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

+ + + + +

73rd MEETING

+ + + + +

TUESDAY,

NOVEMBER 16, 2010

+ + + + +

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

Mountain Standard Time, in the Hilton Santa 

Fe, 100 Sandoval Street, Santa Fe, NM, James 

M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

PRESENT: (CONT.)

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

BEAVERS, DANNY

BROEHM, JASON, CDC

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

CARROLL, DENNIS, REUTERS

CHAPMAN, RICHARD

CORDOVA, PRISCILLA

CORDOVA, ROSENDRE

CORDOVAN, ROCINDO

CORIZ, ELIAS

CRUZ, RUBEN, CDC

DOMINGUEZ, PRISCILLA

ELLISON, CHRIS, DCAS

ESTRADA, GERALDINE

ESTRADA, ROBERT

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GALLEGOS, BARBARA

GALLEGOS, DANIEL

GARCIA, PAUL

GARLEY, ELOY

GERDLIN, THERSA

GLOVER, SAM, DCAS

GONZALES, ALFRED

GRIEGO, JOE

GUTIERREZ, DAMIAN

GUTIERREZ, LEROY

HARVERY, JOHN

HEMPERLY, BILLIE

HERRERA, MARCELLA

HEWLETT, A.

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

JACQUEZ-ORITZ, MICHELE, Office of Senator Tom 

Udall
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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

JOHNSON, RICHARD

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEITON, RACHEL, DOL

LENTZ, GENE

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LUCERO, CONSUELO

MAEZ-CLOVIS, PRISCILLA

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MANDRIL, CHRIS

MANZANARES, JENNIFER, Office of Congressman 

Ben Lujan

MARTINEZ, EPPIE

MARTINEZ, GILBERT

MARTINEZ, JOSE

MARTINEZ, MARCELLA

MARTINEZ, ROSE

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCDOUGALL, VERNON, ATL

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

MCKEEL, DAN, Dow Madison Petitioner*

MEDINA, ANNABELLE

MEDINA, CLYDE

MONDRAGON, MELINDA

NETON, JIM, DCAS

[Identifying information redacted]

ORTEGA, RAYMOND

ORTIZ, ANITA

ORTIZ, DANIEL

ORTIZ, LLOYD

ORTIZ, ORLANDO

PADRERO, J.

PRESLEY, LOUISE

QUINTANA, ROSE ANN

RAEL, LOIS

REGENSHERG, J.

ROMERO, JESUS

ROMERO, MICHAEL

ROMERO, SAMUEL

RORIE, JONIE

ROYBAL, GILBERT

RUIZ, HARRIET

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS
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

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

SALAZAR, MERLINIDA

SANDERS, GEORGIA

SANDERS, RAY

SANDOVAL, M.

SNODGRASS, ROGER

TERRA, MAXINE

THURBER, BILL, SC&A

TRUJILLO, BENINA

TRUJILLO, CHARLIE

TRUJILLO, CORNELIO

TRUJILLO, JUAN

TRUJILLO, REBECCA

ULIBARRI, THERESA

VALDEZ, ANTHONY

VALENCIA, ROBERT

VALERIO, LORETTA, Office of Nuclear

 Workers' Advocacy

WADE, LEW, NIOSH Contractor

ZAMORA, RUDY

*Participating via telephone
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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

WELCOME:

James Melius, Chairman ............. 6/9

Ted Katz, Exec. Secretary ............ 6

NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE/EVALUATION UPDATE:

Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH ............. 10

Questions/Comments: ................. 29

Lewis Wade, NIOSH ................... 44

DOL PROGRAM UPDATE:

Rachel Leiton, DOL .................. 52

Questions/Comments: ................. 78

DOE PROGRAM UPDATE:

Greg Lewis, DOE .................... 101

Questions/Comments: ................ 122

GE EVENDALE SEC PETITION:

Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH ............ 140

Questions/Comments: ................ 158

DOW CHEMICAL (MADISON SITE):

James Melius, Chairman ............. 171

LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH ............ 173

Questions/Comments: ................ 185

Bill Thurber, SC&A ................. 193

SEC Petition (PV):

Dan McKeel, Dow .................... 211

SIMONDS SAW & STEEL COMPANY:

Samuel Glover, NIOSH ............... 230

Motion to Accept SEC to Residual Time:... 260

Vote: 16-0 to Accept:.................... 260

DOW MADISON DISCUSSION:

James Melius, Chairman ............. 263

Questions/Comments: ................ 265

BOARD WORK SESSION:

Pre-Screening Process List ......... 273

Motion/Vote: Approve List .......... 292
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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

BOARD WORK SESSION (Continued):

Response to Public Comments ........ 292

WORK GROUP UPDATE:

James Melius, Chairman ............. 318

Brookhaven: Josie Beach ............ 319

Chapman Valve: John Poston ......... 320

Fernald: Bradley Clawson ........... 324

Hanford: James Melius .............. 325

Idaho: Phil Schofield .............. 326

Lawrence Berkeley: Paul Ziemer ..... 327

Mound: Josie Beach ................. 328

Pantex: Bradley Clawson ............ 329

Pinellas: Phil Schofield ........... 329

Piqua: John Poston ................. 330

Portsmouth Paducah K-25: Schofield . 330

Rocky: Mark Griffon ................ 331

Santa Susana: Mike Gibson .......... 331

Savannah River: Mark Griffon ....... 331

SEC WG: James Melius ............... 332

TBD-6000: Paul Ziemer .............. 334

TBD-6001: Henry Anderson ........... 340

Dose Reconstruction: Mark Griffon .. 345

LANL WORK GROUP UPDATE:

Mark Griffon, WG Chair ............. 349

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jennifer Manzanares, Representative

 for Congressman Lujan ........... 372

Andrew Evaskovich .................. 375

Loretta Valerio .................... 388

Jesus Romero ....................... 395

Lois Rael .......................... 399

Danny Beavers ...................... 404

Melinda Mondragon .................. 407

Marcella Martinez .................. 417

Richard Johnson ................ 422/472

Priscilla Maez-Clovis .......... 426/463

Ray Sanders ........................ 433

Richard Chapman .................... 436

Anthony Valdez ..................... 443
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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued):

Clyde Medina ....................... 453

Rose Ann Quintana .................. 455

Elias Coriz ........................ 458

Rocindo Cordovan ............... 461/479

Raymond Ortega ..................... 464

Paul Garcia ........................ 470

Lloyd Ortiz ........................ 474

ADJOURN:

James Melius, Chairman ............. 479
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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 8:15 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Why don't 

4 we get started? My name is Jim Melius and 

welcome to this, the 73rd 5 Meeting of the 

6 Advisory Board on Radiation Health. I think 

7 we were in Santa Fe once. I can't remember. 

8 It has been a while. We've been in 

9 Albuquerque recently. We move our meetings 

10 around.

11 And let me start by turning over 

12 to our executive secretary, Ted Katz, who will 

13 remind us of a bunch of stuff.

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Good 

15 morning, everybody. Welcome, Board Members 

16 and members of the public, staff, folks here 

17 in Santa Fe, Las Alamos and other sites as 

18 well as people on the phone, I hope, from 

19 around the country.

20 So just a few things to note for 

21 Board Members. First, with your mikes, 

22 please, take care to speak into your mikes, 
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 especially for the people on the phone, so 

2 they can hear. You have a button on your mike 

3 and if you pull it forward, it's on. If you 

4 push it back, it's off. So if you are not 

5 being heard, that may be the issue.

6 Also, I handed out the papers on 

7 the 14 set of dose reconstructions which the 

8 Board will be selecting this afternoon, Blue 

9 Paper. Please, be careful with that paper, 

10 it's got Privacy Act information on it and 

11 turn it back in to me at the end of the 

12 meeting. But, please, don't leave it about.

13 And I'll just note for the record, 

14 too, we have full Board attendance in the 

15 room, which is the first time we have managed 

16 to achieve that. Oh, actually, Dr. Lockey is 

17 not here, but I know he is here in the hotel. 

18 So anyway, it's nice to have everyone here in 

19 person.

20 So for folks on the phone, let me 

21 ask that you -- first, if I could get someone 

22 on the phone? Hold on one second. Jeremy, 
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 can you just give them a mike? Thanks.

2 Someone on the phone just let me 

3 know that you can hear us clearly. Anybody?

4 PHONE PARTICIPANT: Loud and 

5 clear, Ted.

6 MR. KATZ: Great. And you can 

7 hear us clearly?

8 PHONE PARTICIPANT: Very, very 

9 good.

10 MR. KATZ: Super. Okay. Then let 

11 me ask people on the phone, please, mute your 

12 phones except when we have public comment 

13 sessions or SEC sessions where there is an 

14 opportunity for petitioner comment. If you 

15 don't have a mute button on your phone, press 

16 *6, that will mute your phone. If you want to 

17 take it off of mute to address the Board, you 

18 press *6 again. But, please, keep your phones 

19 on mute, because otherwise it's pretty 

20 disruptive, especially for people trying to 

21 listen from other places in the country.

22 And also, don't put the call on 
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 hold at any point, because that is disruptive 

2 for everyone on the phone, in particular. 

3 Just hang up and dial back in if you need to 

4 leave the phone at some point.

5 And otherwise, the agenda is 

6 yours, Dr. Melius.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And I'll 

8 note for the record that Dr. Lockey has joined 

9 us now.

10 And I will also note for those in

11 the audience that we have a public comment 

12 period scheduled at the end of the afternoon 

13 today starting around 5:30, depending on how 

14 our agenda goes. And so we will be taking 

15 public comment there, though we will be 

16 hearing from some of the petitioners as we 

17 discuss specific petitions during the day.

18 One more comment.

19 MR. KATZ: There is one more note. 

20 Please, sign in if you would like to comment 

21 during the public comment session and you are 

22 here, present, please, sign in. There is a 
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 book out front at the desk in the hallway. 

2 So, please, sign in to comment. Thanks.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we will 

4 start and our first agenda item is a NIOSH 

5 Program Update and Program Evaluation Update. 

6 I believe Stu Hinnefeld is leading off. Stu?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, good 

8 morning, everyone. It's not snowing in 

9 Cincinnati. I wasn't quite ready for this 

10 morning.

11 So I'm here to give our status 

12 update of current activities on the program. 

13 In terms of program news, I didn't think of a 

14 whole lot of stuff to include in program news 

15 this time.

16 But I did want to mention that the 

17 Senate passed, once again this year, a 

18 resolution to set aside a National Day of 

19 Remembrance for those workers who worked on 

20 the Manhattan Project and following the 

21 Manhattan Project for the Department of Energy 

22 in working on the nuclear defense of the 
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

country. That day was October 30th 1 of this 

2 year.

3 And there were a variety of 

4 ceremonies around the country commemorating 

5 that at various times. So we did put on our 

6 website, a page on our website, acknowledging 

7 the day and the service of the employees to 

8 the country who participated in this program 

9 and have participated and continue to 

10 participate in this program or in the nuclear 

11 weapons defense of the country.

12 Moving on to our kind of 

13 statistical account for how things are going 

14 with the program, this status was updated as 

15 of the end of October. And as of that point, 

16 you can see we are closing in very close to 

17 33,000 cases having been referred for dose 

18 reconstruction.

19 And that's almost exactly 600 

20 cases more than the last time I addressed you, 

21 which was three months earlier. So we were 

22 eerily close to 200 a month over that period, 
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 which has been sort of a long-term trend or 

2 long-term average of new initial claims for 

3 years now.

4 We are closing the gap on the 

5 unworked, you know, shortening the stack in 

6 the in-box a little bit as time goes on. Some 

7 91,000 cases have now been returned or 91 

8 percent of the cases have been returned to the 

9 Department of Labor, that's up a couple 

10 percent from three months ago.

11 You can see that the bulk went 

12 with a dose reconstruction report and then a 

13 couple categories of cases being pulled. The 

14 bottom number, the 2,793 number of cases were 

15 pulled for SEC that either have the potential 

16 to be an SEC Class that has been added or 

17 maybe already have been.

18 So seven percent of the cases 

19 remain with us and then two percent of the 

20 cases have been administratively closed. That 

21 certainly happens when the claimant opts out 

22 of the process and that's usually at OCAS-1
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 stage, they decline to return the OCAS-1, 

2 because does reconstruction, in many cases 

3 because dose reconstruction didn't come up 

4 with a favorable outcome and they essentially 

5 opt out.

6 Anyone whose case has been closed 

7 can reopen it either by sending us an OCAS-1 

8 and we will reopen the case and send it to the 

9 Department of Labor or if they provide 

10 additional information relevant to their dose 

11 reconstruction that we didn't have ahead of 

12 time, we would reopen the case and rework the 

13 dose reconstruction in that case.

14 So it says closed, but closed 

15 isn't really closed and locked or anything.

16 And this is just a pie chart 

17 showing the previous information in a graphic 

18 form and the large group or the largest piece, 

19 of course, by far being the ones that are 

20 complete.

21 Really, the work that is remaining 

22 are just the final two categories, the cases 
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 active and the cases pending. And those are 

2 the two little slices of the pie, closest to 

3 12:00 and on the 11:00 side. I would tell you 

4 what colors those were, but I can't tell what 

5 colors those are. So you will have to figure 

6 that out on your own.

7 Of the active cases, these are 

8 some 2,400 cases still with us. 49 are in the 

9 dose reconstruction process and that's sort of 

10 an administrative accounting or process 

11 accounting step that we keep track of. That 

12 means it is the responsibility of a dose 

13 reconstructor, someone who does the dose 

14 reconstruction has that case in their inbox.

15 There are quite a number of cases 

16 when this was counted that were in the hands 

17 of claimants waiting for an OCAS-1 to be 

18 returned or for additional information if they 

19 had information that we didn't have available 

20 to us in dose reconstruction.

21 And then there are about 1,700 

22 cases that we are, essentially, doing the case 
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 development, gathering information and have 

2 not yet been assigned to a dose reconstructor.

3 You know, one of our cases is 

4 pending, which means if there is some 

5 technical reason why that case can't go 

6 forward for the time being, we have to go do 

7 something in order to allow that case to go 

8 forward.

9 You can see some of those are 

10 cases that we believe are going to be in SEC 

11 Classes that we will be recommending, many of 

12 those we will be recommending today. The non13 SEC pending DR methodology would be the cases 

14 that don't appear to qualify for the SEC, 

15 because they don't have one of the SEC listed 

16 cancers that would fall into the same category 

17 of Classes that we expect to present or 

18 recommendations we expect to present.

19 COI issue is a close out interview 

20 issue and that is when we have sent a draft 

21 dose reconstruction to the claimant. We have 

22 one with a blank OCAS-1. And they said well, 
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 wait a minute, then we have a conversation 

2 with them to close out the case before we ask 

3 them to send the OCAS-1 back. And they will 

4 raise information, at that point, that may be 

5 relevant to the dose reconstruction that we 

6 didn't have before and so we are chasing down 

7 that information and doing some additional 

8 research on those.

9 We have 25 where we made 

10 additional data requests, those are typically 

11 supplemental data requests to the Department 

12 of Energy. And then the Technical Basis 

13 Document issue, I think, sort of falls in. I 

14 think those are probably miscoded. I think 

15 those are probably the non-SEC cases.

16 And as to outcomes, we have been 

17 right around 30 percent. For a long time in 

18 the program, about 30 percent of the cases 

19 appear to have a PoC value greater than 50 

20 percent and some 70 percent of the completed 

21 dose reconstructions. Some have an apparent 

22 PoC less than 50 percent.
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 And these are the distributions. 

2 That chart doesn't really change. The large 

3 number that is already in the population 

4 there, the 600 or so we add every quarter 

5 doesn't really change the shape of that.

6 This is the submittals versus 

7 production chart. I haven't had this up here 

8 for a couple of times because I was having a 

9 little trouble getting the data that made 

10 sense. These are quarterly data points by the 

11 way, so you can see for several years now, the 

12 receipt rate from new cases coming in has 

13 varied between about 400, 800 and kind of 

14 floating around the 600 number, which we 

15 consider kind of our long-term average 

16 quarterly intake, you know, 200 a month.

17 Obviously, there was a big influx 

18 at the start. We weren't putting anything out 

19 at the start and that led to that huge 

20 backlog, which we now have pretty much worked 

21 on. We're getting it down to about a year. 

22 We would like to be better than that.
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 We have an objective of completing 

2 dose reconstructions within a year of when we 

3 got them. And so this is a tally of how that 

4 works. When you sort the claims by tracking 

5 them, when the tracking numbers are assigned 

6 chronologically, first case then got number 

one and the 30,000th 7 case then got number 

8 30,000.

9 So you can see since the time that 

10 we have adopted the objective of getting done 

11 within a year, we are getting pretty close to 

12 that. Now, this is of the cases that have 

13 been done for the 30,000 to -- you know, the 

14 greater than 30,000 bar, the last bar. Not 

15 every claim that is higher than 30,000 has 

16 been done. So this is 98 percent of the ones 

17 that have been done were done within a year.

18 Now, at the last meeting, I 

19 believe I was asked, I know I was asked, to 

20 report on early claims, which we had done for 

21 a long time on our reports and these 

22 statistics. Now, we have gotten away from it 
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 because we had adopted the policy of trying to 

2 do them within a year. And so we were kind of 

3 tracking things a different way.

4 So I have gone back and we have 

5 pulled out some status then of these smaller 

6 groups of earliest claims. And these are the 

7 first 1,000.

8 You can see we can account, you 

9 know, all 1,000 of them there, 975 are at DOL, 

10 22 are with us, 16 of those have been 

11 administratively closed. So, essentially, we 

12 feel like those are done unless the claimant 

13 files additional information or sends in the 

14 OCAS-1.

15 And then there are -- two DRs with 

16 the claimants. The next one is just supposed 

17 to say four DRs in process, not process 

18 claims. It's in process. And the two with 

19 claimants means we have a draft dose 

20 reconstruction in the hands of a claimant at 

21 the time we ran these statistics.

22 These are all returns. These 
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 cases all had dose reconstructions at one time 

2 and they were returned to us by the Department 

3 of Labor. Usually, that's for an additional 

4 cancer diagnosis or a change in the employment 

5 information. And those were all returned 

6 within the past year.

7 So, you know, cases like that, we 

8 figure we are always going to get the cases 

9 returned and it can be years from the first 

10 time we received it when we get that DOL 

11 returned back. So those are still within the 

12 one year from the most recent time they were 

13 referred to us.

14 Three of the claim numbers out of 

15 the first 1,000 were deleted because early on 

16 in the program as things were trying to get 

17 sorted out, a few were referred to us 

18 erroneously. For instance, the same claim was 

19 referred to us twice and we would enter it 

20 into our tracking system before recognizing 

21 that we already had it. So it got a second 

22 number.
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 There were some beryllium cases 

2 referred to us by mistake. And then there 

3 were some statutory SEC cases referred to us 

4 by mistake.

5 In the first 5,000, the statistics 

6 are fairly similar, conservatively more still 

7 at NIOSH, but again the overwhelming majority 

8 are administratively closed cases. And the 

9 ones that are -- there are 15 with claimants, 

10 meaning the draft dose reconstruction is back 

11 with the claimant. And then 18 in process, 

12 that means it's not with the claimant.

13 In all of those instances, all of 

14 those 33 cases, these are reworked cases. In

15 other words, there has been a previous dose 

16 reconstruction to the claimant and the 

17 Department of Labor has returned the case to 

18 us after we had sent them a final dose 

19 reconstruction. Again, typically because of 

20 an additional cancer diagnosis or a change of 

21 employment information.

22 And there were 19 of the first 
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 1,000 claims that were deleted because of the 

2 situations I described on the last slide.

3 And then we went ahead and looked 

4 at the first 1,000 claims. This is as far as 

5 I go with this. I can go farther if anybody 

6 wants, but not today.

7 Again, the overwhelming majority 

8 are back at the DOL by the three avenues they 

9 go back. A fairly large number are 

10 administratively closed. There are 34 DRs 

11 with the claimants. Three of those are 

12 initials, meaning that they had not had an 

13 additional dose reconstruction before. I 

14 think these may relate to maybe non-SEC cancer 

15 cases from SECs that were added fairly 

16 recently, you know, that may be the category 

17 there.

18 And then for the ones in process, 

19 there are five that have not been -- that are 

20 not reworks. You know, the bulk of these, the 

21 34 and the 52 are DR reworks and they have 

22 been returned to us within the past year. But 
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 there are five that are not.

2 A couple of those, at least, are 

3 from GE Evendale and I believe those are all 

4 actually represented by the various SEC 

5 Classes that we have, you know, have either 

6 recommended or will recommend today. And then 

7 there are a total of 30 members that were 

8 deleted because of the reasons I described 

9 earlier in the first 10,000 claims.

10 I wanted to mention a little bit 

11 about a process that we have adopted quite a 

12 while ago and I don't think -- I have never 

13 really reported on it and that's the expedited 

14 claim process.

15 We have agreed with the Department 

16 of Labor that if the Department of Labor 

17 determines or receives information that a 

18 claimant is in particularly ill health, 

19 meaning probably near death, you know, that we 

20 would try to expedite the claim in order to 

21 get an answer before the claimant dies.

22 And so we have established a 
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 process for keeping track of how we are doing 

2 on those cases. We would try to expedite it 

3 if we could. We established a process for 

4 keeping track of how we do on those expedited 

5 cases in March of 2009.

6 And since that date, you can see 

7 115 requests and 111 distinct claims. And 

8 what happens there is we may accelerate the 

9 claim and then something changes and it comes 

10 back and we try to expedite it yet again. 

11 Most of those have been approved and sent. We 

12 have managed to do most of them.

13 Here is how the -- now it says 

14 approved. That just means -- that doesn't 

15 mean it was a positive outcome. That just 

16 means the dose reconstruction got done.

17 Here is how the requests have come 

18 in. You can see it seems like we get a 

19 minimum of two a month. Our highest number 

20 was 10.

21 This is only -- I mean, it's 

22 important to these particular claimants. This 
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 is not a large body of claims. It does, 

2 however, require specific dose reconstruction 

3 manpower effort to have people available to do 

4 expedited claims as they come in. And so 

5 taking it interrupts what would be the 

6 priority that we would be working on 

7 otherwise.

8 Here is the time to complete in 

9 bar graph form. Generally when it goes out, 

10 you know, beyond really, you know, 20 --

11 probably if it goes out much beyond 25 days, 

12 there is either -- we either don't have all 

13 the information or, for instance, we will 

14 often get an expedited request when the claim 

15 comes in the door for the first time.

16 And we did not even ask for the 

17 exposure history. So there are some cases we 

18 have to ask for the exposure history and 

19 things of that sort. There may be claims that 

20 we actually expedited that we just can't do, 

21 that we feel like, you know, for instance, 

22 this could be part of an SEC Class that we 
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 feel like we can't do it, but it hasn't been 

2 recommended or hasn't become effective yet.

3 So there are some cases and it 

4 goes beyond about 25 days, those are probably 

5 the situations that apply. If we can do it, 

6 we get it done pretty quick. And you can see 

7 a few of them get done in even less than five 

8 days.

9 DOE responses to requests for 

10 exposure records. This is their performance 

as of October 31st 11 in terms of number of 

12 outstanding requests and number of requests 

13 greater than 60 days. This is not quite as 

14 good as the last quarter slide. I don't have 

15 those numbers in front of me, but I know it's 

16 not quite as good.

17 A couple of reasons for that. One 

18 of the big reasons was that we have gotten --

19 during the effective time period, we got an 

20 influx of Brookhaven claims. I think there 

21 has been additional publicity around 

22 Brookhaven because of the SEC Class and more 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people maybe becoming aware of the program.

2 So we have gotten some additional 

3 claims that would -- that don't qualify for 

4 the SEC, that's why they came to us for dose 

5 reconstruction and we have requested exposure 

6 information. And Brookhaven, as you will 

7 recall, records keeping system is not -- isn't 

8 the best one out there. And so they are 

9 struggling to respond to our request in many 

10 cases, as well as keep up with the research 

11 that continues to go on in completing the 

12 discussion at Brookhaven.

13 And finally, getting down to the 

14 Special Exposure Cohort statistics, here are 

15 the -- here is a count of the petitions. 180 

16 petitions have been received. Three are in 

17 the qualification process and 109 qualified.

18 Now, I know these numbers don't 

19 add up to 180, that's because of some things 

20 being merged. You know, we have petitions 

21 that get merged together. And so somehow they 

22 don't get caught in the count here.
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So anyway, that is how they break 

2 out the various categories of evaluation and 

3 stage. And 66 cases have been added since the 

4 start, since the rule went into effect that 

5 allowed us to start adding SEC Classes and we 

6 were able to actually do some.

7 Basically, even between the 83.13 

8 and 83.14 process, these are workers from 51 

9 sites, that's because we have had multiple 

10 Classes sometimes for the same site. And 

11 there is a potential as many as 4,429 claims. 

12 Now, that is probably the high side of the 

13 claims that we saw, because there may be some 

14 cases that look originally like they may 

15 qualify, but they don't. So that's a little 

16 higher than probably the actual number.

17 I'm trying to remember the six 

18 cases that have been added since the last 

19 report. Let's see, I think it is Downey and 

20 De Soto. I know two of the California 

21 facilities there by -- in the Simi Valley were 

22 added, BWXT. There is a Los Alamos Class 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 added, University of Rochester, Bethlehem 

2 Steel, Mound and the St. Louis Airport.

3 So it's nice to have notes. I 

4 couldn't figure out how to make them show on 

5 my screen here. And I believe that might be 

6 it, right? So are there questions or 

7 comments?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Stu. 

9 Any questions for Stu? We want one of those 

10 answer people that, you know, come up and 

11 whenever you have a question I can't -- you 

12 know?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't know 

14 how I ever got by without one, to be 

15 completely honest with you, because I --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks. Board 

17 Members have questions for Stu? I didn't mean 

18 to get off track. Yes, Paul?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not really a 

20 question, but a comment. I was pleased to see 

21 the figures on the expedited cases. I had 

22 forgotten that you were doing that and I think 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we would like to commend NIOSH for moving 

2 ahead on that and for the, it looked like, 

3 pretty good statistics on handling those.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I guess I have a 

5 question, Stu. And that is I'm trying to 

6 figure out in these ones that you have sort of 

7 -- the first 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 sort of 

8 reserved as, you know, potential SEC cases and 

9 so forth, how many of those represent sites 

10 where we are -- you are now sort of catching 

11 up with having -- they have no Site Profile 

12 and this is -- you know, we're still trying to 

13 catch up with them through an 83.14 or some 

14 other way of dealing with that, with those 

15 particular claims.

16 Have we sort of cleared those up 

17 or are there a few more that are waiting to 

18 come forward?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I believe 

20 that the total population of cases, of those 

21 Classes -

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: The total 

2 finishing up is done at this meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: If, you know, 

5 based on recommendations, what comes out --

6 maybe not what comes out of this meeting --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: But one exception 

9 will be GE Evendale, which I don't expect 

10 there will be, you know, based on some recent 

11 correspondence, clearly, there doesn't seem 

12 there will be any action at this meeting.

13 But other Classes that we're 

14 representing with a recommendation at this 

15 meeting, I believe clears up the remainder.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Because 

17 those tend to be some of the older initial 

18 claim forms. And really they have sort of sat 

19 around because there were sites without a lot 

20 of claims, but also sites without enough 

21 information to --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: A fair effort to 

2 get started with those and that's why I was 

3 asking.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. One example 

5 that falls in there is this Texas City 

6 Chemical which we have essentially changed 

7 position on because of radon model and radon 

8 situation at Blockson.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And so that 

11 represents one of them.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Simonds 

13 Saw is another.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Simonds, BWXT -

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, right.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Represents some of 

17 the oldest ones.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's where 

20 we had recommended the first two operational 

21 periods previously, didn't recommend the third 

22 and then ultimately decided, you know, part of 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this third one we re going to recommend adding 

2 part of this third that we are doing now at 

3 this meeting.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: So those are a 

6 couple of things that --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Kind of hung on a 

9 little longer than we had hoped, because we 

10 had really hoped to be done by this time. We 

11 have gone through that research. But we think 

12 we are -- at least everything is out --

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, in front 

15 now out to the Board.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Any other 

17 Board Members with questions? Yes, David?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was trying 

19 to get back to a slide, but I broke Henry's 

20 computer. You had a slide up there that 

21 showed kind of the number of claims in and the 

22 number of claims processed by quarter going 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back to maybe 2002.

2 And my recollection of how that 

3 picture looked, it was a big bolus of claims 

4 received. And then the kind of final DR 

5 reports are exceeding the number received for 

6 a period.

7 And over the last three or four 

8 quarters, you described that you are at this 

9 kind of steady state where there is about 600 

10 cases being received. And it looks like the 

11 number of DR reports is slightly above that, 

12 but it's not greatly exceeding.

13 So you had this period of catch-up 

14 where you got rid of a lot of backlog, but if 

15 I was interpreting that picture now, it sort 

16 of seems like there is a steady state where 

17 the number coming in and the number going out 

18 are relatively similar in magnitude and it's

19 going to take a very long time actually to 

20 finish the catch-up with the last 3,000 or so 

21 that are outstanding, because maybe 600 are 

22 coming in and 650 are going out.
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So is there a projection for when 

2 actually you would be at a steady state where 

3 you are caught up and we're just dealing with 

4 the numbers in and the numbers out each month?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

6 know. We have not projected that. 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Because given 

8 that there is 3,000 out, it would actually be 

9 nice to see that this was several hundred 

10 above the number coming in.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You would be--

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We are, you know, 

14 maintaining above the number coming in and we 

15 intend to -- you know, in order to shorten the 

16 time frame to nine months, you know, like 

17 right now we are at 12 months at our target. 

18 By the middle of next year, we have -- we 

19 adopt the target of trying to get that by nine 

20 months.

21 In order to do that, you have to 

22 work ahead. You know, you have to do it 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 faster than they are coming in.

2 Part of what influences the rate 

3 at which we can close that gap is, quite 

4 frankly, the amount of resources available for 

5 the administration of the program. You know, 

6 there are no limits on the amount paid in 

7 compensation. We don't have to worry about 

8 that. But there is a limit on how much we can 

9 spend to do the work to do the dose 

10 reconstructions and the cyber search and the 

11 Subcommittee support.

12 And so that's sort of the limit. 

13 That's essentially the limiting factor to how 

14 much time, how many resources we have to spend 

15 on it. But no, we have not projected. And 

16 projecting, actually, you know, catching up is 

17 always sort of difficult, because there is --

18 you are never going to be able to send a case 

19 out within a couple days of getting it in if 

20 you have to ask for exposure information when 

21 the case comes in.

22 So there is sort of a built-in two 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 month expectation in a good situation to have 

2 the case get the information and get the whole 

3 case assembled. And then if there is -- if 

4 it's a particularly difficult case, then you 

5 have still got some work on top of that.

6 So I have been asked about the 

7 theoretical minimum of how -- what's the best 

8 you can make? Well, if we get a dose 

9 reconstruction in that does not require 

10 exposure history requests, for instance, it's 

11 from a site, an AWE site where we don't have 

12 any way to get exposure records, those can be 

13 -- you know, theoretically, from there it's 

14 just a few days, because you do the interview. 

15 You have the interview checked by the 

16 claimant for accuracy, so there is some days 

17 involved in that.

18 You do the dose reconstruction in 

19 a relatively straightforward period of time, 

20 it can be done in just a few days. So there 

21 is a theoretical minimum of a few days. But a 

22 realistic theoretical minimum is maybe on the 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 order of six months by the time you got -- you 

2 know, if you are talking about any claim where 

3 you have to make a exposure history request, 

4 it may be a fairly difficult claim to do.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is there --

6 could you help me understand the picture for 

7 the first one of 2005, 2006 and 2007, where 

8 there is about 1,200 --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Final reports 

11 being issued? And then it dropped starting in 

12 2007/2008 where it drops, is that a reduction 

13 in resources available to you administratively 

14 to do the processing work or was that a 

15 process change?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: No, that was 

17 largely resource-driven. Our annual funding 

18 level has been relatively constant. The 

19 earliest years it wasn't as high as it has 

20 been for the last few, but we have been 

21 relatively flat in terms of our funding for 

22 several years.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And early on, we had no mechanism 

2 in place, you know, machinery in place and we 

3 weren't spending anywhere near what was, 

4 essentially, allotted. And so we were allowed 

5 to carry it over. We have at least that going 

6 for us, we can carry it from one year to the 

7 next.

8 So going into that period of time, 

9 we had a large amount of carry over and we 

10 could spend a lot more money and we actually 

11 did spend a lot more money at that time. I 

12 would, you know going from memory here, say 

13 maybe 75 percent more per year than what we 

14 can spend now.

15 So there was a period of very high 

16 expenditure until we used up the carry over. 

17 And so once we used up the carry over, then we

18 had pretty precipitously came back down to the 

19 annual allotment rate. So that kind of 

20 explains that big bolus area.

21 It was not a particular process 

22 change. It was really a matter of resource 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 availability.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

3 questions? Henry?

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, Stu, I seem 

5 to recall some time ago you had kind of a work 

6 plan projecting out, you know, the catch-up 

7 and all that. Is this pretty much on track 

8 with what your expectations were?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, I 

10 don't know what we have ever said that we will 

11 be caught up on this day, because like I said, 

12 it's really hard to define what does caught up 

13 mean in terms of, you know, how quickly they 

14 go out.

15 But we are on our production 

16 pathway to shorten the time frame that it 

17 takes us to do a dose reconstruction. And in 

18 so doing, at some point, as you continue to 

19 shorten that time period, eventually you are 

20 going to get to a point where it is almost not 

21 possible to shorten it any more.

22 So I don't know that we ever 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 projected a caught up date or we may have 

2 projected that we would have worked off the 

3 backlog by such and such a time, but I don't 

4 know what I would say today to that. It's 

5 just a little difficult in defining the end 

6 point.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I would 

8 just say going back in time, for a while, it 

9 was at least clear to me that the time -- the 

10 average time to reduce -- to produce a dose 

11 reconstruction was going down, but that was 

12 mainly because there was an emphasis on easier 

13 cases and on -- so cases coming in that were--

14 they were ready to do and could handle quickly 

15 were -- appeared to be getting a priority at 

16 the expense of the older cases that were more 

17 difficult, that first 1,000 or first 5,000.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that --

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I think that 

20 they then directed more resources and effort 

21 at the early cases, which, you know, were 

22 difficult.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And some just 

3 took time to develop Site Profiles, collect 

4 information, but there is also a question of 

5 where you put resources. And I think now the 

6 question is can they transition, presumably. 

7 if all the sites have been addressed?

8 I mean, there is always going to 

9 be something new coming in.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But all the 

12 older sites have been addressed and that was 

13 my earlier question. But then I think it is 

14 sort of how do you reach sort of a steady 

15 state that, you know, deals with, you know, 

16 some backlog and some catch-up that will be 

17 necessary, but also, you know, sort of does 

18 that in line with what resources are available 

19 and sort of figure out what the right balance 

20 is going forward.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: That was a very 

22 good point.
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And it is hard 

2 to get at that, some of the data shown, 

3 because it changes over time.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And it's a 

6 difficult picture.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there was an 

8 important point that I forgot. That you made 

9 there, Dr. Melius, is that there were some 

10 cases that were pretty easy. And when we were 

11 trying to finish the -- you know, the main 

12 objective for a while was let's reduce this 

13 backlog of claims. And so you pick easy 

14 claims and you go do those.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And then it has 

17 only been more recently that we have really 

18 switched to let's get the oldest ones done.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And that's 

20 why I mean if you went back a year or 

21 something and you looked at that first 1,000, 

22 there were people that had been there for a 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 long time and there weren't Site Profiles. 

2 There was no way of taking care of those 

3 people and I think that effort has been made 

4 now.

5 So whatever site you are at, 

6 basically, you are being addressed. So I 

7 think they have done a good job of clearing 

8 out those early cases and we will see.

9 Anybody else with questions? 

10 Okay. Thanks, Stu. We will now hear from Dr. 

11 Wade on the Program Evaluation.

12 DR. WADE: Good morning. It's a 

13 pleasure to see you and I'll be very brief in 

14 my comments. I have no new content 

15 information to share with you in terms of the 

16 drafts that we have discussed earlier.

17 I would like to give you a brief 

18 update of where we are and remind you a little 

19 bit of the program review and what it is, so 

20 you can keep that fresh in your mind.

21 The program review is something 

22 commissioned by the NIOSH Director to look 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back at 10 years of work by the Agency in this 

2 area. It is going to take place in two 

3 phases. The first phase intended to be a 

4 data-driven exploration of aspects of program 

5 performance and those aspects of program 

6 performance are individual dose 

7 reconstructions, Special Exposure Cohorts, the 

8 timeliness of program accomplishment, the 

9 science of the program and the customer 

10 service aspects of it.

11 Phase 1 will be followed by a 

12 Phase 2 where, based upon the results of those 

13 reports, the NIOSH Director and senior NIOSH 

14 leaders will look at making recommended 

15 changes in the program you just talked about. 

16 These issues of timeliness going from the 

17 early stages of the program when the mandate 

18 was to get as many done as possible to the 

19 current time where it's about getting 

20 everything done and getting the oldest done.

21 Those issues really need to be 

22 addressed from a policy perspective and that 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will happen in Phase 2 of the program.

2 With regard to Phase 1, all of the 

3 drafts of the Phase 1 reports have been 

4 completed and they are in various stages of 

5 review. Let me remind you of those stages of 

6 review.

7 Two of them, the dose 

8 reconstruction and the timeliness reports have 

9 been shared with you. Comments have been 

10 received. They are now or will very soon be 

11 on the public docket accepting additional 

12 comments. Once we have allowed a reasonable 

13 period for those comments to be received, 

14 second drafts will be issued and those two 

15 reports, Phase 1 reports, will be deemed to be 

16 complete.

17 There is a Phase 1 report that you 

18 have seen with regard to Special Exposure 

19 Cohorts that is being redrafted. Once it is 

20 completed, the redraft is completed, it has 

21 gone through review, it will appear on the 

22 docket and public comment accepted.
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There are two reports, the Science 

2 Report and the Customer Service Report owing 

3 to the fact that they have been authored by 

4 NIOSH employees. These other three have been 

5 offered by NIOSH contractors.

6 The NIOSH reports need to go 

7 through an internal review. They have been 

8 drafted. They are in internal review. Once 

9 that internal review is complete, you will 

10 receive copies of them. They will appear on 

11 the docket and will again await public 

12 comment.

13 It is my sincere, but naive hope 

14 that all of these things will be on the public 

15 -- before the public view by the end of this 

16 calendar year and we can move towards 

17 finalizing those reports and allow Dr. Howard 

18 to move into the really important aspect of 

19 this, which is the setting of policy based 

20 upon the things we have learned.

21 It's Dr. Howard's commitment to 

22 involve the Board at each and every step along 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the way and, hence, you have to listen to me 

2 at each meeting with my somewhat boring 

3 reports. But it is important that we keep 

4 that in front of the Board and that the Board 

5 be intimately involved, not only in the review 

6 of the background material, but certainly 

7 heavily involved in the exploration of program 

8 modifications and improvements that need to 

9 come.

10 So that's where we are. You know, 

11 I'll visit with you again in February and 

12 hopefully everything will be before your eyes, 

13 in terms of the Phase 1 content. And it is a 

14 pleasure to see you all again.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think I can 

16 speak for the Board. It's a pleasure to see 

17 you, too. I have one question. And the 

18 Science Report is the report being authored by 

19 whom?

20 DR. WADE: Oh, it's Doug Daniels 

21 and Dr. Henry Spitz.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. WADE: University of 

2 Cincinnati. Henry turns out to be an employee 

3 of NIOSH, although he is at the university. 

4 He is a part-time employee of NIOSH.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. That was 

6 my confusion.

7 DR. WADE: Yes. I was hoping he 

8 was a contractor, but, technically, he is not. 

9 And the customer service is being written by 

10 an old friend of ours, Chia-Chia Chang, if you 

11 remember from the early days back from her 

12 training. And she has offered the customer 

13 service.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 

15 Other questions for Lew? So you will send us 

16 out a reminder when it is time for us to look 

17 at the docket?

18 DR. WADE: Yes. We will send you 

19 the reports.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 DR. WADE: You won't have to find 

22 them. We will send you the reports.
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

2 DR. WADE: We will notify you that 

3 they are on the docket.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And I 

5 believe at our last meeting, I know I 

6 submitted comments to the docket. I think --

7 believe others have also.

8 DR. WADE: Yes, we have a number 

9 of Board Members' comments have been received 

10 and they are being worked on.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

12 DR. WADE: Some of them very 

13 thought provoking.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

15 Okay. No questions? Thank you, Lew.

16 DR. WADE: Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And are 

18 our electronic problems taken care of?

19 MEMBER MUNN: I think so.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: The switch had been 

22 turned off. It was a major problem.
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I'm glad 

2 that we had a nuclear engineer here.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Finding the 

4 switch was not easy.

5 (Off the record comments.)

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we will now 

7 hear from the Department of Labor, a program 

8 update and Rachel Leiton is here. Welcome, 

9 Rachel. I saw you briefly at the last meeting 

10 in the other room.

11 MS. LEITON: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Competing 

13 meetings.

14 MS. LEITON: Yes, I haven't been 

15 here for a while. I'm glad I had the 

16 opportunity to do it this time.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MS. LEITON: I was able to 

19 actually go on tour of the Los Alamos facility 

20 yesterday. That was really interesting and 

21 I'm glad I got to do that. It's always good 

22 to get out there and see what we are actually 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dealing with.

2 Okay. I'm just going to go 

3 through an overview of the program. Most of 

4 you are familiar with that, but just so that 

5 we can just walk through that a little bit and 

6 then I know some of you are interested in 

7 talking about the SEC Class definitions and 

8 how DOL deals with those, as well as briefly 

9 on the graduate students issue and go through 

10 some statistics that we have.

11 The EEOICPA was enacted in October 

12 of 2000, that, at the time, was Part B, which 

13 is a mandatory federal entitlement program, 

14 and Part D, which was administered by the 

15 Department of Energy, which was, essentially, 

16 a State Workers' Compensation Program, which 

17 at the end of the process, they were supposed 

18 to be able to obtain State Workers' 

19 Compensation, the claimants were.

20 In October of 2004, Congress 

21 changed that an abolished Part D, created a 

22 new Part E, which is a federal program, and 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transferred that to the Department of Labor. 

2 And since that time, 138,000 cases have been 

3 filed and we have paid over $6.3 billion in 

4 compensation.

5 There are several different 

6 agencies involved, obviously, in this program. 

7 The Department of Labor administers the 

8 program, but we obtain information from 

9 Department of Energy for employment 

10 verification, obviously, HHS, NIOSH is 

11 involved in the dose reconstruction process 

12 and we work with the Department of Justice for 

13 the RECA claims, which is the Radiation 

14 Exposure Compensation Act claims.

15 We have several district offices 

16 where the claims are actually processed. 

17 Washington, D.C. that's where most of our 

18 Final Adjudication Branch is and then our 

19 district offices in Jacksonville, Cleveland, 

20 Denver and Seattle.

21 As I indicated, we have paid $6.3 

22 billion in total compensation. That breaks 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 down to $3.6 in Part B, $2.1 in Part E and 

2 $611 million in medical benefits.

3 We have paid 63,000 almost 64,000 

4 payees in the program. That breaks down to 

5 cases which is 47,508. As you may know, there 

6 is a case and there is a payee. There is 

7 claimants versus cases. The claimants are the 

8 survivors oftentimes. There is one case with 

9 the employee, so that's why you will see a 

10 difference between cases and payees.

11 There is about 60 percent Part B 

12 cases and 40 percent Part E cases.

13 Eligibility. Basically, there are 

14 a couple of differences. Obviously, major 

15 differences in Part B and Part E. There are--

16 Part B covers -- Part B and E both cover DOE 

17 contractors and subcontractors, but for DOE 

18 federal employees, they are only covered by 

19 Part B, not by Part E.

20 Atomic Weapons Employees are only 

21 covered under Part B, not Part E. And 

22 beryllium vendors are also only covered under 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Part B. RECA is covered under both parts.

2 The major difference in the Part B 

3 and Part E is the conditions that are covered. 

4 Part E pretty much anything is covered as 

5 long as we can establish that it is related to 

6 toxic substance exposure. Under Part B, it is 

7 only chronic beryllium disease, beryllium 

8 sensitivity, chronic silicosis and cancer.

9 Survivor definitions is also 

10 different between Part B and Part E. Under 

11 both parts, the spouse at the time of death is 

12 covered. Under Part B, the adult children are 

13 covered. Under Part E, you have to have been 

14 under the age of 18, under the age of 23 and a 

15 full-time student or any age if incapable of 

16 self-support.

17 Benefits that are payable under 

18 Part B it's $150,000 to the employee, plus the 

19 survivor. For RECA claims, they already get 

20 $100,000 from the Department of Justice, so we 

21 pay the other $50,000. Under Part E, it is 

22 impairment, which is $2,500 per percentage of 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 impairment, which is, basically, a percentage 

2 of whole body impairment based on the AMA 

3 guides.

4 We also pay wage loss between 

5 $10,000 and $15,000 per year depending on the 

6 level of wage loss the individual sustained. 

7 And the survivor gets $125,000 under Part E 

8 only if the condition is related to the death. 

9 There is a $400,000 cap for B and E combined.

10 Verifying employment is one of our 

11 challenges, obviously, because a lot of the 

12 records are old. We can't always get what we 

13 need, but we do as much as we possibly can to 

14 verify the employment that is claimed.

15 The first step is, obviously, 

16 going to the Department of Energy. We have an 

17 EE-5, which is an Employment Verification 

18 Form, and they have various points of contacts 

19 for us to go to. Our claims examiners know 

20 those POCs and will send these forms to them 

21 to obtain whatever evidence they can give to 

22 us.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We also go to ORISE. We have a 

2 database that we are able to use to look up 

3 employees to see if they are in there, to see 

4 if they work there. We also go to the Center 

5 to Protect Workers' Rights. It's a slightly 

6 different name now, but, basically, they 

7 provide us with union records whenever we --

8 they have something to help us place the 

9 person there, that sort of thing.

10 Corporate verifiers. We have been 

11 supplied with names of the corporate verifiers 

12 from the Department of Energy, so we go to 

13 them. We also go to Social Security 

14 Administration sometimes to verify employment, 

15 sometimes for wage loss information.

