STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING 54 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY ONE 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 54th 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Crowne Plaza Tampa East, 

Tampa, Florida on Apr. 7, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Apr. 7, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 7 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 

COMMENTS FROM DR. LEW WADE 11 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEC PETITION 18 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE 25 

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH 

TEXAS CITY CHEMICALS, INC. SEC PETITION 48 

DR. JAMES NETON, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

SAM LABORATORIES (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY) SEC PETITION 110 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

PROCEDURES WORK GROUP SUMMARY 128 

MS. WANDA MUNN; MS. KATHY BEHLING, SC&A 

HORIZONS, INC. SEC PETITION 176 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

NIOSH QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 207 

MR. LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH 

PUBLIC COMMENT 261 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 293 

 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

 -- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

4 MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

BREYER, LAURIE, NIOSH 

BROCK, DENISE, NIOSH 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 

CHIZ, HILARY, USW 

DAVY, THERESA, DOL/JAX 

ECKLER, JOYCE, NIOSH 

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW 

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 

GLEASON, ANN, PINELLAS 

GLOVER, SAM, NIOSH 

HAND, DONNA, PINELLAS 

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

HUGHES, LARA, NIOSH 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU 

MILLER, DAVID, DOL/JAX 

MILLER, RELADA, OCAS/NIOSH 

NELSON, GEORGE, NIOSH 

PHILLIPS, CHARLES R., SC&A 

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS 

ROBERTS, KIMBERLEY, SAIC 

ROBINSON, NELDA, NIOSH 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 

SMITH, ROBERT, NIOSH 

TOMES, TOM, NIOSH 

ZACCHERO, MARY JO, ORAU 

ZEITOUN, ABE, SC&A 

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
7

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:30 a.m.) 

(NOTE FROM THE COURT REPORTER: During the following 

meeting, severe difficulty with the telephonic 

connections ensued. The reader will find many 

“unintelligible” notations during these sections, 

signifying spots in the communication which were 

simply impossible for the reporter to decipher. 

Following is the ultimate effort by the court 

reporter.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

1 DR. BRANCHE: Welcome to the 54th meeting of 

2 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

3 Health. I'm Christine Branche and I'm your 

4 Designated Federal Official for this meeting. 

5 I'll start off by letting you know that the 

6 emergency exits for this meeting room are 

7 straight through the door and either to the 

8 right or to the left -- you have to go all the 

9 way out. If you go straight out through the 

10 door that's in front of you, you will go to the 

11 pool. But for emergency access purposes you 

12 need to all -- to the farthest extensions to 

13 the right or the left of the building. 
8

1 The policy on redaction of Board meeting 

2 transcripts are as follows: If a person making 

3 a comment gives his or her name, either here in 

4 the meeting room or by telephone, no attempt 

5 will be made to redact that name. NIOSH will 

6 make -- the National Institute for Occupational 

7 Safety and Health will take reasonable steps to 

8 ensure that individuals making public comment 

9 are aware of the fact that their comments, 

10 including their name if provided, will appear 

11 in a transcript of the meeting posted on a 

12 public web site. Such reasonable steps include 

13 a statement read at the start of each meeting -

14 - excuse me, each public comment period, 

15 stating that transcripts will be posted and 

16 names of speakers will not be redacted. A 

17 printed copy of the statement mentioned -- that 

18 I just mentioned will be displayed on the table 

19 where individuals sign up to make public 

20 comment. A statement such as that I -- that I 

21 just read will also appear with the agenda for 

22 the Board meeting when it is posted on the 

23 NIOSH web site. As well it will appear in the 

24 Federal Register notice. If an individual, in 

25 making a statement, reveals personal 
9

1 information such as medical information about 

2 themselves, that information will not usually 

3 be redacted. The NIOSH Freedom of Information 

4 Act coordinator will, however, review such 

5 revelations in accordance with the Freedom of 

6 Information Act and the Federal Advisory 

7 Committee Act and, if deemed appropriate, will 

8 redact such information. All disclosures of 

9 information concerning third parties will be 

10 redacted. If it comes to the attention of the 

11 Designated Federal Official that an individual 

12 wishes to share information with the Board, but 

13 objects to doing so in a public forum, the 

14 Designated Federal Official will work with that 

15 individual in accordance with the Federal 

16 Advisory Committee Act to find a way that the 

17 Board can hear such comments. 

18 Mr. Presley, are you still on the line? 

19 MR. PRESLEY: I sure am. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Mr. Presley, given that 

21 you'll be -- you'll be participating for the 

22 entire meeting by telephone, if you lose 

23 contact for any reason, could you please take 

24 down the number that I'm about to give you? 

25 Area code 813-623-6363. That is the number for 
10

1 the hotel, which is the Crowne Plaza, and we 

2 are in the Cypress Room. And if you could let 

3 someone know that you've lost contact, they 

4 will alert us here. Again, that number is area 

5 code 813-623-6363. 

6 MR. PRESLEY: Got it. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. If everyone 

8 participating on -- by phone would please mute 

9 their lines, you can use the mute button. And 

10 if you do not have a mute button, then please 

11 dial star-6 to mute your line. That will allow 

12 the transcriber to be -- or the court reporter 

13 to be able to have a clear line and everyone 

14 will be able to hear all of the information 

15 that is taking place during the meeting. When 

16 you're ready to speak and you do not have a 

17 mute button, then please dial the same star-6 

18 to unmute your phone. 

19 Thank you very much, and -- Dr. Ziemer. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. Branche, 

21 and welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the 

22 Advisory Board. You notice that we usually 

23 start our meetings with a half-hour welcome by 

24 the chairman. Now I've learned from John 

25 Poston that the way you do that is you say 
11

1 "Howdy" real slow, as they do in Texas, and 

2 even that's not enough to fill the half-hour. 

3 But we have a special treat today and I'm going 

4 to refer to that in just a moment. 

5 I have to make my usual reminders that, if you 

6 haven't already done so, please register your 

7 attendance with us. The registration book is 

8 in the corridor just outside of this room. 

9 Secondly, any members of the public who wish to 

10 address the Board at the public remarks portion 

11 of this meeting, there's a sign-up sheet for 

12 you as well. Please make use of that. 

13 And thirdly, there should be a table -- and I 

14 think it's also in the corridor -- with -- or 

15 maybe -- oh, it's in the back of the room, with 

16 the papers and documents and other materials, 

17 including the agenda, for this meeting. So you 

18 can avail yourself of that. 

19 COMMENTS FROM DR. LEW WADE

20 Over the past little over three years we've 

21 been privileged to have as our Designated 

22 Federal Official Dr. Lewis Wade. This is 

23 actually Dr. Wade's last meeting, and he is 

24 actually here almost as an observer now. But 

25 Dr. Wade, we welcome you this last time and, if 
12

1 you would, come up and you -- you may address 

2 the Board, or you can use the podium if you 

3 wish, or if you have a special routine you can 

4 just do it right out here in the front -- 

5 whatever you wish to -- you're free now; you're 

6 not a member of this Board. You can do or say 

7 what you wish. 

8 DR. WADE: Well, I'll do it from here. Thank 

9 you very much, Paul. It's indeed an honor to 

10 be here, as it has over the last three years. 

11 This morning what I'd like to do is just 

12 provide you with a bit of an update on the 

13 status of things, and then take a moment to 

14 thank the Board members for -- for their 

15 service. 

16 By way of the update, Dr. Christine Branche is 

17 now the Designated Federal Official for this 

18 Board, officially named and sanctioned. She 

19 also has taken over as the Technical Project 

20 Officer on the SC&A contract, so she fills both 

21 of those roles. 

22 As for me, I'll be around, helping as I can and 

23 filling in for Christine at an odd meeting of a 

24 workgroup or a subcommittee here or there as 

25 she needs me. The one thing I am committed to 
13

1 do is to work with the Board and Christine to 

2 see that the recompete of the Board's 

3 contractor happens appropriately, and I'll work 

4 on that with Christine and see that through to 

5 its completion. 

6 So those are sort of the updates. 

7 My thank you really needs to begin, as I think 

8 any discussion of this Board's business needs 

9 to begin, by thinking about the hundreds of 

10 thousands of men and women at the hundreds of 

11 sites that helped this country fight and win 

12 the Cold War, that have given their life 

13 service to our security, our security as a 

14 nation. I think we can't forget those people 

15 in anything we do. 

16 There is a national program, as you know, that 

17 was put in place to compensate those among that 

18 number who have contracted cancer. That 

19 program is not simply a compensation program, 

20 but it's a program that looks at compensating 

21 individuals if it can be demonstrated that 

22 their cancers was as likely as not caused by 

23 their exposure. People don't just join the 

24 Special Exposure Cohort. There's tests that 

25 they need to undergo. Those tests really go to 
14

1 the issue of whether their doses can be 

2 reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. 

3 The laws and rules that control those 

4 activities are clear, and they put some rigor 

5 between us and the compensation of those 

6 people. And this Board fills in in terms of 

7 that space. 

8 Let me tell you about the very good news that 

9 19,000 individual dose reconstructions have 

10 been completed. More than a billion dollars 

11 has been paid to those former workers based 

12 upon individual dose reconstructions and people 

13 joining the Special Exposure Cohort. There 

14 have been 28 new classes added to that Special 

15 Exposure Cohort. So a great deal of positive 

16 things have happened relative to those heroes 

17 of our nation. 

18 Thanks go to many, many people. I would be 

19 remiss if I didn't look to my colleagues at 

20 NIOSH and commend them on their work -- their 

21 hard work that have resulted in these dose 

22 reconstructions and this compensation. The 

23 contractors that support this program, their 

24 efforts can't be overlooked. 

25 But then you come to this Board in the role of 
15

1 is the cancer as likely as not, has sufficient 

2 accuracy been met -- that begins to define the 

3 work of this Board. The Board has in its 

4 charter a review of the scientific validity and 

5 quality of dose reconstructions. The Board 

6 advises the Secretary of Health and Human 

7 Services on whether classes should be added. 

8 I don't have to tell you the tremendous amount 

9 of work that's involved in that. Those of you 

10 who sit on the Board, anyone who's observed the 

11 Board, understands this tremendous undertaking. 

12 I count 16 workgroups. There are Board members 

13 who serve on six or more workgroups. This is a 

14 tremendous amount of work, hard work, 

15 dedication of your time, jetting across the 

16 country to all kinds of places -- as exotic as 

17 Cincinnati or Tampa, Florida -- and making the 

18 sacrifice. 

19 But what I would leave you with is not just 

20 remembering your hard work, because we all know 

21 people who work hard, but the tremendous 

22 compassion that this Board has brought to its 

23 work. The Board has never forgotten who it 

24 truly serves, and those are those hundreds of 

25 thousands of people who won the Cold War for 
16

1 our nation. This Board has demonstrated a 

2 compassion for those people that I think is 

3 worthy of note, worthy of my personal comment, 

4 and I thank you all for that. Your hard work 

5 and your service to those people have been a 

6 joy for me to watch, and I have certainly been 

7 inspired by it. And I thank you again for your 

8 public service. 

9 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Lew. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, thank you very much. I'm 

11 going to now read a letter into the record. 

12 This is a letter signed by the Board members, 

13 and I will transmit it on to you as well, Lew, 

14 after it is completely signed. We have to get 

15 Robert Presley's signature on it as well. That 

16 is if Robert doesn't object after hearing it. 

17 But anyway, without objection, Lew, this letter 

18 comes from the Board and I will read it on 

19 their behalf. 

20 Dear Lew: As members of the Advisory Board on 

21 Radiation and Worker Health, we wish to thank 

22 you for your dedicated service as Designated 

23 Federal Official and Executive Secretary of the 

24 Board for the past three years. Your sage 

25 advice and sound wisdom have been beneficial in 
17

1 helping the Board carry out its 

2 responsibilities fairly and efficiently. Your 

3 wise counsel has helped us focus and prioritize 

4 our activities, and to stay on track amidst the 

5 many complex issues with which the Board has 

6 had to deal. We all appreciate your gracious 

7 spirit and your regular words of encouragement. 

8 As you move on to other activities and 

9 responsibilities, we wish you the very best. 

10 We will miss you, of course, but if you ever 

11 find yourself bored and in need of excitement 

12 in the future, please know that you are welcome 

13 to join us at any future meetings. We will be 

14 more than happy to give you up to ten minutes 

15 for public comment. 

16 Our sincere good wishes, signed by the Board. 

17 Thank you, Lew, again. 

18 And we're pleased to have Christine Branche to 

19 pick up the torch and -- and carry it, and 

20 although she's been here a while, welcome 

21 again, Christine, to these activities and 

22 responsibilities. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Never a dull moment. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We will follow the agenda as set 

25 forth -- as published. You recognize that the 
18

1 time specified on each item is an estimated 

2 time. We necessarily will expand or contract, 

3 as the need arises. I told someone earlier I'm 

4 not sure if this is a four-day meeting squeezed 

5 into three or whether it's a two-day meeting 

6 stretched into three; we never know exactly how 

7 much time we need for some of these activities 

8 and discussions. But nonetheless, let us 

9 proceed. 

10 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEC PETITION

11 We will begin first with the petition on the 

12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. LaVon 

13 Rutherford will make the presentation for 

14 NIOSH, and then we'll have an opportunity to 

15 hear from the petitioners as well. 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, the 

17 Board and public, for giving me this 

18 opportunity to speak on behalf of NIOSH and our 

19 -- what we had attempted to, our evaluation of 

20 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We 

21 had intended to present the evaluation report 

22 for this site. However, late in the process we 

23 ran into some issues that we had to pull back 

24 that evaluation. I intend to give you a kind 

25 of a chronology of events, what occurred and 
19

1 how we got to where we are, and what we plan to 

2 do to get that evaluation out. 

3 On October 18th, 2007 we sent a letter to a 

4 petitio-- to a claimant, letting that claimant 

5 know that dose reconstruction was not feasible 

6 for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

7 We also provided that claimant a -- the 

8 necessary information to submit a petition -- 

9 an SEC petition. 

10 On October 31st NIOSH received that Form A back 

11 from the petitioner and initiated the 83.14 SEC 

12 process. 

13 On January 17th we sent a -- the draft class 

14 definition, which is our standard process. We 

15 sent the draft class definition for MIT to the 

16 Department of Labor to ensure that they could 

17 administer the class as written. 

18 On January 25th NIOSH received a response from 

19 the Department of Labor regarding that class 

20 definition. The Department of Labor requested 

21 that NIOSH clarify or specify that there are -- 

22 would be two separate class designations for 

23 this and that one would be for MIT and the 

24 other for the Hood Building. 

25 We considered that comment by the Department of 
20

1 Labor, but did not act on that comment. The 

2 Department of Energy web site currently 

3 identifies the MIT and the Hood Building as one 

4 facility under the MIT designation, with an AWE 

5 and a DOE period of operation. We found out 

6 later that actually a Federal Register notice 

7 had not been issued identifying a change in the 

8 facility designation. 

9 On February 22nd of this year we issued our 

10 evaluation report for MIT. On March 11th we 

11 received a second letter from the Department of 

12 Labor raising the same concern with the class 

13 definition. We immediately contacted the 

14 Department of Labor to discuss their concern. 

15 The Department of Labor indicated that although 

16 the DOE web site web site lists the MIT and the 

17 Hood Building as one facility under the MIT 

18 heading, the process of officially designating 

19 them as separate facilities was underway. 

20 At that time we felt we could still go forward 

21 with our evaluation, but we wanted -- what we 

22 would do was we would issue an addendum to our 

23 report and we would identify two separate 

24 classes, one for the Hood Building and one for 

25 the AWE period of MIT. 
21

1 However, during the process, on March 19th, 

2 2008 -- during the process of preparing that 

3 addendum we recognized that with it -- the Hood 

4 Building being a DOE facility, MIT may have not 

5 been the sole prime contractor for that 

6 facility. Additional contractors may have been 

7 operating that Hood Building, and in fact we 

8 recognized that Nuclear Metals, Inc. was 

9 contracted to perform metallurgical work in the 

10 Hood Building in 1954. We recognized at that 

11 time we had not reviewed Nuclear Metals, Inc. 

12 documentation for this evaluation. 

13 So on March 21st we sent an e-mail to the 

14 Advisory Board pulling back the SEC evaluation 

15 report for MIT. We contacted the MIT 

16 petitioner to explain the situation. 

17 So now we -- we pulled the report back. Now 

18 I'm going to discuss what we're going to do 

19 from this point forward to get this evaluation 

20 complete. 

21 We have indication that there may be a file at 

22 the -- at MIT that might have -- may identify 

23 additional contractors who operated the Hood 

24 facility. We are going to go try to get that 

25 file and review that file. We're also 
22

1 reviewing all documents associated with Nuclear 

2 Metals, Inc., and any other contractor that we 

3 do identify during the process, we will review 

4 their documents as well. In addition, if we do 

5 identify additional contractors, we will 

6 request any documentation they may have. 

7 After we've received and reviewed all the 

8 documents, we will determine if this -- if the 

9 documents change our feasibility determination. 

10 If the feasibility does not change, we plan to 

11 issue an evaluation report prior to the June 

12 Board meeting, and we will present that 

13 evaluation at that meeting. And it will be 

14 specific to the Hood Building and its covered 

15 period. 

16 At this time we have no existing claimants that 

17 worked at MIT during the AWE period of 1942 

18 through 1946, so at this time we do not plan to 

19 issue an evaluation report for that period of 

20 1942 to 1946. 

21 And that's it. Questions? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, LaVon. Let me 

23 ask, Board members, do you have any questions 

24 before we hear from the petitioner -- and 

25 you'll have a chance again if -- after that as 
23

1 well. 

2 (No responses) 

3 Okay. I want to check and see if [name 

4 redacted] is on the line. [Name redacted], are 

5 you with us this morning? 

6 (No responses) 

7 [Name redacted], are you on the line? 

8 (No responses) 

9 He's not going to be? Okay, I was told he 

10 would be, but -- oh, okay, I -- oh, I -- yes, I 

11 see now. I interpreted that wrong. Thank you. 

12 Thank you. 

13 And since, in essence, this has been put back 

14 on hold till we get the new ER, so that's the 

15 status. Any further questions then at this 

16 point? 

17 (No responses) 

18 Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, LaVon. 

19 Then we're ready I think to move on. This is 

20 one of those cases where we didn't need the 

21 full time that we anticipated originally. 

22 The next item on the agenda is an SEC petition 

23 from Texas City Chemicals, and Dr. Neton from 

24 NIOSH will make that presentation for us. 

25 Then, again, we'll have an opportunity in this 
24

1 case to hear from some petitioners by phone. 

2 Let me check and make sure they are on the 

3 line. Christine Ray, are you on the line? And 

4 Dan McKeel, are you on the line? 

5 (No responses) 

6 One problem, if they have the agenda and they 

7 think it's not going to start till 9:45, that 

8 could be a problem. 

9 (Pause) 

10 I'm -- I'm -- give us a minute here. I think, 

11 in fairness to the petitioner since the -- the 

12 agenda called for this to occur at 9:45, I'm -- 

13 and I'm suspecting that they will want to -- 

14 they -- they indicated they would be here by 

15 phone, and it may not be fair to them to start 

16 that early. Let's take a minute and we'll see 

17 what we -- if we can juggle something here. 

18 Just stand by. 

19 (Pause) 

20 ... check -- John Mauro, is Kathy Behling here 

21 yet, do you know? 

22 DR. MAURO: She's flying in this morning. She 

23 -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so we can't -- 

25 DR. MAURO: -- probably won't be available till 
25

1 -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- move that one up. Thank you. 

3 Larry, what's the possibility of getting your 

4 presentation on quality assurance early? Is 

5 that -- catch you off-guard here, it was for 

6 this afternoon. 

7 MS. BEACH: I think that should wait until a 

8 couple more Board members are here. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 MS. BEACH: That's an important one, I believe. 

11 Sorry, Larry. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: That's fine. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: I would say the same for 

14 procedures as well. 

15 MS. MUNN: Plus we have to have Kathy. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah -- we don't need to have 

17 Kathy, but -- she's critical to -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: No, we do for that. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Is there something from... 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Now I think -- let me just look 

21 here -- all of these have petitioner -- 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer – 

23 NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE

24 DR. ZIEMER: NIOSH program update, can we do 

25 that? That might be -- 
26

1 MR. ELLIOTT: I think I can struggle through 

2 that. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, we'll -- we'll pull 

4 that forward from tomorrow's agenda, the NIOSH 

5 program update. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: So we're ready? 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Larry Elliott will present 

8 this. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, good morning, Board members 

10 and members of the public, and colleagues. 

11 I'll try my best here, and I may need to follow 

12 up with information that I have upstairs in my 

13 room on some of these if I have questions 

14 relevant to a particular point, so if you would 

15 bear with me in that regard, I'd appreciate it. 

16 These are the standard set of slides that we go 

17 through to provide the Board and the public a 

18 program status report, as you've seen in the 

19 past. To date, or as of March 31st of this 

20 year, 26,876 cases have been referred to NIOSH 

21 for dose reconstruction. And of those, 71 

22 percent or 19,046 have been returned to the 

23 Department of Labor for a decision or for a 

24 final adjudication. Of that 19,046, 16,780 

25 arrived at DOL with a dose reconstruction 
27

1 report; 701 were pulled by the Department of 

2 Labor from our case -- our claim pool, for a 

3 variety of reasons. And as we have talked 

4 about in the past, these can range from claims 

5 that were sent to us early on in the program 

6 that shouldn't -- not have been sent to us, 

7 they were toxic chemical exposure claims, or 

8 they might have been a chronic lymphocytic 

9 leukemia claim, a variety of other reasons why 

10 these were pulled from us, so we did not do any 

11 work on those 701 claims that were returned. 

12 There are 1,565 claims or cases that have been 

13 returned to DOL because we feel that they -- 

14 and DOL feels that they might fit into one of 

15 the classes that have been added to the Special 

16 Exposure Cohort. Twenty-three percent or 7,468 

17 cases now remain at NIOSH for dose 

18 reconstruction. 

19 We have a process where we complete a dose 

20 reconstruction report and we give it to the 

21 claimant, and we ask the claimant to assert in 

22 an OCAS-1 form that they have no further 

23 information to provide on that claim. And when 

24 we don't receive that form, we wait a total of 

25 about 74 days -- the rule calls for 60 days and 
28

1 then we give another 14 days grace -- and if we 

2 don't hear from them -- from the claimants with 

3 regard to whether they have information or not, 

4 we administratively close the dose 

5 reconstruction. We can open this dose 

6 reconstruction at any point in time where the 

7 claimant may find that they have additional 

8 information, or they wish for us to move the 

9 claim on to Department of Labor. So we have 

10 362 of those claims that are administratively 

11 closed at this time. 

12 The pie chart that I typically provide you 

13 breaks down the case status of all of our 

14 claims into these categories -- those that are 

15 completed, those that are pulled, those that 

16 are pulled for SEC purposes and the 

17 administratively closed claims that you see 

18 here in red. The active cases are shown in 

19 yellow, and then the cases that are pending -- 

20 and pending means that there is some technical 

21 hold on the case or there's some issue that 

22 we're trying to resolve before the case can 

23 move forward. 

24 Of the 16,780 dose reconstructions that we've 

25 returned to Department of Labor for final 
29

1 adjudication, we believe that 34 percent had a 

2 POC greater than 50 percent, or were found to 

3 be compensable. That's -- that leaves 66 

4 percent, or 10,811 cases, where a POC of less 

5 than 50 percent was determined by the 

6 Department of Labor and thus the claim was 

7 deemed non-compensable. 

8 This bar graph shows you the -- in decile 

9 breakdown the probability of causation as it 

10 ranges across zero to ten percent and on up to 

11 greater than 50 percent. And you can see the -

12 - these numbers total up to those 16,000 that 

13 we reported earlier. 

14 Of the 7,468 cases remaining at NIOSH for dose 

15 reconstruction, 3,203 are currently assigned at 

16 some stage of development with a health 

17 physicist in dose reconstruction; 926 initial 

18 draft dose reconstruction reports are currently 

19 in the hands, as of March 31st, of the 

20 claimants. And here's where we're waiting for 

21 their review of this report and the return of 

22 the OCAS-1 form. There are 3,339 cases 

23 currently not assigned in dose reconstruction, 

24 means they're in some stage of development or 

25 awaiting assignment to a dose reconstructor. 
30

1 4,476 claims are now older than a year, or 60 

2 percent of our active case load. 

3 We continue to maintain our vigilance in our 

4 attention on the oldest claims. We're trying 

5 to work those as quickly as we possibly can. 

6 And this slide reports our efforts on the 

7 oldest claims, or the first 5,000. We have 

8 generated dose reconstruction reports and 

9 provided those to DOL for 3,568. Of the first 

10 5,000, 72 are sitting at administrative closed 

11 situations. We have 251 out of the first 5,000 

12 that have been pulled by DOL for some reason, 

13 and we have 211 cases that were SEC-related 

14 cases and returned to DOL for that reason. 

15 There are three dose reconstructions currently 

16 with the claimant for review. And DOL has 

17 returned to us -- this number grows, as you 

18 know, because of our Program Evaluation 

19 Reviews, but they have returned 848 claims to 

20 us for a rework. This leaves a total of 47 

21 claims awaiting dose reconstruction, and we -- 

22 I monitor these 47 claims on an individual 

23 basis, along with several of my staff. A 

24 number of these 47 claims are awaiting SEC 

25 determination -- NUMEC Apollo, NUMEC Parks are 
31

1 listed in this mix of 47 -- and all of the 

2 remaining claims are at some stage of 

3 completion, either SEC or a technical issue 

4 being resolved with regard to their status. 

5 This line graph gives you a sense of trend of 

6 how the claims were initially received and how 

7 we've worked against those back -- the backlog 

8 from the initial receipt. The blue line here -

9 - I'm sorry, I don't have a pointer with me, 

10 but the light blue line indicates those cases 

11 that were received from the Department of 

12 Labor, and you can see the huge number of 

13 claims we received in the early days of the 

14 program. The red line indicates those that we 

15 have returned to the Department of Labor for 

16 decision, and the green line indicates those 

17 draft dose reconstruction reports provided to 

18 the claimants. And you can see that in the 

19 third quarter of 2007 we started building 

20 another backlog, essentially, not working off 

21 as many claims -- thank you very much -- not 

22 working off the claims as quickly as we were 

23 receiving them. So right in here, I'm 

24 monitoring -- if I can get my -- well -- 

25 It bounces all over the place. 
32

1 Well, you can see where I'm talking here, I 

2 hope. That's weird. And so we're watching 

3 this very closely. This is a result of I think 

4 several dynamics, this late building of a 

5 backlog. One dynamic, our inability to utilize 

6 all of our budget -- thank you. 

7 Well, that won't work, either. Now I've got 

8 two pointers and I'll have to return all those 

9 to rightful owners. 

10 At any rate, this backlog is a result of 

11 several dynamics, one of which is our inability 

12 to utilize all of our appropriated funds during 

13 that fiscal year. 

14 Here we come with a third pointer so that I can 

15 be very illustrative to the audience, and I 

16 think this -- this one looks like it's working. 

17 Gotcha. Gotcha. I've got to be careful. I 

18 want Ms. Munn to sit down before I wave this 

19 one around. 

20 The se-- oh, wow, look at this. Now there's a 

21 pointer for you. 

22 Another dynamic has been an extensive 

23 frustration with us in the attempts to compete 

24 and award a new technical support contract on 

25 dose reconstruction. As many of you know, our 
33

1 ORAU contract and the support they provide to 

2 us ended its first five -- ended the five-year 

3 award period back in September, September 11th, 

4 2007. And so we've been operating on a 

5 contract modification extension process where 

6 we give them three or four more weeks, five or 

7 six more weeks, and we can't just infuse enough 

8 to get the capacity up in that regard. So 

9 there's a lot of things going on here. 

10 It's my hope that once we get our -- we now are 

11 under -- we are under no continuing resolution 

12 process. We can utilize all of our funds, but 

13 we now have to face the award of this contract 

14 before we can get back up to full speed in our 

15 work. 

16 This bar graph shows you, in 1,000 increments, 

17 the status of claims across our claim 

18 population. The -- and we start over here with 

19 the administratively closed in I believe a 

20 purple -- if you're not color blind and you can 

21 see that. It's generally at the top of this 

22 bar. So each purple -- the purple represents 

23 those that are administratively closed at this 

24 time. The yellow represents those that are an 

25 SEC case in that given column. The green -- 
34

1 light green here, lime green, indicates those 

2 cases that are pending for some technical 

3 reason or some demographic case-related reason 

4 that we're going back to DOL to find more 

5 information on in order to do our work. The 

6 brown or the -- this color, whatever that is, 

7 is the active cases that we're dealing with. 

8 And then the red are those that are pulled, for 

9 whatever reason, and then the blue -- light 

10 blue or almost white here is cases that are 

11 completed within those 1,000 increments. 

12 This chart shows you the number of reworks that 

13 NIOSH has received, as well as those that have 

14 been returned to the Department of Labor. As 

15 you know, our rework numbers increased 

16 dramatically at the second quarter of 2007, we 

17 started seeing this kind of a trend. That 

18 result is from our Program Evaluation Reviews, 

19 and primarily the -- the first one, the big 

20 one, onset of the highly insoluble plutonium 

21 super S issue. And so a number of these are 

22 relative to that Program Evaluation Review. 

23 Prior to that, typically what we were seeing 

24 was, you know, a set of claims that were going 

25 back and forth between us and DOL, returned to 
35

1 us for rework because of some demographic 

2 issue, not so much technical issues that we 

3 were dealing with. And now we're starting to 

4 deal with these technical issues that are 

5 exhibited and reported out in our Program 

6 Evaluation Reviews. I'll have more on that set 

7 of reworks in another slide. 

8 The number of outstanding requests -- as you 

9 know, we turn to the Department of Energy and 

10 we seek exposure information, bioassay 

11 information, monitoring information on these 

12 claims for that particular claim's employment 

13 at whatever site the Energy employee worked. 

14 We have 478 of these right now open, awaiting a 

15 response from DOE. We check these every 30 

16 days. At 60 days we start asking hard 

17 questions about why is it taking so long, are 

18 you going to find anything, when will you find 

19 something, and so we follow up on those. We 

20 monitor -- after 60 days we've got 188 of those 

21 that we're -- we're watching very closely and 

22 DOE's response to our requests. 

23 At one point in our program we changed our 

24 tactics a little bit. We -- at the start of 

25 the program we had tactically decided to expend 
36

1 our resources and our efforts on those sites 

2 that had large numbers of claims, and that left 

3 unattended the smaller sites, mainly AWE -- 

4 Atomic Weapon Employer -- sites where we had 

5 really small numbers of claims. And so in 2005 

6 we started working in that area very strongly 

7 and actually added another contractor to help 

8 us on that work. That was Battelle. We did 

9 that so we could see, you know, how quickly 

10 another contractor could get up to speed on 

11 doing some of these types of sites. And from 

12 that effort was generated two Technical Basis 

13 Documents, 6000 and 6001. And because of that, 

14 we realized that the variety of work that was 

15 done at these Atomic Weapon Employer sites 

16 required us to develop what we call appendices 

17 to those two Technical Basis Documents that 

18 speak to the unique exposures that were 

19 attendant to those types of operations at a 

20 given site. And so we have identified for TBD21 6000 the need to have site-specific appendices 

22 for 16 -- or 15 different sites, and we have 

23 completed or -- excuse me, 17 of those were 

24 needed for TBD-6000. We have completed 15 of 

25 those. We have one that is now in review and 
37

1 we have one that remains in development. 

2 For TBD-6001 there are six site-specific 

3 appendices and all six have been completed. 

4 Again back to Program Evaluation Reports, I 

5 probably should move that graphics slide closer 

6 to this slide and then I can follow on with the 

7 discussion about PERs here. To date we have 32 

8 Program Evaluation Reviews that have been 

9 issued. These are on our web site. The 

10 affected claims that are represented in these 

11 Program Evaluation Reviews total up to 13,896. 

12 I caution you again that that's an inflated 

13 number because many Program Evaluation Reviews 

14 deal with the same claim, and we count each one 

15 separately, so that's why we have such a large 

16 number here. But we have to -- we have to look 

17 at each claim against each Program Evaluation 

18 Review. The claims that -- after we have done 

19 this review, the claims that we have witnessed 

20 to date that have changed and shown an increase 

21 to greater than 50 percent in a probability of 

22 causation has been 157, and the lymphoma PER is 

23 the primary contributor here with I believe 154 

24 of those. The other three I think are 

25 sprinkled -- there may be a couple at Bethlehem 
38

1 Steel PER, but primarily the lymphoma PER has 

2 resulted in the -- in the -- a large number of 

3 those that have become compensable. 6,700 -- 

4 or -- yeah, 6,769 claims have been evaluated 

5 and reviewed, and no change has resulted in the 

6 probability of causation, and perhaps no change 

7 in the dose reconstruction report itself. We 

8 have 6,970 claims still in evaluation under 

9 these Program Evaluation Reviews, and we're 

10 moving through those as quickly as possible. 

11 I think Dr. Ziemer mentioned in his letter -- 

12 or maybe Dr. Wade mentioned in his summary -- 

13 that there have been 28 SEC classes added, and 

14 that is true. But as of March 31st there were 

15 only 25 for this slide when it was made up. 

16 The other three I think are coming to maturity 

17 today. Those other three are mature today. 

18 The 30 days has passed for Congress to take any 

19 action and they took no action, and so this 

20 number shou-- is -- if I were to make this 

21 slide up today, it would say 28. I think it's 

22 important that we speak about the 16 here, 59 

23 percent of those 25 were developed through the 

24 83.13 process. That's where a petitioner has 

25 submitted a petition asking us to consider and 
39

1 evaluate it. Nine of these 25, or 41 percent, 

2 have been processed through the 83.14 process, 

3 and that's where we have identified a claim 

4 that we cannot reconstruct the dose and we work 

5 with that particular claimant to file a Form A, 

6 and we process it accordingly to this Section 

7 of the rule. These 25 SEC classes represent 

8 workers across 19 sites. And I believe, if we 

9 look at the 28, that -- that would be -- if 

10 we're looking at 28 SEC classes, this would be 

11 23 -- 22 sites -- 22 sites. All of this 

12 represents 1,565 potential claims, and I don't 

13 have the number for the additional three that 

14 were added -- completed today. 

15 As I mentioned earlier, we're -- continue to be 

16 frustrated in our efforts to award the contract 

17 on support for dose reconstruction. It's taken 

18 us -- taken our procurement and grants folks a 

19 considerable amount of time and effort to 

20 process this competitive procurement proc-- 

21 award process, and so where we're at right 

22 today is -- well, back up. The request for our 

23 proposal was published back in May of last 

24 year. The proposals were due in June 15th and 

25 they were all received then. There was a set 
40

1 of questions that were answered and the 

2 proposals were amended based upon those 

3 questions -- based on the response to those 

4 questions back in October of last year, and 

5 that also is after the conclusion of the 

6 current contract period. And so we entered 

7 into contract modifications at this point in 

8 time to extend the contract so that continuity 

9 of service would be provided to the claimants 

10 and to the government. So the proposals are 

11 still being processed in our procurement review 

12 process and they're still being examined there, 

13 and we hope that by May 31st, next month, we'll 

14 have an award issued. 

