National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

Town Hall Meeting for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Meeting with: Current and former workers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

NIOSH Team: 

Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH, Director 

LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH, Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Team Lead 

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

Specialist 

Mary Elliott, ATL, Senior Technical Writer/Editor 

Proceedings 

Stuart Hinnefeld began the meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Robert Livermore Community Center in 

Livermore, California, with approximately 15 people in attendance. He stated that he is the 

Director of the Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) at the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH is part of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that NIOSH performs the responsibilities of DHHS under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA, or the Act). 

Mr. Hinnefeld stated that the primary reason that he and his colleagues were in California was to 

attend the public meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health in Oakland on 

November 18 and 19. He noted that NIOSH would give a very brief status update on the Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) petition evaluation for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

at 4:45 p.m. on November 18. Following the LLNL update, the Advisory Board would hear public 

comments from stakeholders. 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that NIOSH decided to meet with current and former workers from LLNL 

to talk about EEOICPA, and to give people the opportunity to talk about their work at the site. He 

added that only non-classified information could be discussed during the meeting, but that NIOSH 

personnel could arrange interviews to discuss classified information in secure areas onsite at 

LLNL. NIOSH personnel are interested in talking with any current or former employees who may 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 1 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have information that could help in the evaluation of the SEC petition, and have been conducting 

secure interviews on site. 

An attendee asked how he could talk about classified information if he was retired and no longer 

had a security clearance. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that DOE would reinstate his clearance for one day so he could go onsite 

to talk with NIOSH and Advisory Board personnel. 

Mr. Hinnefeld began his presentation: 

EEOICPA is an occupational illness compensation program for Department of Energy (DOE) 

employees, contractors, and subcontractors who may have become ill as a result of their 

employment at facilities in the nuclear weapons complex, including Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL). The program also includes some private companies, or Atomic Weapons 

Employers (AWE), that had contracts with DOE’s predecessors to provide specialized work. 

Three federal agencies have responsibilities under the Act: 

•	 The Department of Labor (DOL) receives all claims, and also verifies employment and 

medical diagnoses; 

•	 DOE provides employees’ personnel monitoring records and other records; and 

•	 NIOSH performs radiation dose reconstructions for Part B cancer claims, develops the 

documents used during dose reconstruction, and evaluates SEC petitions when dose 

reconstructions cannot be done for certain groups of workers. 

The Act provides for compensation of claims under two distinct parts: Part B provides 

compensation to nuclear weapons workers for radiation cancers, beryllium disease, as well as 

silicosis for certain employees the Nevada and Amchitka test sites; Part E provides compensation 

for any caused by exposure to toxic materials. 

A retired employee of LLNL stated that he had spent many years during his career working at the 

Nevada Test Site during test shots. He asked how he could prove that an illness could have been 

caused by his work at the Test Site. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that there should be records showing that he had been involved in 

activities there. There is a large period of time at the Nevada Test Site during which certain 

employees are covered by the SEC if they have specific cancers. NIOSH has a fair amount of 

information about the shots from which they can conclude an employee’s radiation exposure if the 

employment does not fall within the SEC timeframe. 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that one of the reasons that the Act had been established was because 

DOE contractors and DOE routinely challenged and opposed occupational claims made by 

workers. Since there were a lot of resources on the DOE side, and not so much for the claimant, 

that was not a fair fight. The intent of EEOICPA is that the burden of proof lies with the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 2 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

government, not the claimant. However, the claimant does have opportunities during the process to 

give information regarding his or her work history and exposures. And, since the work was secret, 

the survivors of workers often have no idea what their relative did and where they worked. NIOSH 

has done a lot of research to get specific information about the work processes and the potential 

radiation exposures at the sites. 

Mr. Hinnefeld continued his presentation: 

NIOSH created DCAS to handle the specific responsibilities of the Act. Most DCAS employees 

have a background at one of the DOE nuclear weapons sites. 

Compensation under Part B is a lump sum payment of $150,000, plus medical benefits if the 

cancer is determined to be “at least as likely as not” caused by a worker’s occupational radiation 

exposure, or if the employee is part of an SEC class. 

NIOSH only does dose reconstructions for Part B cancer claims. During the dose reconstruction 

process, NIOH uses all available worker and workplace information. NIOSH evaluates all doses of 

record for data quality shortcomings, and also evaluates the potential for undetected radiation dose. 

NIOSH dose reconstructors use standard tools to evaluate the “missed dose.” 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that the dose reconstruction process begins when NIOSH receives the 

claim from DOL with information about the worker’s cancer and employment. NIOSH then 

receives the individual dosimetry and bioassay data from DOE. NIOSH conducts a telephone 

interview with the worker, or with survivor claimants if the worker is deceased. NIOSH also 

researches the site documents for specific information about the facilities and programs in which 

the employee may have worked so that the dose reconstructor can calculate the highest possible 

radiation dose for the worker. 

