NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 1 of 9 10/27/05 

Meeting Date: 

April 5, 2005 

Meeting with: 

Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America 

International Guards Union of America 

Attendees: 

Tommy L. Spakes – K-25, Wackenhut Services 

Joe Richards – Y-12, International Guards Union of America 

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives: 

LaVon Rutherford – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

Richard “Dick” Toohey – Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) 

William “Bill” Murray – ORAU 

Melissa Fish – ORAU 

Vernon McDougall – Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc. (ATL) 

Mark Lewis – ATL 

Jay Maisler – Integrated Environmental Management, Inc. 

Proceedings 

Mark Lewis began the meeting at 4 p.m. by introducing himself and requesting that everyone 

around the table introduce themselves as well. Mr. Lewis indicated that the meeting would be 

recorded to capture the concerns and comments voiced, but that individual union representatives 

who commented would not be identified by name. 

LaVon Rutherford explained the importance of worker input into the site profiles. Bill Murray 

stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Site Profiles that were developed for the 

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Y12 National Security Complex. Mr. Murray said that it is important that the site profiles have 

input from workers and former workers at these sites. 

Mr. Murray briefly described the two types of claims that can be submitted to the Department of 

Labor under Subtitle B and Subtitle E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). The development of the site profile documents is 

related to Subtitle B. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 2 of 9 10/27/05 

Mr. Murray explained that Congress gave NIOSH the responsibility for dose reconstruction 

under Subtitle B of EEOICPA. NIOSH established the Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support (OCAS). Because of the magnitude of the task, NIOSH contracted with the Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities (ORAU) to support the dose reconstruction project. 

Dr. Toohey stated that the ORAU Team has provided NIOSH with approximately 9,100 draft 

dose reconstruction reports. About 600 of those are currently in the hands of the claimants for 

their review. Approximately 7,700 reports have been judged as final reports and sent to the 

Department of Labor (DOL). NIOSH has received approximately 18,400 claims from DOL. 

Mr. Murray stated that the EEOICPA was signed into law in December 2000. The DOL began 

accepting claims in July 2001. In September 2002, the ORAU Team was awarded the contract to 

support radiation dose reconstruction. In October 2004, EEOICPA was amended so that all 

claims (including those for toxic chemicals) now go to DOL. 

Mr. Murray said that the site profiles support dose reconstruction. They are historical documents 

that discuss the activities, processes, and buildings, the dosimetry programs, environmental 

releases, and the medical x-ray programs. The site profiles provide site-specific technical 

information used by health physicists to reconstruct radiation doses. Using site profiles 

minimizes the interpretation of data. They are revised when new information is obtained. 

Each site profile consists of five independent sections: Site Description, External Dosimetry, 

Internal Dosimetry, Occupational Environmental Dose, and Occupational Medical Dose. All site 

profiles go through a rigorous review before they are approved by NIOSH. Site Profiles for the 

Oak Ridge Sites are available on the NIOSH website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocastbds.html. 

Mr. Murray stated that the Site Description section of a site profile provides a general overview 

of the facilities and activities at that site from the time when the site were first opened. It 

documents the radioactive materials and the radiation sources present at the site, and identifies 

the potential radiation exposures. 

The External Dosimetry Section includes information on methods and practices used by the site 

over the years, whether or not adjustments to recorded occupational dose were made, and 

minimum detectable levels. Mr. Murray explained how minimum detectable levels are used to 

calculate missed dose. When a worker’s official dose record shows many zeroes, a portion of the 

minimum detectable level is assigned to the claimant. Assigning a missed dose is one example 

of how NIOSH is trying to be claimant favorable. Regarding the External Dosimetry Program at 

the three Oak Ridge sites, Mr. Murray said that NIOSH is aware of the dosimeter technology that 

was used, how often the badges were exchanged, workplace radiation fields, and worker 

locations around the radiation sources. It is important to remember that the External Dose 

section is geared toward workers who were in the monitoring program. The Department of 

Energy (DOE) provides NIOSH with the worker dose records. As opportunity provides, 

additional dose is then added to the worker dose records. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 3 of 9 10/27/05 

Question: 

Are DOE records adjusted? 

Bill Murray: 

No, DOE records are not adjusted. What happens is that NIOSH adds the missed dose to the 

reported dose, which results in a higher calculated dose for the claimant. 

LaVon Rutherford: 

NIOSH also uses records to look at patterns or changes that indicate changes in worker 

exposures. 

Question: 

How is the situation handled for a guard who was not working directly with radiation but was 

always in the surrounding area where radiation work was taking place? 

LaVon Rutherford: 

As Bill mentioned, if the guard records indicated readings of zeros, the guard would be 

assigned missed dose. 

Bill Murray: 

Decisions would be made based on the activities that were taking place at that time, coworker data, and the technology in place at that specific time. We have heard that at some 

sites, workers were told to place their badge inside a lead box before entering a radiation 

area. If NIOSH observes zeros when a series of zeros is not expected, there is guidance in 

place for the health physicist performing the dose reconstruction to consider adding missed 

dose. 

Comment/Question: 

We worked in areas of Y-12 where they performed x rays and the Geiger counter probe was 

wrapped in lead. Why would the probe be wrapped in lead? 

Bill Murray: 

Geiger counters are not typically used to take measurements around an x-ray machine. 

LaVon Rutherford: 

Typically a shielded probe would be used to keep background exposures out while 

performing surface contamination surveys. I am not sure about that particular situation that 

you mentioned but perhaps they were trying to measure surface contamination. 

Mr. Murray described the Internal Dosimetry section, which includes information on the 

methods and practices used at the site, the sources of exposure, the minimum detectable activity 

for whole body counting and urinalysis, as well as reporting levels. The minimum detectable 

activity for internal exposure is used in the same way that the minimum detectable level is used 

for external exposure. 

• At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the bioassay program started in 1947. Urine and 

fecal samples were analyzed for selected radionuclides which included fission products, 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 4 of 9 10/27/05 

uranium, and transuranics. Gamma-emitting radioactive materials were measured inside 

the body with whole body and lung counters starting in 1959. 

• At Y-12, urinalysis began in 1948 for uranium, plutonium, tritium, americium, 

neptunium, and thorium. Fecal analysis began in the 1960s. Chest counting began in 

1961. Mr. Murray reminded the group that NIOSH and the ORAU Team are currently in 

the process of updating and revising the Y-12 Site Profile because new information has 

been located. There will be significant changes regarding recycled uranium, thorium, U233, and tritium. 

• At K-25 the Bioassay program started in 1945. Urine was tested for uranium. A lung 

counter was used in 1958 and from 1965-1995, and the whole body counter from 1960-

1980. 

Jay Maisler added that the ORAU Team is just now getting access to documents in the K-25 

security vault. As a result, many default assumptions were made throughout the K-25 Site 

Profile. However, it is important to understand that the default assumptions that were made were 

claimant favorable. 

Question: 

How often is the urinalysis test required? 

LaVon Rutherford: 

The frequency of urinalysis depends on the areas where the employee works and the 

likelihood of an internal exposure. 

Jay Maisler: 

I am guessing that back in 1945, the reason they were doing uranium analysis was not for 

radiological purposes but to test for uranium toxicity. The radiological hazards of uranium 

were not appreciated early on. 

Mark Lewis: 

Back in the 1970s, the urinalysis program at Portsmouth was flawed because the testing 

depended on the location of employee lockers and not where employees were actually 

working. Over time, those methods changed. 

LaVon Rutherford: 

Later it became the practice that if you were likely to receive an internal exposure dose of 

100 mrem or greater you would be put into a routine urinalysis program. 

Bill Murray: 

If you know of particular exposures that were occurring and urinalysis was not being 

performed, that is the type of information that NIOSH needs to have. 

Comment: 

The thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for guards at K-25 always read zero. Because 

they have always worked in every building on the site, the guards do not believe the 

paperwork that they receive regarding their exposures. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 5 of 9 10/27/05 

Comment: 

At one time, all Y-12 workers received TLDs. But later that practice changed. There are 

many people who think that all workers at Y-12 should have TLDs. 

Comment: 

Although the guards were in the same areas with the production workers who were wearing 

protection, the guards did not receive protection. 

Mr. Murray said that people who were not in the monitoring program could still be exposed to 

radiation due to radioactive materials in the air, radiation sources in the buildings, and 

radioactive materials in the work environment. Site-wide monitoring data are used to determine 

the environmental external dose for unmonitored workers. The average annual exposure rates 

were 0.03 to 0.46 mR/h at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 0.0074 to 0.0105 milliroentgen per 

hour (mR/h) at K-25, and 0.013 millirem per hour (mrem/h) at Y-12. The annual exposure rates 

are used to assign environmental dose to workers who were not in the external dosimetry 

records. The same is true for environmental internal dose. The annual intake of radioactive 

material is calculated from the average annual air concentration. 

Mr. Murray explained that NIOSH also adds an occupational medical radiation dose. When 

calculating the medical dose, the frequency of employer-required x rays is considered as well as 

the type of x-ray equipment and techniques that were used. Mr. Murray explained that the x-ray 

equipment changed over time and that older equipment emitted more x-ray radiation which 

resulted in higher worker doses. 

In conclusion, Mr. Murray said that developing a site profile is an important task and that the 

site profiles can be changed based on worker input. Comments on the site profiles should be 

sent directly to NIOSH. Mr. Murray provided the mailing address, email address, and fax 

number for NIOSH. 

Mark Lewis thanked everyone at the meeting for taking the time to attend and for their 

comments. 

Discussion Session

Comment: 

A lot of people have seen a lot of things, and it is difficult to contact everyone to get their 

input. Many people do not have access to a computer, or if they do, many workers are not 

computer savvy. It is important to contact as many individuals as possible, but we do not 

have the resources (money and manpower) to contact every person. We have a database of 

names that we are willing to provide to NIOSH to help with the effort of contacting former 

workers for their input. There are many 

former workers with a lot of knowledge that are not aware that NIOSH wants worker input, 

so those former workers need to be contacted. We request help in contacting former 

workers. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 6 of 9 10/27/05 

Comment: 

In addition to being fearful about talking about their personal exposures, many people worry 

that they could be discussing classified information. 

Mark Lewis: 

Do you think that there is a need for workers to meet with security cleared personnel? 

Comment: 

Workers do not trust anymore, and are not willing to provide information because it is 

difficult for workers, especially retired workers, to know what they can say. NIOSH, DOE, 

and the appropriate contractors need to get together and let workers know that it is okay for 

them to talk and that they no longer need to remain silent. 

Comment: 

Workers were told to not go into places wearing their monitor—that they needed to take it off 

before entering. 

Comment: 

Some of the places where workers spent all of their working hours are now closed due to 

contamination. 

Comment: 

Security officers and guards have been left out of the dose reconstruction equation. 

Comment: 

Putting some type of notification in the newspaper is one way of raising awareness and 

getting input from former workers. 

Comment: 

I would like to see some Q-cleared people go on site and interview some of the workers. 

Would that be possible? 

Richard Toohey: 

Yes, that is possible. A requirement is that we prepare a transcript of the talk and the 

transcript goes through a classification review. Another important thing to remember is that, 

for each claimant, there is a telephone interview process in which secure interviews can be 

and have been set up. 

Comment: 

I believe that you would get a lot more participation if you would perform these individual 

interviews at the site itself. 

Comment: 

There were releases at Y-12 that took place and workers were exposed. However, all of 

those workers and those exposures have not been put into the dose reconstruction equation. 

The perception among workers is that it is very likely that they were exposed. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 7 of 9 10/27/05 

Question: 

Is there any way that NIOSH could send out mailings and make the effort to contact all 

former workers to get their input? 

LaVon Rutherford: 

We would have to work with our contractor to see what we can do. I am sure that we can do 

something; we will just need to determine what will be most effective. 

Comment: 

I suggest that you continue with the Site Profile meetings, but that you also make time to go 

to the site and speak with the workers because the truth is that people, workers and 

contractors included, do not know about this program. 

Comment: 

A key issue is that the programs and contracts at the sites do change over time. Therefore it is 

extremely important that DOE, NIOSH, and the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) begin speaking together and sending the same message. 

Question: 

Who do I need to contact to make sure that the issue of NIOSH contacting former workers 

moves forward? 

LaVon Rutherford: 

I will take this issue back with me. 

Question: 

To make this work effectively, what kind of support can we get from NIOSH in regard to 

contacting former and current workers? 

Comment: (The commenter provided two internal K-25 documents to Jay Maisler.) 

One of the documents I am providing is an internal memo and the other is a training 

document. The only requirement for guards patrolling in the K-25 Building in 1987 was to 

wear work issued boots. 

