NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 1 of 9 05/08/06

Meeting Date: 

January 19, 2006, 10:00 a.m. 

Meeting with: 

United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 1519 Retirees’ Association, Santa Susana, California 

Attendees: 

Name Organization 

Robert S. Huffman President, Retirees’ Association, UAW Local 1519, Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory (SSFL) 

Stephen E. Rudolph UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Leopoldo V. Rodriguez UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Charles Armstrong UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Edwin Schaper UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Bob Michaels UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Rudolfo C. Dealva UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Edgar Lavalle UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Don Dirubio UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Norm Pollock UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Arlo Malwitz UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Linda Hayes UAW Local 1519, Health and Safety 

H. F. “Rocky” Rasmussen UAW Local 1519, Retired 

Lynn E. McKie UAW Local 1519, Retired, SSFL 

Lee Wells UAW Local 1519, Retired, SSFL 

Clem Cecka UAW Local 1519, Retired, SSFL 

Duncan Thompson UAW Local 1519, Retired, SSFL 

Ted Fleser UAW Local 1519, Retired, SSFL 

Al Onori UAW Local 1519, Retired, SSFL 

NIOSH/ORAU Team: 

Mark Rolfes, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation, Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

Melton Chew, M. H. Chew and Associates, Site Profile Team Leader 

Steve Meiners, Tricord, Inc. 

Mark Lewis, Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc. (ATL) 

Mary Elliott, ATL 

Proceedings: 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 2 of 9 05/08/06

The President of the UAW Local 1519 Retirees welcomed the NIOSH/ORAU (Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities) Worker Outreach Team to their meeting. Mr. Lewis thanked the 

President for the opportunity to meet with them. He introduced himself and the other Team 

members: Mark Rolfes, Steve Meiners, Mel Chew, and Mary Elliott. He explained that a 

recording was being made not to identify the speakers, but to aid in preparing meeting minutes 

that will accurately capture the concerns and issues raised during the meeting. He requested that 

everyone sign in on the sheet provided and stated that their names would be included in the 

minutes, but not their contact information. 

Mr. Lewis described his background in organized labor and his work within the nuclear weapons 

complex. He stated that his career experience led to his current job as the Worker Outreach 

Team’s Union Outreach Specialist on the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project. 

Mr. Lewis explained that the Team was there to discuss the ETEC Site Profile, a tool that serves 

as a technical handbook for the dose reconstructors to use in determining the radiation exposures 

for claimants under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA). Since the primary source of information for the Site Profile is the records kept by 

the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, the Worker Outreach Team has been 

charged with getting the “rest of the story” – the workers’ perspective – from employees who 

worked at the site under the DOE nuclear weapons contracts. This a very important task because 

the “official” records do not always accurately reflect the work practices and radiation safety 

issues at a given site. 

Mr. Lewis stated that, ideally, the Team meets with labor organizations representing the workers 

before the Site Profile is written. The Team had planned to meet with UAW Local 1519 in May 

2005, but several events prevented that meeting from taking place. Although the ETEC Site 

Profile is nearly finished, it is a “living document,” which means that it may be revised if new 

information comes to light that could affect the dose reconstructions for claimants from the 

ETEC site. Information from this meeting may not be included in the first edition of the 

document, but may be included in future revisions. After the ETEC Site Profile is approved, it 

will be posted on the NIOSH web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocastbds.html. 

Mr. Lewis said that Mr. Rolfes, Mr. Chew, and Mr. Meiners are health physicists on the NIOSH 

Dose Reconstruction Project who were present to answer questions and address concerns during 

the presentation. Mr. Rolfes said that he could not address questions about specific claims, but 

would take information and communicate answers regarding claims in a timely manner. Mr. 

Lewis turned the floor over to Mr. Meiners for the presentation. 

Mr. Meiners thanked the retired union members for the opportunity to meet with them. He stated 

that the purpose of the meeting is two-fold: it serves as an opportunity for workers and former 

workers to provide suggestions and information for the Site Profile, as well as a providing a 

means for the Worker Outreach Team to document their comments and answer any questions 

regarding the Site Profile and the dose reconstruction process. 

Mr. Meiners gave an overview of EEOICPA. The legislation was passed to compensate workers 

from the nuclear weapons program who have become ill as the result of exposure to radiation or 

toxic substances during their employment. A Site Profile document is prepared for many of the 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 3 of 9 05/08/06

sites that were involved in these programs. The Site Profile serves as technical guidance in 

reconstructing the energy workers’ radiation doses over the course of their careers. 

All EEOICPA claims are filed through the Department of Labor, which verifies the claimant’s or 

former worker’s employment and medical diagnosis. Two types of claims may be filed under 

this program. Subtitle B claims may be filed for radiation-induced cancers, berylliosis and some 

silicosis claims. Subtitle E claims may be filed for diseases related to toxic chemical exposure. 

Employees or former employees who work(ed) for facilities or companies under contract with 

the AEC or DOE can file claims for $150,000 for Subtitle B, but the type of facility determines 

eligibility for Subtitle E. Surviving spouses or children may also file a claim on the worker’s 

behalf if the worker is deceased. NIOSH receives only Subtitle B cancer claims for radiation 

dose reconstruction. NIOSH established the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

(OCAS) to facilitate and provide oversight for the dose reconstruction efforts. Due to the large 

number of claims submitted, NIOSH hired ORAU and its subcontractors to assist with the dose 

reconstructions and other associated tasks. 

The Site Profile is used by the health physicists who reconstruct workers’ EEOICPA radiation 

doses. The information in the document allows the dose reconstructors to consistently use the 

same data to provide a framework for all claims from that site. To determine the likelihood, or 

“probability of causation” (POC), that a worker’s cancer is related to his or her occupational 

radiation dose, the worker’s dose is reconstructed from dose records and the claims interview 

process – is entered into a computer program to calculate the POC for that type of cancer. The 

claim is awarded if the program finds that the cancer is “as likely as not” (greater than 50% 

POC) to have been caused the worker’s occupational radiation dose. 

The Site Profile Team uses records from DOE and its contractors for most of the information in 

the document. But to ensure that the document is an accurate and comprehensive tool for 

radiation dose reconstruction, input from people who actually worked at the site is needed 

regarding daily plant operations, safety practices, dosimetry and bioassay programs, and any 

incidents or accidents affecting a large population of workers at the site. Because the workers are 

the “site experts,” the knowledge they can provide improves the quality of the Site Profile, 

resulting in more effective evaluations of workers’ radiation doses. 

The ETEC Site Profile is a collection of historic, site-specific, technical information that includes 

six sections: Introduction, Site Description, External Dose, Internal Dose, Environmental Dose, 

and Medical Dose. 

The Site Description is a summary of the ETEC facilities that were used in contracts between 

DOE and Rockwell’s Atomics International and its successors from 1948 to the present in the 

nuclear energy and weapons programs. It describes the radiation-related programs that took place 

in each building, along with radiation sources that were present. Incidents or accidents that 

occurred in these areas are also discussed in this section. 

The Medical Dose section describes the medical X-ray programs that were in place during the 

contract periods. This section discusses which workers received medical X-rays as a condition of 

their employment, as well as the frequency and types of X-rays that were regularly required, and 

how the medical program changed over time. If site-specific information on the frequency of X-
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 4 of 9 05/08/06

ray examinations is not available, NIOSH assumes one chest X-ray per employee per year for 

dose reconstruction purposes. 

The section on External Dose describes the external dosimetry programs that were in place at the 

plant. It gives details such as which workers wore dosimeter badges and what types of 

dosimeters they were issued. It also describes the types of radiation that were measured, the 

frequency of badge exchange, and the badging practices as outlined in the dosimetry programs, 

as well as changes in the dosimetry program over time. In an effort to be claimant-favorable, 

NIOSH applies a “missed dose” component to compensate for cases where dosimeter readings 

were reported as zero. This “missed dose” is calculated as one-half of the minimum detectable 

level (MDL). 

The Internal Dose section describes the internal dosimetry and bioassay programs and which 

workers were included in them. It discusses the radioactive materials that were present and how 

radioactive contamination was controlled, as well as the air monitoring programs. Bioassay 

information is given, as well as information regarding whole body and chest counting. 

