bb

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
1999 Broadway Suite 1120
PO Box 46550
Denver CO 80201-6550
1-888-805-3389
(720) 264-3099 FAX

March 4, 2004
File No:

Dear

This letter is about your claim for benefits.

In the process of verifying employment with the Mathieson Plant, it is possible the wrong
verification was made. We forwarded to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) the
verified employment dates of 1949 through 1979 at the Blockson Chemical Plant

(which was also known as Olin Mathieson) in Joliet, IL. The Olin Corporation verified that
worked at Blockson Chemical at Joliet, IL. After further review of your claim we have initiated further

development of employment. We have sent a request to the Department of Energy to verify
employment at the Mathieson Chemical Plant, Pasadena, TX.

Therefore, we have to request that you provide any proof of his employment that may be available. Please
submit any of the following records that you may have for his employment at the Mathieson Chemical
Plant. In particular the time period 1951-1953:

Records created by any government agency or by any regular business activity
‘Time and attendance forms

Minutes from a meeting that lists the participants at a meeting

Punch card

Wage statements

Sign in and sign out forms from logbooks, etc.

Security clearance

If written employment records are not available, employment history affidavits (EE-4) from co-workers that
worked with him at the Mathieson Plant may be used. Also, please complete the enclosed form SSA-581
and retum it in case we need to use this to contact the Social Security Administration about his earnings at
the Mathieson Chemical Plant. At this time the medical evidence to support your claim for cancer has been
met and all we need is proof of his employment at a covered facility.

Please be advised that as part of the EEOICPA, the Department of Energy (DOE) has established a
program for DOE contractor and subcontractor employees who have an illness that may have been caused
by exposure to a toxic substance while doing work for DOE. Under this program, DOE can help workers
obtain state workers’ compensation benefits in the state in which they worked. State workers’
compensation benefits are different from the DOL-administered program; they usually cover a portion of


36

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Dose from Radiological Incidents

No evidence was provided by the claimant. or any other documented source, that any
radiological incidents occurred during :mployment, nor are any such incidents
reported in the available records cited in Reference 4. Thus there was no indication of any
incident that should be taken into account.

Summary

was assumed to have been exposed internally during his employment at Mathieson
Chemical Company from 1951 through 1979 to an intake of radioactive material sufficient to

result in a dose to the of and a dose to the of He was
assumed to have received an external photon dose of to the and to the
The reported dose is a reasonable overestimate of occupational

radiation dose for claim determination purposes. The attachment contains the dose reconstruction

summary sheets that will be used by the Department of Labor to make the final probability of
causation determination for the claim.

References

1. 42 CFR § 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees

Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal
Register/Vol.67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22314

2. 42 CFR § 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule,
Federal Register/Vol.67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22296

3. NIOSH, (2002) /nternal Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev 0, OCAS-IG-

002, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 2002

4. ORAU Dose Reconstruction Team, Technical Information Bulletin: Technical Basis for

Estimating the Maximum Plausible Dose to Workers at Atomic Weapons Employer
Facilities; Rev. 03, December 2003

5. NIOSH, NIOSH-Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (NIOSH-IREP) Technical
Documentation, Final Report, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 2002

6. ACJ & Associates and the UK National Radiological Protection Board, Integrated Modules
for Bioassay Analysis, (IMBA), Phase 1, Software produced for NIOSH-OCAS as
part of the EEOICPA Program, Version 1.0.42, UK, November 2002

Page 12 of 18


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Table 8. Estimated annual external doses to the (surrogate for due to residual
radioactivity.

Year | Annual Organ Doses due to Annual Organ Doses due to
Photons 30-250 keV Photons > 250 keV
(rem) (rem)

1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Internal Dose

Internal dose is received from radiation originating inside the body, i.e., from radioactive
material taken into the body in some way. It can be calculated based on bioassay measurements
of individual workers or on measurements of radiological conditions in the work place.

As noted above, no internal dose monitoring records were found for individual workers at

Mathieson Chemical Company. Thus, conservative air concentration values were assumed to
produce a source term for internal dose estimation’. .

Page 8 of 18

go


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

2 we are
o ws won
ot we Bens
cI err Grove
s 1078 pad
7 137 tone
e 51 chronic,
o 1082 ome
” 159 Gre
7) ___} 50 hore
72 1955 ‘cheonic
73 as oa
TM% 1057 —
| ese cre
78 1058 4
ba re

| —w 0 Sree
70 1e8z enn
ey ~ Gre
ae chronic
a chronic
s woe

— JZ chronic.
L a

- E] ‘Grow
Ld Gran
s drone
bad chronic.
bd drone

_— —
@ anne
=e om
% ‘Grote
rf
ro
7
o
—
0
104

|

102

uM

!
cng

|

all

PEELE

i

i

Page 17 of 18


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

decision. Final determinations are made by the Department of Labor based on standards
determined by EEOICPA and its implementing regulations.

Dose Reconstruction Overview

The Office of Compensation Analysis and Support has performed a dose reconstruction for
in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The Department of Labor (DOL) has verified

that worked at the Blockson Chemical Company from through
and was diagnosed with in 1986 and
in 1994. No dosimetry or bioassay records for telated to Blockson

Chemical’s work for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, one of the predecessor agencies of
the present Department of Energy) could be found. The primary source of information used for
this dose reconstruction was the document “Basis for Development of an Exposure Matrix for
Blockson Chemical Company” prepared for the EEOICPA project.

Since the covered condition is of the and cancer, the dose
reconstruction evaluated his radiation exposure to the and from the potential
exposure starting in 1952 until time of in 1986 and in
1994.

For the purposes of this dose reconstruction, was assigned the highest

reasonably possible radiation dose using worst-case assumptions related to radiation exposure
and intake, based on current science, documented experience and relevant data. Even under
these assumptions, NIOSH has determined that further research and analysis will not produce a
level of radiation dose resulting in a probability of causation of 50% or greater. Based on this
efficiency process, the maximum estimated dose to the was from internal
exposure and from external exposure. The maximum estimated dose to the was

from internal exposure and from external exposure. In accordance with
the provisions of 42 CFR 82.10(k)', NIOSH has determined that sufficient research and analysis
has been conducted to consider this dose reconstruction complete.

Information Used

The primary data source utilized for this dose reconstruction was the document “Basis for
Development of an Exposure Matrix for Blockson Chemical Company” prepared for the
EEOICPA project. It presents the evaluation of information regarding the uranium recovery
work performed by Blockson Chemical for the AEC. This document includes Teports of uranium
extraction work done at Blockson Chemical as well as process information from Blockson
Chemical and four‘uranium mills‘. In addition, limited urinalysis data was available for 25
workers monitored between 1954 and 1958. Conservative (claimant-favorable) values of
breathable air concentrations and inhalation times were derived from this information‘. The

types of cancer and the date of diagnosis were obtained from the medical records and/or the
death certificate submitted by the claimant.

DRAFT Page 4 of 15

be


Direct Query - Intranet - "Quick" Search

UNITED STATES
OSTAL SERVIGE

Page 1 of 1

Track/Confirm - Intranet Item Inquiry - Domestic

Item: 7002 3150 0001 8525 0681 Date/Time Mailed: 03/30/2004 10:09
[Destination [ZIP Code: 80201 |[city: DENVER |[State: co ]
[Origin __|[zP Code: 77501 |[city: PASADENA |[State: Tx |
Class: First Class
Scheduled Delivery: 04/02/2004
Weight: Ib: 0 oz: 5
[ Special Services tL. Associated Labels | Amount |
[CERTIFIED MAIL [7002 3150 0001 8525 0681 __|[s2.30 |
|RETURN RECEIPT I ||$1.75 |
Event Date Time Location Scanner ID
DELIVERED 04/05/2004 06:08 +DENVER CO 80201 K709296

Firm Name: DEPT LABOR 46550

Recipient : ‘A A P"

Request Delivery Record

View Deli Signalure and Address
ARRIVAL AT UNIT 04/05/2004 06:01 DENVER CO 80202 K709296
ACCEPT OR PICKUP 03/30/2004 10:09 PASADENA TX 77501

Enter Request Type and item Number:

Quick Search @ —_ Extensive Search ©

[Explanation of Quick and Extensive Searches|

Submit

tem Number:

Inquire on multiple items.

Go to the Product Tracking’ System Home Page.

o9A


Covered Employee

NIOSH ID#

ATTACHMENT 1: IREP Input Tables

Social Security #

|
!

nent

ENEEUAEOORENERTECEY

Tn
L
iit

\

f

1
1
}

|

ia

)

3
nnn

PEELE

aa

Page 13 of 18

aT


I received another letter, dated December 30, 2003 from Mr. Larry J. Elliott asking again
for a properly signed OCAS-1. (See Attachment 3.) He told me if he did not receive
this OCAS-1 from me by 01-13-04, they would administratively close the dose
reconstruction and notify DOL of this action.

