NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 1 of 7 07/14/06 

Meeting Date: 

March 22, 12:00 p.m. 

Meeting with: 

Current employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, hosted 

by the Society of Professionals, Scientists and Engineers/University Professional and Technical 

Employees/Communications Workers of America Local 9119, AFL-CIO. 

Attendees: 

Name Organization 

Laraine Spencer LLNL 

James Vigus LLNL 

Bill Smith LLNL 

Dave Slade LLNL 

Randy Keen LLNL 

Sue Byars LLNL 

One attendee chose not to sign in. 

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives: 

Grady Calhoun – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

Paul Szalinski – Integrated Environmental Management (IEM), Site Profile Team Leader 

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

Mark Lewis – ATL 

Mary Elliott – ATL 

Proceedings 

Ms. Sue Byars opened the meeting at 12:00 p.m., thanking the management of the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) for sponsoring the meeting between Lab employees and 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and its contractor team. Ms. 

Byars is Executive Secretary of the Society of Professionals, Scientists and Engineers (SPSE), 

affiliated with the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) and 

Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 9119, AFL-CIO. She stated that her 

organization was contacted by the Worker Outreach Team in 2004 for help with getting worker 

input into the site profile development process. The National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) recognizes that worker input is crucial in the development of the Site 

Profile so that it will accurately reflect the actual work experience of employees of the Lab. 

Subsequently, the SPSE became involved in providing information about the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and the LLNL Site Profile to 

Laboratory workers. Representatives of SPSE have spoken at Advisory Board on Worker Health 

and Radiation meetings on EEOICPA, and also formed a panel on EEOICPA at the Lab. In 

addition, SPSE continues to work with Tri-Valley CARES to facilitate meetings in Livermore for 

the Sick Worker Support Group. Ms. Byars stressed how important it is for current workers to 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 2 of 7 07/14/06 

review and comment on the LLNL Site Profile, since it is their workplace and they are in the best 

position to know about the work performed at the Laboratory. 

Ms. Byars read a news item regarding the fate of medical records of current and former 

employees of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Ms. Byars expressed concern that, 

under similar circumstances, the medical records of LLNL employees could possibly share the 

same fate, and that she would want her records to be available should she or her family ever need 

to file a claim. She stressed the importance of each worker maintaining his or her own records 

since the burden of proof that the worker has been exposed to radiation on the job often seems to 

fall on the worker or the worker’s survivors. 

Ms. Byars stated that the Site Profile contains a lot of important information about the buildings 

on the site, the work done in each building, and the possible exposures that exist in each 

building. But the employees must be able to give the details about where they worked at the site 

and what they did there. Sick workers cannot count on the Department of Energy (DOE) or their 

employers to provide records of the important details of their careers, such as the buildings 

where they worked, the experiments in which they participated, or even records documenting 

their travel to other DOE sites to work on related projects. To illustrate the last point, she said 

that some of the former employees of Livermore Lab who have become ill cannot document that 

they traveled back and forth to the Nevada Test Site. 

Ms. Byars introduced Mark Lewis, who is the Senior Outreach Specialist for the Worker 

Outreach Team. Mr. Lewis thanked Ms. Byars and others who helped arrange the meeting. He 

introduced the other members of the NIOSH/Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) team: 

Mr. Grady Calhoun, NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support; Mr. Vernon 

McDougall, Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc. (ATL), the Worker 

Outreach Team’s Union Liaison; Mr. Paul Szalinski, Integrated Environmental Management, 

Inc., who is the LLNL Site Profile Team Leader; and Ms. Mary Elliott, also of ATL, who 

produces the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Lewis turned the program over to Mr. McDougall for 

the presentation of the LLNL Site Profile. 

Mr. McDougall gave a brief overview of EEOICPA, describing both subtitles of the Act. All 

claims are filed through the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL), either by a current worker or 

former worker at a covered facility within the nuclear weapons complex, or by the survivor(s) of 

a deceased worker. Subtitle B claims may be filed for radiation-induced cancers, beryllium 

disease, and some silicosis cases. Subtitle E claims may be filed for illnesses related to toxic 

chemical exposures in the workplace at a nuclear weapons facility. The DOL reviews all new 

claims and verifies the worker’s employment history and medical diagnosis. Only the Subtitle B 

claims for cancers that may be the result of occupational radiation exposure are forwarded to 

NIOSH for dose reconstruction. 

