ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS

COMPENSATION PROGRAM: ARE WE FULFILLING THE PROMISE WE MADE TO THESE COLD

WAR VETERANS WHEN WE CREATED THIS

PROGRAM? (PART IV)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

NOVEMBER 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–157

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM:

ARE WE FULFILLING THE PROMISE WE MADE TO THESE COLD WAR VETERANS

WHEN WE CREATED THIS PROGRAM? (PART IV)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–840 PDF 2007

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS

COMPENSATION PROGRAM: ARE WE FULFILLING THE PROMISE WE MADE TO THESE COLD

WAR VETERANS WHEN WE CREATED THIS

PROGRAM? (PART IV)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

NOVEMBER 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Counsel 

ALLISON BEACH, Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 4

WITNESSES 

Mr. Laurence Fuortes, M.D., Professor, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. John Mauro, Project Manager, Dose Reconstruction Consulting Services, 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health Under EEOICPA, Sanford 

Cohen & Associates 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Ms. Kathy Bates, Surviving Claimant Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26

Mr. Richard Miller, Senior Policy Analyst Government Accountability Project 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ........................................................ 66

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ................................................... 79

Memorandum from Morton Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law, 

American Law Division, Congressional Research Service ................................ 84

Prepared Statement of Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Public 

Studies .................................................................................................................. 101

Office of Management and Budget Memorandum ................................................ 119

Prepared Statement of Paula Graham, Member, Advisory Board to the Health 

Researchers of the University of Iowa, Department of Energy ........................ 127

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Laurence Fuortes, M.D., Professor, 

Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa 144

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from John Mauro, Project Manager, Dose 

Reconstruction Consulting Services, Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health Under EEOICPA, Sanford Cohen & Associates ...................... 149

Page

IV

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Kathy Bates, Surviving Claimant 

Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act ......................................................................................................................... 159

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Richard Miller, Senior Policy Analyst Government Accountability Project ............................................................. 210

Prepared Statement of Sandra Wolff Baldridge .................................................... 217

Significant documents and communications related to the Subcommittee’s 

oversight of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act ............................................................................................................... 220

(1)

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM: ARE WE 

FULFILLING THE PROMISE WE MADE TO 

THESE COLD WAR VETERANS WHEN WE 

CREATED THIS PROGRAM? (PART IV) 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John 

Hostettler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today’s 

hearing is the fourth in a series of oversight hearings the Subcommittee has been holding on the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Act, or EEOICPA. The point of this hearing 

and the fifth hearing to follow in December is to review what the 

Committee’s oversight efforts have revealed as weaknesses in the 

program, the status of any reforms made to address those weaknesses and discussion of any emerging issues that may need to be 

addressed in the next Congress. 

Because of their complexity, the Subcommittee is compelled to 

make an effort to create as much of a roadmap of a program and 

its problems as possible for those who would provide future oversight. The Judiciary Committee’s oversight did not begin with investigation on implementation of the OMB passback options. This 

Committee has taken an active role in policing its program from 

the start. And I sincerely hope that rigorous oversight by this Committee will continue in the 110th Congress and future Congresses 

until we can all say with confidence that, yes, we are fulfilling the 

promise we made to these veterans of the Cold War when we created this program. 

I would have liked to have been able to say that already, but the 

record created by these hearings tells us that it is just not so. 

Shortly after assuming the chairmanship of this Committee, I 

sent a letter to the General Accounting Office asking that they examine the key components of the program. That was May 2003. As 

time went on, the Subcommittee heard several complaints on the 

way the program was functioning and the behavior of officials involved in the program. 

2

That prompted a November 2004 request to the Department of 

Health and Human Services for extensive documents and information concerning the functioning of the program, the Advisory Board 

of Radiation and Worker Health, and that board’s audit contractor. 

Subsequently, after the initial review of their submissions a request was made for GAO to expand the scope of their review of 

subtitle B, which they agreed to. During 2005, the Committee sent 

letters to various agencies regarding concerns with different actions 

taken with regard to the program. 

One letter to the Attorney General concerned the use of classified 

information to decide a claim under the program and asserted that 

congressional intent was that transparency and the processing of 

claims be an essential principle of this program. A second letter 

concerned the removal of two board members, a worker and a doctor. No resolution to either of those concerns was forthcoming. 

In the case of the request by Chairman Sensenbrenner that the 

removed board members be offered reinstatement so that the board 

would not lose their expertise and experience with the program, 

the Committee received a one-sentence letter thanking us for our 

comments. 

On October 18, 2005 the White House announced the appointment of three new board members, one of whom had major conflicts 

of interest issues since a company he founded and whose employees 

included immediate family members had been contracted to do dose 

reconstructions for NIOSH. Only one new worker representative 

was included in the new appointments. When the OMB passback 

memo surfaced, the Subcommittee began planning hearings. Those 

hearings were, at a minimum, to include Department of Labor and 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

The Committee’s invitation was met with resistance by DOL and 

HHS. But they both eventually provided witnesses. That was not 

the case with OMB. Administration officials suggested that an exchange of letters between OMB and the Committee containing appropriate assurances and stating good faith actions that would be 

taken to assure the claimant community of the Administration’s rejection of the passback options would be a more appropriate response than OMB testifying. 

There were several exchanges of draft letters between OMB and 

Committee staff as well as a meeting between myself and the Administration to personally express the need for specific actions and/

or statements that OMB had to make in lieu of testifying. 

One of those actions was to either offer reappointment to the 

board members removed without cause, or provide a plausible explanation why they had been removed, while other less qualified 

members who had made their support of DOE management very 

clear, had been retained. When it became clear that action was 

not—was nonnegotiable for the Committee, OMB took the broad 

nonspecific letter of explanation with regard to the OMB passback 

and used it as the basis for letters responding to Senate and House 

Member offices. They refused to consider reversing the actions of 

the Administration with regard to the 2 pro worker Advisory Board 

members. 

During the first week of August 2006, NIOSH was notified by the 

White House office of personnel that Wanda Munn and Roy Dehart 

3

had been retired from the board effective immediately, as part of 

the ongoing activity of rotating board members. 

Dr. Dehart had filled one of the medical slots on the advisory 

board, Ms. Munn, an engineer and strong supporter of the DOE 

complex does not appear to have been qualified to fill any of the 

statutorily required board slots, medical, scientific or worker. 

It was brought to the Subcommittee’s attention that Ms. Munn 

was unhappy with her retirement and hoped to utilize a means to 

get back on the board. Amazingly on August 11, 2006, NIOSH was 

notified by the White House that Dr. Dehart and Ms. Munn were 

to be reappointed for another 3-year term. While Dr. Dehart declined reappointment, Ms. Munn, not surprisingly, accepted. 

When the White House was asked why reappointment was so 

quickly offered to an individual who didn’t even meet the statutory 

qualifications for serving on the board after the request of the 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the reappointment of two 

qualified board members was ignored, the Administration never 

provided an explanation. 

The board currently has only two worker representatives and a 

reappointed member who has stated her position that none of these 

workers are sick because of their exposure to radiation. 

Obviously, an impartial review of the validity of the science used 

to determine whether to approve claims for radiation exposure 

won’t be forthcoming from that particular board member. 

I strongly encourage those who police this program in the future 

to aggressively pursue balancing this board and legislation to provide for a more transparent appointment process appears to be the 

only real solution. 

A February 22, 2006 letter requested that DOL’s Employment 

Standards Administration or ESA provide all documents related to 

the 5 options outlined in the OMB passback prior to the Subcommittee hearing on March 1, 2006. The Subcommittee received 

a box of about 4,500 pieces of paper from DOL on March 17, 2006. 

None of them substantive information related to the request. 

After DOL complained that the request was overly broad, the 

Subcommittee reduced its request of the documents of 25 key DOL 

ESA staff. No further documents were received until the beginning 

of July. No documents or communications were received regarding 

the OMB passback, and no communications between Labor and 

OMB were forthcoming. 

The Committee was informed on July 21 that the office within 

DOL that handles the EEOICPA claims indicated to the Legislative 

Affairs Office that there was no need to provide any of the communications with OMB because they constituted internal budget negotiations—privileged documents not available to anyone. 

Labor was told by the Committee that ESA had misinformed 

them. 

In support of that position, the Subcommittee requested and received a congressional research analysis of the appropriateness of 

the document requests made to the Labor Department, which 

makes it clear that no privilege could be assigned to the documents 

in communications that were part of the Committee’s inquiry. 

On the eve of a vote to authorize a subpoena to DOL, high level 

assurances were made to the Committee to provide all but a few 

4

documents to the Committee, and the rest were made available in 

a reading room for Committee viewing. 

HHS had withheld several binders and allowed all but one to be 

reviewed by Committee staff. 

It is the Committee’s understanding that the binder withheld 

contained HHS’s communication with OMB regarding the 

passback. So much resistance from these agencies fortifies the argument that their actions would not bear well under scrutiny. 

Those involved in this backroom manipulation of the program have 

destroyed the Government credibility again. 

This program was supposed to ensure workers that the deceit 

was over and the Government was finally going to do right by 

them. Those tasked with implementing the program have failed 

that purpose miserably, and they need to be exposed for what they 

have done. 

I will be including a record of the Committee’s correspondence on 

our concerns in the hearing record as well as other pertinent documents that provide a clear view of the actions of those running this 

program. 

Under oath, the OMB witness on July 20, 2006 rejected each of 

these 5 options and assured us they were not pursuing any of 

them. We received the same assurances under oath on March 1st, 

2006, in DOL. Evidence included in both DOL and HHS-submitted 

documents or included in the documents withheld and only 

viewable to the Committee staff do not support those statements, 

and the hostile attitude of those running this program toward the 

claimants and their advocates gives me little confidence that there 

is any sincere efforts to change by these officials. 

Obviously, the babysitting of these individuals must continue 

and I encourage it wholeheartedly. Time is of the essence for fulfilling our promise to this quickly aging population of atomics 

weapons employees. Perhaps soon those who run this program will 

do the right thing and take care of these workers and their families 

competently and with an attitude of respect that is clearly not 

present at this time. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee, for purposes of an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, first of all, 

thank you for joining me in persisting on what I think is a call for 

the restoring of the integrity of this program. Thank you for joining 

me and insisting that the Federal Government do the right thing. 

And thank you for your leadership on this issue. 

I echo and join the Chairman in announcing publicly that it is 

my fear that the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program’s integrity is in jeopardy. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate to you that over the recess, I 

went to Texas City in Texas and saw the faces of individuals who 

have been impacted by the failure of this particular program to 

function. 

I looked in the faces of elderly persons who asked—and begged 

frankly—that we would come to their area and hear their stories 

and find out that they are nothing but great patriots, and good 

Americans, and they love their country, and they entrusted their 

5

hopes and dreams for their families, for their livelihood, and for 

their longevity to this great nation. 

I think it is a besmirching of the commitment that we make to 

Americans when they rise to the highest call, calling, and that is 

to serve America, that we have found ourselves in this quagmire. 

So I join you in the level of frustration that your accounting has 

generated. And I am hoping and I view and feel that our collective 

effort before we end the 109th Congress, will see fruition. And so 

I begin by thanking the witnesses for being here. It looks like we 

are climbing up the rough side of the mountain, but I do believe 

that we have a collective body of interested Members of Congress 

who are willing to pursue the Federal Government doing the right 

thing. 

