1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

114th MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY,

DECEMBER 1, 2016

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 8:30 a.m. 

Mountain Time in the Hilton Santa Fe Historic 

Plaza, 100 Sandoval Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 

James M. Melius, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT: 

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chair

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member*

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member*
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member*

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

* Via telephone

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS: 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

BARRIE, TERRIE

BLAZE, D'LANIE

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

DOMINA, KIRK

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GRIFFON, MARK

HAND, DONNA

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

HUGHES, LARA, DCAS

JACQUEZ-ORTIZ, MICHELE

JERISON, DEB

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STEPHENS, HUGH

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

WHITTEN, DIANE
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents 

Roll Call ........................................ 5

Santa Susanna Field Laboratory SEC Petition ...... 6

(1965-1988, Ventura County, CA) .................. 6

Adjourn ......................................... 28
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (8:26 a.m.)

3 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, if Board Members 

4 can get seated, we're getting started.

5 This is our second day of Meeting 114, 

6 and let me turn it over to Ted to do the preliminary.

7 MR. KATZ: All right, thanks, Jim. 

8 Welcome, everyone in the room and on the line.

9 For folks on the line, today, we have 

10 a fairly short session. We're dealing with Area 

11 IV of Santa Susana, that's it, an SEC.

12 The materials for that, the 

13 presentation for that and I think the petition 

14 evaluation, too, for NIOSH should be posted on the 

15 website. You can find that under the NIOSH website 

16 under Meetings, schedule of meetings, today's 

17 date.

18 And you can also follow along the 

19 agenda, which is also posted there. It has a Live 

20 Meeting address. You can go to the Live Meeting 

21 address and follow along in real-time with -- as 

22 the slides are presented to the Board.
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay, that takes care of that. I'm 

2 going to do roll call. For roll call, there are 

3 no conflicts among Board Members related to this 

4 site, so, there's nothing to be concerned about 

5 there.

6 And I'll just run through the roll call 

7 alphabetically. We have some people in the room 

8 and people on the line.

9 Roll Call 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, let's just wait a 

11 couple minutes, at least give them a couple 

12 minutes. We often don't start right at the snap 

13 of 8:30, so maybe that they expect that. Oh, they 

14 actually have a minute, they do. It's not even 

15 10:30 yet.

16 Yes, so, folks on the phone who are 

17 listening in, please mute your phone except for the 

18 Board Members, who we don't have on the hone right 

19 now. But press *6 to mute your phone, if you don't 

20 have a mute button on your phone, for people 

21 listening in, and that will improve the audio for 

22 you so you can hear better what goes on here.
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Do we have anybody on the line just to 

2 let me know that you can hear me well?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I can 

4 hear you well.

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, Paul, great. So that's 

6 super. So, Paul, you are there.

7 Okay, I think we can go ahead.

8 Santa Susanna Field Laboratory SEC Petition 

9 (1965-1988, Ventura County, CA) 

10 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, so, we'll start 

11 the first and actually only item on the agenda today 

12 is the Petition 234, Santa Susana Field Laboratory. 

13 And we'll start with Dr. Lara Hughes.

14 Welcome.

15 DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Dr. Melius.

16 Good morning, everybody. This is the 

17 NIOSH evaluation, SEC Petition Evaluation for Area 

18 IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

19 A little bit to the petition history, 

20 this is the third petition that NIOSH has 

21 evaluated. This is Petition Number 234.
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This was done this year. We identified 

2 a claimant for whom dose reconstruction could not 

3 be completed in July. We received a petition in 

4 August and issued the Petition Evaluation Report 

5 in October.

6 As you well remember, there are two 

7 prior petitions, SEC 93 which was done in 2008, 

8 initially added a Class to the SEC from 1955 to 1958 

9 at a site which was based on an entire lack of 

10 internal monitoring data pre-1959.

11 This was followed by SEC 156 that was 

12 issued in 2010. A Class was added to the SEC for 

13 the years '59 through '64 based on incomplete 

14 bioassay air and process monitoring pre-1965.

