
objections must be filed within sixty (60) days from the date of the Recommended Decision
by writing to the Final Adjudication Branch at 719 Second Ave, Suite 501, Seattle, WA

98104.

If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact the District Office at (206) 373-6750
or toll-free at 1-888-805-3401.



ated 05/30/2001, which formed the basis for the diagnosis of cancer. This medical
evidence is sufficient to document the diagnosis of cancer under the EEOICPA.

A copy of the case file and a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Referral Summary was forwarded to NIOSH for dose reconstruction in 04/22/2002. On
03/25/2005, the Office received the “NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under
EEOICPA,” dated 02/10/2005, which provided the estimates of dose to the primary cancer
site of the lung.

NIOSH estimated annual doses totaling 15.949 rem (roentgen equivalent man) for the
lung. Based on these dose estimates, the calculation of probability of causation was
completed using NIOSH-IREP (NIOSH-Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program), which
is an interactive software program. The probability of causation for the one primary cancer
was determined to be 33.44 percent.

each submitted a Birth Certificate showing they are the children of the employee. The
claimant's also submitted a copy of the employee's Death Certificate showing that
was divorced at the time of her death on . Furthermore,
; each filed a copy of their Marriage Certificates
showing the change in their last name from .o their current last names.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. filed a Part B claim for benefits on 01/31/2002. The employee's
children, . ,and
, filed a Part B claim for survivor benefits on 07/06/2004, 07/06/2004,
07/12/2004, 07/19/2004, and 07/26/2004, respectively.

2. was employed with Westinghouse Hanford, Boeing Computer
Services and Lockhead Martin Services, Department of Energy facilities, contractors,
subcontractors or vendors, at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washingion, from
to : to and from ~ to
respectively.

3. ‘was monitored through the use of a dosimetry badge for exposure to
radiation during employment at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.

4, On 05/30/2001 was diagnosed with lung cancer.

5. The cancer diagnosis was made after go began employment with the
Department of Energy.

6. NIOSH reported annual dose estimates for the lung from the date of initial radiation
exposure at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, to the date of cancer diagnosis. A
summary and explanation of information and methods applied to produce these dose
estimates, including



01-35-G6 Po5:95 IN

January 22, 2006
Larry Elliott, Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

Re: File Number:
Employee:

Dear Mr. Elliott,

This letter is in response to the article in the Tri-City Herald on January 20, 2006. 1,
along with my siblings have continued with the filings to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office
of Workers Compensation Program, which our mother, ~ started before she
passed away on

was a DOE employee at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA. from
to ~ "We strongly disagree with their findings of facts and to their
recommended decision. We are not sure if you have access to all the records but if needed they
will be available to you upon request. Enclosed is the “Recommended Decision from the U.S.
Department of Labor and our letter of disagreement with this decision. Any help you can give us
with this matter will be much appreciated.

Sincerely,



Please review the enclosed Notice of Recommended Decision and Claimant Rights that
explains your rights regarding this Recommended Decision.

Christopher M. Green
Examiner

i, and ~ . involvement through an interview and review of the
dose report, are documented in the “NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under
EEOICPA,” dated 02/10/2005.

. Based on the dose reconstruction performed by NIOSH, the probability of causation
(the likelihood that a cancer was caused by radiation exposure incurred by the
employee while working at a DOE covered facility) was calculated for the one primary
cancer. The probability of causation values were determined using the upper 99
percent credibility limit, which helps minimize the possibility of denying claims to
employees with cancers likely to have been caused by occupational radiation
exposures. It was shown that : lung cancer did not meet the “at least
as likely as not” (a 50% or greater probability) threshold, as required under the EEO!ICP
that the cancer was caused by radiation doses incurred while employed at the Hanford
Site, Richland, Washington, as the probability of causation was 33.44 percent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

. does not qualify as a covered employee with cancer under Part B, as
defined by 42 U.S.C. § 73841(9)(B) of the EEOICPA.

. The dose reconstruction estimates were performed in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §
7384n(d) of the EEOICPA and 42 CFR Part 82 §82.10.

. The Probability of Causation was completed in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §
7384n(c)(3) of the EEOICPA and 20 CFR 30.213, which references Subpart E of 42
CFR Part 81

and
- are not entitled to compensation under Part B, as outlined under 42 U.S.C. §
7384s(e)(1) of the EEOICPA.

. Entitlement to Part E benefits under 42 U.S.C. is deferred at this time.

blue 4

Senior Examiner



April 28, 2005

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Rosanne Dummer, District Manager
Final Adjudication Branch
719 Second Ave, Suite 501
Seattle, WA. 98104

File Number:
Employee:

Dear Rosanne Dummer,

We,
, the ch
mother with re

ildren of ~ do not agree with the findings of facts pertaining to our
spect to the recommended decision. We are requesting a review of the written

record with our objections of the Final Adjudication Branch for the following reasons.

1)

2)

3)

The EE-3 indicates a dosimetry badge was worn and the Department of Energy
confirmed that she was monitored through the use of a dosimetry badge for
exposure to radiation. On numerous reports prior to this latest report it states that
she was not monitored, therefore contradicting this report. We request the
Department of Energy’s. specific records of the actual monitoring and reading of
her badge with the exposure to radiation that the Department says they did.

Twice a week, every week, had to go to the 400 Area by herself and work
in a building by herself that was always damp, cold and smelled. She was told
NOT TO DRINK THE WATER and she always felt nauseated, had headaches
and always did not feel good after working out there.

worked with 10 other co workers and out of these 10 women, 5 women
have either passed away from cancer or have been diagnosed with cancer. They
are:

5)
These are just the one’s that we arc aware of put pf the 10 co workers that
worked with, There may even be more of'the'i0, who have either
passed away from cancer or have been diagnosed with cancer. This js an alarming
revelation and clearly it needs to be looked into.



April 28, 2005
Re:
File Number:

4)

Sincerely,

The probability of causation for was 33.44 percent in regards for
the Department of Energy taking responsibility. We believe that this percentage
should be much higher since our mother worked for the Department of Energy for
24 plus years. We also believe the dose reconstruction estimates should be much
higher than stated.