The Site Profile is a tool used to reconstruct radiation doses. The dose reconstruction process 

begins by examining the records provided by DOE and its contractors. A telephone interview 

with the worker or survivor(s) of the worker is conducted to get additional information that is 

needed to evaluate the worker’s occupational radiation exposure. The Site Profile is a series of 

site-specific technical basis documents about the conditions, practices, and monitoring 

technologies at LLNL that supplements the information from the DOE records and the telephone 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 3 of 7 07/14/06 

interview. The Site Profile is a “living document” and may be revised any time new information 

becomes available that may impact dose reconstruction. 

In November 2004, NIOSH and its contractor team met with union officials from LLNL to 

establish a dialogue about the development of the Site Profile. Since the documents are complex 

and require considerable time to develop and review, they have only recently been completed 

and posted on the NIOSH website at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/llnl.html. 

NIOSH recognizes that the best way to get input is to have the “site experts” (people who 

actually worked at the site) review the Site Profile. The Worker Outreach Team meets with labor 

organizations that represent these workers to give the workers the opportunity to provide input to 

the Site Profile and to inform the Site Profile Team about important documents that the team 

may not have seen during the development of the Site Profile. This process helps make the Site 

Profile a better tool for dose reconstruction. Mr. McDougall requested that the attendees ask 

questions and make comments at any time during the presentation. 

Mr. McDougall discussed the five main parts of the Site Profile: 

1) The Site Description describes the facilities and processes at Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory from the beginning of operations at the site in 1952 through present 

day. Two sites are included: the main laboratory facility in Livermore and Site 300 near 

Tracy. 

2) The Occupational Medical Dose section describes the X-ray equipment and techniques 

used over the years for employer-required X-rays, such as chest X-rays. This dose is not 

included in official DOE dose records, but is included in the radiation dose reconstruction 

in an effort to be favorable to the EEOICPA claimant. 

3) The section on Occupational Environmental Dose is included for workers who were not 

monitored. This part of the Site Profile describes the sources of environmental radiation 

present in the workplace and estimates the radiation exposures for unmonitored workers 

based on area monitoring. 

a. Monitoring data related to external environmental dose is given for the Main 

Laboratory from 1952 through 2001 and for Site 300 from 1955 through 2001. 

b. Monitoring data is provided for internal environmental dose for gross alpha and 

beta radiation in air for both the Main Laboratory and Site 300 from 1961 through 

1971; for tritium, plutonium-239 and -240, and uranium-234 in air for the Main 

Laboratory from 1972 through 2001; and for uranium-235 and -238, and 

plutonium-239 and -240 for Site 300 from 1972 through 2001. 

c. Tritium was also monitored in the drinking water from 1952 through 2001 for the 

Main Laboratory and from 1955 through 2001 for Site 300. 

4) The Occupational Internal Dose section describes bioassay methods and practices, 

including the minimum detectable levels (MDLs). Primary sources of internal radiation 

exposure are uranium-233/234, uranium-235, uranium-238, tritium and transuranics. In 

an effort to be favorable to the claimant, where an individual’s bioassay data shows a 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 4 of 7 07/14/06 

reading below the MDL, NIOSH assigns a radiation dose based on the MDL. Intakes for 

unmonitored workers are based on bioassay technology and co-worker data. 

5) The section on Occupational External Dose describes dosimeter technology, exchange 

frequency, and MDLs. Beta, gamma and neutron radiation have been monitored for 

whole body and extremities from 1952 to present. 

Question: 

Why does the data end at 2001? 

Paul Szalinski: 

That is the most current data we have available. If a case needs to be looked at with more recent 

data, that data would be available to us. 

Question: 

Is there a specific reason that the data was not available? 

