1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

71st MEETING

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

AUGUST 11, 2010

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 8:15 a.m., 

Mountain Daylight Time, in the Shilo Inn 

Suites Hotel, 780 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls, 

ID, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member*

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member*

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member*

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

PRESENT (CONTINUED):

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

BRADFORD, SHANNON, DCAS

BREYER, LAURIE, DCAS

BROEHM, JASON, CDC

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH Contractor

CANO, REGINA, DOE

CORBIN, JONATHAN

CRAWFORD, CHRIS, DCAS

CRUZ, RUBEN, CDC

DARNELL, PETE, DCAS

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

HAND, DONNA, Pinellas Petitioner*

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LEWIS, MARK, ATL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

LOCKER, ROSALIE, Ames Petitioner*

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU Team

MEYER, MARGARET

NETON, JIM, DCAS

NICHOLS, HAROLD

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A

PRESLEY, LOUISE

RABINOWITZ, RANDY, NIOSH Contractor

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR

RUSSELL, MALCOLM

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, DCAS

WADE, LEW, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Call to Order and Welcome.................. 7

 Dr. James Melius, Chairman

Revere Copper and Brass SEC................ 8

Petition

Detroit Michigan

 Mr. Frank Crawford....................... 8

 NIOSH

 Petitioners:

 Marvin Blachura

 Questions and Answers................... 21

 Vote.................................... 33

Ames Laboratory SEC Petition.............. 35

(#00166) - 1955-1960

 LaVon Rutherford........................ 36

 NIOSH

 Petitioners:

 Ms. Rosalie Locker...................... 69

 Dr. Lar Fuortes

 Questions and Answers................... 48

 Vote.................................... 69

SEC Petition Update....................... 71

 LaVon Rutherford

 Questions and Answers................... 76

BWXT Update............................... 76

Board Working Time........................ 79
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

10-Year Review Process.................... 79

 Lew Wade

SC and WG Reports......................... 82

 Sandia.................................. 82

 Brookhaven.............................. 83

 Chapman Valve........................... 84

 Fernald................................. 85

 Hanford................................. 85

 Idaho................................... 86

 Lawrence Berkeley....................... 87

 Linde................................... 88

 LANL............................... 91, 105

 Mound................................... 93

 Nevada Test Site........................ 97

 Pantex.................................. 97

 Pinellas............................... 98

 Pigua.................................. 98

 Portsmouth, Paducah, K-25.............. 100

 Rocky Flat............................. 100

 Santa Susana........................... 101

 Savannah River......................... 101

 SEC Issues........................ 104, 105
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

SC and WG Reports (Continued)

 Clarksville and Medina Sites........... 106

 TBD-6000............................... 108

 TBD-6001............................... 110

 Use of Surrogate Data.................. 112

 Weldon Springs......................... 113

 Worker Outreach........................ 114

 Procedures Review................. 115, 239

Scheduling.......................... 128, 240

SEC Work Group Report.................... 165

on Consideration of

Discrete Incidents/Health

Endangerment

 James Melius, Chair.................... 165

 Arjun Makhijani........................ 177

 SC&A

 Sam Glover............................. 192

 NIOSH

 Questions and Answers.................. 202
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Public Comment Period.................... 243

 Knut Ringen............................ 245

 Science Advisor

 Center for Construction Research

 and Training

 Representing the national building

 and construction trades

 Malcolm Russell........................ 261

 Retired Worker

 Donna Hand............................. 264

 Worker Advocate and

 Authorized Representative for

 Pinellas, Oak Ridge,

 Savannah River, and Los Alamos
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 8:28 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If everyone gets 

4 seated, we'll get started.

5 MR. KATZ: So let me check before 

6 we get started on the phone. For our Board 

7 Members who are connected by phone, Dr. Lemen, 

8 Dr. Field, and Mr. Gibson, are you with us 

9 already?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Dr. Lemen is here.

11 MEMBER FIELD: Dr. Field is here.

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Hi, Ted. Mike's 

13 here.

14 MR. KATZ: Great. Welcome.

15 And then let me just say, 

16 yesterday we had a little difficulty with the 

17 phone. We had various difficulties with the 

18 phone. One of them, though, was that people 

19 listening in weren't muting their phones.

20 So, please, if you're listening to 

21 the Board call, we're glad you're with us, but 

22 please mute your phone. If you don't have a 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 mute button on your phone, press *6. That 

2 will mute your phone. Then if you wish to 

3 address the Board, press *6 again, and it will 

4 unmute your phone. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

6 announcements?

7 (No response.)

8 Then why don't we get started? We 

9 will start with Revere Copper.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: My name is Frank 

11 Crawford. I have no conflicts at this site. 

12 I'm from NIOSH.

13 There's some repetitious material 

14 on this slide. I apologize for that, but 

15 we'll just go ahead. We received the petition 

16 on January 26th, this year.

17 MEMBER POSTON: We can't hear you.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: You can't hear? 

19 I'll get a little closer.

20 So we received the petition 

21 January 26th, this year. The petitioner's 

22 proposed Class Definition was rather narrow, 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 extruders and shapes specialists who worked in 

2 the rod and shape mill at Revere Copper and 

3 Brass, Detroit, Michigan, from 1943 through 

4 1984. On March 18th, the petition qualified 

5 for evaluation with the basis that there was 

6 no external or internal monitoring records for 

7 the Class.

8 The next point, there's a slight 

9 discrepancy with what you will see on the rest 

10 of the slide. The DOE, Department of Energy, 

11 facility databases indicates July 24th, 1943, 

12 through December 31st, 1953, as the covered 

13 period for Revere Copper and Brass.

14 When we did our research, we found 

15 that there was a single rolling or extrusion, 

16 I should say, of thorium done in 1954. So we 

17 will be working with the DOE to extend the 

18 operational period through the end of 1954.

19 The Class we evaluated at NIOSH 

20 was all workers who worked at any building at 

21 the Revere Copper and Brass plant in Detroit, 

22 Michigan from July 24th, 1943, through 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 December 31st, 1954, and the residual period 

2 from January 1st, 1955, through December 31st, 

3 1984.

4 There's also some administrative 

5 work that needs to be done on the residual 

6 period. The Department of Labor shows that 

7 period as beginning January 1st, 1960. So we 

8 have a five-year gap that we need to fill, and 

9 that has to be done by means of a formal 

10 report.

11 In terms of history, Revere Copper 

12 and Brass was formed by a merger of, I 

13 believe, six other copper companies in 1928. 

14 It was located in Detroit, Michigan. They 

15 produced pipes, bars, tubes, and sheets and 

16 cookware. The Revere name is famous for that, 

17 I think.

18 Then, in 1943, during the War, 

19 Revere Copper and Brass contracted with the 

20 Manhattan Engineering District to extrude 

21 uranium billets to produce uranium rods for 

22 use in the MED reactors at Hanford and other 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 facilities. The main production took place 

2 during 1943 and 1944 under MED contract.

3 Revere produced over 1,300 tons of 

4 uranium rod, and secondarily, they were 

5 involved in the war effort in other respects, 

6 too. So they made large quantities of 

7 cartridge cases and other war materials. So 

8 only a small part of the labor force at the 

9 plant was involved in the uranium extrusions. 

10 We don't have exact numbers. We believe 

11 there were about 35 people at any one time 

12 working in the uranium extrusion area.

13 The plant, we believe, had about 

14 200 people. Information is scarce. The plant 

15 no longer exists. It was basically abandoned 

16 in 1984, and we've had a lot of trouble 

17 finding out just how many people were there at 

18 various periods.

19 After the initial production 

20 period, there was a period of intermittent 

21 research and development work. That was done 

22 under contract for the MED and the Atomic 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Energy Commission, the AEC.

2 The R&D work was usually done at 

3 night and on weekends with a small crew of 

4 Revere Copper and Brass workers along with MED 

5 AEC scientists and supervisors. The R&D work 

6 included extrusion of beryllium, uranium, 

7 uranium-thorium alloy, and thorium. The last 

8 known extrusion of thorium rod was done on 

9 October 19th, 1954.

10 In 1981, a preliminary FUSRAP 

11 study was done. The plant at that point was 

12 still operational. In fact, when the 

13 scientists came in to look it over, extrusion 

14 was being done. So they couldn't check all of 

15 the equipment. The furnace was in use, 

16 although it wasn't the same furnace that was 

17 used back in 1943-44 or even in the fifties. 

18 So checking it might not have turned up much 

19 anyway. I think a larger press was in use 

20 also.

21 So they checked what they could, 

22 which was the floor areas, the smaller press, 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 and space in another building where the 

2 billets or the extruded rods were sawn into 

3 the proper length.

4 At any rate, the survey revealed 

5 no evidence of a radiological hazard at that 

6 time. They did, however, recommend a follow7 up survey because they couldn't get at some of 

8 the equipment and they couldn't go up into the 

9 rafters because the plant was in use.

10 That survey, the follow-up survey, 

11 was never done because by the time they got 

12 back in 1984 the presses were gone, the 

13 furnace was gone, and some of the buildings 

14 had already been partly dismantled.

15 We checked many sources, as usual, 

16 for information. This is not a very rich site 

17 in terms of records although there are some. 

18 I won't go through these individually, but 

19 we'll see listed on the next two slides the 

20 different areas we looked.

21 This I found, unfortunately, has 

22 one discrepancy in it. There were, in fact, 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 eight claims submitted for the site so far. 

2 Seven did meet the Class Definition. However, 

3 only six had a PoC greater than 50 percent. 

4 There was one otherwise SEC-qualified claim 

5 that had a PoC of less than 50 percent. The 

6 remaining claim was a non-scheduled cancer 

7 with most of the work done in the residual 

8 period, and it also had a PoC of less than 50 

9 percent.

10 There was at the site, as I had 

11 mentioned earlier, no internal or external 

12 dosimetry. So, of course, none of these cases 

13 involved that.

14 This is a little bit of a 

15 restatement of the history. Beginning on July 

16 24th, 1943, Revere Copper and Brass began 

17 extruding natural uranium billets into rod 

18 shapes for the reactors at Hanford, Savannah 

19 River, and Oak Ridge.

20 During 1943 and 1944, Revere 

21 processed over 1300 tons of uranium billets. 

22 After the production period ended in 1944, 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Revere did R&D extrusions for the MED and AEC, 

2 using a variety of metals and alloys, 

3 including uranium and thorium.

4 The R&D operations were 

5 characterized by small amounts of material 

6 with the work done under the supervision of 

7 Argonne National Laboratory scientists at 

8 nights and on weekends. The last known R&D 

9 operation occurred on October 19th, 1954 on a 

10 pure thorium billet.

11 We'll look at potential radiation 

12 exposures during the Class period. For 

13 internal sources of exposure, we have uranium 

14 and thorium and some of their daughter 

15 products that may have been inhaled or 

16 ingested by workers at Revere Copper and 

17 Brass.

18 Now the material handled was the 

19 metal uranium or thorium. So the daughter 

20 products were a very small component compared 

21 to, say, working with ores and other material.

22 Residual airborne radioactive 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 contaminants may have been present at low 

2 levels during the residual period. We do have 

3 some air sample data, some smear samples from 

4 the R&D period and the production period, 

5 which gives us an idea of just what kind of 

6 exposures we're talking about, and they were 

7 substantial, especially during the uranium 

8 period in 1943 and 1944.

9 For external sources of exposure, 

10 we have photon and beta exposure from uranium 

11 and thorium source materials and small amounts 

12 of surface contamination present between the 

13 production periods. Neutrons were not a 

14 significant source of external exposure to 

15 Revere Copper and Brass personnel.

16 We do have witness statements that 

17 indicated that the R&D extrusions, which, as I 

18 say, were done at nights and weekends for the 

19 most part, involving only a few of the plant's 

20 normal personnel. They would bring the 

21 material in, extrude it, clean up, and take 

22 the material away with them, all in the course 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of a shift.

2 There is no bioassay data for the 

3 Class period in terms of personnel and area 

4 monitoring data. There are limited air sample 

5 data during the production period, especially. 

6 There's also some air sample data during the 

7 thorium extrusions later.

8 There is no film badge or pocket 

9 dosimeter information. There were no area 

10 radiation surveys. We do have some smear 

11 samples and contact readings. The 1981 

12 measurements were basically background. Very 

13 small elevated levels were found, but nothing 

14 much.

15 During the evaluation process, we 

16 need a two-prong test, established by EEOICPA. 

17 The first question, is it feasible to 

18 estimate the level of radiation doses of 

19 individual members of the Class with 

20 sufficient accuracy? If the answer to that is 

21 no, then we need to answer the second 

22 question. Is there a reasonable likelihood 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that such radiation dose may have endangered 

2 the health of members of the Class?

3 NIOSH found that the available 

4 monitoring records, process descriptions, and 

5 source term data are not adequate to complete 

6 dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy 

7 for the evaluated Class of employees during 

8 the production period.

9 As you will see later on the next 

10 slide, I believe, we felt we could do uranium 

11 exposure reconstructions based on TBD-6000, 

12 but the problem for this site is that we can't 

13 really bound the thorium period. We don't 

14 have any nice, neat documents that say that 

15 thorium was done only on these dates or only 

16 during these periods. So we found that, given 

17 the uncertainty in the thorium source term, in 

18 particular, that it wasn't really feasible to 

19 do dose reconstructions for this area. So the 

20 conclusion, then, the data are insufficient to 

21 estimate internal exposures due to thorium and 

22 its progeny during the production period.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Then we looked at the residual 

2 period for internal dose. During the residual 

3 period, the estimated ingestion intakes for 

4 uranium and thorium can be derived from 

5 deposition and resuspension factors defined in 

6 TBD-6000 and TBD-6001 and depleted according 

7 to TIB-70. In this case, we actually have 

8 thorium dust readings and we have uranium dust 

9 readings during the production, and we have an 

10 endpoint in 1981.

11 I'm going to switch now and go 

12 back to the operational period. For external 

13 dose, we felt that external doses cannot be 

14 estimated with sufficient accuracy during the 

15 operations period, again, because of the 

16 uncertainty of the thorium source term.

17 During the residual period, the 

18 external exposures can be bounded by using the 

19 results of surface contamination measurements 

20 during the production period and the 1981 

21 FUSRAP measurements.

22 On our table here, a feasibility 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 summary, you will see that while we thought 

2 uranium exposures could feasibly be 

3 reconstructed, we felt it was not feasible to 

4 reconstruct internal dose as a whole because 

5 of the thorium component or external dose as a 

6 whole because of the thorium component, 

7 primarily. During the residual period, our 

8 finding is that it is feasible to reconstruct 

9 dose for internal and external dose.

10 Our recommendation: for the period 

11 July 24th, 1943, through December 31st, 1954, 

12 NIOSH finds that radiation dose estimates 

13 cannot be adequately reconstructed for 

14 compensation purposes. So we found 

15 feasibility of reconstruction was a no, and 

16 there was health endangerment, especially 

17 since we already paid a number of claims.

18 Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

20 Frank.

21 Questions?

22 (No response.)
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I have one, a sort of procedural 

2 one with this one. Normally, we have not 

3 recommended a Class that goes beyond the 

4 covered period for an SEC. We've done less 

5 than the covered period, based on information. 

6 We have not gone over the covered period.

7 So my question is, and I don't 

8 know if you can answer this, how is this 

9 handled procedurally? We make a 

10 recommendation to the Secretary. Are we 

11 expecting the covered Class to change time 

12 wise?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld 

14 here. We do expect the covered Class to 

15 change, and the reason we believe it will 

16 change is that it's set; it changes from what 

17 it was originally, based on our research. The 

18 original designation for this site was the 

19 covered period was 1943 through the fifties. 

20 That's what it said.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Our research said 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we think we have found the last activity, 

2 which occurred in 1954, and we sent that 

3 letter to DOE and DOL. They agreed. And I 

4 believe there's a typo on their web page and 

5 that's why it says 1953.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's 

8 why that says that, because it was changed 

9 because of our work.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: The covered 

12 period indicated defined as years 1942 through 

13 1954. That is interpreted, should be 

14 interpreted by us as 12/31/54. Therefore, 

15 what we have proposed is within the covered 

16 period. Okay?

17 So whenever the Department of 

18 Labor or whenever the Department of Energy 

19 facility database indicates a year, in that 

20 year we always assume the end of that year. 

21 Therefore, 12/31/54 is correct.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Just so everybody 

2 feels good about this, we are on line. We 

3 have looked at the actual website. We are 

4 looking at it right now. It does say 1954. 

5 It doesn't say December 31st, but it says 

6 1954.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We 

8 believe you. At first I was going to say I 

9 was sorry I asked. Now I'm glad I asked.

10 (Laughter.)

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bob?

12 MEMBER PRESLEY: One of the things 

13 I am thinking about is in 1943 to 1944 the 

14 fact that you all say that they did 13,000 

15 pounds, that was depleted uranium, and between 

16 1943 and 1944, I have a real problem with 

17 being able to say that, yes, there was 13,000 

18 pounds of extra depleted uranium that we 

19 didn't have going through the Calutron 

20 operations or something.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: That was actually 

22 1,300 tons.
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay, 1,300 tons.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: And that was 

3 natural uranium.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It was natural 

5 uranium. It wasn't depleted; it was natural.

6 MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay.

7 DR. GLOVER: I can speak to this. 

8 Bob, they actually entered the original 

9 extrusion for Hanford. This is Sam Glover.

10 That was the original stuff that 

11 went to Hanford. They participated in putting 

12 that metal together for Hanford. So that's 

13 what that metal was used for. That was the 

14 original feed for the reactor.

15 MEMBER PRESLEY: When did we start 

16 doing that?

17 DR. GLOVER: 1943.

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is a minor 

21 point, but if this were to be an SEC facility, 

22 or a Class, rather, and you were doing partial 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 dose reconstructions, and I don't believe it 

2 was mentioned in the presentation, but I think 

3 your report did mention medical x-rays. I 

4 believe there was evidence that they did have 

5 medical x-rays at this facility.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: That's correct.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And we can assume, 

8 then, that you will reconstruct dose in the 

9 normal way.

10 You had no information on the 

11 types of x-ray equipment, but that's often the 

12 case. So we're safe to assume that you will 

13 be able to reconstruct medical exposure, is 

14 that correct?

15 MR. CRAWFORD: That is correct. 

16 And in the dose reconstructions that have 

17 already been done, we have, in fact, included 

18 medical exposures.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: That did remind me 

20 of my second question. I had forgotten there 

21 was a second question.

22 (Laughter.)
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And that is, you have done six or 

2 seven dose reconstructions already. Can 

3 somebody outline briefly how those were done 

4 since we're unable to reconstruct dose 

5 according to this report?

6 MR. CRAWFORD: I think I can leap 

7 in on that. They were done using the methods 

8 of TBD-6000 and 6001. We would have had a 

9 hard time reconstructing the thorium dose, but 

10 the uranium dose was much easier to deal with. 

11 That's why we were able to basically find 

12 PoCs greater than 50 percent for six of the 

13 eight cases.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda and then 

15 Phil.

16 MEMBER MUNN: My question has to 

17 do with the thorium. Only one of the billets 

18 that were listed in the report was done in the 

19 1940s. Everything else was done in the 

20 fifties.

21 I guess the question in my mind is 

22 -- wasn't thorium already definitely 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 considered S and M? Was it not being tracked? 

2 I guess, were there no records at all about 

3 internal shipments? You show information 

4 about external shipments, but one wonders, how 

5 did the thorium arrive there and from where? 

6 I am guessing, by the absence of information 

7 here, that you have no knowledge at all, no 

8 record of the thorium coming into the plant.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I can't answer that 

10 definitively. We know when certain extrusions 

11 occurred that involved thorium. We are not 

12 completely confident that we know all of the 

13 extrusions that were done that involved 

14 thorium. In other words, where we have 

15 evidence, we have it, but when we don't have 

16 it, there is another kind of problem involved.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and the 

18 question, I guess, I'm really getting into is 

19 do we have no records about when thorium and 

20 how much thorium came into the plant?

21 MR. CRAWFORD: We have rough 

22 records. They will mention, in some cases, 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 how many billets came in or how many segments 

2 of extruded rod were shipped.

3 Uranium they kept very close 

4 records, but, for some reason, since the 

5 thorium was an R&D measure, apparently, the 

6 records are either lost or someplace that 

7 would not normally be associated with Revere, 

8 and we haven't found them yet.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Or the AEC just 

10 hadn't decided thorium was going to be treated 

11 like S and M yet, right?

12 DR. GLOVER: There's that. We 

13 don't have the records. But for the Hanford 

14 time, Hanford began using thorium as a poison 

15 on the outside reactors --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

17 DR. GLOVER: -- very early.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

19 DR. GLOVER: So there was a 

20 definitive use for the material. So we know 

21 Hanford wasn't doing extrusion of it at that 

22 point. So there very well could be a very 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 strong linkage here that we just haven't been 

2 able to find the records on.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Thanks.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil?

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: But the fact 

6 that there is no bioassay in the residual 

7 period --

8 MR. KATZ: Phil, can you speak 

9 into the microphone, please?

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

11 There is no bioassay during the 

12 residual period. I would like to know, were 

13 the smear samples taken before the 

14 destruction, like on the beams above the 

15 stuff. Or there could potentially be 

16 contaminants up there, dust that was 

17 contaminated. Do you have any record of smear 

18 samples being taken before the removal of the 

19 equipment?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Certainly not in 

21 the rafters because the preliminary study 

22 recommended a follow-up study, which was never 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 done. So the smear samples that were taken 

2 were of the floor area near the extrusion 

3 presses and in another building where there 

4 was a lab where the billets were cut. Those 

5 are the only smear samples we have. There's 

6 some contact readings also, but certainly not 

7 in the rafters.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any of the Board 

9 Members on the phone have questions?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. No, 

11 Jim.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. No.

14 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I 

15 just had a quick question. For the residual 

16 period, how confident are you that the dust 

17 measurements are adequate to reconstruct the 

18 dose? How many dust measurements were 

19 available at the facility? You said they're 

20 fairly representative of the dust maps of the 

21 building.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't have the 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 exact number, but we have quite a few dust 

2 samples during the production and the R&D 

3 period. We don't have a White Paper out on 

4 this at this point, but our intent is to use 

5 the highest dust samples at the beginning of 

6 the residual period and then deplete them 

7 according to the methods of TIB-70 during the 

8 entire residual period right out through 1981.

9 So the early part of the residual 

10 period will probably have considerable dose 

11 attached to it and the later parts much less. 

12 And I am talking about internal dose 

13 primarily.

14 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

16 Other questions?

17 Is the petitioner on the line and 

18 would like to speak?

19 (No response.)

20 Any other questions?

21 (No response.)

22 Do I hear a motion to move 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 forward?

2 PARTICIPANT: You can hardly be 

3 heard.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I'm 

5 sorry.

6 Do we have a motion? Yes, David?

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I just have 

8 one comment about this SEC Petition Evaluation 

9 Report. I thought it was one of the best that 

10 I've read. So just to the authors of the 

11 document, I thought it was really well-done 

12 and it is a nice model for others.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I will 

14 concur with that. Also, the summary in front 

15 was more extensive and more useful and a lot 

16 of good factual information. I thought it was 

17 helpful in understanding the site.

18 Are we ready to make a decision? 

19 Brad?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess I make a 

21 motion that we accept this.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I hear a 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 second?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: I second it.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Henry.

4 Further discussion?

5 (No response.)

6 If not, Ted, do you want to call 

7 the roll?

8 Yes, I'm sorry. Gen?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: We have actually 

10 two separate time periods. I assume we're 

11 talking about just the first one?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, the SEC is 

13 just the first one.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, I will just do 

15 this alphabetically.

16 Dr. Anderson?

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

3 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Mr. Melius?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

15 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

17 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: All in favor, it's 

5 unanimous. The motion passes.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we will have 

7 a letter to review. Actually, I've already 

8 composed it. We'll get it reviewed and 

9 someone will find some typos. We will get a 

10 better copy for everyone, for the dangling 

11 participle review, too.

12 We're next scheduled for Ames. 

13 We, I think, are expecting the petitioners to 

14 be on the line. So I'm not sure we want to 

15 start unless -- are the petitioners for Ames 

16 on the telephone? I don't want to start until 

17 they are or until the scheduled time.

18 MS. LOCKER: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

20 you.

21 Okay. LaVon Rutherford will 

22 present the Ames.
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. 

2 Melius. I'm LaVon Rutherford. I'm going to 

3 present our evaluation of the Ames Laboratory 

4 petition.

5 We received this petition on 

6 February 12th of 2010. As you can tell, the 

7 petitioner-proposed Class included a wide 

8 variety of different positions. So I am not 

9 going to read every one of them. But it was 

10 for a period of 1955 through 1960, and it also 

11 excluded our existing Class of SEC 75.