16 And we also will take affidavits 

17 from coworkers, supervisors who were there at 

18 the time, if we can't get anything else or if 

19 the claimant can provide us with that 

20 information.

21 Verifying toxic exposure is also a 

22 challenge for us, but we have our resource 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 centers throughout the country. They conduct 

2 the occupational history questionnaires, which 

3 are similar to some of the -- probably the 

4 interviews that NIOSH does, but it is very 

5 extensive and asks the employees or the 

6 survivors a whole series of questions to find 

7 out what they believe they were exposed to, 

8 what their labor categories were, that sort of 

9 thing.

10 We also have developed what is 

11 called the Site Exposure Matrices for Part E. 

12 And, basically, it's a database that was 

13 developed as a result of roundtable meetings 

14 that we had with the employees, review of DOE 

15 records. We had a lot of people go out, our 

16 people, and try to gather as much information 

17 as possible about what was in these buildings, 

18 what labor categories were there.

19 And so this database captures as 

20 much as we have gathered thus far on that sort 

21 of thing. So our claims examiners can go to 

22 use this as a tool to help us assist the 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claimants in providing the information that we 

2 need to verify toxic exposures. So they are 

3 in a particular labor category.

4 We can see that maybe they were 

5 exposed to, you know, X, Y and Z chemical and 

6 that they worked in this building, and that 

7 they were exposed to it. This database also 

8 provides us with some information based on 

9 Haz-Map, which is a database which is a 

10 relational database about whether the 

11 conditions are related to toxic exposures. 

12 Sometimes we can make a link there through 

13 that database.

14 We also go to the Department of 

15 Energy for what we call a document acquisition 

16 request, which is providing us with 

17 additional information on top of the 

18 employment information, such as industrial 

19 hygiene records, medical records, whatever 

20 else they might have to help us with exposure.

21 And sometimes our claimants can 

22 provide us with records and we will utilize 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them whenever we can.

2 For Part B, we rely on dose 

3 reconstruction for cancers. Basically, NIOSH 

4 conducts the dose reconstructions, provide us 

5 with a report that gives the level and extent 

6 of the occupational radiation dose. And once 

7 we get that report, we go to the NIOSH-IREP, 

8 which is a program that was developed to help 

9 us determine whether or not the Probability of 

10 Causation is over 50 percent, which is what is 

11 required by the law.

12 If it's over 50 percent, the 

13 individual is awarded benefits. If it is not, 

14 then they are not.

15 SEC Classes. This is basically a 

16 worker group designation and it is a 

17 presumption that the occupational radiation 

18 caused the cancer. If an individual is part 

19 of an SEC Class, they are not required to 

20 undergo a dose reconstruction. When the law 

21 was passed, there were four legislated SEC 

22 Classes: The three gaseous diffusion plants, 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plus Amchitka.

2 As of November 5, 2010, our 

3 statistics show 68 SEC Classes have been added 

4 by HHS. It's slightly different from what Stu 

5 had indicated earlier, but I think it's just a 

6 matter of counting maybe the facilities 

7 slightly different, because we count our SEC 

8 Classes by our bulletins.

9 And if additional Classes are 

10 added for one particular facility, we count 

11 those separately. So it might just be a 

12 timing issue as well.

13 Also in order to be qualified in 

14 the SEC Class, you have to have worked in a 

15 particular location or in a specific process 

16 in that location and have normally 250 work 

17 days. And you have to have had a specified 

18 cancer that is 22 cancers and those are 

19 cancers that were named in the law.

20 Okay. Just a little bit about how 

21 the Department of Labor administers the SEC 

22 Classes when NIOSH provides us with a 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 definition. First, we have worked with NIOSH 

2 over the years to make sure we coordinate as 

3 closely as possible on the draft language, 

4 just so that we are both aware of how we are 

5 going to be able to administer the definition 

6 once it is actually formal.

7 So, first, NIOSH will send us a 

8 letter once they have determined what their 

9 draft language is for the SEC Class. That 

10 usually occurs a couple of weeks before they 

11 present the Class to the Board. 

12 We review the draft language. We 

13 will often consult with the Department of 

14 Energy with regard to whether or not we can 

15 administer it. We will send a letter back to 

16 NIOSH with comments on the draft SEC Class 

17 Definition. We believe that this proves 

18 consistency. It speeds the process up.

19 Usually, we can work with NIOSH a 

20 little bit early to identify how many people 

21 might be affected and kind of start to gather 

22 a list, so that we can move on this as soon as 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the definition is clear.

2 We do not ever comment on whether 

3 any Class is necessary, that's NIOSH's role. 

4 We just provide feedback into how we believe 

5 we can administer it.

6 Once the language has been 

7 approved, well, as soon as it is produced, as 

8 soon as we know that the Class Definition is 

9 going forward, we begin a bulletin. A 

10 bulletin is, basically, a procedural guidance 

11 for our claims examiners, so they can use that 

12 to process claims.

13 So that draft is done immediately. 

14 And then the bulletin will outline, you know, 

15 what the Class Definition is, what the claims 

16 examiner should use. Sometimes there are 

17 special circumstances, I'll talk about in a 

18 minute, but a lot of them are kind of 

19 repetitive, because it is the same sort of 

20 process usually for the claims examiners.

21 So we are getting more and more 

22 used to being able to process these as quickly 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as possible.

2 Some of our challenges with the 

3 SEC Class Definitions over the years has been 

4 when the Class doesn't cover all workers. 

5 There have been definitions such as when there 

6 is limited monitoring -- limited by monitoring 

7 status. Like when it says was monitored or 

8 should have been monitored, our challenge has 

9 been what should have monitored means.

10 Examples of that have been LANL 

11 and Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Also, 

12 sometimes it has been limited by work location 

13 or division or building, for example, Ames 

14 Lab, again, LANL, tech areas. Other times it 

15 is limited by job title. For example, Ames 

16 Lab sheet metal workers, Iowa Ordnance Plant 

17 radiographers or it is limited by a certain 

18 process or operations like the Iowa Ordnance 

19 Plant, Line 1, Y-12 Plant cyclotron 

20 operations.

21 Those are the challenges that we 

22 have. Sometimes we can work with it and we 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can go ahead and we can get the records from 

2 DOE. We can place the people in the 

3 buildings. And we will search and we will 

4 work with DOE, we will work with NIOSH to see 

5 if that is possible.

6 But at the end of the day, we 

7 really rely on DOE to provide us with records. 

8 We also have some experience with our -- in 

9 our claims district offices where they have 

10 been able to get records and we will rely on 

11 them. We will say have you been able to get 

12 records that will put people in these 

13 particular areas? And if we can, that's 

14 ideal.

15 If we can't, we will usually tell 

16 NIOSH, we are not able to place somebody 

17 there. We don't have any way to do it. If 

18 you limit it, we don't have any choice but, in 

19 some cases, to deny the claims.

20 And I think that is some of the 

21 conversations that go back and forth between 

22 NIOSH and us is just how will this be 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 administered. How are we going to get the 

2 records?

3 When we do have records, we 

4 include in our procedures, our bulletin to the 

5 claims examiners exactly what records we do 

6 have.

7 Once HHS' letter to Congress 

8 regarding the SEC petition is sent, we put our 

9 bulletin on the web. It's formal for our 

10 claims examiners to begin using it. Before 

11 that happens, it does have a clearance 

12 process, but we try to expedite that. First, 

13 it goes through my division, our lawyers 

14 review it and then our Office of Workers' 

15 Compensation Overhead Agency will review it as 

16 well.

17 But once that is complete, we 

18 really strive to get these bulletins out as 

19 soon as the SEC Class is effective. And 

20 usually we are pretty good at being able to do 

21 that. And then once we have that, we also 

22 have a goal for the program. We have a goal 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for our claims examiners to try to get 

2 recommended decisions to accept within 60 days 

3 in as many cases as we can.

4 So they will screen through them 

5 and if they can accept it, they will accept 

6 it. Other case -- times they have to develop 

7 further. And denials will happen, but they 

8 will probably happen after the first round of 

9 acceptances.

10 A couple of examples of our 

11 implementation process. Obviously, there was 

12 the Rocky Flats Plant SEC Class. The initial 

13 definition monitored or should have been 

14 monitored for neutron exposure. Determining 

15 what monitored or should have been monitored 

16 for neutron exposure was a challenge for us.

17 We had to work closely with NIOSH, 

18 but we did come out with our bulletin, which 

19 provided guidance saying that if they were 

20 included in the Rocky Flats neutron dosimetry 

21 reconstruction project, they are on this NDRP 

22 list, then they are in.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Basically, if -- that would be our 

2 first step. If they are not, then we would 

3 look at the dose reconstruction, if there was 

4 a dose reconstruction report in the file, to 

5 see if there was any mention of neutron 

6 exposure or exposure to plutonium.

7 And then we have a list of 

8 buildings and if they are in a particular 

9 building that has been identified as a 

10 plutonium building, then we are able to place 

11 them in the Class. So we go through that 

12 whole process. We will work with the 

13 claimants, we will work with DOE to see if we 

14 can place them in those particular locations 

15 to put them in the Class.

16 The Mount Plant SEC Class. 

17 Initially, the recommendation was to limit it 

18 to the R and SW Buildings. We found that we 

19 weren't able to put them in those specific 

20 buildings. And the next definition, the Class 

21 was revised and that was to have at least one 

22 tritium bioassay sample.
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Again, we were kind of working 

2 with NIOSH to determine what that means. How 

3 do we know if they had one tritium bioassay 

4 sample? And NIOSH was able to generate a list 

5 for us that was people who gave urine samples 

6 and those urine samples analyzed for tritium.

7 And, basically, we were able to 

8 say, okay, if they had these urine samples, 

9 they probably worked for -- in the R and SW 

10 Buildings. And we can use that list to go 

11 ahead and put them in the Class. This list 

12 also included some workers in the T Building.

13 If an individual is not on that 

14 list, then we are not able to put them in the 

15 Class.

16 The proposed GE Evendale SEC 

17 Class, which you will be discussing today. 

18 The initial definition that we saw was 

19 activities in Building C and D from '61 

20 through '70. We thus far have not been able 

21 to place people in buildings at GE Evendale.

22 Our Cleveland District Office has 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 indicated that that has not been possible. We 

2 have been able to place them on site at GE 

3 Evendale, but not particularly in those 

4 buildings. And DOE thus far has indicated to 

5 us that they are not able to provide us with 

6 records to put them in the buildings.

7 We did just last week get a new 

8 revised definition that said that if -- the 

9 person was on Air Force Plant 36. Again, I 

10 think we may have some challenges with that. 

11 We sent a letter to NIOSH at the end of last 

12 week indicating that we are going to go back 

13 to DOE again. And that letter should be 

14 forthcoming to DOE this week or next, 

15 basically, asking them to verify that they 

16 can't place them in the Class or let us know 

17 if they can place them in the Class.

18 A couple of other issues like that 

19 and we will wait for them to come back to us 

20 and we will let NIOSH know what our situation 

21 is as far as placing people in these 

22 particular locations.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Another question that was asked 

2 was whether graduate students would qualify as 

3 DOE employees. I looked into this and we 

4 really haven't had very many -- any that I 

5 know of, except for one person who was a 

6 graduate student. And, basically, they just 

7 have to meet the definition of employee as is 

8 outlined in the law.

9 And they have to have been linked 

10 to a contract. This one particular graduate 

11 student was compensated, was eligible, so it 

12 is basically case-by-case, but if you can put 

13 them as an employee working under a contract 

14 for AEC or DOE, then we can compensate them. 

15 There is no restriction on that.

16 And if they were doing research 

17 for a certain period of time, again, we can 

18 compensate those individuals. But it is 

19 difficult to talk to that issue without having 

20 really detailed specifics.

21 So if there is a case or anything 

22 like that, I would be happy to look at it or 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we can get back to you on any particular 

2 cases, but, in general, they would be covered.

3 Just some statistics of final 

4 decisions that we have approved. 30,000 thus 

5 far. These are covered applications, 

6 basically, meaning that they had a valid claim 

7 when they filed. Of the denials, 648 were 

8 because the survivor wasn't eligible. And 

9 this is under Part B. 14,000 or almost 15,000 

10 had a PoC under 50 percent. And about almost 

11 6,000 there was insufficient medical to 

12 support that they had a claim or they had a 

13 condition.

14 Under Part E, we have approved 

15 about 25,000. You will see the PoC figure 

16 there, it's almost 6,400. If we can't 

17 validate that somebody's cancer was related to 

18 toxic exposure other than radiation, then we 

19 still rely on Part E on the radiation dose 

20 reconstruction. So that's why that figure is 

21 there.

22 The other about 13,000 again they 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 didn't have enough medical to support their 

2 claim.

3 Our statistics on the NIOSH 

4 Referral Case Status. We show that we have 

5 referred about 33,000 to NIOSH for dose 

6 reconstruction. Thus far, we have gotten 

7 almost 30,000 back. 25,000 with dose 

8 reconstruction, almost 4,000 without dose 

9 reconstruction for various reasons, we may 

10 have pulled it back. There may be an SEC, et 

11 cetera.

12 3,500 cases are currently at 

13 NIOSH, according to our statistics, that's 

14 about 2,600 initial referrals and 800 or 

15 almost 900 returns to NIOSH for reworks. 

16 Again, if there is an additional cancer or 

17 additional information has come to light at a 

18 hearing or something like that.

19 Okay. The SEC Classes that have 

20 been added. 3,000 cases have been withdrawn 

21 from NIOSH for SEC Class review. We have 

22 issued almost, well, 2,800 final decisions. 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2,700 of which were approvals. 59 have been 

2 recommended. At the moment, we have about 59 

3 that have a recommended decision, but no final 

4 decision.

5 You know, our process is first we 

6 have a recommended decision at our district 

7 office level, then every case goes to our 

8 Final Adjudication Branch for a final 

9 decision.

10 Currently, there are about 64 

11 cases pending as of the time of this slide, 

October 27th 12 , and 238 cases were closed, 

13 probably because they didn't qualify and they 

14 had already had a final decision.

15 25,000 almost 26,000 cases 

16 returned by NIOSH that are currently at DOL 

17 with dose reconstruction. We have got about 

18 65 percent final denials, 35 percent final 

19 approvals, according to our statistics, 7,700 

20 final approvals, 14,000 final denials.

21 Part B cases with final decision 

22 to accept. We kind of break these down by 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose reconstruction cases, SEC cases and then 

2 we have some that were accepted based on SEC 

3 status and a PoC of 50 percent or greater.

4 So there is about 7,200 that were 

5 accepted based on dose reconstruction. $1 

6 billion in compensation. Based on SEC 

7 Classes, there has been about 12,000 so far 

8 resulting in $1.7 billion in compensation. 

9 And if you look at both, we have got $65 

10 million in compensation.

11 So the totals are 19,000 based on 

12 SEC dose reconstruction cases from NIOSH and 

13 that's almost $3 billion in compensation.

14 This is just a chart on what we 

15 show as the cases sent to NIOSH monthly and 

16 that goes through September of 2010. This is 

17 both initial referrals and cases that we sent 

18 back for reworks.

19 And new Part B cases received 

20 monthly, ones we get back from NIOSH, again, 

21 monthly chart, pretty consistent with the ones 

22 we send. The cases at DOL are kind of getting 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to a steady state at the moment. We have 

2 jumps when there is an SEC, but we are moving 

3 more and more towards steady state.

4 The top four work sites generating 

5 new Part B EEOICPA cases are: Hanford, Y-12, 

6 Oak Ridge and Savannah River.

7 Again, this is a chart that shows 

8 the monthly receipt of these cases. We 

9 obviously get spikes in receipt of these when 

10 there is a new SEC and it has gone down 

11 slightly at Hanford.

12 This is the Y-12 plant. Again, 

13 you will see that it has gone down slightly 

14 since August. Oak Ridge smaller numbers. And 

15 the Savannah River Site.

16 This is a percentage of new Atomic 

17 Weapons Employee cases and Part B DOE cases 

18 received monthly by DOL. This just shows the 

19 difference in how Part B DOE cases are a lot 

20 larger than our AWEs.

21 I'm going to just leave these on 

22 the slides and I'm not going to walk through 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 each of these, but this just kind of shows our 

2 statistics on the various sites which are 

3 going to be up for discussion this week for 

4 your perusal at your leisure. I'm not going 

5 to go through each one of them.

6 And these are just the smaller 

7 sites in the area. This is just a chart that 

8 shows the Part B cases filed. You will see 

9 that the SEC cases referred to NIOSH are about 

10 9 percent. SEC cases never sent to NIOSH 10 

11 percent. RECA is about 10 percent of our 

12 cases. 35 percent are NIOSH cases for dose 

13 reconstruction and other is 35 percent.

14 That would be probably beryllium 

15 disease, silicosis. And that's the conclusion 

16 of my presentation. I'll be happy to take any 

17 questions.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

19 you, Rachel, very informative. Questions? 

20 Dr. Ziemer, graduate students, I bet.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Exactly. I just 

22 wanted to thank Rachel and the Department of 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Labor for following up on the graduate student 

2 issue. It's a concern I have had for quite a 

3 while and we appreciate your follow-up on 

4 that.

5 MS. LEITON: Sure, no problem.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Jim?

7 MEMBER LOCKEY: I just wanted to 

8 talk to graduate students. If they are an 

9 employee, they would be eligible?

10 MS. LEITON: Yes, they just have 

11 to meet the definition of employee. So they 

12 have to be connected at some -- in some way to 

13 a contract that DOE held or the AEC held.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: I guess my 

15 question is what happens if they get a 

16 stipend?

17 MS. LEITON: If they what?

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: If they have a 

19 stipend. In other words, at the University of 

20 Cincinnati, we give graduate students 

21 stipends.

22 MS. LEITON: Yes.
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: They are not 

2 considered employees.

3 MS. LEITON: I think it really 

4 depends on the circumstances. I think there 

5 is a provision in the Act for research, 24, I 

6 think it is, months of research. And if they 

7 fall into that category, there are 

8 circumstances in which they would still fall 

9 under the definition of DOE employee.

10 Again, it's kind of hard to speak 

11 to it without a particular case in front of 

12 me. But if you have a particular case or you 

13 have a particular situation, I could probably 

14 do a little more research and give you a more 

15 accurate assessment of that.

16 I do know that, as I said, we have 

17 covered one of them. They didn't have to be 

18 paid necessarily, but they were considered a 

19 DOE employee because they were working under a 

20 contract for DOE. Even if they are working 

21 for a professor, my understanding is, they 

22 would still be covered.
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I don't want to nail down that 

2 without knowing the specifics of a particular 

3 case.

4 MEMBER LOCKEY: I guess my opinion 

5 would be if the money was from DOE and flowed 

6 through the principal investigator as stipend 

7 support for the graduate student, I would 

8 consider that covered.

9 MS. LEITON: Yes, I'm pretty sure 

10 that that would be covered. But again, I need 

11 to -- I would want to make sure I had the case 

12 in front of me before I make that jump.

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul had a 

15 follow-up.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, just as a 

17 follow-up, my concern initially was if they 

18 were working on a project, but they were 

19 either not paid, because some graduate 

20 students have no stipends. They are just 

21 there on their own. They pay their tuition 

22 and they are doing a research project.
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Others may be on a university 

2 stipend, which is a part, you know, of maybe 

3 their fellowship of the university. At Purdue 

4 we have, you know, John Purdue Fellowships, 

5 for example. All right. So they are not paid 

6 by the contract.

7 But what I was understanding was 

8 that if you could link them to the contract 

9 itself, doing work on the contract, which 

10 certainly in my mind they are getting some, at 

11 least, indirect benefit from that contract, if 

12 only doing research and, in fact, they have 

13 to, even in their publication, attribute that 

14 the research support, not their stipend, but 

15 the support for their research came from the 

16 contract, it seems to me --

17 MS. LEITON: Yes, that is my 

18 understanding.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought that was 

20 what you were saying if there was a link.

21 MS. LEITON: Yes. My 

22 understanding of the case we did accept is the 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 person was not -- they weren't receiving 

2 compensation. Again, there is a provision for 

3 research in the law.

4 So, you know, I believe under that 

5 circumstance, they would be covered. Again, I 

6 would want to see a particular case.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Josie?

9 MEMBER BEACH: I have two 

10 questions. The first one, does that also 

11 cover a paid internship? Is that the same 

12 thing you are talking about a stipend?

13 MS. LEITON: Again, they would 

14 have to qualify as an employee. I would have 

15 to see the case. If they were linked to a 

16 contract with the DOE and --

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

18 MS. LEITON: Could be considered a 

19 DOE employee, then they would be covered. But 

20 again, it gets kind of iffy depending on the 

21 circumstances and who they were actually 

22 working for.
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And my other 

2 question takes me back to slide 18 for the 

3 Mound SEC. And, Rachel, I'm not sure if this 

4 is a question for you and probably for NIOSH. 

5 The SEC for radon was established for 1959 

6 through 1980 based on having one tritium 

7 sample.

8 My question is if you have an 

9 employee that can be placed in R or SW 

10 Building or T, but they do not or have not 

11 given a tritium sample, how will that be 

12 handled.

13 MS. LEITON: Well, we have not 

14 been able to place people in those particular 

15 buildings and that has been our challenge. I 

16 have yet to see a case where -- it's possible 

17 there are some out there, but I haven't seen a 

18 case where we have been able to place them in 

19 the R and SW Buildings. That's why we are 

20 relying on the tritium assay.

21 And if we were to get information 

22 that placed them in those buildings, I would 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to take a look at the definition, because 

2 the definition currently says that they had to 

3 have had at least one tritium bioassay, that 

4 also if we look at the actual SEC Petition 

5 Evaluation Report, if that means R and SW 

6 Buildings we have evidence to place them in 

7 the R and SW Buildings, I would have to look 

8 at that case on a case-by-case basis.

9 As I said, we have not been able 

10 to put them in those buildings yet.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And that 

12 goes back to the next part of my question that 

13 NIOSH generated a list of workers and I guess 

14 this question is for NIOSH. How often or will 

15 that list that was generated be updated if you 

16 get new information, information placing 

17 people in those buildings that did not give a 

18 tritium sample?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think in 

20 this case, if we get information that puts 

21 people in those buildings, but did not give 

22 tritium samples, we would write -- essentially 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do an 83.14.

2 We wrote this Class to be 

3 administered in a particular way. And so it 

4 is just -- you know, so really for this Class, 

5 as near as I can tell, they have to have 

6 bioassay samples, tritium bioassay samples.

7 If we get information that says 

8 there are other people besides the ones who 

9 gave tritium bioassay who were in that -- who 

10 worked in that building, you know regularly 

11 worked in that building, then we would have to 

12 do an -- I think we would do an 83.14, at that 

13 time, to, essentially, define the Class 

14 appropriately for that.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't see 

17 exactly how to do it otherwise standing here 

18 right now.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Well, and as 

20 the Mound Chair, I'm getting emails with those 

21 types of claims that were -- that are stating 

22 they were in those facilities without having 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that tritium bioassay, so I'm very concerned 

2 about how that will be handled.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, it 

4 will require some discussion outside here.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't answer 

7 right here standing up on the platform.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Great. No, and I 

9 appreciate that. Thank you.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can I --

12 actually go ahead, David, and then I'll go.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just a follow14 up to that. It would be useful to know if 

15 NIOSH has, in their possession, for example, 

16 hard copy logbooks of the tritium bioassay 

17 program. And like for each quarter, for 

18 example, spanning that period or are there 

19 gaps? I mean, because for a lot of places 

20 there will be a logbook missing or something 

21 like that.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 images. You know, we don't have the actual 

2 books, but we have got PDFs and I'll have to 

3 go check. I don't believe there are any gaps, 

4 but I have to go find out. That was, you 

5 know, the basis of it. You know, the basis 

6 for doing what we did was we felt like we had 

7 the entire period of time, the tritium logbook 

8 for the entire period of time. That's the 

9 basis for doing it the way we did.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I have a 

11 couple of questions for you.

12 One is just sort of stepping back 

13 at this sort of Class Definition process. And 

14 we, as the Board Members, are looking at 

15 whether or not it's possible to do dose 

16 reconstruction. So we are looking at 

17 monitoring information and process information 

18 and we discovered that because, you know, 

19 thorium or whatever some exposure is not able 

20 to do dose reconstruction or we are proving 

21 that same conclusion from NIOSH and so forth.

22 But so we are not sort of really 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thinking. We don't look at the whole picture. 

2 We don't see every employee. In fact, we 

3 often aren't even really looking at individual 

4 employees. So we are making some assessment, 

5 you know, based on sort of the science and the 

6 exposures and the science of trying to do the 

7 dose reconstruction.

8 We then try to turn that into a 

9 Class Definition. And we sort of send it on 

10 through NIOSH through the Secretary then to 

11 you. And you have some time DOL to consult, 

12 you know, some back and forth. You know, 

13 frankly, some of the times we don't give you 

14 very much time, because we are sort of doing 

15 this very quickly like with Mound. It came up 

16 fairly quickly and there is not time for 

17 consultation.

18 And there may be -- we can think 

19 well there is time to redo this later or to 

20 adjust it and so forth, but, frankly, to some 

21 extent that is hard, because it's an official 

22 communication up through the Secretary and 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then to Congress and we don't want to say 

2 well, oops, you know, add this building or add 

3 -- you know, that we meant this or that.

4 So there is some limitations to 

5 the process itself and we are trying to figure 

6 out how to make it work best. And the more, I 

7 think, we understand how you go about 

8 implementing Class Definitions and what makes 

9 it workable for you, the better we will be at 

10 it.

11 At the same time, we don't want --

12 you know, sometimes you can't even tell until 

13 you have spent months trying to figure out how 

14 to do that. You develop the bulletin and so 

15 forth. So I think we are -- I don't know if 

16 you have had a chance to look at it, but NIOSH 

17 just produced a report on looking back at some 

18 old Classes.

19 And we will talk about that. I 

20 think LaVon is presenting that on Thursday. 

21 But it struck me doing that. I mean, I think 

22 I remember some of the history on some of 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those sites and I think we are all very well2 intentioned and I'm not sure that all got 

3 captured for someone going back and even 

4 looking at the record, I don't know to what 

5 extent people at NIOSH looked at the 

6 transcripts of the old Work Groups, but I know 

7 we discussed many of those issues. At least 

8 we thought we were doing the right thing at 

9 the time and it's hard.

10 So we're struggling on how to do 

11 that. And it has particularly become an 

12 issue, and I'll use GE as a prototype, that 

13 with -- as the process has evolved, it has 

14 gotten in some ways more general. That being 

15 too specific by building or my monitoring or 

16 something is difficult.

17 And so if we spread it out and 

18 sort of expand it to include the whole site or 

19 something like that, I think the Board is 

20 generally comfortable with that, particularly 

21 at the DOE sites, because we know that there 

22 was a lot of exposures there and that people 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 move from building to building.

2 And so that expanding is probably 

3 consistent with how this program should be 

4 done.

5 But then we get to a site like GE 

6 where there is literally thousands of 

7 employees and then just a few of them that 

8 actually work at -- in any place where there 

9 would be exposure to radiation, that becomes 

10 much more problematic for us.

11 Yet, those sites are the ones that 

12 have the worst records.

13 MS. LEITON: Right. That's the 

14 unfortunate thing.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I 

16 think some of us would -- we have not made a 

17 recommendation. We have gone back and forth 

18 and asked NIOSH to get more information. But 

19 some of it is that in those cases we might --

20 one option, I'll put it this way, would be to 

21 put more of a burden on the claimants and on 

22 DOL in administering the claims to do more 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 work on that.

2 And whether it is collecting more 

3 information from the claimants or, you know,

4 checking against certain lists or something, 

5 monitoring lists or something, it may be more 

6 -- a better way of administering a Class, 

7 keeping the Class focused on who really had 

8 exposure to radiation. Because it is hard to 

9 say when you have this huge building and lots 

10 of people and very few really exposed that 

11 everyone should be eligible.

12 And I guess I would like to get 

13 your reaction to that. Not specifically on 

14 GE, but just in general.

15 MS. LEITON: Well, no, I 

16 understand the challenges involved.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MS. LEITON: And I think that 

19 that's something we have been working very 

20 closely with NIOSH over the years to try and 

21 refine, you know, instead of something where 

22 the definition comes out and we are like wait 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a minute, we don't know what to do with this 

2 and then it has to go through the whole 

3 process over, like you indicated, doing to the 

4 Secretary.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

6 MS. LEITON: That's why we have 

7 been trying to share drafts early, have 

8 conversations.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MS. LEITON: We have, you know, 

11 biweekly teleconferences with both DOE and 

12 NIOSH at the same time to talk about some of 

13 these issues.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MS. LEITON: When we know that 

16 there is going to be a problem or if NIOSH 

17 says well, we are trying to place these people 

18 for the SEC Class, I mean, in one location, we 

19 say we don't know. Like for example with GE 

20 Evendale, that's one of the reasons we are 

21 double checking again, because we want to be 

22 able to do that, understanding that we don't
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want to be opening up a Class to individuals 

2 that really shouldn't be covered.

3 That's your call, obviously, but 

4 as far as what we can do, if we can put 

5 somebody in a building or in a location, in a 

6 process, we are happy to do that. We do rely 

7 on DOE. We rely on -- and we will have to go 

8 back to the claimants and have had to go back 

9 to claimants saying we need you to be -- you 

10 know, we need to place you on Line 1.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MS. LEITON: Line 1 is an easier 

13 example, because we actually have been able to 

14 put them on Line 1 in a lot of circumstances. 

15 But in some circumstances, they say well, I 

16 worked there and they have to provide us with 

17 evidence that they actually did.

18 And so it is more burdensome for 

19 the claimants when the Class Definition is 

20 less inclusive. It is more burden on us, 

21 unless we can work with NIOSH or with DOE and 

22 they can say well, actually, we have these 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cards or we have, you know, this list and we 

2 will definitely work with both agencies 

3 whenever we can.

4 When we can't, that's when it 

5 becomes a challenge. You create an SEC Class 

6 and it is very, very defined and minuscule and 

7 then we have to say to claimants we don't have 

8 any way to do this. We don't have any way to 

9 do it. And if you do, great. And maybe one 

10 out of, you know, 1,000 will be able to give 

11 us that information.

12 In some cases, they have really 

13 good records and they can or, you know, they 

14 have something, but in other cases they don't 

15 and that's why I think that working very 

16 closely with NIOSH and DOE up front before the 

17 definition is actually defined will save a lot 

18 of heartache in the end, because then you 

19 don't have to go back and figure it out.

20 You know, we do have some 

21 experience with some of these cases at certain 

22 facilities, so we can say well, we have had 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 100 cases here and this is the kind of 

2 information we may be able to get. Other 

3 circumstances, we don't have as many cases. 

4 We only had a couple, so we have to really 

5 kind of dig and work with DOE and NIOSH to 

6 determine whether or not we have information 

7 to cover them.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I will 

9 just add, I think the process works best when 

10 we all, the Board, NIOSH and DOL, are all in 

11 agreement on the Class Definition. And so we 

12 are not making a different recommendation or 

13 you are not having to implement a different 

14 recommendation.

15 MS. LEITON: Right.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And when you 

17 implement it, you understand the basis for it. 

18 So that, yes, you are going to have to figure 

19 out how to do it, but it is consistent. I 

20 think it is clear that in some of the earlier 

21 recommendations that we made, that NIOSH made, 

22 that wasn't possible to do.
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, fortunately, we are still 

2 learning in that process.

3 MS. LEITON: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks. 

5 Oh, Mark, I'm sorry.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just to follow-up 

7 from the last meeting on, I think it is, slide 

8 number 17 with the Rocky Flats SEC. You had 

9 mentioned at the last meeting you were working 

10 with the Ruttenber Data?

11 MS. LEITON: Yes.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I don't think 

13 you have issued a bulletin, at this point, on 

14 how you are going to use the Ruttenber Data?

15 MS. LEITON: We have not issued it 

16 yet, but it is very, very close.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Very, very close.

18 MS. LEITON: It is in the drafting 

19 process and I believe it is moving itself 

20 through clearance. So that should be out very 

21 soon.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Several of 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 us are anxious to see it.

2 MS. LEITON: I'm sure.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

4 Thanks.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just to 

7 follow-up on that same slide, could you tell 

8 me what the Rocky Flats neutron dosimetry 

9 reconstruction project list is?

10 MS. LEITON: It is a list that was 

11 generated through NIOSH, but you can probably 

12 address that.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll answer it the 

15 best I can and some people might be able to 

16 help me out here. The Rocky Flats neutron 

17 dose reconstruction project was done, you 

18 know, essentially, DOE paid a contractor to go 

19 reevaluate the neutron doses for the people at 

20 Rocky Flats. And they reread many of the NTA 

21 films in many cases.

22 And so there is, essentially, 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fairly elaborate research project in order to 

2 -- you know, for whatever reason there was 

3 reason to believe that the doses as recorded 

4 were not correct. And so they wanted to 

5 reevaluate them, given the information 

6 generated off the NTA and other things.

7 There was also some neutron to 

8 photon ratio work done and I'm just not real 

9 familiar with all of it. That was all done. 

10 DOE essentially -- it was their initiative to 

11 do that. It was done during the lifetime of 

12 this project very early after, probably in 

13 2003 or '04 it was finished. And the 

14 Department of Energy then noticed them, which 

15 was -- they felt then that was their best 

16 estimate of the neutron dose for those 

17 workers.

18 They essentially gave -- you know, 

19 made available to us replacing their existing, 

20 the old records, the old record system that 

21 they had been responding to requests from up 

22 to that time.
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So that's, essentially what --

2 that's the evolution of it. And I'm sorry, I 

3 don't remember all the details of what they 

4 did in order to do that dose reconstruction 

5 project. There may be some other people who 

6 may remember more than I. I just don't 

7 remember. 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Any 

10 other questions? Okay. If not, thank you 

11 very much.

12 MS. LEITON: Thank you very much.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. We 

14 have a break scheduled and so we will be 

15 starting a few minutes early, so we will 

16 reconvene at 10:15. Sort of sharp at 10:15.

17 (Whereupon, at 9:52 a.m. the 

18 above-entitled matter went off the record and 

19 resumed at 10:26 a.m.)

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We're 

21 going to get started again. And our first 

22 presentation after the break here is Greg 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Lewis from the Department of Energy. So 

2 welcome, Greg.

3 MR. LEWIS: All right. Can 

4 everybody hear me? All right. Thank you, Dr. 

5 Melius and thanks, Stu, for unlocking this 

6 thing for me.

7 Again, I'm Greg Lewis with the 

8 Department of Energy and I'm here to talk 

9 about our role in the EEOICPA Program.

10 Quickly before we get started, I 

11 just wanted to echo Stu's point earlier that 

12 we are excited to see that there was a 

13 resolution passed again this year for the 

14 National Day of Remembrance for Cold War 

15 Veterans, so, you know, we are always glad to 

16 see that, you know, the work done by those 

17 workers, through the Manhattan Project, the 

18 Cold War and today is celebrated. Their hard 

19 work and dedication is appreciated and, you 

20 know, has helped to keep our country safe for 

21 the last 60 years.

22 So our core mandate at the 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Department of Energy is to work on behalf of 

2 the program claimants to ensure that all 

3 available worker and facility records and data 

4 are provided to DOL, NIOSH and the Advisory 

5 Board.

6 So, essentially, our primary role 

7 at DOE is to provide records that allow NIOSH 

8 to reconstruct dose and allows DOL to 

9 adjudicate claims.

10 You know, our responsibilities, 

11 you know, take three roles primarily. We 

12 respond to individual records requests from 

13 the Department of Labor and NIOSH for 

14 information related to specific claims. We 

15 also provide support and assistance to DOL and 

16 NIOSH for large scale records research 

17 projects like the Department of Labor Site 

18 Exposure Matrix and then NIOSH SEC projects 

19 and Site Profiles, things of that nature.

20 And we also conduct research when 

21 necessary on issues related to covered 

22 facility designations, whether it be, you 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, should an AWE be covered or covered for 

2 additional years or for additional locations, 

3 things like that, we will, you know, research 

4 when necessary.

5 So for individual records claims, 

6 we respond to, approximately, 6,500 employment 

7 verifications from the Department of Labor, 

8 about 3,000 dose reconstruction requests from 

9 NIOSH and about 6,500 document acquisition 

10 requests from DOL. You know, about 16,000 a 

11 year, that has been steady for the past two 

12 years. And I guess this year we are expected 

13 about the same.

14 You know, the backbone of our 

15 program is our site points of contact. So for 

16 all of the 30 plus major DOE sites throughout 

17 the country, we have a single EEOICPA point of 

18 contact that manages, you know, our responses 

19 to those individual requests and manages our 

20 work in those large scale site research 

21 projects.

22 So those POCs will attend local 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 public meetings. They will set up, you know, 

2 site visits. They will set up tours, as was 

3 done with Los Alamos yesterday. They will 

4 work to facilitate worker interviews, both 

5 current and former workers. They will provide 

6 secure space so that can be done in a 

7 classified manner if necessary.

8 They will provide site subject 

9 matter experts to, you know, talk to 

10 researchers or, you know, attend meetings. 

11 And they are also an onsite source of 

12 information to workers for EEOICPA. So if 

13 someone is interested in filing, they can, 

14 obviously, go to the DOL Resource Center, but 

15 also on the site if it's a current worker, 

16 many of the, you know, will go to our EEOICPA 

17 Point of Contact, the first contact for 

18 information about the program.

19 At Los Alamos, which is, I guess, 

20 the local site, our Point of Contact is 

21 Philippa Griego and just to give you an 

22 example, she is probably typical of many of 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our POCs in that she has over 20 years of 

2 experience on the site. She is actually a 

3 second generation Los Alamos worker.

4 Her father was a guard for years 

5 at the facility. She also has been working on 

6 EEOICPA for 10 years, since the beginning of 

7 the program, so she has extensive experience 

8 both with the program and with the site and, 

9 in general, with, you know, historical 

10 activity at the site due to work, you know, 

11 being in the area and as a second generation 

12 worker.

13 So many of our points of contact 

14 are in a similar position, 20, 30 years 

15 onsite. So, you know, they don't just go to a 

16 file cabinet and, you know, pull out the 

17 records on an individual. They know 

18 historically where that individual might have 

19 been, what they might have been doing, what 

20 active groups onsite that they need to go to 

21 to collect records.

22 So it is really, you know, more 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 detective work than you would think to find 

2 the responsive records. And our points of 

3 contact are well-versed in how to do this.

4 So the second major, you know, 

5 function that we perform is support for SEC 

6 research activity. You know, I put up -- a 

7 number of sites are up there. Those are all 

8 sites that we have had some role in performing 

9 research in the last year, some more so than 

10 others.

11 You will see the two I highlighted 

12 are Pantex and Sandia and I'm going to talk a 

13 little bit about those in depth.

14 For Sandia, that's a relatively 

15 new SEC and we have just started, I guess, 

16 over the summer, we have really started, to 

17 ramp up our research and response to NIOSH's 

18 request. We have supported three site visits 

19 since August, about one a month. Those were 

20 to review records, you know, capture certain 

21 relevant portions of those records.

22 There has also been worker and 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 abuse of both current and former workers and 

2 they have been both classified and 

3 unclassified depending on the subject matter. 

4 You know, we always run into some unique 

5 challenges with these projects with Sandia.

6 They have already located some 53

7 floppy disks and Bernoulli disks that are 

8 basically outdated technology, so we have had 

9 a little bit of a challenge trying to read 

10 those, but I think we have been successful, at 

11 least with the disks. I'm not sure with the 

12 Bernoulli.

13 But anyway, you know, things like 

14 that when you are digging into old records 

15 going back to the '50s and even before then, 

16 you know, you do run into some unique 

17 challenges.

18 And we are also at Sandia 

19 supporting inquiries into Ross Aviation and

20 Medina and Clarksville, because within the DOE 

21 complex, you know, because of the interplay 

22 between the various sites, records are also 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 interspersed, so if something was sent from 

2 one to the other or when Medina and 

3 Clarksville both closed, those are both closed 

4 facilities, as those functions were 

5 transferred to other currently active sites 

6 like Sandia, the records associated with those 

7 functions were transferred as well.

8 So NIOSH is also looking through 

9 the Sandia records for Ross, Medina and 

10 Clarksville information.

11 At Pantex, really the main, you 

12 know, accomplishment that we have had there 

13 over the last couple of months is that we gave 

14 members of the Advisory Board and NIOSH and 

15 their associated contractors an extensive tour 

16 of the facility.

17 We have been working on this tour 

18 for probably over a year. We had provided a 

19 more limited tour of some training areas, you 

20 know, in hopes that that would kind of satisfy 

21 the needs of the Board and NIOSH. You know, 

22 but based on the research that they are doing 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and the needs that they have in terms of 

2 making a final decision, they felt that a more 

3 in depth tour would be helpful.

4 As you can imagine, Pantex is --

5 you know, because it's a weapons assembly 

6 facility, it is one of the more secure 

7 facilities in the DOE complex and it's very 

8 difficult to get into certain areas, so it 

9 took extensive, you know, negotiations on our 

10 part, you know, coordination between the Board 

11 and NIOSH, you know, what they are interested 

12 in seeing, how difficult it is, you know, for 

13 the site to allow them into these specific 

14 areas.

15 And just last month, we were able 

16 to do a three-day tour, two full days inside 

17 the facilities and one in the conference room 

18 with subject matter experts to ask any, you 

19 know, follow-up questions, things like that.

20 During the two days onsite, we 

21 visited over 20 different buildings and 

22 locations. I attended the tour and those long 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 full days with a lot of information. There 

2 were site subject matter experts familiar with 

3 each of those 20 facilities on hand to answer 

4 questions, provide information, not only of 

5 how things are done now, but in those 

6 facilities how things were done, you know, 20 

7 and 30 years ago.

8 And as you can see, a lot of the 

9 subject matter experts we had had been at the 

10 site for, you know, 20 and 30 years in various 

11 roles, so they were extremely candid and had a 

12 lot of information about the historical 

13 activities onsite.

14 You know, and as I mentioned, we 

15 made arrangements to see very sensitive areas 

16 of the site where, you know, typically not 

17 many individuals that are non-DOE employees 

18 other than, you know, Congressmen or high19 level officials are allowed in. And so, you 

20 know, Members of the Board and NIOSH were in 

21 and out of pretty much every nook and cranny 

22 of the site.
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, you know, we think that was 

2 very successful and we hope that that is going 

3 to really be, you know, useful to you all and 

4 the Board as you, you know, move forward to 

5 making your final decision.

6 Document reviews. You know, I 

7 guess a couple of years ago, we established a 

8 security plan in coordination with, you know, 

9 NIOSH and the Advisory Board. You know, we 

10 are committed to providing documents to NIOSH, 

11 DOL and the Board, but because some of these 

12 documents are very sensitive in nature, we 

13 must -- you know, we need to make sure that 

14 they are reviewed, that they are -- you know, 

15 if they are classified, that they are marked 

16 appropriately and viewed in an appropriate 

17 location or they are redacted to a level that 

18 we can send them out, you know, for public 

19 use.

20 So, you know, again, we have 

21 established our security plan. We have been 

22 following this security plan. I believe that 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Board and NIOSH have their own security 

2 plans that all kind of mesh together. And, 

3 you know, we have been conducting our document 

4 reviews in about eight working days, sometimes 

5 even less.

6 I know on occasion we have done 

7 them in one to two days to respond to an 

8 expedited request. You know, in advance of 

9 this meeting, there were a few submitted last 

10 week that I believe we returned within a few 

11 days.

12 And I think just to give you an 

13 idea of the volume at headquarters, we have 

14 reviewed 62 documents since May. And again, 

15 the average review time is about eight working 

16 days.

17 And then our third role under the 

18 EEOICPA Program and it is probably a smaller 

19 role than the individual research and the 

20 large scale records request is facility 

21 research. You know, on our website we host 

22 the covered facilities database, which has 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 over 300 facilities covered under the EEOICPA.

2 We have got DOE facilities, Atomic

3 Weapons Employers and beryllium vendors and we 

4 have got the link to the website up there.

5 We have our Office of Legacy 

6 Management supports DOE headquarters and our 

7 facility research. We have -- Legacy 

8 Management is responsible for the closure 

9 sites and, as such, they have records experts 

10 that are well-versed in the historical aspects 

11 of DOE.

12 They understand how the sites fit 

13 together. They have contacts at most of our 

14 active DOE facilities. So when we have a 

15 question about, you know, should a facility be 

16 covered for additional years or fewer years 

17 or, you know, as a new facility, should that 

18 be covered, have we missed one, they know who 

19 to go to. They know what federal record 

20 centers or record repositories might have 

21 relevant records and, you know, they will do 

22 that research and will provide it to DOL and 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH and attempt to, you know, make sure our 

2 list is up to date and as accurate as 

3 possible.

4 You know, we have a number of 

5 initiatives that I want to talk to you about. 

6 We hold routine conference calls with NIOSH 

7 and its contractors, both, you know, SC&A, 

8 ORAU and NIOSH. I personally talked to 

9 probably on a weekly basis with each of them 

10 to make sure that we are keeping up on all of 

11 their issues, their needs and we are getting 

12 them the information they need to do their 

13 job.

14 We have DOE subject matter experts 

15 that contribute to Advisory Board Working 

16 Group and Working Group conference calls, 

17 sometimes those are site subject matter 

18 experts, but also Dr. Al-Nabulsi, who is in 

19 our office, she also participates in many of 

20 these calls. And then I'll coordinate any 

21 response with, you know, our site to make sure 

22 they are addressing the issues raised, at 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 least that are relevant to DOE.

2 And we also facilitate secure 

3 meetings and video-conference calls with NIOSH 

4 and Advisory Board staff where -- so 

5 classified discussions can take place. They 

6 can conduct interviews, classified interviews 

7 of -- so workers can speak unencumbered about 

8 the types of work that they did, the things 

9 that they were exposed to without worrying 

10 about, you know, crossing the line or 

11 releasing information that shouldn't be 

12 released.

13 We have also just recently renewed 

14 our memorandum of understanding with NIOSH. 

15 This just kind of formally establishes the 

16 different protocols that we operate under. 

17 The expectations for both sides, what we are 

18 supposed to do, what NIOSH is supposed to do, 

19 how certain things are supposed to take place.

