Kansas City Plant Page 1 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final minutes REDACTED

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Worker Outreach Meeting for the Kansas City Plant

Meeting Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009

Meeting with: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) 

Local Lodge 778, Kansas City, Missouri

NIOSH Worker Outreach Team:

Laurie Breyer, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS), Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Counselor

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

Outreach Specialist

Mary Elliott, ATL, Technical Writer/Editor

Proceedings:

Mark Lewis opened the meeting at approximately 1:00 p.m. He stated that he works for ATL 

International, Inc., the support contractor for Worker Outreach for the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

(OCAS). He introduced Mary Elliott, also of ATL, and requested permission for the Worker 

Outreach Team to record the meeting for the purpose of preparing meeting minutes. 

Mr. Lewis circulated a sign-in sheet and asked Ms. Elliott to explain how the Privacy Act 

protects the information on the recording and the sign-in sheet. She stated that the information is 

used only by the NIOSH Team and other program officials who are trained in Privacy Act 

compliance. Ms. Elliott explained that she uses the recording only for the purpose of preparing 

an accurate account of the meeting that will be posted on the NIOSH Web site. The recording is 

destroyed after the minutes go through a review process. 

Mr. Lewis expressed his appreciation for the attendees’ involvement in their union’s training 

programs. He explained the importance of passing on information about the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) to the workers. He stated that the 

purpose of the meeting was to talk about the site profile for the Kansas City Plant and to get 

information from the workers that may help to make the document a more accurate, complete 

tool for dose reconstruction. Mr. Lewis explained that the site profile is a “living document” that 

NIOSH updates as new information becomes available. 

Mr. Lewis turned the meeting over to Laurie Breyer, who is the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) 

Petition Counselor for NIOSH. She encouraged the attendees to participate in an informal 

discussion of the handout materials since the group was small. 

Ms. Breyer explained that Congress passed EEOICPA, or “the Act,” in 2000 to compensate 

individuals who worked at a U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) or Atomic Weapons Employer 

(AWE) facility and developed illnesses as the result of their work. 

Ms. Breyer briefly outlined the responsibilities of the government agencies that are involved in 

the compensation program. The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) oversees the program, with 
Kansas City Plant Page 2 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

both DOE and NIOSH providing information that will be used to compensate the claims. She 

explained that the claims process can be complicated not only by the involvement of so many

agencies, but also due to the fact that the records may be difficult to find for earlier periods at 

many sites, especially the AWE facilities.

Ms. Breyer stated that the EEOICPA has two parts: Part B to compensate workers with cancer, 

beryllium disease, or silicosis; and Part E to compensate for illnesses resulting from toxic 

chemical exposures. She explained that the EEOICPA claims process begins when the atomic 

weapons worker or the survivor(s) file a claim for Part B and/or Part E with the DOL. After the

DOL verifies the worker’s employment at a covered facility and the medical diagnosis, a Part B 

cancer claim is sent to NIOSH for radiation dose reconstruction. DOL handles the Part B claims 

for beryllium disease and silicosis, as well as the Part E claims for all other illnesses. NIOSH 

does not do dose reconstructions for these claims.

Question:

Does NIOSH handle only the cancer claims?

Ms. Breyer:

Yes.

Question:

Does NIOSH have a database with radiation information about the different facilities?

Ms. Breyer:

NIOSH uses the Site Research Database (SRDB) to manage documents and information found 

during the data capture efforts at the sites and federal records repositories. These documents are 

used during the development and revision of the site profiles for various sites. It is sometimes 

difficult to find information on some of the AWE sites that had contracts to perform specific 

operations in the early days of the atomic weapons program – for example, rolling uranium rods. 

There are documents in the SRDB for most of the major DOE sites.

Question:

Will everyone who applies for this compensation get it?

Ms. Breyer:

It is my understanding that Part B compensation for beryllium disease is pretty straight-forward. 

If you worked at a beryllium facility and you have beryllium disease, you will be compensated. 

The same goes for silicosis. Part E compensation for chemical exposures is more difficult, since 

you can file for almost any illness. DOL has a Site Exposure Matrix (SEM) for each site that lists 

every known chemical used at the site. DOL updates the list when other materials are brought to 

their attention. The compensation is based on whether the worker’s disease may be a health 

effect of the chemical exposure in the workplace.