See attached letter dated Jan 5, 2004 from me to Mr. Larry J. Elliott informing him of the
above happenings. | also told him that this report referred to a person who had worked

for Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, Ilinois. never worked in Illinois.

was employed at Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas. I could

not let this incorrect information remain in my claim. I knew that Olin Mathieson had
bought Blockson Chemical Company, but I felt that I should make it clear that

had worked in Pasadena, Texas even though the Dose Reconstruction Report
had indicated that much work had been done on claims from the Blockson Chemical
Company and it appeared that a lot of information was available from that location while
nothing was available from Mathieson Chemical Company. Employees at Blockson
Chemical Company had been monitored and process information had been submitted.
Obviously more information was known about Blockson Chemical while 1 knew very
little about processing my claim. I did not like to be pressured when there were obvious
discrepancies in my file and more information yet to be considered. It appeared that no
one knew what was going on and no one was taking this seriously except for their interest
in conducting a final interview. I also returned the Form OCAS-1 which he had sent to
me. However, I answered “No” to all the questions and added a note that this was not
now appropriate. (See Attachment 4.)

See attached letter dated March 4, 2004 to me from Mr. Steven F. Guerrero, Claims
Examiner. Mr. Guerrero stated that they had forwarded to NIOSH the verified
employment dates of November 8, 1949 through May 1, 1979 at the Blockson Chemical
Plant (which was also known as Olin Mathieson) in Joliet, Illinois..He also said the Olin

Corporation verified that worked at Blockson Chemical at Joliet Ilinois, that
they had initiated further development of employment and had sent a
request to the Department of Energy to verify employment at the

Mathieson Chemical Plant in Pasadena, Texas. He also requested that I provide proof of
employment and informed me of documents that could be used as proof.
He said it is my responsibility to provide this evidence. (See Attachment 5.)

I sent Mr. Guerrero a letter dated March 29, 2004 with 18 attachments, including
statements from fellow employees, form SSA 581 which he had enclosed for me to
complete, completed form EE-4 which contained information not previously considered,
W-2 Forms from 1953 — 1979, a Social Security earnings statement showing earnings for
all years, statements regarding Union membership, insurance, retirement, employee
certificates for years of service, and other information which showed without doubt that

had been employed in Pasadena and the dates of his employment. The U.S.
Postal Service shows this certified letter was mailed March 30, 2004 and delivered to the
Department of Labor on April 5, 2004. (See Attachment 6.)

EY.


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
Table 1. Estimated annual external doses to the (surrogate for due to photons from
uranium.

Year Annual Organ Doses due to Annual Organ Doses due to

Photons 30-250 keV Photons > 250 keV
(rem) (rem)

1951

1952

1953
Table 2. Estimated annual external doses to the (surrogate for ) due to photons

from uranium.

Year Annual Organ Doses due to Annual Organ Doses due to
Photons 30-250 keV Photons > 250 keV
(rem) (rem)
1951
1952
1953

Table 3. Estimated annual external doses to the
from contaminated surfaces.

(surrogate for

due to photons

Year | Annual Organ Doses due to Annual Organ Doses due to
Photons 30-250 keV Photons > 250 keV
(rem) (rem)
1951
1952
1953
Table 4. Estimated annual external doses to the ‘surrogate for | due to photons

from contaminated surfaces.

Year | Annual Organ Doses due to Annual Organ Doses due to
Photons 30-250 keV Photons > 250 keV
(rem) {rem)
1951
1952
1953

Table 5. Estimated annual doses to the

annual diagnostic x-ray.

Table 6. Estimated annual doses to the

‘surrogate for

Year | Annual Organ Doses due to Photons
(rem)

1951

1952

1953

annual diagnostic x-ray.

Page 6 of 18

(surrogate for

due to photons

due to photons from the

from the


67

wages lost as well as medical care for the condition. For individuals who qualify for the DOE program,
DOE will convene a panel of independent physician experts to conduct objective reviews of claims to
determine medical causation. If you are a worker, or a survivor of a worker, who feels you may benefit
from such a review, please contact the DOE Office of Worker Advocacy’s toll free hotline at 877-447-

9756, visit DOE’s website at (www.energy.gov/benefits), or contact your DOL-DOE Resource Centers
for additional information and claim forms.

Itis the claimant’s responsibility to submit the evidence needed to establish a claim under EEOICPA.

You have 30 days from the date of this letter to provide the requested information, but you may contact us
if you require more time.

If you have any questions or concems, or need any assistance, please contact the District Office at 1-888-

805-3389 or you may fax to 720-264-3099. Please include this correspondence when submitting the
requested information.

Sincerely,

tevén F Guerrero
Claims Examiner

Encl.: EE-4
SSA-581


Page 2 -

Once we receive the signed OCAS-1 form from you, we will send the final copy of the dose
reconstruction report to the DOL for adjudication of your claim. We will also send you and the
Department of Energy a copy of the final dose reconstruction report. It is important that you return
the properly signed OCAS-1 form to us within the above-described time frame so that there is no
delay in the adjudication of your claim. We will not forward the dose reconstruction report to DOL
for adjudication without receipt of a properly signed OCAS-1 form. If we do not receive the
OCAS-1 form within the time frame described above, we may administratively close the dose
reconstruction and notify DOL of this action. PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED PRE-
ADDRESSED, POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE TO RETURN THE SIGNED OCAS-1 FORM TO US.

If you have any additional questions regarding the revised dose reconstruction report, please

contact our dose reconstruction contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, toll-free at 1-800-
322-0111.

Sincerely yours,
Larry J. Elliott, MSPH, CIH

Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

Enclosures

cc: File

72


14,

15.

Page 2 of 2

Letter dated March 19, 2004 from PACE International Union with attached forms
verifying union membership from 1953 to 1972 in Pasadena Texas.

Cover sheet dated 6-1-68 showing employee covered by group Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company policy.

Cover sheet dated 9-25-72 showing employee covered by group Prudential Insurance
Company of America policy.

Letter dated January 17, 1984 from Olin regarding application for retirement.

Service Certificate - 10 years completed on 1959,
Service Certificate - 20 years completed on 1969.
Service Certificate - 25 years completed on 1974,

employment at Mathieson Chemical/Olin Corporation in Pasadena, Texas began in 1949 and
ended in 1978. T have been told that he worked in the Labor Pool in his early employment at Mathieson
Chemical. I did not meet him until September 1952. At that time his military discharge had not yet been
processed but he had already retumed from military service in the war in Korea and had resumed his
employment at Mathieson Chemical. We 1953. 1 do not have his W-2 Forms prior to
1953 but the statement furnished by the Social Security Administration (Attachment 11) shows earnings
for 1951 and 1952. Earnings over 50 years ago were quite low compared to wages today. I have included
1978 and 1979 W-2 Forms from Olin Corporation and from another employer to show when his
employment ended. I believe that the amount shown on the 1979 W-2 Form from Olin Corporation was
probably severance pay. began receiving a retirement benefit from Olin Corporation at age
55. This benefit stopped when he died. The W-2P form for 1984 and the Form 1099-R for 1991 reflect
retirement pay from Olin. The Service Certificates clearly show that employment began

1949.

If anything else is needed, please let me know.

Attachments (18)

Sincerely,


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Year | Annual Organ Doses due to Photons
(rem)

1951
1952
1953

Table 7. Estimated annual external doses to the (surrogate for ) due to residual
radioactivity.

Year | Annual Organ Doses due to Annual Organ Doses due to
Photons 30-250 keV Photons > 250 keV

(rem) (rem)

1954 7
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Page 7 of 18


Page 2 of 2

Reconstruction Report referred to conditions in Joliett, Ilinois. Unlike Brad, she seemed very interested to
know that aad never worked in Illinois. I asked her to review file because of my
concem that it may contain incorrect information. This lady told me she would review the file, send me a
correct Dose Reconstruction Report, inform others of this action, and that time would be allowed for action
on claim.

In view of the above, I saw no reason for me to retum a signed Form OCAS-1 regarding the incorrect Dose
Reconstruction Report which is not applicable to or to the location where he was employed.
Also, I have not had a closing interview. I was assured that I was working within the time constraints.

AS OF THIS DATE, 1 HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REPORT FROM
THE LADY.

T am requesting that you review file and allow whatever time and effort is necessary in order
that all pertinent information be assembled and considered. I hope that you will clarify the glaring
discrepancies in file and correct the apparent lack of communication between the persons
handling this claim. | am interested in knowing that all correct information is considered and will
appreciate your help and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Attachment

bF


Page 2 -

Once we receive the signed OCAS-1 form from you, we will send the final copy of the dose
reconstruction report to the DOL for adjudication of your claim. We will also send you and the
Department of Energy a copy of the final dose reconstruction report. It is important that you retum
the properly signed OCAS-1 to us within the above-described time frame so that there is no delay
in the adjudication of your claim. We will not forward the dose reconstruction report to DOL for
adjudication without receipt of a properly signed OCAS-1. If we do not receive the OCAS-1 within
the timeframe described above, we may administratively close the dose reconstruction and notify

DOL of this action. PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED PRE-ADDRESSED, POSTAGE-PAID
ENVELOPE TO RETURN THE SIGNED OCAS-1 TO US.

