SEC Petition Evaluation Report
 

Sandia National Laboratories – Livermore 

Petition SEC-00059 

Report Rev #: 0 Report Submittal Date: 3/26/2007 

Subject Expert(s): Ray Clark, Riasp Medora, Dan Mantooth, Clark Barton, and Laura McDowell-Boyer 

Site Expert(s): N/A 

Petition Administrative Summary 

Petition Under Evaluation 

Petition # Petition 

Type 

Petition B 

Qualification Date 

DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC-00059 83.13 October 4, 2006 Sandia National Laboratories–Livermore (SNL-L) 

Petitioner Class Definition 

All X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked in the X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence 

Laboratory, Building 913-Room 113, Building 913-Room 128, and Building 941-Room 128 from December 1, 

1967 through December 31, 1990. 

Proposed Class Definition 

All X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked at Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore in the Xray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913-Room 113, and Building 913-Room 128 from 

December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. 

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status 

NA NA NA NA 

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name 

NA NA 

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Ray Clark ORAU Review Completed By: Dan Stempfley 

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on file] 

LaVon Rutherford for Sam Glover 

3/29/2007 

Date 

SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on file] 

Jim Neton 

3/29/2007 

Date 

SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on file] 

Larry Elliott 

3/30/2007 

Date 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

This page intentionally left blank 

2 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00059, Sandia National Laboratory – Livermore 

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as 

Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. 

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition 

Petition SEC-00059, qualified on October 4, 2006, requested that NIOSH consider the following 

class: All X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked in the X-ray Diffraction and 

Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913-Room 113, Building 913-Room 128, and Building 941-Room 

128 from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition 

Based on its research, NIOSH modified the petitioner-requested class to define a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH can estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked at Sandia 

National Laboratory–Livermore in the X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913- 

Room 113, and Building 913-Room 128 from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. The 

petitioner-requested class was modified by removing Building 941-Room 128 from the proposed class 

definition (Section 9.0) because X-ray Diffraction activities in Building 941 commenced after 1992, 

which is outside of the time period covered by the petition. 

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction 

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH has established that it has access to sufficient 

information to: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose incurred by any member of the class; or (2) 

estimate radiation doses more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. Information available from 

the draft site profile and additional resources is sufficient to document or estimate the maximum 

internal and external potential exposure to members of the proposed class under plausible 

circumstances during the specified period. Information collected from the reviews of exposure 

records for the period, incident reports, periodic Health and Safety Reports, procedures, and 

interviews with former workers form the basis for this conclusion. 

Health Endangerment Determination 

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), a health endangerment determination is not required 

because NIOSH has determined that it has sufficient information to estimate dose for the members of 

the proposed class. 

3 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

This page intentionally left blank 

4 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Table of Contents 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00059, Sandia National Laboratory – Livermore ........................... 3
 

1.0 Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................................................... 7
 

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7
 

3.0 Petitioner-Requested Class/Basis & NIOSH-Proposed Class/Basis .............................................. 8
 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH................................................................................................ 9 

4.1 Site Profile ............................................................................................................................. 9 

4.2 ORAU Technical Information Bulletins (OTIBs)................................................................. 9 

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts .......................................................................................... 10 

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions ........................................................................................... 10 

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database .......................................................................................... 11 

4.6 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners ................................................. 11
 

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class ............................................................ 12 

5.1 SNL-L Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 Process Descriptions ........................................ 12 

5.2 SNL-L Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 Weapons Laboratory Facility Complex ........... 12 

5.3 Radiological Exposure Sources from SNL-L Operations in Bldg 913-Rms 113 & 128..... 13 

5.3.1 Alpha Particle Emissions......................................................................................... 13 

5.3.2 Beta Radiation Fields .............................................................................................. 13 

5.3.3 Neutron Exposures .................................................................................................. 13 

5.3.4 Photon Exposures .................................................................................................... 14 

5.3.5 Incidents .................................................................................................................. 14
 

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class ................................................. 14 

6.1 SNL-L Internal Monitoring Data......................................................................................... 14 

6.2 SNL-L External Monitoring Data ....................................................................................... 15 

6.3 SNL-L Air Sampling Data................................................................................................... 19
 

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class ......................................................... 19 

7.1 Pedigree of SNL-L Data...................................................................................................... 20 

7.1.1 Internal Data Review............................................................................................... 20 

7.1.2 External Data Review.............................................................................................. 20 

7.2 Internal Radiation Doses at SNL-L ..................................................................................... 21 

7.2.1 Process-Related Internal Doses at SNL-L ............................................................... 21 

7.2.1.1 Urinalysis Information and Available Data.............................................. 21 

7.2.1.2 Airborne Levels ........................................................................................ 22 

7.2.1.3 Application of Co-Worker Data for Internal Dose Reconstruction.......... 22 

7.2.2 Ambient Environmental Internal Radiation Doses at SNL-L ................................. 22 

7.2.3 Internal Dose Reconstruction .................................................................................. 22 

7.2.4 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................. 22 

7.3 External Radiation Doses at SNL-L .................................................................................... 23 

7.3.1 Process-Related External Radiation Doses at SNL-L ............................................. 23 

5 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

7.3.1.1 Radiation Exposure Environment............................................................. 23 

7.3.1.2 Beta and Photon Characterization ............................................................ 23 

7.3.1.3 History of Whole Body External Monitoring........................................... 24 

7.3.1.4 Dosimetry Records ................................................................................... 24 

7.3.1.5 Application of Co-Worker Data for External Dose Reconstruction ........ 24 

7.3.2 Ambient Environmental External Radiation Doses at SNL-L ................................ 25 

7.3.3 SNL-L Occupational X-Ray Examinations ............................................................. 25 

7.3.4 External Dose Reconstruction ................................................................................. 25 

7.3.4.1 Photon and Beta Dose .............................................................................. 25 

7.3.4.2 Incidents ................................................................................................... 26 

7.3.4.3 Medical X-ray........................................................................................... 26 

7.3.5 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................ 27 

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00059 ....................................................................... 27 

7.4.1 Evaluation of Major Topics Detailed in Petition SEC-00059 ................................. 27 

7.4.1.1 Two Specific Incidents: 1978 and 1979 Incidents ................................... 27 

7.4.1.2 Dosimeter Placement ................................................................................ 27 

7.4.1.3 Dosimetry Data Unavailable .................................................................... 28 

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00059.................................................. 28
 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00059...................................................... 29
 

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00059 ......................................................................... 29
 

10.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 31 

Tables 

Table 4-1: No. of SNL-L Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule ............................. 10
 

Table 6-1: Annual Dosimetry Data from 1967-1990 ............................................................................ 16
 

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00059 ............................................................... 28 

6 of 35 
 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00059 

1.0 Purpose and Scope 

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for all X-ray technologists and materials 

scientists who worked at Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore in the X-ray Diffraction and 

Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913-Room 113 and Building 913-Room 128, from December 1, 

1967 through December 31, 1990. It provides information and analyses germane to considering a 

petition for adding a class of employees to the congressionally-created SEC. 

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH. This report also does not contain the final determination as to whether the proposed class 

will be added to the SEC (see Section 2.0). 

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA, 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, 

and the guidance contained in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support’s Internal 

Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, OCAS-PR-004. 

2.0 Introduction 

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) add a class of employees to the SEC. The 

evaluation is intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses of the class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.1 

42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1) states: Radiation doses can be estimated with sufficient accuracy if NIOSH 

has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the maximum radiation dose, 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in 

plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or if NIOSH has established that it has access to 

sufficient information to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of the maximum radiation dose. 

Under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), if it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses 

for members of the class, NIOSH must also then determine whether or not there is a reasonable 

likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class. The 

regulation requires NIOSH to assume that any duration of unprotected exposure may have endangered 

the health of members of a class when it has been established that the class may have been exposed to 

radiation during a discrete incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those 

occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level 

exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is required to specify that health was endangered for 

those workers who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days within the parameters 

1

 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

7 of 35 
 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

established for the class or in combination with work days within the parameters established for other 

SEC classes (excluding aggregate work day requirements). 

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioners and to the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board). The Board will consider the NIOSH 

evaluation report, together with the petition, petitioner(s) comments, and other information the Board 

considers appropriate, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not 

to add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this decision process, petitioners may 

seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.2 

3.0 Petitioner-Requested Class/Basis & NIOSH-Proposed Class/Basis 

Petition SEC-00059, qualified on October 4, 2006, requested that NIOSH consider the following class 

for addition to the SEC: All X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked in the X-ray 

Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913-Room 113, and Building 913-Room 128, and 

Building 941-Room 128 from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. 

