~

u.s. Deparbnent of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Contra and Prevention

Nationallnstitum for CXcupationaJ Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Pa_1of7,

! Special Exposure Cohort Petition I under the EneIgY EmplOyees Q(x:upatk)naJ

Illness Con1)ensation Ad

Special Exposure Cohort Petition -~~

Use of Ulis tonn and disclosure of Social security Number ale voluntary. Failure to use Ulis fonn or disclose

this number will not result In the denial of any right, benefit. or privilege to which you may be entitled.

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are aval1abJe in a separate packet):

Except for signatures. please PRINT all information c)eaJ1y and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A - G in this form and complete U'ae parts appropriate to you. If there is more I than one oetitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sedions of parts A - C of the form that apply

to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this purI DOSe. A maximum of three petitioners is a~.

!1 ~ need more SDace to Drovide add~~~ infom18~., use the continuation page provided at the end of

t the form and attach the ccmpleted continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please call the fol/owing NIOSH toll-free phone number and

request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:

1-800--356-4674.

on Page 3

on Page 2

StartatD I a A Labor Organization,

I[) An Energy Employee (current a' former). Start at C

"you

are: ~ A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), Start at B on Page 2

CJ A Representative (of a current or fanner Energy Employee), Start at A on Page 1

Are you a contact person for an organization? a Yes (Go tC? A.2) Q No (Go to A3)

Organization Information:

,A.1

A.2

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person

A.3 Name of Petition Representative:

A-4

City - -- - Zip Code

Telephone Number: I \ -

Emall Address:

(J Check the'box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this tonn written authorization to

petition by the sulVivol(s) oremp Ioyee(s) Ind"rcated In Parts B or C of this fonn. An authorization

State

A.5

I

'A.6

1A.7

If you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:

02-08-05 A10:15 N
u.s. Deparbnent of Health and Human Services Special Exposure Cohort Petition Centers 	 for ~ Conb'cl and Prellention I under the Energy ~ ~nal Nationallnslitute for ~~ Safety and Health IUness Compensation Ad; 

OMS Number: 092G-0639 EXI)ire$: 05J31flOO71 Special EXpOSure Cohort Petition - F~	 ~2~71 

NameofSUrviV( ;8.1 fAr ./Mrs@ ~ist Name 	 , Middte Initial . -~- LaSt Name 

B.2	 SOCialSecurity Number of Survivor. 

B.3	 Address of Survivnr 

Street 

City J State -­

8.4 Telephone Number of Survivor: 

8.5 £mail Address of Survivor: '""' 

8.6 Relationship to Employee: 0 Spouse 

OGrarKtparent 

IS' Son/Daughter 

a Grandchikj 

I:J Parent 

Go to Part C. 

C.1	 Nameof Emplo~-. 

Mr./Mrs.IMs. F..g, I~Gffle 	 Middle Initial Last Name 

C.2	 Fonner Name of Employee (e.g.. maiden name/legal name change/other): 

Mr ./Mrs./Ms. Arst Name Middle Initial Last Name 

'C.3 Social Security Number of Employee: 

!C.4 Address of Employee (if living): 

City State ZIp Code 

C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: ( , - ~

C.6	 Emall Address of Employee: 

C.7	 Employment Information Related to PetJIfon: 

C.7a	 Employee Number (if known): ­ . Dates of Empfoyment	 End ~ IC.7b	 ,...~...start 

Employer Name: IC.7c
 

IC.7d Work Site Location: \(-/~
 

C.7e	 Supervisor's Name: 

Go to Part E. 

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: 
U.s. Department of Health and Human Services

~ for Disease COObd ard ~ntk>n

NatiOnal InstiIIa for OcnJpaIionaI Safety and Health

OMS Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Paae3of7

Special Exposure Cohort Petition

~ the Energy ~ ~nal

Illness ~~ Act

Special Exposure Cohort Petition - Form B

D.1 Labor Organization Information:

Name of Organizatk>n

0.2

Position of Contact Person

Name of PetiUon Representative:

D.3 Address of Petition Representative:

City State ~ co.-

Telephone Number of Petition Representative: f \ - Emait Address of Petition Repres.ntative:

Period during which labor organization represented elnpIGyee& covered by 8Ii8 petition

(please attach documentation): Start End

Identity of other labor organizations that may represent or haw represented this class of

employees (if known):

0.4

D.5

D.6

0.7

Go to Part E.

- Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:
11 Special Exposure Cohort Petition u.s.Departrne~ of Health and H~;! Servl

~ the EI&gy ~ ~naI Centers for D-- ConboI and Prevention il

Illness ~n Ad NaOOnsilnstitutefor ~pationa' Safety ~ HeeJ1h 

CUB N~ 0920-0639 ExJ*88: 05131/2007 ISgecial Exoosure Cohort Petition - Form B	 ~..! T 

Na-;;'ofDOEorAWEFacUity: - _~:I~~Iii1o~ jtW~-/~Lnplfl- ­

1 

j ~:2 LocatIons 8t the Facility r81eYant to this p81itJon: 

.3	 list job titles and/or job duties of employees Included in the class. In addition, you can list by 

name any Individuals other tt1an petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be 

included in this class: 

IE.4 Employ 

Start 

ment~ 

-

reI8Y

.-- ­

~ (

ant.t t) thla

~iflflfI.-tpeti6on: 

End -

~-, 

-

'f""'~ 

'__~".- ,­

Start End 

Start --~ End 

:.5	 Is the petition based on one or more unmonitDred, unrecorded. or inadequately monitored or 

recorded exposure incidents?: 0 Yes a No 

If yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attadt additional pages 

as necessary): 

Go to Part F. 

-


Name or Social Security Number of Firat Petib'ler: 
I 

, 'Special Exposure Cohort Petidon 	 U.s. Deparbnent of Health and Human Services . 

!IInes8 ~n8attc.) Ad 	 ~ 1n8t1tut8 ~ -~naJ Safety and Health b" 

OMS Ntnber: 0Q20-0639 ExpWes:05131/2007 ~ 1~~ 	 P.-&fA7 Special ExDO8u,. Cohort Petition - Fonn B 

~ 

I Complete at leat on. of the folk;,Ning entries In th;s sectk>n by checking the appropriate rex and provking 

the required Infonnation related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry. 

iF. 1 ~ 	 INVe have attached either documents or statem~ provided by aftktavit that indicate thm: 

radiation exposures and r8djatk)n dO6es potentially incWTe(f by members of Ute ~'oposed class, 

that relate to this petitbn, were not monitored, either through personal monitOfing or through a~ 

monitoring.
 

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition foon.)
 

Descri)e as comp(etety as ~Ie, to the extent it might be unclear, tKM the atta::hed 

documentatk>nand/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored. 

---~ 	 - - ­

:.2 .iii 	 v We have attached either ~ or statements provided by affidavit that indK:ate that 

radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or 

destroyed; or that there is no InfonnaOOn regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process 

from the site M1ere the empk))'ees M)f'ked. 

(Attach docurrents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition fonn.) 

Describe as completety as possible, to the exl8nt it might be ~r, how the attached 

documentationand/or aftidavit(a) Indicate th8 ~~ n'K)n\torV1g for members of the ~ 
 proposed cess have been lost, 8It8f8d 11egaIy, or de8tI~.
 

a,tfnriJd~ rll.tnlfIB art tl:l!-l#~Il~m-m~ 

Part F is continued on the following page. 

Name or SocJaI Sectlrity Number of FII'St Petitioner: 
u.s. Deparbnent of HMItl and tklman ~

Cent8f8 for asease Conb'ol and PrevenOOn

National Institute for ~~I Safety and Heatth

OMS Nt.Inbef: ~ ~: 05/3112.007

~'of7

I Special exposure Cohort Petition

under the Energy En1)k)yee8 OcnJpational

II\nes& Canpensation Ad

! s~a~ Exposure ~rt ~ - Form B

IF.3

IF.4

a 1M' e have a\iBCr '-,ad 8 rePOIt from 8 health physicist or mher individual with eXpettise in

radiation dose reconstruction docwnenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on

radiamn exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The reJX)rt specifies the basis for

believing these doct.nented !mitatk)ns might ptevent the comP'et;on of dose reoonstrudk)ns for

members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH tedV1ica1 implementation

gukielines.

