NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On PORTS Site Profile 

Final 1 of 4 10/26/04 

Date: 

March 24, 2004 

Meeting with: 

Building Trades Unions; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 

Attendees: 

Cam Detty International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local #575 

William Tipton IBEW Local # 575 

Bob Elliott Metal Workers Local # 1514 

Mark Johnson Carpenters Local # 437 

Glen Mollett Laborers Local # 83 

Gary Coleman Laborers Local # 83 

Steve Cordle Plasterers and Cement Masons 

Don Stiltner Sheet Metal Workers Local # 24 

Mac Mellert SOADC Bricklayers Local # 39 

Steve Burton Tri-State Building Trades 

Stephen Pigg HFIAW

Russ Montgomery Ironworkers Local # 769 

Ron Operating Engineers Local # 18 

Larry Frank Plumbers and Pipefitters Local # 577

Ron Hadsell Concerned individual with J&H Erectors 

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives: 

James Neton – NIOSH/OCAS 

William Murray – ORAU 

Mark Notich – PORTS Site Profile Team Leader 

Vern McDougal – ATL, International 

Proceedings 

The meeting began at 9:45 AM with introductory remarks from Vernon McDougall and 

introduction of James Neton, William Murray, and Mark Notich. Copies of the presentation 

slides and Section 2, Site Description, of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) Site 

Profile were passed out to all attendees. Mr. McDougall asked all the union attendees to give 

their names and affiliations and to sign the sign-in sheet that was being circulated. 

James Neton gave a brief overview of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program

Compensation Act (EEOIPCA), which cancers are automatically compensated, which cancers 

are not automatically compensated and the claims subsequently sent to NIOSH for dose 

ORAUT-2004-043 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On PORTS Site Profile 

Final 2 of 4 10/26/04 

reconstruction, and how and why a dose reconstruction is done. James Neton explained that 

NIOSH’s Office of Compensation Analysis Support (OCAS) has received 343 claims from

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant employees that require dose reconstructions. James Neton 

said the process consists of a person submitting a claim; the Department of Labor determining if

the person’s cancer is a Special Exemption Cohort, if it is then the person is automatically 

compensated. If the cancer is not a Special Exemption cohort, then the claim is referred to 

NIOSH for a dose reconstruction. If the dose reconstruction shows that the cancer has a greater 

than 50% possibility of being cause by their employment at a DOE site, then a recommendation 

is made to DOL to pay the compensation. 

William Murray went through the slide show presentation which explained the EEOIPCA 

program and the Technical Basis Document development and dose reconstruction process. He 

provided the web address for ORAU COC and OCAS so that the public can contact these 

organizations with comments or to get information on claims. He explained how uncertainties in 

documents are approached. He explained how the dose reconstruction is being claimant 

favorable by assuming the largest possible dose for an individual based on exposure records, 

environmental data, and other factors. 

During the discussion on development of the occupational medical exposure Technical Basis 

Document, Mr. Murray explained that only doses from employer required x-rays are included in 

the dose reconstruction calculations. An attendee commented that construction workers never 

had site x-rays taken either before, during, or after working at Portsmouth. Another attendee 

commented that a lot of people from the Portsmouth area with Q clearances were sent to other 

sites and were at those sites for longer than 250 days. Another attendee commented about 

working DOE Greenfield sites and questioned how this counts against the time requirement for 

the Special Exposure Cohort. James Neton responded that OCAS is only concerned with 

radiation exposures and that working at Greenfield (or non-radiation) sites in covered under the 

DOE compensation program. Another attendee commented to the all the attendees that the State 

of Ohio recently passed a law that eliminated about 2/3 of the asbestos cases from eligibility for 

compensation. 

Mr. Murray explained the concept of “missed dose” for zero readings or lost badges and how this 

is claimant favorable. 

Mr. Murray completed the slide show and opened the floor for questions. 

Discussion Session

Question: Has NIOSH always been in Cincinnati 

James Neton: NIOSH has had an office in Cincinnati since the 1970’s. 

Question: How many cases does NIOSH process per month or per year? 

ORAUT-2004-043 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On PORTS Site Profile 

Final 3 of 4 10/26/04 

James Neton: 2000 claims have been processed to date by OCAS. It took 14 months to 

complete the first 1000 but only 14 weeks for the second 1000. 

Question: How do we handle secondary cancers?

James Neton: Only primary cancers are compensated, but if the primary cancer is unknown, 

then secondary cancers are looked at. 

Question: Why is a union member being scheduled for a NIOSH hearing in Cleveland? 

James Neton: It sounds like a Department of Labor (DOL) hearing concerning a claim that was 

denied but he was not sure. 

A discussion ensued concerning the incubation (or latency) period for cancers. 

Comment: expressing concern that PORTS does not have enough dosimeter badges for people 

and that union members worked on the site unbadged. 

Question: What is the latency period for a cancer and if the dose reconstructors had a chart or 

graph to follow to determine if latency is an issue. 

James Neton: Dose reconstructors have a graph to help determine if the latency period has 

been exceeded. 

Question: how long does the process take; how long does it take NIOSH to process a claim?

James Neton: The goal is to process 200 claims per week. 

Question: Does NIOSH deals with inhaled/ingested contaminants 

James Neton: On this program, NIOSH addresses internal and external exposure to radioactive 

materials and the internal exposure can come from inhalation and/or ingestion. 

Comment: there is still a language barrier between union members and scientists. Most of the 

attendees were not able to completely follow the slide show presentation. It was agreed to use 

language in the slide show that non-scientists could understand and follow. 

Question: Is the CPWR or the Portsmouth Resource Center the best place to get information on 

this project as it relates to Portsmouth. 

Vern McDougall: Answered the question with a brief discussion on the CPWR and said that the 

Portsmouth Resource Center was indeed the best place. 

ORAUT-2004-043 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction 

Project Meeting 

On PORTS Site Profile 

Final 4 of 4 10/26/04 

Suggestion: To have an evening meeting so that all the union membership could have a chance 

to attend and ask questions. James Neton agreed with this idea and said he would contact the 

Department of Labor to get a representative to attend. An attendee also suggested that 

representatives from the building trades attend the PACE meeting on April 16. It was agreed 

that this was a good idea. 

The meeting adjourned at 11:10 AM. 

Attachments: 

Sign-in sheet 

Presentation by James Neton, overview of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program

Compensation Act (EEOIPCA), 

Summary of the Portsmouth Site Profile 

ORAUT-2004-043