15 The site history, the Santa Susana 

16 Field Laboratory encompasses about 2,850 acres in 

17 total. It's located 30 miles northwest of Los 

18 Angeles in the Simi Hills, Ventura County.

19 The site was established in the late 

20 1940s. At that time, it was a remote area; it is 

21 not at this day. It's quite densely populated 

22 around it.
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It consists of four administrative and 

2 operational areas. They are named Area I through 

3 IV. Area IV is highlighted in blue and is the only 

4 covered area under this program. It's around 290 

5 acres and is also referred to as ETEC.

6 This area was established in 1953. In 

7 1955, the nuclear part of the operations going on 

8 at the site became Atomics International. And 

9 there was also rocket and explosives testing going 

10 on that became Rocketdyne.

11 These two entities merged in 1984, 

12 again, and became Rockwell International. It's 

13 been owned by Boeing since 1996. And, again, the 

14 part that was covered under DOE operations was also 

15 referred to as ETEC, or Energy Technology 

16 Engineering Center, which makes the corporate 

17 history quite complicated and it's very confusing 

18 to a lot of people.

19 The site operations, it was a test area 

20 for nuclear reactor programs to test different 

21 configurations of small nuclear reactors.

22 Overall, there were ten nuclear 
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reactors tested. They were fairly low-energy, 

2 with the highest, the one with the highest power 

3 level was the SRE reactor.

4 There was also operation of criticality 

5 test facilities and nuclear support operations to 

6 support reactor programs were going on from 1956 

7 to present.

8 Those consisted of reactor fuel 

9 manufacturing, the disassembly of fused reactors 

10 and fuels, production of radioactive sources, 

11 research on fuel reprocessing, not actual 

12 large-scale reprocessing, but they researched 

13 different methods.

14 And, of course, in the preparation of 

15 the used fuel for waste -- for disposal, there's 

16 also a part that the non-nuclear programs between 

17 '66 and '98 that investigated in liquid metal 

18 technologies.

19 So, the rationale for adding an 

20 additional class, ever since the initial 

21 Evaluation Report was presented and NIOSH did some 

22 more investigation into the available data, it was 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 determined that a coworker model would be necessary 

2 at the site because there was only a fraction of 

3 the workers at the site were monitored for internal 

4 exposures.

5 So, there was -- it was a several-year 

6 process where we collected the data from the site, 

7 scanned it and reduced it down to the coworker 

8 model. However, in so doing, we determined that 

9 there was an exposure potential for americium and 

10 thorium that was not really addressed by the 

11 coworker model and it was not addressed by the 

12 available data.

13 The americium and thorium were not 

14 detected by available internal monitoring methods. 

15 They could analyze for it but it wasn't generally 

16 done.

17 The internal coworker model is limited 

18 in scope in that it addresses uranium, plutonium 

19 and mixed fission products. It does not address 

20 the thorium and progeny and it does not address 

21 americium.

22 There were sources of americium and 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium obviously on the side, the routine reactor 

2 operations, shutdowns, modification, refueling, 

3 fuel manufacturing, all would result in 

4 accumulation of transuranic elements.

5 The SRE had two cores that were used. 

6 The initial core had some experimental fuel 

7 elements that contained thorium and the second core 

8 that was used had -- consisted or uranium-thorium 

9 alloy core that was used from '60 to '64.

10 Now, it's not so much the use of this 

11 core than what they did when they were done with 

12 it. They disassembled the core and they stored the 

13 fuel inside and eventually, it was prepared for 

14 disposal; it was declad, cut up and shipped 

15 offsite.

16 So, there was also the advanced 

17 epithermal thorium reactor that operated from 1960 

18 to 1974 that used a thorium fuel core. The 

19 radioactive material disposal facility was used 

20 for storage of the used reactor fuel.

21 The hot lab was used to disassemble the 

22 SRE fuel in 1974 and to 1976.
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There was research on fuel reprocessing 

2 in the Engineering Test Building and there were 

3 fuel decladding operations.

4 There was also research involving 

5 special isotopes.

6 The nuclear operations of concern ended 

7 in 1980 and the nuclear support operations ended 

8 in 1988. So, for this evaluation, this is kind of 

9 how we arrived at the end date.

10 Sources of available information for 

11 the evaluation are the Site Profile and Technical 

12 Information Bulletins and Procedures, the NIOSH 

13 Site Research Database which has somewhere over --

14 it has 2,834 documents related to the Santa Susana 

15 sites.

