NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 1 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

Date: 

April 28, 2004 

Meeting with: 

Idaho Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO 

Attendees: 

Ned Jones International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 449 

Clay Atwood International Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 

Robert Stone International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District 

Council 5 

Bertha Jones Idaho Falls Resource Center 

Ann Jones Department of Labor Seattle 

Brent Moore Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 60 

Layne Gough International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 983 

Rod Fuger United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 

Plumbing, Pipefitting, and Sprinkler Fitting Industry of the 

United States and Canada Local 648 

Mike Schiess Laborers International Union of North America Local 155 

Sherry Fladeland Idaho Falls Resource Center 

Mark Hansen Idaho Falls Resource Center 

John Hoyrup United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 

Local 808 

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives: 

Stuart Hinnefeld – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)/Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

William Murray – Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) 

Norman Rohrig – INEEL Site Profile Team Leader 

Mark Lewis – ATL, Inc. 

Dawn Catalano – ATL, Inc. 

Proceedings 

Mark Lewis opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. by thanking all attendees for allowing the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU) Team to be part of their regular monthly meeting. He introduced himself as 

the Union Outreach Specialist and gave an overview of his professional background and goals of 

the program. He stressed that the meeting was to help NIOSH and ORAU gather information to 

supplement or improve the Site Profile with data from those experienced in the workplace thus 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 2 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

rendering it more accurate and useful in dose reconstruction efforts. He then introduced Stuart 

Hinnefeld as the NIOSH representative and turned the floor over to him. 

Mr. Hinnefeld also thanked the attendees for making time in the meeting agenda for the 

presentation and reiterated that NIOSH wanted to make the Site Profile as beneficial as possible 

for the union members. He characterized the meeting as partially educational since there would 

be an explanation of radiation dose reconstruction, as well as an outreach asking for assistance to 

improve the accuracy of site documentation. Mr. Hinnefeld then acknowledged attendees from 

the Local Resource Center and the Department of Labor (DOL), thanking them for taking the 

time to be there. He further explained the relationship between NIOSH and ORAU and 

introduced Bill Murray to begin the presentation. 

Mr. Murray extended his own greetings and thanks for making time for the presentation. He 

summarized the topics to be covered, including the claims process and what happens in dose 

reconstruction. He invited everyone to introduce themselves and asked that everyone be sure to 

sign in on the sheet that was going around. Once each person introduced themselves, Mr. 

Murray made specific mention of Norman Rohrig’s contribution to the document as Team 

Leader and how his first hand knowledge as a local resident was a key advantage to the accuracy 

in the site profile. He also introduced Dawn Catalano, whose objective is to capture minutes that 

would be available to anyone present once completed. 

Mr. Murray’s presentation started with an overview of the program objectives, primarily that 

NIOSH/ORAU was seeking input to document issues and concerns of the workers. He again 

pointed out that DOL representatives were in attendance to help answer questions regarding the 

claim process. He mentioned the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA) and said that NIOSH is involved only with Subpart B concerning 

radiation. He explained that when DOL receives a claim, it is forwarded first to NIOSH then to 

ORAU. Acknowledging the sensitivity of information involved with processing claims, Mr. 

Murray then discussed ORAU’s commitment to protecting the claimant’s privacy and the 

training required by all Project employees on the Privacy Act. He also described precautions 

taken to avoid conflict of interest in the development of the Site Profile. 

Mr. Murray described the dose reconstruction process, stressing that when in doubt, all 

assumptions would be claimant favorable. He described the components of the site profile, and 

that the site profile is a ‘living document’ that can be updated as new information becomes 

available. He added that NIOSH and ORAU are specifically seeking input for revisions, and that 

the information will be helpful for dose reconstruction. The primary goals of dose reconstruction 

are consistency, fairness, and accuracy in processing claims. Mr. Murray next described the 

development of the Site Profiles in more detail, stating that experts with specific site knowledge 

work on the documents. But the documents are also subject to a thorough formal review process 

and require approval by NIOSH and ORAU before the document is accepted. Further, the author 

is responsible to respond to each comment on official forms and follow through to satisfactory 

resolution before any section of the Site Profile can be approved. 

