Draft

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Evaluation of New Claims Filed Since the Summer of 2015 for Idaho 

National Laboratory – Executive Summary

Contract No. 211-2014-58081 

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary, Revision 0 

Prepared by 

Bob Barton, CHP 

SC&A, Inc.

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, Virginia 22182 

Saliant, Inc.

5579 Catholic Church Road

Jefferson, Maryland 21755 

July 2016 

DISCLAIMER

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) technical 

support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), including its 

Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, 

draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically 

marked as such. This document prepared by SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical 

issues. 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

2 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

SC&A, INC.: Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Radiation & 

Worker Health Review of NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

DOCUMENT TITLE: 

Evaluation of New Claims Filed Since the Summer of 2015 for Idaho 

National Laboratory – Executive Summary

DOCUMENT NUMBER/

DESCRIPTION:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

REVISION NO.: 0 (Draft)

SUPERSEDES: N/A

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2016

TASK MANAGER: John Stiver, MS, CHP [signature on file]

PROJECT MANAGER: John Stiver [signature on file]

DOCUMENT 

REVIEWER(S):

John Stiver [signature on file]

Joe Fitzgerald [signature on file]

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 7/06/2016 Initial issue. This report consists of the “Background and 

Introduction” and “Summary Conclusions” sections of SCATR-2016-SEC004, Revision 00, which have been edited and 

reviewed for compliance with the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a 

and have been cleared for distribution. The body of SCA-TR2016-SEC004 is predominantly information protected by the 

Privacy Act and, therefore, not available for proactive release.

This report consists of the “Background and Introduction” and “Summary Conclusions” sections 

of SCA-TR-2016-SEC2004, which have been edited and reviewed for compliance with the Privacy 

Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and have been cleared for distribution. The body of SCA-TR-2016-SEC004 is 

predominantly information protected by the Privacy Act and, therefore, not readily available for 

proactive release. Individuals may obtain the full document by submitting a document request to the 

Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health: 

Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., MS E-20, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone: (513)533-6800, toll free: 1-800-CDC-INFO, e-mail: 

dcas@cdc.gov.
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

3 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................4

1.0 Background and Introduction ..............................................................................................5

2.0 Summary Conclusions.........................................................................................................8

3.0 References..........................................................................................................................10
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

4 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

CATI computer-assisted telephone interview

CPP Chemical Processing Plant

Cx construction at CPP 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

EE energy employee

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

LFC Location File Card

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 

SRDB Site Research Database

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

WG Work Group
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

5 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

During the summer and early fall of 2015, both SC&A, Inc. and the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) undertook an evaluation of the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) claimant population as it relates to the proposed Special Exposure Cohort 

(SEC) class definition as amended on July 21, 20151 (NIOSH 2015a):

The NIOSH-proposed class includes all employees of the Department of Energy, 

its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Scoville, Idaho, and (a) who were 

monitored for external radiation at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) 

(e.g., at least one film badge or TLD dosimeter from CPP) between January 1, 

1963 and February 28, 1970; or (b) who were monitored for external radiation at 

INL (e.g., at least one film badge or TLD dosimeter) between March 1, 1970 and 

December 31, 1974 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work 

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

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

employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. (NIOSH 2015a) 

1 Note that the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health (ABRWH) voted to accept the latter part of the 

SEC definition (March 1, 1970–December 31, 1974) at ABRWH Meeting 11 held on March 24, 2016

This claimant evaluation performed in tandem by NIOSH and SC&A involved simulating the

implementation of the proposed class definition to determine if the dosimetry requirements 

would inadvertently exclude a claimant who was likely exposed at the CPP. The results of this 

simulated implementation were reported in SCA-SEC-2015-0074-D, Evaluation of the Revised 

SEC Class Definition for the Idaho National Laboratory Chemical Processing Plant (1963–

1974) (SC&A 2015) and an August 21, 2015, email from NIOSH to the INL Work Group (WG) 

(NIOSH 2015b). These companion reports identified 18 individual claims that appeared to be 

problematic and required follow-up data requests to INL. The supplemental data were

transmitted directly from the site throughout November and December 2015. SC&A and NIOSH 

delivered their evaluation of the supplemental data for the 18 identified claims in January 2016 

(SC&A 2016; NIOSH 2016). These 18 claims were discussed during the INL WG teleconference 

on January 15, 2016, and again during the WG meeting on March 1, 2016. 

At the latter meeting, it was noted that 8812 total claims had been evaluated during the simulated

SEC implementation and subsequent supplemental data capture on 18 individual claimants. At 

that time, the WG requested that both NIOSH and SC&A examine newly filed claims that had 

not been part of the original 881. In total, 32 claims with covered employment at INL from 1963 

to 1974 have been filed since NIOSH’s simulated implementation report was produced (NIOSH 

2015b). This white paper represents SC&A’s evaluation of these 32 claims.

