March 17, 2006

Larry Eliiott, Director

Office of Compensation, Analysis and Support
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Mail Stop C-46

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Elliott:

The purpose of this letter is to request assistance from the National institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Center for Disease Control and Prevention in addressing a problem
associated with medical records slated for destruction in Los Alamos, NM. | am requesting
immediate assistance from your office on behalf of the many current and former employees of
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) located in my congressional district.

By way of background, ! had the opportunity to visit several records repositories at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, its subcontractors and the Los Alamos Medical Center on March 6, 2006.
‘The purpose of my site visit was to learn more about the process in which personnel, exposure,
and medical records are stored at Los Alamos, particularly the records pertaining to my
constituents who have filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program
Act. During my visit, | learned that there are thousands of old medical records being stored in the
basement of the Los Alamos Medical Center, and at a nearby warehouse owned by Los Alamos
County, These medical records are currently in disarray, deteriorating and slated for destruction.

| should emphasize that the Los Alamos Medical Center has been extremely open and
cooperative in discussing the status of these medical records with me and my staff. Hospital
officials have explained that their intention to destroy these records is based on the rationale that
the current owner of LAMC, Life Point Hospitals, inherited this sizable medical record archive
from its predecessor, Province Health Care. Since acquiring the facility, | understand that LAMC
requested the Department of Energy take custodianship of these records, but the DOE never
followed up on their request.

Further, LAMC asserts that private hospitals in New Mexico are required by law to only retain
adult medical records for a period of 10 years after the fast date of service. They argue that due
to a lack of DOE intervention, they have gone beyond the call of duty and have held onto these
records well beyond what has been required by law. Most importantly, LAMC has explained they
can no tonger afford to pay monthly rental fees for storage of these records, nor do they have the
necessary resources to assess, catalogue and preserve them in such a manner that the records
may be useful. They explained that even if they could find the resources to pay their file clerks to
accomplish this daunting task, the current condition of the files may pose a health risk to their
workers as the warehouse files are covered in dust, mold and potentially hantavirus-infected
mouse droppings.

(over)



i
i

i
i
q
a

ABQjoumal: Budget Could Accelerate Lab Worker Claims Page 2 of 2

At that time, a litde more than 20,000 workers had filed claims, but DOE
bad completed processing fewer than 200 of them, leaving thousands in
limbo,

In New Mexico, about 1,800 workers have filed claims through DOE's
portion of the program. About 1,400 of them are from LANL.

DOE spokesman Joe Davis said in November that DOE's shate of the
program hasn't been funded sufficiently since its inception. He’ said DOE has
only received $74 million to run the program through last year.

DOE requested an additional $33 million on top of $16 million allocated to
tun the program in 2004, he said.

In comparison, the Department of Labor has received at least $346 million
to run its part of the program, Davis said. It has fully processed more than
half of the 50,000 claims filed with it and has paid about $740 million ia
compensation claims to nearly 10,000 workers nationwide.

Udall spokesman Glen Loveland praised DOE's pledge to increase the
program's funding, but noted “there has been no indication thus far that DOE
is capable of processing those claims."

"We want proof that they can actually accomplish the task at hand, and they
haven't shown us that yet," he said.

[eq ¢ {Copyright 2004 Albuquerque Journal
Click for commercial reprint permission (PRC# 3.4676.140667)
All content copyright © ABQJoumnal.com and Albuquerque Journal and may not be republished without

permission, Requests for permission to republish, of to copy and distribute must be obtained at the the
Albuquerque Publishing Co. Library, 505-823-3492, ot through Icopysight.com,

Back to story page



|
|

|
|
i
|



$.5.1.14.2 Findings and Concerns
RP.3 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES AND POSTING

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE: Radiation protection procedures for the contro] and
use of radioactive materials and radiation generating devices should provide
for safe operations and for clearly identified areas of potential
consequences.

FINDINGS: . Director's Policy (DP No. 107, "Radiological Protection,"
dated September 1991) and the ES&H Manual do not require
the review and approval of procedures involving
radiological work. Safe operating procedures are
prepared, reviewed, and approved by the operating
divisions. When the division deems it appropriate, the
procedures are sent to the Health Physics Operational
Group for review. All precedures are sent to the Health
Physics Poticy and Programs Group for review/retention.
Those that involve radiological work are returned to the
Health Physics Operations Group for review/comments.

. A new process for the fabrication of sources is being
developed and implemented in the Robotic Isotope Detector
Fabrication glovebox. The operator reported that the
glovebox had previously been operated under a safe
operating procedure and a "cold" special work permit.. He
stated that he had submitted a special work permit for
signature for operating while he is revising the safe
operating procedure. Radioactive material had been
introduced into the glovebox even though the special work
permit had not been approved.

. The Bldg. PF-4 vault procedure has a short paragraph
devoted to radiation protection, no Health and Safety
Division review is indicated on the cover page: - Revision
of this portion of the procedure has been initiated.

° No safe operating procedure or special work permit is in
place for changing the HEPA filter on a portable vacuum
cleaner at the Sigma Complex in TA-3 even though this
procedure has been performed. -

. See Sections 4.5.1,15.2, PP.2, and 4.5.4.13.2, RP.3.

The review of radiation protection standards and
practices by line management is informal and inconsistent
and is not in compliance with Chapter XVI of DOE 5480.19.
(See Section 4.5.4.13.2, RP.1.)

. The following concern was partially identified in the
LANL self-assessment.

4-176



The petitioners recognize the interest that NIOSH and the U.S. Department of Labor
have paid to the claimants of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, the
identified class requires special attention and consideration as data is not
available to legitimately construct a valid dose reconstruction on their cases.

“Isn't it a shame that I’ m dying because | was making a living for my family.”

Former LANL employee

t
i
;
i
{



S6LZE3/ 2002 11:62 PAGE a1

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

Tracking Number 00054 National institute for Ocoupational
SEC Tracking Safety and Heath
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4876 Columbia Parkway
d Cincinnai, CH 45226-1998
Phong: 513-633-6800
Fax 819-633-8817

January 26, 2006

Dear,

This letter is to inform you that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's
(NIOSH) Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) has received your submission
fequesting that the class of employees defined in your submission be added to the Special
Exposure Cohort (SEC),

We have assigned your submission a NIOSH SEC Tracking Number to help us address any
questions you may have about your submission. The NIOSH SEC Tracking Number for your
submission is:

SECO0051

We are responsible for assessing the feasibility of estimating (or reconstructing) the
occupationat radiation dose received by members of the class defined'in your submission as
described in the document entitled “Procedures for Designating Ciasses of Employees as
Members of the Speciat Exposure Cohort" (42 C.F.R. pt. 83). The procedures and level of effort
involved in assessing the feasibility of dose reconstruction depends, in part, on: (1) the quantity
and quality of available dose information, (2) the conditions under which radiation exposures
took place, (3) the forms of radiation to which the class was potentially exposed, and (4) other
information as necessary. This effort may require a considerable amount of data collection and
eee analysis, ©

We will begin by examining the information you have supplied. This involves documenting the
eligibility status of the individual(s) who made the submissions. We will then review the class
definition and basis to determine if all the required parameters are specified and consult with
you in order to obtain any additional information needed to qualify your supmission for
evaluation.

After determining whether or not your submission qualifies for evaluation as a patition, we will
begin the evaluation process for qualified submissions by notifying you and the Advisory Board
on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) that your submission has qualified for evaluation
and by providing a summary of the SEC Evaluation process. We will also post @ summary of
your submission on the OCAS web site sini . Please note that once
your submission has been qualified for evaluation, it will be considered a patition under the SEC.
Rule. We will then determine the feasibility of dose reconstruction, if possible, through
evaluation of existing records and documents currently in NIOSH possession. In some cases,
we will aiso request data from the Department of Energy, an Atomic Weapons Employer, or



Page 3 of 4

Rule ‘ongressional ion and Inte

Washington, DC. - The Department of Labor's (DOL) interim final regulations to implement Subtitle E
of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) deviates from
explicit direction provided by Congress in recent reform amendments enacted on October 28, 2005,
according to a preliminary analysis by the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a non-profit
watchdog group.

EEOICPA Subtitle E provides up to $250,000 for physical impairments and wage losses to workers
that suffered occupational illnesses from exposure to toxic substances at Department of Energy (DOE)
nuclear facilities, and up to $175,000 to qualifying surviving family members, Although the rule was
issued within 210 days, as requised by law, its provisions are at odds with key aspects of the law and
Conference Report for the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-375). These discrepancies
include:

9) For radiation-related cancers, the DOL rale improperly raised the bar for
determining eligibility. Subtitle E’s standard of causation is whether exposure to a toxic
substance was "a significant factor which aggravated, contributed to or caused the illness."
DOL jettisoned this standard for radiation related cancers and requires that "it is at least as
likely as not that exposure to radiation caused the illness." This raises the bar for establishing
proof of causation from approximately 20-50 percent to greater than 50 percent. Raising the
bar will eliminate compensation for thousands of workers and their survivors, and violates
the plain language of the law.

2) DOL rule excludes impairment benefits for many workers despite Congressional
directives to cover all illnesses. Congress directed DOL to pay workers $2,500 for each
percentage point of impairment caused by their occupational illnesses, as determined by the
American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (up to
$250,000). DOL's rule denies impairment benefits for illnesses which are not listed in the
AMA Guides. However, the Conference Report for the FY 05 Defense Authorization Act
states otherwise: "Zn some cases, particularly in cases involving illnesses to long exposure to
toxic substances, there may be an illness for which the AMA Guides do not provide an
impairment rating. As a result, each individual employee should be evaluated individually
and the determination of impairment and work disability should be through a combination of
the Guides and by physicians suitably trained and qualified.”

Who falls through this loophole? DOL says workers with mental impairments for which
there is not a documented physical dysfunction of the nervous system. This means that
workers with neurotoxic effects from exposure to heavy metals such as mercury, lead or
solvents will receive no impairment benefits.

3) DOL rule requires claimant to wait until "maximum medical recovery" to establish an
impairment rating. Many occupational illnesses are progressive by their nature and there is
no point of maximum medical improvement (example: asbestosis, silicosis, or chronic
beryllium disease). The rule's only exception is for terminal stage disease, which means that
claimants with progressive illnesses may have difficulty establishing impairment.

4) DOL rale has no provision for independent physician panel reviews where there are

6/24/2005



i
i
j
i
5
i

‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

under the Energy Employees Occupationat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Appendix — Petitioner 3:

‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Survivor Information — Complete Se: Survivor or
8.1 Name of Survivor:

Mr/Mrs/Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 — Soctal Security Number of Survivor:
B.3 Address of Survivor:

Street Apt# P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
B.4 Telephone Number of Survivor: (_ ) :
B.S Email Address of Survivor:

B.6 Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse Q Son/Daughter © Parent
G Grandparent Q Grandchild

Employee Information ~ Complete Section C.

C.1 Name of Employee:

Mr/Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/egal name change/other):

Mc/Mrs/Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.3 Social Security Number of Employee:
C4 Address of Employee (if living);

Street Apt # P.O, Box

City State Zip Code
C.5 Telephone Number of Employee: «
C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a_ Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start / GS. g End f PKG

C.7¢ Employer Name: Z1A fo
C.7d Work Site Location: _ 772. 3B Awd Dfle-et Olas bed Artes

C.7e Supervisor's Nam —

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Spheres of influence + Compensating for Cold War Cancers

belie numerous assumptions and uncer-
tainties, and the details of the plan have
generated substantial debate.

The Equity Dilemma

Overa petiod from the late 1940s to
the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOB) and its contractors employed over
20,000 men and women st vasious sites in
the production of nuclear weapons, These
workers were exposed to a variety of radia-
tion sources, including radon and X rays,
‘The government had long denied that the
working conditions could lead to disease, but
that position finally changed in early 2000.
Bill Richardson, energy secretary at the time,
in announcing an eatly version of the com-
pensation plan for workers, said chat “the
government is done fighting workers, and
now we're going to help them.”

Responsibility for administering the
EEOICPA’s compensation progran was
assigned by President Clinton to the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), Normally
such duties would have been under the
purview of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOP), which oversees several other major
compensation schemes including, for exam-
ple, the September 11 Victim Compensation
Fund, the National Vaccine Injury
‘Compensation Program, and the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act, which com-
pensates residents of Utah and Nevada
exposed to radioactive fallout from nuclear
testing. Buc worker advocates argued that in
this case the agency had a conflict of interest
because of its role in defending the govern-
ment against worker aims.

Funds are appropriated for the program
each yeas. For fiscal year 2002 the program
received $597 million for benefits and $136-
million for administration. But the legislation
is weitten so chat payments cannot be denied
because of lack of funds in the DOL budger.

The EEOICPA provides compensation
for illnesses related to three hazardous occu-
pational exposures: sadiation, beryllium, and
silica, The victims of beryllium and silica
exposute are relatively casy to identify,
because they develop diseases specific to expo-
sore to those agencs. Beryllium is a light,
highly rigid mecal chac withstands hear well
and is used in nuclear weapons components.
Some workers who were exposed to beryllium
developed chronic beryllium disease, a disease
‘of the lungs. Workers who mined cunnels in.
Nevada and Alaska for underground nuclear
tests were exposed to silica dust, which causes
chronic silicosis (nonmalignant hung disease).

Bur identifying the radiation victims is
not so easy. The EEOICPA limits claims co
victims who have developed cancer. This
includes afl types of cancer except chronic
lymphocytic leukemia, which is not believed

A406

to be caused by radiation, But cancer is a
common disease, oven among those who have
never gone near a nuclear weapons plant, and
ic is likely that many of the nuclear workers
wil develop’ cancers thar are not job-related.
Compensation administrators are left with 2
daunting challenge—how co decide who
deserves 10 be

There is no foolproof test to determine
whether a worker’s lung cancer was caused
by mdiation or by, suy, cigarette smoke. In
occupational injury disputes involving can-
cer, administrators and courts are forced to
ely on probabilities, Nicholas Ashford, a
professor of technology and policy at the
Massachusetts Institure of Technology,
explains that, in such cases, decisions are
made “not from the
individual injury
which is sustained,
but from epidemio-
logical evidence,
which is largely statis-
tical evidence,” In
other words, a doctor
cannot identify the
cause of a cancer by
examining the patient,
but information from
epidemiologic studies
and the patient's radiation exposure can
determine whether ic is likely chat the cancer
was caused by radiation.

The EEOICPA requires that compensa-
tion for cancer be granted only if the disease
is “at least as likely as not related to employ-
ment.” This translates into 2 probability of
50% or greater, a cutoif that has been used
in other compensation systems and in tort
law. The principle here is that some individ-
‘uals’ cancers are more likely‘to be job-related
chan others, depending on how much radia-
tion exposute they received, their age, and
other factors. While the DOL will oversee
the compensation program, che National
Instinute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) was charged with developing a sci-
entifically based model to assign to each
dlaimant a probability that his or her disease
is job-related.

Models and Assumptions

The centerpiece of the NIOSH final rule
‘on the probability of causation in radiation
workers, which was promaulgated on 2 May
2002, is a computer program known as the
Interactive Radio-Epidemiological Program
GREP). The IREP was originally developed
by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to
zid the Department of Vesecans Affairs in
adjudicating claims of atomic vererans
(U.S. veterans exposed to radiation from a
nuclear blast in World War II or during
nuclear bomb tests during the Cold War),

but NIOSH made some modifications in
adapting it for the nuclear workers.

‘While the NIOSH~IREP model contains
basic calculation relies on one crucial piece of
data: for any given radiation dose, how much
docs ic increase a worker's risk of developing a
panioular ype of cance? The program can-

radiation, dose, sex, history of smoking, age
at exposure, and age at which the cancer was
diagnosed, However, these estimates of low-
level radiation risk have been the subject of
‘ongoing scientific controversy.

“The NCI group that developed zhe origi-
nal IREP model, led by radiation statistician
Charles Land, primarily relied upon scudies
of 82,000 Japanese acomic bomb survivors,
the richest dara source available, ro generate
the risk model. However, some scientists have
questioned the application of the Japanese
survivor studies t9 American nuclear workers.
While the Japanese at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were exposed to a single intense
blast of radiation, the nuclear workers were
exposed to smaller doses, sometimes over a
period of decades, which, some experts say,
could result in different biologic effects. Says
epidemiologist David Richardson of the
School of Public Health ar che University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), “The
question is whether {the cancer sisk values}
are valid, and the validity is pardy a question
of extrapolating from a bomb blasc to chronic
‘exposures, That's probably the main source of
uncertainyy.” :

Richardson argues that the risk mode!
should also incorporate findings from studies
in USS, nuclear wotkecs, In a study published
in the August 1999 issue of EHP, Richardson
and UNC colleague Steve Wing studied
14,000 Cold War workers at Oak Ridge
‘National Laboratory and found substantially
higher cancer risks at low-level exposures than
would have been predicted based on data
from the atomic bomb survivors study.
(Wing published an eater paper on this
same topic with similar results in the 20
March 1991 issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association)

Bur results from other worker studies
have been inconsistent. Other scientists main-
tain that because most workers are exposed to
very low levels of radiation, it is difficult to
dissinguich berween 2 small adverse effect and
no effect at all, “The worker studies have a lor
Jess information than the survivor studies,”
says statistician Daniel Stram of the
University of Souther California.

Most radiation scientists do agtee, how~
ever, thar the same radiation dose has 2 dif
ferent effect when itis given over 2 longer 5
time inserval. Says John Boice, scientific §

vounie 1101 nunaer 7 July 2002 + Environmental Health Perspectives



Because LAMC and its physicians have historically served the entire community of Los Alamos,
the medical records in question include patient files for LANL employees, their families and other
focal residents. | have been told that some of these records date back several decades to the
hos pital’s early years of operation. The LAMC has always had a unique relationship with LANL
since the era of the Manhattan Project and its inception as a government hospital in the 1950's.
The Atomic Energy Commission sold the facility to Lutheran Hospitals of America in 1964 and its
ownership has since changed several times. It is my understanding that some of the information
housed in the these medical files may be of value to present and future EEOICPA claimants in
terms of documenting compensable conditions (e.g., cases involving pre-1993 beryllium disease
in which x-rays taken at the LAMC are.described in the medical record; e.g., diagnosed cancer
pre-1970 which was not the ultimate cause of death). Further, the records might find application
if health studies of the community surrounding the lab were to be undertaken.

i understand that NIOSH may be able to provide resources to assess the value of the
epidemiotogically relevant records in question and preserve these records if they are found to be

useful. Please be aware that | am also submitting a similar request to the DOE Office of
Environment, Safety and Health.

| respectfully request that your office make arrangements to fully evaluate and assess these
records to determine if they have epidemiological value and/or may be useful in EEOICPA claims,
\ also request that these records be considered worthy of protection under the 1990 Moratorium
issued by then-Secretary of Energy James Watkins (and renewed in 2000) due to the unique
historical relationship between LAMC, LANL, the Atomic Energy Commission and DOE.

