NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON LINDE CERAMICS

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

FEBRUARY 15, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, Genevieve S. Roessler, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member
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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

TUONA BATCHELOR

ANTOINETTE BONSIGNORE

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

CHRIS CRAWFORD, DCAS

ROB DAVIDSON

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

THOMAS MURPHY

JIM NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

JAMES SPECIALE
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

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

Page

I. Welcome and Roll Call/Introductions 4 

II. SC&A Report 6 

III. Linde Ceramics Worker Representative 41

Letter and/or Comments

IV. WG Discussion and Recommendations 66

V. DCAS TBD Revision/Implementation 

Plans 97 

VI. Adjournment 162
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

4

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

2 (10:02 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Linde 

5 Work Group.

6 Let's begin with roll call. And 

7 since we're speaking about a specific site, 

8 please speak to conflict of interest as well. 

9 And let's begin with Board Members.

10 (Roll call.)

11 Okay. Very good. All right. 

12 There is an agenda for this meeting. It is 

13 posted on the NIOSH website under the Board 

14 section under "Meetings," for anyone who wants 

15 to follow along with that.

16 We also have a report -- two 

17 reports that have been made available, one by 

18 DCAS, giving sort of a written narrative to 

19 the report they gave at the last Board meeting 

20 about the analysis of the maps and worker 

21 statements, and we also have a review --

22 another review from SC&A on the same topic 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 

5

1 both the initiation of -- when the tunnels 

2 were built, that question, and also duration 

3 of work inside -- or occupancy factors I think 

4 it's called inside the tunnels. So we have 

5 those two reports to discuss.

6 And, Gen, it's your agenda. I 

7 think we can start. Let me just remind 

8 everyone on the line to mute your phone except 

9 when you are addressing the group. And if you 

10 don't have a mute button, if you press * and 

11 then 6, that will mute your phone. And then 

12 press * and then 6 again to come off of mute.

13 Gen, it's your agenda.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thanks, Ted. The 

15 agenda shows that we will start with the SC&A 

16 report. I don't have anything on the agenda 

17 for DCAS, to review their report, but I don't 

18 think that is maybe necessary. They will come 

19 in later on. 

20 So, Steve, your report as usual 

21 was very complete and easy to read, and I 

22 appreciate Figure 1 in color. That helps a 
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 lot. So, and I think everyone has that.

2 I would like to make one mention. 

3 I sent around an email this week. I 

4 forwarded one that Josie forwarded that had a 

5 letter in it. We have to be careful not to 

6 mention names if we refer to that letter. I 

7 think that's true, isn't it, Ted?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, Gen.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So, Steve, 

10 it's yours.

11 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Good morning, 

12 everyone. At the last Linde Work Group 

13 meeting, which was January 30, SC&A was asked 

14 to revisit two issues related to the utility 

15 tunnels. The first one was the timeline, 

16 which section of the tunnel was constructed 

17 when. And the second issue was NIOSH's 

18 assumed occupancy factor for workers in the 

19 tunnels, how much time do workers actually 

20 spend in the tunnels.

21 And I say these were 

22 reexaminations because we had previously 
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 looked at them in the past, but we were asked 

2 by the Board to give another closer look at 

3 it, so we did.

4 First one, the utility tunnel 

5 timeline. Just say both of these tunnel 

6 issues came up in the course of the Work Group 

7 looking at two Linde SEC petitions, 00107 and 

8 00154. And they were identified within the 

9 last two years or so, but they were postponed 

10 -- working on them was postponed because they 

11 were thought to be TBD issues and not SEC 

12 issues. So we are looking at them now.

13 As far as the timeline goes, SC&A 

14 had a meeting a few weeks ago together where 

15 we looked at full size drawings, three 

16 different plot plan drawings. We confirmed 

17 with NIOSH that these were the same drawings 

18 that NIOSH was working from and the only 

19 drawings that were available. And this time 

20 we had looked at the full size drawings, G 

21 size, which are quite large. And we went over 

22 the drawings in great detail trying to 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 

8

1 out what the sequence of events were of 

2 constructing these tunnels.

3 We also went over worker 

4 statements related to the tunnel timeline, and 

5 this was also a reexamination because we had 

6 already looked at these worker statements 

7 several times in the past. Some of the 

8 statements were taken by NIOSH. Some of the 

9 statements we had taken and interviewed at the 

10 Niagara Falls meetings in 2010.

11 And some of the statements were 

12 sent in by the workers' representative. 

13 Either they were affidavits or just 

14 statements. We looked at that. And we also 

15 looked at some documentation that we had, some 

16 written reports, a U.S. Army Corps of 

17 Engineers report, and one produced by Shaw 

18 Environmental, which were only a few -- which 

19 were done only a few years ago.

20 And after looking at all of these, 

21 we concluded -- and this is on page -- if you 

22 have my report, this is on page 8 of our 
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 February 10th report. We boxed our 

2 conclusion, and I think I will just read it. 

3 "SC&A concludes from its latest review of the 

4 utility tunnels and the evidence that the 

5 evidence supports the assumption that the only 

6 tunnel section that was in place before 1957 

7 was the 1936 portion, represented by the green 

8 lines in Figure 1." That is the figure that 

9 is in the report that Gen had referred to.

10 "The evidence leading to this 

11 conclusion includes the testimony by one of 

12 the former workers, the construction notes on 

13 the 1957/1961 drawings, the existence of 

14 trestles to supply utilities to Buildings 30 

15 and 31, Praxair's description of the maps as 

16 construction drawings, and a note to the Shaw 

17 Environmental memo."

18 So basically our conclusion is 

19 that the dates of the tunnel construction are 

20 as we represented it in our Figure 1 in this 

21 report in color. That is our conclusion on 

22 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 

10

1 And NIOSH can speak for itself 

2 after I finish, but I believe that this 

3 basically confirms or agrees with NIOSH's 

4 tunnel timeline also. So we don't have any 

5 disagreement with NIOSH on this.

6 As far as the occupancy factors, 

7 that was the second issue. This was harder to 

8 pin down, and our conclusion was not as 

9 certain as with the timeline. For the 

10 occupancy factors, we looked at, again, 

11 workers' statements that we had taken, NIOSH 

12 had taken, and statements that were sent into 

13 us. And this is also a reexamination.

14 And we looked at various reports, 

15 especially U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 

16 reports, that discusses tunnel occupancy 

17 factors. And I should mention what we were 

18 looking at is that NIOSH is assuming in TBD 

19 occupancy factors -- two different sets -- for 

20 workers who had actual large tasks to do in 

21 the tunnels, they are assuming that the 

22 workers were exposed for two months a year, 
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 eight hours a day, and for the remaining 10 

2 months a year only 10 minutes per day. 

3 And the other workers who didn't 

4 have any large tasks in the tunnels, just 

5 assuming 10 minutes per day for the entire 

6 year. The latter is because there is evidence 

7 from the workers that workers used the tunnels 

8 to get from one building to the other somewhat 

9 routinely and may have been passing through. 

10 So NIOSH is assigning them 10 minutes per day 

11 for the entire year.

12 Looking at all of the evidence 

13 that we had available, we concluded -- and 

14 this is on page 11 of our report, and I'll 

15 read it again -- "After reviewing relevant 

16 portions of the Army Corps of Engineers report 

17 and the worker statements, SC&A finds that the 

18 NIOSH tunnel occupancy assumptions appear 

19 reasonable, but their support is far from 

20 conclusive, since they are primarily based on 

21 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report, which 

22 presents information for operations in 2002 
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 but does not discuss historical operations in 

2 the tunnel."

3 So we found that the -- just to 

4 elaborate, I think which is the major 

5 underpinning of NIOSH's assumptions, this U.S. 

6 Army Corps of Engineers report. But they were 

7 reporting on the site's operations in the year 

8 2002, which was undergoing some remediation at 

9 that time. And that doesn't necessarily 

10 reflect the work that was done in earlier 

11 periods of the plant. 

12 That is our -- we don't really 

13 have a strong conclusion one way or the other 

14 on the occupancy factors. As I said, NIOSH's 

15 assumptions sound reasonable, but there is not 

16 that much evidence that would support it. So 

17 that's our conclusion.

18 Then, we also took a look --

19 subsequent to writing this report, we had 

20 received another worker statement that Gen had 

21 mentioned earlier. It's actually three worker 

22 statements that came in one package, and 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 

13

1 found that that statement dated November 15th 

2 does not contradict and it is consistent with 

3 our assumption on the tunnels on the timeline.

4 So that basically concludes our 

5 report.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Thank you, 

7 Steve. We really have two issues to talk 

8 about here, and I am trying to decide -- Ted, 

9 maybe you can advise us how we should address 

10 this. Should we go to DCAS's response or 

11 should we go ahead with the agenda and hear 

12 from the worker representative and the 

13 workers?

14 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, let's --

15 I don't know where you are on the agenda. We 

16 have workers on the agenda, but we are still 

17 up on the SC&A report. So let's hear from 

18 DCAS first, and then certainly we should open 

19 it up for the worker representative, 

20 Antoinette, and for any of the workers who 

21 want to speak as well.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So Chris 
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 or Jim, would you like to respond?

2 DR. NETON: Go ahead, Chris. This 

3 is Jim.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. This is 

5 Chris Crawford, DCAS. Basically, I have only 

6 a couple of comments on Steve's reading of 

7 their report. And in the first conclusion, he 

8 basically -- I will paraphrase here, Steve, 

9 forgive me -- but more or less agrees with the 

10 findings of DCAS that the tunnels were 

11 constructed in stages in 1936, 1957, and 1961.

12 For the second part of -- and I 

13 think the issues should be separated on 

14 occupancy, Steve notes that the 20 percent 

15 occupancy figure, or two months as we put it, 

16 actually, was an Army Corps of Engineers 

17 estimate made very late in the game around the 

18 year 2002.

19 We do have other testimony, 

20 however, Steve and Board Members, that doesn't 

21 contradict this. We have also testimony about 

22 one specific job that took longer than 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 

15

1 months, but we are also -- we are trying to 

2 establish an ordinary pattern of behavior 

3 here. If we have an extended job on a one4 time or two-time basis, that is more of a dose 

5 reconstruction issue.

6 I hope everyone listening 

7 understands what I mean by that, which is that 

8 if a worker tells us that he worked in the 

9 tunnel on a particular job for six months 

10 straight, we are happy to give him dose-based 

11 on that tunnel exposure at that time. But 

12 that isn't the common experience of the trades 

13 workers at Linde over a 30-year period, and we 

14 are trying to establish the baseline.

15 I think that is all I have to say. 

16 Jim, do you have anything?

17 DR. NETON: No, nothing here.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So we need 

19 to deal with both issues, but perhaps the next 

20 thing to do is -- and, again, I agree with 

21 Chris that I think we need to separate them 

22 into the two issues as we do the discussion. 
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 Now, would it be appropriate to 

2 hear from the worker representative? Ted?

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely. I 

4 thought you were inviting them. Antoinette or 

5 --

6 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I'm here, 

7 Ted.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you, 

10 Gen. The first thing I would like to ask is, 

11 from what I understand, there are some new 

12 statements from workers that you -- that the 

13 workers have received that I have not seen.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Antoinette, this is 

15 Josie. They are not new. I just took your 

16 suggestion and went back through all of the 

17 worker statements.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: Oh, okay.

19 MEMBER BEACH: And I found one on 

20 November 15, 2010, not new, I just --

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Oh, okay.

22 MEMBER BEACH: -- wanted to make 
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 sure, because when I read the reports it 

2 didn't appear that they had taken any of those 

3 comments out of that one. I just wanted to 

4 make sure they were out there.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Oh, okay.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Nothing new.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you 

8 for clarifying that, Josie.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Then, I 

11 will just go into some of the issues I would 

12 like to address about the SC&A report.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Antoinette, this 

14 is Gen. Let's keep it in the two categories, 

15 too.

16 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I will do 

17 that.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: I want to make 

19 sure you've got the tunnel drawings that we 

20 had discussed at our last meeting.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right, yes. I 

22 have them and so do Mr. Murphy and Mr. 
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 Speciale, who are on the phone as well.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay, good. 

3 Then, go ahead with the tunnel timeline 

4 discussion.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you, 

6 Gen. In terms of the -- so I will start with 

7 the tunnel construction date issue. I would 

8 like to go back -- before discussing the 

9 specifics of the new SC&A report, I would like 

10 to go back to what SC&A's position was on 

11 October 24th at a Linde Work Group meeting and 

12 what Steve had to say then. And I will just 

13 read from the transcript here. It is a 

14 relatively short statement.

15 "SC&A's position on the tunnels is 

16 that we reviewed everything that NIOSH 

17 supplied, reviewed everything that Antoinette 

18 Bonsignore supplied, various things, and we 

19 really can't -- we think that there is no 

20 definitive answer when the tunnels were built. 

21 So our conclusion is that there really is 

22 insufficient hard evidence to say when 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 

19

1 tunnels were built, and that I guess a 

2 claimant-favorable conservative assumption 

3 would just be assuming the tunnels were there 

4 all the time. There is too much doubt about 

5 when they were actually built.

6 "Mr. Ostrow and SC&A concluded 

7 that because of the degree of doubt and 

8 insufficient hard evidence to say when the 

9 tunnels were built that the claimant-favorable 

10 and conservative assumption would be to assume 

11 that the tunnels existed during the 

12 operational time period and were not built 

13 some time after 1957, as NIOSH proposes."

14 Now I would like to just address 

15 the February 10th SC&A report and try to 

16 ascertain what hard evidence has come to light 

17 to warrant the 180-degree reversal by SC&A 

18 about this issue. And I would like to read 

19 two small sections from that report.

20 First, NIOSH's position on the 

21 tunnel construction date issue at page 5, that 

22 Steve has outlined on page 5 of the report. 
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 "The Linde site has a system of utility 

2 tunnels constructed at different times to 

3 carry steam, electricity, water, telephone 

4 lines, and other utilities from one part of 

5 the plant to another. Documentary evidence 

6 shows that the first tunnel section was built 

7 in 1937 and ran from the powerhouse, Building 

8 8, past the Tonawanda laboratory, Building 14, 

9 also called the Proving laboratory, to 

10 Building 10.

11 "Another section of the tunnel was 

12 constructed in 1957 near Buildings 57, 58, and 

13 31, in the northeastern area of the ceramics 

14 plant, and an extensive addition to the tunnel 

15 system was done in 1961 when the 1937 and 1957 

16 tunnels were linked by new tunnels that ran 

17 between Buildings 30 and 31, then branched 

18 south to Building 8 and west past Buildings 

19 70, 2, and 2A.

20 "The 1957 and 1961 tunnel sections 

21 ran through areas of soil that were 

22 contaminated by radium-bearing ore and were 
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 subject to radon infiltration from this 

2 source."

3 Then, at page 7, SC&A has a 

4 discussion about the 1957 map, which is really 

5 what I would like to focus on because I 

6 believe that that map truly informs the 

7 question of whether the tunnel section near 

8 Buildings 57, 58, and 31 in the northeastern 

9 area of the ceramics plant was constructed in 

10 1957.

11 "This 1957 map is identified as 

12 revised and reissued for bids on January 10, 

13 1957, and revised, redrawn, and released for 

14 construction on March 20, 1957. The 1957 map 

15 clearly shows an existing 57-inch tunnel 

16 section running near Buildings 57, 58, and 31, 

17 and then winding southward between Buildings 

18 30 and 31.

19 "The 1936 map does not show the 

20 buildings in question, namely the ceramics 

21 buildings, and the 1961 map does not 

22 demonstrate anything beyond the extensions 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 

22

1 the existing 57-inch tunnel section that is 

2 running near Buildings 57, 58, and 31, and 

3 then winding southward between Buildings 30 

4 and 31 that is noted in the 1957 map."

5 So I would like to, again, just 

6 take a look at what SC&A has to say about that 

7 1957 drawing. SC&A says, "SC&A then examined 

8 the 1957 drawing which shows only the 

9 southeast corner of the facility. This plan 

10 presents all of the details of the tunnel 

11 section around Buildings 30 and 31. 

12 "It was not readily apparent if 

13 this map represents a drawing of the tunnel 

14 section that was already in place in 1957 or 

15 if it represents construction plans for a 

16 tunnel section that was going to be built, 

17 and, therefore, did not yet exist as of the 

18 date of the drawing, March 20, 1957.

