National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

Worker Outreach Meeting for Sandia National Laboratories 

Meeting Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 11:00 a.m. 

Meeting With: Representatives of Office and Professional Employees International Union 

(OPEIU) Local 251; Albuquerque Metal Trades Council (MTC), AFL-CIO; Sandia Security 

Police Association; and New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO 

Location: Training Center of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (UA), Albuquerque, New 

Mexico 

NIOSH Worker Outreach Team: 

Laurie Breyer, JD, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS), Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Counselor 

Sam Glover, PhD, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS), Health Physicist 

Mark Lewis, Advanced Technologies and Laboratories (ATL) International, Inc., Senior 

Outreach Specialist 

Wilfrid “Buck” Cameron, ATL, Senior Outreach Specialist 

Mary Elliott, ATL, Technical Writer/Editor 

Also present: 

Kathy Robertson-DeMers, Sanford Cohen and Associates (SC&A) 

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

Gina Beavers, Española Department of Labor (DOL) Resource Center 

Michele Jacquez-Ortiz, Office of U.S. Senator Tom Udall 

Proceedings: 

Laurie Breyer, the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Counselor for the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), opened the meeting at 11:00 a.m. She thanked the 

representatives of labor organizations representing workers at Sandia National Laboratory 

(Sandia, the Lab, or SNL) for meeting with NIOSH. 

A representative of the Metal Trades Council commented that far fewer claims have been filed 

for Sandia workers or their survivors under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA or “the Act”) than for workers or survivors at the Los 

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Ms. Breyer gave current statistics for both facilities for 

EEIOCPA Part B cases sent to NIOSH for dose reconstructions and passed around a copy of the 

statistics. 

Ms. Breyer introduced Mark Lewis, the Senior Outreach Specialist on the NIOSH Worker 

Outreach Program. Mr. Lewis greeted the attendees and thanked them for their time. He briefly 

explained how his outreach activities with the United Steelworkers of America (USW) local 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 1 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
union at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant led to his involvement with the USW 

International Union, which led to his position with the contractor for NIOSH Worker Outreach. 

He explained that he had arranged the meeting to coincide with the February meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or “the Board”) to give the Sandia 

labor organizations the opportunity to ask questions about the EEOICPA and the SEC process. 

He noted that there was not a formal meeting agenda. 

Mr. Lewis introduced Kathy Robertson-DeMers of Sanford Cohen and Associates (SC&A), the 

Advisory Board’s technical support contractor. Ms. Robertson-DeMers explained that her job 

duties include retrieving records and conducting worker interviews that are used in the SC&A 

reviews of NIOSH documents and procedures as well as being assigned to the ABRWH Working 

Group on Worker Outreach. She added that she was at the meeting to ensure that NIOSH was 

following procedure. 

Sam Glover interjected that the meeting had not been set up as a formal worker outreach meeting, 

but rather as an informal session for the unions to come together at one meeting to ask questions 

about the EEOICPA and the SEC. 

Representatives of the Albuquerque Metal Trades Council, the Office and Professional 

Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 251, the Sandia Security Police Association, and 

the New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council (BCTC) introduced themselves and 

gave their affiliations. 

A representative of a BCTC affiliate stated that the Part B cancer claim he had filed more than 

five years ago is still awaiting dose reconstruction. He explained that he and a fellow worker 

were being encouraged to file an SEC petition but were finding that the process can be difficult 

and time consuming. He stated that he had attended a meeting in which the author of the most 

recent LANL SEC petition had described the lengthy information gathering process for his 

petition. Ms. Breyer responded that she hoped that the discussion would help simplify the 

process for him. He added that he has no idea where to begin looking for information. Ms. 

Breyer stated that one petition containing only one sentence as the basis had qualified for 

evaluation, while others have been submitted with hundreds of pages of supporting documents. 

She explained that her role as the SEC Counselor for NIOSH is to help people get through the 

process. She added that Dr. Glover could answer any questions about the site profile and dose 

reconstruction. 

A representative of the Sandia Security Police Association stated that he had attended a NIOSH 

Workshop on dose reconstruction. He remarked that there had been a recent increase in illnesses 

among his fellow workers. His union is interested in learning more about EEOICPA and the 

SEC process because they want to be able to help their fellow workers. 

Another representative of the Security Police Association commented that he had also heard the 

LANL petitioner’s presentation at the meeting. Since security officers at Sandia are not always 

aware of the radiation or chemicals that they are exposed to on the job, he is concerned that 

preparing a petition for Sandia workers would be “a daunting task.” Ms. Breyer responded that 

SEC petitions can only be filed under EEOICPA Part B, which deals with radiation exposures. 

EEOICPA claims for illnesses caused by chemical exposures are filed under Part E. 

Loretta Valerio stated that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson appointed her as the Director 

of the New Mexico Office of Nuclear Workers’ Advocacy in 2007 to assist EEOICPA claimants 

with the appeals process when their claims have been denied. Ms. Valerio previously worked at 

the DOL Resource Center in Española where she helped people file EEOICPA Part B and Part E 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 2 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
claims. She stated that she would be available after the meeting to answer any questions the 

attendees may have for her. 

Ms. Breyer described her role as the SEC Petition Counselor. She explained that she works with 

individuals one-on-one and in larger groups to help them understand and work through the SEC 

petitioning process. 

Dr. Glover stated that he is the lead health physicist at NIOSH for the Sandia National 

Laboratory, as well as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Hanford, LANL, and other 

facilities. He has attended five NIOSH worker outreach meetings with Sandia labor 

organizations. 

Ms. Breyer explained that NIOSH conducts several types of outreach meetings to educate people 

about the EEOICPA and the SEC, from large town hall-type meetings to smaller, more informal 

meetings with labor organizations and other stakeholder groups. 

Ms. Breyer spoke briefly about the roles of the different government agencies that work together 

to administer the EEOICPA. The DOL administers both Parts B for cancer, silicosis, and 

beryllium disease, and Part E for illnesses caused by exposure to toxic chemicals. NIOSH only 

deals with Part B cancer cases, performing dose reconstructions for individual cases and 

evaluating SEC petitions to determine whether dose reconstructions can be performed for 

proposed classes of individuals. The ABRWH provides oversight to NIOSH. 

Ms. Breyer explained that there are two ways for individuals to be compensated under EEOICPA: 

NIOSH either (1) performs dose reconstructions for individual Part B cancer claims to determine 

whether the worker’s exposure to radiation may have contributed to the illness; or (2) the 

individual can be compensated automatically if he or she is an eligible member of an SEC class 

at a nuclear weapons site. A worker is an eligible member of an SEC class if he or she worked 

for 250 days in a qualifying job classification during the time period of the petition and have one 

of 22 specified cancers. Dr. Glover added that approximately forty percent (40%) of workers 

who meet the class qualifications will still have to have dose reconstructions because they have 

prostate or skin cancers, which are not among the 22 eligible cancers. Ms. Breyer stated that the 

250-day requirement may be met by adding an eligible worker’s employment time in a SEC 

class at another facility. Extended hours are also factored in to meet the 250-day requirement. 

Ms. Breyer explained that there are two different types of SEC petitions. The first type of 

petition may be submitted by an individual, a labor organization representing workers at a site, or 

an authorized representative of a worker or survivor(s) of a worker. Another type of petition 

may be initiated by NIOSH when there is not sufficient data to perform accurate dose 

reconstructions for a class of workers at a site. 

Ms. Breyer emphasized that it is not always necessary to compile large volumes of information 

for a SEC petition. A short, well-stated petition backed by worker affidavits has the same chance 

of qualifying for evaluation as a long statement with hundreds of pages of documentation. To 

qualify for evaluation, the petition must cite one of four criteria as the basis: (1) No external or 

bioassay monitoring at the site; (2) Monitoring records have been lost, destroyed, or falsified; (3) 

Scientific or technical report(s) describing faulty monitoring practices; or (4) Other report(s) that 

document significant new information that shows why dose reconstruction cannot be done for 

the proposed class. Worker affidavits may be used to support the first two bases. 

A representative of the Albuquerque Metal Trades Council commented that Sandia Lab is 

involved more in the research and development of military systems rather than the extensive 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 3 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
nuclear programs at sites like LANL and Hanford. He stated that among his coworkers, he sees 

more chemically-related cancers than radiogenic ones. He asked if a SEC petition could be filed 

chemical exposures. Ms. Breyer responded that the SEC is under Part B and only has to do with 

radiation. The Metal Trades representative asked whether corrupt monitoring data collected by 

CEP (a former Sandia contractor) could be an obstacle to accurate dose reconstruction. Ms. 

Breyer responded that quantity of radioactive material is not an SEC issue, but the lack of 

adequate monitoring is an acceptable basis to file a petition. Dr. Glover emphasized that the 

SEC petition must meet one of the four criteria to qualify for evaluation. NIOSH must evaluate 

all available information to report to the Board regarding whether or not the radiation can be 

bound for the class of workers. 

Dr. Glover confirmed that the Sandia site profile states on page 73 that the CEP data should be 

considered invalid for dose reconstructions. He added that the site profile was not completed 

until 2007 because the site profile team had difficulty getting the monitoring data; some of the 

early claims had to be held until the data was available for dose reconstruction. 

Ms. Breyer described the phases of the SEC petitioning process: 

	 The petition is filed by an individual (worker or survivor); a labor organization 

representing workers or former workers at a site; or an authorized representative of a 

worker or survivor. NIOSH reviews the petition to see if it meets the criteria for 

qualification (see above). 

	 After the petition is qualified for evaluation, NIOSH and its contractors search for 

monitoring data. 

	 NIOSH evaluates the data (if it exists) and determines if the radiation dose can be 

bounded for the proposed class. 

	 NIOSH prepares a Petition Evaluation Report on its findings and presents it to the 

ABRWH at a public meeting along with its recommendation whether dose reconstruction 

is either feasible or not feasible. 

	 The ABRWH votes to either accept the recommendation or to review the information in 

detail. The Board makes its own recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

	 Based on the Board’s recommendation, the Secretary makes a recommendation to 

Congress. 

	 Congress has 30 days to approve the recommendation. If it does not act on the 

recommendation, the class is added to the SEC. 

Ms. Breyer urged the attendees to take the time to review the information in the Sandia Site 

Profile for accuracy and completeness, particularly the Site Description, the Internal Dose, and 

External Dose sections, as well as the SC&A review of the site profile. She explained that both 

documents can be found on the NIOSH Web site and explained how to find the page for Sandia. 

A representative of the Security Police Association stated that he had attended the LANL 

petitioner’s presentation at the ABRWH meeting. The petitioner had mentioned that some of the 

LANL monitoring data was “skewed.” The Security Police Association representative asked if a 

petition could be filed for Sandia for the same reason. Dr. Glover responded that NIOSH can 

apply corrections during dose reconstruction for “skewed” data in a particular area for a short 

period, so it would most likely be a site profile issue rather than a SEC issue. He explained that 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 4 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
broadening the class definition in the petition basis may qualify it for evaluation. For example: 

“There was no monitoring for neutron exposure for all workers in the reactor area from 1953 to 

1968.” 

[Name redacted] explained the challenges that she faced when she filed the first LANL SEC 

petition since she was a surviving spouse who had never worked at the site. She told the 

attendees that the petition had not qualified the first two times that she had submitted it. She 

finally had to hire a lawyer to help write the petition the third time so it would qualify. She 

thanked Ms. Breyer for helping others through the SEC petitioning process, noting that Ms. 