2 Note that due to the separate timing of the NIOSH and SC&A work products on simulated SEC 

implementation, SC&A had evaluated slightly more claims than the 881 reported by NIOSH (898 in total). For 

consistency with NIOSH’s current review of the 32 claims filed since the summer of 2015, the 17 extra claims 

reviewed as part of SC&A 2015 are also discussed in this report. 

Note that for several 

claims, computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) reports had not been finalized and/or U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) monitoring records had not been received. While these claims can 

 
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

6 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

be considered incomplete for the purposes of this review, relevant information contained in the 

partially completed files was noted for discussion. The review of the 32 additional claims 

resulted in eight Observations, as follows:

Observation 1: The energy employee (EE) indicated several times that they would conduct 

tours of “uncleared” personnel through CPP and has evidence of assignment to CPP in 

both 1964 and 1974. Individual dosimetry associated with CPP was not located in the EE’s 

individual DOE monitoring records for 1964. A manual search of captured dosimetry 

records for the individual turned up multiple entries for the claimant. The uncovered 

badges were not associated with a subcontractor or construction work (e.g., “Cx”), nor 

were they temporary/visitor records. It is unknown why these records were not included in 

the DOE response. It is possible that the claim was researched utilizing the efficiency 

process that was in use earlier in the dose reconstruction program. 

Observation 2: While the majority of the EE’s work appears to be related to reactor 

operations, the EE does describe having to go into CPP to clean up spills on at least a few 

occasions. One such occasion resulted in the claimant being restricted from radiation work. 

While it is apparent the EE was monitored externally throughout the SEC period, 

individual dosimeter information is lacking.

Observation 3: The EE describes performing maintenance work at CPP in which he had to 

wear anti-contamination clothing and was badged externally. The approximate date of the 

work was not provided. The EE did have temporary badges associated with CPP from 1983

to 1985. However, the EE was also monitored externally from 1963 to 1964, and individual 

dosimeter results are not available to allow for the location to be identified. 

Observation 4: The Location File Card (LFC) for the claimant indicates that the EE was 

assigned to “All Areas” from 1970 to 1974. This is a broad example of the badging policies 

at INL changing in 1970 from “one badge, one area” to “one badge, multiple areas.” It is 

not clear if any “All Areas” badges were issued prior to 1970, though INL 2011 does

indicate the use of an Area Code 123 (which represents an “All Area Badge”) at some point 

at INL. 

Observation 5: SC&A observed visitor badges for which the “Area Designation” was 

illegible or cut off in the DOE response records. It is SC&A’s understanding that the 

individual visitor cards are grouped by site area; therefore, DOE will be able to identify the 

work area even if that section of the individual visitor card is illegible or unable to be read 

in the transmitted monitoring records.
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

7 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

Observation 6: SC&A observed that many visitor cards contain an “ ,” which is a unique 

identifier for an individual worker. This allows for a second piece of information beyond 

the name of the worker to allow for identification of a specific worker with a given work 

area. 

Observation 7: Correspondence with the EE’s survivor indicated three different name 

variations, two of which were observed on the available visitor cards. While nearly all the 

visitor cards also included an “ ” to allow for positive identification, at least one example 

only contained the EE’s name. 

Observation 8: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) initial case for this claim appears to 

indicate there was a medical incident for the EE occurring at CPP in 1966. The CATI and 

DOE monitoring response are not yet available for this claimant. Follow-up for this 

claimant may be beneficial once those additional documents are made available to NIOSH 

and the WG.

It is important to note that the analysis contained in the full version of this document contains 

information on individual workers at INL, including interview statements, radiological exposure 

records, medical histories, and other information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. Due to 

the nature of the individual information contained in this report, only the “Background and 

Introduction” and “Summary Conclusions” section are provided to the public.
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

8 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

2.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 

The review of newly filed cases (32 total) since the summer of 2015 yielded eight observations. 

It is important to emphasize that approximately one-third of the case files contained CATI 

reports that had yet to be finalized by the claimant and/or the claims had not yet received DOE 

monitoring records.3 Nonetheless, these claims often contained relevant information related to 

the proposed SEC class definition and were discussed in the full report where applicable.

