LANL - NMBCTC Page 1 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

SEC Worker Outreach Meeting for the Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(LANL) 

Meeting Date: September 17, 2008, 4:00 p.m. 

Meeting with: New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council (BCTC), Española, 

New Mexico 

NIOSH Worker Outreach Team 

Greg Macievic, PhD, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS), Health Physicist 

Wilfrid “Buck” Cameron, Advanced Technologies and Laboratories (ATL) International, Inc., 

Senior Outreach Specialist 

Mark Lewis, ATL, Senior Outreach Specialist 

Mary Elliott, ATL, Writer/Editor 

Also present: 

Loretta Valerio, New Mexico Office of Nuclear Workers’ Advocacy, Director 

Proceedings: 

Buck Cameron opened the meeting at approximately 4:25 p.m. He briefly explained the Energy 

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

enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2000 to compensate workers from the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex who became ill as the result of their occupational 

exposures to radiation and toxic chemicals. The EEOICPA provides for compensation and 

medical care for these workers under two subtitles: Part E for diseases caused by exposure to 

toxic chemicals and Part B for cancers caused by exposure to ionizing radiation. The National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) handles only Part B claims. 

[Name redacted] asked if subcontractors are eligible to apply for compensation and if they had to 

work onsite. Mr. Cameron explained that subcontractors are eligible, but they must have worked 

onsite at a nuclear weapons facility such as Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Lab) 

or Hanford to meet the employment criteria. The worker submits a Part B EEOICPA claim for 

radiation-induced cancer to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the agency that is responsible 

for verifying the worker’s medical diagnosis and employment at a DOE nuclear weapons site. 

The DOL then forwards the claim to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. NIOSH requests the 

worker’s radiation dose records from DOE. Those records and any other available exposure 

information are used to reconstruct the worker’s radiation dose to determine the probability that 

the worker’s cancer may have been caused by radiation exposure. 

The Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) was written into the Act because the records at many of the 

nuclear weapons sites are not adequate to reconstruct radiation doses for many workers. The 

SEC provides for a petition to be filed on behalf of a class of workers to add that class to the 

Cohort. If NIOSH determines that dose reconstructions are not possible for the class, eligible 

workers can be compensated without a dose reconstruction. 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 2 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

Mr. Cameron stated that NIOSH acknowledges the possibility that many construction and 

building trades workers fit into that category. He cited the existing SEC class for all LANL 

employees through 1975, which was added to the SEC because there is a lack of internal 

monitoring information for certain radioactive materials during that period. He introduced 

[name redacted], a LANL employee who has filed another SEC petition on behalf of a class of 

LANL workers from 1976 through 2005. Mr. Cameron also introduced Greg Macievic, the 

NIOSH health physicist who is evaluating that petition. Dr. Macievic is searching for records to 

determine whether or not NIOSH has sufficient information to perform accurate dose 

reconstructions for the class of workers named in the petition. Mr. Cameron asked the attendees 

to describe their work activities at LANL as well as the practices that were in place to monitor 

their radiation doses. He emphasized that any information they share with Dr. Macievic 

regarding their work environment and monitoring practices during the period covered by the 

petition may help workers from the building and construction trades receive compensation for 

their cancers under the SEC. 

[Name redacted] asked whether it is necessary for a person to have a dose reconstruction if he 

worked in the same shop as a co-worker and files a claim for the same cancer, or if he can be 

compensated by giving an affidavit that several people from the same work area developed the 

same cancer as someone who received compensation. Dr. Macievic responded that a dose 

reconstruction must be done for each individual. NIOSH is looking for information from 

workers regarding their work assignments and the monitoring practices in different technical 

areas during the period from 1976 to 2005 to evaluate the petition. NIOSH is hopeful that a data 

search of LANL records may turn up radiation work permits (RWPs), contamination surveys, 

and other documents that may provide raw data that can be used to model radiation doses. Dr. 