The petitioner provided information and affidavit statements in support of the petitioner’s belief that 

accurate dose reconstruction over time is impossible for the SNL-L workers in question. NIOSH 

deemed the following information and affidavit statements sufficient to qualify SEC-00059 for 

evaluation: 

The basis for proposing that one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored 

exposure incidents occurred can be demonstrated by citing two incidents that occurred during the 

23 years that this laboratory was operated: one in 1978 and one in 1979. Both incidents were due 

to violations of procedures and standard industry practices on the same Norelco Diffraction X-ray 

Generator. The petitioner has provided evidence of a potential unmonitored exposure with no 

personal or area monitoring data for the first exposure incident. 

Sandia did not provide any permanently mounted instrumentation for continuous recording of the 

ionizing radiation that was being emitted. In the supporting documentation, an affidavit states that 

“We checked with a Geiger detector to be sure there wasn’t any significant radiation leakage. 

Health and Safety people insisted on using a scintillation counter to check for scattered radiation.” 

The information and statements provided by the petitioner qualified the petition for further 

consideration by NIOSH, the Board, and HHS. The details of the petition basis are addressed in 

Section 7.4. 

2 See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

8 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Based on its research, NIOSH modified the petitioner-requested class to define a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH can estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked at Sandia 

National Laboratory–Livermore in the X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913-

Room 113 and Building 913-Room 128, from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. The 

petitioner-requested class was modified by removing Building 941-Room 128 from the requested 

class definition (Section 9.0) because X-ray Diffraction activities in Building 941 began after 1992, 

which is outside of the time period covered by the petition. The dose reconstruction feasibility 

evaluation contained in this report has been limited to the time period identified in the proposed class 

definition because this report concludes that dose can be estimated with sufficient accuracy for the 

proposed class. NIOSH has not expanded the feasibility evaluation to any subsequent classes or time 

period (after 1990) outside of the initially proposed class because there are no other identified class of 

workers for which a dose estimate is not considered feasible (based available source term information 

and personnel monitoring data). 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH 

NIOSH identified and reviewed numerous data sources to obtain information relevant to determining 

the feasibility of dose reconstruction for the class of employees proposed for this petition. This 

included determining the availability of information on personal monitoring, area monitoring, 

industrial processes, and radiation source materials. The following subsections summarize the data 

sources identified and reviewed by NIOSH. 

4.1 Site Profile 

A Site Profile provides specific information concerning the documentation of historical practices at 

the specified site. Dose reconstructors can use the Site Profile to evaluate internal and external 

dosimetry data for monitored and unmonitored workers, and to supplement, or substitute for, 

individual monitoring data. As part of NIOSH’s evaluation here, it examined the following Site 

Profile for insights into SNL-L operations or related topics/operations at other sites: 

•	 DRAFT Summary Site Profile for Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California, 

ORAUT-TKBS-0053, 00-B; October 20, 2006; Draft—not available in SRDB 

4.2 ORAU Technical Information Bulletins (OTIBs) 

An ORAU Technical Information Bulletin (OTIB) is a general working document that provides 

guidance for preparing dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. NIOSH reviewed 

the following OTIBs as part of its evaluation: 

•	 ORAUT-OTIB-0002, Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims, Rev. 

2; February 7, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 29947 

•	 ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally 

Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, Rev. 03, PC-1; December 21, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20220 

9 of 35 
 

 

 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

•	 ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 0, February 6, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 

29984 

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts 

To obtain additional information, NIOSH conducted telephone interviews with five former SNL-L 

employees. 

•	 Personal Communication with Former X-ray and Fluorescence Lab Employee; Telephone 

Interview by Ray Clark; January 9, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 121 

•	 Personal Communication with Former X-ray and Fluorescence Lab Employee; Telephone 

Interview by Ray Clark, Jack Beck, and Riasp Medora; January 8, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 120 

•	 Personal Communication with Former Head of Health and Safety; Telephone Interview by Ray 

Clark; January 15, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 122 

•	 Personal Communication with Former ES&H Manager/Sandia HP; Telephone Interview by Riasp 

Medora; January 22, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 124 

•	 Personal Communication with Former Tritium Research Lab Employee; Telephone Interview by 

Ray Clark and Riasp Medora; January 30, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 123 

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions 

NIOSH reviewed its NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System (NOCTS) dose reconstruction database 

to locate EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to the 

petition evaluation. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of this review for the period of December 1, 

1967 through December 31, 1990. (NOCTS data available as of January 31, 2007) 

Table 4-1: No. of SNL-L Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule 

(December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990) 

Description Totals 

Total number of claims submitted for energy employees who meet the proposed class definition 

criteria 1 

Number of dose reconstructions completed for energy employees who were employed during the 

years identified in the proposed class definition 0 

Number of claims for which internal dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

proposed class definition 1 

Number of claims for which external dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

proposed class definition 1 

NIOSH reviewed the claim to determine whether internal and/or external personal monitoring records 

could be obtained for the employee. Both internal and external employee data were available for the 

10 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

dose reconstruction. A Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) was conducted with a 

claimant to determine whether he had additional relevant information for dose reconstruction. The 

interview provided some information that might be useful for future dose reconstructions (i.e., work 

locations, work hours, and hazards/incidents encountered). 

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database 

The NIOSH Site Research Database was also reviewed to locate documents supporting the evaluation 

of the proposed class. One hundred forty-eight documents in this database were identified as 

pertaining to SNL-L. These documents were evaluated for their relevance to this petition and include 

some historical background on urinalysis data, radiological control programs, dosimetry program 

descriptions, environmental reports, monthly and quarterly Health Physics Reports, external radiation 

incident reports, Standard Operating Procedures, and individual external and internal monitoring data. 

4.6 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners 

In qualifying and evaluating the petition, NIOSH reviewed the following documents submitted by the 

petitioners (received 05/15/2006): 

•	 Submission Form B, [Name Redacted]; May 15, 2006; SECIS Ref ID: 9730 

•	 Letter Accompanying Submission Form B, explanation of what is being included with the 

submission, [Name Redacted]; May 10, 2006; SECIS Ref ID: 9729, page 1 

•	 Letter Accompanying Submission Form B, explanation of experiences working with [Name 

Redacted] in Sandia Livermore’s X-ray Laboratory, [Name Redacted]; September 2, 2005; SECIS 

Ref ID: 9729, page 13 

•	 Record of Occupational Radiation Dose Received at Sandia National Laboratories, 1989-1994, 

Sandia National Laboratories; February 27, 2006; SECIS Ref ID: 9729, page 19 

•	 Recommendation for Consideration of EEOICPA Compensation, discusses five episodes of nonHodgkin’s Lymphoma, M. Willkom of Livermore Primary Care Medical Associates, Inc.; 

December 8, 2005; SECIS Ref ID: 9729, page 21 

•	 Letter Discussing Deteriorating Health, Kurt Alexander of Alexander Chiropractic Health Center; 

March 21, 2006; SECIS Ref ID: 9729, page 23 

•	 Lymphoma Case History, [Name Redacted]; May 1, 2006; SECIS Ref ID: 9729, page 25 

•	 Laboratory of Surgical Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center; October 19, 2004; SECIS 

Ref ID: 9729, page 27 

•	 Laboratory of Surgical Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center; October 11, 1996; SECIS 

Ref ID: 9729, page 31 

11 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

•	 Laboratory of Surgical Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center; January 20, 1989; SECIS 

Ref ID: 9729, page 34 

•	 Letter Regarding the Submission of Additional Qualifying Criteria and Corrections of 

Deficiencies Pertaining to the Qualification Phase of the SEC Petition, [Name Redacted]; August 

21, 2006; SECIS Ref ID: 10076, page 2 

•	 Letters Verifying Health Conditions, letters from various doctors and health organizations; SECIS 

Ref ID: 10076 and 10092 

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class 

The following subsections summarize both radiological operations at the SNL-L from December 1, 

1967 through December 31, 1990 and the information available to NIOSH to characterize particular 

processes and radioactive source materials. From available sources NIOSH has gathered process and 

source descriptions, information regarding the identity and quantities of each radionuclide of concern, 

and information describing both processes through which radiation exposures may have occurred and 

the physical environment in which they may have occurred. The information included within this 

evaluation report is intended only to be a summary of the available information. 

5.1 SNL-L Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 Process Descriptions 

The SNL-L site was established in 1956 to provide direct support for Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory (LLNL) nuclear weapons designs. The primary mission from 1956 through 1989, 

coinciding with the Cold War, was the design and testing of non-nuclear components of LLNL 

nuclear weapons. While SNL-L engineered or “weaponized” the nuclear physics packages that were 

designed by LLNL, production of parts and final weapons was completed at other weapons-complex 

sites (ORAUT-TKBS-0053). However, this evaluation report is based only on Building 913, the class 

that is defined in this petition evaluation. 