The Department of Energy and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, have employed tens of thousands of workers to 

develop, build and test nuclear weapons. The Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 provides 

compensation for workers who have contracted radiation related 

cancers, beryllium disease or silicosis disease from exposure to radiation at these work sites. 

They may be eligible for a lump sum payment of $150,000 and 

prospective medical benefits. In processing radiation-related cancer 

claims, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

is required to estimate a workers exposure to radiation, which is 

referred to as a radiation dose. 

Sometimes this is not possible. During the early years of the nuclear weapons program, some of the workers were not monitored 

for radiation exposure, and records have been lost. We found these 

cases in similar situations of compensation requests throughout the 

other history of the United States. 

Remember, folks, we did not always have the Internet or the 

computer. We didn’t always have the Blackberry. People were either writing things down or assuming that the immediate supervisor knew the story. 

And of course, we have not yet found the cure for aging and loss 

of life through aging. And people have passed on who knew the stories, companies have closed who had the information, documents 

have been either lost, displaced or disposed of because history has 

marched on. 

The Act provides a remedy for cases in which it is not feasible 

to estimate radiation doses. But it is clear that the health of workers may have been in danger by radiation exposure. They can petition to be designated as members of a Special Exposure Cohort 

which provides an unrebuttable assumption certain cancers are 

work related. Members of a Special Exposure Cohort may be eligible for benefits if they have 1 of 22 specified radio sensitive cancers, and they must have worked as a covered facility for at least 

1 year in a job that exposed them to radiation. 

I deviate for a moment and cite as an example Agent Orange, 

recognizing that we first challenged the existence of Agent Orange 

disease after Vietnam and after long studies and determinations in 

lost records and misinformation, we have discovered that that is a 

valid disease, or exposure that Vietnam vets had and Mr. Chairman, while I was home in the District again, a Vietnam vet who 

6

was in Thailand has now raised the specter that that group was 

left out, and those Agent Orange planes landed on those airfields, 

and he is, of course, by his medical doctor, determined to be 100 

percent disabled, but yet paperwork and lack of designation has 

him as a case that we have to pursue in front of the Veterans’ Affairs. 

I use that as an example because this is what these cohorts have 

been facing. In an internal passback memorandum from the Office 

of Management and Budget to the Department of Labor, OMB 

states that the Administration will convene a White House-led 

interagency work group to develop options for administrative procedures to contain the growth in the costs of the program, cost over 

patriotism and the service of these patriots. 

OMB states further that the discussions would include but not 

be limited to a requirement for the Administration’s clearance, of 

Special Exposure Cohort determination, addressing imbalances in 

the membership of the Advisory Board, requiring an expedited review by outside experts of the Special Exposure Cohort recommendations by NIOSH, requiring NIOSH to apply a conflict of 

interest rules and constraints to the Advisory Board’s contractor, 

which we see by the Chairman’s remarks, that has not been done, 

and requiring that NIOSH demonstrate that its site profiles and 

other dose reconstruction guidances are balanced. 

I am concerned that such cost cutting measures would conflict 

with the Special Exposure Cohort review procedures established by 

the Compensation Program Act and that it would result in unwarranted denials of compensation applications. 

Instead of cost-cutting measures, the Administration should be 

considering whether measures are needed to increase the number 

of applications that are granted. On average, approximately 70 percent of the applications are denied. 

We are not serious. We are playing at the game of responding to 

the needs of the faces that I saw in Texas City, Texas this past fall. 

Government witnesses have testified that cost containment is not 

a factor in deciding which claims to pay. But this has not eliminated concern. The Subcommittee asked DOL to provide all documents related to the 5 options outlining the OMB passback. The 

Subcommittee received a box of about 4,500 pieces of paper from 

DOL, but none of these documents provided the necessary information. 

When this was brought to DOL’s attention, its response was that 

the request was overly broad. The Subcommittee reduced its requests to the documents of 25 key DOL ESA staff. But the Government still would not cooperate fully. The debate reached a point at 

which a subpoena was considered. Most documents were made 

available to the Subcommittee, but the integrity of the application 

process is still in doubt. 

I have introduced a bill to address these problems. The Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2006, H.R. 5840. Among other things, it would shift 

the authority from making Advisory Board appointments to the 

Congress. It would require HHS Secretary to abide by the recommendations of the Advisory Board unless there is a clear error. 

7

It would establish enforceable conflict of interest requirements with 

respect to NIOSH’s dose reconstruction contractors. 

Also, it would eliminate unfairness by making benefits available 

to some subcontractor employees who worked at atomic weapons 

employer facilities, but presently are not covered by the Act. 

I know that we want to do the right thing. I would imagine, Mr. 

Chairman, if we interviewed individual members of the Administration, I give them the benefit of the doubt, they would know that 

they have not been completely forthright in doing the right thing, 

and they would acknowledge that we have been asking the important and hard questions, and our questions need to be answered, 

documents need to be produced, and as well, we need to move forward on a reconstructive program. 

I would ask prospectively as my colleagues are listening that we 

would begin to hold hearings on H.R. 5840, a field hearing as well, 

but more importantly, that we move forward and address the concerns of patriotic Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership and I yield 

back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. At this time, I will introduce members of our distinguished panel of witness. 

Laurence Fuortes is professor of occupational and environmental 

health at the college of public health at the University of Iowa. 

Dr. Fuortes received his B.S. In biophysics at Northern Illinois 

University and his M.D. At the University of Illinois. He has published dozens of article on a wide range of medical subjects, though 

much of his research has focused on occupational health hazards 

and the development of potential policy solutions. 

John Mauro is the project manager for Dose Reconstruction Consulting Services for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health under EEOICPA. He has personally performed eight dose 

reconstruction reviews and directed 60 other reviews. Dr. Mauro 

has appeared before the Advisory Board at every public bimonthly 

meeting of the board and has presented and defended the audit reports of the audit contractor, Sanford Cohen & Associates. 

He has served as the principal investigator for the preparation 

of the environmental and safety analysis reports for 10 commercial 

nuclear power plants. 

Kathy Bates is a surviving claimant under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. She attended 

the University of Tennessee and graduated with honors in 1984 

with a degree in computer science. She has 22 years of experience 

as an information technology professional. Mrs. Bates is married 

and has two children and she resides in Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Richard Miller is a senior policy analyst at the Government Accountability Project. Mr. Miller has led that group’s efforts to reform EEOICPA as part of the fiscal year 20O5 Defense Authorization Act. 

Mr. Miller is an expert on the program, having been actively involved in creating the original EEOICPA law. He has testified before this panel on the OMB passback document on containing the 

cost of EEOICPA. 

In 2003, he appeared before the Senate Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources where he testified on the flawed implemenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111506\30840.000 HJUD1 PsN: 30840
8

tation of EEOICPA by the Department of Energy. He holds a B.A. 

in industrial and labor economics from the University of Massachusetts. 

Lady and gentlemen, you will see that we have a time system. 

We respectfully ask that you limit your oral statements to 5 minutes or as close as possible to that. 

Without objection, your entire written statement will be made a 

part of the record. 

Dr. Fuortes, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURENCE FUORTES, M.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

Dr. FUORTES. Thank you. I have been working with several AEC 

DOE sites in Iowa for about 5 years and it has been one of the 

most changing—life-changing experiences of my life. I have been 

very affected by this work. 

On behalf of these workers and the families of those who are deceased, I would like to thank you very much for this oversight of 

the policies in response to the health risks and resultant diseases 

experienced by this workforce. 

They labored under a weight of secrecy and uncertainty regarding the health risks of nuclear weapons work. We owe these workers a debt of gratitude and as you have suggested, a fair and open 

system. 

When this program began, the workers in Iowa said that their 

Government was just waiting for them to die. And sadly some of 

our actions appear to bear this out. 

On a positive note, scores of workers’ lives have been saved by 

the early detection of cancers and other diseases through the DOE 

medical screening process. 

Unfortunately, the tone of the OMB memo that led to these hearings is that some feel the risks to these early era workers have 

been overstated. Worker protections may have been interpreted as 

adequate in the early era, but they are clearly not adequate by today’s standards. This was prior to the studies of Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki survivors and radium dial painters and prior to decades 

of biological studies of cancerous effects of radiation. 

It was also prior to technologic advances in radiation monitoring 

before the OSHA Act. 

These workers are disadvantaged in the SEC anddose reconstruction processes, by a lack of transparency and a lack of access 

to expertise. 

In the SEC process, the petitioners are asked to prove the negative, something that cannot be proven. All the while, they are not 

given access to the same data that NIOSH and its contracts have. 

And the petitioners have to rely on a cumbersome FOIA process to 

try to get dose information. 

It took 31⁄2 years just for the SEC rules to be written. Meanwhile 

many of these elderly workers died. In the Iowa case after the Advisory Board went on record in April of 2005 agreeing that accurate, defensible, and timely dose reconstructions could not be perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111506\30840.000 HJUD1 PsN: 30840
9

formed, there was a flurry of activity, which seemed to be designed 

to frustrate these workers. 

SEC and claimed decisions should not be based on financial implications, but on a fair balanced scientific judgment. The petitioners are further disadvantaged by the dense technical aspects 

and jargon of health physics and typically are asked to take, at face 

value, the dose calculations made by NIOSH contractors. 

The petitioners deserve a process independent of bias or political 

pressure. The board must be scientifically based and its judgments 

must be impartial and there must be a representation of environmental and radioepidemiology expertise. 

The SEC process has also not addressed risks from residual radiation. At the Ames lab, one worker described to us his tasks in the 

1960’s of tearing out the exhaust ventilation systems and the building materials of one of the most highly contaminated areas. All of 

his co-workers are now deceased from cancer. When we shared this 

information with the Ames laboratory, their director and health 

and safety staff helped us immediately to amend our SEC petition, 

submit it to NIOSH to extend the period of coverage. 

This issue of residual risk is pertinent in all of the DOE sites 

probably that we are dealing with radionuclide processing. 

As regards the dose reconstruction claims processes, there is a 

perceived problem of this being litigious which places unfair burdens of proof on the claimants. Although the dose reconstructions 

developed by NIOSH give the numerical appearance of precision, 

the process is often not exact or scientifically defensible. 

Take, for example, an Iowa worker who received a probability of 

causation of 48 percent for a radiogenic cancer and imagine his disbelief when he amended his claim based on a newly-diagnosed 

radiogenic cancer and the NIOSH recalculated probability of causation is now 32 percent. 

Despite the best intentions of claimant friendliness, this DOE 

claims process operates disturbingly like a conventional insurance 

claims process, functionally placing obstacles in the claimants path. 

This claims process must also be made transparent and subject to 

review and oversight. 

I know of several cases of people whose claims were denied based 

on faulty assumptions by the Department of Labor. Examples include a Kansas City native from the Bendix plant whose proof of 

employment came from the headquarters in New Jersey. He was 

denied. Another employee whose proof of disease came from a CT 

scan was denied because under the language of the Act they required a CAT, CAT scan. Others denied because diseases such as 

Polycythemia Rubra Vera were decided by the claims examiners 

not being covered under the Act, where as, in fact, they are. There 

are numerous such examples. 