16 We looked at existing claimant files. 

17 There were 315, I believe, electronic databases. 

18 There were numerous interviews that were done over 

19 the years with former Area IV Santa Susana field 

20 laboratory employees. Those were done by NIOSH 

21 and some were done by DOE.

22 We looked at scientific publications.
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The data that is available for dose reconstruction 

2 are the internal monitoring data. We have gross 

3 alpha and beta, uranium, plutonium and mixed 

4 fission products.

5 There was limited data available for 

6 americium and thorium. It's really not much and 

7 it's not enough to come up with a usable model for 

8 coworker exposures.

9 The internal monitoring was limited to 

10 radiation workers handling unencapsulated 

11 material. That boils down, over the course of 

12 operations, to about 2,200 workers.

13 The coworker model has been completed 

14 but it is limited in scope.

15 External monitoring data is available 

16 for all years of operation at Area IV. The 

17 external monitoring was assigned based on job, 

18 exposure potential of the worker.

19 There's beta/gamma monitoring by using 

20 pocket or pencil dosimeters, film dosimeters and, 

21 later, TLDs. Neutrons were monitored with NTA 

22 film. NIOSH was able to develop an N/P ratio model 
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and that's currently used for dose reconstruction.

2 There were 4,665 individuals involved 

3 in the external dosimetry program between 1955 and 

4 1999. And NIOSH has also developed an external 

5 coworker model using this data.

6 The feasibility conclusion, NIOSH 

7 lacks sufficient monitoring process for source 

8 information to estimate potential internal doses 

9 from thorium or americium from 1965 through 1988, 

10 which is the end of the covered operational period 

11 of the site.

12 NIOSH believes that it has sufficient 

13 data to reconstruct external doses to all workers 

14 at the site and NIOSH will use any individual 

15 personal monitoring data or applicable coworker 

16 data for partial dose reconstructions as 

17 appropriate.

18 The Class Definition, it's all workers 

19 in any area at Area IV that worked from January 1st, 

20 1965 through December 31st, 1988 for at least 250 

21 work days.

22 And the feasibility findings are listed 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in this table. The current infeasibility is 

2 americium and thorium between 1965 and 1988.

3 There are some previously determined 

4 infeasibilities for uranium, plutonium, and mixed 

5 fission products up to 1965. And external 

6 beta/gamma, neutron, and occupational medical 

7 X-rays is feasible.

8 And that concludes the presentation. 

9 Any questions?

10 CHAIR MELIUS: Thank you.

11 Yes, Phil then Josie.

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I have a 

13 question about residual contamination. I know the 

14 EPA had some sampling done that showed there was 

15 -- DOE had some -- there was various hot spots they 

16 found. Is there going to be coverage for residual 

17 cleanup?

18 DR. HUGHES: There is a residual 

19 period, yes, that's covered. It's from 1988, 

20 well, 1989 to present. It is covered, yes.

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: My understanding is 

22 some of those hot spots still existed after '88. 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I could be wrong in that, but that was my 

2 understanding.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Phil, the answer is 

4 it's a covered facility up to the present. I mean, 

5 there's no need to have a residual contamination 

6 period because it's covered up to the present. You 

7 know, whether it's contamination at the site, I 

8 mean, we have to do dose reconstructions after 1988 

9 and we believe we can do that.

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Alright. Is 

11 everybody being monitored for internal exposure to 

12 both americium and thorium besides what's --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We believe we can do 

14 dose reconstruction after 1988, yes. And, we're 

15 aware that there's contamination on the facility.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay.

17 CHAIR MELIUS: Josie?

18 MEMBER BEACH: My question was exactly 

19 the same, how you were going to reconstruct dose 

20 for the americium and thorium after '88. So, 

21 that's where I was at, too.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, the Board 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 typically takes an action, they would add the SEC 

2 Class for what we proposed and withhold judgment 

3 on the remainder. And, you know, maybe task our 

4 subcontractor or contractor to evaluate our 

5 methods after '88.

6 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, I mean, this is an 

7 83.14 and so it's focused on just this particular 

8 feature.

9 MEMBER BEACH: I was mostly looking at 

10 the end date and that answered that. Thank you.

11 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, and it's still, 

12 yes, I mean, the Site Profile issues even during 

13 this time period, because, for those with non-SEC 

14 cancers and so forth.

15 Yes, Brad?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Lara, I just 

17 wondering, now everything is on just Area IV 

18 because, I'm understanding that, how are you 

19 determining, is it by badges or how are we 

20 determining Area IV people?

21 DR. HUGHES: Well, any claim that would 

22 arrive at NIOSH would be for Area IV and the 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 determination is done by Department of Labor.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, it sits with the 

3 Department of Labor of calling that out?

4 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that's correct.

5 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, I think we've gone 

6 through this multiple times. I mean, I agree, it's 

7 frustrating and so forth, but we're sort of caught 

8 by what the -- what's a designated covered facility 

9 and what the covered time periods and then 

10 determinations made by DOL whether people fall 

11 within those.

12 Yes, Loretta?

13 MEMBER VALERIO: I'm wondering, on 

14 page nine where you address the research involving 

15 special isotopes, how long was that research 

16 conducted for? What was the time frame?

17 DR. HUGHES: I do not remember right 

18 now. It was a smaller program and, at some point, 

19 it was actually moved offsite. It is unclear how 

20 much was actually done on the site.

21 It had something to do with destroying 

22 transuranic elements in spent fuel. And I 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand it was moved to the University of 

2 Missouri. It was a small-scale research program 

3 and the dates, I don't remember at the top -- from 

4 the top of my head.

5 Yes, it was done before 1988, that's 

6 correct.

7 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, anybody else? 

8 Any Board Members on the phone with questions?

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, and let me just note, Dr. 

10 Poston joined us shortly after we began.

11 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, any -- oh, I'm 

12 sorry.

13 MEMBER MUNN: That's alright.

14 CHAIR MELIUS: I tried.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Dr. Hughes, given the 

16 fact that we have such --

17 MR. KATZ: Wanda, you need to speak 

18 directly into your mic, please.

19 MEMBER MUNN: I was trying to speak to 

20 Dr. Hughes and the mic at the same time.

21 Given the fact that we have such a 

22 limited amount of information on internal 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposures for americium and thorium, did you see 

2 any red flags at all in that small amount of data 

3 that we had?

4 DR. HUGHES: Not specifically, no.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And, I'm assuming, based 

6 from what I have -- from what we've -- the 

7 information that's been available to us that we 

8 have a good handle, in any case, on the flow of SNM 

9 through the entire site.

10 It seems to me that we would have had 

11 a very good record of input and outgo of exposure 

12 potential for source throughout the entire period.

13 I made that assumption based on what I 

14 read in the Site Profile and the other documents 

15 we've seen since then.

16 DR. HUGHES: Yes, I believe that we do. 

17 The documentation from the site is in very good 

18 condition and the site has been very helpful in 

19 identifying relevant information that we need.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

21 CHAIR MELIUS: Any more questions from 

22 Board Members?
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And my understanding is that the Work 

2 Group has not had a chance to meet since this report 

3 came out and so, there's no recommendation from the 

4 Work Group?

5 Okay, I just want to make sure of that 

6 I understood that.

7 And, also, it's my understanding is 

8 that the petitioners for this particular petition 

9 are not -- do not wish to make any comments.

10 Ted? So, I think we're ready to --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: One more question.

12 CHAIR MELIUS: Sure, Paul.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I recall that 

14 there was some concern about people from the other 

15 areas had access to Area IV and it's -- can you 

16 clarify the extent to which people from the other 

17 areas would be eligible for compensation if they 

18 just came to Area IV or do they have to have an 

19 official assignment there?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: That would not be a 

21 decision that we would make. That would be a 

22 Department of Labor decision.
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Department of Labor 

2 would make that?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: If they refer a case to 

4 us with a year's worth of verified employment in 

5 Area IV, whether the person visited off and on and 

6 added up to a year or when it -- however they refer 

7 the case to us, that would be the determining factor 

8 on that. So, we would not make that decision.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, okay, thank you.

10 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, that and I think 

11 there's some issues on recordkeeping for when 

12 people were in Area IV from other areas. But that, 

13 again, is not -- it's something up to the Department 

14 of Labor. It's an ongoing issue, but sort of 

15 independent of the review of this SEC.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, thank you.

17 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes, thank you, Paul.

18 Any other comments? Questions?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Can I make a 

20 recommendation to accept NIOSH's proposal?

21 CHAIR MELIUS: You're a Board Member, 

22 you're allowed to.
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I'm making that 

2 recommendation.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'll second it.

4 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay, good.

5 The second, and for that, and let me 

6 just read into the record the Definition.

7 So, it's all -- so, what we're voting 

8 on is to add to the SEC all employees of the 

9 Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, 

10 and their contractors and subcontractors, who 

11 worked in any area at Area IV of the Santa Susana 

12 Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California, 

13 from January 1, 1965 through December 31st, 1988 

14 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

15 work days, occurring either solely under this 

16 employment or in combination with work days within 

17 the parameters established for one or more other 

18 Classes of employees included in the Special 

19 Cohort.

20 That's the official Class Definition 

21 that we're voting on today. So, go ahead, Ted.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'll do this 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 alphabetically.

2 Dr. Anderson?

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Beach?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Clawson?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Field?

9 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Kotelchuck?

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemon's absent, I'll 

13 collect his vote after the meeting.

14 Lockey?

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Melius?

17 CHAIR MELIUS: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Munn?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

21 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson, I'll 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 collect his vote after the meeting.

2 Dr. Roessler, did you join us? I'll 

3 collect her vote after the meeting.

4 Schofield?

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Valerio?

7 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: And Ziemer?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: And the ayes have it and the 

11 motion passes.

12 CHAIR MELIUS: Okay.

13 (Applause.)

14 CHAIR MELIUS: And thank you, Lara, for 

15 a very good presentation and other people that 

16 worked on this hidden away at ORAU and other places. 

17 So, thank you.

18 You'll have to bear with me a second. 

19 I have just passed out the official letter and I 

20 need to read it into the record so you'll get to 

21 hear the Definition once more.

22 The Advisory Board on Radiation and 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated SEC 

2 Petition 00234 concerning workers at the Santa 

3 Susana Field Laboratory, Area IV, under the 

4 statutory requirements established by EEOICPA and 

5 incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13.

6 The Board respectfully recommends that 

7 SEC status be accorded to, quote, all employees of 

8 the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

9 agencies, and their contractors or subcontractors, 

10 who worked in any area of Area IV of the Santa Susana 

11 Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California, 

12 from January 1st, 1965 through December 31st, 1988, 

13 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

14 work days occurring either solely under this 

15 employment or in combination with work days within 

16 the parameters established for one or more other 

17 Classes of employees included in the Special 

18 Exposure Cohort, close quotes.

19 This recommendation is based on the 

20 following factors. Santa Susana Area IV facility 

21 was involved in development and testing of nuclear 

22 reactors and related research.
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH found that there were 

2 insufficient biological monitoring data, air 

3 monitoring data, or process and radiological 

4 source information at this facility in order to 

5 complete individual dose reconstructions 

6 involving internal radiation exposures with 

7 sufficient accuracy for Area IV workers during the 

8 time period in question.

9 The Board concurs with this conclusion.

10 NIOSH determined that health may have 

11 been endangered for the workers exposed to 

12 radiation in Area IV during the time period in 

13 question.

14 The Board also concurs with this 

15 determination.

16 Based on these considerations and the 

17 discussions held at our November 30th to December 

18 1st, 2016 Advisory Board Meeting in Santa Fe, New 

19 Mexico, the Board recommends that this Class be 

20 added to the SEC. Enclosed is the documentation 

21 from the Board Meeting where this SEC Class was 

22 discussed. Documentation includes copies of the 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 petition, the NIOSH review thereof, and related 

2 materials. If any of these items are unavailable 

3 at this time, they will follow shortly.

4 Any questions, comments, 

5 clarifications?

6 If not, that will be the body of our 

7 letter going to the Secretary.

8 And Ted's already packed here, so, 

9 packing up. I don't think we have any more 

10 business.

11 There will be, on Santa Susana, there's 

12 obviously follow-up to go on the Site Profile and 

13 other issues, so there'll be more work to do on 

14 that.

15 Adjourn

16 But, again, I think we're ready and, 

17 without objection, I think we can adjourn the 

18 meeting.

19 Thank you, everybody.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

21 went off the record at 8:54 a.m.)