The Environmental Dose section is included to allow for workers who were not monitored in 

dosimetry programs. Site-wide monitoring for air concentrations is used as a basis to determine 

internal environmental doses, and materials in storage and waste pits are considered for external 

environmental doses. 

Mr. Meiners concluded the presentation by reiterating that the site profile teams rely on workers’ 

information to make the Site Profiles more comprehensive and accurate documents for 

calculating dose reconstructions for claimants. Any information that might contribute to 

revisions to the Site Profile can be sent directly to NIOSH at the addresses in the presentation, as 

well as by fax at the number provided. When the ETEC Site Profile is complete, the document 

will be posted on the NIOSH website, which is also a very useful source of information on the 

EEOICPA program. 

Question: 

What about those of us who don’t have computers or internet access? 

Steve Meiners: 

Public libraries usually have internet access available to the public. NIOSH also has toll-free 

numbers that you can call for information. The information is in the presentation folder. 

Comment: 

Most of the exposures we were aware of were not from radiation. 

Steve Meiners: 

EEOICPA has mechanisms in place to compensate for chemical exposures, too. Claims can be 

pursued under both Subtitles B and E. 

Mark Lewis: 

You should pursue a claim if you believe that any illness you have now or have had in the past 

may be related to chemical or radiation exposure during your employment. If you are in doubt, 

you should call the DOL Resource Center. 

Question: 

Does this profile have a geographic area that it encompasses? 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 5 of 9 05/08/06

Steve Meiners: 

That is an excellent transition question. I’m going to turn the program over to Mel Chew, who is 

the Site Profile Team Leader and the author of the ETEC Site Profile. 

Mel Chew: 

Thank you, Steve, and thank you all for having us here today as part of your meeting. I had the 

pleasure of putting the team together and we came down to begin gathering information for the 

document at the beginning of November 2005. It was our goal to put together the most accurate 

information available to us in a very timely manner. What we found was fascinating – you 

should be proud to have been a part of the history of ETEC. 

To address your specific question, sir, we looked at all the facilities involved in the Atomics 

International/Rocketdyne contracts – Downey, Canoga Park, Desoto Avenue and especially Area 

IV at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. 

The Site Profile Team looked at many documents from the late 1940s and the 1950s and on up 

through the present – the experimental reactors, the fuel fabrication for those reactors, the 

accelerators, and the research and development programs that have taken place here over the 

years. The diverse technical operations here are amazing. During our first site visit we went to 

one of the buildings up in Area IV that housed 147 four-drawer files. Fortunately they were very 

well catalogued – outstanding records of the radiation programs, very well documented. We 

were able to find documentation back from the very early days in the 1940s. The reactor 

programs from the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the fuel fabrication programs were also welldocumented. The Site Profile will reflect that – the Site Description for this site is much larger 

than the usual 25 to 30 pages. If you have a chance to look at the Site Profile, I would hope that 

is where you would start. As you review this section, if you think that there is information 

missing on any program that you know about here that involved radiation work, please let us 

know and we will search out the information. 

I need your help in finding some missing information about a program that involved a small 

thorium reactor that operated on only a few watts. This was the Advanced Thorium Reactor that 

operated from 1960 to 1974. We need to look at the fuel mixture for that reactor. Does anybody 

have any knowledge of that? 

The Medical section is very important. We actually talked to the early doctors that worked on the 

program. I also met with the current doctor on staff and looked at some of the files, even pulling 

out X-ray films so I could clearly understand what kinds of machines were used. 

In an effort to be favorable to the claimant, NIOSH gives the benefit of the doubt when there is 

no clear evidence of the claimant’s radiation exposure. If no dosimetry records or bioassay data 

are available, the dose reconstructors assign a default value to reconstruct the radiation exposure 

– usually the maximum radiation dose from the operation in which the claimant participated. 

We looked at the internal exposures. For example, we know that there was a powder room. They 

made some of the fuel there, so we looked that the operation, the kind of sampling they used, 

what kind of bioassay program – lung counting or urinalysis – that they had. 

We also looked at the environmental ambient radiation dose for the Environmental section. Even 

though you may not have been working next to a reactor, or directly inside one of the powder 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 6 of 9 05/08/06

rooms, you may have potentially received a radiation exposure. We looked very carefully at the 

environmental reports. 