(Attach report to the back of the petition fooo.)

A l/We have atmct1ed a scientifk: Of technk:at report, issued by a government agency of the

Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Oftke, the Nuclear Regulatcxy

Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety BoaId. or published In 8 peer-reviewed

journal, that identifies dosimetry and retated informatk)n that are unava~ (d~ to either a lack:

of monitoring or the destrudion or loss of recads) for estimating the radiation doses of

employees covered by the petjtk)n.

(Attad1 report to the beck of the petition fooo.)

Go to Part G.

ition. A maximum of three pe~ rn." . ign the petition. IA"P~ i-~

~

. IJaTe

Signature -DMe

I SiQnature- -- - - D*'

i Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false itiii16lli8m. misrepresentatm, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who

I knowingly 8:cepts car.,ensatk>n to which that persa1 is not entitled is subject to civil or

administrative remedies as we« as fetony criminal pcosecutk)n and n'IiY. Uf'KJer appropriate I criminal provisions. be punished by a fine or Imprisonment or both. I affirm 11m the infolmatk>n

I provided on this fonn is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition I Office of Compe~ Analysis and Support

i NIOSH . 4676 Cdumbia Parkway. MS-C-47 I Cincinnati. OH 45226

If there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.

The Appendix fonns are located at the end of this document.

Name or Sociaf Security Number of First petifKJnei
Special Exposure Cohort Petition

! under the Enmgy ~ ~

I~ess ~ Ad

SPeCial Exposure Cohort Petition - Form B -

u.s. Department of Health and Human Services

Cerd8IS b Disease Conbd and Ptevention

National Institute for 0CC&4)8ti0na1 Safety and Health

OMS Number: 0920-0639 Expi~: 05/31/2007 ~ - ContInl8tlon Page

Attach to Fonn B if necessary.

Name or Social SeaJrity Number of First Petitioner:
u.s. Depa.-;-.v.1t of Health and Hwnan ~

Cent8I8 for ~ ~ and Prewnticxl

Nationa) )nstjtu18 for QcnJp8tiona) Sar9ty and Health

OMB ~ 0920.Q639 ~ 05I31flOO7

Page7of7

I Special Exposure Cohort Petition

under the Energy ~ O<nIpational

II~ Compensation AGt

~pecial Exposure Cohort Peation - Fonn B

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting buden for this collection of information is estimated to ~ 300 mnutes per r8SJX)nse,

includIng time for reviewing tnstnldions, gathering the informaOOn needed, and completing the form. If ~

have any convnents regardW1g the burden estimate or any dher aspect of this collection of Infonnation.

Including suggestions fcx /educing this burden, send them to CDC ReJx.ts CJearance Officer, 1600 Clifton

Road, MS-E-11 , Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this

address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.

Persons are not required to respond to the information cdIected on "is form unJess it displays a currently

vatid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

In accordance with the Privacy Ad of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 5528),)QJ are hereby notified of the

I following:

The Energy Employees Occupational "I~ Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)

(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of empk>yees to be InckJded in the

spec;aI Exposure CohOl1 (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the

assistance of the National Institute fa' Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease

: Control and Prevention. Infom1ation obtained by NIOSH in Q)r1nedk)n with petitions for including addibtal

. classes of employees in the SEC will be used to evaklate the petition and report findings to the AdvIsory

Board on Radiation am Worker Health and HHS.

i Recorda containing identifiable InfOI~ become part of an existing NIOSH system of ~ under the

Privacy Act, 09-20-147 ~upational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.

HHSlCDClNIOSH.. These records are treated In a CX)f1fkjentia1 manner, unless otherwise compelled by law

I D;sck)sures that NIOSH may need to make for the processing of your petition or other PUrJX)Ses are listed

below.

NIOSH may need to disdose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal

agenc;es. other government or private entities and to private sector empk>yers to penTJit these entities to

rebieve reoo.'"ds required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these

individuals can provkie informaOOn to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) ~ assisting

NIOSH; (d) cdlaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to condud further investigations;

(e) Federal. state and bcal agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a

Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquity.

I This ndice appfles to all forms and informational requests that YCX' may rec8ve from NIOSH in ~

i with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

I Use of the NJOSH petition forms (A and B) is v~ntary but your provlsioo of informatioo requiled by these

forms is mandatory for the consid~ of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fail to

provide required informaOOn may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitk>ner:
..." 

6.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Y-12 Plant. now the Y-12 National Security Complex, was first conceived in the fall of 1942 by 

engineers of the Manhattan Engineering District (MED) of the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers. and the 

construction of the first building was completed in 1943 (Wilcox 2001). The Tennessee Eastman 

Corporation (TEC) operated Y-12 between June 1943 and May 1947. During this period. the 

operations at Y -12 primarily involved the use of the electromagnetic separation process to enrich 

uranium in ~. with the enriched product being shipped to Los Alamos for production of atomic 

we~s. Until the latter part of 1945. Y -12 converted UO3 to ua. which was subsequently enriched 

in 2 U by the electromagnetic separation process using two calutron stages (termed -alpha- and 

"betaj. In late 1945. Y-12 discontinued the use of the alpha calutron stage, and processes at Y-12 

were changed to receive UFe from the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant {ORGDP} or so-called K-25 

Plant. The UFe was then further enriched at Y-12 by the beta calutrons and shipped to Los Alamos. 

In these early days ofY-12. TEC relied entirely an facility monitoring to measure and control the 

radiation exposure to workers. The nature of the work at Y -12 in these early years resulted in internal 

occupational exposure being more important than occupational external exposure. 

In May 1947, management of Y -12 was assigned to the Carbide & Chemicals Company, a division of 

the Union Carbide & Carbon Corporation, and emphasis was directed away from enrichment to the 

fabrication of nuclear weapon parts. Numerous changes have occurred over the years in the 

fabrication procedures, but the general features have remained the same. Typically, enriched 

uranium (EU) was received at Y-12 in the form of UF8, converted to UF., reduced to a metal, and then 

fabricated Into weapon parts. These fabrication processes involved casting of metal, rolling and 

forming the metal, machining the metal, and recycling of the EU salvage. The fabrication of weapon 

parts was expanded over the years to Include other radioactive and non--radioactive materials. In 

addition to facility monitoring to measure and control the radiation exposure to worKers, an external 

dosimetry program was started in 1948 to-ll1onitor individual personnel working in the Assay 

Laboratories, Radiographic Shop, Spectrographic Shop, and the "Metal- Machine Shops. This 

program which monitored less than 25% of the total number of Y -12 employees was continued 

through the criticality accident at Y -12 in 1958. As a result of the 1958 criticality accident, a program 

was instituted in 1961,fo individually monitor all Y-12 workers for external radiation exposure using a 

dosimeter system that was an integral part of the worker's Id~ntification badge and contained 

components for both routine and accident dosimetry. Thus, Y-12 has used both facility monitoring 

and individual worker monitoring to measure and control radiation exposures to radiation workers 

since 1948. The percentages of '(-12 workers monitored for external radiation exposure from the start 

of the external dosimetry program in 1948 through the switch to monitoring nearly all workers in 1961 

are shown in Figure 6.1-1. The external monitoring data for Y-12 workers from 1948 to 1950 are not 

readily available by Social Security Number (SSN) and are not being supplied by Y-12 in response to 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act {EEOICPA} requests 

(Souleyrette 2003). 

There are numerous Y-12 records concerning facility monitoring, safety evaluations, investigations.
 

etc. However. it is time consuming to locate and evaluate these records for an Y -12 facilities and
 

'4ffI~'or-j".Jif1impoSSlb~~~lg~!!i~~ ~~~~fu ~ri'~~~~'U~ Records of radiation dose to Individual workerS fr6ri1 " 

"persOnnel d~rneters worn by the worker and co-workers are available for the employees with the 

highest potential for external radiation ~xposur,e from 1950 to 1961 and for all workers from 1961 to 

the present. Dose from these dosimeters is ~rded at the time of measurement, reviewed routinely 

by Y -12 operatk>ns and safety staff for compliance with radiation control limits. and made available 

routinely to workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) External 
... .toEffective Date: 03/17/2004 Revision No. 00 ~ment No. ORAUT-TKBSOO14-5 

body. Some knowledge of the likely state of equilibrium Is therefore necessary in order to translate 

observed activities into dose. 

The maximum permissible lung burden (MPlB) of 232Th (correspondingto 15 rem y.1 to the lung) 

varied markedly with the 22&rh to ~ ratio. For full equilibrium (ratio = 1) the MPLB was calculated 

to be 2.9 nCi of ~h. For a mrh: ~ ratio of 0.1, the lung burden was 12 nCi~est, 1965, p. 22). 

For a ratio of 0.8, an MPLB of 3.2 nCi is indicated. For this ratio, with a 228Ra to Th ratio of 0.6, an 

MDA of 0.2 lung burdens, or 0.6 nCi is indicated (West, 1965, p. 26). In mass units, this is 5.5 mo. 

It was reported in 1965 that thorium at Y.12 was processed less than one year after purification by the 

supplier, and consequently had only about 10% as much 228Ra s 224Ra (West, 1965, p. 18). This 

means that the maximum dose conversion factor per mg of ~h would be less than that for 232Th in 

full equilibrium with its progeny. However, unless specific information is avaRable with the claimants' 

data, the dose reconstructor will have to makeclaimant-favorableassumptions. The thorium 

sensitivity varied due to the dependence of this technique on the ratios of Th-232 and Ra-228 to the 

daughter radlonuclide being measured. Data interpretation was based on a careful evaluation of the 

work histories. In the absence of sufficient data to determine Th-228:Th-232 ratios and state of 

equilibrium, the claimant favorable assumption Is to assume full equilibrium. 

Neptunium 

At the time 1.he in vivo system was put into routine service In 1961. the reported detection limit for 

231Np without daughter radiation was 2.7 nCI (Cofield. 1961). For 23TNp in full equilibrium with 23SPa. 

the detection limit was reported as 0.255 nCI (Cofield, 1961). 

5.3.2.3 Chest Counting for Other Radionuclides 

At the time the in vivo system was put Into routine service in 1961. the reported detection limit for ~GQ
 

was 0.66 nCJ. For 95Zr in transient equilibrium with 95Nb. the reported detection limit was ~
 Althouoh Bremsstrahluna countina mav have been done f2[ 8Ofc. no information is available regarding
 

the sensitivity of the technique.
 

5.4 MISSED DOSE 

~£j:;afi~~'~F8S~~r.Q~M:;.X~!i.,lqr;.~:;su .' ,- '. jn~~~'~.8Y..not~~~­ ~avajiib1l:'!"'~~"'J 10 'If ~~ffetI bt.;"ri~..~~, "".' fffi~ ,"~o'~~"'~~ -for 

~~~~:.~ primary site activities for this time period were uranium enrichment by'~ ­

Calutron process. From 1948 to 1950, fluorometric analyses of urine and blood were conducted as 

part of general medical surveillance to prevent kidney damage from exposure to soluble uranium 

compounds; these data cannot be retrieved at this time. Major site activities for the 1948 t01950 

period (and through 1992) Included the manufacture of nudear weapons components. 

5.4.1 Data for Missed Dose Detennination -1943-1947 

This section Is in preparation. Please note that this era consisted primarily of enrichment activities 

using the Calutron process. It Is anticipated that reconstruction activities will have to be based on air 

sampling results. 

5.4.2 Data for Missed Dose Detem1ination -1948-1951 

The primary site activities from 1948 to 1992 were associated with the manufacture of nuclear 

weapons components. The infonTlation in Table 5-6 Is based on a review of bioassay data reported 
--- -

l~k, tAlkf!lllflJ r41ld/l7'ld~IlIt/IL -I?/~ l1JU-pj/l1J Page 18 of2S 

~ dlJ./:,/l;1I~1/1/!/t'/l,l., (lI ttll1J-/J /}1J~/~iLlll(/ 

uranium and thorium at Y -12. Annual internal doses from uranium, previously from 

quantitative urinalysis and whole body counting results, as described in Crawford-Brown et aI., (1990) 

and Hazards Assessment Group (1989), were added to estimates of lung doses from thorimn burdens 

and compared to the 0.1 cSv/year cutoff to deteInline annual internal exposure category. 

. .""- "' '­

W.p.r.kel's at TEC ~.a hi~ pGteRtial for in~ oon.tam~on ~ of the process at the perfonned 

'f~ty., Howe~~~ p~na1.mocnitoring data. w~ .nO:t.~Y-~J.Q.J,~f1:o11J: ~~~. i&iordi .-g~'no:t1iO-fY 

~t.~l~ b-<?~Y~1!ILtiPg programs were established when it was in operatI~. An investigation into t1ie -

jOD titles of the 2,837 TEC white male workers who later went on to work at either Y -12 or ORNL 

revealed that the majority remained injobs with similar internal exposme potentials, and 1,147 (400/0) 

were classified as internally exposed for at least one year during employment at either Y -12 or ORNL. 

TABLE 5
 

Monitoring Data Information on the Study Cohort
 

Males Females 

White Nonwhite White Nonwhite 

I Number monitored for external I 

lor I

[33,088 (48) 2,392 (56) 7,809 (26) 11,161 (35) I internal radiation (% of 

race/gender ~~~p monitored) 

,Number monitored for external; 

!31,587 (46) 2,354 (56) 17,607 (25) 11,154 (35) dose (% of race/gender group 

monitored) 

Number of workers by facility 

I . (% of number m r~c!/g.!~de~gr!?up) 

l~~~ (~ 24,661 (78) 2,109 (90) 17,305 (96) 1,119 (97) 

I>(or-) 1 to< 5 cSv(%) 5,565 (18) 201 ( 8) - 272 ( 4) 35 ( 3) r - ­

[> (or =) ~c~ ~)- 1.,361 (4) 44 (2) 30 (0) 0 (0) -

ITotaJ external dose (cSv) 37,619 (93) 1,220 ( 3) 1,537 ( 4) '168(0) 

I Total external dose (cSv) by facility
 

(%_o~o~ dose ~ race(gender group)
 

IORNL 23,885 (64) 1789 (65) 181 (51) ~~~~ 

12,537 (33) 1377 (65) 682 (45) ~ l!2~

1,191 (3) --- !54 (4) 68 ( 4) 113 ( 7) IK-2S - --.

! Total number of annual doses by facility

I (% of these annu~ dos~ ~ot available) 

:ORNL (1943 - 1984) 146,229 ( 3) 9,287 (4) 33,007 ( 6) ~~:~ 

!Y~12_(1~8 ~ 1960) 51,854 (86) 1,500 (97) 7,843 (96) ~~L
 

(1961 

-

- 1984) 

"- 7,056 ( 4) 14,162 (4) 12,475 (4)
 - -- - I !~l~~(_~ 

12/2212003 http://www.orau.gov/ehsd/cer/Cer2bdy.htm 
Page 21 of 2S 

IIb~of-CoJJtmtl 

DISCUSSION
 

http://www.orau.gov/ebsd/cer/Cer2bdy.htm 12/l212003 
Cuter for Enviroameatal Health Stadia

44 Famswmth Street, Boston, MA 02210 (617) 482-9485 h--/J..,..,.., ;~ I . . ~ S1.~...

Multiple Myeloma (MM) and

Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

Summary: Studies ~ at tbc Los Alamos National Lab<ntory and «her nuclear facilitie&, as

well as th~ ex~ to radiation fi'om the atomic 1K>mb Sugge8t an ~ likelihood of developing

multiple myeloma fIX' those who have been exposed to i~ radiation. 1besc findings ale Con&istalt

with the dcternc1iDation oftbo Naticmal ~ Co1mc:i1's BEIR V committee that multiple myeloma has

beat associated with exposwe to ionizing radiation. Multiple myeloma is a "specified" C8DC« under the

EEOICP A. H~caIIy, multiple myeloma incidmce and mocIaJity in Los A~ County fall in the

middle o(New Mexico CO1mties while Rio Am'ba County is among ~es with the hi~ rates in tho

state. Incidence means new cases of C8nCG", while mortality meaDS deatbs due to cancer.

What is Multiple Myeloma?

Multiple myeloma is a type of canc« that affectl certain white bloOd cen. called pJasma cells. Plasma cells

and other white blood cells arc part of the immune system, wbjclJ helps protect the body from infection and

disease. When can= involves plasma ceUa. the body k=PS producing more and mme of these cells. The

wmeeded pluma cells - all aboorma1 and all exactly alike - are called myeloma cells. Myeloma cancer

cells tend to collect in the bone marrow aid in the hard. outer part of bones. SomeIimc& they ooUect in <X1ly

roe bone and fonn a single mass, <l'tnm<l'. In mOlt cases, however, the myeloma cells collect in many

bones, often forming many tumors. When this haPPaIS, the disease is called multiple myeloma. Although

multiple myeloma affects the bones, they begin in cells of the immune system. These cancers are ditferart

nom bone canca-, which actually begins in cells that f~ the hard. outer part of the bone. (Natiooal

Cancer Institute)

Findings of Human Health Research Studies

Human health research studies compare the patterns of disease among groups of people with diff«ent

amowrts of exposure to 8 suspected risk factor. Below are results reported from such studies of multiple

myeloma among people exposed to ioni7.ing radiation.

All of these studies found inaeases and posSlOle ina'eaSes in multiple myeloma (MM) among certain

groups of exposed w~. Statistically significant is a ttnn used to mean that the conncction betweat the

health outcome and the exposure was stroug mouih that it was unlikely to be due to chance. The research

included incidence studies, whidt look at new cases of cancer. Thcsc can track health more quickly and

accurately dI8I1 mortality studies of deaths duo to cancer. Adding to the strength of the findings is that

increasina rates of MM Wa'e observed with higher doses in sOOte stUdies.

Studies of Los Alamos National Laboratory rLANL) Workers

Research conducted ofLANL workers provides the most direct evidence about pO5S1o1e rJatioosbips

between a health problem and workplace expOSlUeS at LANL.

Study of Four DOE Sites: LANL contn"buted 37 cases of multiple myeloma to a case-<:ontrol

StUdy at four DOE sites. All together, the rate of death due to MM increased with h1crcasing whole

body dose of radiation received between age 40 and 50.1

Multiple Myeloma (MM) and ~ to looizing Radiation
Ceater for Eovtroomeatal Heaitb Studlel

44 Farnsworth Strcct, B<JCtoo, MA 02210

(617) 482-9485

btID://www.jsi.com

Studies of Other Nudear Work.. In the United States

The next most relevant e\lida1ce comes fi'Om stUdies ofw~m in similar occupations with the same types

of ~ Listed below are studies that looked at multiple myeloma and workplace expOIUres aDM]D8

nuclear wa:ken in cXh« parts of the United States.

RaDford. WuhiD2toa: A possible iI¥:lea8C in MM ~ WM ob.-Yed iJl35,(XX) mal~

employed betweall943 8I1d 1972. a1Ki thai. fdlowed 1broo8h 1972.(51) In 18Sa' mJdiea,1hia

finding has depended upcm the assumptfmlS used in the analysis.( 18, 48, 52) Und« certain

assw1ptiona, th«e are iDa'euing rata of death due to MM with iDaea8Da dOeCI of ~temal

r8diati~ 49,52. %. 3...

Malliockrodt. St. Louis. Mlssoari: A p~"blc inacasc in dCItbI ftom MM was obs«vcd in a

study of 2.514 males who w«e employed between 1942 and 1966. - thai followed throuF

1993.2

Oak Riae Y -12. T eaoaee: The diIeaIe category of "odIer lymphatic C8I1C8'." which iDCloo.

MM (ICD 203), showed a possible incxeuc 111 deaIbI in & sbJdy of 8,116 ~ who Wa'e

employed betWeall947 and 1974.1Dd thai. followed ~ 1990.34

Studies of Other Nuclear Workers Worldwide

Below are studies of nuclear work~ outside of the United States that looked It multiple myeloma in

connectim with radiatioo exposures.

~ J'..Cll.ttdi A pOI81Dle i1¥:reI8C in dead» WM obsa'Yed d\XI to MM in a ~ of 5,203

pluttX1ium w<Xtcn who wae employed ~ 1947 and 1915, aDd dial foD~ ~ 1992-

A po5S1o1e inaease wa ~ in inci<ia\ce betWeat 191111Ki 1986 in pl1Jt(X\ium~. In a

study of 14,327 workers who ~ mmitaed fCI' =ta'Da1 radiation during tbia time ~ there wac increasin& rates of death duo to MM with ~ dosea of exIern8l Ildiatic.L 4'" The

re8eeroherIwOO ~ the audy wrde: '"ThiI may ..~ a tnIe radiatiua ~ -

J NulearWorkforces ia KD2Iaad: Inaeasina rates of death due to MM ~ fo\md with increasing time since first being moni~ f« p~ in a study of 12,498 WCKters.29 ..

Reaistrv of Nudear Workers in the U.K.: InaeasiD8 rues of death due to MM w~ found with inaeasing doses of external radiati<ll in a study of9S,CXX> ~ ' ..

Studies of Other ionizing Radiation Exposures

Studies amooa other groups of people who were not nuclear w~ can also be significant as evidence of

possible in~ in multiple myeloma amooa those who have been expOICd to i~ radiatic.!. Most

other research as 1>=1 ~ of people exposed to atOOIic bombs.

Atomic Bomb SW'Vivon: IncreaIiDg deaIbs due to multiple m)-eloma with in~ dOIeI of radiatim in a study of86,572 A-bomb ~ I.. -+ .

Other Research and Policy Findings

The National Re8earch Council advises the U.S. govmnmcnt on scicntific matta's. Their Committee OD

Biological Effects of E~ to Ionizing Radiations (BEIR) V reviewed S81Iid.vity of P8'tI of the bcJdy to

r8diatiOD. Their findings are based mostly an studies of caDI;« amoog atOInic ~ aJI'vivmI, 81 weD . 00

Multiple Myeloma (MM) IIMI ~ to Iooizing Radimoo 2
. Cuter for Eavil'ODDleat8J Health Siwdles (617) 482-948.5 44 F amsworth Street, Boston. MA 02210 httD://www.isi_~ 

some of the available inf\Xmati00 00 the bialOi)' of tho body, aoimaIltlldies, and odItI' evidcoce. The 

areatestrisk is at hieh CXIX'SUfe levels. 

A<:c«diDgto the Natiooa1 ReIe8rd1~'. BFJR V commiu.. 1t]he inddcIx:e ofmu1tiple 

myeloma has been observed to be ~ afta'wi despread ~ of the bone JDam)W in the 

majority of ~~ 5t1xIicdto daIc. . 9 

Is Multiple Myeloma a IJSpecifiedH Cancer Under the Energy Employees 

Occupations/Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)? 

. Yes. Multiple mycl~ is a "specified" ~ '-* 8ie BEOlCP A ~m of Specill Exposure 

Cohorts 

Policymam haw ~ caUfn types of ~ 8DnJS0Jcrgy auployees at uuclear facilities, 

including thOIO employed It Los AJmnos NatiCXla1 Labcntmy. as being pota1tially related to occupational 

cxpoaues uDdao the EEOICP A. 

What Are Other RIsk FactolS for lIultfp/ellyeloma? 

In coosiderina the risks of occopatiooal ~osurc to iooizing radiation leading to multiple myeloma, it is 

important to UDda8IaDd ~ risk. fICtCX1. Below is a list of odIa' suspectcd risk fadon for multiple 

m,yelCXD8.aIildrai and brothas aDd sisteIS of patients who have tbjs di~ have a sliabtJy increased ri8k. 

H8Z8I'dou cbemkals. Fumas aDd ~ pdrOleum expc.ct to =tain d1emicala also~ to

have a miller-thIn-average cba1ce of adtiDg multiple myeloma. 

Rates of Multiple Myeloma in Exposed Counties 

Los Alamos County
 

Thac have been lJ.)oderafc of multiple myeloma in Los AJamOI County for both C8Ix:a'
 ~ ~ 

incidence and mortality. Los ~ County: 

Ranked 19th in incidmce of multiple myeloma aOO 

19th in mortality amOD8 the 33 counti~ in New Mexioo ftom 1970 to 1996." 

In recaIt years thCI'e has been about ODO cae pCI' year in tho ~. Is. 14 

Rio Aniba County
 

There have been very high rates of multiple myel~ reported in Rio Arriba County f« both canCa'
 

iDcidalce aDd D!(Wta1jty. Rio Am'b& County:
 

RankedS- hiJhest in incid~ of multiple myeI~ and 

Highest in mortality among the 33 counties in New Mexico &om 1970 to 1996.33 

Multiple Myel~ (MM) md to ICXIiziDI ~ Radiatioo '" 
Center for Euvlronmotal Health Studies

44 FamswMh Street, Boston, MA 02210 (617) 432..9485

httD://www .jsi,com

I Wing s. Ricllardsoo D. Wolfs. MihlanG. Crawfcxd-Brown DJ. WoodJ. A case CCDlUO1 study ofmultiple

myolomaat four nuclear facilitics. AnnaIs of Epidemiology 2000;10(3):144-153.

2 Gi]bcrt ES, Marks S. An aDalysia of the mortality of work~ in a nuclear facility. Radiation ~

1979;79:122-148.

3 Tolley HD, Marks S, ~~an JA. Gilbert ES. A further update of1bc analysis of mortality of workers in

a nucl~ facility. Radiatioo Researc:h 1983;9S:211-213.

4 Preston DL, Kusumi S, Tommaga M, Izumi S, Ron Eo Kuramoto A. et al Cancer incidence in atOmic

bomb surviv~ Part m: Leukemia, lymphoma aDd ID1JItjple myeloma. 1950-1987. Radiatioo

Rescardll994;137:S68-s97.

S Kendall GM, MuiIhead CR, MacGibbon BH, °1188811 JA. C<X1quest AJ, Goodill AA, et aI. M~ty and

ocQ1p8tional ~ to radiatioo: first a11a1ysis of the National Registry f~ Radiation W~

British Medical Joumall992;304:220022S.

8 Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Prestoo DL. Vaeth M. Mabud1i K. SbJdies of the DQtality of atomic bomb

survivors. R~ 12, part 1. Cancao: 1950-1980. RadiatiCll RcseardII996;I46:1-21.

9 Committee on the Biolosical Effects ofJCIlizing RadiatiCll. HcalthEffects ofExposlJrC to Low Levels of

Ionizing Radiation; B FJR V. Wasbingt 011, D.C.: N aU 0Da1 A cadcmy Prell; 1990.

J) New Mexioo Departmcnt ofHeakh. Steering Committee Data; Appendix Eo Table N. Canca- Cases; Los

Alamos ResidaJts 1970-1990; Site by Year of~ Los Alamos Cancer Rate Study. Santa

Fe, NM, 1992;1.

14 Athas WF, Key CR, SeweD M, V 0CI:hees R. C8!¥:a" Trmds in Los Alamos County, 1913-1997. In: Fuller

Lodie; July 14,1999; J..osA}8D¥)S, NM; 1999. p. 27.

J4 Loomis DP, Wolf SH. Mortality of w<XteI:s at a DlIClcar materials production plaut at Oak Ridge.

Tmmessee, 1941-1990. American Joumal ofIDdustrial Medicine 1996;29:131-141.

19 Carpenter LM, Higgins CD, Douglas AJ. Maconod1ie NES, Omar Rz. Fraser P, Beral V, Smith PG.

Cancer m«ta1ity in reJatiCll to mCIlitoring for radionuclide exposme in three UK nuclear industry

workfcxoces. British Jooma1 of Cancer 1998;78:1224-1232.

33 Athas WF. CaDI:U: in New Mexico 1970-1996: ~g Pattcms and Em«'gjng Trenda. Santa Fe, NM:

New Mexico Depm1mcnt ofHealtb. 1998.

49 Gilbert ES, Omohundro Eo Buchanan JA, Holter NA. Mortality of work~ at tho Hanford Site: 1945-

1986. Health Physics 1993;64(6):577-590.

52 Gilbert ES. P~ GR. Buchanan JA. M~ty ofworkers at the Hanford Site: 1945-1981. Heald!

Ph)lsics1989;56(1):11-2S.

. Flndtn8J ~ ltadstical1y gign{fic4nt (strong evidence)

+ Evidence of a do.Je..response relationship (Slrollgest evidence)

Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Exposure to Ionizing Radiation 4
ORNL-6785 Oak Ridge Mortality Study- SUMMARY Page Iof3

Funding Source:

Background:

Study Population:

Major Findings:

t. Overall Results

] o n--WU;"cl~'_wilh",,__-

2 Tho=__("""==~.'"",,)W~,""~,,,,"",",wilh",,_"'Ih3 Th'd__f~_of"'","'w.,-(b«h,""i_,",-,"-]),",-"","

-."...w=-",",]o_",",,"-- .. Amo..whi.,"".,~b_'oJ"""-,""",="""(I'%_),,O_'=-

"""-(I2%-),",d_""",by_~_U"-b"__",,, drowm"""('%i~)-o,,",oi

, ,-wI;.'"""--'"""'-"""'m]30"'~"_.fu""

""" 6 Amoogoo~wm.'"""'wb_oJ_'"_""~"","I"'-"(73%.~

""'00 '3 """I wu ob,.,oi

http://www.csm.oml.goY/-frome/ORMS/sumlinear.h1ml OI/l5/l00s

- --
ORNL-6785 Oak Ridge Mortality Study- SUMMARY 

Page 2 of3 

7:­

ll. 	 Differences Between Facilities 

III. Dose-ResponseAnalysis 

~':~:=.::;~":=.'":.::::;:::.~
 '_.~.."",~.~._,..,w",""--.~",-_.
 ~._"

, ,u, ,,~~"._~.­ , M__'_~_,-~---", 	 , .. _'M_~_~,"",-", 

" 	 ""'-~._-~-~,.. 

-'-~-""'-~~'m_..o__~~ _."~=,~---~---".~-­ -,~"-,.~-,..~'""W._.,--­ "-~-~.­ ~ 	 O,~ . =:,,::O-=":;;:=:'":"~'=',~:::.-::=-,;: 

.,..­

~ ~-'...~-"'-_Th_-"._.

~-~ 	 ~-­

IV. Conclusions: 

1. 	All cause mortality rates were similar to national rates, which is unusual in a study of an
 

occupational group. Death rates in occupational groups are usually lower because national
 

rates include people who cannot work because of health problems. One possible explanation is
 

the large proportion of Inale workers who were hired at young ages during the war years and
 

who worked only for a short amount of time. These worken may have been transient workers
 

not eligible for the draft because of poor health, or they may have been subjected to more
 

hazardous working conditions because of the war effort.
 

2. 	Monthly paid worken had substantially lower mortality than weekly or hourly workers. 

3. 	 Mortality rates were higher for workers employed for less than one year. 

4. 	Mortality differences between workforces at these facilities may be due to differences in
 

exposure to internal and/or external radiation; other non-radiation exposures; or residual
 

confounding due to other socioeconomic facton.
 

http://www.csm.omJ.gOV/-frome/ORMS/surnlinear.html OJ/25I2005 
ORNL-6785 Oak Ridge Mortality Study- Sl:JMMARY Page 3 of3

5. Dose--respoDse results for all cancers derived from this study are compatible with those found

in other studies.

4. Back To DRMS Home Pa2e

5. Last Modified 7.10197 FromeEL@ornLgov(touches: 2889 )
. . .

Health Effects Page 1 of 3

Health Effects

Please read the Disclaim~.

A fonner chairman of the International Committee on Radiation Protection put it this way: "An

overwhelming amount of data have been accumulated that show there is no safe level of exposure and

there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero. Therefore, the question is not:

what is a safe level? The question is: how great is the risk? Or, how great may a particular radiation risk

be before it .exceeds the expected benefi~ such as those from medical radiography or nuclear power?" -

Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Sept., 1978.

"People and animals can be internally contaminated by breathing radioactive particles in the air, by

eating contaminated food, or by drinking cont!lmi.11ated water or milk." - MD p~ "Radiological

Emergency Information for Farmers and Food Processors".

.. AIdlough a ventilation system is needed to keep sheltered livestock healdly, it could allow radioactive

material to enter the building." - MDPHt "Radiological Emergency Infonnation for Farmers and Food

Processors".

Radiation accelerates the natW'al aging process and causes such "mild" genetic mutations as allergi~

asthma, juvenile diabetes, hypertcnsion, slight muscular or bone defects and reduced resistance to

disease. These problems are passed on from generation to generation. - Herman Muller, "Radiation and

Heredity", American Journal of Public Health, 1964.

Children and infants are up to 40 times more sensitive to radiation than adults because of their rapidly

dividing cells and immature immune systems. - MacMahon, Journal of the American Medical

Association.

"Nearly 9,000 excess deaths each year may be attI'louted to routine and accidental emissions from the

nation's operating nuclear reactors." - Dr. Jay Gould, director of a survey by the Council on Economic

Priorities of counties aro\D1d 58 U.S. commercial reactors.

"When radiation passes through die human body, four principal events can occur:

. - the radiation passes through or near the cell without producing any damage;

. - the radiation kills the cell or renders it incapable of cell division;

. - the radiation damages the cell but the damage is repaired adequately; or

. - the cell nucleus... is damaged but the cell survives and multiplies in its perturbative form over

a period OfyeaIS (5 to 70 years) and fonns a clone of cells that eventually is diagnosed as a

malignancy." - Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, "Cancer and Low Level Ionizing Radiation." Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists, p. 30-41, Sept 1978

No level of radiation is safe; i.e., ANY exposure can increase an individual's chance of developing a

health disorder or sustaining genetic damage. (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation II, 1972)

Virtually every type of cancer - blood, breast, lung. digestive system, and others - can. be initiated by

radiation exposure. Also, heart disease, aplastic anemia, cataracts, shortened life-span, and weakening of

the immune system may result. A woman's risk of developing cancer after exposure to radiation is

almost twice the risk faced by a man. (BEIR ill, National Academy of Sciences, 1980)

From 1970 to 1981, 50 US commercial reactors have released 40 million curies of radioactive isotopes. -
HeaJth Effects Page 2 of3 

Brookhaven National Laboratories 

"Releases of radioactive noble gas is the principal source of population exposW"e from routine operation 

ofBWR's." 

- Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, "Ways of Reducing Radiation ExpoStD'e in a Future Nuclear Power 

Economy", 1976 

Legal limits for radiation exposure have steadily declined; from 52 remiyr. in 1920, to 36 rem/yr. -1935, 

to 15.6 rem/yr. to ICRP's current standard of 5 rem/yr.(.5 rem/person/yr. - Max. and .17 rem/person/yr. ­

avg. for the general public) established in 1956. (K. Z. Morgan, "Cancer and Low Level Ionizing

Radiation. " Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, p. 30-41, Sept 1978) (Morgan is credited with founding 

the science of health physics, headed the health physics section of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 

Tennessee for 29 years, and at different times served as chairman of both the ICRP an the NCRP .) 

The 5 rem/yr standard applies to approximately two million radiation workers; in the medical profession 

(3~/o)t nuclear powa' & weapons industry {l90/o)t and various industri~ (21 %). (U.S. EP ~ 

"Occupational Exposw-e to Ionizing Radiation in U.S."t June 1979) 

The ICRP has recommended oontinuing the 5 rem/yr. standard and in certain circwnstances pennitting 

workers to receive even higher doses, e.g.,. increasing the bone marrow exposure from the Ctm-ent 5 

reInS to 42 reinS. (ICRP Publication No. 26. New York; Pergamon Press, 1977) 

A DOE study of 30,000 workers at Hanford shows that deaths from multiple myeloma and pancreatic 

cancerswere clearly conelated with exposme to radiation at levels averaging less than 2 reInS per year ­ or only 40 percent of the 5-rem per year NCRP occupational standard.This study also found that the . 

number of cancers observedwas 10 to 30 times greater than expected from exposure to the 5 ran/yr. 

occupational standard. (T. F. Mancuso, A. M. Stewart, and G. Kneale. "Hanford 1: Radiation Exposure

of Hanford Workers Dying from Cancer and Oth« Causes." Health Physics, 33, pp. 369-384, 1977. 

also, Science News "DOE Questioned on Health Effects Research" 113:7 p. 103, Feb. 18, 1978) 

(Mancuso, fired by DOE in 1975 for releasing the results of his studies, was chief of industrial hygiene 

in Ohio for 17 years, and his research was recognized for excellence by the National Cancer Institute in
 

1961.) (Edward Radford, the chainnan of the govermnent's own top scientific advisory group on
 

radiation, testifioo before the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment in 1978 in support of
 

Mancuso's work and agreed with his conclusion that the government's radiation limits are 10 times too
 

high and "long overdue for change".)
 

DOE contract researchers found that workers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee hlcive a 

490/&'ex'Cessdeath rate from leukemia when compared with the general public; and workers who' .. ­ fabricate nuclear warhead parts at the Oak Ridge Y -12 weapons plant have "excess deaths for cancer of 

the 11mg, brain, and central nervous system, Hodgkins disease and other lymphatic tissue» and brain 

tumor deaths nearly five times higher than expected for the general public." (Epidemiology Project 

Swnmary.1t prepared by Oak Ridge Associated Universities and the University of North Carolina for the
 

US DOE» Office of Health and Environmental Researc~ Washingto~ DC» May» 1984)
 

A study by Steve Wing of the University of North Carolina, which examined death records of 8.318 

atomic workeIS at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1943 to 1972 found their death rate fonD 

leukemia was 63 to 123% higher than the general population. (lAMA 3/20191) 

Back to: 'I@ 

http://users.rcn.com/agnews/HealthEffects.htm 12/22/2003 
HeaJth Effects Page 3 of3

Email: NucJear Feedback

URL; Nuclear Liabilities

Revised - 1/13/1999

"

"