Macievic explained that there may be an associated dose for workers in the same trade, but 

NIOSH cannot duplicate the dose for all of the workers because it is unlikely that the associated 

workers would receive the same dose unless they were doing exactly the same jobs in the same 

location for the same length of time – each individual dose must still be calculated. However, 

NIOSH can develop a model that can assign extra dose to the type of activity the workers were 

doing that was not monitored at the time. As an example, Dr. Macievic stated that the guards 

and firefighters often discovered after the fact that they had been sent into contamination areas 

when they had to decontaminate their equipment. In addition to one-time contamination 

incidents, NIOSH needs to know about routine work practices in which unmonitored or 

unprotected trades workers were sent into areas where other workers were monitored or wore 

personal protective equipment (PPE). 

[Name redacted] stated that before the Tiger Team investigation, construction trades workers 

were often sent into “hot” areas unmonitored and without protective clothing. After the 

investigation, they were not always monitored but were required to wear booties and smocks in 

many of the same areas where they previously had worked without protective equipment. [Name 

redacted] added that a rope or line was often the only thing that distinguished a “hot” area from a 

clean one. 

Mr. Cameron explained that Mary Elliott was recording the meeting and taking notes. Ms. 

Elliott explained that the recording is used only to prepare accurate minutes of the meeting. 

NIOSH redacts, or removes, any personal information that is protected by the Privacy Act before 

the minutes are posted on the NIOSH Web site. 

Dr. Macievic stated that when a worker’s dose information is lacking, he is put into a general job 

category, such as a laborer or a chemical operator. Like the guards and firefighters, construction 

and trades workers at LANL work around equipment and piping that has carried a wide variety 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 3 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

of radioactive materials and that varies from facility to facility. He stated that information 

workers can give about specific time periods may help NIOSH locate data. If the records exist, 

they may contain data for monitored workers or workers who had bioassay testing for specific 

materials. The records may also provide radiation levels and contamination levels so NIOSH 

can determine the radiation doses in a given place at a given time, which may help NIOSH 

associate the doses for monitored workers with the construction and trades workers who were in 

that area at that time. 

[Name redacted] asked where Dr. Macievic planned to find the records that he was talking about. 

He commented that he understood that many of the medical records that have not been available 

are in boxes in a basement somewhere. He stated that, while he understands and supports the 

NIOSH efforts to locate the records, he would like to hear how Dr. Macievic proposes to get 

those documents. Dr. Macievic responded that he is not searching for the medical records 

because those are provided during the initial part of the claims process. NIOSH is looking for 

the survey reports that contain the source data from the measurements taken by radiological 

control technicians (RCTs) in the field. NIOSH has only sparse dosimetry and bioassay data for 

the class of workers named in the petition – guards, firefighters, construction and trades workers. 

NIOSH is searching the DOE Records Centers to try to locate records that contain data for the 

radiation and contamination levels so they can use that, along with what they know about what 

trades workers did in certain areas, to model radiation doses that reflect what those workers 

would have received for the type of work and the amount of time they spent in those areas. The 

purpose of the SEC evaluation is to determine whether this information is available so NIOSH 

can assign radiation doses for the class of workers named in the petition. [Name redacted] 

commented that the TLD records are on the hill. Dr. Macievic responded that NIOSH is not 

looking for TLD records, but for the RWPs and contamination surveys that have the radiation 

measurement data, which is independent of the individual data. 

[Name redacted] commented that he had “burned out” in 30 seconds at one of the reactors in the 

100 Area at Hanford and was not allowed to go back in for seven days. He quit because he 

didn’t want to wait around for seven days without working. He wondered if that situation had 

been recorded as an incident. A discussion between [name redacted] and Dr. Macievic 

established that the burden is not on the worker to prove what materials and exposures they may 

have had in certain areas. The burden of proof is on NIOSH to locate the information that may 

determine whether a dose can be assigned to unmonitored workers in those areas during a 

particular time. Dr. Macievic acknowledged that [Name redacted] had made a good 

representation in the SEC petition of the radioactive materials associated with the different 

technical areas at LANL. Specific information from the workers can help NIOSH find 

information for the petition evaluation – for example, the technical area or building, the year, the 

type of activity, the length of time spent performing a certain job. It is also helpful to know if the 

worker did not find out until after a job that he had been working in a contamination zone and 

whether that was a routine occurrence. If NIOSH cannot find the information to calculate the 

“missed dose” for the whole group of unmonitored workers, then the class may be added to the 

SEC. Mr. Cameron added that Dr. Macievic’s job is to figure out if NIOSH can assign the dose. 

If not, then the class may become part of the SEC. If the “missed dose” can be determined, the 

additional information will be used in dose reconstructions. 

[Name redacted] asked why NIOSH did not start with the “hottest” site, TA-53. [Name 

redacted] added that the Old DP Site, TA-55, TA-50, TA-53, the Beam Line, and CMR were all 

high radiation areas. Dr. Macievic responded that NIOSH can query the records database for 

survey data for a particular facility in a particular year. [Name redacted] commented that the 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 4 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

first LANL SEC covers the entire LANL site. Dr. Macievic responded to [Name redacted] that, 

in order to search the database for specific information, NIOSH needs the input from workers, 

such as lengths of time spent in specific activities and descriptions of the monitoring practices 

(or lack of them) when they were working on equipment in certain areas, to build the whole 

picture for a worker in a specific activity in a facility. Dr. Macievic explained that a dose 

reconstructor might assume from a worker’s job classification that he was in a clean area without 

an understanding of the type of work he was doing. NIOSH hopes to find many useful records in 

the data search. [Name redacted] asked if NIOSH is looking at the sources of radiation, such as 

the accelerator in TA-53. Dr. Macievic confirmed that NIOSH is looking at those sources as well 

as getting the input from the workers in the proposed SEC class so NIOSH can focus the search 

to find survey data on the sources and activation products associated with them. 

Dr. Macievic asked the attendees if they worked all over LANL or if their work was 

concentrated on particular facilities or technical areas. The consensus answer was that 

construction trades workers went everywhere. Dr. Macievic asked if RWPs were posted for all 

of their jobs. The attendees responded that there were RWPs most of the time. [Name redacted] 

stated that when the pipefitters cut into pipe they suited up and wore respirators for jobs that had 

limits ranging from five minutes to five hours. 

[Name redacted] commented that the dose reconstruction was based almost entirely on a 

worker’s TLD records. Dr. Macievic responded that dose reconstruction uses information from 

the site profile and other documents in the NIOSH database in addition to the worker’s dosimetry 

records to estimate the worker’s dose. Survey reports and other documents from the petition 

evaluation data search will be added to the database so there is hard data that the dose 

reconstructors can also use to factor into the dose estimate instead of assuming the workers were 

in a clean area. 

Dr. Macievic explained that the new information will also be used to update the LANL Site 

Profile. The worker’s TLD data reflects the external dose. Other dose components that figure 

into the dose reconstruction are the medical, internal, and environmental doses. An airborne 

contamination event may not cause an increase on the TLD, but if a contamination survey report 

documents that there was potential contamination from resuspension, the internal dose may 

increase. The dose of record may stay the same, but there will be a “missed dose” in the site 

profile that adds internal and external dose for unmonitored trades workers in that area. The 

years or time periods are important, as in the case of the guards, firefighters who responded 

during the Cerro Grande fire. A “missed dose” associated with the detection limit of the TLD is 

also added to the dose estimate. 

The intention of the data search during the petition evaluation is to see if there is information 

available that will help NIOSH create the “missed dose” that can be added to the workers’ dose 

estimates. There is not much information in the LANL dosimetry records about the monitoring 

done for many of the radionuclides so NIOSH will look for some of the higher readings 

associated with that type of radionuclide and assign a dose based on those readings. NIOSH 

located LANL records from 1992 on in Denver but is still working with LANL to locate records 

from 1976 to 1991. If records are available for that time period, NIOSH will code the data they 

find in the records for the computer program that models the dose. 