{am submitting this request on behaif of the many sick, cold-war workers who are my
constituents and are dying while awaiting a determination on their claims. | am quite concerned
that if these medical records are destroyed without a comprehensive and objective assessment, it

may further erode what little public confidence is left in the EEOICPA program as it relates to
LANL claimants.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and prompt attention to my requests. | look forward
to working with you to ensure justice for these workers and their families. Please feel free to
contact my District Director, Michele Jacquez-Ortiz at (505) 984-8950 or Legislative Director,
Mike Collins at (202) 225-6190 if you have any questions.

Very Truly Yours,

10)

Tom Udall
Member of Congress

Ce: Russeli Shearer, Office of Environment, Safety and Health, DOE
Steven V. Carey, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, DOE



i 7 :
,., @i/19/28e2, 11:02 PAGE @4

correct the deficiencies within this 30-day period, NIOSH will send you notification of its
proposed finding that your submission fails to meet the specified requirements of the
Rule, and the basis for its finding. Once you recelve NIOSH’s proposed finding, you will
have an additional 7 calendar days to request a review of the proposed finding. if you
do not request a review of the proposed finding, then the proposed finding will become
a final decision 8 calendar days after notification of the proposed finding.

if you have any questions regarding your submission, please contact OCAS toll-free at
4-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674), directly at 513-533-6800, or by email at
ocas@cdc.gov . You may also contact our contractor tolLiree at 1-800-322-0111.
Additional information about OCAS, the SEC regulation and the SEC procedures can be
found on the OCAS web site at http/Avww.cdc,gov/niosh/ocas.

J, Elliott, MSPH, CIH
Director
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

1 (52/40) insufficient information Package



Because AMC and its physicians have historically served the entire community of Los Alamos,
the medical records in question include patient files for LANL employees, their families and other
local residents. | have been told that some of these records date back several decades to the
hospital's early years of operation. The LAMC has always had a unique relationship with LANL
since the era of the Manhattan Project and its inception as a government hospital in the 1950's.
The Atomic Energy Commission sold the facility to Lutheran Hospitals of America in 1964 and its
ownership has since changed several times. It is my understanding that some of the information
housed in the these medical files may be of value to present and future EEOICPA claimants in
terms of documenting compensable conditions (e.g., cases involving pre-1993 beryllium disease
in which x-rays taken at the LAMC are described in the medical record; e.g., diagnosed cancer
pre-1970 which was not the ultimate cause of death). Further, the records might find application
if health studies of the community surrounding the lab were to be undertaken,

| understand the DOE Office of Environment, Safety and Health can provide resources to assess
the value of the epidemiologically relevant records in question and preserve these records if they
are found to be useful. Please be aware that | am also submitting a similar request to NIOSH due
to their detailed knowledge of EEOICPA requirements.

{ respectfully request that your office make arrangements to fully evaluate and assess these
records to determine if they have epidemiological value and/or may be useful in EEOICPA claims.
1 also request that these records be considered worthy of protection under the 1990 Moratorium
issued by then-Secretary of Energy James Watkins (and renewed in 2000) due to the unique
historical relationship between LAMC, LANL, the Atomic Energy Commission and DOE.

1 am submitting this request on behalf of the many sick, cold-war workers who are my
constituents and are dying while awaiting a determination on their claims. tam quite concerned
that if these medical records are destroyed without a comprehensive and objective assessment, it
may further erode what litte public confidence is left in the EEOICPA program as it relates to
LANE claimants, .

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and prompt attention to my requests. | look forward
to working with you to ensure justice for these workers and their families. Please feel free to
contact my District Director, Michele Jacquez-Ortiz at (605) 984-8950 or Legislative Director,
Mike Collins at (202) 225-6190 if you have any questions.

Very Truly Yours,

10)

Tom Udall
Member of Congress

Cc: Steven V. Carey, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, DOE
Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation, Analysis and Support, NIOSH



I
j
}
i
i
i
3

Spheres of Influence + Compensating for Cold War Cancers

dicector of the International Epidemiology
Institute and a member of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection,
“There's a wealth of animal and cellular and
biological data that indicate that if you
spread the dose over time, the effect is less.”
This is because human DNA is able to
repair small amounts of damage.

In predicting risks for long-term expo-
sures, major radiation protection orguniza-
tions such as the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measuxcments, a
nongovernmental group of radiation and
health experts, recommend using a correction
factor called 2 dose rare effectiveness factor
(DREE). This faccor represents how much
the effectiveness of a dose of radiation
decreases when it is given over a long time
period (as a slower dose rare). A higher DREF
nurober means that exposure over a longer
time will be much less effective than the same
exposure over a short time. The council {as
well as other radiation protection authorities)
suggests that the correct number to be used
here is somewhere between 2 and 10, but
they settled on 2 as the most prudent choice
because it assumes the highest risk. Yet the
appropriate value of this correction factor is
uncertain, William Beckner, executive direc-
cor of the council, says, “Thar number is
based on a Scientific judgment; i's nor based
‘on scientific data that it is a number of two.”

NIOSH has adopted the recommended
correction factor in their risk valuation
model, though the agency has received criti
cism from both sides of the debate for doing
s0, Richardson and Wing maintain that their
worker studies contradict the theory that 2
dose given over a longer time is less effective,
and suggest that no correction is necessary. At
the other extreme, Harvard physics professor
and radiation expert Richard Wilson advo-
cates for an even stronger correction factor.
“Whoever chose the dose rate {effectiveness}
factors was an extreme pessimist,” he says.

Nevertheless, there is broad agreement
on one point—the uncertainties in the
NIOSH-IREP
model are numerous
and substantial. The
model actually pro-
Vides  sange of pos-
sible values to reflect
this uncertainty, and
the EEOICPA requires that administrators
use the value most favorable to the worker.
Says Larry Elliore, director of the NIOSH
Office of Compensation Analysis and
Suppors, “We give the benefit of the daubr
to the claimant, using science to the fullest
extent possible in doing so.”

The Politics of Compensation
Land insists thar the model works exactly as

intended. “If you are not compensated,” he
says, “it muse be just about impossible not to
have had a probability of causation less than
fifty pescenc. I's an extremely generous sran-
dard of proof.” ~

But worker advocates maintain that
inequities persist. For instance, the
NIOSH-IREP mode! treats smokers differ-
ently than nonsmokers when considering
claims for lung cancer, imposing more strin-
gent requirements for compensation, Knut
Ringen is a consultant who provided public
comment to NIOSH on the proposed com-
pensation rule on behalf of the Center to
Protect Workers’ Rights, part of the AFL-
CIO based in Silver Spring, Maryland. He is
concerned that because 80% of the workers
were smokers, very few will be eligible for
compensation for lung cancer. “On one level
this makes sense, but it leads to a totally
absurd result,” he says, “A smoker has to
have up to thiry times the exposure in order
to get the same compensation as a nonsmok-
cx. We think that’s just plain wrong.”

Ultimately, some critics would like ro
see the burden of proof rest on the govern-
ment, not on the worker. For example,
physicist Marvin Resnikoff of Waste
‘Management Associates, a New York City
consulting company that provides dose esti-
mates and other technical information on
behalf of workers in litigation, opposes the
requirement for exposure estimation, “They
shift the burden on the workers to deter
mine what these levels are,” he says. “The
presumption should be that thece was stuff
in the air and that the workers were

Indeed, the greatest uncertainty in adjue
dicating claims comes not from the scientific

» s-«debate-about radiation risks-but from-the +.

lack of adequate records of worker exposures,
Record-Keeping practices for radiation safety
wese woefully deficient ar many sites, partic-
ularly for intermittent and temporary work
xs such as those doing construction and
maintenance work. NIOSH will do the work
of dose reconstruction itself, based on DOE
records and interviews with workers, accord-
ing to a second final rule released at the same
time. Exposures will have to be estimated
based on job descriptions and measurements
from comparable work settings. However, in
some cases, the records may be 50 poot as to
prevent any realistic eximation.

James Melins, 2 member of the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health,
which provides oversight of NIOSH!’s rule
soaking under the EEOICPA, maintains chat
missing records pose a major challenge.
Administrators will be forced to surke a bal-

ance berween scientific accuracy and expedi-

ence, he says: “How far do you go in trying
to find dose information or to reconstruct? I

Environmental Health Perspectives + votume 110 | xusoen 7 | July 2002

think that is a key issue, Ie may cost more
just to do that than to award compensation.”

‘The EEOICPA does provide for excep-
tions when exposure records are especially
poor. The law singles out workers at a few
notorious sites, induding the gaseous diffu-
sion plants at Paducah (Kentucky), Ports-
mouth (Ohio), and Oak Ridge (Tennessee)
as “special exposure
cohorts.” Workers in
this group simply
have to show that
they worked in an
exposed jab for at
least 250 days. Under
the BEOICPA, additions to the special
exposure cohorts can be created for groups
of workers where the radiation dose cannot
be determined “with sufficient accuracy.”
NIOSH is still working on developing
guidelines by which ic will make these
determinations.

The Advisory Board on Radiation and
Worker Health will be a key player in all of
this. The board provides independent
advice to NIOSH with members reflecting
“a balance of scientific, medical, and worker
perspectives.” Currently, though, the 12-
member advisory board includes only one
worker as well 2s one labor union physician,
In February, advisory board chairman Paul
Ziemet wrote to Department of Health and
Human Services secretary Tommy
Thompson asking that this imbalance be
rectified, but so far no other workers have
been added. The next advisory board meet-
ing, to be held in Denver on 1-2 July 2002,
will be the first held outside Washington,
D.C., and board members hope that this
will allow more input from former workers,

So far about $200 million has been paid
out, mosly to uranium miners and members
of the special exposure cohorts. About 4,000
cancer claims are currency awaiting assess-
ment by the NIOSH-IREP model, after
which they will forwarded to the DOL for 2
final decision. While the NIOSH tule pre-
sctibing the compensation model is now
final, it allows for revisions to the
NIOSH-IREP model under the oversight of
the advisory board. Thus, disputes over the
modeling assumptions ate likely to continue.

However, Stram is quick co point out
that, despite scientific differences, a lot is
Known about how to calaulate radiation risks.
“We probably know more about radiation
than we do about any othec exposure,” he
says. “Despite all of the uncercainties, we
know that there is a bound on the risks.”
‘That may be small compensation to workers
who fail the probability test and are left with
the legacy of cances.

Mark J. Parascandola

A407



Stute of Neto Mlexico

House of Representatibes
Panta HE

COMMITTEES:

INTERIM COMMITTEES:

93-31-06P03:40 RCVD

March 29,2006

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH MS-C-47

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226

SEC 00051

To whom it may concem:

I would like to comment on why this response is past the deadline that was imposed on we as petitioners
for the SPECIAL COHORT STATUS, all three petitioners are State Legislators, and when the first Fed
Ex letter was left on my door, I was in session, did not receive it promptly was not home, I was staying
in Santa Fe, second letter left on door dated February 7, 2006, still in session did not retrieve until
February 17,2006 after session ended, so that gave us 30 days from 2/7/06 to respond when in fact we
were cheated out of ten days because of where we were at the time the second letter came.

I would like to further comment that you have placed an enormous burden of proof on the petitioners,
when in fact the burden should be on the DOE or the DOL, to not grant the SPECIAL COHORT
STATUS to the injured workers is truly a GRAVE INJUSTICE, especially when the records are not
available, or not kept to specifications, I have enclosed a few documents to speak to that fact.

To close, there is not enough time to respond, we are only lay people and it is very difficult to gather
information, and the back up documents needed to support our request in the time frame you impose.

I do hope you take all of these things into consideration when reviewing the GRAVE MATTER before
you, people are dying leaving families with tremendous medical bills, then the survivor dies and the kids
stop trying to get some compensation for the pain and anguish that the injured worker went through.

My husband said a week before he passed. “Isn’t it a shame that I’m dying because I was making a
living for my family.” I am sure all affected families feel the same.

Respectfully:



Special Exposure Cohort Petition for
Los Alamos National Laborat LANL)

The petitioners are requesting Special Exposure Cohort status be granted to the
employees working in all Tech Areas of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL) from 1943 to 1975.

A Brief History of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

The U.S. government built the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) as a key
research and development center for the secret effort during World War Il, to create the
first atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project. This complex site conducted
applied research, which involved many sources of radioactive materials that were
present at some time at each Tech Area.

As a result the population in Los Alamos grew extremely rapidly and included
individuals from all areas of the globe. In January 1943 the population was 1,500. By
the end of 1944 Los Alamos nearly quadrupled to 5,675 and by 1945 over 8,000 people
lived on the hill, many of them working for the LANL.

in the early years of the Lab, the rapid growth often made for unsafe working conditions.
Policies addressing health endangerment involved in the development of sophisticated
nuclear physics were not developed and implemented as quickly as needed. The site
profile of the LANL does not include many incidents and/or accidents that occurred
during the early years.

The Petition

This petition is made in accordance with 42 C.F.R § 83.13 (c)(3) because current
statistics show that National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
is not able to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of
the identified class, it is also determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that
such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class.
The lack of bioassay data raises the issue of possible chronic exposure to external
sources of radiation.

With respect to these employees it has been determined that there is insufficient
information to estimate either the maximum radiation dose incurred by any
member of the class being evaluated. The information available from the site profile
and additional resources is insufficient to document or estimate the maximum internal
and external potential exposure to members of the class during the period of
radiological operations at LANL; 1943-1975. Plus NIOSH has stated that such data
does not exist for the early years of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.



; “Spheres of Influence

ate Mtoe ae

A404 VOUUME 110] munasex 7 Luly 2002 > Environmental Health Perspectives



Or/L9/ 262 11:62

0

PAGE 87

An affidavit submitted to support a submission basis, other than an incident, must be
based on the experlence/knowledge of the petitioner, at a minimum, These affidavits
must be signed in the presence of an authorized witness, such as a notary public. Any
affidavit (or other supporting document) wilt be subject to review by NIOSH to consider
the adequacy and credibility of any evidence provided.



i
i

|
i
4
|
:
i

3

ad
py Cie.
Ex hi? COMMISSION
RG ps4
UNITED ‘STATES ion CS 20°
ATOMIC ENERGY commrgsron | CoHection G3
Washington 25, D.C. Box 13 a
| Folder 3° MAES 1-5: Ace hit
No. B-30 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel. HAzelwood 7-783] {Monday, March 2, 1959)
Ext. 3446

AEC ANNOUNCES COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
OF DECEMBER 30 RADTATION ACCIDENT
AT LOS ALAMOS’ SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY

General Manager A. R. Luedecke of the Atomic Energy
Commission announced today that the Los Alamos Scientific

Laboratory had completed its investigation of the circun-

time of the critical burst, the removal and analysis of the
solution that caused the burst, and the steps being taken
te prevent 4 recurrence. Medical and pathological data
resulting from studies now being carried on by the Labora-

tory's Health Division will: Probably be ready for publica-
tion by midsummer.

operator during a series of transfers of plutonium and
organic solutions between Containers in a chemical plutonium
recovery process. The Comittee also found that the pro-
cedures for this Process were such that safety of operation
depended substantially on the ability and judgment of in-
dividual Operators but that the incident might have been

{more }

YS OS



E41
E2

E3

E4

ES

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Wines Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0820-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

ure Cohort Petition — Form B 4 of7

Name of DOE or AWE Facility: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

Locations at the Factlity relevant to this petition:

All Tech Areas of the LANL from 1943-1975

List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can fist by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be
included in this class;

All_ DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors employed by
the LANL: including all predecessor agencies.

Employment Dates relevant to this petition:

Start _01/01/1943 End 12/31/1975

Start End

Start End

is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitered or
recorded exposure incidents?: © Yes Q No

if yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages
as necessary):

A3— sonal exposures _ in some job

categories with significant radiation exposures were
unrecorded. These exposures may have endangered the members
of this class of employees who worked at LANL.

Accurate data required for NIOSH to conduct precise dose

reconstructions of members of the specified class does not

exist for some employees. Exhibit 1 is a clear example
that necessary precautions were not always taken by
supervisors and/or employees of LANL.

Name or Soclal Security Number of First Petitioner: __



U.S, Department of Health and Human Services
Cotter rtteeses Sonn aes
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health|

OMB Number: 0920-0630 Expres: 6712007,
Page 5

‘Special Exposure Cohort Petition
‘Employees Occupational

under the

ng that Records and infor
tion F.

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checkirig the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

FiO WWe have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the Proposed class, |
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal Monitoring or through area
monitoring.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be uncléar, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

are [nade ‘or Individual Dose —

F.2 fy We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
tadiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Er Employees Cccupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Hiness. Compencation/ reed National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0820-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3  Q IWe have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures af the facility, as relevant fo the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

F.4 O We have attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
joumsal, thet identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

Signature of Person(s) Submitting this Petition — Complete Section G.

All Potitinnars should sian and date the petition. A maximum of three persons may sign the petition.

L2-69- OS”
Ginnatured Vv Date
L2AF-0 SF
Samarires a Date
Signature at :
Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who

. knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitfed is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



, 61/13/2882 11:02 PAGE @2
¥ al

from other sources, balancing our need for information against the need for a timely
Consideration and evaluation of the qualified submission. We will also determine whether or not
there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation dose may have endangered the health of
members of the class,

When we have completed the dose reconstruction feasibility process and heaith endangerment
determination, we will provide you with a copy of the evaluation report, which will be considered
by the Board during Its review. After the Board makes a recommendation, the Director of
NIOSH will propose a decision on whether or not to add your class to the SEC, and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services will make a final determination. Ifthe Secretary's final
decision is to add a class, then the designation that is provided to Congress shall, unless
Congress otharwise provides, take effect after 30 days,

During this process, if you have any questions regarding your submission, please contact OCAS
toll-free at 1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674), directly at 513-533-6800, or by email at
gcas@ecdc.gov, You can also contact our contractor tollefree at 1-800-322-0111. Additional
information about OCAS and the SEC procedure can be found on the OCAS web site at

hito:/www.cde.govini .

Sincerely,

2 OA

4/ Lary J. Biot, MSPH, C1H
' Director
i Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

|
H
|

File: (7) Receipt Letter



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for.Disease Controt and Prevention
liness Compensation Act 01-23-06P01:197 Rcvp __ National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Special Exposure Coh tition Appendix — Petitioner 2

Use this Appendix for Petitioner 2.

This appendix form is to be used as needed. Petitioner 2, or his or her representative, should complete the
parts applicable to him or her, ~*~

Refer to the General Instructions on completing petitioner information for Parts A,B, or C,

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of

the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.
Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

O An Energy Employee (current or former), Start at C
ff you are: }Q A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), Start at B
& A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), Start at A

A Representative information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

A.1 Are you a contact person for an organization? Q Yes (Go to A.2) Q No Go to A.3)
A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
A3 Name of Petition Representative:

Mr/Mrs/Ms. First Name Middle tnitial Cast Name
A.4 Address:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
AS Telephone Number: :
A6 Email Address:

AZ  @ Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization
form for this purpose fs provided.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: __



. Consistent procedures have not, been Prepared by LANL

divisions to implement the currently approved DOE 5480.1)
implementation plan. (See Section 4.5.4,13,2, RP.1.)

. The following concern was identified in the LANL self-

assessment,
CONCERN: At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, procedures approved by
(TSA-1) Site/facility management to implement the radiological
{RP.3-2) protection program are not updated as necessary for
(2/1). Compliance with DOE 5480.11,
FINDINGS: . Signs and labels throughout the plutonium and uranium

facilities are not uniform and some either do not
indicate the radiological conditions, are not accurate,
or have other problems that could Tead to unsafe
practices, Examples include: .

- Two waste storage areas in the basement of Bldg, PF-
4 have radiological conditions Posted as "NA"
tirem/hr;

- Most of the waste storage areas in the basement of
Bldg.  PF-4 are not roped off and some do not have
radiation Posting at their perimeter;

- - : - There are drums in a storage area posted as "Empty
Drums" without empty labels and with radiation signs
indicating material quantities as high as 66
microcuries of Plutonium; and

- A storage area is posted as "Chemical Waste Only"
with some of the containers having radiation labels
requiring alpha monitoring. . soe

° The radiation area signs posted on the individual doors
in the Bldg. PF-4 vault do not have radtological
Conditions posted on them. The chief technician and the
vault manager did not know the radiation levels in the
rooms and stated that they would have to go to the survey
map at the entrance of the vault to determine the
radiation levels. Personnel working in the vault receive
the highest radiation exposures in TA-55. (See Concern

| TSA-1, RP.11-2,) :

. See Concern TSA-1, QV.5-2,

e Localized contaminated areas, or radiological hot spots,
are not labeled with radiation-type markings ( i.e.,
yellow and magenta coloring.) The area is usually marked

With indelible ink. However, the count rate at contact
with the hot spot is included on the marked area.

4-178



enrolled and participating in the bioassay program. Whatever the circumstance,
protocols were not adhered to consistently or conscientiously, which gravely
endangered employees.

Even today members of the protective force tell about the lack of personal protective
equipment in potentially hazardous areas. Members of the force must stand guard even
in situations that have been identified as harmful by other LANL employees. Often
times areas are evacuated by staff members, but members of the protective force are
required to stand guard without respirators or minimal protective equipment. These
stories hold true throughout the history of the Lab.

Although it has taken years for the U. S. Department of Energy's facilities to recognize
the significant impact that radioactive materials can have on a human life. During the
years of production of the atomic bomb, the risk to employee’s health may have been
affected more so than at other DOE facilities.

Environmental Dose

The LANL is the site where most nuclear weapon tests within the Continental U.S. were
conducted. These detonations disperse materials, of various types, to the atmosphere
and could have caused exposure to LANL employees. The waste matter can affect
workers present in nearby TAs and can result in internal and external exposures by
inhalation of airbome radionuclides, re-suspension of radionuclides in soil, and by
submersion in an effluent. However, the environmental monitoring efforts of LANL are
lacking, to say the least. In Section 4.3.1 of the Site Profile, it mentions:

Many Tech Areas have unreported results and data are missing for some
radionuclides an some years, or there have not been data to report due to
changing conditions at LANL. Unless it is provided in the claimant files, locations
to the air monitoring stations in relation to the specific worker's location(s) in a
Tech Area are not well known.

The work environment at LANL, in the early years, is one that has lacked occupational
radiation protection. Since workers could have inhaled, ingested or absorbed particles
that emit alpha radiation, it is crucial to have excellent health practices and detection
devices in place. When important safety procedures are violated or ignored, such as
individuals not required to turn-in their personne} dosimeter at each exchange period
(Tiger Team Report 4-780), all employees are at risk.

The men and women involved in the day to day production at LANL were well aware
that we are living in a radioactive world. However, valid radiological readings
necessary for individuals to be found eligible or ineligible for benefits through the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) do not
exist for this class, and thus justify acceptance as a Special Exposure Cohort.



The LANL has been a research and development center for nuclear weapons design,
high-energy physics research and other scientific endeavors. There are many
incidents and accidents documenting the history of occurrences at the LANL
which are not included or made available in the dose reconstruction process.
The men and women endangered by the lack of health and safety protocols, and the
lack of consistent oversight of workers involved in radiological operation is evident
throughout history of the Lab, but especially so in the early years.

Section 5.6 of the Site Profile begins explaining the working conditions at the LANL in
the early years.

In 1944, shoe covers wom by secretaries and others working throughout the
buildings had significant count rates of 2,500 to 7,500 cpm (LASL 1944a). In
June and July 1945, over 50% of the laboratories had areas that routinely
exceeded the maximum removable contamination level. The potential for
unmonitored intakes was significant in the early years (1944-1946) for any
site worker.

“However, because of the urgency of the times, work with plutonium had to
proceed, and improvised methods of monitoring and decontamination were
unbelievably primitive by today’s standards” (Hempeimann, Richmond, and Voelz .
1973).

Occupational Environment

The site profile identifies that there was a significant potential for unmonitored intakes of
plutonium and uranium, either depleted or enriched, although natural uranium was used
extensively in conventional weapons testing from 1943-1946. (Site Profile 5.6.2)
Workers with potential exposures to fission or activation products prior to 1955
(possibly 1958) were not monitored. (Site Profile 5.6.2)

In the early history of the Lab, it was not uncommon for a person to work outside
of their normally assigned work area and be asked to participate as a substitute
in a task involving radiation or radioactive materials. These persons were not
likely to have regularly, or possibly ever participated in the bioassay program.
(Site Profile 5.1.2)

Travel throughout areas of LANL fo perform work assignments was often necessary for
some classes. For exampie, a technician may have traveled to TA 55, TA 3, & TA 21 all
in one day as part of his or her regular work duties. Even though this individual traveled
to these areas, he or she was not required to participate in the bioassay program. Many
of the exposure histories and work records are not specific to the assigned work areas
of individuals.

Bioassay programs were not set up for all employees. Perhaps because of the size and
its rapid growth it was difficult for monitors to track individuals and ensure that they were



44

4.5.1.141

ATT 12 Performance objectives in

the Radiological Pro
Were addressed jn this appraisal, There
and Administration ol

Overview

were no concerns in RP.1 Organization
r RP.2 Internal Audits and Investigations. The areas of
. RP.3 Radiation Protection Procedures and Posting and RP.1 ig
f addressed at the level i

a Program are
*. the remaining 10 Performance objectiv

Yin the Plutonium a i
included th, i i

ig. the Sigma Complex at

sal facilities at TA-50 and >
»_TA-36, and TA-39, The Majority of Plutonium hand] ing
L occurs at TAY 5, and the operational health Physics management is
located there. The appraisal included review of documentation, including
records of audits and assessments and radiation Measurements at t,
Facilities, appraisal also included tours of facilities, discussions with
Operational as well as radiation protection personnel, ang observations of
operational tasks in radiation areas,

7 i i i i 1 OF procedures are not
i i . iati urveys throughout the lutonium and
d i not conform to T cumente: les,
The use of ole ity dosi ers throughout the Plutonium and
sepyeted uran tun area: S a ensure that ersonne] doses are measured
accurately, Comming} ing is allowed” ating,” arin Ing, ani using Tobacce
PrOdUCES While Wearing protective clothing is permitted in
The method by whic! Ki

ome break rooms,
A workers are chosen for inclusion in the
is inconsistently applied,

bioassay program

alp alibration and res onse checking of fixed instruments and tritium monitors
oes no Pierre Peas level oF attention and i i
instrumentation, i ing i de



Occupationat Environmental Dose
(for workers who were not monitored)

Workers who are not monitored can still be
‘exposed to radiation on site from:

+ Radioactive materials in the air.
* Radiation sources in buildings.

* Radioactive materials in the work
environment,

Environmental External Dose

+ The external radiation dose resutts from
radiation sources inside buildings, radioactive
wastes, storage, etc.

+ Available site-wide monitoring data are used to
calculate external dose for unmonitored workers.

+ The average annual ambient dose ranged from,
32 te 56 meam from 1971-2002.

« From 1985-1970, it ranged from 31-100 mrem.
+ No data prior to 1965.
eI

Environmental Internal Dose

The annual intake of radioactive material
is calculated from the average annual air
concentration.

Estimated site-wide, maximum intakes are
given for 3H, 4], 27h, 24U, 2Pu, 4tAm,
mixed fission products, and particulate/

vapor activation products from 1971-2003.

Data for many years are missing. ZA
—_—$_—

thin in [rom Your Quan;

Power soaks |



aN ORAU TEAM
tt Dose Reconstruction
Wee Wy gies MIW Project for NIOSH

SSS TTS

Development of the

Site Profile

for the

Los Alamos National
Laboratory

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Los Alamos National Laboratory Site Profile Meeting

August 16, 2005

‘Oak Ridge Associated Universities | Dade Moeller & Associates | MJW Corporation
4a50 Smith Road — Sute200——Cincinnah, Ohio 45212
613) 824-4000 4-800-922-0111



prevented had the organizational arrangement required closer
supervision to insure that normal procedures were followed.
The Committee commended the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

“on the thorough evaluation it made of ‘the accident and on the

planning of measures to be taken to prevent a recurrence.

The Committee recommended that the details of the accident
and of the measures being taken to prevent recurrence be
given wide distribution among-the Commission, the Commission's
contractors and licensees engaged in similar pursuits.

The General Manager has endorsed the findings of

the Review Committee and has directed that its recommendations
be carried out.

40 - DOS ARCHIVES.

(NOTE 16 EDITORS AND CORRESPONDENTS: This information is
being released simultaneously in Albuquerque and Los Alamos,
New Mexico, by the Albuquerque Gperations Office. The Tech-
nical Report is available to news media representatives at

Commission offices at 1717 H St., Washington, D. G., Los
Alamos and Albuquerque, New Mexico.)

3259


March 17, 2006

Acting Assistant Secretary C. Russell Shearer
Office of Environment, Safety and Health
U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585

Dear Assistant Secretary Shearer:

The purpose of this letter is to request assistance from the Department of Energy, Office of
Environment, Safety and Health in addressing a problem associated with medical records slated
for destruction in Los Alamos, NM. | am Tequesting immediate assistance from your office on
behalf of the many current and former employees of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
located in my congressional district.

By way of background, | had the opportunity to visit several records repositories at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, its subcontractors and the Los Alamos Medical Center on March 6, 2006.
The purpose of my site visit was to learn more about the process in which personnel, exposure,
and medical records are stored at Los Alamos, particularly the records pertaining to my
Constituents who have filed a claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Itiness Program
Act. During my visit, | learned that there are thousands of old medical records being stored in the
basement of the Los Alamos Medical Center, and at a nearby warehouse owned by Los Alamos
County. These medicai records are currently in disarray, deteriorating and slated for destruction.

| should emphasize that the Los Alamos Medical Center has been extremely open and -
Cooperative in discussing the status of these medical records with me and my staff. Hospital
Officials have explained that their intention to destroy these records is based on the rationale that
the current owner of LAMC, Life Point Hospitals, inherited this sizable medical record archive
from its predecessor, Province Health Care. Since acquiring the facility, | understand that LAMC
tequested the Department of Energy take custodianship of these records, but the DOE never
followed up on their request.

Further, LAMC asserts that private hospitals in New Mexico are required by law to only retain
adult medical records for a period of 10 years after the last date of service. They argue that due
to a lack of DOE intervention, they have gone beyond the call of duty and have held onto these
records well beyond what has been required by law. Most importantly, LAMC has explained they
can no longer afford to pay monthly rental fees for storage of these records, nor do they have the
necessary resources to assess, catalogue and preserve them in such a manner that the records
may be useful. They explained that even if they could find the resources to pay their file clerks to
accomplish this daunting task, the current condition of the files May pose a heaith risk to their

“workers as the warehouse files are covered in dust, mold and potentially hantavirus-infected
Mouse droppings.

{over)



cet BBRBRe, = o\.

It ti ui ey
; iy ah
leslie Ht i aay

PE) Sapien puis ie
Hy Heit Spay ae tie aH
OH ailial Hat fi ely: aif
i asa

a



2 ABQjournal: Budget Could Accelerate Lab Worker Claims . Page 1 of 2:

URL: http://www.abgjournal.com/north/140667north_news02-04-04.him

Wednesday, February 4, 2004

Budget Could Accelerate Lab Worker Claims
By Adam Rankin

Journal Staff Writer

The head of the Energy Depastment announced on Monday plans for a
budget inctease in 2005 that could help accelerate state worker compensation
claims for about 2,000 New Mexicans.

Most of the workers and families 6f workers who stand to benefit worked
or still work at Los Alamos National Laboratory. :

If the funding is approved by Congtess, DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham

a said-President Bush's budget request of $43 million to help process claims
~ } submitted by DOE workers through the Energy Employees Occupational
' Illness Compensation Program Act will eliminate a backlog of claims by 2006.

As of the end of Januaty, more than 22,200 claims have been filed with
DOE, but fewer than 1,600 cases have been completed, according to the
DOE. DOE also reports nearly 11,500 cases have yet to be touched, and ‘
about 6,500 are being researched. ;

In 2000, Congress established the compensation act, putting DOE in
charge of helping to document workers’ exposutes to toxic and radioactive
substances while building nuclear weapons.

The act requires DOE to help workers file claims under state compensation
programs and direct its contractors to not fight claims.

"This is a matter of doing what is right and taking care of those whose
labors helped secure our safety,” Abraham said duting Monday's news
conference in Washington.

DOE has been under pressure to improve its handling of the portion of the
act it oversees in conjunction with the Department of Labor, the Department
of Justice and the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health,

Some lawmakers, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall, both
New Mexico Democrats, pushed to take away DOE's oversight and move it
under the Department of Labor, which they argue is better at handling worker
compensation.

During congtessional hearings in November, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-
Tenn., called DOE's handling of the program "a complete disaster."



, 81/13/2882 11:82 PAGE 85

; SEC00061— ul ion Information Deficienci cl
4, Deficiency. In Form B, Section A, Item A.1 on both page 1 of 7 and

Appendix ~ Petitioner 2, neither has been marked specifying whether or not
Y the representative is a contact person for an organization.

2. Deficiency. In Form B, Section E, Item £.5, you have identified an incident
as part of the basis for your submission. Exhibit 1 of the submission indicates
that procedural deficiencies contributed to the incident described but does not
provide evidence of an unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored
or recorded exposure incident.

Please provide a Section F basis for the incident that you have described
in tem E.5, Please note the affidavit requirements listed at the end of this
letter in the event that you choose to provide an affidavit as supporting
documentation for this basis,

3. Deficiency. No basis was listed for your submission. Note that the

| submission package did not include Form B, Section F, Page 5 of 7 which
provides Bases F.1 and F.2. You must Include at least one (of the following)
as the basis for your submission, and provide the necessary supporting

4 documentation/affidavits as required:

1) Radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class
that relate to this submission, were not monitored, either through
personal monitoring or through are monitoring. You must provide
documentation and/or affidavits that support this basis: Additionally, you
must provide a written response that describes as completely as
possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how this documentation
and/or affidavit(s) indicate the potentiat radiation exposures were not
monitored.

2) Radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have
been lost, falsified or destroyed; or that there is no information regarding
monitoring, source, source term, or process from the sit where the
employees worked. You must provide documentation and/or affidavits
that support this basis. Additionally, you must provide a written
response that describes as completely as possible, to the extent it might
be unclear, how this documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate the
potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

3) You have a report from a heatth physicist or other individual with
expertise in radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of
existing DOE or AWE records in radiation exposures at the facility, as
relevant to this submission. The report must specify the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
ilness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 06/31/2007

Petitioner Authorization For: Page 1 of 2.

Instructions:

If you wish to petition HHS to consider adding a class of employees fo the Special Exposure Cohort and you
are NOT either a member of that class, a survivor of a member of that class, or a labor organization
representing or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Part 83, Section 83.7(c) requires
that you obtain written authorization. You can obtain such authorization from either an employee who Is a
member of the class or a survivor of such an employes. You may use this form to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legibly.

For Further (nformation: If you have questions about these instructions, please calli the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674,

Authorization for Individual or Entity to Petition HHS on Behalf of a Class of Employees for

Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

Name of Class Member or Survivor

i
H
|

‘Street Address of Class Member or Survivor Apt. # P.O. Box

i City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor
i do hereby authorize:

Name of Petitioner

Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner
to petition the Department of Health and Human Services on behaif of a class of employees
that includes:

All _ workers of LANL vorking.in all tech Areas from 1943-1975
Name of Class Member (employee, not the employee's survivor}

for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee's
Occupational fllness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385).