Comment: 

It appears to me that trust and getting the word out are important issues in regard to the 

Energy Employee Occupational Illness Program. Because of everything that has happened in 

the past, people do not trust DOE. 

LaVon Rutherford: 

It is important that people understand that we are not hand-in-hand with DOE. NIOSH is 

completely separate from DOE. 

Comment: 

I am aware that Sanford Cohen and Associates (SC&A) was hired to perform an audit of the 

program and that SC&A does not agree with NIOSH. Who should we believe? 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 8 of 9 10/27/05 

LaVon Rutherford: 

The sad part of the discussion that took place between SC&A and NIOSH is that it was all 

aired in a public format. That was not completely appropriate. It is important to recognize 

that SC&A are not necessarily saying that everything NIOSH has done is wrong. They are 

looking at ways that they feel that NIOSH could make adjustments. It came off as NIOSH is 

wrong, but that is not necessarily true. 

Comment: 

Well that is not how I took it. I took it as NIOSH is wrong. At the Advisory Board meeting 

when this was aired, I saw a huge conflict that might as well have been a fist fight between 

NIOSH and SC&A. Anyone could have been at the Advisory Board meeting. It was not 

good publicity. 

LaVon Rutherford: 

NIOSH, ORAU, and SC&A recognize the problems of that particular Advisory Board 

meeting. 

Comment: 

It is important to remember to stay focused on the workers, rather than disagreeing and 

fighting with the auditors. 

LaVon Rutherford: 

You will continually see changes in the program that will expedite the claim process and 

make the program better for claimants. 

Comment: 

At East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), we have quite a few new concerns about 

possible worker exposures. People wonder why you need a TLD or Personnel Nuclear 

Accident Dosimeter (PNAD) when you go past Portal 11 into limited areas. We do have 

areas that contain numerous UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) cylinders. Many of the UF6

cylinders that they are receiving in Paducah are coming from our site. 

Comment: 

Regarding the K-25 building that is currently involved in this project right now—there is a 

certain area where another company is doing asbestos abatement. Just outside a set of double 

doors (which are not air tight) where they are doing the asbestos abatement, there is a guard 

posted and it is optional for guards to wear a respirator or a dust mask. I do not know the 

reason guards are not wearing full protective gear. They are bringing combustibles outside 

of this building and putting them in a radiation area. However, the wind blows everything all 

over and it could very easily be spreading contamination. 

Comment: 

Today there was a lithium fire at the K-25 site on the property-protected side of the plant. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Meeting on 

the K-25, 

ORNL, and Y-12 Site Profiles 

Final Minutes Page 9 of 9 10/27/05 

Comment: 

In times past, a dried up vial of a cousin to the West Nile Virus was found in K-25. When 

they were doing the clean up on K-31 and K-33, they found things that were not supposed to 

be in those buildings. I have also heard stories from guards who said that years ago they 

would have releases at night so that the releases would not be seen. 

Comment: 

We have had a couple of communication problems. One particular incident resulted when we 

had a security check to do. The guards were told that they no longer needed to dress out in a 

specific area because the area had been cleaned up. For ten months, I did not dress out 

during my security check. Later I found out that the clean-up job never was performed and 

that I had been going unprotected into a contaminated area. Sometimes the security 

personnel are the last people to know important information. There is a communication 

problem most likely due to the numerous contractors performing different types of work. 

Comment: 

There is a problem with prostate cancer at K-25 for workers who worked in the Centrifuge 

Building. 

Mark Lewis: 

NIOSH puts on a class on how they reconstruct doses; it is Integrated Modules for Bioassay 

Analysis (IMBA) training. The training was very helpful to the people who attended in the 

past. If they have the training again, I will contact you to see if you are interested. 

Jay Maisler: 

The tough thing that we face is that emotions are high when people are ill. It is important to 

understand that just because a person is sick does not mean that all sick workers will be 

compensated. The site profile can give people who are submitting claims reasonable 

assurance that they are getting a fair shake. We are trying to make sure that we have the best 

information so that we can do the right thing for the people who submit claims. 

Comment: 

If there is any information that you could send me about this program I would be happy to 

put it in the kitchen so that people could pick it up and read it if they choose to do so. 

Bill Murray and Mark Lewis thanked the participants for their input and for taking the time to 

attend this meeting. The meeting concluded at 5:00 p.m.