{f you have any additional questions regarding this dose reconstruction report, please contact our
dose reconstruction contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, toll-free at 1-800-322-0111.

Sincerely yours,
Larry J. Elliott, MSPH, CIH

Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

Enclosures

cc: File

56


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
decision. Final determinations are made by the Department of Labor based on standards
determined by EEOICPA and its implementing regulations.

Dose Reconstruction Overview

The Office of Compensation Analysis and Support has performed a dose reconstruction for
in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Energy Employees
Occupational Hlness Compensation Program Act. The Department of Labor (DOL) has verified

that worked at the Mathieson Chemical Company from 1949 through 1979 and was
diagnosed with cancer of the in 1986 and cancer of the in 1994, No dosimetry
or bioassay records for related to Mathieson Chemical’s work for the Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC, one of the predecessor agencies of the present Department of
Energy) could be found. Mathieson Chemical Company performed work for the AEC between
1951 and 1953. The primary source of information used for this dose reconstruction was the
document “Technical Information Bulletin: Technical Basis for Estimating the Maximum

Plausible Dose to Workers at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities” prepared for the EEQICPA
project.

In accordance with NIOSH documentation, the dose to the lower large intestine was assigned as
the appropriate internal dose for the cancer. Doses tothe ~ and were assigned
as the appropriate external doses for the and respectively. Doses were evaluated

for the potential exposure starting in 1951 until the respective times of cancer diagnosis in 1986
and 1994.

For the purposes of this dose reconstruction, was assigned the highest reasonably
possible radiation dose using worst-case assumptions related to radiation exposure and intake,
based on current science, documented experience and relevant data. Even under these
assumptions, NIOSH has determined that further research and analysis will not produce a level
of radiation dose resulting in a probability of causation of 50% or greater. Based on this
efficiency process, the maximum estimated dose to was from internal
exposure and from external exposure. The maximum estimated dose to ~

was from internal exposure and from external exposure. In accordance with
the provisions of 42 CFR 82.10(k)', NIOSH has determined that sufficient research and analysis
has been conducted to consider this dose reconstruction complete.

Information Used

The primary data source utilized for this dose reconstruction was the “Technical Information
Bulletin: Technical Basis for Estimating the Maximum Plausible Dose to Workers at Atomic
Weapons Employer Facilities” prepared for the EEOICPA project. It presents the evaluation of
information regarding the uranium processing work performed by various atomic weapons
employer (AWE) facilities for the AEC. Conservative air concentrations and inhalation times
were assumed to estimate doses to these workers’. The types of cancer and the dates of

diagnosis were obtained from the medical records and/or the death certificate submitted by the
claimant.

Page 4 of 18

78


NIOSH

OCAS

NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the
Energy Employees Occupational [liness Compensation

Program Act (EEOICPA)
NIOSH ID: Social Security No. DOL District Office
Denver
Energy Employee
Name: Last First Middle Date of Birth
Covered
Employment: Mathieson Chemical Company,
1951 — 1979 Pasadena, Texas
Dates Lacation
Cancer: 1986
1994
Type ICD Code Date of Diagnosis

Calculations Performed By: Elizabeth K, Algutifan, CHP 3/10/2004
Name Date
Peer Review Completed By: Regis A. Greenwood, CHP 3/13/2004
Name Date
Dose Reconstruction Approved By:
—P 4
7 f
Brock A Ub 4/1/2004
‘Signature Date

Brant A. Ulsh, Ph.D., CHP

‘Name

Page | of 18

5


53

Ina letter dated April 23, 2004 (four days later) to me from Mr. Normal L. Fisher, Senior
Claims Examiner, I received a Notice of Recommended Decision to deny my claim. (See
Attachment 10.)

Attachments:
(1) Chart — Time to Process Part B EEOICPA Cases
(2) Letter dated October 30, 2003 to me from Mr. Larry J. Elliott
(3) Letter dated December 30, 2003 to me from Mr. Larry J. Elliott
(4) Letter dated January 5, 2004 to Mr. Larry J. Elliott from me
(5) Letter dated March 4, 2004 to me from Mr. Steven F. Guerrero
(6) Letter dated March 29, 2004 to Mr. Steven F. Guerrero from me
(7) Letter dated March 23, 2004 to me from Mr. Steven F. Guerrero (Received by
me March 29, 2004)
(8) Letter dated April 2, 2004 to me from Mr. Larry J. Elliott
(9) Letter dated April 19, 2004 to me from Mr. Larry J. Elliott
(10) Letter dated April 23, 2004 to me from Mr. Norman L. Fisher


JA

After I had mailed this letter, I received a letter dated March 23, 2004, postmarked March
25, 2004, from Mr. Guerrero stating that the Department of Energy had verified that
had worked at Mathieson Chemical Company, Pasadena, Texas from
1949 through 1979 and that this information had been forwarded to NIOSH
that day. (See Attachment 7.)

See attached letter dated April 2, 2004 to me from Mr. Larry J. Elliott enclosing a copy of
a Revised Draft NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction that supersedes any previous
Dose Reconstruction Reports sent to me. He also enclosed a Form OCAS-1 that should
be signed and returned to them. The dates on the Revised Draft NIOSH Report of Dose
Reconstruction show:

Calculations performed By Elizabeth K. Algutifan, CHP 3/10/2004

Peer Review Completed By Regis A.Greenwood, CHP 3/13/2004

Dose Reconstruction Approved By Brant A.Ulsh, Ph.D., CHP 4/1/2004

These dates do not seem compatible with the date of March 23, 2004 when Mr. Guerrero
states he forwarded information from DOE to NIOSH verifying

employment at Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas. These dates also
indicate that my letter to Mr. Guerrero, dated March 29, 2004, received by DOL on April
5, 2004, and containing information (18 Attachments) which should have been
considered in any determination regarding my claim evidently were not considered due to
the fact that they had not yet been received.

Ina letter dated April 2, 2004 from Mr. Elliott, I received a revised Draft which shows
that was employed at Mathieson Chemical in Pasadena, Texas, that no
records were available, that the primary data source utilized for this dose reconstruction
was the “Technical Information Bulletin: Technical Basis for Estimating the Maximum
Plausible Dose to Workers At Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities” prepared for the
EEOICPA project.” as well as other changes. Even though some things were changed
on this report when compared to the first report, these semantics cast doubt as to the
attention my claim was given. This report shows nothing about the actual plant site
except for where it is located. This letter dated April 2, 2004 was written before NIOSH
received my letter dated March 29, 2004 which, according to the Certified return receipt
was received by DOL on April 5, 2004. and this Dose Reconstruction Report was made
before NIOSH had verified = © ~~ employment dates and work site location on
March 23, 2004. According to information furnished from you regarding the time
required to complete a Dose Reconstruction Report, the report could not possibly have
been made in this time period. Mr. Elliott again requested that I return a signed OCAS-1
report. 1 did sign this OCAS-1 and return it because I was afraid my claim would be
closed. (See Attachment 8.)

In a letter dated April 19, 2004 to me from Mr. Elliott I received a final NIOSH Report of
Dose Reconstruction. This report had been completed 3/13/2004 and appeared to have
the same information as the earlier revised Draft. Mr. Elliott informed me that a copy of
this final dose reconstruction report had been forwarded to DOL. (See Attachment 9.)


No
No
Ne

No

Form OCAS -1 OMB No.
‘August 2001 Exp. Date 5/31/05

Statement by the Claimant Closing the Record on a NIOSH Dose Reconstruction
under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

i, a claimant under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), certify that I have completed providing information to
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and its representatives
information relating to potential radiation doses incurred by while under the
employment of DOE, a DOE contractor, or an Atomic Weapons Employer. In signing this form,
I also certify that I have read, understand, and agree with the following statements:

" —

a) I am netaware of any additionahi forfhation available to me that may be relevant

to NIOSH in completing edoseroagsucon to estimate the radiation doses
incurred by the employee as specified above; and,

sooed the a aan gover

b) I have reviewed the draft NV 1H dose reconstruction report and7agree that it
identifies all of the relevant information | provided to NIOSH to complete the
dose reconstruction; and, ~~ —_—

s ee
e) NIOSH should forward @ final dose réconstruction report to the Department of
Labor (DOL), so that DOL can‘continue adjudication of my claim and produce a
recommended. decision 4o“accept or reject my claim; and,
S va :

d) I understand that my opportunity to seek a review of the NIOSH dose
reconstruction occurs only if DOL were to produce a recommended decision to
deny my claim; and, NL

Ya

e) By signing this form, | do NOT certify or imply that I agree with NIOSH

decisions indicated in the draft NIOSH dose reconstruction report concerning how

NIOSH has used or not,tised’information I have provided for the dose
reconstruction; and, =

\ o

f) By signing this form, I do NOT. cértify or imply that | agree with the findings of
the NIOSH dose reconstruction. “~~

ys

Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation,
concealment of fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under
EEOICPA or who knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject
to civil or administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under
appropriate criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the
information provided on this form is\agcurate and\irpe.

4 T or g
CL yar err, eae, Lhe sith ares rhe, er ae

. =
Signature_ : Date_\ L4al SCO

NIOSH ID:

OF


,

x4 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

NIOSH Tracking Number: National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health
Robert A. Tafi Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998,
Phone: 513-533-6800
Fax: 513-533-6817

October 30, 2003

Dear

This letter is to provide you with information on the status of the dose reconstruction for the claim

you filed under the Energy Employees Occupational illness Compensation Program Act (NIOSH
Tracking Number 8957).

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support (OCAS) has completed a reconstruction of the radiation dose. Enclosed
you will find a copy of a Draft NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Within the next several days, we
will contact you to schedule a convenient date and time for conducting a closing interview with
you. The purpose of the closing interview is to review the dose reconstruction results and the
basis on which the results were calculated. This will be the final opportunity during the dose
reconstruction process for you to provide additional relevant information that may affect the dose
reconstruction or indicate that you are in the process of obtaining such information.

We have also enclosed a copy of a form (OCAS-1) which should be signed and returned to us not
later than 60 days following the closing interview or receipt of a revised draft dose reconstruction
feport based on your provision of additional relevant information, whichever is later. Your
signature on this form certifies that you have completed providing us with relevant information on
radiation exposures and that the record for the dose reconstruction should be closed. Your
signature on this form is not an indication that you agree with the decisions NIOSH made
conceming how to use or not use information you provided for dose reconstruction or that you
agree with the findings of the NIOSH dose reconstruction. The Department of Labor's (DOL)
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) will notify you of any action that it may take
regarding your claim, and of any rights you may have to raise objections. You will have an
opportunity to raise objections to the final NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Report under EEOICPA
following your receipt of a copy of the recommended decision on your claim from DOL by
following the procedures described in the notice accompanying the recommended decision.


—

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration
Energy Employees Occupational IlIness Compensation
1999 Broadway Suite 1120
PO Box 46550
Denver CO 80201-6550

March 23, 2004
File No:

Dear
This letter concems your claim for compensation.

This is to inform you that the Department of Energy has verified that worked at Mathieson
Chemical Company, Pasadena, TX from November 8, 1949 through May 1, 1979.

This information was forwarded to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
today.

If you have specific questions regarding the status of the dose reconstruction, you may contact the NIOSH

office located in Cincinnati, Ohio at (513)-841-4498. Any other questions should still be addressed to the
Denver Office.

Sincerely,

Claims Examiner

Jus texrere was
fecesien Apvat UAE

wy Lerrete ben ClCH i ie i

Jo


Page 47
NEW EVIDENCE

EXHIBIT F
MISTAKEN IDENTITY

This is new evidence. Although this happened in 2003 and 2004, I was not given an
explanation of how the Dose Reconstruction Report which determined the denial of my
claim could have been properly made. Confusion exists due to the dates and time frame
of the correspondence involved.

In the early stages of my claim, I was told that DOL had verified that was an
employee of Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois. The first Dose
Reconstruction Report (completed 10/30/03) which you submitted to me, does not apply
to This report was made showing as an employee of Blockson
Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois and utilizing the document “Basis for Development
of an Exposure Matrix for Blockson Chemical Company” which was prepared for the
EEOICPA project. When I attempted to get this corrected, I was told, in a telephone
interview by a person named “Brad” that this did not make any difference and that “they
were all Blockson”. He probably was referring to the fact that Blockson Chemical
Company is also known as Olin Mathieson Chemical Company. Records for these
companies are kept in the same location and could account for suspected commingling of
records. At the time I talked to “Brad”, I did not know that the records of these
companies were all kept at the same location. DOE had also verified that the period of
employment was 1949 through 1979.

Later, I was asked to provide proof of employment. Proof of

employment which I provided was received by DOL on April 5, 2004. In the
meantime, DOL had forwarded corrected verification of employment at
Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas to NIOSH on March 23, 2004. (They
were still verifying the incorrect ending date as 1979, but that seems to be
insignificant). (See Exhibit H.) The second Dose Reconstruction Report which was
made for my claim, using the primary data source “Technical Information Bulletin:
Technical Basis for Estimating the Maximum Plausible Dose to Workers at Atomic
Weapons Employer Facilities”, was completed on March 13, 2004. As you can see, this
date is before the two dates shown above when verification of employment was received
by NIOSH. These two Dose Reconstruction Reports were made using two different
Technical documents as the basis. This questions the accuracy of other information that
was used, and raises questions which I would like to have answered. According to the
chart entitled “Time to Process Part B EEOICPA Cases” which was sent to me, and the
time involved, the possibility that the dose reconstruction report completed March 13,
2004 could have been produced with any credibility is doubtful.


US. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
1999 Broadway Suite 1120
PO Box 46550
APR 23 OR Denver CO 80201-6550
File No:
Dear

Enclosed is the Notice of Recommended Decision of the District Office conceming your
claim for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act (EEOICPA). The District Office recommends a denial of your claim for
benefits. Please note that this is only a RECOMMENDED Decision; this is not a Final
Decision. The Recommended Decision has been forwarded to the Final Adjudication
Branch (FAB) for their review and issuance of the Final Decision.

Please read the Notice of Recommended Decision and Notice of Ri ghts of Action
carefully.

If you agree with the Recommended Decision and wish to waive any objections to it, you
must follow the instructions for doing so provided in the section entitled "If You Agree
with the Recommended Decision." If you submit the attached Waiver Sheet (ora
Statement waiving the right to object) to the FAB, a final decision can be issued before
the end of the sixty (60) day period for filing objections. If you fail to submit a Waiver
Sheet or statement, the final decision cannot be issued until after the end of the sixty (60)
day period.

If you disagree with the Recommended Decision, you must follow the instructions
provided in the section entitled "If You Wish to Object to the Recommended Decision.”
Your objections must be filed within sixty (60) days from the date of the Recommended
Decision by writing to the Final Adjudication Branch.

Please be advised that as part of the EEOICPA, the Department of Energy (DOE) has
established a program for DOE contractor and subcontractor employees who have an
illness that may have been caused by exposure to a toxic substance while doing work
for DOE. Under this program, DOE can help workers obtain state workers’
compensation benefits in the state in which they worked. State workers’ compensation
benefits are different from the DOL-administered Program; they usually cover a
portion of wages lost as well as medical care for the condition. For individuals who
qualify for the DOE program, DOE will convene a panel of independent physician


5S

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Introduction

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA), Executive Order No. 13179 and the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule (42
CFR § 82)'

EEOICPA established a compensation program to provide a lump sum payment of $150,000 and
medical benefits as compensation to covered employees suffering from designated illnesses
incurred as a result of their exposure to ionizing radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the
performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its vendors, contractors and
subcontractors. This legislation also provided for payment of compensation to certain survivors
of these covered employees.

In Presidential Executive Order No. 13179, the President designated the U.S. Department of
Labor to administer this program for claims by current and former employees of nuclear
weapons production facilities and their survivors who seek compensation for cancers caused by
radiation exposures sustained in the performance of duty. The Executive Order also directed the
Department of Health and Human Services to estimate (reconstruct) the radiation doses received
by these employees. The Department of Labor uses the reconstructed radiation dose in
evaluating whether the employee’s cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at
the facilities covered by EEOICPA. To fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Department of
Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s
(NIOSH) Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) completes dose reconstructions
using the methods described in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule (42 CFR § 82)! for the
Department of Labor’s use in making compensation decisions.

The Purpose of Radiation Dose Reconstruction

A radiation dose reconstruction is used to estimate the radiation dose received by the specific
organ(s) in which a worker developed cancer, Particularly when radiation monitoring data is
unavailable, incomplete, or of poor quality. Even in instances when radiation dosimetry data is

available, it rarely specifies dosage to an organ and often is based on monitoring procedures that
do not meet modem standards.

The basic principle of dose reconstruction is to characterize the occupational radiation
environment to which workers were exposed using available worker and/or workplace
monitoring information. In cases where radiation exposures in the workplace environment
cannot be fully characterized based on available data, default values based on reasonable
scientific assumptions are used as substitutes.

EEOICPA recognized that the process of estimating radiation doses would require dealing with
uncertainties and limited data and thus required that the government establish methods for
arriving at reasonable estimates of radiation dose received by individuals who were not
monitored or inadequately monitored for exposures to radiation, or for whom exposure records
are missing or incomplete. To the extent that the science and data involve uncertainties, these
uncertainties are typically handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the
claimant. NIOSH has used the best available science to develop the methods and guidelines for

DRAFT Page 2 of 15


NIOSH

OCAS

NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the
Energy Employees Occupational Diness Compensation

Program Act (EEOICPA)
NIOSH ID: Social Security No. DOL District Office
Denver
Energy Employee
Name:
fast First Mickle Date af Birth
Covered
Employment:
Blockson Chemical Company
Dates Lucatton
Cc :
ancer 12/25/1994
05/13/1986
Lipe ICD Cade Date of Diagnasis
Dose Reconstruction Completed By: _Karen S. Kent 10/27/2003
Name Daite
Peer Review Completed By: John A. Solini, CHP 10/28/2003
Nua Date
Dose Reconstruction Approved By:
J
Bronk A. ULL 10/30/03

Were :

SL onry CYeD fe Bes
[-5 af 18 Ff fare
Wepent BECAUSE I frp

WET Fede Tiley Affe eb .