[Name redacted] stated that he only found one paragraph on LANSCE in the LANL Site Profile; 

the rest of the information is on LAMPF (Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility), which he said is 

outdated material. The Beam Line was converted from low-energy meson physics to highenergy neutron physics without engineering upgrades to the Beam Stop and Crypt area in 1989 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 5 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

and the facility’s name was changed from LAMPF to LANSCE (Los Alamos Neutron Science 

Center). All of the engineering upgrades were done from there up. He said that he has a 

problem with there being only a single paragraph about LANSCE because the experiment went 

from 1989 to 1998. [Name redacted] added that the Model 776 TLDs only recorded from 25 to 

50 MeV (megaelectron volts), but in 1990 LANSCE was already reaching 800 MeV on the 

Beam Line. The Beam Stop and Crypt is the only Category 3 area in that area. 

Dr. Macievic asked if any of the attendees worked in the area while LANSCE was operating, or 

if work was only done in the area when the operation was shut down. [Name redacted] 

responded that the ironworkers were stationed at end of the Beam Line. He said that someone 

had explained to him that the ironworkers were positioned like they were “behind targets on a 

rifle range.” Dr. Macievic asked which building [name redacted] worked in at the time. [Name 

redacted] responded that he was working in Building 3M, the category 3 fission reactor. He said 

that he had given NIOSH a 1994 report that places the ironworkers at those buildings. Dr. 

Macievic said that he would take a look at it. [Name redacted] commented that LANL scientists 

wrote articles for periodicals to explain the experiments at LAMPF and LANSCE. He added that 

the Lab is holding back information on the transition from meson physics to neutron physics. He 

stated that a 1998 surveillance study stated that the TLD stations were recording in the 

thousands. 

[Name redacted] told Dr. Macievic that he had started working in the area in 1994. He stated that 

half of the ironworkers working there at the time had since died from cancer. [Name redacted] 

explained that he was among the ironworkers who added 20,000 tons of additional shielding 

blocks because the beam stop was not stopping the neutrons. Dr. Macievic confirmed that 

neutron radiation produces a lot of scatter. Additional shielding was also placed on the hangar 

doors to stop the scatter. [Name redacted] stated that he would provide the periodical in a pdf 

file. 

Dr. Macievic stated that the information from [name redacted] would be useful in searching 

LANL records for terms such as “neutron measurements,” “neutron energy,” and “neutron 

detectors” that may help NIOSH find survey information. He asked [name redacted] when the 

Lab added the extra shielding. [Name redacted] responded that the project lasted for two years. 

The project originally called for the addition of 10,000 tons of additional shielding but another 

10,000 tons was added because the first 10,000 tons could not stop the neutrons. At one point 

during the project, the Lab installed new sensors at the end of the Beam Line and then the 

ironworkers were transferred to the 38 Shop. 

[Name redacted] stated that the TLD that he wore was worthless since it did not detect radiation 

above 50 MeV. Dr. Macievic responded that the “missed dosed” associated with the activity can 

be determined from the energy range of the beam. [Name redacted] stated that the area TLDs at 

the Lagoons at the meson facility (where the ironworkers were installing shielding) read in the 

2,000 to 3,000 millirem range, some of the highest at LANL. [Name redacted] added that the 

high range was noted in the 1999 LANL Environmental Surveillance Report. [Name redacted] 

stated that the surveillance said that in previous years, the readings were the same or higher. Dr. 

Macievic noted the presence of the area TLD monitors at the Lagoons. [Name redacted] stated 

that after the ironworkers were transferred to the 38 Shop from the beam stop, the Lab “wiped 

out all evidence” that the ironworkers had been there and destroyed the Burn Shed where he and 

[name redacted] had worked day and night to burn the shielding block to fill the orders for the 

different shapes and sizes. The blocks were between six inches and three feet thick and were 

drilled and tapped with a picking eye. The first 10,000 tons of shielding block was gathered 

from used shielding block from all the LANL facilities because they were in a hurry to get the 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 6 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

shielding block up at the Beam Line. The second 10,000 tons of used shielding block came from 

Oak Ridge (500 semi loads of two 10-ton pieces). [Name redacted] stated that he had been told 

that some of the blocks from Oak Ridge were going to be “hot.” Some of the LANL blocks 

came from the Bone Yard at the meson facility where the bulk shielding was discarded after the 

Beam Line shots blew holes through them. Dr. Macievic commented that there had to have been 

a lot of activation in the steel, which might have caused the 500+ rem dose in [name redacted] 

record. Dr. Macievic asked if the Bone Yard was a posted area. [Name redacted] stated that 

people jogged through the area even though there was a cable across the road. 

