Download US DOL Site Exposure Matrices EEOICP Part E

Keith Stalnaker, Project Manager
Paragon Technical Services, Inc.
1
What is SEM?

A web accessible relational database of
information about toxic substance use at
Department of Energy and RECA sites covered
by Part E of the EEOICPA
 SEM houses exposure information
 SEM houses medical/disease/health effect data

Identifies toxins at DOE facilities and links those
toxins to buildings, and to job categories

Links toxic exposure to occupational illness
2
What is SEM? (continued)

SEM is not a claims decision tool; it is
used only to assist in claim
development.

SEM contains information that includes:
 113 DOE sites
 4122 RECA sites
 12,270 toxic substances
 128 occupational diseases
3
Brief history of the SEM project

Started with “clean sheet of paper” in early 2005

Developed design criteria and conducted a pilot
project with DOL during 2005

SEM website design/format has changed very
little since early 2006

Populated SEM with data as documentation
was collected and reviewed
4
Brief history of the SEM project
(continued)

Data collection at DOE sites and archives
from late 2005 – late 2009
 Initial focus on production processes where toxic
material usage was greatest and where the largest
number of potential claimants worked
 Examples: chemical processing operations,
foundries, maintenance shops (machining, welding,
electrical, others), metal working, reactor operations,
decontamination and chemical cleaning, laboratories
5
Documentation sources

Worker and site interviews
 Almost 100 meetings with over 1000 current and
former DOE workers from 53 DOE facilities
 20 RECA uranium mine/mill/ore transport worker
meetings

A team was sent to all the major DOE facilities
to gather records on the substances used at
those facilities
 19,012 records in SEM library
 43 DOE facilities visited to gather records
 10 records archives visited
6
Documentation sources (continued)

DOE records (e.g., work procedures, industrial
hygiene reports, safety analysis reports, job hazard
analyses)

State and Federal agencies (EPA, State of Colorado)

NIOSH profiles (Part B)

Textbooks (RECA sites)

Former Worker Program documents

Other credible sources
7
Information displayed in SEM

Data organized by site (e.g., DOE site, mine,
mill)

Chemical/toxic materials used
-- Labor categories
-- Work processes

-- Buildings
-- Major incidents
Generic profiles were prepared for common
industry jobs for which DOE did not prepare
many procedures or technical documents.
8
SEM disease/toxic substance
relationships

DEEOIC sought out means of showing
established links between toxins and
occupational illness that could assist claims
examiners.

DEEOIC examined commercially available
databases linking toxic substance and health
information.

NLM’s Haz-Map was identified as the most
appropriate resource for this purpose.
SEM disease/toxic substance
relationships (continued)

SEM does not use Haz-Map information
unless it is applicable to Part E.
 Example 1: Teratogenic health effects
 Example 2: Non occupational activities with risk of
exposure to a toxic substance
10
SEM disease/toxic substance
relationships (continued)

SEM includes only those occupational diseases
listed in Haz-Map that are linked to toxic
substance or biological exposures expected in
DOE or RECA facilities.
 Example 1: Vibrio vulnificus infection is an occupational disease
in Haz-Map but not in SEM (oyster shucking and fishing).
 Example 2: Rabies is in Haz-Map and SEM as an occupational
disease (extensive animal handling at several DOE sites).
 Example 3: Diabetes is not listed in either Haz-Map or SEM (not
considered an occupational disease).
11
SEM disease/toxic substance
relationships (continued)

If a new toxic substance is linked to a Haz-Map
disease that is not in SEM, that disease is added.

SEM and Haz-Map disease/toxic substance
relationships are consistent with few exceptions:
 For trade name substances that are not in Haz-Map, SEM displays
the consolidated health effects of the individual chemicals that
comprise the substance.
○ Example: WD-40 lubricant
 Haz-Map does not cover alloys separately but includes the guidance
“For potential adverse health effects, see the profile of each metal in
the alloy.” SEM shows the compiled list of health effects linked to
each of those metals.
○ Example: Bronze
12
There are three SEM websites

DOL SEM (access controlled)

DOE SEM (access controlled)

Internet accessible SEM (no controlled
access)

Each website includes the same content in
the same format, but DOE classification
reviews delay content on the internet
accessible SEM by 3-12 months.
13
Internet accessible SEM

Access to site chemical lists was
provided to the public in 2007.

Access to expanded SEM data was
initally provided to the public in March
2010.
14
Updating of SEM is continuous

SEM is not complete and never will be.
 Many DOE sites are massive industrial
complexes with hundreds of buildings,
changing missions, and long histories.

Not all covered sites have SEM profiles.
15
Portsmouth GDP
16
Updating of SEM is continuous
(continued)

SEM is constantly updated with new
information from:
 DOE and advocate submissions
 Updates to Haz-Map

Numerous avenues are available to submit
information to the SEM team.
 Input directly to internet accessible SEM website
 As part of DOL case review, new information is
provided to the SEM team.
 DOE submissions to the SEM team
 DOL Resource Centers
17
Updating during 2011

SEM changes in the past year
 Data revised on 40 DOE sites between
March-Sept 2011
 Added over 2000 new toxic substances

Another round of site visits will be
needed in the future
 New facilities and operations since the prior
visits
18
Public input is used to update
SEM

Input received on 7953 toxic substances





3415 toxic substances were added to site profiles.
3193 toxic substances were already in the profiles.
805 could not be verified.
540 are still under review.
Input received on 309 occupational diseases
 51 diseases were already in SEM.
 2 diseases were added to SEM.
 256 could not be verified as occupational diseases
linked to substances used in DOE facilities.
19
Internet Accessible SEM
Demonstration

http://www.sem.dol.gov/

Features of home page
 Public input process and status
 Link to the User’s Guide
 Selection of site type (e.g., DOE site or uranium mine)

For the Portsmouth GDP, review the master
chemical list.
 1197 toxic substances are known to have been used at
the site.
 This information parallels the DOL SEM chemical list (30
day update).
20
Internet Accessible SEM
Demonstration (continued)

Select expanded data for the Portsmouth GDP site.
 The returned page (“Main Menu”) is the same format as
that used in the DOL SEM.
 Note that the number of chemicals in the expanded profile
is less than 1197.
○ This tells us that an update has been made that has not yet
been approved for release by DOE.
 Examples
○ Interpretations of SEM information; example, Building X-600
• Correct: 46 chemicals in building, 2 labor categories, 3 work
processes
• Incorrect: Each of the labor categories performed all the
work processes and used all the chemicals listed.
○ Filters
21
The relationship between Paragon
and Dr. Jay Brown

Administrative only

Funding is provided to Dr. Brown for research of toxic
substances of interest to DOL.

Protocols for the establishment of disease relationships
are defined by NLM/Dr. Brown with no involvement of
Paragon or DOL.
22
Dr. Jay Brown







Board Certified Occupational Medicine physician in Tacoma,
Washington.
Developed Haz-Map in his spare time from 1991-2006 and full time
since 2007.
Member of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists and the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine.
Published in 2008: "An Internet Database for the Classification and
Dissemination of Information about Hazardous Chemicals and
Occupational Disease" in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine
and "How to Use Haz-Map" in Professional Safety.
Taught a webinar in 2009 sponsored by the American College of
Occupational & Environmental Medicine entitled “Occupational
Toxicology and Medical Informatics: A Good Match.”
Education: Sociology (Indiana University, 1970); MD (Indiana
University, 1978); MPH (University of Washington, 1996); Family
Practice Residency (Evansville, IN, 1978-81); Occupational Medicine
Fellowship (Seattle, WA, 1994-96).
Worked full time for 30 years treating patients in hospitals and clinics
(family practice, urgent care, and occupational medicine).
23