1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 1

 TOWNHALL MEETING #4 

 ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO 

 AUGUST 8TH, 7-9 PM 

 ESPANOLA SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER 

 735 VIETNAM VETERANS' MEMORIAL PARKWAY ROAD 

 ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO 87532 

 * * * * * 

 The following transcript of the above-mentioned 

meeting was produced by Steven Ray Green, National 

Merit Court Reporter, of Nancy Lee and Associates, 

Certified Court Reporters.
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 2 TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

 The following transcript contains quoted material. 

Such material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

 In the following transcript a dash (--) indicates an 

unintentional or purposeful interruption of a sentence. 

An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech or an 

unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of word(s) 

when reading written material. 

 In the following transcript (sic) denotes an 

incorrect usage or pronunciation of a word which is 

transcribed in its original form as reported. 

 In the following transcript (phonetically) indicates 

a phonetic spelling of the word if no confirmation of the 

correct spelling is available. 

 In the following transcript "uh-huh" represents an 

affirmative response, and "uh-uh" represents a negative 

response. 

 In the following transcript "*" indicates a word, 

often a proper noun, without exact spelling available. 

 In the following transcript (inaudible) represents a 

portion in the proceedings where reporting became 

impossible due to audio/technical difficulties. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 3 P R O C E E D I N G S

 (7:10 p.m.) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's a very important thing that 

happened today. I didn't know if you were aware of 

that. DOE passed the rule and it's final now. 

 Okay. So here's the way we'd like to conduct this 

meeting this evening. I know that you all want to 

just get on and have your thoughts heard and maybe 

ask us questions, but we really need to give this 

presentation, and I'd ask you to keep your questions 

till the end of Ted's presentation so he can get 

through it. Maybe it'll answer your question. When 

he concludes his presentation, what I'd like you to 

do then is if you'd queue up behind the mikes and if 

you have questions about how this meeting is going 

to be -- I'll try to be your moderator and I'm here 

not to berate anybody or cut anybody off. I'd like 

to have everybody have a fair opportunity to have 

their time at the mike. Okay? 

 All right. Without any further ado, I think I'll 

turn it over to Ted Katz and we'll let him go 

through his presentation, then we'll open it up to 

the floor. 

 (Presentation by Ted Katz) 

 UNIDENTIFIED: May I ask a question? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

 UNIDENTIFIED: If I understood you -- 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 4 MR. ELLIOTT: Wait a minute -- you'll have to speak 

-- we need to capture your name for the record so -- 

 MR. KATZ: Could you just speak into the microphone? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you can ask a question now if you 

could stand at the mike and state your name and what 

your question is. And I'd like to keep our 

questions to the end of the presentation, but 

please -- 

 UNIDENTIFIED: Well, the reason I wanted to ask now 

is so I don't lose the point, so I'll try to be very 

definite. You were making the point that certain 

levels of radiation predictably produce certain 

kinds of cancers, and yet I'm wondering how you fold 

in an individual body's susceptibilities to cancer, 

and then in one instance I know of an environment 

where there were multiple cancers but somewhere in -

- well, all of the multiple -- there were six or 

seven people, all -- each one of the cancers were in 

a different set of the -- different location of the 

body. 

 MR. KATZ: Right, but we will -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Your name -- could we have your name, 

please? 

 MS. BEAR: Oh, excuse me. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry. 

 MS. BEAR: Yeah, my name is Jo Bear. 

 (Presentation by Mr. Katz continued.) 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 5 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me interrupt Ted and let me answer 

the question my way. Ted answered it his way 

according to the way this rule is written. What 

really goes on here is we know, for example, that 

plutonium concentrates in the liver, the first 

cancer that you're going to see from a heavy dose of 

plutonium exposure is likely to be liver over any 

other cancer, so that's the cancer that we would 

target to set this benchmark from if we knew that 

the class was exposed to plutonium. If it was 

exposed to uranium, then we would be looking at 

probably bladder cancer or another type of cancer. 

Okay? So that's how we -- the lung for uranium, 

that's how we figure this. 

 UNIDENTIFIED: What about americium? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Grady, you know what -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: I would say probably -- americium is 

bone -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: (Inaudible) 

 MR. CALHOUN: But what we'll do -- here. What we'll 

do -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Grady Calhoun. I didn't 

introduce Grady. Grady Calhoun is a health 

physicist on my staff and I'm going to direct 

technical questions to him. But we're going to -- 

can we get to this after Ted finishes his 

presentation? Okay? And we're not going to be able 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 6 to tell you every radionuclide and where it's going 

to go to and which cancer's going to be most likely 

caused by that tonight. That takes a little 

research on our part in some cases. These are the 

ones I can throw off the top of my head. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I can explain the process. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, and he can explain the process. 

 Okay? 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. And there's -- I'll be wrapping up 

quickly, so you won't have long to wait. 

 (Presentation by Mr. Katz continued.) 

 MR. KATZ: We're looking forward now to your 

comments and any questions you have, and I can 

clarify the things I said or things that I haven't 

said that you may have read in the rule and so on. 

Thank you. 

 (Applause) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. I know Ted appreciates 

that applause 'cause this is the fourth time he's 

given it, but it's the first time he got applause 

after, so you guys didn't bring your lettuce and 

tomatoes tonight. 

 Let me expound upon that last point that Ted made. 

If you have cancer, you need to file a claim. And 

the main reason why you need to file a claim is not 

necessarily because we're trying to finalize this 

rule and you think you might fit into the Special 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 7 Exposure Cohort. But if you don't file and you need 

medical benefits, you're not going to get those 

until the day that you file. So if you hold off 

filing, that's when your medical benefits date will 

start. So the earlier you file, the better off 

you're going to be. 

 Okay. Now so if you want to queue up behind the 

mikes. There's two mikes here and anybody that's 

got a question or a comment, that's what we're here 

for. We'll try to answer your questions as best as 

we can. 

 MR. CALHOUN: You want me to go ahead and answer the 

americium question? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You want us to answer this americium 

question that's on the table real quickly, we will 

do that, and then we'll get to your comment. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Basically what we were talking 

about is how we're going to use -- look at different 

radionuclides and how they will affect or cause 

different kinds of cancer preferentially. What we 

have at our disposal, one of the tools that we have, 

is some internal dose programs, and that's where 

this is going to make the biggest difference is 

internal dose, because what makes a difference is 

where they concentrate in the body and that's based 

on the chemical properties of the radioactive 

materials. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 8 So what we'll do is we'll run the models on -- let's 

say americium, but let's -- we'll open that up for 

any radionuclide. Okay? Whatever one has been 

determined to be the one that we're looking at for 

the proposed petitioner or even in dose 

reconstruction. We'll run the model several 

different ways to see which of the organs is going 

to receive the biggest dose based on the amount of 

intake that was received during the work period or 

the occupation of the claimants. Then we'll run 

those doses in the IREP program to determine how 

likely that is to cause the specified cancer. So 

whichever is the lower cancers, takes the least 

amount of radiation, is the one that we'll use. 

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You need to go to the mike, please. 

 MR. GARCIA: My name is Jonathan Garcia and I had 

leukemia. I had to have a bone marrow transplant 

done in '94 and I worked with the plutonium at TA-54 

and amer -- however that word is, I have a problem 

saying it -- and I got exposed to a lot of this 

stuff. We had spills where I talked to the engineer 

in charge of TA-54 at the time, 1980, and he says I 

picked up -- we don't know how much we picked up, 

you know. And from 1976 to 1980, we didn't have no 

monitors. We didn't have a place to wash. We ate 

inside TA-54. Who knows what we picked up, and I 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 9 don't know if you have any records on that. And 

also I -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We probably don't. 

 MR. GARCIA: You probably don't. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You and I have talked before, Mr. 

Garcia. 

 MR. GARCIA: Yeah, we have. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We probably don't. 

 MR. GARCIA: And you know, like I was told 60 to 90 

days I would get some kind of -- some kind of 

answer, and I haven't gotten nothing. You know, I 

don't know where I'm at right now. But you know, 

how much longer are we going to have to wait to get 

a final answer or some kind of thing, you know, or 

why -- why get us into this thing, you know. We 

just keep getting more nervous and more nervous, and 

more people keep dropping out because they're tired 

of the runaround that you keep giving us, you know. 

 And as we go along, the rules keep changing and 

more are added. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, can I speak to that? 

 MR. GARCIA: Go ahead. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't believe we're giving you the 

runaround, first of all. We're not adding rules 

beyond what the law says has to be done here. We're 

just abiding by the law. 

 Yes, you and I have talked. I am frustrated, as 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 10 many of you are, about how fast or how slow this 

program is actually going. But we all have to keep 

in mind, I think, that it's only been one year. 

July 31st last year was when claims were starting to 

be received by the Department of Labor so that they 

could be acted upon. It takes a while for this 

government of ours to work. I am a taxpayer. I am 

a government employee. But I'm going to say that, 

it takes a while for us to do our business. 

 MR. GARCIA: What -- excuse me, but the -- what you 

guys got from the government -- I got sent some 

copies of a lot of the stuff and I don't see in 

there a lot of the times that I was contaminated. 

You know, I don't know if you got them. I didn't 

get no copies of that, ever, you know, and I know it 

happened 'cause I had nose wipes and everything else 

done, you know, and I don't have no copies of it so 

I don't know if you guys got them, you know, ever. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we haven't done your interview 

yet. Right? 

 MR. GARCIA: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And I'm not going to talk any more 

about your individual claim, but we need -- we need 

to get together on that and we'll talk away from the 

public here. 

 MR. GARCIA: Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comments. Yes, 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 11 ma'am? 

 MS. GOTTS: My name is Jan Gotts and I have two 

questions. The first one is about reconstruction of 

dosage. If -- I don't understand what that's based 

on. Is it based -- for example, if someone worked 

in Nevada test site, is that based on the records 

that Revco* has or is that based on -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Can't hear her? 

 UNIDENTIFIED: No. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Can you step up to the mike a little 

bit closer and see if that helps -- and speak a 

little bit louder. 

 MS. GOTTS: Okay. Is this better? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's better. 

 MS. GOTTS: Okay. Two questions. The first one is 

reconstruction of dosage. For example, if someone 

worked at the Nevada test site, is the 

reconstruction of dosage based on the records that 

Revco has? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's -- 

 MS. GOTTS: Or is it based on you all saying this is 

the job the person had, this is how much radiation 

they would have gotten based on this job. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's based on both. It's based on 

both of those things. It's based on the records 

that we ask for DOE to provide us, and whatever they 

provide us, we evaluate. And believe me, we 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 12 understand the problems in the history of DOE's 

dosimetry practices, when they didn't monitor, when 

they didn't use the right badge, when they told 

people park your badge here at the gate because we 

don't want to give you -- have anymore recorded dose 

for this quarter on there. We understand those 

things. We talk to you as a claimant and we try to 

get as much information from you about special 

situations that you know of that would have not even 

been captured in the record and we follow those up. 

 MS. GOTTS: When do you talk to the claimant? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We schedule an interview with the 

claimant -- if you have a claim in with the 

Department of Labor and the Department of Labor 

sends it to NIOSH for dose reconstruction, we send 

you a letter or an e-mail that we've got it. The 

next letter you would receive with my signature on 

it will tell you we've requested DOE to provide 

records on the individual employee that the claim 

represents. 

 MS. GOTTS: Yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. The third letter you're going 

to get from me with my signature on it says to you 

we either have got the information and we've studied 

it and we want to schedule your interview, or we 

haven't got the information from DOE but we're going 

to go forward and schedule your interview. And we 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 13 do that at your convenience, whenever's the best 

time, place. If you have -- if you have cleared 

information that you need to share with us, I have a 

few cleared staff. We have a person that's got a 

clearance will come -- 

 MS. GOTTS: I'm the survivor. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and sit with -- well, but as a 

survivor, we would ask you who could we talk to that 

worked with your spouse or your husband or your 

father or whoever was the deceased individual, who 

could we talk to about their work situation and what 

they did and how they did it and can you direct us 

to somebody else. We go out to that person and we 

get an affidavit from them. 

 MS. GOTTS: Okay. These concern a company that 

closed in 1966, so lots of luck with that one. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand. 

 MS. GOTTS: My second question had to do with what 

is the -- they used to talk about the legal dosage 

of radiation an employee could get in a period of 

one year that was considered a safe dosage. What is 

that? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, that's the radiation protection 

mechanism. I'm going to let Grady answer that for 

you, but it -- that has no bearing on what we do for 

dose reconstruction. We don't use that kind of 

information. I'll let Grady give you a more formal 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 answer. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Right now the limit is -- it's 

five rem. That's what the limit is right now. But 

that can -- 

 MS. GOTTS: What was it in the sixties? 

 MR. CALHOUN: I've got records back from Los Alamos 

that lists whole body dose limits of 15, 15 rem. So 

like Larry said, that -- we're not going to base it 

on that. We'll look at the dose received. We'll 

look at what other people in similar jobs got. We 

look at the technology of the day. A lot of times 

we get people with a lot of zeroes, and most of 

those reconstructions that I've got, they don't end 

up being zeroes because we have limits of detection 

that they may not have been able to detect, based on 

the technology of the time. So we end up being -- 

and I use the term conservative in that way and look 

at what was the limit of detection and are those 

zeroes really zeroes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The dose reconstructions are reviewed 

and signed off on. If you look at what was the 

recorded dose that was given to the employee by the 

Department of Energy, the dose that -- and compare 

that with the dose that we're reporting as the 

reconstructed dose, there's a big difference. Ours 

is much higher. Yes, ma'am? 

 MS. BEAR: Hello again, my name is Jo Bear. I have 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 15 two questions about the procedure. I have filed a 

claim and in this -- again, about dose 

reconstruction, in this pamphlet it states -- and in 

others, too -- that in most cases where an 

individual's radiation monitoring data is 

insufficient for complete dose reconstruction, OCAS 

will use information provided us from the claimant 

in a phone interview. You've been talking about 

that and somebody has mentioned that they've given 

you information. But my question -- one of my 

questions, I have two, is how do you use that 

information? Do you say yes, yes, I hear you, I 

hear you; or do you, like those of us who have 

stories to tell, think we're going to be taken -- 

our words are going to be taken with some 

credibility? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we value your input. That's why 

we wanted to have in our rule this interaction with 

the claimant to do an interview. We made it a very 

interactive process with the claimant. We may talk 

to the claimant more than one time. Don't get me 

wrong. I know Grady's had several conversations 

with claimants, following up and saying yes, you 

told me about this and I went and tried to track 

that information down or tried to find so and so 

that you've identified for me and we can verify what 

you've said. As long as there is reasonableness to 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 16 what you report -- like what Mr. Garcia has reported 

to me, I have no doubt. The man's not blowing smoke 

at me. I'm sure that's exactly what he was exposed 

to, and there are no records for that. Sounds 

reasonable. I'm not going to say he's not telling 

the truth. We're going to support that. 

 MS. BEAR: And so how do you fold that -- and so -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: How do we use that? 

 MS. BEAR: How do you use that information? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: In a case like this where if we can 

identify what the radionuclides were that the 

individual was exposed to and we can get a sense of 

what the quantity was, then we can do source term 

analysis and we can do dose reconstruction on source 

term analysis, which is a claimant-favorable, 

claimant-friendly approach. We use different 

aspects of that to make it claimant-friendly and 

favorable. 

 If you say to me or to one of my dose 

reconstructionists, you know that the DOE boss that 

I had said he's not going to give me a badge today 

or for the next month because I've had too much 

dose, we've heard that enough, we're not going to 

question that. We're going to look at other 

people's badges that were monitored and we're going 

to use that information and take the highest dose 

that was shown on those badges. Okay? So we think 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 17 we're doing everything we can to be claimantfavorable in our dose reconstruction approach. 

 MS. BEAR: Well, I feel like -- well, my husband 

died ten or 11 years ago now and I've been involved 

in this process for a year, and it sometimes seems 

like a very long time. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, ma'am. 

 MS. BEAR: But -- but I -- most of the time I'm 

talking to people at work and I have confidence that 

you're doing an honest job and I appreciate the work 

that you're doing. But we're not there yet and so I 

still have questions, and another question I have is 

this. Another -- about the dose reconstruction, 

after the interview and -- it says here that if no 

additional -- after the interview and the dose 

reconstruction information has been looked at, if no 

additional information is provided, the claimant 

will be asked to complete an OCAS-1 form. This form 

certifies that there's no additional information to 

give NIOSH regarding the claim and that the claim 

record for dose reconstruction should be closed. 

 Well, I frankly could never sign such a document 

because I have no way of knowing that all the 

information has been given. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's the information that you have to 

give. And what this form does is release us -- and 

it's you telling us, I think you've explained it to 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 18 me how you've done this, what we've done, the many 

different trails you went down trying to look for 

different information, and to me, I don't think that 

there's anything more I can give you -- NIOSH -- to 

do a better job. I'd like to see my claim moved on 

to the Department of Labor for a decision. That's 

what that form does. 

 MS. BEAR: But -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: If you don't sign that form, we can't 

move your claim on. 

 MS. BEAR: But what about the instance that Mr. -- 

that you -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Mr. Katz. 

 MS. BEAR: -- Katz mentioned, that documents appear? 

 Things you -- you didn't know something existed and 

then things appear. And when you sign this, are you 

precluding the -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You're not signing any rights away in 

that regard. Okay? You're signing to say look, I 

understand what NIOSH has done in their dose 

reconstruction for my claim and I don't know that I 

can do anything further to help them move -- to do 

anything on this. I want to see it moved over to 

the Department of Labor for a decision. If they 

make a decision and it's to award, and later on we 

find additional information, that means -- that 

doesn't have any bearing on the claim that's 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 19 compensated. 

 If the claim was denied and we find additional 

information, the Department of Labor has a mechanism 

in their regulation that they operate under to 

reopen that claim and let us go back and -- and 

they'll send it back to NIOSH and they'll say you 

need to take this claim and do another dose 

reconstruction on it, given the information that's 

come to light. Okay? 

 MS. BEAR: Well, that's great, but I would like to 

see -- if I sign something, I'd like to have that 

sort of spelled out. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, you need to see the OCAS-1 form. 

 It spells that out -- 

 MS. BEAR: It does? Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- on the form, why you're signing and 

what the intent of the form is. It's for you to say 

you're done, NIOSH, I want you to move my claim over 

for a decision. 

 MS. BEAR: However, if more information is -- comes 

forward, then -- that bears on my case, if I'm 

denied, then the case would be -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The Department -- 

 MS. BEAR: -- reevaluated? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's right. The Department of Labor 

will reopen the case. They'll alert you that it's 

being reopened and they're asking us to do a dose 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 20 reconstruction. 

 MS. BEAR: Okay. Thanks. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Uh-huh, thank you for your comments. 

Good questions, thank you. 

 Please, whoever's got -- there are mikes that are 

open. 

 MR. LEYBA: Good evening, Mr. Elliott. My name's 

Jerry Leyba, for the record. I'm here to represent 

(inaudible) University professional and technical 

employees, CWA 1663 out of California, Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, along with LAPOWS, Los Alamos 

Project on Worker Safety. I'm going to keep my talk 

a little bit short 'cause I want to let some of 

these other guys talk. 

 But basically what I want to emphasize is that Los 

Alamos National Laboratory should become a Special 

Exposure Cohort for all areas in Los Alamos National 

Laboratory. That includes all of the tech area of 

54, 55, CMR, T-18, TA-21, all the SI, especially 

where these guys worked over at the hot dump in the 

early forties and fifties. As Jonathan pointed out, 

there's a lot of records that are missing. But also 

for the people that were security guards, custodial, 

RCT's, technicians, all the guys that worked with 

plutonium 238, 239, americium 241, cobalt 60, cesium 

137, all the radioisotopes. And I think what should 

be taken into consideration also is the IREP model 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 21 that you folks are using because for the GI 

military, they used to use the one R where you folks 

are proposing to use 15 R, is what I understood. If 

that is the case, then none of these people will 

become eligible for compensation. 

 And I think in the statistics I've seen in the past 

in other states -- for example, Paducah, Kentucky -- 

they're being compensated at a higher level than 

what they are here in New Mexico. And also I think 

a lot of these guys have really been going through a 

lot of hell and there was good news for people like 

Mr. Ben Ortiz for -- under subtitle E for chemicals 

and other toxic substances, and also for the New 

Mexico workers compensation program, so that was 

good news for us and I think a lot of that came from 

our meeting that we had on May 11th. 

 But I really emphasize on NIOSH and the physicians 

panel that Los Alamos National Laboratory should 

become a Special Exposure Cohort. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comment. I 

appreciate that and you certainly will have an 

opportunity to petition, as you see fit, once this 

rule is finalized. 

 I do, however, want to make a comment about your 

statement about 15 R versus one. That's a 

misunderstanding, a misconception that's been 

portrayed. It's unfortunate. That is not the case. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 22 The NIOSH-IREP is claimant-friendly. What you're 

referring to is the use of a screening dose by the 

Veterans Affairs approach to evaluate claims for 

further development for dose reconstruction, not the 

same thing. It's apples and oranges, and I think 

you're going to find that in our NIOSH-IREP we are 

claimant-favorable and we are claimant-friendly and 

you're going to see people get their compensations 

where they are truly deserved. 

 MR. LEYBA: With your permission, I'd like to bring 

some other people that we would like to give 

testimony. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't have any problem. The mikes 

are open. I'd just ask that everybody consider 

everybody else's opportunity to speak tonight. 

Okay? 

 MR. LEYBA: Phil Scofield. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: My name's Phil Scofield. I'm with 

the Los Alamos POWS. Just some brief things I want 

to bring up. In order for NIOSH to do a accurate 

dose reconstruction, NIOSH would need to know where 

a person worked, what types of materials and 

radiation were present, and at what levels. Also 

many of these jobs frequently required a person to 

move between rooms, areas or buildings daily or 

weekly. One would also need to know what type of 

processing was being done in an area or room, as 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 23 well as the quantities, materials present or those 

used. If this data is not available, then it must 

be assumed the maximum quantities were present or 

being handled. 

 The majority of eligible for cancer compensation are 

no longer around. And because of security concerns, 

most did not tell their spouses much about their 

job. And if they had, their widows are now elderly 

and many have forgotten a great deal. 

 Given these facts alone, it would preclude any 

possibility of an accurate dose reconstruction being 

done, so what resources are NIOSH and its 

contractors going to devote to tapping into the 

first-hand knowledge of expertise of a few surviving 

workers from these work environments? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Was that a question for me? 

 MR. SCOFIELD: That last part is, yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I appreciate your comments, sir. 

They're all very appropriate. 

 A dose reconstruction needs to be as accurate as the 

decision to either deny or award compensation. And 

where we want to be there is accurate to the point 

where we don't deny somebody that truly deserves to 

be compensated. And I think in our dose 

reconstruction process we'll be able to do that. 

We'll be able to show you that we've done that. 

 Where we can't do dose reconstruction, as Ted has 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 24 mentioned, we're going to work with the person to 

petition for a Special Exposure Cohort for that 

class of workers. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I got another couple of points 

here about that. From documents released by DOE to 

IEER* it was shown that because of the way doses are 

calculated, some people have been assigned either 

zero or even a negative exposure. There are many 

cases of people having either very low or no 

exposure on record for a month or even a year, even 

though they worked with, around radioactive 

materials every day. This is a physical 

impossibility. 

 Further, LANL has warned us that extremity exposure 

records prior to 1997 are not available. DOE has 

further said that radiation doses from radioactive 

materials inhaled or ingested by workers were not 

calculated or included in workers' dose records 

until 1989. 

 Here's another point. For neutron gamma exposures 

as specified in the NIOSH-IREP, the doses will be 

entered at the level of the badge reading. DOE has 

admitted that most of the film badge readings are 

not correct. NIOSH has said that if values are 

unknown, they will use hypothetical ones, so where 

are we going to get these hypothetical ones? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Question for me, I guess? 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 25 MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Well, first of all, you're 

wrong. The badge readings are not what is entered 

into the NIOSH-IREP. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: What we're talking about is a missed 

dose, which is a very critical component. Grady 

alluded to that earlier where, as you noted, they 

had different connotations that were used where the 

badge reading was below the limit of detection for 

the particular instrumentation of the badge. It 

might say MBA*, it might say red, it might say zero, 

it might say administrative dose -- all of those 

things were used. Okay? My health physicists know 

how to handle those. These are not hypothetical 

doses that we've come up with. There is literature 

-- and it's included in our rule on how we do dose 

reconstruction where we deal with zeroes, less than 

detection limit. Okay? And that is claimantfavorable, as well, because we take one-half the 

limit of detection. And what we're talking about 

here is a distribution of the results below the 

limit of detection. So we're taking that middle, 

most popular value, and that's the dose that gets 

entered. 

 Now if we're talking internal dose reconstruction, 

we have to look at the bioassay program techniques 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 26 and what the minimal detectable activity was, if 

there was one. If there's not one, then we go back 

to the models that Grady talked about earlier and we 

use the worst case scenario. I think that's all 

going to be favorable and I think you'll see that. 

 Now I appreciate your questions. These are the 

kinds of questions that hold me accountable. Okay? 

 Thank you. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: One other quick question. You talk 

about calculating what probable causation for a 

cancer. Now you're talking about internal doses 

where people ingested. What about say someone like 

leukemia where there's no record of them ingesting 

something but yet they had exposure to high gamma, 

high neutrons. How is this going to be handled? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So that's an external dose 

reconstruction using gamma, and if there was any, if 

we have in the interview or if we have any incident 

reports that speak to an incident where there might 

have been an ingestion or inhalation of gammabearing radionuclide, we can factor that into the 

dose as well as the external dose reconstruction we 

do. Okay? Thank you for your comments. 

 MR. LEYBA: Our next speaker we'd like is Richard 

Espinosa. 

 MR. ESPINOSA: I'm Richard Espinosa with the sheet 

metal workers Local 49. I'd like to thank NIOSH for 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 27 coming out and the work that they're doing today -- 

Ted Katz, Larry Elliott. The thing that I'd like to 

speak about -- on is one of the things that we're 

noticing through the international -- through the 

sheet metal workers Local 49 is our members get 

older, they're not able to speak, their memories are 

lost and English has become their second language 

and they're unable to get their point out on this 

program. What's being done and what can be done for 

our survivors, as well as our elder members? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We fully recognize that in our 

interview and interaction with the claimant, we need 

to take that into consideration -- the age and the 

health of the claimant. We've had interviews where 

a claimant couldn't hear over the phone so we worked 

it out with them where they brought in somebody to 

assist them in understanding what our questions 

were. We've sent our questions in advance. We've 

held multiple-time interviews where a claimant said 

look, I can only sit with you for half an hour. 

That's all I'm going to give you and you say it's 

going to take an hour to do this. We do it in as 

many sessions as they want to take to do that. 

 If a claimant has difficulty hearing us over the 

phone or if they feel that they want to speak to us 

in Spanish, we've brought in a person who speaks 

Spanish and can do the interview in that other 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 28 language. Those are the kinds of things we're 

doing. 

 MR. ESPINOSA: As far as Los Alamos is concerned, we 

have a lot of -- building trades is what does the 

work and the maintenance work in Los Alamos. As far 

as the TLD's, I feel that they're biased. We have 

electricians working in a CMR pulling wires. On any 

given day they can be exposed to five or six 

different sources that aren't picked up by the TLD. 

 How is that being addressed? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's also being addressed through 

the interview process where we get an understanding 

of what jobs you did, where you were, how many 

different buildings you worked in. We built a site 

profile of the site so we understand what 

radionuclides might have been in an existing 

building or a TA area or what have you. And my 

health physicists then look at that and say well, 

your badge would never have caught neutrons and you 

were in a neutron-exposed area, so we're going to 

factor that neutron dose that you got. We're going 

to use the worst case scenario in accounting for 

that dose. That's how we go about that. 

 MR. ESPINOSA: With -- the burden of proof is 

supposed to be NIOSH, DOE. During these interviews 

are they going to be -- are they being asked what 

they've been exposed to? As a building trades 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 29 member as a sheet metal worker, I'm there to do the 

maintenance work. I am there to provide my services 

to the Laboratory. I am not an expert, per se, on 

these emitters. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You're right, the burden of proof -- 

the burden to prove, the burden to collect and the 

burden to do all this work is not on the claimant -- 

it shouldn't be on the claimant. The claimant has 

filed a claim. That should be pretty much the end 

on their behalf, and yes, they are asked do you know 

if you were exposed to plutonium, do you know if you 

were exposed to americium. If they don't know that, 

that's okay. But what we do need to hear from them 

is where did you work, because we go back to the 

site profile then and we match up where they say 

they worked with what known exposures we have that 

existed in that location, and that's how we do that 

dose reconstruction. 

 MR. ESPINOSA: Well, thank you again. As a lot of 

you have heard, I am on the Advisory Board for 

Radiation and Worker Health and they're -- the next 

meeting is in Cincinnati on the 15th -- 16th -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's next week, a week from today. A 

week from yesterday afternoon and today. 

 MR. ESPINOSA: Well, I'm getting ready for it, but 

also I'd like to -- in October, the next Advisory 

Board will be coming to Santa Fe -- is that right, 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 30 Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, the Board has tentatively 

blocked off dates. Whether or not -- we'll see next 

week what happens with those dates they blocked off. 

 But yes, Rich has invited us to either come to 

Albuquerque, Santa Fe -- I don't know what -- where 

it's going to be, but if the Board meets in October 

or November, it's going to be out here, as I 

understand it. 

 MR. ESPINOSA: All right. And thank you again for 

the work that you guys have done. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thanks, Rich, I appreciate your nice 

comments. 

 MR. LEYBA: Larry, our next speaker -- Mr. Pablo 

Romero*. 

 MR. ROMERO: My name is Pablo Romero. I retired 

from the Lab eleven and a half years ago with 33 

years -- 33 and a half years of service. I started 

out with the environmental radiation studies group. 

 I worked with environmental radiation studies group 

for 14 years. I worked with the U.S. Geological 

people to begin with. We were doing studies -- many 

projects, but we were sampling Acid Canyon in Los 

Alamos, which was the effluent from -- as you know, 

that end of it. We did some works towards -- 

towards that end of Canyon and also for T-55 at the 

time. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 31 I worked with a man by the name of William D. 

Friedeman, passed away two years ago. I gave the 

eulogy at his funeral. But he died of cancer. But 

anyway, at the time -- we didn't really know what we 

were being exposed to. We collected all kinds of 

samples of soil, water, vegetation, snow, rain, 

whatever. We just sampled -- at that time it was -- 

they were doing above-ground testing and so we knew 

when weapons were exploded by the United States, by 

China and by Russia 'cause eventually we could 

sample that and we knew that -- I wasn't really 

prepared to talk, but -- I didn't know what this 

meeting was going to be about, really, and I'm glad 

to see that -- what it is about. 

 But I worked as -- after 14 years I transferred and 

I worked with HSE-1. I worked within H division all 

the years that I worked for the Lab, but I moved 

around some. And -- but anyway, I went to work as a 

monitor at -- health physics surveyor at DP West in 

1971 where the technology wasn't as great as it was 

when we moved to TA-55. I worked as a monitor for a 

while and then I was appointed to a A-303 program, 

which dealt with research and development towards 

TA-55. We did studies of how -- we generated 

fluorescein in an area and then we found how it 

would transfer and how it would reach a sample head 

over there or over there or whatever, so we did 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 32 those studies. 

 We did studies of dissolution of plutonium in lung 

simulant, and we did some other studies towards TA55 work. I was a health protection technician 

throughout TA-55 for a period of time. We worked 

with -- throughout the plant with americium, 

plutonium 239, plutonium 238 and even neptunium. I 

did some work with that, too. And I retired as a 

supervisor. My last years I worked as a supervisor 

of personnel in health physics. 

 But I've attended all except one meeting that has 

been held here and -- we were out of state at the 

time, but anyway, it seems to me that -- that years 

ago when all this millions of dollars were -- were -

- by Congress, approved by Congress and -- but then 

I wonder what -- if the -- if being a government 

thing, if it doesn't go to administration? Seems 

like the funds go to administration. I know -- I 

didn't come here to make enemies, but I believe that 

we who worked with radioactive materials at Los 

Alamos were under-paid. And I am glad to see that 

today the people who I worked with and who are doing 

the work that I did are at least getting more money 

and technology's better. Exposure, I am sure, is 

down from what it was when I was working there 

because of stringent rules. 

 You know, most of the people who -- from -- here 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 33 from New Mexico I am sure are like -- I started 

working when I was 12 years old for 204 an hour in 

-- uncle ranch, cutting grass, raking the driveway, 

bringing in the wood to the fireplace and stuff like 

that. I made $36 that year. And my mom was my 

banker and at the end of the summer, we went to 

Santa Fe and bought my Levis, my shoes and outfitted 

me for school. But I remember my dad telling me 

okay, you accepted a job for 204 an hour, but you 

work -- as you know, you were earning $1 an hour. 

In other words -- and I've always -- did -- did 

that. I -- and I'm sure most of us, our people, are 

that way. They -- 'cause we hire good people. And 

I know that the people that I -- that are working 

within our group were always good -- good workers. 

So I believe that we were all under-paid for the 

work that we did. I thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comments. Do we 

have somebody on this side of the room who wants to 

speak? I know that these guys have got a queue 

here, but I want to allow an opportunity -- ample 

opportunity across the audience here. 

 MS. BARBOA: Hello. My name is Margaret Barboa and 

I'm here for my father, Willie Barreras. He died 

about a year ago, and he worked at the Labs for many 

years. As I was growing up, he started working 

there a very healthy man. And as he worked through 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 34 the years, he progressively got sicker and sicker. 

They didn't know what was wrong. He was somebody 

that would go square dancing and fishing and take us 

all camping and on trips. And then he ended up not 

able to talk, not able to walk. His muscles were 

destroyed on his arms and his legs, very poor 

condition. He has a few of your cancers that you 

have listed here. 

 He worked on top secret sections in the Lab. He 

worked in plumbing, where they did waste water flow 

back preventers. He had many -- a few accidents, I 

would say, where he came home in paper clothes. 

They buried his truck and all his tools and all his 

personal belongings. How do I prove this? I mean 

I've got medical documentation, but when I call the 

offices, if you don't have I guess -- like when you 

go into the computer -- special passwords or people 

that you know you know and how to talk to -- I'm 

new. I worked in a whole different sector, and I've 

been trying to get this done for my mother and my 

family, and it's -- we've been to all the meetings. 

 It's just a little bit rough because I feel like he 

had a specialized work position because he was in 

management and he had to go where some of his other 

workers could not go. There were, as far as I can 

tell, no radiation tags at the time 'cause he 

started in the seventies. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 35 I have not gotten any information back about what he 

was exposed to other than other people that I have 

talked to, and they've written letters on his 

behalf. So I'm just kind of like trying to get 

through this and filling out paperwork and a lot of 

personal information that I've been sending in the 

mail about him to different departments. And I 

thank you for coming and helping us with all this 

and I feel like -- for one thing, can a person get a 

cancer from one really bad accident? Maybe he 

wasn't, you know, treated or every day exposed to a 

radiation factor because he went to so many 

different buildings, but I know he had one or two 

for sure really bad radiation exposure accidents 

that he came home in paper clothes. So can -- can 

that cause his one cancer that could make him 

eligible for this kind of -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Yes, it can. 

 MS. BARBOA: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Chronic exposure can cause it, and 

what you're talking about is an acute exposure, a 

one-time incident, two-time incidents. Maybe it was 

different exposures. But yes, cancer can happen 

from both types of exposure. 

 MS. BARBOA: Okay, 'cause I -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Where a person may work at the same 

job for ten years and had exposure every day but it 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 36 was real low level -- 

 MS. BARBOA: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and then but another person had a 

situation like you're talking about your own 

father's situation where -- we won't even talk about 

what he might have had on a daily exposure, but two 

times out of his working history he had some unusual 

event where they sent him home -- 

 MS. BARBOA: Yes. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- probably washed him down and 

scrubbed him real hard -- 

 MS. BARBOA: They did. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and then sent him home in paper. 

 MS. BARBOA: They wouldn't even let him bring his 

wallet, his watch. His truck got buried in a big 

hole, all his tools -- and I know this for a fact, 

but how do I prove this for a fact? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You don't have to prove it. The 

burden's not on you. Okay? 

 MS. BARBOA: Okay. Well -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You've done all you needed to do and 

when the time comes and we do the interview, you 

just need to lay all this out. That's the kind of 

information that we need to hear about because what 

happens then, like Grady will take that information 

and say I need to go find out if DOE's got an 

incident report on the accident. If not, then I'm 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 37 going to find somebody that has -- that verifies 

your statement, that worked with your father or knew 

your father to say oh, yeah, I remember when they 

sent him home. Happened more than they -- than his 

family knows about. That's what we need. That's 

what we get when we do the interview with the 

claimant. That's the good information we're 

seeking, the stuff we can't find in the records. 

There's records we can't even find. That's why we 

need to talk to you. 

 MS. BARBOA: 'Cause like even his medical doctors, 

when I go back and I try to prove that he had these 

cancers -- because you know, I have certain pieces 

of documentation, but they said after eight years, 

all of that was thrown out. So I know he had it, 

but that's another thing, you know. Proving it is 

another thing, too. But -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comments. 

 MS. BARBOA: Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Appreciate your comments. They're 

very well-placed. 

 MS. BARBOA: Thanks for coming and helping all of us 

out, too. We appreciate that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, sir? 

 MR. RAMSEY: Good evening. My name is Richard 

Ramsey, former -- former worker at Los Alamos. As -

- I started in '83 and the safety problems up there 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 38 was terrible, so I started fighting those right 

away. I worked with -- at TA-54 with Jonathan and 

several other people, and I liked what you said a 

while ago, Larry, about profiling an area. This is 

what I've been talking about for years. 

 But you speak about profiling the areas. I'd just 

like to add that you would profile the workers that 

worked there. For an example, with Jonathan, myself 

and several other people up there, like TA-54, 

Jonathan's got leukemia. Another guy has cancer of 

the liver. Another one has cancer of the feet and 

in the chest. Another -- couple of them that 

delivered stuff into TA-54 died of cancer. I have 

an autoimmune disease, which I don't know what -- 

you know, what's the cause of it, but I'm one of the 

last persons that worked in there, so you can see 

that that's -- that's sort of bothering me, 

wondering what's coming down the pike, you know. 

 Oh, yes, the other question I have is if we reach a 

special cohort status, does that mean the other 

sicknesses that come up like asbestos -- asbestosis 

and all this, what does that do to that? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It doesn't do anything to that. If 

you have asbestosis or you have some other 

occupational-related disease, that would be covered 

by your state plan. That's where that has to go. 

You have to file a claim with the state and that's 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 39 what these DOE physician panels are going to help 

you do. They're going to sit and review your statebased claims and they're going to make a judgment as 

to whether or not your work experience and the 

environment and the exposure you had more than 

likely contributed to that health outcome, whatever 

that health outcome may be. That's the value of 

that. 

 If you're in -- the limitation of the Special 

Exposure Cohort -- let me make sure everybody's 

clear on this. Ted mentioned this, but it gets lost 

sometimes. If you're qualified for the Special 

Exposure Cohort like these folks are in Paducah -- 

okay -- if they have one of the 22 cancers, then 

they're going to get their compensation and they 

don't have to have a dose reconstruction. But if 

they don't have one of those 22 cancers, you have to 

ask yourself what happens to them now. If they have 

prostate cancer, if they have skin cancer, if they 

have cancer of the testes -- I don't think testes 

are included in that 22 we showed you -- they're out 

of luck. You're out of luck if you're in the 

Special Exposure Cohort. People in Paducah, we're 

doing dose reconstruction on them if they have 

prostate cancer, if they have skin cancer. Why? 

Because we can do dose reconstruction for those 

sites that Congress put into the Special Exposure 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 40 Cohort. But if you're added as a class of workers, 

from this point on what happens is to be added has 

to be verified that we can't do dose reconstruction. 

 And so if you come up with prostate cancer at that 

point, we've already said we can't do a dose 

reconstruction so you're not -- you have no remedy. 

 That's the limitation of getting added to the 

Special Exposure Cohort at this time. 

 MR. RAMSEY: Well, that's what I thought I heard you 

say a while ago, or understood you to say. So is it 

better to be in the special cohort or not be in it? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's better to be in the Special 

Exposure Cohort if you have one of those 22 cancers. 

 But if you have -- if you have a cancer other than 

those 22, I'm sorry, you're out -- you're out cold. 

 MR. RAMSEY: So in other words -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Unless Congress decides to fix that 

problem. 

 MR. RAMSEY: So in other words, one or two people, 

if they decide that they want to petition to be in 

this special cohort and maybe the other person that 

doesn't have that cancer that's in there doesn't 

want to be, it's still going to affect him. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's going to affect -- yes. 

 MR. RAMSEY: In other words, he's going to be out of 

luck. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's right. You don't have to have 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 41 cancer to petition to get into the Special Exposure 

Cohort. You can say to yourselves -- this gentleman 

here said it, I've heard Mr. Garcia say it, I've 

heard Phil say it, Paul say it, you know, we want to 

get as many people in the Special Exposure Cohort as 

we can. Well, right now we don't know what the 

distribution of cancers are going to be for a class 

that's added, but what we do know is that once we 

add a class, 22 is all you can qualify for, 22 at 

this point in time, unless Congress decides to fix 

it. Okay? So you need to be -- if you want in a 

class and you've got one of those 22 cancers, it's 

going to be in your benefit to be in a class and get 

in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

 MR. RAMSEY: If you have a different type of cancer, 

then what do you? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: If you have a different type -- as I 

mentioned, if you have skin or prostate cancer, 

which are not included in that 22, you have no 

recourse. You have no remedy. 

 MR. RAMSEY: But just -- 

 MR. KATZ: Let me add one point to that, which I 

think might get at your concern a bit. If you don't 

have one of those 22 cancers, someone else petitions 

for the class, that class still cannot be added if 

we can do those reconstructions. So they may 

petition for the class, but if we can do dose 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 42 reconstructions, it won't be added to the -- that 

class won't be added to the cohort and we'll end up 

doing dose reconstructions for everyone in that 

class, so you won't be left out in the cold. Do you 

understand? 

 MR. RAMSEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: It's only in the circumstance where we 

can't do dose reconstruction. So in a sense, it's 

not a real worry because -- because if we can't do 

dose reconstructions, we can't. Whether someone 

petitions now or later, we will find out when we get 

-- if you were to submit a claim, we would find out 

whether we can do dose reconstruction, regardless of 

what your cancer is, and that's the point where you 

then consider the Special Exposure Cohort. 

 MR. RAMSEY: Thanks again for coming. Appreciate 

all your hard work. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comments. Yes, 

sir? Can I move that up there for you? Let me... 

 (Pause) 

 MR. NEWTON: (Inaudible) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I appreciate your comments. And 

what Mr. Newton was speaking about so that we get it 

on the record, he talked about his experience 

working at the Lab and some of his acquaintances who 

had their trucks I guess contaminated and I guess 

they took them home with them and possibly got their 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 43 house contaminated, as well. So I thank you for 

those comments. 

 Somebody else? 

 MR. JOHNSON: I've been listening to all of this and 

here's the point I'd like to make. You're 

qualifying these people on primarily dosimetry. All 

right. I worked the same places Jonathan did. I 

worked the same places Ms. Bear's husband did and 

some of them. These people were exposed to multiple 

forms of radiation and airborne items. Now if 

you're only going to base it on dosimetry without 

checking into the complete work history, this is 

just going to -- this is going to hurt a lot of 

people. I'm a victim of leukemia. (Inaudible) and 

various other things. I worked at all the areas 

that these people have and I know for a fact that 

you're not addressing the high level magnetic fields 

of radiation that (inaudible). And during the 

periods at which I worked there in the same areas as 

Mr. Bear, we had such high (inaudible) that I was 

(inaudible) as we could and sometimes the half-lives 

hadn't come down to the levels they should have 

(inaudible) because (inaudible) so high. 

(Inaudible) the exhaust stack at that area was 

putting out water in the form of mist (inaudible). 

We were exposed, saturated (inaudible) on a daily 

basis and an hourly basis and there was no 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 44 urinalysis performed and there was no (inaudible) 

measurements taken in the place to cover other forms 

of exposures we had. And I hope you're not going to 

be (inaudible) this isn't taken into consideration. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comments, and let 

me react to those. We're not basing our radiation 

dose reconstruction on dosimetry. We're basing it 

on radiation in the work history that we collect 

from an individual. We are required -- 

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand that. Radiated water is 

an exposure that we're aware of and we account for 

that in our dose reconstruction process. But we're 

required by law to deal with radiation and ionizing 

radiation, and so that's why we cannot look at the 

other chemical exposures that might have occurred to 

a worker when they were in a radiation-exposed 

environment. We're only -- we're required by law, 

unfortunately, to deal only with radiation, not 

looking at non-ionizing radiation like in the 

(inaudible) project, and that's unfortunate. 

 MR. JOHNSON: I agree with you, that is unfortunate 

because of the fact that you're -- these are 

combined radiations. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand that, but we're required 

by law to focus on ionizing radiation. 

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 45 MR. KATZ: Can I just add one thing to this and that 

is, again going back to this state program that you 

just heard about that the rules (inaudible) those 

(inaudible) will be considering both radiation and 

chemical exposures, mixed conditions, mixed 

exposures like that, so they will be able to take 

into account situations like that. It's just this 

Federal program will not be able to. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, sir? 

 MR. ROMERO: My name is Raymondo Romero. I've got a 

couple of questions for you. I'd like to know what 

a lifetime dose of radiation is. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Grady, you want to answer that 

question? 

 MR. CALHOUN: I'm not sure of your question. What a 

lifetime -- 

 MR. ROMERO: Yes. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I don't understand. 

 MR. ROMERO: Well, that's what the lab told me when 

I was here a few years back, that I had a lifetime 

dose of radiation that I got in a couple of hours 

machining a piece of plutonium. 

 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. There's a couple of different 

scenarios where they could tell you something like 

that. There's administrative limits that people put 

in place and those can be based on weekly, annual, 

lifetime dose. The only dose that I'm aware of that 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 46 was in place was a maximum permissible dose like an 

annual basis. There used to be a rule where, based 

on your age, you were only allowed to get so many 

rem for -- for how old you were. That could be it. 

 It could be a maximum permissible concentration. 

If it's plutonium, it's going to be an internal 

uptake. That's going to be your hazard there and 

it's probably the maximum annual concentration to 

allow. You got it right now. But I don't know, not 

having talked to those people, I don't know what -- 

 MR. ROMERO: I contacted the lab on this, and they 

will not give me the information as far as a 

lifetime dose of radiation, but they -- it's on my 

records that I had a lifetime dose of radiation, and 

that happened in a period of two hours. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I'd have to look at those to see -- to 

make -- 

 MR. ROMERO: But they won't -- they won't tell me 

what they mean by a lifetime dose. 

 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know, either. 

 MR. ROMERO: Okay. And also -- well, that's a -- 

different types of dosage, but I don't have a cancer 

and I didn't -- and I do have a lifetime dose of 

radiation. I'm not saying -- and there's a lot of 

people like myself that are walking the streets and 

probably some in this room that are radioactive and 

don't have a cancer, but that doesn't mean that 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 47 they're not going to get cancer down the road, like 

myself. I'm glad that I don't have cancer, but I do 

have a problem. I have a breathing problem. My 

breathing is less than half, and that was caused by 

this dose of radiation, and that's according to the 

Johns Hopkins Hospital records, and they have the 

records and I've got it right here. The limitation 

as to the amount of air that you take one breath, my 

limitation is half -- less than half of air going in 

and air coming out. But yet due to the fact that I 

don't have a cancer, I can't claim -- I'm not 

entitled -- according to the lab, I'm not entitled 

to any money whatsoever because the fact that I 

don't have a cancer. But yet I'm radioactive. And 

there's a lot of people like myself that worked with 

me. A lot of them do have cancer and I'm glad I 

don't, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to get 

cancer in the future, and that doesn't mean that 

these other people aren't going to get cancer, also. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comment. We 

appreciate that. 

 MR. LAVATO: I have a question. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Would you please stay at the mike? 

 MR. LAVATO: My name is Joe Lavato and I guess I'm a 

newcomer because I just barely got the results this 

morning from the examination that I was given 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 48 through the John Hopkins University. I kept calling 

because I had had a letter come in and it said that 

July 31st was the last time or time allowed for you 

to put in a claim, so when I called this office here 

in Espanola, they told me well, if you don't have 

the results to compare with the ones your doctor 

has, it's not your fault so the time should be 

extended. Does that sound right? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I would refer that back to the 

resource center. I think you can file a claim at 

any point in time that you find out that you -- your 

health has been impaired, you've got a cancer, 

you've got chronic beryllium disease or beryllium 

sensitivity that's been diagnosed or you have 

silicosis. That's what you can claim under the 

Federal program. Or you may file a claim under the 

state program. 

 MR. LAVATO: Well, I'm having my doctor -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: July 31st of last year is the start 

date -- 

 MR. LAVATO: Oh. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- of when you could submit claims. 

 MR. LAVATO: Oh, I see. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: From that point on, any time a person 

finds out they have cancer, beryllium disease or 

silicosis, they should file a claim immediately. 

 MR. LAVATO: Well, I want my doctor to compare what 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 49 you people's report was and his 'cause we know 

there's a problem there. Okay? And I don't want to 

get blinded because there's money there. I'd rather 

have my health. Like that old boy said, he doesn't 

have cancer. He's lucky if he doesn't. 

 But then something else that came on that -- some of 

that correspondence was they want you to put in a 

claim, go to the Department of Labor and hire you a 

lawyer. Why do you have to hire a lawyer and give 

them a third of whatever you would have coming -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You don't have to hire a lawyer. 

 MR. LAVATO: Well, that's what the correspondence 

said. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't know about that 

correspondence. It wasn't from me -- 

 MR. LAVATO: I don't have it with me, but I wish I 

did. But it -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No, in this program you don't -- in 

the Federal program you don't have to have a lawyer. 

 MR. LAVATO: Well, I'm glad -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It's your option. 

 MR. LAVATO: Well, I'm glad to hear that, and those 

are -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: And if you do have a lawyer, it's 

prescribed in the Act how much they're limited to 

charging you. 

 MR. LAVATO: Uh-huh. Well, and I think my doctor 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 50 said I'd have to have a complete appointment with 

him, and it'll be the 19th of this month before he 

could even set down with me and study what you 

people reported and what he has. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Not me. It wasn't -- 

 MR. LAVATO: Well, I mean -- the John Hopkins 

University. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, you're talking about the former 

workers medical screening program that's down here 

in Los Alamos. 

 MR. LAVATO: Yeah, that's it. That's the only 

questions I had and -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 

 MR. LAVATO: -- I'm glad you cleared them up for me. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm glad to have helped, but I don't 

think I did. 

 Who's up next? 

 MR. CONLEY: Mike Conley. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 

 MR. CONLEY: My name is Mike Conley and I got 

involved with this program on behalf of my 

stepfather, who's a long-time laboratory worker. I 

just have some questions tonight and I don't know if 

you'll be able to answer them or possibly some of 

the -- a couple of the gentlemen from the Department 

of Labor. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 51 First of all, do you know of a reason why Congress 

basically passed this program identifying gas 

diffusion sites? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: The Special Exposure Cohort, I do not. 

 I can't understand or explain that. That's 

Congress's action. 

 MR. CONLEY: It seems to me that Los Alamos and I'm 

sure other sites had probably just as much 

likelihood of high levels of contamination and work 

with radiation and radiation products. 

 The other question that I have for you is that I got 

involved with NIOSH fairly early on in this program 

because my stepfather's claim was accelerated to 

that point and back in early November, I believe it 

was, I was told that you all are trying to put 

together a process that you hope to have in place by 

early April in terms of dealing with these dose 

reconstructions and the information you were getting 

back from the laboratories. My question would be, 

do you have that process in place at this time? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We are -- when we passed our other two 

rules on dose reconstruction methodology and 

probability of causation in May -- May 2nd of this 

year, that enabled us to finish dose reconstructions 

and send them over to the Department of Labor for a 

decision. I have a very limited staff, and this is 

getting back to your question, how much time is it 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 52 taking to do all these claims that come to NIOSH. I 

have a limited staff and we are in the last throes 

of finalizing a contract that will bring the amount 

of resources that we need to process the number of 

claims that we have. I'm hopeful that if -- we're 

at the best and final stage of negotiation -- to 

award this contract in the next six weeks. I hope 

to see that in place and we'll start seeing a lot 

more activity in an effort to turn claims around. 

Now that's where we're at as far as bringing in 

enough resources to bear. 

 But let me also say this. I understand the 

frustration. I understand -- I take a number of 

calls every day myself. My staff -- my secretary 

can tell you how many calls she reacts to. So we 

know what your concerns and your frustrations are 

about the time taking to work through this whole 

process of compensation. 

 But I would ask you to consider this. This is a new 

program. It does take the government a little while 

to put it in place. I'm trying to do the best I can 

for you. My staff is trying to do the best they can 

for you. And if you look at other compensation 

programs, it takes about a year. For a program like 

the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act which 

compensates uranium miners, it takes about a year 

for them to process a claim through their system, 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 53 and they're ten years old. Okay? If we look at the 

Atomic Veterans Compensation Act that compensates 

the atomic veterans who walked into the Nevada test 

site as guinea pigs, it takes them about 14 months 

in some cases to get a decision on their claim. 

 So I just use that to give you a point of 

comparison. Do I like the fact that it's taking us 

as long as it's taking us to do dose 

reconstructions? I do not. I know it's frustrating 

to you as a claimant. It's frustrating to me 

because my staff is dealing with a lot of frustrated 

folks. But we're trying to do our level best and 

I'd just ask you to keep in mind the time it takes 

to put these programs together and do it right so 

that we're being fair and consistent to everybody. 

 I'm sorry, I didn't want to steal your thunder -- 

 MR. CONLEY: That's okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but I wanted to get that out there. 

 MR. CONLEY: And I certainly appreciate that. I'm 

not trying to continue to put you on the spot here, 

but one further question -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: That's what they pay me for. 

 MR. CONLEY: One further question is that, to the 

best of your knowledge, have any reconstructions 

occurred from claims that were initiated here or 

from work that occurred in Los Alamos? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. Yes, there are claims underway -
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 54 - how many do you think, Grady, three or four right 

now that we -- 

 MR. CALHOUN: Los Alamos? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They're drafted and they're in the 

final -- final stages. Within the next few weeks 

you should -- 

 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm not sure exactly. Just from Los 

Alamos. I'm not sure exactly when those are going 

to surface to DOL for a decision. You won't hear 

about them until the claimants come forward and say 

I got my money, or hey, I didn't get my money. But 

it's a process and we have to work through that 

process. But we're finalizing I know three or four 

that are representative -- here in Los Alamos. 

 MR. CONLEY: Okay. And I guess based on that, am I 

correct in understanding that essentially Department 

of Labor has not received any reconstructions yet 

from -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No, they have. 

 MR. CONLEY: -- NIOSH? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They've received about seven -- six or 

seven maybe -- half a dozen. 

 MR. CONLEY: From Los Alamos? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: No, not from Los Alamos. 

 MR. CONLEY: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Not from Los Alamos. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 55 MR. CONLEY: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't believe we've sent any over to 

DOL yet from Los Alamos. 

 MR. CONLEY: Okay. And that's all I've got, but I'd 

also like to thank you all for coming out and 

basically helping us to understand this program that 

much more. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I appreciate your comments, appreciate 

your thoughts. Yes, Mr. Scofield? 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Larry and Ted, I do appreciate you 

coming down here. I know it's been quite a trip for 

you guys. Just one quick question here. What is 

the definition under NIOSH for reasonable dose 

estimate? What is your legal definition? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Within the Special Exposure Cohort? 

 MR. SCOFIELD: No, if you're doing a dose 

reconstruction. What would you consider one? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: A reasonable dose estimate? 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, in other words, what would you 

consider, you know, reasonable from the standpoint 

of someone's had one done, you feel comfortable with 

it. Do you have a criteria? 

 UNIDENTIFIED: What is reasonable? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Reasonable dose estimate. I don't 

know where this is coming from because we conduct a 

dose reconstruction, and when we feel that we've 

done the best job that we can and it is complete in 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 56 our mind, we work with the claimant to get their 

understanding of what we've done. And at that 

point, if the claimant is satisfied and he signed 

the OCAS-1 form, it goes over to Labor. So this 

issue of reasonable dose estimates -- 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Well, then I guess that would be a 

reasonable dose. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- I don't know what you're talking 

about there because when we do a dose reconstruction 

we do it to our fullest ability and our fullest 

confidence, and we work with the claimant to that 

end. Okay? And if that's a reasonable dose 

estimate in your opinion, then that must be a 

reasonable dose estimate. But I don't know -- I 

don't know how to define it any other way because 

for us to define something, it has to be written in 

our regulations. Okay? And we don't specify 

reasonable dose estimate in our -- that I know of -- 

 MR. SCOFIELD: You're a smart man. Okay, I do 

appreciate that -- your description there because -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: It was a trick question, was it? 

 MR. SCOFIELD: No, it's not a trick question. It 

was -- honestly, I was just wondering how you come 

to what you feel is that level, and you answered 

that question for me. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: My health physicists do the best job 

they can. My health physicists are potential 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 57 claimants themselves, every darned one of them. 

Okay? You think they're going to do a shoddy job? 

Because in the future they may face a dose 

reconstruction themselves. These guys are setting 

the groundwork for how this is going to be done, and 

I think they want it done right, believe me. I know 

they have meetings among themselves and talk about 

these dose reconstructions before they ever come to 

my desk. I was talking to Grady about one yesterday 

and Grady was filling me in on all the dialogue 

that's occurred between himself and two other health 

physicists on my staff. And the other two health 

physicists said to Grady, Grady, we think you ought 

to take one more step and go look in this direction 

over here. It might add some dose to this claim. 

And Grady said okay, I'll go do that. I think 

that's a reasonable dose estimate. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. One more quick question. A 

number of people like myself have filed a claim, 

even though I don't have a cancer, in order to get 

the paperwork. Seems to be the only way to get it 

out of LANL. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Say five years, ten years down the 

road I develop one of the cancers. Can my case then 

be reopened or is it shut permanently? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: If you file a claim and you -- so DOL 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 58 got your claim and they looked at your claim and 

they said okay, Mr. Scofield says he worked so many 

years at LANL and we can get that verified at DOE, 

but wait a minute, he doesn't have cancer and he 

doesn't report he's been diagnosed with berylliosis 

and he doesn't report that he has silicosis, so they 

deny your claim. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Correct. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. So -- and I'm sure Bob's going 

to correct me if I'm wrong -- they send you a letter 

that says your claim is denied for the reason the 

you've not had a diagnosable covered illness. 

Refile if you ever do. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, that's what I wanted to hear 

from you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: So you refile. You refile as soon as 

you get a doctor's diagnosis because that's the day 

you want your medical benefits to start when they 

decide in your favor. 

 MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I'd like to just tell the 

audience, remind them one thing. The Congress has 

made it abundantly clear that those of you who have 

been -- those who have been killed or those who've 

been injured deserve compensation, and I would like 

to thank NIOSH for coming here very much. Thank 

you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 59 MR. CASADOS: Yes, my name is Filemon Casados. I 

have a paper or a letter, rather, that I forwarded 

to the editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican. I would 

like to present this to you people. 

 UNIDENTIFIED: Have it read into the record. 

 MR. CASADOS: I would like it to become part of the 

record for tonight. If you would care to read that 

to the people over here, I would appreciate it. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. I'll let Ted read it. 

 MR. KATZ: You want me to read the whole article? 

 MR. CASADOS: The article on the left-hand side -- 

 MR. KATZ: Let me find it. Okay, you wrote this, 

obviously? 

 MR. CASADOS: That's right. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So this is an overall title Time 

for country to repay nuclear workers. (Reading) I 

am writing this letter on behalf of all the nuclear 

workers throughout the United States who were loyal 

and patriotic soldiers of the Cold War, who 

performed their duties and did their part in 

providing this nation with the instruments necessary 

for its defense while employed at many of our 

country's nuclear laboratories. 

 We read daily in papers that our government is 

spending billions of dollars in foreign aid. I 

believe that America's aid should start here at home 

by providing the necessary assistance to all of our 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 60 nuclear workers. 

 Please remember that these workers were loyal and 

patriotic soldiers of the Cold War, performing their 

duties for our nation's security. It is about time 

these Americans get the medical and financial 

assistance they deserve. Hopefully the claims from 

the Los Alamos laboratory will receive the same kind 

of attention as those submitted in Kentucky and 

other parts of this country. 

 We did our part by providing our government with the 

tools and instruments needed for the security and 

defense of our great nation. It is time the United 

States government did its part in supporting us. 

Filemon Casados, Santa Fe. 

 (Applause) 

 MR. CASADOS: Thank you very much. I worked up at 

Los Alamos for 35 years. I retired back in 1990. I 

was somehow presented with a letter in the year 2000 

indicating that I was entitled to get myself reexamined or get a physical examination at John 

Hopkins over in Espanola, which I did. I took that 

test and two or three weeks later the results came 

back to where they found that I was contaminated 

with beryllium, sensitized, and they gave me a 

record as to what all they found with me, medically 

speaking. But the idea was that I was supposed to 

report for another medical examination, which I did. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 61 I never got back the results on that second one, 

but then I took a third one not too awful long ago 

and this third one that I took was only after I had 

pursued the help of Mr. Floyd Archiletta* from the 

Department of Labor here in Espanola and his copartner, David. They helped me submit the letter, 

the claim, that went on to Denver. 

 Denver took quick action on that and presented me 

with directions as to how to guide myself to pursue 

the claim in its entirety. I've got these people, 

Floyd, Mr. Bob Monsenadas* at a meeting that was 

held over here in Espanola where Jeff Bingaman and 

Udall and I believe -- who was the Secretary of 

Labor there? 

 UNIDENTIFIED: Beverly Cook? 

 MR. CASADOS: Was it Beverly Cook that was there? 

 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 

 MR. CASADOS: Beverly Cook was there and I stood up 

and spoke. I more or less presented them with the 

same topic of conversation that I have in that 

letter, but I don't know what action they're going 

to take in regards to supporting the claims that 

most of us people over here have submitted. I in 

turn have submitted a claim which has reached the 

highest level, I guess, that it can go because I 

have been recognized as being sensitized with 

beryllium and my case has been up to Denver and has 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 62 been given the approval of the final adjudication 

board where my case, at this particular point in 

time, has been solved or come to a point where I can 

find some good results as to the idea of being 

provided medical attention and expenses paid one way 

or the other and to pursue this route until maybe 

something else develops. Since I do have this 

beryllium sensitivity, I know that it's not going to 

go away, but the condition will be there forever. 

 Anyhow, what I want to do at this particular point 

in time is that I want to tell all the people over 

here that there is light at the end of the tunnel. 

It just takes a little bit of patience and 

perseverance. And what I'd like to do at this 

particular point in time is thank the people that 

helped me pursue this matter to this point, and they 

are Mr. Ken Silvers, for one, Mr. Ben Ortiz over 

here in the back, Jesse over here, Scofield and 

where's Richard? 

 UNIDENTIFIED: Right here. 

 MR. CASADOS: And Richard, and also Mr. Bob 

Monsenadas, who was very instrumental in guiding me 

on how to pursue the final procedures of getting my 

claim filed in the right manner. Mr. Floyd 

Archiletta was very, very helpful in providing the 

rest of the work that needed to be filed, so I want 

to thank all of those people for the help they had 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 63 given me. And at this particular point in time, 

like I say, I do feel that the government owes these 

people that worked up in the government projects and 

have gotten contaminated, they owe them a lot more 

than what they owe them rag mops up in Afghanistan, 

up in Africa, up in Europe, any part of the -- other 

part of the world that we provide aid to. I think 

aid should start over here with this people. Thank 

you very much. 

 UNIDENTIFIED: Right, Fil. 

 (Applause) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Is there anyone else? We've gone past 

our time and -- okay. I don't want to shut anybody 

out, but I'm pretty tired and hot, myself. 

 MR. VILLEDIA: I'll keep it short. My name's Daniel 

Villedia. I'm environmental health and science 

student at Mexico highlands. I'm working with Ken 

Silver on a MTA grant that was granted to us from 

Resolve. It's an organization out of Washington, 

D.C. and my grandfather, he died of working at the 

Labs, he was killed up there, and I've worked at the 

Labs and I worked for various subcontractors and I 

worked -- I mean for Los Alamos and PNNL and right 

now I'm working on this contact list for workers 

with -- for the CDC when you finish your dose 

reconstruction so when this data gets -- when this 

information gets released on CD-ROM that we can help 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 64 find any relevant documents or correlation to their 

claims. 

 And what I was wondering, is it all right if I hand 

this out to some workers and they can mail it to me 

or they can drop it off at our office, which is at 

the Johnson Control Buildings behind the gym here at 

the Northern Mexico Community College. We have an 

office there. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure, I have no problem with that and 

I think what you and Ken are doing trying to find 

available information is valuable. We appreciate 

your efforts on that. 

 MR. VILLEDIA: Great, thank you. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, folks -- okay, we've got one 

more? 

 MR. TRUJILLO: I'm Leroy Trujillo, and they called 

me for a physical and when I came to the physical 

they said I had some beryllium. And then they 

called me again and they said I got none. Maybe God 

or the devil come and take it away from me, I don't 

know. 

 (Laughter) 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd suggest you get another test 

'cause sometimes the test -- the beryllium 

sensitivity test comes back negative and then -- as 

you heard another gentleman talk about his, the 

third time it was positive again. And they'll take 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 65 two out of three, I know that. 

 MR. TRUJILLO: And then I work in CMR building, in 

the hardest place of the CMR building. And I got 

some -- almost cancer. Tumor cancer, and I don't 

know what's going to happen, so they haven't -- I 

don't have -- received any more letters or anything. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Have you filed a claim for the cancer? 

 MR. TRUJILLO: Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for your comments. Rich? 

 MR. ESPINOSA: Just a quick statement -- Richard 

Espinosa. For the members of the public that showed 

up, I want to thank you. As a Board member on this 

Advisory Board, it helps me make decisions and 

represent the people in the best possible manner. 

As I said before, I was here for my local union, but 

also as a Board member, and all your statements has 

helped me out a lot and I appreciate it. 

 For the members of NIOSH and CDC, if you're 

traveling to Albuquerque, be careful on the way 

home. This is the land of enchantment, but it can 

become the land of entrapment. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I want to thank everybody for coming 

tonight and I thank you for your patience, your 

perseverance and I really appreciate your sitting 

here in this hot weather and listening to us. I 

hope we were informative and helped you. Thank you 

very much. 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 66 (Meeting concluded at 9:30 p.m.) 
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 67 C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF GEORGIA :

 :

COUNTY OF FULTON :

 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court Reporter, 

do hereby certify that I reported the above and 

foregoing on the 8th day of August, 2002; and it is 

a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings 

captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin nor counsel 

to any of the parties herein, nor have any interest 

in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 15th day 

of August, 2002. 

 

 

___________________________ 

 STEVEN RAY GREEN, 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102