The section on external radiation tells which people wore dosimetry badges and which did not. 

We know that there were different exchange frequencies for different workers. All of this is 

factored in when a claimant’s radiation exposure is calculated. We know that the badging 

changed from film badges to TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeters), so there was a change in the 

sensitivity of the dosimetry methods. 

We’ve covered the Medical, Internal, External and Environmental Sections. Those are the four 

main technical documents in the Site Profile that help reconstruct a claimant’s dose. The fifth 

section is the Site Description and the other is the Introduction. The documents are still being 

developed, but if you have anything you would like to share with us that you feel is missing 

please share that information with us. We will research it and address it in the document as 

necessary. 

Question: 

Do you have access to the UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) studies? They asked 

some of the same questions. 

Mel Chew: 

Yes, I think they did some groundwater studies. We do have access to that information. They 

probably did most of their study from personal interviews. We did it from existing records. That 

was our starting point. We had to get something on paper. We do have access to information 

other than the site information to use in writing our documents. There have been quite a few 

cases that have been filed, so we had a deadline to meet to get the documents into the review 

process. 

Comment: 

Boeing just settled a lawsuit for $30 million with area residents over environmental issues. 

Mel Chew: 

Did they settle with individuals? 

Response: 

They settled with one hundred families. 

Mel Chew: 

And they were people who lived around the area? EEOICPA is for employees and former 

employees who worked at the sites. The Site Profile states that you went back and forth between 

Atomics International (AI) and Rocketdyne. One day you might have been working on 

something for the space shuttle program and the next day be working at one of the reactors. Any 

exposure you may have received on any of these programs was considered. 

Comment: 

We were all on top of the hill. 

Mel Chew: 

I saw a couple of those big tanks – a lot of work went into just getting them up there. 

Question: 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 7 of 9 05/08/06

How can you identify the location of a project – by building or by timeframe of the operations? 

We had an X-ray program in a building and the year was 1983-84, and the work was classified. 

Who determines if an operation is not considered as, shall we say, secret any longer? 

Mel Chew: 

X-rays... ok... We are familiar with each building and we try to chronologically determine what 

went on in these buildings and what we can say that is unclassified. These documents are 

unclassified. If there were some X-ray machines there, it would talk about the size of the 

machine or if they used radionuclide sources. That would be a very good thing for you to look at 

if you get a chance to see the Site Profile. Go right to that particular section and make sure that 

we have information about the program. Not that all the information will be in there – if you are 

a claimant and you say that you worked in that particular building, the dose reconstructor can 

pull the information for that building and work on the claim. The Site Profile is not the only 

source of information. The dose reconstructors use many other sources of information to process 

individual claims. Many small projects were conducted here, mostly research and development. 

Some of the other DOE facilities were mainly production with many people working on a few 

projects. Here you had many small projects with a few people working at a lot of different 

things. 

Comment: 

When AI started, everyone had a clearance. Then Rocketdyne – a lot of work was done on the 

hill with the goal of putting man on the moon. But we all worked on the hill and it was possible 

for everyone to have exposure if there was a meltdown. 

Mel Chew: 

If you were badged, even if you worked on Rocketdyne, everyone wore the same film badge at 

both sites. 

Comment: 

Rocketdyne employees did not have badges. Only the AI employees were badged. 

Mel Chew: 

It is good to address these things. There were quite a few radiographers who went back and forth, 

and we used the information from their badges to determine the external dose. 

Question: 

Do you have information on the Ion Propulsion System? 

Mel Chew: 

We looked at that program. The information we found was that they were primarily research 

papers. They are building a research facility in Huntsville, Alabama to study ion propulsion, antimatter and anti-gravity. 

Comment: 

The vast majority of the work in Area IV had nothing to do with radiation. At the bottom of the 

hill, the residents in the Valley are all concerned down there about general exposure and they 

studied the whole 2,700 acres up on the hill to see if there was any “ominous effect.” I worked 

here for forty-three years. With all the records, the instrumentation, the air monitoring done over 

the years up here, do we ever really know? 