12 I do have a typo here. September 

13 22nd, 2009, is not when we qualified the 

14 petition. March 26th of 2010, which we 

15 couldn't have qualified this petition before 

16 we got it. So we qualified the petition on 

17 March 26th of 2010.

18 Our Class evaluated is all workers 

19 who worked in any DOE facility at Ames from 

20 January 1, 1955, through December 31 of 1960.

21 A little background on the Ames 

22 site. It is a DOE National Laboratory. It is 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 located in Ames, Iowa. It's on the Iowa State 

2 University campus. The Ames project played a 

3 key role in the production of strategic 

4 nuclear material for the Manhattan Project and 

5 the Atomic Energy Commission.

6 If you know, Ames was contracted 

7 in 1942 to develop a method for mass producing 

8 uranium metal, which they started in 1942 and 

9 continued through 1945. They were also 

10 contracted to develop a process for mass 

11 producing thorium metal in 1943. That 

12 operation continued until 1953. In addition, 

13 they did research activities with uranium, 

14 thorium, plutonium, and fission products, and 

15 that occurred from 1942 through 1960.

16 The buildings where the 

17 radiological occurred consisted of the 

18 metallurgy building, the chemistry building, 

19 Annex 1, Annex 2, and the research building. 

20 The chemistry building is where 

21 the process actually started in 1942. That's 

22 where they developed the process for producing 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 uranium metal. They refined that process, and 

2 they also developed the initial process for 

3 thorium.

4 They moved the process to Annex 1, 

5 is where the actual mass production really 

6 occurred. Annex 1, the work mainly started in 

7 late 1942, early 1943, and continued until 

8 1945 on the uranium metal production.

9 The thorium production started in 

10 1943 at Annex 1. It shifted to the metallurgy 

11 building in 1949, and Annex 1, pretty much 

12 operations stopped in Annex 1 in 1949 and the 

13 facility was demolished. So we will not 

14 discuss that much further.

15 Annex 2 was used for scrap uranium 

16 recovery. That work began in 1944. The one 

17 building was constructed in 1944 and stopped 

18 in 1949, I believe 1949.

19 And the research building was 

20 actually built in 1951, occupied in 1951. 

21 Research activities included a 150-kV 

22 accelerator, Hot Canyon, some glovebox work. 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Did a lot of research with uranium, thorium, 

2 and so on.

3 The metallurgy building, again, in 

4 addition to the thorium operations being 

5 transferred there in 1949, when the facility 

6 was built, they also did research activities 

7 with special alloys.

8 Our typical data capture, this is 

9 very consistent with Revere, where we looked 

10 for sources of information. We looked at Site 

11 Profiles, interviews with former employees --

12 we did do interviews at Ames -- existing 

13 claimant files, we looked at documentation 

14 provided by the petition, our Site Research 

15 Database, and their data captures.

16 Most of this is pretty typical of 

17 our data captures today. We have, I think, 

18 got a pretty mature process now in the data 

19 captures. We did go back to Ames Laboratory 

20 looking for additional work by the Department 

21 of Public Health and can see a number of 

22 places where data capture efforts occurred. I 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 am not going to read them all.

2 Okay, that's for claims. Ames 

3 claims submitted to NIOSH are 157. Claims 

4 that meet the current Class being evaluated is 

5 58. Of those 58 claims, we have completed 

6 dose reconstruction for 36.

7 The claims containing internal 

8 dosimetry, of the claims that fit into the 

9 Class, none of those claims had internal 

10 dosimetry. And as for external dosimetry, 15 

11 of the 36 contain external dosimetry.

12 Our potential radiation exposures 

13 during the Class period, I went over the 

14 operations, the production operations. As you 

15 know, those operations pretty much ceased in 

16 1953. So the thorium/uranium production 

17 operations had stopped. So the actual 

18 internal exposure from that would have been 

19 residual uranium and thorium left over from 

20 production. We also had airborne contaminants 

21 generated from working in the Hot Cave and the 

22 research building.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 It is unclear from documentation 

2 that we have and interviews what all the 

3 isotopes that they dealt with within the 

4 research building, but based on the 

5 documentation we do have, we do know that over 

6 the time period from the beginning of the 

7 research building, they did work with mixed 

8 fission products, thorium, uranium, and 

9 plutonium.

10 External sources of exposure. We 

11 have a small amount of beta and gamma external 

12 exposure from residual uranium and thorium, 

13 gamma neutron exposure from work in the Hot 

14 Canyon, and the 150-kV accelerator.

15 Okay, personal and area monitoring 

16 data. Internal monitoring data there from 

17 1955 through the 1960 period, there's no 

18 urinalysis or air sample data for the period 

19 evaluated. That's not totally correct.

20 There was an accident that 

21 occurred in the research building, the Hot 

22 Canyon, in 1957, a thorium spill. There were 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 two urine samples taken of workers in 1957 for 

2 that thorium spill, but that is the only 

3 internal monitoring data we have.

4 External monitoring data. We do 

5 have a large amount of external monitoring 

6 data for the period. We have over 500 

7 individual workers were monitored, film badge 

8 data. That includes beta, gamma, and neutron 

9 readings. There is a table in the Evaluation 

10 Report that actually lays out the number of 

11 readings, film badge readings, we have over 

12 that period. It also includes the neutron 

13 dosimetry readings.

14 Our two-pronged test, is it 

15 feasible to estimate the level of radiation 

16 dose with sufficient accuracy? And then is 

17 there a reasonable likelihood that such 

18 radiation dose may have endangered the Class?

19 We found that the available 

20 monitoring records process description of 

21 source term data are not adequate to calculate 

22 the internal dose with sufficient accuracy for 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the period of 1955 through 1960. We have no 

2 personal monitoring data and air monitoring 

3 data for the work inside the research 

4 building.

5 I did leave out a little bit on 

6 the research building. We do know that 

7 there's a Hot Canyon. The Hot Canyon, which 

8 consisted of gloveboxes, a lot of glovebox 

9 work, initially, we had thought that all of 

10 this work was done in an enclosed area, but 

11 there is a Hot Cave as well. The Hot Cave 

12 exactly, it has a lot of shielding, thick 

13 shielding. It has remote manipulators, and so 

14 on. It looks to be designed, obviously 

15 designed for minimizing the external exposure. 

16 However, it is open at the top. We have 

17 pictures of this, of the opening at the top.

18 We know they dealt with mixed 

19 fission products. We know they dealt with 

20 other items of potential internal exposure. 

21 We also have pictures of workers working in 

22 the area without respiratory protection. And 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we do have indications of incidents, as I 

2 mentioned, the thorium incident that occurred 

3 in 1957 inside that research building.

4 So our feasibility summary is that 

5 we felt that we can do the uranium and thorium 

6 for the residual exposures from the early 

7 production work that was left over. However we 

8 cannot reconstruct the internal dose for other 

9 radionuclides specifically from the research 

10 building itself.

11 We felt that we could reconstruct 

12 all beta-gamma neutrons, and we can also do 

13 the occupational medical x-ray. Beta and 

14 gamma, we have, as indicated, a lot of film 

15 badge data to support the external exposure 

16 reconstruction.

17 Our recommended Class is January 

18 1, 1955 through December 31, 1960, and our 

19 feasibility is a no. That means that we have 

20 to do the health endangerment, and we said, 

21 yes, there is a health endangerment.

22 Here's our recommended Class. 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 It's all employees, DOE, from January 1, 1955 

2 through December 31, 1960. There's more 

3 information there, but I'm not going to read 

4 it all.

5 A little bit about our Class 

6 Definition determination. As you look through 

7 the Evaluation Report, you will notice that we 

8 felt that reconstruction of dose for all the 

9 facilities with the exception of the research 

10 building was feasible. The research building, 

11 really, we initially felt that we could limit 

12 the Class to only the research building. We 

13 had an approach for doing dose reconstruction 

14 for ambient. We felt that we had all the 

15 other facilities outlined.

16 However, we sent that Class 

17 Definition along to the Department of Labor to 

18 determine if it would be feasible for the 

19 Department of Labor to administer a Class with 

20 just the research building. The Department of 

21 Labor did respond to us that they could not 

22 place individuals within specific buildings at 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the Ames Laboratory. Therefore, based on that 

2 response from the Department of Labor, we 

3 expanded our Class to all employees.

4 Additionally, the determination 

5 that the research building, the infeasibility 

6 in the research building did not arise until 

7 late in our evaluation. We initially had 

8 documentation that kind of supported that all 

9 the activities were done in gloveboxes and so 

10 on. However we did uncover some photographs, 

11 as I had mentioned, and we also had some other 

12 documentation that indicated that the work 

13 inside that Hot Cave actually had the 

14 potential of generating an airborne that would 

15 expose workers outside of it.

16 So we actually did not complete an 

17 evaluation of the post-1960 period. We 

18 stopped the evaluation in 1960 at this time, 

19 and we plan to continue our evaluation of the 

20 1961-62 period.

21 We do have some internal 

22 monitoring data at the research building in 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 1961, in the early years, but we have not done 

2 a complete, thorough evaluation to determine 

3 the proper end date of this evaluation.

4 However, the fact that the Board 

5 meeting was coming up, we knew we had an 

6 infeasibility for this period, and we knew 

7 that this is the period that the petitioner 

8 had put forth. We felt we could move forward 

9 with this portion of the evaluation, recommend 

10 this Class, get this through the Board. Then 

11 if we determine at a later date that 

12 additional years should be added, we will do 

13 an 83.14 on that to add additional years onto 

14 this Class.

15 And that's pretty much it.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead. Yes, 

17 John?

18 MEMBER POSTON: Bomber, I need 

19 some clarification.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

21 MEMBER POSTON: If I look at 14, 

22 slide 14, and then go to slide 15, I would 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 have expected to find the Xs in a different 

2 place. You went so fast that I wasn't --

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry.

4 MEMBER POSTON: -- tuned in or 

5 something. Because slide 14 says you can't do 

6 it. Slide 15, I would have expected the Xs 

7 for the internal dose to be on the right-hand

8 column, not the left-hand column.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, overall --

10 MEMBER POSTON: So I need an 

11 explanation.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure. Overall, 

13 we cannot reconstruct all of the internal dose 

14 for the period. However, we can reconstruct 

15 the portion of the residual portion of uranium 

16 and thorium. So I indicated, even though we 

17 can't reconstruct the entire internal dose, 

18 there are portions of the internal dose that 

19 can be reconstructed. That's why those two 

20 are different.

21 Does that answer the question?

22 MEMBER POSTON: Well, it helped.
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I am just 

3 curious --

4 MR. KATZ: Henry, I think you'll 

5 have to get closer to the microphone. The 

6 folks on the phone are going to have a hard 

7 time hearing.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. On slide 

9 9, you say that there were 36 dose 

10 reconstructions for those that met the Class 

11 Definition that have been completed. Then it 

12 looks like none of those had internal 

13 dosimetry and only 15 of those had external 

14 dosimetry. So at least a number of those must 

15 have had no dosimetry at all.

16 So how were the doses 

17 reconstructed for those individuals?

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, there is a 

19 Technical Basis Document for the Ames 

20 Laboratory. At the time, it was felt that --

21 indications that there were no releases from 

22 the research building and, therefore, the 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 internal exposures, there were no internal 

2 exposures given from the research building. 

3 The internal exposures that were given based 

4 on the Technical Basis Document were 

5 associated with the resuspension or the 

6 residual period for thorium and uranium.

7 Also there was an ambient internal 

8 given based on the -- what they did was we did 

9 know the actual activity concentrations that 

10 they were permitted to use inside the Hot 

11 Canyon. We used that along with filter 

12 efficiency and a release fraction to come up 

13 with an ambient release outside of the 

14 facility that we gave to all workers. So 

15 that's how they did the internal.

16 It was only after our additional 

17 evaluation during this period that we actually 

18 identified the potential internal exposures 

19 that weren't recognized.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: So all 36 of 

21 those that have been denied?

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't have the 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 number with me. How many of those claims 

2 were greater than 50 percent, I should have 

3 looked. I should actually have done that. I 

4 am sure some of those were above 50 percent 

5 and some were below.

6 What will happen if the Class is 

7 added is, obviously, all the presumptive 

8 cancers, whether they were denied or whether 

9 they are greater than 50 percent or not, all 

10 the presumptive cancers will go back to the 

11 Department of Labor for adjudication that way 

12 and would be compensated. The non-presumptive 

13 cancers, we will have to look at revising the 

14 Site Profile. However, we will not be adding 

15 additional internal dose for the research 

16 building because we can't reconstruct that.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank 

18 you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda?

20 MEMBER MUNN: It's really 

21 disappointing to think that we cannot bound 

22 that potential airborne source term given the 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 fact that I had the impression, perhaps 

2 incorrectly, that we had a fairly good handle 

3 on the source terms that were actually being 

4 handled.

5 But when we say that we have no 

6 idea what might have come out of the top Hot 

7 Cave and where it might have gone, it is very 

8 hard to grasp that reality, given that we have 

9 some source term information.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: And I understand 

11 what you are saying. And believe me, as I had 

12 mentioned, our evaluation turned late in the 

13 game, when we came across additional 

14 documentation and photographs.

15 What we have is what permitted 

16 quantities were allowed inside these, which, 

17 obviously, the dose reconstruction approach in 

18 the Technical Basis Document was to use that 

19 permitted quantities as a maximum amount, 

20 assume the filter efficiency on it, and the 

21 release. However, there is no filter on the 

22 Hot Cave. That was the problem. The Hot Cave 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 was the one that turned everything.

2 And also the other difficulty is 

3 with most radiation monitoring programs, even 

4 though you have these glove bags, and so on, 

5 you typically will have air monitoring data 

6 that will support that we are not having a 

7 release and that they are doing their job. We 

8 have nothing. We have no air monitoring data 

9 at all for the research building.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So the amount of the 

11 other radionuclides of which we speak are of 

12 such quantity that it would be impossible to 

13 bound them, is what you're telling me?

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, we can 

15 bound -- I think we came up with a reasonable, 

16 I say a reasonable approach for the ambient 

17 levels. The difficulty you get, when workers 

18 are working in specific areas, you've got to 

19 come up with an airborne model, a release 

20 model with however they are manipulating the 

21 things that they are manipulating inside that 

22 Hot Cave; what's that exposure to those 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 workers right there?

2 And we don't know that we have all 

3 the quantities as well. I think, if I 

4 remember correctly, we did have four or five 

5 of the isotopes that had quantity limitations, 

6 but we don't have everything.

7 So I don't know if I am answering 

8 you.

9 MEMBER MUNN: I think as best we 

10 can. Thanks.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Actually, LaVon, 

13 I kind of feel relieved that we are not 

14 running around chasing our tail, and we are 

15 taking a look at this from a standpoint of we 

16 don't know everything that went in there. We 

17 don't know all, instead of making models, and 

18 so forth.

19 But my question is is what we are 

20 voting on today -- I'm like Mr. Poston, that 

21 I'm not understanding the residual period. 

22 When is the residual period going to be? 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Because I am trying to understand what we are 

2 looking at and voting on.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. I think I 

4 understand what the difficulty there is. 

5 There is no residual period. It's a DOE 

6 facility today.

7 So when I say residual in this 

8 sense, this is potential residual exposure 

9 from the uranium and thorium production work 

10 that occurred prior to the Class being 

11 evaluated. So the work that occurred, the 

12 uranium and thorium work, the thorium work 

13 stopped in 1953. There were no more uranium 

14 and thorium production work. There was 

15 research activity. There was no more uranium 

16 and thorium production work after 1953.

17 So what I am saying we can 

18 reconstruct during the Class period evaluated 

19 of 1955 through 1960 is this residual uranium 

20 and thorium. And what we will do is that will 

21 be exposures we would give to the non22 presumptive cancer claims during that period.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Does that make more sense?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I have a 

4 question. I'm trying to understand the 

5 recommended Class. So the Department of Labor 

6 does not have information that would put 

7 people into the research building?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's correct.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But they do have 

10 information on all the people that would 

11 have -- or we think on all people working at 

12 Department of Energy facilities?

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I know where 

14 you're going with that. I actually 

15 corresponded with the Department of Labor to

16 understand if they had any difficulty with 

17 putting individuals -- the separation between 

18 the Iowa State University employees and DOE, 

19 and they said they have had no problem doing 

20 that. In fact, yes, I have had that 

21 correspondence with them.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: And to give you a 

2 feel, there are some indications, we have 

3 documentation that indicates the number of 

4 employees for Ames Laboratory in 1959, for 

5 example, was, I believe, 571. I've got notes 

6 on it. It's somewhere in the 500s. That 

7 included the graduate students that were 

8 working on projects at the time.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Dr. Ziemer?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: This may be a 

11 legal question. Do graduate students need to 

12 be on pay status, graduate students who were 

13 working on this project? And I think one 

14 could at least anticipate there could be some 

15 who are there, but not on pay status. Would 

16 they be covered or not? They would not be 

17 employees. I understand that. But if they 

18 are working on the project, I wonder if --

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: I'm going to have 

20 to defer to counsel.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do they have to be 

22 paid to be eligible?
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'll just 

2 state that we don't make those decisions.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I understand, 

4 yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It goes to the 

6 Department of Labor, and Jeff just told me he 

7 doesn't know. And he is the only one here --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I understand 

9 it's Energy employees --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

11 MEMBER BEACH: -- compensation 

12 program, but in a place like Ames, and other

13 such academic facilities, it is very common to 

14 have people working on projects who are not on 

15 pay status.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: In fact, that's 

18 one reason you do things in universities 

19 because you have slave labor.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. Most of 

2 us have done that.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Been 

4 there, done that, right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I'm just 

7 wondering, if there is such an SEC Class, 

8 would graduate students who worked on these 

9 projects but were at the university on their 

10 own dime be covered?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I understand the 

12 question. I don't think there's anybody in 

13 the room who can answer it.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So I'll 

15 leave it as sort of a rhetorical question at 

16 the moment.

17 MR. KATZ: Paul, I believe, and I 

18 may not be exactly accurate, but I believe 

19 that research student, it's time-based. And 

20 even if they're not on the payroll for DOE, I 

21 believe if they worked 24 months or more, then 

22 they're treated as a DOE employee. I'm not 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 positive about that, but I think that's how 

2 that is handled.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Ted, this is 

4 Brad. I thought that we got into this with 

5 Rochester, and they said no. Well, it was 

6 just the question we got into because most of 

7 these facilities were running into this, and 

8 especially with all of your background and 

9 stuff, it is an issue, but --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think I 

11 raised the question at Rochester as well, and 

12 the answer has always been evasive or 

13 ambiguous.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: And maybe it will 

16 remain that, but I think it is sort of a 

17 fairness concern because in the case of 

18 graduate students they are often working 

19 without pay, and they are really not very 

20 different from employees, although I 

21 understood that this is a program for, quote, 

22 "Energy employees." So maybe they're not 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 covered.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, what I was 

3 going to suggest, since the question comes up 

4 repeatedly, and we all try to figure it out, 

5 and so forth, is ask for some clarification 

6 from -- really it's Department of Labor.

7 So, Jeff, if you could, maybe at 

8 the next meeting, your presentation, include 

9 some clarification on that? That way, we will 

10 at least know how the Department of Labor 

11 interprets it in terms of claims.

12 Thanks, Jeff.

13 Yes, David?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I am going to 

15 have to ask a question that steps back a 

16 little bit.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you speak 

18 directly into the microphone, please?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm still 

20 having difficulty understanding the Class 

21 Definition I think here in terms of it may 

22 just be that sort of -- I think my uncertainty 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 is about the bounds in terms of time here.

2 The dates, the proposed dates, are 

3 1955 to 1960, and there's a description of a 

4 lot of AEC-related work commencing in 1942, 

5 moving forward, and then potentially 

6 continuing after those dates?

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Let me clarify a 

8 couple of things. I actually had it in my 

9 notes to present that portion of it.

10 We actually have an SEC Class 

11 right now from 1942 through 1954. So it 

12 covers pretty much all workers; it is all 

13 workers -- it is an older Class Definition --

14 at the Ames facility. So those are already 

15 covered under an existing SEC Class, so are 

16 not included in this Class Definition.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So is that 

18 SEC-00075 or is that a different SEC?

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's SEC-00038. 

20 That's SEC-00038 included up to the end of 

21 1954. SEC-00075, which I failed to mention as 

22 well, was another Class that we added at Ames, 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Iowa. It was 1955 through 1970, but it was 

2 specific plant maintenance workers associated 

3 with the renovations of the chemistry building 

4 and the metallurgy building.

5 And I did indicate in my 

6 presentation that we are continuing to 

7 evaluate the post-1960 period because we did 

8 not complete a thorough evaluation to 

9 determine the proper end date of this Class 

10 that we are recommending. If we determine 

11 that our end date of 1960 is not appropriate, 

12 we will move forward with an 83.14 to add 

13 additional years.

14 I anticipate that I will have an 

15 update on that at the next Board meeting, if 

16 we do move forward with the Class.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Board Members on 

18 the -- I'm sorry. Gen, first, and then we'll 

19 do the phone.

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: I would like to 

21 follow up on Wanda's question. That's the 

22 activities in the Hot Cave.
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 You indicate that you had 

2 interviews, and I am wondering who you 

3 interviewed. It seems, quite commonly, you 

4 will interview custodians and workers. It 

5 seems to me that if you interviewed the health 

6 physicists there at the time that you would 

7 get a better idea about the documentation for 

8 these sort of things. I am just wondering if 

9 you remember who the interviews were with.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: One of the 

11 interviews was with the health physicists that 

12 operated very close to that period. We did 

13 ask about additional documentation, and the 

14 interviews are in the Board's folder, by the 

15 way. But we did ask about the documentation 

16 on an internal monitoring program. Because 

17 the difficulty we have is not only, again, the 

18 work inside the Hot Cave itself, but we have 

19 no verification of air samples that were taken 

20 to ensure that there were no releases.

21 So if I came to you and said that 

22 we are assuming that there were no releases 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 because of, for example, the gloveboxes that 

2 they used and so on, and we assume that there 

3 were no releases because there was no 

4 documentation that said there was, well that 

5 wouldn't be true in itself because we already 

6 indicated the discussion of the thorium spill 

7 that occurred in 1957.

8 So we have no verification of air 

9 samples. We did talk to the health physicists 

10 about monitoring data, and we could not get 

11 any help from the health physicists on 

12 additional monitoring data during that period.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now Board 

14 Members on the phone, have any questions? 

15 Start with Bill Field.

16 MEMBER FIELD: I think most of my 

17 questions have been answered by previous 

18 questions. But I do want to thank Paul for 

19 bringing up the issues of potential students 

20 that were working at the facility. Being an 

21 academic, I am very sensitive to this, and I 

22 appreciate bringing that up. I think it is a 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 question that certainly needs to be followed.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

3 Dr. Lemen?

4 MEMBER LEMEN: All my questions 

5 have been answered.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and Mike 

7 Gibson?

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Not at this time, 

9 Jim.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

11 you.

12 Now we would like to hear from --

13 Dr. Ziemer has one more question.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: You did indicate, 

15 LaVon, that you had interviewed the various 

16 HPs, I think more than one.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, we have 

18 four or five interviews in there.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: But were you able 

20 to confirm that they did not have constant air 

21 monitors in that -- vicinity of that cave?

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: No.
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm sort of 

2 familiar with the Ames program after about 

3 1960. In fact, they had a very not only 

4 competent health physicist, but very good 

5 monitoring program because universities become 

6 aware of what each other does and sort of 

7 compare notes.

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: But prior to 1960, 

10 I don't have any knowledge of their program, 

11 but it seems a little surprising to me that 

12 they would be operating a hot cell without 

13 constant air monitors in the vicinity. But 

14 were you able to confirm that they had none, 

15 or they just don't have the records?

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Honestly, we 

17 couldn't confirm whether they did or did not. 

18 There was indications from some workers that 

19 they thought there were. You know, the one 

20 thing was, you know, we had air monitoring 

21 data in 1953 for the thorium production work 

22 at the very end of the thorium work. So you 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 would have assumed that the air monitoring 

2 program would have continued on after the 

3 production work.

4 However, we have seen at national 

5 labs and other facilities that the air 

6 monitoring programs, the routine air 

7 monitoring program is not always prevalent. 

8 So we haven't come up with anything during 

9 that period at all.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 We would now like to hear from the 

12 petitioners, if they would like to say 

13 anything.

14 MS. LOCKER: I don't have anything 

15 to add.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

17 you.

18 How does the Board wish to 

19 proceed?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I move that we 

21 accept this.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do I have a 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 second for that? Okay, Bob.

2 Any further discussion on that?

3 (No response.)

4 If not, Ted?

5 MR. KATZ: Well, Dr. Ziemer?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'll vote yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

14 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

16 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Mr. Lemen?

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

6 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

8 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Anderson?

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: That's unanimous, all 

16 in favor. The motion passes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

18 you.

19 We are running ahead of time. 

20 LaVon volunteered, said he wanted to make his 

21 boss happy.

22 (Laughter.)
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: He told me 

2 yesterday.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. So we are 

4 going to move up the SEC petition update, and, 

5 rather than Stu presenting, we will have LaVon 

6 presenting.

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: It must be 

8 performance evaluation period.

9 (Laughter.)