Breyer had been hired after her petition qualified for evaluation. She added that broadening the 

class definition to include all workers from 1943 through 1975 had finally qualified the LANL 

petition. 

Ms. Breyer explained that NIOSH personnel with Q clearances can conduct secure interviews 

with individuals who need to discuss classified information. 

[Name redacted] suggested that affidavits from people who can tell about their work experiences 

during the period given in the petition can also help qualify the petition. 

Ms. Breyer explained that she and Denise Brock, the NIOSH EEOICPA Ombudsman, conduct 

SEC Outreach to help groups understand how to file a SEC petition. These town hall-style 

meetings include formal presentations on the SEC process and an opportunity to answer 

questions from the group. After the meetings, both Ms. Breyer and Ms. Brock may work directly 

with the petitioner(s) during all phases of the SEC process. 

A discussion ensued regarding the voluntary computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) that 

is part of the dose reconstruction process. Dr. Glover explained that NIOSH uses a scripted 

interview with the claimant(s) to learn more about the energy employee’s work experience. Ms. 

Breyer added that NIOSH contacts DOE for the worker’s records at about the same time the 

CATI is arranged. Dose reconstructors use the CATI information during the worker’s dose 

reconstruction to supplement the worker’s monitoring records and the technical site information. 

An attendee asked whether the DOL sends primarily Part B radiation claims to NIOSH as well as 

claims for illnesses caused by exposure to toxic chemicals. Ms. Breyer responded that, although 

NIOSH only gets the Part B radiation claims from the DOL, the claimant can file claims for both 

Parts B and E at the same time. If the dose reconstruction for the Part B claim yields a 

probability of causation of 50% or better, DOE may also use information from the dose 

reconstruction to show that radiation caused a toxic exposure that could qualify the cancer as a 

compensable illness under Part E as well. Ms. Valerio commented that a Part E case is never 

considered closed because the worker is allowed to come back for a whole body count every two 

years. 

Ms. Valerio stated that sometimes dose reconstructions take a long time because the claim is held 

up while NIOSH continues to gather data so the results can be as accurate as possible. She 

explained that, from an advocacy point of view, one of the most important issues in filing a SEC 

petition is that once it is approved, the period between filing a Part B claim and compensation is 

much shorter. She added that having a class in the SEC is very beneficial for older or very ill 

workers who are nearing the end of their lives and may not be around long enough for their dose 

reconstructions to be completed. She stated that she could provide copies of the Sandia site 

profile upon request. 

Gina Beavers of the DOL Resource Center in Espanola, New Mexico, joined the meeting. She 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 5 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
 

stated that she would be available after the meeting to answer questions about EEOICPA claims. 

Dr. Glover answered questions about some of the acronyms and other terms appearing on the 

NIOSH statistics Web page for Sandia. He explained that a “POC” (probability of causation) of 

greater than 50% makes a Part B claim compensable. He also explained that a case could be 

pulled by the DOL for several reasons, including a claimant’s employment time at another site 

that qualifies the claimant as a member of a SEC class. If the claim has a covered cancer, DOL 

may compensate under the SEC class and NIOSH will not have to perform a dose reconstruction. 

An attendee stated that once the SEC petition is approved and the class is added, all claims that 

qualify for compensation are pulled, including claims that were previously denied. Ms. Breyer 

added that a claim may also be pulled if the claimant passes away and there are no survivors who 

can file the claim again. 

Ms. Breyer discussed the list of 22 primary cancers that qualify under the SEC. She explained 

that prostate cancer is not on the list and cannot be compensated as a primary cancer, but may 

qualify if there is a secondary cancer of the bone, lung, or kidney. 