20 You know, we were operating under 

21 most of these, you know, before, but we just 

22 want to make sure to formalize it and have 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some institutional knowledge of how things are 

2 supposed to take place.

3 And then we are also working on a 

4 similar MOU right now with DOL and we 

5 anticipate finalizing that within the next, 

6 hopefully, month or so.

7 Also, in the last year, we have 

8 taken an increased role in outreach 

9 activities. We along with the Department of 

10 Labor, NIOSH, the DOL and NIOSH Ombudsman's 

11 Office and our DOE former worker medical 

12 screening programs, we initiated what we are 

13 calling a Joint Outreach Task Group.

14 You know, in past years, all of 

15 these different groups have been conducting 

16 outreach separately, but, you know, we had the 

17 thought that all of these groups are trying to 

18 reach the same population and with combined 

19 effort, we could both make it more efficient 

20 and allow each of these groups to reach a 

21 larger population.

22 So in the last year, we held 18 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 town hall meetings in and around nine DOE 

2 sites. I believe there was one in either Los 

3 Alamos or Albuquerque area, I can't remember 

4 which, that was over the summer, so we had 

5 been to this area.

6 And then an initiative that we are 

7 just approaching completion on, in fact, we 

8 are hoping to complete by the end of this 

9 year, is the review of the Department of 

10 Labor's Site Exposure Matrix Database.

11 You know, Rachel in her 

12 presentation talked about that earlier. It is 

13 an important tool that they use to gather 

14 site-wide information and determine what, you 

15 know, chemicals were in certain areas or what 

16 job tasks would be in certain areas, handling 

17 certain chemicals, things like that.

18 You know, we are very involved in 

19 providing DOL with the information initially 

20 to establish the Site Exposure Matrix. And 

21 initially, it was, you know, only available to 

22 DOL claims examiners behind their firewall, et 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cetera, but about a year ago, I guess, you 

2 know, the Department of Labor approached us 

3 about reviewing it to enable them to release 

4 the full database to the public.

5 So, you know, our site points of 

6 contact worked closely with DOL and our 

7 reviewers at each site reviewed the 

8 information. And there were -- I have here 

9 that there were 116 DOE facilities to start 

and on April 30th 10 of last year, we released 48 

of those sites. On June 30th 11 , we did an 

additional 21 and then on September 30th 12 , we 

13 did an additional 23 leaving six sites to be 

14 reviewed by December 30, 2010.

15 Now, if you are scoring at home, 

16 those numbers don't quite add up, which, as I 

17 was reviewing this, you know, before coming up 

18 here, I realized the numbers I have add up to 

19 about 98, so, you know, with six, that would 

20 be 104. So there is some discrepancy in my 

21 numbers. I'm not sure.

22 I can assure you that there are 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 only six left. I'm not sure whether I got the 

2 116 wrong or we released additional sites 

3 somewhere along the way that I failed to 

4 account for. But there are only six sites 

remaining and December 30th 5 is our target date 

6 for those final six.

7 And, you know, for those of you 

8 that are interested in Los Alamos and Sandia, 

9 both of those have been reviewed and released. 

10 So they are on the public SEM website and I 

11 have the link there to the Department of 

12 Labor's website.

13 And I also just briefly wanted to 

14 mention our former worker medical screening 

15 program. The former worker medical screening 

16 program was a program started by DOE, I 

17 believe, in 1996, although it has been 

18 expanded somewhat, so there are more programs 

19 and has more coverage now than it did in 1996.

20 It is a program that provides free 

21 medical screening to all former Department of 

22 Energy and Department of Energy contractor and 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subcontractor workers. 

2 You know, they can -- there are 

3 locations all around the country. So we have 

4 specific clinics by sites, like Sandia and Los 

5 Alamos, but if you retire to, you know, 

6 Arizona or Florida or wherever, we have, you 

7 know, contracts with clinics in pretty much 

8 all over the country, so that we can provide 

9 you with a screening close to your home.

10 It is a free screening. And, you 

11 know, the doctors that set up these screenings 

12 and talk with the individuals beforehand will 

13 make sure to tailor the screening to the 

14 individual's needs.

15 So, you know, our Former Worker 

16 Program principal investigators, they know the 

17 work that was done at each of these sites. 

18 They know the general hazards associated with 

19 these sites. And will also talk with the 

20 worker to see what, in particular, that worker 

21 might have done, what their role was. And so, 

22 you know, the screening will be tailored 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 toward the potential exposures that our PI 

2 thinks that individual might have encountered.

3 So the local screening programs, 

4 both for Los Alamos and Sandia, are run 

5 through Johns Hopkins University. And the 

6 principal investigator is Brian Schwartz. The 

7 local outreach number is provided on that 

8 slide and I believe we also have someone from 

9 the Former Worker Program here today, Rebecca 

10 Trujillo. And you can talk to her after if 

11 you have any interest and you can also ask me 

12 and I can direct you to her.

13 So, you know, this is for any of 

14 you, you know, current and former workers 

15 maybe in the crowd, you know, if this sounds 

16 like something you might be eligible for, I 

17 encourage you to talk to her. And also, I 

18 encourage you to spread the word to anyone 

19 else.

20 Again, it's a free screening. You 

21 know, it can only be to your benefit. And 

22 there is numerous stories about how we have, 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, caught things in the early stages 

2 and, you know, were able to save people's 

3 lives. So I encourage you to apply.

4 And I think that's it. So are 

5 there any questions?

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: First of all, I 

7 would like to thank you and thank Glenn for 

8 arranging the Pantex tour. I know it took 

9 time and effort and I'm hoping Brad will agree 

10 with me that it was worth the effort in that 

11 it was very, very helpful and I think 

12 absolutely essential to us being able to deal 

13 with that site.

14 So but we recognize the effort it 

15 took and I think Glenn made a commitment at 

16 our last meeting and followed through. So we 

17 really do appreciate that.

18 MR. LEWIS: Glad to hear that. 

19 Before Brad goes, I just want to say Dr. 

20 Worthington, Pat Worthington, was also 

21 instrumental in making that happen. I mean, 

22 Glenn did support it, but Pat was the one who 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 worked extensively with Pantex management, 

2 too.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, we know 

4 that, but we've got to give the boss credit, 

5 right? Go ahead, Brad.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's what I 

7 wanted to thank you about. You know, 

8 especially with plants like this or ones that 

9 have been in the past, it's very difficult for 

10 us to be able to read a piece of paper and be 

11 able to really understand what it is trying to 

12 say.

13 And I think that Pantex was one of 

14 these that this tour was fabulous. Now, I 

15 know we had a lot of milestones and you said a 

16 year, I say two years. That is beside the 

17 point. But the thing was is this tour was 

18 absolutely phenomenal.

19 I think we gained a very good 

20 understanding of the process for the earlier 

21 years, which we really needed. And I know 

22 what you had to go through to be able to do 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it. The places that we got to go, the things 

2 we got to see were fabulous. It was a very 

3 good experience and I think that it will 

4 really help us with the Pantex SEC.

5 And I just wanted Pat and 

6 everybody to just tell them how much I 

7 appreciate it and especially Pantex, because 

8 Pantex really stepped up the bar and did some 

9 phenomenal work for us. And I appreciate it.

10 MR. LEWIS: I'm glad to hear that.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anybody 

12 else have -- if not, I will raise a question. 

13 Oh, Mark, go ahead.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was just going 

15 to on the joint outreach meetings, I mean, I 

16 think I heard that was happening. And it 

17 seems to be pretty successful. Have you 

18 looked at -- you said around nine DOE sites. 

19 I'm wondering if -- because I noticed the 

20 disparity in the AWE claims coming in and if 

21 there is any effort to do sort of those kind 

22 of outreach efforts, you know, in an area 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where you might have three or four AWE 

2 facilities and get the word out to the 

3 community, you know? Has the task force 

4 brought that up and have you had any plans on 

5 doing this sort of thing?

6 MR. LEWIS: Yes. I know we have 

7 been talking about the sites or the areas that 

8 we are going to this year. Offhand, I'm not 

9 sure. You know, certainly AWEs are of 

10 interest as well. Offhand I don't know if we 

11 are going to an area where there is more, you 

12 know, "AWE concentration" this year. I can 

13 certainly look into it, you know, and if you 

14 want to talk to me, we would be glad to kind 

15 of take some suggestions as to where to go.

16 So, yes, but that is certainly a 

17 focus as well.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. My 

19 question I believe this comes from a Board 

20 Member, but I'm not sure who. Apparently, 

21 there continues to be some issues with the 

22 timeliness for clearing the interview notes. 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I know SC&A has had problems in the past 

2 and I'm not sure what Work Groups have been 

3 involved, but that seems to be the major sort 

4 of bottleneck or difficulty left with the 

5 clearance process.

6 MR. LEWIS: Well, you know, I 

7 would say I think the interview notes that go 

8 to headquarters, first of all, you know, my 

9 office has most direct control over what 

10 happens at headquarters.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. LEWIS: And as you saw, at 

13 headquarters I think we have great response.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. LEWIS: You know, eight 

16 working days.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MR. LEWIS: It can happen in less, 

19 et cetera. However, I think I'm assuming 

20 without getting into the specifics, the 

21 concerns probably focus more on certain 

22 individual sites.
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 MR. LEWIS: I think the vast 

3 majority of our sites actually get the 

4 interviews back, you know, in a pretty 

5 reasonable time. However, there are some --

6 you know, it's tougher for us, one, to track 

7 and, two, to control the sites, because they 

8 have, you know, other responsibilities that 

9 they are kind of working this in with their 

10 other work load.

11 They are not as familiar with the 

12 different groups, so we have had some issues 

13 where interview notes, you know, done by SC&A 

14 were sent back to NIOSH or actually we just 

15 had the opposite where interview notes done by 

16 NIOSH were sent back to SC&A. So our sites 

17 are not always exactly sure, you know, what 

18 the expectations are and what the different 

19 groups are.

20 I think, one, we are working on 

21 that. Two, the other thing that I know that I 

22 spoke with, I believe, Mr. Fitzgerald and, you 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, Kathy Robertson-DeMers, at some point, 

2 was creating a tracking sheet of what reviews 

3 have been submitted to what sites or, you 

4 know, what interviews, excuse me, were 

5 submitted to what sites.

6 You know, how long they were, 

7 whether they were actual source documents, 

8 which can be hundreds of pages or interview 

9 notes, which are usually maximum, you know, 20 

10 or 30.

11 One of my issues, in our offices 

12 is it's tough for us to track what is going 

13 where and what has been requested at about 30 

14 different sites. If we were to get on a, you 

15 know, monthly basis or a quarterly or even a 

16 weekly basis, what has been requested of our 

17 sites and when it would allow us to much more 

18 accurately follow-up now.

19 Typically, I only get notice when, 

20 you know, hey, I submitted something to site 

21 X, you know, three months ago, what happened? 

22 You know, and a lot of times, at that point, 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it is already late and by the time I go to the 

2 site, you know, it may have been lost in the 

3 shuffle or, you know, low on their priority 

4 list.

5 And so, you know, we try to 

6 rectify the situation, but a lot of times it 

7 is already late by the time we even realize 

8 it's an issue, which makes it tough on us to 

9 be as responsive as we would like to be.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. LEWIS: So I think if there 

12 were a way to coordinate tracking with, you 

13 know, both NIOSH, their contractor and SC&A 

14 and you guys, I think we would be able to be 

15 much more responsive.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. John, can 

17 we -- I don't see Joe here. I saw him this 

18 morning. Oh, there is Joe. I'm sorry.

19 MR. LEWIS: And I don't mean to 

20 put them on the spot. It's something we -

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But I do.

22 DR. MAURO: I would like to think 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in terms of these interactions there are three 

2 components. One of which, Joe, if you could 

3 join me, I would appreciate it. One is the 

4 White Papers and the formal reports that are 

5 the products that SC&A generate in support of 

6 Work Group meetings.

7 These need to go -- be produced 

8 quickly, go through DOE clearance and come 

9 back, this has been excellent. The turnaround 

10 has been amazing. And it has not resulted in 

11 any hiccups in our ability, the way I see it, 

12 to move forward with our Work Group meetings.

13 The other item has to do with many 

14 of our work products, including our Site 

15 Profile reviews or SEC reviews, they are 

16 always accompanied by interviews, data capture 

17 efforts, which move forward.

18 And we now are in a mode of 

19 operation where we will put out our report 

20 without that attachment. And that's because 

21 of the reality does take a bit of time to move 

22 the interview notes through not only the 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 review of DOE and it also goes through a 

2 review of the people we talked to. It comes 

3 back. So there is an iterative process 

4 related to getting interview notes into the 

5 system.

6 And I think Joe can speak a little 

7 more to that. And I think there was -- also 

8 the third item had to do with this records 

9 retrieval and tracking. And there was a time 

10 when we were trying to set up a system where 

11 SC&A could keep track of the iterations of the 

12 records that are captured, the interviews that 

13 are captured, but we abandoned that.

14 That whole tracking now is 

15 completely in the hands of NIOSH. So I think 

16 that creates some efficiencies. I guess 

17 that's the best I can do in trying to be 

18 responsive to some of the matters you have 

19 just discussed. And I would like to ask Joe 

20 to --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. What I 

22 would add to that is that I think as Greg 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pointed out, the only area we still have 

2 probably a challenge is when the individual 

3 sites, and there are only certain sites that 

4 are screening interview notes, because there 

5 we have a little less control through 

6 headquarters and we are sort of in the queue 

7 at a particular site.

8 And some sites have quite a bit of 

9 clearance to do. And we have two iterations 

10 on interviews, too. And we have the raw notes 

11 that we have to go through. Then we send the 

12 notes back to the interviewee. And that 

13 requires another review by the site.

14 So, you know, but that is, I 

15 think, more of the exception now than it used 

16 to be. We have a couple of sites where the 

17 clearance process is tough and we have to deal 

18 with the individual site itself. We have to 

19 work through Greg to sometimes push and shove 

20 a little bit to get these things through 

21 faster.

22 But, in general, the other sites, 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, they are uncleared or they are sites 

2 we can handle through headquarters.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So would a 

4 tracking system -- is it necessary? Would it 

5 be helpful? Greg was saying it would be 

6 helpful if he knew when you submitted those 

7 notes to the sites.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, we are in 

9 constant contact. I mean, Kathy has a weekly 

10 call with Greg.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: So this is real13 time. I mean, anything that is lagging, he 

14 knows immediately and where we need his help 

15 he is told that. So it's actually better than 

16 tracking. It's a weekly conference call with 

17 Greg on the status --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Of all items that 

20 are in the clearance process. Now, this is 

21 more from SC&A. I can't speak for some of the 

22 documents themselves, but for the interview 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 notes and things like that --

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Real-time, we 

4 were handling it that way.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I actually 

7 think it has been working relatively good. 

8 Now, I don't know if there is issues that you 

9 are seeing that we are not seeing, but --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Somebody was 

11 seeing -

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, I can speak to 

13 this a little bit. I mean, this has come up 

14 at several Work Group meetings. And, Phil, I 

15 think you have actually raised it. So where 

16 at least some set of interview notes is 6 to 

17 12 months and it hasn't -- and they haven't 

18 come through yet.

19 So it probably is a very narrow 

20 subset that -- of situations where it applies 

21 to and I guess I would at least ask for those 

22 very narrow situations where we are having 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 problems, maybe we want to track those, so we 

2 can report to Greg formally on those.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: A rather infamous 

4 example from last year, it was my interview 

5 notes, as a matter of fact, it took almost a 

6 year to get them out. I think it was Pantex. 

7 That was the situation, I think, that has 

8 gotten better, but that was a real problem a 

9 year ago.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil, you had a 

11 -- is there another example of an issue?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: There has been 

13 a number of things that have happened.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: That was the 

16 extreme examples. But we have had some other 

17 notes that Kathy has taken at some of the 

18 worker meetings and interviews we have done 

19 that have set out there for five, six, seven 

20 months before they came back.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, we, 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in fact, have gone to Greg and had DOE 

2 headquarters intervene with the site. It's 

3 almost always the site that is holding it up. 

4 And, you know, that's the best we can do is 

5 get DOE to intervene with the site and try to 

6 figure out what the problem is.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MR. FITZGERALD: And we don't wait 

9 until it is six months in. We start doing 

10 that within a couple of months. And it just 

11 takes time to -- I guess for the long arm of 

12 headquarters to have the impact we want at a 

13 particular site.

14 But it's really a couple of sites. 

15 Am I right? They are getting a little 

16 better.

17 MR. LEWIS: Yes. And I mean, yes, 

18 I think the only thing is it's tough for me. 

19 And as Joe said, I do speak weekly with Kathy 

20 and Joe and representatives from, you know, 

21 NIOSH and ORAU as well. But without a formal 

22 tracking system, it can sometimes be tough 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just for me personally and my staff to track 

2 what is going where.

3 I mean, from one site there can 

4 be, you know, interview notes from, you know, 

5 three months of visits and there could be, you 

6 know, 20 interviews each time. And then there 

7 is the, you know, interview summary, the 

8 interview reviews where the individual will 

9 actually confirm what they, you know, said.

10 So there is a lot of different 

11 things flying all over the place. That's why 

12 it sometimes is difficult. And I'll hear 

13 well, we received some, you know, interview 

14 notes from Sandia back. Oh, great, I'll check 

15 that one off my list.

16 Then a month later I'll hear well, 

17 you know, there were still some set of 

18 interviews from Sandia that we didn't get 

19 back. So, you know, I think it may be -- but 

20 sometimes without a formal tracking system, it 

21 would be difficult.

22 If I were to see, you know, this 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 set of this date, I would also know -- you 

2 know, I could also end up calling a site 

3 sometimes and say, you know, SC&A or NIOSH is 

4 still waiting on one of the, you know, 

5 interview sets. They say which one and I'm 

6 not even sure which, you know, set, from which 

7 visit and which individual.

8 So it might be helpful with a 

9 little bit more formal tracking system. 

10 Again, I would be glad to talk with both SC&A 

11 and NIOSH as to the most efficient way to do 

12 that and whether it is, you know, really 

13 necessary.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I would 

15 say let's do it, because I think from the 

16 Board's perspective to try to keep track of 

17 this, it would be helpful. And at least for 

18 the problematic sites or the ones we, you 

19 know, where this -- we know there has been 

20 delays and there is problems.

21 So I'll let you, you know, maybe, 

22 SC&A, NIOSH and DOE work something out, so 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we can follow this.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I 

3 wouldn't think this is a real -- we have our 

4 own internal tracking, as far as that goes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, right.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: But as far as an 

7 omnibus system, that's something that would be 

8 easily cobbled together.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, right, 

10 exactly.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't think 

13 it's asking a lot, right. Okay. Thanks. 

14 Other questions for Greg? If not, thank you 

15 very much.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: You just got 

17 through saying the same thing I was going to 

18 do.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I'm 

20 sorry. Okay. Next on our agenda is the GE 

21 Evendale SEC petition. I think that's Stu.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, good morning 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 again. I'm here to provide, essentially, an 

2 update on the work we have been doing 

3 researching the General Electric Site in 

4 Evendale, which is Cincinnati, Ohio.

5 A little bit of the, you know, 

6 history of the petition. We initiated and 

7 83.14 petition back in December. This was 

8 during our push to finish old claims or finish 

9 -- get all the claims within one year-old by 

10 May of this year. And so it was one of those 

11 final sites we were trying to wrap up the 

12 research on.

13 And so we reached the conclusion 

14 for December that we didn't think we had 

15 enough information to do dose reconstructions 

16 with sufficient accuracy and presented that 

17 then to -- well, sent the cannot reconstruct 

18 letter to a particular claimant.

19 They then submitted a petition 

20 that we qualified and then an Evaluation 

21 Report followed shortly thereafter, because 

22 we, essentially, had done the research anyway 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 already.

2 The site of GE has kind of a long 

3 history of radiological work. Only some of 

4 which right now is considered covered under 

5 our program.

6 The covered period for the program 

7 is from 1961 through 1970. But prior to 1961, 

8 General Electric, at that location, was 

9 working on the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

10 Project at -- starting in 1951 in an area of 

11 the site that was known as Air Force Plant 36. 

12 I think the Defense Department had some 

13 involvement in this, so it's a 68 acre portion 

14 of the much larger GE Aircraft Engine Plant.

15 The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion 

16 Project was terminated in 1961, at least GE's 

17 involvement in it was. And the facility where 

18 it had been housed was then turned over, was 

19 occupied by -- essentially, it was work for 

20 AEC. It was actually occupied by AEC, but GE 

21 then took -- but AEC did take some sort of use 

22 permit or engaged in some sort of use permit 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with the Air Force and that's apparently what 

2 was decided that put it into the covered arena 

3 was that AEC interest in that part of the 

4 facility.

5 And it is classified on the 

6 designation page as a DOE facility, not an 

7 Atomic Weapons Employer.

8 So during the '60s and '70s, we 

9 don't have a lot of real specific information 

10 about what they were doing, but it seemed to 

11 be reactor material testing and fuel testing 

12 kind of things during that period. But we 

13 haven't managed to find a lot of detail about 

14 what they did.

15 In 1970 then the facility was 

16 turned back over to the Air Force, this 

17 particular part of the plant. So that then, 

18 as of current thinking, is what ended the 

19 designation period.

20 A little bit of the status of the 

21 claims here. I have talked about -- some of 

22 these were mentioned peripherally in my 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 original -- in my previous presentation.

2 We have about 160 claims. Those 

3 numbers, you know, can change on any given 

4 day. 120 of those are active. We would guess 

5 the others were pulled. Some of these, a lot 

6 of people have joint employment several 

7 places, so they will have employment at GE and 

8 other places that may have been pulled for 

9 some other SEC or it may have had a dose 

10 reconstruction done, something like that.

11 Well, there they are, 29 were 

12 pulled and 11 were completed. And there is a 

13 little breakdown of some of the claims. You 

14 know, we've got some claims that have been 

15 there quite a long time. They came in early 

16 in the program and, of course, it took us a 

17 long time to get around to researching this 

18 site and trying to finally reach a conclusion 

19 on this site.

20 And so those have been here --

21 some of them have been here quite a while. 

22 And then there are still some new ones coming 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in as well.

2 I sent to the Board Members last 

3 week kind of a longer chronology of history of 

4 research there. It's kind of an extensive 

5 one. We don't normally go through in that 

6 much detail, so I have a little bit of a 

7 summary here.

8 We have been to the GE facility at 

9 Evendale, GE headquarters, a particular area 

10 of GE or division headquarters at Schenectady 

11 that is connected. The specific portion of GE 

12 that did the work at Evendale or this work in 

13 '61 to '70 is actually now a part of GE, which 

14 is headquartered in the United Kingdom.

15 And so we approached them in the 

16 United Kingdom as well and then Iron Mountain 

17 is just a storage, commercial storage 

18 operation. And the people in the United 

19 Kingdom, I believe, are the ones who referred 

20 us to Iron Mountain and gave permission for 

21 Iron Mountain to give us what they had.

22 So we have been to all those 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 places. We have been to the Ohio Department 

2 of Health, OSTI, which is the Office of 

3 Scientific and Technological Information, that 

4 is down at Oak Ridge. Several DOE Offices, 

5 Legacy Management, FUSRAP, their FUSRAP files, 

6 Oak Ridge Office, Fernald, because Fernald 

7 apparently had some sort of relationship at 

8 some period of time with GE Evendale and the 

9 Grand Junction, which is one of the Legacy 

10 Management records holding offices.

11 And we have been to several record 

12 centers, including this past summer. We were 

13 at the NARA facility in College Park, Maryland 

14 looking at records that have never been 

15 declassified. I don't think they were 

16 classified any more. We went there and we 

17 retrieved this summery everything from College 

18 Park that related to GE.

19 You know, it was declassified and 

20 we got it. And it turns out, essentially, all 

21 of it pertained to the period of time before 

22 1961 or after 1970.
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Just a little summary of the 

2 amount of documentation we have managed to 

3 gather and places it came from. We have also 

4 done some additional interviews. The 

5 personnel interviews, the 45 additional total 

6 attendees in two group interviews, those were 

7 conducted this summer. There were additional 

8 -- seven individual interviews performed this 

9 summer since May, additional information 

10 trying to find a way to identify what subset 

11 of the population GE -- how can we identify a 

12 subset of the population, essentially, what we 

13 were looking for or perhaps any information 

14 that would allow us to do dose reconstruction.

15 We did get several more documents 

16 from GE Evendale this summer. We asked for 

17 things like organizational charts, personnel 

18 rosters and things like that, which were 

19 discussed the last time we talked about GE at 

20 the Board meeting, so we pursued those.

21 Again, we got mainly things that 

22 were outside. These were before 1961 or after 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1970. We were still getting information from 

2 GE last week.

3 Last week on Friday, our 

4 contractors got custody of the entire set of 

5 GE's radiation -- personnel radiation exposure 

6 records that they were -- that they would use 

7 to respond to our requests. When we would ask 

8 for exposure history requests, they would go 

9 through this set of records and they would 

10 pull out the exposure history.

11 And since we got those on Friday, 

12 our contractor has compared for claimants that 

13 we got an exposure history request from GE, we 

14 compared what they sent us earlier to what was 

15 in this set and it matched page for page. But 

16 that's only about 12 people. Okay. So that's 

17 -- so we did match that.

18 The time frame of these exposure 

19 records is not limited to 1961 to 1970. It 

20 covers -- it goes way back into the '50s and 

21 continues into the '70s certainly and probably 

22 later than the '70s as well.
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So only a few, I guess how many, 

2 people have individual monitoring data, it 

3 depends on the counts. This slide says 32. I 

4 have got other counts that may be 30. People 

5 have individual monitoring, the external data 

6 of the 120 claims that are still active.

7 Of those, I think it is somewhere 

8 on the order of 12 to 15 have data that is in 

9 the actual 1961 to 1970 period. The other 

10 data is outside that period. I believe we 

11 have only found one claim that has internal 

12 monitoring data. I believe that is the last 

13 count I heard.

14 Most of what we found is either 

15 the aircraft nuclear propulsion things in the 

16 '50s or some work that we -- that happened in 

17 the '70s. We know they did some thorium work, 

18 for instance, in the '70s.

19 And we still are at the same place 

20 where we were. We haven't been able to find 

21 sufficient information to dose reconstruction. 

22 And we have not been able to find -- well, 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 let me just go through the slides.

2 We haven't found anything, any 

3 records that would allow us to simply draw a 

4 line or fence off the people, identify the 

5 people who were in this area of the plant 

6 separate from the plant population. We 

7 haven't got any records that allow us to do 

8 that.

9 We have been unable to collect 

10 very much detailed information about the 

11 process that we did or the source-term. And 

12 so we don't really have information that we 

13 feel could even attempt to make some sort of 

14 source-term model for this period of time.

15 We didn't -- when we specifically 

16 looked for materials, control and 

17 accountability records, one of the items that 

18 was suggested we found a couple of records 

19 from the '50s and I think one from the '70s. 

20 Again, nothing between '61 and '70.

21 We didn't find any information 

22 that would allow us to associate job titles or 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other job assignments that would be 

2 specifically radiological job titles or job 

3 assignments.

4 And the people that we have 

5 interviewed indicated that the building access 

6 controls were not -- or building access was 

7 not strictly controlled. And that there would 

8 be people who were not assigned to the 

9 building who would come into the building and 

10 work for some period of time. And that there 

11 were unmonitored people who worked in these 

12 buildings, at least at some time.

13 Now, recall that this building was 

14 sort of -- these buildings were, essentially, 

15 a radiological area from the '50s and I think 

16 it went into the '80s. I mean, the building 

17 is torn down and gone now. There was a D&D 

18 done there. I think this building existed as 

19 a radiological facility up through and into 

20 the '70s certainly.

21 And so people are recalling and so 

22 remember as they recall, we don't really know 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for sure will they be recalling specifically 

2 the 1960 to '70 period or what. That's what 

3 we were asking them about, but you kind of 

4 wonder what people are thinking about the era 

5 they were recalling, because there was a long 

6 period when this was sort of the separate area 

7 of the plant or a different area of the plant 

8 where radiological work occurred.

9 And of course, you all are 

10 familiar with the two-prong test. We are 

11 still at the position now where we don't 

12 believe we found sufficient information to do 

13 a sufficiently accurate dose reconstruction. 

14 And our rule is written such that if you reach 

15 that conclusion, then pretty much you reach 

16 the conclusion that there is the potential for 

17 health endangerment.

18 In terms of what we think we can 

19 do, we believe we could probably reconstruct 

20 medical exposures using other program-wide, 

21 you know, program general documents that we 

22 have used in other places. We don't believe 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we found sufficient information to determine 

2 internal doses for the workers.

3 And we don't believe we found 

4 sufficient information to reconstruct the 

5 external doses for people if we don't have 

6 their exposure record. We will use any 

7 exposure information we have in an 

8 individual's exposure -- in an individual's 

9 dose reconstruction, if we have data for that 

10 individual.

11 But we don't know that we could 

12 write conclusions about people who were not 

13 monitored or at least we don't have exposure 

14 records for, what their exposure might have 

15 been. I think that just says in more words 

16 what I just said about using data that we 

17 have.

18 And this was the proposed Class 

19 Definition and it is an all employees, because 

20 we didn't -- we haven't found any information 

21 to limit it otherwise.

22 Following on now, the story 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 continues. I know you all -- I sent you all a 

2 letter or Ted, I think, sent the letter, to 

3 all the Board Members just recently, probably 

4 this week, that we received Friday from the 

5 Department of Labor.

6 Now, what prompted this was we had 

7 tried a slight variation on this proposed 

8 Class Definition and as we do with all of our 

9 proposed Class Definitions, we share those in 

10 draft form with the Department of Labor for 

11 them to talk about the administratability of 

12 the Class Definition.

13 And the wording was very slight 

14 and it is based on the fact that the covered 

15 period is considered a DOE facility. It is 

16 covered as a DOE facility, not as an AWE. And 

17 it is pretty clear to all of us that GE 

18 Evendale, that whole big plant, was not ever a 

19 DOE facility.

20 So there is sort of a tacit 

21 setting aside of the Air Force Plant 36 or 

22 whatever the number was, part of it in the 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 designation. And so we wrote, I don't think I 

2 brought the proposed Class Definition, but--

3 or don't have it handy at least.

4 But it was something to the effect 

5 that all employees of the covered facility 

6 located at GE Evendale "also known as Air 

7 Force Plant 36," something like that. So 

8 that's what we said what would you think about 

9 this sort of a Class, because we don't expect 

10 the Department of Labor to do anything 

11 differently than they are doing.

12 I mean, presumably since that is 

13 the covered facility, people would have to 

14 meet that in order to be, you know, claimants 

15 anyway. And if they -- they have since told 

16 us that they don't really have any information 

17 that will allow them to say who was at the Air 

18 Force Plant 36 and who wasn't.

19 But it was just a way to work with 

20 the wording and it was then our message, at 

21 least our designation, that would go out to 

22 workers would be that if you worked in the Air 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Force Plant 36, then you are eligible, rather 

2 than if you worked at GE, which was one of the 

3 things that was discussed at the last Board 

4 meeting, is there a way to say something like 

5 that in the designation? So it's a way to try 

6 to do that.

7 In response to that, the 

8 Department of Labor responded. First off as 

9 well, we can't really designate this Class, 

10 you know, that limits in some fashion Air 

11 Force Plant 36. That's one thing that their 

12 letter said.

13 Their letter also told us that in 

14 light of this -- you know, looking at 

15 research, they want to revisit the basis for 

16 the designation anyway, the designation of the 

17 DOE facility. And they are going to get --

18 you know, contact DOE to ask about what is the 

19 basis for that designation. And so there may 

20 be some change in the designation of the --

21 maybe from a DOE to an AWE or from maybe some 

22 other years or whatever.
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So there is some additional 

2 research apparently that is going to have to 

3 be required in order to arrive finally at a 

4 determination of what exactly is the 

5 definition of Class and what's the -- and what 

6 period are we talking about.

7 The definition of Class with DOE 

8 and AWE is important for one specific reason 

9 and that is the residual radiation period. As 

10 a DOE facility, the way the law is written, 

11 DOE facilities do not have residual radiation 

12 periods. Okay. They only exist for AWEs the 

13 way the law is written.

14 If the designation becomes an 

15 Atomic Weapons Employer, even for the same 

16 period of time, then there is an additional 

17 question that will be in front of us is can 

18 you reconstruct the dose from the residual 

19 radiation in the period in the 1970s when we 

20 know they were doing other radiological work 

21 anyway?

22 So there are some other questions 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in front of us as we go forward here.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Just to 

3 add, it also makes some difference in terms of 

4 who is eligible.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: In terms of 

7 subcontractors and so forth.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So it's 

10 important. I don't know, Rachel, do you have 

11 anything to add to that?

12 MS. LEITON: No.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 

14 That's fine then. Questions from the Board 

15 then? Bill?

16 MEMBER FIELD: I know we have 

17 talked about this before, but what is your 

18 understanding of what data may be available in 

19 the UK or Iron Mountain?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we went back 

21 to revisit our contacts with the UK, refreshed 

22 our trail, our communications trail back and 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forth and made sure we were both on common 

2 understanding. And what we have concluded 

3 from discussion with them and from our own 

4 review of our own messages to them and back 

5 over the years is that they have done a 

6 keyword search on 52,000 boxes of records that 

7 might be relevant.

8 They have identified from that 

9 keyword some number of documents that we 

10 selected certain ones we wanted and they have 

11 provided those. They had done that before 

12 this. And so we have had -- you know, we have 

13 essentially finished with GE and they have 

14 completed the search that they are able to do. 

15 And we have had those records for a while.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. Because the 

17 question I had, I guess it was a previous 

18 Board meeting there was discussion that they 

19 may have records, but they didn't provide 

20 them. So at this point --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there was a 

22 lot of, you know, trying to remember as we 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were getting ready and people in conversation 

2 well, where did we go to get this wrap up? 

3 Did we finish this? And so when we go back 

4 and we looked at the actual communication 

5 trail back and forth, and then we also had a 

6 conversation with them again this summer, our 

7 contractor had a conversation with the point 

8 of contact, and they said, well, you know, we 

9 finished that up, so that is kind of what we 

10 arrived at.

11 MEMBER FIELD: And then my second 

12 question was as far as the worker interviews, 

13 did the workers indicate that, from their 

14 perspective, not everyone was monitored?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We have had people 

16 tell us that, yes. Not that -- we had people 

17 say that not everyone that worked in that 

18 building was monitored.

19 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. And did they 

20 give you any indication of how many people may 

21 have worked in the building or came in and out 

22 over time?
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that 

2 we have that. I don't know if anybody was not 

3 willing to offer it, but I'm not familiar with 

4 that. No.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. 

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: One of the --

7 and I have some email correspondence with Stu 

8 before the meeting about this, was whether --

9 now that they had the complete set of 

10 monitoring records, would that somehow help 

11 them to define the Class? You know, not that 

12 it would make it feasible to do dose 

13 reconstruction, but it would at least tell us 

14 more about some of those questions. How many 

15 people? What the process is. And I think Stu 

16 was still looking into that.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: My sense is

19 from --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: We got this data 

21 set Friday.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And so what you 

2 are talking about now is looking through every 

3 record that we received.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: And essentially 

6 charting what years do you have data for.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: For those and see 

9 what kind of a monitoring -- monitor 

10 population you have --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: From 1961 to 1970.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's -- 

15 essentially, I don't know another way to do 

16 it, other than make -- because there are 

17 images of paper records is what we got.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Other 

19 questions? All right. I think it's difficult 

20 for us to take any action on this today, 

21 because the difference between an AWE and a 

22 DOE is big. You know, and for us to put a 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recommendation forward until the Department of 

2 Labor has had a chance to work with DOE and 

3 figure that out, I think would not be helpful.

4 And in the meanwhile, I think we 

5 can continue to work with and NIOSH will 

6 continue to work trying to figure out this 

7 Class Definition issue, because if it is --

8 you know, goes from a DOE site to an AWE site, 

9 we are still going to have to deal with the 

10 Class Definition in some way, and that's 

11 problematic, and work with DOL on that issue.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we're going 

13 to have some sort of joint meetings or 

14 conversations with DOL about what can be done 

15 along that. You know, have these discussions 

16 now and at the last meeting.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We will just see 

19 what we can do along those lines.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: And what are the 

22 ramifications of the various alternatives.
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. And then 

2 hopefully by our next meeting, we can come to 

3 some closure on this. It may be optimistic.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. And we are 

5 prepared. We are preparing to provide all the 

6 records we have assembled --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: To DOE and DOL for 

9 whatever work they want to do on designation.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I have two 

12 questions. One was are there any plans in the 

13 work to do any additional interviews of 

14 workers?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Not today, but 

16 certainly we have got some contacts down 

17 there, out there and we know how to find some 

18 workers.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Because the 

20 document here just describes an interview with 

21 one worker. One worker has been talked to two 

22 times. And I'm wondering if there is not more 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information that could be gained through 

2 asking some of those questions. How many 

3 people were in this --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Building, this 

6 area.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We can pursue that 

8 farther and try to get more information about 

9 what -- you know, the population and what 

10 kinds of people were in and out and things 

11 like that.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, one of the 

13 things that I brought up at these meetings and 

14 I have talked to Stu about also or LaVon is it 

15 would also be helpful to have a report or 

16 something that was in writing that described 

17 these interviews and described some of this 

18 other information gathered.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now, I actually 

21 thought the chronology of your records search 

22 was actually helpful for us to understand it. 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It actually shows how difficult this is --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and I would 

3 say -- we have talked to more than one. We 

4 have talked to more than one person. I mean, 

5 we had -- but there is one particular person 

6 that is probably mentioned more than any 

7 other, because he was the safety and health 

8 manager at the time.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And he is still 

11 alive.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Still lives in 

14 Cincinnati.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. But we, as 

16 a Board, don't have a record of that.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have your 

19 brief summaries.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see what we 

21 have.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: We should have 

2 some interview summaries somewhere.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And some 

4 way of having that in the form of a short 

5 report, I think, or an addendum might be 

6 helpful to us.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. David, do 

9 you have some other --

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I know it will 

11 be a huge task, so I'm -- to go through the 

12 dosimetry records and figure out the number of 

13 badged workers in 1961 and 1962. But I'm 

14 having a hard time wrapping my head around how 

15 else to handle this.

16 I mean, in terms of 

17 contextualizing the number of workers 

18 potentially exposed, what is also lacking here 

19 still, so either whether it would be for 

20 workers interviews and somebody could give us 

21 some of the contextualizing information about 

22 how many people were entering that area 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 relative to the size of the proposed Class, 

2 which is also still not in here, again, my 

3 recollection is 5,000 or 7,000 workers onsite, 

4 something like that per year.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's in that 

6 vicinity. We asked GE and they told us, I 

7 want to say, 8,000.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: 8,000 is one 

9 number they threw out.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I can't 

11 remember that either.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And they are 

13 rolling through, so it's a large Class. And I 

14 mean the thing that is mind-boggling to me 

15 still is the hard -- is the difficulty of 

16 finding any description of any radiological 

17 operations going on. Most of the description 

18 of the operations is coming from one page, 

19 page 110, of a draft report by -- a draft 

20 report on summaries of fuel development.

21 So if there is -- so if really 

22 we're hanging our hat on one page right now, 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm having a hard time imagining this scale of 

2 exposure.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I think we 

4 should be able to put -- I'll put together a 

5 more complete report of what we know about 

6 this period. I mean, like I said, most of --

7 we keep finding things about the Aircraft 

8 Nuclear Propulsion Project and then a fair 

9 amount of information about some thorium 

10 calcining that was done in the '70s.

11 But we will get together a more 

12 complete summary of what it is that actually 

13 pertains to what was done in '61 to '70.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Yes, 

15 Josie?

16 MEMBER BEACH: I got an email, and 

17 Stu you sent it out to the Board that said 

18 that the ballpark is 8,000 employees, so -

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what GE 

20 told us, yes. Thank you. I couldn't remember 

21 for sure what it was.

22 MEMBER BEACH: A large number.
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 

2 Thank you, Stu. Is there any more questions? 

3 And we are due for a lunch break. We will 

4 break now. We are going to start up sharp at 

5 1:00. We have a petitioner that will be on 

6 the line then. And so we want to be able to 

7 talk about Dow Chemical at 1:00. See you all 

8 then.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 matter went off the record at 11:27 a.m. and 

11 resumed at 1:01 p.m.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 1:01 p.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Welcome 

4 back and we will get started. We first have 

5 two petitions to talk about. The first is Dow 

6 Chemical. And Dow Chemical is a site that we 

7 originally dealt with as an 83.14 in 2007.

8 At the time, the Board was 

9 concerned about the residual period and how 

10 that should be handled. And so we referred it 

11 to the SEC Review Work Group.

12 In the meanwhile, there were some 

13 issues. One was related to the petitioners 

14 getting access to information, some issues 

15 with delays in some of their freedom of 

16 information requests.

17 Secondly, there were some new 

18 information about the site that DOE and DOL 

19 had under consideration. So the covered 

20 period ended up changing. I will say that 

21 there are still questions about covered period 

22 and operations at the site, but there have 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been significant -- there have been some 

2 changes since the time. Those changes did not 

3 affect the original covered period, 

4 operational period per se, but they did 

5 potentially affect the residual period.

6 So the Board has been and the Work 

7 Group has been looking at this intermittently 

8 over time. Some of this has been waiting and 

9 had various reviews and various documents. 

10 NIOSH originally did two addendums to the 

11 original SEC Evaluation Report that covered, 

12 essentially, the residual period and some of 

13 these changes in terms of covered operations.

14 And then SC&A did some others. I 

15 will add that the best summary report of what 

16 we are looking at here for the residual period 

17 was the one I forwarded to everybody last 

18 Friday, which was the most recent SC&A report 

19 on the use of surrogate data at the site, 

20 which essentially updated an earlier report 

21 they had done that the update basically 

22 applied to the Board's review criteria that we 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had adopted over the summer and brought that 

2 up to date.

3 But it is a fairly sort of 

4 convoluted history to this site. But the 

5 issue before us is what to do about the 

6 residual period. We will first hear from 

7 NIOSH who will give us an update and then we 

8 will hear from SC&A and then we will have some 

9 discussion on the site.

10 We also have the petitioner here 

11 and I believe that the petitioner will want to 

12 speak also.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Thank 

14 you, Dr. Melius. I'm LaVon Rutherford, 

15 Special Exposure Cohort health physics team 

16 leader for NIOSH.

17 What I will be talking about 

18 mainly will be a little background plus our 

19 dose reconstruction approach for the residual 

20 period.

21 A little history, a little covered 

22 activities at Dow. Dow from 1957/1958, they 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 extruded uranium metal for the AEC under 

2 subcontract with Mallinckrodt. They also did 

3 rod straightening from 1959 to 1960, again 

4 under a subcontract with Mallinckrodt.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Excuse me one 

6 second just to avoid some confusion. This 

7 presentation is not available to us here, 

8 since LaVon did it over this weekend. The 

9 same with the SC&A.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So you don't 

12 need to spend time looking for it.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Email it to the 

14 Board Members if they would like.

15 (Off the record comments.)

16 All right. Again, so the 

17 activities 1957 to '58 extruded uranium. '59 

18 to '60 they straightened uranium rods, all 

19 under subcontracts with Mallinckrodt. And 

20 really their main primary mission at the site 

21 was handling -- they handled -- they produced 

22 alloy metals, including thorium alloy metals.
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Initially, it was indicated that 

2 that was a non-covered activity at the time 

3 period and after some research, you will see 

4 that changed.

5 A little background. We actually 

6 started this in May 2007 Advisory Board 

7 meeting. We have presented the Petition 

8 Evaluation Report. This was an 83.14. We 

9 recommended a Class for the 1957 to 1960 

10 period.

11 You will probably sense that 

12 typically under an 83.14, we would not go into 

13 a post-period after the period that we are 

14 recommending a Class. However, there was a 

15 lengthy discussion and recommendations from a 

16 number of parties that we ended up actually 

17 looking into the residual period at Dow under 

18 this 83.14.

19 We recommended a Class again in 

20 1957/1960, the Board concurred with that. At 

21 that time, as I mentioned, there was questions 

22 and concern, mainly identified initially by 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the petitioner, that the DOE's definition of 

2 the covered activities should include the 

3 thorium work as well, because the petitioner 

4 felt that there was actually supporting 

5 documentation that would actually move the 

6 thorium into a covered activity.

7 We initially did not address 

8 thorium. The thorium exposure would not 

9 affect our SEC Class that we had already 

10 recommended. It would only affect the 

11 residual period. Initially, it wasn't a 

12 covered activity and so initially it was not 

13 addressed.

14 However, in January 2008, DOE 

15 concluded that the Dow Chemical Company was 

16 probably producing thorium alloy for use in 

17 weapons production and, therefore, the 

18 activity should be a covered activity.

19 At that time, we recognized that 

20 we would have to reevaluate our residual 

21 period to include thorium exposures. We 

22 issued Addendum 2 in June of 2008 to address 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that. And then we also issued Appendix C to 

2 TBD-6000 in September 2008.

3 As Dr. Melius mentioned, there 

4 were a number of Work Group meetings that went 

5 on and a number of -- and SC&A put out a few 

6 reports. I'm going to let -- SC&A, Bill 

7 Thurber will be speaking after me and he can 

8 address any of that.

9 Again, our Evaluation Report 

10 initially identified thorium exposures were 

11 not reconstructible for the '57 to '60 period. 

12 And initially we identified uranium exposures 

13 could be reconstructed for both the 

14 operational and residual period.

15 We issued Addendum 1 shortly after 

16 issuing our report. We received a number of 

17 documents from Dow and we issued Addendum 1 to 

18 actually go back and see if -- to review those 

19 documents and to determine whether it would 

20 affect our original feasibility determination. 

21 It did not.

22 We issued Addendum 2 in June of 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2008, that was Addendum 2 again was addressing 

2 whether it was feasible to reconstruct thorium 

3 and thorium progeny exposures during the 

4 residual contamination period.

5 And then we issued Appendix C, 

6 which is our dose reconstruction approach for 

7 Dow Madison. It incorporates the 

8 recommendations from SEC-79 and incorporates 

9 the addendums. It addresses both the non10 presumptive cancers from the operational 

11 period and the dose reconstruction approach 

12 for the residual period.

13 I'll talk a little bit about what 

14 monitoring data in general. We had, during 

15 the residual period, no personal monitoring 

16 data internal or external. No internal 

17 bioassay, no external data, including film 

18 badges.

19 We do have area monitoring data. 

20 We have air sampling from the final cleanup 

21 that occurred in 2006. We also have access to 

22 air sampling data from 1957 to 1959 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operational period focusing around the thorium 

2 operations. And this includes general area 

3 and breathing zone data.

4 This data was not comprehensive 

5 enough for us to use it for the actual 

6 operational period, but the last year, 1959, 

7 data was good for a good starting point for 

8 the residual period.

9 We also have thoron monitoring 

10 data from that 1959 period. The thoron 

11 sampling was conducted during the production 

12 of alloy with the highest percentage of 

13 thorium.

14 In addition, we have dose rate 

15 surveys from the operational period. We have 

16 dose rate information from monitoring that 

17 occurred in 1981.

18 I'm going to talk a little bit 

19 about our technical approach for dose 

20 reconstruction. For internal exposures to 

21 uranium, we did not have any uranium-specific 

22 monitoring data to use. However, NIOSH used 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the default inhalation numbers from TBD-6000 

2 for rod straightening.

3 TBD-6000 actually was used during 

4 the operational period for uranium for both 

5 the extrusion and the rod straightening, we 

6 use those numbers. And for the residual 

7 period, we looked at a deposition -- we 

8 actually looked at -- we took those air intake 

9 values or air concentration values from rod 

10 straightening, we deposited them on surfaces 

11 and then resuspended them to come up with an 

12 intake value to start our residual period for 

13 uranium.

14 The external exposures were based 

15 on surface contamination values from TBD-6000. 

16 The model also seems a constant rate through 

17 the residual period.

18 Both of these methods used in this 

19 are TBD-6000 methods. They are not specific 

20 to Dow. They are methods that are actually 

21 identified to be used in TBD-6000 in general.

22 Our internal exposure or our dose 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction for thorium, we took the 

2 highest general area air sample value during 

3 the operational period and, again, if you are 

4 thinking you are at the end of operations, we 

5 took that highest general area value as our 

6 starting point for the first year of the 

7 residual contamination period.

8 We used the general area value 

9 because it includes both operational input and 

10 resuspension as well, but it's not heavily 

11 weighted on the operational itself. So for 

12 residual period, when you consider that all 

13 the activities would have stopped, you are 

14 actually being very claimant-favorable and 

15 including at least a portion of that 

16 operational input.

17 Again, I already talked about 

18 that.

19 Okay. We also used the air 

20 monitoring data from the 2006 cleanup. We had 

21 actual air monitoring. We had boundary 

22 samples, general area samples taken in 2006 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that were used as our end points. We had a 

2 starting point in 1959/1960 period from the 

3 area data from operations and then the end 

4 point from 2006, we developed an effective 

5 decay constant using those two values. And 

6 that effective decay constant was then used to 

7 derive intakes for each year in between.

8 Our thoron intakes are estimated 

9 using the thoron monitoring data from 1959. 

10 We used the same decay constant. If you think 

11 about it, your thoron source is your thorium. 

12 We used the decay constant we used from 

13 developing our thorium intakes and to model 

14 our thoron intakes through the years as well.

15 Our external exposures, there are 

16 some questions, I know, on this. It was a 

17 small sample set that we used from Bay City. 

18 That small sample set, we used the log-normal 

distribution 95th 19 percentile and it came up to 

20 roughly 1,095 millirem per year.

21 If you had a chance to look at 

22 Addendum 2, we had actually used in Addendum 2 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a more bounding approach. We took the highest 

2 dose rate, which was .7 millirem per hour, 

3 during thorium operations and we assumed a 

4 person stood there at one foot or at that 

5 reading for 2,000 hours, so that would have 

6 been 1,400 millirem.

7 So TBD-6000 recommends using 50 

8 percent as the occupancy factor or value, 

9 which would have put it around 700 millirem, 

10 instead of the 1,400. So if you think about 

11 it, our 1,095 is a pretty good value to use as 

12 our starting point for external exposures.

13 In addition, there were two -- a 

14 Levy Report that looked at estimations on what 

15 the annual dose would be from thorium 

16 operations in these early years and indicated, 

17 and I can't remember the exact values, but it 

18 was at one campaign 300 and something and the 

19 other campaign 200 and something. So our 

20 values, again, I believe are conservative.

21 We used again this -- we used the 

22 same decay constant that we developed for the 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thorium intakes and we reduced our external 

2 exposures, because your external source of 

3 exposure will be the residual contamination 

4 only during that period.

5 And there is one error on this 

6 slide. This slide was actually taken from a 

7 presentation I did for Dow a while back. The 

8 period says January 1, 1961 through October 

9 31, 2006. That is actually November 30, 2007 

10 and that's clearly identified in Appendix C 

11 for the residual contamination period.

12 We actually had received a report 

13 from the contractor that was doing the cleanup 

14 that the last thorium contamination had left 

15 site on November 30, 2007.

16 So our period that we feel that we 

17 can reconstruct dose for the residual period 

18 is January 1, 1961 through October 31 -- or 

19 through November 30, 2007. And that's it.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Board 

21 Members have questions for LaVon? Yes, Phil?

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: LaVon, I have a 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question for you.

2 On what basis do you guys feel, 

3 how can I say this, confident about the 

4 potential intakes from the residual 

5 contamination being a constant number?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, it's not a 

7 constant number. It's actually -- if you look 

8 at it, it's exponential decay. And I think 

9 the approach that we used if you look at the 

10 first intake value, your first intake value in 

11 1961, the first year of the residual period, 

12 is actually an operational value. It assumes 

13 intakes that include both resuspension and a 

14 portion of operations, so that's high.

15 If you look at the end period that 

16 we used, we actually used air data during the 

17 cleanup operations and was the highest 

18 concentration. And if -- I can't remember the 

19 actual concentration now, but if I remember 

20 correctly, it's roughly 7 point something DAC. 

21 7 percent DAC.

22 So I mean, it's not a very low 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 value. And so based on those two values we 

2 feel were up above, then we feel like that 

3 decay over time will continue that -- will be 

4 above any exposures during that period.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I ask the 

7 same question the other way around?

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: How confident 

10 are you that it is an exponential decay? And 

11 I guess to ask a couple of follow-up questions 

12 to it.

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: Sure.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The decay here 

15 is not an attribute of the physical half-life 

16 of thorium?

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. It's an 

18 effective decay.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Which, I mean, 

20 that's on a different order of magnitude 

21 scale.

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So we are 

2 talking about a decay here which is a settling 

3 of particles, for example.

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And I'm 

6 imagining under an exponential model, I mean, 

7 whether the idea you are claimant-friendly at 

8 this starting point of an exponential fall-off 

9 curve is sort of inconsequential, because very 

10 rapidly it's dropping. It is dropping off.

11 Is it my imagination of this decay 

12 constant and how you are mapping that over 

13 time happening within a year or two years you 

14 are dropping down to values which are 

15 relatively low.

16 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually, if you 

17 look at this decay constant, the values did 

18 not drop off quickly. I mean, they do drop 

19 off quickly, but the values were -- at the end 

20 were high enough that it forced the upper 

21 portion of the concentration to stay up still 

22 for a while.
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If you remember, I said the actual 

2 end point was roughly 7, if I remember 

3 correctly, percent DAC was our ending value. 

4 So it was not a trivial intake percentage.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. 

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: And obviously, 

7 there is -- if we do have indications of 

8 different transient activities that occur --

9 go ahead, Jim.

10 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: Do you want to 

12 come up here, Jim?

13 DR. NETON: Sure.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's on, Jim.

15 DR. NETON: Testing, okay. It's 

16 on. This idea of decay during the residual 

17 period is something that is covered fairly 

18 well in our TIB-70 that has been reviewed by 

19 the Advisory Board. It is a concept that we 

20 have applied not just at Dow Madison, but at a 

21 number of other facilities.

22 There are several options we have. 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Obviously, one would be to maintain a 

2 constant level of exposure over an entire 

3 period. One is to do some sort of an 

4 exponential decay if you have some anchor 

5 point further on down the road or, you know, I 

6 think in some cases, we have also applied just 

7 a straight line decrement.

8 But, you know, these are issues 

9 that have been discussed to some degree 

10 during, you know, the procedure review 

11 process.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And --

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead, Dave.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Or maybe Paul 

16 and then I can come back with a different 

17 question.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it's not 

20 really a question, just kind of a follow-up. 

21 I think, David, conceptually I believe this is 

22 correct and maybe Jim will correct me if I'm
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wrong, but the idea is if -- it is based on 

2 decreasing source-term as cleanup occurs and 

3 those that have done cleanup, and I have done 

4 a lot of it over the years, the early part of 

5 a cleanup is always you get much bigger 

6 percent of the stuff cleaned up, as it were.

7 It becomes more and more difficult 

8 as you come down. So to use an exponential, 

9 there is a certain logic that is based on 

10 experience to do that. Obviously, you could 

11 fit that in a number of different ways as Jim 

12 suggested. One would be just linear, which 

13 perhaps would be a little more conservative in 

14 the early times and less conservative toward 

15 the tail end.

16 But I think experience would say 

17 that exponential fits most cases that we work 

18 with.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can I just add I 

20 think the other thing that would be in 

21 consideration is is there something happening 

22 at the site that would, you know, affect that? 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Some other operation, you know, some large 

2 demolition? I mean, things that went on for a 

3 significant period of time and could -- it 

4 somewhat depends on the size of the site and 

5 what you are taking down and where the 

6 contamination is and so forth.

7 So I think that is what you have 

8 to look in to. And I think those are 

9 legitimate questions. I saw these same 

10 questions on Linde, which I'm most familiar 

11 with, which is coming up next. But that's the 

12 basis.

13 Any other questions for -- Dave, 

14 you had another topic?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, okay. Yes, 

17 okay. Go ahead.

18 MEMBER FIELD: LaVon, I just had a 

19 question. You said there was thoron 

20 monitoring performed.

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. It was 

22 performed in 1959 and it was during the 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operations of actually producing the thorium 

2 alloy. And that sample set is in your -- if 

3 you go under the Dow reference material, it is 

4 under there. And I can't remember, 

5 unfortunately, the SRDB number, but I can get 

6 it for you and you can take a look at that 

7 data.

8 MEMBER FIELD: Do you know where 

9 the monitoring was performed in relation to 

10 the workers?

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: It was in a 

12 number of different locations. And I don't 

13 recall all the locations. Again, I can go 

14 back and open it up and we can -- and I can 

15 point you to the SRDB number.

16 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. And then one 

17 other quick question on TBD-6000. I wasn't 

18 here during its development. Is TBD-6000 

19 applicable to the case here?

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

21 MEMBER FIELD: It is?

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. 

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: It is part of 

3 this. Dow is under TBD-6000.

4 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And Appendix C 

6 of TBD-6000 is specific to Dow.

7 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. 

9 LaVon, thanks. And now, we will hear from 

10 SC&A and I think they may actually answer some 

11 of those questions.

12 MR. THURBER: Hi, I'm Bill Thurber 

13 from SC&A. And I'm going to mainly talk about 

14 the use of surrogate data, but the discussion 

15 of necessity is a little broader than that, 

16 because you can't really understand how the 

17 surrogate data was used without also 

18 understanding how some of the other 

19 calculations were made.

20 I won't dwell on this, because 

21 LaVon has covered most of it, but I would like 

22 to make a couple of comments about TBD-6000, 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which it says there is TBD-2006.

2 TBD-6000, you will recall was 

3 specifically designed to provide some generic

4 dose reconstruction guidance for AWE sites 

5 where there was little or no data. And so by 

6 definition, it used in large measure surrogate 

7 data. It coupled that in the case of external 

8 exposure with modeling data using MicroShield

9 and that sort of thing.

10 The major source document for all 

11 of the dust exposures that are in TBD-6000 and 

12 flowed into Appendix C, as LaVon discussed, 

13 was a report prepared by Harris and Kingsley 

14 in 1959. And for those of you who are not 

15 familiar with this, these two gentlemen worked 

16 for the AEC Health and Safety Laboratory and 

17 accumulated data from most of the sites at the 

18 time and provided a compendium of air 

19 concentration data relating to all kinds of 

20 operations related to the fabrication of 

21 uranium.

22 Again, as LaVon alluded to, SC&A 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 has prepared a number of documents and I 

2 provide this for some of you who are newer to 

3 the story, but, basically, there was a 

4 document in response to each of the NIOSH 

5 documents. And, basically, today we are 

6 focusing on the final document on the list, 

7 which I believe has been distributed to the 

8 group.

9 And I think that you all have the 

10 slides, too. Is that correct or not correct? 

11 Is that true? Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: They should.

13 MR. THURBER: Okay. Good. Just 

14 to summarize how things evolved and looking, 

15 first, at the operating period and the reason 

16 I do this is because, as we have said, the 

17 data from the operating period was used to 

18 establish the starting point for the residual 

19 period.

20 Internal and external uranium 

21 doses were not really evaluated in the 

22 Petition Evaluation Report or in the addenda 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to it, rather NIOSH said yes, we can 

2 reconstruct surrogate data using sources such 

3 as OTIB-4.

4 But when they got to publishing 

5 Appendix C, which is the most recent document 

6 chronologically, they used the approach which 

7 LaVon outlined to you.

8 From day one, it was established 

9 that internal thorium exposures could not be 

10 reconstructed and on that basis, the SEC was 

11 granted for the operating period. Initially, 

12 NIOSH concluded that external thorium doses 

13 could not be reconstructed. But based on the 

14 additional 700 pages of data that NIOSH 

15 received after the initial Evaluation Report 

16 was issued, they amended that position and 

17 concluded that they could monitor and bound 

18 thorium exposure during the -- thorium 

19 external exposure during the operating period.

20 I think it is, for perspective, 

21 useful to look at exactly what was done during 

22 the operating period. There was an uranium 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 extrusion campaign under subcontract for 

2 Mallinckrodt. It involved 12 cycles of 28 

3 hours each in 1957 and 1958 and that each 

4 cycle consisted of six hours of setup time 

5 working around the extrusion press, 16 hours 

6 of extrusion work and six hours of cleanup 

7 time. So 12 cycles in 1957 and '58.

8 Uranium rod straightening work was 

9 done in December 1959 and January 1960 under a 

10 purchase order from Mallinckrodt and the 

11 December '59 work involved $435 PO for 

12 straightening and cleanup and in January '60, 

13 $520 to do the straightening and the cleanup 

14 work.

15 And, obviously, a very small 

16 quantity of uranium was involved in the rod 

17 straightening work.

18 And finally, during the operating 

19 period, DOE eventually provided evidence that 

20 some magnesium thorium alloys were shipped to 

21 Mallinckrodt for weapons work and this is what 

22 precipitated the need to include the residual 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- to include thorium in the residual period.

2 And I would point out to you, to 

3 those of you who are not familiar, basically, 

4 these are magnesium alloys with 2 or 3 percent 

5 thorium in them. They are not thorium alloys.

6 Now, let me summarize the 

7 situation as it evolved for the residual 

8 period. And I won't belabor some of this 

9 because LaVon has really described it. 

10 But for Appendix C it was 

11 concluded that using the data from TBD-6000, 

12 they could estimate the uranium that was 

13 deposited on the surface at the beginning of 

14 the operating period and then they would use 

15 an appropriate resuspension factor to get the 

16 dust loading in the air and estimate the 

17 internal uranium dose on that basis. And they 

18 assumed that that remained constant throughout 

19 the operating period.

20 External uranium was -- basically, 

21 used the same methodology. They assumed that 

22 the surface contamination would deposit for an 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appropriate period during the operating period 

2 and then it would remain on the surface 

3 throughout the residual period.

4 The internal thorium dose, looking 

5 at the last column, again, I won't belabor 

6 this, but exponential decay function was 

7 developed and the starting point was based on 

8 measured data at the Dow Madison facility. 

9 And they used this function then to 

10 characterize the thorium dust in the 

11 environment over the residual period from 1960 

12 to 2006/2007.

13 The external thorium data used the 

14 same exponential decay function, but the basis 

15 for the starting point was film badge data 

16 from the Dow Bay City Plant. Clearly, 

17 surrogate data. The Bay City Plant did the 

18 same kinds of metallurgical operations, 

19 melting and casting, and fabrication of the 

20 magnesium-thorium alloys.

21 And NIOSH chose that as the basis 

22 for establishing the initial concentration. 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'll point out subsequently that there were a 

2 couple of other choices that were available to 

3 NIOSH to determine the concentration at the 

4 beginning of the residual period. The 

5 approach they chose was the most claimant6 favorable.

7 And finally, thoron, we have 

8 already discussed, so I'll pass on that.

9 Just to give you an idea of the 

10 levels of exposure we are talking about here, 

11 as we said, the uranium inhalation was assumed 

12 to be constant for the period when uranium was 

13 -- up until 2000 when the FUSRAP cleanup was 

14 completed. And the exposure level was 5 dpm 

15 per day. That's the median value and it was 

16 assigned a geometric standard deviation of 5.

17 The external uranium on the same 

18 basis, constant for the operating period and 

19 the level is incorrectly stated in Appendix C, 

20 we have discussed this with NIOSH, and the 

21 correct number is the number you see there, 

22 less than 1 mR per year.
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Thorium inhalation declines from 

2 103 dpm per day to on the order of 1 dpm per 

3 day. At the end of the thorium residual 

4 period, which is actually, I think it is, 2007 

5 not 2006, but that's the beginning and the end 

6 of the exponential decay.

7 Similarly for thoron, we are 

8 looking at a quarter of a picocurie per liter 

9 at the beginning of the starting period 

10 decaying to very small numbers in 2006.

11 External thorium begins at about a 

12 rem per year and declines to 13 millirem per 

13 year at the end of the residual period.

14 I think that the modeling approach 

15 that was used for residual uranium, as I said, 

16 was based on TBD-6000. And the key thing is 

17 that this modeling approach was discussed 

18 extensively by the TBD-6000 Work Group.

19 And there were a number of 

20 conversations about whether this was suitable 

21 or not. SC&A raised several issues. NIOSH 

22 provided some substantive responses and our 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 eventual conclusion was that the modeling 

2 approach was appropriate.

3 As we have said, basically, the 

4 same approach was used for internal uranium 

5 exposure during a residual period of 

6 establishing the initial surface concentration 

7 and then assumed, NIOSH assumed, a 

8 resuspension factor of one times ten to the 

9 minus six. Again, SC&A has on several 

10 occasions questioned whether one times ten to 

11 the minus six per meter for the resuspension 

12 factor is appropriate.

13 We feel, in this particular case, 

14 that that factor is appropriate if the 

15 operations are followed by cleanup. And as 

16 you saw in some of the earlier slides, cleanup 

17 was involved in both the extrusion and the rod 

18 straightening.

19 NIOSH could have also chosen --

20 they chose dust levels from TBD-6000 related 

21 to rod straightening. Rod straightening was 

22 chronologically the last thing that was done 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during the operating period.

2 And in point of fact, the dust 

3 levels from rod straightening are higher than 

4 the dust levels for extrusion. So while there 

5 was probably more extrusion work done, it was 

6 a couple of years earlier and the dust levels 

7 were actually lower. So the approach that was 

8 chosen was claimant-favorable.

9 Now, the main thing that SC&A was 

10 asked by Chairman Melius to do in the most 

11 recent incarnation of our evaluations was to 

12 look at the five surrogate data criteria that 

13 the Board adopted in May or June of this year 

14 and see how the uses of surrogate data for the 

15 residual period stacked up against those 

16 criteria.

17 The first of these criteria and 

18 before we start into this, let me say, as you 

19 will see, there is obviously a measure of 

20 subjectivity in several of these criteria. 

21 So, you know, there is engineering judgment 

22 involved in the interpretation, but we have 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 taken our best shot.

2 Hierarchy of data basically says 

3 that the best kind of data is individual 

4 worker monitoring data and followed by 

5 coworker data and lower down in the pecking 

6 order is work place monitoring data.

7 There was an error in my 

8 presentation you got. I think I said that 

9 this was individual worker monitoring data. 

10 It's not. It's really coworker monitoring 

11 data from another site.

12 The criterion really says that you 

13 should make appropriate adjustments in the use 

14 of the data to be sure that you reflected the 

15 uncertainty in the data substitution. And we 

16 think that the assumption that the dust 

17 loading for uranium remain constant during the 

18 residual period is an appropriate reflection 

19 of that uncertainty.

20 The second criterion exclusivity 

21 constraints, again, this says you really need 

22 to do a good job of stringently justifying the 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data. And as I have described to you, the 

2 basic uranium airborne dust concentrations 

3 came from TBD-6000.

4 TBD-6000 has been considered in 

5 depth by one of the Work Groups. SC&A has 

6 prepared numerous comments on it. And we feel 

7 that the document has been appropriately 

8 vetted and is suitable and that represents a 

9 suitable test of stringent justification.

10 Site or process similarities, 

11 obviously, you would like to be assured that 

12 the surrogate data you are using was generated 

13 under similar circumstances. 

14 We noted that a limited amount of 

15 rod straightening work was done at Dow. NIOSH 

16 used rod straightening data from TBD-6000 to 

17 describe, as a surrogate, the exposures. At 

18 Dow, we think that this is a reasonable 

19 approach to using surrogate data for rod 

20 straightening at one site for work at another.

21 Temporal consideration. This one 

22 is, obviously, pretty straightforward. We 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would like the data to be generated in the 

2 same time frame that you are trying to develop 

3 the reconstruction models for. And as I 

4 noted, the Harris and Kingsley report is 1959, 

5 which is contemporaneous with the work at Dow. 

6 So we feel that criterion was satisfied.

7 The last criterion is 

8 plausibility. Of the five criteria, this is 

9 the one that probably involves the largest 

10 element of subjectivity. I think in the 

11 handout that the second bullet had a not 

12 feasible in it, that is obviously an error. 

13 It should read as this does that it is 

14 feasible to estimate the maximum dose.

15 And we felt that the combination 

16 of the assumptions that NIOSH used to 

17 characterize the uranium exposure during the 

18 residual period was plausible for a bounding 

19 calculation.

20 Now, we are not talking obviously 

21 about the plausibility of a best estimate 

22 here, but we are talking about the ability to 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do a plausible bounding calculation.

2 Finally, or next, let me go on to 

3 the residual thorium and we really have 

4 covered this. The starting point for the 

5 decay curve that was generated was general 

6 area dust sampling where the dust level was 8 

7 picocuries per cubic meter.

8 And one thing you have to do, I 

9 think, when you are talking about the exposure 

10 to thorium from magnesium-thorium alloys is 

11 you kind of have to shift gears mentally a 

12 little bit, because we are talking about much 

13 lower dust levels than you do when you are 

14 talking about uranium.

15 I mean, with uranium, we're 

16 talking about 100 MAC and all these kinds of 

17 rather large numbers. But in the case of 

18 thorium, the airborne quantities are typically 

19 much smaller.

20 As LaVon mentioned, the thorium 

21 concentration at the end of the residual 

22 period was a very small fraction of the 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 derived air concentration. And as you can see 

2 here, it was about .1 picocuries per cubic 

3 meter.

4 And so using this measured data 

5 from the Madison Site, the decay curve was 

6 developed and this decay curve was used to 

7 characterize thoron, internal thorium exposure 

8 and external thorium exposure.

9 The external thorium exposure was 

10 based on the surrogate data from film badge 

11 data from the Bay City Plant. The surrogate 

12 data film badge sample was not large and 

13 considered by itself would -- it would be 

14 questionable whether it was adequate.

15 But as I indicated earlier, there 

16 are two or three other sources of information 

17 which suggests that the number from Bay City 

18 of 195 millirem -- I'm sorry, 1,095 millirem 

19 per year is appropriately bounding. It is a 

20 little more conservative than the other 

21 numbers, but a reasonable approach given the 

22 fact that it is surrogate data.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The hierarchy of data, work place 

2 monitoring, the surrogate data, the film badge 

3 data from Bay City is, obviously, higher up in 

4 the pecking order than the work place 

5 monitoring data, which they could have used. 

6 So that was a positive in terms of selecting 

7 that particular database.

8 To be conservative, they use the 

95th 9 percentile of the data and, again, that 

10 is an appropriate way to address the 

11 criterion.

12 Exclusivity constraints. I'm 

13 sorry. Again, the criterion requires 

14 stringent justification. We feel that the 

15 data was sufficiently conservative, 

16 particularly compared with other alternative 

17 estimating techniques that represented 

18 appropriate justification for this criterion.

19 Site and process similarities. 

20 The data selected from Bay City Plant were --

21 there is no evidence that we have uncovered 

22 that suggests that there was any difference in 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the processes that were conducted at the Bay 

2 City Plant as compared to those at Dow 

3 Madison.

4 Temporal considerations, again, 

5 the film badge measurements were made during 

6 the operating period, so we feel this is 

7 satisfied.

8 And the final point of 

9 plausibility, the approach selected among 

10 other choices that NIOSH might have considered 

11 was higher than the alternatives, but not 

12 unreasonably high that one could say that it 

13 is not plausible on the high side.

14 But our conclusion is rather that 

15 it is more claimant-favorable than some of the 

16 other assumptions, but has sufficient 

17 conservatism to reflect the fact that it is 

18 surrogate data. Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I'm going 

20 to ask the Board Members to hold questions for 

21 the time being. We are under a little bit of 

22 a time constraint and we will want to hear 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the petitioners now and then be able to 

2 come back during our Board work session if you 

3 have questions for Bill and others to try to 

4 keep on time, because we also have a scheduled 

5 SEC on Simonds Saw coming up.

6 So, Dr. McKeel, are you on the 

7 line?

8 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir, I am.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

10 DR. McKEEL: So this is Dan 

11 McKeel. I'm the co-petitioner for Dow Madison 

12 Site. I have addressed this Board five 

13 different times on extending the Dow Madison 

14 SEC-79 to include the residual period. My 

15 talks were February 8, 2007, May 4, 2007, July 

16 19, 2007, June 25, 2008 and today.

17 [Identifying information 

18 redacted], who is a colleague of ours, has 

19 spoken for the petitioners twice. And she put 

20 on record several important facts:

21 (A) That Dow Chemical had a 

22 contract in the early 1950s with the AEC to 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 develop HK-31, which is a magnesium-thorium 

2 alloy, and that this contract extended beyond 

3 the recognized AEC uranium contract period 

4 from the beginning of 1957 to the end of 1960 

5 and beyond the thorium covered period, which 

6 was contained within that from 1957 to '58.

7 [Identifying information redacted]

8 also provided evidence that the specific HK-31 

9 metal alloy temper out of six or more that 

10 were produced, that it was this metal alloy 

11 specifically of this temper that was used to 

12 nuclear weapons and that as identified in the 

13 Livermore Papers, that DOE used, was produced 

14 only at Dow Madison in Illinois.

15 And finally, she put on the record 

16 that Dow held several patents for magnesium17 thorium alloys that DOE recognizes were used 

18 in nuclear weapons.

19 Whereas, the Department of Labor 

20 elected not to change the covered period for 

21 Dow based on the [Identifying information 

22 redacted] research, it is important given the 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distinct possibility that all Dow Madison 

2 purchase orders and shipping records to AEC 

3 DOE sites have not yet been recovered.

4 And I will remind the Board that 

5 the two Mallinckrodt AEC Dow thorium-related 

6 purchase orders in 1957/58 were supplied not 

7 by the Department of Energy, but rather by Dow 

8 Chemical Company, itself, headquarters, which 

9 are located in Midland, Michigan.

10 In my view, DOE should have had 

11 these purchase orders in its collection and 

12 furnished them.

13 By the end of this week, all of 

14 these presentations, mine and [Identifying 

15 information redacted] and our PowerPoint 

16 slides will be submitted to be posted on the 

17 DCAS website under Dow Docket 113.

18 I have made extensive general 

19 remarks on Dow dose reconstruction and the SEC 

20 extension and they are posted on the 10-year 

21 NIOSH review under Docket 194.

22 I have also contributed to 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussions of extending SEC-79 to the 

2 residual period in the SEC Issues Work Group 

3 session since its inception.

4 And so in light of this, first, I 

5 would ask again that all of this material be 

6 reviewed by all Board Members by SC&A and by 

7 NIOSH before final recommendations are made to 

8 the HHS Secretary on the extension of this 

9 SEC.

10 There are several important 

11 surrogate data issues at Dow and I will 

12 summarize by saying that I strongly disagree 

13 with the overall conclusion of the SC&A Bill 

14 Thurber October 2010 Rev. 1 White Paper that 

15 agrees that the surrogate data criteria had 

16 been appropriately applied to the Dow Madison 

17 SEC extension.

18 And I characterize that objection 

19 to both the internal and the external uranium 

20 and thorium doses throughout the residual 

21 contamination period. I have expressed my 

22 reasons for believing the SEC criteria were 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not used properly at the November 12, 2010 SEC 

2 Issues Work Group meeting.

3 A major concern at Dow and other 

4 sites on which I am co-petitioner, is the lack 

5 of attention to the stringent justification 

6 criteria of site comparability for facilities 

7 such as Dow Madison that have zero film badge 

8 or personnel bioassay monitoring data.

9 The sole SC&A justification for 

10 accepting very limited film badge data from 

11 Bay City, Michigan was that both sites made 

12 magnesium-thorium alloy, HK-31A. But Bay City 

13 did not have an AEC uranium contract nor do we 

14 know whether it had comparable physical 

15 facilities for casting, extrusion work and 

16 rolling mill metallurgy. We do not know the 

17 physical scale of Dow Bay City, Michigan 

18 thorium operations nor the safety features at 

19 Bay City versus Dow Madison, Illinois.

20 For example, we do not know 

21 whether or not the Bay City extrusion presses 

22 were covered by vacuum hoods. They were not 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so covered at Dow Madison.

2 Another concern we have is the 

3 non-representativeness and the limited nature 

4 of the Dow Bay City, Michigan film badge data, 

5 which was contained in a document from the Dow 

6 Chemical Company Dow-362, which was reviewed 

7 in the Addendum 1 of NIOSH Evaluation Report.

8 The Bay City film badge data, Mr. 

9 Thurber characterized them as limited and a 

10 small number, but he did not mention what the 

11 absolute amount of those readings was. And 

12 for the record, the data that was used were 27 

13 film badge readings from only 20 individuals 

14 with different jobs collected over a 13 day 

15 period.

16 The reason they were collected was 

17 also not mentioned and that was because Dow 

18 Bay City was requesting an exemption from 

19 posting label requirements of 10 CFR 20 for 

20 areas and containers in which magnesium alloys 

21 containing up to 4 percent thorium are stored 

22 and fabricated.
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So it was in their best interest 

2 to present film badges with low readings. I'm 

3 not inferring their intent of this or that 

4 they -- you know, the readings were 

5 manipulated, but they certainly had an 

6 interest in -- to the point they were trying 

7 to make in presenting film badges with 

8 relatively low readings.

9 So it is my feeling that plant 

10 management in supplying that film badge data 

11 was biased. Knowingly or not, they presented 

12 that data, obviously, to be favorable to its 

13 case.

14 By my calculations, if you have 27 

15 film badge readings from 20 people from a work 

16 force that numbered 3,000 at least at Dow 

17 Madison and who knows what number at Dow Bay 

18 City, this would represent only .9 percent of 

19 the annual average work force at Dow Madison. 

20 And 13 days is only .1 percent of the work 

21 days in the residual period for uranium and 

22 only .07 percent of days in the thorium 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 residual period.

2 Yet, both SC&A and NIOSH includes 

3 this very limited non-representative and 

4 biased sample meets Board surrogate data 

5 criteria. My view is that no professional 

6 statistician would agree that this is an 

7 appropriate statistical use of surrogate data.

8 I should also note that no film 

9 badge monitoring data has been found for Dow 

10 Madison, despite testimony that film badges 

11 were sometimes used at that site and by 

12 Spectrulite Consortium after 1986. Workers 

13 affidavits state those badges were cosmetic 

14 and ceremonial.

15 So the implication is the badges 

16 were worn, but not read and the data was not 

17 processed.

18 Now, I have several comments about 

19 the assertions by SC&A and NIOSH that is about 

20 the direct Dow Madison measurement data. And 

21 I want to point out several errors that I 

22 think speak for themselves.
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So one is that NIOSH Evaluation 

2 Report Appendix 1 mentions thorium fluoride as 

3 being stored in Building 376 when there was no 

4 such building at Dow Madison. Also, there was 

5 no Building 152 that that same document 

6 attributed to Dow Madison for hardener 

7 casting.

8 Also, NIOSH Addendum 2 to the Dow 

9 Madison Evaluation Report provides a diagram 

10 of the pot room said to be at the Madison Site 

11 that shows only six pots. Multiple Dow worker 

12 affidavits say that there were 10 pots at Dow 

13 Madison.

14 I feel these examples speak for 

15 themselves. The site data from other 

16 facilities is being erroneously used as "Dow 

17 Madison direct site data." My view is that 

18 all data that is stated to be direct Dow 

19 Madison data needs to be rigorously justified 

20 as such by NIOSH and scrutinized by their own 

21 surrogate data criteria in OCAS-IG-004. This 

22 has not been done by NIOSH, to my knowledge, 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for Dow SEC-79.

2 I also want to comment, as my 

3 fourth point, that I believe there has been 

4 incomplete delineation of all the Dow Madison 

5 source-terms during the residual period for 

6 uranium and thorium extending up to November 

7 of 2007.

8 While it is true that in general 

9 only radiation doses due to AEC DOE work must 

10 be reconstructed during the residual period, 

11 under Subparagraph B of 42 U.S. Code 

12 73.84N(c)(4), however, radiation from a source 

13 that cannot be reliably distinguished from 

14 radiation covered under Subparagraph A, i.e., 

15 radiation doses received from DOE-related 

16 research work -- I'm sorry, from just DOE17 related work, is considered part of the 

18 employee's radiation dose and must be 

19 reconstructed and that's in the NIOSH 2007 

20 Report.

21 So I would point out that there 

22 were at least three sources that I don't 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe are adequately covered during the 

2 residual period. And all of those involve 

3 mixed AEC and non-AEC commercial and military 

4 waste streams.

5 The October 2010 Rev. 1 of the 

6 SC&A White Paper on surrogate data use, Dow 

7 Madison relies mostly on dust resuspension for 

8 uranium and thorium. I am not aware that all 

9 of the major buildings at Dow Madison were 

10 ever surveyed for uranium metal or dust 

11 resulting from rolling mill operations or dust 

12 carried over to any of the other buildings.

13 Only Building 6 was surveyed by 

14 FUSRAP and the Army Corps and reported in 

15 2000. They did not survey Building 5 and 7 

16 where the rolling mill and the casting 

17 department are located.

18 Pangaea Group only addressed 

19 residual thorium. However, its remediation 

20 was throughout the Madison Site. Pangaea did 

21 not address possible thorium waste in the 40 

22 acre lot behind the casting department at Dow 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Madison.

2 So Source 2, AEC thorium waste was 

3 commingled with and could not be separated 

4 from non-AEC commercial and military thorium 

5 waste within Building 5, 6 and 7 as shown by 

6 the 2003, 2005 and 2008 Pangaea Group reports 

7 that were not reviewed in detail by NIOSH in 

8 SEC-79 ER or Addendums 1 and 2.

9 And one of those reports was only 

10 mentioned in Appendix C, which for some 

11 totally inexplicable reason, followed the 

12 Evaluation Report and both addendums by 

13 several years, whereas actually under the Act, 

14 in my view, NIOSH has only 180 days to prepare 

15 their Evaluation Report.

16 So that's a strong objection of 

17 mine.

18 Source 3 was, during the residual 

19 period, large quantities of magnesium-thorium 

20 sludge, which contained both inseparable AEC 

21 and non-AEC sludge, that was deposited behind 

22 the castings building on a fenced off 40 acre 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lot. This thorium sludge was buried at this 

2 site. Whereas, at Bay City, a description 

3 from the CERCLA Superfund Cleanup Report 

4 states that that sludge was above ground. So 

5 that's another difference.

6 But anyhow, this thorium sludge at 

7 Dow Madison was partly remediated in 1993 by 

8 ERG, a private company based in Albuquerque, 

9 New Mexico. ERG did write a report about 

10 their cleanup activities and noted, and this 

11 is extremely important for talking about the 

12 size of this source-term, included removal of 

13 more than 600 railroad cars through the sludge 

14 to a licensed site in Utah.

15 So that source for uranium -- I 

16 mean, for thorium magnesium sludge was present 

17 at Dow Madison from 1961 to 1993 and yet, this 

18 exposure source is not covered under the NIOSH 

19 reports or by the SC&A's recent White Paper.

20 Dow workers assert in affidavits 

21 that not all this magnesium-thorium sludge was 

22 cleaned up in 1993. Assuming they are correct 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then, NIOSH to be claimant-favorable needs to 

2 treat all this residual sludge as an 

3 additional residual period source-term through 

4 2007.

5 Finally, I want to make a comment 

6 about rolling mill exposures are higher than 

7 extrusion press exposures and note that 

8 external radiation doses during the residual 

9 period were assigned by NIOSH based on direct 

10 air sampling data that they claim emanated 

11 from the Dow Madison rolling mill.

12 SC&A concluded that this was 

13 appropriate because Harris and Kingsley 1959, 

14 states that, in general, AWE rolling mill 

15 operations and operators performing fuel rod 

16 straightening are exposed to higher radiation 

17 doses compared to extrusion press operators.

18 My question is if this were 

19 actually so, then why would ORNL and the U.S. 

20 Army Corps of Engineers acting under the 

21 FUSRAP Program in 1988/2000 -- sorry, 1998/ 

22 2000 confine their FUSRAP survey and cleanup 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of uranium dust to Building 6 only at Dow 

2 Madison where the extrusions were done, rather 

3 than in the rolling mill where rod 

4 straightening was done?

5 That doesn't make sense to me. At 

6 Dow Madison there are no direct air sampling 

7 data to compare uranium and thorium levels 

8 during the operational or residual period in 

9 the three main Dow Buildings 5, 6 and 7.

10 I would also suggest that a review 

11 of Mallinckrodt Technical Report, MCW 1416, 

12 that reviews the details of nine campaigns of 

13 experimental gamma phase extrusion work at Dow 

14 Madison contracted by the AEC. NIOSH should 

15 incorporate this report into their analysis of 

16 the residual radiation in the Building 6 

17 extrusion area.

18 The petitioner's view is that this 

19 uranium work was, by nature, experimental and 

20 unique and, thus, was not amenable to the 

21 substitution of surrogate data by definition. 

22 Dow worker affidavits also describe several 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 secret runs during which extrusion presses 

2 were taken over by off-site personnel.

3 In one such run, workers 

4 implicated Rocky Flats personnel as performing 

5 the work. The nature of the metal was 

6 unclear, but from its hardness and 

7 brittleness, the Dow workers believed the 

8 metal was either uranium or thorium and they 

9 report that this work continued through the 

10 '70s, occasionally in the '80s and even 

11 extended into the 1990s.

12 So I think that it was established 

13 by DOE in January 2008 that Dow is an AWE site 

14 based on AEC thorium work. 

15 The DOE letters to DOL stated that 

16 thorium was used in nuclear weapons from 1956 

17 to 1969, based on papers from the Livermore 

18 DOE facility. 

19 [Identifying information redacted]

20 brought these research records and indicated 

21 the operational period at Dow Madison should 

22 have been extended. Her view and mine is that 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 important Dow Madison purchase orders might 

2 still exist at DOE, Dow HQ in Michigan, at the 

3 Dow Madison Site itself or at the Pangaea 

4 Group.

5 Further, these records should be 

6 actively sought and sought by subpoena, if 

7 necessary.

8 So anyway, that's my comments for 

9 today. I appreciate you giving me the time to 

10 speak.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Dan. 

12 Okay. We will come back to this site and 

13 discussion of the site after our break, 

14 because we do have a petitioner who may want 

15 to speak on the Simonds Saw Site. So we will 

16 move on to Simonds Saw.

17 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: May I have a 

18 minute of your time?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But so first we 

20 will hear from Sam Glover.

21 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Could I have 

22 a minute of your time?
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Who is speaking?

2 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: Bill Hoppe.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And who are you?

4 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: I worked at 

5 Dow Madison Plant for 40 years.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Are you a 

7 petitioner?

8 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: No, I'm not.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Why don't 

10 you make a brief comment and we will --

11 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: On uranium, 

12 it may go up to 1960. On FUSRAP public 

13 meeting, February 17, 2000, on page 7, line 9, 

14 it says right there that it was from '57 to 

15 '62 at Dow Chemical. 

16 Actually, we were still flattening 

17 rods on the flattening ovens until '63, the 

18 late part, September of '63 when we went on 

19 strike. They got rid of them after we went on 

20 strike. But we still worked on them then.

21 They also lost three billets of 

22 uranium in the plant. And it was found in the 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 '80s.

2 And another thing is on 

3 Silverstein's report says that people was not 

4 around the pots more than two minutes at a 

5 time. These people had to be around them pots 

6 for 20 or 30 minutes at a time to alloy metal, 

7 to flux it down, so it wouldn't burn and 

8 everything else.

9 And there was a lot of other 

10 things that was never been brought up, but 

11 people working had 60 hours a week up to 16 

12 hours a day for seven days a week.

13 I thank you for your time and for 

14 letting me speak to you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

16 you, sir. Okay. Now, we will move on to 

17 Simonds Saw and Sam.

18 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. 

19 Melius. Something we have talked quite a bit 

20 about, Simonds Saw and Steel. We spent a lot 

21 of time on Simonds Saw and Steel with 

22 Bethlehem Steel.
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But not 

2 directly.

3 DR. GLOVER: But not directly, 

4 that's correct. Some very early times at 

5 Simonds.

6 I'm going to do something that is 

7 actually not in your -- this was -- I was on 

8 the road when I finished my presentation and 

9 I'm a visual guy. So one of the things I 

10 would like you to -- these are not in your 

11 handout, because it was too big for me to 

12 email.

13 You actually have these photos as 

14 part of something, but we actually have photos 

15 of some of the activities they did at Simonds 

16 Saw and Steel, so it was actually a hand mill 

17 operated facility.

18 And so you see here where they are 

19 actually hand dragging, this wasn't like 

20 Bethlehem Steel, they actually hand drug the 

21 rods as they came through it. So here you 

22 actually see guys rolling uranium and pulling 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it through. Here you see some actually the 

2 materials where they stacked it up and the 

3 rods and how they would work with the rods and 

4 the exposure that they would have received 

5 associated with those.

6 And we had a lot of discussion 

7 about floor sweeping and engineering controls. 

8 They weren't supposed to floor sweep at 

9 Simonds Saw and Steel, as you can see they 

10 did. They used -- they installed some 

11 gratings. We are going to talk about 

12 engineering controls and their lack or use or 

13 their intermittent use at Simonds.

14 And then we actually had the 

15 opportunity, SC&A and ORAU and myself, we got 

16 to go up and actually go to Simonds Saw and 

17 Steel. It still exists. The rolling mills 

18 are still there. It has been inactive since 

19 1982.

20 This is the 16 inch mill as it 

21 exists today with the floor, the iron plates. 

22 This is the 10 inch mill, so a smaller mill 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 used for rolling smaller items.

2 This is uranium contamination 

3 still on the floor today. It has gone to a 

4 yellow oxide. And this is the state of 

5 records at Simonds Saw and Steel. This is 

6 John Stiver in the background as we looked. 

7 We have several hundred photos associated with 

8 our visit there and the records and the kind 

9 of records that we saw, so we don't have any 

10 details, because some of them are Privacy Act 

11 controlled.

12 But I thought that I had to show 

13 this. I mean, this was a good way to start 

14 out with Simonds.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is not the 

16 NIOSH office, right?

17 DR. GLOVER: This could be Dave 

18 Allen's desk. Those who know Dave Allen, this 

19 is the future of Dave's desk.

20 So with that little bit of a 

21 segue, so we are going to talk about Simonds 

22 Saw and Steel. The site history, it's located 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in Lockport, New York. It was the primary 

2 contractor for the Atomic Energy Commission to 

3 prepare uranium for Hanford from 1948 to 1953 

4 and they continued operations through 1957.

5 They rolled thousands of tons of 

6 natural uranium per year. This material was 

7 hammer forged. Actually hammer forged and 

8 rolled thorium. They also rolled depleted 2 

9 percent, 7 percent enriched uranium and also 

10 special forms of uranium, like molybdenum, 

11 some different exotic materials that might be 

12 mixed in with that for different purposes.

13 Just a real quick graph, kind of 

14 to give you an idea of the amount of known 

15 uranium rollings that we know about. You can 

16 see up to 3,000 tons per year were rolled in 

17 the main operations.

18 When Fernald started in 1952/53, 

19 that's when their significant role would have 

20 began. They got reduced. And so you see that 

21 happen in 1953.

22 A little petition overview. 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 December 4, 2009, we received an 83.13 

petition. It was qualified March 8th 2 . The 

3 Class requested for review was all employees 

4 who worked in any areas at Simonds Saw and 

5 Steel, Lockport, New York during the 

6 applicable covered operational and residual 

7 periods from 1948 through 2006, as you can 

8 see, it was still contaminated even today.

9 The petition basis is the lack of 

10 thorium monitoring data. So the Class review 

11 was all employees who worked at any area at 

12 Simonds Saw and Steel during the applicable 

13 covered period. And one thing that I will 

14 mention is that, at the time, the covered 

15 period was 1956 when we started the review.

16 We found additional documentation, 

17 which we submitted to the Department of Labor 

18 and that was actually extended through 1957.

19 And so on October 29, 2010, I do 

20 apologize for the lateness of it, you received 

21 their Evaluation Report.

22 The petitioner's concerns were 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that "No employees were monitored during the 

2 operations or residual for thorium and many 

3 employees were not monitored externally." And 

4 those are true.

5 If you saw the thickness of this 

6 report, a lot of it is where we did -- we 

7 searched all over. We went to Hanford. We 

8 went to many different facilities. We went up 

9 to the Army Corps of Engineers. We went to as 

10 many places as we could possible think of to 

11 try to get records associated with the work 

12 they did there.

13 We have about 650 documents in the 

14 Site Research Database. We actually conducted 

15 an onsite tour of the facility. We 

16 interviewed workers, conducted outreach 

17 meetings, SC&A participated in those.

18 One of the things we were 

19 concerned about is it's such an old site, we 

20 actually had guys from 1948, 1950 and we 

21 really, you know, didn't want time to pass and 

22 not allow them to express their concerns.
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So claims submitted to NIOSH. We 

2 have 192 cases. 185 of those have been 

3 completed. Claims containing internal 

4 dosimetry, 6. Claims containing external 

5 dosimetry was 1. And claims completed with a 

6 PoC greater than 50 percent is 71.

7 Activities at Simonds Saw and 

8 Steel, they were the premier rolling facility 

9 for the AEC, as I said, from '48 to '53. They 

10 did roll some other types of materials and 

11 they -- including thorium.

12 We do feel that our records are 

13 incomplete regarding the thorium source-term. 

14 We know about some of it. Other facilities 

15 were also utilizing them to do thorium work 

16 and so we believe we have part of the 

17 information, but not all of it.

18 We clearly know that they did 

19 hammer forge work before the rolling 

20 operations.

21 So based on records, a review of 

22 the records at Simonds and also worker 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 testimony, we concluded that Simonds processed 

2 thorium part of the time described in the 

3 current Technical Basis Document and these 

4 include the significant activities at the 

5 hammer forge.

6 The hammer forge, basically, was 

7 kind of like work in Playdoh. You had to 

8 break that thorium down before you could roll 

9 it or do work it. So they would hammer forge 

10 that first and then it would go to the rolling 

11 mill where they could actually process it. So 

12 they had to do that preliminary work before 

13 you could process the material.

14 So we extended the date for this 

15 back to 1948, because of incomplete records 

16 for the activities and also based on review of 

17 the AEC needs for metallic thorium at the

18 time.

19 So during the Evaluation Report, 

20 the Department of Labor reviewed information 

21 provided by NIOSH and extended the end of the 

22 operation period from 1956 through 1957.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Material was primarily brought in 

2 by rail car and stored in the work areas. 

3 Uranium was rolled through hand mills 

4 repeatedly to reduce size. So a bar may have 

5 to go through 10 or 12 times and they would 

6 have to set it to the side and let it cool. 

7 Things would get above 1,000 degrees 

8 Fahrenheit. They would have to let it cool 

9 down and come back to that piece of work. So 

10 this was something that was very labor 

11 intensive to actually get these to size.

12 While a 16 inch mill saw most of 

13 the work, the 10 inch mill, the strip mill and 

14 the hammer mill were also utilized.

15 So as we discussed at Bethlehem 

16 Steel, Simonds implemented various engineering 

17 controls. These were primarily for the 16 

18 inch mill, they had gratings over steel 

19 plates. The steel -- they hated those, 

20 because it's hard to drag rods across the 

21 grating.

22 And so they was supposed to use a 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 vacuum sweeper. Many times they didn't use 

2 that. They were supposed to use hoods over 

3 the plexiglass shields. DOE would come back 

4 and they would find out that they weren't 

5 using those because it hampered their ability 

6 to do work.

7 They did use lead bath heating 

8 instead of furnace heating and even some salt 

9 bath work that was some research work that 

10 they did. They also looked at alternate 

11 quenching methods to reduce scale production, 

12 the oxide production on the outside of this.

13 And there is an indication we had 

14 measurements done and also that they supplied 

15 clothing, at least during some of the portions 

16 of the contract period for -- that were then 

17 laundered by an outside company.

18 So as I said, controls were often 

19 found to be ignored. In some cases, entirely 

20 removed upon the DOE coming back in to -- as 

21 they reviewed the operations.

22 So this is just a general area 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 activity or the air concentrations. You can 

2 see them beginning in January '49. You got 

3 upwards of, you know, 100 MAC general air 

4 samples, and those reduce as you go later in 

5 terms of '53, the engineering controls and the 

6 operations they did, they did bring them down 

7 somewhat.

8 These are just the GA samples. 

9 They are not the breathing zone samples or the 

10 process samples.

11 There were a number of air 

12 monitoring studies. Those were conducted from 

13 1948 through 1953 and there were a few still 

14 conducted even a little bit later than that. 

15 These form the basis for the dose 

16 reconstruction to uranium. Some very limited 

17 thorium air sampling was also performed.

18 There was a single study conducted 

19 very late in the program at the hammer mill, 

20 however, at that time, the AEC decided it was 

21 really good to put a fan on that. And so it 

22 really mitigated its use for work before that.
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so they did that at a couple 

2 of other facilities, so it really invalidates 

3 its use for using as back extrapolation. And 

4 so applications of the 16 inch and 10 inch 

5 mill are very dependent on engineering 

6 controls which are a moving target.

7 We do have bioassay data from 

8 workers from 1948 through '52, they collected 

9 some. It's not a huge data set, but there is 

10 bioassay available. These workers did not 

11 perform hammer mill work. They were separate, 

12 a separate group of workers. And so the 

13 bioassay is specific for that operation.

14 Workers who were in the bioassay 

15 program may have intermittently used 

16 respiratory protection, so, therefore, it 

17 doesn't invalidate the air sampling data, but 

18 it does provide some level of what the intakes 

19 were.

20 So these data do not provide a 

21 bounding case for thorium work nor does the 

22 source-term for thorium provide sufficient 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evidence to bound the thorium exposure or 

2 thoron exposure during the operation times.

3 For external sources, external 

4 radiological exposures to employees at Simonds 

5 was the result of handling uranium and thorium 

6 billets. NIOSH believes the data for uranium 

7 is sufficient to deplete dose reconstructions 

8 during the operation period.

9 NIOSH lacks sufficient source-term 

10 information to determine the external dose

11 from thorium operations at Simonds during the 

12 operational period.

13 For medical X-rays, I believe you 

14 were alerted. This is kind of an unusual or a 

15 new factor in that the exposure to medical X16 rays was conducted off-site. And, therefore, 

17 we are not allowed to include that in our dose 

18 reconstructions. They use an off-site 

19 hospital for this facility you had. It has to 

20 be onsite. So we cannot include medical X21 rays.

22 The residual period internal dose, 
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some methods from TIB-70 were utilized with 

2 measured data. There have been extensive --

3 there were cleanups that occurred at Simonds 

4 Saw and Steel measured at 1957. And there 

5 have been extensive measurements conducted in 

6 1980, in the 1990s and then one in 2007 by the 

7 Army Corps of Engineers to help us set a 

8 bounding dose residual period.

9 These include isotopic thorium and 

10 uranium measurements. The average value for 

11 the general area air sample was taken during 

12 the period of use at 94 micrograms per meter 

13 cubed, so it's a little over 1 MAC. We use 

14 that as a starting point.

15 And then we took the highest 

16 measured value for the Army Corps measurement 

of 9,300 dpm per 100 cm2 17 as the surface 

18 contamination. In 1982, this mill shut down. 

19 And so from '82 to 2007, it has been dormant. 

20 So we consider that a flat line.

21 I believe earlier we were talking 

22 about no operational period. They continued 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to roll steel from 1952 up to 1982. So we 

2 also have consideration exposure to thorium 

3 dust. We assume a 1 percent thorium to 

4 uranium ratio was there. And thoron 

5 concentrations were also determined using 

6 known facility information and specific thoron 

7 concentrations in the materials from those 

8 measurements.

9 For the external dose, radiation 

10 measurements conducted in July 1957 to 

11 determine the effectiveness of decontamination 

12 are available. So additional surveys of 

13 exposure have been conducted in the facility. 

14 Based on these measurements an exposure rate 

15 of .08 mR per hour and non-penetrating dose 

16 rate of .2 R per hour was determined to be 

17 bounding.

18 So sample dose reconstructions 

19 were not available at the time of this. We 

20 are still -- it was late and so we have not 

21 been able to get those up to the Working Group 

22 for the residual period.
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We will, obviously, be providing 

2 to the Board as soon as possible.

3 So NIOSH evaluated the petition 

4 using the guidelines of 42 CFR 83.13 and 

5 submits our findings. On October 29, 2010, a 

6 two prong test -- is it feasible to estimate 

7 the level of radiation dose of individuals 

8 with sufficient accuracy? And then is there 

9 reasonable likelihood of endangerment?

10 So NIOSH found that the available 

11 monitoring records, process descriptions and 

12 source-term are not adequate to complete dose 

13 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

14 the evaluated Class of employees during the 

15 operational period from 1948 through 1957, but 

16 were adequate for the residual period from 

17 1958 through 2006.

18 The health endangerment was, 

19 obviously, required.

20 The evidence reviewed in this 

21 evaluation indicates that some workers in the 

22 Class may have accumulated chronic radiation 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposures to intakes of radionuclides and 

2 direct exposure to radioactive materials.

3 Consequentially, NIOSH has 

4 specified that health may have been a danger.

5 So our proposed Class and we did 

6 talk to the workers about movement and 

7 constraining workers. There is no indication 

8 that the process area was off limits. People 

9 could move through there. It was a rolling 

10 mill.

11 And so we have designated that all 

12 Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked 

13 at Simonds Saw and Steel Company from January 

14 1, 1948 through December 31, 1957 for a number 

15 of work days aggregating at least 250 work 

16 days, occurred either solely under this 

17 employment or in combination with work days 

18 within the parameters established for one or 

19 more other Classes of employees in the Special 

20 Exposure Cohort.

21 And this is a summary table, 

22 construction, not feasible for thorium and 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thoron and also external from thorium due to 

2 residual period. We believe that 

3 reconstruction is possible for all the source4 terms.

5 Neutron is not applicable and 

6 neither are medical X-rays. Thank you, sir.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

8 you, Sam. Questions from the Board? I would 

9 just like to start his off by complimenting 

10 you, Sam, and the people at ORAU or wherever 

11 who wrote the report. I thought it was a very 

12 thorough report and was very helpful in terms 

13 of understanding what you were doing. So I'll 

14 say that. And now, we will totally disagree. 

15 No. Anybody have questions?

16 MEMBER BEACH: I have --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Josie?

18 MEMBER BEACH: A quick one. On 

19 the medical X-rays, were the workers being 

20 paid when they were sent to the hospital for 

21 their X-rays?

22 DR. GLOVER: I do not know, ma'am.
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Would it matter?

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't think it 

3 matters, because --

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's off-site. 

6 Actually, Stu contacted me about this and I 

7 said let's present it in the context of this 

8 presentation. But it's one of the ways the 

9 law is written. Yes, Dick?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I just had one 

11 question. You said that workers were 

12 interviewed during the residual period or were 

13 they not?

14 DR. GLOVER: We focused our 

15 efforts, I believe, during the operational 

16 period.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: What about this 

18 later period?

19 DR. GLOVER: We certainly, you 

20 know, didn't restrict. Most of the guys we 

21 talked to included the entire, you know, time 

22 frame. They worked up through when the mill 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 closed. So we didn't restrict it. I will say 

2 that most of our activities were focused on 

3 the activity, you know, on the actual 

4 operational time frame, as we sought to better 

5 understand the thorium work.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: You mean up through 

7 1957?

8 DR. GLOVER: That's correct, sir.

9 MEMBER LEMEN: And how many 

10 workers did you interview?

11 DR. GLOVER: See we had an 

12 outreach from that time frame, we probably 

13 had, this is me going from my memory, 20. We 

14 conducted a number of telephone interviews in 

15 addition to that. I'm guess at the number, 

16 but it's certainly well over 20.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Out of what size of 

18 population?

19 DR. GLOVER: We have 192 claims 

20 right now.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: But what's the 

22 actual size, if you -- is it broader than 192 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or is it restricted?

2 DR. GLOVER: Well, the number I 

3 was searching for earlier as I tried to think 

4 of the scale of Simonds Saw and Steel, no 

5 number is coming to me offhand how big the 

6 site is. It's not Bethlehem Steel size. It's 

7 a much smaller facility than that.

8 MEMBER LEMEN: So is it 1,000 or 

9 is it more like 500?

10 DR. GLOVER: I don't think it even 

11 goes to 1,000. I could be corrected by that, 

12 but I believe it would certainly be less than 

13 1,000.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think it 

15 is a few hundred people working there.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: From my 

18 knowledge of it. 

19 MEMBER LEMEN: That's all.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I actually 

21 have another question, Sam. That's that you 

22 completed a number of dose reconstructions 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here. And I guess I'm trying to understand 

2 what the basis of those were and why since you 

3 also were rejecting, turning down claims or at 

4 least finding, you know, PoCs less than 50 

5 percent there, so was it that the -- so the 

6 realization on the -- was it previous to this, 

7 did you have another method for dealing with 

8 the thoron or thorium or was this -- sorry, 

9 I'm just trying to understand what was going 

10 on here.

11 DR. GLOVER: As we gain new 

12 information about the site, we realized how 

13 much more thorium work they did.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

15 questions? Okay. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: I have one.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I'm sorry, 

18 Josie. Go ahead.

19 MEMBER BEACH: No, that's okay. 

20 Back on slide 18 that talks about the methods 

21 during the residual period, you used TIB-70, 

22 OTIB-70. Do you have any monitoring data for 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that residual period?

2 I guess I'm wondering what 

3 happened between '57 and '58 where you 

4 couldn't reconstruct and then you could.

5 DR. GLOVER: Well, '57 we had 

6 direct. You know, there is a lot of source7 term generation. We have residual period. 

8 What are the total contamination on the area? 

9 We can resuspend that. But really don't feel 

10 that those were adequate to try to, you know, 

11 deal with the operational characteristics of a 

12 hammer mill and these other sources.

13 So we can -- the mill was cleaned 

14 up or sort of. You can see that there is 

15 still yellow uranium oxide on the floor. We 

16 have lots of data currently or, you know, from 

17 extensive surveys that were conducted at the 

18 facility. So we believe that those coupled 

19 with the closure material that occurred, the 

20 closure surveys are enough to bound the 

21 residual contamination period.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I think 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what happened in -- the operational period 

2 relative to AWE work ended. And then like the 

3 same as when we just talked about with Dow 

4 Madison is that then they used some of the air 

5 sampling data, some other data as sort of the 

6 starting point for the residual period. I was 

7 confused also.

8 Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Yes, 

9 Mark?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just one more to 

11 follow-up on that. On the -- for the residual 

12 period, how did you derive the 1 percent 

13 thorium uranium ratio?

14 DR. GLOVER: Those are based, I 

15 believe, mostly on source-term information. 

16 We have thorium isotopics now and it's 

17 certainly well below 1 percent, as we look 

18 throughout this facility. So we realize it 

19 can have some source-term migration and 

20 movement, but, you know, based on what we --

21 the information we have, that seemed to be a 

22 pretty reasonable number based on the -- it 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was primarily a uranium rolling facility.

2 They did some thorium work, so 

3 that's --

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Did you have more 

5 recent survey data? Is that what you're 

6 saying?

7 DR. GLOVER: We have lots. There 

8 is lots of recent survey data.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Including 

10 isotopic analysis?

11 DR. GLOVER: That's correct.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. In later 

13 years you are assuming that that percentage is 

14 basically --

15 DR. GLOVER: It's actually much 

16 less than 1 percent.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Much less than 1.

18 DR. GLOVER: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you.

20 DR. GLOVER: Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think we may 

22 have a petitioner on the line that may want to 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 speak? He doesn't have to. I'm not sure he 

2 or she is on the line. Is the petition for 

3 Simonds Saw and Steel on the telephone that 

4 wishes to speak? Okay. I don't hear anybody.

5 Okay. For the Board, just an 

6 update and correct me if I'm wrong, John, or 

7 somebody, I believe SC&A is in the process of 

8 looking at some of the information on the Site 

9 Profile, correct?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. SC&A was 

11 authorized to review the Simonds Saw Site 

12 Profile. We did begin that work, but then it 

13 was one of the several Site Profiles that we 

14 put on ice until next year in order to have 

15 the resources we needed to finish this year 

16 up.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

18 DR. MAURO: So we really did not 

19 progress very far on our Site Profile review 

20 for Simonds Saw.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I just 

22 wanted everybody to be aware of that and I 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think if there are questions about the 

2 residual period dose reconstruction methods, 

3 you know, SC&A will be still looking at that. 

4 I guess we have questions about the SEC we 

5 could -- there is also activity ongoing at 

6 SC&A.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So just to follow8 up on that, was SC&A assigned to just the Site 

9 Profile and/or the Evaluation Report?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just the Site 

11 Profile.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Just the Site 

13 Profile.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Site Profile. 

17 Again, hypothetically, if we accepted the 

18 NIOSH recommendation on the operational 

19 period, they would continue it as it affects, 

20 you know, sort of the partial dose 

21 reconstruction, so to speak, as well as for 

22 the residual period and, you know, we could 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 come back and deal with that. But that's it. 

2 Yes?

3 MEMBER PRESLEY: Sam, how much 

4 work has been done in there since '85 or '87. 

5 Has it totally been shut down and not used at 

6 all?

7 MEMBER BEACH: '82.

8 DR. GLOVER: I believe since '82. 

9 There would be very, very limited activity. 

10 What they did was actually excise the 

11 facility. Another company has come in and is 

12 using the non-excised part of the site that 

13 wasn't used for AWE facility work.

14 And so this facility is basically 

15 fenced off and not used. I'm sure that 

16 somebody has gone through there. There has 

17 been people who have done some surveys, but 

18 there is not any rolling or any real activity. 

19 To my knowledge.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, Wanda?

21 MEMBER MUNN: No question just a 

22 comment. Looking at the Site Profile, as a 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response to Dick's question I think earlier 

2 about how large this actual group of workers 

3 is. When there -- I see when they are 

4 discussing the medical X-rays that were going 

5 to have to be done, they indicated that the 

6 entire group of 150 will have to be examined 

7 and then later they say the whole group of 180 

8 were eventually checked.

9 So it doesn't sound as though we 

10 are talking about a large body of workers 

11 here. And given the size of the mill that's 

12 shown, it doesn't seem to be large at any 

13 given time.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: Just to add on to 

15 that. The only question I have if you have 

16 192 claims, it has got to be bigger than 150.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, at any given 

18 time.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it's 150 at 

20 a given time, so there is some turnover.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Or 180.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, the total 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 population is, obviously, going to be higher. 

2 To what extent there was people moving to 

3 other mills to work, then I don't know. A lot 

4 of industrial work in that area at that time.

5 I think if we don't have questions 

6 on the operational period and the 

7 recommendation, then like a motion is in 

8 order. Post-lunch --

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: So moved.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So moved what?

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: To make a 

12 recommendation that we accept the SEC up to 

13 the residual time.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Second.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

17 discussion on that? Okay. If not, do the 

18 roll call.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. So Dr. Anderson?

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

4 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson?

6 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon?

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey?

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

18 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley?

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer:

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: So all voted unanimous, 

8 none abstained, none absent. It passes.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And we 

10 will be getting back our Site Profile on 

11 review by SC&A and I think, at that point, we 

12 can take up the residual period questions and 

13 so forth would be the most efficient way for 

14 that.

15 Okay. We are running a little bit 

16 a head of time, but why don't we take our 

17 break and come back as scheduled at 3:15. You 

18 have all earned a break here.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 2:41 p.m. and 

21 resumed at 3:10 p.m.)

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Since the Board 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 has reassembled, why don't we get started 

2 again? A couple of announcements.

3 One, there has been a request for 

4 the website that we update the Board picture. 

5 So at the break tomorrow, in the morning 

6 while Mark is still here, I assume everyone 

7 else will still be here, we will do a group 

8 photo.

9 Okay. Secondly, those of you that 

10 are here that wish to speak during the public 

11 comment period, will you, please, sign up at 

12 the registration desk? That helps us when we 

13 have to call on people and so forth, so it 

14 would be helpful.

15 Okay. So I would like to continue 

16 with our discussion on Dow Madison. And I 

17 just want to point out a couple of things in 

18 response to Dr. McKeel's comments that may 

19 provide some background.

20 We have sort of taken our time in 

21 terms of addressing this issue and part of 

22 that was waiting to see what would happen with 
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 changes to the covered period. And at least 

2 at this point in time, I don't think there is 

3 anything new that is under review. There 

4 certainly may be new records that may show up 

5 in the future or they may show up at any site 

6 as we continue to go through the DOE archives 

7 and discover potential new sources and so 

8 forth.

9 But there is nothing under active 

10 review, so I just don't -- I'm not sure that 

11 that is -- first of all, the covered period 

12 issues are not something we are directly 

13 involved in, other than sort of at the other 

14 end. What NIOSH recommends and what we 

15 recommend has to conform to the official 

16 covered periods and so forth to that.

17 And so that's another issue that--

18 anyway that, you know, if it comes up in the 

19 future, fine, but I don't think it is a reason 

20 for us not to move forward on Dow Madison, at 

21 this point in time.

22 And just one small correction, but 
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Dr. McKeel did mention the 188 period. 

2 Actually, Dow Madison was an 83.14 originally 

3 and so it came under the original -- NIOSH has 

4 produced the report. It was the Board that 

5 asked that NIOSH look into the residual period 

6 and produce those two appendices that we have 

7 to that.

8 I'll also mention an opening that 

9 the Dow Madison Work Group, which is under the 

10 SEC Review Work Group, met on Friday. Not 

11 everyone could attend. Mark Griffon and Gen 

12 Roessler had other commitments, so Josie 

13 Beach, Paul Ziemer and myself met by 

14 conference call and discussions with NIOSH 

15 staff and SC&A about the most recent report.

16 And Dr. McKeel also participated 

17 in that petitioner. So we did not have a 

18 recommendation, though we were hesitant to 

19 make a recommendation to the Board, at this 

20 point, because the complete Work Group was not 

21 present. I think it's fair to say that Dr. 

22 Ziemer and I were leaning towards sort of 
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approving the NIOSH recommendation.

2 I think we even asked Josie's side 

3 of it to that, because, at that point, we 

4 decided not to make a recommendation and do 

5 that.

6 So with that, let me open up for 

7 questions. I think Bill Thurber, I don't 

8 think we had a chance to ask him questions. 

9 So if there are any questions for him? Okay. 

10 Yes, Jim Lockey.

11 MEMBER LOCKEY: I just have one 

12 question. If you look at the -- when I went 

13 back and calculated the number of work hours -

14 MR. KATZ: Jim, I'm sorry, can you 

15 speak closer? You sound very audible here, 

16 but you need to be closer to the mike for the 

17 Court Reporter.

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: When I went back 

19 and calculated the number of work hours at the 

20 facility during this process, how many work 

21 hours would you say existed?

22 MR. THURBER: I made an estimate 
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that --

2 MR. KATZ: Please, use the mike.

3 MR. THURBER: I made an estimate 

4 for the period when the rod straightening was 

5 done that is in the document. And in that 

6 case, I think it was 32 hours or something 

7 like that. As I noted in one of the slides in 

8 the presentation regarding the extrusion work, 

9 which was done earlier in the program, there 

10 were 12 cycles of 28 hours each, so slightly 

11 more than 12 days.

12 And a portion of that time was 

13 involved in setup, a portion of the time was 

14 involved in cleanup and 16 hours per cycle was 

15 involved in the actual extrusion work. Does 

16 that speak to your question?

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: That does. Thank 

18 you very much, yes.

19 MR. THURBER: You're welcome.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

21 questions? Yes, Paul?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not a question, 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but a comment. Dr. Melius suggested that some 

2 of us were leaning toward accepting the 

3 recommendation of our contractor, which was to 

4 agree with NIOSH's analysis.

5 However, in fairness to all 

6 involved, since this has a long history that 

7 some of the newer Members are not that 

8 familiar with, number one, and, number two, 

9 since all of the Board Members did not have a 

10 chance to hear the petitioner's views on this 

11 until today, it seemed to me that it would 

12 make sense not to take action on this at the 

13 moment until particularly the newer Members, 

14 but even the rest of the folks get a chance to 

15 fully digest both the recommendation as well 

16 as the petitioner's comments on this.

17 So and I'm not making a motion, 

18 but simply suggesting that we might want to 

19 agree to postpone any action on this until our 

20 next meeting, so that all the Board Members 

21 have a chance to come fully to speed on the 

22 issues, to acquaint themselves both with our 
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 own contractor and NIOSH's position as well as 

2 become familiar with the petitioner's 

3 concerns, which were just raised by Dr. 

4 McKeel.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. That is 

6 just what I was going to say. There are two 

7 options. We, obviously, can move ahead and 

8 accept the NIOSH and essentially SC&A findings 

9 for the residual period. We could -- issues 

10 that still need further evaluation, we could 

11 ask SC&A to do that.

12 The other option, I think, is 

13 really a question of how comfortable do people 

14 feel about the amount of information they 

15 have? And if you are not feeling comfortable 

16 enough to be able to vote at this meeting, 

17 then we can, you know, put this on the agenda 

18 for the next meeting.

19 I just think we have to be careful 

20 to not postpone it for too long, because then 

21 it goes out of memory and it is harder to keep 

22 track of everything. So it's really up to 
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board Members, particularly the new Board 

2 Members who have not heard this.

3 I have been in charge of the Work 

4 Group, so I have been sort of keeping up and 

5 not a good judge of the amount of information. 

6 So, Bill?

7 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I appreciate, 

8 Paul, what you said about giving us more time. 

9 I think I could use more time. The 

10 petitioner asked us to review the materials 

11 that he had submitted over the various times 

12 and I think I would like to do that, if 

13 possible.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Others? 

15 Dave? Wanda?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm sorry, 

18 Wanda, go ahead.

19 MEMBER MUNN: That's quite all 

20 right.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It was hidden 

22 behind the water bottle.
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: My latest excuse 

3 for ignoring you.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks. It would be 

5 preferable for us to be able to address this 

6 today, if we could, but Dr. McKeel's comments 

7 raised a couple of questions that I would like 

8 to think about.

9 Is it possible for us to request 

10 our Court Reporter to give us a transcription, 

11 a written transcription of Dr. McKeel's 

12 comments, so that we might have those for 

13 consideration later?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it is and 

15 we will also -- there are comments from the 

16 Work Group meeting on Friday, which we have 

17 not seen, obviously, the transcript of yet, 

18 which we will also -- can get to everyone. 

19 The comments from Dr. McKeel were pretty much 

20 the same though. There may be some 

21 differences there in terms of the issues 

22 raised.
272

NEAL 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 I think there is some more 

2 background information from the Work Group 

3 meeting.

4 MEMBER MUNN: The points he made 

5 were numerous.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: And it would be 

8 helpful to --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Have in written 

11 form.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't have any 

13 problem with that. So let's then -- what we 

14 will do, I think Ted has already sent around 

15 some of the earlier transcripts where this is 

16 covered. We will send around the two updated 

17 transcripts.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And so everyone 

20 has it and then we will put this on the agenda 

21 for the next meeting. We will have at the 

22 next meeting, you know, Bill Thurber and NIOSH 
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 present, so that we can -- if there are new 

2 questions that come up that people would like, 

3 you know, resolved, they can -- they will be 

4 available.

5 And I would just ask that if any 

6 of you find a glaring omission or a question 

7 or something that you think the Work Group 

8 really needs to look into before the next 

9 meeting, let me know.

10 Okay. Very good. Okay. We have 

11 some Board work time and we will start with 

12 the blue sheet that was the selection of 

13 cases, Set #14 and I will turn it over to 

14 Mark.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. This is 

16 the effort from a very recent Dose 

17 Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting that we 

18 had. It is a listing of -- if you remember 

19 our process, we go through a prescreening 

20 process where the Subcommittee picks out cases 

21 and then NIOSH adds in additional information 

22 and then we brought the full listing back to 
274

NEAL 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 Board for consideration.

2 So this is a listing that we 

3 picked in our prescreening effort. And I 

4 think it totals, I thin, it was, 30. You 

5 know, I haven't counted them up, but it was 

6 right around 30, which is usually what we try 

7 to give SC&A per group of dose reconstructions 

8 to review.

9 So I guess I would say I have 

10 looked through this initially. I had a few 

11 questions for NIOSH, but I think that a couple 

12 of them may be SECs. I don't know if Stu or 

13 LaVon can help us out here.

14 But there is on the second page, 

15 number 666, which Brad has actually, in the 

16 meeting, yes, it's a Rocky Flats case. I 

17 think given the time period and Building 771, 

18 it seems to me that should have been the SEC. 

19 I don't --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think 

21 chances are it is and it will take a minute or 

22 two with the staff to try to sort out.
275

NEAL 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 GRIFFON: It will take a 

2 minute or two you said?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it will take 

4 a little longer than that.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I just realized.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll figure it 

9 out, but it will probably be tomorrow before I 

10 will know.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. And then 

12 the other one was right down on that same page 

13 three below that, 130 Bethlehem Steel.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I can check on 

15 that as well.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: It might be a non18 listed cancer. I don't know.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think 

20 it's a non-SEC.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is that a non-SEC 

22 cancer?
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from the 

2 cancer model, it's hard to know exactly what 

3 the diagnosis was.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, right. That 

5 is why I said question mark on that one.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. So anyway, 

8 those were the only two that I, in looking at 

9 the additional information, would tend to 

10 knock off the list. And I don't know if 

11 others of the Subcommittee have any concerns 

12 or anyone on the Board.

13 So I guess this is coming as a 

14 motion to the Full Board with the possible 

15 exception of those two, I would say.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I was just curious 

17 about how you wanted to proceed. I mean, what 

18 -- depending on what we find out on these 

19 cases, they could, in fact, have been 

20 compensated for SEC. It doesn't look like 

21 either one is multiple cancers, so it wouldn't 

22 be back with us for medical benefits, for 
277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 instance. Sometimes that happens.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: But it looks like 

4 these are only single cancer cases. So is the 

5 assumption then that if these, in fact, were 

6 paid through SEC, we should remove them from 

7 the review list? That would be our 

8 instruction.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's usually 

10 what we have done, yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think the only 

13 reason we held that Bethlehem Steel one on 

14 there, because Bethlehem Steel is -- you know, 

15 even prior to SEC for the non-SEC cancers, 

16 would be a one-size-fits-all model, I believe.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: The reason we 

21 left that one on there was the 49.44, I think, 

22 was the Probability of Causation.
278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: It was very 

5 close. But, yes, that would be my opinion 

6 would be to drop those if they were SEC.

7 MEMBER FIELD: There are other 

8 SECs. What about the first one on the second 

9 page? Wouldn't that be SEC as well?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes, the 

11 Iowa. That is another question mark, right? 

12 The Iowa bladder cancer. Stu, maybe you can 

13 check that one, too. The first one on the 

14 second page.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 MEMBER FIELD: On the first page, 

17 479.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark, some of 

19 these only have two pages. There are supposed 

20 to be three pages in this.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it's 

22 supposed to be three pages, yes.
279

NEAL 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 CLAWSON: Yes.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: You'll have to 

3 share with your neighbor.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: I can share with 

5 -- I can share. It's just when they were 

6 saying the first page and stuff, I wanted to 

7 make sure --

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Stu, go ahead. I 

9 think he has got the --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Dr. Field 

11 asked about 479.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Those are only 

14 non-SEC cancers.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's what I 

16 thought on those.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be a 

18 partial dose reconstruction.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: For the non-SEC 

21 cancer.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: But the bladder 
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one you can check, right?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I will 

3 check that.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

5 So we got those three, the Iowa Ordnance Plan 

6 number 316, the Rocky Flats number 666 and 

7 Bethlehem Steel 130 all on page 2. Paul?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Mark, just for 

9 clarification, we need a minimum of 20 cases. 

10 And was the intent of the Subcommittee that 

11 we adopt this list, which is about 30 and then 

12 ones like you indicated might be dropped, if 

13 necessary and then we would have at least 20 

14 plus some extras, if needed, or what do we 

15 need to do today?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, we were 

17 trying to get 30, I think. I think our case--

18 our groupings have usually been in sets of 30. 

19 But from our initial list, this is all we 

20 could get. This is all we came up with, so we 

21 weren't going to, you know, just add a few we 

22 didn't like.
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, you know, we are going to be a 

2 little short probably on this one, but that's 

3 okay. So keep as many as we can, that's the 

4 idea.

5 MEMBER BEACH: And I have a 

6 question on page 3, 481, it's a Hanford case, 

7 1960, for lung. Is that a question mark also? 

8 SEC through '72?

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Through '72 

10 you're right. Okay. So we've got another one 

11 there. 481 on the third page, Stu. Okay. 

12 Thank you.

13 MEMBER FIELD: Mark, I had one 

14 more question for the selection on these, do 

15 you want to select ones that have had 

16 different models or doesn't it matter? 

17 Because there is a lot of basal cell on these. 

18 So I just wondered if it would be worthwhile 

19 to get a wider variation of models.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, we 

21 started with -- the list that we had to work 

22 from had a lot of basal cell. If you look at 
282

NEAL 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 tried to -- in those kind of cases, the 

2 Subcommittee looked at the site also, because 

3 sometimes if it's a smaller site and we 

4 haven't done any dose reconstructions on that 

5 site, often times it's the site model we are 

6 looking at more than the skin cancer, you 

7 know, the skin dose issues.

8 So, you know, it was more of a 

9 chance to examine the site model rather than 

10 the -- yes, but I mean, you know, if you see 

11 just too many that look very similar or that 

12 we have done before, certainly we can drop 

13 them off if we need to.

14 The information that gets added on 

15 after we see it is mainly on the right hand 

16 column, the job title work area, the dose 

17 method, external and internal. And when we 

18 got this list in the beginning, at the 

19 Subcommittee, we were basically under the 

20 assumption that all the reconstructions that 

21 we were considering were best estimates.

22 But, in fact, when you look 
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sometimes it is partial best estimates as we 

2 have seen in cases before, so they might have 

3 done a best estimate on external, but then 

4 been, you know, an over -- over-compensating 

5 dose on the internal or some combination of 

6 that like that.

7 So we like to see that broken out. 

8 So does anyone have any that they really 

9 seriously think should be dropped, other than 

10 those SEC ones, SEC potential ones that we 

11 mentioned?

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: Isn't Simonds 

13 Saw an SEC?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I was just 

15 going to point that out.

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Page 3 there is 

17 one.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, yes, we might 

19 have just added one on, right?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Mark, there is 

21 Simonds Saw on page 1 also.

22 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
284

NEAL 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: 604.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Where is 

3 the one on page 3? It's gallbladder. I don't 

4 see page 3.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Page 1.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just page 1.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Page 1.

8 MEMBER ANDERSON: I had it folded 

9 over.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

11 MEMBER ANDERSON: So a new page 3.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. So we are 

13 down to about 25, if all these are SECs.

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would just 

18 say, I mean, I have just been doing, I think 

it was, the 12th 19 set that we are on or 

20 whatever we are reviewing now and two of the, 

21 I think two, six that I was looking at were --

22 I think are SECs. But I thought they were 
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 still useful in terms of looking at the 

2 methods that would be used for partial dose 

3 reconstructions and so forth, so I didn't 

4 think that they were, you know --

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's true.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Especially if we 

8 haven't looked a lot at the sites.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or site models, 

11 yes.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. So I mean, 

13 I wouldn't -- I would take a close look before 

14 rejecting them necessarily.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: So any other 

16 questions or -- I mean, Jim, would you want --

17 I guess I would say this is our closer look or 

18 do you mean to get the cases, let SC&A proceed 

19 or --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I mean, 

21 let's move forward with this. I think -- I 

22 mean, I'm personally comfortable with Stu 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 checking back with you when he gets more 

2 information. And you make, you know, a 

3 determination does it make sense to keep it in 

4 or not. Does that make sense, Mark?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes, that's 

6 fine with me.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's okay with 

9 me. And Stu can just bring it back to the 

10 Subcommittee and then we can -- so, okay.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, you as 

12 Chair of the Subcommittee, so I mean --

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- I don't know 

15 how the Subcommittee feels about that.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But I don't see 

18 any reason why --

19 MEMBER BEACH: We can always have 

20 a five minute meeting.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, a five 

22 minute call or however you -
287

NEAL 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 GRIFFON: Right, right, 

2 right. Well, the Federal Register and --

3 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, that's right.

4 MR. KATZ: I don't think it's 

5 necessary to have a Subcommittee meeting if 

6 you are comfortable as a Board with Mark 

7 making these judgments.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, it's only --

10 we're talking about these five.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, okay.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And the 

14 Subcommittee has already chosen the cases, so 

15 that's --

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: As a process 

18 for the future, would it be possible just for 

19 NIOSH to be there on the first big list they 

20 provide or when we give them a reduced list 

21 for them to flag whether it was an SEC case in 

22 the end or not?
288

NEAL 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 GRIFFON: Yes, we were 

2 hoping that that would happen on this round, 

3 but, you know, I'm not sure. I don't know if 

4 it's not in the database or how --

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And some of 

6 these changed.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and some of 

8 them changed very recently, yes, like today.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't hear the 

10 question.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Could you flag 

12 whether they were like SEC cases when we first 

13 do our selection? I mean, if they are SEC, I 

14 think you wouldn't put them on the list, 

15 right? But I don't know when you are doing 

16 your sampling from the database if that is 

17 available.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It won't be a 

19 database pull. I mean, we could take a look.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: What will happen 

22 on the database pull is if we did the dose 
289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction and then it was added to the 

2 Class --

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: The last thing 

5 that it will look like in that claim file, we 

6 go to the claim file record in order to make 

7 the selection. We are going to see that we 

8 sent a final dose reconstruction to the 

9 Department of Labor.

10 So we are not going to pull that 

11 case. Now, normally, if we have a case in 

12 hand and it belongs to SEC place that gets 

13 added, that becomes a pulled case. So the 

14 designation or the status of the case is 

15 pulled SEC. So those would come out 

16 automatically.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: If we did the 

19 case, we don't do that pull, because the claim 

20 is already at the Department of Labor. So we 

21 would have -- we will have to look.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.
290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: But I mean, that's 

2 something we can do.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. We will 

4 try to triage that better, I think is the 

5 short answer. Okay. Yes. But in this case, 

6 if it's okay with everyone, I'll look at those 

7 with Stu and make a final call on those five. 

8 Wanda?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do you got a 

11 question or is that left over?

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, I just wanted to 

13 extrapolate a little from Paul's earlier 

14 comment. Whether or not it's an SEC may be a 

15 moot point actually, because we -- our purpose 

16 here is not to determine whether someone that 

17 should have been compensated is not being 

18 compensated, that's not the point in our 

19 looking at this.

20 Our point in looking at this is to 

21 evaluate the process that was gone through in 

22 reviewing that particular case. And given 
291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that that's the case, then when we have 

2 situations like that, it's worthwhile I guess 

3 evaluating whether it should stay on the list.

4 But the reason we are looking at 

5 it is not really and truly that.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, yes. And 

7 that was Jim's point. You were agreeing with 

8 Jim, just for the record.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't think we 

10 want that on the record, do we?

11 MEMBER MUNN: It's all right with 

12 me.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, 

14 that's a fair point. Especially I think it is 

15 true for the site models, you know.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: When you have the 

18 site models, they are going to be used for the 

19 non-listed cancers as well.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: So you are really 

22 looking at the model.
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Well, if 

5 there is no other concerns on the cases, this 

6 is our motion. And I guess it's up to --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we have a 

8 motion from the --

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Motion from the 

10 Subcommittee.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We need a second 

12 and --

13 MEMBER PRESLEY: I second.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So any further 

15 discussion? If not, all in favor say aye.

16 (Chorus of ayes.)

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Opposed? 

18 Abstain? Okay. Good. All three pages this 

19 time.

20 The next issue for our Board work 

21 time is the response to public comments and we 

22 have both the May meeting and the August 
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting out there. And I think we have a -- I 

2 think we have all agreed on an approach to do 

3 this that becomes a relatively long document, 

4 but it captures the transcript where this 

5 occurred as well as, you know, flagging at the 

6 top with sort of the summary of what the 

7 response is and follow-up.

8 So I'm hoping that is useful 

9 rather than having the Board Members have to 

10 go back and look up the full transcript each 

11 time in order to understand the comment.

12 And so I guess what we are looking 

13 for at this time, does anybody have any other 

14 comments on the comments in the way these are 

15 summarized?

16 I actually had one for the May 

17 meeting, which was that one of my concerns was 

18 that the -- on sites that -- where there was 

19 ongoing evaluation at the site, a person made 

20 a public comment period or maybe even the 

21 evaluation hadn't started.

22 For example, we were up in Niagara 
294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Falls, Hooker Electrochemical had just come 

2 out and there were people making comments on 

3 Hooker Electrochemical. Those were captured 

4 and the immediate response to those from the 

5 NIOSH staff was captured, but the longer term 

6 follow-up was not clear in response.

7 I mean, you don't know how the 

8 comment is going to be utilized, but I think 

9 we want to have some record that the comment 

10 did get into the process, so that when the 

11 Work Group and the NIOSH Team were evaluating 

12 that site, they would, you know, be able to 

13 have that record available as part of their 

14 discussions and evaluation.

15 And I really thought that was sort 

16 of the purpose of what we were, one of the 

17 main purposes, trying to do here. It's not 

18 just the immediate response, which is 

19 important, but also that it really -- the 

20 Outreach Work Group, which Mike chairs, that 

21 part of what you are looking for also is in 

22 the longer term are these comments getting 
295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 directed to where people are being able to use 

2 them?

3 Even though it may not be 

4 immediate, because we can't respond 

5 immediately to something that we just started 

6 or where it is ongoing like Linde. So I think 

7 we are looking for, at least what I was 

8 looking for, is what, you know, a description 

9 of the response would include and then, you 

10 know, referred for further -- you know, a part 

11 of the SC&A, NIOSH and Work Group evaluation 

12 of the site. And that we track it that way as 

13 a longer term thing.

14 Is that making sense to people? 

15 Any other comments or questions about these?

16 MEMBER MUNN: They are 

17 appreciated. And it is good to be able to 

18 read through them.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Yes, Brad?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was just 

21 wondering what the -

22 MR. KATZ: Brad, your mike is off.
296

NEAL 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 CLAWSON: I was wondering 

2 in the category here in Column E the 1 and 2 

3 and 3, what does that pertain to?

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: What document are 

5 you looking at?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's just the 

7 document or is this -- I'm looking at the 

8 comments that we received from --

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: What date?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: The very first 

11 one.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Which meeting, 

13 the May or the August?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: August.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: August, okay.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I think those were 

17 the categories that we agreed on a couple 

18 meetings ago.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, those were 

20 the categories, I think, SC&A, I think, 

21 developed them. There originally were about 

22 30 of them and I think we whittled them down. 
297

NEAL 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 I think they may be useful going forward 

2 in classifying the follow-up.

3 However, Mike, I have the same 

4 trouble you do. I'm not going to remember 

5 category numbers from meeting to meeting.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And I think 

8 that's why we have the description, the 

9 response and so forth.

10 MR. KATZ: So the categories, I 

11 think, will only be useful at some point where 

12 you want to go back and look and see how we 

13 have been doing with public comments.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: By sort of Class and 

16 different types.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: As opposed to sort of 

19 in real-time as you are looking at --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Were these comments 

22 really appropriate for this particular 
298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 situation?

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was just going 

3 to say the categories are listed in the other 

4 sheet. You see that, right? Okay. The 

5 spreadsheet has it.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There is two 

7 documents you got. One was a spreadsheet that 

8 had the brief listing and then there is the 

9 more extensive Word document that includes not 

10 only the individual comments or a heading, but 

11 then includes the part of the transcript where 

12 that is covered.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was just saying 

14 in the spreadsheet there is two worksheets, 

15 two tabs.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: It's the second tab.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Jim, can I just 

22 comment?
299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: On the other process 

3 that we just -- Jim's comment on the comments 

4 about following up, I'm just trying to think 

5 about how to really effectuate that 

6 consistently and well. And I think since we 

7 need -- we are concerned about DCAS picking up 

8 that comment and following it up when they do 

9 their petition evaluation and also with the 

10 Board or its Work Group following up, I mean, 

11 I think for DCAS then I guess we need to just 

12 get a response from them at the time they do 

13 these that they have -- it has been provided, 

14 you know, the comments have been provided to 

15 who the lead is for that SEC or whatever.

16 And that would be sort of 

17 notification to us, at least, that that hasn't 

18 gotten lost. That that person who has the 

19 lead for that site has that comment.

20 But for our Work Group, I think we 

21 need then to be careful that we take, and we 

22 can take it from this same document, those 
300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comments and the Work Group Chair, I think, 

2 would just keep that on their, you know, 

3 Action List for items for the Work Group to 

4 consider.

5 So that would be one of the inputs 

6 just like a document from DCAS or a document 

7 from SC&A. Does that sound reasonable? 

8 Otherwise, I'm not sure how we -- I think we 

9 just need an orderly way to ensure that the 

10 Board does its piece with it, too.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, no, I 

12 agree. And I think we would want to charge 

13 our contractor. There are times when we don't 

14 have a Work Group yet assigned. So at the 

15 time, particularly if it's a new site being 

16 presented, and so it's being presented at 

17 that, we are reacting to it. We don't even 

18 know we are going to have a Work Group yet or 

19 how we're going to handle it.

20 And so there's not even a Work 

21 Group Chair that I can say, you know, Mike, 

22 you know, make note of this or you should talk 
301

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to Mike, because he is -- you know, refer the 

2 commenter to him.

3 So I think, yes, we need a method, 

4 but I think we would work through our 

5 contractor to do that and make sure that it 

6 gets into the Work Group process.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim?

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Brad?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was also 

10 wondering, because one of the comments that we 

11 have heard from petitioners or people of the 

12 public is that they question these things when 

13 they put out the questions and they never hear 

14 back.

15 Do we still have -- is there 

16 something in the process? Because we have 

17 taken down all of their information, do we 

18 have something in the avenue like to be able 

19 to respond to them, so these questions have 

20 been addressed to them? Not just to the Work 

21 Group or the Board, but also the individual 

22 that made the comment.
302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, that was 

2 my second, actually, concern was just that. 

3 I'm not sure how to interpret, you know, that 

4 this was taken into account or, you know, what 

5 was communicated to the -- if you take the 

6 first one from the August meeting, so it says, 

7 you know, the -- we have some questions about 

8 dose reconstruction and what was happening at 

9 the Idaho site and so forth.

10 And so, you know, Grady Calhoun 

11 and others addressed. I'm not sure that they 

12 had addressed him directly or it says those 

13 comments were -- DR was revised to address the 

14 comment. Well, was there back communication 

15 to them in some way or follow-up? And I think 

16 that's also something that we need to document 

17 and make sure happens. Yes.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I thought that 

20 was one of the advantages to the Word document 

21 that we had. That information, for example, 

22 in that first one, it indicates that Stu has 
303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an action to communicate with this gentleman.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: And I thought that 

4 was our original concept that the long-term 

5 written description and response would include 

6 an indication that the petitioner or whoever 

7 had made the comment had been contacted.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. I 

9 think we are -- you know, I agree with you. 

10 And I think what we are doing is the 

11 description of the response we are curtailing 

12 the -- like the transcript is just the 

13 transcript from the meeting.

14 So if there was an immediate 

15 response, an immediate answer, then it is 

16 covered in the transcript. But if it was a 

17 follow-up off the transcript, and I mean it's 

18 a question on dose -- an individual dose 

19 reconstruction that we don't normally do that 

20 on transcript. You know, the person will go 

21 aside and talk to them.

22 But what we want to do is document 
304

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that what was in the follow-up and I just --

2 what I was saying is I can't tell from the 

3 description or the response how that -- you 

4 know, was that response immediate? Was it a 

5 follow-up, you know, a sidebar conversation? 

6 Was it a call back a week later?

7 MEMBER MUNN: And my point is 

8 regardless of how it is done, it needs to 

9 appear in a description of the response.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, exactly.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess I am a 

12 bit confused. At first, I thought the Word 

13 document was just the excerpts from the 

14 spreadsheet cut and pasted and transcripts in 

15 between. But it's not quite -- I mean, when I 

16 look at the second one --

17 MEMBER MUNN: It's more extensive.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, the first 

19 one is exactly the same for that first 

20 commenter.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: I won't say the 
305

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 name. But the second commenter on the 

2 8/10/2010 meeting, there is then a description 

3 of the response in the Word document, but 

4 there is not in the spreadsheet. That's odd 

5 to me.

6 MR. KATZ: Mark, that is just an 

7 artifact of -- they didn't have a chance to do 

8 it with -- they just filled it in directly 

9 with the Word document. They didn't get a 

10 chance to get to it when they did that Excel 

11 sheet. That's why. Normally, they would. It 

12 would be in the Excel sheet and in the Word 

13 document.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: That goes to my 

15 next question which is do we have a running 

16 spreadsheet of these things that we could 

17 actually possibly sort it? You know, like for 

18 me I could go back three meetings and say I've 

19 got a Savannah River Work Group meeting coming 

20 up, let me sort by Savannah River and see what 

21 is out there and make sure I address them.

22 MR. KATZ: These are separate 
306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Excel files.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we can 

3 still, I guess -- we just have to get them all 

4 together.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So we need a 

6 process to pull that together, I think, is 

7 what we're saying.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, they all need 

9 to be together --

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: In one spot 

12 somewhere.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: If for no other 

15 reason than one of our original intents was to 

16 see whether there were repeated concerns about 

17 the same thing, even at different sites.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. It seems 

20 like it is early enough in the process, so 

21 that will be a pretty easy thing to do, right?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, well, it's easy to 
307

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 compile spreadsheets. So at any point, we can 

2 take the three or four meetings and throw them 

3 all in one Excel sheet, so that you can work 

4 on them.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other 

8 comments?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have a question.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: My question is, is 

12 there a mechanism at the present time for any 

13 of this to be, itself, to be made public or do 

14 we have redaction problems on all of these?

15 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, the 

16 public has the transcripts, so we don't --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I'm talking 

18 about --

19 MR. KATZ: Right.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: The documents that 

21 we have before us which are --

22 MR. KATZ: Right. So --
308

NEAL 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: They are basically 

2 tracking documents.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which contain both 

5 the transcripts plus summaries of what was 

6 done. But it seems to me not every commenter 

7 is necessarily due a personal response. Some 

8 are, depending on the nature of the comment 

9 and the question, but on the other hand, it 

10 would be, it seems to me, a value for the 

11 general public to be able to assess -- access 

12 this information to learn how their comments 

13 have been handled.

14 So I'm sort of asking is there --

15 is this going to be available in some form 

16 that will be available to the public, so that 

17 they can not only be assured that comments are 

18 being taken seriously and being tracked, but 

19 are being dealt with?

20 MR. KATZ: Right. So I'm 

21 understanding now. Certainly, we can -- I 

22 mean, the materials at least for the August, 
309

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's all Privacy Act cleared, the transcript 

2 material. I think May, the transcript 

3 material itself wasn't -- we gave it to DCAS 

4 to review before we even went through Privacy 

5 Act redaction for that transcript.

6 But anyway, the concept is a good 

7 one, I think. And we can do that. Then we 

8 would have to run these little spreadsheets 

9 through Privacy Act review too. And then we 

10 could -- and then they could all be put up 

11 conceivably, for example, on the website where 

12 people could go and look.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And that 

14 was sort of the follow-up. We might want to 

15 think about having a particular sub-location 

16 on the website which is focused specifically 

17 on public comment issues that are apart from 

18 sites or whatever.

19 MR. KATZ: I agree.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't think we 

21 have to make a decision on that.

22 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, I'll be 
310

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 happy to discuss this with --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Think about how we 

3 should do this.

4 MR. KATZ: The folks at DCAS who 

5 run the website and see how we can handle that 

6 in a way that makes it easy for people in the 

7 public to get to this and take a look and see 

8 how things are going with their comments.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was just 

11 wondering, it would be useful for me to talk 

12 through, once more, the process that has 

13 happened here and who is actually doing what 

14 along the way. So a member of the public 

15 makes a comment to the Board, that is 

16 transcribed. And those are then -- there is a 

17 sub -- there is a contractor, is it SC&A, who 

18 is going through the transcript? Who is going 

19 through the transcript and selecting out -

20 MR. KATZ: So then DCAS goes 

21 through the transcript, selects out all the 

22 comments and then indicates responses for 
311

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those that were either responded in real-time 

2 during the Board meeting or responses that it 

3 may have made subsequently, because it had, 

4 for example, they had spoken to the claimant 

5 afterwards or what have you.

6 So that's what you receive then. 

7 At that point, you receive that spreadsheet 

8 that shows what the Board responded to and 

9 what DCAS has since responded to in some 

10 fashion.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. And so 

12 that's issued relatively promptly. And one of 

13 the questions was do you go through these 

14 spreadsheets and iterations and continue to 

15 fill out responses as you move forward in the 

16 future? Was that one of the questions?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That is one of 

18 the -- one of the questions is how do we make 

19 sure it is referred for longer. In some 

20 cases, the follow-up is going to be longer 

21 term. Hooker Electrochemical people made 

22 comments who were just forming a Work Group, I 
312

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe, to review that and it just referred 

2 to a Work Group.

3 There was a NIOSH report on it. 

4 So people were saying, you know, or offering 

5 comments about their work day. So there was 

6 really no immediate response other than we 

7 will refer it to the Work Group and, you know, 

8 NIOSH and everyone to follow-up.

9 So we need to document that also.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And right now, 

11 NIOSH is the responsible party who is holding 

12 and maintaining these spreadsheets, plural.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so maybe 

15 as an idea of process, if a Work Group that is 

16 working on a site wants to get a compilation 

17 of the public comments on that site, if they 

18 would make their request to NIOSH and then 

19 that would be something further tracked that 

20 those comments were -- I would see that as 

21 also being responsive.

22 Those comments have been 
313

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 abstracted and transmitted to a Working Group 

2 and are going to be further considered. I 

3 don't know if we want to --

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think that --

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: We kind of 

6 want to show them what we are doing with the 

7 information.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. And I 

9 think --

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And 

11 transmitting it back and making it public and 

12 transparent, I think that would all be --

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. But I 

14 think we would also -- I mean, just 

15 procedurally, sort of ask our contractor as 

16 part of the Work Group meeting, update us on 

17 the public, you know, comments. That might be 

18 one document that Work Group Members would --

19 which would simply be a compilation of what is 

20 on the spreadsheets and what has come in.

21 And then in those cases, the 

22 transcripts would be important, too, because 
314

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you want to capture all of the comments, not 

2 just the response. 

3 MR. KATZ: So I'm just becoming a 

4 little concerned. I think you raised a good 

5 issue though, which you didn't maybe exactly 

6 address there, but you raised it from what you 

7 said. Where we have longer term follow-up, 

8 either by a Work Group or by NIOSH, you know, 

9 six months, nine months later, I mean, they 

10 are not going to continue updating the 

11 spreadsheets on their own, NIOSH, I don't 

12 think.

13 With each time that they do 

14 something, I mean, they would have to go back 

15 and find well, where did that comment come in 

16 and they will find, oh, okay. Do you 

17 understand what I'm saying?

18 It could get awfully complicated 

19 quickly and end up being a lot of work if 

20 somehow they are having to track these beyond. 

21 I mean, right now, it's taking them a little 

22 bit of doing just to even get this initial 
315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 presentation to the Board and having it then 

2 as a long-time item with some of these.

3 Especially, Jim, as you say, I

4 mean, there might not even be a Work Group yet 

5 and the SEC petition might have just been 

6 issued.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, let's take 

8 it step-wise. Let's make sure that we are 

9 getting good descriptions of what the referral 

10 is and what the initial response is.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let NIOSH, you 

13 know, think about how -- what's the best way 

14 of sort of doing this long-term referral. And 

15 I'm not sure that, you know, we need to keep 

16 responding to it, but I think, at the same 

17 point, that when you tell somebody well, we 

18 referred it to the Work Group, the Work Group 

19 will take care of it, that we owe it to them 

20 to at least get back to them once and say yes, 

21 the Work Group -- you know, your comment is at 

22 the Work Group.
316

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That's right.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And maybe the 

3 Work Group has a question about it or wants to 

4 get more information about the site from that 

5 person. They would come forward and that's --

6 you know, they think they have gotten into the 

7 process.

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And in the past, 

10 what has happened is they really haven't.

11 Yes, and I think we do -- I mean, 

12 that's something that Mike is working on and 

13 the Outreach Work Group should think about 

14 this also, how we do this.

15 MR. KATZ: So just a follow-up. 

16 So I think though the practical way to sort of 

17 stop it, so that it isn't a continuous process 

18 which becomes unmanageable with each of these, 

19 is at the point that it is, you know, assigned 

20 to a Work Group or whatever, you make note of 

21 that or that it has been assigned to the lead 

22 for the site, who is doing the SEC Evaluation 
317

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for NIOSH.

2 I mean, that would be recorded 

3 properly in here. And, at that point, we 

4 don't continue tracking what they actually did 

5 subsequently with that comment, right? We 

6 don't continue to track?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: So say DCAS makes a 

9 change down the road, we are not tracking that 

10 here.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, no, Ted. 

12 I just meant when there was finally an action 

13 taken with it, there was some disposition. 

14 The comment had been made and now NIOSH says 

15 we have communicated that comment to a group 

16 that is working on it.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And then 

19 that's closed. But that's fine.

20 MR. KATZ: That sounds good.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So we 
318

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will continue to refine the process through 

2 the next meeting.

3 Anybody? Okay. We have a little 

4 bit of time before we are supposed to do the 

5 LANL update and then the public comment 

6 period. And so I guess I would like to start 

7 doing some Work Group updates.

8 I would just say for people who 

9 are in the audience, I assume you are all 

10 interested in LANL or Sandia, one of the sites 

11 out here. We will have an update in a little 

12 over half an hour on what is happening in 

13 terms of review of the LANL Site and then that 

14 will be followed by a public comment period.

15 And if you are interested in 

16 making public comments, we do ask you to sign 

17 up at the registration desk that is out 

18 through that door. It just helps us to call 

19 people in the order that you signed up. So it 

20 helps us with the process.

21 So I'll start with my list of Work 

22 Groups, which may be out of date or whatever. 
319

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'll find my up to date one. And the first 

2 one is Brookhaven. Josie?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Sorry.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Did I surprise 

5 you? Obviously.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Brookhaven 

7 has not met in some time. I did talk to Grady 

8 this morning and the Work Group should be 

receiving action items on Monday, the 23rd 9 . 

10 And I'm looking to schedule a Work Group 

11 meeting at the first of January.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. I 

13 will clarify. I'm working off Ted's list, 

14 membership, that I think he handed out 

15 recently. I don't know. Okay. Thank you.

16 Chapman Valve, John?

17 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, we haven't 

18 met. As far as I know, we haven't had a reply 

19 to our request to the U.S. Navy for further 

20 information.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't know. 

22 LaVon or Stu, are they going to update us 
320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tomorrow? I guess a quick yes or no.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have a 

3 response. There is another avenue we're 

4 pursuing beyond the Navy. The Navy told us 

5 they have -- they are confident they have no 

6 records for this site for that period.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And they gave some 

9 reasons. I can put that in a report and send 

10 it to you.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: To the 

13 Subcommittee or to the Work Group. The other 

14 avenue is a series -- a record holding in Oak 

15 Ridge that has what we know are incomplete 

16 finding aids and we have found things for 

17 Chapman already at that, through the existing 

18 finding aids, but we know there are things 

19 that are not on the finding aids that are in 

20 collection. And we are working out with them 

21 how will we assemble, essentially, a complete 

22 finding aid to know if there is more to go 
321

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pursue.

2 We have a tantalizing document 

3 about a manifold test at Chapman Valve during 

4 the war. And that's it.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, there is 

7 very little else about it.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It's just a test 

10 sheet. And so we were tantalized by what we 

11 got and wondered if there might be more.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just one follow14 up on that, Jim?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: You said from the 

17 Navy, they are confident in their work.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: They have no 

19 records.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: At that site for 

21 that time period, was it the -

22 MR. HINNEFELD: They have no 
322

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records for Chapman Valve that would explain 

2 the enriched uranium sample.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

4 Because I was always thinking it might have 

5 been beyond, you know.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Just so everybody 

8 is clear, I will also send to probably the 

9 whole Board an example of what the paper 

10 record or what the database shows us that we 

11 got from the Navy. It goes back to about 

12 1966. I could be wrong on the decade.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: But it goes part 

15 way back. And it shows procurement actions. 

16 And that started the database on that. Before 

17 that, it is paper records and the various 

18 military archivists who answered in these 

19 email strings don't even know. They said 

20 well, I guess that is in the archives 

21 somewhere and nobody really knows what it 

22 means to go to the archives.
323

NEAL 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 GRIFFON: Okay. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: You're talking 

3 about looking at boxes of either these summary 

4 sheets or the original contracts.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll put it all in 

7 the report. It's very complicated.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: And all we ever 

10 saw that was -- the Navy brought balance.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can dispatch 

13 the Work Group to the archives and they can 

14 come out ten years from now. Fernald?

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, we just had 

16 a Work Group meeting. Unfortunately, we have 

17 got a lot of our information very late in the 

18 process. And SC&A had not had the opportunity 

19 to be able to review it, so we have set up a 

Work Group meeting for February 8th 20 . This 

21 will give NIOSH time to be able to -- or SC&A 

22 time to be able to review the information and 
324

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 give us a reply back.

2 But we are planning on being able 

3 to bring Fernald to the Board at the next full 

4 Board meeting.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. And I 

6 would think certainly even if you don't have a 

7 Work Group recommendation or full closure, I 

8 think it would be worthwhile having the Board 

9 briefing on where things stand. This has been 

10 around quite a while and I think we are going 

11 to need to understand it in order to take 

12 action.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: It has been five 

14 years. The petitioner has raised numerous 

15 issues and problems with that. And we're 

16 pushing it.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Okay. 

18 Hanford, I'll call on myself, has nothing to 

19 report, but Arjun, do you want to -- I'll put 

20 you on the spot.

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, we are in the 

22 process of reviewing the TBD that is in two 
325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sections. We are looking at the internal data 

2 from July 1, 1972 onward. That compilation is 

3 pretty much complete. And so now, we will 

4 move on to reviewing the rest of the TBD since 

5 we have compiled the data.

6 We should have that for you by 

7 early 2011.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Also, too, I sent 

12 you an email that Sam Glover and myself and 

13 SC&A, we have actually run across some 

14 information that will have a classified 

15 discussion in December. It's just information 

16 retrieval. 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Good. 

18 Okay. So Fellow Members of the Hanford Work 

19 Group, you may be having a meeting in -- after 

20 the first of the year to that. Idaho, Phil?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We had a Work 

Group meeting scheduled for the 30th 22 . We 
326

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 canceled that. We are supposed to be getting 

2 together after Thanksgiving to try and set up 

3 when we have some deliverables that we can 

4 actually work with.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Do that. 

6 Another one, and we don't have an SEC 

7 petition there, right?

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, okay.

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: That hasn't 

11 been qualified yet.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, okay, 

13 Lawrence Berkeley, Paul?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Lawrence Berkeley 

15 has not yet met.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. It's a 

17 recently formed Work Group. I'm going to skip 

18 Linde, Los Alamos, since we have reports 

19 coming from them. Mound, Josie?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Mound has not met 

since July, our July meeting on the 27th 21 , I 

22 believe. I do anticipate getting some 
327

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 documents from NIOSH. There are a couple of 

2 key things we are waiting for. I'm hoping to 

3 schedule a meeting for either the end of 

4 January or the first part of February, but I 

5 do have to wait until I hear from NIOSH on 

6 when they will have those deliverables to us.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I do 

8 think we will be covering some issues related 

9 to Mound --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: In the exposure 

12 potential discussion tomorrow.

13 MEMBER BEACH: That may help, but 

14 it also may slow things down just a bit. 

15 That's why I'm saying mid or the first part of 

16 February to just give that time to settle out.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The Nevada Test 

20 Site, I don't think there is anything to 

21 report, Bob?

22 MEMBER PRESLEY: No.
328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No. Pantex?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: The last of 

3 September we had a very good tour of Pantex. 

4 We had members of SC&A, NIOSH and Members of

5 the Work Group that went down there. It was 

6 very educational for us. At this time, we are 

7 trying to, the very first of the year, figure 

8 out where we can put in the Work Group and 

9 start on Pantex.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

11 questions on that? Okay. Pinellas?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No Work Group 

13 planned at this time. The issues, we have 

14 some. Basically, we can solve issues at Mound 

15 we will solve Pinellas at the same time.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. The 

17 pressure is on, Josie.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I feel it.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: You're welcome, 

20 Josie.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think I'll 

22 remember that response. That's a good one, 
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 yes. From now on, everybody answer as soon as 

2 Josie finishes Mound. Piqua, John?

3 MEMBER POSTON: We have had one 

4 meeting.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MEMBER POSTON: And we had one 

7 meeting and there were some issues that we 

8 asked the SC&A to follow-up on. We are 

9 waiting for that to happen.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

11 The new Work Group Portsmouth Paducah K-25?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We are meeting 

on December 16th 13 .

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I saw that. 

15 Good. Which will be your first meeting. That 

16 is to review the Site Profile.

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, right.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, good. 

19 Okay. Rocky, Mark, any?

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, just tracking 

21 the DOL bulletin.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 
330

NEAL 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 GRIFFON: No other -- we 

2 haven't met.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Santa 

4 Susana, Mike?

5 MEMBER GIBSON: There is nothing 

6 since the last Board meeting. DCAS is still 

7 working on some stuff. We anticipate being 

8 ready to have a meeting probably early spring.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

10 Mark, Savannah River?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we had a 

12 Work Group phone call, conference call last 

13 week. Last week? Last week. And mainly it 

14 was just to get back on track with our action 

15 list and clarify actions. This is also a 

16 petition that has been out there quite some 

17 time, so we scheduled a follow-up meeting with 

18 the hope that many of these actions will 

19 actually have some, you know, responses from 

NIOSH. I thin, it is January 20th 20 or 

21 somewhere late January for a face-to-face 

22 meeting.
331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I know 

2 from looking at the report on sort of NIOSH 

3 reports due coming up that there is -- it 

4 looks like there is significant reports

5 ongoing for Savannah River. I'm not that 

6 familiar with --

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, 

8 there is some significant work that has to be 

9 done, I guess, if that's what you are asking?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes. You 

12 know, some of it is back to the -- maybe not 

13 back to the drawing board, but, you know, 

14 working with the raw data and formulating the 

15 models. And, you know, we are at the early 

16 stages of convincing the Work Group and SC&A 

17 that they have got bounding approaches for 

18 certain things.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 

20 SEC Review Work Group, that's the one I Chair. 

21 We focused on, obviously, Dow Madison, so 

22 that's the one that we discussed and will 
332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discuss again at the next meeting.

2 The other issue related there is 

3 the 250 day issue, when we will be -- that 

4 Work Group will be meeting probably by 

5 conference call to discuss that. We have some 

6 follow-up to do after the prior Board meeting 

7 where some of these issues were discussed.

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: Do you have a 

9 date on that?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I have to--

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim, can I --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Christmas Eve, I 

13 was thinking.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Jim, let me add 

16 one thing on Savannah River. I think our next 

17 -- our February meeting is in Augusta, I 

18 believe, and if nothing else, I think we 

19 should do an update of the Savannah River Work 

20 Group.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: We probably won't 
333

NEAL 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 doubt we will be in a position to make a 

2 motion, but at least an in depth update on the 

3 outstanding issues for the site. I can -- I 

4 think we can do that. And we'll have more 

5 information after the Work Group meeting on 

January 20th 6 .

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Also, too, Jim, 

10 if Josie gets her problems taken care of, it 

11 will help some with Savannah River.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Keep up the good 

13 work, Josie. We are right behind you all the 

14 way. Okay.

15 TBD-6000?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: TBD-6000 Work 

Group met on October 12th 17 . We have three 

18 things on our plate. The first of which is 

19 the TBD-6000 document itself. All of the open 

20 issues on that document now have been closed 

21 with the exception of one item, which is the 

22 resuspension factor issue, which is a site-
334

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wide issue.

2 And so that is being handled by a 

3 different group. So we are all clear in the 

4 sense on the TBD-6000 itself as a working 

5 document.

6 Our big focus right now is on 

7 Appendix BB, which is General Steel 

8 Industries. We have both a site -- well, not 

9 a Site Profile, but the Appendix itself, BB, 

10 which is sort of a Site Profile type of 

11 document. And then we have a petition from 

12 General Steel, an SEC petition.

13 In the last several months, we 

14 have received, primarily through the 

15 petitioner, a lot of new source-term 

16 information. And the quick bottom line on all 

17 of that is that NIOSH is going back and 

18 redoing their evaluation and also their 

19 Evaluation Report on the SEC petition.

20 So we will be looking at that in 

21 detail as they come out with revised source22 term evaluations and methods of proposed dose 
335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction. We will need to have 

2 additional reviews as well by our contractors.

3 So a lot of work still to go, 

4 although we were certainly hoping to make good 

5 progress on that. We will be beginning again 

6 as soon as we get the next group of NIOSH 

7 documents to the Work Group.

8 Then the final thing I'll mention 

9 is we got underway on the Bliss & Laughlin 

10 Appendix, which has a number of findings from 

11 SC&A, and we made our first pass through on 

12 those. So those three things going on.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good. Very 

14 good. Any questions for Paul? No. Okay.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I have a 

16 quick question.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was just 

19 interested in your description that the 

20 petitioner has provided substantial 

21 information that has changed kind of 

22 understanding the source-terms. Could you 
336

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just discuss that a little more?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. The 

3 petitioner through Freedom of Information 

4 activities and other work was able to identify 

5 some -- actually, a vast amount of documents 

6 which are now available, which had not been 

7 previously available, which included the old 

8 AEC licenses and related documents, as well as 

9 some state information, state regulatory 

10 information, which is delineated.

11 This is a site that has used 

12 betatrons for radiography as well as isotopic 

13 sources, including radium and cobalt and 

14 iridium and things like that.

15 And there now is a lot of pretty 

16 good information on the source-terms, both the 

17 size, there is a lot of information on 

18 location. We have some personnel dosimetry, 

19 so a lot of work and updating that.

20 Well, I don't want to get into 

21 details, but I would simply indicate to you 

22 that the petitioner has been very 
337

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conscientious on seeking information that 

2 didn't appear to be available initially. I 

3 know one can argue that NIOSH perhaps should 

4 have found this originally, but there is a --

5 well, we -- I don't want to get into that 

6 debate.

7 The material was found and it has 

8 been distributed. The Work Group has the 

9 material, as does NIOSH and SC&A. So we are 

10 all taking a good look at this material.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, I mean, 

12 I think that is fantastic. I'm wondering if 

13 there are lessons learned from kind of 

14 research strategies that the petitioner 

15 employed that could help us in the future 

16 think about research strategies for collecting 

17 additional information?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: There probably 

19 are. I don't think this is the point at which 

20 we would discuss them here. 

21 One of the things to realize is 

22 that some times at the first crack, these 
338

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agencies don't find things. And there is a 

2 sense in which persistence does some times pay 

3 off. This is one of those times.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If you know 

5 anything how governmental agencies work, it is 

6 a lot -- it sort of depends who you have 

7 looking, who you request, how the request is 

8 handled, the time and so forth.

9 And I think we are learning and it 

10 is at all these sites that, you know, new 

11 sources of records become available over time 

12 and it's just hard. I'm not -- actually, a 

13 fault of the NIOSH strategy is, or approach or 

14 what the contractor actually did, but it is 

15 just we keep learning where these records are 

16 stored and so forth.

17 And having looked for records 

18 within, you know, state and with the federal 

19 government myself, from within, it's amazing 

20 to me what can suddenly appear, what somebody 

21 has in their file cabinet some place.

22 So good. Thank you, Paul. Henry, 
339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 6001?

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. We have 

3 met twice and we also are going to request a 

4 name change. That 6001 no longer is going to 

5 exist as a document and all the appendices are 

6 being converted into Site Profiles.

7 So the good news is 6001 had --

8 was one of the early documents and in updating 

9 that and putting it into the specific 

10 components of the site is going to be very 

11 helpful.

12 But there really isn't a 6001. 

13 All that remains are the appendices.

14 Our group is -

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I thought that 

16 this was like you were trying to snooker us 

17 into --

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: No, no, no, no. 

19 I mean, it's in, I think, our Work Group 

20 would -- was supportive of the decision to 

21 decommission that document or whatever is 

22 being done with it, because it did have a lot 
340

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of problems that then were reflected in the 

2 other document.

3 So this way, everyone -- every 

4 document, every appendix will be a stand alone 

5 process.

6 We are working on, very strongly, 

7 three sites as well as a fourth site. The 

8 first is Electro Met and that, I believe, is 

9 Appendix C of the former 6001.

10 And that one we have been working 

11 through a matrix and I think we are making 

12 considerable progress there. The issue again 

13 is ability to calculate bounding doses on 

14 that.

15 One of the interesting things is 

16 SC&A was not requested to review the Appendix 

17 C formally, but were charged to do the 

18 Petition Evaluation Report, which, of course, 

19 then overflows into the Appendix C. So they 

20 are continuing to make this a more 

21 comprehensive review than just the petition 

22 review.
341

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But we hope to -- we are cutting 

2 down on the number of issues now. We have 

3 resolved quite a few. And our next meeting is 

4 going to be in March and we are hoping to 

have, at least, at our November 4th 5 meeting --

6 there was a commitment by both SC&A and NIOSH 

7 to bring things forward, so that we can begin 

8 to make some decisions and recommendations, so 

9 fairly soon.

10 The second one that we worked on 

11 is United Nuclear. That is one where new --

12 the other sites new data was identified. So 

13 SC&A has been charged to review that data to 

14 see is it going to impact our review.

15 Again, that is well underway and 

16 the issues are bounding internal/external and 

17 neutron exposures. We have a revised issues 

18 matrix. We have come to conclusion on a 

19 number of the matrices issues, so that's 

20 another one we are hoping to, now that the new 

21 data is hopefully going to have end it 

22 through, have a better sense of where we 
342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 stand.

2 The third is the Hooker 

3 Electrochemical. That was a new one for us. 

4 That's again Appendix AA. They are reviewing. 

5 SC&A has been tasked with the SEC petition. 

6 And we had a brief discussion and we were, 

7 again, identified issues to move forward on 

for March 4th 8 .

9 The third one or the fourth one is 

10 Baker-Perkins, which SC&A was charged to do 

11 the review of Appendix P, which they have 

12 completed, but that wasn't enough time for 

13 NIOSH to really respond. But we did have a 

14 fleshing out of what the issues are, so 

15 everybody is cognizant of those.

16 Again, we are hoping at the March 

4th 17 meeting to be able to strongly move 

18 forward toward some recommendations.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I was 

20 going to say if you don't like 6001, we can 

21 give you like 7000, if you want a better 

22 number that differentiates you from, you know, 
343

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a nice round number like Paul has.

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: We want to know 

3 how many of those appendices are ours that we 

4 can really --

5 MEMBER BEACH: All of them.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: All of them. 

7 Move them out.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You seem to be 

9 moving ahead.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Some of these 

11 are pretty small and, you know, very short 

12 periods of exposure times. So we are hoping 

13 to be able to conclude fairly rapidly.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I am 

15 going to go a little bit out of order here, 

16 because of the time, and Mark, do you want to 

17 give an update on the Subcommittee on Dose 

18 Reconstruction?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Sure. We did 

20 have another meeting with the Subcommittee on 

21 Dose Reconstruction. We continued. Mainly, 

22 we are doing the nuts and bolts of the case 
344

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reviews that the Board is working on. And we 

are working on the 7th, 8th and 9th 2 sets. Each 

3 set of cases is about 30.

4 We are doing the comment 

5 resolution on the Subcommittee between SC&A 

6 has findings and then NIOSH responds whether 

7 they agree with the SC&A finding or not. And 

8 we have been going through these findings for 

9 a while.

At this point, we are in the 7th 10 , 

8th and 9th 11 set. You notice that today we just 

picked the cases for the 14th 12 set, so we are 

13 lagging a little behind, but it's hard to 

14 schedule more frequent Subcommittee meetings, 

15 because NIOSH is also lagging behind on 

16 responses. It is a resource question 

17 constantly.

18 We also took -- we got a first 

19 look at if you are a member of the First 100 

20 Cases Report that I really wanted to close 

21 out. We had a follow-up on that, which was a 

22 lot of these quality control findings, and we 
345

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 asked NIOSH to go back and sort of look at 

2 what -- you know, do a little bit of drill 

3 down and look at what was the nature of these.

4 Was there any consistent factor 

5 that was causing some of these quality control 

6 findings? They give us a preliminary report, 

7 but we literally got it handed to us at the 

8 meeting that day. So we are just in the 

9 starting point of reviewing that, but we do 

10 hope to soon close out that first hundred 

11 cases report.

12 And then I guess the other thing 

13 we asked, in relationship to that, NIOSH to 

14 come back to the Subcommittee and give us a 

15 detailed presentation of their Quality 

16 Assurance/Quality Control Program with regard 

17 to how they are doing the dose 

18 reconstructions.

19 Because we sort of want to know 

20 what the existing system looks like, so that 

21 we can then see if there is any need for the 

22 Board to make recommendations about that 
346

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 system. If it is effective, if we think there 

2 is flaws, so the starting point for us was to 

3 get inside the system a little more and 

4 understand it a little better.

5 Certain elements are obvious. 

6 There is peer reviews and things like that. 

7 But some things are not as obvious, so we are 

8 trying to get a presentation of that at the 

9 next Subcommittee meeting.

10 And I think that was about it. 

11 That was what we covered at the last meeting, 

12 so we are continuing to plug away at the case 

13 findings.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Great. 

15 Any questions for Mark? Okay. We are now 

16 going to move on for LANL. So, Mark, if you 

17 are ready?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I didn't 

20 mean to surprise you there.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: I didn't know if 

22 we were waiting or what we were doing.
347

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no. We are 

2 scheduled. I think we will just keep going.

3 So for those of you in the 

4 audience, we are going to first have an update 

5 on the review of the LANL from Mark Griffon, 

6 who is the Chair of the Work Group there. And 

7 then we will be open for public comment.

8 So if you wish to make a public 

9 comment and haven't signed up yet, please, go 

10 out to the registration desk and do so. And 

11 we will move on. So, Mark?

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you have a 

14 presentation?

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't have one 

16 to put up there really.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I don't 

19 really. It's not --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's a little too 

22 rough.
348

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I'll give a 

3 presentation of the status of the Work Group 

4 on the LANL SEC Petition 109.

5 And we actually had a recent 

meeting, November 16th 6 , in Cincinnati to go 

7 through several of the outstanding issues on 

8 the SEC petition.

9 I do want to step through, since 

10 we've got quite a few interested people here, 

11 obviously, a little bit of the time line with 

12 you and then go through the remaining 

13 outstanding issues that we have on the Work 

14 Group.

15 NIOSH qualified the SEC petition 

16 on 6/17/2008, so I want to go through these 

17 dates slowly, because I know one of the 

18 issues, obviously, before many of our petition 

19 reviews is the timeliness of this.

20 So 6/17/2008, the petition was 

21 qualified. The Class Definition that was 

22 qualified was focused on service support 
349

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 workers. And I won't read the whole thing, 

2 but it focused on service support workers from 

3 the years 1976 through 2005.

4 But in our assessment, I think 

5 this is an important thing, and in NIOSH's 

6 review in their Evaluation Report, we have 

7 looked at all workers during this time period. 

8 So we are kind of looking at all workers, but 

9 certainly haven't forgot about the support 

10 worker question.

11 So the first date qualified 

12 6/17/2008. The Evaluation Report was issued 

13 by NIOSH on January 22, 2009. Subsequent to 

14 that, the Board, and I'm not sure exactly when 

15 we did this, but, tasked NIOSH or tasked SC&A 

16 with reviewing the Evaluation Report.

17 SC&A issued a preliminary report 

18 on their findings from their review on April 

19 8, 2010. Now, part of the -- that's over a 

20 year later, if you are keeping track of these 

21 dates, and I think these dates are important. 

22 That's over a year later.
350

NEAL 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 want to point out that there 

2 were two big reasons for the delay in this. 

3 The initial Evaluation Report noted that they 

4 were going to have -- they were relying 

5 heavily on certain coworker models. And NIOSH 

6 indicated that the data was available to do 

7 these coworker models.

8 However, the data was not even in 

9 a database and the coworker models were not 

10 available for review. So we, basically, told 

11 SC&A don't give us a report now. Wait until 

12 these things are done and then review it, 

13 because there is no sense having to go back 

14 and look at it again.

15 So there was probably a six to 

16 eight month delay in there while we were 

17 waiting for NIOSH to get those models 

18 developed.

After that April 8th 19 submission by 

20 SC&A, we pretty quickly put together the first 

21 Work Group meeting on April 29, 2010. And 

22 then as I said, we just had a second meeting 
351

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

on November 3rd 1 , a couple weeks ago.

2 So we have, depending on how you 

3 count them, six. And the reason I say that is 

4 some of them are kind of grouped together, 

5 there is three or four findings in one topic, 

6 as Andrew, who has been attending all these 

7 meetings with us knows very well.

8 But generally, there are six or 

9 seven remaining issues, but I will say that 

10 several of them are very large, you know, 

11 fairly large all encompassing type issues.

12 So the first one is the ability to 

13 reconstruct doses from activation products and

14 fission products. In other words, SC&A is 

15 saying that they have remaining questions 

16 about how NIOSH is going to calculate the 

17 doses related to activation products or 

18 fission product doses.

19 And just a little bit of history 

20 on this is in the Evaluation Report, one 

21 technique was mentioned as the option NIOSH 

22 was going to go forward with. SC&A had some 
352

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concerns about that, as well as the Work 

2 Group, and NIOSH has since then come back and 

3 said they are reconsidering that, but they 

4 have other data and they are still confident 

5 they can do the dose reconstruction, but it is 

6 going to be using a different technique. So 

7 that's number one, activation productions and 

8 fission products.

9 Number two is the ability to 

10 reconstruct doses from exotic radionuclide 

11 exposures. And just to be clear, when I say 

12 exotic, we have been using this on several of 

13 the Work Groups, but in this case, some of the 

14 ones we are considering under the heading 

15 exotic are curium-244, californium-252, 

16 thorium-232, neptunium-237, actinium-227.

17 In other words, sort of the non18 plutonium/uranium ones is the main ones that 

19 fit into that category.

20 Again, in this situation, SC&A or 

21 I mean, NIOSH initially came in with a 

22 proposal to use a substitute radionuclide 
353

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approach to bound the doses for all these 

2 nuclides. And the Work Group as well as SC&A 

3 questioned this approach for several reasons.

4 One, we want to know more about 

5 where these exotics were used, when they were 

6 used. We want to know if there are existing 

7 monitoring records. And if you have 

8 insufficient data, if there is some data, but 

9 it's insufficient to reconstruct all doses for 

10 the individuals, then we want to see a 

11 demonstration of how you might use like 

12 plutonium data to bound doses for these other 

13 nuclides.

14 So largely, I would say, this is 

15 in the very -- we are back to the drawing 

16 board on this one.

17 Number three is the completeness 

18 and reliability of in vivo and in vitro 

19 records and the adequacy of the coworker 

20 models. Again, when I say overarching topics, 

21 this kind of encompasses several things.

22 The one thing I will say, NIOSH 
354

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 has validated the primary radionuclide 

2 urinalysis records, the in vitro records, for 

3 plutonium, uranium and, I believe, tritium. 

4 And overall, this SC&A had -- was pretty 

5 pleased with the results from this validation 

6 by NIOSH. That's one component.

7 The big outstanding issues on this 

8 action item are the in vivo data, which 

9 although procedures suggest there was a much 

10 better in vivo system in place, we have yet to 

11 be able to examine the records. And we are 

12 working on getting those from NIOSH. NIOSH 

13 has to look at those closer and validate those 

14 and see whether they can be used to bound 

15 doses, to reconstruct doses.

16 The other is on those exotics that 

17 I just mentioned, the data is still very much 

18 in question, how much data exists for the 

19 exotics and whether they can determine who was 

20 exposed to the exotics, that's always a 

21 problem is if you only use these certain 

22 things for very short time frames and certain 
355

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 buildings, but how do you know who went in and 

2 out of those buildings?

3 And this also comes up in terms of 

4 the Support Service Workers. You know, if it 

5 went beyond the buildings into the 

6 environment, then how are these exposures 

7 assigned to people that might have been out 

8 and around the buildings, not necessarily 

9 inside.

10 The fourth major item is the 

11 feasibility dose reconstruction for neutrons, 

12 post 1975, obviously. The Class we are 

13 looking at is '76 to 2005. So dose 

14 reconstruction for neutrons, I think of out of 

15 the four I have just mentioned, this is 

16 probably the closest. It has less remaining 

17 big action items. I think we are closer to 

18 resolution on this.

19 Number five is the feasibility of 

20 dose reconstruction for the tritide exposures. 

21 At this point, we have not -- we don't have a 

22 model before us, before the Work Group. I 
356

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know, in part, this is due to Josie's Work 

2 Group. You know, I think part of what NIOSH 

3 is looking at is Mound has very similar issues 

4 regarding tritides and how things play out at 

5 the Mound Work Group may impact how they want 

6 to do the reconstructions for the LANL workers 

7 on tritides.

8 Some of the similar problems 

9 remain though, you know, the sort of who, 

10 where and how much issues, you know. A lot of 

11 these, they weren't used in great quantities 

12 and they might have had limited people 

13 involved in the campaigns when they were doing 

14 this tritide work.

15 But the question always is can you 

16 really track who might have been in and out of 

17 those buildings, where they were using them 

18 over this large time span.

19 And the last category is, I have 

20 grouped this into, special Classes of workers 

21 or work areas and several of these came 

22 directly from the petition, either in the 
357

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 initial petition or in the petitioner's 

2 participation in our Work Group process.

3 The first one is a question about 

4 workers working adjacent to the LAMPF, L-A-M5 P-F, facility, some potential exposures from a 

6 holding pond in that area. Two broader ones 

7 which one is unmonitored exposures to the 

8 support service personnel. This is a broad 

9 question. Were all these support service 

10 personnel monitored? And if they weren't 

11 monitored, should they have been monitored? 

12 That's the sort of question.

13 You know, were they in areas where 

14 they should have been monitored? And how do 

15 you bound those exposures? So that's sort of 

16 a pretty broad question that probably falls 

17 into several of the earlier topics as well.

18 Item C under that last item is 

19 questions raised about NIOSH's environmental 

20 model, especially with regard to these 

21 exotics, whether any of these exotics should 

22 have been included in the environmental model.
358

NEAL 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 the environmental model is, 

2 for those who aren't following this as 

3 closely, often used for people that were 

4 considered not to be in the buildings, but 

5 they might have been working outside of 

6 buildings, so it's usually a lower internal 

7 dose, but it's a way that NIOSH can model 

8 their internal dose without having actual 

9 bioassay records.

10 And then the last item under that 

11 sort of falls under environmental also, but 

12 questions raised about exposures received 

13 during responses to the fires, either during 

14 the fire or subsequent, because of 

15 resuspension of the materials off the ground 

16 after the fire.

17 So the next steps for the Work 

18 Group and for NIOSH and SC&A, obviously, those 

19 first six items with many subset actions are -

20 - most of which are falling on NIOSH, although 

21 SC&A does have some actions out of our last 

22 Work Group meeting as well.
359

NEAL 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 I do want to point out again 

2 that many of the responses or these issues are 

3 in the early stages, unfortunately, and to 

4 some extent that is because the initial 

5 approach offered to the Work Group and to SC&A 

6 in our deliberative process has been abandoned 

7 and now they are going with a second or 

8 another approach.

9 So we have shifted gears a little 

10 bit and, you know, that has slowed us down in 

11 this process. So that's especially true for 

12 the fission products, activation products for 

13 the exotics and for the tritides.

14 The last thing I'll say is that we 

15 are planning a Work Group meeting on February 

16 11, 2011. We did want it before the next 

17 Board meeting, so we scheduled it before the 

18 next Board meeting.

19 And in the last Work Group 

20 meeting, we tried very hard to get commitments 

21 from NIOSH on several of these models, like 

22 for the exotics. We wanted dates, you know, 
360

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when are you going to have this completed. 

2 And while it may not -- I don't think they 

3 committed to having everything done before 

February 11th 4 , I would say 85 to 90 percent of 

5 what we had in our action list, they have 

6 committed to having done before that meeting.

7 So we realize, as a Work Group I 

8 realize, that we really have to drive this 

9 thing forward and close it out, because a lot 

10 of people have been waiting a long time for 

11 answers on this. And, you know, believe me, 

12 that definitely is in our mind.

13 So that's all I have, Jim.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Board 

15 Members that have questions for Mark?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or other Work 

17 Group Members if I missed anything.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Work Group?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Please.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, Josie, we 

21 know it's not all you, so don't -

22 MEMBER BEACH: I started out to 
361

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 defend myself.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, no, we know. 

3 We know who is -- yes, Dave?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, thank 

5 you. You started out by saying that the SEC 

6 petition was written as service support 

7 workers, but that you have kind of focused 

8 more broadly on all LANL workers.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The 

11 distinction is between Zia workers? Is that 

12 what the concept was for writing this as 

13 service support workers? That it was kind of 

14 the contractor or it's kind of the difference 

15 between Zia and LANL workers?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, it is more. 

17 It's any. I mean, the security guard, yes. 

18 Andrew can respond to that a little bit. He 

19 is the author of the petition.

20 MR. EVASKOVICH: I'm Andrew 

21 Evaskovich, the LANL petitioner for this 

22 petition. Initially, when I started doing the 
362

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 research for the petition, it was intended to 

2 be for guards. But as a result of what I 

3 learned during -- you know, from the 

4 environmental model, it looked much broader.

5 But the main issue was support 

6 service workers, because they talked to other 

7 people that worked in crafts, you know, the 

8 plumbers, the pipefitters, welders, 

9 carpenters, laborers, different people like 

10 that.

11 And the issue is we move around

12 from buildings -- in various buildings. And 

13 you guys heard this today, I mean, there is an 

14 issue of movement around different areas and 

15 tying people -- and/or tying people to the 

16 source-term. So that's what the issue is for 

17 support service workers. Does that answer 

18 your question?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, okay.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: So it's a unique 

21 exposure potential, but we have also figured 

22 that, you know, as long as we are basically 
363

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking at the entire site for that time 

2 period, we better look at operations workers 

3 as well.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And looking at 

5 this as -- and looking at the LANL workers in 

6 their totalities, I have before heard 

7 discussions about the differences in data 

8 quality between Zia workers and other LANL 

9 workers.

10 It's not clear to me whether like 

11 health physics records are -- are they an 

12 integrated hold now or --

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not sure how 

14 -- if those records are integrated or not. I 

15 don't know if NIOSH can speak to that. 

16 Anyway, I'm not sure. I know that we have 

17 looked at the internal dose records.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have any 

19 particular insight tonight. I think we might 

20 be able to find something out --

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: This week, but 
364

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right now, I don't have anything. 

2 DR. NETON: I don't recall 

3 exactly, but I would remind the Board that 

4 this is a later period. This is in the 1976 

5 forward period.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

7 DR. NETON: Where things tend to 

8 be a little bit better than they were in the 

9 past. So I suspect that we do have fairly 

10 good or better records than we had.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, our 

12 preliminary review anyway, it was for the 

13 internal and this is for the primary 

14 radionuclides, the plutonium/uranium/tritium, 

15 the internal dose records when compared to the

16 raw records look pretty good.

17 And there are questions about, you 

18 know, whether it was adequate, whether it had 

19 been, you know, transferred correctly from raw 

20 data to database and that has compared very 

21 favorably, you know. And even where there are 

22 errors, it in no way biases sort of the 
365

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distribution of the data.

2 So NIOSH looked at that pretty 

3 closely. Our remaining concerns are more on 

4 the exotics and these, but also the fission 

5 products/activation products, these sort of 

6 unique exposures and how you decide, number 

7 one, how to bound and, number two, the 

8 question of who do you assign it to.

9 You know, if it was only a limited 

10 operation, do you assign it site-wide? And, 

11 you know, is that a plausible sort of 

12 scenario, that kind of thing.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any other 

14 Board questions? 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask 

16 one more question?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And moving 

19 away from this thinking about the kind of the 

20 contractor issues and the kind of data 

21 attention to I think it is a really -- it's a 

22 great point that four people who are -- whose 
366

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 primarily work location is not assigned to 

2 kind of a specific physical location, it makes 

3 the exposure assessment much more difficult.