10 All right, SEC status of upcoming 

11 SEC petitions, and I am not Stu Hinnefeld. I 

12 am LaVon Rutherford.

13 We do this at every Board meeting 

14 to provide the Board an update on existing 

15 SEC petitions and the status of those 

16 petitions. This is done to help the Board 

17 prepare Work Group meetings and also prepare 

18 for upcoming Board meetings, to determine how 

19 much workload we are going to have.

20 Petitions received to date, we 

21 have 177 petitions.

22 You know it's kind of a continuous 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 theme here. I'm going to have to start QA-ing 

2 my slides.

3 I did have one issue with this 

4 slide. We had petitions in qualification 

5 process is five. However, petitions qualified 

6 for evaluation is 104. In the process of 

7 preparing my presentation, I left Ames out of 

8 this pretty much. So we have four evaluations 

9 in progress, and actual evaluations completed 

10 is 100. Then there are 18 for recommendation.

11 Existing petitions that we had 

12 that are in the evaluation process, the Linde 

13 Ceramics plant, SEC-00154. We had hoped to 

14 have this one completed a Board meeting or two 

15 ago. However, the issue came up with the 

16 Linde petition, SEC-00107, associated with the 

17 tunnels and reconstructing the exposures for 

18 those tunnels. We have held up issuing this 

19 Evaluation Report until we come to some 

20 agreement on that. We anticipate that will be 

21 very soon, and hope to present SEC-00154 at 

22 the next Board meeting.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Hanford, this is actually a Class 

2 for the 1987 through 1989 period. There were 

3 some questions brought up concerning the 

4 bioassay monitoring during that period. We 

5 qualified this petition. We anticipate this 

6 petition evaluation will be complete in 

7 September.

8 Simonds Saw and Steel, we had 

9 hoped to have this evaluation actually 

10 completed in time for this Board meeting. 

11 However, we did identify a large amount of 

12 documentation on Simonds Saw and Steel at the 

13 NARA College Park facility. We are in the 

14 process of capturing that information. We 

15 will hope to have this complete, this 

16 evaluation complete, in September.

17 The Sandia National Lab, we 

18 actually had extended this evaluation while 

19 Sandia National Lab was loading their --

20 actually, they were going through a process of 

21 capturing their internal or their monitoring 

22 data. Until that process is complete, we 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 would not complete our evaluation. We 

2 anticipate that to be complete in December and 

3 will present that at the Board meeting 

4 immediately following.

5 We also have sites undergoing 

6 qualification at this time. I think if you 

7 heard Pete Darnell's update on the INL, we 

8 have an Idaho National Laboratory petition 

9 that we are in the qualification phase. We 

10 are working with the petitioner to get that 

11 one qualified.

12 Norton Company actually just 

13 recently qualified. This is for the residual 

14 period at Norton. If you remember, we did 

15 recommend a Class for Norton, and the Board 

16 concurred with that recommendation. So we 

17 have a Class already for Norton for the 

18 operational period. Now we have a petition 

19 for the residual period.

20 Wah Chang, this is a short 

21 operational period, I believe 1971 to 1973 

22 time period, very close to that. I can't be 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 sure. It's going through qualification.

2 Grand Junction Operations Office 

3 and Vitro Manufacturing. These are all 

4 facilities that we have petitions in-house 

5 that we are working through qualification.

6 As I have mentioned at previous 

7 couple of Board meetings, we have been 

8 evaluating our approach or how we identify 

9 Classes from the beginning of the SEC rule or 

10 when we first added SECs to date. We are in 

11 the final stages of that evaluation, and we 

12 anticipate that that will be complete at the 

13 end of this month.

14 From that, we do anticipate there 

15 will be some change or we will be going forth 

16 with some recommendations to change existing 

17 Classes. We will move that. In order to do 

18 that, we will do 83.14s to make those changes.

19 And that's about it.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Questions for 

21 LaVon?

22 (No response.)
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I have one, which is your Class 

2 Assessment Report.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: When you say 

5 that will be issued in August, I should put it 

6 on the agenda for our fall -- in October?

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Because I think 

9 it would be helpful for us to sort of see 

10 where you're going and so forth.

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think, also, if 

12 I remember correctly, on the agenda, isn't 

13 there supposed to be a BWXT update as well?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. I had 

16 forgotten about that.

17 We have been corresponding with 

18 BWXT for the 1985 through 2001 time period. 

19 Actually, one of our health physicists had a 

20 conference call with three of the health 

21 physicists at the facility. We are moving 

22 forward there. We anticipate we will have a 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 path forward and either be moving forward with 

2 an additional Class recommendation or we will 

3 have a final update to the Board at the next 

4 Board meeting.

5 MR. KATZ: LaVon, is that the 

6 teleconference or the next face-to-face we're 

7 talking about?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Let's go with the 

9 next face-to-face.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

12 Do any of the Board Members on the 

13 phone have questions?

14 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. No.

15 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill 

16 Fields. No.

17 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. No.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

19 you.

20 Okay. Thank you, LaVon.

21 We are running ahead of schedule. 

22 Why don't we take a break now for 20 minutes, 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 come back at 10 o'clock?

2 We'll start with Board working 

3 time. I understand that individual Board 

4 Members, starting I believe at 10:30, will be 

5 having to leave one at a time.

6 MR. KATZ: For their Smart Cards.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Smart Cards. We 

8 promise no jokes while you are gone to do 

9 that. So we will try to work around that with 

10 updates and so forth.

11 So let's take a break and come 

12 back around 10 o'clock.

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

14 matter went off the record at 9:44 a.m. and 

15 resumed at 10:10 a.m.)

16 MR. KATZ: Are the phones 

17 connected? Thank you.

18 So let me just check on the Board 

19 Members on the phone. Mike?

20 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, I'm here. 

21 This is Mike.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. And Dick and 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Bill?

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Dick is here.

3 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I 

4 can hear you.

5 MR. KATZ: Great. Thanks.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, let's get 

7 started.

8 The first one, Lew Wade has an 

9 update on the ten year review process.

10 DR. WADE: Thank you, Dr. Melius.

11 I need to sort of clarify a 

12 comment that I made yesterday that it has been 

13 pointed out to me might be a little bit 

14 confusing.

15 I did, when I spoke to you 

16 yesterday, point out that the authors of the 

17 various reports are here and that you might 

18 want to have a conversation with those people. 

19 Those conversations really would be for 

20 clarifying purposes. If you have substantial 

21 comments you wanted to make concerning the 

22 drafts in front of you, we have always valued
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 transparency in this program, and those 

2 comments should be made on the record. The 

3 docket may be opened, and you can make those 

4 comments to the docket.

5 So I wasn't suggesting that we 

6 turn our back on the value of transparency. 

7 Quite the contrary, if you have substantive 

8 comments to make, please make them on the 

9 record.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 And schedule-wise, just so the 

12 Board Members know, we are running ahead of 

13 schedule, obviously partly because a number of 

14 things sort of dropped off the agenda in the 

15 last few weeks unexpectedly. So we have more 

16 time.

17 Mark would prefer that we do the 

18 case selection, the DR reviews, tomorrow 

19 morning. So I was trying to get a sense, will 

20 all the Board Members be here tomorrow 

21 morning? That may be our only agenda item, 

22 but we will see how we go through in terms of 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we have already done the SEC update and we 

2 will see how we are doing in terms of working 

3 time.

4 MEMBER LOCKEY: That would be the 

5 first thing in the morning?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The first thing

7 in the morning, that's right, yes.

8 Also, we might prevail on Mark to 

9 change, but I think he got in pretty tough 

10 travel.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I can understand.

12 (Laughter.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can do that.

14 So we will go through the Work 

15 Group updates.

16 I have one other sort of piece of 

17 information for the Board since we don't have 

18 a Work Group on Sandia. We have a Site 

19 Profile. NIOSH is evaluating a petition. We 

20 have had a situation where NIOSH has been 

21 conducting, staff has been conducting 

22 interviews and some record reviews there. 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 There are security issues and so forth 

2 regarding these.

3 Then, just in terms of the 

4 interviews, it is a difficulty for some of the 

5 people to come in and be interviewed, and so 

6 forth.

7 So, to sort of lessen the burden 

8 on the facility and time, and so forth, and 

9 then the people being interviewed, and so 

10 forth, we have authorized SC&A to participate 

11 in some of these visits, being very careful to 

12 avoid sort of prejudging anything in the 

13 Evaluation Report. Normally, we do it 

14 sequentially and we have SC&A go back later, 

15 once things have moved along. For these 

16 circumstances, when they have come up, we have 

17 been doing it a little out of sequence.

18 I just wanted the Board to know 

19 that. Each visit is reviewed, and so forth. 

20 There's been one so far, and there's another 

21 one coming up.

22 I think it is probably better for 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the program, given some of the difficulties, 

2 potential difficulties, with classification 

3 security issues at that facility, I think it 

4 is best all around that we do it that way.

5 Okay. We will start with 

6 Brookhaven. Josie?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. Okay, 

8 thank you.

9 Brookhaven did have a first 

10 meeting on July 28th. We met for a half a 

11 day.

12 Our first meeting was focused on 

13 SC&A's preliminary issues matrix. That was 

14 issued in February of 2010.

15 The issues matrix report 

16 identified two issues. First, the 

17 availability of bioassay records from 1980 

18 through 2007 and, secondly, the adequacy of 

19 the neutron dosimetry.

20 The other thing we have been 

21 tasked with is the Site Profile review, and we 

22 hope to have a schedule to be able to meet on 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that soon.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody have 

4 questions for Josie?

5 (No response.)

6 Next on my list is Chapman Valve, 

7 and I don't think there's been any activity, 

8 but I was just wondering if NIOSH had any 

9 update.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we have --

11 Stu Hinnefeld -- we have completed, or not 

12 completed, we are in the process of capturing 

13 documents from Hanford. We have identified 

14 and are capturing some documents for Hanford. 

15 We have made initial contact with the Navy, 

16 but have not gone very far down that path, but 

17 we have made initial contact.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

19 you.

20 Fernald. Brad?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. We had the 

22 last Work Group meeting, and it was 1/29 of 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 2010. We still have several outstanding 

2 issues. SC&A has accomplished what was 

3 requested from them. We are still waiting for 

4 NIOSH to be able to respond, to be able to 

5 give us some type of a time frame, so that we 

6 can set up another Work Group, we are hoping 

7 in the next month or so.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody have 

9 questions or comments on Fernald?

10 (No response.)

11 Okay. Hanford is mine. I'm the 

12 Chair of that Work Group.

13 We have not met. We have had some 

14 contact with NIOSH and with SC&A on this. We 

15 are in the process of looking at some of the 

16 later years. NIOSH is still working out 

17 theirs. SC&A is also working on sort of 

18 updating their report.

19 There are some security 

20 classification issues we are dealing with 

21 there, but probably sometime in the fall 

22 things should be clarified, I guess, in terms 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of steps forward, what NIOSH has found and 

2 also, then, we should be ready from SC&A in a 

3 timely fashion. But that's really all we have 

4 to report now.

5 Any questions on Hanford?

6 (No response.)

7 Okay. Idaho. Phil.

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: There have been 

9 substantial revisions to the TBD, and I would 

10 give SC&A a chance to review these. As Pete 

11 pointed out yesterday, we might want to have a 

12 technical call before we actually have the 

13 first Work Group meeting, which I would like 

14 to have before the next full Board meeting.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So you're 

16 thinking of October time period?

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I think 

19 you sent me -- I'm on the Work Group -- sent 

20 me an email on that. No wonder it sounded 

21 familiar.

22 Anybody, other people have 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 questions on the Idaho Work Group?

2 (No response.)

3 Lawrence Berkeley. Paul? One of 

4 our newest Work Groups.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Lawrence 

6 Berkeley Work Group has been formed. There is 

7 an SC&A report that was issued earlier this 

8 year.

9 The Work Group has not yet met, 

10 but we want to get on the schedule for 

11 October. So, when we get to that part in the 

12 meeting where we are doing the scheduling, we 

13 want to schedule the initial meeting. We will 

14 need to also look at the NIOSH responses to 

15 the SC&A draft review of the Site Profile.

16 As you may recall, there was an 

17 SEC approved for Lawrence Berkeley in our May 

18 meeting, I believe. So part of the Lawrence 

19 Berkeley time period has been covered already 

20 by SEC. That was at our March meeting.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

22 questions, comments, on Lawrence Berkeley?
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 (No response.)

2 Okay. Linde. Gen?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: I made a 

4 detailed Work Group report to the Board at the 

5 May meeting in Niagara Falls. At that time, I 

6 gave the background and mentioned the numerous 

7 issues that we have covered in the Work Group.

8 I reported at that time that the 

9 remaining issues dealt with utility tunnel 

10 questions, and these were brought to the 

11 attention of NIOSH and the Work Group by the 

12 claimant's representative, [Identifying 

13 information redacted].

14 So we set up a Work Group meeting. 

15 We met on July 28th. We thought we would be 

16 able to cover these issues at that time. And 

17 actually, we did one.

18 NIOSH presented a method to bound 

19 doses from airborne and fixed contaminants in 

20 the tunnels, and SC&A accepted this bounding 

21 method.

22 The other topic of discussion, 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 SC&A actually questioned the NIOSH estimate of 

2 radon and daughters in the tunnels, radon that 

3 would have been generated in the soils around 

4 the tunnels.

5 The discussion then in the Work 

6 Group centered around NIOSH's approach to 

7 handle this. They have two methods to try to 

8 do this. One is diffusion calculations, and 

9 the other idea that came up is that maybe 

10 actual measurements can be made in the 

11 tunnels, which still exist today. Then, if 

12 that's possible, compare the two methods.

13 So what we are waiting for now is 

14 for NIOSH to complete this. They assured us 

15 that this could be done fairly soon. Give 

16 SC&A a chance to review it.

17 We will try to schedule another 

18 Work Group meeting shortly, and our plan is to 

19 bring this all to completion at the November 

20 Board meeting.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What 

22 specifically does NIOSH need to complete?
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay. They are 

2 looking at coming up with estimates of radon 

3 and daughters in the tunnels that would have 

4 been generated by the soils surrounding the 

5 tunnels.

6 There are two approaches to it. 

7 The one is to do some diffusion calculations, 

8 and Jim or somebody can help me on this. The 

9 other one was that it is known that the 

10 tunnels still exist. They were going to check 

11 to see if it would be possible to make some 

12 actual measurements in the tunnels.

13 And I think I forgot one thing. I 

14 think, also, there were some more records set, 

15 were found. They probably won't add much to 

16 this, but they were going to also check those 

17 and report on that.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I was a 

19 little confused with the sampling issue 

20 because I think that's a first, or it would be 

21 a first.

22 Any questions, other questions, on 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Linde?

2 (No response.)

3 Okay. Mark, LANL.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: We did have a 

5 Work Group meeting. I don't have the date 

6 right in hand.

7 But there are several outstanding 

8 issues as far as the Work Group stands. At 

9 this point, we are in the middle of -- NIOSH 

10 is working on coworker models, I believe is 

11 one of the big deliverables and the ever12 present other radionuclide issue I think is 

13 there as well, as well as tritides is now an 

14 issue.

15 So, at this point, we are in 

16 between Work Group meetings where NIOSH has 

17 action items and then SC&A has some action 

18 items as well. We will have to reschedule 

19 probably. I would think we could reschedule 

20 in mid-fall for another Work Group meeting, 

21 but we are not ready to bring our findings 

22 back to the Board yet.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What do you 

2 think about in terms of bringing -- because 

3 our next meeting, full Board meeting, is in 

4 Los Alamos or nearby, and the date on that 

5 is --

6 MR. KATZ: In November, the week 

7 before Thanksgiving, in Santa Fe.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I would 

9 think, and I would ask maybe Joe Fitzgerald to 

10 help me out, but I would think that we are 

11 probably not going to be ready for a final 

12 decision. We have an update on several of 

13 these action items within the Work Group's 

14 work, but I don't think we will be --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is Joe 

16 Fitzgerald.

17 I think the key issue is looking 

18 for NIOSH's responses and being able to --

19 MR. KATZ: Joe, can you come close 

20 to the microphone?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I think the 

22 key issue is being able to see the NIOSH 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 responses that were indicated in the Work 

2 Group meeting. So, I think that site, and I'm 

3 not sure where that stands. So it is hard to 

4 know where we will be.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I'm not 

6 sure. I have to look at the dates on this 

7 because I think we might be slipping on some 

8 dates, on estimates on action items, and 

9 delivering on behalf of NIOSH, you know, 

10 posting things to the O: drive by a certain 

11 time frame. Usually, it is a flexible time 

12 frame, but I am not sure what they have 

13 achieved to this point from our last meeting.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: The key issue 

15 will be just being able to see those products 

16 and be able talk to them, I think.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, at the very 

18 least, for the full Board meeting, I think we 

19 would have a much more detailed summary of the 

20 work that the Work Group is working on. But I 

21 don't know that we would be ready to push 

22 for a vote on it.
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Does NIOSH have 

2 any updates on when the response?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld.

4 No, we don't have anything on the 

5 schedule right now.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

7 have questions on it?

8 (No response.)

9 Okay, Mound.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, Mound had a 

11 Work Group meeting on July 27th. We had six 

12 open items on our agenda and closed the two 

13 items during our meeting.

14 The first item from our original 

15 matrix dealing with radon was Issue 2, the 

16 post-1980 years. If you'll remember, NIOSH 

17 reported at the last Board meeting that radon 

18 became a recognized and characterized concern 

19 after the venting of the tunnel in January of 

20 1980 and reported that the measurements taken 

21 in March of 1980, March of 1982, and March of 

22 1990 confirmed the radon levels were low. 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 That was all reported at the last Board 

2 meeting.

3 The Work Group had some concerns. 

4 We followed up on those concerns. That had 

5 to do with interviews with two rad techs 

6 claiming to have taken high readings. They 

7 pegged out their alpha meters, holding them 

8 over cracks in the floors in the 1980s. So we 

9 looked at that issue, and that was after the 

10 venting, suggesting that influx of radon into 

11 the R building. There was also a 1990 memo 

12 alluding to unexplained levels approaching DAC 

13 levels. 

14 Then, finally, we conducted an 

15 interview with a Mound radon site expert. 

16 Both SC&A, NIOSH, and Work Group Members were 

17 involved in that phone interview. That expert 

18 felt that the remedial action taken at that 

19 time proved successful.

20 With all that, the Work Group 

21 decided that they really had no choice but to 

22 close out the post-1980s radon issue with the 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 understanding that if additional data surfaces 

2 showing elevated levels anywhere in R or SW, 

3 NIOSH would need to reopen its 83.14 

4 proceedings.

5 Did I state that, Joe? Anything I 

6 missed there? I just wanted to give kind of 

7 an understanding because we did say that we 

8 wanted to look at that and that post-1980 time 

9 frame.

10 Secondly, we had a Pu-238 issue, 

11 which was Issue 9 of our original matrix. 

12 That was determined to be a TBD issue. NIOSH 

13 has agreed to make available in the TBD both 

14 Type L and Type J solubility models as 

15 bounding options.

16 Okay, I'm getting a nod from Jim, 

17 so that's correct.

18 The other items that we have open 

19 right now, there's four of them remaining, and 

20 both SC&A and NIOSH have more work to do. We 

21 had hoped to come to this meeting closing out 

22 Mound, but there's just still some stuff that 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 needs to be taken care of. Those include the 

2 neutron dose reconstruction, Issues 14 and 15; 

3 stable tritium compounds, that is our Issue 6. 

4 We have adequacy and completeness of internal 

5 dose, Issues 11 and 12, and we have a D&D, 

6 Issue 10, we're still working on.

7 So I am hoping that, if all the 

8 reports come in prior to the November meeting, 

9 we will try to meet and report to the Board in 

10 November on those final issues.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

12 Anybody have questions on Mound?

13 (No response.)

14 The Nevada Test Site, I don't 

15 think we really have any activity there, Bob? 

16 No, nothing? Okay.

17 MEMBER PRESLEY: The Test Site? 

18 No, sir.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Brad, 

20 Pantex?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: We had our first 

22 Work Group meeting 5/4/2010 of this year. We 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 have several issues that we are starting into.

2 One of the things, NIOSH has got 

3 several action items. One of the big ones 

4 that they've got is how they are going to 

5 back-extrapolate the information from 1990 

6 back to 1948. They are working on that, going 

7 to bring this back.

8 SC&A had several action items that 

9 they are working on, and we are hoping to get 

10 a Work Group together in the next two or three 

11 months.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody have 

13 questions on Pantex?

14 (No response.)

15 On Pinellas, Phil?

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: There has just 

17 been a White Paper on the tritium issues that 

18 Pinellas just issued, which, to be honest with 

19 you, I don't think I have distributed to all 

20 the Work Group yet.

21 As far as the tritium issues go, 

22 we are kind of holding off having a Work Group 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 meeting because much of the same issues are 

2 being dealt with in the Mound Work Group, 

3 rather than have duplication here.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So you're not 

5 planning any meetings?

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Not at this 

7 time, no.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Piqua. John?

9 MEMBER POSTON: The Piqua Work 

10 Group had its first meeting on July the 8th at 

11 the Marriott. Dr. Fields and Mr. Schofield 

12 and myself composed that Work Group.

13 There is a Petition Evaluation 

14 Report, but there is no Site Evaluation Report 

15 for us to work with.

16 We did have a fairly lively 

17 discussion trying to understand organic 

18 moderated reactors and the sources of 

19 exposure, and so forth. We have put together 

20 sort of a plan to move forward trying to 

21 answer some of the questions that need to be 

22 answered.
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Some of the data is missing, but, 

2 hopefully, will show up, which we have a 

3 request to Landauer for the dosimetry data. 

4 We discussed in great detail the potential 

5 neutron exposures; also, production of 

6 nitrogen-16 and other exposure sources.

7 So, right now, we are just 

8 beginning. We do have a path forward, and we 

9 will continue to meet.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

11 Any questions for Dr. Poston?

12 (No response.)

13 Thank you.

14 Portsmouth, Paducah, K-25. Phil?

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: SC&A has 

16 released a matrix in June. Right now, the 

17 ball's back in OCAS's court. I know they are 

18 doing some work on it, but this is something 

19 that we need to get on the schedule, so that 

20 we can get a confirmed date when they will be 

21 ready. Then we will set a Work Group meeting.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu or anybody 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 from NIOSH, do you have an estimate on that?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It looks like we 

3 hope to have an internal product about 

4 September, next month.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So it will be 

7 sometime after that by the time we start with 

8 you.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, possibly 

10 October or something?

11 Rocky Flats. Mark, have you had a 

12 chance? You missed Jeff's update. So, Jeff, 

13 you and Mark can get together because I think 

14 the Work Group is sort of holding off until 

15 that. Okay.

16 Santa Susana. Mike?

17 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, Jim, we had a 

18 meeting. Nothing new since the last Board 

19 meeting. We did have a Work Group meeting 

20 back on April the 20th, and currently DCAS is 

21 working on a coworker model for internal dose. 

22 They have indicated at the last meeting that 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it will probably be spring of 2011 before they 

2 will be ready. So we are kind of on hold 

3 until they get that ready.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

5 questions for Mike?

6 (No response.)

7 Savannah River.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we had a 

9 Work Group meeting I believe in May. I guess 

10 this is one that I just got --

11 MR. KATZ: Mark, can you lean a 

12 little closer to the microphone?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just got a 

14 little briefing from SC&A on the status of 

15 some of the action items from the last Work 

16 Group meeting. I would love to hear a little 

17 more feedback from NIOSH on where things stand 

18 because at this point, best we can tell, 

19 nothing has been posted that was agreed upon 

20 in the previous Work Group meeting.

21 And several of these things were 

22 just a matter of -- NIOSH indicated to the 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Work Group that we have this completed, this 

2 data, and we had tasked SC&A with reviewing 

3 and looking at it. It was just a matter of 

4 posting, we thought. SC&A is telling me that 

5 it is not even there to be reviewed. So, I am 

6 concerned that several of these actions 

7 outstanding for Savannah River have had no 

8 movement.

9 I know the only thing that I do 

10 know that is happening is there is a tour. 

11 I'm not sure exactly the date, but SC&A is 

12 involved with that, as well as the Board was 

13 included to go down to the site and review, 

14 targeted at the tritide issue. That is 

15 happening soon or it might have happened 

16 already.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's going to 

18 happen August 29th through September 3rd, I 

19 believe.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that's fine, 

21 and that's certainly important and one of the 

22 issues we brought up in the Work Group 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 meeting. But several of these other things 

2 that certainly we could be making progress on 

3 seem to have stalled, and I am quite concerned 

4 about that, that there's been no movement.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu.

6 I apologize for that. We will see 

7 to it that it happens in the next few days, if 

8 it is stuff we have that we just need to put 

9 out there for review.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe you 

11 can give us a better update tomorrow at the --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: All right, I'll 

13 try.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

15 Thanks. That would be great.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

17 questions on Savannah River?

18 (No response.)