Mel Chew: 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 8 of 9 05/08/06

That is a very valid question. The Environmental section deals with the potential exposure to 

background (ambient) radiation. We have information for potential internal and external 

exposure to that kind of radiation. They put TLD packets around the site to monitor the 

environmental external exposures. The levels were fairly low; the reactors operated at low power 

and were very well shielded. There was not what I would consider a significant amount of 

radiation present, but you need to read the document to make sure we addressed it properly. The 

environmental reports are primarily oriented toward chemical effects and include only a small 

amount of information about the radiation. 

Comment: 

In the late 1950s, there was a complete meltdown. They scrapped the materials in the yard, 

where they could be used by anyone. I have often wondered what the possible contamination 

might actually be. 

Mel Chew: 

We spent a considerable amount of time going through all versions of the documentation. We 

have seen the newspaper articles that call this your Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. I’d like to 

give you my perspective. It was basically a cladding failure, and it was actually more than one. 

The one everybody talks about was the sodium reactor. They gave us a lot of information on the 

loss of the cladding and how much material actually escaped. We have that documented fairly 

well to our satisfaction. When we think of meltdowns, you think of maybe a cloud of 

contamination. It was a small incident in comparison to Chernobyl – not even close. But 

technically, some of the cladding did have excess heat and they went into minute detail in their 

incident reports about what caused that. 

There were several other small incidents that we talked about in the document. Boeing did a 

thorough reporting of incidents that may potentially impact radiation exposure. We actually 

worked from that particular book. Everything was all included in one book. The cladding failure 

was well addressed in the documents. We also have some references in the Site Description that 

talk specifically about that and the exposures to the workers, the public and the environment 

from several incidents. 

Question: 

Was there exposure to the people on the hill (the workers)? 

Mel Chew: 

A small cloud of radioactive material was released and there was not much higher exposure 

above the ambient level. There weren’t many people up there at the time. If you weren’t badged 

and you had exposure, we have enough information, along with the dates, to give a maximum 

exposure for the incident. 

Question: 

Do you remember when this happened? Will it be in the Site Profile? We would like to know the 

dates. 

Mel Chew: 

Yes, there are specific references to the incident reports with exact dates. And as I mentioned, it 

also references to the incident reports that came out of that. There was a document that compiled 

all the incidents and that one is very well documented. The people who reconstructed the event 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Introductory Meeting on 

Development of Site Profile for 

Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) 

Final Minutes 9 of 9 05/08/06

actually made a movie to document it. The Site Profile Team actually watched the film. They 

wanted us to see how the incident may have occurred. 

Question: 

Is that main report on Building 59? Is that the building we’re talking about? 

Response (from another attendee): 

It was the SRE (Sodium Reactor Experiment). 

Mel Chew: 

Yes, that’s right, as well as other cladding incidents that were worthy of mention. As I said 

before, not all of the information on that incident is going to be in the Site Profile. But what is in 

there will lead to a trail of information that the dose reconstructors can use during an individual 

dose reconstruction. 

Question: 

Are you familiar with Bridge the Gap? 

Mel Chew: 

I am not familiar with that. What is it? 

Response: 

It is a community organization. 

Comment: 

I have the document. If there was a meltdown, gases were released. They did a lot of stuff here at 

night. The document shows that there is ten percent (10%) higher radiation exposure to the 

workers on the hill than the people in the Valley. 

Mark Lewis: 

Most of you worked in the non-radiation programs. If you know someone who worked on the AI 

side who you could pass this information on to, it would be good to have the document looked at 

from the workers’ point of view. If there is anyone who has classified information that should be 

included in the document, secure interviews can be set up. 

The Site Profile will be published on the NIOSH website when it is finished. The web address is: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocastbds.html. If you don’t have computer access, we can send 

you a hard copy. We will come back to meet with you again after the Site Profile is done and you 

have had a chance to look it over. 

Question: 

One more question on that site geographical definition: Does the Site Profile go back to the late 

1940s – as far as the buildings and the basic perimeter? Is that in the document so we can look at 

it? 

Mel Chew: 

Yes, it goes all the way back to the beginning. I found the date for the SRE incident. It was July 

26, 1959. 

Mr. Lewis again thanked the union members and former workers for including the Worker 

Outreach Team in their meeting. The meeting concluded at approximately 10:45 a.m.