An attendee revisited the topic of multiple workplaces. He asked if construction workers and 

other service workers who roam between DOE sites during their career are also affected when 

claims are pulled for the SEC. Ms. Breyer and Dr. Glover explained that the DOL looks at the 

worker’s records from all of the sites that have been verified at the beginning of the claims 

process. If a SEC petition is filed at any of the sites, the claim will be pulled and sent to DOL to 

forward to the SEC site. The attendee also noted that at large sites, security, service and trades 

personnel go between many buildings and areas according to their assignments. Dr. Glove 

responded that NIOSH recognizes that those classes of workers do not always work in the areas 

of their primary assignments. NIOSH relies on information from DOL to determine the work 

locations. Another attendee stated that the recent LANL petition had been so thorough that 

NIOSH had added classes of workers and additional technical areas. 

Dr. Glover agreed with an attendee who commented that reviewing the Sandia site profile might 

provide workers with the basis for a petition if they find that there is missing information – for 

example, if there is a radiation area where unmonitored workers may have been exposed to a 

radiation source such as uranium. He recommended that talking to workers might provide 

information that is not in the site profile. Health physicists may also be able to provide 

information (for example, there was no bioassay for exotic radionuclides in a certain area). Dr. 

Glover cautioned that it is important not to confuse site profile issues with SEC issues. 

An attendee asked for an explanation of the term “claimant-favorable dose rate.” He stated that 

his dose reconstruction report stated that NIOSH had used this term to explain that they were 

able to reconstruct his dose even though his monitoring records were not available. Dr. Glover 

explained that NIOSH sometimes does dose reconstructions using co-worker data sets for 

monitored workers for unmonitored workers or to fill in doses that were recorded as “0.” Using 

this claimant-favorable approach usually results in a higher POC for the unmonitored worker. 

An attendee asked Dr. Glover why NIOSH does not send scientist to the sites to identify 

monitoring deficiencies and other problems at the site. He commented that doing so might 

simplify the dose reconstruction and SEC processes. Dr. Glover responded that NIOSH has a 

process in place to identify sites where there are insufficient records to allow accurate dose 

reconstructions. In such cases, NIOSH initiates the SEC process and finds a petitioner to file for 

the site. Ms. Breyer noted that SC&A evaluates the SEC Petition Evaluation Reports and other 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 6 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
NIOSH documents for deficiencies and recommendations to resolve them. She added that the 

SC&A review of Sandia profile is on the NIOSH Web site. 

A representative of the Security Police Association commented that a DOL point of contact had 

talked about Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) at a public meeting. Ms. Beavers explained 

that the DOL is building a Site Exposure Matrix (SEM) database to list all of the toxic chemicals 

used at each site. She stated that the DOL asked workers for help in compiling this information 

so there is a comprehensive list for each site. This makes it easier to evaluate the Part E claims 

for illness related to chemical exposures. Ms. Beavers stated that workers have also provided 

information that has helped the DOL understand that chemical exposures sometimes happened 

when safety practices varied between technical areas at LANL. (For example: Workers pointed 

out that they did not use a fume hood while handling a chemical in one technical area, but 

workers in another area used hoods when they used the chemical.) Another representative of the 

Security Police Association commented that security personnel are not always aware of the 

MSDS sheets because they are not assigned to a specific area. At other times, there may be a 

chemical release and they are not made aware of what has been released until after they have 

responded to the area. An unidentified attendee commented that paper copies of the MSDS 

books have been taken down and workers are told that they can find the information on the 

company Web site. Ms. Beavers and several attendees discussed the varying availability of 

MSDS information. She stated that a claimant had been able to produce sheets from a building 

that he had worked in 20 years ago and had since been torn down. A representative of the Metal 

Trades Council recalled that a former supervisor had been able to produce a master inventory of 

the MSDS sheets that he had worked with in the Machine Shops. 

Ms. Beavers explained that she had been approached by a surviving claimant who stated that her 

husband had worked at Sandia, but had traveled to LANL and Sandia Livermore National 

Laboratory to transport nuclear materials. The survivor had forgotten to include the additional 

work history in the claim and the CATI and the claim had been denied because the POC was 

very low. Ms. Beavers stated that she is going to help the claimant prepare a narrative to submit 

to the DOL that includes the additional information, to appeal the case. Dr. Glover responded 

that the DOL will likely return the case to NIOSH for another dose reconstruction after the 

additional work information is verified. 