>

Signature

Dare

Brant A. Ulsh, Ph.D.

ann

15,

S57


Covered Employee NIOSH ID#

i

Page 15 of 18

Social Security #

a7


77

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

dose reconstruction. These methods have been reviewed and commented upon by the public,

including experts in the field of dose reconstruction, and the presidentially appointed Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

How Radiation Doses are Reconstructed

NIOSH reconstructs radiation doses by evaluating all available, appropriate data relevant to the
employee’s radiation exposure. Some examples of data that may be included in the dose
reconstruction include, but are not limited to, internal dosimetry (such as results from urinalysis),
external dosimetry data (such as film badge readings), workplace monitoring data (such as air
sample results), workplace characterization data (such as type and amount of radioactive material
processed) and descriptions of the type of work done at the work location.

Although the specific methods used for each dose reconstruction can vary, after a claim has been
referred by the Department of Labor to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction, NIOSH typically
requests the worker’s personal radiation monitoring information from the Department of Energy.
Upon receipt of the requested information, at least one voluntary informational interview with
the claimant and/or survivors is conducted and a copy of the interview report is sent for their
review. After all of the necessary and available information is gathered, a dose is estimated,
using the methods in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule. After a NIOSH health physicist
reviews the information, methods, and results, the claimant receives a draft copy of the dose
reconstruction report and a closing interview, during which the claimant can add any additional
relevant information that may affect the dose reconstruction. If the claimant certifies that he/she
has completed providing information and that the record for dose reconstruction should be

closed, the final dose reconstruction report is sent to the claimant, the Department of Labor, and
the Department of Energy.

As applied in the EEOICPA, dose reconstructions must rely on information that can be
developed on a timely basis and on carefully stated assumptions. Therefore, the guiding
principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to ensure that the assumptions used are fair,
consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science, while ensuring that uncertainties in
the science and data are handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the claim when
feasible. When dose information is not available, is very limited, or the dose of record is very
low, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on reliable science,
documented experience, and relevant data, to complete a claimant’s dose reconstruction. In
other instances, NIOSH may not need to fully complete a dose reconstruction because a partial

dose reconstruction results in an estimated dose which produces a probability of causation of
50% or greater.

How Radiation Dose Reconstructions Are Used in Final Compensation Determinations
The results of a claimant’s dose reconstruction are used by the Department of Labor to determine
the probability that a worker’s cancer was “at least as likely as not” due to his or her
occupational exposure to ionizing radiation during employment at a covered facility. Criteria and
guidelines for making this determination are established by EEOICPA and the Probability of
Causation Guidelines (42 CFR § 81)*. The dose reconstruction is not the final determination of a
claim, but an interim product that is used by the Department of Labor in making its final

Page 3 of 18


ia

experts to conduct objective reviews of claims to determine medical causation. If you
are a worker, or a survivor of a worker, who feels you may benefit from such a review,
please contact the DOE Office of Worker Advocacy’s toll free hotline at 877-447-9756,
visit DOE’s website at (www.energy.gov/benefits), or contact your DOL-DOE
Resource Centers for additional information and claim forms.

LL wag OF

Senior Claims Examiner

Encl: Proposed Decision

Copy to: NIOSH


Covered Emplovee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Introduction

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

(EEOICPA), Executive Order No. 13179 and the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule (42
CFR § 82)

EEOICPA established a compensation program to provide a lump sum payment of $150,000 and
medical benefits as compensation to covered employees suffering from designated illnesses
incurred as a result of their exposure to ionizing radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the
performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its vendors, contractors and

subcontractors. This legislation also provided for payment of compensation to certain survivors
of these covered employees.

In Presidential Executive Order No. 13179, the President designated the U.S. Department of
Labor to administer this program for claims by current and former employees of nuclear
weapons production facilities and their survivors who seek compensation for cancers caused by
radiation exposures sustained in the performance of duty. The Executive Order also directed the
Department of Health and Human Services to estimate (reconstruct) the radiation doses received
by these employees, The Department of Labor uses the reconstructed radiation dose in
evaluating whether the employee’s cancer was at least as likely as not related to employment at
the facilities covered by EEOICPA. To fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Department of
Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s
(NIOSH) Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) completes dose reconstructions
using the methods described in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule (42 CFR § 82)' for the
Department of Labor’s use in making compensation decisions.

The Purpose of Radiation Dose Reconstruction

A radiation dose reconstruction is used to estimate the radiation dose received by the specific
organ(s) in which a worker developed cancer, particularly when radiation monitoring data is
unavailable, incomplete, or of poor quality. Even in instances when radiation dosimetry data is

available, it rarely specifies dosage to an organ and often is based on monitoring procedures that
do not meet modem standards.

The basic principle of dose reconstruction is to characterize the occupational radiation
environment to which workers were exposed using available worker and/or workplace
monitoring information. In cases where radiation exposures in the workplace environment
cannot be fully characterized based on available data, default values based on reasonable
scientific assumptions are used as substitutes.

EEOICPA recognized that the process of estimating radiation doses would require dealing with
uncertainties and limited data and thus required that the government establish methods for
arriving at reasonable estimates of radiation dose received by individuals who were not
monitored or inadequately monitored for exposures to radiation, or for whom exposure records
are missing or incomplete. To the extent that the science and data involve uncertainties, these
uncertainties are typically handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the
claimant. NIOSH has used the best available science to develop the methods and guidelines for

Page 2 of 18

%


sr

s8ese9 |I'¥ ‘UC]S|}90q
jeuly 0} skeg Bay

uo}s|99q
leuty 0} skeq Bay

uoj8}2eq
papuswiuosey
0} sheg Bay

HSOIN Je skeq Bay

e1edaig 0} skeg Bay

a]
Qo

shep 19g SEM 'SaSed HSOIN-UOU puke HSOIN Buuiquios ‘awily Buissazoid abesevy —
sep Z9z 400} HSOIN 0} 3U@s JOU SASED —
skep £201 400} HSOIN 0} JUas SESED —

0102 ‘oe eunr yGnosy; panss| suo!sizap [BUY YyJM SeSed

[ye 405 - ayep uoisizap yeuy YGnosyy Bury Jo ayep Woy saseo q Wed | 4103 CULL Bulssao0ig abeeay

skeq

00z} oooL 008 009

oor

002

0

|

HSOIN ©} }U2@S JON SESE “SA S9SED HSOIN

sese) VWddlOSS © Hed SS990/d 0} SW!)

seseo g Hed IIV

HSOIN 0} }UaS JON

HSOIN 93 3U8S


March 29, 2004

Mr. Steven F. Guerrero, Claims Examiner
US Department of Labor

EEOICP

1999 Broadway Ste 1120

PO Box 46550

Denver CO 80201-6550

CMRR:

Re: NIOSH Trackine Number

Social Security Number

Dear Sir:

In response to your letter of March 4, 2004, I am attaching the following :

1.

Statement of verifying employment. was
employed at Mathieson Chemical/Olin Corporation from 1950 until

1980.

Statement of verifying employment. was
employed at Mathieson Chemical/Olin Corporation from 1952 until

1994.

Completed Form SSA-581 — Authorization to obtain earnings data from the Social
Security Administration.

Completed Form EE-4 — Employment History Affidavit for Claim under the EEOICP
Act.

Form W-2 for 1953, Form W-2 for 1954, Form W-2 for 1955.

Form W-2 for 1956, Form W-2 for 1957, Form W-2 for 1958.

Form W-2 for 1959, Form W-2 for 1960.

Form W-2 for 1978, Form W-2 for 1979 from Olin Corporation.

Form W-2 for 1978, Form W-2 for 1979 from another employer.

Form W-2P for 1984, Form 1099-R. for 1991.

Earnings Statement from Social Security, dated September 19, 1988, when

requested an estimate of what his Social Security benefit would be. Complete statement
is available. I show only the part which relates to this issue.


Covered Emplovee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
Table 9. Annual inhalation doses to the (surrogate for i due to
uranium intake.
Year Annual Dose (rem) Year Annual Dose (rem)
1951 1969 |
1952 1970 a
1953 1971 |
1954 1972
1955 1973 |
1956 1974
1957 1975 _|
1958 1976 |
1959 1977 |
1960 1978 |
1961 1979 |
1962 1980
1963 1981 =
1964 1982
1965 1983 __ |
1966 1984
1967 1985 |
1968 1986
Table 10. Annual ingestion doses to the (surrogate for ) due to
uranium intake.
Year Annual Dose (rem) Year Annual Dose (rem)
1951 1969
1952 1970
1953 1971
1954 1972
1955 1973
1956 1974
1957 1975
1958 1976
1959 1977
1960 1978
1961 1979
1962 1980
1963 1981
1964 1982
1965 1983
1966 1984
1967 1985
1968 1986

Page 10 of 18


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
Table 11. Annual inhalation doses to the due to uranium intake.
Year Annaal Dose (rem) Year Annual Dose (rem)
1951 1973 __|
1952 1974 _
1953 1975 a
1954 1976 J
1955 1977 =
1956 1978 |
1957 1979 __|
1958 1980 I
1959 1981 i
1960 1982 __|
1961 1983 __|
1962 1984 7)
1963 1985 a
1964 1986 =|
1965 1987 Pi
1966 1988 _|
1967 1989 ~~]
1968 1990 ia]
1969 1991 in]
1970 1992 7]
1971 1993 _J
1972 1994 i
Table 12. Annual ingestion doses to the due to uranium intake.
Year Annual Dose (rem) Year Annual Dose (rem)
1951 1973
1952 1974
1953 1975 |
1954 1976
1955 1977
1956 1978
1957 1979
1958 1980
1959 1981
1960 1982
1961 1983
1962 1984
1963 1985
1964 1986
1965 1987
1966 1988
1967 1989
1968 1990
1969 1991
1970 1992
1971 1993 I
1972 1994

Page 11 of 18

EF


Form OCAS -1

OMB No.
August 2001 Exp. Dale 5/31/05
Statement by the Claimant Closing the Record on a NIOSH Dose Reconstruction

under the
Energy Employees Occupational [ness Compensation Program Act

I, a claimant under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), certify that | have completed providing information to
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and its representatives
information relating to potential radiation doses incurred by while under the
employment of DOE, a DOE contractor, or an Atomic Weapons Employer. In signing this form,
J also certify that I have read, understand, and agree with the following statements:

a) 1 am not aware of any additional information available to me that may be relevant
to NIOSH in completing a dose reconstruction to estimate the radiation doses
incurred by the employee as specified above; and,

b) I have reviewed the draft NIOSH dose reconstruction report and agree that it
identifies all of the relevant information I provided to NIOSH to complete the
dose reconstruction; and,

c) NIOSH should forward a final dose reconstruction report to the Department of
Labor (DOL), so that DOL can continue adjudication of my claim and produce a
recommended decision to accept or reject my claim; and,

d) I understand that my opportunity to seek a review of the NIOSH dose
reconstruction occurs only if DOL were to produce a recommended decision to
deny my claim; and,

e) By signing this form, I do NOT certify or imply that I agree with NIOSH
decisions indicated in the draft NIOSH dose reconstruction report concemning how

NIOSH has used or not used information I have provided for the dose
reconstruction; and,

f) By signing this form, | do NOT certify or imply that I agree with the findings of
the NIOSH dose reconstruction.

Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation,
concealment of fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under
EEOICPA or who knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject
to civil or administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under
appropriate criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the
information provided on this form is accurate and true.

Signature, : Date Gil £3 a? FO plo

NIOSH ID:

73


to employment at Blockson Chemical Company. This employment did not
exist.

The report mentioned above was obviously made using information from the file of some
other employee. This information does not pertain to This information is
not information which | submitted related to the claim I filed. was an
employee of Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas where no monitoring was
done, no records were kept, and employees did not know of the presence of uranium in
the plant. death certificate which I submitted shows him to have had
cancer and cancer of

On November 21, 2003 a person named “Brad” had called me and said he wanted to
make an appointment for a closing interview. I was not ready to have a closing interview
because I was trying to obtain other medical information and I also told “Brad” that the
Dose Reconstruction Report referred to a person other than _ ind that I wanted
to have someone else look at the report. “Brad” called me back and said that the
employment location did not make any difference because it was all Blockson Chemical
Company. I believe any claimant would be troubled by this statement and all the obvious
discrepancies. “Brad” said he would call me again on December 2, 2003 for a closing
interview.

This gentleman did call me again on December 2, 2003 and I told him that I needed more
time to locate the medical records and I repeated by concern that he may be seeing
incorrect information in file and that I believe _ activities
caused him to be at a higher risk for exposure in a location where employees, without
their knowledge, were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. It appeared to me that
the Dose Reconstruction Report showed generalized figures which could apply to
anyone. “Brad” said he would have a Health Physicist call me to explain the dosage
Teports.

On December 3, 2003 I was called by a person named “Cheri” who identified herself as a
Health Physicist. She began explaining the Dose Reconstruction Report to me. When she
told me that 25 workers had been monitored, I asked her who they were because I have
been unable to locate anyone who was monitored. She told me these 25 people were
employees of Blockson Chemical in Joliet, Illinois and that the dose reconstruction
referred to conditions in Joliet, Illinois. Unlike “Brad” she seemed very interested to
know that had never worked in Illinois. I asked her to review

file because of my concern that it may contain incorrect information. This lady told me
she would review the file, send me a correct Dose Reconstruction Report, inform others
of this action, and that time would be allowed for action on _ claim. I never
heard from this lady again.

I did not return a signed OCAS-1 regarding the incorrect Dose Reconstruction Report
which is not applicable to _ or to the location where he was employed. I have
had no further contact or correspondence with this lady.

$0


Covered Emntovee

NIOSH ID#

Hi

H

ial

itil

HOH

Page 18 of 18

Social Security #

9


Covered Employee

NIOSH ID#

Social Security #

NA NA, WA
a 7 A. wa ray
Sein iee
aon
franc
| chron
‘chronic
efron
od
tronic
oronic
tuoric
= crear
‘Grone
hee:
‘eodo
ode
acto.
tronic
_ throne __|
tronic]
4
= ores}
an 1080 coc
2 1980 enc
ZB 1981 chronic
24 4902 roe
= 983 ont
= ioe ae
a 7008 ‘chronic
2B 1008 ‘cronic
a ‘07 eenie
= _. 188 eronic
co (ee
ra TT etranic
= ‘chronic

eilelesensiine sss sisiate als 2 sleieis oe eiels|

a

i

|

i

Page 16 of 18

Jo


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Personal Background Information

The covered employee, began work at the Blockson Chemical Company,

Joliet, Illinois, on 1949 and continued employment until 1979,

Documentation submitted by the claimant verifies that during this period he was employed as an
Based on information cited above,

occupational radiation exposure occurred during 1952 - 1979, with resultant dose calculated until

the time of cancer diagnosis in 1986 and cancer diagnosis in 1994,

Dose Estimate

External Dose

External dose is received from radiation originating outside of the body and is typically
measured by dosimetry wor on the body. External radiation dose may have been delivered
quickly (acute exposure) or slowly over a period of time (chronic exposure).

Because no radiation monitoring records were found, worst-case assumptions were used to
estimate the external radiation dose received by per the provisions in 42
CER § 82.10(k)(2)'. The external dose reconstruction was based on source term information,

and the claimant-favorable assumptions and parameters are described in a technical basis
document’,

Radiation Type, Energy, and Exposure Conditions. worked as an

during his employment at the Blockson Chemical Company. From the
records, it was not possible to state whether he was in a position to be exposed to radioactive
material or not. The claimant-favorable assumption was made that he was chronically exposed
in close proximity to the source, the yellowcake drums during processing. This assumption will
result in an overestimate of dose. The source was composed of natural
uranium in the form of yellowcake, with the most significant radiation for extemal exposure
being photons with energies greater than 250 keV. Photon exposure from contaminated surfaces
and assumed annual diagnostic x-rays were also considered to contribute to
dose. In addition, residual radioactivity following the end of Blockson’s work for the AEC on
March 31, 1962 was assumed to result in additional photon exposure until the end of

employment. The external doses due to submersion in air contaminated with

yellowcake dust and contamination on the skin are negligible and were not considered in the
dose calculation. Table 1 below shows the estimated annual doses to the pancreas and rectum
due to photon exposure from a drum of yellowcake. Table 2 shows the estimated annual doses to
the due to photon exposure from contaminated surfaces. Table 3 shows the
estimated annual doses to the 7 due to the assumed annual x-ray. Table 4
shows the estimated annual doses to the : due to exposure to residual
radioactivity following the end of Blockson’s work for the AEC on 1962.

DRAFT Page 5 of 15

G/


January 5, 2004

Mr. Larry J. Elliott, MSPH, CIH, Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998
CMRR:

Re: NIOSH Tracking Number
Social Security Number
Dear Sir:

[ have received your letter dated December 30, 2003 regarding Form OCAS-1 and closing the record on a
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employees Occupational lilness Compensation Program
Act. In that letter, you refer to your letter of October 30, 2003 in which you sent a NIOSH Report of Dose
Reconstruction and a Form OCAS-1 which you requested that I sign and return to you.

1 AM ATTACHING THIS OCAS-1 ON WHICH I HAVE MADE CORRECTIONS.

1 HAVE OBTAINED OTHER MEDICAL RECORDS BUT, DUE TO THE HOLIDAYS, I HAVE BEEN

UNABLE TO HAVE A DOCTOR REVIEW THEM. I HOPE TO SEND THEM TO YOU WITHIN A
FEW DAYS.

Apparently you are not aware of conversations I have had with others working on this claim. On
‘November 21, 2003 a person named “Brad” called me and said he wanted to make an appointment for a
closing interview. 1 informed Brad that I was not ready for a closing interview because | was trying to
obtain other medical information and I also pointed out that your letter of October 30, 2003 and the Dose
Reconstruction Report referred to a person who had worked for Blockson Chemical Company in Joliett,
Illinois and employment dates which I did not furnish. aever worked in Illinois. He was
employed at Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas from 1949 until 1978. 1 also told him that
I wanted to have time to have someone else look at the dosage report. Brad called me back and said that
the employment location did not make any difference because it was all Blockson Chemical Company. He
said he would call me again on December 2, 2003 for a closing interview.

This gentleman did call me on December 2, 2003 and J told him that ] needed more time to locate the
medical records and I repeated my concem that he may be seeing incorrect information in

file. I believe that activities caused him to be at a higher risk for exposure in a location where
employees, without their knowledge, were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. It appeared to me that
the Dose Reconstruction Report showed generalized figures which could apply to anyone. Brad said he
would have a Health Physicist call me to explain the dosage reports.

On December 3, 2003 1 was called by a person named “Cheri” who identified herself as a Health Physicist.
She began explaining the Dose Reconstruction Report to me. When she told me that 25 workers had been
monitored, | asked her who they were because I have been unable to locate anyone who was monitored.
She told me these 25 people were employees of Blockson Chemical in Jotiett, Illinois and that the Dose

63


¥?

cancer in 1994. No dosimetry or bioassay records for related to
Blockson Chemical’s work for the Atomic Energy Commission, (AEC, one of the
predecessor agencies of the present Department of Energy) could be found.”. The report
also states that the primary source of information used for this dose reconstruction was
the document “Basis for Development of an Exposure Matrix for Blockson Chemical
Company” prepared for the EEOICPA project. Mr. Elliott also said that within the next
several days I would be contacted to schedule a convenient time for conducting a closing
interview with me. He also stated, “The purpose of the closing interview is to review the
dose reconstruction results and the basis on which the results were calculated. This will
be the final opportunity during the dose reconstruction process for you to provide
additional relevant information that may affect the dose reconstruction or indicate that
you are in the process of obtaining such information.”. A copy of an OCAS-1 was also
enclosed in this letter. (See Attachment 2.)

Also, under the title “Information Used” (on same page 4 of 15) “It presents the
evaluation of information regarding the uranium recovery work performed by Blockson
Chemical for the AEC. This document includes reports of uranium extraction work done
at Blockson Chemical as well as process information from Blockson Chemical and four
uranium mills. In addition, limited urinalysis data was available for 25 workers
monitored between 1954 and 1958. Conservative (claimant-favorable) values of
breathable air concentrations and inhalation times were derived from this information.
The types of cancer and the date of diagnosis were obtained from the medical records
and/or the death certificate submitted by the claimant.”.

In “Personal Background Information” , according to this report, (Page 5 of 15) “The

covered employee, began work at the Blockson Chemical

Company, Joliet, Illinois, on 1949 and continued employment until

1979. Documentation submitted by the claimant verifies that during this period he was

employed as . Based on information cited above,
occupational radiation exposure occurred during 1952 — 1979,

with resultant dose calculated until the time of diagnosis in 1986 and

diagnosis in 1994.”.

Under “Dose Estimate” the report states that “External dose is received from radiation
originating outside of the body and is typically measured by dosimetry worn on the
body.” And “Because no radiation monitoring records were found, worst-case
assumptions were used to estimate the external radiation dose received by

per the provisions in 42 CFR 82.10(k)(2). The external dose reconstruction was
based on source term information, and the claimant-favorable assumptions and
parameters are described in a technical basis document.”.

Regarding “Radiation Type, Energy, and Exposure Conditions”

worked as * during his employment at the Blockson
Chemical Company. From the records, it was not possible to state whether he was in a
position to be exposed to radioactive material or not.” Other parts of this paragraph refer


Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #
Radiation Type, Energy, and Exposure Conditions. worked as

during his employment at the Mathieson Chemical Company. From the
records, it was not possible to state whether he was in a position to be exposed to radioactive
material. Thus it was assumed that he was exposed chronically to the source during processing.

The source was uranium and the most significant radiation for intemal exposure was alpha
radiation.

The assumption was made that the source was taken into the body by inhalation and ingestion
during uranium processing operations. Uranium processing operations were assumed to occur
daily, resulting in a chronic intake of uranium. In accordance with the NIOSH Internal Dose
Reconstruction Implementation Guideline’, the IMBA. program® was used to calculate the doses
to the (surrogate for )and the from exposure to both
ingested and inhaled alpha radioactivity. For inhalation dose, the uranium was assumed to be a
moderately soluble (i.e., absorption type M) material. For ingestion dose, a soluble material
(fractional uptake of 0.02) was assumed. Uranium was assumed to be U-234 for internal dose
assessment purposes because some AWE sites handled enriched uranium as well as natural
uranium and U-234 is claimant favorable for either situation. These assumptions will result in an
overestimate of probability of causation.

The estimated uranium inhalation rate was 8.1E+06 pCi per year and the estimated uranium
ingestion rate was 3.14E+06 pCi per year during ~~ employment at Mathieson
Chemical Company for the period of time that the AEC work was ongoing. These values were
used in the IMBA program’ to calculate annual and doses for
determination of probability of causation. Tables 9 through 12, respectively, show the annual
inhalation and ingestion doses to the and due to these assumed
uranium intake rates.

In addition, because worked at Mathieson Chemical Company after the completion
of AEC-related work in 1953, additional internal exposure to residual radioactivity is assumed to
have occurred. To account for this, an additional year’s inhalation and ingestion intake were
assumed to have occurred at operational levels in the year immediately after AEC-related

operations ceased. Doses due to these intakes are included in the doses in Tables 9 through 12 as
appropriate.

Page 9 of 18

3


Public Health Service

NIOSH Tracking Number:

Safety and Health
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998
Phone: 513-533-6800
Fax: 513-533-6817

April 2, 2004

Dear

This letter is to provide you with information on the status of the dose reconstruction for the claim

you filed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (NIOSH
Tracking Number i

The _National_Institute_for Occupational Safety and _Health’s {NIOSH) Office _of

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) has completed a revised reconstruction of
the radiation dose based upon additional relevant information that NIOSH has obtained.

Enclosed you will find a copy of a revised Draft NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the
Energy Employees Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) that supercedes
any previous dose reconstruction reports we have sent you. During the next two weeks, we will
attempt to contact you to schedule a convenient date and time for conducting a new closing
interview with you. The purpose of the closing interview is to review the revised dose
reconstruction results and the basis on which the results were calculated. This will be the final
opportunity during the dose reconstruction process for you to provide additional relevant
information that may affect the dose reconstruction or indicate that you are in the process of
obtaining such information. To facilitate the scheduling of the interview, you can contact us at the
following telephone number 1-800-790-6728 (1-800-790-ORAU). If, after three weeks from the
date of this letter, we have not heard back from you regarding a convenient time to schedule the
interview, then we will assume that you have decided not to participate in the interview.

We have also enclosed a copy of a form (OCAS-1) that should be signed and returned to us

within 60 days. You should sign and retum this form even though you may have previously signed
and returned a similar form after reviewing a previous version of a draft dose reconstruction
feport. Your signature on this form certifies that you agree with the following statements: 1) you

are not aware of any additional information that may be relevant to the dose reconstruction; 2) you
have reviewed the revised draft dose reconstruction report and agree that it identifies all of the
relevant information you provided to NIOSH regarding the dose reconstruction; and 3) the revised
dose reconstruction report is ready to be forwarded to the Department of Labor (DOL) for a
determination regarding your claim. Your signature on this form is not an indication that you
agree with the decisions NIOSH made conceming how to use or not use information you provided
for dose reconstruction or that you agree with the findings of the NIOSH dose reconstruction.
DOL's Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) will notify you of any action that it
may take regarding your claim, and of any rights you may have to raise objections. You will have
an opportunity to raise objections to the final NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Report under
EEOICPA following your receipt of a copy of the recommended decision on your claim from DOL
by following the procedures described in the notice accompanying the recommended decision.

National Institute for Occupational

VW


¥8

Please consider the following which gives information, and dates, as well as copies of
correspondence which will explain why I am concerned:

Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas was named as a “Covered Facility”
under the EEOICPA. who was President of Mathieson Chemical
Company, and (of Olin Corporation) were friends. The two companies
were almost equal in size and the idea of a merger was first broached in 1951. Even
though neither man wanted to be subordinate to the other, a satisfactory agreement was
reached and the two companies merged in 1954 to become the Olin Mathieson Chemical
Company. In 1955, Olin Mathieson bought Blockson Chemical Company in Joliet,
Illinois. In 1969, the company name became Olin Corporation. Other acquisitions were
made during the time mentioned above, but I mention this bit of history to clarify why
some might think that Mathieson Chemical Company and Blockson Chemical Company
might be one and the same. Mathieson Chemical Company is located in Pasadena,
Texas. Blockson Chemical Company is located in Joliet, Illinois. Each site location was
named as a “Covered Facility” under the EEOICPA. These were separate plants, the size
was not the same, the management was not the same, and the personnel were not the
same. However, the sites were similar in that each was a pilot plant for producing
uranium from phosphoric acid. Employees at both plants were exposed to danger from
radiation exposure and toxic by-products due to contamination of their work sites. Each
plant site was also the location of a huge pile of waste materials due to their operations.
The size of the pile of waste materials at the Mathieson Chemical worksite was estimated
to be approximately 240 acres about ten years ago. See Exhibit G for more on this.