In providing this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have ail the rights
of a netitinner as provided for under 42 CFR Part 83,

AB -1G- OE

| Signature pI lass member OL yurvivor ~ Date

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



CONCERN:
{TSA-1)
{RP.3-1}
(#2/01)

FINDINGS:

CONCERN:
FINDINGS:

cd

At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the implementation of
procedures involving radiclogical work without line
Management approval is not in compliance with DOE 5486.19 and
without the review and approval of the Health Physics
Operations Group does not provide the contro] and worker
safety required for compliance with DOE 5480.11.

There are several "Late" annotations on the monthly
dosimetry reports for TA-55 and TA-21. An employee
replaces the dosimeters in the rack at the end of each
dosimetry period, If a dosimeter is not in the rack, the
new dosimeter is placed in the slot. The employee
continues to check the rack unti) the old dosimeter
appears. If the dosimeter does not appear by a
prescribed date, the Health Physics Operations Group
writes a memorandum to the worker. Similar procedures
are used in TA~Z1 and TA-55 but do not include line
management in the exchange process.

See Concern TSA-1, OA.3-2.
See Concern TSA-4, RP.5-2.

Until recently the different facilities at LANL have
functioned independently with regard to radiation
protection support. This results in different procedures
being used for the same radiation protection function.
An example of this is the three different forms for
special work permits for radiological work used at LANL,
TA-53, and TA-55.

LANL AR 3, "Ionizing Radiation/Radioactive Materials"
(numerous dates), has not been updated to reflect the
LANL "Director’s Policy on Radiation Protection" dated
September 1991 or the recent reorganization of the Health
and Safety Division.

The procedures and processes used to implement radiation
protection programs at accelerator facilities are not
adequate to ensure that the requirements of DOE 5480.11,
mandatory ANSI standards, and the LANL ES&H Manual are
met, (See Section 4.5.3.13.2, RP.3.}

LANL is not in compliance with its approved, Rev. 2,

DOE 5480.11 implementation plan or with its latest
revision, Rev. 4, scheduled completion dates. Examples
include: line organization ALARA coordinators were
scheduled te have been identified by May, 1991, but a
Laboratory-level coordinator has net been identified, and
completion of posting and labeling for existing
facilities and operations was scheduled for September
1991 and has not been completed.



} uranium sites is not based on studies of flow patterns, afid similar studies
4 are incomplete at TA-55. The contamination contro? programs at the sites do
& not ensure complete centro? of the spread of contamination. -

iL has not established an ALARA program at the Laboratory level. ALARA is
Records related to radiation

addressed at the depleted uranium sites.
posure are not readily available, especially at the depleted uranium firing

sites.

é The LANL self-assessment for the plutoniu
Of the 15 concerns identif

m and depleted uranium areas was a
jed in this appraisal, 10 were at

thorough effort.
yeast partially identified in the LANL self-assessment.



, Aaticles . Page 1 of 2

U.S. TO PAY WORKERS FOR
RADIATION EXPOSURE

Wednesday, April 12, 2000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government
reversed decades of denial on Wednesday and
proposed paying at least $400 million to thousands
of ailing workers who were exposed to radiation
while building the nation's nuclear arsenal.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson called the
people who worked at the nuclear plants
“courageous” and essential to winning World War
TL and the Cold War.

But he said they often were not told what they
were working with and, in part because of the
secrecy surrounding their jobs, they were denied
j compensation when they got cancer or other

| radiation-caused diseases.

"Justice for our nuclear workers is finally
happening," Richardson said at a news conference
announcing the program, “The government for a
change is on their side and not against them."

Under the compensation plan, which would have
to be approved by Congress, nuclear workers who
got sick would receive payments for past medical
bills and lost pay. Those with certain cancers

a * _-would be eligible for compensation beginning at
$100,000.

Richardson said the biggest change in policy is
that the government will not contest many of the
claims and workers would receive the benefit of
the doubt when plant medical records are missing
or flawed.

"The burden of proof is on the government and not
on the worker," he said. "We're not going to make
workers find past records because in many cases
the workers weren't told the truth."

He said after some start-up costs in fiscal 2001 his

department would seek $120 million a year for
three years and then another $70 million after
that.

The cost is expected to decline as cases are

http://www.navajoboy.com/artus.htm 1/10/2006



03-31-06P03:40 Revo «SEC Hl
In response to your request for additional information and corrections to the application:

1. These deficiencies were corrected and a copy of the correction is attached.

2. On both areas where NIOSH Affidavit Requirements are required, additional time
is being requested in order to obtain signatures from individuals.

‘The basis for the submission is that many constituents have reported that in their
attempt to gain access to medical records from the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) they’ve received no response from the Lab. In many
instances they’re told verbally that no records exist.

In some cases where medical records do exist there is no evidence of bioassay
testing and often times the records are illegible or incomplete. Dosimetry and/or
exposure records from other sites are not incorporated in to the LANL file.
Employees who were employed by subcontractors were often times not monitored
or the same situation exists in that the data is not incorporated into the file.

3. Radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost,
falsified or destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring,
source, source term, or process from the site where the employees worked.

Information is being submitted to support this section. However, how can the
current/former workers of LANL submit information that does not exist? A large
part of this petition is to support the fact that records do not exist. Monitoring
programs were not active and in place at LANL.

In a letter dated April 20, 1987 to Mr. Milan Makale (Exhibit 1) it very clearly
states that medical data is not in existence and the information that does exist is
flawed. That is relevant because often times this is the case, accurate data is
unobtainable or is does not exist in an employee’s medical file. See attached
copies. (Exhibit 2)

Often times the records that do exist are illegible. How can NIOSH use this data
to obtain a recorded dose of radiation for an individual? (Exhibit 2)

Recent events in Los Alamos prove that these claims are true. Important medical
records that are housed in a warehouse in Los Alamos, paid for by the Los
Alamos Medical Center have never been incorporated into employee files. These
files should’ ve been part of the employee’s medical records because the records
are the property of the Department of Energy who has failed to take possession of
the information.

c



| Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
fiiness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safely and Health
, OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007,

posure Cohort Patition —Form B

ge 1 of 7)

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available ina Separate packet):

Except for signatures, please PRINT ail information clearly and neatly on the form. .

Please read each of Parts A— G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. if there is

‘than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A—C of the form that apply
to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided af the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed,

need more space to provide additi information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

if you have questions about the use of this form, please call the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak fo someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:
1-800-356-4674,

QA Labor Organization, . StartatD on Page3

Ifyou Q An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page2
are: OA Survivor (of a former Energy Employes), StartatB on Page2
GA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employes), StartatA on Page 1

A Representative information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

Are you a contact person for an organization? 0 Yes (Go to A.2)
A2 Organization Information:

@ No (Goto A3)

Name of Organization -

Position of Coritact Person
A3 Name of Petition Representative:

MirJiirs./Ms. First Name ” Middie initial. Last Name
A4 Address:

Street — ~~ Apt# P.O. Box

City State _ ZipCode

AS — Telephone Number:
A6 Email Address:

AZ @ Check the box at left o indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization

ST Peer are

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: :



|
i
[
|
;
4
{
j

}
i
i

THE WEST

ee ALBUQUERQUE, FeBRuaRY 19,2006 BS

Unfair to Hispanics

During the Cold Was, many
eapenee eae pxpated t0
ry 8 Were €:
beryliium, radiation and

Commits oe the fue

mittee on fudiciary's

Sobogmnaiete co ieumigre

tion, Border

chin mitt
wants to

include testimony on debalf of

who were

LANL employees
lium, redia-
exposed to beryllium,

“Jt would bes. great injustice .
to cut the denofits of
dla who conting to suffer and
in some cases have died, from
exposure to hazardous materi-
als while at LANL,” Udall said
wa news release, Mi “Many of

exposed to theae mat

the U.S. government

owe them full utation.”
sea |

sent
week at the White Hi Pin
a alow of senators —~ i
New Mexico's — to talk energy

y.

i more extensive congressional
can Rote Domenic bl briefings ou the program earli-
and Natural Com- —& this month, said she and oth-
mittee, and Bingaman {i er members of the House
Democrat, chatted with B Intelligence Committee spent
about energy issues, last week to determine

except to find exactly what information to
sore boertaan seek from Bush.
might de possible. “We're moving forward with
. . esight of the president's
In particular, the progres,” Wikeos val
Tavaned anery nal "ete pon mig
Vv energy s
highlighted in his. ofthe to “understand better what the

program is but also what the

support tw Parameters of the law are.”

‘Wilson also wants to review

those
my constituents have paid the the Senate energy ittee and update the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.

ultimate price for being



| 81/13/2882 11:82 PAGE 83 |

“fy ° DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES ; Public Health Service
|
Tracki 00051 Nationat Institute for Occupational
see ng Number Safety and Health
Robert A, Teft Laboratories
4876 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1968
Phone: 543-533-6825
6) Fax: 513-533-6826
February 7, 2006-
Dear

On January 26, 2006, we sent you a letter acknowledging the receipt of your Special
Exposure Cohort (SEC) submission. As we stated in that letter, the NIOSH SEC
Tracking Number for your submission is SEC00051.