These workers are typically elderly and not well versed in health, 

physics, medical or legal terminology, and they are easily frustrated and dissuaded from pursuing valid claims. Cases such as 

these, I mentioned, suggest a need of a systematic review of denied 

claims and a change in policy from placing the burden of proof entirely on claimants to a system which claimants are assisted in 

identifying and locating requisite information. 

10

All of these workers who were exposed to radiation Beryllium 

and related toxins in our atomic weapons industry deserve no less 

than an equitable, just and open approach to the evaluation of causality and compensation for work-related disease. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Fuortes. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Laurence Fuortes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LAURENCE FUORTES

Honorable Members of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and 

Claims, thank you for the opportunity to share with you my perspectives on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and 

the Special Exposure Cohort process. My name is Laurence Fuortes, I am a physician and Professor of Occupational and Environmental Health and of Internal Medicine at the University of Iowa (UI). For approximately five years, my staff and I 

have been working with former Atomic Bomb assembly workers and more recently 

Uranium and Thorium processing workers in Iowa and surrounding states. Through 

a Department of Energy program, UI provides medical screening examinations and 

medical care to former workers, and we have gotten to know many of these workers 

quite well. 

On behalf of these former Atomic Energy Commission and Energy Department 

workers and the families of those no longer alive I thank you for addressing questions of appropriate policy in response to recognized health risks and disease experienced by this workforce. These workers labored under a great weight of secrecy, as 

well as significant uncertainty, in regards to health risks associated with employment in the nuclear weapons industry. We owe these workers a tremendous debt 

of gratitude for their patriotism, placing themselves in harms way in defense of our 

country during both World War 2 and subsequently during the Cold War. 

One of the primary things I hope to convey at these hearings is a sense of the 

effect of these programs on individuals as well as the community. I have spent 

hours with grown women and men in tears as they helped me identify those of their 

coworkers who are deceased. Without the benefit of a funded scientific study, I 

would have to say that anecdotally we are seeing a higher than expected rate of 

cancers and lung disease in this population, (as compared to what I have experienced in other medical screenings). These workers and their families said at first 

that the government was only waiting for them to die. Sadly the facts and history 

appeared to bear this out. The impression among many workers and their families 

is that the workers had been put at risk, made ill, and died as a result of their 

work, yet the government was merely going to stall and deny. Throughout our and 

other Former Worker Programs scores of former workers lives have fortunately been 

saved as a result of early detection of cancers and other conditions. 

The approval of the SEC for the atomic weapons workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant has rekindled the faith and participation in government. 

To adequately understand the significance of these programs, it is first necessary 

to understand that safe working conditions in the earliest years of nuclear weapons 

production were severely lacking. Worker protection in terms of radiation shielding 

and monitoring—although state of the art for the time—was not adequate. Production was the primary focus for the operating contractors. The Health and Safety 

staff at these facilities used the best available knowledge and directives from the 

AEC to address and minimize workers’ health risks. This was prior to the epidemiologic data that resulted from follow up studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims 

and the radium dial painters. This was prior to decades of biological study which 

enlightened the field significantly as regards risks of ionizing radiation. There have 

also been dramatic technologic improvements in radiation monitoring. The measures 

taken to minimize exposures to these early workforces would clearly be deemed inadequate and inappropriate today. This was decades previous to the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act and the protections it brought to the nations workforces. 

Under an oath of secrecy, there was little opportunity or incentive for complaints 

despite a real sense of uncertainty regarding their risks. 

I am concerned that in addition to having been placed at historical risk in defense 

of our country, these workers are now at bureaucratic risk of being frustrated and 

disadvantaged by the processes for implementing EEOICPA. Both in the SEC process and in the dose reconstruction process there is a lack of transparency and access 

to expertise, which places petitioners and claimants at a tremendous disadvantage. 

11

SEC. In the SEC case petitioners are tasked with proving the negative—that 

something cannot by definition, be proved. As a logical or philosophic process this 

is quite difficult and workers and petitioners need assurances that this process is 

workable and transparent. Workers and their representatives often have to rely on 

a cumbersome FOIA process and are unable to obtain the same data which is used 

by NIOSH and it’s contractors in the creation of Site Profiles and Dose Reconstructions. 

Dose Reconstructions. There is at least a perceived problem of this being a litigious process and one can understand why workers feel wronged by the unfair burdens of proof placed upon them. The Dose Reconstructions developed by NIOSH provide the appearance of precision, but this process is not exact nor at times defensible. As an example, a worker at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant was determined to have a 48% probability of causation of a radiogenic cancer attributable to 

exposures at the plant. Imagine this worker’s disbelief, when amending their filing 

based on a second and newly diagnosed radiogenic cancer, on being told that the 

newly calculated probability of causation dropped to 32%. 

As background, allow me to describe the industrial processes, exposures, historical 

health and safety procedures and reflections on the SEC petition experiences at the 

two facilities I know best. 

In the case of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, in Burlington, Iowa, workers 

were exposed to ionizing radiation from enriched and depleted uranium, plutonium, 

and tritium in the course of assembly and disassembly of nuclear weapons from 

1949 until 1975. Workers routinely handled the radioactive components directly in 

their hands with only cotton gloves and without lead aprons. They had little or no 

radiation monitoring and little or no shielding from the radiation. 

There are no reports documenting the internal doses of radionuclides in this workforce at any time. Only limited external dosimetry was provided to record the doses 

of external penetrating radiation to which such workers were exposed. 

A Special Exposure Cohort petition was submitted on behalf of these workers on 

the basis of a near total lack of relevant exposure or estimated dose data. The SEC 

petition process was long and frustrating to the community. It took 3 1/2 years just 

for the rules for evaluating SEC petitions to be developed. The argument was made 

by contracted Health Physicists that despite the lack of individual exposure data, 

doses could be reconstructed based upon classified information. All the subsequent 

cancer claims, even those considered radiogenic, resulted in denials initially. Statements were made by NIOSH contractors that this was a low exposure workplace 

despite a lack of records and without the benefit of worker interviews. This perceived a priori position seemed to permeate the actions and statements made early 

on by NIOSH and their contractors and may have resulted in resistance to take in 

to account information from workers which contradicted the a priori assumptions 

noted. NIOSH had stated that they could reconstruct the doses of workers at IAAAP 

despite a near total lack of exposure data by dint of theoretical models and data 

from workers at another worksite, Pantex, handling different warheads, in a different era. Petitioners are further disadvantaged by the technical nature and jargon 

of health physics and typically must take at face value the more technical calculations made by NIOSH. The Radiation Advisory Board is beset with complicated decisions and would benefit from the addition of persons recognized for strong environmental epidemiology skills. The functions of the Radiation Advisory Board and of 

their technical contractor, SC&A, must be guaranteed to be independent of any real 

or perceived bias of involved federal agencies. SEC and claims decisions should not 

be based on financial implications but fair and balanced on scientific judgment. 

There were significant weaknesses in NIOSH’s assumptions that they could reconstruct dose without worker exposure data. Examples include NIOSH’s use of ambient outdoor levels of radon gas for calculating respired doses experience by underground workers in Iowa despite the fact that Iowa has among the highest geologic 

sources and reported indoor air concentrations of radon. NIOSH assumed that those 

badged had the highest exposures. Production workers reported a less than systematic radiation monitoring program and a pattern of inspectors and engineers with 

less hands on responsibility for assembling weapons were more likely than others 

to be monitored. It turns out that those workers exposed to the greatest numbers 

of warheads at any time and for whom the area monitoring reflected the highest 

exposure, (guards), were never monitored. 

In April 2005 the President’s Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

went on record agreeing with the workers’ petition that asserted that accurate, defensible and timely dose reconstructions could not be performed. 

The approval of the SEC has rekindled the faith and participation in government. 

At the Ames Laboratory, former workers processed African pitchblende ores and 

radioactive thorium for use in the nuclear weapons program from 1942–1955. The 

12

scientific, technical, and administrative workers at the Ames Lab were involved in 

a heavy industry processing tons of uranium and thorium. This process generated 

large quantities of radioactive dust, and workers performed their duties without personal protection, engineering controls or radiation monitoring to protect them from 

radionuclide exposures and risks. Exposure data are available for small subsets of 

the workforce from very limited points in time, and without supporting documentation regarding both work and dosimetry protocols and methods. Review of Ames Lab 

medical records from individual workers involved in these processes has revealed no 

personal dosimetry records. Workers were exposed to extremely high levels of airborne uranium and thorium dusts, radon and thorium, even relative to the standards in effect during the time. In fact, some workers were excreting hundreds of 

micrograms of uranium per day in their urine. 

My impression from the tone of the OMB memo that led to these hearings is that 

there is a sense among some that the risk to these workers has been over stated 

or that their employment resulted in minimal risk. Unfortunately, because of a severe lack of exposure records and the deaths of many potential claimants, it is not 

feasible to conduct valid dose reconstructions for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, 

IAAAP, facility or Ames Laboratory workers. At IAAP workers were in intimate contact with strong sources of radiation, handling the fissile central components of 

these weapons inches from their bodies without lead aprons. Work histories of Ames 

workers include reports of ‘‘blow-outs’’ with dissemination of both uranium and thorium from uncontrolled exothermic reactions occurring on a routine basis. These exposures would not be tolerated by any means under today’s expectations of acceptable risk. Throughout our and other Former Worker Programs scores of former 

workers lives have fortunately been saved as a result of early detection of cancers 

and other conditions. 

The SEC process has not fully addressed the risk of residual radiation among the 

workers performing maintenance and repair of these facilities. Recently an Ames 

Lab worker described to me his tasks including tearing out all the equipment, ceilings and exhaust ventilation in the building in which tons of thorium had been 

smelted and refined. The Ames Laboratory health and safety staff assisted in submitting an update to the Ames SEC petition to address this issue and to ask NIOSH 

to extend the period of coverage of the Ames SEC and add this subset of workers. 

The question of residual radiation risk is relevant to many of the AEC/DOE sites 

involved in manufacture and refining of radionuclides. 

As regards the DOL claims process, despite the best of intentions for claimant 

friendliness, it operates at times disturbingly like a conventional property or health 

insurance claims process and functionally places obstacles in the paths of claimants. 

The claims process should also be as transparent as possible given any confidentiality constraints. 

I know of at least ten people whose claims were denied and whom upon review 

of their cases and a letter of clarification to the Director of the DOL Division of 

EEOICP resulted in these denials being promptly rescinded. These denials resulted 

from such things as:

• Proof of employment coming for a DOE site worker coming from the parent 

company headquarters in New Jersey instead of the plant site in Kansas City.

• Evidence of disease coming from a ’CT’ scan and being denied because the 

term used was not ’CAT’ scan.

• Statements that specific diseases—Polycythemia Vera, MAST cell lymphoma, 

myelodysplasia—are not covered under the SEC list of presumptive cancers 

when in fact they are.

These workers are typically elderly and not well versed in medical or legal terms and are unfortunately easily frustrated and dissuaded from pursuing valid claims. Cases such as those above suggest that there would be a benefit to a systematic review of denied 

cases and a change in policy from placing the burden of proof entirely on the claimants to a system in which claimants are assisted 

in identifying and locating missing information. 