An attendee stated that he wore a dosimeter at LLNL, and another dosimeter when he worked at 

the Nevada Test Site. He asked if the doses from the separate dosimeters are combined. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that NIOSH combines the doses. If LLNL does not have the employee’s 

NTS records, NIOSH will check with the Test Site. NTS has a lot of external monitoring records, 

so NIOSH also can produce those. 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that NIOSH also uses standard tools to estimate the worker’s “missed 

dose.” When the dose record shows “0,” NIOSH uses the minimum detectable level of the 

dosimeter to apply that amount of dose. 

An attendee commented that he went to Oak Ridge and Los Alamos National Laboratory, and 

wore dosimeters at those places. He was also sent to the Marshall Islands. 

Mr. Hinnefeld answered that NIOSH would request the dose records from Oak Ridge and Los 

Alamos, and from NTS for the Marshall Islands records. The DOE sites are very responsive when 

NIOSH requests the employee’s dose records. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 3 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When NIOSH conducts the telephone interview, the worker is asked about specific job 

assignments, work areas, radiation monitoring and protection, and radiation sources where they 

worked. 

NIOSH also uses specific cancer risk models to determine the worker’s dose. The risk models 

consider many factors, such as age at exposure, age at diagnosis, gender, ethnicity, latency, 

radiation energy, etc. The annual organ dose for the worker’s cancer is computed from the date of 

first employment to the date of the cancer diagnosis. 

NIOSH uses all of this information to reconstruct the worker’s radiation dose to find the 

probability of causation (POC) that the cancer was “at least as likely as not” related to workplace 

radiation exposure. If the POC is greater than 50%, then the case can be compensated. 

An attendee commented that not a lot of medical research has been done on the synergistic effects 

of workers’ simultaneous exposures to chemicals and radiation. He asked whether NIOSH 

considers the synergistic effects of the nuclear worker’s chemical and radiation exposures. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that NIOSH does not consider synergistic effects. 

Mr. Hinnefeld continued the presentation: 

If NIOSH concludes that there is not enough data to reconstruct a worker’s dose with “sufficient 

accuracy,” then the worker may be eligible for inclusion in the SEC. 

NIOSH prefers to use individual monitoring data during dose reconstruction if it is available and of 

sufficient quality. If individual data is not available, then NIOSH can use data from area 

dosimeters, radiation surveys, and air sampling. NIOSH can use source term data to calculate the 

radiation dose if no monitoring data is available. 

NIOSH calculates the annual organ dose of the worker’s specific cancer from the date of first 

employment to the date of the cancer diagnosis. 

NIOSH sends a draft dose reconstruction report to the claimant to review, and then contacts the 

claimant for a closeout interview. 

An attendee asked, “What is the average time for NIOSH to complete a dose reconstruction?” 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that the average time is now less than five months from the time the 

claim is received from DOL until the draft dose reconstruction report is completed, unless there is 

a technical question. 

Another attendee asked if dose reconstructions are always based on dosimeters. He stated that 

LLNL employees’ badges were collected every six months to a year. As a construction worker 

working for a contractor, sometimes his badge would not be collected for two years. Sometimes an 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 4 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inspector would come around to collect their badges, and then he would be without one for a while 

until he went to the badge office to ask for another one. 

Mr. Hinnefeld answered that NIOSH has ways to deal with missing records. There is enough data 

on the different areas so that a dose can be calculated any way. 

The attendee stated that he might have worked in a different building every day. He added that he 

had one dosimeter for two years. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that NIOSH looks at how high the dose could have been, based on the 

worst case scenario. 

Mr. Hinnefeld continued his presentation: 

A class of employees may become members of the SEC when it is not possible to reconstruct 

radiation doses with sufficient accuracy for workers in specific facilities or areas during specific 

time periods. To be eligible for an SEC class, a worker must meet the class definition, have 250 

days of employment at a covered facility, and have one of 22 cancers specified in the Act. 

A petitioner can be a worker or former worker included in the proposed class, or survivor(s) of a 

deceased employee; a union representing employees in the proposed class; or a person authorized 

by one or more employees in the proposed class or their survivors. 

The petitioner must provide a valid reason, or basis, why dose reconstruction cannot be completed 

with sufficient accuracy for a proposed class of workers in a facility during a certain time frame. 

NIOSH then determines if the petition qualifies for evaluation. 

If the petition qualifies, then NIOSH evaluates all of the data they have to determine whether it is 

feasible to reconstruct radiation doses for the proposed class of workers. 

NIOSH presents the petition evaluation to the Advisory Board. If the Advisory Board agrees with 

NIOSH, then they make their recommendation to the Secretary of HHS. If they do not agree with 

NIOSH, then they create a work group, or committee, to further investigate the petition. 

When the Advisory Board makes its recommendation to the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary either 

designates the SEC class or recommends to deny the class. 

An attendee asked if there is a class for family members who also have cancer. He explained that 

his father had passed away in 2010 and had been compensated. His mother had also passed away 

after battling breast cancer for fifteen years. She often wondered if she had been contaminated 

from doing his father’s laundry for over 30 years. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that the law only covers employees. 

Mr. Hinnefeld stated that there is an SEC class for all LLNL workers from 1950 through 1973 who 

worked a total of 250 days and had one of the 22 cancers specified in the Act. By definition, the 

SEC class means that there is some piece of the dose during that time period that cannot be 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 5 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reconstructed. So for workers with other cancers, the doses still must be reconstructed without the 

missing piece of dose. 

An attendee asked if NIOSH makes assumptions when there are no available records. He stated 

that he had made at least 50 trips to the Marshall Islands over a 12-year period, during which he 

did not wear a dosimeter. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that there is a lot of information about the Marshall Islands test shots. 

NIOSH is currently evaluating a second petition for LLNL to add an SEC class for 1974 through 

1995. The NIOSH team has been to the site to conduct interviews with current and former 

workers, and may interview additional workers before the evaluation process is finished. NIOSH is 

also waiting on additional information from the site. 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that the reason 1995 is the cut-off date for the petition is that the 

establishment of the Price-Anderson Act required contractors to do a better job of collecting the 

evidence showing that they were doing what they were required to do. 

Mr. Hinnefeld stated that the site profile for LLNL will likely also be updated as a result of the 

SEC petition evaluation. If any of the new information causes a significant increase in dose, 

NIOSH will look at any dose reconstructions that were completed with a POC less than 50% to 

determine if the change in dose would be significant enough to make the claims compensable. 

NIOSH is also revising its site profile for Sandia-Livermore National Laboratory based on new 

information found during NIOSH data collection efforts at that site. 

An attendee asked if a claim that was denied at less than 50% POC will be looked at again if it is 

for an SEC-covered cancer (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), if the employee becomes part of the new 

SEC class. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that NIOSH can do dose reconstruction for any cancer, but only 22 

cancers are covered under the SEC. He added that DOL would automatically reopen claims that 

would be affected if the SEC class is recommended. 

Another attendee stated that she had become ill because the water at the Lab was contaminated 

with benzene. She had sent the report to DOL. She had worked before the water was cleaned up. 

(Inaudible.) She commented that it is difficult to be in a catch-22 and have to use two insurances. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that the same situation was encountered at the Weldon Springs site in 

Missouri. After DOE closed the site, they gave it to the Army and Agent Orange was being 

disposed of there. 

Another attendee asked if the DOL would contact the claimant’s survivor if the claimant has died 

since the claim was denied. 

Mr. Hinnefeld replied that DOL would look for survivors in those cases. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 6 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An attendee commented that he thought the program should take combined chemical and radiation 

exposures into consideration. He stated that he had worked with highly toxic chemicals along with 

the radiation he encountered in his work, including methyl-ethyl ketones, toluene, carbon 

tetrachloride, and others. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that while he didn’t disagree, the science hasn’t been done. He added that 

he cannot explain the DOL handles those claims. Mr. Hinnefeld explained that DOL had been 

directed to establish an advisory board to monitor the Part E claims process, but members for that 

board have not been appointed yet. 

Another attendee asked if there had been any discussion about combining that board with the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

Mr. Hinnefeld replied that was probably not going to happen because most of the current Board’s 

experience had to do with radiation. 

Another short discussion ensued regarding the synergistic effects of chemicals and radiation. One 

attendee noted that an advocacy group was working on a proposal for a statutory change to include 

the synergistic effects of chemical and radiation exposures. He added that it needs to be addressed 

in order to protect workers’ health. 

An attendee asked Mr. Hinnefeld if NIOSH would consider a partial time period for the SEC. 

Mr. Hinnefeld responded that was a possibility if NIOSH only found evidence that dose could be 

reconstructed for part of the proposed class period. 

Mr. Hinnefeld concluded his presentation by providing the attendees with contact information for 

NIOSH. He stated that anyone could submit documents or statements to the NIOSH email address. 

Mr. Hinnefeld asked if anyone had other questions. 

An attendee asked how long NIOSH has been evaluating the proposed SEC class. 

Mr. Rutherford replied that NIOSH has been evaluating the petition for almost a year, and expects 

to make a recommendation at the Advisory Board’s February 2016 meeting. 

Mr. Hinnefeld introduced Eileen Montano, who serves as the Local Coordinator for the Former 

Worker Medical Screening Program. He asked if she would like to talk about the program for a 

moment. 

Ms. Montano stated that the program is available to all former workers from the DOE nuclear 

weapons complex. Former workers can be screened every three years, including vitals and a chest 

x-ray, as well as other tests. 

Mr. Hinnefeld adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Page 7 of 7 November 17, 2015; 7:00 p.m. 

Final Minutes