Enc.

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

(513) 533-6825

CHAIRMAN

James M. Melius, M.D., Dr. PH.

 Albany, New York

MEMBERS

Henry Anderson, M.D.

 Madison, Wisconsin

Josie Beach

 Kennewick, Washington 

Bradley P. Clawson

 Rexburg, Idaho

R. William Field, Ph.D. 

 Iowa City, Iowa

Michael H. Gibson

 Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon

 Salem, New Hampshire

Richard Lemen, Ph.D.

 Canton, Georgia

James E. Lockey, M.D.

 Cincinnati, Ohio

Wanda I. Munn

 Richland, Washington

John W. Poston, Sr., Ph.D.

 College Station, Texas

Robert W. Presley

 Seymour, Tennessee

David B. Richardson, Ph.D.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.

 Elysian, Minnesota

Phillip Schofield

 Bosque Farm, New Mexico

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.

 Lafayette, Indiana

STAFF

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Theodore M. Katz, MPA

 Atlanta, Georgia

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT 

Zaida Burgos

 Atlanta, Georgia

January 20, 2011

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand

United States Senate

531 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Gillibrand:

This letter is in response to your letter dated November 12, 2010,

regarding the Linde Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petitions filed under 

Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).

Your letter raised two issues of concern about the program. The first is 

the timeliness of the initial evaluation of the Linde Special Exposure 

Cohort petitions. The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

(the Board) shares this concern about the length of time that some initial 

SEC evaluations take, and also the time that the Board then takes to 

complete its review of the NIOSH evaluation report. The Board is 

currently working with NIOSH on a comprehensive review of NIOSH 

activities under Part B of EEOICPA. One focus of this review is the 

identification and evaluation of any potential changes to the program that 

may decrease the amount of time that these reviews take. While there 

are usually significant technical and scientific issues that must be 

resolved in the SEC petition evaluation process, we agree with you that 

this must be balanced with the needs of the petitioners to receive timely 

evaluation of their petitions.

Your other issue regards the re-opening of claims after the revision of the 

site profile. NIOSH has a process for reviewing the impact of site profile 

changes on individual dose reconstructions that were completed before 

the site profile revision. NIOSH then works with the Department of Labor 

to reopen any claims that might be affected by such changes. However, 

this re-opening process is often complicated by the outcome of the SEC 

class determination because the determination may render some 

changes to the site profile irrelevant. We anticipate that the more timely 

review of the SEC petitions will also help to address this problem. In 

addition, the Board will work with NIOSH to clarify the review procedures 

to ensure that claimants impacted by site profile changes have their 

claims addressed in a timely manner.
Page 2

The Board continues to make progress on our review of the Linde Special Exposure 

Cohort petitions. We expect to conclude our review and make our recommendation on 

Linde Special Exposure Cohort Petition 00107 to the Secretary of HHS at our February 

Board meeting. The Board appreciates your interest and concerns about these

matters. If we can provide any further assistance, please contact us.

Thank you for your continued interest in NIOSH activities under Part B of EEOICPA 

and the activities of the Board.

Sincerely,

[Signature on file]

James M. Melius, M.D., Dr. Ph.

Chairman, Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health

cc: Senator Schumer