All the workers who were exposed to radiation, Beryllium and related toxins as part of our Atomic weapons industry deserve no less 

than a fair and open approach to the evaluation of causality and 

compensation for work related disease.

13

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Dr. Mauro. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MAURO, PROJECT MANAGER, DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CONSULTING SERVICES, ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH UNDER EEOICPA, 

SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES 

Mr. MAURO. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is 

John Mauro. I am an employee at Sanford Cohen & Associates located in Vienna, Virginia. 

For the past 3 years, SC&A has served as the technical support 

contractor for the Advisory Board on radiation worker health. I 

serve at the SC&A as project manager for that contract. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me here 

today to discuss two topics. The first pertains to emerging issues 

related to the review of SEC petitions. And the second is to respond 

to allegations made during the March 1st, 2006 hearing regarding 

the possibility that SC&A may have a conflict of interest with respect to the, some of the work we are performing for the Advisory 

Board. 

With respect to the first topic, I have prepared a written statement that addresses four separate issues. However, for the sake of 

expediency, it is convenient to combine these issues into a single 

issue that has to do with finding and then dealing with inadequacies in the radiation protection records for workers at DOE and 

AWE facility. 

When all is said and done, one of the most important responsibilities we all have under the Act is to identify the nature and extent 

of the deficiencies of the radiation protection and other records at 

each facility and determine if it is scientifically plausible to find a 

way to deal with these deficiencies and reconstruct the doses to all 

workers in a manner that is scientifically robust and claimant favorable. If we cannot do this for any group of workers, we must recommend an SEC petition. 

To date, SC&A has reviewed numerous SEC petitions and 

NIOSH evaluation reports of those petitions. The single most important issue that continues to emerge is gaining a complete understanding of the myriad operations that occurred at a facility over 

time and understanding where the gaps exist in the records that 

challenge our ability to reconstruct doses. 

I don’t think anyone realized that this program, when it began, 

how difficult it was going to be to identify those gaps. For example, 

at the Y-12 and Mallinckrodt facilities, we all knew that uranium 

exposures were important and a highly concerted effort was made 

to understanding the uranium exposures that occurred at these facilities. However, during our review of these petitions for these facilities, it became apparent that there were many more radionuclides and activities that took place at these facilities that needed to be understood. 

It is essential that we all recognize the complexity of these facilities and make sure we do not overlook potentially important 

sources of exposures and exposure scenarios, especially during the 

early years. 

14

We need to have complete and unfettered access to all DOE historical records in order to achieve a level of confidence that we 

have not missed anything important. 

I believe the single most important issue that has emerged to 

date is the recognition that it is very difficult to gain a full understanding of the myriad activities that took place at these facilities, 

and that NIOSH, the board and their contractors, SC&A, must accept this reality and the challenges that go with it. 

Once we understand the extent and complexity of the activities 

that took place at a given facility, and the magnitude of the deficiencies and the gaps, we must develop robust decision criteria for 

determining when we can develop end develop methods that can 

fill the gaps in a scientifically defensible and claimant favorable 

manner and when we cannot. I do not believe we have yet reached 

the point where we all agree on the process by which this best can 

be accomplished. 

With respect to the second issue, I disagree with the statement—

the second issue being the conflict of interest statements that were 

made at the—during the previous hearings. I disagree with the 

statements made by Mr. Hallmark at the March 2006 hearing that 

SC&A has a conflict of interest. 

In my prepared statement, I explain why I believe Mr. Hallmark’s statements are not correct. 

The bottom line is, and I am looking for one way to convince the 

Subcommittee, is that when you review our record of findings, just 

about 40 percent of our findings are that the dose reconstruction 

deficiencies have either—have underestimated and about 60 percent have found overestimated. So I believe we have been very objective with respect to how we approach the problem. And we do 

not have a conflict of interest. I am not going to go into the details. 

They are all in my record. 

There are a couple of other matters I would like to discuss, but 

I can see that my time is running out. And I would like to thank 

you for the opportunity to speak to you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Dr. Mauro. 

[The prepared statement of John Mauro follows:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MAURO


JM0001.eps
16


JM0002.eps
17


JM0003.eps
18


JM0004.eps
19


JM0005.eps
20


JM0006.eps
21


JM0007.eps
22


JM0008.eps
23


JM0009.eps
24

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mrs. Bates. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHY BATES, SURVIVING CLAIMANT UNDER 

THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT 

Ms. BATES. I would like to thank Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee for inviting me to testify today. My name 

is Kathy Bates, and I am representing my mother Mildred Gore, 

my brothers James and Gregory Gore and myself with respect to 

our EEOICPA claim under subtitle B for my father, James Gore. 

My father worked at Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee as a production engineer in nuclear weapons fabrication from August 1988 to 

October 1994. He was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma in July 

1992. He was diagnosed with ocular melanoma in July 1997 and 

died in April 2001. 

My testimony briefly summarizes our experience with the claims 

process and the apparent lack of quality control in NIOSH and 

DOL. My mother filed a survivor claim in January 2003. In July 

2005, she received a draft dose reconstruction from NIOSH and a 

recommended decision from DOL in November 2005 stating the 

claim was denied. Both the draft reconstruction and DOL’s recommended decision contained significant errors. The first major errors that the draft dose reconstruction stated that there were no 

records of monitoring for my father and no information relating to 

his job title, job responsibilities or locations where he worked. 

My mother told NIOSH that he was a monitored employee but 

this was given no credit. Nonetheless, he was assigned a dose 

based on NIOSH’s assumption that he was not regularly monitored. 

The second major error which I identified for NIOSH in February 

2006 is that NIOSH mistyped my father’s Social Security number 

when they requested records from DOE. As a result DOE, found no 

records for my father. The third major error is that the recommended decisions stated ‘‘the probability of causation for the primary colon cancer was determined to be 25 percent.’’ Ny father did 

not have colon cancer nor was he diagnosed with colon cancer. 

We filed an appeal with DOL in January 2006 based upon the 

fact that NIOSH stated they had no records or information for my 

father, and thus any dose estimate would have been in error. I 

spoke at the Advisory Board public session in January 2006. At 

that meeting, we were pleased to meet senior administrators from 

DOL NIOSH and ORAU who gave us their personal assurances 

that these problems would be corrected. This level of attention certainly exceeded our expectations. 

In June of 2006, we received a letter from DOL stating our appeal was approved. I had filed a Freedom of Information Act to 

DOE and did obtain records for my father, including his radiation 

exposure records, which I e-mailed to NIOSH in August 2006. I 

also provided contact information on co-workers and identified the 

building he worked in. 

I obtained an e-mail acknowledgement of receipt and NIOSH indicated they would put this information into the administrative 

file. I thought the problem was on track and it would be fixed. 

25

On November 22nd 2006, we received the second draft dose reconstruction from NIOSH. The report stated there were no radiation exposure records for my father end quote, Mr. Gore’s work location is not known. NIOSH’s dose reconstruction report stated ‘‘external electron radiation not considered in this dose reconstruction 

because Mr. Gore did not work directly with radioactive materials 

and any external doses would have been attributable primarily to 

photons.’’

Despite sending NIOSH’s radiation exposure records, NIOSH 

continued to contend that he did not work directly with radioactive 

materials. The net result of course is that his dose reconstruction 

is not correct again. To quote my mother, ‘‘it is as if your father 

never existed.’’

I do not know if NIOSH is going to immediately address these 

problems and start their dose reconstruction for the third time. 

Even if a dose reconstruction is completed for my father using the 

records available, I can honestly say at this point that we have little or no faith in the validity of the results. 

Is our claim experience an aberration or are there real and systemic problems with the EEOICPA claims process that may have 

resulted in the unwarranted denial of other claims? We hope this 

Subcommittee will continue its oversight and enact legislative reforms such as those in Representative Jackson Lee’s bill. 

In this context, we have several recommendations. We urge you 

to extend the responsibility for the DOL’s office of the ombudsman 

to include subtitle B and authorize the ombudsman to act as an advocate on behalf of claimants seeking benefits. The Special Exposure Cohort provision should continue to receive the highest level 

of attention. For many claimants, the SEC process may be the only 

hope of receiving a fair assessment. We recommend that the role 

of the Advisory Board should be extended to execution of the claims 

process itself. At present, it does not appear that there is an external organization not controlled by the agencies which is responsible 

for overall administrative and claimant process audits. 

I hope that my testimony today will be of value. We mourn the 

loss of my father every day. We were blessed to have such an extraordinary man as our father. We are proud of his service to our 

country as a U.S. Navy veteran and of his service, however small, 

in ensuring the safety and security of the United States of America 

as a DOE employee for so many years. On behalf of my family and 

myself, I thank you again for your efforts to support key improvements in this program and allowing me to testify here today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you Mrs. Bates. 

[The prepared statement of Kathy Bates follows:]

26

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY BATES


KB0001.eps
27


KB0002.eps
28


KB0003.eps
29


KB0004.eps
30


KB0005.eps
31


KB0006.eps
32


KB0007.eps
33


KB0008.eps
34


KB0009.eps
35

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Miller. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD MILLER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 

Mr. MILLER. Before I begin my testimony, I would like to just 

take an informal moment to offer a personal thank you to the 

Chairman and to the Ranking Member for your efforts this session 

of Congress to unmask the problems facing nuclear workers seeking justice from a Government that had put them in harm’s way. 

And Mr. Chairman, I realize that you will not be returning next 

year, but your willingness to pursue two additional oversight hearings in this lame-duck session of Congress is particularly noteworthy and it serves an important role in laying the groundwork, 

and I believe creating momentum for legislative reforms next year. 

And we genuinely thank you both. 

Today my testimony will assess the Department of Labor’s efforts 

to pursue initiatives that would reduce benefits to sick nuclear 

workers, particularly new Special Exposure Cohorts, two, to review 

the Administration’s failure to constitute the Advisory Board on radiation and worker health in conformance with the law, and three, 

to highlight emerging issues that are threatening the integrity of 

the audit process. 

At the Subcommittee’s March 1 hearing regarding the OMB 

passback to DOL, a document which outlined five options for limiting Special Exposure Cohort, the Department of Labor’s witness, 

Shelby Hallmark, stated, and I quote, ‘‘cost containment is not part 

of any strategy or involvement that the Department of Labor has 

had in this process.’’ Excerpts of e-mails under preparation for the 

Office of Management and Budget to use in the passback, which 

were made available to me by the Subcommittee in preparing for 

this hearing state, ‘‘the single most effective way to prevent billions 

of dollars in spending is by requiring HHS to clear its determinations to add additional employees to the SEC, with the OMB, after 

an opportunity for interested agencies, such as the Department of 

Labor, to comment on the analysis and determination.’’

The Department of Labor has actively led lobbying efforts to reduce benefits paid out under NIOSH’s Special Exposure Cohort 

regulations, with respect to Special Exposure Cohort bills covering 

facilities in Iowa, Missouri, New York and Colorado, Mr. Hallmark 

says in an e-mail, ‘‘we should do everything possible to oppose 

these SEC amendments.’’ and his entire logic is budget driven 

without regard to the data deficiencies. 

The Department of Labor has also disparaged the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health. Excerpts of an e-mail 

state, and I quote, ‘‘the Advisory Board has totally failed to take 

a balanced approach to examining NIOSH activities.’’ And an October 2005 memo under preparation for the Office of Management 

and Budget the Department of Labor recommended that the Advisory Board be ‘‘refreshed.’’

Excerpts from the e-mail state ‘‘we believe replacing these members could provide an opportunity to add board members willing 

and able to advocate a scientifically valid approach in carrying out 

NIOSH’s responsibilities under EEOICPA.’’ And given DOL’s stated agenda, this appears to be a simple case of desiring to pack the 

36

courts in order to oppose SEC designations all wrapped up in the 

pretext of scientific validity. 

In sum, Mr. Hallmark’s words in the March hearing, cost containment is not part of any strategy or involvement that the Department of Labor has had in its process are contradicted by documents uncovered by this Subcommittee. 

More damaging is the DOL’s loss of credibility as an impartial 

claims administrator. Austin Smythe, acting Deputy Director of 

OMB, testified before the Subcommittee on July 20, 2006, ‘‘we are 

not pursuing any of these items that were listed in the passback.’’ 

It was inappropriately leaked. It has now been inappropriately 

characterized as Administration policy which it is not. And yet, despite Mr. Smythe’s testimony, the OMB passback was put on the 

agenda for a joint NIOSH DOL meeting held in January 2006, 

months after the OMB passback was issued. 

There were indications that Mr. Hallmark may have moved forward with a sequel to the OMB passback. Judiciary Committee 

notes from an early February 2006 e-mail communication from 

Shelby Hallmark to Melissa Benton at the Office of Management 

and Budget raises a red flag. An excerpt states ‘‘I am uncomfortable with even an unofficial sharing of my briefing piece for today’s 

meeting with my second floor people,’’ which is the Secretary of 

Labor. ‘‘but if you promise not to spread it and if you don’t use the 

language in your document such that NIOSH will know where the 

verbiage came from, I will share it, but I am still smarting from 

your citation of your ideas in the budget passback as having been 

suggested by the employment standards Administration.’’ and he 

asks, ‘‘is that agreeable?’’

Well, we would urge the Subcommittee to secure this briefing 

paper and to ascertain its implementation status so we know what 

he was referring to. 

The Department of Labor’s benefits containment agenda has 

found its way into the day-to-day adjudication of claims. In October 

of 2005, the Department of Labor began sending certain compensable claims back to NIOSH, ‘‘based on increasing DOL management concern over a potential increase in compensable claims for 

cancers perceived as normally or previously not compensable.’’

The Director of the Department of Labor’s final adjudication 

branch remanded cases back to DOL without ever telling claimants 

their cases were being second-guessed by DOL. In fact, one DOL 

e-mail says, when we send remand orders to claimants, I don’t 

want them to know they are part of a ‘‘management plan.’’

To the extent there are errors, such as work history or incorrect 

cancer diagnoses that are within the ambit of the Labor Department’s regulations, then DOL clearly has a role here. But an internal DOL e-mail by a health physicist concedes that NIOSH dose reconstructions have not been overestimating dose as Mr. Hallmark 

has contended. In fact, this DOL e-mail says, ‘‘now that I think 

about it, most of the dose reconstructions for the special cancers we 

are reviewing that resulted in a probability of over 50 percent are 

appropriately performed by NIOSH and no rework is required.’’

However, ‘‘the need for maintaining secrecy seems to be a concern.’’ This DOE e-mail added ‘‘I hope no one is mentioning the fact 

that we took another look at these dose reconstructions and said 

37

it was fine in the recommended or final decisions.’’ But the concern 

is that documents show that the DOL’s final adjudicative branch 

cooperated in advancing this management plan to reduce the payment of claims and thus they compromised their independence as 

an adjudicator. 

There may be a need for legislative reforms to separate the adjudicative branch from control of program officials and OMB. 

I notice my time is close to wrapping up. I just have one other 

point. 

The OMB passback called for changing the membership of the 

President’s Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which 

audits the scientific quality of dose reconstructions and reviews 

SEC petitions. 

Today the composition of the board as the Chairman noted is not 

in compliance with EEOICPA, which requires a balance of scientific, medical and worker perspectives. There are only two of the 

four required worker slots, and only two of the four required medical slots. 

The Board also lacks the balance and diversity of viewpoints that 

is called for under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, thus compromising its independence. We recommend that Congress enact 

legislation to shift the appointing authority from the President to 

Congress. 

And on November 3, 2006, NIOSH compensation program director Larry Elliott—and this is just an emerging issue—unilaterally 

suspended all access by the Advisory Board and its audit contractor 

to the claimant database. 

As of November 13th—2 days before this hearing—the Advisory 

Board’s access to the electronic database of records was reinstated—although the constraints are unknown. However, Mr. Elliott told the board that access of the claims filed by Sanford Cohen 

& Associates or any contract entity must be granted on a case-bycase basis with an established purpose as authorized by the manager of the system of records, which is Mr. Elliott. The board’s 

audit contractor is now reduced to a mother-may-I situation where 

the entity is audited. Mr. Elliott’s actions raise questions about the 

degree to which there is a conflict of roles. 

In November 2004, Mr. Elliott was removed as the designated 

Federal official to the Advisory Board due to his conflict of roles as 

manager of both the dose reconstruction program and controlling 

the board. 

The GAO’s recent report to this Subcommittee warned NIOSH to 

be alert for a conflict of roles in managing the program, yet this 

conflict has resurfaced. 

We recommend legislation to ensure that the Advisory Board and 

the audit contractor have full and unfettered access to all NIOSH 

files they deem necessary to carry out their responsibilities under 

that Act consistent with the Privacy Act. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

[The prepared statement of Richard Miller follows:]

38

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. MILLER


RDM0001.eps
39


RDM0002.eps
40


RDM0003.eps
41


RDM0004.eps
42


RDM0005.eps
43


RDM0006.eps
44


RDM0007.eps
45


RDM0008.eps
46


RDM0009.eps
47


RDM0010.eps
48


RDM0011.eps
49


RDM0012.eps
50


RDM0013.eps
51


RDM0014.eps
52


RDM0015.eps
53

Mr. HOSTETTLER. At this time, the Subcommittee will turn to 

questions. 

Dr. Fuortes, what specific recommendations would you offer to 

improve this program, either administratively or legislatively? 

Dr. FUORTES. Thank you. 

Well, there are several issues. I think that one of the issues that 

comes up is—has come up repeatedly is the independence and the 

ability of the board and the auditor to do their functions. 

I think that that could be done legislatively or by a variety of 

mechanisms. But I think that is certainly the functions of the 

Board and the functions of the auditor need to be recognized as 

very valuable functions to the claimants and petitioners. They have 

no other access to that sort of expertise. And I don’t think that that 

request falls into the line of requesting worker advocacy. I think 

it is access to scientific acumen. 

There are several issues, I guess, as regards the SEC process and 

the SEC cancers, but one issue would be that the SEC process 

should be facilitated I think and if it is NIOSH that can help petitioners, if it is an agency such as the Advisory Board, if it is another agency that is fine. But I think that former workers and their 

families are disadvantaged. They don’t know what their exposures 

were. So somebody has to assist them in educating them. This was 

the situation historically. Maybe it is the Department of Energy’s 

responsibility. But that should be looked at. 

Another issue, I raise just briefly is that the list of SEC cancers 

itself might be reviewed. And I think that there is probably—this 

is a point in time in which MCI or NIOSH or some other agency 

could get involved in examining that list. I think that there is—

there are some deficiencies in the inclusion of that list. You asked 

a very broad question and maybe this is something that I am rambling on about. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Dr. Mauro, a DOL memo prepared for OMB states the following, 

‘‘the Advisory Board has totally failed to take a balanced approach 

to examining by NIOSH activities. This unwillingness to fulfill 

their statutory responsibility by carefully examining issues such as 

whether so-called claimant friendly devices increasingly adopted by 

NIOSH are overestimating or overcompensating claimants has 

been magnified by NIOSH’s decision to provide technical support 

through a contractor, Sanford Cohen & Associates, rather than 

through its own staff. SC&A has relentlessly pursued an agenda 

that appears to be designed to result in maximizing payments to 

claimants regardless of scientific validity.’’

Please explain how SC&A does its auditing work. For example, 

does SC&A only examine underestimates, or does it also assess 

overestimates of doses that would lead to inappropriate compensation decisions? 

Likewise, has SC&A actually identified such overestimates and 

pointed this out to NIOSH or the Board? 

Mr. MAURO. To answer the question, first, it must be understood 

that the cases that we review are given to us by the Advisory 

Board. They select the ones to make sure they get a good cross section that represents as many different facilities, different types of 

54

cancers, different time periods, as possible. And we receive these 

cases from them. 

Then we have a process of systematically checking each and 

every dose reconstruction to give an individual for every year we 

check how they calculate, how NIOSH has calculated that dose. 

And we determined whether or not they followed their own procedures, whether or not the procedures they followed were appropriate. 

The bottom line is for each dose reconstruction that we audit, we 

prepare a list of findings and identify deficiencies. 

Now, it turns out we have completed 60 such audits. We have 

249 findings out of the 60 audit reports. 

Out of those, we found 102 had errors that resulted in underestimates of the dose. And we have we had, we found 84 that resulted 

in an overestimate of the dose. And we found 63 that were errors 

but they really didn’t affect the dose one way or the other. 

We are virtually—when we approach the process, we are really 

blind to whether or not the outcome is going to be over or under. 

We just look for errors in science, errors in the ability for them to 

access the proper data and use the proper procedures. And what 

falls out of that is the finding. And then at the end, you can make 

a determination, well, does that finding have the effect of resulting 

in an underestimate or the overestimate in the dose? 

We then sort all that out in our database, and I just sort of summarize for you so the outcome of this is one that we do both. We 

identify places where the science and the procedures are flawed 

and where it needs to be fixed. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Mauro. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, and thank you all for 

your testimony, and please know that this Committee remaining 

constituted as it is in terms of its jurisdiction will continue to work 

to solve this problem, and I think this injustice to many who have 

served so well. 

Let me, Mrs. Bates, start with you, and thank you and thank 

your mother and brothers and also thank your late father for not 

only his service to the Department of Energy but to the United 

States Navy. 

And I, frankly, just want to get on the record the fact that you 

relate to us a painstaking effort on your behalf, on behalf of your 

family. 

The good news is that there was a family member who had the 

wherewithal to engage. 

Many of those these individuals who are themselves victims are 

elderly. Many of them may not have the wonderful support system 

that you provide. 

Just tell me how you felt going through all of this and then ultimately seeing your Social Security number mistyped? You know we 

always say to err is human. But putting the burden on you to get 

all of these activities in order and then to see a representation of 

a cavalier approach or attitude of a misprinted Social Security 

number. 

Ms. BATES. Well, I can tell you, it is very frustrating from a personal standpoint. And I will honestly admit for the first few years 

55

of the process I was kind of disengaged. My mother had all the correspondence, filled out the forms and you would occasionally have 

a follow-up call with a case worker. 

When she got the original dose reduction, after a series of other 

errors which are outlined in my statement, she called me and said, 

I can’t read this, what does it say? And that is when I really sat 

down and looked at it. And I couldn’t read it either. And I had to 

sit down and I have spent hundreds of hours of my time reading 

thousands of pages. I did know what the Code of Federal Regulations was and so I knew where to go on the Internet, look it up. 

And that is how I came to be able to read 42 CFR part 82 for the 

dose reconstruction once required. 

I think my biggest frustration has been not knowing what to do 

or where to do for help, because you don’t get any help out of calling the agency directly and saying I need help. The common answer I would get—even when trying to get a status was—it is in 

the process. That is not an answer. I felt like I was being blown 

off. 

And I think in your bill, the position of the ombudsman, I might 

not be here today if that position existed and there was an effective 

mechanism for people to go to and ask for help, at all levels. And 

many of the claimants I am sure are elderly, and many don’t have 

the wherewithal to read these documents and even know where to 

go. So I think that would be one of the most effective things you 

could go do for the process. 

And the claim process itself, not the dose reconstruction, not the 

technical, the scientific part of it but you know as a claimant, I give 

information, there is this magic black box and out spits an answer. 

If it is right or wrong, I don’t know. If it is not right, I don’t know 

how to get help. I don’t know even know who to ask. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you say then that elderly senior citizens who don’t have a support system can be completely frustrated 

by this process? 

Ms. BATES. Absolutely. My mother’s comments to me when we 

received the recommended decision which is sent to you after the 

dose reconstruction was that if I did not have you to help me, I 

would have simply thrown it in the garbage and been done with 

it. Because what do you do? You are not even sure what it says. 

You are really not even sure what it says. You do get to the end 

and it says you will not be compensated if the claim is denied. But 

reading between, you know, dear Mrs. Gore, and you will not be 

compensated, the 6 or 7 pages is incomprehensible for many people, 

I would imagine. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do understand Government documents. 

Might I also say that it is a challenge for individuals who are living with the disease. Tragically, your father passed. But I imagine 

if you had to entertain those elderly—those who are trying to be 

compensated it must be a piquing frustration. 

Ms. BATES. I can just imagine. I can just imagine. My mother is 

an educated woman. She is not uneducated. But knowing, having 

someone to ask questions of, is I think a primary responsibility of 

the program. And if that is the role of the ombudsman and that 

is the mechanism you can put in place as a help system, I don’t 

know how you would approach helping people who don’t have the 

56

wherewithal. How many people that are elderly have Internet access and use it regularly and know where to go and what to do? 

So to the extent that these mechanisms are available you have 

a very broad and probably varied audience with different levels of 

capability to even understand or even use the office or use the tool. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. Mauro, I wonder why your, the integrity 

of the auditor has now been challenged. And I wonder would you 

describe your work as a free for all for any claimant to claim that 

they are entitled, or do you do the appropriate vetting and research 

that is necessary to do the dose reconstruction? 

Mr. MAURO. The process that we—our contract is very well defined in how it works. 

We are really part of a large process. The Advisory Board has a 

mandate under the Act to independently provide oversight of the 

dose reconstruction process. 

We serve them in a technical capacity. They will deliver to us the 

cases that they would like us to look at. The only cases that we 

formally audit are the ones that are delivered to us by the Advisory 

Board. 

Then we follow procedures that have been developed and that we 

are held accountable to that have been approved by the Advisory 

Board. We have checklists. And everything we do, I would have to 

say, is very deliberative. It is not a free for all. It is—what we 

are—very often there are many, many people who would like us to 

look at their cases. But we have—our mandate is very well defined. 

Our role is to support the Board and review those audit, those 

cases that are given to us by the Board and report back to them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What is your explanation that you are being 

charged, having followed the rules by the book with wanting to give 

everyone money or to approve every case? How do you answer 

that? What is behind that? 

Mr. MAURO. I don’t have an answer. I don’t have a ready answer. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You feel you are following the rules? 

Mr. MAURO. Our rules are laid out before us very clearly and we 

are following them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It may be the accusations are made by individuals who want no one to be compensated or don’t view this as 

a realistic claim that so many people are suffering. It might be the 

case. 

Mr. Miller, I might throw this to you and thank you for the leadership you have given on these issues. 

My legislation, H.R. 5840, I think, answers Mrs. Bates’s questions and some of the points you have made. Might you share how 

5840 can get us started, at least in answering the question I posed 

to Dr. Mauro? Why is his integrity being challenged? He has argued that he is following the rules and he has nowhere to go in 

terms of raising his defense because he is being charged with a free 

for all in this process. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, first, if I might say, having been to, I think, 

41 of the Advisory Board meetings and watched the deliberations, 

I would assume that if there were technical acumen provided to 

claimants in order to assess whether, in fact, their claims may 

have been, the dose may have been underestimated or that an SEC 

might be warranted, and you viewed your role over in the DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111506\30840.000 HJUD1 PsN: 30840
57

ment of Labor as second guessing that, and that your job was to 

engage in cost containment measures, and that appealing to the office of management and budget’s natural inclination to look at 

budget issues and to curry favor accordingly, and then to pursue 

an agenda where you reshape the program, not as Congress has intended it, but as you wished Congress had done it, and to do so 

in secrecy might explain why these nonpublic documents which the 

Subcommittee has been so capably obtaining and now making public for the first time, I think illustrate a larger overarching agenda 

to undermine congressional intent. 

And really, I think the Labor Department is undermining the integrity of the program by attacking Sanford Cohen & Associates 

with really—without an iota of substance or credibility. 

And I say that because the Labor Department has not once come 

before the Advisory Board and said technically we disagree with 

the finding of the audit contractor, or we disagree with the conclusion on a special cohort that the Board voted out. Instead they do 

this in secret with the Office of Management and Budget seeking 

to undercut this process or working with the White House to stack 

the Advisory Board. 

This is the problem that we are facing is that there is a backdoor operation underway here that is undermining what goes on in 

public. And I certainly hope that we can continue to explore this 

further. 

With respect to your legislation, I think it makes an excellent 

start. It captured a number of the ideas that both Congressmen 

Tom and Mark Udall presented before this Subcommittee in their 

testimony, and I was pleased to see you incorporate some of their 

recommendations as well, and I will also note that they cosponsored your legislation, but this legislation, I think the most important and central part is that congressional intent has got to be reinstated in this program. How do we go about doing that. 

Well, I think the first step that your legislation takes is let us 

have Congress make directed appointments. Let us take this out of 

the Administration. There is too much temptation by OMB and the 

green eye shades to undermine congressional intent here. Let us 

have Congress on a bipartisan basis make directed appointments 

consistent with the statutory criteria of medical, scientific and 

worker perspectives. 

So I think that is a first and important start, and we have other 

suggestions as well. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I just make this point? I 

am not sure if you are going on a second round. I have a military 

briefing that I am being called to, and so if I depart and the Chairman is having a second round, I am not sure. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I am having a second round, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I move, then you will know where I am 

going. If I am still here, I am getting word that I can stay a little 

bit longer, but Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that with your 

leadership and the opportunity for another hearing to finish this 

out when we return, please accept our commitment that this is not 

going to be left undone. There are too many patriots that we have 

to respond to, and I will—listen, I might be here for the second 

round, and I thank the witnesses very much. 

58

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. We will now go to a 

second round of questions. 

Ms. Bates, you have spoken on this at some length, but more directly do you feel the process today is claimant-favorable? 

Ms. BATES. From the claimant perspective, no, because—and I 

think we have addressed this—I felt the burden of proof was on 

me, and when I say ‘‘claimant-favorable,’’ I know there is a lot of 

language in 42 CFR 82 that addresses claimant-favorable with respect to the dose reconstruction, but from the claimant’s perspective of how is the process going, not when I have to literally prove 

to NIOSH that records do exist and that this was his job and this 

is the building where he worked, that cannot be perceived as claimant-favorable. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, your testimony indicated that the NIOSH program’s 

staff had cut off access to claims data for the board and the audit 

contractor. We understand that NIOSH has restored board access 

to data. However, the audit contractor has not had access to the 

claims database. How would you recommend that this problem be 

resolved? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly know that the Director of NIOSH has now been made aware of this problem. John 

Howard has received communications on this. Secondly, I think 

that the situation that NIOSH has taken has told the audit contractor—and they are here to confirm it for themselves—that they 

must provide a rationale and a justification for the records they 

want to look at when they do an audit, which to me seems to be 

placing the audited entity in the position of putting up obstacles, 

and it certainly leads to the inefficiency of the process, and I would 

argue it deters the depth and breadth with which the auditor can 

pursue his job or her job. 

My recommendation is that either something be done in the appropriations bills this year or in some legislative vehicle that provides full and unfettered access for the board and the audit contractor based on what they deem is necessary, not what NIOSH 

deems is necessary. That is point one and, two, that, you know, obviously the usual constraints of the Privacy Act and national security in terms of dealing with classification would apply, but they 

need to be able to see and access those documents without any interference whatsoever, and I think Congress needs to provide crystal clear authority for that to happen. 

One would have thought that with a program where its leadership boasts of its transparency that it would not engage in this 

kind of activity, but it is going on, and I do not know what is really 

driving it, but there is something motivating this that is not entirely transparent, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Dr. Mauro, in pursuing that, that notion of access and the lack 

thereof, has lack of access been a challenge in meeting deadlines 

in carrying out your work? 

Mr. MAURO. Well, this new—the new set of ground rules were 

only instituted about a week ago, and the nature of the ground 

rules are that we have to inform or request access to specific information, which we have done. Normally, we would have had directly 

59

accessed that information and have already gotten the information 

we need and we would have gotten the work done, but right now 

we have requests in under this process, waiting for the material to 

be released to us. So, in the respect of the past week, I would say, 

yeah, there has been—because of the process, there are records 

that we have not looked at yet that we normally would have if this 

access was not restricted. 

I would like to point out, however, on my way here today I did 

receive a phone call from the contracting officer, Mr. David Stout, 

who informed me that they are taking a real close look at this and 

that there is a good possibility that SC&A will be granted free and 

unfettered access to the records, but they are discussing that right 

now and looking into that further. 

But to answer your question, the degree to which it will prevent 

us from getting our job done, there is no doubt it is an inconvenience. It will slow down the process. It already has to a certain degree. As I mentioned, there are certain documents we would have 

liked to have looked at today that we really have not been able to 

look at. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So free and unfettered access would probably 

be the optimal arrangement with regard to access for your work? 

Mr. MAURO. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And this is what it was for how long prior to 

this recent evolution in the process? 

Mr. MAURO. Well, when we first started the program about 3 

years ago, we had some serious difficulties gaining access to the 

records we needed, and it made it very, very difficult, and it was 

a painful process to get to the point where we did have access. So 

the machinery—they are these large computer programs containing 

tons of information. Little by little we were granted access to the 

point where we did have what I considered to be very good access 

to the records, and that may have gone on. I would say for the past 

6 months things were in pretty good shape, but now with this new 

policy we sort of took a step back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just again conclude by indicating that 

you have given us a great deal of insight on how we can expand 

H.R. 5840 and also some insight, Mr. Chairman, possibly on working with the Appropriations Committee to at least get, maybe, 

points that we agree with particularly on the advisory committee 

aspect. 