The nationwide compensation rate for the Part B cancer claims that have dose reconstructions at 

NIOSH is about 36%. The compensation rate is higher when the SEC claims are included. We’ll 

talk about that as I get into the presentation. 

The compensation rate for Part B cancer claims for workers from the Kansas City Plant is fairly 

low in comparison – approximately 5%, so it is much lower than the national average. Based on 

the radiation monitoring information in the site profile, the Kansas City Plant is a low-dose 

facility. The facility’s primary mission is manufacturing non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons, 
Kansas City Plant Page 3 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

as well as inspecting existing weapons, so most of the radiation exposures come from sealed 

sources. 

Question:

Is there a statute of limitations on exposure? You’re saying that there is limited exposure now, 

but that wasn’t the case 30 years ago. 

Ms. Breyer:

No, there is no limitation on the exposure. There was depleted uranium here until the 1970s.

Response:

They used to machine that.

Ms. Breyer:

Yes. Information on the depleted uranium work is in the site profile. We passed one out to each 

of you before the meeting. It is a technical document based on the information that NIOSH has 

about the Kansas City Plant. We would appreciate it if you would look through it and see if the 

information is accurate based on the information you have. As Mr. Lewis said before, we call 

these “living documents” because they can be revised when substantive information comes to 

our attention. The most important reason we have worker outreach is to get information from the 

workers at the sites. 

The information I have says that most of the external radiation exposures at the site are from X 

rays, as well as beta, photon, and neutron sources used for calibration, non-destructive testing, 

and radiation-generating devices for the entire covered period. NIOSH has external monitoring 

data from 1950 to the present time. The internal monitoring data is limited to the period from 

1958 through 1971, when the depleted uranium work took place. After 1997, depleted uranium 

was also processed using a method that did not present an internal exposure hazard. There was 

an incident that involved a leaking promethium source that caused air contamination for four 

workers who tested positive for internal promethium exposure. The workers were tested again 

and two separate labs determined that the results were false positives (based on fecal testing). 

NIOSH found bioassay results from 1959 to 1971 and air sampling data from 1958 to 1970, as 

well as dosimetry records for individual workers for external doses and some internal dose data. 

The site profile discusses the monitoring and data in more detail. NIOSH has information that 

shows that there was a higher possibility of internal exposure during the depleted uranium work.

Comment:

We have had issues in that past with low-dose tritium. 

Ms. Breyer:

The site profile contains information about low-level contamination from deuterium and tritium 

accelerators or other potential tritium components that were sent to the Kansas City Plant from 

other sites.

Response:

All of our exit signs contain tritium and are luminous so they can be seen during power outages.

Ms. Breyer:

If you have information that NIOSH may not have on any incidents in which workers were 

highly exposed, please send us the information.

Another NIOSH source of worker information is the claimant telephone interview (CATI, or 
Kansas City Plant Page 4 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview). Before dose reconstruction begins, NIOSH gives 

every claimant the opportunity to provide any information that might help support the claim. 

Claimants are sent a questionnaire before the interview so they can be prepared to answer 

questions such as “Were you monitored?”; “Where did you work?”; “Do you know what 

radioactive materials you worked with?”; “Were you involved in any incidents that resulted in 

radiation contamination?” Participation in the interview is voluntary. 

Again, NIOSH handles only Part B claims for cancer. DOL handles all Part B claims for 

beryllium disease and silicosis, as well as Part E claims for diseases related to chemical 

exposures.

Question:

Does DOL also handle mesothelioma claims?

Ms. Breyer:

I believe that claimants can file for mesothelioma under Part B as a cancer, although it is handled 

differently than a lung cancer. Mesothelioma can also be claimed under Part E as a disease. 

Under Part E, claims can be filed for any illness that may have been the result of chemical 

exposure. For example, workers may be compensated for COPD, asthma, or other pulmonary 

problems that they may have incurred from breathing fumes from toxic chemicals or 

contaminated dust. Some of the chemicals have well-known health effects, while others are not 

quite as clear. DOL has to look at the information in the claim and make the decision. The 

worker has to show that they were exposed to a chemical on the SEM for that site. You can file a 

claim for any illness. 

I will be the first to tell you that the claims process can be frustrating. It is not an easy process. 

When the law was passed, Congress gave responsibilities to DOL, DOE, and the U. S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NIOSH is part of HHS. These agencies work 

together in the process, which can be lengthy. Some claimants have both Part B and Part E 

claims and those are handled differently. In some cases, survivors can file claims on behalf of 

deceased workers from the earlier periods. It can be a real challenge for the survivors to locate 

the deceased workers’ records, especially if they worked for subcontractors who are no longer in 

business or if the deceased has been gone a long time. 

Comment:

We have also been working with the Building and Construction Trades Former Worker Medical 

Screening Program. Their members have worked on contracts at the plant for more than 40 

years. Our retired members can go through their screening program for medical exams. NIOSH 

doesn’t work directly with that, do they? I think DOL works with them, too.

Ms. Breyer:

Everybody should definitely have those screenings. The agencies have recently formed the Joint 

Task Force on Outreach to try to make the process less frustrating for the claimants. They are 

coordinating joint meetings so that claimants can deal with all of the agencies at once, rather than 

attending separate meetings for each agency.

Question:

NIOSH makes recommendations for compensation for Part B. Who makes the decisions for the 

Part E chemical claims?
Kansas City Plant Page 5 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

Ms. Breyer:

All claims are filed with the DOL. But if the claim is for an illness caused by chemical exposures 

in the workplace under Part E, there is a greater burden on the claimant to show the impairment.

The medical records must show a link between the energy employee’s illness and the chemical 

exposures in the workplace. The DOL uses the SEM to decide if the claim is compensable. The 

DOL claims examiners review the files to make compensation decisions. The more complicated 

cases are sent to a District Medical Consultant. Part E also compensates for wage loss associated 

with the claimants’ illnesses and their impairments. It is set up similar to Workers’ 

Compensation, with $2,500 awarded to the energy employee for every 1% of impairment. 

Surviving spouses who file a claim may be compensated up to $175,000, depending on the 

length of time their spouses’ lost wages due to their illnesses. The process involves several steps, 

as well as an appeals process. 

Part B pays a one-time $150,000 lump sum payment for beryllium disease, silicosis, or cancer. A 

claimant cannot be compensated for more than one illness under Part B. Energy employees can 

also get medical benefits beginning on the date the claim is filed. NIOSH performs the dose 

reconstructions that are required for Part B cancer claims to determine if the workers’ radiation 

exposure in the work place was “at least as likely as not” to have caused the cancer. 

Question:

Is NIOSH only using the worker’s radiation dose that is in the records?

Ms. Breyer:

That is only part of the information that NIOSH uses in a dose reconstruction. I’ll get to that in a 

minute.

NIOSH has other responsibilities under EEIOCPA. The agency evaluates Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC) petitions to determine if it is possible to reconstruct radiation doses using the 

information that is available. NIOSH also developed the probability of causation (POC) 

guidelines required in the Act. By law, the compensation is based on a scientific determination 

that the probability that the cause of cancer is the workplace exposure, so a dose reconstruction is 

done to determine whether the cancer is “at least as likely as not” to have been caused by the 

worker’s occupational radiation exposure, which has been interpreted to mean a 50% or greater 

chance. This scientific requirement was included because cancer is the second leading cause of 

death in the United States, and the highest leading cause in some groups of the population.

Ms. Breyer explained the dose reconstruction process:

• After NIOSH receives the Part B cancer claim from DOL, they request the worker’s 

records from DOE for internal dosimetry monitoring, external dosimetry monitoring, X 

rays, and information on radiological incidents in which the worker may have been 

involved. 

• While waiting for the DOE records, NIOSH conducts a telephone interview with the 

claimant(s). A claimant may be the worker or his/her survivor. OCAS uses the 

interview transcript in conjunction with the worker’s records from DOE and the site 

profile to reconstruct the worker’s radiation dose.

• When the dose reconstruction is completed, OCAS sends the draft report to the claimant 

and schedules another interview to talk with the claimant about how the dose 
Kansas City Plant Page 6 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

reconstruction was done. 

• The claimant is asked to sign the OCAS-1 Form stating that he or she has no additional 

information that is relevant to the claim. The compensation process cannot go any 

further until the form is signed. 

• Once the signed OCAS-1 Form is returned, the final dose reconstruction is sent to the 

claimant and to DOL. 

• DOL uses information from the dose reconstruction report to make Part B compensation 

decisions.

Ms. Breyer briefly reviewed the resource materials that had been passed out before the meeting, 

explaining that the attendees could find information in the materials that might help them better 

understand the topics in her presentation. 

Ms. Breyer explained that risk models that NIOSH uses in dose reconstruction take many factors 

into consideration, including the type of cancer, the latency period, the length of time an 

employee worked in radioactive areas, and the employee’s age at first exposure. Some cancers 

are more radiogenic than others. The latency period is important because some cancers take 

longer to develop than others. NIOSH also considers whether the worker had one acute exposure 

incident or chronic exposure over a long period of time.

NIOSH relies on many sources of information to perform dose reconstructions: the medical and 

employment records from the claimant, the individual dosimetry and bioassay data provided by 

DOE, the information from the telephone interview with the claimant, the site profile data, and 

other information from the SRDB. NIOSH also reaches out to worker groups to make sure the 

site profile data is as complete and accurate as possible.

Ms. Breyer stated that in addition to using the individual dose information and the site profile 

information, NIOSH evaluates all doses of record for data quality shortcomings. The agency also 

looks at the potential for undetected or unmonitored dose and uses monitoring data from area 

dosimeters, air sampling, and radiation surveys if individual monitoring data is not available. 

NIOSH also considers the limitations of the dosimetry badges and adds a “missed dose” 

component when a “0” dose is reported. NIOSH may also calculate radiation exposures by using 

source term data for the types of radiological materials that were used in areas where there was 

no monitoring.

Ms. Breyer noted that she had previously discussed the telephone interview and asked if anyone 

had questions on that subject. An unidentified attendee commented that 4 hours time in the 

handout didn’t seem like enough time to gather information from someone who may have 

worked for 30 years. Ms. Breyer replied that the interview lasts as long as the interviewee needs 

to respond to the questions. Interviews with survivor claimants may not last more than a few 

minutes because they don’t usually have much information about the energy employee’s work 

locations and job duties. Interviews with energy employees may last considerably longer because 

they may have much more information to offer. She added that NIOSH makes provisions for 

secure interviews if a worker wants to discuss classified information.

Question:

What can we do to help our union members and their families get the information they need for 

their interviews? What kind of records do they need? What do they need to know?
Kansas City Plant Page 7 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

Ms. Breyer:

Looking at the site profile with them may be a big help. Keep in mind that every incident is not 

going to be in the site profile. For example, if Bob spilled something that needed to be cleaned 

up, it may not be in the site profile. But if you know about larger scale incidents or radiological 

materials that are not in the site profile, those are the kinds of things that NIOSH needs to know.

As far as surviving family members, it may help to get coworkers together. That may be difficult 

if the employment period was in the late 1940s or early 1950s. 

Mr. Lewis:

You can also be present during the telephone interview to help family members. 

Ms. Breyer:

The interview script is sent out before the actual interview so the claimant has time to get 

information together. The interview is scheduled when it is convenient for the claimant. Helping 

someone get together with someone else who has the information they need for their interview is 

probably one of the best “hands on” ways you can help.

Question:

What is the average amount of time to be compensated for a claim – from the time it is filed until 

the claimants are paid? I know someone who is ready to give up because she is getting frustrated 

that it is taking so long.

Ms. Breyer:

Encourage her not to do that. It can be frustrating to wait a long time. I can’t speak for the DOL 

process. Sometimes it takes a while to get employment records or to find medical records, 

especially if the energy worker was employed in the earlier periods. After the records come to 

NIOSH, the dose reconstruction can be done in as little as six months or as long as five years if 

the information isn’t readily available.

When the EEOICPA program began, NIOSH was the logical choice to do dose reconstructions 

because the agency has been around since the 1970s to study ways to make the workplace 

environment safer for workers. The mission of the agency has always been to protect workers, so 

NIOSH had collected a lot of data about the work hazards at the nuclear weapons facilities. After 

DOL sent NIOSH the first claim for dose reconstruction, it took some time to get the information 

together for the site profiles and to develop the methodology for dose reconstruction. That is why 

some of the claims got backlogged. NIOSH is trying to get cases out the door within one year 

from the time they are received from DOL. Of course, it takes some time for DOL to make the 

decision once they get the case back.