The X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory was located in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 

during the covered period included in the class definition. 

5.2 SNL-L Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 Weapons Laboratory Facility 

Complex 

SNL-L operations included the Weapons Laboratory Facility Complex, which included Building 913. 

Tasks performed in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 included sample preparation, X-ray diffraction 

and X-ray fluorescence sample analyses, X-ray diffractometer and powder camera calibrations, design 

and installation of X-ray shielding devices, and maintenance of the X-ray generators and X-ray 

fluorescence units. Radioactive sources in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 included depleted 

uranium, small sealed sources, and X-rays from the diffraction and fluorescence units (ORAUTTKBS-0053, Table 6-4, and Attachment A). 

12 of 35 
 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Additional information regarding the functional areas of the SNL-L can be found in the Draft 

Summary Site Profile for Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California (ORAUT-TKBS0053). 

5.3 Radiological Exposure Sources from SNL-L Operations in Building 913-

Rooms 113 and 128 

Activities in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 included testing and analysis (using X-ray diffraction 

and fluorescence equipment) of materials, sealed sources, and metals that included depleted uranium. 

Radiation sources for Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 were limited to alpha-beta-gamma exposures 

(from uranium samples present in these rooms for the purpose of X-ray diffraction and fluorescence 

analysis) and X-ray exposures (from operation of the X-ray diffraction and fluorescence equipment). 

The radiation sources included radiation-producing X-ray machines with energies up to 420,000 volts 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0053).3 

5.3.1 Alpha Particle Emissions 

Alpha particle emissions present the greatest potential for exposure through internal deposition via 

inhalation and ingestion (alpha particles do not present an external exposure hazard). The principal 

alpha-emitting radioactive material associated with potential exposures for the class of workers that 

worked at SNL-L in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 was uranium, most likely from the 

handling/analysis of uranium materials and samples in these locations (IT Corporation, 2001). 

A review of the internal data associated with the individual claim identified in Table 4.1 (Section 4.4) 

and descriptions of work performed by the class evaluated in this report support the conclusion that 

alpha emissions were not a significant internal exposure issue in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128. 

Information from a former worker interview indicates the worker class did not process or directly 

prepare uranium samples for analysis. In addition, the former worker indicated that workers only 

received and analyzed pre-prepared samples, that no grinding or machining of uranium occurred, and 

that all uranium samples were sealed. Finally, the former worker explained that all radioactive 

machining work was performed using glove boxes elsewhere at SNL-L (Boehme, 2007). 

5.3.2 Beta Radiation Fields 

There was a potential for beta radiation exposure from uranium-238 decay products in Building 913-

Rooms 113 and 128. The sources of the beta radiation were associated with small sealed sources that 

were used and/or analyzed (Boehme, 2007). 

5.3.3 Neutron Exposures 

There were no sources of neutron exposure in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 (ORAUT-TKBS0053, Section 2.3.3). 

3

 The summary provided in the Draft Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore Site Profile was based on the following 

primary source document: DOE, 1992. 

13 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

5.3.4 Photon Exposures 

The majority of photons from uranium metals are in the 30 to 250 keV energy range. Solid uranium 

objects (e.g., a billet or rod) provide considerable self-shielding of the lower-energy photons resulting 

in an increase (i.e., “hardening” of the spectrum) in the average energy. In addition, the Norelco Xray Generator was typically operated at settings of 40 keV and 20 milliamps. 

5.3.5 Incidents 

Two incidents (one in 1978 and another in 1979) have been evaluated in this report. The first incident 

occurred shortly before February 1978, the exact date is unknown (Petition Form B, 2006). The 

second incident occurred on December 7, 1979. Both incidents were due to violations of procedure 

and standard industry practices on the same Norelco Diffraction X-ray Generator. The failures 

occurred on the Norelco X-ray generator while it was operating in Building 913-Room 113. The first 

incident occurred while calibrating a refractometer. The operator received an accidental elevated 

exposure of ionizing radiation when the X-ray beam safety interlock shutoff failed. In the second 

incident the shutter was removed, which allowed the full intensity beam, without any shielding or 

collimation, to reach the operator. A NIOSH investigation into the first incident resulted only in 

anecdotal evidence, but NIOSH has verified that exposure information is available in a report for the 

second incident (Lovell, 1980). 

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class 

SNL-L had a dosimetry program in place from the start of operations in 1956 (Hanzel, 1960). This 

section provides a summary of available monitoring data for the proposed class for the time period 

from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. 

SNL-L maintained all monitoring data for its employees prior to 1989. Starting in 1989, all SNL-L 

monitoring records were sent to Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque (SNL-A) for incorporation 

into the SNL-A dosimetry database (Hallman, 1989). Because all SNL-L data requests (for individual 

dose reconstructions) are directed through the Albuquerque office, NIOSH generally only received 

post-1988 data when requesting individual claimant data from the DOE. NIOSH is currently 

coordinating with SNL-L and SNL-A to gain access and capture the remaining, uncollected SNL-L 

dosimetry records, which primarily include individual dosimetry analysis data. 

The individual data, including pre-1989 external data and bioassay data, evaluated for this proposed 

class were collected by NIOSH as part of the data capture conducted at SNL-L to develop the Sandia 

National Laboratory-Livermore Site Profile. 

6.1 SNL-L Internal Monitoring Data 

The diffraction and fluorescence operations would not be expected to routinely generate any intakes 

(Boehme, 2007). The potential for internal exposure at SNL-L in Building 913 resulted from work 

with uranium. Uranium exposures, most likely from depleted uranium, since only depleted uranium 

was present in the Weapons Laboratory Facility Complex (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Table 2-1), may 

have resulted from handling uranium components and samples that were handled during routine X-ray 

14 of 35 
 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Diffraction and Fluorescence operations in Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128.4 Although the 

exposure potential was very low, it is likely that uranium bioassay were performed because of the 

presence of uranium in the lab and the radiological program monitoring requirements. However, all 

internal uranium bioassay results for this class were zero, or non-detects. 

A review of the available uranium bioassay data shows uranium data monitoring for the three 

members that comprise the class, from 1975 to 1984. Total uranium analysis was performed by 

fluorimetry with a detection limit between 1 ug/l to 12 ug/l (ORAUT-TKBS-0053; Uranium Bioassay 

Results, 1965-1990). 

A review of the records for this facility does not provide any indication of any in vivo monitoring, 

such as lung counting, being performed. 

Details regarding the various analyses used and the associated minimum detectable activities are 

presented in the Summary Site Profile for Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0053). 

6.2 SNL-L External Monitoring Data 

The dosimetry data from SNL-L consist of values for non-penetrating and penetrating dose, with the 

penetrating portion attributed to photon exposures and the non-penetrating portion attributed to beta 

and X-ray exposures. The film badge and TLD systems employed at SNL-L resulted in varying 

detection capabilities for the period and worker class evaluated in this report. 

Film badges consisted of four windows: one open and the other three filtered with various densities of 

lead, cadmium, and aluminum. A review of the dosimetry history at SNL-L (Wright, 1993) indicates 

that the change from film badges to TLDs occurred in about 1966. However, other documents 

indicate that the Radiation Detection Company (RDC) was still processing badges for SNL-L as late 

as 1970 (DeSelm, 1965; ORAUT-TKBS-0053).5

 It is presumed that badges processed by RDC after 

1966 still consisted of film-type dosimeters, and it is possible that the switch to TLDs coincided with 

a switch of dosimetry service providers from RDC to RESL in Idaho Falls, Idaho (Wright, 1993). For 

the purposes of the SNL-L Site Profile Document and this evaluation, it is reasonable to assume that 

film dosimeters were used at SNL-L until about 1971. The film badges were capable of discerning 

between penetrating (photon) and non-penetrating (X-ray, beta) exposures (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, 

Section 6.4.2). 

As reported in Wright (1993), until 1982, SNL-L’s TLD technology consisted of a 2-chip badge with 

only one filter type and could not discriminate between different radiation types or energies (the TLDs 

consisted of two TLD-100 chips in a plastic holder). However, the actual dosimetry records for this 

period report doses in penetrating and non-penetrating dose categories, including beta, photon, and 

neutron radiations. A 1983 dosimetry program memo suggests that non-penetrating dose may have 

also been assigned as penetrating dose, but the document does not provide any indication of how 

4

 Medora, Riasp, HP. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU). February 2007. 

5

 The summary provided in the Draft Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore Site Profile was based on the following 

primary source documents: SNL-L, 1958-1961; SNL-L, 1961-1962; Campbell, 1962; Rhodes, 1964; Lovell, 1966; and 

RDC, 1969. 

15 of 35 
 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

different radiations were assessed (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 6.4.2.1). In 1982, SNL-L switched 

to a two-element TLD from Eberline that apparently could better discriminate between different 

radiation types and provide directly measurable indicators of these various dose quantities. In 1984 

SNL-L switched to a three-element badge which did a better job of discriminating between the 

different radiation types and energies. SNL-L continued using the Eberline dosimeter until about 

1989 when the site switched to the multi-element Harshaw TLD (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 

6.4.2.1). 

Badges were exchanged on a monthly basis until mid-to-late 1964 when a quarterly badge exchange 

policy was instituted for the beta gamma dosimeter; the neutron dosimeter was still exchanged on a 

monthly frequency (Campbell, 1964). Around 1971, when the switch from film to thermoluminescent 

dosimeters (TLDs) took place, the beta gamma dosimeter exchange frequency changed to semiannually. In 1989, when the SNL-A beta gamma dosimeter was used at Livermore, the exchange 

frequency changed back to quarterly (Hallman, 1989). 

From information in a memo dated October 6, 1965 and information available in annual dose 

summary reports, it can be concluded that until 1970, all personnel at SNL-L were badged (DeSelm, 

1965; AEC, Various dates). After 1970, only employees working with or around radiation-generating 

devices or those that had the potential to exceed a pre-specified threshold were badged (ORAUTTKBS-0053, Section 6.4.1.1). 

Table 6-1, which provides annual dosimetry data for the years 1967 through 1990, was created using 

data from the Annual Summary reports. The format of these reports changed over time; hence, the 

available data changed over time. All numbers were derived from the data in the Annual Summary 

reports. 

Table 6-1: Annual Dosimetry Data from 1967-1990 

Year 

Total Number 

of Employees 

Monitored 

Dose Range 

(Rem) 

Number in 

Range 

Number Not 

Monitored 

Number with a 

Dose of Zero 

1967 1288 

0-1 1286 

0 Unknown 

1-2 2 

1968 1253 

0-1 1252 

0 Unknown 

1-2 1 

1969 1249 0-1 1249 0 Unknown 

1970 857 0-1 857 167 Unknown 

1971 923 0-1 923 147 Unknown 

1972 927 0-1 927 150 Unknown 

1973 795 0-1 795 125 Unknown 

16 of 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Table 6-1: Annual Dosimetry Data from 1967-1990 

Year 

Total Number 

of Employees 

Monitored 

Dose Range 

(Rem) 

Number in 

Range 

Number Not 

Monitored 

Number with a 

Dose of Zero 

1974 1,098 

< 0.100 104 

 Unknown 976 

0.100 – 0.249 13 

0.250 – 0.490 2 

0.500 – 0.749 2 

1975 802 

< 0.100 150 

 Unknown 638 

0.100 – 0.249 9 

0.250 – 0.499 4 

0.500 – 0.749 0 

0.750 – 0.999 1 

1976 856 

< 0.100 147 

Unknown 695 

0.100 – 0.249 10 

0.250 – 0.499 3 

0.500 – 0.749 1 

1977 935 < 0.100 202 Unknown 726 

0.1100- 0.249 7

1978 973 

< 0.100 116 

0.100 – 0.249 2 Unknown 853 

0.250 – 0.499 2 

1979 896 

< 0.100 98 

Unknown 796 0.100 - 0.249 2 

1980 888 

< 0.100 260 

0.100 – 0.249 3 Unknown 624 

0.250 – 0. 499 1 

1981 1093 

< 0.100 36 

0.100 – 0.249 3 Unknown 1053 

0.250 – 0.499 1 

1982 946 

< 0.100 91 

Unknown 851 

0.100 – 0.249 3 

0.250 – 0.499 0 

0.500 – 0.749 1 

1983 976 

< 0.100 58 

Unknown 914 

0.100 – 0.249 3 

0.250 – 0.499 0 

0.500 – 0.749 1 

1984 546 

< 0.100 37 

Unknown 507 

0.100 – 0.249 2 

17 of 35 
 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Table 6-1: Annual Dosimetry Data from 1967-1990 

Year 

Total Number 

of Employees 

Monitored 

Dose Range 

(Rem) 

Number in 

Range 

Number Not 

Monitored 

Number with a 

Dose of Zero 

1985 506 < 0.100 28 Unknown 476 0.100 – 0.249 2 

1986 2,606 

< 0.100 278 

Unknown 2,267 

0.100 – 0.250 31 

0.250 – 0.500 14 

0.500 – 0.750 5 

0.750 - 1 4 

1 - 2 5 

2 - 3 2 

1987 557 Unknown Unknown Unknown 557 

1988 2,787 

< 0.100 397 

Unknown 2,289 

0.100 – 0.250 62 

0.250 – 0.500 20 

0.500 – 0.750 9 

0.750 - 1 4 

1 - 2 5 

2 - 3 1 

1989 3,164 

< 0.100 527 

Unknown 2,589 

0.100 – 0.250 26 

0.250 – 0.500 12 

0.500 – 0.750 5 

0.750 - 1 1 

1 - 2 4 

1990 3,128 

< 0.100 416 

Unknown 2,676 

0.100 – 0.250 18 

0.250 – 0.500 11 

0.500 - 0750 1 

0.750 – 1 3 

1 - 2 3 

Notes: 

SNL-L data for 1986 through 1990 were not available separately from SNL-A data. The totals 

include data for both SNL-A and SNL-L. 

Data used in this table were compiled from Annual Radiation Exposure Reports (AEC, Various
 

dates; Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1982). 

SNL-L used external dosimetry that was provided by various organizations; since there were a number 

of dosimetry suppliers, the external dosimetry data are reported in various different formats. The 

listing of the different dosimeters used and associated information can be found in Table 6-1 of the 

Summary Site Profile for the Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California (ORAUT-TKBS0053). 

18 of 35 
 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

For the time period from 1967 through 1972, a report titled Dosimetry Positive Exposure Listing 

shows only positive exposures (SNL, Various dates). None of the class members employed at that 

time is listed in this report. In another report, titled SNL Livermore External Dosimetry Records-Prior 

to 1973, also covering the time period prior to 1973, there is a note stating, After July 1, 1965 only 

positive exposures were posted to the Exposure Records Cards per P K Lowell. This report has 

dosimetry data for one class member covered by this evaluation report (Author unknown, Various 

dates). Based on this review, it appears that only one class member had a positive dose prior to 1973.6 

The time period from 1973 through 1987 includes data for the entire class for each monitored period 

(SNLL, 1987a; SNLL, 1987b). The external dosimetry data for 1988 are in a separate report titled 

Dosimetry 1988 and data for the entire class are listed in this report (Author unknown, 1988). As part 

of the NIOSH dosimetry data request for Sandia Livermore personnel, SNL-A provided post-1988 

data. The pre-1988 data were collected by the Site Profile authors during a data capture visit to 

Sandia Livermore. 

Details regarding the various dosimeter types and the associated minimum detectable dose are 

presented in the Summary Site Profile for the Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0053). 

6.3 SNL-L Air Sampling Data 

To date, NIOSH has not located any airborne monitoring data for uranium for Building 913-Rooms 

113 and 128 of SNL-L. SNL-L Bioassay Program requirements stated that in order to determine the 

need for bioassay sampling, air sampling had to be performed in areas where uranium machining 

occurred (Wright, 1979a). Because only sample analysis occurred in Rooms 113 and 128 (not sample 

preparation or material machining) it can be concluded that air samples were collected in Building 

913, but not necessarily in Room 113 or Room 128. NIOSH does not expect that such monitoring 

would have been performed in these rooms. Because bioassay monitoring data is available for the 

proposed class members (the preferred data for reconstructing internal dose), further research for 

available air sampling data has not been performed as part of this evaluation. 

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class 

The feasibility determination for the proposed class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). Under that Act and rule, NIOSH must 

establish whether or not it has access to sufficient information either to, estimate the maximum 

radiation dose for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have 

been incurred under plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or to estimate the radiation 

doses to members of the class more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. If NIOSH has access to 

sufficient information for either case, NIOSH would then determine that it was feasible to conduct 

dose reconstructions. 

6

 Medora, Riasp, HP. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU). February 2007. 

19 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

In determining feasibility, NIOSH begins by evaluating whether current or completed NIOSH dose 

reconstructions demonstrate the feasibility of estimating with sufficient accuracy the potential 

radiation exposures of the class (discussed in Section 9.0 of this report). If these dose reconstructions 

are not determinative, NIOSH systematically evaluates the sufficiency of different types of monitoring 

data, process and source or source term data, which together or individually might assure that NIOSH 

can estimate either the maximum doses that members of the class might have incurred, or more 

precise quantities that reflect the variability of exposures experienced by groups or individual 

members of the class as summarized in Section 7.6. This approach is discussed in OCAS’s SEC 

Petition Evaluation Internal Procedures which are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. The 

next four major subsections of this Evaluation Report examine: 

• the sufficiency and reliability of the available data. (Section 7.1) 

• the feasibility of reconstructing internal radiation doses. (Section 7.2) 

• the feasibility of reconstructing external radiation doses. (Section 7.3) 

• the bases for petition SEC-00059 as submitted by the petitioner. (Section 7.4) 

7.1 Pedigree of SNL-L Data 

Examination of the internal and external monitoring data available for SNL-L employees indicates 

that data are of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfactorily represent the range of exposures 

associated with this class. As discussed in detail in the SNL-L Site Profile, the monitoring approaches 

and analytical techniques used to assess worker exposures were commensurate with the state-of -theart methods used at other DOE/AEC facilities at that time. 

7.1.1 Internal Data Review 

Reliability of the internal monitoring data for the class defined in this report was checked by 

reviewing the bioassay analysis results for the various bioassay samples collected. Since the data 

being reviewed are the direct results of the individual analysis and not results obtained from a 

database, a comparison between the data and a database is not needed. From 1974 through 1985, all 

uranium bioassay results for the three members of the class evaluated in this report are zero or nondetect values, which is commensurate with the type of work that these individuals performed and the 

materials they handled. The available uranium bioassay data covers the time period from 1965 

through 1990. 

7.1.2 External Data Review 

Information obtained during data captures was used to supplement the data obtained from the 

Department of Energy. The only data available for external monitoring is tabulated data (data tables 

that were created electronically or manually). During the early years (pre-1977), only positive 

external exposures were recorded. NIOSH is still attempting to locate the individual dosimeter data, if 

it exists. Data from 1977 through 1988 is available as a tabulation of the individual dosimeter data. 

Beginning in 1989, SNL-A provided external dosimetry to SNL-L, thus, post-1989 data is available. 

20 of 35 
 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

7.2 Internal Radiation Doses at SNL-L 

The primary source of internal radiation dose for members of the proposed class was from uranium 

exposures (most likely from depleted uranium) that may have resulted from handling uranium 

components and samples in the X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratories (Buildings 913-

Room 113 and 128) (ORAUT-TKBS-0053). According to the petition’s supporting documentation 

(Petition Form B, 2006) provided by a member of the proposed class, employees may have been 

exposed to radioactive materials while preparing samples for analysis. By contrast, an interview with 

another member of the proposed class conflicts with the first and indicates that radioactive samples 

were not prepared in the lab (Boehme, 2007). The fact that the three members of the proposed class 

were internally monitored for uranium (see 7.2.1, below) indicates that they were likely involved with 

activities deemed by management to involve the potential for internal exposures (Wright, 1979a). In 

any case, it can be concluded that the potential for internal dose for the proposed class was very low 

for the following reasons: 

•	 The Contamination Assessment and Building Decontamination Report which details the initial 

characterization efforts for Building 913 classifies Rooms 113, 113A, and 113B as “unaffected.” 

This classification means either: 1) there is no history of radioactive materials being used or stored 

in the area, or 2) sufficient information exists to form the basis for an assumption that the 

radiological conditions are benign (IT Corporation, 2001). 

•	 The “unaffected” classification was supported by radiological measurements collected in 

connection with the final status surveys for this area (IT Corporation, 2001). 

•	 The lack of positive urinalysis data for the members of this proposed class (see Section 7.2.1, 

below) suggests that internal exposures to radioactive materials were not occurring at measurable 

levels (Uranium Bioassay Results, 1965-1990).7 

7.2.1 Process-Related Internal Doses at SNL-L 

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related internal doses of members of the proposed class. 

7.2.1.1 Urinalysis Information and Available Data 

The primary radionuclide of concern for Building 913 was uranium, most likely depleted uranium 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 5.2). Uranium urinalysis records are available for SNL-L employees 

for the period 1967 to 1990 (Uranium Bioassay Results, 1965-1990). These records indicate that all 

members of the proposed class were monitored for internal uranium exposures during the time period 

relevant to the petition (December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990). As previously discussed, it 

is expected that this monitoring was performed because of the potential for uranium exposures (most 

likely from depleted uranium) that may have resulted from handling uranium components and samples 

in the laboratories included in the proposed class definition (Wright, 1979b). Missed dose (associated 

7

 Mantooth, Dan, CHP. Dade Moeller & Associates. February 2007. This conclusion was based on the non-detect values 

provided in Uranium Bioassay Results, 1965-1990. 

21 of 35 
 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

with zero or less than detectable results) can be estimated using the Minimum Detectable Activity 

(MDA) information provided in the SNL-L Site Profile (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Table 5-8). 

7.2.1.2 Airborne Levels 

No measured concentration or action level data were available for Building 913-Rooms 113 and 128 

of the Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore. Only three people worked in the X-ray and Diffraction 

Laboratory during the period identified in the petition (Nichols, 2007) and since the three members of 

the proposed class were involved in the urinalysis program, airborne exposures to uranium would 

have been detected and reported accordingly. Missed exposure can be estimated using the urinalysis 

MDA information presented in the SNL-L Site Profile (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Table 5-8). Thus, 

further evaluation of internal exposures based on air sampling is not necessary. 

7.2.1.3 Application of Co-Worker Data for Internal Dose Reconstruction 

Co-worker data are not needed for the class of employees evaluated in this report since the internal 

doses of the class were monitored and missed doses (doses below the minimum level of detection) can 

be estimated. 

7.2.2 Ambient Environmental Internal Radiation Doses at SNL-L 

Further evaluation regarding the ambient internal radiation dose is not necessary because internal 

ambient dose is accounted for in the monitored internal exposures. For those employees that were not 

monitored, methods provided in the SNL-L Site Profile can be used to bound the internal exposures. 

7.2.3 Internal Dose Reconstruction 

Operations conducted in SNL-L Building 913-Room 113 included analyses of simulated weapon’s 

parts and materials using X-ray diffraction, X-ray crystallography, and X-ray fluoroscopy (Petition 

Form B, 2006; IT Corporation, 2001). The normal complement of employees during the period 

specified consisted of two individuals: an engineer and a technician (Petition Form B, 2006). The 

primary ROC for this location was uranium exposures that could have occurred during normal 

handling of the samples to be examined. No incidents resulting in the release of airborne radioactivity 

have resulted from the operations at these laboratory locations within this facility (ORAUT-TKBS0053, Section 2.4.1). 

During the period applicable to the petition, the personnel involved in the operations conducted in 

SNL-L Building 913-Room 113 were monitored for uranium exposure by urinalysis (Uranium 

Bioassay Results, 1965-1990). The SNL-L Site Profile (ORAUT-TKBS-0053) provides a sound 

technical basis for estimating missed dose and the dose from ambient environmental radionuclides, if 

applicable. 

7.2.4 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion 

Based on the data/information sources discussed above, NIOSH concludes that the occupational 

internal dose can be estimated with sufficient accuracy for all members of the proposed class.8 

8

 Mantooth, Dan, CHP. Dade Moeller & Associates. February 2007. 

22 of 35 
 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

7.3 External Radiation Doses at SNL-L 

The principal sources of external radiation doses for members of the proposed class included 

exposures to low energy X-rays, beta particles, and gamma rays. The radiation sources contributing to 

these exposures were (Petition Form B, 2006; ORAUT-TKBS-0053): 

•	 Operations involving the use of X-ray generating devices, i.e., X-ray diffraction, X-ray 

fluoroscopy, etc. 

•	 Exposures to beta and gamma radiation. 

•	 Periodic X-ray examinations. 

7.3.1 Process-Related External Radiation Doses at SNL-L 

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related external doses of members of the proposed class. 

7.3.1.1 Radiation Exposure Environment 

Operations conducted in SNL-L Building 913-Room 113 included analyzing simulated weapons 

components and materials and using X-ray diffraction, X-ray crystallography, and X-ray fluoroscopy 

(Petition Form B, 2006; IT Corporation, 2001). Typically, two employees at a time would be 

involved in these operations during the period specified: an engineer and a technician (Petition Form 

B, 2006). 

Radiation from the examination of parts and components using the X-ray diffraction and fluoroscopy 

machines would have been a potential source of radiation exposure. In addition, there were two 

reported incidents (one in 1978 and one in 1979) in which different technicians were exposed to the 

primary X-ray beam due to improper operation of the units and/or failure of the shutter interlock 

mechanism. The main difference between the 1979 and 1978 incident was the failure of a safety 

interlock versus the removal of a piece of the equipment (a shutter). The 1979 incident resulted in 

more dose than the 1978 incident because the removal of the shutter disabled a safety function and 

shielding. The removal of the safety equipment and shielding resulted in the potential for a more 

significant radiation exposure than the 1978 incident that involved a safety interlock failure. A dose 

reconstruction was performed for the X-ray technician involved in the 1979 incident (Lovell, 1980) 

and data from the reconstructed 1979 incident can be used to bound the exposures resulting from the 

1978 incident (Lovell, 1980). 

Some of the components/materials being examined may have been comprised of uranium (most likely 

depleted uranium) which would have been a source of both beta and gamma exposure (ORAUTTKBS-0053; IT Corporation, 2001). 

7.3.1.2 Beta and Photon Characterization 

Radiation from beta and gamma sources would have resulted in energies characteristic of uranium 

(most likely depleted uranium) and its decay products. For the purposes of evaluating beta radiation 

23 of 35 
 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

exposures, maximum beta energies are assumed to be associated with uranium-238 and its decay 

products (assigned with an energy >15 keV for the purpose of individual dose reconstructions) 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 6.5.3). 

The X-ray generating devices used for operations in Room 113 typically operated at 40 keV and 20 

mA and employed copper, iron, tungsten, and cobalt targets (Petition Form B, 2006). Some 

operations (i.e., beam alignment) may have used lower voltages and currents (Lovell, 1980). For the 

purpose of evaluating photon exposures and reconstructing dose for the class evaluated in the report, a 

distribution of photon energies (to account for exposures to radioactive materials and to the photons 

associated with the operation of the X-ray diffraction and fluorescence equipment) would be applied 

in the <30 keV, 30-250 keV, and >250 keV ranges (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 6.5.3). 

7.3.1.3 History of Whole Body External Monitoring 

Although some film dosimetry may still have been in use in 1971(Nichols, 2005),after about 1968, 

whole-body external monitoring dosimeters worn by SNL-L personnel consisted of two-element 

DuPont Type 554 beta/photon film that included a special nuclear track emulsion, type-A film. From 

1968 to the present, most dosimeters consisted of multichip TLDs. During the covered period 

applicable to this petition, whole-body external monitoring was performed primarily with a 2-chip 

TLD that provided a nearly tissue-equivalent deep dose response, but did not permit adequate deep 

and shallow radiation discrimination (Wright, 1993). 

7.3.1.4 Dosimetry Records 

External dosimetry records are available for the covered period applicable to this petition. The data 

are arranged by employee social security number and provide penetrating and non-penetrating 

radiation dose information from which gamma, beta, and neutron doses are inferred. 

A dose reconstruction was performed for an X-ray technician who was involved in an incident 

involving the removal of a shutter in an X-ray Diffractometer (Lovell, 1980); these data can be used to 

estimate the dose for the petitioner from a previous and similar incident involving the same equipment 

(Nichols, 2007). The main difference between the 1978 and 1979 incident involves the failure of a 

safety interlock (in 1978) versus the removal of a piece of the equipment (a shutter), which allowed a 

full intensity beam without shielding. The 1979 exposure was much more severe (considering that 

actual instrument safety equipment and shielding were removed) with the potential for more 

significant radiation exposures as compared to the 1978 exposure (Lovell, 1980; Nichols, 2005). 

7.3.1.5 Application of Co-Worker Data for External Dose Reconstruction 

A co-worker study has not been completed for employees at SNL-L and would not be applicable to 

the members of the proposed cohort since their external doses were monitored and/or can be estimated 

on the basis of their individual records and other information discussed in this evaluation.9 

9

 Mantooth, Dan, CHP. Dade Moeller & Associates. February 2007. 

24 of 35 
 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

7.3.2 Ambient Environmental External Radiation Doses at SNL-L 

An evaluation of the ambient external radiation dose is not necessary because this dose is accounted 

for in the process-related external dose evaluation. For those employees that were not monitored, 

methods provided in the SNL-L Site Profile can be used to assess the external exposure (ORAUTTKBS-0053).10 

7.3.3 SNL-L Occupational X-Ray Examinations 

A review of claimant files shows that from 1965 through the 1980s, a single posterior-anterior (PA) 

chest exam was performed at hire, annually, and possibly upon termination. The files also show that 

anterior posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) lumbar spine X-rays were also performed at hire as late as 

1971. As specified in ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 3.1 assumes that medical X-rays were performed 

until 1989. 

7.3.4 External Dose Reconstruction 

As of February 1, 2007, one EEOICPA claim from the SNL-L workers had been submitted to NIOSH; 

dose reconstruction has not been completed for this claim. This claim covers the entire range of 

operations at the SNL-L and includes external monitoring data. 

There is an established protocol for assessing external exposure when performing dose reconstructions 

(these protocol steps are discussed in the following subsections): 

• Photon and Beta Dose 

• Unmonitored Individuals Working in Production Areas 

• Medical X-ray 

7.3.4.1 Photon and Beta Dose 

Routine photon exposures would have resulted from using the X-ray Diffraction and Fluoroscopy 

machines to analyze parts, components, and samples. 

As previously mentioned, the dosimetry data consist of values for non-penetrating and penetrating 

dose, with the non-penetrating portion assumed to result from beta and X-ray exposures. The film 

badge and TLD systems employed at SNL-L resulted in varying detection capabilities for the time 

period evaluated in this report. 

Because the film badges used at SNL-L were capable of discerning between penetrating (photon) and 

non-penetrating (X-ray, beta) exposures, the data provided for that time period are sufficient for the 

purpose of reconstructing the pre-1968 external dose for the class of workers evaluated in this report.11 

10 The summary provided in the Draft Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore Site Profile was based on the following 

primary source documents: ORAUT-TKBS-0006-06 and ORAUT-TKBS-0048. 

11 Stempfley, Dan, Sr. Health Physicist. Dade Moeller & Associates. February 2007. 

25 of 35 
 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

The two-element dosimeter used from 1966 through 1982 consisted of two TLD-100 chips in a plastic 

holder with some level of filtration; this did not permit adequate shallow and deep dose 

discrimination. The TLDs were processed by RESL Idaho (Wright, 1993; ORAUT-TKBS-0053).12 

The TLD-100, without any significant filtration, over responds slightly below 30 keV. The TLD 

holder provided some filtration such that the TLD response would be nearly linear down to the 

energies encountered in the X-ray diffraction and fluoroscopy lab (ICRU, 1992). For the purpose of 

establishing a bounding dose scenario for reconstructing dose for the worker class evaluated in this 

report, NIOSH could assign the entire recorded amount as penetrating dose (ORAUT-TKBS-0053) 

and also assign it as non-penetrating, which would result in claimant-favorable dose estimations. 

After SNL-L began to use the 2- and 3-element Eberline TLD, it was possible to discern between 

penetrating (photon) and non-penetrating (X-ray, beta) exposures. Therefore, the data provided for 

that time period are sufficient for the purpose of reconstructing the post-1982 external dose for the 

class of workers evaluated in this report.13

 7.3.4.2 Incidents 

There were two incidents (one in 1978 and another in 1979) involving a mechanical failure of a safety 

interlock and the bypassing of a shutter in an X-ray Diffractometer. A dose reconstruction and report 

is available for the 1979 incident (Lovell, 1980). In the 1978 incident, the safety interlocks failed 

while calibrating a refractometer. As a result, the operator received an accidental elevated exposure of 

ionizing radiation to his extremities (i.e., fingers on the right hand and right arm, and to a lesser extent 

his upper body and trunk) (Petition Form B, 2006; Wright, 2007). In the 1978 incident, the beam was 

confined by a collimator. In the 1979 incident, the shutter was removed, which allowed a full 

intensity beam without any shielding or collimation to reach the operator. A reenactment of the 1979 

incident showed that at the closest exposure point, the beam size was 13 centimeters in diameter and 

the exposure time ranged from 15 to 20 seconds. Since both incidents occurred with the same 

equipment, operating under similar conditions, NIOSH has determined that the dose estimate for the 

1979 incident can be used as a bounding external exposure scenario (because of the lack of shielding 

in that case and the 1979 incident having a much higher exposure potential) to permit estimating dose 

for the 1978 event.14 

7.3.4.3 Medical X-ray 

The typical X-rays taken during the annual physical included a single PA chest exam; this procedure 

was in place until some time in the 1980s (ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Section 3.1). For the purpose of this 

document, it is assumed that this practice continued until 1989. 

12 The summary provided in the Draft Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore Site Profile was based on the following
 

primary source documents: Wallace, 1988 and Ormond, 1986. 