15 And I think that concludes my presentation. 

16 I'm happy to answer questions if I may. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Larry. Board 

18 members -- see who has first question -- Wanda 

19 Munn. 

20 MS. MUNN: Larry, back in one of your early 

21 slides you indicated that we had approximately 

22 the same number of cases already assigned to 

23 health physicists for dose reconstruction and 

24 just a few more cases not yet assigned. Given 

25 the problems we've had with operating under 
41

1 continuing resolution for so long and our 

2 concerns that we always have with respect to 

3 overload of the staff at NIOSH, do you feel 

4 that -- that you have what you need in the way 

5 of staff to address this almost even 

6 distribution between assigned and unassigned 

7 cases, especially given the problems that arise 

8 with the amount of time necessary to review the 

9 cases that are coming as a result of the PERs? 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: We want to manage this program 

11 with excellence. And right now I feel what 

12 we're doing is managing the situation with 

13 excellence. That is that we don't have a full 

14 complement of staff because we can't put enough 

15 money on the table for ORAU to bring back 

16 everybody to work in a -- in a short amount of 

17 time. So really ORAU's operating with a -- not 

18 a skeleton staff, but a very scaled-down 

19 structure because they can't infuse -- we can't 

20 give them enough money and they can't bring 

21 everybody back to work like we would like under 

22 this contract extension phase. So as soon as 

23 that award comes, whoever that contractor is, I 

24 hope that we'll be able to regain the capacity 

25 that we enjoyed back in 2006. It's been that 
42

1 long since -- that was our high water mark. We 

2 achieved a capacity of production and capacity 

3 of support that put out 6,000 dose 

4 reconstructions in that year, and handled a 

5 number of SEC classes. And we really need to -

6 - in one year's time, with this backlog that 

7 we're building and oldest claims that we're 

8 still trying to work through, we really need to 

9 see, you know, that capacity and more. And so 

10 I -- I don't know if I've answered your 

11 question as clearly as you would like, but 

12 we're managing the situation with excellence, I 

13 hope and I believe. We'd like to manage the 

14 program with excellence, but we can't do that 

15 until we're able to infuse this new -- the 

16 contractor with the amount of money that's 

17 necessary to do that. 

18 MS. MUNN: Is there good news or bad news with 

19 respect to the budget line items? 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, each year we put forward a 

21 budget request, and for -- we know what our 

22 budget is for FY08 and we put forward a budget 

23 request for FY09 that should attend to this 

24 capacity problem that I've spoken about. And 

25 so the awarding of this contract and the timing 
43

1 of that awarding we feel is beneficial. By 

2 that I mean it's mid-year. And so -- it's mid3 fiscal year, so each time a -- our 

4 appropriations comes through in a fiscal year, 

5 we can look forward to this -- to the cycle of 

6 this contract being every mid-year we'll have 

7 two years -- we'll be working on two years' 

8 worth of money to infuse into that contract -- 

9 if anybody understands what I'm trying to say. 

10 It's very complex, but I think we will be able 

11 to show you increase in production up to the 

12 capacity that we once enjoyed. 

13 MS. MUNN: That was essentially my concern. 

14 Thank you. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Josie? 

16 MS. BEACH: Larry, back on slide 15 you have 16 

17 percent the 83.13 and then you -- you indicated 

18 that some of those you determine will become an 

19 83.14. Can you give me an idea of why some of 

20 them you recommend to go to 83.14s and why some 

21 of them you may use surrogate data for? 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: This slide? 

23 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Sixteen of these were 

25 83.13. That's where a petitioner sends us the 
44

1 Form B, or a letter that says I want to 

2 petition for this class. 

3 MS. BEACH: Correct. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: The other instance is where we've 

5 identified through our dose reconstruction 

6 efforts that we cannot reconstruct a given 

7 claim, and so we work with that claimant to 

8 become a petitioner. I don't know where the 

9 surrogate data comes in here. I -- 

10 MS. BEACH: Well, maybe I'll get to it later 

11 on. In all cases when there's not a dose, do 

12 you recommend for 83.14? 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

14 MS. BEACH: In all cases. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Where there is an inability to 

16 reconstruct the dose -- 

17 MS. BEACH: Okay, thank you. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: -- we would recommend an 83.14. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Larry, on slide seven, which is 

20 those first 5,000 cases, the -- the 848 that 

21 are returned from DOL, now what specifically is 

22 -- where are they in the various queues? I 

23 mean some of those must be awaiting dose 

24 reconstruction again. Is that not true? 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: There's -- yeah, we'd have to 
45

1 look at almost every one of those 848 on an 

2 individual basis to tell you where they're at. 

3 There's a variety of reasons why these claims 

4 are brought back to us. These claims, though, 

5 would represent -- these 848 have already had a 

6 dose reconstruction. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Right, understood, I just -- 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, so they're not -- it's not 

9 they haven't been treated once. The 47, those 

10 are my prime concern 'cause they've not ever 

11 had an answer from us. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Those -- those are brand -- or -- 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Those are -- those are active 

14 cases, without ever having had a dose 

15 reconstruction report or been told we can't do 

16 one. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: The 848 could be, as I say, a 

19 variety of reasons. One reason would be 

20 they're a Program Evaluation Review claim that 

21 DOL has returned to us and we have been asked 

22 to evaluate it or rework it. And we'll 

23 evaluate it and if -- if the claim is not 

24 affected by the Program Evaluation Review, 

25 we'll return that claim with a letter to DOL 
46

1 saying this has been evaluated and there's no 

2 effect, no change to the dose reconstruction. 

3 If we look at it and evaluate it and say oh, we 

4 need to rework this, then we will provide a 

5 reworked dose reconstruction to the claimant 

6 and to DOL. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: So ultimately those 848 will sort 

8 of subdivide into those other sub-categories 

9 eventually. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: And some of those may be that our 

13 public health advisors have identified 

14 something wrong with the demographics of the 

15 claim and have talked to DOL and DOL said okay, 

16 here, we'll kick it back. So there's a variety 

17 of reasons. But I think the main point I want 

18 to make here on those 848, they've had -- 

19 they've had an answer at one point in time, and 

20 now they're being revisited because, for one 

21 reason or another, that answer is not 

22 satisfactory. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So there's really only 47 out of 

24 5,000, which is -- 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: There's only 47, and that number 
47

1 would drop to date -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- that have never been -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: That number would drop to date 

4 'cause some of those 47 are NUMEC Apollo, which 

5 came -- I believe -- Parks, Parks came final 

6 today. So -- 

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually Apollo went final -- 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, that's right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: But there are some here that are 

11 -- we're awaiting the designations. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: That was Mr. Rutherford who said -

13 - far away from the mike -- that -- that those 

14 were NUMEC Apollo cas-- some of those are NUMEC 

15 Apollo cases. 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually some of those are 

17 NUMEC Parks -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: NUMEC Parks cases. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- which we are presenting at 

20 this Board meeting, so -- 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: I have -- 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- Apollo has already went 

23 final. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: I have the full list of 47, and I 

25 can speak -- I don't have it here, I didn't 
48

1 anticipate I'd need it right now; I have it in 

2 my room, but I can bring that if you -- if 

3 anyone wants to know what's going on with each 

4 one of these 47. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I will add, though, that some 

6 of those claims -- as Larry mentioned earlier, 

7 the three that went final just recently will 

8 take up some of those claims. That would be 

9 Combustion Engineering and Lawrence Livermore. 

10 I can't remember what the third one is off11 hand, so... 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Will be from this group of 47 -- 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- is what you're saying. 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. Further 

17 questions for Larry? 

18 (No responses) 

19 Apparently not. Again, Larry, thank you very 

20 much -- 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: My pleasure. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: -- a very succinct update. 

23 (Pause) 

24 TEXAS CITY CHEMICALS, INC. SEC PETITION

25 Let's see, I now want to check to see if the 
49

1 Texas City petitioners are on the line. First 

2 of all, Christine Ray, are you on the line this 

3 morning? 

4 (No responses) 

5 How about Dan McKeel? 

6 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, I am on the line. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, Dan. Dan, do you 

8 know if Christine is going to be on the line 

9 with us? 

10 DR. MCKEEL: I know that a bunch of people, 

11 including Christine, were supposed to be and so 

12 I definitely expect she was going to be there 

13 and I think she thought this was going to start 

14 at -- well, she should be there now. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we're -- we're just a few 

16 minutes early, but we're going to take a moment 

17 here and call her and see if she's ready to go. 

18 We'll wait just -- 

19 DR. MCKEEL: We sort of agreed that my 

20 presentation would be first, so -- but I do 

21 think -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in fairness, I do want her 

23 to be able to hear the other presentations, so 

24 we'll wait just a moment. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, when he was talking, the 
50

1 buzz was on his end? 

2 Okay. Dr. McKeel, could you please say 

3 something more as a test? 

4 (No responses) 

5 Dr. McKeel, can you hear me? 

6 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, I can. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. There's a bit of a buzz on 

8 your end. Is -- Mr. Presley, could you please 

9 say something into -- into your phone? 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Yeah, now there's a buzz. 

12 MR. PRESLEY: I didn't hear you. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Are either of you speaking 

14 by speaker phone? 

15 DR. MCKEEL: No, I've got my -- I'm just using 

16 my hand phone. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: I've got a hand set. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Is there anything else I 

19 should ask them to do? 

20 Okay, I would just -- I would just caution you 

21 all to -- Dr. McKeel, thank you for submitting 

22 to my little test there. Dr. McKeel, when you 

23 speak -- and I'll ask Dr. Ziemer to say this 

24 when each person is given -- when each of the 

25 petitioners is given an opportunity to speak, 
51

1 if you could please speak slowly, because 

2 apparently when you do speak, there's a bit of 

3 a buzz in the line. 

4 DR. MCKEEL: I shall; is this better? 

5 DR. BRANCHE: No, actually that's a little 

6 worse. 

7 DR. MCKEEL: Okay, that's a little closer to 

8 the -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, actually that's better, 

10 whatever you just started saying was much 

11 clearer, and I don't know what you did, but -- 

12 DR. MCKEEL: I backed away from the hand set. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: That's beautiful. Okay. Thank 

14 you, we'll get started in just a moment. 

15 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: If you could please re-mute your 

17 line. 

18 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: Dr. McKeel, this is the 

20 (unintelligible) in Texas City, Texas. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good, thank you. We were -- 

22 is Christine Ray there with you? 

23 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, Christine Ray is with us. 

24 We wanted to let you know we’re on line. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're ready to proceed then 
52

1 with the discussion of the Texas City Chemicals 

2 petition, and first of all we're going to have 

3 a presentation by NIOSH from Dr. James Neton, 

4 then we'll have the opportunity to hear from 

5 those who wish to speak on behalf of the Texas 

6 City petition. So here's Dr. Neton. And while 

7 you are listening, please mute your phone until 

8 you're ready to speak. Thank you. 

9 DR. NETON: Good morning. As our usual 

10 practice, I'm here to present a summary of our 

11 evaluation report for the Texas City Chemicals 

12 petition that we received. I believe the 

13 report was completed at the end of January, and 

14 shortly thereafter was sent to members of the 

15 Advisory Board and the petitioners. It's also 

16 been posted on our web site for some time now. 

17 What makes Texas City Chemicals an AWE is 

18 listed here. They were engaged in phosphate 

19 fertilizer, plant production, which is somewhat 

20 different than the Blockson Chemical situation 

21 that we've talked about. Blockson Chemical was 

22 an existing phosphate fertilizer pla-- 

23 phosphate plant and the AEC opted to recover 

24 the uranium from the -- essentially their 

25 byproduct. In this situation the AEC actually 
53

1 was engaged in a letter contract for Texas City 

2 to construct a fertilizer plant, which they 

3 could take advantage of the byproduct material 

4 and pull off the uranium concentrate from the 

5 phosphoric acid, so it's a little different 

6 than the Blockson Chemical situation. 

7 In addition to the phosphate fertilizer plant 

8 and the capture of the byproduct material, 

9 there was also a letter contract that we found 

10 that indicated that the chemical extraction 

11 research was also conducted at Texas City, and 

12 that primarily involved looking at ways to have 

13 a cheap recovery process for some of the ore 

14 material that -- the leach -- the leach zone 

15 matrix, as they called it, to try to extract -- 

16 get a better efficiency for extraction of some 

17 of the byproducts of the original chemical -- 

18 the processing of the ores from the mines. 

19 The covered period listed here is from 1952 

20 through 1956. There also was a residual period 

21 for this site that goes from 1957 through '77. 

22 The petition was qualified on August 17th of 

23 2007, based on the information provided by the 

24 petitioners, and those are listed in the two 

25 bullets provided here. That is that radiation 
54

1 monitoring records of the members of the class 

2 may have been lost, falsified or destroyed; or 

3 that information regarding monitoring records 

4 for Texas City Chemical workers is unavailable. 

5 NIOSH certainly concurred with that, that we 

6 have absolutely no monitoring records as far as 

7 personal dosimetry or bioassay samples from any 

8 workers at this facility. 

9 The proposed class by the petitioners was all 

10 employees who worked in all areas at Texas City 

11 Chemicals from January 1st, '52 through the end 

12 of -- through December 31st, 1956. The NIOSH 

13 evaluated class was slightly different from 

14 that in the sense that we replaced "all" with 

15 the word "any," to indicate that a person would 

16 not have had to work in all areas of the plant 

17 in order to qualify for the class -- just a 

18 subtle switch in words there. 

19 Okay. As usual we list the available 

20 information that we have to do dose 

21 reconstructions here. First I might add where 

22 did we look for monitoring data. We searched a 

23 number of places. Amoco Corporation took over 

24 the operation of the plant at one point so we 

25 went to Amoco looking for records. We found 
55

1 none there. We also did some inquiries to 

2 various Texas -- State of Texas regulatory 

3 bodies, found nothing of use from those 

4 searches. Also looked for US EPA records, 

5 struck out there. And also did a Federal 

6 Records Center search in the Fort Worth-Dallas 

7 -- Fort Worth, Texas area and found no 

8 monitoring data there as well. 

9 In addition, though, we did have information in 

10 the site research database related to contract 

11 information, as I mentioned. These typically 

12 were letter contracts that discussed the 

13 contract between Texas City Chemicals and the 

14 AEC that started in February of 1952 to 

15 construct this phosphate fertilizer plant. We 

16 had source term and production data. The 

17 source term at this site is natural-occurring 

18 radioactive materials; that is mined phosphate 

19 ore, in addition to the uranium that would have 

20 been recovered as part of the process. And we 

21 also had various AEC documents and memos to 

22 work with. 

23 In addition to that, we had some information 

24 from the petitioners. We conducted interviews 

25 with two former workers at the facility, and we 
56

1 held outreach meetings in Texas City on October 

2 18th, 2007 and November 15th, 2007. 

3 In addition to that we had numerous information 

4 on studies of the phosphate industry. The 

5 phosphate industry has been a fairly well6 studied industry over time. Bodies such as the 

7 Florida Institute of Phosphate Research have 

8 done some extensive work in this area. The US 

9 EPA early on was involved in characterizing the 

10 radiation hazards associated with work in this 

11 industry as well, and we had access to those 

12 reports and we did use them in our evaluations. 

13 We also relied on some Technical Information 

14 Bulletins that we had, most notably Technical 

15 Information Bulletin Number 43 that has to do 

16 with how we reconstruct doses from radium and 

17 progeny from phosphate operations. That TIB 

18 relied heavily on the US EPA data. And TIB 24 

19 was used here, which has to do with neutron 

20 dose reconstructions, and TIB 6 which has to do 

21 with reconstructions of X-rays from medical -- 

22 medical expos-- medical chest X-rays. 

23 In addition to that -- we had no site profile, 

24 I should say at the outset, for Texas City 

25 Chemicals. However, much of the process was 
57

1 similar to that that was taken -- carried out 

2 at Blockson Chemical. So to the extent 

3 applicable, we used -- relied on the Blockson 

4 Chemical site profile to perform some of the 

5 analyses for Texas City. I would point out we 

6 are aware that there are differences in these 

7 processes in terms of the volume -- Blockson 

8 did much more volume of processing than Texas 

9 City. In addition there was a difference in 

10 the way the phosphate -- the uranium was 

11 actually recovered. The Texas City process was 

12 involved in a solvent extraction using organic 

13 solvent, as opposed to the precipitation 

14 process for -- chemical precipitation process 

15 that was used at Blockson Chemical. 

16 Okay, a little bit more about the AEC 

17 operations that occurred at Texas City 

18 Chemicals. As I mentioned, they were 

19 contracted with the AEC in February of '52 to 

20 construct a fertilizer plant. Plant 

21 construction started and was completed during 

22 1952. In our -- in the evaluation report, we 

23 believe that there was no indication of any 

24 radiological exposure that occurred during the 

25 construction phase. That is for the entire 
58

1 year of 1952. In fact, the evaluation report 

2 speaks of three different periods. That is the 

3 construction phase, which is 1952; the start -- 

4 the pre-operational phase, which began in early 

5 -- began the beginning of 1953 and continued 

6 through October; and then the operations phase, 

7 which was after October of 1953. 

8 As it says here, the construction was completed 

9 and the start-up operations occurred in October 

10 of '53, which is they started to make uranium 

11 product at that point. They produced a total 

12 of about 300 to 400 pounds of uranium during 

13 these shake-down operations, and in fact that 

14 is the sum total of uranium that we could 

15 identify ever having been produced at this 

16 facility. In fact, there's some reason to 

17 believe, as I'll talk later -- as I'll discuss 

18 later, that all of this product was produced 

19 between October of 1953 and December of 1953 -- 

20 essentially, over a three-month period. 

21 Blockson Chemical (sic) filed for bankruptcy in 

22 July of 1956. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Texas City filed -- 

24 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, Texas City -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: -- not Blockson. 
59

1 DR. NETON: -- I'm slipping again, sorry. 

2 Thank you. 

3 The evaluation report was issued on January 

4 29th, 2008, and we believe, I will -- as I will 

5 discuss, can provide a bounding estimate of 

6 internal and external exposures for this 

7 particular operation. It assumes that the 

8 worker exposures from uranium recovery are at 

9 the operational levels from plant start-up to 

10 the end of the AEC period. That is, the plant 

11 started making uranium in October of 1953. Our 

12 evaluation report assumes that it was at a 

13 constant level of uranium production from that 

14 date through the end of 1956. So it certainly, 

15 in our opinion, is bounding, given that we do 

16 believe and have information now that there was 

17 really only a three-month production period for 

18 uranium. 

19 This is a cartoon I think you've seen before 

20 for the Blockson facility, but it shows the 

21 different -- the way in which the uranium was 

22 manufactured from this process. You see the 

23 phosphate rock here on the left-hand side that 

24 came into the facility. That -- that part of 

25 the process would involve exposure to natural-
60

1 occurring radioactive material. That is, the 

2 mined phosphate rock contained uranium in it. 

3 I think it's .014 percent is a best-estimate of 

4 the content of the uranium, so fairly low 

5 levels of uranium. The uranium, though, is in 

6 equilibrium, or considered to be in 

7 equilibrium, with all of its progeny. There's 

8 also thorium-232 present that is there at a 

9 level of about 1-30th that of the uranium, and 

10 that is also in equilibrium. So in the plant 

11 where the uranium wasn't being recovered, that 

12 would be the exposure source term. As you move 

13 over to the bottom right of this slide, the 

14 uranium extraction, they developed the uranium 

15 recovery facility. And in that facility one 

16 would be exposed to the uranium product itself, 

17 and we've made some assumptions -- very much 

18 like we did at Blockson Chemical -- as to what 

19 progeny followed through the uranium in the 

20 process. In fact, we assume the thorium and 

21 many of the progeny follow the uranium through 

22 and the worker would be exposed in the 

23 extraction process to both uranium and the 

24 progeny. As you see in the top arrow going off 

25 to the upper right, when you dissolve these 
61

1 phosphate rock in sulfuric acid, you create 

2 this phosphogypsum which the radium-226 

3 primarily is considered to follow. 

4 Okay, let's talk a little bit about how we can 

5 reconstruct the external dose at this facility. 

6 As I mentioned, we would have external dose 

7 from exposure to unprocessed phosphate ore. 

8 That's a natural-occurring radioactive 

9 material. We assume that that started in 1953 

10 when they started -- in the beginning of '53 

11 when they started to bring in the product. 

12 That was reconstructed using this TIB 43, which 

13 is "Characterization of Occupational Exposure 

14 to Radium and Radon During Recovery of Uranium 

15 from Phosphate Materials." That relies heavily 

16 on an EPA survey that was done of the phosphate 

17 industry, and I believe the external doses 

18 during this operation are somewhere in the 

19 vicinity of 70 millirem per year -- not a real 

20 high dose rate operation. 

21 The external dose from recovery of the uranium 

22 is somewhat different in the sense that now you 

23 have uranium that has been concentrated into a 

24 drum, and it has its own constituent photons 

25 and bremsstrahlung associated with it. And 
62

1 that was modeled exactly analogous to that at 

2 Bethlehem Steel. We did a Monte Carlo 

3 calculation using the MCMP code to estimate the 

4 dose rate coming off of a drum of uranium, and 

5 there are some assumptions in there about the 

6 workers' stay time and that sort of thing. 

7 The internal dose reconstruction is a little 

8 bit more complicated. It's broken also into 

9 several periods. One was the internal dose 

10 prior to start-up, and that is the phosphate 

11 ore process, before they concentrate any 

12 materials. The intakes prior to start-up were 

13 assumed to have occurred from the rock in all -

14 - through all of 1953. And the intakes were 

15 bounded using measurements of dust loading in a 

16 -- in another phosphate plant. I believe that 

17 was a facility the EPA had followed in Idaho, 

18 and that was -- I think it was about 5.3 

19 milligrams per cubic meter dust loading. We 

20 used the highest reported dust concentration in 

21 the facility, excluding the calcining operation 

22 at that Idaho facility because through our 

23 interviews with workers at Texas City we 

24 determined that calcining -- the ore was not 

25 calcined at Texas City. We assumed a certain 
63

1 content of uranium in the phosphate rock. I 

2 mentioned I think that was .014 percent uranium 

3 by weight. And the thorium and progeny were 

4 added as a function of uranium intake. That 

5 is, they were all scaled to the amount of 

6 uranium that was there. 

7 Okay. Post-start-up, the dose becomes a little 

8 higher. Intakes of uranium concentrates were 

9 assumed, as I mentioned before, to have 

10 occurred from October '53 through the end of 

11 production. They're based on reports of the 

12 alpha activity measured at AEC plants in the 

13 1950s. Health and Safety Laboratory, HASL, 

14 actually did surveys of about -- I think 60 

15 different facilities, collecting 20,000 

16 different air samples to evaluate the 

17 characteristics of uranium plants during the 

18 '50s. And we chose to use the highest daily 

19 average dust concentration in those plants, 

20 which happened to involve the dumping and 

21 handling of the uranium concentrate. That's 

22 very similar to -- at Blockson in the sense 

23 that we recognize that the highest 

24 concentration would be when you're drumming 

25 uranium, you're dumping it out of pans into a -
64

1 - into a drum. We did not use the uranium 

2 values for Blockson, though, because that was 

3 specific for Blockson, the uranium urinalysis 

4 for the Blockson process, for the ventilation 

5 and that sort of thing, so we ended up using 

6 this default value -- or this high value from 

7 the HASL studies to put an upper bound on the 

8 inhalation of uranium. And it is higher than 

9 the Blockson values. As I mentioned, I think 

10 it's 190 dpm per cubic meter of uranium. And 

11 again, thorium and progeny were added as a 

12 function of the -- for uranium intake. They 

13 were all scaled to an assumed concentration 

14 levels. 

15 A little bit about radon. Radon of course is 

16 one of the progeny that is a -- is a noble gas. 

17 It has no sink so it would certainly be present 

18 in the plant environment. The radon exposures 

19 were also based on estimates from similar 

20 phosphate plants, and this is what we used in 

21 the Blockson Chemical evaluation. We used the 

22 95th percentile of the values that the EPA had 

23 characterized in these phosphate plants. It 

24 comes out to somewhere I think in the vicinity 

25 of a little over .1 working level months per 
65

1 year. If you equate that to uranium 

2 concentration, it's somewhere in the one to two 

3 picocurie per liter range, not a tremendously 

4 high concentration, but we did pick the 95th 

5 percentile for this reconstruction. 

6 Okay. We did receive some additional 

7 information after this -- literally within a 

8 day or two after this evaluation report was 

9 issued, I think, and those documents are out 

10 there now on the O drive that details -- the 

11 Department of Energy sent these, provided these 

12 to us, and they detail production problems at 

13 Texas City Chemicals. Also talk about the res14 - a little bit more about the research 

15 activities that were done there, and there's 

16 more complete uranium production data. As I 

17 mentioned before, the complete uranium 

18 production data actually does pretty 

19 convincingly demonstrate that the uranium 

20 production really only occurred from October, 

21 1953 through December, 1953, over a three-month 

22 period. So what we have here is a -- is a -- 

23 what we believe is a fairly large bounding 

24 overestimate for the production operation. 

25 A little bit more about what was in those EPA -
66

1 - or those DOE-provided documents. They did 

2 document, as we did know, that the Texas City 

3 produced two main products. It was animal feed 

4 and fertilizer. The fertilizer plant was done 

5 under the AEC contract. The animal feed 

6 operation was running concurrently. And it 

7 turns out that the reason the production 

8 quantities were so low at Texas City was that 

9 the fertilizer production plant had a difficult 

10 time getting going. In fact, it almost didn't 

11 run at all, and that's why the uranium 

12 productions were so low. There was not enough 

13 fertilizer byproduct material coming through 

14 the process to be able to extract the uranium. 

15 As it says here, the fertilizer production 

16 equipment failed. This sort of -- this is 

17 well-documented in these letters that we've 

18 received from the DOE. So during the AEC 

19 period, the production consisted primarily of 

20 the animal feed only. 

21 A little bit more about the research activities 

22 that was conducted. As I mentioned before, 

23 they were a contract -- Texas City was 

24 contracted to perform research into new methods 

25 or cheap methods to recovery of phosphorus 
67

1 oxide, alumina and uranium from Florida leached 

2 zone ores. I mean this was -- this was try to 

3 optimize a process and collect some uranium 

4 from byproduct materials that heretofore had 

5 not been used. It was a fairly low level of 

6 involvement, though. They document that they 

7 received an ore sample from Tennessee Valley -- 

8 TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, and I want to 

9 say it was -- it was a fairly small quantity, I 

10 forget how many pounds now, but it was on the 

11 order of tens of pounds, and they did receive 

12 one drum of phosphate ore. And that contract 

13 expired on September 30th, 1955. 

14 A little bit about the status of claims within 

15 our system. There are 12 claims that meet the 

16 class definition that we have in our database, 

17 and three of those have completed dose 

18 reconstructions at this point. And none of 

19 these claims were -- these claims were 

20 evaluated and no monitoring information was 

21 identified in any of these claims. 

22 Okay, you've seen this slide before, but the 

23 evaluation process involves a two-part process. 

24 One is we have to decide if it's feasible to 

25 estimate radiation with sufficient accuracy. 
68

1 And if not, then is there a reasonable 

2 likelihood that health was endangered. The 

3 bottom line of our analysis was that we have 

4 sufficient process and source term information 

5 to bound these doses with sufficient accuracy -

6 - I would say plausibly bound these doses with 

7 sufficient accuracy for workers during the time 

8 period petitioned. 

9 And this is a summary slide of what we believe 

10 we can reconstruct. You see in the dose 

11 reconstruction feasible, we believe that we can 

12 reconstruct the internal dose from uranium and 

13 its progeny, from radon, from thorium and 

14 progeny, and all the external exposures 

15 including the beta/gamma and occupational 

16 medical X-rays. So our recommendation here is 

17 that we -- we can do this dose reconstruction, 

18 and the class should be not added to the SEC. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. Neton. Board 

20 members, do you have any questions at this 

21 point for Dr. Neton? Gen Roessler. 

22 DR. ROESSLER: I think you answered the 

23 question, I just want to make sure. You 

24 indicated you found no monitoring records, and 

25 I think the workers also recall that there was 
69

1 no monitoring? 

2 DR. NETON: Yes. 

3 DR. ROESSLER: There was no monitoring 

4 according to -- 

5 DR. NETON: I don't recall any worker telling 

6 us that they had monitoring data, right. Part 

7 of the issue -- it may be, though, that this is 

8 -- the production was so small over a limited 

9 period of time, that may explain why there was 

10 limited monitoring data. Again, we pretty much 

11 have demonstrated, I think, that -- or 

12 determined that it was, over a three-month 

13 period, about 300 pounds. Which is less than a 

14 half a drum of uranium, a half a barrel of 

15 uranium. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, other questions from Board 

17 members? 

18 MR. CLAWSON: I've -- I've got one. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Brad Clawson. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: I'm -- I'm just sitting here -- 

21 we have no site profile, we're using Idaho 

22 chemical processing for the dust loading, the 

23 highest dust loading we can find -- I'm sorry, 

24 but I really have a hard time understanding how 

25 you can really do it. I know that these 
70

1 processes are similar, but these facilities and 

2 so forth are not the same, and I just -- you 

3 know, when you come down to the feasibility and 

4 accuracy, it's -- it's hard for me to get my 

5 hands around how we can really say that -- 

6 within a sufficient accuracy that we can do 

7 that. 

8 DR. NETON: Right. I think that gets to what 

9 the definition of sufficient accuracy is, and 

10 that is can NIOSH put a plausible upper bound 

11 on the exposures of these workers. And we 

12 believe, using these very similar processes and 

13 taking the -- well, we've done the 95th 

14 percentile of the highest exposures in similar 

15 operations and applied them. That is a 

16 plausible upper bound to the exposure of the 

17 worker. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions? 

19 (No responses) 

20 Okay, let's hear from the petitioners. Dan 

21 McKeel -- Dr. McKeel, did you say you were 

22 going first? 

23 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, if that’s all right. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, now back away a little bit. 

25 We're getting the echo again. 
71

1 DR. MCKEEL: All right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: That's good. 

3 DR. MCKEEL: I backed away. Is that a little 

4 bit better? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: That's a little better. Go ahead. 

6 DR. MCKEEL: All right. I appreciate the 

7 chance to represent the petitioner's side of 

8 the Texas City SEC 00088. What I'm going to 

9 cover this morning concerns a long-term goal 

10 which is the hope that the Board will decide to 

11 avert NIOSH's recommendation to approve this 

12 SEC. And the short-term goal, Kathy Gillery 

13 (ph) of Congressman Langston's office in a 

14 (unintelligible) says, “Petition the Board 

15 prior to this meeting to please postpone their 

16 vote until the June meeting so we can gather 

17 together the necessary technical documents that 

18 we feel we need. Also I would ask that the 

19 Board task SC&A to review the NIOSH SEC 

20 evaluation report that the petitioners believe 

21 is scientifically (unintelligible) and seems to 

22 preclude (unintelligible) accurately bounded 

23 and reconstructed, using claimant-favorable 

24 assumptions. We believe we need expert help on 

25 that.” So my remarks this morning will answer 
72

1 prior (unintelligible). 

2 The first one, the long term claim that 

3 NIOSH (unintelligible) reconstruct doses 

4 accurately and effectively (unintelligible). 

5 We would like to dispute those claims 

6 (unintelligible) as follows: 

7 (Unintelligible) is two of 14 cases that NIOSH 

8 (unintelligible) has completed dose 

9 reconstruction. This is direct evidence that 

10 NIOSH staff (unintelligible) claims impossible 

11 under the SEC. I heard Jim Neton just say that 

12 NIOSH believes they (unintelligible) include 

13 dose reconstructions (unintelligible) the DOL 

14 statistics from (unintelligible). I spoke with 

15 (unintelligible) at NIOSH again citing DOL 

16 statistics are not (unintelligible). 

17 (Unintelligible) is taking so long to post 

18 results (unintelligible) all of the dose 

19 reconstructions met denial. Point B under 

20 (unintelligible) long-term goal is that the 

21 NIOSH evaluation report and that NIOSH 

(unintelligible) March 13th 22 . Mr. Tomes 

23 suggested that NIOSH, quote, use very little of 

24 uranium production processes at TCC. I believe 

25 that only two workers (unintelligible) inside 
73

1 the recovering building during the production 

2 years, 1952 to '56, are alive today and neither 

3 of them are able to (unintelligible) for the 

November 15th 4 meeting. Point C, there's no 

5 adequate coworker (unintelligible) monitoring 

6 data (unintelligible) totally missing SEC count 

7 for monitoring data for air, for ambient 

8 radioactivity, radioactivity in the soil or 

9 internal or external worker dosimetry, 

10 including film badge dosimetry and bioassay 

11 data. (Unintelligible) the Blockson chemical 

12 uranium intake data (unintelligible) inhalation 

13 ingestion rate is not feasible to use in TCC 

14 intake data without Blockson (unintelligible). 

15 And Dr. Neton just echoed that the Blockson 

16 data, bioassay data in urine was not used in 

17 these calculations. 

18 Data used for intake, according to Mr. 

19 Tomes, was from quote (unintelligible) the 

20 handled uranium. And we assumed 

21 (unintelligible) the same level, end quote. 

22 This was in a pre-Board conference and I think 

23 that's a very loose definition of what was 

24 actually used. 

25 The (unintelligible) model used a highly 
74

1 problematical model. The intake parameters at 

2 TCC were not inclined at all except the 

3 atmosphere was (unintelligible). This is from 

4 worker testimony. (Unintelligible). 

5 (Unintelligible) production years residual 

6 period (unintelligible) for other surfaces. 

7 (Unintelligible) TCC. 

8 (Unintelligible) we’re asking the Board 

9 to give us time until the June meeting to 

10 (unintelligible) necessary technical documents. 

11 And I’ve listed (unintelligible) I just heard 

12 Dr. Neton a few minutes ago. The technical 

13 documents we’re seeking include the following: 

14 We have two FOIA requests that are pending. 

15 One is to FOIA (unintelligible) 0420. That was 

16 submitted 12-14-07 for three AWE documents -- 

17 research database and that (unintelligible) 

18 concerning TCC -- concerning (unintelligible) 

19 on March the 14th this year reported the 

20 following documents were withheld from among 

21 those three. One was certain portions of 

22 confidential commercial/financial information 

23 (unintelligible) pre-decisional document not 

24 further identified and (unintelligible) other 

25 information was deleted. Priority number one 
75

1 is the exact document (unintelligible) 

2 financial information were not identified. 

3 However, we believe the omission was from two 

4 of the four letter contracts between TCC and 

5 the AEC and specifically (unintelligible) they 

6 were missing from AEC (unintelligible) 49-

7 1(^16), document E15005(unintelligible)9-1 

8 (unintelligible) document E14994. But only 

9 five of 21 pages were transmitted to us. 