Dr. Mauro, could you just give an example of where you have 

identified significant omissions or holes in the data that were generated by your access to the material? Do you have like one example or have you discovered something? If you had not had any access, you would not have been able to secure that information? 

Mr. MAURO. Yes. I guess the most important one is what is happening right now. Right now we are in the middle of reviewing the 

Rocky Flats SEC petition. There are some very serious issues before us on whether or not the record is complete with regard to the 

doses to workers. Are there significant gaps? There are some quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111506\30840.000 HJUD1 PsN: 30840
60

tions of falsification of records and destruction of records deliberately. All of these are part of the record of the petition’s concern. 

Now, in order for us to investigate these matters, not only us but 

also NIOSH, the only way to determine whether the seriousness of 

these gaps and the statements made in the petition is to go into 

the records. Without having access to those records, these questions cannot be answered, and to place certain constraints on, you 

know, the degree to which we can access our protocol, it is going 

to make it difficult, and we do not know how difficult it will be, 

and let us say we do have to live with this new set of ground rules. 

It will make it difficult for us to do the investigations that we 

would like to be able to do, but of course if those are the ground 

rules, that is what we will do. 

So that is one very important example of where having access to 

records is important. I hope that answers your question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so, in essence, it is a question of fairness. 

Do you have any access to determine what is right, what is wrong, 

what is a fact, what is not a fact? 

Mr. MAURO. In the end the records is what the whole program 

is about. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Not your favoritism. You are not in the business of favoritism, I take it? 

Mr. MAURO. No, of course not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are in the business of independent research and auditing——

Mr. MAURO. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—and I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is one 

of the harshest discoveries that we have made, and it is interesting 

that the call was made to reconsider this, but a fact finder cannot 

be a true transparent fact finder without having access to documents. 

Dr. Fuortes, do you have any quick suggestion on this issue that 

you raised that was dealing with any improvements to the Special 

Exposure Cohort process? 

Dr. FUORTES. Well, as I said, I think workers need some assistance or sites need some assistance, and as I said, I think this could 

be in several fashions, but that is one issue. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. An ombudsman or someone advocating? 

Dr. FUORTES. Well, most of what I have been working with has 

in fact been claims-oriented, and the ombuds-—I work a bit with 

the ombudsperson’s office, and I think that that—what you have 

suggested of expanding that role would be fantastic. The claimants 

are elderly. They do have a great deal of difficulty in collecting and 

interpreting medical information. They have the responsibility of 

collecting all of this information, and if you can, imagine somebody 

without Kathy to help them. I think that we can see that there is 

a real need for some assistance in this process. I do not know if 

the resource centers are supposed to do this work or not, but I believe that the ombudsperson’s office being expanded to fulfill that 

role of claims assistance and, in particular, assistance with the 

evaluation or the auditing of the denied claims by DOL would be 

very, very helpful. 

So this is not exactly answering your question of problems with 

the SEC but how I view improvement of the overall program. 

61

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just say that the two devils in the details are the DOL acting as the handmaiden of the OMB as it relates to doing their job and cost-cutting, and what we have found 

is that cost-cutting seems to have carried the day as opposed to fact 

finding. When you find the facts, you will define the pool of applicants that are legitimate, and then you begin to make the case for 

how they are compensated, but if you start out with an OMB costcutting challenge, then you are cutting the edges in terms of finding out the truth, and I hope that that is not what my understanding of the Advisory Board and this process was to be about. 

So I, again, think this is my second expression of appreciation. 

Thank you for the insight that has been given and some of the additions, Ms. Bates—Mrs. Bates—that we would like to add to the 

existing legislation, issues that you have given us for consideration. 

Again, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I am going to ask a couple more questions. 

First of all, Dr. Fuortes, what is your view on the current balance 

of the Advisory Board? 

Dr. FUORTES. My impression is that even the term ‘‘balance’’ is 

confusing. To me, it is very confusing because, from documents that 

were made available to me, it appears that people view the balance 

on the Advisory Board being a balance of the employer’s perspective and worker advocacy. 

I think the Advisory Board is tasked with making scientific judgments, so worker’s perspective is important in terms of knowing 

the worker’s language, knowing about the processes involved in facilities, not worker advocacy, and so I am very disturbed by that 

terminology in those documents. I think that I would prefer people 

follow through with the concept of difficulty in ascertaining risk 

and determining how to fulfill the language and intent of the 

EEOICPA Act on the basis of scientific judgments. 

In that case, I would say that instead of balance the skill sets 

reflected on the—which is what you are getting at—the skill sets 

reflected on the Advisory Board would suggest to me that they 

probably need a little bit more medical epidemiology/

radioepidemiology background. The one radioepidemiologist is, I 

think, very, very overburdened with the current tasks, and I would 

say that I would look at skill sets instead of balance because, to 

me, the concept of ‘‘balance’’ really implies advocacy roles and antagonism between two separate advocacy roles. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. With the notion of skill sets, how would that 

be redundant with the task of the contractor itself, or would it be? 

Dr. FUORTES. Oh. Well, I do not know that the contractors are 

medical epidemiologists per se. I would say that their skill sets lie 

more in radiophysics dose ascertainment, and medical epidemiology 

was—certainly, there is an overlap between the fields, but I would 

say that they are separate areas. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, has it been your experience that the shoddy processing of Ms. Bates’ survivor claim is unique or is it systemic? 

Mr. MILLER. The circumstance that Ms. Bates brings up certainly 

brings to mind for me several other recent cases where the mechanics of the claims processing is deficient. Let me give you an exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111506\30840.000 HJUD1 PsN: 30840
62

ample from the Nevada test site, for example. The Nevada test 

site—they are—NIOSH concedes that in their site profile documents that they cannot reconstruct dose for a whole group of workers who were out at this nuclear weapons test facility. When they 

did certain underground tests, the tests did not stay contained. 

They blew out. They vented, so to speak, euphemistically. Some of 

these ventings went on for 30 hours and traveled all the way to 

Utah. So, when we say ‘‘venting,’’ we mean a large amount of particulate debris that was forced into the atmosphere over a protracted period of time. Huge amounts of pressure built up underground. The workers around it were not necessarily monitored or 

monitored adequately, and NIOSH does not have a clear way to estimate their dose, but what they put is—they say that workers will 

self-identify if they have been in these events. They assume that 

claimants will self-identify and survivors will self-identify, that one 

of these ten out of—you know, over the hundreds and hundreds 

and hundreds of tests that have been conducted there that they 

will flag that and that NIOSH will know it, and then, if they know 

that, they will set it aside. 

Well, the fact is claimants are not even asked if they were involved in these tests by NIOSH, so NIOSH just goes ahead willynilly and is reconstructing doses while omitting these events that 

they cannot reconstruct dose for. So you are supposed to be setting 

these aside and either pending them or perhaps putting them in 

another special cohort. 

Instead, what is happening is due to the administrative failures 

of NIOSH in its claimant interview process the failure to obtain the 

information that these workers should not be dose-reconstructed, 

because NIOSH already admits they lack the data and the wherewithal to do it, and yet they are running it through the process. 

How is a claimant, when they get this gibberish back in their dose 

reconstruction report, ever going to fathom that their case was so 

grossly mishandled? And I have had the privilege of working with 

the Senator’s office from Nevada who has fed me a number of these 

cases, and I am astounded at the degree of ineptitude in the basic 

bureaucratic processing of the claims by NIOSH. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Those are all the questions I have. 

The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am prepared to yield, and I think that we 

have made a very, very good record particularly by all of the witnesses coming from different perspectives, and I would appreciate, 

Mr. Chairman, if we could collaborate in this period between now 

and the close of this session to see how—at least the strengthening 

of the Advisory Board subtitle (B), but the integrity of Dr. Mauro’s 

process, I think, is key. He must be unfettered, and he must be 

able to view documents with integrity. There will be several elements that will help move these cases along, and I thank you very 

much, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I look forward to working with the gentlelady 

from Texas. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

make additions to the record. The Chair will also notify the witnesses that we will have a set of a few questions. I have some quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111506\30840.000 HJUD1 PsN: 30840
63

tions for some of the witnesses that are here today that I was not 

able to ask, and so I would request that the witnesses would respond to those questions in a timely fashion, and that time frame 

will be made known in correspondence that we will make with you. 

The business before the Subcommittee being completed today 

without——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will join you in written questions as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS


A0001.eps
67


A0002.eps
68


A0003.eps
69


A0004.eps
70


A0005.eps
71


A0006.eps
72


A0007.eps
73


A0008.eps
74


A0009.eps
75


A0010.eps
76


A0011.eps
77


A0012.eps
78


A0013.eps
79

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS


B0001.eps
80


B0002.eps
81


B0003.eps
82


B0004.eps
83


B0005.eps
84

MEMORANDUM FROM MORTON ROSENBERG, SPECIALIST IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LAW, 

AMERICAN LAW DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE


C0001.eps
85


C0002.eps
86


C0003.eps
87


C0004.eps
88


C0005.eps
89


C0006.eps
90


C0007.eps
91


C0008.eps
92


C0009.eps
93


C0010.eps
94


C0011.eps
95


C0012.eps
96


C0013.eps
97


C0014.eps
98


C0015.eps
99


C0016.eps
100


C0017.eps
101

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT ALVAREZ, SENIOR SCHOLAR,

INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC STUDIES


D0001.eps
102


D0002.eps
103


D0003.eps
104


D0004.eps
105


D0005.eps
106


D0006.eps
107


D0007.eps
108


D0008.eps
109


D0009.eps
110


D0010.eps
111


D0011.eps
112


D0012.eps
113


D0013.eps
114


D0014.eps
115


D0015.eps
116


D0016.eps
117


D0017.eps
118


D0018.eps
119

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET MEMORANDUM


E0001.eps
120


E0002.eps
121


E0003.eps
122


E0004.eps
123


E0005.eps
124


E0006.eps
125


E0007.eps
126


E0008.eps
127

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAULA GRAHAM, MEMBER, ADVISORY BOARD TO THE

HEALTH RESEARCHERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


F0001.eps
128


F0002.eps
129


F0003.eps
130


F0004.eps
131


F0005.eps
132


F0006.eps
133


F0007.eps
134


F0008.eps
135


F0009.eps
136


F0010.eps
137


F0011.eps
138


F0012.eps
139


F0013.eps
140


F0014.eps
141


F0015.eps
142


F0016.eps
143


F0017.eps
144

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM LAURENCE FUORTES, M.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA


G0001.eps
145


G0002.eps
146


G0003.eps
147


G0004.eps
148


G0005.eps
149

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM JOHN MAURO, PROJECT MANAGER, 

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION CONSULTING SERVICES, ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION

AND WORKER HEALTH UNDER EEOICPA, SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES


H0001.eps
150


H0002.eps
151


H0003.eps
152


H0004.eps
153


H0005.eps
154


H0006.eps
155


H0007.eps
156


H0008.eps
157


H0009.eps
158


H0010.eps
159

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM KATHY BATES, SURVIVING CLAIMANT