~~~

http://users.rcn.com!agnews/HeatthEffects.htm 1~00J - - -.;...;-.
--

Linda G. Shown, Case No. VFA-0625, December 8, 2000 Page 1 of 3 

Whistlebk>wer Resources 

Home Search Programs Regulations Cases Q&As Info Report& Other 

Comment 

Community Service 

DOE Telephone and Emaif Adc 

December 8, 2000 FOI & Privacy Act Re$OUrces 

DECISION AND ORDER Legal Resources on the Web 

OF mE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Appeal 

Name of Petitioner: Linda G. Shown 

Date of Filing: November 3,2000 

Case Number: VF A -0625 

On November 3, 2000, Linda Shown, Esq. (Shown) filed an Appeal from a determination issued to her in 

response to a request for docmnents concerning Lester Mays that Shown submitted under the Freedom of 

Infonnation Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 10 

C.F.R. Part 1004. The detern1Jnation was issued on October 19,2000, by the Oak Ridge Operations Office 

(Oak Ridge). This Appeal, if granted, would require that Oak Ridge perform an additional search. 

was employed by Tennessee Eastman (then the civilian contractor at the Oak Ridge site) from 

..~ -. - Memorandum Conversation Amy Rothrock, of Telephone between 

Authorizing Official, Oak Ridge, and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) Staff Attorney (November 28, 2000). ' worked at what is now the Y -12 plant in Oak Ridge. Id. 

According to Shown, when .eft Tennessee Eastman, he brought home a container filled with a 

thick white substance that he had scraped from machinery dming his employment at the plant. Letter from 

Shown to Director, OHA (November 3, 2000) (Appeal). After death his widow called "someone in 

authority" to remove the substance from her home, and two "government workers" ~sed in "full 

protective gear and with protective equipmenr' went to the residence and removed the container. fd. Mays' 

widow requested (but never received) either a report on the contents of the container or a receipt for the 

container. Appeal at 2. 

On August 30, 2000, Shown filed 8 FOIA request with Oak Ridge on behalf of - . son for "8 

copy of the complete file pertaining to his father. . . including but not limited to medical records, work 

related records, and any other information regarding . Letter from Shown to Oak 

Ridge (August 30, 2000). The request did DOt, however, mention the alleged removal of the substance from 

the borne. Oak Ridge searched DOE historical files and found responsive personnel records that included 

some medical records. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Amy Rothrock, Oak Ridge, and 

Valerie Vance Adeyeye, OHA Staff Attorney (November 28,2000). Oak Ridge released those records to 

Shown along with the detennination on October 19,2000. Letter from Oak Ridge to Shown (October 19, 

2000). Shown then filed this Appeal, contending that 

additional records pertaining to 'must exist" because of the circumstances SUlTOWlding the 

02/0212005
Linda G. Shown, Case No. VF A-0625, December 8, 2000 , ' Page 2 of3 

removal of the mysterious ubstancefrom the.. ~' home in the 19605. Appeal at 2. . family believes 

that his death was caused by radiation expoS1n'e during his employment at Oak Ridge, and they allege that 

Oak Ridge should have responsive feC()rds in its possession relating to what they believe was his radiation 

exposme. Id. 

A. ADEQUACY OF SEARCH 

In respondjng to a request for information filed 1D1der the FOIA, it is well established that an agency must 

"conducta search reasonably calculated to uncov« all relevant documents." Tnlitt v. United States Dep't 

afState, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990). "'I'he standard of reasonableness which we apply to agency 

search procedures does not require absolute exhaustion of the files; instead, it ~uires a search reasonably 

calculated to uncover the sought materials," MiLler v. United States Dep 't of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 

(8th Cir. 1985); accord Troitt, 897 F.2d at 542. We have not hesitated to r~and a case where it is evident 

that the search conducted was in fact inad~te. See, e.g" Glen Milner, 17 DOE' 80,102 (1988). 

We contacted Oak Ridge to ascertain the scope of the search, particularly in light of Shown's description
 

of the removal of the container. Oak Ridge informed us that they were not aware of the container incident
 

that allegedly occtnTed in the 19608. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Amy Rothrock,
 

Oak Ridge, and Valerie Vance Adeyeye, DOE Staff Attorney (November 28, 2000). As a result, Oak
 

Ridge had performed its search using Social Security number, and limited its search to DOE
 

historical files. Id If an accident occurred in the 19408, the Health Physics Department would have
 

generateda memo about the incident [d. Oak Ridge also searched for any Health Physics files regarding
 

and found no responsive material. Id., Qak.Ri.dge did not seaioCfl' the Y -12 :~tY ~~~ ~~

'..pIau;t-di.dlo"fbegin keePing dCtai,led ~rds onempI<>yees" tintil the 1950s,.over fiv~ ,y~ ~ ­ 'le~t~ " .:f;~tI~f{iJiTh';:V-i2 facility..re"tainea.o~ ~~6nI1e1 card OiJ.--each World War 1I~

i.:~~;' ~~! t!1e mdividUai"wM sickgr_iiJ.vol~edin. a haiai-dous ii1aterial spiIl.Jd.~tb.e-AU.f!&a!ion ': o.f.r3Qiation..~~" i8diBtion exposure records were not ini~ until the'mid-l95~, after- ­

~'~eft1helaCilitY. I~ We therCfore find that Oak Ridge conducted a search reasonably calculated to 

uncover the responsive material, ie., records relating to a World War ll-era employee. Accordingly, this 

Appeal should be denied. (1) 

It Is Therefore Ordered That: 

(1) The Freedom of Information Act Appeal filed by Linda Shown on November 3,2000, OHA Case 

NumberVFA-0625, is hereby denied. 

(2) This is a final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial 

review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(aX4)(B). Judicial review may be sought in the district in which the 

requester resides or bas a principal place ofbusiness~ or in which the agency records are situated, or in the 

District of Columbia. 

George B. Breznay 

Director 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

Date: December 8, 2000 

02/02/2005
 
Linda G. Shown, Case No. VF A-0625, Decanba: 8, 2000 . ' Page 3 of3

(1 )Because the request did not contain any information about the alleged removal of the canister from the

- ."esidence, Oak Ridge was unaware of the incident. Howevc:, after we notified Oak Ridge of

Shown's allegation, Oak Ridge agreed to initiate a search of Y.12 files for information relating to the

1960s incident Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Amy Rothrock, Oak Ridge, and Valerie

Vance Adeyeye, OHA Staff Attorney (November 28, 2000). At Oak Ridge's request, Shown provided

additional information about the incident to the FOIA office in order to facilitate the new search. Letter

from Shown to ORA (Novembed' 29, 2000). That search is ongoing.

http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/vfa0625.htm 02/02/2005
ORAU Team

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

NJOSH Tracking Number: January 11, 2005

Dear

On behalf of the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team, I would like to update you on the status of

the claim you filed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

This update concerns changes you may notice in the Activity Report that you will be receiving shortly in the

mail from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The above changes refer to a letter we sent to you on 04112/2004, to let you know we were ready to proceed

with your dose reconstruction. The letter was sent for two reasons: (1) to make sure you had no objections to

the potential health physicists that might be working on your case, and (2) we believed we had sufficient

information to start your qose reconstruction. When we evaluated your case, we found that one or more of

the following iss:ues needs to be resolved before we can adequately complete your dose reconstruction:

1) The Site Profile for a site at which you worked needs to be completed

2) Co-worker data needs to be developed

3) A site or sites at which you worked requires additional data capture

4) Temporary technical "holds. need to be reSolved

(Further explanation and specific examples .of each of these issues are shown on. the reverse side of this letter.) . . '. .

We apologize and deeply regret any confusion this may have caused. Please be assured that as soon as the

information needed to complete your dose reconstruction becomes available, we will move your Case forward

as quickly as possible. We are making every effort to ensure that cases awaiting dose reconstruction are

handled promptly, consistently, and ,fairly. In addition, please note that no response or action is required of

you at this time. It Is our responsibility to obtain the additional InformatIon that is needed to complete the dose

reconstruction for your case.

If you have additional questions regarding this information or the status of your case, please feel free to

contact us by using the ORAU toll-free number at 1-800-322-0111. You can also obtain the status of your

case by visiting the NIOSH website at http://ww2a.cdc.gov/ocasistatus.html.

Sincerely yours,

~ t o;;:;~~

Richard E. Toohey, Ph.D., CHP

Project Director

ORAU Team

Dose Reco~sb1Jction Projed for NIOSH

Telephone Interview Center P.O. Box 12508. Cincinnati, OH 45212

Toll-free 1-800-322~111
The following issues were listed on the front of this letter as potentially causing delays in the completion of 

your dose reconstruction. Here, each issue is explained In more detail. 

The Site Profile for a site at which YOU worked needs to be comoleted. 

A 'site profile' is a technical document that contains information about exposure conditions at a site. It 

typically includes data on the types and amounts of radioactive material processed there, descriptions of 

process buildings, estimates of environmental and work exposures to radiation, etc. In some cases, these 

documents (or parts of these documents) are not finished, and we do not have the technical Information we 

need to process cases for workers who worked at that particular site. Your case might be on hold because 

we are awaiting the finished report. 

Co-worker data needs to be develoDed. 

In many cases, we do not have specific monitoring data for every individual that worked at a site. In some 

cases, this is because the data cannot be located. In other cases, the sites used representative monitoring 

for a worker group to assign individual doses. Whatever the reason, it is acceptable in certain cases to take 

data from workers who WERE monitored, and apply it to workers who did the same jobs who were NOT 

monitored. This is called co-worker data. In many cases we are trying to develop co-worker data sets so that 

we can proceed with dose reconstruction. 

A site or sites reQuire additional data caDture. 

In some cases, we know that data exist but we have not yet located the records. In these cases, we perfonn 

what we call 'data capture' trips to find and record (or 'capture') this data. Because we would always prefer to 

do a doSe reconstruction with data for each individual when it is available, we are attempting to find and 

'capture' the data that exists for a site or sites where the energy emptoy.ee worKed. Only a set number of 

such trips can be aCC9mplished at any given time, and so it is possible we are awaiting sd'1eduling and 

completion of these data capture trips to complete your case. 

Temoorarv technical 'holds' need to be resolved. 

In many cases, technical issues arise that delay the oompletion of a dose reconstruction. For instance, a 

particular process at a site might not be well-documented. This keeps us from oompleting cases for worl<ers 

from that site who worked with that process. Medical x-rays required for employment at a site might not be 

well-defined in tems of how much exposure they gave the employee. and this could cause a case or group 

of cases to be put on 'hold.' Neutron exposures or low-energy photon exposures might be poorly defined and 

hinder accurate dose reconstructions. There are many types of technical 'holds' that impact our ability to 

complete cases, and as we work to develop solutions to these issues it might temporarily delay the processing of your particular case as well. - '. 

We hope this infonnation has been helpful. Remember, no response or action is required of you at this time. 

If you have any questions, or would like to know exactly what is delaying completion of your dose 

reconstruction, please call the ORAU Team at 1-800-322-0111. 

Telephone Interview Center
 

P.O. Box 12508, Cincinnati, OH 45212
 

T oD-free 1-800-322-0111
 
1/1 g f " 0 ! 

..D 

~I 

#" 

I"" 

~ #"1 I 

fT1. I &. ~, i , I 

~I
 

C ! ~
 c: I CQ ... 

0 

0' ~ i ~ ~; 

LIt' I c; 

& I -: . N' I 

~' I i flQ

~i I i If 

~ 1""1 I ~.!!~
 , I ~o ~o.
 ':DU ~'­

'~ -~ 

IlO%8& Bin -­ J fd~Q~.~ 

I(/)OZ~U 

"I

r: 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &: mJMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

SEC Tracking N~be: Nationailnstlute for Ocx:upational

SafetyandHealth Robert A. Taft laboratories

4678C0kJnti8P8kway

Cincinnati. OH 45226-1998

Phone: 513-533-6825

Fax: 513-~

April 19. 2005

Dear Ms. Davis

This letter is to summarize the telephone conversation in which we discussed the

results of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) qualification process with you and

provided consultation on specific topics in your SEC submission. As you know from the

submission receipt letter sent to you previously, the NIOSH SEC Tracking Number for

your submission is:

SEC

As required in the SEC Rule (42 C.F .R. §§ 83.7 through 83.9) and outlined in the

"Instructions for Completing Special Exposure Cohort Petition - Form B,n certain

elements are required to qualify a submission for evaluation. During the SEC

qualification phase, each submission is carefully examined to verify that it meets the

requirements of the Rule. We found that there were questions regarding your

submission that we needed to discuss with you for clarification, or that your submission

did not meet all the requirements of the Rule.

A list of the issues we discussed with you is attached. For each of these items we have

included remarks to summarize our conversation and to provide guidance intended to

help you provide a submission that could qualify for evaluation.

NIOSH will complete the qualification process after you have submitted any necessary

revisions, informed us that you do not wish to make recommended changes, or after the

deadlines indicated below have expired. If your submission qualifies for evaluation, we

will begin the evaluation process by notifying you and the Advisory Board on Radiation

and Worker Health (the Board) that your submission has qualified for evaluation as a

petition and by providing you a summary of the evaluation process. At that time, we will

also post a summary of your petition on the OCAS web site

lhttl2://www .cdc.oov/niosh/ocas).

Please respond to this Jetter by addressing the requests for information or changes to

your submission as outlined in the attached document, which summarizes our

conversation. Please note that there may be various time frames for responses on

selected items. These time limits are established by the Rule (42 C.F.R § 83.11). You
may also respond with corrections to your responses, if you believe such corrections 

are necessary. Please be sure to include your NIOSH SEC Tracking Number on all 

correspondence. Any correspondence should be addressed to: 

SEC;
 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
 

NIOSH MS-C-47
 

4676 Columbia Parkway
 

Cincinnati, OH 45226
 

During this period, if you have any questions regarding your submission, please feel 

free to contact OCAS toll-free at 1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674),directly at 513­

533-6800,or by email at ~s@cdc.gov. You may also contact our contractor toll-free 

at 1-800-322-0111. Additional information about OCAS and the SEC procedure can be 

found on the OCAS web site at httc://www.cdc.aov/niosh/ocas. 

,f~~~ ­

. Elliott, MSPH, CIH 

Director 

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Attachment 

File: (17) Consult Letier[Final] (04-1Q-2005) 
Qualification Phone Call Discussion and Aareements 

A Qualification phone call was conducted by interviewer Pat K. and Health Physicist 

Kenny F. on April 7, 2005 with SEC applicant. A detailed review 

of this phone call follows. The Questions/statements made by the interviewer or Health 

Physicist are stated first and the responses of the interviewer and of the interviewee are 

stated in italics. 

1	 Clarification. On page 2 of Special Exposure Cohort - Fom1 B (hereafter
 

referred to as Form B), Item C.7a entitled "Employee Number" is blank.
 

You agreed that we could insert your mother's identification number-..,- -~ 

as found in claim files, into the blank space adjacent to Item C.7a of your 

submitted Fonn B. You have 10 days from the date on this letter to document 

any disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address given 

on the second page of this Jetter. 

2. Clarification. On page 2 of Fonn B, Item C.7b indicates a Y-12 employment period of through i

' 

You indicated that though you understood that your mother's employment 

period would not fulfill the 250 day health endangennent requirement, you still

wanted to proceed with your submission indicating the- to ' 

timeframe. 	 \ 

From our discussion you understood that a separate SEC submission 

covering a/l Y -12 Plant workers in the timeframe had been 

received by NIOSH and is currently being evaluated. You have 10 days from 

the date on this letter to document any disagreement with this action or 

statement by writing to the address given on the second page of this letter. 

3. Clarification. 	 On page 4 of Form B, the DOE facility name for Items- E.1 and E.2 

is indicated as being the "Y-12 National Security Complex." 

You agreed that we could insert "Y -12 Plant" in your S£C submission 

where it is currently listed as "Y-12 National Security Complex." You have 

10 days from the date on this Jetter to document any disagreement with 

this action or statement by writing to the address given on the second 

page of this letter. 

4.	 Clarification. On page 4 of Form B. Item E.3 indicates a worker class of "All 

employees that conducted cleaning work at the Y-12 National Security Complex." 

You agreed that the revised worker class should read: All Laboratory 

Equioment Cleaners that worked at the Y -12 Plant between and 

.f You have 10 days from the date on this letter to document any 
disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address given 

on the second page of this letter. 

~ .	 ~Iarification. On Page 4 of Forni B, in Item E.4, you have indicated that ) 

. - is the employment period relevant to this submission. This correlates to the 

time when the Tennessee Eastman Corporation was the production contractor 

onsite (note the Employer Name given in Item C.7c where Tennessee Eastman 

Corporation is given as the employer). 

You agreed that your intended worl<er class would include the timeframe 

that the Tennessee Eastman Cotporation was the operating contractor at 

the Y-12 Plant. You have 10 days from the date on this letter to document 

any disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address 

given on the second page of this letter. 

6. Deficiency. On page 4 of Form B, neither of the checkboxes on line E.5 is
 

checked indicating if this submission is based on unmonitored, unrecorded, or
 

inadequately monitored or recorded exposure incidents.
 

You agreed that it was your intent to check the "Non box in section E.5 

indicating that your SEC submission was not based upon an exposure 

incident. You have 10 days from the date on this letter to document any 

disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address given 

on the second page of this letter. 

7.	 Deficiency. On page 5 of Form B, Item F.2 is checked indicating that 

monitoring records "have been lost, falsified, or destroyed; or that there is no 

information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process from the site 

where the employees worked." The phrase "Attached documents are self . 

explanatory" is written in the comments field for Item F .2. Your submission 

includes excerpts from "several NIOSH Technical Basis Documents" and other 

supporting documentation which you cited in Item F.1. You also checked Item 

F.4 indicating that you had enclosed a scientific or technical report. 

You agreed that Item F.1 could serve as the basis for your submission and 

that we could disregard your origina//y submitted infonnation for Item F .2. 

You have 10 days from the date on this letter to document any 

disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address given 

on the second page of this letter. 

8.	 Clarification. This appears to be an oversight, but page 7 of the submission has 

not been signed. 

You agreed that we could insert your social security number at the bottom 

of the page indicating your agreement with the information given in the 

.Public Burden Statement" and .Privacy Act Advisement." (Your social 

security number provided on Page 2 of Form B was confirmed in the 
phone call.) You have 10 days from the date on this letter to document 

any disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address 

given on the second page of this letter. 

9. PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITION. Based on the previously discussed 

information you agreed that the proposed class definition for this submission 

should include: All Tennessee Eastman Corporation employees that conducted 

laboratory equipment cleaning work at the Y-12 Plant from 1943 through 1947.. 

You have 10 days from the date. on this letter to document any 

disagreement with this action or statement by writing to the address given 

on the second page of this letter.