[Name redacted] stated that NIOSH will have difficulty getting records from LANL. Dr. 

Macievic responded that NIOSH is not relying on the Lab to produce the records. [Name 

redacted] expressed his disappointment in the EEOICPA claims process, stating that his 

problems began when DOL used the wrong ICD code for his cancer. He hopes the SEC will be 

granted so he can be done with the process. 

Dr. Macievic stated that NIOSH must find enough data to show what was happening in the 

LANL facilities to assign dose to the proposed class of workers; if the data is not there, the SEC 

may be granted. The LANL SEC for the earlier period was granted because there were not 

enough records to perform dose reconstructions for the entire class of workers. If an additional 

SEC class is granted through 2005, LANL’s recordkeeping may be in question with federal 

regulatory statutes. [Name redacted] commented that LANL’s operations are experimental by 

nature, so the Lab never knows the outcome from the onset. Dr. Macievic responded that the 

puzzle that NIOSH needs to solve is whether LANL knew about everything that they needed to 

monitor for and if they did the bioassay and other field survey measurements to keep the records 

that NIOSH needs to evaluate the petition, or if LANL documented that bioassay or other 

measurements were not needed because the workers’ radiation doses were within the regulatory 

limits. Dr. Macievic is hopeful that NIOSH can locate the records with the raw data showing the 

base level so that the workers’ cumulative dose records – the summary information – will not 

have to be used. 

[Name redacted] excused himself from the meeting due to another commitment. He expressed 

his thanks to the attendees for coming to meet with the NIOSH team and to [name redacted] for 

his time and effort spent preparing the SEC petition. He noted that the meeting had been in 

session for more than an hour and encouraged everyone to give their input. 

Dr. Macievic asked if the attendees had participated in a regular bioassay program or if they had 

been given a baseline bioassay test the first time they had worked at LANL. Several attendees 

responded that they gave a baseline sample. They did not recall participating in a regular 

bioassay program. The consensus response was that LANL required bioassay testing for trades 

workers only if there was a contamination event. They worked all over the site during their 

careers. Most of the pipefitters had worked at TA-55 and the old DP site. Some of the attendees 

described their experiences: 

• [Name redacted] recalled being scrubbed several times after a contamination event 

but still having a “hot spot” on his hand. The RCT told him to wear a glove home so 

he could “sweat the rest of it out.” 

• [Name redacted] stated that he went home with a “hot” boot in 1994 or 1995. LANL 

sent RCTs to his home to take 100 swipes. They also checked his truck for 

contamination as well as every place he had been that day. He told Dr. Macievic that 

he had been removing equipment and piping in TA-50 and there was a spill. The 

RCT who was with him said that it was not a “hot” job, but the count on the floor 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 7 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

swipe was over one million dpm (disintegrations per minute). He was not wearing 

booties. The count on the sink trap was a half million dpm. He was working less 

than a foot away from the sink trap and was not wearing a respirator. He had not 

been wearing booties or protective clothing. Dr. Macievic asked if he had left a 

bioassay sample. [Name redacted] responded that he had a whole body count but did 

not know the results. He stated that he had not worked at LANL again after that 

because he didn’t feel safe there. 

• [Name redacted] also recalled working in the pump rooms at TA-55 for three or four 

hours at a time without a TLD so there was no way of knowing how “hot” it was. He 

recalled stripping down to his underwear when he exited but was told that he was not 

“hot.” Dr. Macievic explained that TLDs do not pick up much radiation above the 

detection limit unless there is a lot of activity, such as the activation of a large sample 

of radioactive material; unless a worker is around that type of activity every day, the 

TLD will not show much accumulation. [Name redacted] stated that he was wearing 

four sets of coveralls that were taped up with a rain suit over them. 