19 "There are, however, some 

20 locations on the drawing that indicate that it 

21 is most likely a construction plan. Appearing 

22 throughout the drawing there are notes 
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 describing existing storm sewer, existing 

2 water lines, existing sanitary sewers, as well 

3 as descriptions and locations of new sanitary 

4 sewer lines, water pipes, et cetera.

5 "On this drawing, any pipes, 

6 lines, or small buildings, such as the smoking 

7 shed, that cross the location of the tunnel 

8 schematic are labeled as 'to be removed,' 

9 which further indicates that as of 1957 this 

10 tunnel had not yet been constructed.

11 "The 1957 drawing confirms the 

12 existence of trestles, notes existing trestles 

13 to the west of Building 31, which SC&A assumes 

14 were used to supply utilities to the buildings 

15 at this part of the facility prior to the 

16 construction of the tunnels.

17 "This section of the SC&A report 

18 seems somewhat contradictory, because first 

19 SC&A states that the 1957 map presents all of 

20 the details of the tunnel section around 

21 Buildings 30 and 31, but then in the very next 

22 sentence SC&A states it was not readily 
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 apparent if this map represents a drawing of 

2 the tunnel section that was already in place 

3 in 1957, or if it represents construction 

4 plans for a tunnel section that was going to 

5 be built, and, therefore, did not exist yet."

6 These two statements contradict 

7 each other. Clearly, this 1957 map does not 

8 in fact present all of the details of the 

9 tunnel section around Buildings 30 and 31. 

10 But if we are to accept the plain meaning of 

11 the notations on the map as the most simple 

12 explanation of their meanings, then sections 

13 of the map that are noted as "proposed" are 

14 proposed, and sections that are noted as "new" 

15 sections are simply new sections. And those 

16 that are noted as "existing" are existing.

17 Moreover, buildings that clearly 

18 existed in 1957, such as Buildings 30 and 31, 

19 are not noted as "existing" Building 30 or 

20 "existing" Building 31, but simply as Building 

21 30 and Building 31. Compare that to Building 

22 58, which is noted as "proposed" Building 58. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

25

1 The 57-inch tunnel that is noted on the 1957 

2 map, that runs near Buildings 57, 58, and 31, 

3 then winds southward between Buildings 30 and 

4 31, is not qualified as proposed or new. It 

5 is just simply listed as a 57-inch tunnel.

6 So if we are to take the simplest 

7 reading of that map, that tunnel existed on 

8 March 20, 1957. 

9 Moreover, there is a specific 

10 notation that is -- I am just -- I am 

11 wondering if everyone has access to this map.

12 MEMBER BEACH: No.

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Not right now.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. All right. 

16 So on the 1957 map, there is a specific 

17 notation next to the smoking shed that SC&A 

18 identifies on the 1957 map. And this notation 

19 reads, "Smoking shed to be removed by others." 

20 Right next to that notation there is another 

21 notation that says, "Over tunnel," indicating 

22 that the shed is positioned over a tunnel, 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 

26

1 that is the existing 57-inch tunnel.

2 Additionally, near Junction Box 2 

3 there is another notation that reads, "Under 

4 tunnel new 10-inch line." And right 

5 underneath that notation it reads, "Existing 

6 six-inch water line," with an arrow that 

7 points directly into the existing 57-inch 

8 tunnel. All of these notations make it 

9 reasonable that that 57-inch tunnel running 

10 between Buildings 30 and 31 existed on March 

11 20, 1957.

12 So now I would like to just point 

13 out three issues in NIOSH's written statement 

14 that I have determined are simply factually 

15 incorrect. First, the NIOSH memo 

16 misidentifies the 1957 map. It says that it 

17 is -- you qualify it as a utility extension 

18 map, but it doesn't say that. The 1961 map 

19 says that. The 1957 map mentions no --

20 doesn't say "utility extension." So that is 

21 incorrect.

22 The second point is that in 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 

27

1 NIOSH memo you say that there is an entrance 

2 into the tunnels in Building 30. There is no 

3 entrance into the tunnels in Building 30, and 

4 the workers who spoke with SC&A at the Niagara 

5 Falls Board meeting actually state that very 

6 clearly. Mr. Murphy, who is on the phone 

7 right now, can confirm this.

8 And if you look at a section of 

9 that --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Antoinette, it is 

11 on page 16 of the Niagara Falls report.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. Actually, I 

13 think the pagination is different on mine. 

14 Sorry, it will just take me a second.

15 Okay. So just for clarity's sake 

16 here, in those interview notes Worker B is Mr. 

17 Murphy. So everybody knows who Worker B is, 

18 because it's important that since a lot of Mr. 

19 Murphy's statements have been scrutinized, I 

20 would like everybody to understand that in 

21 those SC&A interviews from the Niagara Falls 

22 Board meeting in May of 2010 Mr. Murphy is 
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 Worker B.

2 So, and I will just read the 

3 statement from Mr. Murphy from that interview. 

4 He says, "Going back to the north branch" --

5 at this point, he is outlining the tunnels for 

6 Steve and Arjun and he says, "Going back to 

7 the north branch, it went between Buildings 30 

8 and 31. Building 30 had no access into the 

9 tunnel, just conduits and utilities -- steam, 

10 water, and so on. It was just steel conduits 

11 going into the building through concrete. The 

12 steam lines were hung through the ceilings."

13 So this is an important topic 

14 because the idea that there are -- that there 

15 was an entrance into the tunnels in Building 

16 30 is simply not correct. In fact, the only 

17 way the tunnels were -- the only buildings 

18 that had access to the tunnels was in Building 

19 14, Building 2, Building 10, and Building 8. 

20 That's it, not Building 30.

21 The last point from the NIOSH 

22 statement that I will address later deals with 
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 an occupancy issue, and so I will talk about 

2 that when I get to the occupancy section.

3 So I would advise everybody in the 

4 Work Group to take a look at the 1957 map 

5 again and to note that that tunnel that NIOSH 

6 and SC&A are saying didn't exist is actually 

7 there. It's right there on the map. It 

8 doesn't say it's proposed. It doesn't say 

9 it's new. It's just there. And the notes by 

10 Junction Box 2 and the notes next to the shed 

11 that is to be removed support that contention.

12 Now, I would like to review SC&A 

13 and NIOSH's assessment of the workers' 

14 testimony with respect to the tunnel 

15 construction date issue, specifically Worker 

16 Number 1, who again is Mr. Murphy who is with 

17 us today.

18 So in the SC&A report, Mr. Murphy 

19 is Worker Number 1. For the Work Group, and 

20 also Mr. Speciale, just going back to the SC&A 

21 report from May of 2010, he is listed as 

22 Worker Number 4, just for your reference. 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 

30

1 sorry, he is listed as Worker D. And in this 

2 SC&A report, the current SC&A report, he is 

3 listed as Worker Number 4.

4 Okay. So in addition to the oral 

5 statements today that Mr. Murphy is going to 

6 make, we will be providing some written 

7 statements within the next week or so. The 

8 workers are still going over the NIOSH 

9 statement and the SC&A report. It is taking 

10 longer than we anticipated, so those will be 

11 -- those are forthcoming.

12 So getting back to the SC&A 

13 report, the current SC&A report, regarding the 

14 workers' testimony, it relies heavily on 

15 inferences and assumptions regarding not only 

16 the maps but their reading of the statements 

17 made by Mr. Murphy in particular.

18 What I fail to understand is why 

19 NIOSH and SC&A chose to guess and psychically 

20 infer what Mr. Murphy meant instead of simply 

21 asking him what he meant. There are a number 

22 of times where you are guessing or inferring 
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 what he means by certain statements and taking 

2 them out of context, and I think it would have 

3 been a better way to handle that, instead of 

4 guessing, would have been to simply ask him.

5 So I don't understand why no one 

6 made any attempt to contact Mr. Murphy for 

7 clarification about some of the issues in his 

8 statements. And I say this because Mr. 

9 Murphy's statements have been heavily 

10 scrutinized and criticized as being 

11 inconsistent and not fulfilling NIOSH's 

12 evidentiary standards.

13 However, what this Work Group must 

14 keep in mind is that it has never been clear 

15 to these workers, or to me, what that 

16 evidentiary standard is. Instead, the only 

17 read of that standard is NIOSH's conclusion in 

18 their written statement provided to the Work 

19 Group and the workers and to me on February 

20 7th.

21 In that statement, NIOSH refers to 

22 another statement from a Linde supervisor, 
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 which in the current SC&A report is Worker 

2 Number 6. And that Linde supervisor was 

3 interviewed by ORAU in March of 2010, and the 

4 statement is a summary statement that ORAU 

5 provided after interviewing the supervisor by 

6 phone.

7 ORAU conducted a number of 

8 interviews with Linde workers in March 2010, 

9 including Mr. Murphy. And after I submitted a 

10 FOIA request for all of the summaries from 

11 those interviews, Mr. Murphy had an 

12 opportunity to review his summary statement 

13 that was put together by ORAU, and he 

14 discovered that he had been repeatedly and 

15 materially misrepresented.

16 So after discussing this problem 

17 with Mr. Hinnefeld and Dr. Wade, a decision 

18 was made to have SC&A reinterview Mr. Murphy 

19 at the Niagara Falls Board meeting, along with 

20 a number of other Linde workers, which 

21 included Mr. Speciale, who is also on the 

22 phone.
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 Since ORAU failed to verify any of 

2 these interview summaries with any of the 

3 workers that they interviewed in March 2010, 

4 Mr. Murphy and the other workers who were 

5 interviewed by SC&A tried to clarify some of 

6 the statements that they felt had been 

7 misrepresented by ORAU, though currently NIOSH 

8 is relying on this Linde supervisor, who again 

9 is identified in the current SC&A report as 

10 Worker Number 6, as their primary worker 

11 statement to refute Mr. Murphy's account of 

12 the ongoing issue of when these tunnels were 

13 constructed.

14 Mr. Murphy and Mr. Speciale, who 

15 -- Mr. Murphy started working at Linde in 

16 1953, and Mr. Speciale started working at 

17 Linde in 1951 -- are disputing a number of the 

18 statements in the Linde supervisor's ORAU 

19 summary. 

20 Particularly, in that ORAU summary 

21 this Linde supervisor says that there were 

22 electrical generators in the tunnels. 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 

34

1 isn't true. There were no electrical 

2 generators in the tunnels. 

3 So, and then there is also this 

4 disparity between how much time he spent in 

5 the tunnels. At one point he says he lived in 

6 the tunnels, but then at another point he says 

7 he only spent about two percent of his week in 

8 the tunnels.

9 Again, there is just an 

10 inconsistency there, and so I would think that 

11 in the best interest of having clarity here 

12 that that worker should be reinterviewed to 

13 make sure that what is being interpreted from 

14 his statements in that ORAU summary are 

15 correct, specifically whether the statement 

16 about the 1957 tunnels are referring to the 

17 tunnels near Buildings 30 and 31, or whether 

18 he is talking about some other tunnels. To 

19 me, that statement is also unclear.

20 Okay. So at the last Linde Work 

21 Group meeting on January 30th, I requested 

22 that since it is official policy to have 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 

35

1 interview summaries verified by the 

2 interviewed worker prior to their use, that 

3 his statement be verified before being used by 

4 NIOSH, since now it is being used as the 

5 primary statement to refute Mr. Murphy's many 

6 affidavits and interviews. NIOSH refused to 

7 do so, indicating that it was not policy to 

8 verify worker statements prior to use. 

9 So this to me is an issue that 

10 really should be resolved, and if we are truly 

11 interested in making sure that we are not 

12 guessing what Worker Number 6 of this Linde 

13 supervisor is saying in that statement.

14 Okay. Then, I would also like to 

15 mention that -- in the SC&A report that Steve 

16 refers to the Shaw Environmental report from 

17 2005. That report is completely unsourced. 

18 There are no references in it. There is no 

19 indication of where the information about 

20 tunnels and dates or anything is coming from. 

21 The only thing that is in that report beyond 

22 basic statements that don't have any 
NEAL 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 references are two maps from 2004.

2 So I fail to understand how you 

3 can take a document that is completely 

4 unsourced, completely devoid of any 

5 references, and say that that provides any 

6 kind of hard evidence to support the theory 

7 about the tunnel construction dates.

8 Finally, I would like to address 

9 this issue about the diversion of effluents 

10 that happened during the early 1940s. And I 

11 know that SC&A and NIOSH have reviewed these 

12 memos from 1945 and 1948. But there is one 

13 memo from 1948 that has a table in it, and I 

14 know that SC&A has reviewed this as well.

15 And there is a statement in there 

16 about the log of Plant 1's contamination of 

17 surface water. The plant -- there were Plant 

18 1 wells -- in Plant 1 were the wells near 

19 Building 8, and then there were ceramics wells 

20 and there were injection wells near the 

21 ceramics buildings. 

22 So there is a statement in here 
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 that I think is very relevant, and I will just 

2 read it. Surface water seeping into the pipe 

3 tunnel between the powerhouse, which is 

4 Building 8, and the factory buildings was 

5 noted to have a corrosive effect on conduit 

6 boxes and cables. 

7 Now, at our last Work Group 

8 meeting, we were discussing these trestles, 

9 and I asked NIOSH whether they believed that 

10 the trestles were used to divert the effluents 

11 from the ceramics wells to the Plant 1 wells 

12 near Building 8, and they said they believed 

13 that that was correct.

14 But this memo from 1948 

15 contradicts that theory. And on the 1957 map 

16 there are many notations that note pipe 

17 tunnels, and there is one pipe tunnel in 

18 particular that leads right into the 57-inch 

19 tunnel.

20 And these pipe tunnels are clearly 

21 not trestles, they are not overhead, they are 

22 underground. And that memo also substantiates 
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 are underground, because they are 

2 talking about the corrosive effects on the 

3 conduit boxes and the cables.

4 So, again, the theory that 

5 trestles were used to divert the effluents 

6 from the ceramics wells near Building 30 to 

7 the wells near Building 8 simply -- there is 

8 no evidence for that, absolutely none.

9 So I would hope that the Work 

10 Group would take another look at those memos, 

11 because I think that's a really relevant point 

12 that creates doubt about NIOSH's theory 

13 regarding the use of trestles for the 

14 diversion of the effluents.

15 Okay. So that was really the last 

16 issue that I wanted to address about the 

17 tunnel construction date issue. The other 

18 issue that I would like to address now is the 

19 tunnel occupancy issue.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Antoinette, I 

21 think we should take the two issues 

22 separately.
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 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. That's 

2 fine.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think we should 

4 stop here and talk about the tunnel timeline. 

5 As you were talking, I took some notes, and I 

6 will see if others agree with me as to what 

7 your main issues are. It seemed that, number 

8 one, you want SC&A to respond and tell us why 

9 they did the 180-degree change between their 

10 previous document on October 24th and the new 

11 one that just came out. That's one item.

12 You then asked us all to look 

13 again at the 1957 map. I had mine up on the 

14 computer, but the computer keeps shutting off 

15 and I have to keep signing on again. I 

16 haven't been able to do that. So I think that 

17 is something that perhaps the people who have 

18 the map in front of them -- and I would assume 

19 DCAS does and that SC&A probably also does --

20 can respond to that.

21 The third thing that you -- major 

22 thing I think you brought up that we have 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 

40

1 think about is that you are suggesting -- or 

2 you have said that we should expect more 

3 worker statements. We don't have all of them 

4 yet. You are suggesting more statements, that 

5 we look at them, and memos, and also I think 

6 --

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- you suggested 

9 perhaps reinterviewing some workers.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. I think 

11 it's really important that -- in particular 

12 that Mr. Murphy have an opportunity to respond 

13 to all of the criticism about his statements, 

14 particularly since there were -- both SC&A and 

15 NIOSH are guessing about what he means in 

16 certain parts of certain statements. Instead 

17 of guessing and then building a report based 

18 on your guesses, just ask the man --

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So I think 

20 --

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- what he meant.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- he is 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 

41

1 line.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Perhaps it would 

4 be --

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: He can respond 

6 now, if he'd like. That would be fine with 

7 me. I don't know how you want to handle this, 

8 then.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Let's keep it to 

10 the tunnel timeline discussion.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Tom, is 

12 your phone on mute?

13 MR. MURPHY: Yes, I am right here.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. So, Tom, 

15 if you could just address this issue about how 

16 your statements have been taken out of 

17 context, and specifically about the existence 

18 of the tunnel that NIOSH is saying was not 

19 there in 1957.

20 MR. MURPHY: Well, to go back to 

21 when I was first hired at Linde, I was hired 

22 as a “Trade’s Helper” in the Maintenance 
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 Department. And as a traders helper you help 

2 various craftsmen, like millwrights, 

3 pipefitters, electricians, carpenters, et 

4 cetera. And whenever there was a job that 

5 comes up in the tunnel, which existed from 

6 Junction Box 8 to Junction Box 6, guess who 

7 got the dirty work?

8 I spent some time in the tunnel in 

9 that timeframe, and that -- as far as I am 

10 going to tell you right now, that tunnel was 

11 in existence from Junction Box 8 to Junction 

12 Box 6. And that went right to 31 and 30. I 

13 spent quite a bit of time down there with 

14 different craftsmen.

15 That tunnel was in existence in 

16 1953, '54, '55, '56, to the best of my 

17 knowledge. I spent time in it. I wasn't --

18 it isn't hearsay. I worked in that tunnel at 

19 that timeframe. Okay?

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Mr. Murphy, this 

21 is Gen. I'm only looking at the map that we 

22 have here, and I see that between Buildings 31 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

43

1 and 30 there are actually two tunnel systems, 

2 one that apparently was in existence in '57 

3 and one built in '61. So which one are you 

4 referring to?

5 MR. MURPHY: I am talking about 

6 the one that you've got in red. This is 1961. 

7 And I can't see how that tunnel wasn't there, 

8 and they built the blue tunnel in 1957. 

9 Somebody got this all screwed up. Believe me.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: And, Gen, I would 

11 just like to clarify, Tom and I went over the 

12 very large 1957 map, and we went through that 

13 very carefully. And the tunnel that I was 

14 talking about that runs between Building 30 

15 and 31 up to Junction Box 2, he is saying that 

16 that tunnel was there in 1953 when he started 

17 working there. Just to be clear.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, this is Josie. 

20 That's why I brought up that 19 -- or the 

21 2010 November 15th statements, because very 

22 clearly Mr. Murphy says that that tunnel 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 

44

1 there, and that was a reason why I wanted that 

2 looked at.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Well, 

4 maybe later we can have SC&A and DCAS respond 

5 on this and help -- at least help me out with 

6 the two tunnel lines that appear at different 

7 times, for example, on Steve's map between 

8 Building 31 and 30. But let's let Mr. Murphy 

9 continue. I will ask my questions later.

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: Just to interject 

11 here, Tom, if you could just talk about the 

12 Building 30 entrance and how -- you said in 

13 May 2010 when you spoke with SC&A that there 

14 was no entrance to the tunnels in Building 30.

15 MR. MURPHY: That's correct. The 

16 only way the utilities got into the building 

17 was through the concrete wall, through conduit 

18 steam lines, et cetera. There was no opening. 

19 It was just -- the only openings were for the 

20 pipes and conduit to go into.

21 There was a ladder south of -- an 

22 access, but that didn't go into the building. 
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 It was just the access to the tunnel, and 

2 that was just south of Junction Box -- let's 

3 see, Junction Box 2. But anyway, there was no 

4 access to Building 30. There was none to 31 

5 either. Just the conduit and steam lines or 

6 condensate lines and electrical conduit boxes 

7 or conduit going into the building to the 

8 concrete wall.

9 So there is another statement 

10 somebody made that I mentioned -- that I said 

11 something to the effect that the tunnel had to 

12 be there in order for these two buildings to 

13 get power. And somebody said that -- he 

14 suggested that I didn't actually see it, but I 

15 did see it. I was there. I knew it was 

16 there. I knew the tunnel was there. So that 

17 was another one of the statements somebody 

18 took out of context.

19 Okay. That's it. Anything else?

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you, Tom. 

21 MR. MURPHY: Do you want me to get 

22 into the -- about the occupancy?
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 CHAIR ROESSLER: Let's wait with 

2 that. I'm wondering, Antoinette, did you have 

3 another worker who wanted to make a statement?

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: No, not at this 

5 time. As I said earlier, Tom and Mr. Speciale 

6 are still preparing their written statements, 

7 because they are still going over the SC&A 

8 report. And they want to be very certain 

9 about what they write down, so no one takes 

10 anything out of context, there is no 

11 inferences that can be made. 

12 They want to be very clear, and 

13 they also feel that it would be in everybody's 

14 best interests if they had an opportunity to 

15 be reinterviewed about these very specific 

16 questions, because there are some really 

17 glaring errors in both the SC&A report and 

18 NIOSH's statement. 

19 And the suggestion that only 

20 Worker Number 6, this Linde supervisor, is the 

21 only credible worker, and that all of the 

22 information that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Speciale 
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 have provided over the years is no longer 

2 relevant, because this one worker made one 

3 statement that was never verified, I am just 

4 astounded at that conclusion.

5 Mr. Murphy and Mr. Speciale and 

6 the other workers that met with SC&A at the 

7 Niagara Falls Board meeting provided a wealth 

8 of information that has informed NIOSH's 

9 understanding of these tunnels. NIOSH didn't 

10 even think that these tunnels were relevant 

11 back in 2009.

12 You know, I was -- we were laughed 

13 off in saying -- they told us, you know, no 

14 one ever worked in these tunnels. You don't 

15 know what you're talking about. So, you know, 

16 these guys have put in a lot of time, provided 

17 a lot of statements, and to dismiss them out 

18 of hand because you find one worker whose 

19 statement has never been verified to be the 

20 most credible -- I mean, the only conclusion I 

21 can come to is that that worker, that Worker 

22 Number 6, agrees with NIOSH, or you can 
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 interpret his statements to agree with NIOSH, 

2 and these gentlemen don't agree with NIOSH. 

3 That to me is not an evidentiary 

4 standard. That is an agenda. That's cherry 

5 picking, and you can't do that, not in this 

6 compensation program you can't.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So then I 

8 think we should -- I think the next thing I 

9 would like to hear is a response from SC&A 

10 with regard to why they made the change, why 

11 the conclusion changed.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, can I ask a 

13 question -- this is Josie -- before SC&A 

14 responds?

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Sure.

16 MEMBER BEACH: The memos that 

17 Antoinette has mentioned, I know that NIOSH 

18 has reviewed those. I'm wondering -- I 

19 reviewed them again last night. Has SC&A 

20 reviewed those memos that she referred to?

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: I believe so. 

22 Steve?
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 DR. OSTROW: Excuse me. I didn't 

2 quite get that. Which memos?

3 MEMBER BEACH: The memos that 

4 Antoinette had sent out. There was a whole 

5 packet of stuff last year, and these referred 

6 to the tunnels and the effluents going into 

7 the tunnels. And correct me if I'm wrong, 

8 Antoinette, but I don't --

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: No, no, you're 

10 right. I actually sent them to the Work Group 

11 in December of 2010.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I just --

13 SC&A, have you had a chance to look at those? 

14 I don't remember.

15 DR. OSTROW: I believe we looked 

16 at all of the memos and statements that we 

17 have gotten.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. But, 

20 Josie, you know, correct me if I'm misstating 

21 what you are getting at, but there was a 

22 specific memo from 1947 where there is a table 
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 talking about the Plant 1 injection wells --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- and the 

4 ceramics wells. And there's a statement from 

5 -- on that table that is dated January 15, 

6 1946.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: And I'll read it 

9 again, "Surface water seeping into the pipe 

10 tunnel between the powerhouse and factory 

11 buildings is noted to have a corrosive effect 

12 on conduit boxes and cables."

13 MEMBER BEACH: Correct. And when 

14 I looked at that last night, not having the 

15 map in front of me and knowing which the 

16 factory buildings were, I just wanted to make 

17 sure SC&A had also reviewed that and had given 

18 us a report on it. 

19 And I just didn't recall that, 

20 Gen. That's why I bring it up. And since it 

21 was mentioned again --

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So perhaps 
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 Steve can respond to that, along with his 

2 other response.

3 DR. OSTROW: Well, we looked at 

4 that report, not in our current reevaluation, 

5 but we had looked at it earlier. And I would 

6 have to reread it to see how relevant it is 

7 right now. I mean, you got me a little bit on 

8 this.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. And I 

10 apologize for that. But I was looking for 

11 something where you might have responded to 

12 that, because I know that it has been brought 

13 up several times in the past. And I couldn't 

14 find anything in going through all my Linde 

15 files of where SC&A may have responded to that 

16 memo.

17 DR. OSTROW: I can't recall if we 

18 did respond to it particularly. I know we 

19 read it, but I don't know if we responded to 

20 it.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. That was my 

22 question. Thank 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 

52

1 DR. OSTROW: At this time, I 

2 really can't respond too much to Antoinette, 

3 because it was a very large amount of 

4 information she was presenting. And not 

5 having a full size tunnel map in front of me, 

6 I can't follow it all.

7 But I can respond somewhat in 

8 general to her characterization that we did a 

9 180-degree turn between our latest report and 

10 the one before that. She had read quotations 

11 from both reports.

12 Our latest report, the February 

13 report on the 1957 drawings, I say it was not 

14 readily apparent if this map represents a 

15 drawing of the tunnel section that was already 

16 in place in 1957, or if it represents 

17 construction plans for a tunnel section that 

18 was going to be built, and, therefore, did not 

19 yet exist as of the date of the drawing.

20 So I said looking at the drawing 

21 it is not readily apparent. It is not clear. 

22 Then, I go on to say, "There are, however, 
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 some notations on the drawings that indicate 

2 that it is most likely a construction plan." 

3 And I go on to why I think that.

4 So I don't think that is really a 

5 contradiction. It is saying that it is not 

6 totally clear on the drawings that they --

7 whether the tunnel was already in place, but 

8 evidence on the drawing indicates that it 

9 probably was in place.

10 As far as our earlier report where 

11 I was left -- we were left certain about the 

12 drawings, well, I'm thinking that's why we did 

13 the reexamination. We looked in great detail 

14 at the three full size drawings and went over 

15 the different documentation. And our 

16 conclusion now is I think stronger than it was 

17 in our report last year. So that was like an 

18 evolution of our view. It's not a 180-degree 

19 change.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: If I could just 

21 briefly respond to what Steve just said. 

22 Steve, what I was saying about 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 

54

1 contradiction was that when you were talking 

2 about that 1957 drawing, first you said that 

3 it represents all of the details of the tunnel 

4 section around Building 30 and 31. In the 

5 very next sentence you say, "It is not readily 

6 apparent if it represents a drawing of the 

7 tunnel section."

8 So I just -- I was just confused 

9 by, does it represent everything, or doesn't 

10 it? I mean, clearly you're saying that it 

11 doesn't. That was my point about my confusion 

12 about that.

13 DR. OSTROW: Oh, okay. So maybe I 

14 could have written it a little bit clearer. 

15 What we meant by that is that it shows lots of 

16 details, but it is not readily apparent by 

17 reading the drawing whether each detail was 

18 already in place or to be constructed. Some 

19 things existed and some things were planned, 

20 and it is not always clear which existed and 

21 what was planned.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: I agree with 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 

55

1 There is a lot of -- I mean, there is a lot 

2 of ambiguity around here about all of this 

3 stuff. But what I was trying to say is that 

4 on that 1957 map, there are things that say 

5 proposed, there are things that say new, there 

6 are things that say existing. 

7 And with respect to the 1957 

8 tunnel that runs between -- that 57-inch 

9 tunnel that runs between Building 30 and 31, 

10 it doesn't say proposed, doesn't say new, it 

11 just says tunnel. And there are a number of 

12 markings around Junction Box 2 and around that 

13 shed that just say tunnel, not proposed, not 

14 new, just tunnel. 

15 So, and there are many parts of 

16 the map that -- for things that existed there, 

17 that we know existed there, like certain 

18 buildings, that don't say existing building, 

19 they just say building. 

20 So my point was, is that I think 

21 there needs to be a much more careful look at 

22 that tunnel section, because that is what 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 

56

1 are really talking about here. We are talking 

2 about that tunnel section, and that map, to 

3 me, as I see it, as I have read it, as Mr. 

4 Murphy has read it, as Mr. Speciale has read 

5 it, that tunnel was there. That is what I am 

6 trying to point out.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. I think 

8 maybe we should see if DCAS has a response to 

9 all of this, and then I have a question of 

10 DCAS with regard to the whole situation.

11 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen, this is Chris 

12 Crawford, DCAS. I would like to respond. I 

13 would like to review the ensemble of the 

14 evidence for the Working Group. It isn't 

15 based on any one piece, in other words, but an 

16 attempted weighting of evidence to find the 

17 truth of the matter.

18 I know Ms. Bonsignore dismisses 

19 the Shaw Environmental letter, but let's look 

20 at it from another standpoint. Shaw 

21 Environmental is a civil engineering firm. It 

22 is their business to interpret construction 
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 drawings, to make such drawings. They were 

2 hired to remediate the existing tunnels at the 

3 now Praxair site.

4 They also have no connection to 

5 EEOICPA. So when they make a statement saying 

6 that the 97-inch tunnel between Junction Boxes 

7 6 and 7 and the 80-inch tunnel between 7 and 9 

8 were constructed in 1961, that is not the same 

9 as someone off the street making such a 

10 statement.

11 That is a professional statement. 

12 They had to work with real data, in other 

13 words, in order to do their job. That's why I 

14 stress that evidence, and of course it is 

15 quite inconvenient for Ms. Bonsignore.

16 Then, if we go to worker 

17 statements, I looked at all of the worker 

18 statements that were available that mentioned 

19 the tunnels in any way. There are two workers 

20 that stand out -- Mr. Murphy, who was 

21 interviewed at least twice -- and I have other 

22 material that Ms. Bonsignore sent us from him 
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 -- but also about eight other workers.

2 In fact, no other worker but Mr. 

3 Murphy says anything to contradict the idea 

4 that the tunnels weren't built in '57 and '61, 

5 as stated. All of the other workers cite 

6 number of days they worked in the tunnels. 

7 Some of them said, there were tunnels? I 

8 never heard of tunnels.

9 Other workers stated that -- I'll 

10 give you an example. I started work at Linde 

11 in '51, and my first experience was using the 

12 tunnel entrance in Building 14. The tunnel 

13 supplied utilities to the lab, Buildings 8, 9, 

14 and 10, and was used to get to the cafeteria 

15 and main office.

16 Another worker identified as 3, I 

17 started working at Linde in 1953, and I used 

18 these tunnels to travel from the powerhouse 

19 Building 8 to get to the lab buildings and the 

20 parking lot.

21 These do not contradict the idea 

22 that the 1936 tunnels are the ones being 
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 referred to. Also, in the weighting of worker 

2 testimony, Worker 6, who was the 

3 superintendent of plant maintenance that Ms. 

4 Bonsignore refers to and I referred to in the 

5 last meeting, is not, again, just any 

6 individual. 

7 This is an individual whose job it 

8 is to understand the construction of the site 

9 because he has to maintain it. That is, he 

10 would have access to the original construction 

11 drawings for all of the buildings, all of the 

12 utility tunnels, and that sort of thing.

13 So his testimony has weight that 

14 other testimony may not have. And he was also 

15 specific. He didn't say, oh, everything 

16 existed when I came to work. He said, there 

17 were three primary tunnels. Then, he 

18 described each of the primary tunnels, and 

19 then he said only one of them was built prior 

20 to '53, and that was the east-west tunnel from 

21 the powerhouse, across the length of the site, 

22 to the office area and Buildings 1, 2, and 10.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

60

1 He goes on, and then he says the 

2 north-south tunnel also went the whole length 

3 of the site to Buildings 30, 31, and 57 on the 

4 northeast border of the site. And there was a 

5 branch off of this tunnel that went to the 

6 west to Building 70.

7 These tunnels were built after 

8 1956. So the specificity and the man's 

9 presumably specialized knowledge cause me to 

10 weight the testimony rather heavily. 

11 Then, if we go on to the drawings, 

12 I can understand why Ms. Bonsignore does not 

13 want to start with the '61 drawing, because I 

14 find it -- and I think the Work Group Members 

15 did look it over during the last meeting --

16 completely definitive. There is no ambiguity 

17 in this drawing.

18 Everything on the drawing is 

19 related to the tunnel that we see on the 

20 drawing, and it says new Junction Box Number 

21 9, new Junction Box Number 6, new Junction Box 

22 Number 7. It also says existing Junction Box 
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 Number 2. Now, this is in the 1961 drawing.

2 We also have a very good 

3 description of the trestles in this drawing, 

4 and the key here -- and I would like to quote 

5 from that. This was a drawing that was meant 

6 to be used by a contractor who was bidding on 

7 the job. So these were instructions to the 

8 contractor.

9 Number 5, Trestle. The portion of 

10 the trestle from Buildings 30 and 31 south of 

11 the dog leg between Tracks 3 and 1 shall be 

12 maintained until the tunnel is in service at 

13 Junction Box Number 6 east of Building 31, 

14 west of Building 30. And where the trestle 

15 crosses the tunnel running west from Junction 

16 Box Number 7, the lines on the trestle shall 

17 have to be supported during the construction 

18 period.

19 I think that is pretty good 

20 evidence the trestle was used to bring lines 

21 -- it doesn't say what, but we can probably 

22 assume electrical, steam, that sort of thing 
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 -- from the powerhouse up to Buildings 30 and 

2 31, until the 1961 tunnel was built.

3 Now, this is only proof for that 

4 section of tunnel, but I think it's very, very 

5 good proof. Also, it invalidates the 

6 testimony of Mr. Murphy for that section of 

7 the tunnel. And Mr. Murphy can reply to me in 

8 a moment on that.

9 But it specifically mentions the 

10 junction boxes that he said were in place --

11 6, 7, and 8 for instance -- and in this 

12 drawing they are all introduced as new.

13 Now, the '57 drawing is not as 

14 well detailed. It is also -- it is noted that 

15 it was revised, redrawn and relieved for 

16 construction, on March 20, 1957. It has far 

17 fewer notes on it, unfortunately.

18 However, it is the custom of 

19 engineering drawings -- by the way, I have a 

20 master's in surveying and photogrammetry, and 

21 I am quite familiar with mechanical drawing 

22 and maps. 
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 To center the map as much as you 

2 can on the object of interest, the precise 

3 center of the 1957 drawing is right over the 

4 tunnel that runs between Buildings 30 and 31 

5 up to Junction Box Number 1. It is true that 

6 these junction boxes are not labeled new.

7 However, there is some evidence 

8 that we should consider with this drawing 

9 besides the Shaw Environmental evidence and 

10 the superintendent of plant maintenance 

11 evidence. We see that two of the buildings on 

12 the map are only proposed. Ms. Bonsignore 

13 noted that. That was Building 57 and Building 

14 58.

15 I note that Building 57 has a 42-

16 inch tunnel from Junction Wall Number 5 in 

17 place. They built that tunnel before the 

18 building ever went up. Now, how prescient was 

19 Linde here? If this '57 drawing showed that 

20 that Building 57 wasn't in place yet, would 

21 they have built that tunnel in '46, in '50, to 

22 a building that doesn't exist? It's unlikely.
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 And again I note that where lines 

2 cross the tunnel there tend to be the 

3 notations, the line to be abandoned, line to 

4 be rerouted. There is a note -- one of the 

5 few notes on the drawings -- that says, 

6 contractor shall connect all active, existing 

7 lines encountered to respective new lines as 

8 required.

9 Now, why would you encounter a 

10 line? Well, if you were digging extensively 

11 through the site, then you could expect to 

12 encounter lines, and the instruction to the 

13 contractor was to reroute them. Again, to me, 

14 this is evidence that it was a tunnel that was 

15 being constructed.

16 All of the other details on the 

17 map are very stylistically empty. In other 

18 words, the buildings are just blanks, but 

19 there is infinite detail around the tunnel, 

20 more evidence I think that this represents a 

21 tunnel drawing. Plus, Praxair thought it was 

22 a tunnel drawing, and Shaw Environmental 
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 thinks it's a tunnel drawing.

2 So I think I will stand on that. 

3 I will comment briefly -- I don't think it is 

4 terribly relevant right now -- but on Ms. 

5 Bonsignore's observation from the '45/'46 era 

6 that caustic or corrosive seepage was causing 

7 corrosion problems in the tunnel near 

8 Building 8. That is quite possible.

9 The documentary evidence says it 

10 is sure. My point is: what does it mean? 

11 And this is a chemical plant. The fact that 

12 there might be some spillage and corrosive 

13 liquids around and some of it would seep into 

14 the tunnel and cause problems is certainly 

15 quite possible. 

16 However, drawing a conclusion from 

17 that that, therefore, there was an effluent 

18 line that went from Building 31 down to 

19 Building 8, and it must have gone through a 

20 tunnel, or if it didn't go through the tunnel 

21 it must have gone through the trestle -- by 

22 the way, it is not DCAS's position that any 
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 effluent line must have gone over the trestle, 

2 but it couldn't have gone through a tunnel 

3 that wasn't built. We will say that much.

4 Thanks. I think that is all we 

5 need to go with -- I need to say on that area.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Thank you, 

7 Chris.

8 I would like to stop for just a 

9 moment to think about a procedural question 

10 here, or how do we go forward? I know we 

11 haven't discussed occupancy yet, but on this 

12 particular issue it seems that the Work Group 

13 has two choices. 

14 We can either make a 

15 recommendation now -- and I guess that is 

16 really why we are meeting is that the Work 

17 Group comes up with a recommendation as to 

18 what we do -- or we can say -- and we base 

19 that on weight of evidence. Or we can say, 

20 well, we need for -- we need more time, we 

21 need further discussion, we need to look at 

22 maps more, we need to keep reevaluating 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 

67

1 And as I think about the second 

2 option of prolonging this, I think about the 

3 impact of doing it, and I'm wondering -- and 

4 I'm just going to toss this out for discussion 

5 here -- I'm wondering if that is the 

6 responsible thing to do, not only on this 

7 issue but the next one.

8 We have already determined SEC 

9 status on the different periods of time for 

10 Linde. We have taken care of, in my view, the 

11 really bulk of the issues, the -- I assume the 

12 large number of workers. And I'm wondering, 

13 the two impacts of continuing this is that 

14 there is a fiscal responsibility. We would 

15 incur a lot more expense.

16 The other one would be with regard 

17 to affected workers. If we keep delaying 

18 this, then dose reconstruction can't be done, 

19 and so these workers are still sitting out 

20 there waiting. So I just wanted to throw that 

21 out to see what Work Group Members think about 

22 this, which way should we go, and see what 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 

68

1 think, what Ted thinks, and maybe some input 

2 from Jenny also as to what the procedure 

3 should be.

4 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. The 

5 only thing I would like to say is I think that 

6 -- I know Antoinette and the workers have 

7 asked repeatedly for interviews, and I would 

8 like to recommend that NIOSH and SC&A do 

9 worker interviews. I don't think that would 

10 take very much time, and it has been asked 

11 many times. So I think that that would be one 

12 of my recommendations.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Jim, do 

14 you have any --

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: In relationship to 

16 interviewing workers, I think that that could 

17 add a lot of additional information. I think 

18 we do have objective data that I feel 

19 pinpoints when the tunnels were constructed. 

20 But it is helpful to do what -- what we do is 

21 focus group interviews. 

22 We identify workers who would 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 

69

1 been working at the facility during the time 

2 frame under consideration, and we put a list 

3 together, and then those workers are randomly 

4 chosen. They are not selected. They are 

5 randomly chosen. They ask to volunteer to 

6 come into a focus group that is run 

7 independently. 

8 And with those types of focus 

9 groups, we put up drawings, construction 

10 drawings, and timelines, as to when plants are 

11 constructed and what changes were made over 

12 time. And we get a focus group consensus, but 

13 it is done very independently, in an unbiased 

14 manner from either side through a random 

15 selected mechanism.

16 I don't think we have done that in 

17 this -- with this in the past. But in this 

18 circumstance, if we are going to do that, that 

19 would be the way to approach it.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. We don't 

21 have Mike on the phone. Ted, do you have any 

22 input?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

70

1 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. I was just 

2 taking myself off mute. No. I mean, this is 

3 -- I mean, this is really a Work Group 

4 judgment. So I don't have any input as to --

5 it is really up to you folks to decide what 

6 your course should be.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: If we did do more 

8 interviews, is that possible, if it were done 

9 in the way that Dr. Lockey recommends?

10 MR. KATZ: Are you asking me that, 

11 Gen?

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, anybody. 

13 Antoinette or --

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: I will admit, Dr. 

15 Lockey, I was a little confused as to what 

16 exactly you were proposing. I thought that 

17 they were -- if they were going to be bringing 

18 some interviews, they would just be conducted 

19 by DCAS and SC&A. So forgive me, I didn't 

20 quite understand.

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: We go back and 

22 reconstruct exposures when we do some of our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

71

1 studies. When we do that, we talk to workers, 

2 because it is a very important piece of 

3 reconstructing historically what has been 

4 going on at plant sites, because the ones who 

5 worked at the plant sites during that time 

6 frame really know more about it than almost 

7 anybody else. That is an important point that 

8 I think everybody is aware of.

9 But when we do it, we do it in a 

10 very non-biased manner. We identify workers 

11 who are alive who would have been working at 

12 the plant site under the time frame of 

13 interest. A list is put together, and then a 

14 random selection is made to start inviting 

15 workers to come into a focus group meeting.

16 The purpose of the focus group is 

17 described, and then the workers sit around and 

18 look at timelines and construction tables and 

19 then discuss among themselves what was going 

20 on during that timeframe. And that is how we 

21 get in information that we feel represents a 

22 very open, constructive, unbiased approach 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 

72

1 it.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: So having one 

4 person bring in selected workers, either from 

5 one side or the other, would not be what we 

6 consider an unbiased approach. A biased 

7 approach is to have a focus group of people 

8 that are selected and volunteer to come in and 

9 have a round robin discussion that is led by 

10 people who know how to lead these discussions.

11 Otherwise, we get into situations 

12 where one person said one thing and another 

13 person said another, and it can be at varied 

14 times very difficult to figure out really what 

15 was going on. But the most objective approach 

16 to it is how I am suggesting.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you 

18 for clarifying that. 

19 The only issue I have is that, to 

20 just touch on what Mr. Crawford said, he 

21 mentioned some worker statements from 

22 interviews. I think the first two interviews 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

73

1 he mentioned were talking about the 1936 

2 section of the tunnel. We are not -- there is 

3 no dispute about that. We know that the 

4 tunnel -- there was a section near the 

5 powerhouse, and it -- we are not disputing 

6 that.

7 So the only worker interview that 

8 Mr. Murphy is disputing is that Linde 

9 supervisor or superintendent, whatever his 

10 title was, Worker Number 6, that is the only 

11 one. And since Mr. Murphy has been criticized 

12 by NIOSH repeatedly, I do think it would be 

13 important to have him address some of the 

14 issues that Mr. Crawford just raised.

15 I just -- I think that would be 

16 important to do that. I just -- I think he 

17 should be provided with that opportunity.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: So is he ready to 

19 respond to that now?

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: No. I mean, this 

21 is the discussion that I have been trying to 

22 have about setting up separate interviews. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

74

1 Mr. Murphy, Mr. Speciale, and some of the 

2 other Linde workers in Buffalo are still going 

3 over this material. There is a lot of 

4 material here -- the SC&A report, the NIOSH 

5 report, the maps. They are still going over 

6 that stuff. Realistically, they have only had 

7 the SC&A report a few days.

8 So beyond what Mr. Murphy has 

9 already stated, we do need some time to go 

10 over this material again.

11 MEMBER BEACH: And, Gen, this is 

12 Josie. While I understand what Dr. Lockey was 

13 suggesting, I do agree that Mr. Murphy should 

14 be reinterviewed also and any other workers 

15 that would like to be reinterviewed.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So we --

17 probably at this point we should put that --

18 those thoughts on the table and go into the 

19 next issue, the occupancy factors. And then, 

20 when we get done with that, try and put it all 

21 together to see what the next move should be.

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. Can 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 

75

1 ask a question about the occupancy factor?

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Sure.

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: And am I wrong on 

4 this, but does this make any difference one 

5 way or the other in relationship to -- because 

6 really we are talking about lung cancer here, 

7 right?

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think DCAS 

9 needs to answer that.

10 DR. NETON: Yes. Dr. Lockey, this 

11 is Jim Neton. You know, it certainly is not 

12 going to make a major difference, but you 

13 can't predict over, you know -- over all of 

14 these cases as to what -- how one might get 

15 affected. It really is just a matter of the 

16 magnitude of the radon exposure that is 

17 assigned. And you're right, that affects lung 

18 cancers.

19 But there could be cases -- and I 

20 have not looked at them -- there could be 

21 cases that have less than 250-day exposure, 

22 which would not qualify for the SEC, and 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 

76

1 lung cancer.

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: That would be 

3 unlikely. That would be very unlikely, I 

4 would think, unless they were extremely high 

5 levels.

6 DR. NETON: It is unlikely but not 

7 impossible, and therefore, you know, I keep -- 

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: That would be 

9 unlikely. I guess that lymphoma is another 

10 possibility, right? But that will go through 

11 automatically, too, won't it?

12 DR. NETON: Lymphomas are 

13 presumptive cancers, right.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right. And so we 

15 -- I guess the point I'm trying to make here 

16 is people that have lymphoma or have lung 

17 cancer, which is probably the two endpoints we 

18 are talking about with this particular radon 

19 issue, are going to be compensated. Unless 

20 it's less than 250 days. And that would be 

21 very unusual.

22 DR. NETON: 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 

77

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: I can't think of 

2 that happening, matter of fact. So I am 

3 almost seeing this as a non-issue. That is 

4 what I am trying to say.

5 DR. NETON: Well, again, you know, 

6 we have to come up with a methodology. I 

7 can't say in the future that, even if we have 

8 no cases at the present, that a case wouldn't 

9 present itself at some point. So it does need 

10 to be resolved. I do agree, though, the 

11 magnitude of the issue is relatively small as 

12 far as numbers go.

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right.

14 DR. NETON: Not zero. Well, I 

15 don't know if it's not zero.

16 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right. It has got 

17 to be approaching zero.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: I mean, I think, 

19 Jim, you bring up something that is going 

20 through my mind, too, is, you know, for the 

21 reasons I brought up before, how long do we 

22 prolong 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 

78

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right. That's 

2 correct.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Because, you 

4 know, workers are affected --

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- by this. And 

7 I think it is probably -- I think the Work 

8 Group is the one who has to decide, what do we 

9 do? Do we continue? Certainly, Antoinette 

10 has brought up some valid reasons for hearing 

11 more from the workers, having them have more 

12 time. But I'm wondering, you know, how long 

13 will this go on? Can we finish it in another, 

14 say, you know, month or so? That is just a 

15 question that I think the Work Group Members 

16 need to keep in mind.

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: I concur with 

18 that, and I guess that is why I raised the 

19 issue, particularly about occupancy in the 

20 tunnels, because I don't see that as -- you 

21 know, I guess administratively it is something 

22 that has to be arrived at. I am all right 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

79

1 with what has been decided, because the 

2 outcome is -- we already have assumed that 

3 people that have lymphoma or lung cancer are 

4 going to be compensated here.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

6 joined a little while ago, and I have been 

7 listening, trying to catch up. Why is it that 

8 the dose reconstructions cannot -- in other 

9 words, for the non-compensable -- in other 

10 words, everyone that is going to be 

11 compensated on the SEC will be compensated. 

12 There will also -- now, the 

13 question -- the situation may arise -- there 

14 are going to be people -- prostate cancer, 

15 skin cancer -- who are -- a dose 

16 reconstruction will have to be performed, and 

17 either granted or not. 

18 And now what I am hearing, though, 

19 is that all of these actions, the compensation 

20 under the SEC, the dose reconstructions, that 

21 is all being held up. Wouldn't there be a 

22 need for -- let me -- I'm thinking out loud 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

80

1 now. 

2 If it turns out that at the end of 

3 this process we all agree that, yes, those 

4 tunnels between Building 30 and 31 were in 

5 fact there pre-'53 -- I believe that's where 

6 we are on this issue -- wouldn't that trigger 

7 a PER that says, okay, anyone that could have 

8 been affected by that will now have his dose 

9 reconstructed?

10 In other words, those few people 

11 that might actually be impacted by this, and 

12 the change that would occur, couldn't that 

13 occur under a PER? And so that this would 

14 allow the vast majority of everyone else to 

15 receive their compensation without that delay.

16 DR. NETON: Well, John, this is 

17 Jim. What you propose -- that is true. I 

18 mean, if we dealt with the cases using the 

19 current approach, they could be done. But 

20 frankly, you know, that's not normally the way 

21 we do business. I mean, we like to issue a 

22 Site Profile that is -- you know, everyone is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

81

1 in agreement, on the same page. 

2 I don't think we have ever done 

3 that before, where we have issued a 

4 provisional Site Profile to disposition the 

5 cases, and then with the caveat that we will 

6 go back as we discuss this further. Is that 

7 sort of what you are proposing?

8 DR. MAURO: The only reason I 

9 bring it up, it is such a focused issue 

10 dealing with those workers who might have been

11 there, were there for less than 250 days, and 

12 were exposed and had a lung cancer, I guess, 

13 and lymphoma is the other one. So it's that 

14 very narrow group.

15 There may not even be any right 

16 now that -- or there may be. But, I mean, as 

17 pointed out by Dr. Lockey, we are dealing with 

18 a very, very limited number of people, 

19 possibly no people. And while we have been 

20 struggling with this for some time, everyone 

21 else is sort of waiting.

22 DR. NETON: Well, you know, 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 

82

1 thinking this through a little more, I mean, 

2 it is true that the radon is a big issue. But 

3 there still is the residual contamination in 

4 the tunnels. If you recall, the Army Corps 

5 went and surveyed the tunnels that were built, 

6 we think, after '57.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 DR. NETON: And they were 

9 contaminated internally because --

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 DR. NETON: -- of all of the --

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 DR. NETON: -- production.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, you've got the 

15 uranium and the radium, et cetera.

16 DR. NETON: Yes. So there is some 

17 contamination on the surfaces where workers 

18 who would be doing physical activities in 

19 those tunnels, you know, moving equipment and 

20 such, there is a small exposure component 

21 associated with that as well. So we --

22 DR. MAURO: So it really would 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 

83

1 all workers who were there for less than 250 

2 days. I'm trying to think this out.

3 DR. NETON: Well, not for --

4 DR. MAURO: It might have to be 

5 revisited -- that were denied before, but may 

6 need to be granted now. And I know in the PER 

7 process very often you have a process that 

8 says, okay, those that were denied previously 

9 under the other protocol, you revisit and say 

10 whether or not -- and you have a set of 

11 criteria whether it's possible that there 

12 could be a reversal as a result of this.

13 I know I just had -- that was a 

14 thought that came to mind, because it is 

15 disturbing to all of us that -- this whole 

16 process is being held up on this basis.

17 DR. NETON: Right. And, you know, 

18 what you're suggesting is possible. I mean, 

19 you know, we could do that and do -- at least 

20 any cases that would reverse based on the 

21 revised Site Profile could be moved ahead 

22 fairly -- well, quickly is a relative term, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

84

1 but, you know, fairly expeditiously, and a PER 

2 -- how we've opened the revising a Site 

3 Profile as our knowledge of the situation at 

4 the sites change. We have done that, as you 

5 know, on a number of occasions.

6 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I just 

7 have a question. What is on the table -- I 

8 guess there are two things on the table in 

9 terms of -- that might prolong it. I mean, 

10 one is interviewing/reinterviewing workers. 

11 Antoinette had requested, you know, one worker 

12 that, you know, isn't on this call at least 

13 and workers that are on the call. I don't 

14 know if there are others.

15 And it seems to me, I mean, that 

16 shouldn't be very time-consuming. If that is 

17 what the Work Group decides it wants to do, I 

18 mean, that could get knocked out pretty 

19 quickly. They have the maps. 

20 They've had some time -- they've 

21 had the reports, you know, and they -- I would 

22 assume within a week or two they would 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 

85

1 ready to be interviewed, or what have you. I 

2 mean, I know there is other work, and so on, 

3 that will get in the way of setting that up. 

4 I don't know whether that needs to be in 

5 person, or can that be done by telephone. And 

6 that is I guess another matter as to how 

7 quickly it can be scheduled.

8 But it doesn't sound to me like 

9 that is -- would take a lot of time. Dr. 

10 Lockey's proposal for sort of a focus group in 

11 research style to address the question, you 

12 know, that is another matter. That probably 

13 would take a lot more doing. It also -- I 

14 guess there is the issue of whether there are 

15 enough workers to draw from from a period of, 

16 you know, 55 years ago, and so on. 

17 But the shorter course at least of 

18 what was suggested by Antoinette, doesn't seem 

19 like that would be a great delay factor on its 

20 own.

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: Ted, let me 

22 address that. I mean, I agree that that 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 

86

1 be an easier way to do it, but I don't think 

2 it is going to answer the question. I think 

3 we are going to be back to where we are now. 

4 MR. KATZ: Okay.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay? And that 

6 doesn't answer the question, so if -- if the 

7 question is, what is the consensus of people 

8 that are working during that time frame about 

9 what was going on in relationship to tunnel 

10 construction? 

11 If a focus group comes back and 

12 there is a real divergence as to what we have 

13 based on objective maps, objective 

14 construction maps, then that creates a real 

15 problem for us. And I -- not a real problem. 

16 I think that brings real clarity to us, that 

17 there is obviously something missing. all 

18 right?

19 But if we continue what we are 

20 doing now, we are going to end up in the same 

21 situation. We are going to have some workers 

22 saying some things, some workers saying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

87

1 another, and we are going to have maps that 

2 are -- construction maps that are going to say 

3 something different. And so if we want to 

4 resolve it, that's the only way I know to 

5 resolve it.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

7 Jim, I think, too, that what you propose, 

8 while it would certainly be much more helpful, 

9 I don't know that it could be achieved. I 

10 would assume that Antoinette has identified 

11 workers who are available. She probably has 

12 the sort of full source of workers to do. 

13 Perhaps the best approach here is 

14 to set up a reinterview of workers who are 

15 available. I think we would have to decide 

16 who would be doing the interviews, and I would 

17 guess maybe SC&A would be appropriate, and 

18 then agree that after that happens that we do 

19 get together again. 

20 And then, at some point in time we 

21 are going to have to base the decision -- or 

22 the Work Group has to come up with their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

88

1 recommendation based on weight of evidence. 

2 We can't really go on forever.

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, we can't.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: But I think it is 

5 a valid thing, to take one more step, at least 

6 on this issue -- and we will probably come to 

7 that on the occupancy issue, too -- to take 

8 one more step, complete this as well as we 

9 can, and then get together again for 

10 evaluation.

11 DR. MAURO: This is John. And I 

12 have to apologize, but it was -- I wasn't able 

13 to join you initially. I had other very 

14 pressing matters that I had to take care of. 

15 But what I'm hearing is that I know I'm -- I 

16 reviewed our report, our work, and I have seen 

17 Ms. Bonsignore's two affidavits -- the 

18 affidavits that came in, and it is -- it was 

19 my sense, until getting on the line about a 

20 half hour ago, that the evidence that was 

21 before us between the new affidavit and the 

22 work that was done by SC&A and the work 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 

89

1 was done by NIOSH, the weight of the evidence 

2 was overwhelming that the tunnel between 

3 Building 30 and 31 was not there in 1953.

4 It sounds like that we have 

5 information that emerged during the course of 

6 the meeting that I missed the first two hours, 

7 unfortunately, not two -- hour and a half, 

8 that says that, no, there is good reason to 

9 believe that those tunnels were in fact there.

10 Is that what has emerged from this 

11 -- from the meeting? And, again, I apologize, 

12 but I just wanted to get up to speed here.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: John, this is 

15 Antoinette. I don't know if you heard my part 

16 of the meeting.

17 DR. MAURO: Unfortunately, I 

18 don't. And, listen, I don't want to take up 

19 the Work Group's time. I am just surprised 

20 that -- it seemed that even the affidavits, 

21 Ms. Bonsignore seem to indicate that there was 

22 some evidence that perhaps there were tunnels 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

90

1 between Building 30 and 31 in 1957 and on. 

2 But that was not inconsistent with, I guess, 

3 our position that those tunnels were not 

4 there, though, from '47 to '53.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Well, I 

6 gave, actually, a pretty lengthy presentation.

7 DR. MAURO: Then, I apologize. I 

8 do not want to take up the -- I will catch up. 

9 I will speak to Steve and Nicole after the 

10 meeting.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, this is Gen. 

12 I think that, no, I would disagree with what 

13 you just maybe assumed is that there has been 

14 a reversal of conclusions on it. 

15 However, Antoinette did bring up, 

16 as she said, a very long discussion with a lot 

17 of points in it that if we are to continue 

18 examining this, I think the Work Group needs 

19 to have a written version of Antoinette's 

20 discussion --

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- because it 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 

91

1 really not possible to follow all of the 

2 detail as she was --

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: I've got most of 

4 it written down. I can get that to you in a 

5 couple of days.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Again, I think 

7 what Chris said, though, is that -- she was 

8 commenting in particular on the 1957 map. And 

9 as Chris mentioned, that when the Work Group 

10 got together at our last meeting, we looked at 

11 the 1961 drawing, which, as he said, he felt 

12 was completely definitive. At the time, I 

13 did, too, and I thought that really superseded 

14 any information that -- or most of the 

15 information that was on the 1957 map. So I 

16 think we have to keep that in mind.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. But the 

18 only thing I would say in response to that, 

19 Gen, is that there is information on that 1957 

20 map that says that the tunnel that we are 

21 talking about, that is in question here, was 

22 there on that map, not -- it wasn't proposed, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

92

1 it wasn't new, it was there. So --

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. That's why 

3 I think we need your --

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- written 

6 statement, so that --

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: That's fine.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- we can get out 

9 the maps and look at them again.

10 DR. MAURO: Just one quick 

11 question. Is there a dispute regarding 1947 

12 to '53, though? Ms. Bonsignore, is it your 

13 position that the tunnel between Building 30 

14 and 31 was in fact there from '47 to '53?

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: It was or was not?

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, that is our 

18 contention.

19 DR. MAURO: That is your position. 

20 Okay. I just wanted to understand, because 

21 we, as you know, that you did discuss -- felt 

22 that the evidence in the drawings and even 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 

93

1 the affidavits seemed to indicate otherwise. 

2 But I accept your position. 

3 I am up to speed now. Thank you.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Now, are we ready 

6 to go into the next discussion on the 

7 occupancy factors?

8 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I was 

9 thinking about interviews, and we are fine 

10 with doing more interviews. But being a 

11 little bit skeptical, I don't -- I find it 

12 sort of hard to believe, or I would be 

13 surprised, if we do more detailed interviews 

14 with the same people whether we are going to 

15 get different answers or much of a 

16 clarification.

17 Some of the people will say the 

18 tunnels were in existence before 1953; others 

19 may not be able to say anything definite. I 

20 don't see how we are really going to get any 

21 more information than we have right now from 

22 worker interviews.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

94

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, Steve, this 

2 is Antoinette. Both you and NIOSH made some 

3 inferences about what Mr. Murphy meant in 

4 certain statements. He would dispute what 

5 your guesses were about what he was saying. 

6 That is what needs to be clarified.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. Even --

8 DR. OSTROW: Let's use a little 

9 bit of a legal term here. Suppose we 

10 stipulate that -- Mr. Murphy definitely 

11 stating that the tunnels were in existence 

12 before 1953. Would that change anything in 

13 the Work Group's deliberation? 

14 I will ask Gen that also. Suppose 

15 we interview Mr. Murphy and he states 100 

16 percent he is -- he states to the best of his 

17 knowledge that the tunnels existed prior to 

18 '53. Would that change the deliberations any?

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. In 

20 my view, based on what I know right now, it 

21 would not, because I would be going on weight 

22 of evidence. I would be going 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 

95

1 drawings, the engineering, the interpretation 

2 of them. I think that is very heavy evidence. 

3 You know, again, I would be going by the 

4 weight of evidence.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Jim 

6 Lockey. And I would, too, but I heard Mr. 

7 Murphy speak on the phone, and I -- Steve, I 

8 agree with you that going back and 

9 interviewing the same people would not be 

10 helpful. I don't think it would change where 

11 I am today. 

12 But what I suggest -- and I know 

13 it would be laborious, but what I suggested --

14 actually, it's not that laborious. What I 

15 suggested is a more independent way to 

16 approach the issue. So if one is going to go

17 back and do additional interviews, I think it 

18 has to be in a very objective focus group 

19 manner. Otherwise, we are not going to get 

20 any additional information we don't already 

21 have.

22 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I agree with 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 

96

1 totally.

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. That's what 

3 I'm saying. So, otherwise, I'd consider it 

4 not helpful.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: It would, though, 

6 be a courtesy to allow him to state where he 

7 had been misrepresented.

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: Oh, absolutely. I 

9 agree with that 100 percent.

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. And if the 

11 questions -- if we go ahead with this and we 

12 -- even if we have the same workers, if the 

13 questions -- knowing what we know now and what 

14 some of the disagreement and misunderstanding 

15 is, if the questions could be very focused, 

16 then I think it would be productive.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: And in addition, 

18 Gen, I would just like to point out that Mr. 

19 Murphy and Mr. Speciale also have some dispute 

20 about the tunnel's occupancy issues.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, perhaps we 

22 should go on to that now, and then come back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

97

1 and look at the whole thing after we finish 

2 that discussion. So I would suggest that --

3 let's see, Steve, you already presented SC&A's 

4 report. Or have you?

5 DR. OSTROW: Yes. Yes.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: It has been such 

7 a long time. So I think it is DCAS's time, 

8 then, to respond to that.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen, this is Chris 

10 Crawford. We don't have any particular issue 

11 with worker testimony on this subject. We do 

12 have -- the strongest evidence I think that we 

13 have is based on Mr. Murphy's testimony to --

14 during the ORAU interview where he said --

15 this is not an exact quote by the way. This 

16 is a summary of the interviewer.

17 But he said over a period of about 

18 six months he and a welder worked steadily in 

19 one section of the tunnel. He stated that he 

20 was not in the tunnel for the entire span of 

21 the project, and his estimate of total time 

22 spent in the tunnel for that project 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 

98

1 approximately two months. 

2 I'm not disputing that. That is 

3 completely okay. And every other piece of 

4 testimony we have, the people who worked in 

5 the tunnels estimated one to three days. That 

6 is not a contradiction, but that is kind of 

7 the normal, and there were some jobs that took 

8 longer, much longer.

9 But we think that two months is a 

10 fairly generous allowance per year, for year 

11 after year after year, considering that the 

12 one job cited, Mr. Murphy spent two months 

13 underground, which we accept.

14 Now, if he would like to say more 

15 about that, that's of course perfectly okay. 

16 And if we can get any other worker testimony 

17 to this point, we would be happy to entertain 

18 it.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: If I could just 

20 -- I just have to correct something here. Mr. 

21 Murphy's ORAU interview from March 2010 is not 

22 a valid interview. That interview -- he said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

99

1 he never said two months. That's why he was 

2 reinterviewed. 

3 You can't -- I'm sorry, I don't 

4 understand why you are bringing up an 

5 interview that Mr. Murphy reviewed. He said 

6 he didn't say that, and that is why Stu 

7 Hinnefeld came up to Mr. Murphy, apologized 

8 that he had been misrepresented at the Niagara 

9 Falls Board meeting, and that is where he was 

10 reinterviewed.

11 I thought we all understood this.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Murphy is free 

13 to comment at this moment, I suggest.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: But, I mean, that 

15 is why he was reinterviewed at the Niagara 

16 Falls Board meeting. There was a huge 

17 discussion about this many, many months ago. 

18 I mean --

19 MR. CRAWFORD: But no evidence has 

20 been --

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- Mr. Hinnefeld 

22 is -- if he is still with us, I mean, he can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

100

1 verify that he spoke with Mr. Murphy and 

2 apologized that he had been misrepresented by 

3 ORAU.

4 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. 

5 Stu had to leave the phone meeting because he 

6 had a conflicting meeting. But my 

7 recollection -- this is Jim Neton. My 

8 recollection was the reinterview at the 

9 Niagara Falls meeting was more focused on the 

10 existence of the tunnels rather than the 

11 occupancy issues.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: No, it wasn't. 

13 It was both of those issues. It was both of 

14 those issues. You can -- please, I encourage 

15 you to speak to Mr. Hinnefeld about this. He 

16 will confirm what I am saying.

17 DR. NETON: I accept that. This 

18 is Jim, and I agree with what Stu said. Stu 

19 did say -- I mean, Chris did point out -- and 

20 Mr. Murphy is available now. I wonder if he 

21 would mind to comment on what he -- we just 

22 want to know what a good reasonable occupancy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

101

1 factor is, and it would be very interesting to 

2 hear what he would say today.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. But if you 

4 looked at those Niagara Falls interviews, he 

5 addresses this issue and he says, whoever said 

6 two months is dreaming. I never said that.

7 DR. MAURO: This is John. Well, 

8 how much time -- this is wonderful. Mr. 

9 Murphy is on the line again. It would be 

10 wonderful -- has he already spoken to the 

11 Board, to the Work Group, regarding both of 

12 these matters?

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: John, he spoke, 

14 but we kept him to the tunnel existence. So I 

15 would suggest that we put him on the line, 

16 and, Chris, you specifically ask him the 

17 questions that are -- that you have. 

18 Antoinette, is Mr. Murphy on the line?

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: I think so.

20 MR. MURPHY: Yes, I am here.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Did you 

22 hear Chris Crawford's comments about five 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

102

1 minutes ago?

2 MR. MURPHY: What was the comment 

3 again? Can you clarify?

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Chris, 

5 give him a very focused question on this.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: I think, Mr. 

7 Murphy, probably the most productive thing to 

8 do is just ask you how many jobs you were --

9 you have personal knowledge of or that you in 

10 fact did that took over two months of time in 

11 any one year in the tunnel. Any detail you 

12 can give us on that part of your job would be 

13 very helpful.

14 MR. MURPHY: As a millwright, I 

15 was assigned to a job of replacing all of the 

16 unistruts supporting all of the utilities in 

17 the tunnel that -- through the entire length 

18 of the tunnel from Building 10, all the way 

19 out past the powerhouse.

20 We didn't get into the section 

21 going to Building 57, but I was assigned with 

22 the welder. We replaced all of the unistruts 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

103

1 that were steel because they were rotting out, 

2 and we replaced them with stainless steel. 

3 This was an ongoing job that has lasted -- I 

4 don't know how long because it wasn't 

5 continuous. 

6 We would go down and we would work 

7 for a week or two, and then we were called off 

8 on another priority job, and then we would go 

9 back down again. Sometimes I was pulled off 

10 and another maintenance man was put on with 

11 the welder, and then I would go back down 

12 again. 

13 This went on for a good long time. 

14 You can imagine -- the tunnel is roughly 

15 probably a half a mile long, and these 

16 unistrut supports were like every six feet. 

17 So it was quite expensive, taking all of the 

18 tools down there, taking all of the welding 

19 cables, et cetera, and in and out, wearing 

20 boots, wearing hard hats, safety glasses, 

21 gloves, the whole scenario. It is just time22 consuming. And I can't give you a definite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

104

1 answer of how long it took, but it took quite 

2 a while. 

3 And as far as the occupancy goes, 

4 I am going to give you an illustration of -- I 

5 didn't personally work there. Building 8, the 

6 powerhouse, was built in 1936, part of the 

7 original construction of all of the buildings 

8 on the Linde property. Two boilers, 3 and 4, 

9 they were coal-fired, they were coal-fired up 

10 until 1970, approximately, when they were 

11 switched to gas and oil.

12 You had firemen, you had coal 

13 handlers, you had boilermen or stationary 

14 engineers working around the clock, seven days 

15 a week, 365 days a year. That is some of your 

16 time frames that you -- nobody ever talked 

17 about. These guys were exposed to that 

18 tunnel. They had to go down there to remove 

19 the ashes, bring them up topside and dump 

20 them, so that the outside contractors could 

21 haul them away.

22 These guys were constantly 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 

105

1 those tunnels one way or the other, so there 

2 is another time frame that nobody ever 

3 mentioned. Maybe I should have, but I 

4 completely forgot about it.

5 Any other questions?

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Can you tell us 

7 approximately when the unistrut replacement 

8 job was done, approximately what year?

9 MR. MURPHY: No, I can't.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. Even a 

11 decade?

12 MR. MURPHY: I worked there for 40 

13 years.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. I know 

15 exactly what you mean. I would have trouble 

16 remembering where I worked 40 years ago and 

17 exactly what I did. But I am just wondering.

18 And were there any other jobs --

19 now, the coal handlers you mentioned, the ash 

20 handlers I should say. But were there any 

21 other jobs that you were on that were as 

22 extensive, or compared with the unistrut 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

106

1 replacement?

2 MR. MURPHY: Yes. There was an 

3 extensive PM program, preventative maintenance 

4 program, at Linde. They did a weekly 

5 walkthrough every Monday morning to inspect 

6 whatever -- steam lines, burned-out light 

7 bulbs, sump pump failures, et cetera. This 

8 took approximately two hours -- or two 

9 craftsmen, usually a millwright, maintenance 

10 man, or an electrician. That was weekly.

11 Also, you had a preventative 

12 maintenance program that inspected all of the 

13 sump pumps. There was quite a few of them --

14 and inspect them. Then, some of -- you turned 

15 it over to somebody else to remove the sump 

16 pumps if they are damaged or weren't 

17 functioning. And that usually fell back on 

18 the guys that inspected them -- yours truly --

19 and that wasn't no five-minute job.

20 Getting it out of the sump, taking 

21 it up topside, bringing the new pump down, it 

22 took, you know, a day or two. So these are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

107

1 some of the jobs that you get -- you usually 

2 do it quite a bit. It goes on and on and on 

3 and on.

4 We need to talk about also the 

5 people using the tunnels to get from Point A 

6 to Point B. The reason a lot of people didn't 

7 know about the tunnels is because there was no 

8 access to the tunnel running from Building --

9 or from Junction Box 8 to Junction Box 2. 

10 The only entrance access was at 

11 the powerhouse for people in that general 

12 area. But anybody out in the northwest end of 

13 the property -- or the northeast end of the 

14 property -- had no access to get into the 

15 tunnels, because there was no entrance. 

16 Building 8 is the only access entrance that 

17 they could get at. There was two of them. 

18 One was on the first floor by Boiler Number 3, 

19 and the other access was outside in the 

20 northeast corner. There was a stairwell 

21 leading down to it.

22 And all the guys from Building 19 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

108

1 who worked in the Maintenance Department could 

2 run across the street and go into that 

3 entrance and use it to get to the cafeteria.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: What building was 

5 the cafeteria in? Just as a matter of 

6 curiosity.

7 MR. MURPHY: At that time, it was 

8 in Building 1.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: Thanks. I think 

10 there were stairways also in Building 14 into 

11 the tunnel?

12 MR. MURPHY: That wasn't used, 

13 because it had a special door that was kind of 

14 difficult to operate.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: Right.

16 MR. MURPHY: But the guys do know 

17 how to operate it, and they did use it. 

18 Building 2 also had an entrance.

19 DR. MAURO: Chris, would you mind 

20 if I just ask a question?

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Please.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. Mr. Murphy, for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

109

1 that section of the tunnel between Building 30 

2 and 31 that is of great concern to all of us, 

3 if you were to say -- do you think it was 

4 possible that there may have been people who 

5 worked in those tunnels full-time? Or was it 

6 generally less than -- in other words, you 

7 really can't envision anyone who is there up 

8 to full-time.

9 It would always be -- I understand 

10 there is some dispute regarding this two 

11 months. And I guess what we are really trying 

12 to say is that, well, if two months isn't, you 

13 know, really a fair enough representation, for 

14 that particular section of tunnel, would you 

15 say -- you know, would you want to move it up 

16 to full-time, or do you think maybe half-time? 

17 I realize that -- you know, we are in this 

18 place where we are looking to place a 

19 plausible upper bound on the occupancy time 

20 for people who were in the tunnels -- in the 

21 specific tunnel of interest. 

22 And I don't know the type 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 

110

1 maintenance or work that was done there, but 

2 in that stretch of tunnel between Building 30 

3 and 31. Is there any way that you feel 

4 comfortable even making a guesstimate at 

5 something like that? Or would you rather not?

6 MR. MURPHY: I would rather not, 

7 because --

8 DR. MAURO: I understand. No 

9 problem.

10 MR. MURPHY: No, I don't want to 

11 be misquoted again.

12 DR. MAURO: Sure. No, I 

13 understand. Because in the end -- in the end, 

14 that is the number that we need. Given that 

15 the dose is going to be calculated to folks 

16 for that time period, '47 to '53, the time 

17 period of interest with regard to this 

18 particular SEC, and if it -- you know, and if 

19 it is determined that, yes, those tunnels were 

20 there, or we are going to -- you know, that 

21 judgment emerges, then some number will need 

22 to be put.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

111

1 And, of course, one could argue, 

2 well, let's just assume 100 percent of the 

3 time. But if that is really unrealistic, 

4 that, oh no, no one was there 100 percent of 

5 the time, well, maybe then it is something 

6 less. 

7 And all I am saying is that we 

8 need your help in trying to find where that 

9 is. Certainly, if the two months is not the 

10 right number, you know, we are trying to look 

11 for, well, what would be a better number? But 

12 if you don't want to speak to that at this 

13 time, I fully respect and understand that.

14 MR. MURPHY: Okay.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Tom, could you 

16 also address -- at one point, in the SC&A 

17 report, there is a discussion about how much 

18 time will be allocated to how long it would --

19 in terms of people using the tunnels to get 

20 from different buildings, and they said they 

21 were going to allocate 10 minutes per day. 

22 We had a discussion about how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

112

1 reasonable 10 minutes a day would be in terms 

2 of using the tunnels in order -- how much time 

3 it takes to get into the tunnels and get 

4 through the tunnels. Could you just address 

5 that?

6 MR. MURPHY: Well, how much does 

7 it take to walk, say, half a mile? 

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

9 MR. MURPHY: You know, walking at 

10 three miles an hour, going downstairs, putting 

11 a hard hat on, et cetera, you know, you could 

12 honestly say you're talking about 15 to 20, 30 

13 minutes.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

15 MR. MURPHY: It is not an easy 

16 access tunnel to walk in. It is just sloppy, 

17 and it is -- there are stairwells going up and 

18 down. So you had to be careful.

19 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. And at 

20 some points in the tunnel you had to crouch 

21 down because some parts of the tunnel were 

22 smaller than others.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

113

1 MR. MURPHY: Well, the ones that 

2 were small were ones that went to Building 57.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

4 MR. MURPHY: But the other tunnels 

5 were -- a large man like my size, I am roughly 

6 5'10", 5'11", weigh about 200 pounds, and I --

7 with a hard hat on and boots I could walk 

8 through most of the tunnel, no problem. Just 

9 had to be careful of the vapor lamps that were 

10 in the ceiling.

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you, 

12 Tom.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Murphy, could 

14 you tell me how long lunch was allotted for 

15 workers like yourself?

16 MR. MURPHY: It depends on what 

17 department you were in.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: Ah.

19 MR. MURPHY: Some of them were 45 

20 minutes, some were a half hour, some were 20 

21 minutes.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. The 10 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

114

1 minutes a day, by the way, was meant for 

2 people who were not using the tunnels as part 

3 of their official duties. In other words, 

4 trades workers were getting, at present, two 

5 months a year in the present TBD. The 10 

6 minutes a day was for people who were 

7 transiting the tunnels, for instance, to go to 

8 lunch.

9 So presumably they wouldn't have 

10 walked 15, 20, or 30 minutes to do that. In 

11 other words, that seems more like a job duty. 

12 I am not trying to contradict your testimony 

13 here, not at all. But I am just saying the 

14 point of the 10 minutes was for workers who 

15 didn't actually spend much work time in the 

16 tunnel.

17 MR. MURPHY: Well, whoever said 

18 that, then that's what it would be, I guess. 

19 If they only put 10 minutes on the go-ahead, 

20 I can't help you there because I don't know 

21 how many people used the tunnel. I wasn't 

22 there all the time. But quite a few 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 

115

1 used it. 

2 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton, 

3 too. I believe we also need to be careful 

4 about which tunnels we are talking about. The 

5 tunnel that went down to the cafeteria from 

6 the powerhouse would not incur any additional 

7 exposure because that tunnel was not 

8 contaminated. So, really, the tunnels that 

9 the occupancy factor is relevant to are the 

10 tunnels that we believe were constructed in 

11 '57 and '61.

12 Anyone who was occupying the 

13 tunnels that went from the powerhouse -- you 

14 know, that original 1937 tunnel -- would 

15 receive 10 picocuries per liter radon from 

16 above ground exposure. The radon in the 

17 tunnel below ground would not -- is not 

18 covered exposure under the program.

19 Now, there is a subtle distinction 

20 here between, you know, where the occupancy 

21 factor is really going to be applied.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Dr. Neton, can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

116

1 you explain why -- is there some radiological 

2 survey data from those tunnels that 

3 substantiates that?

4 DR. NETON: Correct. Well, the 

5 reason that the tunnels that we believe were 

6 constructed in '57 and '61 were contaminated 

7 by AEC operations -- in other words, all of 

8 the uranium ore and the radium extracted, and 

9 that sort of material -- actually seeps in, 

10 contaminated the tunnels, and generated an 

11 exposure potential both to radon and long12 lived radon progeny -- or uranium progeny, 

13 daughters. That is those tunnels that were 

14 over by the 30/31 area.

15 The original tunnel that was built 

16 in 1937 did not -- it was not engaged in the 

17 active processing of the quantities of ore 

18 that were processed on the other side of this 

19 plant.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. I 

21 understand that. But there were effluents 

22 that were diverted to the Plant One wells 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

117

1 during the operational time period.

2 DR. NETON: Well, and we covered 

3 that in a Working Group meeting a number of 

4 meetings ago. SC&A, I believe, issued a 

5 report on this, and we both concluded that the 

6 effluents were not sufficiently radiologically 

7 contaminated to contaminate that existing 

8 tunnel to the point where you would --

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: I don't recall 

10 that report. I mean, I -- we are talking 

11 about effluents that were coming from the 

12 ceramics wells that went -- that were diverted 

13 to the wells near Building 8, and that there 

14 was some seepage into the tunnels under 

15 Building 8. So I am just trying to figure out 

16 -- 

17 DR. NETON: Well, I thought this 

18 issue -- we discussed this issue some meetings 

19 ago, and we -- this was resolved, in my 

20 opinion.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think it was, 

22 too. I think, Steve, maybe you could comment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

118

1 on that.

2 DR. OSTROW: Well, I have to 

3 reread the report. But it's my understanding 

4 also we resolved that.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John. I could 

6 add a little bit to it. The big driver, in 

7 terms of what the dose would be to a person in 

8 a tunnel, is not so much what is inside the 

9 tunnel, but it is totally dominated by the 

10 elevated levels of radium-226 that is in the 

11 soil in the vicinity outside of the tunnel.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: This is what drives 

14 it, so of greatest interest to us, at least at 

15 this point, in terms of the -- where the 

16 dosimetric issues are of substantial concern, 

17 is the areas where we know from the surveys 

18 performed that the soil itself was sampled and 

19 we know that there was elevated levels of 

20 radium in the soil in the vicinity of the 

21 tunnel. 

22 And the reason that is important 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

119

1 is that the tunnel -- let's talk about --

2 let's just for the time being stipulate, as 

3 Steve had mentioned, let's stipulate for the 

4 moment, just to facilitate the conversation, 

5 that the tunnel between Building 30 and 31 was 

6 in fact there from '47 to '53, and people did 

7 occupy that tunnel two months, three months, 

8 four months, six months, whatever the number 

9 is.

10 The radiation exposure that is 

11 derived for that person, or these people, 

12 would be -- from the variety of radionuclides 

13 would be driven -- dominated by far by radon, 

14 and it would be from the radon that comes from 

15 the soil outside of the tunnel that is drawn 

16 into the tunnel because the tunnel has a 

17 negative pressure relative to the soil around 

18 it.

19 So, I mean, this is -- and when I 

20 think about -- when I sort of like step back 

21 and look at it from a distance, this is where, 

22 you know, if we don't get that right -- it is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

120

1 important, we've got to get that right. 

2 Not only do we have to get it --

3 there are -- really, you know, and the belief 

4 is that that problem exists there at this 

5 level because the soil is clearly and 

6 unambiguously contaminated. There is data 

7 showing that.

8 And now the only real question is: 

9 was there a tunnel there? And then, once we 

10 agree, if there was a tunnel there, then the 

11 next question of course is: how long were 

12 people in that tunnel? And so that is where 

13 that segment of tunnel is of great interest to 

14 all of us.

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you, 

16 John.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. This is 

18 Gen. I have kind of lost track of where we 

19 are going here. I am wondering if we are 

20 about ready to decide what the step forward 

21 is. Is there any further discussion about the 

22 occupancy factors, or do we also need to look 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

121

1 more into that when the workers are 

2 interviewed again?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, this is Josie. 

4 I think you cut Antoinette off at just the 

5 tunnel issue. And she may still have more on 

6 the occupancy.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: That's right. We 

8 didn't -- I had held her up on that. Yes, I 

9 think we do have that. Thanks, Josie. 

10 Antoinette?

11 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, actually, 

12 Mr. Murphy has covered pretty much everything 

13 that I was going to cover. I just -- you 

14 know, I wanted to discuss this 10-minute 

15 estimate and we did that. 

16 And I also wanted to -- the only 

17 other thing I would want to discuss is this 

18 ongoing issue with NIOSH thinking that where 

19 certain parts of the tunnel were smaller that 

20 nobody could have walked through them.

21 And so I just had an additional 

22 quote from Mr. Murphy from that SC&A interview 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

122

1 from May of 2010, and it is very short, where 

2 he says, "The north branch turns east of 

3 Building 58. There the tunnel gets very 

4 small. You had to crouch down and wear a hard 

5 hat on your belly almost." 

6 So I just wanted to emphasize that 

7 again, because this issue keeps coming up that 

8 -- the idea that it would be impossible for 

9 anybody to get through. And I would just like 

10 to point out that Mr. Murphy has refuted that 

11 notion, and he refuted that two years ago when 

12 he spoke with SC&A.

13 Beyond that, you know, I do have 

14 concerns about the use of the Army Corps of 

15 Engineers' report from -- because it is based 

16 on 2002 practices and not on actual historical 

17 practices from Linde workers. 

18 I don't see how that -- the use of 

19 that document could be considered claimant20 favorable, since there is no indication that 

21 the information in that report deals with 

22 working conditions in the '60s or '70s or even 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

123

1 the '50s. So I would question the use of that 

2 document as being claimant-favorable.

3 And then, you know, beyond that, 

4 there was one point where Mr. Murphy had 

5 spoken about people using the tunnels to -- to 

6 sleep in the tunnels sometimes, or that people 

7 would take naps there or -- and that he hasn't 

8 actually witnessed that, and SC&A mentioned 

9 that they didn't think -- they didn't think 

10 that that was particularly -- they called it 

11 hearsay.

12 The only thing I would say about 

13 that is that, you know, when we are talking 

14 about these occupancy issues, and you are 

15 asking very specific questions from Mr. Murphy 

16 or other workers, a lot of these workers who 

17 could provide further elaboration about 

18 something like this, a lot of them have passed 

19 on. 

20 There are very few people who 

21 worked during those early years who are still 

22 with us, sadly. You know, and so I would take 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

124

1 that into account when you assess something 

2 that Mr. Murphy said where, you know, he knew 

3 of people sleeping in the tunnels and using 

4 the tunnels to get away from their boss or 

5 from their supervisor. 

6 You know, technically, yes, it's 

7 hearsay, but, you know, I wasn't aware that we 

8 were using the Federal Rules of Evidence here. 

9 So it is the best available evidence that he 

10 has about that issue. So I hope that the 

11 Working Group would actually consider it.

12 And beyond that, that is pretty 

13 much all I have on the occupancy issue.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then, I 

15 think we need to discuss where we are going to 

16 go. And let me take a first stab at this, and 

17 then Josie and Jim and others can help out 

18 here.

19 I think, first of all, the Work 

20 Group, SC&A, and DCAS all need Antoinette's 

21 written statements, so we have a better chance 

22 of evaluating them. We need worker statements 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

125

1 that Antoinette mentioned have not come 

2 through yet. She said -- my notes say that 

3 you will have those within a week or two.

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, I would 

5 like to discuss the timeline of that with 

6 respect to whether they are going to be 

7 interviewed, because I think --

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: -- I think --

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Maybe one of 

11 those --

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, I think 

13 those two issues are connected.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So then, 

15 the other thing we need to do is we talked 

16 about reinterviewing more workers and 

17 reinterviewing the workers who have been 

18 interviewed. And I am wondering if there are 

19 any more who can be included.

20 We certainly want Mr. Murphy, in 

21 my view, included in the interviews. I have 

22 been very impressed with his recollection 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 

126

1 -- and his knowledge of what happened there. 

2 I think what has to be done, though, in these 

3 interviews is to make sure that the questions 

4 are focused. We don't want any more 

5 misinterpretations.

6 We want to emphasize that the two 

7 things we are looking for is, when were what 

8 tunnels where? In other words, did tunnels 

9 exist in certain periods of certain times? 

10 And then, we need to explore further the 

11 occupancy factors.

12 So have I covered everything?

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: I think so, Gen, 

14 to my satisfaction.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Josie and Jim, do 

16 you have any --

17 MEMBER BEACH: The only other 

18 thing I have -- and I know this is just a 

19 small point -- is for SC&A to look at those 

20 memos that were brought up and just clarify 

21 that there's no issues there.

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 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 

127

1 MEMBER BEACH: Unless Antoinette 

2 is satisfied with that.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: No. Actually, I 

4 would like SC&A to take another look at that 

5 1948 memo and the log of the Plant One that I 

6 mentioned that -- specifically that one 

7 sentence where they are talking about a pipe 

8 tunnel between the powerhouse and the factory 

9 buildings and the corrosive effect on the 

10 conduit boxes.

11 I would like some -- you know, 

12 some evaluation of that statement in terms of 

13 the issue of the diversion of the effluents 

14 from the ceramics wells to the wells near 

15 Building 8.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Ted, so 

17 how do we facilitate all of this?

18 MR. KATZ: I'm not sure if I'm on 

19 mute or not. Do you hear me? Are you hearing 

20 me?

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. We can hear 

22 you now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

128

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Sorry. So as far 

2 as the interview business, I think SC&A can 

3 take the lead in setting it up. I think DCAS 

4 should have someone on those calls, like we 

5 have been doing with other Work Groups and 

6 with other interviews, so that everybody hears 

7 the same thing at the same time.

8 So we can get that done, and, you 

9 know, in terms of timing, I will get it done 

10 as quickly as possible. There is a full Board 

11 meeting coming up and other things that may 

12 get in the way of different individuals' 

13 participating. And then, obviously, you know, 

14 part of it depends on when the workers can 

15 show up for the interviews.

16 My question to you is -- or I 

17 guess to the Work Group and to SC&A and DCAS 

18 is what -- should this be an in-person 

19 interview or is it fine to conduct it by 

20 telephone, which seems to me like it would be 

21 more expeditious, but maybe it has some 

22 disadvantages, I don't 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 

129

1 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. The 

2 only thing I'd say is, because of the maps, it 

3 may be good for the workers to be able to look 

4 at those maps and point out things in person 

5 as we did on our last Work Group meeting.

6 DR. MAURO: Josie, this is John. 

7 I agree with you completely. This is one of 

8 those circumstances where you have people 

9 sitting around a table, as many folks that are 

10 -- certainly, Mr. Murphy and others, where we 

11 have the maps up on the wall, and we are 

12 talking to each other.

13 We all just sit down as a 

14 collective group, take our respective hats 

15 off, and just try to get to the facts. And it 

16 is so hard to do that over the phone.

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Jim 

18 Lockey. I agree with that. And we call those 

19 focus groups, and they are -- and that is how 

20 they are run. The maps are there, the 

21 questions are laid out, and there is a 

22 discussion about them.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

130

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I think it 

2 would be -- this is Gen -- helpful -- at least 

3 as part of the Work Group, I think I would 

4 like to also be present, if that's possible. 

5 And I guess the question comes up, then, if we 

6 were to get together in person, is that 

7 possible? And where would it be to best 

8 accommodate the workers?

9 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. It is 

10 absolutely fine. Yes, absolutely, I think, 

11 Gen, you can attend, and Josie and Jim, you 

12 know, one or all are welcome to attend. We 

13 have done this with other Work Groups, with 

14 SC&A interviews. And, again, someone from 

15 DCAS should attend to.

16 And as far as location is 

17 concerned, I think we want -- we probably want 

18 to make this most convenient to the workers. 

19 So --

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Absolutely.

21 MR. KATZ: -- I think it makes 

22 most sense to go to where they are and do 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 

131

1 interviews in -- you know, find some -- we can 

2 get a hotel room or whatever we have to do to 

3 set up some common space where we can 

4 interview them.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: And, Ted, I would 

6 like to -- you know, I would like to have you 

7 go back and look at your database and issue 

8 the opportunity for people that are still with 

9 us to participate in it. You know, I don't 

10 think this should be just directed at the 

11 people that we just interviewed. I agree with 

12 what Steve said, that if we just direct it at 

13 the people that we have interviews with, we 

14 may not be any further than we are now.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I think we 

16 will. I think if we can get together in 

17 person, can actually look at those maps, and 

18 really focus our questions, I think we can 

19 make a lot of progress.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. The 

21 term "interview," I'm seeing this as -- an 

22 interview, you know, is almost like a one-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 

132

1 one where you -- what we are going to do is, 

2 we are almost like problem-solving --

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: That's right.

4 DR. MAURO: -- as a team together, 

5 all have the same interest and goal in mind. 

6 And it is just a matter of really -- because 

7 what we are doing is we are trying to 

8 reconstruct some history here, and we are 

9 getting as many of these experienced people 

10 together. 

11 Because we know the questions we 

12 have, and all of the information regarding the 

13 answers to those questions collectively 

14 resides within the memories of the workers. 

15 And I think the kind of thing that happens 

16 when people are face to face just talking to 

17 each other about, well, I guess -- there's an 

18 interaction that occurs, and it is not really 

19 an interview. It is almost like a 

20 conversation that -- and from that 

21 conversation emerges information that I'm sure 

22 we don't have right now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

133

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right. 

2 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. The one 

3 -- you know, you are wondering about getting 

4 more workers here. I just wonder whether DCAS 

5 -- I mean, they have done claims for lots of 

6 people at Linde. They have lots of names and 

7 contact information. I am just wondering if 

8 that is a possibility for pulling more workers 

9 into this focus group.

10 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I mean, 

11 it's a possibility. We'd have to go back and 

12 think about, you know, what we have and look 

13 at it.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: I think, you know, 

15 Jim, you have the names of people that would 

16 be probably alive during that timeframe. And 

17 expanding the pool, I think, is important.

18 DR. NETON: Well, there were a 

19 number of other workers interviewed. As you 

20 remember, I think there were six at one time. 

21 I mean, I don't know how large you want to 

22 make this meeting or discussion, but --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

134

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: You don't have to 

2 make it large, but you can extend out in -- a 

3 lot of people will say no, but certain people 

4 will say yes. And then you randomly select 

5 the people that say yes and bring them in or 

6 include additional people that you absolutely 

7 want there. But you can limit the size.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Especially, I --

9 DR. NETON: Well, it's important to 

10 get a good representation. And it has been my 

11 experience if the meeting gets too large, then 

12 you sort of lose control over sort of this 

13 intimate discussion concept that John was 

14 outlining.

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. That 

16 is absolutely correct. You do limit the size, 

17 but you can extend the pool and then randomly 

18 select who you are going to bring in. You can 

19 have certain people that you absolutely want 

20 there, and then you can randomly select them 

21 from the rest of the pool who say yes.

22 DR. NETON: We will have to go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

135

1 back and take a look at that and see what we 

2 have available.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: I think I can 

4 better -- I can inform this discussion a 

5 little bit. I made an effort with Mr. Murphy 

6 and Mr. Speciale to try and find -- the Linde 

7 workers have a weekly breakfast meeting on 

8 Thursdays. And they all meet and talk about 

9 -- they help each other with claims and have 

10 discussions. 

11 But I have -- I have talked to 

12 them about reaching out to some of the other 

13 former workers who worked with them about this 

14 issue, and so I have already made an effort to 

15 do this. Not a lot of people have been able 

16 to better inform this topic. They just 

17 haven't. 

18 I mean, I can have an additional 

19 discussion with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Speciale 

20 when we get off this call about some 

21 suggestions that they might have, but I have 

22 already tried to do exactly this and have not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

136

1 had much success.

2 MR. KATZ: Antoinette, this is 

3 Ted. And certainly you are welcome to reach 

4 out that way. I was just thinking, I mean, 

5 they have -- I mean, DCAS has claims filed 

6 with a lot of people, and so they may be able 

7 to reach people that you have actually never 

8 even -- may not be part of your group, and so 

9 on. But they --

10 MS. BONSIGNORE: But a lot of those 

11 people are surviving family members.

12 MR. KATZ: That may be true, 

13 absolutely.

14 DR. OSTROW: And I would think 

15 that the workers that we identify have to be 

16 ones that are somewhat familiar with the 

17 tunnels. We can't just pick them totally 

18 randomly. It has to be a subset that actually 

19 has knowledge of the tunnels.

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: That was what I 

21 was trying to point out, that, you know, there 

22 are plenty of people who worked there during 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

137

1 that time period that are at that breakfast 

2 meeting on Thursdays. But if they can't add 

3 anything to the discussion about the tunnel 

4 issue, there is really no point.

5 MR. KATZ: That is certainly true. 

6 I mean, you just -- you can have those 

7 screening questions so that you don't -- I 

8 mean, there is absolutely no point in inviting 

9 someone that knows nothing about whether there 

10 were tunnels. So, I mean, that could be a 

11 screening question for people that you do 

12 identify from the DCAS records, and so on.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: So can SC&A do 

14 that screening? They know what we need, and 

15 they know who could contribute.

16 DR. MAURO: Gen, so you would like 

17 -- typically, on making arrangements like 

18 this, we actually have a procedure that we 

19 follow for outreach. Normally, that procedure 

20 is initiated and organized and coordinated by 

21 NIOSH. However, if your preference is for 

22 SC&A to be the point man on this, that's fine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

138

1 also. Whatever you prefer.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I think 

3 either way it would work. I think we just 

4 need someone who is very knowledgeable about 

5 the questions that we need answered, and 

6 whether the participants would be able to do 

7 that.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes. I know 

9 that Chris and SC&A have both been -- are very 

10 close to this, and we understand the 

11 questions. We want to get the answers right. 

12 I think that, as I understand it, what we 

13 have here is a situation where I think both 

14 SC&A and NIOSH have come down in more or less 

15 the same place regarding whether those tunnels 

16 were there or not, and what might be a 

17 reasonable occupancy time, you know, assuming 

18 that -- you know, but -- so I think either one 

19 of our groups, our folks, all are on the same 

20 page.

21 But if you would like SC&A to 

22 initiate this and work with Ms. Bonsignore, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

139

1 and reach out and be the point man, coordinate 

2 with Chris and Jim, but be out in front on 

3 making all of these arrangements for who is 

4 going to be there, and maybe go through a 

5 screening process, working with Ms. Bonsignore 

6 and the workers, we can do that. But normally 

7 under other circumstances like this, that 

8 process normally is handled by NIOSH.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: It seems that 

10 would be -- unless somebody objects, it seems 

11 like that would be the best approach is follow 

12 the normal procedure.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay. Fine. And, Ms. 

14 Bonsignore, is that -- you're comfortable with 

15 that? That is the -- you would be I guess 

16 working with NIOSH and arranging for all of 

17 this. And SC&A of course would be part of the 

18 group that is going to have this conversation.

19 You know, if this process that is 

20 being laid out meets -- because in the end you 

21 -- in my mind, you know, it is important that 

22 you are satisfied that everything is being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

140

1 done the right way.

2 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Well, I 

3 think I need to have a discussion with Mr. 

4 Murphy and Mr. Speciale after this call to 

5 resolve this issue. 

6 And I will just be honest with 

7 you, a lot of the workers have had many issues 

8 with NIOSH and the way they have been -- had 

9 their statements misrepresented, and the way 

10 they -- a lot of the workers don't have a very 

11 positive -- I mean, pretty much the whole 

12 Linde community just doesn't have a very 

13 positive opinion of how this program has been 

14 run and administered.

15 So I need to have a discussion 

16 with them about this and get back to you on 

17 that.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I think it is 

19 important, Antoinette, that you let us know 

20 that. Apparently, if there is an option that 

21 we can do it differently, we want to do it the 

22 way that works the best.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

141

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: I mean, I will 

2 just say these workers felt much more 

3 comfortable dealing with SC&A than they have 

4 ever felt with NIOSH. I think, you know, once 

5 you have an interview with ORAU and there are 

6 things in your statement summary that you 

7 never said, people start to wonder what -- you 

8 know, what is going on. 

9 And, you know, SC&A was very 

10 careful about verifying statements. They sent 

11 the statements to the workers after the 

12 interviews. They said, "Is there anything 

13 here that you didn't say? Do you want to 

14 elaborate on anything?" It was a very

15 thorough process. That wasn't the case with 

16 ORAU.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: We are going to 

18 have SC&A present at the interviews. I think 

19 the only question is who determines which 

20 workers would be invited to the interviews.

21 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. We 

22 can all work on this together. I think like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

142

1 John was suggesting before is that NIOSH take 

2 the lead in doing the logistics, because that 

3 is what they usually do and they are good at 

4 it. But SC&A will participate fully in the 

5 interviews and I think also in the process of 

6 determining which workers would be present.

7 It was suggested that, you know, 

8 follow the normal procedure that NIOSH sort of 

9 the machinery to -- to lead this off.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. This is Ted. You 

11 know, we are going to invite the Work Group 

12 Members to join this as well. So this will be 

13 -- this won't be a DCAS show. You know, it 

14 won't be an SC&A show alone. It will be 

15 really a Work Group operation with SC&A. 

16 SC&A certainly can take the lead 

17 in the questions or however it -- it is really 

18 more free-form than questions, anyway, I 

19 think, what Jim was describing for a focus 

20 group approach. So I think it will be a 

21 friendly atmosphere for everyone and 

22 informative.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

143

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Ted, and others 

2 -- and I think, too, I really like Josie's 

3 idea that we all get together and look at the 

4 maps and combine all of the information. My 

5 suggestion would be that Antoinette also be 

6 there, because she seems to have the most 

7 collective information from all of the 

8 workers. And I think, too, if she were there 

9 with the rest of us as we looked at the maps, 

10 I think that would be very productive.

11 MR. KATZ: Sure.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, it would be 

13 productive, but, I mean, this -- you know, 

14 this is volunteer pro bono work for me. I 

15 have, you know, a full-time job that is not 

16 this. So traveling can be an issue for me.

17 But depending on when it is, I 

18 will do my best to accommodate. But, you 

19 know, I -- everybody else involved who is 

20 going to be traveling, Buffalo is -- this is, 

21 you know, your job, this is not mine. So it 

22 can be an issue for me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

144

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: However, it seems 

2 that from our experience, if you are not 

3 really involved with the rest of us in a 

4 discussion, then we have to backtrack a lot.

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: And it might be 

7 best if you could be there.

8 MS. BONSIGNORE: I'll do my best, 

9 Gen. I will do my best. I just -- I can't 

10 just make a blanket guarantee that I could --

11 MR. KATZ: That's fine, 

12 Antoinette. And that all gets factored into 

13 scheduling, too, because it -- it sounds like 

14 it will be quite an enterprise to pull it all 

15 together. It is not something that is going 

16 to get done in the next few weeks, I'm sure of 

17 that. 

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: But that's fine, we'll 

20 work on this.

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

22 DR. MAURO: I've got a question. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

145

1 We have never transcribed these types of 

2 occasions. They have always been not 

3 transcribed for good reason, and we don't want 

4 to stifle free and open discourse. But I just 

5 want to make sure that everyone agrees that we 

6 will not be transcribing this. It will be as 

7 we have done in the past. We will all be 

8 sitting around discussing, taking notes. 

9 But if you would like it 

10 transcribed -- and this is really something 

11 that, you know, it is -- I don't know the 

12 answer to this, but whether Ms. Bonsignore 

13 would prefer it or not --

14 MR. KATZ: John, this is Ted. I 

15 don't think it necessarily makes a good 

16 atmosphere to have a transcriber there for a 

17 focus group. But there will be opportunities, 

18 there will be lots of people there to take 

19 notes.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: So I think everybody 

22 should be able to come out of the meeting with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

146

1 the same understanding of what they heard from 

2 everybody, particularly since you're really 

3 talking about very focused issues, you know, a 

4 very clear agenda.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's fine. 

6 No, that's fine.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen 

8 again. It seems -- my understanding is the 

9 burden of responsibility really is on the Work 

10 Group, so that when this meeting is 

11 accomplished it seems to me then the Work 

12 Group needs to say this is what we see as the 

13 recommendation. Am I right on that?

14 MR. KATZ: I agree, Gen. I think 

15 the ball is in the Work Group's court at this 

16 point. And, you know, SC&A and DCAS are 

17 facilitating on this technical business. But 

18 I think -- yes, I think the ball is in your 

19 court, and you will be -- if you are able to 

20 be there, that will, you know, facilitate your 

21 deliberations after that as well in the next 

22 Work Group.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

147

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So then I 

2 think we are all set. We will need to --

3 DR. NETON: Gen?

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. I hear a 

5 voice?

6 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. I 

7 just need a little more clarity on how to 

8 select -- the workers to participate are going 

9 to be selected. There were a few ideas thrown 

10 out, and I am not clear in my mind how that is 

11 going to transpire.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I think the 

13 most important one at this point is Mr. 

14 Murphy, just to make sure that we have 

15 everything clarified that he has offered, so 

16 we will certainly want to make sure he is 

17 there, in my view, and the other participants 

18 also. And we have to rely on Antoinette, too, 

19 to --

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I can -- I 

21 will have a discussion with Mr. Murphy and Mr. 

22 Speciale after this and -- because as I've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

148

1 said, I have been -- I have been trying to 

2 find other people to add to this discussion 

3 who could provide some additional 

4 corroboration. 

5 So I have been doing that, and 

6 actually Mr. Speciale was going to speak with 

7 some people on Thursday at their weekly 

8 meeting. So I could get back to everybody in, 

9 you know, maybe a week or two with some 

10 possible names of former workers who would be 

11 willing to participate.

12 DR. NETON: Okay. That would be 

13 good. Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: And then the other piece 

15 of this -- Jim, it's for either you folks at 

16 DCAS or SC&A -- I mean, you both have access 

17 to NOCTS. I don't know what the rules around 

18 this are, but the other thing that is 

19 permissible would be to contact some former 

20 claimants that are survivors -- not survivors, 

21 but workers who worked in this timeframe, and 

22 see if any of them, one, know about 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 

149

1 tunnels, and, two, would be willing to 

2 participate in this, and, you know, live 

3 conveniently for that as well, of course, 

4 because we are going to be doing this up in 

5 the Buffalo area, wherever we have the locus 

6 of all of these workers.

7 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Jim 

8 Lockey. Ted, I think that is very important. 

9 I think that has to be done. As a Member of 

10 the Work Group, I would like to see some 

11 additional people there that have not 

12 previously been interviewed participate in 

13 this flow of ideas process.

14 DR. MAURO: I also -- this is 

15 John. I do have a suggestion. Since it 

16 sounds like we might be moving down parallel 

17 paths in time, Ms. Bonsignore will be working 

18 with the workers as best she can to identify 

19 -- but simultaneously NIOSH and SC&A will be 

20 working together. Let's see how -- in other 

21 words, we are not going to just -- NIOSH and 

22 SC&A are not going to just sit and wait, let's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

150

1 say, until we get, let's say, a list. We are 

2 going -- are we going to move in parallel?

3 Now, the only question is, if we 

4 are going to move in parallel, where we are 

5 going to collect together -- SC&A and NIOSH 

6 try to identify workers and people we would 

7 like to see there, perhaps some names, that 

8 sort of thing, should we -- once it gets to a 

9 point where we think we have identified five, 

10 six, seven, 10 workers that it appears to us 

11 might be very helpful to be part of this, at 

12 that point, though, should we -- if you agree 

13 with that, should we reach out to them, or 

14 should we work through Ms. Bonsignore? So 

15 that, you know, people may get confused if 

16 lots of different people are reaching out to 

17 them.

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I agree, 

19 John. Why don't you give me, you know, the 

20 next week and a half to discuss this with the 

21 workers that have this weekly meeting and see 

22 what number I -- and to Dr. Lockey's point, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

151

1 these people would be people who have not been 

2 interviewed before. So they would be -- that 

3 is actually what I have been looking for, 

4 people who have not been interviewed before.

5 So, because, you know, if people 

6 start getting contacted by NIOSH, they are 

7 going to go, you know, what is going on? What 

8 do they want from me?

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: I think -- Jim 

10 Lockey -- the solution is that both people 

11 come up with lists, and before the invitation 

12 goes out you compare your list and then you --

13 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: -- you set -- you 

15 know, if both groups together have 30 people 

16 in the list that are not overlapping, 30 

17 independent people, and you want to limit the 

18 focus group to 15, then you randomly -- there 

19 are certain people you want there no matter 

20 what, but then the rest you randomly select 

21 and then invite them. If they say no, then 

22 you move down and invite the next person.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

152

1 MR. CRAWFORD: Jim, this is Chris 

2 Crawford. There may be some Privacy Act 

3 considerations here. I am not sure NIOSH can 

4 turn over a list of names to be viewed by Ms. 

5 Bonsignore or any other party. At the same 

6 time, we would like to reserve, I think -- Jim 

7 Neton, you can correct me on this if you wish 

8 -- I think we want to reserve the right to 

9 invite workers that we know about and, you 

10 know, may have an interest in interviewing.

11 DR. NETON: Yes. I think, for 

12 instance, that superintendent -- supervisor 

13 comes to mind. I mean, it is clearly 

14 conflicting -- you know, it is one other side 

15 of the picture, so --

16 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I mean, 

17 there is two ways you can go about this. You 

18 can do it independently, but there is 

19 Antoinette's concern about people -- some 

20 people getting -- and John's concern, about 

21 some people getting confused about being 

22 contacted by Antoinette or other workers 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 

153

1 you. 

2 So there are two ways you can go 

3 about it. You can give Antoinette a little 

4 bit of time, and then she can come up with a 

5 list of people she proposes be considered, 

6 which you guys can look at and see that you 

7 don't duplicate that. And that way those 

8 individuals won't be contacted, you know, two 

9 times, you know, by two different parties, you 

10 know, or you can do it in parallel. But, I 

11 mean, either way will work.

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: Either way will 

13 work, Ted. You're right, either way. You 

14 just compare the lists and make sure you don't 

15 have two contacts going out. That's an easy 

16 thing to do.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Ted, this is Gen. 

18 Too, I don't think we are in a real huge 

19 hurry on this. It seems to me we can't pull 

20 this off until after the Board meeting. So we 

21 are probably looking at March.

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: March or even 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

154

1 April. That's probably correct. So --

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes. I would hope that 

4 we can do it in March, so that we can move 

5 things along, according to everybody's 

6 concerns about timeliness. I know DCAS would 

7 prefer not to have to go forward with one 

8 approach to dose reconstruction now and then 

9 have to change course in a few months 

10 possibly.

11 So why don't we at least aim for 

12 getting this done in March? If we can't do 

13 it, we can't. But I think we should try for 

14 that.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So are we 

16 on track now to -- everybody knows what they 

17 are doing? And we are going to find out when 

18 we can do it and who can attend.

19 DR. NETON: I think I have a rough 

20 idea how this is going to proceed. We will 

21 start looking through the files to see if we 

22 can identify people that we feel would be good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

155

1 candidates. We will reserve that list until 

2 we hear from Ms. Bonsignore.

3 And I think we might want to sort 

4 of vet this list with the Board Working Group 

5 maybe a little bit before we go out. I don't 

6 know.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: And I think it 

8 would make sense to limit your search to 

9 people who actually live in the Buffalo area.

10 DR. NETON: Oh, yes. Yes, we 

11 would try to do that.

12 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay.

13 DR. NETON: Absolutely.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Josie, do you 

15 think you can attend if the time is --

16 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I will 

17 definitely try, yes.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Good, good.

19 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. You 

20 know, I think Ted said this a few minutes ago, 

21 but I'll repeat it. This is really a Work 

22 Group show. This is not particularly a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

156

1 technical issue that we are going to decide or 

2 NIOSH is going to decide. 

3 And it is much better if the Work 

4 Group participates firsthand rather than, you 

5 know, having it filtered from -- by us or by 

6 NIOSH. You know, it is like you really have 

7 to see the evidence and hear the workers 

8 yourself personally, I think. I think it 

9 really revolves around the Work Group Members 

10 being able to attend this meeting.

11 DR. MAURO: Steve, this is John. 

12 I like the optics of that. You are absolutely 

13 right. What we have here is: the Work Group 

14 is doing its best for fact-finding; this is a 

15 little different. I don't think we have done 

16 this before, but I think it's good.

17 The Work Group is the 

18 orchestrator, is the integrator and the driver 

19 behind this, working closely with Ms. 

20 Bonsignore to make sure that the Work Group is 

21 getting the information that is as complete 

22 and factually accurate as possible. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

157

1 So rather than this be, you know, 

2 something that is handed off to NIOSH and 

3 SC&A, it is a little strange, but I am making 

4 a suggestion that this sounds like one of 

5 those situations where the driver of this bus 

6 should be the Work Group, the Board Members, 

7 in terms of orchestrating this. 

8 So it's a little different. 

9 Usually we, SC&A and NIOSH, are given our 

10 missions and we go out and do our job, and 

11 then we come back and bring it to the Work 

12 Group. In this case, having the Work Group or 

13 a designated Member of the Board actually be 

14 the person that is facilitating and guiding 

15 and directing the activities of the meeting, 

16 right from cradle to grave, will be -- I know 

17 I've just sort of got a good feeling about 

18 that. I don't know how you folks feel.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: I will answer 

20 you, John. I guess all along I have had the 

21 understanding that it is the Work Group's 

22 responsibility.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

158

1 DR. MAURO: Oh, it is. But this 

2 is very hands-on now. In other words, you 

3 know, as opposed to SC&A going off and doing 

4 some work, delivering a White Paper, NIOSH 

5 going off, doing some work, delivering a White 

6 Paper, and then we convene at a Work Group 

7 meeting like this, this would be a little bit 

8 different.

9 This would be where -- and in the 

10 past also, when we have arranged for 

11 interviews, on occasion Work Group Members 

12 would participate -- it is not unusual for 

13 that -- as just a member of part of the groups 

14 that are out there doing data collection and 

15 fact-finding as part of a process.

16 But where this is such a focused 

17 problem, I don't know, it just seems to me 

18 that where the leadership -- you know, 

19 actually from cradle to grave for bringing 

20 closure is where the -- you know, a Member of 

21 the Work Group or of the Board is actually 

22 there, so-called in the trenches, with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

159

1 everyone involved in this, to listen firsthand 

2 to the discussions. Rather than seeing some 

3 material written by SC&A, to actually 

4 physically be there to listen in and perhaps 

5 even help to facilitate the discussion.

6 I don't know. Maybe it has always 

7 been that way, but I see the importance of it 

8 here.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: I agree with you, 

10 John. I think we go back to Josie's 

11 statement, and it comes from our experience at 

12 the last Work Group meeting. It was very 

13 important for us to be there in person looking 

14 at those maps, and the added --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- big chunk of 

17 information right now is to have the workers 

18 there.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and Gen --

20 this is Josie -- and to understand the points 

21 that Antoinette brings up concerning the maps 

22 that we looked at on the 30th. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

160

1 So, yes, John, I agree it is very 

2 important that we are all there.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Are we ready to 

4 adjourn, Gen?

5 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve. I 

6 want to make one more comment, following up on 

7 all of this. So, in effect, this worker 

8 interview meeting we are going to have is 

9 actually a Work Group meeting that is going to 

10 take place somewhere in the Buffalo area 

11 rather than in Cincinnati.

12 MR. KATZ: Steve, this is Ted. 

13 Let me just say this is not a Work Group 

14 meeting. We transcribe all of our Work Group 

15 meetings. This is -- but we have done this 

16 interview, we do this with Work Group Members 

17 at interviews -- not all of the Work Group 

18 Members will necessarily make it to this 

19 meeting, although certainly they are all 

20 invited and encouraged.

21 But this is a work meeting. It's 

22 not a Work Group meeting, but it is for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

161

1 developing information. We have done this at 

2 a number of other nuclear weapons sites where 

3 we have had the Work Group Members go to be 

4 part of the information collection process.

5 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: It is distinct. It is 

7 distinct from the Work Group meetings.

8 DR. OSTROW: I understand. 

9 MR. KATZ: In other words, there 

10 will be no deliberation and decisions made at 

11 this meeting. It will be information 

12 collection.

13 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then, I 

15 think we are -- I think you asked the 

16 question, Ted, if we are ready to adjourn. I 

17 think we either need to adjourn or take a 

18 short break. But I think we are ready to 

19 adjourn. Is everyone agreed?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Well, 

22 thank you all for your participation. I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

162

1 this has been very productive.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks to 

3 everybody.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 12:48 p.m.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22