The INEEL profile was discussed next, pointing out that Norman Rohrig, the primary author, 

was present to answer questions. Mr. Murray stated that the Introduction section had been 

approved and was included in the handouts. The Site Description, Occupational Medical Dose, 

Occupational Environmental Dose, and Occupational External Dosimetry are approved. The 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 3 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

Occupational Internal Dose section is being completed by different authors. Mr. Murray 

proceeded with the presentation once the questions were answered satisfactorily. He had reached 

the discussion of the site profile and details of dose reconstruction from 1951 to present. 

Discussion Session

Concern: 

Does NIOSH/ORAU revisit claims when revisions are made to site profiles? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The evaluation of claims is conducted in accordance with the version of the site profile that 

has been accepted by NIOSH. When a site profile is revised, dose reconstructions that 

resulted in a probability of causation of < 50% and which might be affected by that revision 

are evaluated to determine the impact of the revision. 

Comment: 

What are revisions generally based on? 

William Murray: 

Revisions can be generated from a number of sources, and NIOSH and ORAU keep learning 

about new venues. For example, in the cases of the Site Profiles on the Savannah River Site 

and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, information discovered at previous meetings led us 

to new sources of information for revision of those documents. 

Concern: 

Will union leadership receive any notification of revisions? 

William Murray: 

NIOSH posts versions of the document on the website with revisions numbered (REV001, 

REV002) 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Old versions of a Site Profile are on the OCAS website at a link called “Archive of Previous 

Versions of Site Profile Documents. Currently active versions are located on the website, 

organized by site. I am not aware of any broad notification of revisions, but it is a good idea 

and something that could happen in the future. 

Concern: 

Can claims still be revised now that sections are being approved? 

William Murray: 

The best way to time the claims during the approval process is to delay submitting the claim 

until the site profile is complete. That would save time in the long run, avoiding reevaluations after revisions. 

Norman Rohrig: 

There is currently a total of between 500-600 INEEL claims waiting for review. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 4 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

NIOSH has had some difficulty retrieving records but is working hard to improve the 

process. The focus on individual exposure data has made the search slow in the past. 

Comment: 

People have a tendency to give up easily if they do not get an answer back about a claim 

right away. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

When the Act first passed Congress, claims started to arrive with no staff or capability in 

place for processing them. We have been getting better at it as we process more claims. 

Comment: 

One problem we encountered was that the rules did not seem to apply to sub-contractors; 

medical screening was conducted for employees of the prime contractor only and people 

confused the medical screening program with the EEOICPA program. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The original plan was to have DOE offer an educational program. The Resource Centers and 

this outreach program are geared towards getting the word out. 

Comment: 

The amendment that changed the qualification rule to include adult children as survivors was 

not widely known. 

Mark Lewis: 

That was very confusing and not uncommon that it was misunderstood since the rules did a 

complete turn around. 

Comment: 

Another problem survivors have is determining exactly what their parents did on the job. 

Back in the old days, all anyone ever said was that they worked ‘at the site’ and left it at that. 

Construction workers were in a similar situation, since they did not have a designated work 

location. 

William Murray: 

ORAU talks to each survivor on the claim and we have made provisions to conduct classified 

interviews. 

Concern: 

What about survivors who just don’t have that information? 

Comment/Suggestion: 

Talking with co-workers might be a better alternative since they would have been working 

side-by-side with the claimant. 

Norman Rohrig: 

Telephone interviews specifically ask who the person worked with on the site. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 5 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

Mark Lewis: 

The interview also includes questions designed to get as much contact information as 

possible such as phone numbers and addresses of co-workers, if known. 

Concern: 

(Union) Dispatch does not generally list site assignments, plus contractors come and go with 

no real tracking of who has been where. Searching for information regarding where 

claimants worked can be very tough with these limitations. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The interview issue caused more consternation than it should have. It was well intended as a 

means for the claimant to tell NIOSH/ORAU what they know. It may be worth it to include 

a referral to the Resource Center with whatever information is known about what the 

claimant did. 