3 Specifically, 3 of the 32 cases had not yet received DOE monitoring records to date.

Some observations reported in this white paper related to cases for which more circumstantial 

evidence suggested potential exposure at CPP (Observations 1–3 and 8). For example, one case

contained direct evidence of assignment to CPP in 1964 via the EE’s LFC. This claimant 

reported performing tours of CPP with uncleared personnel on occasion and also indicated that 

cohort-style badging may have been employed. No external dosimetry was found in the DOE 

response files related to CPP in 1964 as would have been expected. A line-by-line search of 

captured dosimetry records uncovered several dosimeter entries for the individual. The claimant 

was employed by Phillips Petroleum (the prime contractor), was not involved in construction 

work (i.e., not designated “Cx”), and was on a regular badging program (not designated 

temporary or visitor badging). While it is not known why these records were not included in the 

DOE response files, it is possible this case was evaluated by DOE using efficiency measures 

enacted early in the dose reconstruction program that are no longer being used.4

 

4 The DOE response records were transmitted to NIOSH in April 2015. 

One case (the subject of Observation 2) describes having to enter CPP to aid in spills and 

cleanups though the EE’s regular work area was in the reactor facilities. This claimant reported 

being restricted in one such instance after just a few minutes of exposure at CPP. Although the 

claimant’s monitoring records do contain visitor badges for CPP that are outside of the SEC 

period, none of the years in which these badges occur show a non-zero dose accrued as would be 

expected if the EE had been restricted.

In another case (the subject of Observation 3), the EE describes performing maintenance work at 

CPP but does not specify individual dates. It is possible this work was performed outside the 

SEC period when temporary badges were observed. However, it is not possible to determine the 

work location while the EE was monitored externally in 1963–1964 because individual 

dosimeter results are currently not available. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the EE 

performed maintenance activities at CPP during these years. 

Finally, one claimant’s records contain a medical incident report that appears to be from CPP in 

1966. While this would qualify as definitive evidence of assignment to CPP, DOE monitoring 

records have not yet been transmitted to NIOSH and so it is not possible to determine with 

certainty if the EE was badged externally at CPP during this period. For this reason, the case was 

classified as an observation (Observation 8) and not a finding. Additional follow-up once 

monitoring records are received from DOE would confirm whether monitoring occurred. 

 
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

9 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

The remaining observations are related to characteristics of the dosimetry records and relevant 

monitoring practices at INL that are germane to SEC class definition discussions (Observations 

4–6). Observation 4 indicated that the EE was assigned an “All Areas” badge during the 1970s. 

While it has been established that the site had transitioned to a “one badge, multiple area” policy 

during this time, it is unknown if such badges could have been issued prior to 1970. This would 

be especially pertinent to emergency response-type personnel. The issue of the badging of 

personnel such as firefighters is currently being investigated by NIOSH. 

One case inspired two observations (Observations 5 and 6) that provided characteristics of the 

visitor badging cards in the context of potential implementation issues. One example was 

provided in which the area designation on the visitor card was illegible. In another example, the 

area had been cut off from the scanned record provided to NIOSH. It is SC&A’s understanding 

that these situations are not problematic because the visitor cards are organized by specific site 

area. Therefore, an illegible or cut-off area designation on a visitor card could still be identified

with the correct work area for SEC determination. This same case also had examples showing 

that a site-specific identifier (known as the “ ”) was found on several visitor badge cards. This 

allows for a second piece of evidence, beyond the EE’s written name, to correctly identify the 

worker with the dosimetry record and associated work area.

Finally, one case provides an example where multiple name variations could refer to the same 

person. Specifically, the EE’s survivor wrote a letter to DOL explaining that at least three 

different name variations were used by the EE on different official forms. This was somewhat 

reflected in the names written on the visitor cards. In this specific case, the potential to miss the 

claimant due to name variations was largely obviated by the inclusion of an “ ” on most of the 

individual visitor cards. However, one visitor card included in the file did not contain an “ ,” 

although DOE was able to match the dosimetry record by name alone. This was the subject of 

Observation 7.
Effective Date:

July 06, 2016

Revision No.

0 (Draft)

Document No./Description:

SCA-TR-2016-SEC004-Summary

Page No.

10 of 10

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution.

3.0 REFERENCES

INL 2011. Sorted by Area Code – Tables and Areas and Codes – Dosimetry, Idaho National 

Laboratory. Updated March 10, 2011. [SRDB Ref. ID 116975]

NIOSH 2015a. SEC Petition Evaluation Report: Petition SEC-00219, Revision 1, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. July 21, 2015.

(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/sec/inl/inler-219-r1.pdf)

NIOSH 2015b. NIOSH CPP and Cx Dosimetry Evaluation – Follow-up, Email communication 

from Tim Taulbee to the INL Work Group, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health. August 21, 2015.

NIOSH 2016. Follow-up of 18 INL Claims Evaluated for Inclusion in the Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC), Revision 1, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. January 13, 

2016. (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dps/dc-inlsec-r1.pdf)

SC&A 2015. Evaluation of the Revised SEC Class Definition for the Idaho National Laboratory 

Chemical Processing Plant (1963-1974), SCA-SEC-2015-0074-D, Sanford Cohen and 

Associates, Vienna, VA. September 28, 2015.

SC&A 2016. Evaluation of Claims with Supplemental Dosimetry Requests, SCA-2016-SEC0074F, Sanford Cohen and Associates, Vienna, VA. January 12, 2016.

(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-supdosereq.pdf)