Pursuant to the SEC Rule (see 42 C.F.R. §§ 83.7 through 83.9), a submission must
satisfy certain requirements in order to qualify for evaluation, After examining your
submission, we have determined that it does not satisfy all of the requirements of the |
Rule. As a4 result, we cannot proceed with the qualification of your submission.

in particular, the supporting documentation provided does not support the basis of an
unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored exposure incident and did not
specify other bases,

The attached document lists the requirements that are not met by your submission. The
requirements needed to qualify a submission for evaluation are fully documented In 42
C.F.R. §§ 83.7 through 83.9 of the SEC Rule and outlined in the “Instructions for |
Completing Special Exposure Cohort Submission — Form 8." Both of these documents
-can be found on the OCAS web site noted belew. For your-convenience, we are
enclosing a copy of the “Instructions for Compieting Special Exposure Cohort }
Submission ~ Form B’ and one set of the forms for submission.

As discussed above, we cannot proceed with the qualification of your submission
because it does not meet the requirements of the Rule. If you wish to send further
correspondence regarding your submission, please send it to the address listed below,
Be sure to include your NIOSH SEC Tracking Number.

SECo0051
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support |
NIOSH MS-C-47

4876 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226

Please be aware that you have 30 calendar days from the date of notification to revise
your submission so that it satisfies all of the requirements of the Rule. If you do not



j
j
|

i

toe

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Mness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Sefety and Health
. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Petitioner Authorization Form Page 1 of 2
«5 Sa aS Marcniieas Aes ss
instructions:

if you wish to petition HHS to consider adding a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort and you
are NOT either a member of that class, a survivor of a member of that class, or a labor organization
representing or having represented members of that class, then 42 CFR Part 83, Section 83.7(c) requires
that you obtain written authorization. You can obtain such authorization from either an employee who is a
member of the class or a survivor of such an employee. You may use this form to obtain such authorization
and submit the completed form to NIOSH with the related petition. Please print legibly.

For Further Information: if you have questions about these instructions, please call the following NIOSH
toll-free phone number and request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and
Support about an SEC petition: 1-800-356-4674.

Authorization for Individual or Entity to Petition HHS on Behaif of a Class of Employees for

Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

4,

Name of Class Member or Survivor

Street Address of Class Member or Survivor Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State, Zip Code of Class Member or Survivor
do hereby authorize:

Name of Petitioner

Address of Petitioner Apt. # P.O. Box

City, State and Zip Code of Petitioner
to petition the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a class of employees
that includes;
i i ~1975
Name of Class Member (empioyee, not the employee's survivor)

for the addition of the class to the Special Exposure Cohort, under the Energy Employee’s
Occupational ttiness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385).

in providing this authorization, | recognize that the petitioner named above will have all the rights
of a nefitioner as provided for under 42 CFR Part 83.
L2-/9G-OS5

1 Signaturg oF Viass Merwe ga out viver Date

Name or Social Security Number of First Petifioner:



US RetenActes Oa pe tee Uday Laverty tine ube, Cede Pee

Spheres of influence » Compensating for Cold War Cancers

When the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Act (EEOICPA) became law on 30 October 2000, it was widely regarded as a landmark
piece of legislation, After years of fighting workers’ claims of occupational illness in court, the government had
decided to acknowledge its responsibility for decades of unsafe working conditions in Cold War nuclear
weapons factories. The law promised a lump sum payment of $150,000 plus medical benefits in compensation.
to individual workers or families of workers who had developed job-related illnesses.

However, another challenge lay ahead: how to equitably award che payments to the deserving workers. To do
so, government administrators have developed a mathematical model using information about cancer risks from

radiation exposure to determine which claims are likely to be job-related. However, the precise numerical results

Environmental Health Perspectives + vowse {101 numser 7 | July 2002 : A405



U.S. Department of Energy
Environment, Safety, and Health 7

Tiger Team Assessment
. of the
Los Alamos National Laboratory
, Washington, DC 20585

November 1991

~



. “oO. 11:92 PAGE 86
dose reconstructions for members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82

and related NIOSH technica! implementation guidélines. You must
provide the applicable documentation that supports this basis.

4) You have a scientific or technical report, issued by a govemment
agency of the Executive Branch of Govemment of the General
Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer reviewed journal,
that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable
(due to either a lack of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records)
for estimating the radiation doses of employees covered by this
submission. You must provide the applicable documeniation that
supports this basis.

4. Deficiency. In the Attachment: Special Exposure Cohort Petition for Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), you have included information regarding
general site history, the occupational environment, environmental dose,
closing remarks, and excerpts from the Project's Site Profiles. The
statements provided within the attachment have not been provided as a
signed affidavit nor is there supporting docurnentation from which the
statements may be qualified. Additionally, as discussed in Deficiency 3, itis
unclear as to which Section F basis the attachment Is intended to support.

if you have information or documentation that supports one of the bases
identified in Section F, please check the appropriate box and provide the
necessary Supporting dacumentation. You may provide the information
weitten in this section as supporting documentation, if it is presented in the
form of an affidavit. Furthermore, statements and/or documentation
Should clearly support the selected basis, Many of the statements
provided in the attachment only confirm the presence of contamination,
environmenial releases, and potential scenarios for personnel exposures.
i = : Please note the affidavit requirements listed at the end of this letter in the *
event that you choose to provide an affidavit as supporting documentation.

Affidavit Requirements

Any affidavit submitted to support the existence of an incident (which may be supplied
on NIOSH request [see 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(3)j) must be based on the experience of
employees who are potential members of the class covered by the submission, or who
witnessed the incident. Note that in the case of an incident where there are no living
witnesses, or where poor health or impairment prevents such an affidavit, we may
accept the affidavit of a worker whose knowledge was directly obiained from a worker
who was a direct witness/patticipant. These affidavits must be signed in the presence
of an authorized witnéss, such as a notary public. Any affidavit (or other supporting
document) will be subject to review by NIOSH to consider the adequacy and credibility
of any evidence provided.



|
i
i
H
!

it is imperative that these facts are addressed and that the men and women who
worked at LANL, in the early years, who were exposed to radiological substances be
given the attention they so greatly deserve. The consistent disregard for occupational
safety and health at LANL is unacceptable. There is a lack of intemal dose (bioassay
data) data and occupational environment dose (air sample test results) data for the
stated class of employees.

The Site Profile clearly states that no definitive historical information exists. As
sited, in reports as current as the ORAU TEAM Dose Reconstruction Project
Report for NIOSH, dated August 16, 2005, no environmental exposure data exists
prior to 1965. Also, there are references made in the U. S. Department of Energy
Environment, Safety and Health, Tiger Team Assessment, November 1991, to the
lack of documentation and administrative requirements for evaluating personnel
exposures from unusual internal exposures to radioactive materials. Since
NIOSH has established that a lack of access to sufficient information needed to
estimate a complete radiation dose exists we find it imperative that Special Exposure
Cohort status be given to the class mentioned.

Closing Remarks

We request that claims made by current and former workers, or their survivors, be
reviewed in a timely manner. Many claimants have been waiting four years or more to
receive a determination from NIOSH. We are requesting that these claims be given
priority in order that the claimants are provided closure.

Statistical information provided by the Department of Labor shows that claims for sites
with similar work activities as LANL are paid more aggressively and are reviewed in a
timely manner. For example, as of 12/15/2005, the total number of part B claims paid
out for Hanford totals $43,575,000. The total number of claims paid for LANL is
$10,550,000. 71.4% of all Hanford cases are referred to NIOSH compared to 38.7% of
LANL cases. Hanford - of the 2,381 cases that were referred to NIOSH 1,366 have
been processed for a 57.7% review rate. LANL — of the 777 cases that were referred to
NIOSH and only 262 have been processed for a 33.7% review rate.

When the current Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson was Energy Secretary
he said the biggest change in policy is that the government will not contest many
of the claims and workers would receive the benefit of the doubt when plant
medical records are missing or flawed. (Article 2)

“The burden of proof is on the government and not on the worker,” he said.
“We're not going to make workers find past records because in many cases the
workers weren't told the truth.”



rT . Articles.

settled.

The production of 70,000 nuclear weapons over
50 years employed more than 600,000 people at
16 major sites and dozens of smaller ones.

Workers testified in a series of recent hearings that
they were frequently exposed to high levels of
radiation as well as hazardous chemicals.

The U.S. government in January confirmed for the
first time that nuclear weapons workers exposed to
radiation and chemicals experienced higher-than-
expected cancer rates, reversing years in which the
government minimized the dangers of exposure to
radiation.

Under the plan the Energy Department would set
up a workers! advocacy office, effective in May, to
help current and former employees who believe
they suffer from job-related illnesses.

The new Occupational Iliness Compensation
Office would expedite claims, using independent
physicians to determine if illnesses are work-
related. Once a link was clear, the Department of
Energy would accept responsibility for the illness,

At his news conference, Richardson was joined by
many members of Congress who represented the
areas that were sites for the largest nuclear
facilities or nuclear testing grounds.

Richardson said the department will try to
organize broad-based support in Congress because
action was needed this year before more victims
suffered or died.

home screenings articles credits contact family album

http:/Avww.navajoboy.con/artus.him

Page 2 of 2

1/10/2006