10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

345

Isaiah?

MR. ANFIELD: Good morning. Good morning.
I’m a member of local 1137 union, general
maintenance. I was a previous employee out at
duPont back in the eighties. What I would like to
know, as far as me personal-wise, I suffer what
they call Biller’s (Ph.) Disease, and I use this
combine to help them things, lung cancer, even in

people who do not smoke, shortness of breath, loss

of appetite and weight to ease breathing. This is
a combine held. I would like to know (Inaudible)
disease asbestos, shortness of breath. Now this
is my treatment. I would like to know do -- I
would like to -- for this question to Dr. Ziemer -
- that's correct? I would like the answer -- How
would you like to confront this question. What

treatment do you have for (Inaudible) treatment at
this present time?

DR. ZIEMER: If I understood what you’re
asking, what treatment is there for --

MR. ANFIELD: For asbestos and (Inaudible)
disease.

DR. ZIEMER: Beryllium disease.

MR. ANFIELD: And asbestos.

DR. ZIEMER: And asbestos.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

a Be)

ale}

14

15

16

L7

18

9)

20

21

22

23

24

25

350

I’ve had five or six times. The problem with the
interviews, as I see it, is that the claimants or
their survivors don’t have the information or
can’t remember the information needed to document
the radiation exposure.

One thing that might help is to send a copy
of the worker’s radiation exposure records and/or
the worker's site medical records to the worker or
the survivors at the time when NIOSH sends out the
interview form. Having some of these records to
jog the memory of a worker or to allow the
survivors to know what actually went on where that
worker was working would be of tremendous help, I
think, at least in production workers. I don’t
think it would help in construction workers, but
whatever records you have would be helpful.

I had -- I do agree that the construction
workers should be put in a Special Exposure Cohort
because it’s so difficult to document all the
dangerous situations they’re in. I have
interviewed clients that were in the construction
-- and they just have a variety of different
experiences where somebody said go repair this
valve or do something else or put a pipe in ina

radiation zone, and that’s just not documented.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

ail

12

13

14

1S

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

347

DR. DEHART: Well, obviously you probably
need a physician to help make that diagnosis --

MR. ANFIELD: Yes, that’s -- that’s -- I mean
that’s what I been through and that’s why I’m on
it. That's why my doctor got me on this and I've
been to three or four doctors, so as of right now,
you know, that’s what’s -- they can come up with.
I’m -- I’m -- like I say, I’m taking a combined
vent inhaler at the present, right now, for the
treatment.

DR. DEHART: Yes. Well, the other item you
mentioned was asbestos exposure --

MR. ANFIELD: Asbestos.

DR. DEHART: -- asbestosis.

MR. ANFIELD: Yes.

DR. DEHART: The treatment for that is very
similar, depending how severe it is. They may
need to add some other medications to control it
if you're having real respiratory problems, real
breathing problems, but that’s a decision that
your physician will need to make and talking with
them. We‘re not prepared to provide specific
treatment regimens because obviously we haven't
examined you, we’re unable to at this point in

time take a medical history. But I would leave

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

LS

16

17

18

lng)

20

21

22

23

24

25

346

MR. ANFIELD: Uh-huh.

DR. ZIEMER: I wonder if -- we have a couple
of physicians on the panel and maybe Roy or -- if
not Roy -- can you address that for us?

DR. DEHART: Only in general summary. I’m
Dr. Roy DeHart and you were complaining of asthma?

MR. ANFIELD: I am -- I am -- that’s what --
that’s what I’m treating my disease for as of
right now, but I’m up on beryllium, between that
and asbestos, but I’m taking over -- this is what
they call a combined (Inaudible) for the disease.

DR. DEHART: For asthma that is an
appropriate treatment. I don’t know what kind of
inhaler you're using, but certainly --

MR. ANFIELD: Combined. Combined, that’s the
name of it.

DR. DEHART: I can’t be specific, but there
are both oral medications, as well as inhalation
medications, like the inhaler that you have,
that’s appropriate for treatment. The second
issue was berylliosis, you have a beryllium lung
problem, as well?

MR. ANFIELD: I just have a disease and, you
know, it’s borderline. I don’t know which one is

what or -- it’s between beryllium and asbestos.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

.

alfa
12
ale!

eo :

15
| 16
| aky
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

349

smoke?
MR. ANFIELD: I have before, but that
wouldn’t have nothing to do with me catching the

disease -- I mean with all the disease, you know -

DR. DEHART: So you --

MR. ANFIELD: -- all this. We’ve done all
that and I would -- every doctor, you know, I
asked them about cigarettes, they said not
necessarily because people also that don’t smoke
is infected.

DR. DEHART: Okay. You’re not smoking now?

MR. ANFIELD: No, I’m not.

DR. DEHART: That’s good.

DR. ZIEMER: Next we have Bob -- is it Warner
-- Warren, Bob Warren.

MR. WARREN: Hi, I’m Bob Warren. My address
is Post Office Box 1367 in Black Mountain, North
Carolina 28711. I’m a lawyer that had been
representing claimants in the EEOICP process, both

the lump sum cases and the Workers Comp cases, for

over two years. And I would like to compliment

NIOSH for having hired

who do the interviews.

some very competent people

I think I’ve had all of

the interviewers at least once. I know several

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

iat

aly]

13

14

als}

16

17

18

als)

20

21

22

23

24

25

341

true for all safety and health. Because

construction is difficult to understand, it has

mostly been ignored. Last night you heard from a
few of our members. They expressed concern about
the slow progress that is being made. They

expressed concern about being treated fairly.
They say you don’t understand our work or the
exposures. That was our conclusion, as well,
following the meeting we had in November.