Ms. Valerio asked if NIOSH gets dose records from additional sites if the employee had shortterm special assignments at other facilities. Dr. Glover responded that NIOSH gets those records 

from the other facilities if the DOL has verified the work time at those facilities. He noted that if 

an employee’s records indicate significant exposures at another facility, the information from 

that facility will be used for that portion of the dose reconstruction. Ms. Breyer stated that the 

CATI sometimes provides additional information, which must then be verified by the DOL. She 

added that NIOSH does not evaluation claims for the SEC. NIOSH pulls the claims and returns 

them to the DOL to make the decision to add the employee to the class. Ms. Beavers 

emphasized that it important that the DOL caseworkers get all of an employee’s history when 

they take the claim. 

Ms. Breyer stated that additional primary cancers may also change the outcome of a dose 

reconstruction. Claimants whose cases have been denied should inform the DOL when they 

have additional cancers so that the cases can be sent back to NIOSH for an additional dose 

reconstruction. Dr. Glover explained that the claimant must provide medical records to the DOL 

to verify the diagnosis of the additional primary cancer. Ms. Valerio added that she has seen a 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 7 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED 
few rare cases for which the DOL had provided incorrect medical codes to NIOSH with the case 

information. Dr. Glover responded that NIOSH must use the information provided by the DOL. 

A Metal Trades Council representative stated that the Council is encouraging their workers to get 

copies of their medical records before they retire. Another attendee commented that having to 

collect medical records from numerous doctors can be a very involved process as well as 

expensive. Ms. Beavers stated that the DOL will reimburse $100 for medical records after the 

claim is accepted. Ms. Valerio stated that the Espanola Resource Center can request information 

from the New Mexico Cancer Registry when there are no medical records available for a 

deceased worker. Ms. Beavers added that Death Certificates have also been used to provide of a 

worker’s illness. 

Ms. Valerio asked whether a worker should include small contamination events during the 

CATI – for example, cleaning up many small spills over a long period of time. Ms. Breyer 

responded that any information the worker can provide about the work history may be helpful to 

the dose reconstructors. She added that it is better to err on the side of too much information, 

rather than leave out something that may be helpful. Dr. Glover commented that NIOSH has 

revised site profiles because an interview provided important information during the CATI. All 

of the claims that were affected by the information were pulled and recalculated. 

Ms. Breyer and Dr. Glover addressed several additional comments about the CATI. [Name 

redacted] explained that her husband had difficulty with the questions because he was 

undergoing chemotherapy at the time of the interview. She added that it is also difficult for 

survivors to answer the questions if they did not work at the facility. Mr. Lewis related how he 

had helped many claimants with their interviews when he worked as a union advocate at his site. 

Ms. Beavers explained that because many of the elderly workers or their survivors speak only 

Spanish, the Resource Center has assisted them with their interviews. She added that she also 

advises people to prepare an outline to help them get through the interview. Ms. Breyer stated 

that NIOSH sends a summary of the interview to the claimant to review and gives an opportunity 

for the claimant to provide additional information. A representative of the Security Police 

Association stated that he had helped with an interview and found the worker reluctant to 

provide co-worker names. 

Mr. Lewis introduced Michele Jacquez-Ortiz from the office of Senator Tom Udall. [Name 

redacted] explained that the offices of Senators Udall and Jeff Bingaman had played an 

instrumental role in the petitioning process for the class of LANL workers that was added to the 

SEC in 2007. Mr. Lewis also introduced [name redacted], the author of the current LANL SEC 

petition for workers from 1976 through 2005. 

Mr. Lewis thanked the attendees for their time and concluded the meeting at approximately 

12:45 p.m. 

Sandia National Laboratories Page 8 of 8 February 19, 2009 

Final minutes REDACTED