4 Do you or can you speak to what 

5 the practice was? At some sites you would 

6 have workers that are assigned to a place and 

7 there is health physicists, they are assigned 

8 to a health physics area, for example, and 

9 there is a group of health physicists who are 

10 responsible for people who enter into a 

11 certain area.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. We are 

13 looking into this.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: What was the 

15 practice at LANL for people who were 

16 transitory or migratory? Were they --

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, we have had 

18 quite a bit of debate on this, but there is 

19 something called the Health Physics Checklist, 

20 I believe. Is that the correct term, Andrew? 

21 Yes. And we have just asked for -- NIOSH has 

22 looked at these for a while.
367

NEAL 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 there is a question of whether 

2 these tie closely to the database data. 

3 That's one thing we want to look at as to 

4 whether, you know, people that were identified 

5 for bioassay on these checklists, whether they 

6 actually did carry through and do the 

7 bioassay, you know, who is on these 

8 checklists, whether it would include these 

9 sort of support service workers that were 

10 going in and out.

11 So we are just starting to look at 

12 that raw, although NIOSH has looked at it. It 

13 has just been posted for the Work Group and 

14 SC&A to consider further.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The same 

16 question we have had.

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Any 

19 other? Okay. I tend to move directly into 

20 the public comment period. No break. 

21 Individuals may take breaks as we go through, 

22 but people have been patient and they have 
368

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 homes to go to. It's hard to keep to a 15 

2 minute break, so we will go right into the 

3 public comment period. And, Ted, do you want 

4 to give your spiel?

5 MR. KATZ: Spiel, yes. So just to 

6 be very brief, we will be speaking with, I 

7 think, beginning at least with people in the 

8 room. But for everyone listening who plans to 

9 comment, all of the proceedings of this Board 

10 are transcribed verbatim, so there is a 

11 transcript of everything that is said during 

12 the meeting.

13 And those transcriptions go up on 

14 the NIOSH website where everyone in the public 

15 can read and find out what happened at the 

16 Board meeting and what was said.

17 So if you comment here, everything 

18 you say will be captured and that will be 

19 available to the public. And the only things 

20 that won't be kept in that transcript for the 

21 public are if you talk about another person 

22 and their experiences, because we protect that 
369

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as private information for that other person.

2 But anything you say about 

3 yourself or your own family, that would all be 

4 preserved in the record. So you just need to 

5 understand that. There is, out on the table, 

6 sort of a full description of this rule for 

7 redaction, as it is called. And it is also on 

8 the NIOSH website, if you know that website, 

9 it's under the Advisory Board Section of that 

10 website. It explains this policy as well.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And can I just 

12 add that we are mainly here to listen to your 

13 public comments. If we can provide just sort 

14 of a factual issue or something that we can 

15 answer directly, we will. We will -- if it's 

16 something regarding an individual claim or 

17 something, we will refer you to NIOSH staff 

18 people that can talk more specifically to 

19 that.

20 The Board does not deal with 

21 individual claim matters. To that end, we do 

22 keep track of all these comments. And if you 
370

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 heard some of our discussions earlier, we are 

2 trying to make sure that the information you 

3 provide us does get not only sort of immediate 

4 response, but also that we have it available 

5 as the Work Group and NIOSH and the Board's 

6 contractor review, in this case, LANL or 

7 another site are going through that. So 

8 we are keeping track of that and using your 

9 comments. I'm going to go through the list in 

10 the order that, I believe, people signed up. 

11 Okay. Okay.

12 So we will go through order. You 

13 know, again, I apologize ahead of time if I 

14 mispronounce your name or confuse you, but not 

15 all of the handwriting can I read and mine is 

16 probably worse than most of yours, so I 

17 understand people here.

18 So I'll do the best I can. And we 

19 do have some people from some of the 

20 Congressional Offices that are here. And the 

21 first person to speak will be the 

22 representative from Congressman Lujan's 
371

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Office.

2 I'll also say when you are making 

3 public comments, go to the mike and the mikes 

4 are on. If you would rather use the podium, 

5 that's fine also, but whatever anybody would 

6 like to do. Okay. 

7 MS. MANZANARES: Okay. Good 

8 afternoon, Jennifer Manzanares, Congressman 

9 Ben Ray Lujan's Office. Good afternoon. Dr. 

10 James Melius, thank you for allowing me the 

11 opportunity to offer a statement for the 

12 record and I send my regrets that I could not 

13 join you in person today.

14 I write in strong support of 

15 Special Exposure Cohort Petition SEC-00109 

16 regarding Los Alamos National Laboratory 

17 support services workers from January 1, 1976 

18 through December 31, 2005.

19 In addition to my support of SEC20 00109, I want to bring 42 CFR 83.13 to the 

21 Board's attention. This regulation reads: 

22 "Deadlines: (1) No later than 180 days after 
372

NEAL 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 date on which the President receives a 

2 petition for designation as members of the 

3 Special Exposure Cohort, the Director of the 

4 National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

5 Health shall submit to the Advisory Board on 

6 Radiation and Worker Health a recommendation 

7 on that petition including all supporting 

8 documentation."

9 In the instance of SEC-00109, 

10 NIOSH completed the evaluation 60 days past 

11 the 180 day requirement. It is concerning 

12 that NIOSH was unable to complete the report 

13 for SEC-00109 in the required 180 days. And I 

14 respectfully ask that the Board evaluate the 

15 process to ensure that all SEC petition 

16 reports are being completed in a timely 

17 manner.

18 Finally, I respectfully ask that 

19 the Board consider the process by which it 

20 uses surrogate data from workers at different 

21 facilities to reconstruct doses.

22 There are different environmental 
373

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 factors that create unique impact upon 

2 workers, so using data from a different 

3 geographic location could lead to incorrect 

4 reconstruction.

5 Surrogate data introduces a large 

6 potential for error and therefore may not be 

7 the best method by which to reconstruct doses 

8 for potentially impacted employees under SEC9 00109.

10 Your response and consideration of 

11 this request is greatly appreciated and I look 

12 forward to hearing from you on this matter. 

13 My constituents would appreciate a response to 

14 their concerns regarding the failure to meet 

15 the 180 day requirement and the use of 

16 surrogate data.

17 Thank you again for your time 

18 today. Sincerely, Ben R. Lujan, United States 

19 House of Representatives, New Mexico District 

20 3.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

22 you. Now, I believe we have a comment from 
374

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Representative Salazar's office. No? Not 

2 now, okay.

3 And then Andrew? Okay.

4 MR. EVASKOVICH: Okay. I think we 

5 are ready now. Good evening. My name is 

6 Andrew Evaskovich. I'm the LANL petitioner 

7 for SEC Petition 00109. Dr. Melius and the 

8 Advisory Board, I would like to thank you for 

9 taking time to listen to me.

10 I would also like to extend thanks 

11 to Mark Griffon, the Chair of the Work Group, 

12 for allowing me to participate in the meetings 

13 in the depth that I have.

14 I have pictures as well, so let me 

15 start with that. I think mine are better than 

16 Sam's, at least this one is.

17 The reason why I included this 

18 cartoon is because whenever I'm at these 

19 meetings, I tend to feel like Aesop. Okay. I 

20 think I made my point.

21 So to avoid that, I'm going to 

22 talk a little bit about baseball tonight. The 
375

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reason is I think it makes a good analogy to 

2 tie into kind of what I'm talking about as far 

3 as doing these dose reconstructions as NIOSH 

4 says they can do them.

5 And baseball is all American. I 

6 think people are familiar with it, so it works 

7 as an analogy, you know. Everybody talks 

8 about hot dogs, apple pie and it's as American 

9 as petitioning the government for redress 

10 grievances.

11 We have got the basic strike zone 

12 here and if NIOSH were playing ball, this is 

13 what it would look like, in my opinion. You 

14 have your dose reconstruction at the center, 

15 which would be the normal strike zone. And 

16 then when they had added substitute data, they 

17 have extended the strike zone out quite a bit.

18 And I think it is very difficult 

19 for the petitioner to get a hit. They either 

20 are going to be throwing some pretty wild 

21 balls out there or it is going to be very easy 

22 for them to get a strike, so that the hitter 
376

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is going to be swinging at anything. He will 

2 be chasing a paper cup, as they say.

3 To illustrate what I'm talking 

4 about, when I was preparing my petition, I 

5 started reviewing the dose reconstruction 

6 methods that are published, 42 CFR 82, Part 

7 83, the OCAS-IG-001 for external dose 

8 reconstruction and the internal dose 

9 reconstruction implementation guideline.

10 Additionally, I reviewed the other 

11 Site Profile or the other SEC Evaluation 

12 Reports in order to get an idea of how things 

13 work. And during my reviews, I think this is 

14 the only thing that I have found, well, there 

15 are a few things, but this is like the main 

16 one that refers to substitution.

17 And, basically, it just deals with 

18 using work site data as opposed to actually 

19 substituting one radionuclide for another.

20 In the Evaluation Report, it said 

21 these health physics records indicate that 

22 exotic radionuclides were handled, controlled 
377

NEAL 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 monitored in a similar manner as the 

2 primary nuclides.

3 I think an issue of safety is a 

4 concern, because, as you can see, even as 

5 early as 1928, studies were done of safety and 

6 industrial accidents are attributed 88 percent 

7 to unsafe human acts. And further studies 

8 indicate 70 percent in all walks of life that 

9 are done by human error or human error causes.

10 I think that is an issue because 

11 NIOSH wants to review the policies and 

12 procedures, but I think they need to look at 

13 other sources of data. So the question that I 

14 have is were exotics mishandled in a similar 

15 manner as the primary radionuclides?

16 And an example of that was the 

17 Sigma americium contamination incident in 

18 2005. And this is kind of a review of that 

19 incident and how the materials were handled 

20 and monitored.

21 The PF-4 staff placed 18 pellets 

22 and nine Swagelok containers in preparation 
378

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for shipping to them, to Sigma, for welding 

2 into cans. This is for a new process that was 

3 being developed in coordination with Battelle 

4 in Pennsylvania.

5 They sealed them inside a plastic 

6 bag and then the bag was wiped down afterwards 

7 with a wetted cheese cloth. They monitored 

8 the outside of the bags for contamination, but 

9 these were not documented. And this 

10 information is in the Type B Accident 

11 Investigation Report.

12 The staff that produced them, they 

13 realized that there was a probability of 

14 contamination on the Swageloks and they knew 

15 it would come possibly from americium, but 

16 they didn't follow-up on that.

17 They didn't attempt to reduce the 

18 contamination when they were doing on the 

19 Swageloks and after they had processed them 

20 and they did not attempt to evaluate the 

21 contamination levels on the Swageloks.

22 A Sigma worker who received the 
379

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 components was concerned about low levels of 

2 uranium, because there were uranium pellets 

3 and that was what he was going to be working 

4 with. And neither party knew that they had 

5 been highly contaminated with the americium6 241 from an unconnected action performed in 

7 the same glove box.

8 So a week later, these were 

9 actually transported over to Sigma inside 

10 drums and packing material. The worker 

11 received a shipment and took it into Room R-3. 

12 This is where the main contamination 

13 occurred. And he placed it inside the laser14 welding glove box and opened the packaging 

15 inside the glove box.

16 An important thing is there were 

17 no contamination survey equipment in the 

18 immediate area, so after he had finished 

19 unpacking everything, he had to move to 

20 another room in order to do a frisk to make 

21 sure he was not contaminated. And the key 

22 thing is this frisker or this monitor did not 
380

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 detect any contamination.

2 And during the subsequent 

3 investigation, RCTs found contamination on the

4 frisker handle. This is from the americium.

On July 25th 5 , RCT-1 went into Room 

6 R-3 to post the laser-welding glove box and 

7 she was inadvertent -- she inadvertently found 

8 the used radioactive material transfer bag in 

9 the sanitary trash. I think this is key 

10 because that's the first time she knew that 

11 the package had been opened. So, basically, 

12 procedures were not followed, because the RCT 

13 should have been there in order to do the 

14 opening as well. Prior to this discovery, she 

15 was unaware of it. 

16 Now, in kind of a review, PF-4 

17 workers did not monitor the Swageloks. They 

18 did not monitor the documented results, 

19 because they are saying the did monitor the 

20 outside of the bag, but they didn't document 

21 that.

22 And the monitoring at Sigma didn't 
381

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 detect it, as far as the monitor that the 

2 worker used after he unpacked the items. This 

3 is interesting because the incident would have 

4 gone undetected if the trash had been emptied. 

5 And the custodian that worked that area was 

6 off for a week, therefore, the trash was not 

7 emptied and that's why this was discovered.

8 As a result of this, contamination 

9 was spread to four states and it made the 

10 national news.

11 I bring this up because Jim Neton 

12 said at the prior Work Group meeting in April 

13 that he had a weight of evidence and they are 

14 looking at the radiation protection program to 

15 document the exposures that were maintained.

16 Now, I think it calls into 

17 question the quality of the radiation 

18 protection program and although this is one 

19 incident, there have been other incidents.

20 The Tiger Team Reports, Price21 Anderson findings, Clean Air Act lawsuit, 

22 these are all forms of documentation, I think, 
382

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that require the Advisory Board to ensure the 

2 data that NIOSH intends to use is, in fact, 

3 adequate.

4 So let me sum up real quickly 

5 here. Referring back to Aesop, I think a 

6 problem that everybody has with this program 

7 is the jargon. And it is hard for us to 

8 understand or comprehend what is being 

9 discussed here.

10 And I think you guys realize that. 

11 I understand these meetings are for your 

12 benefit, but we are an audience here, so it is 

13 for our benefit as well, because we are 

14 claimants or petitioners.

15 So all I'm asking is maybe is 

16 there some way, you know, we could explain 

17 this better? And I have raised this issue 

18 before with Larry Elliott when he was the 

19 Director at DCAS or OCAS then. I have talked 

20 to Stu. I have talked to Jim Neton about 

21 this.

22 I know it's a problem. I am 
383

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 willing to work with you on it. You know, I 

2 think it would help as far as the dose 

3 reconstructions, the reports that go out with 

4 that, the Evaluation Reports for the SEC 

5 petitions, I don't know Health Physics for 

6 Dummies.

7 You know, is it fair that NIOSH 

8 implements a new method to reconstruct dose in 

9 response to an SEC petition? And I'm 

10 referring back to this because I had tried to 

11 prepare when I wrote the petition, as far as 

12 what they are looking for in order to 

13 reconstruct dose and that's how I made my 

14 determination.

15 So the response was substitute 

16 data, which I hadn't seen before. Now, 

17 implementing these new procedures, you know, 

18 every time, it's a major complaint. I know 

19 you guys hear it, but it just seems like the 

20 modeling is a problem and part of the problem 

21 goes back to understanding.

22 Now, were the exotics mishandled 
384

NEAL 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 same as commons? I think that needs to be 

2 reviewed. I think that is not being looked 

3 at. They are just looking -- NIOSH just seems 

4 to be concerned with how they were actually 

5 handled, but still there are problems that 

6 occur. Pipes break, you have leaks, spills, 

7 different things occur, those need to be 

8 looked at as well. The incidents need to be 

9 looked at.

10 And how will the documentation of 

11 the LANL Radiation Protection Program and 

12 monitoring be evaluated considering the 

13 findings against it? I refer back to the 

14 Tiger Team Reports, Clean Air Act lawsuit, and 

15 there have been Price-Anderson findings 

16 concerning use of the bioassay or other 

17 monitoring programs at Los Alamos.

18 Thank you for your time.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

20 you, Andrew. Okay. We will add, I believe, 

21 that Senator Udall's representative will be 

22 speaking at our public comment period 
385

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tomorrow.

2 And, Andrew, if you could make 

3 your slides available to us, it would be 

4 helpful in terms of following up on the public 

5 comments.

6 MR. EVASKOVICH: I understand 

7 that. I just have to tell you I only have the 

8 license for the Dilbert cartoon to be showed 

9 here, so I can't let you guys have the Dilbert 

10 cartoon.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Several 

12 Board Members said never mind, we just want --

13 no. No, we understand that.

14 MR. EVASKOVICH: Okay. October 

15 25, 2010, just go to the Dilbert site.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Good. 

17 Thank you. The next person I have signed up 

18 is Loretta Valerio. Is Loretta here? Okay. 

19 You can either go to the podium or if you 

20 would like -- okay. Then we will -- okay. 

21 Thank you. And if you could identify yourself 

22 for the record?
386

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. VALERIO: Loretta Valerio.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MS. VALERIO: Good evening, Dr. 

4 Melius, Board Members. My name is Loretta 

5 Valerio. I am the Director of the Office of 

6 Nuclear Workers' Advocacy.

7 As you know, this is the only 

8 state advocacy office of its kind in the 

9 nation. The purpose of this office is to 

10 provide advocacy services to individuals who 

11 have filed for consideration of benefits under 

12 the EEOICPA.

13 I assist workers or their eligible 

14 survivors with the complexities of the 

15 development and adjudication of their claims. 

16 I spent a substantial amount of time 

17 reviewing dose reconstructions performed by 

18 NIOSH.

19 As a former Los Alamos National 

20 Laboratory employee, I believe I possess a 

21 greater understanding of the magnitude of the 

22 work that has been performed at one of our 
387

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nation's leading laboratories.

2 Of interest is the fact that Los 

3 Alamos is a laboratory and not merely another 

4 Department of Energy facility. As a 

5 laboratory, Los Alamos has been involved in 

6 research and development which has change the 

7 course of history.

8 At what cost has the work at Los 

9 Alamos been -- earned recognition in the 

10 scientific realm? In the past, NIOSH has 

11 acknowledged that they cannot place workers in 

12 specific operational technical areas 

13 throughout the lab prior to 1976. This was 

14 the basis of the Special Exposure Cohort 

15 submitted by [Identifying information 

16 redacted], ultimately granted by the Board.

17 Support service workers at LANL 

18 are still mobile and required to perform 

19 duties at multiple locations, including 

20 radiation contaminated areas. Many of these 

21 technical areas have changed designations 

22 since 1975 and placing workers in specific 
388

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 areas continues to be problematic.

2 Technical areas still have within 

3 them potential release sites and disposal 

4 areas that to this day still contain 

5 uncharacterized sources. This is why we 

6 believe coworker and substitute data is not a 

7 feasible method of determining dose.

8 NIOSH has located some data post9 1975. However, the data needs to be 

10 evaluated. It is unrealistic to assume that 

11 on January 1, 1976, the methods used by LANL 

12 to monitor workers changed overnight. It 

13 still took years to establish adequate 

14 monitoring methods and even still Support 

15 Service Workers are not monitored adequately 

16 or consistently.

17 Does NIOSH have strong data that 

18 reflects the use and handling of exotic 

19 radionuclides that were used in processes, say 

20 at the CMR facility, where a substantial 

21 amount of actinide chemistry has been 

22 performed? And how often were workers 
389

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitored only as a result of an event-driven 

2 incident?

3 Of interest to the Board is the 

4 fact that when I began my employment at TA-55, 

5 the plutonium facility, one of my first 

6 assignments was to prioritize and schedule the 

7 workers for whole body counts.

8 These workers who were in the 

9 plant on a daily basis, some of the workers 

10 had not participated in the in vivo program 

11 for years, even though protocol was that they 

12 have a whole body count at least every two 

13 years.

14 There were also numerous occasions 

15 where the whole body counts were canceled due 

16 to the equipment failure at the in vivo lab. 

17 These issues arose as recent as the late 

18 1990s.

19 Does NIOSH have enough data to 

20 address the quantity of exotic sources used at 

21 LANL? And how were the environmental 

22 exposures monitored and documented? Did the 
390

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 air monitors detect these exotics? Does NIOSH 

2 have in their possession exposure records from 

3 confined spaces, sewage treatment plants, 

4 manholes, et cetera?

5 These are just a few examples of 

6 locations where undocumented exposures were 

7 present, not to mention manholes in confined 

8 spaces at the various firing sites.

9 These two are places that support 

10 service workers were assigned to. What 

11 coworker data does NIOSH intend to use for 

12 these workers who moved around the complex on 

13 a regular basis? Are they going to apply 

14 coworker data from every single site? Is it 

15 plausible to assign coworker data to these 

16 workers without knowing the true percentage of

17 time these workers spend in the various 

18 locations?

19 I would like to share with the 

20 Board two short scenarios. The first is a 

21 worker who was exposed to tritiated water at 

22 TA-53. The worker was asked to provide a 
391

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 urine sample. The sample was in a glass 

2 bottle. The bottle was monitored for 

3 radiation, not the sample.

4 What I mean is the worker watched 

5 a RCT waive a detector over the closed bottle 

6 to check for the tritium. As a result, a zero 

7 was recorded for his internal dose. While lo 

8 and behold, guess what? To this day, the 

9 bottle has not developed cancer. 

10 Nevertheless, the worker did.

11 This is significant in that the 

12 dose reconstruction for this worker was highly 

13 reliant on internal dose because of the type 

14 of cancer that he developed.

15 The second scenario involves the 

16 custodian at the radioactive liquid waste 

17 treatment facility. This worker was in the 

18 basement cleaning the pipes that transported 

19 the radioactive contaminated liquid waste.

20 There were no internal exposure 

21 records for this worker, who incidentally was 

22 also called in whenever there were spills 
392

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during off-hours. Of note, this worker was 

2 involved in at least two documented incidents, 

3 both times the worker was monitored via wound 

4 counts.

5 One of the reports reads assume 

6 Pu-239. The second report also lists Pu-239 

7 as a source. These incidents occurred, 

8 approximately, two and a half years apart, 

9 same facility, leading one to believe that the 

10 exposures were limited to only one source.

11 However, the LANL Technical Basis 

12 Document lists every single radioactive source 

13 at LANL to have been present at this location. 

14 Yet, it appears that this worker was never 

15 monitored for anything other than plutonium.

16 So how is coworker data going to 

17 apply to someone who is in this situation?

18 Now, we are looking at both 

19 inhalation and dermal exposures. So if the 

20 coworker data used is from someone in the same 

21 facility who never worked in the basement 

22 where the pipes were leaking contaminated 
393

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 waste, then how can that data apply, 

2 especially if the coworker was not monitored 

3 for exotics either?

4 In the late 1970s, before this 

5 worker was involved in the two incidents I 

6 just mentioned, the worker was assigned to yet 

7 another location, the reactor development 

8 site. Again, the Site Profile lists volatile 

9 fission products and at least two other exotic 

10 radioactive sources present in this specific 

11 area.

12 So again, what coworker data is 

13 going to be assigned to this individual 

14 worker?

15 As discussed earlier today, it is 

16 difficult if not impossible to place workers

17 in specific areas, especially throughout the 

18 larger facilities.

19 In summary, I ask that the Board 

20 take a good look around this room at the 

21 workers or their survivors who have come here 

22 today searching for answers. Some of these 
394

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claims have undergone two or more dose 

2 reconstructions and continue to be denied.

3 Their exposures were real and 

4 their dose reconstructions cannot be based on 

5 assumptions. Therefore, I respectfully ask 

6 the Board to add the Class, to add a Class to 

7 the Special Exposure Cohort for LANL support 

8 service workers. Thank you.

9 (Applause.)

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. The 

11 next person I have on my list is Jesus Romero. 

12 Would you like to come up to the mike, either 

13 the mike in the center there of if you would 

14 prefer to use the podium, you may. Either use 

15 the mike in the center or you can use the mike 

16 at the podium, either. Okay. It doesn't 

17 matter to us either.

18 MR. ROMERO: Can you hear me?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can.

20 MR. ROMERO: Okay. My name is 

21 Jesus Romero. I worked at Sandia from August 

22 10, 1970 to January 31, 2001.
395

NEAL 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 started there as a custodian. I 

2 worked there for about a year. Then I joined 

3 their apprenticeship program, mechanical 

4 apprenticeship program. There was eight of us 

5 guys that joined the program at the same time, 

6 four mechanical and four millwright and 

7 structural people. But we were trained to do 

8 -- we were really jacks of all trades. We 

9 were taught to do whatever the maintenance and 

10 operations of the business was.

11 So we worked in refrigeration 

12 equipment, plumbing, heating, cooling, 

13 whatever, et cetera, carpentry, everything.

14 Well, during my time there at 

15 Sandia, I ended up with thyroid cancer. And 

16 that's where it's at. But anyhow, I'm here to 

17 try to advocate for a cohort, because on my 

18 case, in my case, I think the dose 

19 reconstruction is not right.

20 I'll tell you why. We -- I'll 

21 mention some coworkers that were sent to 

22 Building 807, [Identifying information 
396

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 redacted] and [Identifying information 

2 redacted], to remove a piece of equipment that 

3 was on top of the building there that was not 

4 supposed to be contaminated, I guess.

5 They didn't find out about it 

6 until it ended up in reclamation. Well, after 

7 that, after the fact they knew it was 

8 contaminated, the were sending them to urinate 

9 in a bottle and I don't know whatnot, but the 

10 thing that I'm getting to is it is as likely 

11 as not that I worked on that equipment during 

12 my career there at Sandia.

13 You know, we were sent to 

14 different places to take care of all that 

15 equipment, you know. And well, that's my 

16 case.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

18 you.

19 MR. ROMERO: There was other 

20 stuff, but we didn't know which one was 

21 contaminated or which wasn't.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. I believe 
397

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we have LaVon, do you want to -- there is a 

2 petition. What's the status?

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: The status of the 

4 petition?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Isn't 

6 there --

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: It has been 

8 qualified.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It has been 

10 qualified and I'm trying to shut down my 

11 computer. 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: The Sandia 

13 petition is qualified.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: And we are 

16 actually working through and anticipate 

17 presenting at least part of that at the 

18 February meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So there 

20 is an SEC petition. It is qualified. NIOSH 

21 is in the process of doing their Evaluation 

22 Report on that petition and there is already 
398

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually been some work from the Board and 

2 from NIOSH to interview some people, some 

3 classified issues, classification issues 

4 there, but it is being pursued and by February 

5 we should be following up.

6 So your comments are useful and 

7 helpful, too.

8 MR. ROMERO: Oh, okay, because 

9 they came up with a number. I don't know how 

10 they came up with a number on that.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. Okay. 

12 Good. Thank you very much.

13 MR. ROMERO: Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. The next 

15 person I have listed is a Lois Reed, I 

16 believe.

17 MS. RAEL: It's Lois Rael, sir.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay.

19 MS. RAEL: Thank you. Good 

20 evening. My name is Lois Rael, formerly 

21 Miestas. And when I was 21 years-old, I 

22 applied for my very first job at LANL - the 
399

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 University of California. I was so excited at 

2 a very young age, because working at the labs 

3 was a prestigious place to be employed.

4 I was on top of the world when I 

5 was offered my first job in August of 1980 in 

6 CNB-6 as a word processor to -- with the 

7 classification of General Series Level II, 

8 Step 2, with a starting pay of $832 per month, 

9 based on a standard five day, 40 hour work 

10 week.

11 I realized the labs have provided 

12 many fine jobs for many people in the Valley 

13 and in the surrounding community. Many of my 

14 family members are employed at the labs. As a 

15 matter of fact, per capita, the labs are rated 

16 high in the nation on what they pay their 

17 employees. 

18 Now, I would like to share a story 

19 with you that you might find hard to believe.

20 When I began work at the lab, yet 

21 not married, I would carpool. A few months 

22 later when I was married and moved to Santa 
400

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Fe, my husband and I decided that it would be 

2 much better for me to ride the SECA vans that 

3 would transport employees to and from Santa Fe 

4 to the labs.

5 In October of 1981, an employee of 

6 the meteorology facility, Building 29, 

7 Technical Area 3, was exposed to plutonium. 

8 The contaminated chemist left the area and 

9 drove the van home with all its passengers in 

10 it. Yes, I was one of those passengers on the 

11 van pool that day.

12 If I would have known that this 

13 chemist was contaminated, I would have never 

14 gotten on that van.

15 The next morning or the evening, 

16 I'm not quite sure of the -- I still have 

17 chemo moments, excuse me, if I recall 

18 correctly, we heard a knock on the door, on 

19 the front door.

20 My husband was shocked when he 

21 opened the door and saw some men in white 

22 clothing and gloves, they asked for me. When 
401

NEAL 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 met them, they asked me to provide the 

2 clothes I had been wearing to work that day, 

3 the day before.

4 They followed me into the bedroom, 

5 retrieved my clothing, put it in a bag and 

6 left. My husband said what the heck was that 

7 all about? Later on, we read about the 

8 plutonium leak and how a part of the lab had 

9 been closed for cleanup in the newspapers. 

10 And that the person driving our van had been 

11 contaminated.

12 And yes, I guess I was kind of 

13 excited saying hey, Jer, we made the news. 

14 Needless to say, I never heard back from the 

15 men that took my clothing or I was never 

16 monitored for contamination. In fact, lab 

17 records show as no incidents.

18 Therefore, they acknowledged that 

19 no monitoring was done. This is the kind of 

20 care they provide for their employees.

21 One other very important issue in 

22 my life, at that time, when I was working for 
402

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 labs, I became pregnant. Approximately, two 

2 years ago at the age, very young age of 49, 

3 and 28 years later, I was diagnosed with a 

4 very rare cancer, an angiosarcoma, which is 

5 cancer of the spleen.

6 For someone like me that takes 

7 very good care of herself, exercises and eats 

8 well, it was a shock. I was one of those 150 

9 to 200 cases of this rare kind of cancer in 

10 the entire United States.

11 I had major surgery to remove my 

12 spleen and then went through my chemo 

13 sessions. Removal of the spleen jeopardizes 

14 your immune system and I am still physically 

15 and mentally working hard to recover.

16 I have pictures of my group at 

17 CNB-6 and interestingly enough, most of them 

18 have on white lab coats. I have newspaper 

19 clippings of the plutonium incident and I have 

20 pictures of the contaminated spleen. I will 

21 be more than glad to share those with you if 

22 anyone wants to see them.
403

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If any of you would like, they are 

2 available. I am glad to say that I have been 

3 cancer-free for two and a half, about two plus 

4 years. And that's my story and I'm sticking 

5 with it. Thank you for your time and 

6 attention.

7 (Applause.)

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you very 

9 much for sharing that with us. I know it's 

10 difficult. 

11 Okay. And we would like that 

12 information, so Ted is coming back to talk to 

13 you here in a second. Thank you.

14 Okay. The next person signed up 

15 is Danny Beavers. Is Danny here? Oh, okay. 

16 Thank you. Either place, Danny.

17 MR. BEAVERS: My name is Danny 

18 Beavers. I'm here today representing the 

19 United Associated of Plumbers and Pipefitters 

20 Local Union 412 along with New Mexico Building 

21 and Construction Trades Council.

22 I'm here today to speak in favor 
404

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of expanding the current SEC submitted for Los 

2 Alamos National Labs. The United Associated 

3 and the Building Trades are represented 

4 workers at Los Alamos Labs for over 50 years.

5 During that time, our craftsmen 

6 have never refused to serve their country by 

7 building and maintaining all the facilities at 

8 the labs.

9 Many of their jobs had hazards 

10 associated with them, some of these hazards 

11 were explained to them, to the workers, some 

12 were not. Thousands of these workers have 

13 become ill, as shown by numbers presented this 

14 morning.

15 It is also my understanding from 

16 presentations this morning that dose 

17 reconstruction can take a year or more, 

18 unless, of course, a case is submitted for 

19 expedited dose reconstruction, which I 

20 understand only happens when an individual is 

21 terminal.

22 Also during the presentation this 
405

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 morning, out of the first 10,000 cases filed 

2 in 2010, only 10 percent fell under an SEC, so 

3 that means 90 percent of those workers will 

4 have to wait up to a year for a decision.

5 During that time frame, the worker 

6 and his family live daily with not only the 

7 illness, but also the stress associated with 

8 it, to include the building medical costs and 

9 they impact of those medical costs on their 

10 daily lives.

11 I am not sure whether any of the 

12 Board Members know or have personally any of 

13 the former workers and their families have 

14 witnessed first hand just how devastating 

15 these illnesses really are.

16 I do have personal knowledge of 

17 just how devastating these illnesses truly are 

18 from being a former Los Alamos worker myself 

19 for over 20 years to my current position as a

20 business representative for the Plumbers and 

21 Pipefitters Union.

22 Many of these affected employees 
406

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were and are our personal friends. I truly 

2 believe that anything that can be done to 

3 remove as many obstacles as possible and help 

4 expedite the process for all former workers 

5 should be done.

6 One of which, of course, would be 

7 to approve the proposed SEC petition for Los 

8 Alamos. For that reason, I would like to ask 

9 the Board to give favorable decision. Thank 

10 you.

11 (Applause.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

13 you, Danny. And thank you for your efforts. 

14 I know you have worked on this for quite a 

15 while.

16 So the next person I have listed, 

17 I'm not quite sure I have the last name right, 

18 it's Melinda Mondragon? Melinda? Okay.

19 MS. MONDRAGON: Can you hear me?

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MS. MONDRAGON: My name is Melinda 

22 Mondragon. I'm currently working as a 
407

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 business agent with Baker Sofils out of the 

2 Espanola Office.

3 I have been working there now for, 

4 approximately, two years. But I really am 

5 here to talk about my personal experience 

6 working at the lab. I worked at the lab 

7 starting in 1979 and I worked to 1985.

8 I developed a lymphoma diagnosed 

9 in 1991. And the work that I did throughout 

10 my years working at Los Alamos was a 

11 combination of working as a laborer from 1979 

12 to 1981 and then I worked as a custodial 

13 worker all the way up to 1993, at which time I 

14 then became a supervisor for the custodial 

15 contractor out there, at that time.

16 And I believe it is important to 

17 cite the fact that the monitoring systems at 

18 the laboratory are not always accurate. There 

19 is incomplete data, as far as exposure, 

20 exposure records.

21 During the time that I -- from the 

22 time that I filed the claim that I did with 
408

NEAL 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 Energy Compensation Program out of 

2 Espanola and the time that I tried to reach to 

3 contact people to get an accurate or at least 

4 an accurate as possible record of -- records, 

5 whether they were the in vivo/in vitro, there 

6 was not -- there was no indication that there 

7 had been any of those types of records kept 

8 for me.

9 They did and they have done a 

10 background reconstruction dose study and 

11 that's in the process right now.

12 But I can cite at least one time 

13 and, you know, I was listening to Ms. Rael's 

14 story, but I had at least one incident, 

15 personal incident where my husband back in the 

16 late '80s was working at TA-55 had been 

17 working there as a pipefitter.

18 And I recall one time he got a 

19 call after work. I was not working during 

20 that time. I was off on maternity leave. I 

21 had -- I was taking care of my child after I 

22 had given birth.
409

NEAL 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 so he got a call from his 

2 supervisor who told him that they had to come 

3 and do some monitoring of his car, his 

4 vehicle, his shoes and, basically, the whole 

5 house. And we had three children at that time 

6 already, all young, including the baby.

7 And, you know, he worked day in/ 

8 day out at the plutonium facility. So, you 

9 know, naturally, he was possibly, you know, 

10 going in throughout the corridors and into 

11 rooms where he could have and probably did 

12 pick up contamination that was not monitored 

13 coming out of that PF-4, plutonium facility.

14 And from working there myself at 

15 TA-55 specifically for probably 10 years, both 

16 as a custodial worker and as a supervisor, I'm 

17 well-aware of all the monitoring devices or 

18 techniques that they have. It was surprising 

19 to know that somebody or some, I guess, 

20 monitoring device had not worked, obviously, 

21 and how they picked up on the fact that there 

22 was a potential -- that there was 
410

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contamination at home, that he had taken it 

2 with him or taken it on his shoes.

3 I don't know. So even that, you 

4 know, those are the kind of things that are 

5 things that don't get told, that people don't 

6 know about, that, you know, people that do 

7 these background checks and are doing the 

8 research on these cases don't know about, but 

9 that we, you know, as workers understand and 

10 see.

11 Well, as a result of that, you 

12 know, check that they did, they took RCTs, 

13 they took at least two or three guys and they 

14 took his boots. They took all our shoes. 

15 They monitored the carpet throughout our home. 

16 They landed up pulling the carpet from his 

17 little Ford Pinto and took it.

18 We never really got any results as 

19 far as what the counts were, but, obviously, 

20 there was, because, you know, he wasn't 

21 allowed to go into PF-4 for probably a period

22 of three months after that.
411

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We -- I don't know, you know, what 

2 exactly his, you know, internal doses may have 

3 been. There was not really any kind of a --

4 and at that time, I think that we weren't even 

5 looking at, you know, that there was any harm 

6 that really could potentially, you know, come 

7 from maybe something that -- you know, the 

8 information was not given back.

9 So whether it was a significant 

10 exposure that he might have had, that I might 

11 have had, I don't know. But, you know, 

12 through the rest of the time that I worked as 

13 a custodial worker and I worked a large number 

14 of time inside of PF-4 at TA-55 among many 

15 other tech areas where they have contamination 

16 sources from TA-21 all the way through TA-3, 

17 CMR. I mean, I could probably name almost 

18 every tech area and I worked there either as a 

19 custodian, a laborer or a, you know, 

20 supervisor.

21 So, you know, it's important to 

22 look at the reality of, you know, how things 
412

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are there. It is a fast-paced atmosphere. 

2 People that work there, you know, they want to 

3 be safe and they follow procedures. 

4 Back in the days when I first 

5 started, they didn't have the intense 

6 procedures, you know, that they have, you 

7 know, all the IWDs and all that stuff that, 

8 you know, gives you more time to look at that.

9 Before, it was like oh, go do the 

10 work. And yes, do it safely, but, you know, 

11 some of the things that we used to have to do 

12 as custodial workers, as laborers, you know, 

13 you don't take the time to look at everything. 

14 You have to get in there and do cleanups, 

15 water spills. You know, you have to do 

16 decontaminations and things like that.

17 And I know for a fact that, you 

18 know, there were times when, you know, people 

19 would result, you know, just questioning some 

20 of the records that they would get. And, you 

21 know, there is no really -- no real good way 

22 of people understanding or getting 
413

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information, accurate information. And then 

2 years later sometimes they land up ill.

3 I was very sick for a long time 

4 when I -- you know, after I was diagnosed. I 

5 won't say, you know, there is no absolute way 

6 of determining that my cancer came from 

7 exposure, but because of the, you know, 

8 various areas that I worked at, the, you know, 

9 atmosphere that I worked at around, you know, 

10 different radiological sources, I truly 

11 believe that I may have had exposures that 

12 were not, you know, caught, that were not 

13 monitored, that may have happened and nobody 

14 knew about it.

15 There is, you know, airborne 

16 radiological situations where you don't always 

17 know. There is alarms that don't read 

18 accurately, that don't -- you know, are not 

19 maintained possibly accurately enough to catch 

20 every exposure there may be.

21 So I thank you for listening to me 

22 and, you know, I have been in remission now 
414

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for, you know, 19 going on 20 years now almost 

2 and I'm one of the fortunate ones. I, you 

3 know, consider myself fortunate. And I know 

4 that a lot of coworkers I have had and folks 

5 that I have known have not -- can't say that 

6 or are not here to be able to say that.

7 But, you know, there are -- is --

8 there is a lot of stuff that is not, you know, 

9 monitored, not caught, not recorded accurately 

10 and not possibly kept in archives. So, you 

11 know, that's a consideration I hope that NIOSH 

12 and all those folks that do these background, 

13 you know, and claims, that they can look at 

14 and consider. It's serious. And I think it 

15 is really significant, you know, that they 

16 look at that kind of stuff.

17 You know, I was 31 when I got 

18 diagnosed and I think a lot of folks sometimes 

19 they don't get diagnosed until they are older 

20 and maybe it is just I was one of those that 

21 was fortunate enough to be diagnosed early on 

22 and not have to face, you know, a lot of the 
415

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other things that the other folks have had to. 

2 But I did go through chemo and radiation, so 

3 I know what it is do deal with cancer.

4 I thank you.

5 (Applause.)

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

7 you. Appreciate it. The next person I have 

8 signed up is a [Identifying information 

9 redacted], I believe. No [Identifying 

10 information redacted]? I saw people getting 

11 up, I thought it was -- okay. Harriet Ruiz? 

12 No, Harriet is here.

13 MS. RUIZ: I want to thank you, 

14 Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to pass because 

15 you see how many people that would like to 

16 speak, so thank you for the opportunity to 

17 speak.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

19 MS. RUIZ: Thank you for your 

20 time. Appreciate it.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, thank you 

22 for your work on this. Marcella Martinez? 
416

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 You might want to lower the mike.

2 MS. MARTINEZ: Right. Good 

3 afternoon. Can you hear me?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

5 MS. MARTINEZ: My name is Marcella 

6 Martinez, retired from the laboratory with 31 

7 years of service. And I'm the authorized 

8 representative for my grandchildren.

9 I think my friend just handed some 

10 handouts. Okay. I am also the mother of a 

11 security inspector who died at the age of 44 

12 in 2008 after having worked in this capacity 

13 from 1981 to 1989. And in another job at the 

14 lab from 1995 to 1996. I get very emotional 

15 when I think of my son.

16 The first severe complication from 

17 his cancer ravaged body was in the colon. 

18 And, therefore, his cause of death was listed 

19 on the death certificate as colon cancer, a 

20 qualified cancer for compensation under Part B 

21 and E of the EEOICPA Act.

22 But he also had other qualified 
417

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cancers, perhaps also primary, which were not 

2 listed in the death certificate and which were 

3 not considered in determining his eligibility 

4 for compensation. Information which I have 

5 sent in as proof and any of which could have 

6 contributed to his cause of death.

7 And perhaps with more than one 

8 cancer listed, and I believe they used the 

9 cancer listed on the death certificate as his 

10 cause of death, had they listed another one, 

11 he may have met the 50 percent of the --

12 whatever NIOSH requires for compensation.

13 His children have been denied 

14 compensation because he did not meet the 50 

15 percent. But I will continue to question the 

16 accuracy of the dosimetry records and the 

17 NIOSH dose reconstruction methods, because his 

18 percentage was grossly underestimated.

19 I understand that NIOSH was given 

20 full authority under the regulations that 

21 govern the Act to conduct the dose 

22 reconstruction used by the Department of Labor 
418

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to determine the probability that a cancer is 

2 related to employment.

3 I am also aware that the 

4 Adjudication Branch of the U.S. Department of 

5 Labor is not permitted to discuss a way in 

6 which NIOSH goes about preparing the dose 

7 reconstruction. I have this on page 9 of my 

8 copy of the official report of proceedings 

9 before the Final Adjudication Branch of the 

10 U.S. Department of Labor during my hearing on 

11 June 25, 2009.

12 This is wrong and should be 

13 changed, so that cases such as this one can be 

14 reinvestigated and deserving people 

15 compensated. Radiation releases and exposures 

16 do not stop at time frames or doors or 

17 required percentages.

18 I have personal experience in 

19 having worked in an area where I was required 

20 to wear a film badge. Badges were not always 

21 picked up when they should have been and may 

22 not have been read in time to meet the 
419

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 deadline and may not have been entered into 

2 the monthly reports.

3 I was never asked for a urine 

4 sample, which I believe is the only way to 

5 determine if one has been exposed to certain 

6 types of radiation. Because requirements 

7 regarding this were so lax at the laboratory, 

8 I believe it is safe to say that many 

9 exposures were never reported or perhaps 

10 disregarded.

11 I have information stating that 

12 some radiation particles have a short range 

13 and that they can not penetrate the dead layer 

14 of the skin. Intakes to the body are 

15 calculated from measured amounts excreted in 

16 the urine. If intakes have occurred and are 

17 recorded, the intake amounts, intake dates and 

18 types of intakes solubility, Class, particles, 

19 size, et cetera, are then calculated.

20 If the intake is a result of a 

21 known incident, such as a wound or high nose 

22 count, which my son had, the incident date and 
420

NEAL 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 information known about the type of intake 

2 are used in the dose calculation.

3 This was never done for him, 

4 although I sent in all the information 

5 required by the laws, that one of his fingers 

6 in an accident that he had, and in another 

7 incident, a cut, during the time of his 

8 employment.

9 The total committed effective dose 

10 equivalent in rem plus a total external dose 

11 that some -- which is also called the lifetime 

12 dose is recommended to be limited to the 

13 workers age and years. This is all I will say 

14 about that.

15 I truly believe that anyone who 

16 has worked at the laboratory has to have been 

17 at least as likely as not exposed to 

18 radiation, toxic chemicals and hazardous 

19 materials. In particular, employees such as 

20 guards, who were assigned to all hazardous 

21 areas, and many of the other people have 

22 spoken and I'm just mentioning guards, because 
421

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 my son was one.

2 And many of these people have paid 

3 the ultimate price and my son. Based on the 

4 poor unsophisticated monitoring methods used, 

5 there were few and more than likely incorrect 

6 external and no internal radiation records for 

7 my son and perhaps other employees.

8 Safety at Los Alamos has, indeed, 

9 been lax. This must stop. More effort should 

10 be put into the safety and security of Los

11 Alamos, so that progress and science, which I 

12 am in favor of, can continue without the 

13 illnesses and the loss of lives that we are 

14 experiencing. Thank you very much.

15 (Applause.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

17 very much. The next person I have listed is a 

18 [Identifying information redacted]. 

19 [Identifying information redacted]? No? 

20 Okay. Then I have a Richard Johnson. Mr. 

21 Johnson? Yes, okay. Welcome, Mr. Johnson.

22 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for 
422

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 letting me speak. My name is Richard Johnson. 

2 And I held various jobs at the laboratory 

3 that I had to use lines, all crafts there. I 

4 wasn't planning on talking to you on that 

5 subject, but in view of what these people are 

6 telling you, I utilized the custodians. I 

7 worked extensively with the guards and all the 

8 various crafts.

9 I can tell you for a fact that 

10 what these people are telling you is correct. 

11 I was an area coordinator for a number of 

12 years and that entailed that I had to -- for 

13 construction maintenance operations. And in 

14 view of that, I had specialty programs. I had 

15 programs where I took care of pumping in all 

16 the pumps of Los Alamos. And there was over 

17 5,000 of them.

18 And as a result of that, any time 

19 we would have spillage or release of 

20 radioactive contaminated materials or 

21 whatever, the custodians were brought in to 

22 cleanup afterwards, after we contained the 
423

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 situation.

2 The guards, God bless them. They 

3 walk into the situations that nobody knows 

4 what is going on. When they would call us, we 

5 would respond and get the situation under 

6 control. They were right there with us all 

7 the time.

8 The nature of this SEC is very, 

9 very important, because I know of many 

10 instances where records of the H1 people had 

11 for over -- all of the monitoring of the 

12 radiation and all were lost.

13 The dosimetry, how they issued the 

14 badges for us that had full coverage of the 

15 laboratory was a joke. In view of the fact 

16 that we covered everything in the laboratory, 

17 but we would be issued a yellow badge because 

18 the main office was in Area 3. We wouldn't be 

19 issued badges to monitor the areas that we 

20 went into. It was just generalized.

21 I was a victim of leukemia, acute 

22 lymphocytic leukemia, which is very rare. I 
424

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 received high exposure from releases in TA-53 

2 in the last quarter of '78. And I wasn't -- I 

3 had a second release that took place in '80, 

4 which I wasn't there for.

5 And I was in charge of pumping, 

6 during my eight hour shift, all of the 

7 contaminated water and releases at LAMPF TA8 53. I was also in charge to monitor the ponds 

9 that you brought up the issue about. The 

10 ponds, when you had the serious releases, 

11 would overflow. The water from LAMPF would go 

12 down Los Alamos into the ponds.

13 When we did have the incident in 

14 1978, we were pumping 5,000 gallons an hour, 

15 plus what was being picked up from the 

16 leakage.

17 I was at one contamination and at 

18 the point of release, because the pumps for 

19 the contaminated water were directly under the 

20 stacks. Also during that period, they would 

21 refuse to shut the beam down. When we 

22 requested it. That incident took a large
425

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number of my coworkers.

2 And I don't know what else. 

3 That's about all I'm going to say.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. 

5 Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

6 (Applause.)

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Appreciate it. 

8 A little trouble with this name, so I 

9 apologize ahead of time, Priscilla Maez10 Clovis?

11 MS. MAEZ-CLOVIS: Clovis.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Clovis. Okay. 

13 I should have known that from the email 

14 address. Sorry.

15 MS. MAEZ-CLOVIS: Good evening and 

16 thank you all for being here.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good evening.

18 MS. MAEZ-CLOVIS: I am the 

19 daughter of a claimant, David A. Maez, 

20 daughter of a survivor, Priscilla Maez-Clovis.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, no, we got 

22 that.
426

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. MAEZ-CLOVIS: My father was an 

2 iron worker at LANL and Zia. And during his 

3 employment there, he was also a group leader 

4 of the iron workers. He was one of the 

5 highest qualified in welding, the thickness of 

6 various metals and irons and he also was the 

7 only one who specialized in aluminum welding 

8 for the first eight years.

9 During that time, my dad was 

10 exposed to hazardous materials, hazardous 

11 waste. There is other things that weren't 

12 mentioned here today like benzene and lead and 

13 aluminum and all this radiation and metal 

14 alloys, beryllium, toxic waste, dust that was 

15 airborne and vapor contaminants, chemicals and 

16 compounds.

17 He was also exposed to numerous 

18 gases as an iron worker, oxygen, acetylene and 

19 the other gases that they use for the torches 

20 for the cutting of metals and irons.

21 So when you compound all of these 

22 exposures, it is a grossly higher exposure 
427

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 rate that some of these employees endured. As 

2 an iron worker, he was also exposed to carbon 

3 monoxide working in the garages next to the 

4 mechanics and doing repairs with welding and 

5 also the other heavy equipment that was diesel 

6 exhaust, there's all these big machinery that 

7 was backed into these garages, they were 

8 inhaling all these fumes.

9 Whatever percentage it was that 

10 they were exposed to becomes multiple. Not 

11 only the exposures but the various sites that 

12 he worked. I know that my dad had clearance 

13 to work in many numerous and TA-55 or 56, 

14 something like that. I remember him talking 

15 about it the last year of his life especially.

16 Due to the fact that he was a 

17 specialty welder with iron, he also lost the 

18 majority of his teeth by the age of 45, 

19 because once that metal is heated up, there is 

20 some type of reaction with your gums and your 

21 teeth. So he did lose a lot of his teeth by 

22 the age of 45.
428

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 His eyesight was jeopardized a lot 

2 as an iron worker in grinding with metals and 

3 drilling metals, which he went to the doctor 

4 several times to remove metal pieces from his 

5 eyes.

6 He was also affected by his 

7 hearing with the loud machinery and the 

8 grinders and all the tools that they used in 

9 these shops, which lasted five years of his 

10 life. He endured hearing loss in the very 

11 last year of his life. He was unable to hear 

12 at all.

13 My father both had restricted and 

14 obstructed breathing and yet, DOE continued to 

15 tell him that he needed to take this breathing 

16 test. And I remember him telling me many 

17 times I can't even remove my oxygen mask, 

18 because I'm gasping for air. And the 

19 technician was telling him you have to take in 

20 a deep breath and let out a deep breath, so we 

21 can measure.

22 And my father said what do you 
429

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want me to do, literally faint or die here 

2 before you? I cannot do this test. He lived 

3 with his oxygen. He slept with his oxygen. 

4 His life became very limited.

5 And as his daughter, it was a very 

6 hard thing to see and to experience. He lived 

7 the last few years of his life at home. He 

8 lost the ability to drive. He became 

9 extremely fearful to leave the house or go 

10 anywhere, just being afraid of not having 

11 enough oxygen in the little carry-on tank.

12 He had panic attacks. His 

13 physical ability limited. He had a lot of 

14 mental distress, a lot of emotional distress. 

15 And the lack of oxygen causes other problems.

16 Your other organs now have to work 

17 twice as hard, including your heart. And the 

18 blood circulation, many times he would stand 

19 up and I would have to assist him. His legs

20 were very wobbly. He was very weak. His feet 

21 would go numb.

22 He made it known to me that during 
430

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 his employment at LANL that he had been found 

2 contaminated several times with extreme high 

3 doses through his dosimetry.

4 My father wore a dosimetry badge 

5 to work every day and as his children he told 

6 us always this badge, this dosimetry badge, 

7 his clearance badge and dosimetry was to 

8 remain on top of the refrigerator until he 

9 went to work every day. We were not to mess 

10 with it, because it was very serious.

11 Several times my father called DOE 

12 and asked them to, please, expedite his claim. 

13 He knew he had very little time left. And he 

14 wanted to get everything in order before he 

15 passed.

16 My father applied in 2002. He was 

17 accepted, his claim was accepted in 2007. He 

18 died February 6, 2008 at the age of 67. The 

19 claim was never paid out to my father.

20 What I saw and what I experienced 

21 was a quality of life that was totally 

22 diminished. No one wants to see their loved 
431

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one die so inhumanely, so painfully slow, such 

2 a long drug-out ongoing process.

3 At the very last, he was gasping 

4 desperate to breathe, suffocating. It's not 

5 to be taken lightly all the faulty equipment 

6 and endangerment that these people were 

7 exposed to. 

8 I remember my father saying I do 

9 admire OSHA and NIOSH, he said, for taking 

10 responsibility, because it takes a big man to 

11 own up to the wrongs that are committed, that 

12 are done. And close to the end when he still 

13 hadn't been paid and he said you follow14 through and you keep the faith and you believe 

15 that they are going to do the right thing, he 

16 said don't give up, because I don't think that 

17 everything we endured was done for nothing.

18 And all of the great and wonderful 

19 things of the lab has done also, it's not just 

20 negative. He said there is a lot of positive 

21 stuff that has come out that has been the 

22 outcome.
432

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A lot of these employees did not 

2 know that they were compromising their lives 

3 and their families through all these 

4 contaminants and exposures.

5 What significant changes will the 

6 Board make for all these claimants and 

7 survivors? I do not know, but I do remain 

8 hopeful, as my father said, to keep the faith. 

9 I thank you, each and every one of you, for 

10 being here and hearing this out tonight. 

11 Thank you very much, Advisory Board.

12 (Applause.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

14 for sharing that. The next person signed up 

15 is a Ray Sanders. Okay. Welcome, Mr. 

16 Sanders.

17 MR. SANDERS: Ray Sanders is my 

18 name, Z number 77759. I went to work for them 

19 in '69.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. SANDERS: Now, I'm going to 

22 give you an equation. I'm not going to give 
433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you my life history. Los Alamos in the '60s 

2 was tied together every building to every 

3 building with steam. They used steam heat for 

4 the city, steam heat for the labs.

5 I could tell you where the TA-53, 

6 TA-55 -- all this means absolutely nothing to 

7 you. But every one of the sites, those of us 

8 that worked in utilities went to every site. 

9 Every time there was a problem, we went there.

10 Now, what I'm asking is how are 

11 you going to be able to iron this out? I 

12 believe you asked the question how could all 

13 this work out? There is no way that you can 

14 possibly sit down and work out how much 

15 contamination a person gets in Los Alamos. 

16 Some of the ground up there is contaminated, 

17 the dirt, the buildings are contaminated.

18 And in my history, they found out 

19 that the plastic explosives circulated in the 

20 drainage pipes from the equipment. Well, that 

21 was taken care of. The sewer lines from TA-55 

22 and in the plutonium site had been broke into 
434

NEAL 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 they were contaminated, of course, that's 

2 a given.

3 So the thing that I have tried to 

4 do is to present to you that Los Alamos is 

5 just one major -- it's just like the human 

6 body. It has got a blood system running 

7 through it and it was all tied together. 

8 Anybody that worked there, if you worked there 

9 any length of time, you were exposed somewhere 

10 down the line.

11 We wore monitors. If our system 

12 during the eight hour shift for the daytime 

13 was at 98 percent, according to our 

14 statistics, the second shift would have been 

15 somewhere in the 90s, the low 90s and 

16 graveyard shift would have been in the mid17 80s. So our system was not perfect. It was 

18 as good as we could get at the time.

19 And were the people monitoring us 

20 doing their job? They were doing the best 

21 they knew how.

22 Now, our best is not always as 
435

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 good as it could be. It's just the best that 

2 as an individual we can do. Thank you.

3 (Applause.)

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. The 

5 next person I have signed up is a Richard 

6 Chapman, I believe.

7 MR. CHAPMAN: Hello out there. 

8 Can you hear me okay?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can, 

10 sir.

11 MR. CHAPMAN: I first found out 

12 that there was going to be a meeting and at 

13 3:30 this afternoon, I came back to the place 

14 and picked up some of my papers. If I had had 

15 more time, I could have give you a more 

16 accurate report of what I did, what I saw and 

17 what I experienced.

18 Well, I went to Los Alamos. Well, 

19 first off, let me, for the record, give you my 

20 name is Richard B. Chapman at 04B Florence 

21 Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507 and my File 

22 No. is 3135.
436

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Well, I first went to Los Alamos 

2 in 1947. And I was up there and I fought 

3 fires. I fought chemical waste disposal 

4 fires. I fought fires at almost every canyon 

5 in Los Alamos.

6 And never -- well, my first couple 

7 of months there, we responded over to TA-1, if 

8 anybody knows anything about Los Alamos, that 

9 was right across from Ashley pond. And we had 

10 five or six five gallon cans of radiation that 

11 was on fire. When it was exposed to the 

12 atmosphere and moisture, it ignited.

13 We used metal rods to mix it up 

14 and tried to cool it down as much as possible, 

15 so that it would -- the fire would go out and 

16 lower it below the ignition temperature.

17 Well, we finally succeeded after 

18 about two or three hours of this. There was 

19 about five or six of us working on it. Then 

20 they monitored us, that's the only time that I 

21 have ever been monitored that I know of and 

22 said you need to go and take a shower and we 
437

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 need all your clothes.

2 Call your home and have your wife 

3 bring you some clothes. And that's what we 

4 did. But we lost everything we had on us and 

5 we had to shower two or three times to satisfy 

6 the monitors. I don't know whether we were 

7 completely clear of the situation or they were 

8 just tired of us, but they dismissed us and 

9 told us to go back to the fire company.

10 Now, I have lost a lot of people, 

11 good friends from Los Alamos. And one of my 

12 dearest friends, I lost him about a year ago. 

13 He died of cancer. We worked together. He 

14 was one of the members on that particular 

15 incident I was talking about. I believe it 

16 was the Sigma Building in Tech Area 1.

17 And he died of cancer. He was 

18 reimbursed for being sick through the 

19 Department of Labor. He got his first check 

20 or his only check two days before he died.

21 Now, a lot of people I know --

22 well, I'll back up just a little bit. I don't 
438

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want to get too far away from this mike, you 

2 may not hear what I have to say. But I 

3 remember people that worked together that died 

4 of cancer.

5 I did sort of a private study up 

6 in Los Alamos and about 25 percent of our work 

7 force has prostate cancer. Now, if we had 

8 that kind of percentage any place in the 

9 United States, we would start taking a serious 

10 look at it. But I don't think anything was 

11 done up in Los Alamos.

12 I suffered from prostate cancer, 

13 thyroid cancer, gall bladder cancer. I have 

14 lesions on my head that I believe came from 

15 Los Alamos canyon when we were fighting fires 

16 down in those canyons and our helmets come 

17 off. We just threw them to the side and we 

18 got contamination.

19 All of this and then I don't even 

20 know if I'm still on your program, because if 

21 I was on your program, it seems like I would 

22 have been notified of this meeting, but I was 
439

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not.

2 So here I am. I'm talking to you 

3 about something that maybe is in the past and 

4 is already forgotten. But I do not feel like 

5 your dose reconstruction program is adequate, 

6 because they do not know all the places you 

7 have been and all the things you have done and 

8 come up with a figure.

9 I think my figure was in the high 

10 40s and you had to be above 50 in order to 

11 qualify for anything. As a matter of fact, if 

12 you are not at 50, they don't want to even 

13 talk to you, as far as I'm concerned.

14 So they sent us out on details, 

15 not only fire fighters, but the security 

16 force, into buildings day and night and 

17 without any monitors. We didn't know what was 

18 in the building. We didn't know what was in 

19 the fires. We knew that it was something 

20 serious, because everybody was leaving the 

21 building and we were having to go in.

22 So that's what happened to us. We 
440

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had -- they give us quite an extensive course 

2 on what they call the stay time and the 

3 inverse square law of radiation, but for us 

4 young kids, 18, 19, 20, it didn't amount to 

5 much, because we didn't grasp it. We didn't 

6 know why we were doing it. But we never used 

7 it.

8 If it was a fire, we went in the 

9 building. If it was radiation fire, I 

10 remember one in a tech area where we put a 

11 straight stream of water on a 55 gallon drum 

12 and it exploded and it went up in the air and 

13 sparks came down and burned holes in the cover 

14 of our front trucks. So that's the kind of 

15 situation we had for years up there.

16 I went from 47 to 49 and then I 

17 transferred down to Pantex Ordnance Plant. We 

18 set up a fire station there. And then we --

19 my job, one of them was a training officer for 

20 the fire department and a second one, a job I 

21 had, was a safety inspector. And I monitored 

22 all the parts from their -- I'm trying to 
441

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think of the words, we had to rebuild some of 

2 the units and we had to take them apart and 

3 then I had to monitor all of those.

4 Well, I monitored all of the 

5 workers, but I never did monitor myself, 

6 because, you know, there was nothing there. 

7 You couldn't see anything. You couldn't feel 

8 anything, so why monitor yourself?

9 Then I was shipped out to the 

10 Mercury, Nevada and -- on Operation Q. And 

11 they exploded an atomic device and you have 

12 probably seen the building on TV. It is a 

13 white building. It was completely blown away. 

14 Well, that's one of the buildings that we 

15 went into or into the debris and checked and 

16 we had to bring out all the mannequins that 

17 was supposedly killed in the explosion.

18 But when I was in a trench 

19 watching that atomic bomb go off, I could feel 

20 it, the warm air on me and the breeze that 

21 come by me, the blast wave. But nobody 

22 thought anything about it. We just didn't 
442

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have the information we needed to really sit 

2 down and decipher what was going on.

3 I remember at a burning pit I 

4 asked a monitor that came in from DP Site, why 

5 am I here? We have been down here three times 

6 this week already. And he said we don't want 

7 the vapors to get over into the residential 

8 areas. But here I am sitting right on the 

9 bank with a hose in my hand squirting water on 

10 it trying to get it down below its temperature 

11 of ignition.

12 So this is the way things were. I 

13 don't blame anybody. They just did not know 

14 at the time we were up there that things could 

15 be so hazardous. I did go back, because I 

16 love fire fighting, in '72 and retired out as 

17 an assistant chief. And I still talk stay 

18 time at a radiation site. Thank you very 

19 much.

20 (Applause.)

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, sir. 

22 We have an Anthony Valdez.
443

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. VALDEZ: Thanks. Thanks for 

2 coming out to listen to us. I would like to 

3 talk on behalf of myself and my coworkers 

4 here. Anthony Valdez. I have worked up there 

5 since '91. I started as a Local 412 

6 Pipefitter for 16 years.

7 I worked with [Identifying 

8 information redacted], some of my other 

9 coworkers here, [Identifying information 

10 redacted] and [Identifying information 

11 redacted], I was a coworker with him. I 

12 worked with some pretty hot stuff there at TA13 55. I'm currently in the weapons surveillance 

14 program now, but I'll touch base a little bit 

15 at TA-55.

16 We were sent in to -- like 

17 [Identifying information redacted] knows a 

18 little bit about that, but we were sent in to 

19 like an evaporator room where we were in over 

20 a million counts in this room. They couldn't 

21 measure the amount of contamination in that 

22 room.
444

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So we would get totally 

2 contaminated. They would pull our film badges 

3 and want to touch base on the dose 

4 reconstruction, because they didn't know how 

5 hot we were. They would strip our clothes 

6 when we would come back out. They didn't know 

7 how hot we were, so we would strip our clothes 

8 off.

9 We would leave our badges out, 

10 because we knew how hot we were going to come 

11 out of this evaporator room, because we were 

12 dismantling this unit as a pipefitter and they 

13 wouldn't really tell us about, you know, the 

14 doses and stuff like that. I mean, the lab 

15 guys knew a little bit about what was going 

16 on, but -- because they are processing the 

17 plutonium and refining it and stuff. But we 

18 didn't know much about it.

19 I mean, the craftsmen didn't 

20 really -- aren't really like told a lot about 

21 that, because, you know, like custodial people 

22 have told me, told you guys right here and so, 
445

NEAL 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 mean, they just told you hey, you've got to 

2 do this job and this and you need to get this 

3 done. We're putting in a new evaporator. So 

4 we were just told, you know, this would be 

5 done and get this work done.

6 And so we would come out totally 

7 hot. They would throw our film badges away. 

8 And I came up just one point, five points 

9 short, I think it was, on my dose 

10 reconstruction when I filed for my claim when 

11 I had cancer. And I couldn't understand.

12 You know, you guys didn't have --

13 they didn't have my badges, how could they 

14 have totally come up with -- and, you know, 

15 they said oh, well, if you refile, they might 

16 just come up with a lower dose, that's what I 

17 was told when I went to go ask them about it. 

18 Well, you can refile, you know. They tell 

19 you you can refile, but they tell you well, 

20 you will mostly going to come back with a 

21 lower dose. And I'm thinking like what, if I 

22 refile?
446

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I never even refiled, because 

2 they told me that they are going to probably 

3 give you a lower dose the next time you 

4 refile. So I kind of got discouraged about 

5 that. I never did refile. I closed -- I let 

6 it just drop, because I got frustrated, 

7 because it's kind of a hassle. I mean, I took 

8 all this time and effort. I gathered all this 

9 information to refile, you know.

10 I don't know how many film badges 

11 I lost going into these rooms. I worked in 

12 tritium rooms there where I lost film badges. 

13 You know, every day, you know, from 8:00 to 

14 9:00, you take a break, work until noon and 

15 sometimes it would just get hot in that room 

16 also, you lose your film badge and, you know, 

17 they give you a temporary one, but you never 

18 get that back. You never know the results.

19 So, you know, it didn't happen 

20 every day. I'm not saying it happened every 

21 day. But for one month, it happened this last 

22 -- this past I think it was May. I turned in 
447

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a film badge. I had foot surgery, so I didn't 

2 think I was going to be out that long. I 

3 turned my film -- the lady that took care of 

4 the -- our PNADs, so I sent in my dose.

5 She must have given me the wrong 

6 number to send the PNAD in to. I sent it in 

7 and they keep sending me these delinquent 

8 things saying that I have a zero dose and that 

9 was one of our busiest months, because we got 

10 these milestones that the lab has to reach 

11 this year, because I'm in the weapons 

12 surveillance program now.

13 So, you know, we were pretty busy 

14 that month. So I sent it in and I have the 

15 zero reading now for that month, when I should 

16 have had a pretty good dose. And, you know, I 

17 haven't heard nothing back yet. I didn't file 

18 the proper paperwork which is probably going 

19 to be giving me a lower dose than what I 

20 should be getting this year with RP-1 

21 associate group leader.

22 So my dose record is going to be a 
448

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little bit lower than what it should be. And 

2 things like that just kind of fall through the 

3 cracks.

4 I know what [Identifying 

5 information redacted] has gone through with 

6 her husband, because I worked with him and I 

7 know -- you know, we have had issues like that 

8 where things don't always measure up to that, 

9 you know. I mean, things aren't always like 

10 they should be up there.

11 The custodial people don't know 

12 like because of our Sigma-15s in my area, 

13 these people aren't being told -- I can't tell 

14 them exactly what I deal with, but I try to 

15 tell them, I try to educate them and tell 

16 them, please, get in the beryllium system. 

17 You know, when they tell you to get into the 

18 beryllium program, please, sign up for that.

19 I try to tell the custodial people 

20 and the craftsmen, my ex-pipefitting buddies 

21 get into the beryllium program, please, guys. 

22 You don't want to -- you know, it's the same 
449

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 blood test. It's the same blood test you are 

2 going to do every year, you know. And you're 

3 only going to do that blood test the same 

4 time. Don't go away from that, you know, 

5 because if you come up later on and they do 

6 find it and it's too late, you know, what are 

7 you going to say?

8 Because I know what we deal with 

9 in my area and these guys work side-by-side 

10 with us and they don't know what we deal with. 

11 And I'm trying to educate them and a lot of 

12 them aren't really told about what is going on 

13 in certain areas. And I think that has been 

14 lost.

15 I didn't know a lot of stuff when 

16 I was a pipefitter. I was a pipefitter for 16 

17 years. I didn't really tell you guys that. 

18 But I was a pipefitter for 16 years and then I 

19 went to the plutonium foundry.

20 One incident I had we were in an 

21 evaporator. There was one of the team leaders 

22 was laying down some plastics and he said he 
450

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had cleaned up the room. This room was over a 

2 million counts. And it was -- he said it was 

3 all cleaned up. I won't mention his name, but 

4 he said oh yeah I had cleaned up the room. I 

5 got it all cleaned up and all that.

6 He sent me and another pipefitter 

7 in there under supplied air. You couldn't 

8 breath in it, because it is too hot. It's 

9 over a million count, reading over a million 

10 counts. So we went in there, two double 

11 coveralls, double cloth coveralls. We went in 

12 there, kneeled down to remove a small sump 

13 pump.

14 We were taking this pump apart and 

15 I told my buddy oh, man, I could feel an 

16 itching and a burning on my leg. And I said 

17 I'm hot, buddy. I said -- I started pulling 

18 the bolts off this pump. I said I'm hot, 

19 let's -- I've got to get out of here, man. 

20 I've got acid on here.

21 So I had acid on there. It was 

22 358,000 counts by the time they -- we got --
451

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got me checked out and pulled out of there. I 

2 had to strip down and get decontaminated. I 

3 went home with a bag around my leg for five 

4 months wrapped around my leg.

5 It came off that one -- that 

6 night. I had these guys -- like what happened 

7 to [Identifying information redacted], they 

8 had to come to my house, check my bed, check 

9 my clothes, check all that stuff and, you 

10 know, the hairs on my leg, every time they 

11 would come off, they would have to take them 

12 off and count them and do all this stuff every 

13 day for five months when I was at work and at 

14 my house.

15 Do little things like that and, 

16 you know, things, issues that we go through 

17 and stuff like that and I just kind of get 

18 frustrated with just the paperwork thing of 

19 filing. You know, it's just not easy. It's 

20 pretty hard.

21 And I appreciate you guys taking 

22 your time and listening to us, you know. It's 
452

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hard. And my dad has filed, too, and his went 

2 into the bone. I told my mom if it goes into 

3 the bone, you can -- you are -- you can 

4 refile, but she has just gone through a lot 

5 with what my dad had filed. And she needs to 

6 refile and go through her paperwork with her, 

7 you know, situation with her. But it has 

8 already been six years for my dad and, you

9 know, it's going to be six years for him now 

10 in December.

11 I just appreciate you guys taking 

12 the time out to listen to us.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We 

14 appreciate you taking the time to meet with 

15 us.

16 (Applause.)

17 MR. VALDEZ: Thanks.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. I 

19 have a [Identifying information redacted]. 

20 How about a Clyde Medina? Okay. Did Joe 

21 leave or change his mind?

22 [Identifying information 
453

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 redacted]: Changed my mind.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. That's 

3 fine. You are not --

4 MR. CLYDE MEDINA: My name is 

5 Clyde Medina. I work at Los Alamos for 25 

6 years. I'm retired. In 1999 --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Can you pull the 

8 mike down a little bit? We're having -- the 

9 Court Reporter --

10 MR. CLYDE MEDINA: In 1999 --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's fine.

12 MR. CLYDE MEDINA: -- I had a 

13 brain tumor. And I was off of work for six 

14 months. And I actually don't work for the 

15 lab. I work for Los Alamos County. But the 

16 lab got started in the residential district of 

17 Los Alamos County in the '40, '50s and '60s.

18 And we used to replace all the gas 

19 lines and sometimes we would dig holes and the 

20 dirt would be white and sometimes brown and 

21 sometimes black.

22 And then I retired in 2004. And 
454

NEAL 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 2005, my tumor grew back again. And the 

2 second time they couldn't take it out, so they 

3 send me to Phoenix, Arizona and they cut me 

4 here and plugged the veins and then they 

5 operated.

6 So I thank God that I -- I look at 

7 my life like I got a second chance. And, you 

8 know, that's my story and I'm going to stick 

9 to it.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank

11 you -

12 MR. CLYDE MEDINA: Thank you.

13 (Applause.)

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Very much, sir. 

15 Okay. I have, a little trouble with the last 

16 name, but it is, Rose Ann Quintaz or --

17 MS. QUINTANA: Quintana.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Quintana, okay. 

19 I couldn't quite read the tail end of it 

20 there.

21 MS. QUINTANA: My name is Rose Ann 

22 Quintana and I am here to represent my 
455

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 [Identifying information redacted] who has 

2 [Identifying information redacted]. He can't 

3 speak because when his -- when the 

4 [Identifying information redacted] was 

5 removed, they removed quite a bit of his 

6 [Identifying information redacted], so you 

7 wouldn't be able to understand him.

8 I also did work at the labs and so 

9 I thought I had something to contribute. I 

10 was -- I worked at the labs as a student in my 

11 high school years back in 1980 through '82. 

12 As a science participant, they wanted to get 

13 me interested in all the science departments, 

14 so they send me to all the different areas to 

15 look and see if I was interested in them.

16 I never wore a badge. So if I was 

17 contaminated in any area, I wouldn't have 

18 known it. I also worked in another area in 

19 the stocking room. I don't know what site 

20 that was, but I recall my coworkers telling me 

21 that after the fact, that they drove semis and 

22 they were contaminated and they had to go dump 
456

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them and bury them underground and cover them 

2 up.

3 They were around us. They were in 

4 the same clothes that they were in the morning 

5 in the afternoon. If we were contaminated 

6 because they were, that was never told to us 

7 or anybody else. I'm just saying that because 

8 that might help you guys in determining are 

9 all these other people really being truly 

10 diagnosed or not.

11 I'm not filing a claim, but I am 

12 for my [Identifying information redacted]. He 

13 worked in different sites as well. And when 

14 you guys are doing the dose reconstruction, I 

15 don't know on his -- I haven't let him sign 

16 the agreement, because I disagree strongly 

17 with what you guys are saying.

18 He can't speak. He can't talk on 

19 the phone. He can't -- if he has an 

20 emergency, he can't call 911. And I have been 

21 filing and filing a claim. You -- they made a 

22 determination without even getting his 
457

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 doctor's notice that says that he is disabled 

2 and he couldn't speak.

3 So and they don't -- so they also

4 made a determination after I sent them over 

5 and over all the W-2s stating that we worked 

6 many years prior to that time and they still 

7 made the determination, based on years that he 

8 -- when he started at the labs, not when he 

9 was working as -- for -- he was working with 

10 contractors.

11 And so I had to prove that fact 

12 and yet I'm getting back letters and 

13 recommendations. And so I don't really think 

14 that your dosage -- you know, that they are 

15 looking at all the places that he really did 

16 work at is working.

17 And that's all. I just wanted to 

18 say thank you.

19 (Applause.)

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you for 

21 coming. We don't have anybody else signed up, 

22 but if there is anybody in the audience who 
458

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hasn't had a chance to speak that would like 

2 to say anything to that? Yes. And could you 

3 introduce yourself?

4 MR. CORIZ: Good evening, Mr. 

5 Chairman, Members of the Board. My name is 

6 Elias Coriz, Rio Arriba County Commissioner, 

7 also a security officer for over 25 years up 

8 at Los Alamos.

9 I would like to just be brief,

10 that the price of national security comes at a 

11 high price. As you know, the discussion that 

12 has taken place here this evening with many 

13 people that have fallen in harm's way through 

14 the exposure at the laboratory, definitely is 

15 devastating.

16 I have had the opportunity to work 

17 at Los Alamos and has also reaped the economic 

18 benefit. I do want to find some balance in 

19 what happens in Los Alamos.

20 I had the opportunity to train in 

21 some of those canyons that they have talked 

22 about here earlier this evening and some of 
459

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those canyons that actually have -- they found 

2 contamination. I have also been in the middle 

3 of where there were machining beryllium where 

4 we saw machinists using PPE and the security 

5 officer standing guard and escorting some of 

6 this machine parts and no PPE was ever offered 

7 any masks for protection.

8 So in regards to that, I think, a 

9 lot has been said here this evening. But 

10 again, we also have to consider that as a 

11 commissioner, I represent a lot of the work 

12 force up in Los Alamos from custodial and all 

13 the crafts. And they come before the 

14 Commission to grieve some of those concerns 

15 that are happening at the National Laboratory.

16 But I also have to look at finding 

17 that balance. The Rio Arriba County has 

18 supported the National Laboratory through 

19 resolution and in many areas that we feel that 

20 are beneficial to our country.

21 But again, there has to be some 

22 balance. And I hope that this evening we can 
460

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 come to the consensus that we need to find 

2 balance, so that these people can get 

3 compensated for what they have suffered up in 

4 Los Alamos. 

5 I think that overall we also need 

6 to recognize that there are individuals that 

7 are here that are no longer here with us, 

8 parents, grandparents and brothers and sisters 

9 that definitely, I feel that we also, need to 

10 support.

11 So I would like to thank you for 

12 giving me that opportunity here this evening 

13 and for hearing all these residents that are 

14 really, really looking for some support in 

15 some way, if it's monetary or counseling or 

16 whatever it might be. 

17 I hope that in the future we have 

18 those resources available for every individual 

19 that works in Los Alamos. So again, thank you 

20 on behalf of the people of Rio Arriba County.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

22 (Applause.)
461

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CORDOVAN: Good afternoon. 

2 Thank you for being here. My name is Rocindo 

3 Cordovan. I got 31 years with security. The 

4 first few years that we were working with mace 

5 and handgun security, we didn't have a safety 

6 program.

7 The safety program didn't get 

8 started until 1986. We started to learn 

9 safety then, but before that, we would be 

10 doing work like the commissioner mentioned 

11 without any PPE, milling, SM-102, that was one 

12 of the biggest places.

13 We got to work down at the -- at 

14 TA-41, a pretty bad place. TA-41 was one of 

15 the worst places. We had to go into this room 

16 where we actually had to walk through 

17 canisters, barrels that were rotten and you 

18 could see the white powdery stuff. We walked 

19 all over it. We would get monitored. We 

20 would monitor ourselves. The readings were 

21 pretty high.

22 We did some training on the 
462

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 canyons, like he mentioned. I was on the SWAT 

2 Team for 14 years and out of those 14 years, 

3 we got to do all kinds of crawling going 

4 through fences, going through areas. As a 

5 matter of fact, at TA-69 at the hot down, we 

6 were doing some training there. We never knew 

7 that it was a hot down.

8 What happened here is that they 

9 didn't educate their supervisors, not telling 

10 them, alerting where not to go. We have been 

11 all over like custodians, fire fighters, you 

12 know, security guards. Wow, we could write a 

13 book on that. But I do thank you for 

14 listening to us and that's it. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

16 you.

17 (Applause.)

18 MS. MAEZ-CLOVIS: Priscilla Maez19 Clovis. I just have a couple of things I want 

20 to add on my father's claim. He was also 

21 disabled in Los Alamos. He fell from, I 

22 believe, a 3 or 4 story scaffold and his back 
463

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was broken. He had like four different 

2 surgeries, corrective surgeries.

3 So not only did he deal with a lot 

4 of the exposure stuff, but the disability 

5 stuff and being hospitalized and being poked 

6 and prodded and tested.

7 And the last like months of his 

8 life, he used to have me stop and get him some 

9 sanitary napkins because he had rectal 

10 bleeding and he refused to go to the doctor 

11 any longer, because he said he didn't want to 

12 be poked or prodded not one more time. He 

13 said just let me die in peace.

14 So I just want to make it known, 

15 there was a possibility that he did have some 

16 type of prostate cancer or rectal cancer and, 

17 you know, whether it was chronic bronchitis 

18 or COPD or all these other illnesses, I want 

19 you all to know that these are all terminal, 

20 just like cancer. There is no getting better. 

21 There is no recovery. It is terminal. The 

22 conditions that they have to live with. Thank 
464

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you.

2 (Applause.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Thank 

4 you. Anybody else that would like to -- yes, 

5 sir?

6 MR. ORTEGA: My name is Raymond 

7 Ortega and I worked as a security guard over 

8 27 years for Los Alamos. And when I started, 

9 we used to work at DP Road, which was one of 

10 the worst sites we had. We had stations and 

11 that building was so hot that the wall -- the 

12 paint would peel off the walls and they would 

13 have to go and paint it every so often with 

14 lead paint. But it was so hot that the walls 

15 would just peel off, you know, the paint.

16 And we had a station there. We 

17 used to have a Detex clock that we used to 

18 patrol in that area. And we used to go into a 

19 large building where they had large -- they 

20 were like glass tubes of tritium and we had to 

21 go right in front of that stuff and punch 

22 these keys for this clock.
465

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Also, there was an area, too, 

2 under the shops building that we used to go 

3 in. And I don't know why we would go in this 

4 area, but we would go down the ladder 

5 underground. We would go in about 300 feet 

6 under the building, the main machine shop and 

7 we had to go check a door.

8 This was -- I was working swing 

9 shift then. We had to do it twice a shift. 

10 And one day I was talking to one of the main 

11 bosses from the shops and I was telling him 

12 about this procedure. And he says you are 

13 joking, no? I said no. I said we used to go 

14 down the ladder with a flashlight, go under 

15 the building and check this door. And it was 

16 always locked. I mean, it was underground.

17 Why we had to check it, I don't 

18 know, but we would do it. He told me I don't 

19 believe you went and did that. He says when 

20 we go under that tunnel he says we have to 

21 wear full respirators and everything. He says 

22 we just cannot let anybody go in there. I 
466

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said well, we did it for many years and did 

2 this procedure, you know.

3 Another procedure that they used 

4 to do was at TA-18. And they used to run this 

5 ray, okay, it was called a Godiva Ray and they 

6 ran it. And they would say that, you know, we 

7 would stay in our station and they would say 

8 well, nothing will come to you, you know. 

9 Well, I think we were being used as guinea 

10 pigs and I'll tell you why.

11 Because when they ran this ray, 

12 they stopped the traffic up at White Rock and 

13 they stopped it up at the top by 55. Nobody 

14 was allowed to go through when they were 

15 running this ray. But we were there. We were 

16 there.

17 And one time we had three security 

18 guards or two of them and they used to give us 

19 double dosimetries. Well, they went and put 

20 their dosimetry badges, the ones they issued 

21 them, on the fence and when they got the 

22 readings, they were way up there. They even 
467

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 send a congressional committee from Washington 

2 and they wanted to close down the lab, because 

3 the doses were in the thousands, you know.

4 And they wanted to know, you know, 

5 who had got contaminated. Of course, you 

6 know, it was just the guys putting it on the 

7 fence, but I mean, it was a big issue. They 

8 almost closed down the lab then.

9 So like I said, I think we have 

10 gone through a lot. And a lot of it has been 

11 that we didn't know anything. You know, we 

12 have never been educated in these matters. 

13 And I mean, I have been there 27 years and the 

14 fire, that Cerro Grande fire when it was on, 

15 we were working 16, 18 hours.

16 Some of our buildings, you know, 

17 our areas were on fire and we were breathing 

18 all that stuff. And we didn't have no masks 

19 or anything. They -- at the end, I think they 

20 gave us those little like paper respirators, 

21 whatever, but we were there like I say for 16, 

22 18 hours a day.
468

NEAL 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 all these fumes and whatever 

2 was burning, we were breathing all that. We 

3 were at the sites protecting them, you know, 

4 and trying to put out fires also with the fire 

5 department. And I don't know what we 

6 breathed, but, you know, we have gone through 

7 a lot.

8 And nobody has ever, you know, 

9 really taken the time to, I guess, check us 

10 out or whatever, you know. That's all I want 

11 to say.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

13 MR. ORTEGA: Thank you for your 

14 time and thank you for listening.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, thank you.

16 MR. ORTEGA: Thank you.

17 (Applause.)

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We have a few 

19 more people.

20 PUBLIC PARTICIPANT: I just would 

21 like to say, folks, the dose reconstruction 

22 process is wrong. They are not looking at 
469

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 true figures. It is -- you know, in our area 

2 there are so many sick people, sickly people 

3 walking around.

4 The other day I was at a bingo in 

5 Espanola at a church bingo and a lady came up 

6 to me and she said my husband finally got his 

7 settlement. And I told her how happy I was. 

8 And she started walking away and I asked her 

9 how long did it take. And she said eight 

10 years.

11 Eight years and he is sickly. 

12 There is something wrong. You know, it's 

13 broken. It is not a true picture. It is 

14 wrong. It's wrong. Thank you.

15 (Applause.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

17 you. If you could introduce yourself?

18 MR. GARCIA: Hello, my name is 

19 Paul Garcia. I'm a street police officer. 

20 I've been up there 25 years. I just want to 

21 say, you know, everything that Rose and Elias 

22 were saying, it's all true. We worked in a 
470

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lot of areas that the majority of time, I'm 

2 speaking for us, we never had protection.

3 We would be stationed say right 

4 here, right outside these doors and right 

5 behind them they would be doing experiments. 

6 And they would be covered from head to toe 

7 with white uniforms and we would just be on 

8 this side and just be standing there.

9 We don't even know what we could 

10 have picked up. And it is still going on. 

11 Just a couple of years ago, there was a small 

12 minor explosion and I happened to be there. 

13 And all these people are all suited up. I 

14 didn't even know about it. I just turned 

15 around and there must have been about 10 

16 people all suited up and I'm right there 20 

17 feet away.

18 My job was to keep people from 

19 going in there. And I moved the perimeter 

20 further away, because I didn't know. I asked 

21 and they said oh, you have nothing to worry 

22 about. But I doubt it. And things like that 
471

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 happened all the time.

2 And you know, like there at Sigma, 

3 Building 141, beryllium and also at shops, the 

4 same thing. Like Ray was saying down at DP, 

5 they have tritium. We had to go in those 

6 buildings and check them with the Detex clock 

7 and these are -- you know, we had to go check 

8 these places sometimes an hour, two hours.

9 We didn't even wear booties, 

10 nothing. We just walked right in and did our 

11 checks. And you could see these containers 

12 all rotting and steaming and, you know, we 

13 would turn it in, but, you know, nothing was 

14 ever done.

15 You know, most of that place is 

16 probably gone now. But, you know, and like 

17 Ray was saying, that's true, those paint --

18 those walls, they would have to paint those 

19 every month, within two or three weeks that 

20 whole paint was gone. And it is probably a 

21 room this size, all the paint was gone. 

22 Constantly they are going and painting that 
472

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 place.

2 I just wanted to say that, thank 

3 you.

4 (Applause.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, thank you 

6 for that. Anybody else? Yes?

7 MR. JOHNSON: So many of these --

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, if you 

9 would step up to the mike, that's all, so we 

10 can hear you.

11 MR. JOHNSON: My name is Richard 

12 Johnson.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

14 MR. JOHNSON: What I originally 

15 was going to speak to was, basically, the same 

16 thing she was telling about eight years.

17 Well, I was denied and I appealed. 

18 I won the appeal and until last, what was it, 

19 February two years ago, you were in 

20 Albuquerque?

21 I have never had acknowledged the 

22 affidavits and evidence that I sent in. 
473

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Finally, just in the recent months, they are 

2 talking to me. This is getting close to a 

3 death date. I mean, this is getting -- for so 

4 many of these people, this is just a little 

5 bit ridiculous.

6 They boss you around for months 

7 and years and then the same thing with the one 

8 fellow, he thought if he applied again, they 

9 would just lower the reading more. That's a 

10 pattern.

11 Getting out to talk to people, 

12 that is a pattern. So take it for whatever it 

13 is worth.

14 (Applause.)

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank 

16 you. One more here.

17 MR. ORTIZ: Howdy. Thank you for 

18 listening to all of us. And my name is Lloyd 

19 Ortiz and I have worked at the lab 34 years 

20 already. And I'm just here to kind of 

21 reiterate what a lot of these people have said 

22 and even with the experiences that I have 
474

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 experienced myself there.

2 Just what this gentleman finished 

3 saying, that's one of the things I have 

4 written down here as comments to mention to 

5 you people is the fact that, like I said, I 

6 started working there in '76, 34 years that I 

7 have been there.

8 And when I started working there, 

9 they had certain levels that you were allowed 

10 to work in a certain area that was either 

11 potential or was an area that they worked with 

12 plutonium or any kind of isotopes or whatever.

13 So the fact is that as I have seen 

14 the progression of the lab in the years that I 

15 have been there, every year it's just like 

16 that gentleman said, they keep lowering the 

17 limits that they allow for people to work in 

18 there. And then it goes back to like other 

19 people have said, they -- whoever the team 

20 leaders, the group leaders or whoever they are 

21 that have set these standards, half of them or 

22 some of them don't even know half of what they 
475

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should know to set these limits.

2 And that's why a lot of these 

3 people are getting contaminated or sick with 

4 cancer and things like that, you know.

5 Now, the example I was going to 

6 use, just as one scenario, is that at one 

7 time, well, I used to work at the CMR Building 

8 and I worked at TA-55 also. And when I worked 

9 at TA-55, there was a team leader and a 

10 project leader that were in charge of getting 

11 certain tasks done, okay?

12 I won't go into all the details of 

13 it, okay? But the fact was that they wanted 

14 to get this job done, because they had a 

15 deadline. And their mentality is we're going 

16 to stick you in there and get the job done no 

17 matter what happens or what conditions those 

18 are and you get the job done, so we can get 

19 this job done and off their paperwork or 

20 whatever, you know?

21 So I was the RCT in charge. They 

22 put me as the RCT in charge of that project. 
476

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 When I went in there, since I was the lead 

2 RCT, to look over, take over this project, it 

3 was done inside a tent. It was -- they built 

4 a tent and all this work was going to get done 

5 in there.

6 So we had to wear full respirator 

7 and all the PPE that needed to be used. So I 

8 went in there and I was taking readings of 

9 contamination or, in other words, making sure 

10 that everything was appropriate for things to 

11 get -- work to go on in there.

12 So one of the things that I found 

13 was there was not a proper flow rate for what 

14 we needed in there to work in there. So I 

15 walked back out and I stopped the job.

16 What happened is after I stopped 

17 the job, the team leader and the project 

18 leader were trying to make it look like I was 

19 the one that failed to do my job and because 

20 of the fact that the job -- I stopped the job, 

21 they, like I said, tried to make it look like 

22 I was the one that failed to do the job.
477

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 When, yet, what they wanted is 

2 just to get the job done and you get in there 

3 and do it, you know? And what I'm saying with 

4 all that, there is a lot more to say to it, 

5 but what I don't like about it either is that 

6 is one of the things.

7 The other thing is then after they 

8 get that job done after they stick people in 

9 there to get that job done, then they come 

10 back and they give each other rewards or 

11 certificates saying that they did a good job, 

12 you know? And yet, what happens to the 

13 worker? They never recognize the worker for 

14 what he does.

15 You know, he or she, whatever, you 

16 know? So that's why I am again like 

17 reiterating where all these people said that 

18 the whole picture is wrong and something needs 

19 to get done. And a lot of -- my dad has a 

20 claim. So there again, you know, all these 

21 people are suffering, yet, they are taking 

22 years and years to make a determination with 
478

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 numbers that they don't even have.

2 So anyway, thank you for listening 

3 to me. And I appreciate your time.

4 (Applause.)

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. 

6 Okay. One last comment and then we sort of 

7 need to wrap up. We've got a Court Reporter 

8 here who has been sitting here very patiently 

9 for over four hours.

10 MR. CORDOVAN: I'm sorry.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, that's okay.

12 MR. CORDOVAN: Rocindo Cordovan.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

14 MR. CORDOVAN: I failed to mention 

15 a couple of things. In security, we are doing 

16 a lot of double shifts. We are working 12, 16 

17 hours, three or four times a week. So we are 

18 getting double exposure. We are going -- you 

19 know, that's one of the things that I failed 

20 to mention.

21 The other one was the fire back in 

22 2000. All different kinds of chemicals 
479

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 throughout the mountains and buildings and 

2 stuff like that. We got exposed to stuff like 

3 that. So just to clarify that.

4 Thank you.

5 (Applause.)

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you 

7 very much. And thank everybody here very much 

8 --

9 (Applause.)

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For making the 

11 effort in coming out and making comments.

12 Now, we may have some people on 

13 the phone that want to make comments. Is 

14 there anybody on the phone that wants to make 

15 comments? We should have more time tomorrow 

16 night for -- I don't hear any.

17 Okay. Okay. There is nothing. 

18 We are adjourned until tomorrow morning.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 7:04 p.m.)

21

22
480

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12