If I can summarize my understanding of where
we are, it would be this. First, NIOSH intends to
rely on individual radiation doses where possible.
We know that won’t work for many of our members
because they weren’t either monitored or monitored
in deficient ways. What we don’t know is how
NIOSH will determine whether radiation monitoring
is complete. But we don’t know the extent of this
problem, so here’s my first request to you.

Please evaluate DOE -- please evaluate, by
DOE site and for each construction trade, the
incompleteness of radiation monitoring. Let me
emphasize we need a separate evaluation for
construction trades. In the end it seems it will
be up to the individual claimant to prove that the

radiation monitoring records are not complete.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

Le

13

14

aly

16

17

18

Eh)

20

21

22

23

24

25

352,

I also agree with Knute Ringin’s comments
that he made at your last meeting which I read on
your web site -- which I appreciate the
opportunity to be able to do that -- when he said
that the site profile documents were not
reflecting what went on at Savannah River Site.
And he specifically said that 83 significant site
history documents not referenced in the SRS
technical document are extremely relevant. I
think they’re extremely relevant. And by not
using these documents, NIOSH has damaged its
credibility for fair treatment of the workers, and
I just think you need to look at that seriously.

One of the things not in the SRS technical
documents -- the technical document and the
amendments, is the practice at SRS of workers
eating contaminated plums, blackberries,
scuppernong grapes, peaches, pecans and even
eating fish out of the holding ponds. You can
appreciate the effects of these radioactive things
on the mouth, the throat, the stomach, the colon,
the bladder and even the prostate. And as far as
I know, NIOSH health physicists have not developed
procedures to deal with these cases.

One of the problems that I’ve had with

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

ek

12

13

14

LS

16

17

18

19

20

2a

22

23

24

25

348

that to your physician who’s taking care of you.
And if it’s necessary for him or her to refer you
to somebody else, they certainly can do that.

MR. ANFIELD: Okay, I’ve got one more
question. During the time that I was employed
with E.I. duPont, my insurance company was Aetna.
Now I want to -- I want to know why they jumped
the ‘surance company when I was with Aetna, now
they got it with Wausau. How can that be?

DR. ZIEMER: I don’t know that we know the
answer to that. I don’t know if any of the local
people or the DOE folks can answer that. It has
to do with local insurance situation perhaps.

MR. ANFIELD: Well, during the time -- as far
as I know, E.I. duPont -- I was up under Aetna
Insurance Company. Now they got another ‘surance
company called Wausau. I’m not affiliated with
Westinghouse.

DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest that after our
session here that perhaps one of the NIOSH staff
people can find a little -- out a little more
about this. We don’t know if we can be of help,
but we can certainly look into that.

MR. ANFIELD: Okay, thank you very much then.

DR. DEHART: One last question. Do you

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



io

11

nl]

13

14

15

16

ale)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

344

health researchers often get frustrated when they
come onto a job site. We've seen it time and time
again. More importantly, NIOSH has not presented
us with a method by which it will do this. To
rule on dose reconstructions is not specific about
how this will be done for construction workers,
and the NIOSH team could not tell us how they are
doing this, so we have little confidence in this
regard. So this is my fourth request to you.
Review the procedures by which NIOSH will do
this specifically for construction workers. From
what I have said, you can see that we have
concerns about every step in the NIOSH decision
logic as it applies to construction workers, and
we have a clear and factual basis for these
concerns. It is not the first time they have been
exposed to NIOSH or to you, but let me say again,
you can’t treat the problems that are unique to
construction as a side issue. You can’t make up
answers as you go along. That's too arbitrary.
It is not fair to our claimants. You need a
unifying model to show how you're going to treat
construction workers. Thank you for your time.
DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Next we

have Isaiah -- and I think it’s Anfeld or Anfield.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

ay

sl}

14

AS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

343

highways, the bridges and so on. But they
generally don't talk much about their work day and
with their families, in part because it’s
dangerous. And at the DOE sites they were
forbidden to do so, so how do you expect these
survivors to provide recall? We know this work
history procedure is not working because we hear
it from our members and their families.

November 11th we asked NIOSH how the
interviews were going and they said poorly. In
fact, they said that the survivors’ interviews
mostly resulted in "I don’t know" answers and only
lasted about ten minutes. They claim this is
frustrating to them. Imagine how the claimant
feels. So this is my third request to you.

Please review the work history process for
construction workers and tell us how often they
are insufficient. Provide this information
specifically for construction workers and also
where the claimant is a survivor.

Thirdly, NIOSH says that it doesn’t really
need the interviews. Instead, it can express a
professional opinion. We know that no two
construction workers are remotely alike in their

work history experiences. That is why safety and

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

aa

12

13

14

is

16

17

18

ae]

20

Peal,

22

23

24

25

342

This appears to us to be highly unfair, for two
reasons.

First, the likelihood of construction workers
having incomplete radiation records is much
greater than for other workers. Second, the
burden of making this proof seems more than you
can expect to be placed on a worker. But we don’t
know that for sure since no one has told us what
kind of proof will be required. So here’s my
second request to you.

Give us a method by which claimants can prove
this. What does it take? The existing rule says
nothing about this. Second, NIOSH then says that
it needs work history interviews to get at the
kind of information that it takes to figure out
missing monitor and the unusual exposures. We
know that doesn’t work for many of our members who
are claimants because they are old and they have a
long and complicated work history. Many have a
dozen or more employers a year. Further, when
half of the claimants are survivors, how do you
expect this to work since they have no details on
work histories. Construction workers will talk at
great lengths and with pride about the great

projects they worked on -- the buildings, the

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES