July 22, 2008 12:28 PM

Terrie Barrie, co-founder of the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups

Mark_Wolf(Q) Tell us how you came to be involved with the nuclear workers issue?
Terrie_Barrie(A) My husband is a former worker of the Rocky Flats facility. He became ill in 1995. We were unsuccessful in the state workers compensation system in getting the one disease he had then covered because we could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ingesting radioactive materials resulted in his pre-cancerous stomach condition. When EEOICPA was passed into law, we were confident that he would receive the medical and monetary compesation he deserves. I realized that this was not the case and learned that many claimants across the country experienced the same problems with the program.

tlerew(Q) Hello Everyone! Is it now possible for a miner who has been denied under RECA to file a Part E claim? Some poeple think that mines who worked after 1971 might somehow get benefits in this weay.
Terrie_Barrie(A) Yes, according to the DOL Part E procedure manual, uranium miners, millers and transporters will have an opporturnity to file a claim under Part E of EEOICPA for diseases not covered under RECA. DOL is holding a town hall meeting in Westminster at noon today to explain the program.

tlerew(Q) Thank you. I am on my way to that meeting shortly. The big question on the table with them is can miners AFTER 1971 somehow now qualify under Part E, when they could not do so before.
Terrie_Barrie(A) Tlerew, Well, you'll have to fill us all in with the meeting. I'll have to check the regs if uranium workers after 1971are eligible. Great question!

YLG(Q) Terrie, I know that this process is a complete nightmare and very hard to understand, do you have any advice that you could offer to help with the second dose reconstruction coming back lower than the first?
Terrie_Barrie(A) YLG, I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for that. I only know that it is a common issue and NIOSH's reasoning is that the second time around they are able to spend more time on reconstructing the dose and therefore obtaining a more accurate dose estimate.

Mark_Wolf(Q) Could you explain what "dose reconstruction" is - and the role it plays in determining compensation?
Terrie_Barrie(A) In 20 minutes?? Seriously, dose reconstruction is the process where a cancer is determined if radiation exposure at the facilities was responsible for the cancer. A successful claim will have a probability of causation greater than 50%. There are many issues the advocates have about the dose reconstruction project, especially the use of co-worker models and the use of surrogate data for facilities that do not have monitoring data.

YLG(Q) Is there a possibility to have NIOSH construct the dose a third time?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Yes, there is always the possibility. NIOSH continues to update their methodology and claims affected by the change can have their dose reworked.

YLG(C) Thanks Terrie, we will continue to put forth the fight. Good luck with your claim as well.

satinpetter(Q) Hello Terrie, I am writing from New Mexico . My mother collected the RECA payment and the Part B because my father had silicosis before he died. She had absolutely no problem with collecting these compensation payments. My father had silicosis 14 years before he died. He was killed in a mining accident where he was " pinned between and hinge and a door and suffocated. Our claim is that he couldn't get enough air because of the disease that he suffered . My mother's claim has been STALLED for three years. The claims examiners asked her for a REASONABLE conclusion from a health care provider stating that the disease had caused or contributed to his death ( 50% or greater). We found the medical director from New Mexico that was over the department of radiation caused illnesses and she examined his medical records and x-rays. she wrote a very detailed conclusion to support the claim in Dec 05. In April of 06 she was asked again to be more specific in the area of 50% or greater causation. She did that in May of 06.The Denver DOL District office waited one year and 6 months later to pay a doctor in their dept $ 600.00 to write a letter to support them in denying the claim. We asked for a hearing and a copy of the complete claim with 30 days time to examine the copy before the hearing. They did send the copy 14 days before the hearing but denied the 30 days to examine it beforehand. The case has been remanded back to the Denver District Office , with the instruction to seek a 3rd medical opinion. Do you have any suggestions? Do the officials at the DOL receive bonuses to the salaries according to how much they save by not paying the claims?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Satinpetter, I am sorry for your loss and the problems you are facing with DOL. This, too, is a common practice and one which the advocates argue all the time. DOL does not automatically accept the claimant's medical provider's opinion. In fact, we have found many instances where DOL ignored the personal physician and chose instead to accept their paid "experts". It's a continuing fight. I suggest you get in touch with the Part E Ombudsman, Malcolm Nelson, 877-662-8363 to file a complaint, and your legislators. Both need to be aware of the problems in order to help. You can also email me at tbarrie@yahoo.com to discuss this further.

