NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 1 of 7 08/10/05 

Date: 

November 30, 2004 

Meeting with: 

Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council 

Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers/University Professional and Technical 

Employees 

Attendees: 

Jim Stagg International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595 

Carl Jones International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, DC 16, Local 3 

Rick Werner Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local 104 

Sue Byars Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers/University 

Professional and Technical Employees 

Kurt Glaeseman Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers/University 

Professional and Technical Employees 

Barry Luboviski Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council 

Clifford Drescher Carpenters Local 713 

Inga Olson Tri-Valley CARES 

Eileen Montanna Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers/University 

Professional and Technical Employees 

Joyce Brooks Tri-Valley CARES 

Fran Schreiberg WORKSAFE 

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives: 

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

Compensation Analysis Support (OCAS) 

William Murray – Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) 

Mark Lewis – ATL International Inc. 

Dawn Catalano – ATL International, Inc. 

Proceedings 

Mark Lewis opened the meeting at approximately 1:40 p.m. by thanking the participants for 

being gracious hosts. Mr. Lewis described his background working with the Paper, Allied 

Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) as a union safety officer 

in Ohio. He explained that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Site Profile under the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Labor input is 

crucial to get help in describing the work history on the site from those who had hands-on 

experience. Mr. Lewis then introduced the rest of the Team and turned the meeting over to Mr. 

Hinnefeld of NIOSH for opening comments. 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support was established 

to fulfill the responsibility of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 2 of 7 08/10/05 

under EEOICPA. The portion of the law that NIOSH handles covers cancers that may be related 

to radiation exposures at Department of Energy (DOE) sites. A worker’s radiation dose is 

reconstructed based on the worker’s individual dose records and other documentation from the 

site. Then the probability of causation is calculated from the reconstructed dose. Compensation is 

awarded if the probability of causation (POC) is more than 50%. Mr. Hinnefeld noted that 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) may present a particular challenge because so 

much of the work was classified. People with the appropriate security clearances are available to 

perform interviews. While the classified information could not be used in a public document, it 

could provide supporting information for the dose reconstructions. He also said that Congress 

directed NIOSH to err on the side of the higher dose, giving the claimant the benefit of the doubt 

when there is uncertainty about a dose. The law that established the program also established the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which oversees the work being done in this 

program. The Advisory Board meeting is scheduled in Livermore for December 14-15, 2004, 

with a public comment session to follow. Mr. Hinnefeld said a meeting announcement would be 

sent out, and the agenda would be on the NIOSH website once finalized. 

Mr. Hinnefeld explained that Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) is the prime contractor 

on this project. They perform the bulk of the work with assistance from subcontractors. NIOSH 

provides technical and policy direction. He then turned the meeting back to Mr. Murray. 

Mr. Murray described his background dealing with worker issues at ORAU and NIOSH. He said 

that he has been involved with the Worker Outreach Program since its inception. The Outreach 

Program was started on the recommendation of the Advisory Board in 2003. At that time, many 

of the Site Profiles were already in progress and several were already completed. In the first 

phase of the Outreach Program, NIOSH and ORAU waited for those Site Profiles to be 

completed. Then we asked for comments from the workers on the completed Profiles. The 

second phase is now starting, in which comments are solicited at the beginning of the Site Profile 

development process. Mr. Murray said that a team has been assembled for the LLNL Site 

Profile, but nothing has been drafted yet. 

Mr. Murray said that the Site Profiles are technical documents written for the health physicists 

who are performing dose reconstructions. He explained that recent legislation transferred the 

responsibility for Subtitle D of EEOICPA from the Department of Energy (DOE) to the 

Department of Labor (DoL). This change only affects Subtitle D, now Subtitle E, for toxic 

exposures. NIOSH and ORAU process claims for radiation-induced cancers under Subtitle B. 

Since the legislation is so new, not all questions can be answered until DOE completes the 

transfer. DOE has 210 days to get the records to DoL. 

Mr. Murray pointed out that the proceedings were being recorded to produce accurate minutes, 

but that no one would be quoted directly. He said formal minutes will be sent to the unions for 

review and then posted to the NIOSH website. He continued with a discussion of the different 

components of radiation dose pertaining to reconstructions done under the EEIOCPA. These 

include occupational radiation doses received by workers from radionuclides that get inside the 

body (internal dose) as well as external doses from sources outside the body such as x-ray 

machines, accelerators, or reactors. Doses measured and recorded by the Atomic Energy 

Commission, DOE, and the Manhattan Engineer District are used in dose reconstructions. 

NIOSH and ORAU include doses in addition to those documented in the dosimetry program to 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 3 of 7 08/10/05 

account for radiation sources and radioactive material in the work environment (occupational 

environmental dose). An occupational medical dose is also added to the dose reconstruction, 

although it generally only applies to workers on the site who were required by the employer to 

receive periodic x rays. Records from different sites are combined for workers who worked at 

different sites. 

Mr. Murray explained that the purpose of the meeting is to get input from the workers at the site 

to make sure the Site Profile is both accurate and complete. The Site Profile Team was 

assembled in September 2004. Once a draft is produced, it will go through several reviews at 

NIOSH and ORAU before it is approved by NIOSH. The document will be used as a technical 

handbook for dose reconstructions for LLNL. 

• The Site Description will detail the work that has taken place as well as radioactive 

materials and sources on the site. 

• The external dosimetry section reviews information about the types of radiation 

exposures and the badge program including, who got the badges, when the program 

began, and the badge exchange rate. A missed dose is calculated when there is a gap in 

the available information or when the record shows zero doses over a period of time. 

• Information regarding the types of materials on site, the bioassay program, urinalysis, and 

the kinds of radiation that were measured in whole body counting is required for the 

internal dosimetry section. Because every worker was not included in the bioassay 

program, air monitoring information is critical. 

• The Environmental Dose is mostly for workers who were not part of the monitoring 

program, who still could have been exposed from radioactive material in the air and other 

radiation sources in the work environment. NIOSH and ORAU are aware of releases that 

could have resulted in exposures. 

• The Occupational Medical Dose is added because chest x rays were often required by the 

employer. The frequency of required x rays and the type of equipment used is considered 

in the determining the amount of the occupational medical dose added. 

Mr. Murray gave the contact information for submitting comments, stating that they should be 

directed to NIOSH. 

Discussion Session 

Question: 

What is the purpose of the Advisory Board meeting at LLNL next month? Will they be 

making findings at this meeting or just reviewing the program? Is there a public posting of 

the meeting? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

There will be a discussion of the progress that has been made in the program, including how 

many claims are in-house and how NIOSH is doing on preparing the Site Profiles. There will 

also be a report from the consulting company that the Board hired to oversee the work. The 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 4 of 7 08/10/05 

website address is www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas; follow the link for the Advisory Board for more 

information. 

Comment: 

It is very important for labor and community representatives to not only show up, but to 

participate in the discussion. Workers need to attend the meeting to discuss the issues and 

challenges of showing where people received doses from accidents or unsafe work practices. 

In addition, the audit group has drafted a report that DoL is reviewing before publication. A 

major concern is that the audit group is supposed to be independent, but the people in charge 

of the process are given the opportunity to review their report. Another problem is that the 

dose reconstruction process is going to be discussed, but only in private. It is important that 

this be done in a public forum so that labor and worker advocates have the opportunity to 

make suggestions regarding how the process can be improved. 

When the Site Profile was completed at Mallinckrodt in St. Louis, the community had an 

opportunity to give input. But they felt it was too late to make any fundamental contribution. 

The worker input needs to come in early enough so that major changes can be addressed and 

the document revised if necessary. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The contractor’s report was provided to the Advisory Board members, but not to NIOSH. 

There is no opportunity to change what the contractor wrote before it is discussed in the 

public session. The contract is actually with the Department of Health and Human Services, 

not NIOSH. The contractor was hired to check on NIOSH, and there has been no perception 

of conflict of interest in their providing a draft to the oversight committee. The process may 

not always be in closed session. This is a subcommittee meeting and their first opportunity to 

discuss it. 

NIOSH and ORAU hold these Outreach meetings to get input sooner rather than later. It is 

easier to comment on a document that exists, though. The Site Profiles are always open for 

revision; a major revision was recently adopted for the Iowa Site Profile based on feedback 

from the workers. 

Concern: 

How is the integrity of the workers to be protected? I could not, in good conscience, advise 

any worker to give testimony in open court with the understanding that there could be 

retribution in a lot of different ways. What process does NIOSH have in place that ensures 

some security for the workers? I would feel more comfortable advising them to submit 

statements without the individuals being identified. Is that a possibility? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

It is certainly not legal for any retribution to be taken. A very good avenue would be for 

union leadership to serve as the conduit for those statements. NIOSH would like the 

submitter to identify themselves on behalf of the membership, but the workers do not have to 

be named. A labor organization serving as a conduit for membership comments is relatively 

efficient. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 5 of 7 08/10/05 

Concern: 

When people give input, they don’t always have the types of exposures sorted out. Workers 

can have both chemical and radiation exposure from the same job. Will NIOSH and ORAU 

accept whatever occupational exposure the person talks about? There are people who didn’t 

know they had to make separate claims and thought they were filing for both. 

William Murray: 

That will be noted in the telephone interview conducted with each claimant. These are 

extensive and cover many topics. NIOSH and ORAU focus on the radiation exposure, but the 

interviewer takes down all the information. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Until the recent legislation passed, different claims were filed with different agencies. 

NIOSH did not have authority to do anything with information regarding toxic exposures. 

Both parts are now going to be filed with DoL, but the process has not been established yet. 

Promulgation of regulations is part of the transfer; the regulations will likely be made public 

once they are announced. 

Question: 

Will NIOSH be in charge of Subtitle E when the changes are made? 

 Stuart Hinnefeld: 

If the DoL needs a chemical site profile, they can ask NIOSH to produce it according to the 

legislation. 

Question: 

What about claims dealing with beryllium and silicosis? Are they filed under Subtitle B? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

Those claims do not go to NIOSH. DoL handles those claims. 

Concern: 

It seems unlikely that workers would have the level of detail needed to be of any value to a 

report this detailed. How can input be helpful? The unions will need to have something to 

show workers something to respond to. The site should already have the records for the 

workers to review. The workers do not have the resources to re-create this information. Are 

there any funds available through the Program for the unions to hire a consultant? LLNL 

does not have a Health and Safety department, so the workers need help getting this data 

together. 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

The information that typically is gained in these meetings is the difference between the way 

management describes procedure and what the workers say actually happened on the job. 

William Murray: 

The workers also can provide information on specific incidents that may or may not appear 

in the plant records. 

The document will be available for union review and comment after it is approved by 

NIOSH. The Building Trades at other sites have voiced similar concerns, because their work 

is also very different from that of the production workers. NIOSH and ORAU are working 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 6 of 7 08/10/05 

with the Center to Protect Worker Rights on putting together a new section of these 

documents to address the other aspects of work such as construction and Decontamination 

and Decommissioning. 

Mark Lewis: 

When the Site Profile was reviewed for the site where I worked as a health and safety officer, 

the workers wanted to be involved in the development of the document rather than just 

review it after the fact. There were possible resources workers could have provided as well as 

information about who was most knowledgeable in certain areas. 

Concern: 

People need to start getting involved right away. If we wait another six months we will lose 

more people who could be giving input since some workers are already too sick to be 

involved and are dying. This Act went into affect in July 2001 and LLNL is last on the list to 

have a Site Profile done. 

William Murray: 

NIOSH and ORAU started working on claims by September 2002, at which time there were 

several thousand claims to be done. The Site Profile is only one resource that is used and 

none of the site profiles was completed when work began on dose reconstructions. There are 

only eight or nine completed, LLNL is in the second group of Site Profiles being worked on. 

About 600 claims have been filed for LLNL. 

Comment: 

It would be helpful to us to know which kinds of claims were filed. There are 1,100 overall 

claims including the 600 for radiation. We would like to find out how many were from the 

Building Trades. 

Mark Lewis: 

This Team does not have that kind of breakdown. The DOE Resource Center is available to 

help workers and survivors interpret the language and file claims. They may have more 

information in that regard. 

Question: 

Who is on the Site Profile Team? Can we obtain the names and contact information for the 

members of the Team? Will there be adjustments in reconstruction of the dose based on peak 

levels due to atmospheric releases or other accidents that occurred? Do NIOSH and ORAU 

have a chronology of the incidents that will be documented, and can the union have a copy of 

that to use as a prompt for the workers? 

William Murray: 

The Team may put together a chronology, and it can be forwarded for your use. I will 

provide any information I can to assist you with input for the Site Profile. 

Question: 

Who is the point of contact that we can direct inquires and information to? We would like to 

wrap with an understanding of who will respond to the questions that come out of today’s 

meeting. It’s a lot easier if we’re not bouncing around looking for the answers. Will you be 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Final Minutes 7 of 7 08/10/05 

able to provide us with information on what resources are available under the law to hire 

consultants? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

I can provide any information you need to Bill Murray, and he will get back to you. 

Question: 

Who is your contact at the Center to Protect Workers Rights? We would like to work with 

the same person. 

William Murray: 

The Center to Protect Workers Right is one organization the Site Profile Team has talked to 

regarding how to get input from construction trades workers. The person contacted was 

Knute Ringen, from Seattle. 

Question: 

Can the claims be broken out into how many were beryllium and silicosis claims? 

 Stuart Hinnefeld: 

NIOSH is only responsible for the radiation cases; those are the only ones that come to 

NIOSH. You can find out how many claims have been submitted on the website, but I have 

never seen a breakdown by beryllium and silicosis. You can send a request to DOL to see if 

they can help with that. 

Question: 

When people request records from DOL, they generally only get the LLNL records. If people 

worked at other locations, the records are not readily available. How does NIOSH account 

for the other places of employment? 

Stuart Hinnefeld: 

NIOSH requests those records as well. 

Mr. Murray thanked the attendees for their participation, and adjourned the meeting at 

approximately 2:30 p.m.