Rocky Flats News Letter

Hello Everyone!

I, along with other advocates and union representatives, had the opportunity to attend
the NIOSH workshop, which explained dose reconstruction and the SEC process.
I am very glad that I accepted the invitation.
I feel the best part of the workshop was the ability for the participants to interupt the presenter and ask questions.
There was a lot of information that was shared with us that I previously did not understand.
For instance, electrons in the dose reconstruction represent beta radiation and photons represent gamma.

I thought some of you might be interested my sharing the knowledge I obtained, as well as reading
a few of my personal impressions on the information given by NIOSH (in blue).

There were two separate presentations of the dose reconstruction process.
Grady Calhoun, Lead Health Physicist explained how and Dave Allen,
another lead Health Physicist, provided expamples of completed dose reconstructions.

Grady Calhoun explained how environmental dose is not usually included in dose reconstruction.
He qualified that, however, and stated that if a worker has zeroes on his dosimetry records,
environmental dose will be assigned.
He also explained the difference between overestimate, best estimate, underestimate
and partial estimate (partial dose).
If any of you are interested in learning more feel free to contact me.
However, I will explain a little more about the partial estimate, as this affects workers
during SEC years but without a specified cancer.
For instance, a claimant during the SEC years at RF but has prostate cancer.
Because the Board decided that it was not feasible to reconstruct dose for neutron radiation,
NIOSH will not use any neutron dosimetry present in the claimants file to reconstruct dose.
Mr. Calhoun did state that there have been partial dose reconstructions that resulted in a POC of >50%.

Advocates asked what level of importance does NIOSH assign to oral histories taken during the CATI interview.
The CATI interview is given before the dose reconstruction process begins.
You can find the questions NIOSH asks, here:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/phone.html

Grady Calhoun said very little of the oral histories is given weight when reconstructing dose.
He related a story where a claimant asserted he was exposed to 100 rems every day.
Mr. Calhoun thought that it was impossible and contacted a co-worker who confirmed that
the claimant was not exposed to that amount of radiation.
It appeared to me that Mr. Calhoun treats every history as suspect.

However, we asked the same question of Dave Allen and he stated that, yes,
NIOSH does follow through with histories made by claimants and will research the records.

I guess it depends on which dose reconstruction team a claim is assigned to as
to whether oral histories iare investigated. ANWAG submitted an addendum to the public comments requesting that the Ten-year review of the program address this inconsistency.

Both Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Allen did state that the LESS information NIOSH has on
a claimant the more likely that the POC would be higher.

Daniel Stancescu, statistician, did an overview of how different variables affected the dose.
He mentioned age of exposure, date of diagnosis, type of cancer, etc.,
and how that information is included in the IREP.
At one point, he mentioned how NIOSH develops the POC for multiple cancers.
His example was a claimant had lung cancer with a 40% POC and basel cell carcinoma with
a 10% POC, the claimant friendly mathematical equation written in the CFR would result in a POC of 46%.
I asked how can that be considered claimant friendly if one would simply add
the two POCs together and get a POC of 50%?

Stu Hinnefeld explained that the equation is based on the whole body and the whole body represents 100%.
If the lung cancer is 40% of the whole body, then only 60% can be assigned to other cancers.
So the basal cell would have a POC of 6% (10% of 60).

Buck Cameron of ATL had a group exercise to help us understatnd
the Monte Cristo simulation used in the IREP model.
I always had a problem with this term.
It brought to mind gambling.
This impression was not relieved when the excercise included a pair of dice and eight nickels.
The point of the exercise was to help us understand the statistical nature of the IREP model.
And, while I understand that the IREP model is statistically sound, it is my opinion that
it does not reflect the reasonable accuracy the law requires.
Especially, when you consider the statement that if one claimant has a paucity of dosimetry records,
that POC may be higher than a similar worker with better records will receive.

LaVon Rutherford presented on the SEC process. Not much new there.
However, he did state that DCAS is now reviewing the past SEC classes to make sure
that they are accurate and consistent.
For instance, NIOSH is clarifying the LANL first SEC petition
and will present another SEC in May.
I asked about the Ruttenber database and he said they are working on it. DCAS
will have something for the Board for their August meeting.