10 In the FOIA (unintelligible) they were 

11 letter contracts, 18-49-6-9 and AC-05-1 

12 (unintelligible) which were not supplied to us 

13 at all. (Unintelligible) the 41 letter 

14 contracts as quote, nature and time unknown. 

15 And I think that the work that the lack of 

16 (unintelligible) even by DOE of the AEC 

17 operations at TCC. This was a critical 

18 (unintelligible) of importance (unintelligible) 

19 radiation exposure to TCC. It was the major 

20 reason for FOIA (unintelligible) request of the 

21 Board (unintelligible) TCC (unintelligible) 

22 meeting in St. Louis. 

23 It is difficult for me to imagine that 

24 any time (unintelligible) or financial 

25 information for the 1950s at TCC 
76

1 (unintelligible) activities of the 

2 (unintelligible) in 2008. I remember 

3 (unintelligible) they refer to the fact that 

4 the (unintelligible) sign-in sheets from the 

5 October 18, 2007 and November 15, 2007 TCC 

6 (unintelligible) town hall meetings were 

7 provided. The (unintelligible) they did in 

8 fact contain 115 full names of attendees with 

9 certain organizations identified, with 

10 (unintelligible) organizations deleted, in 

11 addition to (completely inaudible portion). 

12 ...from any of the (unintelligible) that 

13 we are involved here. (Unintelligible) do 

14 represent those considerable number of people 

15 in the area (unintelligible) for this 

16 particular SEC. When you fund four of the 

17 084204 (unintelligible) illuminating statement 

18 (unintelligible) deciding the openings of the 

19 joint TCC/AEC facility: quote, TCC was 

20 incorporated in the state of Texas, October 

17th 21 , 1950. It was organized primarily for the 

22 purpose of producing an animal feeding 

23 supplement and (unintelligible) fertilizer with 

24 (unintelligible) uranium. Now the second FOIA 

25 we are appealing is 08-0057; that was submitted 
77

on February 8th 1 of this year and was cited to 

2 on 3/14/08 and that was (unintelligible) 

3 references in the NIOSH evaluation of SEC-88. 

4 We were very surprised by the major 

5 discrepancies between 57 references, cited in 

6 NIOSH’s evaluation report and the fact that we 

7 were told by OCAS that they only possess two 

8 Texas City Chemical documents in addition to 

9 the two worker meeting interviews that were 

10 being redacted at the time. We were given only 

11 the (unintelligible) of those three documents, 

12 which were uninformative as far as the nature 

13 of the documents and were told we had to get 

14 them through the (unintelligible) process, 

15 which we did. (Unintelligible) experience 

16 justified the problems being discounted 

17 (unintelligible) relevant documents related to 

18 this Texas City SEC. 

19 The requested documents also include a 

20 question-and-answer session from October the 

2nd 21 , 2007. Among the TCC workers is Chris 

22 (unintelligible), an ORAU employed co-author of 

23 the NIOSH SEC-88 evaluation report team. 

24 Unlike what Dr. Neton just said, the important 

25 factors would be over not workers in the 
78

1 recovery building, but (unintelligible) film 

2 badges. However, no press conference interview 

3 data has provide to this time. It is not clear 

4 what sources, such as ideally HASL or Landauer 

5 records were searched to capture some of this 

6 TCC film badge dosimetry data, and I want to 

7 acknowledge that that region, being several 

8 sources that were served, I don’t believe you 

9 mentioned that Landauer was (unintelligible). 

10 From the documents we are looking for and 

11 attempting to receive the uranium recovery 

12 building and (unintelligible) permit. This 

13 will define in absolute terms the end of the 

14 uranium residual contamination period. DOE and 

15 NIOSH are not able thus far to clearly 

16 establish (unintelligible) through their 

17 records for using TCC worker testimony at the 

18 October 12, 2007, NIOSH outreach session or at 

the November 15th 19 , 2007 NIOSH town hall 

20 meeting. The testimony at both meetings showed 

21 the recovery building was still standing in 

22 1976 or 1977. Galveston County Commissioner 

23 (unintelligible) is perhaps on the line, is 

24 assisting us with (unintelligible) for the 

25 record. Area photos of the site will be 
79

1 submitted. The time the recovery building was 

2 still standing was late as 1975. 

3 DOE document number 16646, on page 6, 

4 that we received under FOIA 0800420, states the 

5 following, and I quote: No information was 

6 available as to the exact amount of U-308 for 

7 the -- nor to the radiological conditions of 

8 the facility at its termination of the project 

9 by the contractor or the successor company, end 

10 quote. This is in spite of the fact that Oak 

11 Ridge Operation and Oak Ridge National Lab did 

12 a radioisotope survey in 1977 and found high 

13 radium-226 levels in some soil at the site. 

14 The site is (unintelligible) by DOE for further 

15 consideration as the FUSRAP remediation site 

16 nevertheless. And later on page 6 you’ll find 

17 for the recovery building this excerpt, and I 

18 quote: The recovery building 10 was 

19 approximately 19 by 36 yards, and I refer to 

20 figure two, with the building used for uranium 

21 extraction was demolished -- and this is 

22 important in parentheses -- year unknown, end 

23 quote, and established. The location of 

24 building (unintelligible) was unknown. No 

25 information was available as to entry or use of 
80

1 the (unintelligible), except the storage and 

2 (unintelligible) resulting from phosphate 

3 (unintelligible) processing, which occurred at 

4 demolition of the building. So what that says 

5 is that so far now when they made their 

6 radiological survey, was not really aware where 

7 the (unintelligible) piles were or where the 

8 uranium waste may have been on site, so their 

9 survey of the site may not represent the 

10 highest radioactivity level. 

11 I am (unintelligible) that we are 

12 seeking uranium waste disposal permit. Workers 

13 testified in last October and November that TCC 

14 waste including the (unintelligible) was 

15 disposed of offsite eventually. 

16 (Unintelligible) super fund site in Harris 

17 County, Texas. Descriptions of the waste 

18 deposited at TCC (unintelligible). Radioactive 

19 waste is not attributed to TCC Chemical in 

20 document (unintelligible). Not knowing exactly 

21 how TCC rad wastes were handled, inserts 

22 another element of uncertainty in the DR 

23 equation that we believe needs to be explored 

24 in greater detail. 

25 Another very important set of documents 
81

1 that we are seeking includes the lawsuit 

2 between Gordon versus Amoco, and Gordon and 

3 Amoco were successive owners of the Texas City 

4 project. We believe these court records that 

5 may extend over a long period from 1978 to 1990 

6 may contain quantitative data on uranium 

7 concentrations in the TCC waste stream 

8 (unintelligible) because the two copies argue 

9 who should pay for cleanup, and as far as we 

10 know this never has taken place but we think 

11 the contamination that was onsite. Congressman 

12 Lance’s (ph) office has contacted the attorneys 

13 in this case; trying to assist us get these 

14 vital documents. 

15 We are also looking for more documents 

16 from the (unintelligible) super fund site from 

17 the radiation period to see if by any chance 

18 TCC radioactive wastes were active out there. 

NEIC Board (unintelligible) on March 13th 19 . Tom 

20 Tomes issued a new nationally (unintelligible) 

21 document that OCAS obtained. This was a 1965-

22 year government memo dated 3/17/1955, and 

23 apparently involves an impending visit to Texas 

City Chemical on June 12th and 13th 24 of 1955. We 

25 would like to have time to get that document 
82

1 and to review it. 

2 And as of a few minutes ago, we learned 

3 from Dr. Neton that DOE has provided OCAS 

4 documents that have been placed on the O drive 

5 that have to do with some new aspects of 

6 operations and research done at TCC. We have 

7 not only not known about these documents, but 

8 we don’t have them and I think in all fairness 

9 we should be given the time to get them and 

10 review them. 

11 Now one of our short-term goals that we 

12 are asking the Board to do is to task SC&A to 

13 review the NIOSH SEC evaluation report. 

14 (Unintelligible) report of the February 20, 

15 2008, (unintelligible) control, please consider 

16 tasking SC&A with the (unintelligible) review 

17 of (unintelligible) NIOSH evaluation report of 

18 SEC 00088. The petitioners believe the 

19 assumptions underlying the external and 

20 internal doses may not be appropriate for Texas 

21 City Chemical. The reasoning is very complex, 

22 and experts used by SC&A is needed to 

23 adequately assess the findings underlying 

24 NIOSH’s claim they can now reconstruct TCC 

25 doses accurately. The petitioners ask again 
83

1 why only two or possibly three dose 

2 reconstructions have been performed and 

3 completed, representing 14.2 percent of the 

4 Texas City cases that NIOSH (unintelligible) 

5 dose reconstruction. 

6 (Unintelligible) data, even by DOE 

7 following a radioactive survey by ORNL and Oak 

8 Ridge Operations in 1977. The effects 

9 (unintelligible) possible (unintelligible) site 

10 occurred long after uranium extraction ceased, 

11 and the site was then acquired by American Oil, 

12 B.F. Douglas, Gordon and Amoco. All TCC 

13 Chemical records except two of the four AEC 

14 letter contracts have apparently vanished 

15 (unintelligible). 

16 The Board’s (unintelligible) in February 

20th 17 , was premature and to report the NIOSH 

18 evaluation report (unintelligible) posted since 

19 January 8 (unintelligible) months early. 

20 Congressman Nick Branson and Dr. McKeel, 

21 writing for the co-petitioners, sent a formal 

22 request to the Advisory Board to task SC&A to 

23 do a targeted review of the NIOSH evaluation 

24 report and to postpone voting on Texas City 

25 Chemical SEC I88 Petition until SC&A reviews 
84

1 could be completed. Postponing the votes until 

2 the June meeting would also allow the co3 petitioners to obtain and review the documents 

4 we are seeking at this time. 

5 In Item 2A, including the following FOIA 

6 EO: From the specific portions of the NIOSH 

7 evaluation, we believe needs to be examined by 

8 SC&A include: the model used for intake, due 

9 to the lack of photons and data, and 

10 (unintelligible) comparable data or coworker 

11 data for the intake. (Unintelligible) this 

12 model (unintelligible) to accommodate 

13 (unintelligible) for the uranium concentrations 

14 (unintelligible) period for example 

15 (unintelligible) NIOSH (unintelligible) uranium 

16 external doses at TCC at this point acceptable 

17 given total access (unintelligible) dosimetry 

18 data for the site. 

19 For the petitioner (unintelligible) of 

20 the Board is the SEC (unintelligible) sample 

21 (unintelligible) records have been lost 

22 (unintelligible). There is no coworker data or 

23 (unintelligible) data. (Unintelligible) in 

24 performing accurate DRs and assigning possible 

25 data doses are therefore much higher than even 
85

1 in most other unmonitored (unintelligible). 

2 We’re asking the Board to please allow us more 

3 time until the June meeting to locate 

4 additional records we believe (unintelligible) 

5 of uncertainty. Records retrieval has been 

6 very slow, especially in getting the two NIOSH 

7 documents (unintelligible). Still the 

8 documents (unintelligible) intervention by 

9 Congressman Lance. With all that we still need 

10 to try to appeal to get all of the 

11 (unintelligible). And now today we learn that 

12 there are other documents that we’ve not seen 

13 at all. 

14 I want to thank the Board for its 

15 attention today and for consideration of SEC 

16 Petition 88, Texas City Chemical, which is 

17 located outside of Houston, Texas. 

18 (Unintelligible). Thank you very much. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. McKeel. 

20 We'll also now have an opportunity to hear from 

21 any of the other petitioners. Christine Ray, 

22 are you on the line? Do you wish to speak? 

23 MS. RAY: I'm here. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have any comments, Ms. Ray? 

25 MS. RAY: The only comment I have is I 
86

1 (unintelligible) what because you don't have 

2 (unintelligible) information (unintelligible) 

3 to get the information to y’all. I would 

4 appreciate (unintelligible). Also I 

5 (unintelligible) the SEC and (unintelligible). 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Are there other 

7 individuals listening today that have 

8 additional comments? 

9 MR. LOCKHART*: Yes, my name is Joe Lockhart. 

10 I went to work at Texas City Chemical, January 

11 1957. Phosphorus rock was shipped in there to 

12 the plant from Florida at that time when I was 

13 employed. They continued being shipped in 

14 there and went through (unintelligible) which 

15 ground into powder then made into phosphoric 

16 acid. Phosphoric acid was made until the plant 

17 shut down in 1977. I was in maintenance. I 

18 went there as a maintenance apprentice 1957 and 

19 I worked in the recovery building. I worked in 

20 the recovery building, which had security at 

21 the door. I (unintelligible) maintenance 

22 operations in there working off 

23 (unintelligible) and whatever. And whatever 

24 was being made in there was being made at the 

25 time I went to work there. After it shut down, 
87

1 the recovery building stayed there without 

2 anything being made in there and 

3 (unintelligible) was in there. Later on in the 

4 years (unintelligible) went in there and 

5 removed all the (unintelligible), gear boxes 

6 and whatever could be salvaged and used in the 

7 rest of the plant. The recovery building 

8 stayed there until I left in November of 1977. 

9 The building was still there. It was used for 

10 storage -- to store (unintelligible) and 

11 whatever we had to store in out of the weather 

12 in this building. I don't know what -- who 

13 tore the building down. I was the last paid 

14 (unintelligible) employee to leave the plant. 

15 After that, I don't know anything about it. 

16 But all this stuff was being made when I went 

17 to work there in 1957. 

18 And maybe someone else has anything to say. Do 

19 you have any questions? I can answer. I was 

20 maintenance superintendent when the plant shut 

21 down. Employees went in and out of that 

22 building continuously all the years that I was 

23 there. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so -- 

25 MR. LOCKHART*: That's all I have to say now. 
88

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Were there 

2 others there that have additional comments? 

3 MR. WILSON: Yes, I'm Roy Wilson from the Texas 

4 City group. We made some discovery that a 

5 company called SuTech* went in there in 1977 to 

6 1978 on a clean-up operation at the Texas City 

7 factory, and they were -- they were -- they 

8 brought a (unintelligible) counter out there 

9 and -- and after they brought it to the site 

10 and the (unintelligible) cleaning of this -- 

11 this (unintelligible) facility, they had to 

12 wear special radioactive clothing to continue 

13 their work, and they did do some -- some 

14 monitoring out there. The company's name was 

15 (unintelligible), and -- and located here in 

16 Texas City area. We had testimony from one of 

17 these employees that worked on that cleanup 

18 operation and (unintelligible) details that two 

19 -- two workers had worked in his group for 

20 about five years or later came up with leukemia 

21 after the cleanup operations was complete 

22 there. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Any 

24 further comments from petitioners? 

25 MR. LOCKHART*: I forgot to add also -- my name 
89

1 is Joe Lockhart, back again. While I worked 

2 there I had cancer while I worked there. My 

3 wife had lung cancer also and lost a lung. My 

4 son had liver cancer. Three people out of one 

5 family got cancer while I worked there. I have 

6 nothing else to say about it. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

8 MR. WILLIAMS: My name is -- my name is Henry 

9 Williams. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Henry. 

11 MR. WILLIAMS: I started to work 

12 (unintelligible) in '56 and (unintelligible) 

13 went there we was (unintelligible) labor, 

14 that's what (unintelligible) was. And we was 

15 in places that we shouldn't have been 'cause we 

16 had no one to stop us. We didn't know. We 

17 didn't know what was going on 'cause if we had 

18 known, we'd lose our job, so we -- number -- 

19 numerous (unintelligible) and (unintelligible) 

20 talking. Okay? But I just want to let you 

21 know we had to take what was given to us in the 

22 line of work. There was work there, and the 

23 work we was doing, we had to go in each room 

24 and clean up, and we didn't have no type of 

25 gear to put on, and that's why I'm like I am 
90

1 today. There's numerous others and 

2 (unintelligible) is here and they have watched 

3 their (unintelligible) and it (unintelligible) 

4 all over and there's nothing that could be did 

5 because this has been going on a long time, and 

6 I think (unintelligible) it's time to bring 

7 this to a close and try to get this 

8 straightened out because -- that's -- that's 

9 all I'm going to say. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Henry. Any -- 

11 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 DR. MCKEEL: I have one comment, and that is 

14 that -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: This is Dr. McKeel, I believe. 

16 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dr. McKeel, I'm sorry. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: That's all right. 

18 DR. MCKEEL: I'm sorry. But the -- Roy Wilson 

19 mentioned the (unintelligible) report in -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

21 DR. MCKEEL: -- 1977/'78. That's another 

22 document that I omitted mentioning, but we 

23 definitely need that cleanup report and I would 

24 think that NIOSH and the Board would also want 

25 to see that cleanup report because it may have 
91

1 information about radioactivity, possibly 

2 (unintelligible), and in particular it may 

3 document what happened to the recovery 

4 building, exactly when, and therefore define a 

5 better end point for the residual contamination 

6 period. So I'd just like to put that into the 

7 equation for documents that we need to preview 

8 and look at (unintelligible) the Board 

9 (unintelligible). 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Board 

11 members, any questions or comments, either to 

12 the petitioners or to Dr. Neton? 

13 Were there any other folks with the petitioners 

14 that had comments? 

15 MR. WILSON: Yes, this is Roy Wilson again. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Roy. 

17 MR. WILSON: Texas City group. I would like to 

18 further add, as Dr. McKeel has stated, we were 

19 being compared with the Idaho group and 

20 Blockson, and Blockson. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

22 MR. WILSON: Those -- those comparisons were 

23 made and we understand the -- the Blockson 

24 group and the Idaho group, they are -- they are 

25 able to use those sites as we speak. Is that 
92

1 not correct? Is this correct? The Blockson 

2 facility is still being used today? 

3 MS. MUNN: No. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking here to see -- I -- 

5 apparently not. 

6 MR. WILSON: Oh, okay. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: At least not for that purpose. 

8 MR. WILSON: We want to make -- we wanted to 

9 make it known that the Texas City site has -- 

10 has been declared unusable since the closing of 

11 the (unintelligible) plant. That is a highly 

12 contaminated place there. And Dr. McKeel 

13 (unintelligible) some (unintelligible) on that 

14 due to a case filed by Amoco versus 

15 (unintelligible) Chemicals in reference to the 

16 purchase of the property. And we want to -- we 

17 couldn't understand how we were being compared 

18 when our property is totally unusable here in 

19 Texas City, hasn't been used since that 

20 operation was in effect. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

22 MR. WILSON: We would like that to be 

23 considered as far as our Texas City plant. 

24 Those guys worked in a highly radioactive 

25 situation out there. Thank you, sir. 
93

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that -- 

2 MR. WILSON: (Unintelligible) one other 

3 gentleman here from Texas City would like to 

4 say -- make a comment. He's (unintelligible). 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, proceed. 

6 MR. INGRAM: My name is James (unintelligible) 

7 -- James Ingram. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Give us your name again, please. 

9 Give us your name again. 

10 MR. INGRAM: James Ingram, I-n-g-r-a-m. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Proceed. 

12 MR. INGRAM: (Unintelligible) in 1957. I 

13 worked as an operator (unintelligible) plant. 

14 All the time that (unintelligible) plant 

15 changed ownership, I was there from '57 on. 

16 And (unintelligible) front end loader 

17 (unintelligible). It was (unintelligible) a 

18 pond outside the boundaries of the main plant. 

19 I was (unintelligible) down there 

20 (unintelligible) 18-wheelers (unintelligible) 

21 gypsum (unintelligible). Then all of a sudden 

22 one day the plant manager and assistant plant 

23 manager came running into the plant and said 

24 stop, don't load no more of that stuff. And 

25 when I found out what the problem was, it was 
94

1 radioactive, and that radioactive material was 

2 being shipped all over the United States for 

3 pasture lands, farmlands and what have you. So 

4 there's no telling who all was contaminated 

5 with this stuff, but just because of what we 

6 shipped out of there and didn't know what we 

7 was shipping. 

8 (Unintelligible) phosphate. It was 

9 (unintelligible) uranium dust and they said 

10 (unintelligible) here today was we only made 

11 (unintelligible). I don't know what 

12 (unintelligible) amount, but I have 

13 (unintelligible) thing with a front end loader 

14 and it was (unintelligible) and I had to 

15 (unintelligible) load (unintelligible) front 

16 end loader (unintelligible) move it back 

17 (unintelligible) loaded out of there. I think 

18 that's all I can say right now. 

19 Oh, by the way, since I've left there I have 

20 developed cancer. And the doctor said this 

21 cancer was caused by (unintelligible) out in 

22 the sunshine. I said how do you know that? He 

23 said well, 50 percent says we do, 50 percent 

24 says we don't. I said why (unintelligible) 

25 caught cancer, nobody in my family has ever had 
95

1 cancer, and all of a sudden (unintelligible) 

2 working there I developed cancer. So that's 

3 all I have to say right now. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Any 

5 additional comments? 

6 MR. LOCKHART: Yes, I do, Joe Lockhart back 

7 again. Dr. Neton I believe said that the 

8 fertilizer plant had a hard time getting 

9 started. They was making fertilizer. When I 

10 went to work there in 1957, they were producing 

11 fertilizer when I walked in the door, and they 

12 produced fertilizer when I walked out of the 

13 door. So I don't believe they had a hard time 

14 making it. They made fertilizer for 40 years, 

15 and I was there. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

17 MR. (UNINTELLIGIBLE): This is Frank 

18 (unintelligible). I (unintelligible) 

19 commenting on the fertilizer and stuff that I 

20 heard on (unintelligible) a few minutes ago. A 

21 lot of that information is wrong. I don't know 

22 where y'all got it from. It's just not right. 

23 Wherever you got it from, you need to check it 

24 again. We worked in that place, and nothing 

25 that I heard there compared to what I witnessed 
96

1 while working there. And where the 

2 fertilizer's concerned, I load fertilizer in 

3 boxcars and 18-wheelers, and even people came 

4 to pick it up personally, and that went on for 

5 years. Then there's a comment there about a 

6 few months. That's not true. I think y'all 

7 need to get back and talk to the employees and 

8 let them recall and tell you what actually 

9 happened that they experienced while working 

10 down there, and it's a shame to have a report 

11 like that. Thank you. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

13 MR. CLARK: I'm Leonard Clark, and I went to 

14 work at Smith and Douglas in ‘87, and we were 

15 admonishing the (unintelligible) belts and the 

16 protective siding that is made out of 

17 (unintelligible) wood (unintelligible) it was 

18 treated (unintelligible). And I sent for my 

19 records and Social Security, and somehow Social 

20 Security doesn't have them. So I sent to 

21 (unintelligible). I went to (unintelligible) 

22 where I was treated for cancer and they don't 

23 have the years that I started being treated. 

24 Seemingly something or somebody has covered 

25 their tracks real well. And now 27 men in the 
97

1 construction and I'm -- I'm saying that 

2 construction workers are not being considered, 

3 when we were working with the same thing that 

4 the company was working with and I don't see 

5 how that could be. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Would the -- the gentleman who 

7 just spoke give us your name again for the 

8 record here? 

9 MR. CLARK: Leonard Clark. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Leonard Clark, okay. Thank you 

11 very much. Additional comments? 

12 MR. UNINTELLIGIBLE: Yes, my name is Bill 

13 (unintelligible). I went to work there at 

14 (unintelligible) in '57 (unintelligible). I 

15 went there (unintelligible) because we had 

16 (unintelligible) and that's what we did, 'cause 

17 if you didn't do what they would tell you, 

18 you're going to get (unintelligible). And I 

19 know that (unintelligible) working in there 

20 (unintelligible) get all in your clothes 'cause 

21 (unintelligible) looking, be (unintelligible) 

22 looking, and it's just all that stuff 

23 (unintelligible) have to wash your clothes. 

24 Ain't no telling who -- who (unintelligible) 

25 have these disease now. And now I've been 
98

1 diagnosed with (unintelligible) cancer and 

2 (unintelligible). But anyway, I just want to 

3 comment on it (unintelligible) gentleman 

4 (unintelligible). Somebody needs to check 

5 (unintelligible) look into (unintelligible) 

6 right and diagnose (unintelligible) people 

7 justice on it. (Unintelligible) being so long 

8 in messing with this and ain't going to 

9 (unintelligible). That's all I have to say 

10 about it. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. Any 

12 additional comments? 

13 MS. MCDONALD: Yes, sir. I (unintelligible) 

14 and my name is Dolores McDonald and my husband 

15 was named Aubrey McDonald, and at that time he 

16 was working with (unintelligible) with 

17 (unintelligible) and the reason 

18 (unintelligible) at that plant. 

19 (Unintelligible) outside (unintelligible). I'm 

20 a mother of five kids, and my husband died a 

21 young man. (Unintelligible) probably one of 

22 the ones that NIOSH had (unintelligible) -- 

23 whatever they did. But anyway, it was a 

24 hardship for me to raise those five kids by 

25 myself and my husband was 49 years old when he 
99

1 deceased and this has been going on too long. 

2 Something should be done to help the people 

3 because (unintelligible) I'm only one 

4 (unintelligible). (Unintelligible) my husband 

5 died with five men that worked with my husband, 

6 died one month behind (unintelligible) and 

7 (unintelligible) men (unintelligible) five at 

8 one time (unintelligible). Thank you. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much. 

10 MR. WILSON: Confirming -- this is Roy Wilson 

11 confirming Ms. McDonald's comment. [Name 

12 redacted] was the contractor that brought in 

13 the rock over to the plant. They -- they 

14 brought it to the plant, so if you would make a 

15 note of that. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And any additional 

17 comments? 

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, this is Henry Williams 

19 again. (Unintelligible) phosphate 

20 (unintelligible) we had (unintelligible) such 

21 that we -- we shouldn't have been 

22 (unintelligible) but they never 

23 (unintelligible). And (unintelligible). Thank 

24 you. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to ask 
100

1 the Board members if they have any questions or 

2 comments for the petitioners. We need to come 

3 to closure here. We have several options 

4 before us. One option would be to approve or 

5 disapprove NIOSH's evaluation report. Another 

6 option, which is suggested by Dr. McKeel, would 

7 be to postpone action on this -- actually at 

8 the request of the petitioners, is that we 

9 postpone action till June, until at least they 

10 have a chance to review all the documents that 

11 have been identified. There was an additional 

12 request by the petitioners that the Board ask 

13 the Board's contractor, SC&A, to assist in 

14 looking at the evaluation report as well. That 

15 would be an option that we would consider 

16 separately, should the Board decide to postpone 

17 action on this. 

18 Let me ask, Board members, what is your 

19 pleasure at this time? Mr. Gibson. 

20 MR. GIBSON: Paul, I move that we postpone any 

21 action based on the petitioners' request. 

22 MR. CLAWSON: I second it. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, there's a motion and a 

24 second that the Board postpone action, as 

25 requested by the petitioner. Any discussion on 
101

1 this motion? Wanda Munn. 

2 MS. MUNN: Having listened very carefully to 

3 what the petitioners brought before us, and 

4 having heard the NIOSH report, it's fairly 

5 clear that there's a great deal of 

6 misunderstanding with regard to both what the 

7 potential for exposure of the radiation type 

8 was to individuals who were involved in this 

9 three-month production process. There's a 

10 great deal of question as well as to how the 

11 documents that were being requested would 

12 provide any additional information relative to 

13 radiation exposure, which is our concern here. 

14 There's not a question with regard to the issue 

15 of this plant having been a dirty, dusty plant 

16 to work in. When one knows, however, the 

17 amount of radiation available in the material 

18 that was coming into the plant, and the small 

19 amount of material that was produced from that 

20 production process, which lasted only for a 

21 short period of time, it's difficult to see 

22 that further information regarding the 

23 ownership of these facilities or how long the 

24 facilities existed afterward would provide any 

25 additional information outside the bounding 
102

1 that can be done -- we know can be done of the 

2 radiation exposure. So we can certainly extend 

3 the claimants' desire to have more information 

4 available, but it's fairly clear that that 

5 additional information is not going to change 

6 the bounding capability of the work that was 

7 done there. So I have no objection to our 

8 postponing this, but I think we should do so 

9 with the expectation understood by the 

10 claimants that these pieces of information are 

11 not likely to change the ability to bound the 

12 radiation exposure. They can't give you any 

13 more information about other kinds of exposure, 

14 but our job here is radiation, and the 

15 significance of any additional information is 

16 likely to be remote. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? So 

18 you're not necessarily speaking against the 

19 motion, but -- 

20 MS. MUNN: No. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- the concern that the additional 

22 time may just delay the inevitable, in your 

23 mind. I think the petitioner may have been 

24 making the point that there may be -- since 

25 they haven't seen all the documents, there may 
103

1 be something in those documents that would 

2 perhaps modify something. I don't think we 

3 know, necessarily, at this point. 

4 MS. MUNN: That's understandable. Their 

5 concern is -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

7 MS. MUNN: -- understandable. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments? Then let me 

9 call for a vote -- yes -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Can I -- can I ask before we go 

11 to -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- Mr. Griffon. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- before we go to a vote, I 

14 think it might be useful for -- for NIOSH to 

15 clarify -- 'cause several of the comments on 

16 the -- on the phone were related to production 

17 levels, and I think when Jim Neton was speaking 

18 he was speaking to the years -- I think the '52 

19 through '56 time frame, and I think many people 

20 on the phone -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Not restricting it to all the 

22 production of -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and I -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- the fertilizer years. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- think production continued, 
104

1 but it wasn't a part of the AEC program, is 

2 what I understand. I just want to clarify that 

3 for -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Here's Dr. Neton. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- for everyone that's on the 

6 phone. 

7 DR. NETON: Right, Mark -- Mark, thanks. I 

8 think you pretty much said what I would say 

9 here, is that the petition was -- the 

10 petition's request was for 1952 through 1956 

11 solely. They did not petition for the residual 

12 contamination period. And we have no dispute 

13 with the fact that additional fertilizer 

14 operations continued after 1956, '57 through 

15 '70s, but those operations were not related to 

16 AEC activities at all. And most of the 

17 commenters that I heard actually were employed 

18 after 1956, so there's no doubt that they were 

19 exposed to some radioactive materials from the 

20 phosphate plant, but not related to AEC 

21 activities. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: So -- I mean so my mind -- I mean 

24 I have two sort of remaining questions. One is 

25 the residual period, but that's sort of out -- 
105

1 out of the context of what we're -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Of the SEC. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- looking at today. And the 

4 other would be the question of -- of bounding. 

5 I don't dispute that the approach presented by 

6 Jim presents high numbers. The question then 

7 comes -- comes down to this is it 

8 representative enough of this facility, and I 

9 think we might want to even target -- targeted 

10 -- have a targeted review of that issue alone 

11 in the next couple of months. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Jim has an additional comment 

13 here. 

14 DR. NETON: I'm sorry, I did fail to mention 

15 during my presentation that there are four 

16 example dose reconstructions that we have 

17 prepared that are out there on the O drive for 

18 evaluation. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention 

19 that. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott. I think there's 

22 also confusion among the claimant population at 

23 Texas City Chemicals around the residual 

24 period. And just for point of clarification 

25 for those folks, NIOSH does not disagree that 
106

1 there was naturally-occurring radioactive 

2 material that was inherent in the fertilizer 

3 production process, in the gypsum material. As 

4 we all know, there's radon associated with the 

5 phosphate material that is being processed 

6 during that parti-- period. The confusion 

7 arises, I believe, with the way the law is 

8 written and their perception of what is covered 

9 under that period. So that -- that radioac-- 

10 naturally-occurring radioactive material 

11 inherent in the limestone and the phosphate, 

12 gypsum, would not be covered during that 

13 period. Only the AEC-related uranium and radon 

14 -- well, radon may not even reside but the 

15 progeny might -- during the residual period. 

16 So one, NIOSH doesn't argue that there was 

17 exposure during the residual period to 

18 naturally-occurring radioactive material, but 

19 it's not covered under this program. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for clarifying that, 

21 Larry. If this motion passes, we will discuss 

22 separately what actions the Board may wish to 

23 take in terms of studying this in any further 

24 way or what assistance we might want to have 

25 from our contractor in that regard. 
107

1 Are you ready to vote on the motion? The 

2 motion would be to postpone. The anticipation 

3 is to the June meeting. That assumes that both 

4 the petitioner and the Board are able to get 

5 the information they need to come to a decision 

6 in the next meeting. 

7 All who favor -- let's take a roll call vote 

8 here 'cause we have to get votes by phone as 

9 well. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. -- Mr. Presley, are you 

11 available on the line still? 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, I am. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Your vote? 

15 MR. PRESLEY: I vote to postpone, with 

16 reservations. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, the vote is yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Beach? 

19 MS. BEACH: I vote to postpone. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

21 MR. CLAWSON: Postpone. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

23 MR. GIBSON: Postpone. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Postpone. 
108

1 DR. ZIEMER: These are all yeses to the motion, 

2 by the way. We're not postponing the motion. 

3 This is -- these are yes votes on the petition. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Or not on the petition; on the 

6 motion. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Lockey is not here with us 

8 today. Mr. -- Dr. Melius? 

9 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn? 

11 MS. MUNN: I'll abstain. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley -- Dr. Poston is on 

13 his way. Dr. Roessler? 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

16 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. We don't need to obtain the 

19 others -- I declare that the motion has 

20 carried. This does not require that we obtain 

21 the votes of the missing members since it's not 

22 a recommendation to the Secretary at this time. 

23 Thank you very much. Thank you, petitioners. 

24 We are going to take a break for about 15 to 20 

25 minutes, and then we will reconvene. Thank you 
109

1 very much. 

2 DR. WADE: You talked about what actions to 

3 take. You need to talk about what actions to 

4 take. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: No, he said he was going to 

6 postpone the discussion of actions. 

7 DR. WADE: Whether or not to have your 

8 contractor -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: He's going to hold off on all 

11 that. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: No, we're not going to do that 

13 right now. We'll discuss that later. 

14 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:00 a.m. 

15 to 11:20 a.m.) 

16 DR. ZIEMER: First an announcement from our 

17 Designated Federal Official, Dr. Branche. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Again, for those of you who are 

19 on the phone, if you could please mute your 

20 line. And then if you don't have a mute 

21 button, please use star-6 to mute your line, 

22 and then when you are ready to speak, use that 

23 same star-6. 

24 Dr. Ziemer? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: I wanted to see if any of the 
110

1 Texas City petitioners are still on the line, 

2 or Dr. McKeel, are you on the line? 

3 (No responses) 

4 Apparently not. For the record, I just wanted 

5 to make it clear that the issue of whether or 

6 not we will make an assignment to our 

7 contractor for assistance on the Texas City 

8 issue in terms of reviewing the evaluation 

9 report is a matter that we will take up during 

10 the Board work time later in this meeting when 

11 we discuss other assignments to our contractor 

12 and the various -- not only the assignments, 

13 but the levels of importance of different 

14 things. So we'll need to take that in the 

15 bigger context of what assignments we have 

16 pending and coming down the pike. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, this is Bob Presley. I 

18 just wanted to let you know I'm here. 

19 SAM LABORATORIES (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY) SEC PETITION

20 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Bob. Okay, let's 

21 proceed then. Our next item is the SAM 

22 Laboratories, Columbia University. We have an 

23 SEC petition, and LaVon Rutherford will present 

24 that to us. 

25 MR. RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Again, 
111

1 as Dr. Ziemer mentioned, I will be presenting 

2 NIOSH's evaluation of the SAM Laboratory, the 

3 SEC petition. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: LaVon, let me interrupt you just a 

5 moment. I want to make sure -- I think we do 

6 have a petitioner that may be on the line. 

7 Maria Zwolinski? 

8 MS. ZWOLINSKI: Yes, I'm -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I just wanted to make sure 

10 you were there, Maria. We'll proceed then. 

11 Thank you. 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. The SAM 

13 Laboratories SEC petition is a petition that 

14 was submitted under 83.14 to NIOSH by a 

15 petitioner whose dose reconstruction could not 

16 be completed by NIOSH. The petition evaluation 

17 also considered a class of workers similar to 

18 that petitioner. 

19 As you heard Dr. Neton earlier, the evaluation 

20 process is a two-pronged test -- is it feasible 

21 to reconstruct dose with sufficient accuracy; 

22 and if it is, then we do not have to go to step 

23 two. If it is not, then we have to determine 

24 is there a reasonable likelihood that the 

25 health was endangered. 
112

1 SAM Laboratories, a little background, Special 

2 Alloy Materials or Substitute Alloy Materials. 

3 SAM Laboratories, Columbia University, is 

4 located in New York City, New York, and it was 

5 involved in determining whether it was feasible 

6 for the United States to build a nuclear 

7 weapon. And it actually started prior to the 

8 establishment of the Manhattan Engineering 

9 District. In 1939 it actually started work on 

10 feasibility. 

11 Work at the SAM Laboratories ended in 1947 with 

12 the establishment of the AEC. 

13 A little background on the processes. There 

14 were a number of radiological activities 

15 occurring at SAM Laboratory. Isotope 

16 separations, which included centrifuge process 

17 to isolate uranium-235, there was a lot of 

18 enrichment work. Research on the gaseous 

19 diffusion process for uranium enrichment. 

20 Neutron cross section research with plutonium 

21 and other isotopes, and nuclear research and 

22 development work. 

23 From those processes the radiological sources 

24 were uranium compounds and uranium progeny, and 

25 those were associated with isotope separations 
113

1 and enrichment processes in addition to 

2 research activities. Plutonium from neutron 

3 cross section work and research and development 

4 activities. And then polonium, strontium, 

5 potassium, phosphorus, carbon, iodine, fission 

6 products and other radionuclides were also used 

7 in nuclear research. 

8 During our determination of dose reconstruction 

9 feasibility we looked at -- we attempted to 

10 capture data from a number of sources. We 

11 looked at National Archives, OSTI -- the Office 

12 of Scientific and Technical Information, 

13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, DOE Germantown, 

14 site research database. We also contacted the 

15 State of New York. We contacted the university 

16 and talked to the Associate General Counsel and 

17 radiation safety officer. And we also did 

18 Internet searches, which has become a standard 

19 practice for us with all of our evaluations. 

20 From the data capture attempts we were -- or 

21 internal monitoring data, we found no internal 

22 monitoring records. We have eight claimants 

23 currently with NIOSH, and with those eight 

24 claimants we have no internal monitoring data. 

25 We found no urinalysis results, breath samples, 
114

1 in vivo counting, fecal or other bioassay 

2 monitoring results for the SAM Laboratory 

3 employees. 

4 And there was no air monitoring data been 

5 located during the covered period. We did find 

6 some radon samples post-'47, in 1950 period, 

7 but during the covered period we had no air 

8 monitoring data. 

9 External monitoring data, they had no -- we 

10 found no external monitoring data for SAM 

11 Laboratory employees. We found one radiation 

12 survey in 1947 that was radiation levels in 

13 areas around the Cyclotron, and we have no 

14 radiological source term information sufficient 

15 for dose reconstruction. 

16 Petition overview -- again, the petition was -- 

17 NIOSH was unable to obtain sufficient 

18 information to complete dose reconstruction for 

19 an existing claim. On November 2nd a claimant 

20 was notified that dose reconstruction was not 

21 feasible, and we provided that claimant a Form 

22 A to submit an SEC petition if they desired. 

23 The petition was submitted to NIOSH on November 

24 19th of 2007. 

25 Our feasibility determination, NIOSH lacks 
115

1 monitoring, process or source term information 

2 to -- sufficient to estimate external or 

3 internal radiation doses to SAM Laboratory 

4 employees for the period of August 13th, 1942 

5 through December 31st, 1947. We believe we 

6 have sufficient information to estimate the 

7 external dose for medical exposures for that 

8 period. 

9 Health endangerment, we -- once we determined -

10 - as you remember, the two-pronged test. Once 

11 we determine if it's feasible whether or not to 

12 reconstruct dose. If we determine it's not 

13 feasible, we have to determine health 

14 endangerment. We determined that it is not 

15 feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy 

16 the dose, and that the health of the covered 

17 employees may have been endangered. Evidence 

18 indicates that workers in the class may have 

19 accumulated intakes of uranium and other 

20 radionuclides during the covered period. 

21 In summary, our feasibility findings are that 

22 dose reconstruction's not feasible for internal 

23 exposures or external exposures, with exception 

24 of medical X-rays. 

25 And our proposed class is all employees of the 
116

1 Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies 

2 and DOE contractors or subcontractors who 

3 worked in the Pupin, Schermerhorn, Havemeyer, 

4 Nash or Prentiss Buildings at the SAM 

5 Laboratories of Columbia University in New York 

6 City from August 13th, 1942 through December 

7 31st, 1947 -- and then the standard end to 

8 that. 

9 And again, our recommendation is to add a class 

10 for the Special Exposure Cohort class from 

11 August 13th, 1942 through December 31st, 1947. 

12 We determined it's not feasible to reconstruct 

13 dose and that health was endangered. 

14 That's it. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, LaVon. 

16 Before we hear from the petitioner I want to 

17 ask one question. Have you established whether 

18 or not those facilities were -- or utilized any 

19 student assistants, individuals who would not 

20 show up necessarily as employees? 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have not. I don't think we 

22 got -- we went to that -- we looked into that. 

23 I mean 1942 to '47 period, you know, we didn't 

24 look at -- those were specifically associated 

25 at that time for AEC research activities, so... 
117

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, but this is on the Columbia 

2 campus, is it not? 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it is. Are you asking 

4 whether they had access to those facilities? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, for example, would there -- 

6 could there have been Ph.D. researchers working 

7 on this project that would not have showed up 

8 as employees? 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, I don't know. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. It's -- 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: That's something we didn't 

12 look -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- a question to ponder on a 

14 facility like this. I assume, also, that -- 

15 since this was at a time -- 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Very national security. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- of the Manhattan Project that 

18 it'd be highly restricted in terms of -- ordin19 - ordinarily students can roam in and out of 

20 facilities on campus, but they probably 

21 couldn't in this particular case. 

22 Larry, can you speak to -- 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know that I can answer 

24 specifically. I can answer in a general sense. 

25 This would be a DOL-related question as to 
118

1 covered employment. And in some situation -- I 

2 don't know -- Jeff can add to this or not, but 

3 in some situations I know that a fellowship, 

4 you know, that is sponsored by DOE was 

5 considered -- has been considered covered 

6 employment, but I don't know about a Ph.D. grad 

7 student -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I can tell -- tell you that 

9 students who are not on fellowships, and there 

10 are always some of those, don't show up as 

11 employees. And if you go into employee 

12 records, you may never find them. 

13 Well, let's go to the petitioner and let's see 

14 if -- Maria, are you still on the line? 

15 MS. ZWOLINSKI: Yes, sir. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, do you have some comments for 

17 us? 

18 MS. ZWOLINSKI: No, I don't -- I don't believe 

19 I do, but -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

21 MS. ZWOLINSKI: -- (unintelligible) listening 

22 for (unintelligible). 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. I have an 

24 additional question. LaVon, was the Cyclotron 

25 itself included in this -- in these facilities? 
119

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it was, it's -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: It was -- physically it was there? 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, actually it was in the -- 

4 if I remember, I can -- I could tell you fairly 

5 quickly, but yes, it was in one of the five 

6 buildings that -- that -- I think Pupin, if I 

7 remember correctly, but it is in one of the 

8 five buildings. If you look in the evaluation 

9 report -- in fact, I'll tell you real quickly 

10 which one it was in -- Pupin. And if you look 

11 at page 11 of the evaluation report, Pupin -- 

12 small Cyclotron in Lab Room 128. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. When you -- when 

14 you say you could not reconstruct dose, did 

15 that include the Cyclotron work, or just the 

16 nuclides that you named? 

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: It -- it included all -- all 

18 activities at that time, so yes, the Cyclotron 

19 work there, we would not -- we did have the one 

20 dose -- or we had the one survey in 1947, but 

21 that was at the end of the AEC period. It did 

22 not cover any of the activities preliminary to 

23 that, and we did not feel that that, in itself, 

24 could -- we could bound the exposures for that 

25 Cyclotron activity. 
120

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other questions? 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

4 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley. To add to your 

5 comment, there were some undergrad people that 

6 did leave Columbia University and possibly go 

7 out to Los Alamos to work at about that time 

8 frame that might have worked on that Cyclotron. 

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: And that actually makes sense, 

10 just because of the fact that some of the 

11 material that was received at SAM Laboratory 

12 was from what became Los Alamos. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 'Cause some of 

14 those people actually did train some of those 

15 people out there, I believe. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Well, what I was wondering, in a 

17 case like this -- and I don't know a priori, I 

18 guess, but where the class definition says they 

19 have to be employees, that was my question. 

20 And I -- something to think about, whether or 

21 not they have to be employees to be covered. 

22 If they were indeed working there, that's my -- 

23 sort of my question. Jim, do you have a 

24 comment? 

25 DR. MELIUS: I mean, again, I think it's what 
121

1 Larry said. I think they ha-- by the 

2 definition of what's -- the Act, I think they 

3 have to be employees -- yeah, but it's 

4 (unintelligible) DOL. I mean where -- where 

5 the line gets drawn is going to be up to DOL. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- I suppose someone may 

7 argue if -- if you act like an employee and 

8 look like an employee, are you an employee. 

9 But -- but the law may -- may very well exclude 

10 folks. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: It does. It does. I'm looking 

12 at the law. It does. 

13 DR. MELIUS: It's like -- those issues -- I 

14 mean it comes out with volunteer firefighters -

15 - 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, right, right -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: -- there's all sorts of tests -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's that kind of -- right. 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- so depending on the benefit and 

20 -- and how it's defined in the relevant Act and 

21 so forth. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: The law specifies the word 

23 "employee" in every -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: The law specifies -- this is 
122

1 Christine speaking. The law specifies the word 

2 "employee" in every part of the Act. Now how 

3 the Department of Labor then further delineates 

4 what an employee is is the issue -- again, as 

5 you've said, it's for the Department of Labor 

6 to sort out. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, other questions 

8 by Board members? Dr. Melius. 

9 DR. MELIUS: With the agreement of the other 

10 members of the Board, I'd like to enter a -- a 

11 motion. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: You may do so. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Do so on that. Some of this will 

14 sound familiar. Let you know that I was 

15 working when I was on my airplane this morning. 

16 MS. MUNN: You're so (unintelligible). 

17 DR. MELIUS: The Board recommends that the 

18 following letter be transmitted to the 

19 Secretary Health and Human Services within 21 

20 days. Should the Chair become aware of any 

21 issue that in his judgment would preclude the 

22 transmittal of this letter within that time 

23 period, the Board requests that he promptly 

24 informs the Board of the delay and the reasons 

25 for this delay, and that he immediately works 
123

1 with NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of 

2 the Board to discuss this issue. 

3 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

4 Health, parentheses, the Board, close 

5 parentheses, has evaluated SEC Petition 00102 

6 concerning workers at the SAM Laboratories of 

7 Columbia University in New York City, New York, 

8 under the statutory requirements established by 

9 EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13 and 

10 42 CFR Section 83.14. The Board respectfully 

11 recommends Special Exposure Cohort -- SEC 

12 status be accorded to all employees of the DOE, 

13 its predecessor agencies and DOE contractors 

14 and subcontractors who worked in the Pupin, 

15 Schermerhorn, Havemeyer, Nash or Prentiss 

16 Buildings at the SAM Laboratories of Columbia 

17 University in New York City, New York from 

18 August 13th, 1942 through December 31st, 1947 

19 for a number of work days aggregating at least 

20 250 work days occurring either solely under 

21 this employment or in combination with work 

22 days within the parameters established for one 

23 or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

24 The Board notes that although NIOSH found that 

25 they were unable to completely reconstruct 
124

1 radiation doses for these employees, believe 

2 that they are able to reconstruct the 

3 occupational medical dose. 

4 This recommendation is based on the following 

5 factors: One, people working in the areas of 

6 SAM Laboratories during this time period were 

7 involved in atomic weapons research and 

8 development. 

9 Two, NIOSH was unable to locate sufficient 

10 monitoring data or information on radiological 

11 operations at these laboratories in order to be 

12 able to complete accurate individual dose 

13 reconstructions. The Board concurs with this 

14 conclusion. 

15 Three, NIOSH determined that health may have 

16 been endangered for the workers exposed to 

17 radiation in these areas of the SAM 

18 Laboratories at Columbia University during the 

19 time period in question. The Board concurs 

20 with this determination. 

21 Enclosed is supporting documentation from the 

22 recent Advisory Board meeting held in Tampa, 

23 Florida where this Special Exposure Cohort 

24 class was discussed. If any of these items are 

25 unavailable at this time, they will follow 
125

1 shortly. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: You've heard the motion. Is there 

3 a second? 

4 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I second. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Presley has seconded. Okay, 

6 discussion? Wanda Munn. 

7 MS. MUNN: May we see a hard copy of the motion 

8 before we make a final vote? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Sure can, I was just trying to 

11 move it along, but fine. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Actually what we will do, as we 

13 have done in previous meetings, is provide hard 

14 copy of these motions before the end of this 

15 week's Board meeting so everybody can see them 

16 for a final look on the wording. This is 

17 indeed our standard wording on these motions 

18 and incorporates the class definition as 

19 provided by NIOSH. I was tracking along here 

20 and the other words are, surprisingly enough, 

21 identical to other recommendations to the 

22 Secretary. 

23 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Dr. Melius. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Further comments or questions on -

25 - discussion? Are you ready to act on this 
126

1 motion? 

2 Okay, all in favor -- well, we'll take the roll 

3 call here since we have Mr. Presley on the 

4 phone. 

5 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Presley? 

7 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: That was Tennessee for aye. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Beach? 

10 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

14 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: I'll get Dr. Lockey's vote 

18 separately. Dr. Melius? 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn? 

21 MS. MUNN: Aye. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: We heard the Tennessee version of 

23 "aye" from Mr. Presley. 

24 MS. MUNN: Now you've heard the Texas version. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: I'll get Dr. Poston's vote when 
127

1 he arrives. Dr. Roessler? 

2 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

4 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. The motion carries, and we 

7 will present that recommendation to the 

8 Secretary as -- as noted. Again, we will 

9 provide you with a copy of the wording, 

10 probably Wednesday during our work session, so 

11 everyone has a copy of that. 

12 I see that we are in fact approaching the lunch 

13 hour. This is the time then for us to 

14 experiment with the -- with the buffet. Where 

15 do we cast our votes on this? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: With Zaida -- Zaida Burgos. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We're recessed until 1:00 

18 p.m. Thank you very much. 

19 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:44 a.m. 

20 to 1:00 p.m.) 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. -- Mr. Presley, can you hear? 

22 MR. PRESLEY: I'm on. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Can you hear? 

24 MR. PRESLEY: I'm on. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, good. Thank you very much. 
128

1 Again, this is the Advisory Board on Radiation 

2 and Worker Health, and if you are participating 

3 by phone we would appreciate it if you would 

4 please mute your line and when you're ready to 

5 speak you can then unmute your line. If you do 

6 not have a mute button, then please dial star-6 

7 so as to mute your line, and then please use 

8 that same star-6 to unmute the line when you're 

9 ready to speak. Thank you so much. 

10 Dr. Ziemer. 

11 PROCEDURES WORK GROUP SUMMARY

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. The first item on our 

13 afternoon session is a -- it's labeled as a 

14 procedures workgroup summary. Let me make a 

15 few comments before the workgroup chairman 

16 takes over, and that is that this particular 

17 workgroup, in the course of their work on 

18 reviewing the procedures, has -- the group 

19 itself has developed a kind of procedure that 

20 they want to share with the full Board, and 

21 that is a methodology for tracking the actions 

22 of the workgroup, the actions that relate to a 

23 typical findings matrix. SC&A has been very 

24 helpful in this regard, too, and Kathy Behling 

25 will be giving us a presentation on that 
129

1 shortly. 

2 But first let's have the workgroup chairman, 

3 Ms. Munn, kick this off and then she'll 

4 introduce Kathy. Wanda? 

5 MS. MUNN: As those of you on the Board and who 

6 work with the Board know, the procedures 

7 workgroup has a significant burden of material 

8 that we need to go through. We have been 

9 probably the most active of the workgroups for 

10 the longest period of time -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: They're all claiming that, Wanda, 

12 but we -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Yes, I know, but those of us who are 

14 on this group know it's been necessary for us 

15 to meet on a much more regular basis than most 

16 groups. It's unusual for us to go more than a 

17 month without either a face-to-face or 

18 teleconference meeting, simply because of the 

19 burden of materials through which we must work. 

20 We've, over a period of time, had three 

21 separate sets of procedures which the Board as 

22 a whole has chosen as selected materials for 

23 our contractor, Sanford Cohen & Associates, to 

24 review for content and potential technical 

25 deficiency. In each case when the contractor 
130

1 has done so, they've provided us with a 

2 significant report which the working group then 

3 undertakes to review and to work through each 

4 of the findings. 

5 As you can imagine, over a number of years -- 

6 since each one of these findings is not only 

7 addressed, but in most cases is worked to reach 

8 a solution -- what started out as a manageable 

9 matrix of information has become so cumbersome 

10 and so lengthy for some of the findings that 

11 it's very difficult for us to follow where we 

12 are and to, by looking at the matrix, quickly 

13 and easily identify what is and is not open, 

14 what is completely closed, what has been 

15 transferred to some other group for solution, 

16 or what is currently in abeyance as some other 

17 activity is underway. 

18 A little over six months ago our contractor 

19 brought to us the suggestion that, in order to 

20 assure that we had the ability to track each 

21 action as we wanted to, and make certain that 

22 when we were complete we had the kind of record 

23 that could be traced at any time, perhaps a new 

24 approach was necessary. They have brought that 

25 approach to us. We've been working very hard 
131

1 with them to fine-tune it over the last several 

2 months, while at the same time attempting to 

3 continue with our process of findings and 

4 solutions to activities of the individual 

5 procedures. 

6 The leader on this effort has been Kathy 

7 Behling and her associates. She is providing 

8 for us today, so that you may see for yourself, 

9 an overview of how this electronic system is 

10 going to work. Its enormous advantage is its 

11 ability to sort for a variety of items. We 

12 feel -- those of us on the working group who 

13 have followed this, Dr. Ziemer, Mr. Griffon, 

14 Mr. Gibson and myself, feel that this is 

15 definitely the way for us to go given the 

16 cumbersome nature of the material with which 

17 we're working. We've asked Ms. Behling to be 

18 with us today to give us that overview and to 

19 encourage you to present any questions that you 

20 might have -- since you're not quite as 

21 familiar with that as we have been. If you 

22 have issues after you've seen what SC&A is 

23 doing for us, please -- we're -- we're trying 

24 to allow enough time for you to be able to 

25 provide those questions to us. 
132

1 Kathy, would you like to show us what you're 

2 doing -- what we're doing? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: While Kathy's coming to the 

4 podium, Board members, let me mention to you 

5 that on your -- the flash drive that is 

6 provided for you with the various documents for 

7 today's meetings, this particular presentation 

8 is called "matrix presentation." You can find 

9 the file so named. You will have Kathy's 

10 PowerPoint slides, I believe -- or whatever 

11 they -- it may not be PowerPoint. Powerful, is 

12 that -- that's what they are, powerful slides. 

13 MS. MUNN: It will be powerful. 

14 (Pause) 

15 MS. BEHLING: Good afternoon. Thank you for 

16 the opportunity to show this matrix that we've 

17 been working on, and I would like to begin by 

18 acknowledging and applauding Ms. Munn and the 

19 procedures workgroup for their willingness and 

20 their effort in taking a table-based matrix and 

21 turning it into an issues tracking database. 

22 We envision, with the help of Dr. Branche, that 

23 this tool will be used as a template for 

24 designing similar databases for other 

25 workgroups and for all of the important work 
133

1 that the Board is doing. 

2 The procedures workgroup designed this database 

3 to capture and track findings from their 

4 initiation to their resolution, and they worked 

5 with SC&A to develop this system. So today I'd 

6 like to present an overview of the database, 

7 and I'm actually going to walk you through the 

8 mechanics of logging onto the term-server where 

9 this database is currently stored on the O 

10 drive. And so I did make a handout -- a 

11 presentation for those on the phone who can -- 

12 that can -- you can follow along, to some 

13 extent, but I felt if we could, we could 

14 actually walk through logging on to the system 

15 and working through the database as it 

16 currently exists. 

17 So as we see here, we're going to get onto the 

18 O drive and there's been a separate folder put 

19 onto the O drive called "the Advisory Board 

20 SC&A" folder. 

21 Am I pointing at that? Do you -- okay, you're 

22 seeing that. Very good. 

23 And under that folder we have a sub-folder 

24 called "procedures review tracking system." 

25 Now one of the things I'm going to make mention 
134

1 -- I'm going to look at the details here, so if 

2 we can open this up -- okay. You'll -- this is 

3 what you'll see, obviously, when you open up 

4 our procedures review tracking system, and 

5 there are three separate files. This is an 

6 Access database. If you were to log on to the 

7 system at this point and you actually see five 

8 files, there -- that would indicate that 

9 there's someone else on the system, and that's 

10 fine because the system allows multiple users. 

11 You would see a second -- a duplicate of the 

12 first file, the procedures issues tracking 

13 file, plus you'll also see a duplicate of -- I 

14 believe it's the data file. And you'll also 

15 take notice, we have another sub-folder here, 

16 the referenced documents sub-folder, and I'll 

17 get into more details of that folder, but 

18 that's a folder that actually is going to 

19 contain white papers or any supporting 

20 documents that we've used during the procedures 

21 review process in order to come to a resolution 

22 on a finding. 

23 So when you open up your folder -- it takes a 

24 little while here to actually open up our 

25 summary screen -- and also, let me go back. In 
135

1 the process of logging on on the previous 

2 screen we were in, Access will recognize your 

3 username, and based on that it will determine 

4 what level of access you have, whether you have 

5 a read/write access or a read-only access. And 

6 at this point the Advisory Board has made the 

7 decision as to who will get the read/write 

8 access and the read-only access. At this point 

9 it's -- most of the data has been entered by 

10 SC&A and by NIOSH, and so obviously we have the 

11 read/write access. 

12 MS. BEACH: Kathy, I'm sorry, I didn't get the 

13 first part where you log on. Is it under the 

14 AB pages or -- 

15 MS. BEHLING: Yes, let's go back. 

16 MS. BEACH: I apologize. 

17 MS. BEHLING: That's all right. 

18 MS. BEACH: I was trying to get on the O drive 

19 when you were. 

20 MS. BEHLING: If I'm going too fast, stop me. 

21 In fact, we can make this interactive, if you 

22 like, and we can -- let me get all the way off 

23 here. Okay. 

24 See -- now you'll see, as you saw just briefly 

25 there, you do see two addition-- two additional 
136

1 sets of files, so to your left, you're under 

2 the O drive, and then you're under Advisory 

3 Board slash -- dash SC&A, and then procedures 

4 review tracking system. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's where the problem 

6 is. 

7 MS. BEACH: I don't see it. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I'm getting restricted from that 

9 folder. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Did you get in? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not on line. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Gen, are you successful in 

13 getting to -- 

14 DR. ROESSLER: I can see it, but I can't do 

15 anything with it. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Advisory Board-SC&A, I'm getting 

17 a restricted -- that's a restricted folder for 

18 me, so... 

19 DR. ROESSLER: I see exactly what -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: But I was in there before, so -- 

21 MS. BEACH: No, I actually got in. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: You're in? 

23 MS. BEACH: Yeah. 

24 DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, see, it just has that 

25 little -- 
137

1 DR. BRANCHE: What about you, Paul? 

2 DR. ROESSLER: So I'm on the Internet. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Josie, you got in? 

4 MS. BEACH: I did. 

5 MS. BEHLING: And I believe I have backup 

6 support on the phone with me. Don Loomis, 

7 who's an SC&A team member, he's developed this 

8 database for us and if we run into any 

9 technical problems maybe Don can help us. Don, 

10 are you there? 

11 MR. LOOMIS: Yes, I'm here. 

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you, Don. Some of 

13 the Board members, are you able to get on now? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Josie, you're in? 

15 MS. BEACH: I'm close. 

16 MS. BEHLING: I see Mr. Gibson's in. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Josie's in. 

18 MS. MUNN: See, I'm just now saying I can get 

19 on the network. You're connecting to a 

20 wireless hot spot. 

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay, everybody's in? 

22 MS. MUNN: No, I'm not even on line yet. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Gen, are you in? 

24 DR. ROESSLER: That's all right, let her go 

25 ahead. 
138

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

3 MS. MUNN: Go ahead. 

4 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. As you see on the 

5 screen now, because we do have other users on 

6 the system, there are now five of the tracking 

7 files that you'll see. You'll see a duplicate 

8 of, as I said, the procedures issue tracking, 

9 and a duplicate of the tracking, underscore, 

10 data file. And you -- to get into the actual 

11 database, you obviously want to select the 

12 tracking folder that has the 944 K-bytes 

13 associated with it and not just the 1K. 

14 And I also make mention that -- as I said, 

15 there -- you can have multiple users on the 

16 site, and if there would be two users with 

17 read/write access -- say Stu Hinnefeld and 

18 myself were both on and we were making changes 

19 to the database -- Access will give us a 

20 warning -- you are -- you are allowed to do 

21 that, but it will give us a warning if we've 

22 opened up the same record and we're trying to 

23 make a change to the same record. So it 

24 doesn't allow that to happen, but otherwise you 

25 can get onto the system and view and change 
139

1 things simultaneously. 

2 Okay, are we ready to move on? I'll go back to 

3 opening up the database. 

4 Okay, the database opens up to our summary 

5 page, and I'll just go across this page and 

6 explain to you what -- what you're seeing here. 

7 the first column is our finding date, and we've 

8 selected a finding date based on what the -- 

9 the finding date is the same date as the report 

10 was issued to the Advisory Board. In other 

11 words, our first set of findings had -- I think 

12 there were 33 documents and all the findings 

13 associated with those 33 documents are dated 

14 1/17/2005. 

15 The second column, you'll see our procedure 

16 number, and the third column is the finding 

17 number and the SC&A page number. That 

18 indicates the page number in the hard copy 

19 report that was forwarded to the Board. 

20 Fourth column is a rating. Most of you are 

21 familiar, our procedures review process 

22 includes a checklist, and so we rate each of 

23 the findings and we've captured that in this 

24 database. 

25 Then you get -- we have -- the fifth column is 
140

1 the SC&A finding description, and the final 

2 column is status of the workgroup process. 

3 Now I'll just give you a little bit of an 

4 explanation as to the various status. We 

5 captured, or we have identified a cat-- certain 

6 categories of statuses. In fact, we have a 

7 drop-down box so that you can't put just 

8 anything in this field. We have very specific 

9 statuses so that everything is consistent. 

10 The status that you see in our -- in the first 

11 item that we've opened is "in abeyance," and in 

12 abeyance means that, according to the Advisory 

13 Board -- or to the working group, they've come 

14 to resolution on that finding; however, there 

15 may still be additional work that's necessary 

16 such as -- a good example is NIOSH has agreed 

17 to modify their procedure. So we keep this in 

18 abeyance until that additional work, such as 

19 modifying that procedure, has been completed, 

20 and then we will go back to this finding, 

21 ensure that that finding -- that modification 

22 does satisfy the concerns that we had in that 

23 finding, and then this item would become 

24 closed. 

25 Some of the other status are obviously "open," 
141

1 and then we have an "open in progress" -- now 

2 open in progress meaning that we've already 

3 started some discussion of this particular 

4 finding. An open finding means that SC&A has 

5 introduced this into the database, but we have 

6 not discussed this. We haven't had any issues 

7 resolution meetings regarding -- regarding that 

8 particular finding, so we did distinguish 

9 between open and open in progress. 

10 We also have, obviously, "closed," meaning that 

11 to the workgroup's satisfaction we've closed 

12 that particular finding. We have lastly a 

13 "transferred" file -- or transferred status, 

14 and this is where I feel the -- this database 

15 really benefits, hopefully, as I said, not only 

16 the procedures workgroup but all the other 

17 workgroups that are out there. Currently we 

18 only have this database developed for the 

19 procedures workgroup, but "transferred" can 

20 indicate that at some point, if we determine 

21 that this particular finding is more 

22 appropriately addressed under the site profile 

23 work, we can -- we can identify this as 

24 transferred, and current-- and currently we've 

25 been transferring things within the procedures 
142

1 to global issues, some issues that come up on a 

2 routine basis, such as ingestion and 

3 inhalation, and we've categorized them as 

4 global. But ultimately we might want -- we 

5 might select "transferred to site profile." At 

6 that point what this database will allow us to 

7 do, once the site profile database has been 

8 developed, it will automatically write a -- 

9 write that particular finding directly into the 

10 site profile database, and it will get a status 

11 in that database of "imported," and you will 

12 know that it was imported from the procedures 

13 database. And I'll talk about that a little 

14 bit more when we get into the details page so 

15 that -- I'll show you where we're going to 

16 capture that imported status so that we always 

17 know that that was an imported item into the 

18 various work-- workgroups. 

19 While we're on this page I should ask is -- is 

20 there any questions before I move on? I may 

21 answer maybe some of your questions once we go 

22 through this, but I can entertain questions. 

23 (No responses) 

24 Okay, we'll move on then. I'm going to scroll 

25 down here and pick a file that I can show you 
143

1 the details screen. Here we are. 

2 Put your cursor on ORAUT-OTIB 17, and it's 

3 finding 06. If you put your cursor on any of 

4 these fields -- now I lost my screen here, I'm 

5 sorry. Let me do something. I 

6 (unintelligible) something here so I can see my 

7 tabs again. I lost my tabs at the top because 

8 I have too many screens open -- too many -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Too many icons. 

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes. See if I can get some of 

11 these -- oh, here we go. Let's go back, start 

12 over. 

13 Okay, what I was trying to get to is the 

14 details screen, and I was actually going to 

15 scroll down and use a different details -- open 

16 up a details screen for a different finding, 

17 but I take notice I did lose my tabs there. So 

18 let's open a details screen and I'll give you 

19 an understanding of what is on this details 

20 screen. 

21 What we had initially envisioned when we -- 

22 when we -- we looked at designing this database 

23 is -- I know Wanda and the workgroup were 

24 interested in having a summary sheet which will 

25 list all of your findings up front, and then an 
144

1 individual sheet for each finding that 

2 describes what happened to that finding from 

3 its initiation through its resolution. And 

4 that's what you're seeing on this details tab. 

5 Again, you'll see the procedure number, and we 

6 repeat some of the issues -- the first line 

7 pretty much repeats everything from the summary 

8 sheet. And we also have an internal review 

9 objective that, again, is an item that comes 

10 off of our checklist and SC&A can put that 

11 information in to capture that also. In fact, 

12 we've used that information on our summary 

13 report. 

14 As you go down then you'll see the SC&A finding 

15 date and a full description of that finding. 

16 And underneath there you'll see NIOSH response 

17 date and their complete response. 

18 The bottom portion of the screen is -- each -- 

19 what gets captured through -- at each of the 

20 workgroup meetings, and currently you see for 

21 the -- for the -- the finding that I have 

22 identified on the screen, the -- there's been 

23 only one workgroup meeting, and we can capture 

24 the date of that workgroup meeting, any 

25 discussion that was held by NIOSH and SC&A, and 
145

1 then any directives that were given to either 

2 NIOSH or SC&A during -- during the working 

3 group, and then follow-up. And as you can see 

4 on this record, in the bottom, we have one 

5 record -- because there's only been one 

6 workgroup meeting. If there were several 

7 workgroup meetings at the bottom here you'd see 

8 this would be record one of two. 

9 Also the related link section right here where 

10 I have my cursor, this is where you will put 

11 the PDF file name of any white papers or 

12 supporting documents that may have been 

13 required as part of resolution to this 

14 particular finding. And you will actually have 

15 a link to the referenced document sub-folder, 

16 and it will open up that PDF file directly from 

17 -- from your details screen. 

18 The other thing that you can take notice of is 

19 under the internal notes, when we do have other 

20 databases developed -- and I talked about 

21 adding a status for "imported" -- once we 

22 import a finding into a new database, we will 

23 also have a note put into the internal notes 

24 section indicating that this particular finding 

25 came from this workgroup, so that we always 
146

1 capture that. Because as we start to work 

2 through this finding, that status will change 

3 to open in progress and ultimately closed. But 

4 we want to be able to capture the fact that 

5 this was a finding that was imported from some 

6 other workgroup. 

7 And at the bottom you can see -- rather than 

8 going back to your summary screen to look at a 

9 previous or the next details screen, we do have 

10 buttons that will take you directly to the next 

11 summary. 

12 Okay. Now we're going to go to the filter and 

13 sort section -- the button -- and this -- this 

14 is the screen that will be pulled up when you 

15 hit "sort and filter." On the left-hand side, 

16 as you can see, we have three levels of 

17 sorting. And in this particular example any 

18 docum-- or any of the findings that are pulled 

19 up will be sorted first by procedure number -- 

20 and I might go on to say, we tied procedure 

21 number and finding number together because we 

22 thought it was important that when you pull up 

23 a certain procedure the finding numbers are 

24 sequential after that. So those two fields on 

25 your summary are also -- are tied. 
147

1 The second-level sort on this example would be 

2 the finding date, and then you can go as far as 

3 a third-level sort which -- as you see here on 

4 the radio button that's selected, that would be 

5 your stat-- the status of the workgroup 

6 process. 

7 Now for filtering, we have -- first of all, our 

8 first filter is -- we can actually sort data on 

9 key terms. I'm going to use the term 

10 "ingestion," and hit the "OK" button and go 

11 back to my summary screen, and you can see 

12 there were five findings found with the word 

13 "ingestion" -- I use ingestion because that is 

14 one of those -- it's a finding that we also 

15 often have with our global issues. And that 

16 word can be anywhere in our details list, our -

17 - in an-- in any of the fields of our details 

18 screen. It just so happens in this particular 

19 case the ingestion is in the -- the SC&A 

20 finding description, but that -- if that word 

21 were to show up in NIOSH's response, or 

22 anywhere else in this details screen, it will 

23 pull that record. 

24 And I'll also just walk through a few other 

25 sorts. As you can see, you can -- if you 
148

1 uncheck certain things, that takes it out of 

2 the list and so right now I'm going to check 

3 only "open" and "in abeyance" and look at the 

4 number of records we have. The other thing I 

5 will point out -- if we go back to our summary 

6 screen it shows -- that's -- go back one more 

7 time -- oh, it's -- I kept "ingestion" in 

8 there. Let's take "ingestion" out and -- 

9 "open" and "in abeyance" -- and our summary 

10 screen then shows -- and at the bottom of the 

11 summary screen you can see we have 309 records 

12 that were identified as a result of filtering 

13 for "open" and "in abeyance," and they are 

14 sorted by "in abeyance," as we had requested. 

15 Now the "print summary" screen -- and I just 

16 selected that screen. It's going to take a 

17 little bit longer. I should have used less 

18 data here, and I won't stop it at this point, 

19 but what that "print summary" screen is going 

20 to do is it's going to set up a file for us so 

21 that it will print this summary screen, and 

22 I'll show you how we save this to a PDF-type 

23 format that can be used during your working 

24 group meetings. Unfortunately there were 309 

25 records on this particular sort and so the 
149

1 print screen -- it takes a little bit longer. 

2 I should have used -- I should have used my 

3 "ingestion." 

4 But while this is working, I guess the 

5 mechanics of entering all of this data was 

6 initially done by SC&A. We went back to our 

7 original matrix tables and we were able really 

8 to fairly quickly convert what is on those 

9 tables into an Access -- or into an Excel file 

10 and then into this database. So we weren't 

11 able to capture -- at least from the first set 

12 -- all of the information from the workgroups, 

13 and we didn't think it was necessary to go back 

14 to all of the transcripts to try to capture 

15 everything, but we at least were able to load 

16 that data rather quickly by going back to the 

17 initial table format. 

18 I apologize here for this... 

19 The other thing I will make mention of, on this 

20 particular screen at the top you see, in red, 

21 "Filter is ON," indicating that you're not 

22 looking at a complete database. And when this 

23 is done printing I'll go back and show you this 

24 complete database at this point has 472 

25 records, I believe. 
150

1 Does anyone have any questions while we're 

2 waiting? 

3 MR. CLAWSON: Not yet, but I'll betcha in the 

4 middle of the night we will. 

5 MS. MUNN: One of the things I'd like to point 

6 out, from a previous page that Kathy was 

7 showing you, was the advantage that the 

8 completed page is going to have as a permanent 

9 archive record. You will be able to go to that 

10 page, long after it's closed, and identify when 

11 the finding was identified, what response to 

12 the finding was first given, what activity 

13 occurred in the working group, how many times 

14 it was discussed in the working group, what the 

15 -- each step of the process was, and what the 

16 final resolution will be -- all on a single 

17 page on a single document. That would be for 

18 any given finding, not just for the procedure 

19 itself but for any given finding on that 

20 procedure. That's foreseen as being very 

21 helpful historically as these similar kinds of 

22 issues arise from one site to another. 

23 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I think we're ready 

24 here to move on, but the -- after the print 

25 screen is ready, you get an opportunity to type 
151

1 into this area a header. And typically I would 

2 identify the date and the fact that SC&A 

3 printed this document out -- I'll use that as 

4 an example, and we'll click "OK," and this is 

5 the type -- this is the first page of 25 pages 

6 for a summary report. 

7 One of the things I'll also point out is -- and 

8 this is a unique feature to this database -- is 

9 we have -- if we want to go ahead and print out 

10 the details for everything that's identified in 

11 the summary report, you see the fourth column 

12 is a details page number, and so it 

13 automatically numbers each of the details page 

14 behind this, so we can go directly to that page 

15 to identify the details of each of these 

16 findings. 

17 In order to print this, you will go to "file," 

18 "print," and then you will select your Adobe 

19 PDF, and at that point you would save -- you 

20 would name your file and save it to your U 

21 drive, as I'm walking through here -- because 

22 this is the type of documentation that you'll 

23 be actually using during your working group 

24 meetings for -- it becomes your -- your new 

25 matrix. 
152

1 I want to go back and show you just a few more 

2 features of the filter screen because not only 

3 can we filter on a particular phrase, you 

4 obviously -- as you see -- can filter on any of 

5 the categories of the status. We can also 

6 filter on a particular procedure number. And 

7 they're in a drop-down box and as you start to 

8 type them, it will automatically go to -- let's 

9 go to an ORAU -- as you can see, it opens up 

10 the first ORAU-OTIB and it automatically goes 

11 there. 

12 Also, as I talked earlier, the finding dates -- 

13 we have specific finding dates in here that are 

14 based on our first set, second set, third set, 

15 additional finding dates for some of the 

16 procedures such as PROC-92 that we were 

17 requested to submit separately, and you can 

18 sort on any of those dates. Also our ranking, 

19 you can sort by ranking, and then lastly by 

20 updated on or after. And this is for people 

21 that have read/write access and want to be sure 

22 that they have truly updated a particular 

23 record, you can put a certain date in here and 

24 go back to make sure that you have updated the 

25 records that you wanted to update. I'll give 
153

1 you... and that shows you as of 3/14/2007 we 

2 had made an update to 14 different records. 

3 There is also -- next to your print summary 

4 screen there's a print details screen, and as I 

5 indicated on the -- when you looked at your 

6 summary, it would print all of those details. 

7 In this particular case it would be 14 pages of 

8 details, and it would print all of those. And 

9 our last button here is -- if I select one 

10 particular finding and select my print details 

11 for the selected finding, I can print just that 

12 particular finding -- that particular detail 

13 finding. And here it gives us the opportunity 

14 to put a footer in so that you can keep track 

15 of the date that you printed these, which is 

16 useful, obviously, when you're getting ready to 

17 have a meeting and you want to put a particular 

18 date that everybody should be following -- or 

19 using for this particular matrix. 

20 And I believe that sums up the matrix. I've 

21 walked you through most all of the components, 

22 and I don't know if anyone has any other 

23 questions. 

24 As I said, I think one of the nice features is 

25 the sorting that has been put in, and also the 
154

1 fact that ultimately you will be able to link 

2 findings between one workgroup and the other. 

3 I know we've always been concerned about the 

4 fact of have we really captured that finding 

5 when it's transferred to a new workgroup, and 

6 this will certainly ensure that we have. 

7 Also I'd just make mention that all of the 

8 documents that are ultimately going to be put 

9 into the "referenced" folder, those documents -

10 - we will follow all the same protocols that we 

11 use now, such as putting the disclaimers on 

12 them and ultimately making sure that they are 

13 PA-reviewed -- Privacy Act-reviewed. 

14 And that sums up my presentation. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Kathy. 

16 Wanda, do you want to lead this? 

17 MS. MUNN: I'm astounded there are no 

18 questions. 

19 MR. CLAWSON: Well, we're still trying to 

20 figure our way through it. 

21 DR. MAURO: We'll call you about 3:00 in the 

22 morning. 

23 MS. MUNN: Dr. Melius. 

24 DR. MELIUS: I have a question, but not for 

25 Kathy. It's for you, Wanda. Where are we in 
155

1 terms of a report from the workgroup for Board 

2 action -- which was my original question at the 

3 last meeting. I mean this is very helpful and 

4 so forth, but I'm not sure it sort of tells 

5 where we are -- sort of trying to come to 

6 closure with -- overall with the workgroup's 

7 activities. 

8 MS. MUNN: That was my next topic -- 

9 DR. MELIUS: Well -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- after Kathy had completed her -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: -- then I will take -- 

12 MS. MUNN: -- her presentation. 

13 DR. MELIUS: I'm sorry. You asked for 

14 questions, I -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes, I did. 

16 DR. MELIUS: -- was trying to accommodate. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: They do have a report on that as 

18 well, but let's -- let's get -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- focus on this for a moment. 

21 MS. MUNN: If there are no questions, Kathy, I 

22 assume you are available by telephone or e-mail 

23 for puzzled members who are trying to get 

24 through to a specific piece of information and 

25 are not exactly sure where to go. 
156

1 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I will certainly make myself 

2 available. And also as I indicated, if there 

3 are more technical type questions or any 

4 problems with getting onto the system, Don 

5 Loomis within SC&A will also be able to help 

6 and I can share his e-mail and telephone number 

7 with the rest of you. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Basically this takes off our 

9 original matrix type of system that we've had a 

10 fair amount of experience with, and it allows I 

11 think just to keep track of what -- many of 

12 these matrices, and I know Mark faces it with 

13 the dose reconstruction matrices, you kind of 

14 lose track of what you did on each item and how 

15 it was fully resolved or what you did along the 

16 way. And this allows a good mechanism for 

17 tracking all those things. 

18 John Mauro. 

19 DR. MAURO: If I may, we're going to be having 

20 a procedures work-- meeting that's scheduled, 

21 coming up, and I think one of the things that's 

22 always most important is when we arrive at the 

23 meeting we want to sit down and open up all of 

24 the procedures that are active. Other words, 

25 usually -- I mean based on this setup, there 
157

1 are a lot of questions you might ask of it, and 

2 one of the first things is okay, we're ready to 

3 start. What we're going to do today is we're 

4 going to go and revisit all of -- let's say the 

5 first group or whatever group of procedures, 

6 maybe the second group, and in that group we'd 

7 like to start -- get back to reviewing all of 

8 the findings that have been open and active, 

9 because we are still working on them. So if -- 

10 and -- so we'd like to let's say generate a -- 

11 a matrix that we could all work from, because 

12 if we all agree around the table that's what 

13 we'd like to do today -- and I guess I'm 

14 putting you on the spot 'cause I know from a 

15 practical standpoint, that's usually what 

16 happens. 

17 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 

18 DR. MAURO: You sort of sit down, say okay, 

19 we're going to go and take on this batch. Is 

20 there a way for you to produce that file that 

21 is -- let's say all the procedures that are 

22 open and active, and that's what we're going to 

23 look at today. 

24 MS. BEHLING: Yes. And one second and I'll -- 

25 I logged off here, but one second and I'll just 
158

1 try to do that. In fact, before our last 

2 procedures workgroup meeting I contacted Wanda 

3 and said what type of matrices would you like 

4 for me to generate for you and gave some 

5 suggestions as the fact that we're still 

6 working on the second set, we have -- we have 

7 discussed most of the items, the findings, on 

8 the second set but there's still some things 

9 that are open and in progress. So we could 

10 select that as a filter and generate a matrix 

11 in a PDF-type format that can be distributed to 

12 the workgroup and we can work from there. 

13 But let's use John's example. Okay, there we 

14 are. One of the things I also want to show you 

15 is I'm going to select all of the records that 

16 we have in the database and show you -- 

17 currently, from the first three sets of fin-- 

18 of procedure reviews and some supplemental 

19 reviews, we currently have 472 findings 

20 identified in the -- in this database, as you 

21 can see in the lower left-hand corner. And in 

22 order to sort that database we can look at -- 

23 let's look at open and in progress for our 

24 second set, which was 6/8/2006. So based on 

25 the selection that I've made on this filtering, 
159

1 we're going to -- hopefully the database will 

2 produce for us all the open and in progress 

3 items from the second set of procedures that we 

4 reviewed. And as you can see, there are 53 

5 findings and it has identified them by 

6 procedure number and finding number, showing us 

7 all the open items -- well, there's some in 

8 abeyance. 

9 DR. MAURO: Kathy, I notice you left "in 

10 abeyance" in the -- in this section -- 

11 MS. BEHLING: Did I -- did I -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah, you did that. 

13 MS. MUNN: "In abeyance" was still in there. 

14 MS. BEHLING: Well, that's a good thing. If I 

15 would have unchecked that and we would still 

16 see "in abeyance" I would have been more 

17 concerned. 

18 There we are. There are 42 findings from the 

19 second set of procedures that we reviewed that 

20 are open or open and in progress. So this 

21 would be a starting point for -- let's say the 

22 next workgroup meeting. Obviously we have a 

23 lot of open items that haven't been discussed 

24 yet, and so we would print this summary page 

25 and the print details for these 42 findings and 
160

1 that would become -- save them as PDF files and 

2 the working group chair would then distribute 

3 those as the matrix for the next meeting. That 

4 was a good example to walk through the process. 

5 MS. MUNN: One of our processes that we have 

6 followed in this workgroup, given the enormous 

7 number of findings that we have, is to approach 

8 the most critical ones first, which leaves us 

9 with a large number of open items that are, in 

10 numerical status, large. But the actual number 

11 of significant open items may be considerably 

12 lower than that. We've -- we've, from time to 

13 time, also postponed the work that we were 

14 doing on existing procedure findings because 

15 the work of the Board has brought up an item or 

16 a procedure of some type that we felt needed 

17 immediate attention, and the workgroup has -- 

18 has made an effort to work directly with SC&A 

19 to resolve that outstanding issue on a timely 

20 basis. So these pieces of data that you see 

21 before you are all individual pieces of -- of a 

22 much larger picture, a significant number of 

23 which have been closed in the process of our 

24 activities. And in our future meetings we will 

25 undoubtedly begin with this type of printout in 
161

1 front of us. We will, however, continue to 

2 focus on the dozen or so outstanding items that 

3 we have from findings that are in work right 

4 now and/or in the process of technical 

5 exchanges between NIOSH and the contractor with 

6 respect to final closure. 

7 MS. BEHLING: If there's no other questions, I 

8 will close -- close down. 

9 MS. BEACH: Kathy, I have a real quick 

10 question. When I went to print, I got a detail 

11 report footer and I -- you probably mentioned 

12 it, but -- 

13 MS. BEHLING: Yes, it just allows you to put in 

14 maybe a date that you're printing that footer, 

15 and I put in -- I typed in "test" as we were 

16 going through this process, just to show you -- 

17 we decided to do the headers and footers just 

18 because when you look at the print screen, 

19 there was really not a lot of room for the 

20 header on the details screen so we made it a 

21 footer, but it's just a means of being able to 

22 identify a date. 

23 You'll also see at the bottom of the summary 

24 and the print details screens on the lower 

25 right-hand -- there's your detail footer -- 
162

1 detail report footer, and I'll just put in our 

2 date today -- I believe that's the date. 

3 The other thing you'll see is the last time 

4 that the database was updated, and -- 

5 MS. MUNN: Which is today. 

6 MS. BEHLING: -- which I have to enlarge to be 

7 able to see -- which is today. I think earlier 

8 today I may have -- I thought it was -- yeah, 

9 4/7/2008, I'm already jumping ahead of myself. 

10 But you do see number of pages and the last 

11 time that the database itself was updated. 

12 And as I indicated under the filter screen, if 

13 you want to determine which records were 

14 updated, that's an option -- as of such-and15 such a date, that's an option with your last 

16 filter, where it says "updated on or after," 

17 you can determine what records were updated as 

18 of a certain date. 

19 MS. MUNN: A question I should have asked you 

20 earlier, Kathy, is the third set of data 

21 completed now in terms of population or are we 

22 part-way through that? 

23 MS. BEHLING: Yes. No, the third set of data 

24 has been populated in the database. And in 

25 fact, I believe that's what I used -- I did 
163

1 take this database and that's what I used to 

2 forward to you and to NIOSH to start working on 

3 our third set. Those will all be open items. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Wanda, are -

5 - are you going to proceed to the second 

6 question that Dr. Melius -- 

7 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- asked now or -- 

9 MS. MUNN: Yes, I am. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- do you want to do that during 

11 your workgroup session -- or during the -- 

12 you're prepared to -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Well, I think we need to report on 

14 where we are with that, yeah. 

15 The workgroup had felt that, because of the 

16 enormous amount of data that we have handled 

17 since our inception, it was time for us to 

18 report to the Secretary what the progress was 

19 of this particular group. Doing that is not an 

20 easy task. It simply does not lend itself 

21 easily to numerical reports. 

22 SC&A has done us a great favor of providing a 

23 draft for us to begin our work. The draft 

24 attempts to cover the scope of what we have 

25 done, and to report on this particular work 
164

1 gives some feel for what it will allow us to do 

2 in the future. 

3 We're well aware of the fact that if the 

4 report's going to be of any value there has to 

5 be an executive summary of it that is cogent 

6 and brief enough to be meaningful to the staff 

7 and to the Secretary when that report is 

8 received. So I had committed to work with the 

9 draft that was before us. We were making an 

10 attempt to compile a full report on the first 

11 set of 33 procedures that we have been working 

12 with. 

13 I was unable to manipulate my own files in a 

14 way that I could provide the original authors 

15 as smooth a piece of work as I had hoped we 

16 might be able to provide as a draft for the 

17 Board to review here today. This is seen as 

18 being a relatively short report, but with a 

19 two-page executive summary and several 

20 appendices that will provide the reader with 

21 enough information to understand where that 

22 first set of procedures are and what we -- how 

23 we intend to proceed in the future. 

24 It's my expectation that we'll be able to have 

25 that draft in a format for the Board itself to 
165

1 take a look at and make comments on sometime 

2 within the next few weeks. Our -- our next 

3 workgroup meeting is scheduled for May 20. 

4 Certainly well before that we hope to have a 

5 very smooth copy in your hands. We don't want 

6 to delay this much longer because it has indeed 

7 been a significant amount of time and we have 

8 not given any report at all to the Secretary. 

9 So if the Board in itself is amenable to that, 

10 we'd like to propose that we try to get into 

11 your hands sometime in the next few weeks the 

12 draft of what we would like to have, as a 

13 workgroup, go forward to the Secretary -- 

14 simply as a report. No recommendations, simply 

15 as a report of what this workgroup has been 

16 involved in in the last few years and what the 

17 new process for tracking the materials is going 

18 to look like. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I might add, the workgroup did 

20 look at a draft of a proposed report and asked 

21 SC&A to make some modifications in that to put 

22 it in a format that was -- looked more like 

23 what we would expect to send to the Secretary. 

24 So it will be a brief -- I think you described 

25 it -- two or three-page report with some 
166

1 attachments which summarize the extent of the 

2 reviews and the findings of the reviews. So -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, let me just -- 'cause I was 

4 -- keep getting confused whether -- so 

5 basically that would be at the point at which 

6 the Advisory Board would concur or not concur 

7 with the findings of the reviews. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I think what -- what we're 

9 talking about is two different things here. 

10 One is what you just -- and with the -- 

11 concurring with the findings. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: The other is a report to the 

14 Secretary which will describe how the -- how 

15 the review was done and yet summarize those 

16 findings, and in fact what we're trying to do 

17 is express in some way -- and this is -- this 

18 is what has delayed it a little bit -- what the 

19 impact of those findings has been as far as 

20 feedback in to NIOSH and what has changed as a 

21 result of the review. So I think that's what's 

22 being looked at. 

23 But the findings themselves remain to be fully 

24 clos-- closed out as a separate action. I 

25 believe that's the case. It would be -- 
167

1 MS. MUNN: Yes, yes. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- the first set of 33 -- yeah. 

3 So those have to be separately closed out, in a 

4 sense. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Then -- then what is the timing on 

6 that? I mean I -- 'cause this is the actions 

7 of a workgroup that -- that the other Board 

8 members have had not had any input into, and -- 

9 and with the other situations we're in, we have 

10 -- and we need to do this to get the work done, 

11 so I'm -- I'm not trying to underestimate the 

12 amount of work involved or the difficulties of 

13 coming up with a quick summary. It doesn't 

14 lend itself to the kind of summary that we do 

15 for the individual dose reconstruction reviews. 

16 But for the individual dose reconstruction 

17 review, two things. All the Board members 

18 could or -- you know, and have participated in 

19 that, at least on some of the individual dose 

20 reconstruction reviews that are -- that are 

21 part of each set. Secondly, there's -- there's 

22 an opportunity when that now subcommittee but 

23 was a workgroup reports back to the Board with 

24 a report, we -- we essentially have an 

25 opportunity to discuss the findings. And we've 
168

1 actually -- particularly early on, but -- but 

2 continue on, we've sort of -- certain kinds of 

3 findings get highlighted and we've had debate 

4 and discussion over what's an appropri-- you 

5 know, is that finding appropriate, how do we 

6 express it and so forth. 

7 And what I'm concerned about is with the 

8 procedures workgroup we haven't had that 

9 opportunity yet and I'm still not clear that we 

10 even are with this first report. And I -- you 

11 know, I -- but I mean I could wait and see what 

12 -- what's in the report, but -- but I think the 

13 -- you know, if we're going to take a Board 

14 action and report to the Secretary, I would 

15 certainly prefer to do that having had the 

16 opportunity to review the -- the substance of 

17 those reviews and an opportunity to concur or 

18 not concur with -- with the findings of the 

19 reviews as they've been passed on to -- to 

20 NIOSH. And I worry that these are getting 

21 passed on and a long period of time has gone by 

22 and -- again, without Board involvement, 

23 there's -- activity. 

24 Now again, we have that with some of our SEC 

25 workgroups and it's just -- you know, some of 
169

1 it's just the nature of the process, and I 

2 think this is even a more difficult process to 

3 decide how to manage, given the number of 

4 procedures there are to review. But I think we 

5 need to think it -- sort of how do we, you 

6 know, get the Board involvement -- and 

7 particularly, you know, this is the first step 

8 so -- time we've reported, so... 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, process-wise, we have to 

10 close out the issues before the report goes to 

11 the Secretary, so that has to happen and that 

12 would be a natural outcome of the workgroup's -

13 - 

14 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- work. But at the same time, I 

16 basically -- and Wanda has agreed -- that we 

17 need to be thinking about reporting -- I don't 

18 think we're mandated to do this, but to think 

19 about reporting these findings -- or reporting 

20 this activity to the Secretary. So there's 

21 been developed what you would call a template 

22 of what -- what that is going to look like. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Okay, it was just -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: But you're quite right, the -- 

25 we've got to close out the findings before we 
170

1 can report -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: -- to the Secretary. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: And again, the other part of it, 

6 as I suggested, was that we need to -- to 

7 evaluate what the implications of those 

8 findings, or the impact, is. In other words, 

9 is this exercise, you know, having any impact 

10 on the program. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And if it's not, why not, or if 

13 so, do -- or if not, what do we change. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: So that's -- that's the other 

16 part. But Wanda, you -- has additional 

17 thoughts on this. 

18 MS. MUNN: I have a couple of additional 

19 thoughts, yes, strangely enough. 

20 First of all, I don't believe the concept of 

21 bringing all of the resolved findings to the 

22 Board for validation has been on my list of 

23 priorities. I haven't thought of doing that 

24 particular action in that way. I would suggest 

25 if the Board wants to in fact look at each of 
171

1 the resolutions and concur on them that we need 

2 to have a full Board meeting of at least three 

3 days to look at the findings that have already 

4 been closed and taken care of, because there's 

5 a bunch. And I'm not -- I -- I suppose my 

6 thinking had been that once we had essentially 

7 closed the major findings on a procedure, that 

8 perhaps procedures, as an entity, might be 

9 discussed by the whole Board. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this may be perhaps a little 

11 like what we had with the dose reconstruction 

12 findings. The Board can't go through every 

13 procedure. You -- Kathy told us how many 

14 findings there were -- you know, 400 and 

15 whatever it is. 

16 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: And to sit here individually and 

18 debate those findings is probably not 

19 beneficial. On the other hand, many of those 

20 findings -- a lot of the findings group 

21 together. They're repeated kinds of findings, 

22 as we have in dose reconstruction, so there -- 

23 there can be a pooling of those things. We can 

24 say there were -- findings of this nature and 

25 here's how they were resolved. There's 
172

1 findings of another type and here's how they 

2 were resolved. So with the -- I think with a 

3 proper summary of what was handled and the 

4 highlighting of really what -- somebody has to 

5 make a judgment -- and I think the workgroup is 

6 the one that does this initially -- is make a 

7 judgment of what are the really significant and 

8 thorny issues that were uncovered in the 

9 process, and then ask for the full Board to 

10 look at that. We can make all of the 

11 background information and the full matrix 

12 available, and anyone would be free to go 

13 through that and -- and at -- you know, look at 

14 particular things that might be of interest. 

15 But I think it's not unlike what we do with 

16 dose reconstruction. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I think it's similar. You have 

18 the opportunity to weigh in, but -- but it's 

19 more we're going to discuss groups of types of 

20 findings. We're not going to go through every 

21 one again, I don't think, so -- I don't think 

22 anybody here wants to do that. 

23 MS. MUNN: It's a little difficult to know how 

24 to proceed and how to sort whether the 

25 workgroup's evaluation significance is going to 
173

1 be the same as the Board's desire to weigh in 

2 on significance. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: But in a sense, we do something 

4 like this even as we prepare the summary report 

5 because we have to be able to summarize it to 

6 the Secretary. And we have, in our draft, 

7 categorized -- I think it's five categories of 

8 issues that are looked at. Is it five or 

9 seven, I forget? 

10 MS. MUNN: There are -- there are actually 

11 seven criteria -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, seven criteria -- 

13 MS. MUNN: -- by which they're judged. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- and we -- and we can look at it 

15 in terms of those frameworks. 

16 Jim, you have an additional -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- comment here? 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- only if -- I mean if -- 

20 recalling back to when we were starting to do 

21 the dose reconstruction reviews, I think most 

22 of us -- or at least many of us -- read all the 

23 initial 20 reports, and we struggled with the 

24 same issue of how to -- how to pull it toget-- 

25 you know, together and what were significant 
174

1 findings and so forth. And you know, we 

2 probably have to take it on -- on incrementally 

3 and do that, and I don't see if there's a 

4 problem that should there be a particular 

5 procedure that's problematic or particularly 

6 significant in terms of what the 

7 recommendations would be or, you know, what 

8 should NIOSH's follow-up be, that we don't 

9 devote some time at a full Board meeting to 

10 discussing that specific procedure. But I 

11 think we start with -- and whether it's 25, 50, 

12 whatever it is, I don't know how you -- you've 

13 gone about it, but I think we -- we need to 

14 have some way of coming to grips with this. 

15 MS. MUNN: May I suggest that we provide for 

16 the entire Board the draft of the overview of 

17 this first set of procedures so that you can 

18 see the tack that this report is expected to 

19 take. If you find issue with that, if you feel 

20 that it needs to be expanded, or if you feel 

21 there are specific procedures in that group 

22 that you would like more clearly defined, then 

23 we can certainly work with the full Board's 

24 recommendation to go into more detail or to 

25 approach this in a different way. We'll be 
175

1 glad to provide the -- I -- it's our intent to 

2 provide a draft for you to take a look at in 

3 the coming weeks. This is only the first set 

4 that we're looking at. We have not undertaken 

5 the same activity for the second or the third 

6 sets. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: And in fact I think we're learning 

8 here how to evaluate what the findings are and 

9 what to do with them, so -- and as I say, I 

10 think the summary report at least gives a good 

11 framework from which this Board can discuss 

12 those findings if -- and -- and make that 

13 evaluation. 

14 So I -- I do -- I do want to make sure that 

15 everybody has an opportunity to weigh in on -- 

16 on issues, if necessary. The Board -- or the 

17 workgroup is doing really the foundational work 

18 here, and the matrix will be very helpful so 

19 that you can easily track what was done and how 

20 it was resolved on every single issue. 

21 So -- any other comments or questions for Wanda 

22 or the workgroup? 

23 (No responses) 

24 Thank you very much. We appreciate everything 

25 that was done, and also Kathy and the SC&A team 
176

1 that helped develop the -- the matrix -- the 

2 new matrix, I'll call it. Thank you very much. 

3 HORIZONS, INC. SEC PETITION

4 Our next item is Horizons, Incorporated. And 

5 let me check -- before we have the presentation 

6 from NIOSH by LaVon for Horizons, I want to see 

7 if Glenn Abraham is on the phone. 

8 MR. ABRAHAM: Yes, I am. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Glenn. And after we 

10 hear from Mr. Rutherford we'll give you an 

11 opportunity, if you have comments, as well. 

12 MR. ABRAHAM: Thank you very much. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- I think the Board 

14 members have received a statement from you by 

15 e-mail, as I recall. I believe it was 

16 distributed -- yes, I'm -- I'm getting 

17 confirmation here. The Board members did 

18 receive as well your statement, Mr. Abraham, 

19 and we'll give you opportunity to comment here 

20 shortly. So here's Mr. Rutherford first. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Thank you, Dr. 

22 Ziemer. As Dr. Ziemer mentioned, I will be 

23 presenting Horizon's evalua-- or NIOSH's 

24 evaluations of the Horizons, Inc. SEC petition 

25 evaluation. 
177

1 As indicated, NIOSH received the SEC petition 

2 on July 26, 2007. The petition was qualified 

3 on October 11th. The qualifying basis provided 

4 by the petitioner was that, to the best of that 

5 petitioner's knowledge, there was no monitoring 

6 data for Horizons, Inc. And NIOSH reviewed our 

7 existing documents, our claimant files and 

8 other things, and came pretty much to the same 

9 conclusion, that there was very little, if any, 

10 monitoring data for Horizons, Inc. So NIOSH 

11 went through and completed our evaluation and 

12 issued our evaluation report on March 14th, 

13 2008. 

14 Petitioner proposed a class of all employees 

15 who worked at Horizons from January 1, 1944 

16 through December 31, 1956, the operational 

17 period, and all employees who worked in all 

18 locations at Horizons, Inc. from January 1, 

19 1957 through July 31st, 2006. This is -- which 

20 is the residual period. This was the -- the 

21 class -- or the covered period defined in the 

22 DOE facility database. 

23 NIOSH reviewed -- during NIOSH's evaluation, 

24 NIOSH concluded that we would recommend a class 

25 that would be all AWE employees who worked at 
178

1 Horizons, Inc. for a number of work days 

2 aggregating at least 250 days from January 1st, 

3 1952 through December 31st, 1956. 

4 We did evaluate -- we qualified the petition 

5 and evaluated the time period -- the entire 

6 time period identified by the petitioner. 

7 A little background on Horizons. Horizons, 

8 Inc. is located in Cleveland, Ohio. Facilities 

9 -- actually the facilities are still in 

10 Cleveland, Ohio. Although the DOE facility 

11 database indicates the facility covered period 

12 started in 1944, all documents we have indicate 

13 that Horizons, Inc. was not licensed to work in 

14 the state of Ohio until 1947, and AEC 

15 activities did not start until 1949. We have -

16 - start -- AEC operations starting in 1949 

17 through 1956, which was looking at the 

18 feasibility producing ductile zirconium. That 

19 -- in all -- review of all of our documentation 

20 indicates that was a non-radiological activity. 

21 In 1952 Horizons was contracted by the AEC to 

22 determine the most economical method for the 

23 production of thorium metal. 

24 1953 to an unknown date -- I say unknown date, 

25 but it stopped at the -- all the material, we 
179

1 do know, was shipped back in -- and the -- 

2 toward the end of 1956 -- was research and 

3 development work with uranium. They were 

4 looking at some type of cladding work with 

5 zirconium and uranium, and in addition they 

6 also had drafted a proposal for -- using a 

7 similar electrolytic process for production of 

8 uranium that was also submitted to the AEC and 

9 turned down. 

10 In 1954 to 1958 they did research work with 

11 radioactive silver to determine the surface 

12 diffusion rate of silver on gold, and it 

13 appears -- a license was obtained from the AEC 

14 for this material, but it does not appear that 

15 it was AEC-related work. At that time, to get 

16 the -- to get that source material, you had to 

17 subm-- request that from the Atomic Energy 

18 Commission. 

19 Our sources reviewed for information on 

20 Horizons, Inc. -- looked at site profile 

21 Technical Basis Documents, anything that -- 

22 which there is no site profile for Horizons. 

23 We looked at other Technical Basis Documents. 

24 We looked at Technical Information Bulletins. 

25 We had an excellent interview with a former 
180

1 worker who was the metallurgical engineer, and 

2 we received a lot of good information from 

3 them. Case -- we looked at case files in the 

4 NIOSH database, we -- site research database, 

5 and documentation affidavits provided by the 

6 petitioner. 

7 Did I bounce one? Okay. 

8 Radiological exposures to employees were -- 

9 occurred from the operations I previously 

10 identified. The principal exposure was from 

11 the thorium metal production operations. 

12 External exposures -- beta exposures from 

13 thorium metal production, research work with 

14 uranium and silver research activities; gamma 

15 exposures from thorium operations and uranium 

16 research. And based on the radioactive 

17 materials present, there was no appreciable 

18 source of neutron exposure. 

19 Internal exposures -- thorium and thorium 

20 progeny, including radium and thorium -- or 

21 radium and thoron from the thorium production 

22 operations; uranium from research activities, 

23 and silver from research activities. 

24 Availability of dosimetry data -- we have a 

25 July, 1953 trip report that indicates that 
181

1 Horizons management instituted wearing film 

2 badges. However, we have no film badge data 

3 located prior to May of 1954. Of the four 

4 claimants that we have, three of those have 

5 external dosimetry data. And our interview 

6 that we conducted with the metallurgical 

7 engineer did indicate when full-scale 

8 production went into place he remembered film 

9 badges were -- were used at that time. 

10 Again, we have -- weekly dosimetry results 

11 exist from May of 1954 through June of '55, and 

12 monthly results from '55 through December of 

13 '55 -- from October '55 through December of 

14 '55. 

15 We have no bioassay data, no urine sampling, 

16 whole body counting have been located for the 

17 time period. 

18 Air sampling, we have a December -- early 

19 December of 1954 HASL survey took place. It 

20 was reported in a February 1955 HASL survey 

21 report. We also have some general area air 

22 sample data in September of 1955. We have air 

23 samples -- four air samples for uranium that 

24 are available in 1953. 

25 Again, this is fairly consistent with our 
182

1 interview that we conducted. The interview 

2 with the engineer indicated that he did not 

3 recall any in-place monitors for the facility -

4 - air monitors for the facility. He did 

5 remember on occasion a person taking air 

6 samplings, which is kind of consistent with 

7 what we found. 

8 As you've seen a couple of times today, our 

9 process is a two-pronged test: Is it feasible 

10 to reconstruct the dose for individual members 

11 of the class. And then if it's -- if it's not 

12 feasible, then is it likely that the health was 

13 endangered for members of the class. 

14 NIOSH found that the available monitoring 

15 records, process description and source term 

16 information are insufficient to complete dose 

17 reconstruction for the proposed class of 

18 employees. NIOSH currently lacks access to 

19 sufficient monitoring, source term data and 

20 process information to estimate the complete 

21 internal dose to members of the class. 