19 SEC issues. Well, we will have a 

20 report this afternoon, an update on the less 

21 than 250 day issue.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Jim?
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes? Pardon?

2 MEMBER BEACH: I just had a 

3 comment, but I will wait until you're 

4 finished.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead. Go 

6 ahead.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I should have 

8 brought it up during LANL. I received an 

9 email from Andrew, and I did it forward it on 

10 to Ted and Jim. But I wanted to mention that 

11 he was hoping that we could set up some type 

12 of a tour for that site at our next meeting 

13 since it's going to be close. So I just 

14 wanted to mention that.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So we 

16 will have an update on the less than 250 day 

17 issue this afternoon and discussion on it.

18 The other item pending with the 

19 SEC Issues Group is the Dow Madison, and there 

20 were a number of issues in terms of some of it 

21 is new documentation; some of it is making 

22 sure the petitioners had adequate access to 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 information, had a number of questions that 

2 needed to be answered.

3 So we will try to hold the 

4 meeting, and presuming that all this 

5 information has been exchanged, and so forth, 

6 we will try to do a meeting of the SEC Work 

7 Group to deal with Dow Madison. The timing of 

8 that will somewhat depend on our discussions 

9 this afternoon on the 250 day issue.

10 Any questions on that? Yes, Brad?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, I'm sorry, 

12 this doesn't have to do with the 250 days, but 

13 it's --

14 MR. KATZ: Brad, can you talk into 

15 the microphone, please?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. The 

17 problem, the question that I was going to 

18 bring up, and I don't know if this is the 

19 right time or not, we have tasked SC&A to look 

20 at the Clarksville and Medina Sites, which 

21 they are in the process of.

22 Now I have been courtesy-copied on 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that because the Pantex Work Group is really 

2 the only one that some of this stuff that we 

3 can deal with. I am wondering if we should 

4 roll that under the Pantex Work Group now, the 

5 reason being is so that there's a point of 

6 contact, so that we kind of have a feeling of 

7 what's going on with it, and so forth like 

8 that.

9 I don't really feel that I can 

10 respond to anything because I'm not the Chair 

11 or anything else for those two smaller sites. 

12 They haven't had a Work Group assigned to 

13 them, but due to the complexity of them, I 

14 don't see any other Work Group but the Pantex 

15 Work Group being able to review it.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's a good 

17 point. Yes, normally, we wait for the SC&A 

18 review --

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then form 

21 a Work Group. It's sometimes delayed, and 

22 then there's also SEC petition issues that 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 come in. But I actually think, given the 

2 issues that Brad raised, to me, that makes 

3 sense, is to fold those under the Pantex Work 

4 Group going forward.

5 Does anybody have any problems 

6 with that? Especially since the Work Group 

7 Chair volunteered.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes. A lot 

10 of the thing is because of the classification 

11 issues, but also, too, a lot of the 

12 documentation is actually at Pantex.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I 

14 appreciate you bringing that up. It is a good 

15 point. So you've got them.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. KATZ: The broader Work Group.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The broader Work 

20 Group.

21 Okay. We will do the Subcommittee 

22 on Dose Reconstruction tomorrow morning.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 TBD-6000.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: TBD-6000 is 

3 currently focusing mainly on General Steel 

4 Industries and, to a lesser extent, on Bliss & 

5 Laughlin.

6 In the case of General Steel 

7 Industries, we have received from the 

8 petitioner, [Identifying information 

9 redacted], within the last two months, 

10 actually, a number of additional documents 

11 that he has uncovered, some documents in June 

12 that deal with consideration of air activation 

13 from the accelerators, and then, also, some 

14 documentation relating to possible additional 

15 source terms, some information provided in 

16 mid-June. That material has been distributed 

17 to the Work Group, as well as to NIOSH.

18 We will need NIOSH's evaluation of 

19 that material in order to have a productive 

20 next meeting. I would like our next meeting 

21 to be in October, if possible, and maybe 

22 piggyback during the week that some of the 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 other meetings in Cincinnati will occur 

2 because of overlap in the Work Group 

3 membership. But, in any event, we will need 

4 to look at the new documentation, and we will 

5 need to have NIOSH's responses on those.

6 Then, in the case of Bliss & 

7 Laughlin, we have the SC&A review of the 

8 Evaluation Report, which they completed, I 

9 believe, in May. We will need NIOSH responses 

10 on that as well.

11 So, I am hoping that those 

12 materials will be ready for the Work Group to 

13 address in the next meeting, which will, 

14 hopefully, be in October, since the Chair is 

15 not available, basically, in September in any 

16 event.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any questions 

18 for Paul?

19 (No response.)

20 TBD-6001. Henry?

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, we had our 

22 first meeting, and I think we did a good job 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of getting through the matrix that had been 

2 already developed. We also got through, we 

3 began to focus on electrochemical issues.

4 There has been a significant find 

5 in data, box data anyway, from 

6 electrochemical, and NIOSH was in the process 

7 of going through that. We tasked SC&A to 

8 review it to see whether that made the 

9 difference of available information, and could 

10 it be used and how it would impact assessments 

11 for electrochemical.

12 We came up with an agreed-upon set 

13 of priority activities. Both SC&A and NIOSH 

14 are now in the process of developing a 

15 timeline for deliverables and specific details 

16 of what will be done for us.

17 So now we are hoping to get that 

18 and perhaps have another meeting before our 

19 next face-to-face meeting. Hopefully, we will 

20 be able to knock off many of the issues that 

21 have been languishing a bit on some of this.

22 But we spent a day, but it went 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 quite rapidly through the materials. I think 

2 we focused on or created a plan for the most 

3 critical issues to address. So I think we're 

4 making headway.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

6 you, Henry.

7 Questions? Brad?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sorry.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. It may 

10 have been up for quite a while. I might not 

11 have noticed it.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: It was. Sorry.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. The next 

14 Work Group is mine, use of surrogate data.

15 I distributed to the Board -- we 

16 had discussion at the previous meeting -- I 

17 distributed a couple of comments, a couple of 

18 changes to the document that came forward. So 

19 I made those changes, distributed it to the 

20 Board. So I think, at least for the present 

21 period of time, our activity on the Board 

22 policies or guidelines -- excuse me -- is 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 complete.

2 The Work Group also has an 

3 outstanding SEC to address, which is with the 

4 Texas City one. We are waiting on that for 

5 NIOSH to make a decision on how they were 

6 going to go forward, I believe, on the radon 

7 issue.

8 Are we still waiting?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think we 

10 are pretty close to coming forward with 

11 something, but we don't have anything yet 

12 today.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Because 

14 once NIOSH has made this decision and come 

15 forward in terms of documentation, then we 

16 would be scheduling a Work Group meeting, I 

17 think, to address Texas City. So we will 

18 definitely try to do something to address that 

19 before the next meeting, but it obviously 

20 depends on what NIOSH proposes.

21 Any questions on that?

22 (No response.)
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Weldon Springs, which is Mike, a 

2 brand-new Work Group.

3 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. Jim, as you 

4 know, this is one of the new Work Groups you 

5 just appointed, asked me to Chair, along with 

6 Bob Presley and Richard Lemen.

7 We have not had a meeting, our 

8 first meeting yet. We are just taking a 

9 little time to kind of read back through and 

10 re-familiarize myself with the SEC Evaluation 

11 Report, and then to look back through the 

12 Weldon Springs Site Profile. And hopefully, 

13 we can get a meeting scheduled in October, 

14 along with some of the other meetings.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Thank 

16 you. Thank you, Mike.

17 Any questions for Mike on Weldon 

18 Springs?

19 (No response.)

20 Then, Worker Outreach, that's also 

21 Mike.

22 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. Jim, our 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 last meeting was March the 19th of this year. 

2 We're still working on some issues.

3 I think Ted sent out to, I 

4 believe, the whole Board a spreadsheet kind of 

5 demonstrating how he had someone on his staff 

6 had taken the public comments from the 

7 meetings and incorporated them onto this 

8 spreadsheet, and how they're tracked. So we 

9 can kind of watch this process and see how it 

10 serves us, see if it needs any modifications; 

11 see if there's other areas that we need to 

12 better track worker comments. So we're just 

13 in the process of doing that.

14 Again, hopefully, we can have a 

15 follow-up meeting sometime in October.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good.

17 And again, to reiterate what we 

18 talked about yesterday, because of just sort 

19 of the delay in the timing on some of this, at 

20 our next Board call we would be reviewing the 

21 comments from the previous meeting, yes. So 

22 good.
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Any questions for Mike?

2 (No response.)

3 In follow-up, Wanda gave the 

4 report on the Procedures Review Subcommittee 

5 yesterday. She did distribute an email, I 

6 believe last night, I think to the entire 

7 Board.

8 MEMBER MUNN: To the Board.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I don't 

10 know if people have had a chance to look at 

11 that. That was in response, I think, to our 

12 discussion, my comment and the discussion on 

13 sort of clarifying the process.

14 I actually would also ask that you 

15 also look at clarifying the same thing in the 

16 individual reports. I don't think it has to 

17 be long. I think it's adding a sentence or 

18 something just to clarify that. But I think 

19 that's fine to do as you go into these next 

20 five, I believe it was, and then we'll be 

21 probably reviewing those at our next Board 

22 meeting, I assume.
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: I would hope that 

2 would be the case.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: And I would assume 

5 that the electronic link would appear --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Within the body or 

8 at least at the end of each those reports, in 

9 any case.

10 So, if anyone has any problem, I 

11 will be glad to read the suggestion.

12 Yes, it looks as though Dave has a 

13 question.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I just wanted, 

16 Dr. Melius, when you first raised this issue, 

17 it seemed like you were questioning how the 

18 attribution of authorship was represented on 

19 these documents. And while what's proposed is 

20 to add some text to another document 

21 describing the process, I'm not sure it gets 

22 to really the spirit of what you are doing, 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 which is that we are putting forward a 

2 document in which there is ghost authors, 

3 basically, is my concern, and whether it might 

4 be more appropriate just to say this document 

5 is prepared by SC&A, and then below that, on 

6 the face page, say with text, substantial 

7 comments or revisions and editing. So that 

8 there's basically, as in other written 

9 documents, the authorship is clearly 

10 communicated to the reader.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that was 

12 what I was trying to -- you actually expressed 

13 it better than I did. Do that, that we have 

14 some clarification on each sort of about the 

15 process involved in these documents. 

16 Sometimes this is a Board product, not an 

17 SC&A. SC&A is a contractor to the Board, and 

18 they're not, you're right, the sole authors. 

19 We have approved those as a Board, do that, 

20 and just needs to be, I think it's a sentence 

21 or something, clarification. Maybe it's the 

22 heading or a footnote, as David I think was 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 suggesting.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, if you would 

3 like, we could, of course, include a formal 

4 tracking sheet at the face of these two5 pagers, as we have done in other reports. We 

6 can get as extensive as you would like with 

7 respect to attribution.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't think 

9 we're asking to be extensive, but just some 

10 small clarification of the process there.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Could I ask, David, 

12 if you have some suggestion with respect to 

13 something other than the wording that has been 

14 presented here? If you would like to send it 

15 to me, I will be more than glad to bring it to 

16 the Subcommittee and redistribute it to the 

17 Board.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was actually 

19 thinking of something much simpler than a 

20 tracking sheet or something. It's that 

21 currently it says, "Prepared by SC&A". It 

22 could say, "Prepared by SC&A and the Working 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Group on" -- I mean it's often, if somebody 

2 makes a draft of something, and I begin to add 

3 text to it, if it's editorial, I say, you 

4 know, "Your semicolon needs to be moved." But 

5 when it gets to substantive changes to the 

6 document, it becomes something that I have 

7 participating authorship of, and you would 

8 simply put your name as one of the authors. 

9 Then you would take responsibility for the 

10 content.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Do you have my 

12 wording in front of you right now?

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. My 

14 understanding was --

15 MEMBER MUNN: If you do, may I 

16 make a suggestion then? May I ask whether in 

17 the first sentence, would it suit your need if 

18 it read, "When the technical reviews are 

19 complete and all deficiencies have been 

20 resolved, a brief summary of what has 

21 transpired in the resolution process is 

22 prepared by Sanford Cohen & Associates and the 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews?" If we

2 removed the "presented to" words, would that 

3 achieve the clarity that you're seeking? Or 

4 do you want names?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think what we 

6 are referring to, Wanda, is, as I understand 

7 your email, it is that you are referring to 

8 the introductory page.

9 MEMBER MUNN: I am.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We're referring 

11 to each procedure page. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: As I 

13 understood it, you have a one-page document 

14 which describes the production of a series of 

15 reports, and you're describing the process 

16 here in this paragraph.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm saying the 

19 face page of each of those reports would have 

20 attribution of authorship of all those who 

21 contributed to the authorship of that report. 

22 If that report floats out there and somebody 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 picks it up, they know who wrote it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: All right.

3 Steve, are you here?

4 Will we have any problem listing 

5 the SC&A authors as well as the Members of the 

6 Subcommittee who are involved in these 

7 individual reports on the face page?

8 DR. OSTROW: In general, we don't 

9 put individual names on any of the reports we 

10 do.

11 MEMBER MUNN: I know, but we're 

12 being asked to.

13 DR. OSTROW: I don't see why we 

14 should change it here. If we are going to do, 

15 I think, 53 of these two-pagers, if the 

16 Subcommittee intends to actually participate 

17 in those and edit them, then I would suggest 

18 just add the SC&A and the Procedures 

19 Subcommittee on the title page of the two20 pagers and that's all.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, what I'm 

22 trying to identify here is whether the Board 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 wants actual names of authorship in there. I 

2 am getting the feeling they do.

3 DR. OSTROW: I don't remember us 

4 ever doing this on any report that we have 

5 produced, put an individual's name here. 

6 There's no problem doing it, but it would be a 

7 precedent.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

9 I guess I will need to get a 

10 response from the Board in order to --

11 DR. OSTROW: I don't quite 

12 understand. Why would the Board want to put 

13 individual names on a report like this?

14 MEMBER MUNN: I know it's an 

15 archive report, but --

16 MR. KATZ: Can I make a suggestion 

17 here, David and Steve?

18 I mean these reports are really --

19 I mean, what SC&A is just doing is distilling 

20 down the resolution process that occurred in 

21 the Subcommittee really. So all the 

22 Subcommittee Members participated, 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 substantially, in producing the resolution of 

2 these issues.

3 What SC&A is doing is writing it 

4 up, basically, like a reporter, and trying to 

5 do it in a way that is clear and simple enough 

6 that non-technical people, our audience out 

7 there of claimants and petitioners, can 

8 understand what has happened with the 

9 procedure that was evaluated.

10 So, it seems to me it would be 

11 fine for the reports to be simply credited as 

12 Subcommittee reports prepared with the 

13 assistance of SC&A, and that, then, credits 

14 the Subcommittee, which is really the 

15 authority, not SC&A. SC&A is, again, doing 

16 the Subcommittee's bidding, and that's good 

17 for that. It's very simple.

18 DR. OSTROW: We would be fine with 

19 that.

20 MR. KATZ: Does that suit you, 

21 your concerns, Paul or David?

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, actually, 

2 Ted, you took the words out of my mouth, which 

3 is a very unsanitary way of speaking, by the 

4 way.

5 (Laughter.)

6 But I think what you are 

7 proposing, and the thought I had, was maybe 

8 these should be Board reports. I mean they 

9 are a Subcommittee, but reports of the Board. 

10 And we haven't had that in the past. We 

11 haven't had something that we called a Board 

12 report, but this would be a Board report that 

13 is prepared with the assistance of the Board's 

14 contractor. And basically, it just summarizes 

15 what was done with the main SC&A document, how 

16 it was resolved and what the outcomes were. 

17 So I guess I am sort of seconding that 

18 concept.

19 I agree the attribution probably 

20 is everyone on the Subcommittee because they 

21 are all involved in working the words, and 

22 that was the case in this particular one.
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 DR. OSTROW: SC&A is fine with 

2 whatever the Subcommittee decides on this. 

3 What Paul is suggesting sounds good.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks, Steve.

5 Well, I hope that the general 

6 feeling is that we are all right as long as --

7 the concept of having this be a Board report 

8 seems logical to me. There's no reason why 

9 the face page on these two-page reports should 

10 not say, "Report of the Advisory Board on 

11 Radiation and Worker Health, compiled by the 

12 Procedures Subcommittee and Sanford Cohen & 

13 Associates," or whoever the contractor may be 

14 in 2030.

15 If there's no objection to that, 

16 we will proceed on that assumption.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That was my 

18 concern. And I'm ambivalent on whether you 

19 list names or not. It may be hard, given the 

20 group authorship, so to speak, and different 

21 people, and I think it may be difficult to 

22 identify, and I'm not sure it adds, though, to 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it.

2 I think, as I recall, it's 

3 clarified in the reports, the individual 

4 reports, the views. So, if you're trying to 

5 trace back who was involved in the technical 

6 review, and so forth, that would be available.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, the individual 

8 technical documents are all authored.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. And 

10 Dr. Ziemer's wording was fine, but, I mean, if 

11 there's other wording that fits better, when 

12 you format these documents, there may be some 

13 better way of doing that also. So I think as 

14 long as it captures the concept, I think that 

15 was my concern anyway.

16 MEMBER MUNN: We will proceed on 

17 that assumption unless I get significant 

18 feedback from the Board to the contrary.

19 The one thing I would ask before 

20 we leave this topic is some direction with 

21 respect to our point of contact at the agency 

22 in order to set up this electronic database, 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 so that it is easy to contact. If I know who 

2 to be talking to about that, or if I know who 

3 is going to be talking to me -- Stu?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is from 

5 the Procedures Work Group?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I would start with 

8 Brant.

9 MEMBER MUNN: All right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Brant Ulsh.

11 MEMBER MUNN: All right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And he may direct 

13 you directly to Leroy or somebody.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Start with Brant.

16 MEMBER MUNN: All right. Thank 

17 you.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

19 Thank you, Wanda, on that. Did I miss a Work 

20 Group?

21 (No response.)

22 I think we got them all.
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Is everyone prepared in terms of 

2 having calendars handy, and so forth, in terms 

3 of dealing with the scheduling?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, if 

6 someone is not, we can postpone it and do it 

7 later. It was sort of listed on the agenda 

8 for tomorrow, but if everyone's ready -- I 

9 just don't want somebody, when we start moving 

10 dates around or something, having people not 

11 ready.

12 So, the Board Members on the 

13 phone, are you --

14 MEMBER FIELD: No, that would be 

15 fine.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I can do it anytime 

18 you want to do it.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mike, are you 

20 there?

21 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that's fine. 

22 I can do it now.
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good. 

2 Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, if you look 

4 on your annotated agenda, I outlined -- and 

5 this caused a little confusion last time 

6 because it seemed like a teleconference that 

7 would go on for two weeks -- but I outlined 

8 two weeks that are sort of best placed sort of 

9 in terms of time between one Board meeting and 

10 the next for the next teleconference following 

11 our meeting in Augusta.

12 So I have the dates. The week 

13 April 11th through the 15th of 2011 and April 

14 18th through 22nd. That's sort of the best 

15 time frame, if we can find a day in there. We 

16 generally have shot for Wednesdays for 

17 teleconferences, but there's no need to be on 

18 a Wednesday.

19 So I guess it would be good to 

20 hear dates that don't work.

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, the EIS 

22 conference is the week of the 11th.
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, and that consumes 

2 the entire week?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, the entire 

4 week, yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, is the week of 

6 April 18th, does everyone have some 

7 availability that week?

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: That's good for 

9 me.

10 MEMBER MUNN: April?

11 MR. KATZ: April, yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: April 18, yes, that 

13 week.

14 MR. KATZ: So the 20th would be 

15 Wednesday?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Does that work for 

18 everyone?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Fine.

20 MR. KATZ: Well, that's easy.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: People, Board 

22 Members on the phone?
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, does that work for 

2 you, Bill and Dick and --

3 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, it works for 

4 me. Bill.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: The week of April 

7 18th, you're saying use the 20th?

8 MR. KATZ: April 20th is the 

9 suggestion.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: That is fine with 

11 me.

12 MR. KATZ: 11:00 a.m. is usually 

13 the time we use for conference calls.

14 And, Mike, how about you?

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that is good.

16 MR. KATZ: Done. April 20th, 

17 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. It's usually two to 

18 three hours, unless we have a very full plate.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Usually less 

20 than two.

21 MR. KATZ: I always overestimate.

22 (Laughter.)
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: He is. We 

2 always have it scheduled from like 11:00 to 

3 5:00, but it's something to keep us. It's 

4 like on this agenda he has -- we were working 

5 until 11:30 p.m., from 10:30 a.m. until 11:30 

6 p.m.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. KATZ: I'm trying to get my 

9 money's worth out of you.

10 (Laughter.)

11 Okay. Then we have a face-to12 face, and I have laid out the time frames 

13 there. The last two weeks in May or the week 

14 that overlaps into June.

15 First of all, let's just hear if 

16 any of those weeks are off the table 

17 completely for anyone.

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: The last two 

19 weeks in May I'll probably have some 

20 graduations.

21 MR. KATZ: So, Phil, are you 

22 saying the last two weeks of May are off the 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 table because they don't work for you?

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, they don't 

3 work for me. I suspect a lot of people 

4 probably will have some graduations.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, how is the 

6 week May 31st to June 3rd for people?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is the 16th one of 

8 the last two --

9 MEMBER GIBSON: Ted, this is Mike.

10 Wouldn't that require us to travel 

11 on Memorial Day?

12 MR. KATZ: I think I left out 

13 Memorial Day. Oh, yes, well, it depends. If 

14 we started on the 31st, yes, but I believe 

15 Memorial Day is the 30th.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it is.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. So we still 

18 would --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that the last 

20 week of May or --

21 MR. KATZ: Well, it depends if we 

22 started the 31st or we started June 1st. I 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 guess June 1st, if we are not going to travel 

2 on Memorial Day. June 1st through the 3rd. 

3 So that would be ending on a Friday, which is 

4 I think okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Is it not possible 

6 for us to move that a little earlier in May? 

7 Is it impossible to get --

8 MR. KATZ: Phil is saying that he 

9 has a conflict.

10 MEMBER MUNN: The last two weeks 

11 of May?

12 MEMBER BEACH: So the week of the 

13 16th is bad, Phil?

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Ted?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes? I am sorry, 

16 Dick, can you speak up? You are hard to hear.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Where will this be 

18 located?

19 MR. KATZ: Well, that's the second 

20 question.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: That might make a 

22 difference to whether you want to do it this 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 week or whether you want to do it the 

2 following week.

3 MEMBER BEACH: I like the week of 

4 the 16th of May, if everybody is available. 

5 Phil is still looking, but you get into 

6 vacations and stuff possibly the first week of 

7 June. I don't know. That's my thought.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: The 16th of May is 

9 okay for Dick Lemen.

10 MR. KATZ: Phil? Phil, would that 

11 work for you?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I think that 

13 would work.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you want to 

15 check? We don't need necessarily to finalize 

16 this right now.

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I will 

18 check and get back with you in a couple of 

19 hours from now. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. Do we want to 

22 talk about locations?
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: So do you want 

2 us to tentatively hold that week?

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will decide 

5 this afternoon --

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Oh, okay.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: When we come 

8 back.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: It won't fill 

10 between now and then. Don't worry.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Maybe. Bill and 

12 Mike, you're okay with those weeks?

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Jim, it's Mike. 

14 It's good for me.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You're okay?

16 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. It's 

17 good for me.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Location?

19 MR. KATZ: So, locations, we have 

20 Augusta, and then we have Santa Fe. No, the 

21 other way around, Santa Fe and then Augusta. 

22 Is that correct? Yes.
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: Augusta is February 

2 23rd, 24, 25.

3 MR. KATZ: It would be helpful to 

4 think about which Work Group feels like they 

5 will be teeing up. In fact, it would be nice 

6 to show up at a site where we are ready to 

7 deliver. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have been 

9 uniformly unsuccessful --

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. KATZ: It is very difficult to 

12 do, absolutely. It is very difficult to do.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and 

14 especially guessing so far ahead.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I don't think 

16 we have to settle the location right now.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, but --

18 MR. KATZ: Maybe you all want to 

19 think about location and get back to me by 

20 email. We can do some thinking and discussing 

21 with DCAS as well in terms of their scheduling 

22 and what kind of location.
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are there any 

2 locations -- I'm trying to think what were 

3 candidates last time. We did --

4 MR. KATZ: The candidates last 

5 time, the places were Augusta or we discussed 

6 the possibility of going back to Tennessee.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Some of 

8 that was weather-related.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So we're talking 

11 about May.

12 MR. KATZ: Which would be good.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MEMBER BEACH: I will vote for 

15 Tennessee.

16 MR. KATZ: We haven't been there 

17 in quite a while, right?

18 MEMBER PRESLEY: We talked about 

19 going to Nashville, moving around to the sites 

20 that were down there, too.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Which is Tennessee.

22 MR. KATZ: And that leaves quite a 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 bit of time for the Work Groups that are 

2 dealing with the Tennessee sites.

3 Any suggestions, concerns?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

5 possible sites?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Are we still 

7 discussing February?

8 MR. KATZ: No, February is set. 

9 We are discussing May. February is Augusta. 

10 Okay. So we'll look into Tennessee. And, 

11 Bob, you're suggesting Nashville is a good 

12 location?

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: That was one of 

14 the things that came up last time, is that we 

15 go to Nashville. That's between Oak Ridge and 

16 Memphis. You've got Milium in there. You've 

17 got Clarksville right up above Nashville. The 

18 Oak Ridge people can get there, if they want 

19 to.

20 MR. KATZ: What kind of distance 

21 is that for the Oak Ridge?

22 MEMBER PRESLEY: It's about 160, 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 180 miles.

2 MR. KATZ: Oh, that's quite a 

3 ways.

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: If you remember, 

5 last time we were in Knoxville we didn't have 

6 hardly anybody came from Oak Ridge.

7 MR. KATZ: So we'll look into 

8 Nashville.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Another location 

10 that's been mentioned repeatedly, it's not a 

11 site, but it's the Washington, D.C. area. 

12 We've had requests to appear there. I'm not 

13 sure that May is the best.

14 MEMBER PRESLEY: Henry and I are 

15 still pushing for the Bikini Atoll.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: We haven't been 

18 up in Alaska for a while.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Amchitka in 

20 February.

21 (Laughter.)

22 We'll have a special Subcommittee, 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 a special Work Group we'll send up there, just 

2 a site visit.

3 (Laughter.)

4 We can discuss, if anyone has 

5 thoughts --

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, we'll look into 

7 this, but, yes, if you have other thoughts, 

8 and even beyond this Board meeting, it won't 

9 be set in stone that quickly.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Do you want to 

11 address Work Group calendars at the same time?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can. I 

13 guess what I was going to say, we need to know 

14 from sort of the NIOSH side what are bad 

15 dates. What I heard from everybody was we're 

16 talking about October, seemed to be the month. 

17 I don't know if you're ready, Ted, but what I 

18 was going to suggest is over lunch, maybe, 

19 sort of NIOSH and Emily could consult and sort 

20 of tell us what dates are available or aren't 

21 available. Some of the Work Groups can then 

22 think about --
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: As a point of 

2 information, Procedures is scheduled for the 

3 13th.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: Emily is here, so she 

6 could participate in this, but I mean I have 

7 dates already laid out that are open for 

8 October. So we can talk about those.

9 I would, I guess, ask whether 

10 there are any groups that would be meeting 

11 before October. It gets fairly intense when 

12 everybody is meeting in the same month, but 

13 maybe you want to think about that while we go 

14 through October.

15 So, October, actually, it's quite 

16 open. October, we have a teleconference 

17 already on October 7th. So that's off. And 

18 October 13th is the Procedures Subcommittee, 

19 and October 25th through 27th is unavailable. 

20 But the rest of October is open.

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: I need to get a 

22 Linde Work Group in there before the next 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Board meeting, and maybe I can get some advice 

2 from NIOSH as to when we can schedule that. 

3 When will you have your material? In about 

4 three weeks, which would be early September. 

5 Then SC&A needs some time to go over it. So 

6 we could be ready probably for the Linde Work 

7 Group by the end of September, early October 

8 maybe.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I am not available 

10 September 6th through October 9th myself.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

12 Hinnefeld.

13 I would just caution it will be 

14 hard for us to establish travel towards the 

15 end of September, you know, to get the travel 

16 set and paid for for September.

17 MR. KATZ: I mean we will need to 

18 book it now, if we need to.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I had to book mine 

20 last week for travel for the end of the fiscal 

21 year.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. I had understood 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 we still have a couple of days. You may be 

2 under strictures.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: Josie, what were 

4 your out dates?

5 MEMBER BEACH: September 6th 

6 through October 9th, unavailable.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: So how about 

8 sometime after October 9th?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: Jim, and Mike is 

11 on the phone, what do you guys have? Anybody 

12 want to pick a date? Do we want to maybe make 

13 it in conjunction with another Work Group?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, that's what I 

15 was going to speak up because I'm going to 

16 look to Joe and NIOSH for Mound because I know 

17 we are going to want to meet before the 

18 meeting. Is that too early? I was thinking 

19 toward the end of October, but now those 

20 aren't available. So the week of the 18th21 19th, do you -- end of October. So, yes, as 

22 late as possible for Mound.
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the 28th and 

2 29th are available, right?

3 MR. KATZ: The 29th is available.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Is the 28th?

5 MR. KATZ: October 29th is 

6 available, but, no, the 28th is not.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Well, if we 

8 were doing back-to-back --

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: How about 

10 October 19th and 20th?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I would like 

12 to pencil in Mound for the 29th then.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: That puts it 

15 kind of late. If our Board meeting --

16 MEMBER BEACH: Our Board meeting 

17 is not until the 16th.

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: The 16th, so I 

19 guess that would work. So you're suggesting 

20 the 29th for Mound?

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: What day is it?

22 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes, what day of 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the week is that?

2 MEMBER BEACH: That's a Friday.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: How about the 

4 Thursday then?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Thursday's out.

6 MEMBER ROESSLER: Thursday's out?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that week only 

8 the 29th is available.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, that 

10 doesn't help then.

11 MR. KATZ: But, anyway, we have 

12 the 18th through the 22nd open. We have the 

13 11th or earlier. It could be Linde earlier 

14 than that.

15 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, we could 

16 be ready earlier I think.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. The 11th 

18 through the 12th, those dates are open. The 

19 11th is Columbus Day. Okay, the 11th is out.

20 MEMBER ROESSLER: How about 

21 October 12th for Linde?

22 MR. KATZ: The 12th?
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER BEACH: That is a Tuesday.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. How about 

3 October 14th?

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, October 

5 14th, does that work? We'll just celebrate 

6 your birthday. We'll take you out to lunch.

7 Okay, how about October 14th?

8 MR. KATZ: Linde we're talking 

9 about, yes.

10 MEMBER ROESSLER: The 14th for 

11 Linde? Steve, that's okay? Where's Chris? Is 

12 he still here? Okay, October 14th, Josie?

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: Mike Gibson?

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, that's fine.

16 MEMBER ROESSLER: And Lockey, 

17 October 14th?

18 MR. KATZ: Done.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, and then 

20 Mound October 29th. Paul, are you okay with 

21 that?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay with 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that, and I want to see if we can piggyback on 

2 Procedures for like the 12th because, Josie, 

3 you're involved in that also.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I believe 

6 maybe Mark is on both Procedures and TBD-6000, 

7 and Wanda is.

8 MEMBER MUNN: The 12th would be 

9 fine for me. Yes, I don't mind traveling on 

10 the 11th.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. So TBD-6000 on 

12 the 12th.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: And all of these, 

14 I think we're going to have to confirm, and I 

15 don't think we can do it here today. But, for 

16 example, I'll have to go back to Dave Allen on 

17 Stu's staff and make sure that the documents 

18 we need will be available, and likewise with 

19 the SC&A folks, where we need responses. I 

20 guess that's going to be the case for all of 

21 us.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: These are sort of 

2 penciled in pending confirmation that we'll 

3 have the documents because, if they're not 

4 available, it's not fruitful to meet.

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I would like to 

6 pencil in October 19th and 20th for INL and 

7 Gaseous Diffusion plants, October 19th and 

8 20th.

9 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Phil, I 

10 couldn't hear you.

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: October 19th 

12 through 20th for INL and Gaseous Diffusion 

13 plants.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: I don't know if 

15 we're going to -- hopefully, we'll have the 

16 6001 information, but if we could maybe put 

17 that group the 28th or 29th?

18 MEMBER MUNN: The 28th is not 

19 available. The 28th is penciled in for Mound 

20 right now.

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: How about the 

22 29th then?
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER MUNN: Mound is penciled 

2 in.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: The 27th?

4 MEMBER MUNN: No, the 23rd, 26th, 

5 27th, 28th is out.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: For everybody or 

7 for the INL?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, for everybody.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Why?

10 MEMBER MUNN: I think NIOSH and 

11 Ted and others are --

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, I am not 

13 available.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

15 MEMBER MUNN: People who have to 

16 be there can't.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: So, Phil, you suggested 

19 the 19th and 20th? Was that what you 

20 suggested?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, the 19th 

22 and 20th.
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: And that's for INL and 

2 for the Gaseous Diffusion?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. The INL 

4 would be on the 19th; the Gaseous Diffusion 

5 plants would be on the 20th.

6 MR. KATZ: So, Stu?

7 DR. OSTROW: Can that be the other 

8 way around?

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: The other way 

10 around? Anybody have a problem?

11 MR. KATZ: Can we just check in 

12 with Stu or someone about INL? I know INL 

13 some things are not going to be delivered in 

14 that time frame, according to the current 

15 schedule. So I'm just a little bit worried 

16 about that end of it.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the 

18 next proposed action on INL, isn't that where 

19 we're doing the technical phone call? Or is 

20 that something else?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Hopefully, the 

22 technical phone call occurs before that.
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we can do 

2 that before, and I would think that would be 

3 more informative about what can be ready in 

4 October. I just am not really in a position 

5 to say very much right now.

6 MR. KATZ: I think under the 

7 current schedule there are some elements that 

8 aren't going to be delivered on the revisions 

9 of the TBDs until November or December, if I 

10 recall correctly.

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: I mean, what's 

12 the first week in November like?

13 MR. KATZ: The 1st and the 3rd 

14 through the 5th are open for November.

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. So, I 

16 mean, if we tentatively do the 6001 on the 

17 2nd?

18 MR. KATZ: The 2nd is not.

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Oh, it's not? 

20 Okay, then the 1st.

21 MR. KATZ: The 1st and 3rd through 

22 5th.
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, actually, the 2nd 

3 could be. The only issue with the 2nd is it's 

4 Election Day. I don't know, some people, if 

5 you want an absentee ballot, then you can. If 

6 it's not a problem for the people who want to 

7 meet, then it's fine with me.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: How about the 

9 4th?

10 MR. KATZ: Sure. I mean the 3rd 

11 through the 5th is open. We just have to ask 

12 the Members.

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. Let's do 

14 that.

15 MR. KATZ: So November 4th for 

16 6001?

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, as a 

18 tentative. If we get the data, the 

19 information, by then, fine; if not, we'll turn 

20 it loose.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. And for the 

22 Gaseous Diffusion plants, the three, I guess 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that's also a question.

2 Phil, are you clear we'll have 

3 what we need from DCAS for that?

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Well, you know 

5 what? It seems like there's a number of 

6 conflicts, and given Stu's comments just now, 

7 maybe I'll try to move that into the first 

8 part of December.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay.

10 MEMBER BEACH: December? Okay.

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, rather 

12 than push it.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Both of them?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, both of 

15 them.

16 MR. KATZ: Mark, how about SRS? 

17 Just thinking that we'll have Augusta in 

18 February, do you think that's coming later 

19 after the next Board meeting?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was just 

21 telling Jim I want to try to get a hold of 

22 NIOSH and maybe Tim Taulbee before I try to 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 set a date --

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because I don't 

4 want to make it where, you know --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I do have an 

6 update on the documents. They had to go to 

7 ADC to be reviewed for classification. They 

8 came back from classification while Tim was on 

9 vacation. We'll have them up this week.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, Ted, how 

12 about if I propose November 30th and December 

13 1st? That should give everybody plenty of 

14 time on the Gaseous Diffusion plants and INL.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What were your 

16 dates again?

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: November 30th 

18 and December 1st.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If you do INL on 

20 the 30th -- I'm not available on the 1st.

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, it works 

22 for me.
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ROESSLER: And hope for 

2 good weather in February.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The first 

4 snowstorm.

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Just bring your 

6 snowshoes.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. KATZ: Paul?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm thinking we 

10 need to also pencil in the Lawrence Berkeley 

11 Work Group. It's Dr. Lemen and Dr. Richardson 

12 and me. And that will be dependent, I think, 

13 on NIOSH being in a position to respond to the 

14 SC&A review of the Site Profile. So, again, I 

15 don't know where we are on that or who the 

16 point person from NIOSH will be on Lawrence 

17 Berkeley.

18 LaVon, do you know?

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Hughes is our 

20 point person on Lawrence Berkeley.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: However, what 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 time frame are we looking?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I would say 

3 maybe if we could piggyback it onto, for 

4 example, for me, I will be at the Mound on the 

5 29th. So, if we can do like the 30th or --

6 MEMBER BEACH: That's a Saturday.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, okay, I 

8 guess that one's out.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I can push 

10 Mound off until the first week of November, if 

11 that's more helpful. I just don't want to go 

12 earlier in October.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. Well, 

14 maybe we could do that. Again, we need to 

15 check with David and Dick Lemen.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. So, we have 

17 6001 on November 4th. We could put these 

18 cheek by jowl, before November 3rd.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We will let you 

20 know on Berkeley because right now we have 

21 scheduled it in January. So we will have to 

22 juggle the schedule.
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes, I don't 

2 know that there is an urgency. It is just the 

3 fact that it is another item. We haven't met 

4 yet, but there is no point in meeting until 

5 you have a chance to look at those responses.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: We're just 

7 scheduled for a Berkeley product in January. 

8 And we are willing to adjust the schedule to 

9 what the Board wants to do. That's not an 

10 issue.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think you 

12 have a lot of items here.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I think maybe 

15 in that case we will just postpone on this 

16 one.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think 

19 that makes sense, Paul.

20 Any others?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I am 

22 wondering if Mike Gibson is thinking about a 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Worker Outreach meeting because I think he 

2 mentioned that he would try to schedule one. 

3 I don't know if you're ready for that, Mike, 

4 or not.

5 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, yes, I 

6 mentioned October only because I thought we 

7 were shut out of travel because of the end of 

8 the fiscal year. But I just find it's more 

9 efficient to let the dust settle on the 

10 schedule and then to email the individual Work 

11 Group Members to find a date, rather than just 

12 do it wholesale right here at the Board 

13 meeting.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that makes 

15 sense.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. There 

18 will be others. Phone ones are easier to set 

19 up. I just will say, in general, we are 

20 hoping, and it sort of takes time to sort of 

21 pick out these processes, but it's getting 

22 difficult to schedule these, to try to do 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that.

2 As we said earlier, we are trying 

3 to get a listing, and Stu is helping putting 

4 together something that will give us a 

5 schedule when to expect documents. So that 

6 when we come into the face-to-face meetings, 

7 we will have that available to us. Then I 

8 think we'll know, and then I think we can also 

9 probably prevail on both SC&A and on Stu to 

10 come in with schedules, too.

11 So if we can set the time frame, 

12 we'll figure out who's available, so that we 

13 have to do less scrambling or less contingent 

14 stuff. It's always going to be hard because 

15 things slip and there's classification issues, 

16 whatever, that are going to come up and delay 

17 things, and so forth. So we'll never be 

18 perfect, but I think the nice thing is, when 

19 we're all here, it does give us an opportunity 

20 to try to have everybody's schedule and try to 

21 work it out, and it's easier than trying to do 

22 it, I think, by email and scrambling, and so 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 forth.

2 I think we have all experienced we 

3 think we've got dates and then I'll send 

4 something to Ted, and he'll say, no, somebody 

5 else's Work Group has already grabbed that 

6 date, or something, or somebody is not 

7 available. It is hard.

8 So I think we can at least get 

9 more information. We will try to do some of 

10 this at each Board meeting. If there is other 

11 information or other ways you think would be 

12 helpful, let us know, but we will do that.

13 I mean one thing I have been 

14 doing, and I think it's working, but would 

15 certainly like some feedback, is also 

16 assigning only three Board Members to each 

17 Work Group, particularly where it's just a 

18 Site Profile review or something, because I 

19 think it just makes the scheduling easier. 

20 And I think it's adequate, but I mean in the 

21 past we have generally had four or more.

22 So I would appreciate feedback on 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 how that works as it goes along. I think it's 

2 too early to tell now, but it is just one way 

3 of trying to relieve some of the scheduling 

4 issues, and so forth. Everyone was getting 

5 assigned to so many Work Groups, that 

6 complicated the scheduling.

7 So good. Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. So I will send 

9 out a new schedule with availability for 

10 October and November, so that we can fill it 

11 in with other possibilities.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay.

13 I believe we're scheduled for a 

14 break now. So why don't we plan on being back 

15 here at one o'clock?

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 matter went off the record at 11:35 a.m. and 

18 resumed at 1:24 p.m.)

19

20

21

22

23
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 1:24 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. 

4 Welcome back.

5 We are going to reconvene the 

6 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

7 Let me check on the phone lines. 

8 We're starting a little bit late. We 

9 apologize for that, for those of you who have 

10 been waiting on the lines. But let me check 

11 with my Board Members on the line to see that 

12 they're back with us.

13 Dr. Lemen?

14 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm here.

15 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Field?

16 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: And Mr. Gibson?

18 MEMBER GIBSON: I'm here.

19 MR. KATZ: Great. Thank you.

20 Let me just remind others 

21 listening on the phone to mute your phones, 

22 please. Use *6 if you don't have a mute 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 button, and then pressing *6 again will take 

2 you off mute. Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This afternoon, 

4 at least for the first part of the afternoon, 

5 we are going to discuss the SEC Evaluation 

6 Work Group sort of ongoing review on the less7 than 250 day health endangerment issue. 

8 However, we have been working on this a while. 

9 I'll give a brief sort of overview 

10 of what we have done, and so forth. Then 

11 Arjun will present some of the information on 

12 some of the sites that we are involved in. 

13 Then NIOSH will have some comments also.

14 The purpose of this is not to 

15 reach any conclusion or decision at this point 

16 in time, but to get some Board discussion and 

17 sort of figure out how we want to handle this 

18 issue going forward -- it's something we have 

19 worked on for a while -- and understand the 

20 issue better. So, it's sort of an open 

21 discussion on this.

22 We have circulated some of the key 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 documents. There's lots of documents here 

2 because I think Ted provided you with some of 

3 the key background documents. I provided you 

4 with sort of the latest draft of the 

5 guidelines that the Board Work Group has been 

6 working on, and there's also one of the other 

7 documents is a summary report on the three 

8 sites, just to summarize what our really 

9 several other reports are. Arjun will present 

10 that later when we do that.

11 So I think that's sort of the 

12 information background on this, and so forth, 

13 and we'll get started.

14 I will just note for the record 

15 some of our Board Members are dealing with 

16 some computer security issues. So they will 

17 be rejoining us, I think, over the next 15 

18 minutes or half an hour.

19 Stu passes the computer test. I 

20 thought we were going to have to get Laurie 

21 back. She's on her way to the airport.

22 This issue has been going on for 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 so long we're not even sure what to call it. 

2 We do it because it deals with that. So I've 

3 sort of titled for today the less-than 250 day 

4 issue. It's not quite right, but I guess it's 

5 close enough, at least for discussion purposes 

6 to do that.

7 My guess is from the reports, and 

8 so forth, this goes back to at least 2006. It 

9 may even be a little bit longer that we have 

10 been meeting to discuss this. I believe it 

11 first came up with the Ames Site. 

12 Subsequently, we talked about it a little bit 

13 with the Met Lab and also with the Nevada Test 

14 Site.

15 All three of those sites were 

16 referred to the SEC Evaluation Work Group to 

17 address this issue. These were either the 

18 potential for consideration of someone less 

19 than 250 days as health endangerment either 

20 came up at our SEC review of the site or just 

21 something as we were going through a review on 

22 a NIOSH report we noticed that this also sort 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of fit into that grouping, and the issue 

2 needed to be addressed with that site.

3 We have had many, many Work Group 

4 meetings on this to discuss it. It's not 

5 always been the only thing on the agenda. 

6 We've talked about general guidelines and 

7 we've talked about how it would apply to each 

8 site. There are reports that address that; 

9 also, both SC&A and some NIOSH reports on 

10 this.

11 Why is it a problem is because in 

12 the regulations, and really in the law in 

13 terms of health endangerment, there is not a 

14 quantitative threshold on that in terms of 

15 exposure. We bifurcated it in the regulation, 

16 at least putting this simplistically as 250 

17 days of work or presence at a site and that a 

18 discrete incident -- I'll go into that more 

19 later, but that's been sort of how we have 

20 guided this.

21 We had discussions of this when we 

22 did the original SEC regulations, about how to 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 approach this. I remember some of the Board 

2 discussions and trying to decide what to do 

3 with it. We, I think, continued, probably 

4 discussed the same issues, and it is difficult 

5 to resolve.

6 I think the context for this, for 

7 the discussion here today, is really we are 

8 looking at situations that health endangerment 

9 is a decision made after the question has been 

10 settled of whether or not you can do dose 

11 reconstruction, whether it's feasible for that 

12 site. If it's not feasible, then there's a 

13 review of essentially the health endangerment 

14 criteria.

15 But, in other ways, as you will 

16 see from some of our discussion, they are 

17 linked. But it usually is the general 

18 procedure has been to do it sequentially, and 

19 that's what's called for.

20 Like all the other issues we 

21 struggle with, it's also something that's more 

22 of an issue at older sites, where there's less 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 monitoring, less documentation, and less 

2 information to work from.

3 These next two slides are sort of 

4 the keywords from the regulation. Every time 

5 we go into a review of this, we sort of 

6 memorize these and pick out keywords and tend 

7 to forget them by the next meeting. But some 

8 of these are key.

9 What we are trying to do going 

10 forward is really to focus on these and try to 

11 come up with some guidelines or guidance on 

12 how it would apply in situations that we're 

13 dealing with. So let me just briefly read 

14 this.

15 What the regulation says is, "For 

16 Classes of employees that may have been 

17 exposed to radiation during discrete 

18 incidents, likely to have been involved in 

19 exceptionally-high exposures such as nuclear 

20 criticality incidents or other events 

21 involving similarly high levels of exposures 

22 resulting from the failure of radiation 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 protection controls, NIOSH will assume for the 

2 purposes of this section that any duration of 

3 unprotected exposure could cause a specified 

4 cancer and, hence, may have endangered the 

5 health of members of this Class. Presence 

6 with potential exposures during the discrete 

7 incident, rather than a quantified duration of 

8 potential exposure, will satisfy the health 

9 endangerment criteria."

10 I think that's the correct quote. 

11 So issues in terms of, what is a discrete 

12 incident, what's an exceptionally-high 

13 exposure, become, I think, sort of critical, 

14 and to a lesser extent, failure of radiation 

15 protection, and so forth, also becomes 

16 something that may be reviewed as part of this 

17 issue.

18 We have gone through this, as I 

19 said, discrete incident. We have mainly 

20 focused in our discussions so far on 

21 exceptionally-high exposures as being what we 

22 needed to struggle to try to define in some 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 way. And I'll go through a little bit of the 

2 background on that.

3 Originally, at one point, probably 

4 around 2006, we thought that criticality 

5 incidents would sort of be a benchmark that we 

6 could use for defining these incidents or for 

7 comparison purposes. We then had SC&A do a 

8 background report on identifying and sort of 

9 briefly describing a large number of 

10 criticality incidents.

11 And we found that there was a wide 

12 range of exposures of those, and that by 

13 itself it was not something that would 

14 establish a clear threshold for comparison 

15 purposes. So we sort of didn't abandon that, 

16 but it was just something that wasn't going to 

17 be helpful in terms of developing some 

18 criteria.

19 We have also had extensive 

20 discussions on coming up with other numerical 

21 criteria, but that's difficult for a number of 

22 reasons, and so forth. And part of that 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 reason is, with any numerical criteria for 

2 what would be an exceptionally-high exposure, 

3 we are dealing with a situation where we can't 

4 reconstruct dose; therefore, there's a great 

5 amount of uncertainty about, well, how do you 

6 estimate what the exposure is that you're 

7 using for comparison or how high it could be, 

8 and so forth? That's difficult, and something 

9 that I think will become more important as we 

10 look at specific sites or specific candidates 

11 for dealing with this issue on that.

12 So, for our most recent meetings, 

13 we have come up, and what you will see in the 

14 draft guidelines that I circulated is that we 

15 would have to reach some sort of judgment 

16 based on some general guidelines and some 

17 examples as a way of at least specifying or 

18 providing a range for what would be 

19 exceptionally-high exposures from a discrete 

20 incident. And that's what we put forward in 

21 terms of the drafts that we have been working 

22 with so far in this area.
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 There are other issues, I think, 

2 that are sort of less important for the Board, 

3 for us to deal with directly on this. We have 

4 had some discussions in our Work Group on, 

5 what does it mean with failure of radiation 

6 protection controls?

7 We also have issues where some of 

8 these sites we're not talking about a single 

9 discrete incident; we're having multiple 

10 discrete incidents, and that also poses some 

11 complications in terms of how we approach this 

12 at a particular site because the regulation 

13 would seem to specify that it is a single high 

14 incident that is the focus for this. It's 

15 presence at that incident, a discrete incident 

16 of that.

17 We also have in some of these 

18 situations, partly based on the lack of good 

19 information, monitoring, particularly in the 

20 early years, we have some situations where 

21 there may be exceptionally-high exposures, but 

22 it's not clear that they are occurring from 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 discrete incidents. I think it is clear in 

2 those situations that at least they appear to 

3 be exceptionally-high exposures, and it raises 

4 the issue of, are we being fair to claimants 

5 by requiring the 250 days?

6 In fact, in at least one of these 

7 situations, most of the people employed or 

8 many of the people employed in this particular 

9 site were only there for a few months and 

10 wouldn't qualify. Yet, certainly compared to 

11 some of the other sites that we have looked 

12 at, their exposures would have been much 

13 higher.

14 So, it's been in trying to be fair 

15 and consistent, think of some way of 

16 addressing that. That may be difficult within 

17 the current regulations since these may really 

18 not be discrete incidents, and we'll have to 

19 sort of decide what to do in dealing with 

20 those situations, if we want to try to 

21 addressing it in some way.

22 So our plan for the Work Group, 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 next steps, is we want to spend more time 

2 looking at the three candidate sites, Ames, 

3 Met Lab, and NTS. Then, to the extent that it 

4 is warranted, come forward with 

5 recommendations on those sites. Then, 

6 secondly -- probably this is a misspelling 

7 there -- to then finish the guidelines and do 

8 that.

9 I'm not sure how we do this 

10 stepwise, whether we'll do the guidelines 

11 first and then that, but I think we are still 

12 not sure how this will work and what would be 

13 best to put in the guidelines to make them 

14 helpful for our review, and so forth.

15 So what we thought would be useful 

16 for the Board to share the information 

17 provided is to talk about the three sites 

18 because they are the ones that have been 

19 referred to the Work Group and where we would 

20 like to come to some resolution on, or at 

21 least have some idea on a way forward for 

22 dealing with these three sites.
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So I will stop here. We briefly 

2 can take some questions, or if you want to 

3 wait until later on after you have heard the 

4 other presentations, that's fine also.

5 So anybody have questions?

6 (No response.)

7 Anybody on the phone, Board 

8 members on the phone, have questions now?

9 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. Not 

10 yet, Jim.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: Not at this time 

13 yet.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Bill?

15 MEMBER FIELD: No.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Then let 

17 me turn it over to Arjun.

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. I'm 

19 Arjun Makhijani from SC&A.

20 Over the years, a number of 

21 reports were prepared for the Work Group on 

22 this topic, the site-specific reports related 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to these studies. In the last Work Group 

2 meeting we had, the Work Group directed us to 

3 summarize what was relevant, you know, in the 

4 context of the discussions that have been had 

5 in the Work Group. So it might be helpful in 

6 both perhaps providing some way forward on 

7 these specific sites and on developing 

8 guidelines. So that's what we have done.

9 You have a PA-cleared as well as 

10 full report with the specifics of doses and 

11 claimants, and so on, with you. I believe 

12 both were circulated.

13 So we look at these three case 

14 studies, Ames to 1954, Met Lab, and NTS, which 

15 I split into two periods, atmospheric and 

16 underground testing. We haven't really looked 

17 as carefully at the underground testing period 

18 from the less-than 250 day period, but I 

19 wanted to give you a brief recap of what we 

20 have.

21 Okay. You've already seen this. 

22 Dr. Melius talked about it. As he mentioned, 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the direction of the last Work Group meeting 

2 was to take the key phrases, and HHS counsel 

3 as well as the Work Group reminded everybody 

4 that while we're considering the individual 

5 phrases, the intent is to look at the 

6 paragraph as a whole and to kind of place the 

7 meanings of these things in that context. So 

8 that's what we have tried to do, as I go 

9 through these examples.

10 Now 42 CFR 83 has that criticality 

11 example in the paragraph itself. Then, in 

12 other parts of 42 CFR 83, where it says who 

13 might file an SEC petition, it has a couple of 

14 other descriptions, although they are not part 

15 of the paragraph that says less than 250 days 

16 SEC can be granted.

17 The second bullet is important, 

18 depressed white blood cell count or chelation 

19 therapy, because that exception paragraph does 

20 not have any specific reference to what might 

21 be exceptionally high for internal doses. So, 

22 initially, we had quite a lot of discussion: 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 well, you know, how do you feel with 50-year 

2 committed doses, and so on?

3 Then, over time, it was pointed 

4 out that there are these two specific things 

5 in guidance for filing an SEC petition, and 

6 that they might constitute a specific internal 

7 equivalent for the exceptionally-high 

8 exposures that criticality accidents was meant 

9 to serve. But you'll see in practice it's 

10 quite complicated.

11 So, at Iowa State University, we 

12 know that there were these blowouts where you 

13 had uranium and thorium tetrafluoride 

14 reduction to metal, and there would be a 

15 reaction that took place too fast and then the 

16 material from the crucible would blow out and 

17 cause a lot of dust. There were a lot of 

18 blowout incidents, including six documented in 

19 one day.

20 The very important sort of point 

21 in this example is that we know there were 

22 incidents. We know there were many of them. 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 But we cannot place any individual. We don't 

2 know Worker X was on such-and-such day in this 

3 blowout because that information simply does 

4 not exist. So we know that most of the people 

5 were there routinely, and perhaps people that 

6 were not there so often would have very likely 

7 experienced a blowout, but we can't relate the 

8 blowouts to individual workers.

9 And we haven't considered the 

10 residual period at all. We've just considered 

11 the production period during which these 

12 blowouts would have occurred.

13 So what we did in following the 

14 Work Group's direction was to prepare a table 

15 with the key terms, so that you could see them 

16 all together and give you a sense of where the 

17 existing data stands. As I go through this, 

18 you will see that all of the kind of points of 

19 difficulty that Dr. Melius talked about are 

20 illustrated.

21 So, in the reports that SC&A did 

22 on Ames, we attempted to calculate what might 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 have been an exposure during a blowout, what 

2 might have been an intake during a blowout. A 

3 hundred nanocuries. But the idea wasn't to do 

4 a dose reconstruction. The idea was to come 

5 up with a number that was plausible which 

6 might indicate whether exposures were high or 

7 not.

8 Now we didn't make a judgment 

9 about whether chelation therapy would 

10 definitely be considered today, but probably 

11 maybe considered. And there might be a 

12 mixture of consideration here, depending on 

13 the number of incidents or a single incident.

14 NIOSH also did one report on this 

15 topic. While there were some arguments with 

16 the specifics of how SC&A did its estimate, 

17 there was sort of a general agreement that you 

18 could come up with some idea of what happened 

19 during a blowout.

20 NIOSH also tried to reconstruct a 

21 thorium dose based on some bioassay data, but 

22 those bioassay data are not known to be 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 related or not related to any incident.

2 And the results of that dose 

3 reconstruction were that you could get lung 

4 doses, you could estimate lung doses as high 

5 as, I think the first year was 8,000 rem, and 

6 50-year committed doses, obviously, were 

7 higher than that. This was considered 

8 implausibly high by NIOSH.

9 But the bottom line for this 

10 particular discussion is that we have a range 

11 of estimates out there, including doses in the 

12 tens or hundreds of rem to the lung and bone 

13 or doses that were considered implausibly high 

14 that can't be related to an incident. But, 

15 generally, if you look at other exposed 

16 workers, they might be considered high. 

17 Whether they would be considered high in terms 

18 of chelation, you would have to have a more 

19 precise intake estimate. Now the exposure, 

20 the duration of the incident was brief 

21 generally, less than one day in terms of 

22 exposure, maybe minutes.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 The second example is Met Lab. As 

2 you know, it is famous for the first chain 

3 reaction, but there were also a lot of other 

4 things going on, including potential internal 

5 exposures to plutonium, as I will show you.

6 And here we come across situations 

7 where it's not clear that we can actually 

8 calculate anything. It's clear there was 

9 contamination, and it's not clear whether 

10 there were incidents.

11 So, there are some discrete 

12 external exposure type of situations where 

13 some workers were involved in handling radium, 

14 and there is a discussion of what might be 

15 regarded as a failure of radiation controls in 

16 the sense that exposures were known to be 

17 higher, much higher, than the tolerance doses.

18 Now this was in the normal 

19 performance of job duties. So you will have 

20 to decide whether this would constitute an 

21 incident. It certainly wasn't an accident 

22 because somebody was doing something they were 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 required to do and were getting above 

2 tolerance, quite a bit above tolerance doses 

3 every day as a result of that.

4 Now, in some cases, there were 

5 blood count changes. We have some 

6 documentation of what that meant at that time 

7 in terms of the prevailing practices.

8 So, for the Met Lab documentation, 

9 it says that more than 21 rads, white blood 

10 cell count would be more than 21 rads, but 

11 there's no actual number.

12 At Y-12, we have documented that 

13 they didn't detect white blood cell count 

14 changes for doses as high as 300 rads. So 

15 that maybe much higher qualification that you 

16 see is based on then contemporaneous data from 

17 Y-12. So we don't know how to put a limit or 

18 bound a dose or have an approximate number, 

19 but we know it's more than 21 rads.

20 There was an incident where there 

21 was an exposure related to cyclotron where 

22 there was also documented blood count changes, 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 but we have no details on this incident at 

2 all. It's simply mentioned in one report.

3 Now I have to qualify this. We 

4 have produced a report on the Met Lab, but we 

5 haven't been directed to do an exhaustive 

6 effort on any one of these incidents to make 

7 sure that we have all the available 

8 information. We haven't gotten to that point 

9 yet.

10 Then there were plutonium 

11 exposures at Met Lab. In these cases, it's 

12 not known, we had no information as to whether 

13 it was related to an incident.

14 We have one case of a fecal sample 

15 where you can make a low-end estimate, 

16 certainly not a bounding estimate. We have no 

17 bioassay data, no air concentration data. So 

18 this 7 rem and 12 rem might be considered as 

19 simply that we know that the dose is more than 

20 this, but we don't know how much. Therefore, 

21 we don't know whether chelation might have 

22 been used or not. We don't know whether there 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 was an incident, and we don't know whether 

2 there was a failure of radiation controls. So 

3 there are several situations like this.

4 In another case, there was 

5 plutonium tracked into workers homes, on their 

6 faces, on their skin, refrigerator. Again, we 

7 don't know whether this was a result of 

8 routine contamination occurring during 

9 processing, whether there was an incident, but 

10 it was certainly noted as a problem in the 

11 documentation of the time. Again, we don't 

12 know if there is an incident, and we have not 

13 enough information to make any dose 

14 calculation at this time. We haven't 

15 attempted to do that.

16 All right, the Nevada Test Site, 

17 so I divided this into atmospheric testing and 

18 underground. Atmospheric testing, we actually 

19 did a specific report.

20 Maybe some of the Board members 

21 don't have all of these reports, and if you 

22 would like, please tell me. I would be happy 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to send them to you because I have them in my 

2 computer right here, and I can do it right 

3 away.

4 So there is external and internal 

5 examples of this, and there were high 

6 exposures during Operation Teapot, but those 

7 are documented. We know those exposures.

8 Now one of the big things that has 

9 come up is, if you can put a number to a dose 

10 during an incident, does it meet the SEC 

11 criteria? This appears to be an unsettled 

12 issue for you to consider, in that when you 

13 get to health endangerment, you have already 

14 said you can't do dose reconstruction. But, 

15 at the same time, you may have dose 

16 information for the incident. So whether you 

17 are considering health endangerment for the 

18 incident or whether you are considering that 

19 as a new SEC all by itself is kind of an 

20 issue.

21 At the Work Group meetings, we 

22 have talked about 25 rads to 50 rads as 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 meeting the definition of a high dose. 

2 There's been no numerical resolution to this. 

3 I just have noted this to give you a little 

4 bit of a sense of what the Work Group 

5 discussions have been like.

6 So there have been some internal 

7 dose issues during the atmospheric testing 

8 period. Now we know there were bioassay data 

9 after Shot 4, the plutonium safety test that 

10 had a criticality associated with it. So 

11 there's an accidental criticality here. We 

12 have some high external exposures.

13 The indicated internal intake, the 

14 high end of it would qualify by NCRP 

15 guidelines for chelation therapy today, at 

16 least by our calculations.

17 And then, again, you have a 

18 question as to whether this would qualify for 

19 high exposure. It would appear to qualify for 

20 high exposure, but we're not sure, and have 

21 not investigated, whether the external and 

22 internal intakes took place at the same time. 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So that's an open question.

2 Underground testing, there are a 

3 couple of incidents that we know about. There 

4 was Yuba in 1963, radioiodine exposures, and 

5 there was an external exposure incident. I'm 

6 not going to show you that slide. I have a 

7 more redacted version, but I'm going to skip 

8 over that slide.

9 You have the non-PA cleared 

10 version of this. So you will have all the 

11 numbers, but I can summarize for you that 

12 there was an incident during cobalt-60 source 

13 change out where there were high organ doses, 

14 and those organ doses may meet the criteria of 

15 exceptionally-high exposures. There have been 

16 explicit estimates. So here, again, you have 

17 the question of whether you have high 

18 exposures, whether you can estimate the dose, 

19 and whether that qualifies under the rule.

20 Yuba, highest recorded thyroid 

21 exposures during 1963. There was a failure of 

22 radiation controls. That is quite 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 well-documented and was investigated at the 

2 time, and there was a several-hour incident at 

3 which workers were present.

4 And this just summarizes that we 

5 have done a number of reports, two reports on 

6 Ames and a NIOSH response, one report on Met 

7 Lab, one on NTS atmospheric testing, all 

8 dedicated to this one issue, quite apart from 

9 other reports that have been done.

10 Then there was one SC&A issue that 

11 was called "Parsing Health Endangerment 

12 Criteria." I believe that was probably the 

13 first one that we produced, and that was the 

14 team that produced this report.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, 

16 Arjun.

17 Any questions for Arjun at this 

18 point?

19 (No response.)

20 Any of the Board Members on the 

21 phone have questions at this point?

22 (No response.)
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Okay. If not, then Sam Glover 

2 will have some comments from NIOSH.

3 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. 

4 Melius.

5 I would like to extend my 

6 appreciation to the members of SC&A and my 

7 team. We picked this up in January, and as 

8 Dr. Melius said, it has been something that 

9 has been going on for a long time. It's been 

10 four years we have been looking at Ames and 

11 some of these other facilities. We have 

12 discussed this quite a bit in technical phone 

13 calls, had several meetings, and it's a 

14 complicated issue and bears a lot of 

15 interesting analysis.

16 So at our last conference call, we 

17 agreed to review some cases that SC&A put 

18 forth. I would like to make a brief comment. 

19 So in the July 31st working 

20 conference call, we agreed to review the 

21 examples as provided by SC&A. So I want to 

22 state that we reviewed them as they were put 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 forth. We didn't try to add any additional 

2 detail or try to find the point and 

3 counterpoint that gets involved when you get 

4 into the very detailed kind of analysis. We 

5 let them pretty much stand at face value.

6 And something that I really want 

7 to point out is that we really had to make 

8 sure that the dose must be infeasible to be 

9 reconstructed and then you look at these 

10 particular discrete incidents for it to be 

11 considered for the basis of a Class. So it 

12 is, for that incident, if it's infeasible, 

13 then you can move forward to find out is that 

14 an exceptionally high exposure that is so 

15 egregious that it would warrant presence and 

16 not this 250-day, so an exception to the 

17 length of time required. So there is this --

18 for that very specific, independent, 

19 individual discrete incident.

20 So a general comment also would be 

21 that, apparently, or based on our review, just 

22 this very quick review, many of the examples 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that have been put forth are plausibly bounded 

2 based on, again, our preliminary review. 

3 Again, some of these have been going on for 

4 four years. So I don't want to -- you know, 

5 before the Board, it's not something that is 

6 preliminary. There's been a lot of 

7 discussions back and forth. But based on the 

8 evidence put forth and the SC&A review, we put 

9 forth that, based even on the words that they 

10 have used, that they are actually plausibly 

11 bounded.

12 So, again, due to the short time 

13 available to review these, our opinions are 

14 based solely on the information contained in 

15 the SC&A report and also based, obviously, on 

16 the current rule that exists. There has been 

17 discussion about rule changes or what makes 

18 more sense, but everything right now is based, 

19 obviously, on the current regulation and rule 

20 that is set forth as we believe we understand 

21 them.

22 Chelation was brought up. It's 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 kind of an interesting way to start out. Dr. 

2 Art Wahl was a colleague of mine, and he 

3 actually was a co-discoverer of plutonium in 

4 1943. And after they got done building the 

5 bomb, his quote was, "We've built it. Now 

6 develop in vivo methods and chelation methods 

7 to get it out of us." So there was no 

8 chelation before 1946. So these early time 

9 frames, they were hoping to get some method to 

10 actually alleviate it. So I just thought I 

11 would bring that up, somebody I got to work 

12 with which was rather unique.

13 So I'm just going to go directly 

14 into the cases that have been previously set 

15 forth. We chose a fairly simple format to 

16 respond.

17 So for Ames Laboratory, I want to 

18 be specific that the basis for the current 

19 Class is the inability to reconstruct thorium. 

20 So we concluded that it can reconstruct 

21 uranium dose. So there's no infeasibility.

22 So the Ames blowout incidents, 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 which the basis for the Class was our 

2 inability to reconstruct doses from the 

3 thorium blowouts. So I will speak to each of 

4 these individually.

5 So there's the uranium blowouts, 

6 based on our current analysis, can be 

7 reconstructed. So there's no reason to go to 

8 Part 2. We've already established that 

9 there's no infeasibility at that point. That 

10 particular incident has to be infeasible, 

11 then, to go to the next phase.

12 So for a thorium blowout, the 

13 first criteria is can we reconstruct dose for 

14 a single incident. So NIOSH evaluated the 

15 SC&A report and observed that while it was 

16 likely high-sided, it provided a valid 

17 framework for consideration of dose for a 

18 single incident. Thus NIOSH believes dose 

19 from a single incident is bounded.

20 So only by combining this with an 

21 observation that an unknown number of 

22 incidents occurred did NIOSH reach the Class 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Definition that came forth, which was that we 

2 can't do dose reconstruction at Ames. So 

3 NIOSH comments based on the observations set 

4 forth in the SC&A report, "It is not possible 

5 to reconstruct the dose associated with an 

6 unknown number of multiple discrete 

7 incidents."

8 So for the Metallurgical 

9 Laboratory radium source handling, the basis 

10 for the current Class is the inability to 

11 reconstruct internal or external dose from 

12 plutonium, radium, fission products, uranium, 

13 and progeny. So the SC&A report indicates a 

14 chronic exposure scenario on the order of up 

15 to several rem per day. So we don't see any 

16 evidence put forth or really established for a 

17 discrete incident.

18 A several-rem-per-day exposure 

19 does not, we believe, necessarily meet the 

20 criterion for exceptionally high exposure from 

21 a single incident, as put forth in the 

22 regulation. So based on the observations set 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 forth in the SC&A report, the criteria for 

2 establishing health endangerment based on 

3 presence during the discrete incident may not 

4 have been met.

5 So for the cyclotron exposure, and 

6 again, this is the same current Class, we see 

7 that insufficient evidence was available to 

8 determine if a discrete incident was actually 

9 involved. So if exposure to a discrete 

10 incident occurred, the blood changes appear to 

11 meet the definition of exceptionally high 

12 exposure.

13 So for the plutonium case 1, the 

14 basis, again, the same basis for the Class. 

15 The description of the case put forth in the 

16 SC&A report we believe fails to establish a 

17 discrete incident. If this dose were a 

18 discrete incident, the 7 to 12 rem internal 

19 dose cited we don't believe would meet the 

20 criteria for exceptionally high exposure. So 

21 based on the observations set forth in the 

22 SC&A report, that criteria of establishing 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 health endangerment based on presence during a 

2 discrete incident may not have been met.

3 For case 2, a description of the 

4 work again fails to establish a discrete 

5 incident. The worker doses for an externally6 contaminated worker would not, in and of 

7 itself, meet the criteria of exceptionally 

8 high exposure. Again, therefore, based on 

9 these criteria set forth, establishing health 

10 endangerment based on presence during a 

11 discrete incident may not have been met.

12 So the NTS atmospheric testing 

13 external exposures. So the basis for the 

14 current Classes. In `51 through `62, internal 

15 doses from suspended or resuspended 

16 radiological materials; from January 2nd, `63 

17 through 1992, internal dose for all members of 

18 the Class.

19 We note that several examples 

20 might qualify as discrete incidents. However, 

21 we also put forth that exposure rate data does 

22 not in itself establish dose to an individual. 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So that external dose might be reconstructed 

2 using the dose rate information and stay 

3 times.

4 So based on the observations set 

5 forth in the SC&A report, the criteria, again, 

6 for establishing health endangerment based on 

7 the presence during a discrete incident might 

8 not have been met. Actually, I believe that 

9 may be the failure to establish infeasibility 

10 may not have been met.

11 All right, so I think we are at 

12 the plutonium exposures here. So for the 

13 plutonium exposure for NTS, the description of 

14 the case put forth in the SC&A report does not 

15 clearly identify a discrete incident. The 

16 existence of bioassay data implies that the 

17 internal dose to this worker may be able to be 

18 reconstructed. So, again, because of the 

19 feasibility component, we believe that the 

20 criteria associated with this presence versus 

21 time may not have been met for this example.

22 For external exposure, a cobalt-60 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 example appears to qualify as a discrete 

2 incident. The existence of dosimeter badge 

3 readings seems to indicate that the doses

4 could be reconstructed. So, therefore, you 

5 haven't found an infeasibility to reconstruct 

6 dose. So, therefore, you wouldn't go to step 

7 two.

8 For the radioiodine exposure, the 

9 iodine example Yuba event appears to qualify 

10 as a discrete incident. The existence of 

11 thyroid measured uptakes in dose estimates 

12 seems to indicate the doses can be 

13 reconstructed. So based on the observations 

14 set forth in the SC&A report, we don't believe 

15 that we have established a basis for health 

16 endangerment or going down the path for 

17 reviewing health endangerment, based on the 

18 presence of a discrete incident may not have 

19 been met for an infeasible discrete incident.

20 And finally, the final plutonium 

21 exposure for NTS underground testing. The 

22 underground testing of plutonium does not 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 clearly identify a discrete incident based on 

2 our review of the data that we put forth.

3 The existence of bioassay data 

4 implies that internal dose to this worker 

5 could be reconstructed. So, again, therefore, 

6 based on the observations set forth in the 

7 SC&A report, we don't believe that, again, we 

8 have met the criteria.

9 So with that, I certainly would 

10 take any comments or questions from the Board.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any specific 

12 comments or questions for Sam?

13 Yes, Phil?

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, I've got 

15 one on the blowouts. How you can tell us that 

16 you can bound the internal dose without 

17 knowing how much they actually took in?

18 DR. GLOVER: For which one, sir?

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: For the 

20 blowout, the thorium blowout.

21 DR. GLOVER: For the thorium or 

22 the uranium blowout, because the uranium 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 blowouts we have bioassay data. There was a 

2 report put forth by SC&A which established --

3 it was reviewed by the Work Group, the team.

4 One of the things that makes this 

5 difficult is there is a series of Working 

6 groups, all who deal with the very, very 

7 specific details. Up to this point, I really 

8 haven't been part of that.

9 So the thorium exposure that's put 

10 forth, there have been hypotheses -- not 

11 hypotheses. There's been proposed models to 

12 actually come up with a reconstructable dose. 

13 So NIOSH still contends that that proposed 

14 model is valid, that the model, the proposed 

15 method for reconstructing dose for thorium 

16 blowouts, based on, I believe, uranium data --

17 and certainly correct me if I'm wrong. I have 

18 several colleagues in the audience who are 

19 very close to this. So that we believe we can 

20 reconstruct dose from thorium.

21 I believe, also, the amount of 

22 material for thorium was much less. These 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 were small ingots. So this is where you get 

2 into, if you have to review everything -- we 

3 only review these based on the data put forth 

4 in the SC&A report. We didn't really try to 

5 get into a very detailed point and 

6 counterpoint and didn't want to try these 

7 points in -- not try them, but try to 

8 completely go into all the details in front of 

9 the Board. We really tried to only review the 

10 facts that were put in front of us.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Arjun, we will 

12 let you comment.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just a small 

14 clarification on this and a couple of other 

15 things. The SC&A report didn't attempt to or 

16 present itself as creating an upper bound for 

17 a blowout dose. Actually, we had some 

18 information from Fernald. We had some 

19 estimates of how big the building might be and 

20 a number of other things including, if I 

21 remember correctly, one or two assumptions 

22 that would indicate that that piece of it 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 would make it not an upper bound dose.

2 So it was presented as a way of 

3 creating a ballpark idea of where the dose 

4 might be, so if you come up with an idea that 

5 the committed dose was 10 rem, then you could 

6 walk away from a committed organ dose of 10 

7 rem or 5 rem, and you could walk away from the 

8 idea that it was exceptionally high.

9 But if it was 50 or 100 or 200, as 

10 it turned out to be the case, then you would 

11 have a question of whether you want to 

12 consider this internal dose as exceptionally 

13 high.

14 The idea of the SC&A work at least 

15 was not to create a model for dose 

16 reconstruction, and certainly not for bounding 

17 the dose. That's also true of some of the 

18 other things I presented to you, like the 7 to 

19 12 rem example was explicitly cited as a low20 end estimate and not a bounding because we 

21 only have one fecal sample.

22 We also pointed out -- I agree 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 with Sam on a number of these things -- it's 

2 not clear that these are incidents and whether 

3 they would fall into -- but all of these 

4 things were not -- the dose estimates that we 

5 made were not made with the idea that they are 

6 bounding doses or modeled doses.

7 The short answer here is that 

8 there were many different ideas and you could 

9 discuss whether they are exceptionally high or 

10 not.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And can I just 

12 add, Sam is relatively new to this effort, and 

13 we had been working with Jim Neton before. 

14 He's conflicted now on this particular Work 

15 Group at least with regards to this situation. 

16 So this has got a long history of back and 

17 forth.

18 So the conundrum on Ames, I think, 

19 is that, yes, theoretically, you can maybe 

20 reconstruct one dose, but when you get an 

21 actual case, an individual, they may have 

22 multiple incidents and you are not sure which 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 one they were exposed to. So is it the one 

2 you have got information on or not? Then, 

3 given the basic problem of reconstructing 

4 thorium, it is even more difficult at this 

5 site. It is sort of hard to figure out where 

6 it falls in.

7 At one point, we actually thought 

8 the way to deal with Ames was to reconstruct, 

9 but then it turns out you can't because there 

10 are multiple incidents, you don't have enough 

11 information on them. You can't really -- that 

12 isn't practical for that.

13 So then we are sort of caught in 

14 between here sort of figuring out what to do. 

15 I think, yes, theoretically, you can. That 

16 is one thing for an incident, but then you 

17 have sort of this concept we talked about in 

18 sort of other situations, like General 

19 Electric. What's the probability of -- if 

20 there's a high probability a person was 

21 exposed at a significant incident, one of 

22 these incidents, then, that may have 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 exceptionally-high exposures, then does that 

2 qualify? 

3 It's not easy, and I don't think -

4 - the problem is I don't think we ever 

5 contemplated this when we were dealing with 

6 the original regulation. So we are trying to 

7 make something fit the actual situations that 

8 we're involved in and do that. So it is a 

9 long history of trying different approaches 

10 that might work or might not.

11 And I would just add, on the 

12 Nevada Test Site, one of the things we were 

13 trying to do is that, well, it may only be 

14 that when NIOSH goes to do an individual dose 

15 reconstruction that you discover whether or 

16 not you have enough information on that 

17 individual to be able to do the accurate dose 

18 reconstruction for him or her, based on 

19 whether their exposure would include one of 

20 these incidents. But, then, do we have a 

21 whole bunch of individual 83.14s? Basically, 

22 you would have to determine on a case-by-case 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 basis, which is sort of unwieldy and certainly 

2 would take a lot of time and effort.

3 So is there a more general 

4 approach that could be used? I don't think we 

5 are there yet on NTS. So it is complicated 

6 and difficult. I don't think any of these --

7 if these were straightforward, we wouldn't be 

8 still talking about them five years after we 

9 started or four years. At least on the Ames, 

10 we have claimants that are -- have been 

11 waiting.

12 I mean another issue that has come 

13 up is that, when we were originally doing the 

14 SEC determinations, we didn't think of 

15 whether, even contemplate whether you would 

16 want to reconstruct for during an incident. 

17 So we say you can't reconstruct thorium. 

18 Well, now are we going to go back? Do we 

19 start over again, when we have an incident, do 

20 the whole feasibility, dose reconstruction 

21 feasibility, or should we think of it at the 

22 time?
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Then that's further complicated by 

2 the fact that I think we don't have a lot of 

3 information on these incidents, and they may 

4 not even be recognized in our initial review 

5 on the SEC. So we sort of have to think how 

6 we are going to approach these.

7 Brad, you have a question?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. When I was 

9 listening to this, Sam -- and correct me if 

10 I'm wrong -- but you made the comment that 

11 NIOSH felt that this wasn't a high exposure. 

12 So do we have a number that you consider as 

13 high exposure?

14 Because I look in my industry 

15 right now, and if I get anything over a 

16 certain amount, they classify that as a high 

17 exposure. I'm looking back in the time frame 

18 20 years ago, that if I received a certain 

19 amount, you know, I had to go to the 

20 principal's office and everything else because 

21 it was classified as high exposure. And we're 

22 talking in the Rs, and I was never near any of 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that.

2 The thing that bothers me, and I 

3 feel everybody's pain on this, is the 

4 perception, what do you classify as a high 

5 exposure? Because everybody is going to have 

6 something different. They classify a high 

7 exposure as, if I go over my RWP, boom, we're 

8 done; we're into problems.

9 And I'm wondering, and I know it 

10 is hard to interpret something that somebody 

11 else has put together.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we all 

13 recognize that this is a difficult issue, and 

14 it is all based in subjective language and 

15 it's going to end up being judgments. I think 

16 certainly NIOSH would take the position that 

17 the administrative controls established today 

18 or in any recent year -- exceeding an 

19 administrative control would not be an 

20 exceptionally large exposure.

21 The kinds of examples that are 

22 listed, while some of them you can take issue 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 with and you can interpret them in different 

2 ways, the one that kind of rings true to me --

3 and this is me -- is the blood changes. You 

4 know, it's particularly in blood changes. So 

5 it is really a description of a deterministic 

6 effect rather than a probabilistic effect, you 

7 know, cancer later on. So the deterministic 

8 effects are the things that you see from high 

9 doses, typically seen in accidents.

10 And from our reading of this, that 

11 is the kind of criteria you are laying out for 

12 an extremely large exposure. I mean that's 

13 our reading of it.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I 

15 understand that. Being on the Nevada Test 

16 Site, I know that we have gone around this, 

17 too, because they were talking criticalities. 

18 Well, I think when a bomb blows up, it's kind 

19 of critical.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Certainly the 

21 inclusion of a criticality incident, even an -

22 - incident in something like the Y-12 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 incident, if you look at all the doses, all 

2 the people who evacuated from the building at

3 the criticality event, you are going to have 

4 this enormous range of doses from that 

5 criticality.

6 I would think that in the minds of 

7 the authors they were thinking of people in 

8 the vicinity where the criticality occurred as 

9 the people who were exposed to an incident 

10 with extremely high exposure because they were 

11 the ones who were proximal to the actual 

12 criticality, rather than the people who were 

13 300 yards away at the other end of the 

14 building, or however big that building was.

15 So to us and to our discussions 

16 that we have had internally recently 

17 associated with this issue, is the 

18 deterministic effect criterion out there is 

19 sort of one that rings true to our reading of 

20 it. And, again, I wanted to say "our reading 

21 of it."

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, then, do 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you have a threshold number you want to 

2 associate with a deterministic --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I suspect there 

4 are far better radiation biologists in the 

5 room who could do better than I on that. It 

6 is usually, I would say, at least tens of rem, 

7 wouldn't you say, tens of rem?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, actually, 

9 David was first, and then John.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had a few 

11 questions about this.

12 One, as a starting point, was --

13 MR. KATZ: David, it's just hard 

14 to hear you. If you could pull it closer?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Sam, your 

16 presentation started off with laying out a 

17 condition of feasibility which really moves 

18 the stake in this argument or plants a stake 

19 on a piece of turf that is not sketched out 

20 here in the regulation.

21 I was interested in that because 

22 really I read this as an intention that 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 there's an SEC-constructed -- there are a 

2 group of people who can't document that they 

3 were present for 250 days or more. So they 

4 don't go into the NIOSH system. And yet, the 

5 authors of this text say, well, there are 

6 situations in which the dose rate is 

7 exceedingly high, and it's -- and presence 

8 with potential exposure during one of these 

9 discrete incidents of high dose rates, rather 

10 than a quantified duration of 250 days or 

11 more, will satisfy the health endangerment 

12 criterion.

13 So I can picture that in my head, 

14 what they are kind of imagining. And what 

15 they are imagining is not, well, we could take 

16 an estimate of the dose rate and bound based 

17 on some kind of assumptions about how long 

18 they were at different distances from this 

19 event.

20 So you are making an argument that 

21 it is feasible, and I agree with you that it 

22 is feasible, but I don't really see 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 feasibility as part of the intention here.

2 DR. GLOVER: There are several 

3 actually steps in this, C and D, and there is 

4 a feasibility component that has to first be 

5 established. If you read the next paragraph, 

6 it says then you state that incident for which 

7 it is infeasible, and then you go to this 

8 exceptionally high. So there is this -- there 

9 seems to be this stepped approach.

10 So you need to stay very focused 

11 on this feasibility starts out and it can't be 

12 some other -- so I am going to let my boss 

13 talk because I see him walking up behind me.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Sam was describing

16 a position that we labor under, which is that. 

17 If you read this regulation and read it 

18 carefully, or I don't know if you are reading 

19 it carefully or not. Passages of this 

20 regulation lead you to that position. Okay? 

21 Certain readings of the regulation lead to 

22 that position.
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I know now that not all readings 

2 of that regulation take everybody to that 

3 position. I stopped trying to explain to 

4 people what regulations meant the day I found 

5 out that there's an area of law called 

6 statutory construction which actually applies 

7 to regulatory construction as well.

8 The way the words are put together 

9 in the lawyer's mind have importance in how it 

10 is carried out, what it means. And when I 

11 found that out, I stopped trying to explain to 

12 people what regulations mean.

13 Now this gets me to the point I 

14 kind of wanted to -- the point that NIOSH 

15 would like to talk about on this, and I know 

16 Dr. Melius is being cautious and he wants to 

17 make sure we are compliant with regulation, 

18 and that's my desire, too. It serves none of 

19 us very well to recommend to the Secretary 

20 something that her lawyers say is not 

21 compliant.

22 And the lawyers are loathe to 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 provide us advice on a hypothetical position. 

2 So I am saying, how do we get out of this 

3 catch-22?

4 If there is a position to take 

5 that you would like that is different than 

6 what we have described as our reading of the 

7 regulation, and you think that is a position 

8 that we think a reading works with, and that 

9 is a position we would like to take, and form 

10 it with the basis for why you formed it, but 

11 don't act on it, consider it as sort of an 

12 item for future consideration, or whatever 

13 term you could use. Don't vote on it because 

14 when you vote on it, it starts a time -- a 

15 calendar on the Secretary and a calendar on 

16 OGC, and they may not get done.

17 They may not get to -- if you took 

18 a position that you wanted to understand, get 

19 an evaluation of legality, they have indicated 

20 to me that they will provide an opinion on the 

21 position when it is established, but 

22 preferably not voted on because then you are 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 not on the clock.

2 So I'm not saying for today; I'm 

3 not saying for whenever you want to do it. 

4 I'm not trying to suggest what the Board 

5 should do. It is an avenue that I think gets 

6 us out of this circular, well, only OGC can 

7 opine on legalities, and they aren't going to 

8 opine on hypotheticals.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask 

10 you one other follow-up? This piece of text 

11 that is in front of me relates to 83.13s. Is 

12 there a parallel set here for the 83.14s?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think it 

15 refers back to 83.13, yes.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But is that a 

17 -- because I am sort of wondering. Because I 

18 can imagine a claimant coming forward and 

19 saying, "I worked less than 250 days, but I 

20 was present at a criticality accident, and I 

21 want to be," and then initiating an SEC for a 

22 particular accident. Whereas, if the ball's 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in NIOSH's court and they have to begin to 

2 define a roster of all possible high dose rate 

3 situations, that seems like a much bigger 

4 task.

5 MS. HOWELL: I think, as Dr. 

6 Melius said, 83.14 refers back to 83.13, and 

7 you just have the same process. I don't see 

8 any reason why you couldn't have a petition 

9 based on a discrete event, but then you would 

10 revert back to the original finding of 

11 infeasibility as being a condition to this 

12 event to determining that a discrete event had 

13 occurred and, therefore, the health 

14 endangerment requirement is met.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can I just add -

16 - Emily, you probably should stay there 

17 because if I make a mistake you can correct 

18 me -- but this is not a requirement from the 

19 law. When we originally, NIOSH did the 

20 regulations, there was a lot of discussion 

21 with NIOSH and the Board about what should be 

22 the criteria for health endangerment. We sort 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of had the same sort of issue going through, 

2 and there are some other issues relevant to 

3 that, too.

4 But we decided that we would sort 

5 of follow what was in the law as at least 

6 providing, I don't know whether you call it a 

7 benchmark or what Congress's intent was or how 

8 you interpret that, that for the SECs that 

9 were included in the law, the original, the 

10 gaseous diffusion when it was 250 days, so 

11 that was selected. But Amchitka was not the 

12 250 days.

13 We thought that there were going 

14 to be situations where 250 days might not be 

15 appropriate for endangerment. We really 

16 weren't sure what those were. We didn't have 

17 examples. We sort of thought in general 

18 criticality, and there was lots of Board 

19 discussion with NIOSH, and so forth, around 

20 that point.

21 But we are at a point now where 

22 this has never been done. There are, as I 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 mentioned, at least at Ames there are 

2 claimants that don't have 250 days of work 

3 there but were present at these incidents. 

4 And there may very well be other claimants, 

5 too. I don't think we have identified any at 

6 Met Lab, but I don't necessarily keep up with 

7 all those.

8 So anyway, we sort of went from 

9 what was in the law, the set of regulations we 

10 had, what we thought where the situation 

11 applied, but it has never actually been done 

12 yet.

13 We have had these discussions on 

14 what would be the threshold. Stu offered his 

15 personal opinion on that. And we have had 

16 discussions with other people from OCAS and 

17 DCAS about this also. I think we all have 

18 slightly different interpretations of what --

19 I think we all can agree what will fit. It is 

20 the question of where's the threshold, is 

21 what's hard.

22 So is it only when there are blood 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 changes? Is that it? Well, what if they are 

2 not documented? Well, then, it's a situation. 

3 So it is hard to do. But that background 

4 helps a little bit.

5 And, Dr. Poston, you have been 

6 very patient.

7 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I'm not sure 

8 I am going to contribute, but I did have a few 

9 opinions. I think, first off, that even 

10 though it is included in your regulation that 

11 you showed there, we don't have to do a lot of 

12 talking about criticality incidents. Those 

13 doses are pretty well reconstructed and 

14 documented.

15 When SC&A started this a couple of 

16 years ago, I pointed them to the compendium 

17 for which all of the criticality doses are 

18 established, even for those that resulted in 

19 the death of the employee. So those are --

20 even though they are included, those are not 

21 ones that have an infeasibility. They have 

22 already been done.
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Secondly, what is the threshold 

2 varies, and the recommendations change. The 

3 ICRP now says no exposures above 10 rem, but 

4 that is a little ridiculous. It turns out 

5 that in the past the National Council on 

6 Radiation Protection and Measurements has said 

7 25 rem in an emergency and 100 rem to save a 

8 life. A skilled cytogeneticist has a lot of 

9 difficulty detecting radiation exposure in the 

10 blood below about 25 rem.

11 Some of them claim that if you 

12 leave me alone and put me in the lab, I can do 

13 down to 10. But it's very difficult. So 

14 maybe the threshold is 25 rem. I don't know.

15 I was waiting for Dr. Roessler to 

16 correct me.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Gen?

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think it 

19 depends on the lab, and I have heard anywhere 

20 between 10 rem and 25. I don't know that I'm 

21 going to contribute anything here, either, but 

22 it is a brainstorming session. It is also 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 kind of warm here, and so my head feels kind 

2 of fuzzy.

3 But I wanted to pick up on Stu was 

4 talking about deterministic effects and things 

5 like blood changes. It seems like, at least 

6 in modern-day things, if you have a good 

7 measurement of a blood change, you have a 

8 biological dose scenario. Maybe that doesn't 

9 apply going back very well.

10 But, to me, it seems like, okay, 

11 we have this information. We can do some sort 

12 of dosimetry.

13 And I guess the next step I would 

14 take would be -- now this is probably really 

15 far out. So what we are trying to do is allow 

16 this person to fit within the intent that they 

17 be compensated because they really deserve --

18 now they have a high probability of developing 

19 cancer or have developed it.

20 Why can't on an individual basis 

21 within this group, if you have the 

22 information, do dose reconstruction and give 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 them that chance? As I told you, I am just 

2 brainstorming.

3 DR. GLOVER: For the Class, we 

4 have established sometimes you can't do dose 

5 reconstruction for -- let's say the blowouts 

6 of thorium. We just can't do that.

7 So it really depends on what you 

8 are trying to get to. If it is the 

9 infeasibility of that particular item, then if 

10 we can do it, then there's not an 

11 infeasibility, so there is no health 

12 endangerment.

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: But then I 

14 think, I guess what I am suggesting is if we 

15 try to pick up even more on this blood changes 

16 deterministic effects, because, to me, those 

17 are the things that indicate high exposures.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I would 

19 just, again, maybe it's reiterating, but what 

20 we are saying is that, I mean, again, this 

21 Ames, which is the one we have probably worked 

22 on the most, and so forth. Again, an 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 incident, you may be able to bargain and say 

2 let's say you can't do the incident. The 

3 problem there is then placing the person. 

4 There's so many incidents; how do you place a 

5 person?

6 They are not that committed well 

7 enough in terms of time to know if a person 

8 was present at those incidents, but they were 

9 so frequent, I mean a person was present at a 

10 particular incident, but they were so frequent 

11 that the probability is extremely high that 

12 they would be there. So that became the, say, 

13 again, for argument's sake, the infeasibility 

14 in that situation. That doesn't quite fit 

15 sort of how we thought about it to begin with, 

16 is the problem.

17 Let me do Board Members. Or, 

18 Arjun, do you have a comment on that? Go 

19 ahead.

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: I just want to 

21 make a comment on the Ames situation, 

22 especially in light of what Dr. Richardson 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 said earlier. In that with the thorium, the 

2 routine exposures were considered not feasible 

3 to reconstruct. And so the thorium blowouts 

4 are in that context. So you've got somebody 

5 that worked for 150 days whose thorium 

6 exposures routinely you cannot reconstruct who 

7 was also exposed to blowouts. It is a little 

8 bit of a more difficult situation. I just 

9 wanted to clear that up.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Phil?

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. I've got 

12 a question. Maybe Genevieve can answer this 

13 one, the first part of it, for me.

14 At what levels would they see 

15 these changes in the blood? If this person 

16 isn't monitored in the sense that they are 

17 taking blood samples to see if they have had 

18 any changes, how do we know this person during 

19 one of those blowouts didn't ingest 15 grams 

20 of thorium, maybe a hundredths of gram, 

21 without any bioassay, without any blood 

22 samples being drawn? We really don't know 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 because it would all depend on where they are 

2 standing at the time of the blowout, where 

3 they are facing.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, David, and 

5 then Paul.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Paul?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, Phil, you're 

9 exactly right. I am reluctant for us to get 

10 into the blood change thing. I think it is 

11 already covered in the regulation. It talks 

12 about that in some form or another, does it 

13 not?

14 So if someone had the evidence, 

15 they could use that to show that they were 

16 present. So I think that is sort of a non17 issue. I think most of the cases we are 

18 worrying about are cases where, as you say, we 

19 don't have that information.

20 On the Ames case -- and I have 

21 thought about the Ames cases a lot over the 

22 past couple of years -- I am sort of at the 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 point of thinking you really have to deal with 

2 it on an individual basis. Someone is there 

3 less than 250 days. The starting point is you 

4 are going to look at doing a partial dose 

5 reconstruction. You can't do the regular 

6 thorium.

7 So then you have the question, 

8 were they present at a blowout? If the person 

9 can confirm that they were present, then I 

10 think you are saying that we can bound that 

11 part, and that becomes part of the partial 

12 dose reconstruction. I believe that is the 

13 case on the blowouts. We have said we could 

14 bound the blowouts. So you can do a partial.

15 And one of the problems we were 

16 having is that in most of those cases at Ames 

17 the people really don't know if they were 

18 present at the blowouts. They may say, "Yes, 

19 I was there at some of them." Do they know 

20 the number? Does that show up in a dose 

21 reconstruction?

22 And we were trying to think about, 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 well, could you simply have the condition 

2 that, if they were there less than 250 days, 

3 and it was likely that they were present at 

4 some number of blowouts, they are still 

5 covered? But, see, to do that, you have to 

6 put a number on this. Like is 10 blowouts now 

7 a high dose? And you get into the same 

8 debate.

9 So it just seems to me that in all 

10 of these cases, and you could talk about, 

11 let's take the SL-1. Suppose that you didn't 

12 have dosimetry on these folks, and, in fact, 

13 on some of the earlier responders, the film 

14 badges, I believe, as I recall, were beyond 

15 the readability of the badge. So we know that 

16 they were more than some number. But it 

17 doesn't matter. They were able to reconstruct 

18 those doses, and we know that they were 

19 present.

20 But suppose you couldn't 

21 reconstruct those doses, and it is a 

22 criticality, and you had these people going 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 in. I know that at least some of those did 

2 have blood changes. So they would already 

3 meet the criteria, and the presence is known.

4 So it seems to always come down to 

5 these individual situations. I don't see how 

6 you can cover them all in a general statement 

7 that goes beyond what we already know about 

8 criticality, somatic effects of, specifically, 

9 blood changes, and then say, okay, I've got to 

10 deal with each one individually.

11 Because we can think of all these 

12 hypotheticals, and I am not sure how 

13 successful we could write something that is 

14 very much better than what we have now. I 

15 think that is one reason why we struggled with 

16 this for many years.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, yes. Yes. 

18 And in Ames -- and correct me if I am wrong -

19 - because it was infeasible to do thorium dose 

20 reconstructions, it has never been done. I 

21 mean, in a sense, what you suggested I don't 

22 think has taken place for anybody. I am not 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 sure.

2 Okay, Stu is nodding.

3 And maybe there are other ways, 

4 like you suggested, of looking at that. I 

5 think our plan would be for the Work Group to 

6 spend time, more time, and look at each 

7 incident, as long as there was general Board 

8 agreement with the general approach, and then 

9 we would work with NIOSH.

10 And I will add that I think I 

11 failed to mention the Work Group has had 

12 extensive discussions with NIOSH on this. So 

13 the guidance document, there are guidelines, 

14 draft guidelines. We have had input from 

15 NIOSH on that. They don't necessarily concur 

16 with that, et cetera, but there has been, I 

17 think, a good dialogue on this issue. We are 

18 just trying to get it to move forward, and we 

19 understand sort of the legal interpretation 

20 difficulty that Stu mentioned.

21 Any of the Board Members on the 

22 phone have comments? I will start with Dick 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Lemen.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Not at this time, 

3 no.

4 There is a lot of confusion on the 

5 line. Ted, there's a lot of people talking.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I know. 

7 Whoever is on the phone talking, I think you 

8 need to put on mute.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: I don't have any 

10 comments at this time.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: I am generally very 

13 supportive in trying to work something out. I 

14 look forward to more discussion on it.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, he was hard 

16 to hear. He has no comments at this point in 

17 time.

18 Bill?

19 MEMBER FIELD: No, I don't. The 

20 problems pretty much have been discussed. I 

21 don't see, really, an easy way.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 And Mike?

2 MEMBER GIBSON: No, not right now, 

3 Jim.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

5 you.

6 Any further comments from Board 

7 members?

8 (No response.)

9 If not, again, assuming my fellow 

10 Work Group Members agree, we will go forward 

11 and I think sort of develop some of these 

12 individual sites more. There's some 

13 background work that needs to be done on 

14 those, and so forth. And I think at some 

15 point we will come back with specific 

16 recommendations, and we will work, obviously, 

17 with NIOSH and with counsel on that, so we can 

18 move forward.

19 But I thank everybody for their 

20 input and help on this.

21 I'm sorry. David?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, Dr. 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Melius, just one more comment.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was thinking 

4 back to some of the debates about the atomic 

5 bomb survivors and the evidence of biological 

6 effects. Using them as indicative of exposure 

7 to a given magnitude of dose is really tricky. 

8 At least among the A-bomb survivors, I 

9 remember there was a big debate about this.

10 Was the dosimetry system in error 

11 or do you see presence of epilation in some 

12 people who have estimated doses relatively 

13 low, absence of epilation in people who have 

14 high doses? Then there appeared to be some 

15 people who were high responders and some 

16 people who were exceptionally-low responders. 

17 A lot of those seemed to be concordant. 

18 People would show multiple what we are calling 

19 deterministic effects or acute effects, but 

20 between the people there are differences in 

21 their robustness to those effects.

22 That poses kind of a question if 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you want to take the presence of blood 

2 abnormalities of some type as evidence of 

3 their exposure magnitude. Some people are 

4 going to be robust to that and some people may 

5 not.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then tying 

7 that to the exposure when they weren't tested 

8 for something, but you know it is a high 

9 exposure; it's hard.

10 Okay. I think the Board has 

11 earned a break time. So, why don't we take a 

12 break for 20 minutes and come back around five 

13 after 3:00?