Question: 

Do any records show badging? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Not always – these are also hard to chase down. Many, but not all, records do show badging 

results. Complete badge results were some of the items that were hard to retrieve, but that issue 

seems to be resolved now. 

 

Comment/Suggestion: 

Old organizational charts could be helpful in this regard to at least give an idea of the 

claimant’s position in the management chain. 

Question: 

Does NIOSH currently have any method of tracking or determining who worked with 

whom? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

I am not aware of any existing system for tracking such information within the organization. 

Comment/Suggestion: 

Social Security records could be helpful in jogging memories when discussing this issue with 

management. 

Concern: 

Construction workers are hard to track by project; they have no idea what doses they 

received and are not told what readings are in the areas they have been assigned to. 

Comment: 

The company keeps these things quiet – contractors are used as ‘fresh meat’ to make up for 

the (dose) burn-out factor. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 6 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

Question: 

Are these the kinds of comments NIOSH/ORAU wants and will unions need to provide 

documentation to support them? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

It is unrealistic to expect documents to support personal experience. A list of names of 

people who could concur would be helpful, especially for the building trades. 

Concern: 

Only site production workers are represented; there is a need to accommodate construction or 

non-production workers. 

Concern: 

There are undocumented doses from the tank farm at ICPP; doses were not counted because 

of a special badge program that ran between about 1993 and 1997. Badges were wiped clean 

as of January 1 of each year, so people would get high exposures through the end of the year 

since it would not be cumulative into the next month. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Frequent badge exchanging is an important factor in reconstruction, especially when the 

badges were zeroed out. NIOSH/ORAU needs to know if you got new badges every day. 

Comment: 

There were administrative controls that gave more consideration according to the priority of 

the project. For example, if there was a high priority project that people were assigned to, 

they could receive an entire year’s dose in December then another year’s dose in January 

because the badge had been wiped clean. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Reconstructions will always assume the high dose rate when information is lacking regarding 

the circumstances of the dose. 

Question: 

What year did badging start? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Badging was initiated from day one in Idaho, but not everyone received a badge. 

William Murray: 

Monitoring has been in effect since 1951. 

Question: 

Naval Reactor exempt construction workers did jobs for both facilities and the doses from the 

reactor program did not count for dose reconstruction. How do NIOSH and ORAU 

differentiate doses from the two locations? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The NRF exemption is due to a statute, not DOE rules. They have their own qualifications 

and rules in place. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On INEEL Site Profile 

Final Minutes 7 of 7 10/19/04 

2004-044 

Comment: 

Regarding medical dosing, contractors never did any more than they were absolutely 

required and X-rayed only when mandated. Many doses were not counted. 

Comment: 

NRF production did the same thing as maintenance – they used up dose levels at the end of 

the year. 

William Murray: 

Occupational medical doses are not included in the DOE records. They are added in by 

NIOSH and ORAU. Environmental data that is already known from release information is 

also added to the record in order to make the claims as claimant favorable as possible, 

especially for unmonitored workers. 

Question: 

Do medical exposures such as medically-administered isotopes or multiple X-rays required 

by an on-the-job injury factor into the reconstruction? 

William Murray: 

Medical X-rays for workplace injuries do not count – only employer-required chest X-rays. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The X-rays are excluded from the count because receiving them was not a condition of 

employment. Despite the fact that it was an employment-related injury, it is not associated 

with the nature of the work. 

Comment: 

High readings from medical exposure did not show in the dose reading even though it 

probably should have since there was radiation therapy for a thyroid problem. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

It would be difficult to comment on a particular situation without specifics and 

documentation. 

Norman Rohrig: 

There is a possibility of an effective whole body dose in comparison to a higher area 

concentration that is not acceptable to DOE – this is a prime example. 

Mr. Murray concluded asking if there were any further questions or comments. He thanked the 

participants again and the meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. 

Attachments: 

• Sign-in Sheet 

• Presentation by William Murray: Development of the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Site Profile 

• Technical Basis Document for Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory – Introduction