22 Again, I mentioned we could not reconstruct the 

23 internal. It was focused on occupational 

24 thorium and thorium progeny dose. We initially 

25 looked at the 1954 air data, which was a very 
183

1 detailed survey that was conducted by HASL in 

2 1954. It identified in that report -- we 

3 looked -- we looked at using that report, and 

4 based on what we had thought was -- that 

5 thorium production levels were probably around 

6 the highest at that period, we thought that 

7 would be good bounding data to reconstruct the 

8 earlier years. However, after we went back and 

9 we reviewed further documentation, and 

10 recognizing that the scope of Horizons -- 

11 Horizons was contracted to look at the most 

12 economical method for production of thorium 

13 metal. If you look at some of the earlier 

14 reports, they went through a number of 

15 different iterations and design changes and -- 

16 during the pilot skill activities before they 

17 went into production. We could not -- we did 

18 not feel that that air data in 1954 really 

19 could bound our results for those earlier 

20 years. 

21 So based on the little information concerning 

22 the initial process, process changes and 

23 process controls implemented during the 

24 research and development activities, we 

25 concluded that we could not use that data to 
184

1 bound the earlier operational years. 

2 We looked at using that '55 HASL report again 

3 to bound the period from February 1955 to the 

4 end of operations in '56. If you look at the 

5 HASL report, it identifies a number of 

6 recommendations for the contractor to reduce 

7 air concentrations. At the time they were 

8 exceeding the air concentration limits consider 

9 -- in a -- a large percentage of the areas, and 

10 they had identified a number of practices and a 

11 number of controls to go into place to reduce 

12 those concentrations. However, the only air 

13 data we have post-- that February '55 is some 

14 general air samples that were taken in 

15 September of '56, and we also have 

16 documentation that indicates that actual levels 

17 of material on-site increased all the way to 

18 June and July of 1955, up to 10,000 pounds of 

19 material. So based on the data that we had, we 

20 did not feel that we really had enough data to 

21 -- to conclude that that '55 HASL data could 

22 bound that one year of operations from '55 to 

23 '56. 

24 In addition -- in reviewing the process, the 

25 electrolytic process and the temperatures 
185

1 associated with that process, we noted that 

2 there was a high likelihood that -- and the 

3 release of radium, thor-- thoron and associated 

4 progeny. The delay period between the 

5 collection and the counting of HASL air data 

6 and the associated short half-lives of the 

7 radium and the thoron directly impact our 

8 ability to reconstruct the dose. If you looked 

9 at -- the samples were collected on December 

10 3rd and 4th period. The first counting of the 

11 samples was not until late December, roughly 

12 27th time frame, and a number of them rolled 

13 all the way into 34 days -- to count those 

14 samples, so the short-lived activity would have 

15 gone. 

16 NIOSH believes that the internal and the 

17 external exposures from the residual period can 

18 be reconstructed using the data from the 1955 

19 HASL report, and the 1977 FUSRAP report data, 

20 to determine the upper and lower bounds, 

21 respectively. Now I know you're thinking okay, 

22 you said you couldn't use the 1955 report for 

23 the operational period. But if you think what 

24 we're doing here, we're taking that 1955 report 

25 when we were in production and operations, 
186

1 we're using air concentrations from that '55 

2 report which clearly, during operations, would 

3 have been much higher than the shutdown when -- 

4 when no longer -- when operations were no 

5 longer occurring. So we take that 1955 air 

6 data and we take the 1977 FUSRAP data, which 

7 includes surface contamination and air 

8 concentrations as well -- we take the surface 

9 contaminations -- we -- we used resuspension 

10 factors and we came up with an air 

11 concentration in 1977. That air concentration 

12 we came up with for 1977 using resuspension 

13 factors was actually 1,000 times higher than 

14 the air concentration that were in the report. 

15 We used that data as our lower bound. We took 

16 that and we used an exponential model to come 

17 up with a -- exposures for the -- internal 

18 exposures for the residual period. 

19 The external exposures, we took the 1955 HASL 

20 report using general area dose rates -- again, 

21 when there's a significant amount of material 

22 on site, we use those general area dose rates 

23 as our upper bound. We contin-- we used a 

24 straight-line approach from 1955 to 1977 for 

25 exposures from that 1955 report, and then 1977 
187

1 we took the dose rates from that 1977 FUSRAP 

2 report out to 2006 for our later years for 

3 external exposures. Again, this del-- this 

4 methodology is actually detailed in our 

5 evaluation report and -- can take a look at 

6 that. 

7 Health endangerment, we have -- we have 

8 discovered no information for any operation or 

9 activities at Horizons, Inc. site in Cleveland 

10 prior to September 4th, 1947. We actually 

11 contacted the Department of Energy -- 

12 Department of Energy and asked them for 

13 documentation that they used to support their 

14 covered facility. When we -- we received that 

15 documentation and reviewed that documentation, 

16 and again have no indication that there was any 

17 work that occurred prior to September of 1947. 

18 In addition we have license -- we have 

19 information that supports that they were not 

20 licensed to operate in the state of Ohio until 

21 September 4th, 1947. 

22 Therefore, at this time we have concluded that 

23 there is no health endangerment for that 1944 

24 to 1947 period because we have no indication of 

25 any work ever occurring at that time. 
188

1 In addition, we have discovered no information 

2 for any radiological activities, or the 

3 presence of radioactive material, at the 

4 Horizons site prior to 1952. We know that they 

5 were doing zirconium work and non-radioactive 

6 work. They were looking at the production of 

7 ductile zirconium. We have information on 

8 that. But we have no indication of any 

9 radioactive material being on-site prior to 

10 1952. Now -- and so based on that, we're 

11 identifying that there's no health endangerment 

12 from 1947 to 1952. 

13 Now we -- I want to point out, if -- if 

14 evidence is found at a later date that there is 

15 -- there was radiological operations that 

16 occurred during that period, we can move 

17 forward with an 83.14 to include that period in 

18 our evaluation. But at this time we have 

19 nothing to support that there would be any 

20 health endangerment from that period. 

21 Again, NIOSH determined that dose 

22 reconstruction is not feasible from 1952 to 

23 1956 at the Horizons, Inc., and that the health 

24 of the employees covered may have been 

25 endangered. The evidence reviewed indicates 
189

1 that workers in the class received chronic 

2 internal and external exposures from production 

3 and research and development activities at 

4 Horizons. And our recommended class is all AWE 

5 employees who worked at Horizons, Inc. for a 

6 number of work days aggregating at least 250 

7 days from January 1, 1952 through December 31, 

8 1956. 

9 Our findings in summary, internal exposures 

10 from thorium and thorium progeny cannot be 

11 reconstructed during the operational period. 

12 External exposures can. I actually didn't go 

13 over this, but we have -- as I mentioned 

14 earlier, we have external exposure -- we have 

15 film badge monitoring data for a number of 

16 years. In addition, we've taken that film 

17 badge monitoring data and developed a coworker 

18 model for -- that will be used in support of 

19 partial dose reconstructions. 

20 The residual period, we've indicated we can do 

21 all dose reconstruction -- uranium, thorium, 

22 thorium progeny, and both the -- all the 

23 external exposure. 

24 And again, our class is recommended '52 to '56, 

25 and it's not -- we concluded that dose 
190

1 reconstruction is not feasible and health was 

2 endangered. 

3 That's it. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much. Could 

5 you clarify the usage of the silver again? 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I think it was 110 or 110M -- 

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: It was 110M. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- it was the longer-lived one, 

10 the 110M. 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: The 110M -- yeah, the 110 

12 would have gone away. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: And you -- I think I read in the 

14 report that was outside of the -- 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: It actually went -- you mean 

16 the period? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: It went actually till roughly 

19 1958. However, our reports indicate that '56 

20 to '57, all the material was shipped back and 

21 they closed out the license in '58. The amount 

22 of -- or actually 1956 the material was shipped 

23 back and they closed the license out in '58. 

24 Either way, the -- the residual period would 

25 not really address that because it wasn't an 
191

1 AEC-covered activity. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: And even if it was an AEC4 covered activity, I think the half-life -- if I 

5 remember correctly -- is 100 days. It's going 

6 to be very -- very -- it's in the report, I 

7 can't remember, but it's not a significantly 

8 long half-life that it would be exposure 

9 concern for more than a year or two. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: 250 days -- 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, okay. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- is what you say in the report. 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, three to four years. 

14 Okay. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: So -- yeah, well, 250 days is -- 

16 if you're talking about, you know, up to ten 

17 half-life periods, that's -- 

18 MR. RUTHERFORD: That can be relatively 

19 significant. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. That clarifies 

21 that. 

22 Other questions? Josie. 

23 MS. BEACH: I just want to make sure I'm clear. 

24 During the residual period, '57 to 2006, did 

25 you have any bioassay data at all? 
192

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. 

2 MS. BEACH: Okay. And then the lab, the HASL 

3 lab -- 

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Uh-huh. 

5 MS. BEACH: -- where was that located? 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Where was the survey located? 

7 MS. BEACH: The Health and Safety Laboratory 

8 that you're -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: New York. 

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: In New York. 

11 MS. BEACH: New York? 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: New York Operations Office. 

13 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

14 MS. MUNN: Manhattan. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, can you clarify some of this 

17 confusion on the time period that this was in 

18 operation? 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

20 DR. MELIUS: I believe the petitioners went 

21 back to 1944, seem to indicate that the 

22 facility was in operation from '47, but only 

23 became involved in this program in 1944, so -- 

24 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: -- excuse me, 1952. 
193

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. What -- actually what 

2 we found -- again, and we are working with the 

3 Department of Energy and the Department of 

4 Labor on this issue. Right now, and from what 

5 -- everything we've reviewed and all the 

6 documentation we've reviewed, we have no 

7 indication that the facility even existed until 

8 1947. Okay? So we're working with -- again, 

9 with Department of Energy and Labor on that. 

10 In addition, all our documentation indicates 

11 that there was no radiological activities or 

12 radioactive material on site until 1952, you 

13 know. And we've talked to -- we talked to this 

14 -- the metallurgical engineer and we've, you 

15 know, reviewed all this documentation. Our 

16 existing claimant pool starts in 1952. We have 

17 no one that works prior to that period, so no 

18 one's affected by this at this time. In fact, 

19 our existing claimant pool of four, all of them 

20 worked during the operational period, so... 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Let's hear from Glenn Abraham. 

22 Glenn, are you still on the line? 

23 MR. ABRAHAM: Yes, indeed, I am. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Please give us any comments you 

25 may have. 
194

1 MR. ABRAHAM: Well, (unintelligible) for 

2 everybody, so (unintelligible) -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Glenn, let me interrupt you a 

4 minute. You're breaking up. Try moving back a 

5 little bit from the phone, let's see if that's 

6 better. 

7 MR. ABRAHAM: Is that better? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, a little bit, yeah. Go 

9 ahead. 

10 MR. ABRAHAM: Okay, great. (Unintelligible) 

11 went into this. (Unintelligible) be repetitive 

12 (unintelligible) to thank everybody once again 

13 (unintelligible) people (unintelligible) report 

14 (unintelligible) Ms. Laurie Breyer 

15 (unintelligible) through this, she kept me 

16 informed that (unintelligible). I just want to 

17 thank (unintelligible) everybody 

18 (unintelligible). 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you very much for 

20 those comments. 

21 MR. ABRAHAM: Thank you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, any other 

23 questions? 

24 (No responses) 

25 Okay, we have a possibility for taking action 
195

1 on this if you so desire. Yes, Dr. Melius? 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, if -- concurrence of the 

3 other Board members, I'd like to offer a long 

4 motion -- again. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Very -- very briefly, though, is 

6 your long motion a motion to recommend this 

7 class? 

8 DR. MELIUS: Class -- according to the NIOSH 

9 definition of the class. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Please proceed. 

11 DR. MELIUS: The Board recommends that the 

12 following letter be transmitted to the 

13 Secretary of Health and Human Services within 

14 21 days. Should the chair become aware of any 

15 issue that in his judgment would preclude the 

16 transmittal of this letter within that time 

17 period, the Board requests that he promptly 

18 informs the Board of the delay and the reasons 

19 for this delay, that he immediately works with 

20 NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of the 

21 Board to discuss this issue. 

22 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

23 Health, parentheses, the Board, close 

24 parentheses, has evaluated SEC Petition 00094 

25 concerning workers at the Horizons, 
196

1 Incorporated facility in Cleveland, Ohio under 

2 the statutory requirements established by 

3 EEOICPA, incorporated into 42 CFR Section 

4 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends 

5 Special Exposure Cohort status be accorded to 

6 all AWE employees who worked at the Horizons, 

7 Incorporated facility in Cleveland, Ohio from 

8 January 1st, 1952 through December 31st, 1956 

9 for a number of work days aggregating at least 

10 250 work days occurring either solely under 

11 this employment or in combination with work 

12 days within the parameters established for one 

13 or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

14 The Board notes that although NIOSH found that 

15 they were unable to completely reconstruct 

16 radiation doses for these employees for January 

17 1st, 1952 through December 31st, 1956, they 

18 believe that they are able to reconstruct the 

19 external radiation doses and the occupational 

20 medical dose during the time period in 

21 question. NIOSH also believes that they can 

22 reconstruct individual doses during the 

23 residual period, parentheses, January 1st, 1957 

24 to July 31st, 2006, close parentheses. 

25 This recommendation is based on the following 
197

1 factors: Horizons, Incorporated facilities 

2 involved early research and development work 

3 for the manufacture of atomic weapons. NIOSH 

4 was unable to locate sufficient monitoring data 

5 or information on radiological operations at 

6 these -- at this facility in order to be able 

7 to complete accurate individual dose 

8 reconstructions involving internal exposures to 

9 thorium and thorium progeny for the time period 

10 from January 1st, 1952 through December 31st, 

11 1956. The Board concurs with this conclusion. 

12 NIOSH determined that health may have been 

13 endangered for the workers exposed to radiation 

14 at the Horizons, Incorporated facility in 

15 Cleveland, Ohio during the time period in 

16 question. The Board also concurs with this 

17 determination. 

18 Enclosed is supporting documentation from the 

19 recent Advisory Board meeting held in Tampa, 

20 Florida where the Special Exposure Cohort was 

21 discussed. If any of these items are 

22 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

23 shortly. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you've heard the motion, 

25 which the Chair is going to modify with a 
198

1 friendly word. The last sentence has to have 

2 the word "class" in it. 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Which will be added. This is not 

5 a Special Exposure Cohort, it's a Special 

6 Exposure -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: Class. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: -- Cohort class. But that's the 

9 motion. All -- a second, we need a second. 

10 MR. GIBSON: I'll second. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Discussion? Any discussion? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Are you ready then to vote on this motion? 

14 MS. BEACH: I just have a quick clarification. 

15 Was that for internal and the external, or are 

16 we excluding external? 

17 DR. MELIUS: Which? The -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: If you look at -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- the basis for the lack of 

20 feasibility is the internal. They -- 

21 MS. BEACH: Right. 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- they're able to do external and 

23 occupational, so that so states that. 

24 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

25 DR. MELIUS: And then for the -- it's a little 
199

1 confusing 'cause for the residual period it's -

2 - they can do everything. 

3 MS. BEACH: Right. Just wanted to make sure. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: But again, the effect of that is 

6 for the -- the non-specified cancers, they can 

7 go in for partial dose reconstructions if -- if 

8 they wish. 

9 MS. BEACH: Right. Got it. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: The effect also is denying the 

12 residual period. I think people are straight 

13 with that. Right? That we're accepting 

14 NIOSH's recommendation on the residual period. 

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: Correct. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: And the -- I mean the only 

17 question I would have is the -- I haven't had a 

18 chance, I don't know if other Board members are 

19 comfortable -- this looks like a slightly 

20 different approach handling the residual period 

21 where you're using data that was sort of -- and 

22 LaVon mentioned this, data sort of that was 

23 rejected for the use during the operational 

24 period to bound in between the 1977 cleanup 

25 data and extrapolate internal doses from that. 
200

1 It's a -- it's a new model on me, anyway. I 

2 don't know that we've seen that before. 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't think the model's new. 

4 The exponential model is what we've used in -- 

5 in other residual periods. The -- I think I -- 

6 I said the reason why we excluded the -- I 

7 explained why we excluded the -- that '54 -- or 

8 '55 HASL survey for the operational period, but 

9 I also provided why it would be bounding for 

10 the oper-- or for the residual period. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 DR. NETON: I think I might clarify a little 

13 bit -- this is Jim Neton. I'm pretty sure 

14 LaVon said that the air samples that we had 

15 were general area air samples -- 

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

17 DR. NETON: -- is that correct? And we've 

18 never really been -- it's never been our 

19 practice to use general area air samples to 

20 reconstruct internal dose during the period 

21 when the activities were occurring. But we 

22 certainly have used general area air samples to 

23 bound non-process-related activities. And that 

24 would be the intent. The non-process activity 

25 related to the general air sample we feel very 
201

1 confident bounds the -- the -- any air that 

2 would be -- any air that would be generated in 

3 the residual period, if you can follow that 

4 logic. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. And -- and there are 

6 other sites that we've looked at where we've 

7 extrapolated between data? I know you back8 extrapolated -- 

9 DR. NETON: Well, it's the subject of a TIB 

10 that's out there. We have a -- TIB-71? 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: TIB-70. 

12 DR. NETON: -- TIB-70 just came out that -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

14 DR. NETON: -- goes over these residual models 

15 and it's -- it's been reviewed and approved for 

16 use internally. I would say that -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I'm -- I'm not familiar with that 

18 one, but yeah, okay. 

19 DR. NETON: We did use general area air samples 

20 at Simonds Saw and Steel, if you remember, to 

21 reconstruct the residual activity at Bethlehem 

22 Steel. That was the basis for coming up with 

23 the resuspension in the air at Bethlehem Steel. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: And at -- at Chapman Valve -- I'm 

25 just going through a lot of these sites 'cause 
202

1 I think we have equity issues, too, on how we 

2 treat these -- at Chapman Valve how did we 

3 handle the residual period -- or -- or did we 

4 leave that on hold for now? I'm not sure where 

5 that stands. 

6 DR. NETON: You know, you caught me here, Mark. 

7 I can't remember what we did at Chapman Valve 

8 right now. 

9 DR. MELIUS: The -- the -- the -- there's one 

10 site you had a question on, Mark, and I can't 

11 remember which one it is, whether it's Chapman 

12 or one of the others, and actually -- actually 

13 when I first saw this I thought it was an 83.14 

14 so I spent a fair amount of time going through 

15 it. In fact I even corresponded with LaVon a 

16 little bit about that -- about the residual 

17 dose issue, and I think this is different in 

18 the way they did it, and I was satisfied. But 

19 you should take a look and see if you think -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

21 DR. NETON: Seems to me we did address the 

22 residual contamination at Chapman Valve up 

23 through I think before the DOE took over. The 

24 DOE operation is covered, but I don't exactly 

25 remember the model for that. 
203

1 DR. ZIEMER: This action -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I looked quickly at it, 

3 and it looks reasonable. I just haven't looked 

4 at it in depth, and I was also looking -- from 

5 a consistency standpoint I was concerned that -

6 - you know. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: This action today, however, would 

8 not preclude some other action later if -- if 

9 something arose. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don't know if we can 

11 reopen that -- 

12 DR. NETON: I would suggest, though, that -- I 

13 think that we can bound this -- this residual 

14 activity. Now whether the model is deemed to 

15 be totally accurate is the subject -- could be 

16 the subject of some review and -- and 

17 deliberation. I mean if that was the Board's 

18 desire. But I don't know -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think the question would 

20 be is the model a bound-- you know, is the -- 

21 is the model bounding, I think would be the 

22 question at hand. 

23 DR. NETON: Well, the question -- can we bound 

24 residual contamination period with some model. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 
204

1 DR. NETON: And we proposed one, and whether 

2 it's totally accurate in the Board's opinion I 

3 guess could be reviewed outside -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I see what you're saying. 

5 DR. NETON: -- the scope of the SEC -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: It's like a site profile sort of 

7 -- 

8 DR. NETON: Correct, exactly. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: -- issue, right -- okay. Yeah. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- I'd just add that the 

11 1955 area monitoring data that they're using is 

12 from a time period when the facility was 

13 operational, so it's not necessarily at its 

14 peak of operation, which continued into the 

15 next year, so it's a sort of a -- it's sort of 

16 a unique set -- dataset in some ways. And so I 

17 think it -- their argument would be that it -- 

18 it is high, then they're using 95th percentile 

19 on that, so that follows through. 

20 I also would add that our -- our usual way of 

21 expressing this is only stating it. We aren't 

22 really saying we fully concur with that 

23 particular finding, because we're not really -- 

24 we haven't really evaluated the full, you know, 

25 dose reconstruction method any more than we've 
205

1 really, you know, evaluated the full -- their 

2 ability to use external dose during the -- the 

3 time period, so... 

4 MR. GRIFFON: And I think Jim's right, it's 

5 more the -- the thing for us to look at is is 

6 the information there. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: If we agree with that particular 

9 TIB's approach, we always have options to go 

10 back and review that, but right now we're 

11 looking and it looks like the pieces are there. 

12 How they exactly modeled that can be -- can be 

13 commented on later -- yeah, I guess -- yeah. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Additional comments? Are 

15 you ready then to vote on this? Okay, we'll 

16 vote -- take a poll vote. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Josie Beach? 

18 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Brad Clawson? 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Michael Gibson? 

22 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Mark Griffon? 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius? 
206

1 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: With reservations -- no. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Wanda Munn? 

4 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Robert Presley? 

6 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Gen Roessler? 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Phillip Schofield? 

10 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Paul Ziemer? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: We have to get John Poston's vote 

14 later. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: You have to get John's later, but 

16 the motion does carry, nonetheless, and we will 

17 -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: And Lockey's. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: And Dr. Lockey's as well, and we 

20 will then prepare a recommendation to the 

21 Secretary in accordance with that vote. 

22 We'll go ahead and take our break now before we 

23 start the next subject. Let's take a 15-minute 

24 break. 

25 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:45 p.m. 
207

1 to 3:10 p.m.) 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Are the phones... 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Could you unmute the phone now, 

4 please? 

5 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, I'm on. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I hear you, Bob. I 

7 will call the meeting back to order. 

8 NIOSH QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

9 Our next item of business is the report from 

10 NIOSH on quality assurance and quality control, 

11 and back at the mike is Larry Elliott. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, and I 

13 certainly appreciate that this subject was 

14 placed on the agenda at this point today. Had 

15 it been placed -- you know, it's such an 

16 exhilarating piece to present that if it was 

17 given after the lunch break I probably would 

18 have numerous people sleeping in the audience. 

19 But at any rate, I am pleased to make this 

20 presentation to the Board on the quality 

21 assurance and quality control procedures that 

22 are utilized in our program at NIOSH. I have 

23 presented to the Board on a number of occasions 

24 about various aspects of QA and QC that we do 

25 at NIOSH in the Office of Compensation Analysis 
208

1 and Support. I mentioned some of these on 

2 October 2005 at your Board meeting, again in 

3 June 2006, December 2006 and again in January 

4 2008, so let it not be said that we haven't 

5 talked about QA/QC before, but never in this 

6 breadth or depth that I'm about to take you to 

7 today. 

8 I think that this presentation needs to start 

9 from the perspective that NIOSH has processed 

10 over 27,000 claims, which requires us to have 

11 communication directly with -- with tens of 

12 thousands of individuals relevant to those -- 

13 handling those claims. We have completed 

14 numerous SEC evaluation reports and have 

15 produced numerous technical documents over the 

16 last seven years. 

17 With any program of this size there's going to 

18 be human error. And given that truth, I think 

19 and I believe that the goals of a strong QA/QC 

20 program are three-fold. One, that they -- the 

21 program limits the amount of human error to the 

22 least amount possible; two, that we learn from 

23 our mistakes and that -- that are made and we 

24 try to prevent future mistakes; and three, that 

25 our QA/QC program that is -- that in our QA/QC 
209

1 program we are constantly evaluating what can 

2 be done to improve the program. 

3 I believe that -- I hope that as I get to the 

4 end of this presentation you will see that 

5 those goals are inherent in our program, and 

6 are reflected in the various areas that I'm 

7 about to speak on today. 

8 Quality assurance and quality control is 

9 incorporated in all aspects of the program at 

10 NIOSH, in our dose reconstruction process -- 

11 I'll talk about this at length, I have a number 

12 of slides that I'll go into for you. In the 

13 development of our technical basis approaches 

14 and documents, site profiles, et cetera -- I'll 

15 also speak about QA/QC that is done in that 

16 regard. We also have quality assurance and 

17 quality control components involved in our 

18 Special Exposure Cohort petitioning process, 

19 and I'll speak on some of those. 

20 There's another aspect in our QA/QC program, 

21 and that is called program oversight. I have a 

22 contractor oversight team that monitors our 

23 contractors that we also do self-assessments 

24 within OCAS as well, so I'll speak to that. 

25 And finally what's not on this slide is -- the 
210

1 one last bullet that should be there, the 

2 Advisory Board's review process and how we 

3 incorporate what we've learned from that, and 

4 I'll speak about that in the last set of 

5 slides. 

6 With that said, our quality assurance/quality 

7 control program has evolved over the course of 

8 these seven years as the needs and the 

9 complexity of the processes were more fully 

10 understood and developed. 

11 To start with, we have to have an overarching 

12 goal, and here's our overarching goal. I first 

13 presented this to you in 2006, I believe, in 

14 June at the Washington, D.C. meeting. And this 

15 overarching goal at NIOSH for our quality 

16 assurance/quality control process is to ensure 

17 that each dose reconstruction or SEC evaluation 

18 is of sufficient quality to yield a correct 

19 Department of Labor recommended decision on 

20 compensability. 

21 I'm not going to get into a great deal of depth 

22 on each one of these topic areas -- dose 

23 reconstruction, technical basis document, 

24 contract oversight -- but I am going to give 

25 you in that the breadth of what we call QA/QC 
211

1 control, quality control measures. 

2 In our dose reconstruction process there are 

3 seven steps that I'll go through here for you 

4 and speak about how we do our quality control 

5 checks and where our quality assurance comes 

6 into play. 

7 The workgroup on procedures has reviewed, or is 

8 currently reviewing, a number of procedures 

9 that are related to dose reconstructions as 

10 they are moving through this seven-step 

11 process, and certainly we could go back and 

12 visit those types of procedures that that 

13 working group has examined or is involved in 

14 examining. 

15 In step one, the -- of the dose reconstruction 

16 claim process, all required data that we 

17 receive from the Department of Labor in a claim 

18 packet is entered into our NIOSH/OCAS Claims 

19 Tracking System. You've heard us call this 

20 NOCTS. Well, that's the acronym, NIOSH/OCAS 

21 Claims Tracking System. And this is done in a 

22 couple of ways. All of the paper information 

23 that is submitted by a claimant and all of the 

24 development of the eligibility for that claim 

25 that DOL does is documented and, in paper form, 
212

1 sent to NIOSH. We scan all of that paper into 

2 a claim file and enter that claim file, in 

3 electronic version, into our NOCTS database 

4 system. 

5 There are also some information that is 

6 electronically keyed into that NOCTS database 

7 system -- the Social Security number, the date 

8 of birth, the name, the address, the contact 

9 information -- a variety of things have to be 

10 keyed in, based upon what we see in the hard 

11 copy information that comes from Department of 

12 Labor. 

13 We run an electronic verification on that 

14 information that's keyed into the database. 

15 This is done every night, and here you see on 

16 this slide some of those variables that are 

17 examined under this electronic check that's 

18 done every evening. So Social Security number 

19 is entered, does it already exist elsewhere in 

20 the NOCTS database system. If it does, we've 

21 got a problem. We've got two people with the 

22 same Social number, or we've got a wrong Social 

23 number on one of these two claims, perhaps. So 

24 that spits out a report for my public health 

25 advisors to go examine the issue and follow up 
213

1 with either the claimant or with -- and/or DOL. 

2 For skin cancer claims, of course, the 

3 ethnicity is a requirement that we ask the 

4 Department of Labor to provide us information 

5 on from the claimant, and that has to be there 

6 for all skin cancers, and so we do an 

7 electronic check of that as well. 

8 Additionally, smoking history is a requirement 

9 for us to reconstruct dose for any lung cancer10 related claims, so we have a check on that. 

11 And then this, are all reasonable and what -- 

12 and what the -- makes sense as far as the way 

13 they've been electronically entered into the 

14 database system. So in other words, the date 

15 of death is not prior to the diagnosis date. 

16 That would spit out an error report and we'd 

17 follow up on that discrepancy. 

18 As I mentioned, discrepancies are evaluated and 

19 resolved internally, or they may be referred to 

20 DOL for additional development and resolution. 

21 Our public health advisors review all hard copy 

22 files that are in a particular claim, and they 

23 compare the data that's been entered into NOCTS 

24 for the Energy employee's name and -- or the 

25 survivor contact information, the type of 
214

1 cancer, the date it was diagnosed, and making 

2 sure that the ICD-9 code that is associated 

3 with that cancer makes sense. 

4 There are several forms, other documents, that 

5 are relevant to employment history that are 

6 also examined by the public health advisor to 

7 make sure that the quality is up to snuff in 

8 order for the claim to move through the system. 

9 The quality control checklist has been 

10 generated for every case, and a final 

11 electronic verification is completed once that 

12 case achieves full completion and is returned 

13 to Department of Labor -- and I'll speak a 

14 little more about that in a later slide. 

15 We're still -- we're at step two now, and the 

16 re-- there's a need to go to Department of 

17 Energy and request DOE-related information 

18 relevant to the claim. And so once that 

19 information is returned to us, it comes in to 

20 our contractor or it comes in to us, our 

21 contractor reviews all of those data and 

22 documents that DOE has supplied us regarding 

23 the exposure for that claim. And again, the 

24 information associated with the Energy 

25 employee, the correct data for that Energy 
215

1 employee and the -- whether the documents that 

2 we receive from DOE are legible or not -- are 

3 examined, the completeness, whether there are 

4 scanning errors that occurred during the 

5 uploading and scanning of the information to 

6 the electronic database are also performed. 

7 There are additional data and/or clarifications 

8 that may be requested from DOE. And if that is 

9 needed, we track those. We document that we 

10 made the request and we track the response or 

11 lack of response to that particular request. 

12 That has to be done so that we can make sure 

13 that when we have a final request fulfilled 

14 from the Department of Energy, we can move the 

15 claim into the dose reconstruction process. 

16 Until that point, we cannot do so. 

17 In the -- make sure I didn't skip a slide here. 

18 Step three, we seek the claimant's willingness 

19 to cooperate in an interview regarding the 

20 claim. This interview -- as you know, we have 

21 a set of questions that are asked of an Energy 

22 employee and a set of questions that are asked 

23 of a survivor for a claim. The interviews are 

24 scheduled. They are then completed. But 

25 that's not the end of the trail for interviews. 
216

1 The discussions are documented and the claimant 

2 is asked to review and comment and edit that 

3 report of the Computer-Assisted Telephone 

4 Interview. They can correct any information 

5 they feel has been added in error or any errors 

6 made to the report, or they can also provide 

7 information that they forgot to give us or 

8 didn't realize that -- that we needed until 

9 they had had a chance to review this report. 

10 In step four of the processing of dose 

11 reconstructions, prior to completing a dose 

12 reconstruction all of the ORAU health 

13 physicists who are deemed dose reconstructors 

14 are required to participate in formal classroom 

15 training. There is a documentation that this 

16 occurs and this is a -- there is a trackable 

17 record here of who got what training when. And 

18 when site profiles or Technical Basis Documents 

19 or a technical approach changes for a given 

20 site or a given exposure scenario, then there 

21 is a retraining session to elucidate those dose 

22 reconstructors who would need that level of 

23 training. 

24 All DRs, dose reconstructions, are completed 

25 using approved implementation guides, Technical 
217

1 Basis Documents and Technical Information 

2 Bulletins. And so you ask me how is that a 

3 quality control check. Those are the only ones 

4 that can be used by the dose reconstructor, and 

5 they have to be referenced in the report. So 

6 if they're working with some document that has 

7 not been final-approved for use in dose 

8 reconstruction, they will not be allowed to 

9 advance that report. They will be told by a 

10 reviewer that they need to use only approved 

11 documentation. 

12 Continuing in step four, once a dose 

13 reconstructor has completed a draft of a dose 

14 reconstruction, there is an initial quality 

15 control review that's performed by a non-health 

16 physicist. This person is not looking at the 

17 technical basis of the approach used in 

18 reconstructing dose, but they are looking at 

19 has everything been spelled correctly in the 

20 claimant's name and address, and do we have the 

21 employment history right, do we have the cancer 

22 designations captured correctly in this report. 

23 All of the demographic information associated 

24 with the claim is checked by this individual. 

25 They're also asked to look at the IREP 
218

1 spreadsheet and make sure that it is full in 

2 its content and that it is consistent with the 

3 dose reconstruction that it is accompanying. 

4 Still in step four, once the draft has been 

5 drafted and prepared by a dose reconstructor, 

6 it is then sent to a senior health physicist 

7 for review -- peer review. This review is 

8 looking at the consistency, the accuracy and 

9 the appropriateness of the demographic and the 

10 dosimetry information in NOCTS. The IREP and 

11 the input summary files are examined and the DR 

12 inclusion of the information gained during the 

13 CATI. So in other words, did the individual in 

14 the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

15 identify that they were involved in an 

16 incident; and if so, has that incident been 

17 captured in the dose reconstruction report; and 

18 if so, do we have documentation of the incident 

19 or are we basing it on the interview itself. 

20 So those issues are examined in this process. 

21 Any issues that are identified by a peer 

22 reviewer are communicated to the drafting HP, 

23 health physicist, and are resolved to the 

24 satisfaction of the peer reviewer. This is 

25 captured in a documentation file that goes 
219

1 between the author and the peer reviewers so 

2 that documentation exists and is available to 

3 other reviewers. 

4 Continuing along in step four, there's a 

5 technical editing step that's completed to 

6 verify that the format of the report is 

7 appropriate to our standards, that all spelling 

8 and grammar are accurate and appropriate. 

9 There's a final quality control check 

10 performed, and the draft dose reconstruction is 

11 then sent to my offices for folks in my office 

12 to take a peer review of -- of the document. 

13 There in OCAS each draft is reviewed and 

14 evaluated to ensure that the approach is 

15 technically valid, the DR is completed 

16 according to all of the approved applied 

17 procedures, and that the IREP input files 

18 produced the same results as the IREP summaries 

19 that were provided in the report. 

20 I think this is the last slide on step four -- 

21 I hope -- but again, it goes to show you the 

22 degree -- one more -- the degree that we go 

23 through in developing these drafts. 

24 For drafts that are not approved and those that 

25 are returned to ORAU, there are written 
220

1 comments describing the deficiencies that the 

2 reviewer and OCAS identified. And those draft 

3 DRs are -- when they are approved by an OCAS 

4 health physicist in peer review, they receive 

5 at OCAS an additional technical review to 

6 ensure that the general approach is sound 

7 again, and no obvious errors exist. So there's 

8 a second level of -- this is actually the third 

9 level of technical peer review a document would 

10 get, one at ORAU and two within our own staff 

11 at OCAS. 