All in all, this was a worthwhile workshop.
However, I remain convinced that, because of the inconsistencies of
the dose reconstruction process (less information/higher POC, oral histories, etc.) that
the passage of the Charlie Wolf Act is vital to get fair treatment for the sick workers.
If any of you would like to learn more, please feel free to contact me.

In other news, musician Tom Neilson composed a song in honor of the Cold War Heros

Tom Neilson
www.independentmusicawards.com
9th Annual Social Action Song Nominee Support Us Here At The Vox Pop Jukebox Genre: Social

Thanks,

Terrie Barrie
ANWAG/CWP
970-824-2260
tbarrie@yahoo.com

***********************************************************

The National Supplemental Screening Program (NSSP) and
the Building Trades National Medical Screening Program (BTMed)

Will be hosting two Rocky Flats Public Meetings

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

IBEW 68 Union Hall

5660 Logan Street

Denver, Co 80216

2:00PM & 6:00PM

These are informational meetings regarding the NSSP, BTMed, and
the Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP). At these meetings,
staff from Department of Labor (DOL) will provide a brief overview of the EEOICP,
and National Institute for Occupation Safety and Health (NOISH) and the DOL Ombudsman
will discuss their roles and responsibilities. Representatives from DOE, NSSP and BTMed will
be available to answer questions about the benefits of participation in
these former worker medical screening programs.

DOL representatives will also be available to offer assistance on claims.

If you have any questions about these meetings,

Please don't hesitate to contact the NSSP at (303) 423-9585 or (866)812-6703

Thank you to John McInerney M.D. NSSP Co-Principal Investigator

Special Note:

The NSSP and BTMed are funded by the DOE in an ongoing effort to provide free medical screenings
to former DOE nuclear weapons production and construction workers.
These medical screenings are designed to identify potential diseases that
might be related to work at the DOE sites
*****************************************************

"Articles of Interest"
Kansas City Plant:
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/content/investigative/bannister/story/Bannister-
Illness-Claims-Hit-New-Record/X0QwSLkW0kCelgME7c1SCA.cspx

April Calendar of events:
http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/FWSP/Formerworkermed/april_
2010/outreach_calendar_april_2010.html

Oral history by Judy Padilla, Rocky Flats Worker
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Judy+
Padilla&search_type=&aq=f