Paul Szalinski: 

If there was a case that had a medical diagnosis from a later date, the individual’s annual report 

(for radiation exposure) would be available to us for inclusion in their dose reconstruction. The 

Site Profile document is mainly for historical purposes. 

Grady Calhoun: 

That is correct. If the cancer was diagnosed after 2001, we would request the information. If 

internal and external monitoring records are available, it is likely that we would not need to go 

back to the environmental monitoring data. 

Question: 

Do you have dose records for each year? 

Grady Calhoun: 

We have environmental data for each year – location-specific as well as annual data. We have 

airborne levels, isotope distributions, and external radiation levels. 

Question: 

What would you do if the individual worked eight years ago? 

Grady Calhoun: 

If we have a case in which the individual was not monitored, we would use that environmental 

data. 

Vernon McDougall: 

It appears that bioassay data in the very early years is a little thin. Paul looked at this if you have 

any questions. 

Paul Szalinski: 

... That’s questions and feedback. It looks like in the early years, if a supervisor thought that 

there was a reason for an employee to have bioassay, he sent the employee down for testing. 

Question: 

What do you mean by “early years?” 

Vernon McDougall: 

The 1950s and early 1960s, up through about 1961, are the years in question. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 5 of 7 07/14/06 

Grady Calhoun: 

I have access to every case that has been filed – at least those that have been forwarded to 

NIOSH. Before I came up here today, I did a little sampling to see what types of monitoring 

were done early on. I saw some very early urinalysis results, including one for uranium 

urinalysis from 1955. It looks like nearly everybody had some type of external badging – film 

badges, TLDs (thermoluminescent dosimeters) from about 1958. We also have fission product 

data and plutonium data. Some of the individuals I looked at also did some work at the Nevada 

Test Site. That site has very good records, and I saw both internal and external monitoring data 

for them there as well. I looked at about twelve cases, and the majority of them had external 

monitoring and some had internal monitoring as far back as 1955. 

Mr. McDougall concluded the presentation by reiterating that site worker input can make a 

difference in the development of an accurate, complete Site Profile. The Site Profile can be 

revised based on this input. Comments can be sent directly to NIOSH at the addresses included 

in the presentation handout. In addition to the Site Profile, the NIOSH website has information 

on EEOICPA and the claims process: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

Mr. McDougall thanked the LLNL audience for joining the Worker Outreach Team and invited 

additional questions. 

Question: 

The history of the Laboratory spans fifty years. The building numbers change often, and many 

have been demolished. How does the Site Profile account for that? 

Paul Szalinski: 

The buildings are cross-referenced in Table A-1 in the Site Description section. Many former 

buildings are accounted for, as well as the isotopes, equipment and records found in these 

buildings. 

Question: 

Let’s say someone files a claim who worked in Building 2150, which was taken down twenty 

years ago. How will the Site Profile help that claimant? 

Paul Szalinski: 

If there is no data on a particular building, we look at the general site-wide exposure at the time 

of the claimant’s employment. We do not start with the building. 

Grady Calhoun: 

The claims process actually begins with an interview with the claimant – the job assignments, the 

locations, the exposures. That information is very useful, especially in cases with limited 

individual monitoring. If we have adequate individual monitoring for internal and external 

dosimetry, the actual activity at a facility is less important than it would be for a claimant with 

very little monitoring information. For example, if the information shows that a claimant had 

gross alpha urinalysis, it may be important to know that Building 5 (hypothetical) was mainly a 

uranium hazard and Building 7 was mainly a plutonium hazard. If we have good dosimetry 

records, this would be less important. If there is not a lot of individual information, the option is 

to use the information in the Site Profile to make the highest reasonable estimate of the 

claimant’s radiation dose. This is where the internal and external MDLs come into play. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 6 of 7 07/14/06 

Question: 

The Laboratory has eliminated over 160 facilities – over 560,000 square feet. During the 

decommissioning and demolition (D & D) sampling of these facilities, they are preparing an 

extensive building profile. They are finding a lot of surprises – evidence of contamination from 

things they didn’t know had even been used in some of these facilities as they are doing this 

sampling. I didn’t see any reference to the D & D program in the Site Profile, and I have to 

wonder. Did you have access to this information? They are keeping excellent historical 

references on the buildings, and I think it’s essential that you have this information for the 

completeness of your document. This program is run by the Institutional Facility Manager’s 

Office. I think they’ve done an outstanding job. They go to the experimenters who worked in 

those buildings to get the history of the buildings and what took place there. They are coming up 

with a lot of information that was never known about what took place in some of these buildings. 

Paul Szalinski: 

I have not looked at the report. 

Question: 

Do you have a timeframe for when the Site Profile will be finalized? 

Vernon McDougall: 

We don’t schedule a meeting like this until NIOSH has approved the last chapter of the report. 

The last chapter was finalized a few months ago. 

Grady Calhoun: 

NIOSH makes revisions to the Site Profile documents routinely. If information becomes 

available at an Outreach meeting that can affect the way the dose reconstructions are done, it is a 

fairly easy process to make the necessary revisions. Site Profiles from some sites have been 

revised three or four times. 

Paul Szalinski: 

An earlier chapter that was finished mid-summer is already being revised with a page change. 

When additional data is discovered that prompts a document revision, the dose reconstructors 

know before the revision is approved. 

Grady Calhoun: 

Let me expand on that. Let’s say, hypothetically, that the Site Profile Team discovers that there 

was a high neutron exposure at “X Building.” At the time of the discovery, let’s say that 200 

dose reconstructions were already completed. These cases would be re-evaluated to see if the 

new information impacts the dose reconstructions. This is done routinely. 

The Executive Secretary of the Society of Professionals, Scientists and Engineers closed the 

meeting at approximately 12:45 p.m. by reading the following comments about the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile: 

CERCLA/Superfund Sites: 

No mention is made of the Livermore Site and Site 300 both being federal and state Superfund 

Sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 (CERCLA/Superfund). The Superfund List is a prioritized list of the nation's most 

contaminated sites. Both the Livermore Site and Site 300 have had groundwater and soil 

radiological contamination. While surface soil and air is mentioned in sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3; it 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site Profile 

Final Minutes 7 of 7 07/14/06 

is a very limited discussion, and not based on what is known and has been published through the 

LLNL Environmental Restoration Activities. References: ES&H Manual: document 34.1 Site 

Cleanup Requirements, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California EPA, 

the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the Department of Energy. 

Results from Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) Audits: 

No mention is made of the results of the many audits and findings that have been performed on 

the building safety systems, radiation monitoring systems, and radiological controls at LLNL and 

Site 300. Sections 6.5 and 6.6 do address the possibility of calibration and processing errors with 

dosimeters, however they do not address actual negative findings of ES&H audits with these 

systems. For example, the Tiger Team audit in the early 90's found many deficiencies and 

triggered serious changes in the way maintenance and repairs were performed on the radiation 

monitoring systems and the methods of calibration to sources of exposure in the workplace. A 

review of these findings is an essential part of verifying the validity of the measurements and 

records of occupational doses at LLNL that is covered in documents on the occupational 

environmental dose and the Occupational External Dose. References: ES&H Incidents, DefTrak 

was used to track and analyze findings from external audits and internal self-assessments. 

Reconstruction of radiological contamination during the Decommission and Demolition of 

Facilities (D&D): 

LLNL has an extensive program for excess facilities elimination with over 160 facilities that 

have been returned to the institution for disposition. Historical facility information as well as 

information on radiological contamination found during demolition is kept as project specific 

documents that, when completed, are sent to Lab Archives. A thorough search of historical 

records and discussions with former researchers, as well as radiological sampling is performed, 

and this information could be used to supplement the information provided in Table 2-2 as well 

as document the types of work that have taken place in specific facilities and areas. No reference 

is made to the D&D program in the LLNL Site Description Document. References: FY06 Ten 

Year Comprehensive Site Plan, Sept 2005, UCRL-AR-143313-05 Rev 1 (Official Use Only) 

Section 4.1.4 Excess Facilities Elimination/Disposition and New Construction, ES&H 

Manual: document 34.1 Site Cleanup Requirements.