12 The approved dose reconstructions are then 

13 printed and sent to claimants with an OCAS-1 

14 form. In that regard, every draft is reviewed 

15 again by a public health advisor to ensure that 

16 the tracking number is consistent on each page 

17 of the document, all pages are accounted for, 

18 an OCAS HP, or health physicist, approval 

19 signature is present, and the Energy employee 

20 name and Social Security number are correct, 

21 and it is being placed in the right envelope. 

22 We do a number of these in a day, and so these 

23 are hand-checked now to make sure the right 

24 report goes in the right envelope. 

25 In conjunction with the multiple levels of 
221

1 review that I mentioned, each individual dose 

2 reconstruction, there is a five percent review 

3 of all draft dose reconstructions. And this 

4 five percent is randomly selected. We have a 

5 checklist of 18 individual items, with the 

6 opportunity for whoever's doing the review to 

7 add items to that checklist. So a five percent 

8 is pulled and folks are assigned within OCAS to 

9 do these after-the-fact evaluation reviews 

10 using this 18-item checklist. These checklists 

11 are -- serve as formal documentation. The 

12 checklists are reviewed on a quarterly basis 

13 and trends are evaluated, and the information 

14 or direction is sent to our contractor for any 

15 improvements that we might see. 

16 Here I've shared with you a graphic -- and this 

17 may take a little bit of explanation. This 

18 graphic speaks about this five percent review 

19 that is done after a draft dose reconstruction 

20 report has already made it through these other 

21 peer reviews and is sent to -- to the claimant. 

22 And when we started this back in the first 

23 quarter of '05, we were seeing about an 80 

24 percent acceptance rate. In other words, 20 

25 percent was found -- something was wrong and we 
222

1 would send it back to ORAU for revision. And 

2 I've added here a trend line that shows you 

3 that we're increas-- it's going in the right 

4 direction. We want to see this line get up to 

5 100 percent. We'd be happy not to be able to 

6 send anything back to ORAU, but at least this 

7 is going in the right direction. 

8 This blip that we see here we equate to a 

9 series of wording changes that we employed in 

10 our dose reconstruction report about this time 

11 frame in first quarter of '07. And rather than 

12 make these wording changes ourself, we've asked 

13 our contractor to do that and so when we did 

14 our five percent evaluation review, we saw some 

15 and we kicked them back for those wording 

16 changes. 

17 In step five of the dose reconstruction process 

18 we conduct a closeout interview. And this is 

19 an opportunity once again for the claimant to 

20 hear from us about how their dose 

21 reconstruction was conducted, and an 

22 opportunity for them to ask questions, an 

23 opportunity for them to gain a better 

24 understanding of what our work really means to 

25 them. The claimant receives this draft dose 
223

1 reconstruction report, a closeout interview is 

2 scheduled, and the claimants have an 

3 opportunity to make at that time any comments 

4 or corrections they wish to provide us about 

5 the dose reconstruction report. 

6 Those issues that are raised during this 

7 closeout interview process which we believe 

8 could affect the results of dose reconstruction 

9 are documented and sent to a health physicist 

10 for further review. And if needed, those are 

11 then incorporated into the dose reconstruction 

12 and a new draft is sent to the claimant. 

13 In step six of the dose reconstruction process 

14 we finalize the dose reconstruction report. 

15 The claimant provides us OCAS-1 indicating they 

16 have no further information to provide and are 

17 accepting our sending this report on to the 

18 Department of Labor for a decision. Our public 

19 health advisor will confirm by visual 

20 inspection that the signature is the claimant's 

21 and that the form is uploaded into the correct 

22 file. A final dose reconstruction report is 

23 then sent to the claimant, and for every dose 

24 reconstruction report sent out, it's reviewed 

25 again by a public health advisor to ensure that 
224

1 the tracking number that we've assigned the 

2 claim is consistent on each page, all pages are 

3 accounted for, and the Energy employee name and 

4 Social Security number are correct. 

5 In our last step of the dose reconstruction 

6 process, step seven, where we send the claim 

7 back to DOL, again a public health advisor will 

8 look at each of these individual claims and the 

9 dose reconstruction reports and all of the 

10 information that's associated with that claim, 

11 and conduct a quality control check on all of 

12 the electronic documents in the database. Our 

13 database for a claim has what we call a set of 

14 four folders, I believe. They're so labeled A, 

15 B, C and D, but they contain different things. 

16 One folder has the DOE information, one folder 

17 has correspondence, one folder has all of the 

18 DOL-submitted information. And so they're 

19 going to look and make sure that things are 

20 properly filed within the electronic file for 

21 the claim in the appropriate folder. 

22 They're going to verify that all of the 

23 required documents -- which is different than 

24 what I just said -- all the required documents 

25 are in this file that we return to the 
225

1 Department of Labor. And so they're looking 

2 for the dose reconstruction report and all of 

3 the submitted information from the claimant. 

4 There's a -- there's a phone log that's also 

5 included in this, so they also look to make 

6 sure that that information, our communications 

7 with the claimants, is included in the 

8 information we return to DOL as the analysis 

9 record, and that's provided to DOL on a compact 

10 disk. 

11 Did I jump or not? Let me... 

12 At the end of that dose reconstruction process, 

13 once we have finalized the dose reconstruction 

14 report and are prepared to send the analysis 

15 record back to DOL with the report, we again 

16 run -- this is a nightly check, and it checks 

17 55 different parameters, and there are sub18 parameters under some of those 55. And I have 

19 not provided you a list of those 55, but we can 

20 get you that list if you're so interested. But 

21 this is an electronic verification that's done 

22 every night, and this is the record of that 

23 where we show the percent error observed. 

24 And so what does that mean? That means that 

25 the percent here is the total errors observed 
226

1 per month -- this is based upon a month -- so 

2 each month we're looking at the total errors 

3 per month, divided by the total data changes 

4 that are -- were -- took -- took place in that 

5 month. So let me step back a moment and make 

6 sure everybody -- I didn't lose anybody. 

7 Every case that has a change in the file for a 

8 claim, any new claim that is added that day, 

9 would go through this verification 

10 electronically each night, and then we'll sum 

11 up those changes and we'll sum up those errors, 

12 and this is what you get. What we see here, we 

13 have -- the black line indicates a trend, which 

14 is in the right direction in this graph, we 

15 want to see this go down, and also I would 

16 point out that these are the percentages and 

17 you've seen how that line goes there. And this 

18 shows that we are -- there's good news here in 

19 that this is very, very low. There's one -- 

20 less than 16/100 of a percent from this effort 

21 to verify electronically that the data has been 

22 captured accurately in our claim file system. 

23 Now we move on to -- that's dose reconstruction 

24 process. Again, I can go into much greater 

25 detail on any one of these program areas if you 
227

1 so desire. 

2 But in the development of Technical Basis 

3 Documents or technical approaches, all 

4 technical documents must undergo a multi5 faceted review. Each document development is 

6 completed in accordance with the NIOSH conflict 

7 or bias policy. The technical documents that 

8 are drafted by our contractor follow this 

9 scheme that I'm about to outline for you, but 

10 also those Technical Basis Documents that are 

11 created and crafted -- drafted by a NIOSH 

12 technical person would go through a similar 

13 process. So if ORAU drafts a technical 

14 document, they're going to submit it to us once 

15 they have completed an internal peer review on 

16 that document. Their comments are resolved 

17 between that subject-matter expert who reviewed 

18 the document or crafted the document, the 

19 document owner, and the commenter. Those 

20 comments and resolutions are all documented at 

21 ORAU. And then the document, once it's been 

22 agreed to by those individuals, is forwarded to 

23 OCAS for a review. 

24 OCAS reviews and comments on the document. Our 

25 OCAS review is chosen based on his or her 
228

1 expertise -- and again, without conflict or 

2 bias in regard to -- let me make sure I'm 

3 correct in that. They could be conflicted, but 

4 they would be -- also others involved in the 

5 review. If there's a subject-matter expert 

6 that we want to hear on, we can listen to them. 

7 The comments are then documented and forwarded 

8 to ORAU for resolution. Those comments are 

9 reviewed, and they're resolved between the 

10 document owner and the commenter. The document 

11 is then approved by ORAU and sent to OCAS for 

12 final approval authority. 

13 This is another area, this Special Exposure 

14 Cohort process area. An SEC petition is 

15 received and personal information is reviewed 

16 against our NIOSH/OCAS Claims Tracking System. 

17 If the petitioner is a claimant in NOCTS, then 

18 demographic information is verified for 

19 consistency for that petitioner. If the 

20 petitioner is not a claimant in NOCTS, the 

21 employee records are requested from the 

22 Department of Labor to verify employment and 

23 verify survivor information. 

24 There's a daily review of every new document 

25 uploaded into the Special Exposure Cohort 
229

1 database, and that review is to ensure that 

2 each document is labeled appropriately and 

3 correctly, all documents are legible -- they're 

4 readable, documents that have been uploaded to 

5 the correct and proper petition -- as you might 

6 imagine, we're getting a number of these in and 

7 some of the volume on these are quite large and 

8 so we want to make sure that we get the 

9 information placed in the proper petition -- 

10 and that the correspondence has a correct name, 

11 address, petition number and its document type 

12 associated with it. 

13 In the Special Exposure Cohort process on a 

14 weekly basis all active petitions are verified 

15 to determine if the petition status is correct. 

16 The SEC petition summary report is uploaded and 

17 verified. A query is run against the NOCTS 

18 database system to update the number of claims 

19 that have been returned to Department of Labor 

20 for each petition that has been added to the 

21 Special Exposure Cohort. 

22 Lastly in the SEC process, an audit table 

23 exists that tracks every change that has been 

24 made to the SEC database. The ORAU folks 

25 periodically review documents to cert-- and 
230

1 ascertain the petition status and the petition 

2 demographic information is correct, and submits 

3 a quality control report to OCAS in that 

4 regard. The quality control report is used to 

5 locate problems such as duplicate documents, 

6 missing files and unexpected file extension 

7 formats. 

8 Now we'll move into the program oversight 

9 business. This is where we or our contractors 

10 perform assessments or surveillance activities 

11 on our procedures and on our program areas. We 

12 have internal and external assessments. They 

13 are performed according to a written procedure. 

14 The procedure outlines the details on how the 

15 assessment is to be performed and documented as 

16 well. The procedure on conducting assessments 

17 has been reviewed by SC&A, although we have not 

18 responded to SC&A's comments at this time. 

19 Also within the oversight process, I'll note 

20 for you that there have been 29 assessments 

21 that have been completed by NIOSH. And you 

22 have a handout associated with this 

23 presentation -- I believe it's also in the back 

24 table as a handout for the presentation. 

25 You'll see in that handout, the first series of 
231

1 pages shows 30 OCAS assessments being listed. 

2 One of those is not fully complete, and by that 

3 I mean we have not followed up and made sure 

4 all of the corrective actions have been taken. 

5 But 29 have been completed. 

6 Many of those assessments have resulted in 

7 findings that require changes in OCAS and/or 

8 ORAU programs. The findings that have been 

9 identified require formal documentation and 

10 corrective action plans be put together. We at 

11 OCAS must approve the corrective action plans 

12 and schedule the completion dates for those 

13 efforts. After a corrective action is 

14 implemented, OCAS evaluates the actions to 

15 determine if they are complete and effective. 

16 In those -- that handout, we also give you a 

17 series of examples. I think there are 13 or so 

18 examples of -- of reviews where changes have 

19 been made. 

20 Process improvements that have resulted in 

21 Advisory Board review -- this is another 

22 factor, the bullet that I asked you to add to 

23 that first slide. I wanted to speak a little 

24 bit about what goes on here with regard to our 

25 listening to the Board and taking action when 
232

1 we feel it appropriate to the best advantage of 

2 the claimants. 

3 So from your Board review of dose 

4 reconstructions reports we have documented that 

5 dosimeter badge readings where a value was 

6 reported that is less than detectable level 

7 divided by two, we are now treating that as 

8 zero in the missed dose portion of the dose 

9 reconstruction report. Previously these values 

10 were included as reported in the measured dose 

11 portion of the DR, and nothing was included for 

12 the cycle of the missed dose portion in the DR. 

13 This comes out of the Board review. 

14 Another item that resulted in change at OCAS 

15 was this issue of mixed geometry exposures and 

16 how we accounted for the proper -- appropriate 

17 geometry to be used, and you can see that here 

18 we're considering 100 percent AP geometry as 

19 the most favorable, as recommended by the 

20 Board. 

21 The third example of where we've heard the 

22 Board is with regard to the practice of 

23 assigning the dose received by the highest 

24 exposed organ rather than the actual target 

25 organ or a proper surrogate. And this has been 
233

1 discontinued, unless this practice clearly 

2 represents an efficiency approach that's 

3 beneficial to a claimant. 

4 And lastly as an example here, a number of 

5 procedures and technical documents have been 

6 revised for clarity based upon the Board's 

7 review of dose reconstruction reports. 

8 Furthermore, I would like to say that, with 

9 regard to the dose reconstruction reviews and 

10 comments generated from those reviews, we are 

11 taking action now to identify and track and 

12 monitor the implementation of change for any 

13 Board DR review deficiencies that we feel are 

14 substantive and require such a change. We're 

15 starting with the first review -- set of review 

16 that you've done and we're working on 

17 developing that and we'll be happy to report 

18 our progress on that very soon. 

19 Also with regard to the working group procedure 

20 -- on procedures and the issues tracking 

21 database that Kathy showed you earlier this 

22 afternoon, we feel that's a very important step 

23 forward by the Board and this working group and 

24 plan -- and I'm asking that my folks take a 

25 look at how we can incorporate that and couple 
234

1 it into our tracking system on issues related 

2 to the Board's reviews so that we can make sure 

3 that we're coupled there and coordinated with 

4 that tracking system. So we appreciate the 

5 work that went behind that and we think it'll 

6 be a great utility to us in knowing just where 

7 things stand on any given issue and what we can 

8 make of that issue. 

9 So with that, I think that concludes my slides 

10 and my remarks, and I'm sure there are numerous 

11 questions and I'd be happy to try to answer 

12 them if I can. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry. We appreciate 

14 the detailed discussion on this issue. We'll 

15 begin with Dr. Poston, Dr. Melius, Dr. Roessler 

16 -- John, welcome. 

17 DR. POSTON: Thank you. Larry, just a 

18 clarification, if we could go back to your 

19 percent and error visual, could you give me 

20 some help with the abscissa? 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: This slide or the previous -- 

22 this slide -- 

23 DR. POSTON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: So you're wondering about this 

25 slide? 
235

1 DR. POSTON: No, I'm wondering about the units 

2 on the abscissa. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, the units, I'm sorry. 

4 DR. POSTON: I'm trying to understand and I 

5 don't want to make any assumptions as to what 

6 you're trying to tell us. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, again, on this slide -- let 

8 me go back to my notes to make sure I speak 

9 correctly -- maybe I spoke incorrectly earlier, 

10 I hope not. Bear with me, if you please. 

11 (Pause) 

12 The abscissa here is the total errors observed 

13 in that given month. 

14 DR. POSTON: No, the abscissa is the X axis. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: The abscissa is the X -- well, 

16 that's -- that a month. 

17 DR. POSTON: Yeah, but you've got three August, 

18 two Septembers, two Octobers -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. 

20 DR. POSTON: -- two Novembers -- I mean -- 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, well, here my qua-- quality 

22 control presentations is not where it should 

23 be. Thank you very much. 

24 DR. POSTON: I'm not picking on you, I just -- 

25 I'm trying to understand the data that you're 
236

1 presenting and when I can't understand the 

2 abscissa, I can't understand -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand. 

4 DR. POSTON: -- the (unintelligible). 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand. Not -- I'm going 

6 to say to you that I believe these three 

7 Augusts would really represent -- I hope -- 

8 June, July and August, I believe. No? 

9 MS. BEACH: No, you've got two September -- 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Got two Februarys -- well, I'm 

11 going to have to go back to my folks and say 

12 what did you give me here. 

13 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

14 go back to the previous slide? 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you think it's from '07 to 

16 '08. 

17 DR. NETON: It's a quarterly report. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: The next slide? Thank you for 

19 catching that, Dr. Poston. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Neton said go to the previous 

21 slide. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: No, there's nothing there that -- 

23 MR. CLAWSON: It's -- it's back on I think -- 

24 MS. MUNN: I think it depends on how often they 

25 reported during the month. 
237

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, the other chart is 

2 different than this one. 

3 DR. POSTON: Yeah, but if you had three reports 

4 in August, wouldn't you (unintelligible)? 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, my apologies for the 

6 confusion that this has created, and I assure 

7 you that my staff and I will have a discussion. 

8 We'll figure out what happened here and we'll 

9 get you a -- we'll substitute this slide with 

10 the appropriate, accurate information. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Dr. Melius. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, go back to your 11th slide, 

13 which is step -- part of step four. It's the 

14 draft DRs then reviewed by a senior HP there. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

16 DR. MELIUS: Now is that done by an ORAU senior 

17 HP, or is that done by a NIOSH? 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: If you allow me, let me see where 

19 I'm at in the process of this step four. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Non-health physicist does the peer 

21 review and then there's a... 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay, so that's done -- that's a 

23 non-health physicist at ORAU who does that, 

24 then we go to the next slide. 

25 DR. MELIUS: And reviewed by a -- 
238

1 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, this is still with ORAU. 

2 Draft DR is then reviewed by senior -- should 

3 say ORAU health physicist for a peer review. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Okay. So -- 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: 'Cause I think, if we go to one -

6 - 

7 DR. MELIUS: Go to 14 -- step -- slide 14, then 

8 you -- then you have a five percent review of 

9 all draft DRs. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I think you've jumped too 

11 many slides 'cause if you go back to that 11, 

12 and then you go -- this is the slide you're 

13 questioning about, go to the next slide, 12, it 

14 says there "and the draft DR is sent to OCAS 

15 for review." 

16 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: The DR is reviewed by OCAS -- la, 

18 la, la. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: And then yes, later on there is a 

21 five percent that are randomly selected for 

22 review. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: That is by OCAS. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Any my question then is 
239

1 what are the -- what issues are reviewed there? 

2 What is in this checklist of 18 individual 

3 items that they're -- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Can one of my health physicists 

5 help me with what's on that individual 

6 checklist of 18 items? I don't know for -- 

7 I've got an idea, but I'm afraid I would mis8 speak. 

9 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. I can answer 

10 that question just because I've seen a number 

11 of those. That checklist simply is a list of 

12 various things that's checked routinely through 

13 all -- all -- basically through all the dose 

14 reconstruction reports. This is formalized as 

15 that process and be sure that all these are 

16 checked for that particular claim. Some of 

17 it's basic information such as how the report 

18 is written, the format is correct. Some of it 

19 is just is the dose reconstruction methodology 

20 correct. For example, one of them is the 

21 missed dose done correctly, and that's either 

22 yes or no or comment. And there's just various 

23 things like that. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: We can get you a copy of this 

25 checklist -- 
240

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I'd like -- 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: -- if you'd like. 

3 DR. MELIUS: -- to have a copy. How long does 

4 that review take? I'm just trying to get a 

5 sense of what the de-- the focus and depth of 

6 that review is, that's -- 

7 MR. TOMES: Well, for me, it's a very -- on the 

8 ones that I reviewed, it's a very fast process 

9 because I tend to over-review such that these 

10 things that are on the checklist, I've pretty 

11 much already checked those things. So in other 

12 words, may-- what I'm trying to say is this 

13 like comes in the middle of the process, we go 

14 through and review the DR and hit the approved 

15 button and it randomly submits one of these to 

16 be checked -- excuse me, I have to calm down 

17 here -- it randomly submits one of the claims 

18 to be reviewed from one of the checklists. And 

19 so on my -- for the ones that I do personally, 

20 I have pretty much checked every single thing 

21 on the list, but this is a reminder that that 

22 particular claim has to have each and every one 

23 of those items checked. 

24 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: We can get you a copy of the 
241

1 checklist. 

2 DR. MELIUS: I'd like to get a copy. I'm just 

3 trying to understand the -- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- process. And is there any 

6 documentation -- we go back to slide 12, the -- 

7 each -- each DR is reviewed by OCAS and is 

8 evaluated to ensure -- what's -- I'm just 

9 trying to get a sense -- 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, if the -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: How comprehensive are these 

12 reviews? 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, if -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: Is this the comprehensive one, or 

15 is the five percent sample -- or is the five 

16 percent sample just sort of a -- a checklist 

17 that, you know, tries to make sure that certain 

18 things are -- have been covered in the earlier 

19 review -- I mean it doesn't make sense why it's 

20 a five percent. That's why I'm having trouble 

21 if it's not comprehensive. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Jim, you want to answer that? 

23 DR. NETON: I think I can answer that. All the 

24 dose reconstructions are reviewed by an OCAS 

25 health physicist and signed by an OCAS health 
242

1 physicist -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

3 DR. NETON: -- before they go out the door. 

4 You've probably seen covers of the reports. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

6 DR. NETON: But as Tom Tomes has mentioned, 

7 during the review process, the normal review -- 

8 this is all done on a computer screen. The 

9 dose reconstruction comes up and the health 

10 physicist has access to all the records 

11 associated with the case. Five percent of the 

12 time, on a random basis, essentially it's 

13 selected for being audited. It'll -- it'll get 

14 this additional tracking questionnaire, and so 

15 it's a matter -- a way of trending the issues 

16 that arise in the ORAU-provided dose 

17 reconstructions on a five-percent random basis. 

18 So it's not necessarily an additional review 

19 where they're pulled out. It really is part of 

20 the review process in general. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: It becomes a quality assurance 

22 step -- the five-percent random selection is a 

23 quality assurance. The -- I would answer your 

24 question this way, Dr. Melius. The 

25 comprehensive reviews occur during the peer 
243

1 review process, and those comments and the 

2 resolution of those comments are documented and 

3 are trackable. 

4 DR. MELIUS: So that peer review process is 

5 done by ORAU. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Peer review is done by ORAU. 

7 Peer review is also done by OCAS. And 

8 technical peer review for approval is also done 

9 by OCAS. There are three distinct, if you 

10 will, technical peer reviews. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: One -- one ORAU -- at least one 

13 ORAU, and then two OCAS. An OCAS technical 

14 staff person will review it as a peer, and 

15 before the dose reconstruction is approved to 

16 be sent as a draft to a claimant, there's 

17 another health physicist at OCAS who examines 

18 that and makes sure it's ready to go. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I'm just questioning -- 

20 'cause there's three signatures on the cover 

21 page. Right? Usually. The preparer, the peer 

22 review, and the last one is an OCAS signature? 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Is an approval authority. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: But the -- but the -- 

25 DR. NETON: Right, the last on e-- 
244

1 MR. GRIFFON: You mentioned two OCAS reviews, 

2 they all wouldn't sign off, necessarily, they'd 

3 just -- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: No. 

5 DR. NETON: Essentially, that -- the last 

6 review before it goes out is essentially a team 

7 leader type person -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Authorization -- 

9 DR. NETON: -- who would authorize it to go out 

10 the door, but he doesn't necessarily sign the 

11 report. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Roessler? 

13 DR. ROESSLER: You mentioned the training for 

14 the people who do the dose reconstruction. I 

15 have a two-part question on that. What 

16 credentials do you look for, first of all, 

17 before you put a person on line as a dose 

18 reconstructor. And then secondly, in that 

19 classroom training, I'm wondering about the 

20 extent of it. Well, first of all, who does it, 

21 how long is it, is it hours or days, and in the 

22 training do these people get some review of 

23 basics of dosimetry? And then I would assume 

24 how to use the procedures that you have set up. 

25 I just want a little more information on -- on 
245

1 that training. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure, a very good question, and I 

3 am not the one to go in great detail, but maybe 

4 Stu can step up to the mike and help us out. 

5 This -- this goes a lot to ORAU's procedures. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I can provide partial 

7 information. There is -- there's a contract 

8 requirement in the contractor's contract about 

9 speci-- or qualifications a person has to have 

10 in order to be a dose reconstructor, and it 

11 includes I think -- well, they have to be a 

12 health physicist with two years of experience, 

13 I think. But there's a qualification in the 

14 contract in order to even put somebody in that 

15 position, before they even start to train them. 

16 Anyone with that limited amount of experience 

17 has to have their work reviewed by a more 

18 senior or more experienced person, someone with 

19 at least five years of -- I think the 

20 experience has to be in radiation dosimetry or 

21 -- or things like that. So you start with a 

22 health physicist in ord-- before -- in order to 

23 make a dose reconstructor. 

24 And then for the training part, the training -- 

25 the formal classroom training, when a new 
246

1 document comes out or a new workbook tool or 

2 something comes out, the trainer is usually 

3 either one of the principal dosimetrists for 

4 the contractor's staff. They have individuals 

5 who are designated -- you know, principal 

6 internal dosimetrist, the principal external 

7 dosimetrist, and they have certain assigned 

8 duties for those people in those areas so 

9 they're -- in their program and they will 

10 oftentimes write that training. Or if the 

11 training's about a new tool, meaning an 

12 electronic, you know, workbook that facilitates 

13 the completion of the calculations, it may be 

14 the tool developer who actually explains the 

15 use of that tool. 

16 Now there -- there's training that's provided 

17 on a less formal basis by their team leaders. 

18 There are team leaders on the contractor side 

19 who provide training to their teams with a more 

20 -- when there are less major rollouts, when 

21 there were essentially modifications to things 

22 that were done. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: We can -- I'll make a note and 

24 we'll try to get you more detailed information 

25 about the training that is provided, to include 
247

1 the procedure that ORAU had produced. And I 

2 believe the working group on procedures has 

3 looked at that. May not have -- we may not 

4 have reacted to it yet, but I believe they have 

5 examined it. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: A little bit of follow-up, Stu. 

7 When you say that the contract says they have 

8 to be a health physicist, I know the Health 

9 Physics Society has a hard time figuring out 

10 who a health physicist is when they take 

11 members in. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Beg pardon? What'd you say? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I know that -- I said -- I think 

14 even the Health Physics Society sometimes can't 

15 figure out who a health physicist is. I don't 

16 know what they are, but I know one when I see 

17 one. But -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you looking at one now? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- is it somebody who has a degree 

20 in health physics or who claims to be one, or -

21 - 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, there's -- there's a degree 

23 requirement, and -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, a degree req-- 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whether it says health 
248

1 physics or health physics or a related field -- 

2 I mean it may -- oftentimes that's used 

3 instead. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: There is an allowance for work 

6 experience in lieu of education. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It's very similar to a lot -- 

9 what you'll see sort of in a hiring posting 

10 very often. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: There'll be an experience 

13 requirement or applicable work experience in 

14 lieu of some education. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. I think Dr. 

16 Melius has another question. 

17 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Could have fun here with 

18 who's a health physicist, but I'd better not -- 

19 too many in the room. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Better be careful. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: You're outnumbered, yeah. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Do that. Just back to the -- this 

23 step-wise reviews, if you could provide the -- 

24 not only the checklist, but if there's a 

25 procedure or something that documents what's 
249

1 done at the ORAU review -- ORAU review and at 

2 the OCAS review, it would be -- I think it 

3 would be helpful. I'm just trying to -- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- understand the process. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: The ORAU procedure is ORAU-PROC 

7 59. I don't have a NIOSH number for you, but 

8 that ORAU-PROC 59 will describe for you their 

9 peer review process and provides a fairly 

10 comprehensive checklist in itself. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: And then I'll have to get you the 

13 other. There's also an ORAU procedure -- let 

14 me get to it here -- that I have -- I just 

15 happen to have these 'cause I was interested in 

16 knowing the details on this -- ORAU procedure 

17 PROC 77 talks about dose reconstruction error 

18 tracking and reporting, and I believe both 

19 those procedures have been in front of the 

20 procedures workgroup. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Slide 16, closeout 

22 interview? 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

24 DR. MELIUS: Now -- now this is done by a non25 HP. Correct? 
250

1 MR. ELLIOTT: The interview? 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: The interview -- the closeout 

4 interview is done by typically a non-HP. An HP 

5 can be called in if ORAU feels it is necessary 

6 to have a health physicist, dose reconstructor, 

7 involved to answer questions. But typically 

8 the closeout interviews are performed by a non9 health physicist. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Okay. That's what I wanted to 

11 know. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Many of these interviews don't 

13 get to the details of how the dose 

14 reconstruction was done. But if they do, then 

15 they have the luxury, the ability, the 

16 flexibility to bring in somebody who can speak 

17 to those level -- that level of detail. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other questions? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just one follow-up. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Larry, have you -- I know those 

22 reports exist on the peer review process where 

23 the peer reviewer will submit kind of -- 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: Comments. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- comments and -- and then a 
251

1 resolution column on those. Have you in any 

2 way put those in any kind of database or looked 

3 at trends on those? I know there's quite a few 

4 of them. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: I'll have to get back to you on 

6 that. I -- I know that in house, in OCAS, we 

7 have a document resolution tracking system that 

8 Grady Calhoun monitors and keeps track of. 

9 I'll have to make sure what ORAU does, and I 

10 don't know right now. Yes, we can look at 

11 Grady's system and get a feel for whether or 

12 not certain people are not addressing comments 

13 or, you know, trying to -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Or -- or -- 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: -- the system, or if there is -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- if procedures -- 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: -- some individual that's 

18 constantly -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: -- come up again and again -- 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- as being mis-implemented, 

22 there would -- yeah. Yeah. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, we can look at that in 

24 Grady's system, but I have to check on ORAU's 

25 part. 
252

1 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Get back to you. Let me make a 

3 note of that as well. 

4 DR. MELIUS: I have -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Another question. 

6 DR. MELIUS: -- two -- two more questions. 

7 They're relatively straightforward. If -- you 

8 had a slide 25 in your presentation with QA/QC 

9 in the SEC process. In slide 25 you refer to 

10 the SEC database, and I'm -- wasn't sure what 

11 you were referring to there. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: That's probably something you 

13 never have seen. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, okay. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: We -- as we -- this is a 

16 relatively new convention in our work to -- 

17 we've developed a -- what do they call it, the 

18 PERM? We have an acronym for everything -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: The PERM? 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: No, it's not the PERM, it's not 

21 the PERM, it's the -- 

22 DR. MELIUS: I resent that. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: The PERM goes to the Program 

24 Evaluation Reviews, I'm sorry. 

25 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 
253

1 MR. ELLIOTT: This is SEC. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: It's the OSA, it's the OCAS 

3 SEC Applications. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: And this is -- this is -- LaVon 

5 has asked to have this database set up so that 

6 all of the petitions that we have received can 

7 be tracked. Not only those are being eva-- 

8 have been evaluated, are being evaluated, are 

9 being considered by the Board, but all of them 

10 that have been received. We can go in and 

11 identify those that have not qualified for you, 

12 we can identify those that have, we can speak 

13 about the number of Energy employees that are -

14 - and claimants that were affected by each 

15 class. That's the kind of thing that's in this 

16 tracking system. 

17 DR. MELIUS: So -- so LaVon, a couple of years 

18 ago I think -- I think we had reviewed -- there 

19 was a workgroup that was looking at -- 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

21 DR. MELIUS: -- non-qualified, that's that 

22 database? 

23 MR. RUTHERFORD: It's actually a -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: Or has that expanded since then? 

25 MR. RUTHERFORD: It's expanded a little -- 
254

1 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- a little bit. We can -- 

3 we actually can produce a summary report that 

4 defines -- I mean in addition to not having -- 

5 or in addition to petitions that didn't 

6 qualify, we also can tell why they didn't 

7 qualify, reasons for non-qualification. We can 

8 -- we have the number of petitions we've 

9 received to date, number of qualified, number 

10 not qualified, number of classes added, number 

11 of classes denied, classes -- or petitions 

12 prior to the rule being implemented -- there's 

13 a number of different things. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Okay, thanks. I have one final -- 

15 it's more of a comment than a question, but 

16 also brief -- the issue of reworks, these -- 

17 you sort of described a process you have to 

18 sort of -- how do you take into account, you 

19 know, areas that you're concerned about or 

20 findings that come up at various levels, and 

21 have you looked at the -- the reworks that have 

22 come back from DOL as one possible source of, 

23 you know, potentially changing your procedures 

24 or methods or something like that? I was just 

25 curious how those break -- break down in that 
255

1 way. I mean a lot of the reworks have to do 

2 with -- with other issues, so -- 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: So a lot of the reworks right now 

4 -- you missed my -- my fabulous status -- 

5 program status report this morning, but a lot 

6 of the reworks we're dealing with now are 

7 driven by Program Evaluation Reviews where 

8 there's a technical change that results in 

9 potential for an increase in dose, and when 

10 that happens we are obliged to look at all the 

11 claims previously done found to be non12 compensable. And yes, this -- you're 

13 absolutely right, Dr. Melius, the magnitude of 

14 that effort has caused us to take stock of 

15 where we're at and how we're monitoring and 

16 processing and tracking our -- our progress on 

17 all of these Program Evaluation Reviews that we 

18 have before us. And that's where we decided, 

19 again, we needed a tracking system. So that's 

20 the PERM that I -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: -- mis-spoke about a moment ago. 

23 That is the Program Evaluation Report 

24 Management -- Manager tool or something -- my 

25 folks are very adept at coming up with these 
256

1 acronyms that I get lost in, so -- but yes, we 

2 are looking at that. And I also think there's 

3 -- you know, we need to address a QA/QC 

4 component in that aspect of what we do now. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Okay, okay, thanks. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Larry, when you do these analyses 

7 -- for example, the table that we looked at 

8 before with the -- the month by month by month 

9 by month table -- but there you have some -- 

10 whether it's percent error -- I think -- I 

11 guess that's -- you're hovering around a tenth 

12 of one percent, it looks like. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: For those things that are 

14 checked. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Right, for those items. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: For those items, and this is 

17 electronic check, so... 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Right. When you have something 

19 like that -- and you could have other such 

20 trending datasets, I suppose -- how do you know 

21 -- 'cause at the front end of this program this 

22 sort of says okay, here's where we are. But at 

23 some point can you use these to set some kind 

24 of quality goals, or do you set some quality 

25 goals from this, based on what you already 
257

1 know, and say okay, I think we can achieve this 

2 -- as opposed to simply reporting this? 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Right, we -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: To what extent are these -- are 

5 you at a point where you can use these kind of 

6 datasets to drive the quality of whatever it is 

7 in the system that you want to drive? Are we 

8 there yet or are we still sort of getting a 

9 foundational set of numbers, or somewhere in 

10 between? 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: We can employ a whole quality 

12 assurance/quality control cadre, if we wanted 

13 to here, and I would answer your question that 

14 we're not at the point I want us to be -- or 

15 others in OCAS want us to be. We do have the 

16 ability, as you see here in these two graphs, 

17 to look at trend -- do trend analysis. We have 

18 the ability in that to say to ourselves what's 

19 going on, why this dip; can we ascribe the 

20 reason for why we're seeing a decrease in the 

21 number that we're finding to be acceptable 

22 reports. And the graphs I've given you today 

23 are based upon our electronic checks. We need 

24 to come forward with the ability to dem-- and 

25 demonstrate an ability to look at what Mark 
258

1 asked about a minute ago. You know, how much 

2 trend analysis do we see in comment resolution; 

3 is there something to be made of that. And we 

4 can spend a lot of time and a lot of money 

5 trying to refine our programs to the point 

6 where we're -- we're trying to get to 100 

7 percent quality, but we have to remember our 

8 overarching goal, too. And quite frankly, what 

9 is -- what -- where is good good enough? And 

10 so we want to make sure in our overarching goal 

11 -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that's sort of what I'm 

13 asking, how do you decide that? 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, so we've -- we've 

17 identified -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: It's sort of a rhetorical question 

19 now. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, I could give you 

21 probably a couple of examples, Stu could give 

22 you a couple more, where we've looked at 

23 something and we say hey, that doesn't seem 

24 right, and we've gone back -- look at our 

25 assessments and -- and their findings, the 
259

1 observations and the recommendations for 

2 improvement there, and you'll see a number of 

3 these things. Why does an assessment come 

4 about? Because somebody's said something's not 

5 right here. We look at -- at this and it 

6 doesn't seem right. We -- we're -- or we have 

7 a situation like we had with one claim where it 

8 seems like a lot of compounding problems 

9 existed with one claim, so we go in great 

10 length and detail looking at how that occurred 

11 for that one claim and can we find any other 

12 claim that would exhibit the same set of 

13 problems. So those things do go on. They may 

14 not go on with the rigor that -- that many of 

15 us want to see, but I think we're -- we're 

16 doing a very good job in quality control and 

17 quality assurance to meet our overarching goal 

18 at this point. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, any other 

20 questions? 