Thave stated since the beginning of this claim that no records were kept at Mathieson
Chemical Company. I am repeating basic answers to questions asked me, relating to
records and monitoring, in the telephone interview conducted on March 21, 1003. No
records were kept relating to energy employees’ doses. Employees did not wear radiation
dosimeter badges. Employees did not participate in a biological radiation-monitoring
program such as urine, fecal, breath, or in-vivo/whole body count. I do not have copies
of any dosimeter badge or biological monitor records. There were none. No monitoring
of any kind wasdone.  _ was never restricted from the work place or certain
job duties because the energy employed had reached a radiation dose limit. Employees
did not know about the presence of uranium in their workplace, which was Mathieson
Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas.

These statements were repeated in the updated summary of the phone interview which
was sent to me by Mr. Richard Toohey, ORAU Team, in his letter dated September 10,
2003.

See attached letter dated October 30, 2003 to me from Mr. Larry J. Elliott transmitting a
copy of a Draft NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the EEOICPA. This report
was approved October 30, 2003 by Mr. Brant A. Ulsh, Ph.D.. In the Dose Reconstruction
Overview (Page 4 of 15) “The Department of Labor (DOL) has verified that

~ worked at the Blockson Chemical Company from through ~
1979 and was diagnosed with in 1986 and ©


9

Covered Employee NIOSH ID# Social Security #

Personal Background Information

The covered employee, began work at Mathieson Chemical Company on
1949 and continued employment until 1979. Documentation submitted by the
claimant verifies that during this period he was employed as
Based on information cited above, occupational radiation exposure

occurred during 1951-1953, with resultant doses calculated until the times of cancer diagnosis in
1986 and 1994.

Dose Estimate

External Dose

External dose is received from radiation originating outside of the body and is typically
measured by dosimetry wom on the body. External radiation dose may have been delivered
quickly (acute exposure) or slowly over a period of time (chronic exposure).

Because no radiation monitoring records were found, worst-case assumptions were used to
estimate the external radiation dose received by per the provisions in 42 CFR §
82.10(k)(2)'. The external dose reconstruction was based on source term information, and the
claimant-favorable assumptions and parameters are described in a technica! basis document’.

Radiation Type, Energy, and Exposure Conditions. worked as

- during his employment at Mathieson Chemical Company. From the
records, it was not possible to state whether he was in a position to be exposed to radioactive
material or not. The claimant-favorable assumption was made that he was chronically exposed
in close proximity to the source, uranium during processing. This assumption will result in an
overestimate of dose. The source was uranium, with the most significant radiation
for external exposure being photons with energies between and and with
energies greater than — Photon exposure from contaminated surfaces and assumed annual
diagnostic x-rays were also considered to contribute to the and dose. In addition,
residual radioactivity following the end of Mathieson Chemical’s work for the AEC in 1953 was
assumed to result in additional photon exposure until the end of employment.
Tables | and 2 show the estimated annual doses to the (surrogate for ) and
(surrogate for respectively, due to photon exposure from uranium. Tables 3 and 4
show the estimated annua! doses due to photon exposure from contaminated surfaces. Tables 5
and 6 show the estimated annual doses from the assumed annual x-ray. Tables 7 and 8 show the

estimated annual external doses from residual radioactivity following Mathieson Chemical’s
work for the AEC.

Page 5 of 18


Covered Employee

NIOSH ID#

J238Baalaese
EI

|
|

[

alajals ala xa
g

i

LLU ELLE LE

{

HEEL

Ht

‘Sas agisecaerscege
5

LEEEEE,

t
L

|
|
+

1

TUT TE

EEC EEE

|
+

uit

ieiaiaaie

i

i
|

i

int

|

Page 14 of 18

Social Security #

33


-

& DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

NIOSH Tracking Number: National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998.
Phone: 513-533-6800

Fax. 513-533-6817

April 19, 2004

Dear

This letter is to provide you with information on the status of the claim you filed under the Energy
Employees Occupational |IIness Compensation Program Act (NIOSH Tracking Number

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support (OCAS) has completed a reconstruction of the radiation dose for your claim,
conducted a closing interview with you, and received a properly signed OCAS-1 form. Enclosed
you will find a copy of the final NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

We have forwarded a copy of the enclosed final dose reconstruction report to the appropriate
Department of Labor (DOL) District Office of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for

their use in adjudicating your claim. We have also sent a copy of this report to the Department of
Energy.

lf you have any additional questions regarding your claim, please feel free to contact us toll-free at
1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674). You can also email us at ocas@cdc.gov or contact our office
directly at (513) 533-6800. Additional information on OCAS can also be found on our Web site at
hito:/Avww.cdc.gov/niosh.

Sincerely yours,

Larry J. Elliott, MSPH, CIH
Director

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
Enclosures

cc: File


SF

Covered Emnlover NIOSH SD# Social Security #

dose reconstruction. These methods have been reviewed and commented upon by the public,

including experts in the field of dose reconstruction, and the presidentially appointed Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

How Radiation Doses are Reconstructed

NIOSH reconstructs radiation doses by evaluating all available, appropriate data relevant to the
employee's radiation exposure. Some examples of data that may be included in the dose
reconstruction include, but are not limited to, internal dosimetry (such as results from urinalysis),
external dosimetry data (such as film badge readings), workplace monitoring data (such as air
sample results), workplace characterization data (such as type and amount of radioactive material
processed) and descriptions of the type of work done at the work location.

Although the specific methods used for each dose reconstruction can vary, after a claim has been
referred by the Department of Labor to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction, NIOSH typically
tequests the worker’s personal radiation monitoring information from the Department of Energy.
Upon receipt of the requested information, at least one voluntary informational interview with
the claimant and/or survivors is conducted and a copy of the interview report is sent for their
review. After all of the necessary and available information is gathered, a dose is estimated,
using the methods in the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Rule. After a NIOSH health physicist
reviews the information, methods, and results, the claimant receives a draft copy of the dose
reconstruction report and a closing interview, during which the claimant can add any additional
relevant information that may affect the dose reconstruction. If the claimant certifies that he/she
has completed providing information and that the record for dose reconstruction should be
closed, the final dose reconstruction report is sent to the claimant, the Department of Labor, and
the Department of Energy.

As applied in the EEOICPA, dose reconstructions must rely on information that can be
developed on a timely basis and on carefully stated assumptions. Therefore, the guiding
principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to ensure that the assumptions used are fair,
consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science, while ensuring that uncertainties in
the science and data are handled to the advantage, rather than to the detriment, of the claim when
feasible. When dose information is not available, is very limited, or the dose of record is very
low, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on reliable science,
documented experience, and relevant data, to complete a claimant’s dose reconstruction. In
other instances, NIOSH may not need to fully complete a dose reconstruction because a partial

dose reconstruction results in an estimated dose which produces a probability of causation of
50% or greater.

How Radiation Dose Reconstructions Are Used in Final Compensation Determinations

The results of a claimant’s dose reconstruction are used by the Department of Labor to determine
the probability that a worker’s cancer was “at least as likely as not” due to his or her
occupational exposure to ionizing radiation during employment at a covered facility. Criteria and
guidelines for making this determination are established by EEOICPA and the Probability of
Causation Guidelines (42 CFR § 81)*. The dose reconstruction is not the final determination of a
claim, but an interim product that is used by the Department of Labor in making its final

DRAFT Page 3 of 15


C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

— NIOSH Tracking Number: National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998
Phone: 513-533-6800
Fax: 513-533-6817

December 30, 2003

Dear

This letter is to provide you with information on the status of the claim you filed under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (NIOSH Tracking Number:

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heaith's (NIOSH) Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support (OCAS) completed a reconstruction of your radiation dose, and conducted
a closing interview with you on . To date, we have not received a signed OCAS-1 form which
was enclosed in our letter of 10-30-03 with our draft dose reconstruction report.

NIOSH will not forward the dose reconstruction report to the Department of Labor (DOL) for
adjudication without receipt of a properly signed OCAS-1. If we do not receive a properly signed
OCAS-1 from you by 01-13-04, we will administratively close the dose reconstruction and notify

DOL of this action. Upon receiving this notification by NIOSH, DOL may administratively close
the claim.

If you have any additional questions tegarding your claim, please feel free to contact us toll-free
at 1-800-35NIOSH (1-800-356-4674). You can also email us at ocas@cdc.gov or contact our
office directly at (513) 533-6800. Additional information on OCAS can also be found on our Web

site at http://www.cdc.qov/niosh/ocas.

Sincerely yours,

Larry J. Elliott, MSPH, CIH

Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

File