• [Name redacted] explained that there were really three different TLD records for 

monthly, quarterly, and yearly periods. He stated that the dose reconstructor had only 

had his yearly report. Dr. Macievic responded that the yearly report is not a 

summation of the quarterly reports. [Name redacted] stated that when there is a space 

in the margin of the monthly report, the Lab is either stating that the badge is too 

“hot,” or the badge was lost, or a temporary badge was issued. There were lots of 

spaces in the margins when he looked through his records. When he started 

comparing his quarterly reports, they did not match up with his TLD records. He 

noted that he had kept the TLD he was wearing the last time he walked off the job 

and had kept it. When he looked at his TLD records, the badge had been recorded. 

He questioned how they could have recorded the badge when he still had it. Dr. 

Macievic responded that NIOSH will look at the data that is available and reserve 

judgment on the integrity of the program. 

• [Name redacted] commented that when he was assigned to TA-55, he worked next to 

the glovebox workers who wore lead shielding (aprons). 

• Loretta Valerio stated that when she worked at TA-55 scheduling whole body counts 

for employees, some of the workers had not had one for seven or eight years. Her job 

had been to prioritize the schedule based on worker’s job descriptions and if they 

were in the plant on a daily basis. [Name redacted] added that they had whole body 

counts every year from about 2000 or 2001. Ms. Valerio stated that she had to 

reschedule workers’ appointments for whole body counts because the in vivo

equipment was down. Dr. Macievic said that the records for whole body counts for 

specific materials are sporadic depending on what group was involved. He would 

like to find more information about the criteria over time. The site profile has some 

information, but he is interested in the ‘triggering mechanisms’ for requiring urine 

samples, fecal samples, and whole body counts – is it an incident or a particular job, 

does a contamination incident do it or does a certain contamination threshold trigger 

the request for a bioassay sample. 

• [Name redacted] replied that he gave a bioassay sample yearly. He recalled doing a 

nasal swipe for every “hot” job. He was given a bioassay kit to take home if a nasal 

swipe was contaminated. Dr. Macievic asked if the nasal swipes were done all the 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 8 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

time or only in plutonium areas or where there were other radionuclides. [Name 

redacted] said that it depended on whether the nasal swipes were available when they 

left a “hot” job, but almost always at TA-55, CMR, and TA-50. If the CAMs 

(continuous air monitors) went off while they were in an area, they had to go to the 

hallway for a nasal swipe and had to leave PF4 until the swipes were counted. 

• Ms. Valerio stated that it took her almost a year to convince NMT that workers 

needed special respirators in the Evaporator Room. [Name redacted] stated that work 

assignments in that room required a full face respirator with an air supply. 

Dr. Macievic asked the attendees if they wore breathing zone samplers when they worked in high 

contamination areas. He also asked if the RCTs specified the need for special equipment based 

on the surveys for the RWPs. [Name redacted] responded that the RCTs issued the special 

equipment – for example, “the RCTs had a kind of heat exchanger that they put on us” when 

they worked in Room 401 with the glovebox and in the equipment room. Dr. Macievic asked 

when the dosimetry policy changed to the RCTs giving them dosimeters. [Name redacted] 

responded that the policy had changed slowly. He stated that he had come out of a “hot” area to 

check his hands before he ate lunch and found the machine off. When he told the RCTs that the 

machine wasn’t working, they said he had turned it off. Dr. Macievic stated that NIOSH is 

looking for the reports so the evaluation is based on real data. He asked if the nasal swipes were 

ever recorded. [Name redacted] responded that it depended on the job they were doing. He said 

that if he came out of the equipment room with 4 sets of coveralls and a rain suit and full face air 

supply, by the time he had stripped down to his underwear, there was never any contamination 

on his body even when the suit was contaminated. Dr. Macievic confirmed that the 

contamination was just to the measuring instrument. He commented that tritium and some other 

radionuclides are able to penetrate protective equipment and cause contamination. He also noted 

that a gradual introduction of radiation protection measures probably indicates that the various 

groups and RCTs were able to make independent decisions about those measures. 

[Name redacted] initiated a discussion about the RWP process. Dr. Macievic asked the attendees 

if it was common practice to have an RWP for every job. [Name redacted] responded that RWPs 

came later. He recalled that there were many jobs that they did not even have safety meetings or 

RWPs, up until approximately 2000. He stated that he worked in the construction zones where 

they did not do much maintenance work, but they did encounter “hot spots” where they were told 

to stay behind a tape or a line. 

[Name redacted] stated that from about 1975 through the 1980s, they were paid 10% extra on a 

“hot” job if they were working very close to a taped off area. He began working at LANL in 

May 1975. His first overtime weekend job was a few weeks later and a RCT was on the job site 

with them for spot checks. They were using a cutting torch so there was airborne material. Dr. 

Macievic noted that RWPs were not a common practice at the time. [Name redacted] stated that 

RWPs were not posted prior to the Tiger Team investigation. 

[Name redacted] asked Dr. Macievic if NIOSH had contacted any of the RCTs from the petition 

time period. Dr. Macievic asked if the attendees could provide him with names of some of the 

RCTs who were taking measurements in the field during their jobs. They responded with several 

names: [name redacted] at DP and CMR; [name redacted] at TA-55; [name redacted] at TA-55; 

[name redacted], who had a very long career at LANL and worked at TA-50 toward the end of 

his tenure; [name redacted] at TA-55; and [name redacted]. Dr. Macievic commented that these 

names may also be useful in a database search to locate reports containing survey data. [Name 

redacted] asked Dr. Macievic if it would be useful to have the names of some of the building 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 9 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

managers. Dr. Macievic replied that NIOSH prefers to talk with the personnel who actually took 

the field survey measurements because management personnel sometimes take offense when 

they are questioned about the programs. [Name redacted] commented that he would expect the 

same from the technicians. [Name redacted] commented that the technicians may be able to help 

Dr. Macievic locate the documents. Ms. Valerio commented that [Name redacted] was an RCT 

who worked all the ‘hot’ areas at LANL and is now retired. She volunteered to contact the RCTs 

who have retired to ask them to call Dr. Macievic. Dr. Macievic commented that telephone 

conversations would be limited to informal discussion on an unclassified level, such as the 

names of forms and reports that were used to record survey data and other information. [Name 

redacted] noted that [name redacted] is a long-time employee at the LANL hospital and may be 

able to help locate retirees. 

[Name redacted] recalled that DOL had held meetings with LANL employees and asked 

questions about their job activities. She noted that the DOL should have notes on all of those 

discussions. Dr. Macievic stated that the DOL information is generally personal information 

about the workers who were interviewed and not the field data that NIOSH needs now. [Name 

redacted] commented that some LANL employees may not want to talk with NIOSH because 

they are angry about how long dose reconstruction is taking. Dr. Macievic acknowledged that 

the dose reconstruction program started up under pressure to get dose reconstructions done and 

many site records were not immediately available. 

A discussion ensued regarding illnesses relating to the chemical exposures at LANL. [Name 

redacted] stated he and several other coworkers have developed thyroid trouble that may be 

related to their work at LANL. He added that his thyroid condition started when he was working 

at TA-55 and continued to worsen during the four years that he worked there. Dr. Macievic 

stated that NIOSH has information for Part B thyroid cancer claims but not for Part E claims for 

other thyroid illnesses. 

Some workers may have gotten a small radiation exposure in addition to lot of chemical 

exposure. [Name redacted] stated that he worked around a lot of chemicals at LANL. [Name 

redacted] commented that there are lists that show the chemicals that were used at LANL. 

[Name redacted] commented that the cans on their respirators often leaked enough that they 

could taste and smell the chemicals. [Name redacted] commented that workers often got a 

“double whammy” when the chemicals contained radioactive waste. He noted that Area L in 

TA-54 (the “hot” dump) was where the “pigs,” or plutonium isolation ground storage tanks, 

contained the high-level radioactive waste. He added that the LANL site profile refers to these 

“pigs” as shafts but does not give any further information on them. Dr. Macievic asked if [name 

redacted] worked around the “pigs” as a routine activity. [Name redacted] responded that he had 

helped take the covers off the tanks when trucks delivered canisters containing high-level waste. 

He added that NIOSH does not seem to know many things about LANL. Dr. Macievic 

responded that since LANL is such a large site with a very long history, it is often a difficult task 

to locate information. 

Dr. Macievic thanked the attendees for meeting with NIOSH to share their experiences and 

provide contact information for others who worked at LANL. He stated that NIOSH will revise 

the LANL Site Profile to include new information that is found during the SEC petition 

evaluation process. He added that claimants may also submit new information to appeal denied 

claims. 

Dr. Macievic dismissed the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 10 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

ATTACHMENT A: 

Work History Information 

Use the following as a guide to prepare your statement for NIOSH. Try to provide as 

much information as possible to include dates, locations, who, what when, where, why, 

and how. The key information to be obtained is radiation exposure and inadequate or 

no monitoring for those exposures. NIOSH will use this information to evaluation a 

petition to add a class to the Special Exposure Cohort of the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. If this class is added, eligible claims 

will be compensated without the completion of a radiation dose reconstruction of the 

probability of causation. 

Employment History 

Job title, start date, end date 

• Number of hours worked per week 

• Number of hours per week the job involved potential exposure to radiation 

and/or radioactive materials 

• Buildings/locations in which you worked (include the type of duty performed at 

each location) 

• Types of radioactive material(s) present or processed, and what form(s) (solid, 

liquid, gas) 

• Amount of radioactive materials present or processed (ounces, pounds, 

kilograms, drums, etc.) over what time period 

• Types of radiation-generating equipment (X-Rays, criticality reactors, or 

accelerators) that were present or used 

• Exposure/contamination control measures used 

o Hoods, gloves, respirators, booties, smocks, etc. 

o What type of shielding was present 

o Were only some workers provided with this equipment

o What was the distance from the material, process, or equipment 

Radiation Monitoring Information 

• State whether you or co-workers (same job category) routinely wore radiation 

dosimetry badges 

• Badge information: how often worn, how often exchanged, and where was it 

worn

• If worn on front of the body, did you face toward or away from the radiation 

source 

• Did other workers (different job category) in the same area wear radiation 

dosimetry badges 

• Did other workers (different job category) wear different radiation dosimetry 

badges than you 

• Did you participate in a biological radiation monitoring program (nasal smears, 

urine samples, fecal samples, whole body counts) 

• State the time period(s) you participated 
LANL - NMBCTC Page 11 of 11 September 17, 2008 

Final Minutes REDACTED 

• Was the urinalysis kit provided for a particular radioisotope (i.e.: plutonium, 

uranium) 

• Do you have copies of your dosimeter badge or biological monitoring records? 

o Are you aware of any discrepancies in your records between special, 

monthly, and annual monitoring? 

• State whether you routinely surveyed yourself (frisked) for external 

contamination. 

• Was there general air monitoring for radiation performed in the work 

environment (if yes, indicate when this occurred) 

Radiation Incidents 

• Were you ever involved in an incident potentially involving radiation exposure or 

contamination (LANL examples: Cerro Grande Fire, Sigma Americium 

Contamination; individual contamination, spill, exposure) 

• If yes, tell: 

o what happened 

o when it happened 

o what form was the radioactive material in, what quantity of radioactive 

material was present 

o which radiation-generating equipment was involved 

o where it took place 

o who was involved 

o what actions were taken to remedy the exposure contamination 

o your location and activities during the incident, precautions taken to 

protect you 

o types of personal protective equipment used 

o length of time exposed during the incident 

o chelation therapy or other medical treatments, type of biological 

monitoring after the incident 

o indicate whether you have records of the monitoring