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

15 matter went off the record at 2:46 p.m. and 

16 resumed at 3:12 p.m.)

17 MR. KATZ: We are reconvening.

18 Let me check with Board Members on 

19 the phone.

20 Mike Gibson, are you with us?

21 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, this is Mike. 

22 I'm here.
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Great. And Dick Lemen?

2 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm here.

3 MR. KATZ: And Bill Field?

4 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I am here.

5 MR. KATZ: Great.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: This will be a 

7 quick change. We have a few things. First, 

8 we'll have Wanda who will give another update. 

9 The Procedures Committee is working so 

10 quickly that from break to break she has a new 

11 update. We can't keep up.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MEMBER MUNN: Our often efficient 

14 contractor is the one that we can thank this 

15 for.

16 I have been given the names of the 

17 five procedures that will be their next review 

18 topics.

19 The first one will be OCAS-IG-001, 

20 External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

21 Guideline. OTIB-66, Calculation of Dose from 

22 Intakes of Special Tritium Compounds. TIB-8, 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Use of ICRP 66 to Calculate Respiratory Tract 

2 Doses. PR-3, Performing and Reporting Dose 

3 Reconstructions. PROC-80, Conduct of Quality 

4 Assurance Audits.

5 They have made an effort to try to 

6 cover a broad spectrum of types of procedures 

7 that we look at. So, that is what we will be 

8 looking forward to for our report next time.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

10 you.

11 We also have an update on our next 

12 meeting time, full Board meeting, the May 

13 meeting. And Phil checked in. The week he is 

14 not available will be the 16th through the 

15 21st of May?

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Right.

17 MR. KATZ: So he is not available 

18 the 16th through the 21st. So we are choosing 

19 between the 23rd through the 27th or the 31st, 

20 that week, through the 3rd. We wouldn't, 

21 obviously, start until the 1st.

22 So I think people had said the 1st 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 through the 3rd was good. Is that still --

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Of June?

3 MR. KATZ: No. Well, the 1st 

4 through the 3rd would be June. But the 23rd 

5 through 27th, was that preferable?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think people 

7 were saying, if we would move it back away --

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is that right?

10 MR. KATZ: So, the 24th, 25th, 

11 26th, that's the middle of the week, that 

12 week?

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Of May?

14 MR. KATZ: Of May. Does that 

15 work?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For the Board 

17 Members on the call? Dick, Bill, and Mike, I 

18 think you were all okay for that week also?

19 MEMBER FIELD: What was the week? 

20 I am having a hard time hearing.

21 MR. KATZ: So it is the week, it 

22 would be the 24th, 25th, and 26th of May. 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Does that work?

2 MEMBER GIBSON: Ted, this is Mike. 

3 Yes, that's good.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. 

5 That's good.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good.

7 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. 

8 Good.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks.

10 Tentatively, that will be the 

11 Nashville, more than tentatively. But, 

12 hopefully, they don't have another flood 

13 there.

14 We have two items that I know of 

15 left. One is Mark's report, including the new 

16 dose reconstructions, which we will do 

17 tomorrow morning.

18 The other is reviewing the 

19 letters. You can ignore the letters that were 

20 a handout. There's some changes, or one, I 

21 call it a significant rewording, and then 

22 others. So we will distribute new ones 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 tomorrow morning. I think that is just 

2 easier, and everyone will have a clean copy 

3 and, hopefully, less confusion. We will do 

4 that.

5 And I don't think we have any 

6 Board correspondence pending or anything else.

7 So, since we have a scheduled 

8 public comment period at 4:30, I think what we 

9 will do is break and come back at 4:30 and do 

10 public comment. We have people signed up. We 

11 may also have people on the phone, and we will 

12 go from there.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, until 4:30.

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

15 matter went off the record at 3:18 p.m. and 

16 resumed at 4:32 p.m.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If everyone will 

18 get seated, we will get started.

19 We are now scheduled for our 

20 public comment period.

21 Ted?

22 MR. KATZ: Let me just check on 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the line. I don't know -- Dick, are you with 

2 us? Just I wanted to be certain we can be 

3 heard.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, Ted.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, great.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, Ted, I'm with 

7 you.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

9 So welcome all who have come, who 

10 are in the room for public comments or on the 

11 line. We are about to get started with that.

12 Let me just explain the redaction 

13 policy relates to how your comments are 

14 represented in public.

15 We have a verbatim transcript of 

16 the meeting, including the public comment 

17 session. So, whatever comments you provide, 

18 they will end up verbatim in the transcript 

19 that ends up on the NIOSH website for public 

20 access, and anything you say about yourself, 

21 your name, all your personal information, that 

22 would be included in the transcript.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 If you discuss other people, 

2 though, third parties, information about third 

3 parties enough to identify them, it will be 

4 removed from the transcript, since we don't 

5 have their permission for their personal 

6 information to be public as such.

7 And there's the rules, the full 

8 rules, if you want to read them, they should 

9 be on the table there in the room. And for 

10 people who are on the line, they would be on 

11 the NIOSH website under the OCAS program, 

12 under the Board section.

13 And that's it for rules.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Ted.

15 We have at least three people 

16 signed up here, and I will go in the order 

17 that they signed up. Then we will see if 

18 there is anybody on the phone that wants to 

19 offer public comments.

20 And forgive me if I mispronounce 

21 your name, and so forth.

22 I think it is a [Identifying 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 information redacted] or [Identifying 

2 information redacted]. Is he here? He signed 

3 up earlier? Okay.

4 The next one is Knut Ringen.

5 MR. RINGEN: Thank you, Mr. 

6 Chairman.

7 My name is Knut Ringen. I am the 

8 Science Advisor for --

9 MR. KATZ: Knut? Knut, you will 

10 need to speak right into that microphone to 

11 pick up.

12 MR. RINGEN: How's that? Is that 

13 better? Does that work better?

14 MR. KATZ: Very good. Thank you.

15 MR. RINGEN: My name is Knut 

16 Ringen. I am the Science Advisor for CPWR, 

17 which is the Center for Construction Research 

18 and Training. I am here representing the 

19 national building and construction trades.

20 This is the fourth time I have 

21 been before you, and I thank you for your 

22 patience.
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I didn't bring a written statement 

2 today, but I will be glad to submit one later, 

3 if you want more details on what I have to 

4 say.

5 Now, as I said, we represent the 

6 construction trades workers. My comments are 

7 limited to their experience, my expertise. 

8 And while my comments may apply to other 

9 workers, I want to make clear that what I am 

10 talking about is construction trades workers.

11 Today I want to focus, first, on 

12 the 10-year review that has just come out, and 

13 then I want to make some comments about the 

14 SEC process, specially with regard to Fernald 

15 and Savannah River.

16 First, the 10-year review. I urge 

17 you to read the reports that Lew Wade, Nancy 

18 Adams, and Randy Rabinowitz produced because 

19 they contain very significant information.

20 When NIOSH created this program, 

21 it essentially set out three criteria. It 

22 wanted uniform treatment of claimants; it 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 wanted a fairness throughout the process, and 

2 it wanted scientific quality. Those three 

3 things have been sort of the governing 

4 principles, as I understand them.

5 NIOSH has always rejected the 

6 inclusion of timeliness as a criterion for 

7 reviewing the operation of this and its

8 effectiveness.

9 But what these three reports that 

10 you have in front of you have focused on more 

11 than anything else is the timeliness issue. I 

12 think most people who have read them would 

13 read that on timeliness the program has failed 

14 miserably.

15 The issue of fairness and 

16 scientific quality has not been addressed 

17 extensively in these reports as yet, except 

18 for Randy Rabinowitz's report on the SEC 

19 process, which deals extensively with 

20 fairness.

21 She makes a very significant 

22 correction to the NIOSH modus operandi. NIOSH 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 has always considered SEC to be a measure of 

2 last resort. In other words, it is only if 

3 the dose reconstruction process cannot succeed 

4 that you should consider imposing or referring 

5 workers to the SEC.

6 According to Randy, that is not 

7 what the law says, and she knows a lot about 

8 this. She is an experienced lawyer, has been 

9 in Congress as a staffer for many, many years.

10 She points out that the statute 

11 gives NIOSH two equal options. One is dose 

12 reconstruction, where the other is assignment 

13 to the SEC. But one is not dependent on the 

14 other, and that, I think, is a very 

15 significant change that has to take place in 

16 this program. The SEC option is not depending 

17 on the DR option failing.

18 It is important to raise this 

19 issue because, as long as the SEC only comes 

20 after the DR failure, then timeliness can 

21 never be accomplished in this process.

22 I also urge you to take seriously 
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the planning for the second, what's proposed 

2 as the second phase of this 10-year review, 

3 which, presumably, then, would be much more 

4 extensive. And I hope that will take into 

5 account scientific quality as well and 

6 fairness and uniformity in the program. As 

7 far as I know, there has been no attempt to 

8 validate whether this program operates fairly 

9 or is valid for all participants.

10 CPWR submitted fairly extensive 

11 comments to the docket on this review and 

12 provides an evaluation framework that you may 

13 want to consider. I hope that you all will 

14 work with NIOSH to develop a more detailed 

15 framework for its second evaluation that will 

16 be focusing on the validity, the scientific 

17 validity and fairness of the program.

18 Now let me turn to the SEC 

19 process. As I said, I am going to focus on 

20 Fernald and Savannah River.

21 Let me first say that Fernald has 

22 been with you for four and a half years by 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 now, and you are coming up close to three 

2 years on the Savannah River addition. By 

3 comparison, I would like to note that the 

4 Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed and built 

5 in less time than that, and that is the 

6 biggest suspension bridge that has been built 

7 in 70 years. 

8 I would like to start with Fernald 

9 review. The Working group on it has worked 

10 incredibly hard. It has met nine times, 

11 according to my count.

12 And I would encourage all of you 

13 to go to the transcript of the January 29, 

14 2010 meeting and start focusing on page 162 

15 and continue reading until page 231.

16 NIOSH has proposed that the SEC be 

17 rejected because it says it can extrapolate 

18 dose from workers with complete monitoring 

19 that they have in the HSE 20 database, which 

20 is the dose monitoring database for Fernald, 

21 or the principal one.

22 Except as the NIOSH expert says, 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 HSE is very deficient for construction 

2 workers. So they would likely have to 

3 extrapolate from non-construction workers to 

4 construction workers in the coworker model. 

5 It is the same procedure that NIOSH is 

6 essentially proposing to use at Savannah 

7 River, and so I combined comments on these two 

8 into one.

9 Now, at the January 29, 2010 

10 meeting, the Working group spent a very long 

11 time, including those 150 pages or so,

12 discussing whether this is valid, whether it 

13 is valid to make this extrapolation from other 

14 workers to construction workers, and how to 

15 come to grips with how you should deal with 

16 these construction worker cases.

17 In this regard, I could offer 

18 three options to you, and I can only think of 

19 three.

20 First, you can try to create 

21 within HSE 20, and the same thing at Savannah 

22 River, a sub-database for construction trades 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 workers, and then extrapolate through that 

2 complete monitoring exposure, and then try to 

3 extrapolate from it to construction workers 

4 who are inadequately monitored.

5 To do that, however, you would 

6 have to create a sub-database for 

7 approximately two dozen different trades that 

8 are part of construction. You can't consider 

9 construction just to be one big, uniform 

10 group. There are all of these different 

11 trades that have vastly different ranges of 

12 exposure and exposure experiences.

13 So, by the time you get to 

14 dividing this subgroup into all of these 

15 different trades, and if you are going to 

16 control for age, maybe sex, and race, 

17 certainly, if you are going to do this, and 

18 time that they worked at the site, you are 

19 going to have so many cells that you couldn't 

20 possibly have enough people in each of the 

21 cells to make a statistically-meaningful 

22 extrapolation under any circumstances.
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So, therefore, it is most likely 

2 totally infeasible to use this approach. So 

3 that's not going to work, I don't think.

4 The second option that NIOSH has 

5 considered is to extrapolate from non6 construction workers and then use some sort of 

7 a correction factor for the larger variance in 

8 the range of those that construction workers 

9 experience. To some extent, it has done this 

10 in TIB-52. It has talked about its adding a 

11 correction factor at Savannah River.

12 But no matter how you do that, you 

13 can't validate whether actually this 

14 correction factor is correct or not. And if 

15 you can't validate it, then you are not doing 

16 science. So that's not going to work, either, 

17 I don't think.

18 And therefore, I come to the 

19 conclusion that the third and most scientific 

20 option to deal with these construction workers 

21 who lack complete monitoring is that you 

22 simply refer them to the SEC. That at least 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 takes care of the problem of the arbitrariness 

2 that comes into the kind of extrapolation that

3 is being discussed in these various models 

4 that NIOSH has looked at.

5 Now let me finish up with the 

6 Savannah River petition. It was submitted on 

7 March -- no, let's see, on November 14, 2008. 

8 NIOSH reviewed it and said it can reconstruct 

9 dose for all construction workers and, 

10 therefore, the SEC should be denied.

11 But it said it was going to 

12 withhold judgment on one issue which had to do 

13 with thorium exposure and see if you could 

14 develop some model. So that took another year 

15 and a half.

16 And on May 4 of this year, NIOSH 

17 came out with this finding that said, gee, 

18 actually, we can do something about these 

19 thorium-exposed workers. This is an addendum 

20 to their Petition Evaluation Report.

21 And they said they can do this by 

22 developing a brand-new model in which it would 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 substitute uranium bioassay data for the lack 

2 of thorium bioassay data. In other words, 

3 they said we can use uranium data to estimate 

4 thorium risk.

5 Now, presumably, NIOSH has agreed 

6 that this is valid because you signed off on 

7 it. So it must be that they think this is 

8 valid science. I do not, or we do not.

9 Now I am not an expert on 

10 radiation. I have made that clear before, and 

11 I certainly don't know much about the 

12 difference between thorium and uranium. But I 

13 have a colleague at CPWR, [Identifying 

14 information redacted], who is. [Identifying 

15 information redacted] is not only a highly16 experienced industrial hygienist, but he has a 

17 Ph.D. in radiation biology from the University 

18 of Rochester, where I believe we all agree 

19 that they know the difference between uranium 

20 and thorium.

21 He told me two things in 

22 particular that he thought we should consider. 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 First of all, in terms of physics, uranium 

2 and thorium appear fairly similar. But in 

3 terms of biology, there are some very big 

4 differences, and that might be ascribed to the 

5 fact that, as thorium decays, it converts to 

6 radon, plutonium, and so much depends on how 

7 pure the thorium is to begin with or how much 

8 it has decayed, and so on, at the time of 

9 exposure.

10 But the second thing that he said 

11 is very important is that thorium acts 

12 differently biologically than uranium. In 

13 experimental studies, including studies of 

14 dogs, they have found that thorium causes more 

15 damage to the liver and to the kidney than 

16 uranium.

17 So the question is, if we have two 

18 exposures that appear differently but that 

19 produce different outcomes or inputs -- sort 

20 of the issue that I think David Richardson 

21 raised earlier today -- how can we say that 

22 this is a valid model for extrapolation?
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 We have to remind ourselves that 

2 in this program it's not just about doses; it 

3 is also about outcome and the missed cancers. 

4 Cancers I do know something about, and I do 

5 know how little we know about the biology of 

6 cancers, including the radiation biology or 

7 the relationship. We know that radiation 

8 causes cancer, but we don't know how it causes 

9 cancers and we don't know why some people 

10 exposed to radiation develop cancer and some 

11 people similarly exposed to radiation do not 

12 develop cancer.

13 So there is a very big problem in 

14 using this model for dose reconstruction, and 

15 I urge you to thoroughly review this model. I 

16 do not believe this model represents science. 

17 I believe it is bogus.

18 First of all, we think it is 

19 unscientific. You guys can make the judgment 

20 about that. But we know that there's 

21 absolutely no way that it can be validated. 

22 So, then, you all better make the judgment 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 about how you want to view something that is 

2 not valid, that you don't know is valid or 

3 not. Consequently, I think it should be 

4 rejected as pseudo-science, but you can decide 

5 for yourself about that.

6 Finally, I urge you to look at 

7 Nancy Adams' Evaluation Report in the 10-year 

8 review. She reports that since the start of 

9 this program a total of 2,000, or 200, 

10 roughly, claimants died in the period from the 

11 time that their claim arrived at NIOSH and 

12 before NIOSH finalized its review. That's 

13 about 10 percent of all of the claimants that 

14 died during this lengthy process that it has 

15 taken.

16 Now you can say you can look at 

17 that in two different ways. You can say, 

18 well, all of these folks had cancer, and by 

19 definition, they are, also, therefore, old. 

20 So that may not be an unreasonable mortality. 

21 But you can look at it in a very different 

22 way and say a program that serves human beings 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 has to take into account more than just the 

2 perfection of science.

3 It has to balance the needs of 

4 science with the humanitarian needs that it 

5 should afford the participants in the program. 

6 I realize that is not an easy balance to 

7 make, but I don't think so far either NIOSH or 

8 this Board has done a very good job of 

9 balancing those two things. And I think 

10 people have been sitting around for way too 

11 long.

12 For construction trades workers, I 

13 don't know what's going to happen. Brad and 

14 the Working group at Fernald is going to meet 

15 again. They are probably going to wring their 

16 hands again. The Board has been wringing its 

17 hands about this for construction --

18 unmonitored or inadequately-monitored 

19 exposures now for eight years, and have come 

20 to no conclusion about how to handle it.

21 So I think it's time to bring this 

22 issue to a close. I think people who are in 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 this situation have a right to some sort of 

2 closure to the process that you are dealing 

3 with.

4 And I can only think, as I said, 

5 of one way to do that, that will meet our 

6 expectations in terms of science, and that is 

7 to refer these cases to an SEC that is DOE8 wide and that covers any construction worker 

9 at risk of inadequate or no dose records.

10 Thank you very much for your time, 

11 and I can answer questions, if you have any, 

12 or you can take it as it is.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

14 I don't think we usually ask 

15 questions.

16 I will add, though, one comment. 

17 If I understood what Dr. Wade was saying this 

18 morning, I do believe that the so-called 

19 docket on the 10-year review is sort of being 

20 reopened for comment. So your comments on 

21 that report would be, or anybody else's would 

22 be, most welcome. I think that should be 
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 available very shortly.

2 The next person to make public 

3 comment is Malcolm Russell.

4 Mr. Russell? Okay.

5 MR. RUSSELL: Good afternoon, 

6 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

7 My name is Malcolm Russell. I am 

8 a retired 37-year employee of AEC, CRDA, and 

9 DOE prime contractors, including the SL-1 

10 contractor, Combustion Engineering. I retired 

11 in 1995, asserted my 2,944 hours of unused 

12 sick leave without any compensation. I am now 

13 a disgusted victim of the EEOICPA Part B claim 

14 denial program. And I am still impaired by 

15 and trying to rehab from eligible disease 

16 therapy I received in 2003.

17 The data I have seen indicates 

18 most of the claims have been denied. The 

19 claim processors kept requesting and I 

20 obtained, at my expense, my physician's 

21 opinion on my eligible disease was a result of 

22 my INL radiation exposure. None of my 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 physicians have that kind of expertise.

2 Also, they wouldn't consider my 

3 three-year radiation exposure at a Connecticut 

4 Naval Reactor Test Site under AEC 

5 administration. And this is the basis of my 

6 sarcastic program description.

7 What I believe is that all Part B 

8 claimants with an eligible disease should 

9 receive an award based on their calculated 

10 Probability of Causation. And for myself, 

11 that computation would be my Probability of 

12 Causation which was 23.99 percent below the 50 

13 percent threshold number. Out of 150,000, I 

14 think that would be about $72,000.

15 And applying a fair claimant award 

16 criteria would probably resolve the problem of 

17 totally denying claims with a calculated 

18 Probability of Causation just slightly below 

19 50 percent. It would also provide each 

20 claimant some compensation for their expenses 

21 in submitting a claim and of therapy for their 

22 cancer or disease and their impairment caused 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 by the cancer or disease. These expenses are 

2 not trivial and the impairments last until you 

3 die.

4 I submitted a written protest to 

5 the Final Adjudication Branch after the 

6 recommended claim denial was sent to me in 

7 August of 2007 explaining my indignant feeling 

8 that the Part B claim award criteria, $150,000 

9 for a greater than 50 percent Probability of 

10 Causation, was unfair. And my protest was, of 

11 course, denied, too.

12 I don't have the financial 

13 resources or the patience to fight the 

14 denials. I believe the many cases of claim 

15 denial is an indication of how unfair this 

16 Part B program is, and I am bewildered by the 

17 Administrator's apparent pride in this 

18 program, which has hurt so many INL worker 

19 claimants.

20 That's the end of my comments.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

22 you, Mr. Russell.
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Anybody else in the audience wish 

2 to make public comments?

3 (No response.)

4 Okay. If not, then does anybody 

5 on the telephone wish to make public comments?

6 (No response.)

7 I will ask once again, does 

8 anybody on the phone wish to make public 

9 comment?

10 MS. HAND: Yes. This is Donna 

11 Hand again.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. All 

13 right.

14 MS. HAND: Again, the issues that 

15 I did not bring up or would like to elaborate 

16 on a little bit more from last night.

17 For the people, I am Donna Hand. 

18 I am a worker advocate and also authorized 

19 representative for several claimants, 

20 specifically the Pinellas Plant, but, also, 

21 Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Los Alamos.

22 The gentleman earlier had 
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 mentioned about the Special Exposure Cohort 

2 petition and how long it had been taking to do 

3 that. On the Federal Registry, Volume No. 67, 

4 No. 85, page 22319e, it states that the HHS 

5 shall determine the dose reconstruction in a 

6 timely manner and consider that petition in a 

7 timely manner. If the data for the dose 

8 reconstruction is not available at this time, 

9 OCAS will, which is mandatory, proceed as if 

10 no data is available to do a dose 

11 reconstruction with sufficient accuracy and 

12 grant the said petition.

13 This Board and NIOSH has been 

14 working in the reverse ever since this 

15 program. This is established in the Federal 

16 Registry, and yet, it has been denied and has 

17 been overlooked and omitted from the facts of 

18 every single said petition.

19 Let's go on to injury. You have 

20 issued a technical bulletin regarding wounds 

21 and injury. You also have in your internal 

22 dose to elaborate for wounds and injury. 
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 However, the professional judgment of Brian 

2 Gleckler and Peter Darnell refuses to add on 

3 these injuries or incidents, even when they 

4 have documentation.

5 I have a gentleman that worked at 

6 Savannah River. He had two incidents. One 

7 was uranium and one was plutonium. That was 

8 never put into his dose reconstruction, even 

9 though the report came from the file that I 

10 received from NIOSH, and that is how I found 

11 out about it.

12 The Pinellas Plant, I have a 

13 worker that was cut on radioactive-producing 

14 equipment, as per the Technical Basis 

15 Document. It showed that he was cut, and went 

16 to the infirmary, on that equipment and was 

17 cut very heavily. They refused to put that 

18 dose into his dose reconstruction.

19 I have a janitor that picked up 

20 radioactive waste and put it in a can. He 

21 went to the infirmary twice. The infirmary 

22 put on the record, "Cut with a classified 
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 waste can." The Department of Labor, NIOSH, 

2 and he has a statement that that can was full 

3 with classified paper and not classified 

4 products or anything else. So, therefore, 

5 there was no radiation dose.

6 And unless I can prove that a 

7 health physicist was called to the case, they 

8 would not put that into the dose 

9 reconstruction because, as far as they are 

10 concerned, it was classified paper.

11 Now a cut that was extensive 

12 enough to this gentlemen, who is 81, still has 

13 a scar to this day on his hand from it, could 

14 not have been a paper classified cut. But, 

15 yet, you are not allowing those internal 

16 doses, which would have been -- especially 

17 alpha, go into his dose reconstruction.

18 This Board needs to address how 

19 come you are issuing Technical Basis 

20 Documents, you are issuing guidelines, but the 

21 dose reconstruction people are not following 

22 those guidelines. They say that it is all a 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 matter of professional judgment.

2 We have now David Shatto has told 

3 us in a closeout interview, unless we can 

4 prove and document that a person was exposed 

5 to a specific incident, they will not consider 

6 it as an incident, such as in the Pinellas 

7 Plant, in the 108 area, the tubes were made of 

8 glass and they broke quite frequently. They 

9 had to clean up the glass. They were exposed 

10 to the glass and the leaking. However, if I 

11 cannot prove that that person was there at 

12 that particular time frame, they will not 

13 consider it.

14 So we have guidelines that you 

15 guys have, right here, approved that's not 

16 being followed on down by the dose 

17 reconstruction people.

18 Thank you very much.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

20 Would anybody else on the 

21 telephone like to make public comments?

22 (No response.)
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 I'll ask again. Anybody else on 

2 the telephone who would like to make a public 

3 comment?

4 (No response.)

5 Okay. If not, then we will close 

6 this public comment session.

7 Thank you all.

8 And we will adjourn until 8:30 

9 tomorrow morning.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 5:00 p.m.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

2