UNDER THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM

ACT


I0001.eps
160


I0002.eps
161


I0003.eps
162


I0004.eps
163


I0005.eps
164


I0006.eps
165


I0007.eps
166


I0008.eps
167


I0009.eps
168


I0010.eps
169


I0011.eps
170


I0012.eps
171


I0013.eps
172


I0014.eps
173


I0015.eps
174


I0016.eps
175


I0017.eps
176

ATTACHMENT


I0018.eps
177


I0019.eps
178


I0020.eps
179


I0021.eps
180


I0022.eps
181


I0023.eps
182


I0024.eps
183


I0025.eps
184


I0026.eps
185


I0027.eps
186


I0028.eps
187


I0029.eps
188


I0030.eps
189


I0031.eps
190


I0032.eps
191


I0033.eps
192


I0034.eps
193


I0035.eps
194


I0036.eps
195


I0037.eps
196


I0038.eps
197


I0039.eps
198


I0040.eps
199


I0041.eps
200


I0042.eps
201


I0043.eps
202


I0044.eps
203


I0045.eps
204


I0046.eps
205


I0047.eps
206


I0048.eps
207


I0049.eps
208


I0050.eps
209


I0051.eps
210

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM RICHARD MILLER, SENIOR POLICY

ANALYST GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT


J0001.eps
211


J0002.eps
212


J0003.eps
213


J0004.eps
214


J0005.eps
215


J0006.eps
216


J0007.eps
217

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDRA WOLFF BALDRIDGE


K0001.eps
218


K0002.eps
219


K0003.eps
220

SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S

OVERSIGHT OF THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION

PROGRAM ACT


L0001.eps
221


MA0001.eps
222


MA0002.eps
223


MA0003.eps
224


MA0004.eps
225


MA0005.eps
226


MA0006.eps
227


MA0007.eps
228


MA0008.eps
229


MA0009.eps
230


MA0010.eps
231


MA0011.eps
232


MA0012.eps
233


MA0013.eps
234


MA0014.eps
235


MA0015.eps
236


MA0016.eps
237


MA0017.eps
238


MA0018.eps
239


MA0019.eps
240


MA0020.eps
241


MA0021.eps
242


MA0022.eps
243


MA0023.eps
244


MA0024.eps
245


MA0025.eps
246


MA0026.eps
247


MA0027.eps
248


MA0028.eps
249


MA0029.eps
250


MA0030.eps
251


MA0031.eps
252


MA0032.eps
253


MA0033.eps
254


MA0034.eps
255


MA0035.eps
256


MA0036.eps
257


MA0037.eps
258


MA0038.eps
259


MA0039.eps
260


MA0040.eps
261


MA0041.eps
262


MA0042.eps
263


MA0043.eps
264


MA0044.eps
265


MA0045.eps
266


MA0046.eps
267


MA0047.eps
268


MB0001.eps
269


MB0002.eps
270


MB0003.eps
271


MB0004.eps
272


MB0005.eps
273


MB0006.eps
274


MB0007.eps
275


MB0008.eps
276


MB0009.eps
277


MB0010.eps
278


MB0011.eps
279


MB0012.eps
280


MB0013.eps
281


MB0014.eps
282


MB0015.eps
283


MB0016.eps
284


MB0017.eps
285


MB0018.eps
286


MB0019.eps
287


MB0020.eps
288


MB0021.eps
289


MB0022.eps
290


MB0023.eps
291


MB0024.eps
292


MB0025.eps
293


MB0026.eps
294


MB0027.eps
295


MB0028.eps
296


MB0029.eps
297


MB0030.eps
298


MB0031.eps
299


MB0032.eps
300


MB0033.eps
301


MB0034.eps
302


MB0035.eps
303


MB0036.eps
304


MB0037.eps
305


MB0038.eps
306


MB0039.eps
307


MB0040.eps
308


MB0041.eps
309


MB0042.eps
310


MB0043.eps
311


MB0044.eps
312


MB0045.eps
313


MB0046.eps
314


MB0047.eps
315


MB0048.eps
316


MB0049.eps
317


MB0050.eps
318


MB0051.eps
319


MC0001.eps
320


MC0002.eps
321


MC0003.eps
322


MC0004.eps
323


MC0005.eps
324


MC0006.eps
325


MC0007.eps
326


MC0008.eps
327


MC0009.eps
328


MC0010.eps
329


MC0011.eps
330


MC0012.eps
331


MC0013.eps
332


MC0014.eps
333


MC0015.eps
334


MC0016.eps
335


MC0017.eps
336


MC0018.eps
337


MC0019.eps
338


MC0020.eps
339


MC0021.eps
340


MC0022.eps
341


MC0023.eps
342


MC0024.eps
343


MC0025.eps
344


MC0026.eps
345


MC0027.eps
346


MC0028.eps
347


MC0029.eps
348


MC0030.eps
349


MC0031.eps
350


MC0032.eps
351


MC0033.eps
352


MC0034.eps
353


MC0035.eps
354


MC0036.eps
355


MC0037.eps
356


MC0038.eps
357


MC0039.eps
358


MC0040.eps
359


MC0041.eps
360


MC0042.eps
361


MC0043.eps
362


MC0044.eps
363


MC0045.eps
364


MC0046.eps
365


MC0047.eps
366


MC0048.eps
367


MC0049.eps
368


MC0050.eps
369


MC0051.eps
370


MC0052.eps
371


MC0053.eps
372


MC0054.eps
373


MC0055.eps
374


MC0056.eps
375


MC0057.eps
376


MD0001.eps
377


MD0002.eps
378


MD0003.eps
379


MD0004.eps
380


MD0005.eps
381


MD0006.eps
382


MD0007.eps
383


MD0008.eps
384


MD0009.eps
385


MD0010.eps
386


MD0011.eps
387


MD0012.eps
388


MD0013.eps
389


MD0014.eps
390


MD0015.eps
391


MD0016.eps
392


MD0017.eps
393


MD0018.eps
394


MD0019.eps
395


MD0020.eps
396


MD0021.eps
397


MD0022.eps
398


MD0023.eps
399


MD0024.eps
400


MD0025.eps
401


MD0026.eps
402


MD0027.eps
403


MD0028.eps
404


MD0029.eps
405


MD0030.eps
406


MD0031.eps
407


MD0032.eps
408


MD0033.eps
409


ME0001.eps
410


ME0002.eps
411


ME0003.eps
412


ME0004.eps
413


ME0005.eps
414


ME0006.eps
415


ME0007.eps
416


ME0008.eps
417


ME0009.eps
418


ME0010.eps
419


ME0011.eps
420


ME0012.eps
421


ME0013.eps
422


ME0014.eps
423


ME0015.eps
424


ME0016.eps
425


ME0017.eps
426


ME0018.eps
427


ME0019.eps
428


ME0020.eps
429


ME0021.eps
430


ME0022.eps
431


ME0023.eps
432


ME0024.eps
433


ME0025.eps
434


ME0026.eps
435


ME0027.eps
436


ME0028.eps
437


ME0029.eps
438


ME0030.eps
439


ME0031.eps
440


ME0032.eps
441


ME0033.eps
442


ME0034.eps
443


ME0035.eps
444


ME0036.eps
445


ME0037.eps
446


ME0038.eps
447


ME0039.eps
448


ME0040.eps
449


ME0041.eps
450


ME0042.eps
451


ME0043.eps
452


ME0044.eps
453


ME0045.eps
454


ME0046.eps
455


ME0047.eps
456


ME0048.eps
457


ME0049.eps
458


ME0050.eps
459


ME0051.eps
460


ME0052.eps
461


ME0053.eps
462


ME0054.eps
463


ME0055.eps
464


ME0056.eps
465


ME0057.eps
466


ME0058.eps
467


ME0059.eps
468


ME0060.eps
469


ME0061.eps
470


ME0062.eps
471


ME0063.eps
472


ME0064.eps
473


ME0065.eps
474


ME0066.eps
475


ME0067.eps
476


ME0068.eps
477


ME0069.eps
478


ME0070.eps
479


MF0001.eps
480


MF0002.eps
481


MF0003.eps
482


MF0004.eps
483


MF0005.eps
484


MF0006.eps
485


MF0007.eps
486


MF0008.eps
487


MF0009.eps
488


MF0010.eps
489


MF0011.eps
490


MF0012.eps
491


MF0013.eps
492


MF0014.eps
493


MF0015.eps
494


MF0016.eps
495


MF0017.eps
496


MF0018.eps
497


MF0019.eps
498


MF0020.eps
499


MF0021.eps
500


MF0022.eps
501


MF0023.eps
502


MF0024.eps
503


MF0025.eps
504


MF0026.eps
505


MF0027.eps
506


MF0028.eps
507


MF0029.eps
508


MF0030.eps
509


MF0031.eps
510


MF0032.eps
511


MF0033.eps
512


MF0034.eps
513


MF0035.eps
514


MF0036.eps
515


MF0037.eps
516


MF0038.eps
517


MF0039.eps
518


MF0040.eps
519


MF0041.eps
520


MF0042.eps
521


MF0043.eps
522


MF0044.eps
523


MF0045.eps
524


MF0046.eps
525


MF0047.eps
526


MF0048.eps
527


MF0049.eps
528


MF0050.eps
529


MF0051.eps
530


MF0052.eps
531


MF0053.eps
532


MF0054.eps
533


MF0055.eps
534


MF0056.eps
535


MF0057.eps
536


MF0058.eps
537


MF0059.eps
538


MF0060.eps
539


MF0061.eps
540


MF0062.eps
541


MF0063.eps
542


MF0064.eps
543


MF0065.eps
544


MF0066.eps
545


MF0067.eps
546


MF0068.eps
547


MF0069.eps
548


MF0070.eps
549


MF0071.eps
550


MF0072.eps
551


MF0073.eps
552


MF0074.eps
553


MF0075.eps
554


MF0076.eps
555


MF0077.eps
556


MF0078.eps
557


MF0079.eps
558


MF0080.eps
559


MF0081.eps
560


MF0082.eps
561


MF0083.eps
562


MF0084.eps
563


MF0085.eps
564


MF0086.eps
565


MF0087.eps
566


MF0088.eps
567


MF0089.eps
568


MF0090.eps
569


MF0091.eps
570


MF0092.eps
571


MF0093.eps
572


MF0094.eps
573


MF0095.eps
574


MF0096.eps
575


MF0097.eps
576


MF0098.eps
577


MF0099.eps
578


MF0100.eps
579


MF0101.eps
580


MF0102.eps
581


MF0103.eps
582


MF0104.eps
583


MF0105.eps
584


MF0106.eps
585


MF0107.eps
586


MF0108.eps
587


MF0109.eps
588


MF0110.eps
589


MF0111.eps
590


MF0112.eps
591


MF0113.eps
592


MF0114.eps
593


MF0115.eps
594


MF0116.eps
595


MF0117.eps
596


MF0118.eps
597


MF0119.eps
598


MF0120.eps
599


MF0121.eps
600


MF0122.eps
601


MF0123.eps
602


MF0124.eps
603


MF0125.eps
604


MF0126.eps
605


MF0127.eps
606

Æ


MF0128.eps