21 (No responses) 

22 Thank you. Thank you very much, Larry. 

23 We have a break on the agenda for 45 minutes, 

24 and then we have an hour public comment period. 

25 I noticed before when I was in the corridor, 
260

1 there was only one or two -- there's two 

2 individuals that wanted to make public comment, 

3 although there may be others that would come in 

4 later to do so. But I was going to offer the 

5 opportunity, if those who signed up to make 

6 public comment, if they wished to do it 

7 earlier, we could accommodate that. I'm not 

8 requesting necessarily that they do it, but if 

9 they are here, we could certainly accommodate 

10 it if it's convenient to them. 

11 Maybe I could get the names. I think one of 

12 them may be from Senator Nelson's office. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, she is. I'm looking for her 

14 now. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And -- 

16 MR. EVASKOVICH: Yeah, I'm on. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: You were the other? Do you -- do 

18 you prefer to wait till later or would you -- 

19 MR. EVASKOVICH: It doesn't matter to me. I 

20 suggest (unintelligible) take a break 

21 (unintelligible) for myself. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, that's one way to 

23 keep it short. Right? You can't leave till 

24 you're done. 

25 Okay. Well, we will take a break and then I'll 
261

1 check with the others. Okay, let's go ahead 

2 and take at least -- let's at least take a ten, 

3 15-minute break here and then we'll -- we'll 

4 reconvene, yeah. Comfort break, thank you. 

5 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 4:15 p.m. 

6 to 4:30 p.m.) 

7 PUBLIC COMMENT

8 DR. ZIEMER: If you'll take your seats, we'll 

9 reconvene. We're going to begin our public 

10 comment session. Before the members of the 

11 public who wish to comment do so we're going to 

12 have our Designated Federal Official give us 

13 some words of wisdom on the redaction policy. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: I'm going to do a slight 

15 modification. Please understand that if a 

16 person making a comment gives his or her name 

17 during this period, no attempt will be made to 

18 redact your name at that -- to redact your name 

19 in any way, shape or form. We're using this 

20 period now to make you aware of our redaction 

21 policy. Please understand that your name will 

22 appear in a transcript of the meeting posted on 

23 a public web site, and that we've taken 

24 reasonable steps for you to know that this is 

25 what we're going to do. 
262

1 If you would like to make a statement to the 

2 Board but would like -- not like to have your 

3 name used or would not like to make the 

4 statement in person, if you could please see 

5 me, we'll take care of that. 

6 For those of you participating by phone, we ask 

7 that you -- that you please mute your phones 

8 until you're ready to speak. You'll hear Dr. 

9 Ziemer giving you an opportunity to do that. 

10 At that time you can unmute your phones. If 

11 you do not -- 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

13 (Unintelligible) all cell phones shut off in 

14 the room, please. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. If you do not have a mute 

16 button, then please use star-6 to mute your 

17 phones. If -- when you're ready to speak, 

18 please use the same star-6 to mute -- to unmute 

19 your phone and then make your statement. At 

20 the conclusion of having made your statement, 

21 we then ask that you use star-6 again. 

22 And a request has been made that everyone in 

23 the room to please mute, silence or -- 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Turn off, 

25 please. 
263

1 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, turn it off. 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Yeah, I'm 

3 getting feedback on (unintelligible). 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Turn off the phones. Thank you. 

5 Dr. Ziemer? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. The first 

7 person that wishes to address the Board is 

8 Andrew Evaskovich, and Andrew, we also have a 

9 copy of your presentation which will be made 

10 available to the Board later as well. I think 

11 -- I think Andrew has some slides he's going to 

12 use as he addresses us. 

13 Andrew represents petitioners from Los Alamos 

14 National Laboratory -- or potential 

15 petitioners, at least. 

16 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, potential and prior, 

17 also -- well, the intention was prior, but the 

18 -- some information came available today that I 

19 have to make some corrections -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Pull that mike down, too. 

21 MR. EVASKOVICH: Better? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: That's good. 

23 MR. EVASKOVICH: Okay. Good evening, Dr. 

24 Ziemer and Board members. Thank you for taking 

25 the time to listen to me and look at my 
264

1 presentation. As you recall, I spoke at the 

2 Board meeting in Denver on May 3rd, 2007. The 

3 information that I'm presenting here I also 

4 discussed there. It was concerning the Los 

5 Alamos National Laboratory cohort -- Special 

6 Exposure Cohort class that was added up until 

7 1975. 

8 My intention was to address issues tonight 

9 concerning adding certain areas that were left 

10 off. However, I was talking to LaVon 

11 Rutherford today and he explained to me one of 

12 the reasons was a date. However, I still think 

13 the information pertains to the site profile 

14 review that's being conducted, and there is 

15 some other areas that I wish to discuss that 

16 would still probably be included. 

17 I'm going to go ahead and begin my 

18 presentation. 

19 I was going to discuss some concerns here, and 

20 to start with, this Technical Area 28, which is 

21 a magazine area, A. Magazine area A is an 

22 explosives storage area located near the 

23 southern edge of TA 16. 

24 This is a map of the area, for your review. 

25 These are the bunkers where the material was 
265

1 stored. And that point right there is where 

2 Technical Area 28 is located on Los Ala-- Los 

3 Alamos National Laboratory. If you review page 

4 280 of the verbatim transcript of the meeting 

5 that I've already addressed TA 28. However, it 

6 wasn't included in the class and, as I stated, 

7 it's because of the date that it became 

8 operational. So this would pertain to the 

9 petition that I have submitted, and if it's 

10 qualified and evaluated then this information 

11 will probably be included in that one. 

12 This is a Google earth view of the area, as you 

13 can see, the five bunkers there and the road. 

14 That's called Morro Road, and that's commonly 

15 referred to as Morro Road bunkers. 

16 And the reason I wanted to address this is 

17 because of the LANL site profile. That 

18 information there indicates that depleted 

19 uranium was stored inside the area. Now this 

20 is a closer view of that, referring to -- it 

21 shows the document numbers and the actual TA 28 

22 depleted uranium. And if you notice, it says 

23 "firing site, 1979," that's the date when it 

24 actually became operational -- and I learned 

25 that from Mr. Rutherford, so I'd like to give 
266

1 him credit for correcting me. 

2 In the evaluation report it also demonstrates 

3 that DU was present there, so this would be 

4 application -- applicable to the upcoming SEC 

5 if it's successful. 

6 I'd also like to discuss TA 57, Fenton Hill. 

7 Fenton Hill was originally developed to study 

8 the use of hot dry rocks to general geothermal 

9 energy. The geothermal project has been 

10 completed and the site is now being processed 

11 as the location for an astrophysics laboratory. 

12 This is a map of LANL and surrounding areas. 

13 The laboratory is located here. This is the 

14 Caldera Preserve, or -- and Fenton Hill would 

15 be located over here. The caldera was a very 

16 large volcano that was active about one million 

17 years ago and there is still volcanic inc-- not 

18 incidents, but geothermal properties in the 

19 area and that's why they were doing the testing 

20 there for the Department of Energy in order to 

21 develop alternative sources of energy. 

22 This is another map of the area which actually 

23 illustrates where TA 57 is located, to give you 

24 a better picture of the location of the site. 

25 And another view of the area -- this is the 
267

1 actual area here. One of the concerns is the -

2 - there are two ponds here, and information I 

3 developed concerns -- well, I'm not sure which 

4 pond it is, and then there's also a leach field 

5 that's of concern. 

6 In order to qualify the information I'm going 

7 to present, I need to discuss RCRA, which is 

8 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the 

9 federal environmental law designed to account 

10 for and ensure proper management of hazardous 

11 waste from creation to disposal. The term 

12 "disposal" means discharge, deposit, injection, 

13 dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any 

14 solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any 

15 land or water so that such solid waste, or 

16 hazardous waste, or any constituent thereof, 

17 may enter the environment or be emitted into 

18 the air or discharged into any waters, 

19 including groundwaters. This explains some of 

20 the information and guidelines that are 

21 necessary, and it was established for the 

22 protection of public health and welfare, 

23 protection of the quality of groundwaters and 

24 surface waters and leachates, protection of the 

25 quality of surface waters from runoff to 
268

1 compliance with the effluents limitations of 

2 the federal Water Pollution Control Act, and 

3 protection of ambient air quality to compliance 

4 with new source performance standards or 

5 requirements of air quality plans under the 

6 Clean Air Act. 

7 Requirements of permit application are listed 

8 here, and estimates with respect to the 

9 composition, quantities and concentrates of any 

10 hazardous waste identified or listed under this 

11 sub-chapter, or combinations of any such 

12 hazardous waste, and any other solid waste 

13 proposed to be disposed of, treated, 

14 transported or stored, and the time, frequency 

15 or rate at which such waste is proposed to be 

16 disposed of, treated, transported or stored. 

17 And the description of the site. 

18 Now this is taken from the NMED application for 

19 the permit. As you can see, I've highlighted 

20 here type of release and, as indicated on the 

21 permit application, total uranium. This is 

22 concerning drilling that was conducted in the 

23 area, and then the material was sent to the 

24 pond. The justification was there were samples 

25 taken for the area, so it's -- it's kept in an 
269

1 active status on the permit, so it's something 

2 that they still need to evaluate. 

3 And this is the leach field in the area, also, 

4 as you can see -- type of release, total 

5 uranium. So these areas need to be evaluated 

6 for the radionuclide content. 

7 I would also like to discuss some canyon 

8 discharges in the area. It's documented that 

9 radionuclides have been discharged into Pueblo 

10 Canyon, Los Alamos Canyon, Mortendad Canyon and 

11 Ancho Canyon. A lawsuit was recently filed -- 

12 and this was on February 7th of 2008 in the 

13 District -- United States District Court for 

14 the District of New Mexico. Several members 

15 have filed the lawsuit or they've come together 

16 to file the lawsuit and it's versus the 

17 Department of Energy, Samuel Bodman is the 

18 Secretary, Los Alamos National Security and 

19 Michael Anastasia was the Director of the 

20 Laboratory. This is the complaint for 

21 declaratory and injunctive relief. 

22 Some information contained in the complaint -- 

23 this is from the introduction, specifically 

24 that LANL is failing to comply with the NPDES* 

25 permit's prohibitation (sic) on violating water 
270

1 quality standards, failing to comply with the 

2 permit's monitoring and reporting requirements, 

3 and failing to adhere to the permit's mandate 

4 that LANL have effective effluent limitations 

5 and pollution control measures in place for 

6 each of the approximately 59 sites. 

7 This is stated in the complaint in the 

8 background portion. According to LANL, 

9 plutonium is moved down Pueblo Canyon through 

10 Los Alamos Canyon, off-site across San 

11 Ildefonso Pueblo lands and reaches the Rio 

12 Grande near the Otowi Bridge. Also stated in 

13 the complaint in an April 1, 2005 submission to 

14 EPA, individual permit application LANL states 

15 that there are approximately 1,300 sites; 960 

16 (unintelligible), which are solid waste 

17 management units; and 350 AOCs, which are areas 

18 of concern. These are at the facility and they 

19 remain active and have not received NFA status. 

20 And NFA means no further action. 

21 Following rain or snow-melting events, 

22 contaminants from these approximately 1,300 to 

23 1,400 sites, runoff into the soil, surface 

24 water and shallow groundwater for the Lab's 

25 seven watersheds and canyons, and eventually 
271

1 traveling down gradient to the Rio Grande. 

2 These storm water runoff events are well3 documented by LANL and MED and EPA. EPA 

4 determined that LANL was failing to effectively 

5 monitor and control runoff from all of the 

6 sites. 

7 These are the counts charged in the complaint. 

8 Count One, violation of water quality 

9 standards; Count Two, failure to conduct 

10 representative monitoring; Count Three, failure 

11 to conduct quarterly visual monitoring; Count 

12 Four, failure to conduct benchmark monitoring; 

13 Count Five, failure to conduct compliance 

14 monitoring; Count Six, reporting violations; 

15 Count Seven, pollution control violations. 

16 As you can see from the red highlights, the 

17 runoff flows through these Technical Areas. 

18 They were not included in the LANL SEC petition 

19 up to the years 1975. They were not cons-- 

20 they were considered buffer areas to the 

21 Laboratory, and their intent was to provide a 

22 zone where operations does not take place but 

23 were to protect the environment and property. 

24 However, the canyons tend to flow down into 

25 these areas. 
272

1 And my argument basically is that due to the 

2 runoff and collection of the runoff, there is a 

3 possibility that radionuclides are in those 

4 areas and that they should be included in the 

5 SEC. TA 28, because of the new information, 

6 should not be included in the class, but should 

7 be considered for the upcoming petition. TA 57 

8 should be evaluated also for the upcoming 

9 petition, as well as the site profile, for 

10 total uranium. TA 70, 71 and 74 should be 

11 evaluated for radionuclide contamination due to 

12 runoff. 

13 And that's the end of my presentation. Are 

14 there any questions from the Board? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Andrew. I have one 

16 brief question. So in those areas that you 

17 identified, are there actually workers in those 

18 areas or -- you said they were buffer areas of 

19 some sort? 

20 MR. EVASKOVICH: Well, we know for a fact that 

21 guards used to patrol in those areas in the 

22 early days on horseback, and then later in 

23 jeep. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, thank you. 

25 MR. EVASKOVICH: There were a lot of patrols on 
273

1 the outlying areas. In fact, when -- when the 

2 Laboratory grounds were much larger, you know, 

3 up in the mountains and stuff like that, so 

4 around the boundaries guards were patrolling in 

5 there. And other possibilities for workers, 

6 I'm not sure of. But with contract workers -- 

7 say archaeologists, or possibly the other 

8 workers -- could be in those areas, depending -

9 - water quality people. There's a lot of 

10 different work that does occur or monitoring 

11 that does occur in those areas. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Josie. 

13 MS. BEACH: I just want to add to your 

14 question. What were the frequencies of those 

15 patrols? 

16 MR. EVASKOVICH: I don't have that information. 

17 I haven't actually discussed it with one of the 

18 guards, but from what I understand they were 

19 quite frequent in the earlier days. 

20 MR. SCHOFIELD: I can answer that question. 

21 Daily. It was daily in the -- in the summer, 

22 late spring and summer and fall. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Use your mike, Phil. 

24 MR. SCHOFIELD: In answer to your question, 

25 those patrols were done on horseback and jeep 
274

1 on a daily basis, from early spring up until 

2 early in the fall. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. 

4 MR. EVASKOVICH: Thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Next we're going to hear from 

6 Sherry Davich, and she is with Senator Bill 

7 Nelson's office. Sherry, welcome. 

8 MS. DAVICH: Is this good? First of all, from 

9 Senator Nelson, he wanted me to welcome all of 

10 you to the Sunshine State, and we're glad that 

11 you chose to have your 54th meeting here in 

12 Florida. He also wanted me to thank you for 

13 your service to the Advisory Board and, from my 

14 brief time here this afternoon, I can see 

15 that's a huge undertaking, and thank you. 

16 I just have some brief comments from him that 

17 he -- since y'all were here, we thought we'd 

18 take this opportunity. 

19 I'm here on behalf of United States Senator 

20 Bill Nelson, who is gravely concerned about the 

21 high rate of illnesses among former workers at 

22 the Pinellas Plant. And as y'all know, that 

23 plant is very near the location here. He is 

24 eager to ensure that the steps required to 

25 obtain compensation are carried out in 
275

1 adherence to the law and with expedience so 

2 that those who are entitled to benefits receive 

3 them quickly and efficiently as possible. 

4 In our letter to the Advisory Board dated 

5 November 28, 2007 Senator Nelson requested that 

6 a working group be convened to discuss the 

7 Pinellas Plant site profile review and act upon 

8 its findings. The site profile review raised 

9 several serious questions that must be 

10 addressed. Senator Nelson has not yet received 

11 response to his letter, and I ask, on his 

12 behalf, that the Board consider his request and 

13 provide an answer. I have a copy of the 

14 letter. 

15 And earlier I talked to Dr. Ziemer and he said 

16 he did have some information to share with me, 

17 so I'll go ahead and give you this letter. I 

18 think you already have it. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I do. And -- thank you. And 

20 the letter from Senator Nelson actually was 

21 distributed last fall to the Board, so you 

22 should all have copies of it. But we have a 

23 rule, and I've explained that previously to 

24 Sherry, that the rule is that the Chair must 

25 have the Board approve responses to 
276

1 Congressional letters. And so I've put at your 

2 places a proposed draft for Senator Nelson, and 

3 I'd like to read that into the record and ask 

4 for the Board to approve transmitting this to 

5 the Senator. 

6 So the Honorable Bill Nelson, U.S. Senate, 

7 Washington, DC. Dear Senator Nelson, Thank you 

8 for your letter of November 28, 2007 expressing 

9 your concern about the status of Board actions 

10 relating to the review of the Pinellas Plant 

11 site profile. Although the Board's agenda for 

12 closing issues raised by our contractor for 

13 this, and many other facilities, has been 

14 extremely full, it appears that we are now in a 

15 position to focus more directly on Pinellas 

16 issues. 

17 As you know, the Board has scheduled its April 

18 meeting to be in Tampa, in the vicinity of the 

19 Pinellas Plant. This will provide an 

20 opportunity for former Pinellas workers to 

21 share their views and concerns with the Board 

22 through our public comment process. Further, 

23 it will be appropriate at that meeting for the 

24 Board to consider the establishment of a 

25 workgroup to deal specifically with the 
277

1 findings of the SC&A review of the Pinellas 

2 site profile. 

3 We will keep your office informed of all 

4 workgroup meetings and other activities related 

5 to the Pinellas Plant. Sincerely, Paul Ziemer, 

6 Chairman. 

7 I might add parenthetically, if the Board 

8 approves this, during our working time later in 

9 the meeting we would actually discuss then the 

10 formal establishment of a workgroup and -- and 

11 assuming such a group is established, whenever 

12 they met we would inform your office so that 

13 you could attend either by phone or in person. 

14 MS. DAVICH: Thank you. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And all of our workgroup meetings 

16 are open to the public as well. 

17 MS. DAVICH: We appreciate that. Thanks. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Board members -- 

19 MS. DAVICH: Does anyone have any questions? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- questions or comments? Mr. 

21 Clawson. 

22 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, I'd just make a comment 

23 that we have the other two Board members on the 

24 other side, Ms. Beach and Phil. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Actually this must have been a 
278

1 pasting and cutting error because -- 

2 MR. CLAWSON: Well, our QA/QC program. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Actually -- 

4 DR. MELIUS: The Executive Secretary got 

5 updated. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Actually if I show you a copy of 

7 the original letterhead, you'll see that their 

8 names are on it, and who knows what happens 

9 between -- between the copier and -- and 

10 whatever. I could also claim that I just did 

11 that to see if you guys were alert, but -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, Larry already tried that. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- didn't -- didn't work. But I 

14 will ask for a formal approval of this letter 

15 that we might transmit -- with any additions or 

16 changes the Board may wish to make. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: I move to approve this letter. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 

19 MS. BEACH: I'll second it. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Any discussion? 

21 (No responses) 

22 All in favor, aye? 

23 (Affirmative responses) 

24 Mr. Presley, if you're on the phone, you may 

25 have heard the letter. Any objections from 
279

1 you? 

2 (No responses) 

3 I hear no objection. He may not be there, but 

4 we do have a majority. The motion carries and 

5 we will transmit an original copy of the 

6 letter. I'm also going to provide this letter 

7 to the press. There is someone here from the 

8 media -- yes, in the back -- and you'll have to 

9 ignore the part of the letterhead that's 

10 incorrect with the naming of the Board members. 

11 The ones who aren't listed feel slighted, for 

12 some reason. 

13 Thank you very much, and we will proceed from 

14 that basis. 

15 MS. DAVICH: Okay, thank you. Thank you. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: We appreciate your being here very 

17 much, Sherry. 

18 MS. DAVICH: Okay. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to ask now if there are 

20 other individuals here in the assembly that 

21 wish to address the Board at this time who may 

22 not have had a chance to sign on the sign-up 

23 sheet. 

24 (No responses) 

25 Is there anyone present by phone who wishes to 
280

1 address the Board in this, our public comment 

2 session. 

3 MS. JACKSON: Yes, I -- I do. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Please give us your name and then 

5 you may proceed. 

6 MS. JACKSON: My name is Sandra Jackson. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Sandra Jackson, thank you. Please 

8 proceed. 

9 MS. JACKSON: This is concerning my dad, Donald 

10 (unintelligible), who is number 2076 

11 (unintelligible) NIOSH number. How much time 

12 am I allowed? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Ten minutes is the timing we allow 

14 for public comments. 

15 MS. JACKSON: All right. My dad was listed as 

16 a bomb assembler and handler. He was 

17 (unintelligible) trained in 1957 at Nevada Test 

18 Site. He died of pancreatic cancer that 

19 mastatized (sic) to the liver. He had many 

20 skin cancers, including one documented 

21 melanoma, and he also had a thyroidectomy that 

22 was removed because of growth after the time 

23 that he spent in Tonapah -- the Tonapah test 

24 site and at NTS as well. We lived in Tonapah 

25 from the early '60s through December of 1962. 
281

1 He was assigned to the Tonapah test site, but 

2 we know that he was going from Tonapah test 

3 site to NTS on a regular basis to oversee 

4 tests. The only records that have been given 

5 on him were shown up for NTS, which was an 

6 affidavit from somebody (unintelligible) that 

7 worked with him on several (unintelligible). 

8 He told us of the times that he was told to 

9 remove his badge, put it in the refrigerator, 

10 and go about his work, especially walking down 

11 to ground zero within 24 hours after a test 

12 shot to clean up while the area was still 

13 flaring. He complained about leaky suits, 

14 canisters and how so many men got sick in 

15 Sandia. He actually originally worked for 

16 Sandia National Lab, and he told us that 

17 (unintelligible) problems. When he knew he 

18 received heavy doses of radiation upon turning 

19 in his badge (unintelligible) results came back 

20 as inconclusive results due to a lab 

21 malfunction. 

22 As a bomb handler -- assembler and handler, the 

23 only dosimetry records that we were able to 

24 find were in 1957 when he was just starting to 

25 be trained, and 1964 to 1965. It's ludicrous 
282

1 to even think that a bomb assembler and handler 

2 would not be required to wear a badge at all 

3 times. Dad told us he wore his badge all the 

4 time, and it's a well-known fact that these 

5 records conveniently disappeared. 

6 (Unintelligible) regular newspaper reports of 

7 people that are aware of boxes of old records 

8 that are purged and dumped from NTS. 

9 Right now the cohort for compensation is 250 

10 days at NTS. My dad would most likely fit into 

11 that, but there is no record to prove that he 

12 was there (unintelligible) prove he was there 

13 (unintelligible) affidavit we have. 

14 (Unintelligible) for the sign-in sheets that 

15 have to be filled out every time somebody 

16 enters NTS, and nobody has the slightest idea, 

17 so we figure they've gone with rest of the 

18 problematic records. 

19 We have an affidavit of an employee for 

20 (unintelligible) Electric Engineering who 

21 worked with the Sandia crew my dad was part of 

22 in the SEDAN test on July 6th of 1962, and also 

23 worked with my dad on numerous other occasions 

24 as well from the late '50s to the late -- to 

25 the mid-'60s. He described what my dad and 
283

1 Sandia crew did. My dad locked the bomb in, 

2 which he assembled. He (unintelligible) the 

3 canister that held the nuclear device for the 

4 test, ran diagnostic tests to record the action 

5 and resistance of the test, (unintelligible) to 

6 be sure of the continuity of the test. The 

7 next day after the test went in with the crew 

8 and released the cable and clean up, many times 

9 while the test was still flaring. 

10 We have also asked how many bomb handlers and 

11 assemblers were trained (unintelligible) of the 

12 numerous amount of tests (unintelligible) 

13 nuclear tests that were done in that area, just 

14 to get an idea of how many test shots for each 

15 of these bomb assemblers and handlers had. 

16 From 1951 to 1962 there were 1,021, of which 

17 921 were underground, just as an example. I 

18 took a range of Operation (unintelligible), 

19 which was -- there were 44 tests that ranged 

20 from 43 kilo-- .43 kilotons to 67, and 

21 Operation PLOWSHARE, which ranged from .37 to 

22 12 kilotons. The biggest one that I have the 

23 affidavit in that my dad was (unintelligible) 

24 into was the SEDAN test, which was 104 

25 kilotons. It yielded I guess at this point 
284

1 more than 11 million tons of soil, went to 

2 12,000 feet into the air, and created a 324-

3 foot-deep diameter and 1,200 feet wide -- a 

4 (unintelligible) that it created. 

5 My contention is being exposed to one test like 

6 SEDAN from assembling a 104-kiloton bomb, 

7 placing it and cleaning up at ground zero, plus 

8 who knows how many other tests, leaves little 

9 doubt to the high probability of the cancer 

10 that caused his death. 

11 In 1963 when we returned from Tonapah back to 

12 Albuquerque my dad had to have a thyroid 

13 removed that was caused by growth, such as we 

14 see at Chernobyl. It was not even considered -

15 - we have the proof of the surgery -- because 

16 it was not cancerous; he caught it too soon. 

17 He had many skin cancers, of which essentially 

18 only one melanoma was documented. In 1973 he 

19 went through radiation decontamination as 

20 directed by a friend that helped at Hiroshima 

21 because of him being so sick and the doctors 

22 not being able to help him. 

23 In looking at an aerial picture of the potholes 

24 that NTS created by these tests, knowing that 

25 the half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years, and 
285

1 that Trinity, New Mexico has been permanently 

2 closed because of contamination and safety is 

3 just a few of the issues that we see. The 

4 government still has paid out only a fraction 

5 to those who have suffered untold pain, 

6 sickness and death due to the radiation they 

7 were exposed to because records were lost, 

8 destroyed or covered up. 

9 My question is, what kind of protective 

10 screening was given to these people during 

11 assembly, handling of the bombs and cleanup 

12 after -- after the tests, or even how good back 

13 in the late '50s and early '60s were these? 

14 NIOSH admits that there was no monitoring on 

15 certain respirators. How safe were the 

16 respirators? Tonapah test site recently added 

17 testing for insoluble plutonium. What is 

18 insoluble plutonium? And dad was not even 

19 considered for that because he was said to be 

20 administrative only, which by this affidavit 

21 proves that that is not right. The earlier 

22 bombs were also considered dirty bombs that 

23 created far more radiation and fallout than our 

24 newer bombs. This is a situation 

25 (unintelligible) due to compensation -- is due 
286

1 the compensation for (unintelligible) heroic 

2 efforts in the Cold War. He suffered untold 

3 radiation, covered up by our knowing government 

4 and Sandia National Labs, causing more 

5 suffering and a horrible death due to cancer. 

6 (Unintelligible) sacrifice of his own life 

7 helped to protect our country in his efforts to 

8 stay ahead of the (unintelligible) the 

9 technologies of the Cold War. What can we do 

10 to (unintelligible) legislation to be passed to 

11 fix the flaw in this previous legislation of 

12 250 days, and are there any working groups to 

13 address this particular situation? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

15 MS. JACKSON: Those are my questions. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Sandra, and some of 

17 those questions at the moment are -- have to be 

18 treated somewhat rhetorical. There are some of 

19 the issues, such as the 250-day issue, that are 

20 being addressed by some of our workgroups. Not 

21 all of the questions you asked are currently 

22 being addressed, but we thank you for raising 

23 them and that gives us here food for thought as 

24 well. 

25 Let me ask now if there are other individuals 
287

1 on the line that wish to make public comment? 

2 (No responses) 

3 Any other individuals here in the local 

4 assembly that wish to make public comment? 

5 MS. HOYT: Excuse me, my name is Rosemary Hoyt 

6 and I am on the line. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Hello, Rosemary. 

8 MS. HOYT: How are you? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Rosemary Hoyt. You may 

10 proceed, Rosemary. 

11 MS. HOYT: Thank you. My comments are 

12 (unintelligible) day from the procedures 

13 workgroup. It sounded like three-fourths of 

14 the time and effort went into producing that 

15 database. It was my understanding that that 

16 database was to track findings. Later Mr. 

17 Elliott (unintelligible) database would be 

18 (unintelligible) also. 

19 During past Advisory Board meetings other 

20 issues have been brought up. (Unintelligible) 

21 seem appropriate to have a method to track 

22 these issues as well. (Unintelligible) 

23 questions and follow-up items from workgroup 

24 meetings (unintelligible) Advisory Board 

25 meetings be added to the database. 
288

1 I also suggest the status of the findings and 

2 issues be posted on the (unintelligible) web 

3 site (unintelligible) occur. It has been an 

4 ongoing problem with (unintelligible) submitted 

5 to the Advisory Board and workgroup that 

6 (unintelligible) worker outreach that -- to the 

7 web site in a timely manner. As Sandra Jackson 

8 just pointed out, she had several questions 

9 that she would like to have answers to, and I 

10 would like to know how these answers are going 

11 to be followed-up on. In the past it seems 

12 like many of these questions are accepted, but 

13 there's no follow-up and follow-through. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Rosemary. That's -- 

15 actually is a very good suggestion. We are in 

16 fact trying to do a better job of -- of keeping 

17 issues from falling through the cracks. We 

18 have a person who has joined the NIOSH staff -- 

19 somewhat recently -- but Nancy is trying to 

20 help us track issues and -- and hopefully we 

21 can do a better job. It may very well be that 

22 some of these other issues could be placed in a 

23 database for follow-up. That's a good 

24 suggestion. Thank you very much. 

25 MS. HOYT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 
289

1 DR. ZIEMER: Other comment-- commenters on the 

2 line? 

3 MR. DUTKO: (Unintelligible) 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 MR. DUTKO: (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Your -- your voice is breaking up. 

7 Let's -- move a little bit away from your phone 

8 and try that again. Let's see if we can hear 

9 you better. Are you on a -- are you on a land 

10 line phone? 

11 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah -- 

13 MR. DUTKO: (Unintelligible) if you don't 

14 receive the -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We're having a -- we're having a 

16 great deal of trouble understanding you. I -- 

17 your -- your phone line seems to be breaking up 

18 so it's very sort of intermittent. 

19 MR. DUTKO: Is this any better, Doctor? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: That's a little better. Try it 

21 from that angle and see if that works. 

22 MR. DUTKO: Sir, my name is John Dutko. I was 

23 a Betatron (unintelligible) operator at General 

24 Steel in the early (unintelligible). I 

25 (unintelligible) pieces (unintelligible). 
290

1 (Unintelligible) Roentgens we fired, none of it 

2 seems to be documented. (Unintelligible) 

3 legitimate and active dose reconstruction team 

4 (unintelligible) in our case when there is no 

5 records of the many (unintelligible) Roentgens 

6 (unintelligible). Is this not (unintelligible) 

7 error? Is (unintelligible) not in error 

8 (unintelligible) we're told (unintelligible) 

9 not qualified in this manner? I'm not trying 

10 to be -- I'm not trying to be (unintelligible). 

11 It shouldn't be hard for me to understand 

12 (unintelligible) no records (unintelligible) 

13 how did those accurate dose reconstructions 

14 apply to us operators who wound up 

15 (unintelligible) case of cancer 

16 (unintelligible) our cancer -- our type of 

17 cancer to (unintelligible). Thank you, sir. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. And as you know, 

19 we're still working on the General Steel issue, 

20 so hopefully we'll be able to come up with some 

21 reasonable answers on that sort of overriding 

22 question that you raise. 

23 MR. DUTKO: Sir, I -- I fully understand 

24 (unintelligible) quality (unintelligible) 

25 excellent procedures you have. We just have a 
291

1 difficult time understanding how any 

2 (unintelligible) accurate dose reconstruction 

3 can be made with no records. Is it 

4 guesstimates? When we (unintelligible) our 

5 records. We have (unintelligible) on paper. 

6 (Unintelligible) record of this at that time. 

7 But how all the different types of radiation to 

8 be applied (unintelligible). We should 

9 (unintelligible) neutron, how (unintelligible) 

10 can apply to us if there is no accurate records 

11 (unintelligible). Thank you, sir. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. John, give us 

13 your last name again for our court reporter. 

14 He didn't get it. 

15 MR. DUTKO: My name is John G. Dutko, D as in 

16 dog, u-t-k-o. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: D-u-c-k-o. 

18 MR. DUTKO: T -- T as in (unintelligible). 

19 DR. ZIEMER: D-u-t-k-o. 

20 MR. DUTKO: T as in (unintelligible). 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Got it. 

22 MR. DUTKO: Thanks, Doctor. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. And NIOSH 

24 and some of our other folks are in fact trying 

25 to gain information from you and your coworkers 
292

1 on answering some of those questions about the 

2 -- in the absence of records, what -- what can 

3 help us fill in some of those gaps, so -- 

4 MR. DUTKO: Doctor, we (unintelligible) done 

5 the best we can. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we understand that, and we're 

7 -- also [name redacted] has been helping with 

8 that, as has Dr. McKeel, so hopefully with 

9 everyone's help we'll be able to come up with 

10 some -- some answers. 

11 MR. DUTKO: Thank you. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me ask now for 

13 others who may wish to comment. Anyone else on 

14 line that wishes to comment? 

15 (No responses) 

16 Okay, I hear no others. Again I'll ask if 

17 anyone here in the assembly wishes to make 

18 comment. 

19 (No responses) 

20 If not, then we will recess for the day and we 

21 will reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:30. Thank 

22 you very much. 

23 (Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 5:12 p.m.) 

24 
293

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Apr. 7, 2008; 

and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 

testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

10th day of May, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102