	HOME
	HOME		ROCKY FLATS NEWS > Sunday, May 2, 2010
			ROCKY FLATS NEWS > Sunday, May 2, 2010
	Hello Everyone! I, along with other advocates and union representatives, had the opportunity to attend the NIOSH workshop, which explained dose reconstruction and the SEC process. I am very glad that I accepted the invitation. I feel the best part of the workshop was the ability for the participants to interupt the presenter and ask questions. There was a lot of information that was shared with us that I previously did not understand. For instance, electrons in the dose reconstruction represent beta radiation and photons represent gamma. I thought some of you might be interested my sharing the knowledge I obtained, as well as reading a few of my personal impressions on the information given by NIOSH (in blue). There were two separate presentations of the dose reconstruction process. Grady Calhoun, Lead Health Physicist explained how and Dave Allen, another lead Health Physicist, provided expamples of completed dose reconstructions. Grady Calhoun explained how environmental dose is not usually included in dose reconstruction. He qualified that, however, and stated that if a worker has zeroes on his dosimetry records, environmental dose will be assigned. He also explained the difference between overestimate, best estimate, underestimate and partial estimate (partial dose). If any of you are interested in learning more feel free to contact me. However, I will explain a little more about the partial estimate, as this affects workers during SEC years but without a specified cancer. For instance, a claimant during the SEC years at RF but has prostate cancer. Because the Board decided that it was not feasible to reconstruct dose for neutron radiation, NIOSH will not use any neutron dosimetry present in the claimants file to reconstruct dose. Mr. Calhoun did state that there have been partial dose reconstructions that resulted in a POC of >50%. Advocates asked what level of importance does NIOSH assign to oral histories taken during the CATI interview. The CATI interview is given before the dose reconstruction process begins. You can find the questions NIOSH asks, here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/phone.html Grady Calhoun said very little of the oral histories is given weight when reconstructing dose. He related a story where a claimant asserted he was exposed to 100 rems every day. Mr. Calhoun thought that it was impossible and contacted a co-worker who confirmed that the claimant was not exposed to that amount of radiation. It appeared to me that Mr. Calhoun treats every history as suspect. However, we asked the same question of Dave Allen and he stated that, yes, NIOSH does follow through with histories made by claimants and will research the records. I guess it depends on which dose reconstruction team a claim is assigned to as to whether oral histories iare investigated. ANWAG submitted an addendum to the public comments requesting that the Ten-year review of the program address this inconsistency. Both Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Allen did state that the LESS information NIOSH has on a claimant the more likely that the POC would be higher. Daniel Stancescu, statistician, did an overview of how different variables affected the dose. He mentioned age of exposure, date of diagnosis, type of cancer, etc., and how that information is included in the IREP. At one point, he mentioned how NIOSH develops the POC for multiple cancers. His example was a claimant had lung cancer with a 40% POC and basel cell carcinoma with a 10% POC, the claimant friendly mathematical equation written in the CFR would result in a POC of 46%. I asked how can that be considered claimant friendly if one would simply add the two POCs together and get a POC of 50%? Stu Hinnefeld explained that the equation is based on the whole body and the whole body represents 100%. If the lung cancer is 40% of the whole body, then only 60% can be assigned to other cancers. So the basal cell would have a POC of 6% (10% of 60). Buck Cameron of ATL had a group exercise to help us understatnd the Monte Cristo simulation used in the IREP model. I always had a problem with this term. It brought to mind gambling. This impression was not relieved when the excercise included a pair of dice and eight nickels. The point of the exercise was to help us understand the statistical nature of the IREP model. And, while I understand that the IREP model is statistically sound, it is my opinion that it does not reflect the reasonable accuracy the law requires. Especially, when you consider the statement that if one claimant has a paucity of dosimetry records, that POC may be higher than a similar worker with better records will receive. LaVon Rutherford presented on the SEC process. Not much new there. However, he did state that DCAS is now reviewing the past SEC classes to make sure that they are accurate and consistent. For instance, NIOSH is clarifying the LANL first SEC petition and will present another SEC in May. I asked about the Ruttenber database and he said they are working on it. DCAS will have something for the Board for their August meeting. All in all, this was a worthwhile workshop. However, I remain convinced that, because of the inconsistencies of the dose reconstruction process (less information/higher POC, oral histories, etc.) that the passage of the Charlie Wolf Act is vital to get fair treatment for the sick workers. If any of you would like to learn more, please feel free to contact me. In other news, musician Tom Neilson composed a song in honor of the Cold War Heros Tom Neilson www.independentmusicawards.com 9th Annual Social Action Song Nominee Support Us Here At The Vox Pop Jukebox Genre: Social Thanks, Terrie Barrie ANWAG/CWP 970-824-2260 tbarrie@yahoo.com ********************************************************* The National Supplemental Screening Program (NSSP) and the Building Trades National Medical Screening Program (BTMed) Will be hosting two Rocky Flats Public Meetings Wednesday, May 12, 2010 @ IBEW 68 Union Hall 5660 Logan Street Denver, Co 80216 2:00PM & 6:00PM These are informational meetings regarding the NSSP, BTMed, and the Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP). At these meetings, staff from Department of Labor (DOL) will provide a brief overview of the EEOICP, and National Institute for Occupation Safety and Health (NOISH) and the DOL Ombudsman will discuss their roles and responsibilities. Representatives from DOE, NSSP and BTMed will be available to answer questions about the benefits of participation in these former worker medical screening programs. DOL representatives will also be available to offer assistance on claims. If you have any questions about these meetings, Please don't hesitate to contact the NSSP at (303) 423-9585 or (866)812-6703 Thank you to John McInerney M.D. NSSP Co-Principal Investigator Special Note: The NSSP and BTMed are funded by the DOE in an ongoing effort to provide free medical screenings to former DOE nuclear weapons production and construction workers. These medical screenings are designed to identify potential diseases that might be related to work at the DOE sites ************************************************* "Articles of Interest" Kansas City Plant: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/content/investigative/bannister/story/Bannister- Illness-Claims-Hit-New-Record/X0QwSLkW0kCelgME7c1SCA.cspx April Calendar of events: http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/FWSP/Formerworkermed/april_ 2010/outreach_calendar_april_2010.html Oral history by Judy Padilla, Rocky Flats Worker** http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Judy+ Padilla&search_type=&aq=f