Response:

You don’t have to wait until the claim is approved to get treatment, do you? Illnesses affect 

people differently, so they shouldn’t have to wait to get the treatment until the claim is approved. 

For example, if I go to Jewish Hospital and get diagnosed with beryllium disease, I can start 

getting reimbursed for my medicine. Is that right?

Ms. Breyer:

No, you should go ahead and get your treatment and keep track of out-of-pocket expenses, but 

the medical expenses won’t be reimbursed until the claim is approved. You have to go through 

the whole process before you start getting money for the illness.
Kansas City Plant Page 8 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

There have been movements to get this law changed by both advocacy groups and legislators. 

Nothing has been changed to date, but it can’t hurt to involve them. Compensation programs 

work differently in other countries, too. Great Britain has a program that is much smaller scale 

and they do dose reconstructions, but their compensation is based on the percentage. It is not a 

lump sum payment like EEOICPA Part B if the POC is 50% or greater. 

A brief discussion ensued regarding the survivorship eligibility differences between Parts B and 

E. Surviving spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, and grandparents may file claims on 

behalf of a deceased energy worker on Part B claims. Only surviving spouses or surviving 

children who were dependent at the time of the worker’s death may file Part E claims unless the 

adult children are incapable of employment.

Question:

Will the program compensate surviving spouses who may have become ill from the energy 

worker bringing contamination into the home?

Ms. Breyer:

No. The program only makes compensation based on the energy worker’s illness, not illnesses of 

family members. The law would have to change for that type of compensation to be included.

Ms. Breyer explained the parts of the dose reconstruction report. She stated that there is always 

someone at NIOSH who can answer questions should someone come to a union member asking 

for help understanding the report. She encouraged the attendees to call or email the NIOSH 

office with questions. She emphasized the importance of going through the information in the 

report to make sure it is accurate. She added that it is also important for the claimant to contact 

DOL if there have been any changes to their claim such as the diagnosis of an additional cancer. 

Each additional cancer may increase the POC, but the claimant will only be paid the lump sum of 

$150,000 one time regardless of the number of cancers.

Question:

The dose reconstruction is only as accurate as the information that is available. How often does 

NIOSH get updates from the sites? Do you have to go looking for the site information every time 

there is a dose reconstruction? 

Ms. Breyer:

NIOSH has an ongoing data capture process. Teams are sent to the DOE sites as well as to the 

federal records repositories. The documents that are acquired during data capture trips are put 

into the SRDB and remain available for all dose reconstructions. Individual records specific to a 

claim are requested when NIOSH gets the claim from DOL. Sometimes group dosimetry records 

from a site include information for as many as 50 workers, so there may already be some 

information for a specific claim in the SRDB. I’m not sure of the protocol for the DOE sites 

providing updated information to NIOSH.

Question:

Are any claims ever denied? 

Ms. Breyer:

Yes. The nationwide rate of compensation for claims having dose reconstruction is about 36% 

right now. Originally, the government estimated that 5% of the claims would be compensated. If 

you include the SEC claims, the overall compensation rate for Part B claims is somewhat higher, 
Kansas City Plant Page 9 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

probably in the 40% range. That is just for the radiation part of the program. The DOL Web site 

has the statistics for all of the claims.

Question:

The new medical forms they have us fill out here ask for detailed family medical history. Does 

family medical history have anything to do with the compensation?

Ms. Breyer:

NIOSH does not look at family medical history. Other than occupational exposure, the only 

personal information that factors into the dose reconstruction is the ethnicity of the worker for 

skin cancers and the smoking history for lung cancers. Also, X rays that are not required as a 

condition of employment are not included – for example, if you had an X ray as a child because 

you broke your leg. The occupational X rays are included in the Medical Dose portion of the 

dose reconstruction. 

Ms. Breyer explained that some cancers are not compensated as frequently as others. Prostate 

and colon cancers are not often compensated because they are not considered to be very 

radiogenic, but the latency period can also be a factor. Prostate cancer is very common in older 

men, and the POC decreases with age. Lung cancers are compensated more often, especially 

when the employee was in a work situation where there was a high chance of internal exposure.

Skin cancers are not likely to be paid either, unless the worker received a lot of external 

exposure. Multiple skin cancers increase the POC, especially with basal cell carcinomas. 

Question:

What is the compensation rate for leukemia? Is it higher?

Ms. Breyer:

We have a breakdown of the rates of compensation on our Web site. I’m not certain what it is, 

but I can find out for you.

Question:

What if you have developed leukemia and work around a chemical that is a carcinogen known to 

be linked with that?

Ms. Breyer:

You should definitely file both Part B and Part E claims.

Question:

Is it more difficult for contractor employees to file claims? We have a lot of workers who come 

into the plant to do jobs and then they move on to other DOE facilities.

Ms. Breyer:

NIOSH has addressed that issue for workers who go from one area to another within a facility 

such as firefighters or security personnel, or for construction workers who often go to the 

different facilities within the DOE complex. Often these workers are not badged, so NIOSH 

applies the highest dose of record that is known for production workers who are assigned to that 

area.

If NIOSH does not have individual monitoring data for a worker, they use efficiency methods to 

complete the dose reconstruction. For example, if there is evidence that an unmonitored worker 

may have been exposed to plutonium, NIOSH will apply the highest plutonium dose known in 

that area. If the POC is over 50%, then the case is recommended for compensation. If the POC is 
Kansas City Plant Page 10 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

well under 50%, NIOSH recommends that the claim be denied. 

A discussion ensued regarding the criteria for filing claims and compensation for workers who 

may have worked around beryllium in a DOE facility for a time, but were later employed at 

beryllium facilities that are not covered under the EEOICPA. Ms. Breyer explained that only 

exposures at the DOE facilities are covered. On the other hand, if an employee worked at several 

DOE facilities and files a claim, their exposures at all eligible facilities will factor into the dose 

reconstruction. 

Question:

You mentioned that the DOL Web site has information about the number of claims and the 

amounts paid out. I’m curious about something else. Does anyone keep track of the data on the 

numbers of claims at the same facility and use the information to do something about making the 

facility safer, or to limit exposure, or that sort of thing? Is DOL doing something with that 

information besides writing checks?

Ms. Breyer:

I don’t know if that has happened or what the procedures would be. NIOSH keeps all the 

information they have collected in the SRDB, and the individual claims information is kept in the 

files. I don’t know if DOL has a procedure in place to do that.

Mr. Lewis:

NIOSH’s responsibilities under the Act do not include enforcement.

Ms. Breyer turned the discussion to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) that was legislated into 

the EEOICPA when the law was enacted. Originally, the cohort included classes of employees at 

the three gaseous diffusion plants and Amchitka Island in Alaska. The Act also established a 

petitioning process for other classes to be added to the SEC if there is not sufficient data to 

perform dose reconstructions for a class of employees at a covered facility.

Ms. Breyer explained that the NIOSH SEC Fact Sheet contained the basic information about the 

Special Exposure Cohort. She added that the back of the Fact Sheet shows the list of the 22 

cancers that are currently eligible.

Ms. Breyer stated that when an SEC petition is filed, NIOSH must review the petition and 

evaluate whether dose reconstruction can be done for the class of employees. If NIOSH 

determines that some part of the dose reconstruction is not feasible, the petition will likely be 

approved and the claims for employees who have worked 250 days at the facility during the 

covered period and who have one of 22 specific qualifying cancers are compensated 

automatically without having to undergo dose reconstructions. Approximately 60% of the claims 

of eligible class members will be compensated, but the 40% whose cancers are not covered 

(mostly prostate and skin cancers) will still have their claims come to NIOSH for dose 

reconstructions. However, because the SEC petition states that some part of the dose 

reconstruction cannot be done – for example, the petition might state that internal doses cannot 

be reconstructed accurately because there is no thorium data, the claims that still have to go to 

NIOSH will not include the calculation for the internal dose. So, while the SEC allows for a 

larger number of claims to be compensated, at the same time the claims undergoing the partial 

dose reconstructions are compensated at a lower rate.

Question:

Can we file an SEC petition for workers with beryllium disease?
Kansas City Plant Page 11 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

Ms. Breyer:

No. The cohort is only for Part B cancer cases, not for beryllium disease or silicosis.

Ms. Breyer stated that SEC classes can be very narrowly or very broadly defined. Some classes 

may include fewer than ten workers, while some cover hundreds or even thousands of workers. 

For example, the petition for a class of workers at Ames Laboratory covers only a small group of 

unmonitored workers who replaced the ductwork in the lab. The petition was filed because there 

were no monitoring records and they did a unique job. NIOSH evaluated the petition and decided 

that they did not have enough data to do the dose reconstructions, so the recommendation was to 

add the class to the SEC. The SEC class for Los Alamos National Laboratory is an example of a 

broadly defined class, covering hundreds of workers in many areas of the lab from the 1940s 

through the 1970s.

Ms. Breyer explained the petitioning process: A petition can be filed by an individual (worker or 

survivor), a labor organization representing workers or former workers at a site, or an authorized 

representative of a worker or survivor. NIOSH reviews the petition to see if it meets the criteria 

for qualification. In order to qualify for evaluation, the petition must include one of four valid 

bases: (1) a lack of monitoring at the facility; (2) lost, falsified, or destroyed records; (3) a 

technical report or (4) a scientific report documenting the inadequacy of the monitoring program 

at the facility. Ms. Breyer noted that the first two bases are the most commonly cited. Workers’

affidavits can be used to document the basis of the petition.

Ms. Breyer stated that an SEC petition had been filed by a former employee of the Kansas City 

Plant. The petitioner provided an affidavit in which he stated that his records had been falsified 

when his badge had been overexposed and a reading had been given for that badge. NIOSH 

looked at the dosimetry protocol for the facility and determined that the badges that were being 

used at the time had two detectors in each badge. The second detector in the worker’s badge had 

not been overexposed and had been developed for the reading. NIOSH determined that the 

records had not been falsified because the normal procedure had been followed. The petition did 

not qualify for evaluation. 

Ms. Breyer explained that, even though there are large amounts of monitoring data at some of the 

larger facilities, petitions have qualified based on the absence of monitoring for certain 

radionuclides, such as thorium.

If the petition qualifies for evaluation, NIOSH prepares a Petition Evaluation Report. While 

preparing the report, NIOSH examines the monitoring data and other information to determine: 

(1) whether dose reconstructions can be done with sufficient accuracy for the class of workers, 

and (2) whether there is health endangerment. NIOSH has always determined that there is health 

endangerment, so the main question is whether the dose reconstructions can be done.

After NIOSH prepares the Petition Evaluation Report based on its findings, they present the 

report to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) at a public meeting,

along with its recommendation as to whether dose reconstruction is feasible or not feasible.

Ms. Breyer explained that the Advisory Board is an independent board that was chartered to 

oversee NIOSH’s role in the EEOICPA program. The Board is comprised of members from the 

health physics field, workers from DOE facilities, medical doctors, and labor representatives. 

Besides the responsibility of making recommendations on the SEC petitions, the Board also 

reviews NIOSH procedures, documents, and dose reconstruction methods. 
Kansas City Plant Page 12 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

Comment:

We have all kinds of monitoring going on in the plant. What we would need to look at is the 

radiation monitoring. Correct?

Ms. Breyer:

Yes. It is important for NIOSH to know if there was not monitoring for a specific type of 

radiation or that certain groups of workers who should have been monitored were not monitored. 

I gave the example earlier of firefighters who go into facilities all over the plant, but are not 

monitored. Another thing to look at could be whether workers in the earlier years were not 

monitored. SEC classes may be limited by work areas, job classifications, and time frames. The 

petition does not have to be for the entire operating period. The only thing is that the period must 

be at least 250 days, unless there is an incident involved. 

Mr. Lewis:

Ms. Breyer’s main role with NIOSH is as the SEC Petition Counselor. She is available to help 

people who have questions about the SEC petitioning process.

Question:

Does NIOSH do dose reconstruction for chemicals?

Ms. Breyer:

No. The DOL uses the SEM to make decisions on Part E claims related to chemical exposures.

Question:

How much information is the company required to provide to NIOSH for the radiation dose 

reconstructions?

Ms. Breyer:

They are required to give us everything we ask for with regard to a worker’s individual data. We 

also do facility searches for records.

Response:

I’m sure we have a number of members who probably have been exposed and aren’t even aware 

that they were exposed. 

Ms. Breyer:

You can do a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to DOE for your records. You can 

also ask for copies of surveys or clean-up records that were done after specific incidents. All 

government records are “FOIAable” unless there is a classification issue.

Response:

The plant tends to use “classification” as a deterrent to keep us from getting information 

sometimes.

Ms. Breyer:

They have to give you your own records. Claimants make FOIA requests to NIOSH for records 

all the time. The process may involve a redaction process to remove personal identifying 

information for other people from the records. I have never seen a classified personnel record.

A conversation ensued regarding the handling of Exit signs that contain tritium as a sealed 

source of illumination. A worker stated that she is responsible to ship the signs out of the plant 

once they have been removed. She stated her concern that she no longer wears a badge due to a 
Kansas City Plant Page 13 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

change in procedure, so she would never know if there was a leak. Ms. Breyer asked whether the 

signs are checked with a wand before they are handled. The worker replied that the signs are not 

checked until after they are removed and packaged for shipment. Another worker described how 

the signs come into the plant, are tagged for reference, and then are installed by another 

classification of workers, all without any sort of monitoring. He said that there have been several 

incidents in which workers were monitored for tritium exposure after a sign was broken, but 

nobody ever hears about the monitoring results. Ms. Breyer stated that incidents like this may not 

be mentioned in the site profile, but would be something a claimant could talk about during the 

telephone interview. The first worker stated that she had been told that the cleanup would cost 

$250,000 if one of the signs was broken. Ms. Breyer explained that NIOSH gets survey reports 

when they ask for records from the facility.

Ms. Breyer stated that the ABRWH votes to either accept the recommendation or to request that 

Sanford Cohen and Associates (SC&A), the Board’s support contractor, review the petition in 

greater detail. When the Board is satisfied that the report is adequate, it makes its own 

recommendation to the Secretary of HHS. Based on the Board’s recommendation, the Secretary 

makes a recommendation to Congress. Congress has 30 days to approve the recommendation. If 

it does not act on the recommendation, the class is added to the SEC. 

Ms. Breyer gave a brief report on statistics for EEOICPA cases for which NIOSH has performed 

dose reconstructions. As of June 2009:

• DOL has referred 29,781 cases to NIOSH for dose reconstruction, 83% of which have 

been completed and returned to DOL;

• NIOSH has sent more than 21,000 dose reconstruction reports out to claimants;

• DOL has pulled 931 claims for various reasons;

• DOL has pulled another 2,274 claims that were paid as eligible members of newly added 

SEC classes;

• NIOSH still has 4,610 cases that are either currently having or awaiting dose 

reconstructions; and

• Another 548 cases have been administratively closed for various reasons.

Ms. Breyer also gave statistics for the Kansas City Plant:

• DOL has sent 265 cases to NIOSH for dose reconstruction;

• NIOSH has returned 244 cases to DOL, 237 with complete dose reconstructions; 

• DOL has approved 13 cases for compensation and denied 224 cases; and

• NIOSH still has 21 in the process of or awaiting dose reconstruction.

Ms. Breyer concluded the presentation by providing contact information for NIOSH. She noted 

that all of the Fact Sheets contain the same information.

Mr. Lewis encouraged the attendees to have other union members review the site profile for 

accuracy and completeness. 

Ms. Breyer stated that NIOSH maintains a Web site with a great deal of helpful information 

about the EEOICPA program. She explained the various links that provide useful information 

about the Kansas City site. She acknowledged that EEOICPA is a very complex program, but 
Kansas City Plant Page 14 of 14 August 13, 2009

Final Minutes REDACTED

added that she would be happy to help anyone who has questions. She also encouraged the 

attendees to direct people who may be eligible to file both Part B and E claims to DOL, and 

noted that the information packet included the DOL Resource Center contact information. 

Ms. Breyer explained that Denise Brock, the NIOSH Ombudsman for EEOICPA Part B, may 

also be able to help people who have problems getting paid under Part B. Ms. Brock was 

instrumental in filing the petition for the first non-legislated SEC class for Mallinckrodt 

Chemical Company in St. Louis. 

Mr. Lewis thanked the attendees for their time and closed the meeting at approximately 2:45 

p.m.