13 Mantooth, Dan, CHP. Dade Moeller & Associates. February 2007.
 

14 Medora, Riasp, HP. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU). February 2007. 

26 of 35 
 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

7.3.5 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion 

Based on reviews and analysis of the available data and the SNL-L Site Profile, NIOSH concluded 

that the SNL-L external monitoring data are sufficient to estimate the maximum external radiation 

dose for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have been 

incurred by any member of the class. Therefore, external radiation dose can be estimated with 

sufficient accuracy for the class evaluated in this report. 

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00059 

The following subsections evaluate the assertions made on behalf of petition SEC-00059 for SNL-L. 

7.4.1 Evaluation of Major Topics Detailed in Petition SEC-00059 

The following major topics were detailed in petition SEC-00059. Italicized statements are from the 

petition; the comments that follow are from NIOSH. 

7.4.1.1 Two Specific Incidents: 1978 and 1979 Incidents 

SEC-00059: The basis for proposing that one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately 

monitored exposure incidents occurred can be exemplified by citing two incidents that occurred 

during the 23 years that this laboratory was operated. 

The petitioner referred to two incidents: one in 1978 and one in 1979. Both incidents occurred on the 

same Norelco Diffraction X-ray Generator and were due to equipment failure or work being 

performed in violation of procedures and not in accordance with standard industry practices. The 

petitioner has provided evidence of a potential unmonitored exposure with no personal or area 

monitoring data for the first exposure incident. 

Information contained in the incident report for the second incident (Lovell, 1980) and information 

obtained from interviews with former employees (Nichols, 2007) indicates that the second incident 

was more severe, of longer duration, and resulted in a larger exposure than the first incident. NIOSH 

has determined that the data contained in the 1979 incident report can be used to establish a bounding 

external exposure scenario (because of the lack of shielding in that case) that will permit estimating 

external dose for the 1978 event. 

7.4.1.2 Dosimeter Placement 

SEC-00059: These exposures are based on unmonitored, unrecorded, and inadequately monitored 

exposures. For security purposes, employees were required to wear their dosimeters behind their 

security badge which effectively blocked a significant amount of the radiation that was being emitted 

about the room and was exposing those working in the vicinity. 

Based on a review of the Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore program documentation available in 

the SRDB, NIOSH has determined that the dosimeter was part of the security badge and may have 

detected exposure in the same manner as a stand-alone dosimeter. During the early years of operation, 

the dosimeter may have been worn behind the ID picture badge (Nichols, 2005). However, because 

27 of 35 
 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

dosimetry data and program information are available, it is possible to determine the appropriate 

correction factors that will ensure claimant favorability in dose reconstruction (applicable to the 

exposure scenarios that existed at Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore for the proposed time period 

in this submission). 

7.4.1.3 Dosimetry Data Unavailable 

SEC-00059: The dosimetry data and related information for the above mentioned ionizing radiation 

exposures are unavailable for estimating my radiation dose. 

In the submission, individual exposure records were included as an example of “missing exposure 

records.” The individual was employed from October 1971 through November 1997, but only had 

exposure records for the years 1989 through 1994. However, a NIOSH investigation revealed that 

exposure data for the years prior to 1989 were included under the listing of “Legacy” and may be 

available on microfiche records. 

NIOSH has located the personnel monitoring data for the years prior to 1989 and collected the data 

applicable to the evaluation of the proposed class in this report; these include data for the time period 

when the incident with the X-ray diffraction unit occurred. With the availability of this data, NIOSH 

asserts that it has access to a complete set of bioassay and external dosimetry data for the members of 

the proposed class evaluated in this report. Based on the review and evaluation of the available data, 

NIOSH has determined that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the internal and external 

dose for members of the proposed class, for the time period through 1990, with sufficient accuracy (as 

discussed in this report). At this time, NIOSH has not identified any period at SNL-L with 

insufficient personnel monitoring data that would prevent estimating doses with sufficient accuracy. 

Therefore, NIOSH has restricted the evaluation to the proposed class defined in the SEC petition, 

SEC00059. 

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00059 

This report evaluates the feasibility for completing dose reconstructions for employees at SNL-L from 

December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. NIOSH found that the available monitoring records, 

process descriptions and source term data available are sufficient to complete dose reconstructions for 

the proposed class of employees. 

Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the feasibility findings at SNL-L for each exposure source during 

the time period December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. 

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00059 

December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990 

Source of Exposure Reconstruction Feasible Reconstruction Not Feasible 

Internal1

 X 

Uranium X 

External X 

28 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00059 

December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990 

Source of Exposure Reconstruction Feasible Reconstruction Not Feasible

 - Gamma X 

 - Beta X 

 - Photon X 

 - X-ray X 

 - Occupational Medical x-ray X 1 Internal includes evaluation of urinalysis (in vitro) data. 

As of January 31, 2007, one claim has been submitted to NIOSH for an individual who worked at 

SNL-L. A dose reconstruction has not been completed for this individual. 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00059 

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3). Under these requirements, if it is not 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH must 

also determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the 

health of members of the class. Section 83.13 requires NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

Our evaluation determined that it is feasible to estimate radiation dose for members of the proposed 

class with sufficient accuracy based on the sum of information available from available resources. 

Modification of the class definition regarding health endangerment and minimum required 

employment periods, therefore, is not required. 

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00059 

Based on its research, NIOSH modified the petitioner-requested class to define a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH can estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all X-ray technologists and materials scientists who worked at Sandia 

National Laboratories in the X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory, Building 913-Room 113 

and Building 913-Room 128, from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. The petitionerrequested class was modified by removing Building 941-Room 128 from the proposed class definition 

(Section 9.0) because X-ray Diffraction activities in Building 941 occurred after 1992, which is 

outside of the time period covered by the petition. 

29 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

NIOSH has carefully reviewed all material sent in by the petitioner, including the specific assertions 

stated in the petition, and has responded to them herein (see Section 7.4). NIOSH has also reviewed 

available technical resources and many other references, including the Site Research Data Base 

(SRDB), for information relevant to SEC-00059. Further, NIOSH reviewed its NOCTS dose 

reconstruction database to identify EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide 

information relevant to the petition evaluation. 

These actions are based on existing, approved NIOSH processes used in dose reconstruction for 

claims under EEOICPA. NIOSH’s guiding principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to 

ensure that the assumptions used are fair, consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science. 

Simultaneously, uncertainties in the science and data must be handled to the advantage, rather than to 

the detriment, of the petitioners. When adequate personal dose monitoring information is not 

available, or is very limited, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on 

reliable science, documented experience, and relevant data to determine the feasibility of 

reconstructing the dose of an SEC petition class. NIOSH contends that it has complied with these 

standards of performance in determining that it would be feasible to reconstruct the dose for the class 

proposed in this petition. 

30 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

10.0 References 

42 C.F.R. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 

85/Thursday, p 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391 

42 C.F.R. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19392 

42 C.F.R. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure 

Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final 

Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000, as amended 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally 

Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, Rev. 03, PC-1; December 21, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20220 

ORAUT-OTIB-0002, Maximum Internal Dose Estimates for Certain DOE Complex Claims, Rev. 3; 

February 7, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 29947 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060, Internal Dose Reconstruction, Rev. 0; February 6, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 29984 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-06, Technical Basis Document for the Hanford Site—Occupational External 

Dosimetry, Rev. 0; January 9, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 19496 

ORAUT-TKBS-0048, Summary Site Profile Document for the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Rev. 

0; August 30, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30090 

ORAUT-TKBS-0053, Summary Site Profile for Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, 

California, 00-B; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; October 20, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: Not available in SRDBDraft Document 

AEC, 1963, Chapter 0524 Standards for Radiation Protection, part of the AEC Manual; Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC); August 12, 1963: SRBD Ref ID: 13037 

AEC, Various dates, Annual Exposure Reports; dates range from 1958 through 1980; Atomic Energy 

Commission; Various Dates; SRDB Ref ID: 24827 

Author unknown, Various dates; External Dosimetry Records Prior to 1973; Author Unknown; 

Various dates; SRDB Ref ID: 24816 

Author unknown, 1986, Health Physics Support Information, for the period ending September 12, 

1986; Author Unknown; 1986; SRDB Ref ID: 23669 

Author unknown, 1988, 1988 Dosimetry Report; Author Unknown; 1988; SRDB Ref ID: 24819 

31 of 35 
 

 

 

SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Author unknown, 1995, TRL Health Physics Quarterly Report; 1995 First Quarter; Author Unknown; 

1995; SRDB Ref ID: 23348 

Boehme, 2007, Personal Communication with Dale Boehme, telephone interview by Ray Clark; Dale 

Boehme; January 9, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 121 

Campbell, 1962, Collection of 1962 Memos Related to the Shift of Dosimeter Processing Services 

Contract; R. O. Campbell; Eugene Tochilin; and R. E. Crow; 1962; SRBD Ref ID: 23724 

Campbell, 1964, Film Badge Dosimetry, memo to G. L. Rhodes from R. O. Campbell; R. O. 

Campbell; March 18, 1964; SRDB Ref ID: 23689, page 17 

DeSelm, 1965, Film Dosimetry Program, memo to B. S. Biggs from C. H. DeSelm; C. H. DeSelm; 

October 6, 1965; SRDB Ref ID: 23684 

DOE, 1992, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued 

Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, 

Livermore, Volume II of V, Appendices A-D; Department of Energy (DOE); August 1992; SRDB 

Ref ID: 15935 

DOE, 1993, Final Site-Wide Environmental Assessment of the Sandia National 

Laboratories/California; Department of Energy (DOE); January 2003; SRDB Ref ID: 28165 

Garcia, January 1990, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Toff Garcia of
 

the Hazards Control Division; January 1990; SRDB Ref ID: 23228 

Garcia, April 1990, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Toff Garcia of the 

Hazards Control Division, April 1990; SRDB Ref ID: 23232 

Garcia, July 1990, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Toff Garcia of
 

the Health and Safety Division; July 1990; SRDB Ref ID: 23233 

Garcia, October 1990, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Toff Garcia 

of the Health and Safety Division; October 1990; SRDB REF ID: 23239 

Garcia, January 1991, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Toff Garcia of
 

the Health and Safety Division; January 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 23240 

Garcia, April 1991, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Toff Garcia of the 

Health and Safety Division; April 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 23243 

Garcia, July 1991, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Toff Garcia of the 

Health and Safety Division; July 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 23244 

Garcia, October 1991, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Toff Garcia of
 

the Health and Safety Division; October 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 23246 

32 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Garcia, January 1992, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Toff Garcia 

of the Health and Safety Division; January 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 23247 

Garcia, April 1992, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Toff Garcia of 

the Health and Safety Division; April 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 23252 

Garcia, July 1992; Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Toff Garcia of 

the Health and Safety Division; July 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 23259 

Garcia, October 1992, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Toff Garcia 

of the Health and Safety Division; October 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 23262 

Garcia, 2007, Personal Communication with Toff Garcia, telephone interview by Ray Clark and Riasp 

Medora; Mr Toff Garcia; January 30, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 123 

Hafner, 1980, TRL Health Physics Summary, First Quarter, 1980; Sandia National Laboratories; 

April 11, 1980; SRDB Ref ID: 23133 

Hallman, 1989, Radiation Dosimetry Data, memo explaining major points of information and 

attached dosimetry data for 1987 through 1989; Anne K. Hallman; October 13, 1989; SRDB Ref ID: 

24810 

Hanzel, 1960, Review and Evaluation of Present Film Badge Radiation Monitoring Program, memo 

from R. N. Hanzel to G. L. Rhodes; R. N. Hanzel; July 8, 1960; SRDB Ref ID: 23727, page 5 

HCD, 1988, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Hazards Control 

Division (HCD); October 1988; SRDB Ref ID: 23135 

HCD, January 1989, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Hazards 

Control Division (HCD) #8514; January 1989; SRDB Ref ID: 23137 

HCD, April 1989, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Summary; Hazards Control 

Division (HCD); April 1989; SRDB Ref ID: 23225 

HCD, July 1989, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Hazards Control 

Division (HCD); July 1989; SRDB Ref ID: 23226 

HCD, October 1989, Tritium Research Laboratory Health Physics Quarterly Report; Hazards Control 

Division (HCD); October 1989; SRDB Ref ID: 23227 

ICRU, 1992, Measurements of Dose Equivalents from External Photon and Electron Radiations, 

ICRU Report 47; International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU); April 15, 

1992; SRDB Ref ID: Not currently available in the SRDB 

IT Corporation, 2001, Contamination Assessment and Building Decontamination Report Building 

913; IT Corporation; May 2001; SRDB Ref ID: 24223 

33 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

Johnson, 1997, Tritium Research Laboratory Cleanup and Transition Project Final Report; A. J. 

Johnson; February 1997; SRDB Ref ID: 23424 

Lovell, 1966, Summary of Film Badges Cost Fiscal Year 1966; P. K. Lovell; September 13, 1966; 

SRDB Ref ID: 23678 

Lovell, 1980, Radiation Exposure Incident Involving X-ray Diffractometer at Sandia Laboratories 

Livermore, memo to R. L. Miller; P. K. Lovell; February 15, 1980; SRDB Ref ID: 24805 

Lovell, 2007, Personal Communication with Perry Lovell, telephone interview by Ray Clark; Perry 

Lovell; January 15, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 122 

Nichols, 2005, My Experiences with [Name Redacted] in Sandia Livermore’s X-ray Laboratory, 

letter; Monte C. Nichols; September 2, 2005; SECIS Ref ID: 9729 

Νichols, 2007, Personal Communication with Monte C. Nichols, telephone interview by Ray Clark, 

Jack Beck, and Riasp Medora; Monte C. Nichols; January 8, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 120 

Ormond, 1986, Radiation Dosimetry at SNLL: Past, Present and Future; W. V. Ormond; April 22, 

1986; SRDB Ref ID: 23896 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1982, Thirteen Annual Report-Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE 

Contractor Employees; Pacific Northwest Laboratory; February 1982; SRDB Ref ID: 26888 

Petition Form B, 2006, New Submission (SEC00059) with the Form B, correspondence; May 15, 

2006; SECIS Ref ID: 9730 

RDC, 1969, Dosimetry Report Examples, 1969; Radiation Detection Company (RDC); 1969; SRDB 

Ref ID: 23729 

Rohde, 1990, Radon Gas Levels in Sandia, Livermore Buildings, correspondence; R. W. Rohde; 

December 20, 1990; SRDB Ref ID: 23731 

Rhodes, 1964, Miscellaneous Dosimetry Program Details, 1964 Correspondence; G. L. Rhodes, R. O. 

Campbell, R. B. Powell, Eugene Tochilin, Perry Lovell, and J. McMinn; 1964; SRDB Ref ID: 23689 

SNL, Various dates, Dosimetry Positive Exposure Listing, 1972 rad exposure data; Sandia National 

Laboratory (SNL); Various 1972 Dates; SRDB Ref ID: 24801 

SNL, 1989, SOP No. 1066 Machining Depleted Uranium Metal, Rev. C; Sandia National Laboratory 

(SNL); October 1, 1989; SRDB Ref ID: 23733 

SNL, February 1991, Safe Operating Procedure, No. 757; Sandia National Laboratory (SNL); 

February 26, 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 23774 

34 of 35 
SEC-00059 03-26-07 Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore 

SNL, April 1991, Safe Operating Procedure, No. 709; Sandia National Laboratory (SNL); April 19, 

1991; SRDB Ref ID: 23740 

SNL-L, 1958-1961, Miscellaneous Dosimetry Program Details; Sandia National LaboratoryLivermore (SNL-L); 1958-1961; SRDB Ref ID: 23727 

SNL-L, 1961-1962, External Dosimetry Data, data for years 1961-1962; Sandia National LaboratoryLivermore (SNL-L); 1961-1962; SRDB Ref ID: 23720 

SNLL, 1987a, External Dosimetry 1973 to 1987; Sandia National Laboratories Livermore (SNLL); 

1987; SRDB Ref ID: 26836 

SNLL, 1987b, External Dosimetry 1973 to 1987; Sandia National Laboratories Livermore (SNLL); 

1987; SRDB Ref ID: 26839 

Uranium Bioassay Results, 1965-1990, Various Uranium Bioassay Results for the Years Between 

1965 and 1990; SRDB Ref ID: 23658 

Wallace, 1988, Current Status of 1985 Headquarter (HQ) Nuclear Facilities Appraisal; S. A. 

Wallace; September 9, 1988; SRDB Ref ID: 23585 

Wright, 1979a, Sandia Livermore’s Bioassay Program from Depleted Uranium, memo to Distribution 

from Donn A. Wright; Donn A. Wright; May 14, 1979; SRDB Ref ID: 24813 

Wright, 1979b, Radiation Workers at SLL, memo to H. McLeod Patterson from D. A. Wright; D. A. 

Wright; December 20, 1979; SRDB Ref ID: 24824 

Wright, 1981, TRL Health Physics Summary, First Quarter, 1981; Sandia National Laboratories; 

April 20, 1981; SRDB Ref ID: 23134 

Wright, 1993, History of Radiation Dosimetry at SNL/CA as Remembered; D. A. Wright; June 1, 

1993; SRDB Ref ID: 24811 

Wright, 2007, Personal Communication with Donn Wright, telephone interview by Riasp Medora; Mr 

Donn Wright; January 22, 2007; SECIS Ref ID: 124 

35 of 35