1 

1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

2 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

3 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

4 SAFETY AND HEALTH 

5 


6 + + + + + 

7 


8 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

9 WORKER HEALTH 

10 


11 + + + + + 

12 


13 WORK GROUP ON SEC ISSUES 

14 


15 + + + + + 

16 


17 FRIDAY 

18 MAY 13, 2011 

19 


20 + + + + + 

21 


22 The Work Group convened via 

23 teleconference at 10:00 a.m., James M. Melius, 

24 Chairman, presiding.

25 


26 PRESENT: 

27 


28 JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman 

29 JOSIE BEACH, Member 

30 JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member 

31 GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 

32 PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member 

33 


34 


35 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 
2 

1 ALSO PRESENT: 

2 

3 TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

4 PETE DARNELL, DCAS 

5 JANICE FEENEY 

6 STU HINNEFELD, DCAS 

7 JOSH KINMAN, DCAS Contractor 

8 JENNY LIN, HHS 

9 JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

10 JIM NETON, DCAS 

11 MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS 

12 LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS 

13 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 
3 

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

2 

3 Welcome and roll-call/Introductions ......... 4 

4 

5 Work Group Discussion

6 

7 DCAS presentation of revised GE ....... 8 

8 Evendale SEC Petition Evaluation 

9 

10 WG discussion and recommendations .... 17 

11 

12 Adjournment ................................ 67 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 


19 


20 


21 


22 


23 


24 


25 


26 


27 


28 


29 


30 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

4 

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

2 (10:00 a.m.) 

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the SEC 

5 Issues Work Group. We're going to be speaking 

6 about GE Evendale today, just that, for the 

7 agenda. The agenda is posted on the web. 

8 So when everyone responds to roll 

9 call, please also indicate your conflict of 

10 interest situation with respect to GE 

11 Evendale. So let's begin with the Board 

12 Members and the Chair. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Jim Melius, no 

14 conflicts. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, no 

16 conflicts. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, no 

18 conflict. 

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, no 

20 conflict. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, and I got Josie 

22 Beach. Any other Board Members on the line? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

1 Okay, NIOSH ORAU team? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, no 

3 conflict. 

4 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, no conflict. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford, 

6 no conflict. 

7 MR. DARNELL: Pete Darnell, no 

8 conflict. 

9 MR. KINMAN: This is Josh Kinman, 

10 no conflict. 

11 MR. KATZ: Before Josh, can you 

12 repeat your name, please? 

13 MR. DARNELL: Pete Darnell. 

14 MR. KINMAN: Before Josh, you said? 

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

16 MR. KINMAN: That's Pete, right? 

17 MR. KATZ: Oh, Pete Darnell. Thank 

18 you. Sorry. It was muddled in my -- how 

19 about SC&A? Do we have any members of SC&A on 

20 the line? 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think John was 

22 going to -- Mauro was going to try to join us. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

1 I don't know. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Yes, I thought he 

3 was planning to join us. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. It's not 

5 necessary. We don't need him. 

6 MR. KATZ: I understand. I just 

7 was checking. So let's carry on. Federal 

8 officials or contractors for the feds on the 

9 line? 

10 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS. 

11 MR. RAFKY: Michael Rafky, HHS. 

12 MR. KATZ: Very good, then. This 

13 is Ted Katz. I'm the Designated Federal 

14 Official of the Advisory Board, also no 

15 conflict. Do we have any members of the 

16 public on the line? 

17 MS. FEENEY: Yes, Janice Feeney. 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, Janice Feeney. 

19 Welcome. 

20 MS. FEENEY: Thank you. 

21 MR. KATZ: Any others? All right. 

22 So, then, let me just remind everyone on the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

1 line, please mute your phones. If you don't 

2 have a mute button, use *6, and then you can 

3 come off mute only when you're addressing the 

4 group, and the agenda is yours, Jim. 

5 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John 

6 Mauro. Sorry to interrupt. I was a little 

7 delayed getting online, just wanted to let you 

8 know I'm online. 

9 MR. KATZ: Good. Thank you, John. 

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We'll call off 

12 the search parties. Okay, I think first we'll 

13 hear from -- I'm not sure who's speaking for 

14 DCAS, but at least a short update on how 

15 you've updated the report. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I think LaVon was 

17 going to introduce the subject, and then I 

18 think Pete will probably be doing most of the 

19 details. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. This 

22 is LaVon Rutherford. Basically, what we're 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 

1 going to do is just kind of summarize the 

2 changes in the report. Pete's going to go 

3 over that technically, the additional data 

4 that we've found, the information on work 

5 locations and all the information that the 

6 Board was in question in their earlier review. 

7 So I'm going to turn it over to 

8 Pete and let Pete -- I think it's probably 

9 easiest just to use that summary of changes 

10 that we provided when we sent it over 

11 electronically, and then Pete can go into 

12 additional detail as needed. 

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: Hey, Ted? 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. I'll be 

16 able to join you intermittently today. 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. I 

18 don't think this is going to be a very long 

19 call, but okay, great. Thanks, Jim. 

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: You're welcome. 

21 MR. DARNELL: This is Pete Darnell. 

22 I don't know what the best way to handle this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

9 

1 is, if you want me to read the summary -- if 

2 you want me to read the summary changes or if 

3 we just want to get into questions about it, 

4 since this has already been provided. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'd like you to 

6 summarize what you've done and --

7 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- what the 

9 changes are. You don't have to read each 

10 change to us, but a summary would be helpful. 

11 MR. DARNELL: Since the November 

12 2010 meeting in Santa Fe, we finished the data 

13 capture effort with General Electric Ohio 

14 posted in another 24 documents. 

15 We posted some information 

16 regarding contracts with the Atomic Energy 

17 Commission and General Electric and went 

18 through the data that was found for internal 

19 and external dosimetry in the past few months 

20 and placed that information inside the GE 

21 Evendale report. 

22 Specific spots where you can find 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

10 

1 that are on page three, where we talk about 

2 feasibility of dose reconstruction. We added 

3 a little more information on the operation 

4 description, had some more information added 

5 so we could clarify some exposure sources and 

6 update the site locations. 

7 The data capture you see has a lot 

8 of external monitoring data and a little bit 

9 more information on internal monitoring data. 

10 Unfortunately, the same case has gone on 

11 where we have 20 sets of dosimetry data that 

12 are actually linked to a person and over 1,200 

13 sets of external dosimetry data that's just 

14 dosimetry data. 

15 We haven't done a full review on 

16 that data, because we cannot find anything 

17 pertaining to source terms on the internal 

18 data, which basically makes the data set 

19 unusable for performance of full dose 

20 reconstruction. 

21 We did have some updates in 

22 workplace monitoring data where we found some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

11 

1 contamination levels during a 1969 survey. We 

2 basically took that information, updated the 

3 feasibility sections, so basically there is no 

4 change on the Evaluation Report findings. We 

5 basically feel that the same Class that was 

6 defined in the November Board meeting, 

7 November last year Board meeting, is the same. 

8 Just a quick update on the claim 

9 status. We have 12 claims that are over seven 

10 years old, 23 that are five to six years old, 

11 43 that are three to four years old, 56 that 

12 are one to two years old, and 18 claims that 

13 have been submitted within the past year. 

14 This data is accurate up until April 15. 

15 That's basically it. There's no 

16 real changes, no change in the thought of 

17 whether we can do dose reconstruction, and our 

18 recommendation is still that General Electric 

19 become an SEC. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. If I 

21 can just offer a little bit more, maybe ask 

22 Pete for some additional explanation, too, I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

12 

1 think the key fact here or the key finding 

2 here is that GE provided to us all of their 

3 dosimetry records. Regardless of whether it 

4 was a claimant or not, they provided it to us 

5 for the GE Evendale plant, all the dosimetry 

6 records they had on file. 

7 For the period of the AEC work for 

8 '60 to '69 or whichever, whatever those exact 

9 years are, that was the data we looked at. 

10 You know, that was the data that would be 

11 relevant to us, and while there is a fair 

12 amount of external radiation monitoring data, 

13 there is a real paucity of internal monitoring 

14 data. You say some 20 -- is that like 20 data 

15 points, Pete? 

16 MR. DARNELL: We have 20 claims 

17 that we have been able to link external 

18 monitoring data to. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That's internal, 

20 right, internal monitoring data? 

21 MR. DARNELL: External. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, 20 claims have 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

13 

1 external data, and we have just a handful of 

2 internal data monitoring points or what? 

3 MR. DARNELL: One claim is fully 

4 linked to internal monitoring data, and the 

5 rest of the data is just data that we can't 

6 link to a process, we can't link to a person, 

7 we can't link to anything. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, in other 

9 words, we have almost no internal data is what 

10 you're saying --

11 MR. DARNELL: Correct. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that's 

13 identified with a person. Okay. So, based on 

14 this paucity of internal data, our conclusion 

15 is that it's not feasible for us to do 

16 internal dose reconstruction, and so that's 

17 why our recommendation remains to add the 

18 Class for the entire employment period. 

19 The external data situation will be 

20 such that we will certainly use external data 

21 in partial dose reconstructions for claimants, 

22 if the claimant has it, and the question about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

14 

1 whether we have sufficient external data to 

2 form a coworker model that we would then apply 

3 to claimants who do not have their own 

4 exposure record, that question is about ready. 

5 You know, we're about ready to reach a 

6 conclusion on that, but we don't have it 

7 today, but it's not really relevant to the 

8 decision on whether to add a Class or not. 

9 MR. DARNELL: I did want to point 

10 out, Stu, that we had 4,451 external results 

11 for this period, January 1 of '61 through June 

12 30, 1970, and less than five percent of that 

13 data are able to be linked to work locations. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, but, I mean, 

15 are most of them -- do most of them have a 

16 person's name on it, but those people just 

17 tend not to be claimants? 

18 MR. DARNELL: They have names, but 

19 that's about all the information we get. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so then 

21 that's where we are in terms of the bulk of 

22 the -- you know, how much -- there's a lot of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

15 

1 external monitoring information that appears 

2 to be from people not claimants, and so that's 

3 the consideration. 

4 That's the question we need to 

5 answer that we should have an answer on very 

6 shortly as to whether or not we think we can 

7 do a coworker study, but we, at the very 

8 least, for claimants who have external data, 

9 we will use that data in a partial dose --

10 data in a partial dose reconstruction. 

11 Now, I think, Ted, the -- or, Pete, 

12 the other question has to do with the size of 

13 the Class and the Definition of the Class in 

14 terms of, because we have this monitored 

15 population, should we conclude that that 

16 should define the people who were exposed to 

17 radiation and what information -- It would be 

18 helpful to recap information that we have that 

19 would draw -- leads us to the conclusion that, 

20 just because we did not receive an exposure 

21 record for someone, that does not mean that 

22 they did not have the potential for exposure. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

16 

1 Can you maybe go through that? 

2 MR. DARNELL: Are you talking about 

3 how the site was physically set up and the 

4 personnel that had --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes, however 

6 you wanted to explain the question of, why do 

7 we conclude that people who do not have 

8 exposure, that we don't have enough solid 

9 evidence to feel confident saying that just 

10 because we don't have an exposure record for 

11 this person, they still could have been 

12 exposed to radiation. 

13 MR. DARNELL: Well, we did several 

14 interviews over the past few years with both 

15 retirees and health and safety personnel, 

16 including the Health and Safety Officer that 

17 was at the site during the AEC period, workers 

18 that were at the site during the AEC period. 

19 Basically, what we've been told is 

20 people met for lunch in the building, several 

21 people that were not monitored working in the 

22 lofts above the areas where the radiological 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

17 

1 work was going on. The doors were not locked, 

2 nor were they secured in any manner. People 

3 used the buildings as passageways to walk 

4 through. 

5 There was essential site 

6 maintenance that basically anything that was 

7 used anywhere could be shipped anywhere else 

8 on the site and be used. There was not a lot 

9 of control that was going on. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thanks, 

11 Steve. 

12 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, any Board 

14 Members have questions? If not, then I'll 

15 start. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, this is 

17 Ziemer. I have a couple of general questions. 

18 I'm just trying to, for clarity, these 3,500 

19 film badge records right now, simply because 

20 of the limited number of claimants, we don't 

21 even know if those are part of the processes 

22 that are covered, or what would lead us to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

18 

1 conclude that those, perhaps, would not be 

2 relevant or would be relevant, either way, to 

3 a coworker model of some sort for the 

4 external? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think -- I 

6 think --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or are we just 

8 saying that because of the internal issue, 

9 that we're going to end up here with only 

10 partials for those who don't meet the SEC 

11 requirement? Is that where we're ending up? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's the 

13 firm position we have today is that, because 

14 of the lack of internal data, there will be a 

15 Class because of the inability to reconstruct 

16 internal dose. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The question about 

19 the utility of the external data for a 

20 coworker study for partial dose -- to do 

21 partials is a decision that we expect to 

22 arrive at a conclusion on pretty soon, and, as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

19 

1 you say, if there were other -- if there was 

2 other radiological work going on during this 

3 period not in that area, that those data may 

4 pertain to -- and we can't tell which is which 

5 -- so that would disqualify a lot of it. 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Stu, and I'd like 

7 to add a significant -- this is LaVon again. 

8 A significant portion of that data has no 

9 location tie to it, and that is our biggest 

10 trouble right now with whether we can do an 

11 external coworker model or not. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul, you had 

14 another question? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I think that 

16 clears that up. I just wanted to -- I thought 

17 that was the case based on what I read. I 

18 just wanted to hear that verbally confirmed. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I have 

20 questions about -- it's on page 14 of the 

21 revised report. It's a list of the GE Ohio 

22 workers supporting the site's various nuclear 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

20 

1 research and development operations. It's a 

2 reference called POPSEE, P-O-P-S-E-E. 

3 Can someone enlighten me on that? 

4 I looked at it on the O: drive, and it's a 

5 list of names and addresses without really 

6 much other identification to the list, so I 

7 was trying to understand where it came from. 

8 MR. DARNELL: That list is -- this 

9 is Pete Darnell. That list is an internal 

10 list that GE as a company is keeping at the 

11 Evendale site of anybody who worked on a 

12 nuclear project at any time at SEC -- excuse 

13 me -- the AEC period or the non-AEC period. 

14 It has no other data to go with it, 

15 so we don't know if the list is full, if it's 

16 complete or not. We don't know if that -- if 

17 any of them tie to the AEC period or don't. 

18 There's just no other data to go forward. 

19 It's just a list of names and addresses, and 

20 that's it. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but you have 

22 other data you could match up with it, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

21 

1 external dosimetry data, which I assume at 

2 least has dates on it and so forth, as well as 

3 your claims data. 

4 MR. DARNELL: That's true, but 

5 there's really nothing we could use it for 

6 other than to say, yes, this particular 

7 nuclear worker was on this other list. It 

8 doesn't do anything for us as far as being 

9 able to tell what the workforce population 

10 was, because we don't know anything about its 

11 accuracy or why it was actually done. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I thought 

13 it actually matched up fairly well with some 

14 other estimate that's in here about the number 

15 of workers that were involved in these 

16 operations. 

17 MR. DARNELL: Actually, I don't 

18 have more information on that. I didn't look 

19 at that part of it. Once I found out that the 

20 list was not -- had a possibility of not being 

21 completely accurate, it just became a list of 

22 names. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

22 

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Melius, I'd 

2 like to add that, even if the list does 

3 contain the workforce, the 300, 350, whatever, 

4 workforce of workers that worked in that area, 

5 I think the difficulty in addition to that is 

6 the fact that the access control issues. 

7 We've already identified that there were a 

8 number of workers or people that worked in the 

9 area that were not part of that workforce, 

10 secretarial forces and stuff that were on the 

11 mezzanine up above. Maintenance workers may 

12 or may not be included in that. 

13 We're not sure, and we're also not 

14 totally sure about the other activities, as we 

15 mentioned, that may have been going on on the 

16 site that might have not been covered 

17 activities and how they fit into this whole 

18 scheme of exposure. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't 

20 understand why the latter is an issue. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Why that's an 

22 issue? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

23 

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I think it's 

3 an issue in that if we knew for sure that all 

4 the work that occurred on the site was part of 

5 Air Force Project 61 or whatever and we had an 

6 idea of the -- we've got a -- we've got a 

7 little more information on the processes that 

8 occurred there, but we don't know if those 

9 were the only processes that occurred onsite, 

10 meaning there could have been other 

11 radiological operations; we don't know. And 

12 our concern with some of the data that we have 

13 is because we don't have any locations or 

14 indications of what the data was in support 

15 of. I'm not sure we have a complete picture. 

16 MR. DARNELL: Actually, just to add 

17 a little bit more to that, from data that we 

18 have at Fernald, we do know that there was 

19 other radiological and nuclear work going on 

20 that had to do with the aircraft engine, the 

21 nuclear aircraft engine, with thorium lights 

22 that they were working on. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

24 

1 There were different radiological 

2 aspects to some of the engines that they were 

3 working on. All of that work was going on at 

4 the same time as the covered period, as well 

5 as outside the boundaries of the covered 

6 period. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's not what 

8 your -- the report doesn't talk about that at 

9 all. 

10 MR. DARNELL: That's not --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I got the 

12 impression from your report that you had the 

13 Air Force period, and then it switched over to 

14 an AEC operation. It seemed like it was like 

15 the Air Force ended, so what are these other 

16 operations? 

17 MR. DARNELL: Just operations that 

18 we had records on from Fernald data. It 

19 wasn't really germane to what was going on 

20 with the Air Force plant work, so we didn't 

21 think about including that data in this. We 

22 just know that there was other nuclear 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

25 

1 workforce on the site, hence the list, and we 

2 can't vouch for the accuracy of that list or 

3 nuclear workers just on the Air Force plane. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

5 want to talk about this POPSEE list for a 

6 little bit here now. We have -- we found this 

7 list. It was dated 1987. It was some sort of 

8 list that GE generated, but we don't know for 

9 what purpose or from what situation. 

10 I think a key element here is that 

11 they -- if, in fact, they, you know, generated 

12 a list of people assigned to nuclear projects, 

13 our view is that there were people who were 

14 likely exposed who would not have been 

15 assigned to that project in the classic sense. 

16 In other words, the people who were 

17 assigned full-time as the people doing the 

18 covered, the AEC-covered work in these 

19 buildings may have made it on the list, but 

20 there were other people that it sounds to us 

21 as if there was potential for a number of 

22 other people to also spend significant time in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

26 

1 the building and would not be on the list. 

2 So we didn't feel like the list was 

3 complete or it could be even -- even if it had 

4 been prepared appropriately and would have 

5 been complete based on the premise that it was 

6 prepared under -- that we surmised it was 

7 prepared under -- it doesn't seem like it 

8 would have included all the people with 

9 potential for exposure. 

10 So that's why we felt like the list 

11 could not help us, could not be the 

12 definitive, essentially the delineation of the 

13 people in the Class, and if it doesn't -- if 

14 it's not useful for that purpose, as the 

15 definitive delineation of people, of the 

16 members of the Class, then we don't feel like 

17 we necessarily have a use for it. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but, Stu, I 

19 don't think you've really sort of evaluated 

20 the list. I guess that's my question, and 

21 along with that is that when I went and looked 

22 at the summaries of your outreach meetings and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

27 

1 so forth, it was --

2 They weren't that convincing or 

3 detailed in terms of how other people, non4 radiation workers, let's call them, might have 

5 been exposed. I guess I don't -- I thought 

6 they were all very sort of general comments, 

7 and I just am trying to get just a better 

8 handle on here you have a list of 500, which 

9 seems to --

10 I'd at least like to know, you 

11 know, what era that's from and who they're 

12 referring to. If that's just people from the 

13 Air Force period, it's one thing, but if it 

14 overlaps to a significant extent into the AEC 

15 period, then I think it means something else, 

16 and then, you know, how does that match up 

17 with who you have in terms of external 

18 monitoring records, as well as what 

19 information you have from the claimants that 

20 have filed? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm just trying 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

28 

1 to understand what the sort of specificity and 

2 sensitivity of these lists are, because I 

3 think your proposed Class Definition extends 

4 the group that's -- essentially, the Class 

5 gets extended from a relatively small part of 

6 a facility to everybody who ever worked at the 

7 facility for this time period, which is -- I'm 

8 trying to understand the justification for 

9 that, and it seems to me that you can work at 

10 it both from, well, we can't always prove that 

11 somebody wasn't in, wasn't exposed, but we can 

12 say that at every facility. 

13 I mean, you know, we can go to, you 

14 know, any of the bigger sites and say, well, 

15 Classes ought to cover everybody there, 

16 because, well, we don't know. Maybe there was 

17 some slip-up in the controls and access and so 

18 forth. They're not guaranteed. We don't know 

19 everybody. 

20 You know, maybe something --

21 somebody wasn't recorded or whatever. I mean, 

22 as -- I'm just trying to understand sort of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

29 

1 how this list and how good these lists are in 

2 terms of defining who actually worked in these 

3 operations. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I understand. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. Jim, 

7 I have a question, too, about the residual 

8 time period. I know the cutoff is 1970, but I 

9 see the buildings weren't D&Ded until much 

10 later, and I'm just curious to what went on in 

11 those facilities prior to decontamination. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu. 

13 I mean, this is -- this is a DOE facility. 

14 This is not an AWE facility, so the 

15 designation is a DOE facility, and the 

16 residual period coverage in the law pertains 

17 only to AWE facilities. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, okay. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, this is 

20 LaVon Rutherford. I've got one other thing, 

21 and, unfortunately, I'm going to have to 

22 leave, but I want to point out that, of that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

30 

1 list, you know, and I haven't gone through 

2 that list myself personally, but I know very 

3 few names on that list are part of our claim 

4 pool. 

5 The additional question you've got 

6 are what are you going to do with the rest of 

7 the claims that DOL has already accepted and 

8 sent to the site, and are we going to -- what 

9 exposure are we going to give them? 

10 We've already indicated that we 

11 don't have good knowledge of access controls. 

12 We don't feel that the monitoring that we 

13 have is a full list of the people that were 

14 potentially exposed, so we have to give 

15 exposure to those individuals that would be 

16 off that list, and what kind of exposure would 

17 we give them? 

18 So I just want to point that out 

19 that if you make the argument that you limit 

20 the Class to those people on that list, that 

21 covers very few of our existing claims, and we 

22 have no dose reconstruction model to support 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

31 

1 the rest of those claims. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, but 

3 couldn't that also be an argument that those 

4 people in your existing claims may not have 

5 been -- had much exposure, may not have been 

6 in that area? 

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think that is, 

8 but I think that is an issue that we have 

9 dealt with on a number of sites that we know 

10 that we make Classes because, you know, there 

11 is the potential that workers that could have 

12 been in and out of areas: we can't define that 

13 list of workers, but we've made that list, 

14 that Class, based on that fact. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but I go 

16 back to the discussion we had at the Board 

17 when you first presented this as the issue. I 

18 mean, to some extent, yes, there's got to be a 

19 probability that somebody would have a 

20 significant exposure through that. 

21 We don't do it. We don't take the 

22 entire site, right, unless there's, you know, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

32 

1 some justification or something widespread or 

2 whatever, I mean, that it's -- there's some 

3 specificity to it, because we think that, you 

4 know, people, there is some probability that 

5 people had significant exposures or worked in 

6 those areas for some significant amount of 

7 time. 

8 The question is where do you draw 

9 the line. It's not an easy thing to answer, 

10 but -

11 DR. NETON: Dr. Melius, this is Jim 

12 Neton. In most of those other instances we 

13 have the ability to build coworker models. 

14 Then we can assign dose to those people who 

15 were not monitored as appropriate based on 

16 what we feel their probability of exposure 

17 was, but in this particular case we have no 

18 ability to develop a coworker model. That's 

19 usually --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well --

21 DR. NETON: -- the cut point on 

22 these, in these decisions. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

33 

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess I don't 

2 quite get that argument, Jim. 

3 DR. NETON: Well, I mean, you're 

4 saying that, you know, we don't know who went 

5 into what areas because of access controls, 

6 but we always -- if people were monitored or 

7 not monitored, we typically would develop a 

8 coworker model to cover, to bound their 

9 exposures. 

10 So we don't have to know about 

11 access controls anymore. We just have to know 

12 the probability that they were in there, and 

13 we can give them either a 50 percent or 

14 environmental dose, but we don't have any 

15 ability to develop a coworker model in this 

16 case. 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, you're 

18 talking about doing it for -- you're talking 

19 about for internal exposure, not external, 

20 correct? 

21 DR. NETON: Right. Well, in either 

22 instance, but usually it's the internal is the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

34 

1 one that's the limiting factor. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Well, 

3 you've got external. Well, you just told us 

4 you were going to try to do an external one. 

5 DR. NETON: Maybe but we don't know 

6 anything about the internal coworker models. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I'm just 

8 trying to understand your argument, Jim. 

9 That's all. 

10 DR. NETON: I understand. 

11 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim, Jim Lockey. 

12 In this case, if you can't document that there 

13 was limited access to the building and you 

14 don't know who was in the other building, it's 

15 not an ideal situation, I agree. 

16 I mean, the cohort would be huge, 

17 but the flip side of it, I think we have 

18 expanded eligibility in other sites where 

19 there was a much smaller cohort, where we had 

20 relatively good information but expanded it to 

21 everybody who was at the plant site, because 

22 it couldn't be proven that one person walked 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

35 

1 in for a weekend or didn't walk through the 

2 building. 

3 It is -- it's expanding this, but 

4 if you don't know who had access to the 

5 building and you don't have a list limiting 

6 that these were the people worked there, and 

7 it's just solely the people worked there, it's 

8 a problem. There's no question it's a 

9 problem, but the way we've dealt with that 

10 before was to grant an SEC and expand the 

11 cohort size. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I 

13 think -- I'm trying to remember. I think an 

14 analog might be -- oh, shoot, the plant in 

15 Simi Valley, Area IV, Santa Susana. That's 

16 it, Santa Susana Field Liability. 

17 If I'm not mistaken, there is a 

18 monitored population there, which essentially 

19 provides you a list of people that at least 

20 were considered exposed enough to be 

21 monitored, but the Class was not limited to 

22 the monitored people there. That was an allNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

36 

1 employees Class. I mean, the list of 

2 monitored people essentially provides you much 

3 the same as this other list, which appears to 

4 be the invitation list for a reunion in 1987. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, part of this 

6 Santa Susana one, though, was that there were 

7 these -- so the historical, as I recall it, 

8 there were different facilities there. 

9 Remember, that was the problem. There was a 

10 problem there partly how the DOE and DOL had 

11 defined the different facilities over time, 

12 and people moved from one facility to another. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was 

14 actually a problem outside of our control. 

15 That was a problem with the DOL and the 

16 employment verification. Within the part of 

17 the facility within our control, once people 

18 had been verified as having worked in the 

19 covered facility, I think then we still had 

20 the question. 

21 You know, we still had -- we have a 

22 monitored population that we have the names of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

37 

1 the people monitored, but we have an 

2 unmonitored population, and because of lack of 

3 a rigorous access control, the Class included 

4 all employees. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. 

6 Let me ask a related question, and we sort of 

7 looked at this before, and I think I know the 

8 answer, but is there any way that we can put 

9 some burden on a claimant to at least claim 

10 that they spent some time in the building? 

11 Is it completely upon the 

12 Department of Labor to establish it, or could 

13 a person make a claim and say, "I worked in 

14 some," or, "I had access to -- I spent some 

15 time in a specified area?" See, one of the 

16 problems with the fact that someone can stroll 

17 through there, it sort of doesn't meet the 

18 250-day burden in and of itself. 

19 The fact that they could stroll 

20 through occasionally, unless they were there 

21 on a regular basis for some reason, is there 

22 no way that we can ask a claimant to verify 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

38 

1 that they had spent some time in a specified 

2 area for a specified period of time so that 

3 not everybody -- there's certainly got to be 

4 people on that site that never went into those 

5 areas. 

6 MR. DARNELL: Dr. Neton, this is 

7 Pete Darnell. Part of the DOL process for 

8 establishing a claim is that you have to 

9 provide the statement of where you worked, 

10 what you did, and what parts of the plant that 

11 you were in. 

12 It's all done under penalty of 

13 perjury requirements that DOL has, so that 

14 question is basically asked but not with the 

15 extreme specificity that you're looking for, 

16 "Did you work in Building C and D?" It's 

17 asked if you worked at the facility and 

18 according to the definition of the facility 

19 that DOL has. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu. 

21 From our recourse here in terms of a Class, 

22 as far as I can tell, our ability to do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

39 

1 something like that has to be essentially 

2 couched in terms of a Class Definition, 

3 because from the time there's a Class 

4 Definition, the administration of that Class, 

5 as I understand it, it's the Department of 

6 Labor's responsibility. 

7 In recent years, when we have 

8 defined -- tried -- we sent proposed Class 

9 Definitions to the Department of Labor. When 

10 we have done that in recent years and have 

11 said -- and have limited by a facility when we 

12 are unaware of any record that would put 

13 people in that facility, the Department of 

14 Labor has replied that they don't feel they 

15 can administer that Class. So what they're 

16 essentially telling us is, "Gosh, don't do 

17 that." 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I recognize 

19 that. I'm just wondering, since they asked 

20 the question, anyway, "Tell me where you 

21 worked," as a starting point it's GE, but 

22 suppose the Class were defined in terms of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

40 

1 spending time in a particular building or 

2 buildings, and that you --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: We ask. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know, and that 

5 Labor would be willing to accept a person's 

6 assertion that they did. They don't have to 

7 approve it. They're essentially asserting 

8 that they had access to a particular building 

9 and perhaps --

10 See, if someone had access and 

11 walked through there one day during their work 

12 life, that's, in my mind, that's not fair. 

13 They ought to have been there on a regular 

14 basis. 

15 It's sort of like the 250-day 

16 criteria, in a sense. The fact that somebody 

17 strolled in through one building one day to 

18 deliver an envelope or something, I realize 

19 there is some --

20 It's very difficult, but why not 

21 accept the worker's assertion that, "Yes, I 

22 spent considerable time in this facility," you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

41 

1 know, whether it was on coffee breaks or 

2 whatever it was? 

3 I know it's difficult, but it seems 

4 to me there's got to be some way to say just 

5 because you were on this site, regardless of 

6 where you worked, you're going to be 

7 compensated. That doesn't seem fair to those 

8 who are entitled to compensation. 

9 MS. LIN: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

10 Jenny. I hear your concern, but, I mean, if 

11 we're going to go down this sort of burden on 

12 the claimant, not only that this is a DOL 

13 administerability issue, you also have to 

14 consider that a big part of our claimant 

15 populations are survivors who might not even 

16 have that sort of information. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. When 

18 we -- years ago, we wrote a Class Definitions 

19 that specified facilities, and to administer 

20 those at that time, the Department of Labor 

21 required the claimants to provide evidence 

22 that they had spent 250 days in that facility. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

42 

1 They didn't take their word for it. 

2 They said, "You have to provide," although 

3 they would accept affidavits from a coworker, 

4 but it was -- they didn't accept the 

5 claimant's assertion, and it placed then the 

6 burden to show 250 days on the claimant. 

7 As part of the reason why we've 

8 been so amenable to trying to write Classes 

9 that the Department of Labor tells us they can 

10 readily administer is that it's, again, 

11 equitable in this case to place the burden of 

12 providing evidence of 250 days, you know, 

13 being located in a particular building for 250 

14 days, and because there are not a lot of good 

15 ways to do that unless you happen to know 

16 coworkers who are alive and can attest to the 

17 fact. 

18 To me, you know, that's sort of why 

19 we've been more prone to try to write Classes 

20 that the Department of Labor tells us they can 

21 administer, rather than to say, "Well, we're 

22 going to restrict it to these facilities, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

43 

1 because these were the covered facilities," 

2 when, in essence, the Department of Labor has 

3 already determined that to the best of their 

4 ability these people worked in this facility, 

5 because they're claimants. They allowed the 

6 claim. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes, I'm 

8 looking for a way, and, see, I don't look at 

9 it as putting the burden on the claimant. It 

10 would if they had to provide proofs in 

11 affidavits. I would say what about making the 

12 case that if to the best of their knowledge 

13 they worked there, you just accept that. 

14 That, at a minimum, can't be any 

15 worse that paying off everybody, number one. 

16 Number two, if it is a survivor, all the 

17 survivor cases that we've seen, I think almost 

18 every one where we have someone testifying, 

19 they have heard -- they don't know the 

20 details, but they have heard that the claimant 

21 worked with radiation. 

22 They seem to know that, and I would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

44 

1 say in this case if it's a survivor, you say, 

2 "Okay, we'll take their word for it that they 

3 believe that the parent or the" -- well, not 

4 the parent but the claimant worked in the 

5 radiological area. I'm just trying to think 

6 of a way to make this a little more equitable. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We can approach --

8 I mean, if you want us to do this, we can 

9 approach DOL with that question. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I'm not saying 

11 --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Now --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- I want you to do 

14 it. I'm just -- you know, I'd like us to 

15 think about whether there's some way to do 

16 this that's both fair and fair both ways, fair 

17 to claimants as well as those who should not 

18 be in the pool. 

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The -- sort of 

20 some corollary questions to that, though, 

21 issue. One is the -- do we know whether the 

22 personnel records indicate where people 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

45 

1 worked? 

2 I mean, that's the other -- I mean, 

3 the real reason that DOL or one of the major 

4 reasons why DOL wants -- has problems with a 

5 building-specific SEC Class is that often the 

6 personnel records don't, you know, indicate 

7 where a person worked, and we know at the DOE 

8 sites, even when they do sometimes there's a 

9 list that you have large numbers of workers 

10 that roam around the facility and do work in 

11 different facilities. 

12 I guess my basic question is do we 

13 even know -- you know, is there anything in 

14 the personnel records that would indicate that 

15 people worked in these areas. I mean --

16 MR. DARNELL: We've asked that --

17 this is Pete Darnell. We have asked that 

18 question and asked for that type of data from 

19 GE, and they do not have anything that ties 

20 people to specific facilities. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Then my 

22 question goes back to, then, how did they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

46 

1 develop the list of 500 people, the POPSEE 

2 list? 

3 MR. DARNELL: We have no 

4 information on it, Dr. Melius. I'm sorry. 

5 There's no further data on it other than, 

6 "Here's the list." 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But where did you 

8 get it from? 

9 MR. DARNELL: It was from one of 

10 the data captures. 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And have you 

12 asked General Electric or anybody or any of 

13 your informants about that, the people you've 

14 interviewed? 

15 MR. DARNELL: In the last couple of 

16 interviews, yes. The first couple of 

17 interviews, no. We did ask the Health and 

18 Safety Manager about it. He didn't know 

19 anything about the list at all. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu just said 

21 something about it being pulled for a reunion 

22 or something. That's why I'm --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

47 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I pulled it up in 

2 the Site Research Database, and the file on 

3 the Site Research Database starts with our 

4 capture form, our data capture form, and the 

5 data capture person wrote as a reviewer 

6 description, "POPSEE master list of former 

7 ANPO, NMPO, SPPS, NSP, ESP, AEP workers." 

8 So those initials apparently 

9 pertain to a number of areas of the project, 

10 work project. That's the -- that was our data 

11 capture person's handwritten description. As 

12 to why that person wrote that, I don't know. 

13 Then there's the list of names, and 

14 then the last couple pages is an announcement 

15 for a reunion in 1987, POPSEE, and it never 

16 spells out what POPSEE means, but it's a 1987 

17 POPSEE reunion. It was held on August 20, 

18 1987, and it gives the place, and then it 

19 gives the menu --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- who to send your 

22 check to. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

48 

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I only looked at 

2 the first three pages and gave up. Did they -

3 - that's okay. When I had tried to open up 

4 the external monitoring file on my computer, 

5 my crack CDC computer froze up three times, so 

6 I gave up on that, too. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's why I 

8 concluded that the last page or two of the 

9 file is the announcement of the reunion. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

11 Stu. Is there any way we can walk back and 

12 figure out what ESP and those initials are, 

13 what they relate to? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, ANPO is 

15 Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Office, I believe. 

16 MR. DARNELL: It's Airdraft Nuclear 

17 Project Office, Nuclear Materials Project 

18 Office, and I have no idea on the rest of 

19 them. The person that did this data capture 

20 was a longtime Fernald employee, also, and he 

21 had a lot of knowledge of different projects 

22 that went on at GE, so he knows what these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

49 

1 mean, or he knew what some of these meant but 

2 not what all of them meant. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, maybe someone 

4 could talk to him again or something. 

5 MR. DARNELL: Okay, I'd be glad to. 

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I mean, it would 

7 just seem to me that if you have a list, it 

8 would be nice to -- you know, if we're going 

9 to say that it's not useful, we ought to have 

10 a basis for that, and some of that ought to be 

11 based on some of the other information you 

12 have. 

13 You've got the external monitoring 

14 with names. You've got -- you know, all of 

15 those projects may have been, you know, pre16 this time period or something. That list may 

17 have nothing to do with this time period. I 

18 don't -- I guess that's a possibility from 

19 what you've said, but it would be nice to know 

20 that, to be able to say that. 

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim? 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: I think you raise a 

2 good point. Has anybody tried to contact some 

3 people on that list? 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Or even match 

5 them up with the list of claimants? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: The Radiation 

7 Safety Manager, who we have interviewed twice, 

8 is on the list. 

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

11 MEMBER LOCKEY: And what did he say 

12 about the list? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: He didn't -- isn't 

14 that the one you said he didn't know about the 

15 list? 

16 MR. DARNELL: That's correct. He 

17 didn't know about the list. There are a 

18 couple of the people that were interviewed on 

19 this list, also. 

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Were they aware of 

21 the reunion, or were they asked about the 

22 reunion, or was that before the list was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

51 

1 known? 

2 MR. DARNELL: That was before the 

3 list was known for most of the workers, and I 

4 didn't ask if people attended the reunion. 

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: You know, Jim has a 

6 good point. I think going back to the list 

7 again and searching out some people that are 

8 still living, just a phone call, "Do you 

9 remember going to a reunion? Do you remember 

10 anything about the reunion? Where was it 

11 held? You know, was there" -- it would be 

12 very -- it may be very useful. 

13 MR. DARNELL: The one thing that we 

14 need to realize is who did this reunion. If 

15 you can get to that last page, the GE -- the 

16 Ohio 747, that park is right across the street 

17 from the UAW office. This was a union 

18 meeting. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, wait a minute. 

20 Wait a minute, Pete. Don't go -- don't start 

21 down there unless you know for sure, because 

22 that park is available for all sorts of GE 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 

1 functions. 

2 MR. DARNELL: Okay. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I know that. I've 

4 been to GE. I've been as a guest. I've been 

5 invited to GE functions up there. 

6 MR. DARNELL: Right, I am making 

7 the assumption that it was part of the union, 

8 because it's right --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Don't start down 

10 there, because that park is available to all 

11 sorts -- for all sorts of GE functions. 

12 MR. DARNELL: You're right. Sorry 

13 about that. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: So, Pete, this is 

15 Josie. Was there more than one POPSEE list? 

16 Because I notice on page 14 that Jim indicated 

17 there was a POPSEE list 1987, and then on page 

18 nine --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the one 

20 we're looking at. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: On page nine you 

22 have a POPSEE sketches, 1991. Are those two 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

53 

1 different lists? 

2 MR. DARNELL: As far as I know, 

3 there's only one POPSEE list. I hadn't seen a 

4 second one. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Well, on your first 

6 bullet on page nine it talks about a POPSEE 

7 sketches, 1991. 

8 MR. DARNELL: I'm looking through 

9 that right now. You know, I'm sorry, I 

10 completely missed that. I have no idea what 

11 they're talking about. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Well, I was 

13 just curious. I would hate to have a list 

14 being used if we don't know what, you know, 

15 what the origin of the list is, because, you 

16 know, if it was a list for a reunion of some 

17 sorts and whoever was making out the list knew 

18 that certain people were already deceased and 

19 they didn't make it on the list, it just -- I 

20 would be --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, you're right. 

22 It could be -- how it was generated could be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

54 

1 important. I would just also add I doubt that 

2 the Health and Safety Manager would be a union 

3 -- be part of UAW, so I don't think it was UAW 

4 that would have put together the list. They 

5 may have been involved in the reunion in some 

6 way, but I think it would come from within the 

7 facility. 

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: So, Jim, it 

9 wouldn't hurt. It wouldn't hurt asking UAW 

10 about it, right? 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. No, 

12 exactly, no, it would, and the other thing 

13 that might be helpful is in the dose 

14 reconstruction interviews you've done, it's 

15 just -- has there been anybody that you talked 

16 to that, you know, didn't work directly in the 

17 operations but did spend a significant amount 

18 of time in the building? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we'd have to 

20 look. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Just look, 

22 because --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

55 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We have not 

2 analyzed those interviews for that question. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Any other 

4 questions from the Board Members? 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

6 have one other question. Toward the end of 

7 the report, maybe right near the end, there 

8 was some speculation about a possible second 

9 SEC Class. Was that just sort of boilerplate, 

10 or is there something specific that you had in 

11 mind? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's 

13 boilerplate. Where is -- what's the page, 

14 Paul? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think -- I have 

16 trouble scrolling with this computer. It's so 

17 slow, but I think it's on the last page before 

18 the references. 

19 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. It's 

20 boilerplate. Paul, this is Ted. It's 

21 boilerplate. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, you didn't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56 

1 have anything specific in mind here. 

2 MR. KATZ: No. No, that's just an 

3 open door in case there is a situation --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 MR. KATZ: -- where there are leads 

6 that would have DCAS doing more research after 

7 the Class is already --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. 

9 MR. KATZ: The initial Class is 

10 already established. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks. 

12 MR. DARNELL: I think that's 

13 required by the rules. 

14 MR. KATZ: That's correct, Pete. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

16 questions? What I would propose, if you could 

17 sort of follow up on those two items, one is, 

18 I think, the POPSEE list issue, as well as 

19 take another look at some of the interviews 

20 and see if they can -- they shed any light on, 

21 you know, a little bit more light as to what 

22 extent there were people that might have been 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

57 

1 not directly employed in those AEC operations 

2 but, you know, were spending significant times 

3 in those buildings doing work and so forth. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Both of those 

6 would be helpful if you can get back to the 

7 Work Group on that. I don't know what the 

8 time frame would be, but, you know, we 

9 certainly can either -- we can do another Work 

10 Group meeting and then try to pose this out. 

11 What you're proposing may be the 

12 correct Class Definition, the correct 

13 approach. I think we just want to sort of do 

14 the due diligence to say that we've looked at 

15 this and understand it before we, you know, 

16 commit to it one way or the other. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll have 

18 to -- right here I can't figure out a 

19 schedule. We'll have to figure out. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll have to do 

22 some work in order to figure out what kind of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

58 

1 schedule we'll be on, and we can give you some 

2 notice of when we think we can have some --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I would just 

4 add that I think this is a kind of SEC, 83.14, 

5 so we'd be able to handle at the Work Group 

6 call, so it wouldn't necessarily mean, you 

7 know, postponing until August --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- to resolve 

10 this if these are factual, but it somewhat 

11 depends on, you know, what efforts -- you 

12 know, we'd like the due diligence on your 

13 part, but, you know, what is a reasonable 

14 schedule for that? We'll let you figure that 

15 out. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and then 

17 shall we do any -- shall I approach the 

18 Department of Labor about Paul's suggestion 

19 about having the administration of the Class, 

20 the claimant -- at least require the claimant 

21 to assert that they spent a significant amount 

22 of time, probably 250 days, in those covered 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59 

1 buildings? I mean, I can ask Department of 

2 Labor --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, actually, 

4 in St. Louis, Rachel is coming out to the 

5 meeting, and I believe her --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Her boss, Gary 

7 Steinberg. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The Acting 

9 Director of that division, whatever, I forget 

10 his name, but I believe he's coming out, also. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, his name is 

12 Gary Steinberg. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Gary Steinberg. 

14 Thanks, Stu. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: No problem. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: They'll both be 

17 out there, so maybe we can have a conversation 

18 with them when they're out there. Does that 

19 make sense, Paul? 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine, I 

21 think, you know, just to find out what's 

22 feasible. I know that they would like it very 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 

1 clean and simple, but maybe not everything is 

2 clean and simple. We certainly have enough 

3 that aren't. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Anyway, yes, I 

6 think it's worth discussing. Maybe we can't 

7 do it, but at least take a look at it. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and then the 

10 other -- and then the two items are the 

11 thoroughly investigate the POPSEE list in 

12 terms of learning -- you know, and that would 

13 include talking to some people who we have 

14 already talked to that are on that list to see 

15 if they recall that organization and -

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- reunions and --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And so who made 

19 up the list and then, you know, who's on that 

20 list. What are those, you know, designated 

21 groups, the initials that are on there, and 

22 then I think it would also be useful if you --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

61 

1 I don't think it would be difficult, easy for 

2 me to say, is just, you know, see to what 

3 extend that list overlaps with the external 

4 monitoring data that you have --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what I was 

6 looking at. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- for the time 

8 period we're interested in, because this might 

9 also -- I don't know if the external 

10 monitoring goes back to prior to '61 that you 

11 have, the records. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe -- I 

13 forget. I believe the external monitoring, 

14 the entirety of it, there is some before '61 

15 and --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think we're on 

17 '61, so if there is significant overlap, I 

18 think that would tell us at least something 

19 about that list. Certainly, if all the people 

20 that got external monitoring from '61 to '70, 

21 if over half of them weren't on the POPSEE 

22 list or, you know, some number, I would say 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

62 

1 that that list, you know, was somehow 

2 selective and didn't really include everybody 

3 involved in doing the work, I would think, or 

4 there may be this issue of other operations 

5 that weren't going on at some other part of 

6 the facility or something, the issue LaVon 

7 raised. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and then, Jim, 

10 could you add to that look into the POPSEE 

11 sketches and see what the difference is or --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got that, 

13 Josie. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll look at that. 

16 MR. DARNELL: I do have one quick 

17 question, Dr. Melius. Looking at the issue 

18 for unassigned workers being there, being in 

19 the facility, we do already know that there 

20 were unassigned workers working in those 

21 buildings. We have information of different 

22 secretaries and other projects having offices 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

63 

1 in those buildings. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I'm just 

3 trying to understand what some of -- where 

4 there -- are maintenance workers and other 

5 people that have filed for claims, are they --

6 you know, what were they doing in those --

7 If we can get more information on 

8 it, and I'll go back and look at the 

9 interviews again, but the ones I've looked 

10 through and the summaries of the meetings, it 

11 was -- I just didn't -- it wasn't very 

12 specific about it, and I'm trying to look for 

13 a little bit more specificity to understand. 

14 Okay. Any other questions or 

15 comments? 

16 MR. KATZ: Jim, this is Ted. Just 

17 two things, just to clarify for the record, 

18 you said that we potentially could deal with 

19 this at a future Work Group meeting, but I 

20 think you meant a full Board teleconference. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I was saying 

22 one is that we would convene -- I think we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

64 

1 would first convene the Work Group again. I 

2 mean, let's see what the schedule is, but 

3 there are options we could -- but I was 

4 talking about --

5 I was thinking initially two 

6 separate meetings, a Work Group, another Work 

7 Group conference call to just update on the 

8 questions that we asked and then -- but also 

9 saying that I didn't think this necessarily 

10 had to be held over until August. If the 

11 schedule permits in terms of getting the 

12 information, it might be something that we 

13 could do in -- I forget when our conference 

14 call is scheduled. 

15 MR. KATZ: Right. Right, no, so 

16 that's just what I was confirming, that latter 

17 point, that potentially we could address this 

18 in a Board teleconference, as opposed to 

19 waiting for the next --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

21 MR. KATZ: You had mentioned Work 

22 Group in that statement. That's why I'm just 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

65 

1 clarifying. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I was actually 

3 thinking it may require both, but I was trying 

4 to get -- at least see if we get -- because 

5 for the other Board Members, our August 

6 meeting is -- we've got lots of work to do 

7 there, so it would help relieve some of that, 

8 also. 

9 MR. KATZ: And the other thing I 

10 just wanted to check on is we do have a slot 

11 for GE Evendale at this upcoming Board meeting 

12 in May. It seems like that might be a good 

13 opportunity during the meeting to engage DOL, 

14 as opposed to, you know, the DOL overview, but 

15 Stu might want to prime Rachel to do some 

16 thinking about the question beforehand so that 

17 she's not sort of caught flat-footed. 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that would -

19 - that's why I -- yes. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I will let 

21 her know. 

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If you can do 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

66 

1 that with some of the specifics about GE, 

2 because I think that when we've asked, you 

3 know, both Pete and now Rachel, you sort of 

4 ask the question out of the blue without the 

5 specifics, they tend to give the standard 

6 answer, and --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we --

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would do the 

9 same if I were them, but it's not always 

10 helpful, and I think you need to under -- they 

11 need to understand some of the specifics to 

12 figure this out. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I'll give her 

14 a heads-up. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: She just gives the 

17 standard answers that all of us bureaucrats 

18 give when we are addressing a new question in 

19 public. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. 

21 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Stu. Okay, 

22 so I think GE Evendale, Stu, is on the second 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

67 


1 day, on Wednesday. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay. If 

4 not, nothing more, I thank everybody for your 

5 time, and --

6 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we'll see you 

8 in St. Louis. 

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 matter was adjourned at 11:06 a.m.) 

11 

12 

13 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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