satinpetter(Q) " thanks Terrie , I will. The Doctors that attended my father are deceased . We were able by a stroke of luck to find the the Medical Director of Occupational Caused Illness at University of New Mexico and she was kind enough to help. She is now the Medial Director of Occupational Caused Illness in Denver CO. This is her field of expertise. We haven't paid her anything. I will email you and call Malcolm Nelson, thanks so much. I would like to do anything that I could to help anyone else, if I can be of help. thanks again so much !! satinpetter
Terrie_Barrie(A) My pleasure

cawalt1(Q) Hi, my name is Walt Capps. I worked in the production areas of Rocky Flats from 1963 to 1995. I was diagnosed with prostate camcer 5 years ago and filed a claim shortly after that. As you well know, this whole experience of dealing with DOE and DOL has been an unbelievable fiasco. The latest with my claim is --- I received a letter in April 2007 saying I had "Super S Plutonium" and as a result they were going to redo my dose restruction, but it would be expedited. That's the last I've heard from them! Does anyone know what "Super S Plutonium" is? Iworked at Rocky Flats for 32 years and never heard of the term. And no one else who I worked with has ever heard of it either.
Terrie_Barrie(A) Hi Walt. the super S plutonium particle is one of the revised methologies that NIOSH developed. This took two years of instense debate of the Rocky Flats SEC petition between NIOSH, the Board, the Board's contractor, Sandford Cohen and Associates and the petitioners. Up until the debate of the Rocky Flats SEC petition, NIOSH was using the incorrect particle size for the plutonium when reconstructing dose. Hence, RF (and some other site) claims need to be reworked.

cawalt1(Q) Was the plutonium particle size increased or lessen?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Mind you this discussion was two years ago, but I think it was decreased because the smaller particle size was more difficult to detect in bioassay

Mark_Wolf(Q) Are you seeing a lot of people who are having trouble amassing all the paperwork and documentation they need?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Some. One role we advocates play is to help the claimants locate the documents they need. Cold War Patriots has a website www.coldwarpatriots.org where there is a huge list of resources that can help the claimants. And as I said, if we don't have it, we're pretty good at finding and passing the info along.

Mark_Wolf(Q) One of George's conditions, nephritis of the kidneys, is coverd by a federal compensation program for uranium miners and people who lived downwind of atomic tests, but it's NOT covered for people who did what George did. How does the government explain that?
Terrie_Barrie(A) I can't explain why it's not automatically covered under EEOICPA. DOL acknowledge this in their denial of that disease, that RECA claimants are covered but they denied it anyway, even with documented proof of uranium in George's kidneys.

Mark_Wolf(Q) Do you believe your activism has had any impact on his claim?
Terrie_Barrie(A) That is the only logical explanation for him to be denied his diseases when I know other claimants who have been approved for the same problems. I'd like to be proven wrong.

cawalt1(Q) One last question: Since April 2007 when I told my dose reconstruction was going to be redone on an expedited basis --- and I've heard nothing --- what do you suggest? Is this a standard time for an expedited reconstruction? Thanks for your info. Walt
Terrie_Barrie(A) I am not aware that NIOSH or DOL for that matter has a time limit to process claims. That is one of the things we need to see changed. I suggest you contact CO Senators and Congressmen (RF workers are very fortunate to have such supportive legislators) and file ask them for help. Not only with your individual claim but also the need to reform the legislation and stop the injustice.

Mark_Wolf(Q) What was the problem with documenting where George worked at Rocky Flats? And is this a common situation among other workers?
Terrie_Barrie(A) One of the first documents we received, don't ask me what year, only showed that he worked in 460 and 881, I believe. He fortunately had paperwork showing him in 444, the 700 complex and some other building. The problem I think would affect the survivors more than the workers. The workers were not allowed to tell their families what they did at Rocky, let alone which buildings they worked in.

Mark_Wolf(Q) Why do you think there so often seems to be an adversarial relationship between sick workers and the government?
Terrie_Barrie(A) I can't begin to hazard a guess as to why. I just know there is and it is contrary to the intent of the law.

Mark_Wolf(Q) Laura Frank's second installment of her Deadly Denial series focused on how changing rules in the compensation program have frustrated sick workers. What's been your experience with that issue?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Well, I was completely shocked when I learned from a claimant that DOL will not use the pre-1993 criteria for living workers to accept a claim for chronic beryllium disease. I personally know 4 people who were accepted using that standard. In 2006, I believe, they changed the Part B procedure manual without notifying the public, stating that the pre-1993 criteria will no longer be accepted for living claimants. Fair and consistant???

Mark_Wolf(Q) Any contact with Barack Obama or John McCain on this issue?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Senator Obama's staffer receives news articles and letters ANWAG sends out. I do not have a contact in Senator McCain's office but that is only because I have been remiss in contacting them.

FrankYoung(Q) Hi Terrie. Are dose reconstructions performed for current nuclear weapons complex workers who are not yet sick? If not, would it be fair to say that the only purpose of dose reconstructions is to deny compensation?
Terrie_Barrie(A) Hi Frank, Well, to be fair, there have been claimants who did qualify under dose reconstruction. But I doubt it's very many. I have issues with the dose reconstruction project because NIOSH refuses to accept the workers' oral history and often ignores evidence submitted by the workers. In my opinion, there's a lot of doubt about the "sound science" they use.

Mark_Wolf(Q) Thanks Terrie for your time and insight into the issue of health issues/compensation with nuclear workers. Anything else you'd like to add?
Terrie_Barrie(A) It's my pleasure and I hoped I helped somewhat. I'd just like to add that to be kept current with the issues I recommend folks join Cold War Patriots (free membership) and to feel free to contact me and be added to my list tbarrie@yahoo.com Thanks so much. Terrie

Posted by Mark Wolf at 12:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack