This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

HANFORD WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY

MARCH 23, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened by 

teleconference, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time, James 

M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

2 

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

MIKE KUBIAK, ORAU Team

MARK LEWIS, ATL

JENNY LIN, HHS

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

KNUT RINGEN

GAIL SPLETT, DOE

FAYE VLIEGER

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

3 

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

2 (2:02 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone. This is 

4 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

5 the Hanford Work Group. There are materials, for 

6 people listening on the line, there are materials, 

7 including the agenda and documents for this meeting 

8 today, on the NIOSH website under the Board Section 

9 under today's date.

10 Okay. Let's start with roll call. And 

11 one of the things I guess I'll note up-front, 

12 please, everybody listening on the line, if you're 

13 not speaking, mute your phone, press star-6 to mute 

14 your phone, if you don't have a mute button. And 

15 then press star-6 again to take your phone off of 

16 mute.

17 Let's get going with roll call. For 

18 Board Members, we're speaking about a specific 

19 site, so please speak to conflict of interest with 

20 respect to the site as we go through it, for all 

21 agency personnel. And let's begin with the Chair 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

4 

1 and the Members of the Work Group.

2 (Roll call.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, so that takes care of 

4 administrative matters. Jim, it's your meeting.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, Ted. 

6 I think this will be a relatively brief meeting. 

7 And I think will start by turning it over to, I 

8 believe, Sam Glover will talk to us about the 

9 Petition Evaluation Report. Sam?

10 MR. GLOVER: Thanks, Jim. Unlike my 

11 colleague, I think I've got my presentation down 

12 to a reasonable number of slides.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

14 MR. GLOVER: I have to tease Tim. So, 

15 I am going to start out with a little bit of overview 

16 about the Hanford site. I have shared portions of 

17 my screen, I'm hoping that comes through properly. 

18 So, I'll change slides, but as people want to follow 

19 along I'll try to make sure that I call out the slide 

20 number. I know not everybody is able to log in with 

21 us. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

5 

1 So I'm going to go ahead and go to Slide 

2 2 here. So, this will be the presentation, Jim, that 

3 I'll put on at the Board meeting.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right.

5 MR. GLOVER: Okay. All right. So, 

6 Slide 2. I want to point out, you know, this has 

7 not been fast. You know, this has been --- SEC 57, 

8 obviously, it's been a while that it's been 

9 ongoing. But I kind of wanted to start out by 

10 discussing a little bit of the complexity of such 

11 a diverse facility. You know, Hanford every few 

12 years changes their mission, their contractors. 

13 Every time they change their contractor, they 

14 change their records. And it is an extremely 

15 complicated site to do research at. 

16 So, we have a very diverse site. It's 

17 a large number of documents. There are tens and 

18 tens of thousands of boxes, and you have to go 

19 through and follow through the different 

20 facilities and who owns them, and the changes in 

21 records, and all those changes have happen over 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

6 

1 time.

2 So, NIOSH has worked to review this 

3 complex facility to address the many different SEC 

4 issues that have been identified and changed over 

5 the life of the Hanford facility. This still falls 

6 under the umbrella of SEC 57 that had started in 

7 the requested time period, 1943 through 1990. All 

8 of this is being extended into 83.14, you know. We 

9 basically came to the conclusion we could do dose 

10 reconstruction, and we would do any other parts of 

11 this as an 83.14 if we identified areas where we 

12 couldn't. So, we are requesting this as an 83.14, 

13 just to kind of go back in history a little bit.

14 Slide 3. So, just a quick review. We 

15 issued a Petition Part 1, SEC 57 Part 1, for the 

16 DuPont time frame, which is when Hanford started 

17 through August 31st, 1946, when DuPont left and GE 

18 took over. The second Class added to the SEC was 

19 September 1st, 1946 to December 31st, 1968. Again, 

20 on both of these we would start out with selected 

21 areas of Hanford.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

7 

1 We recognized the difficulty then of 

2 actually administering those Classes and putting 

3 people in places, and Class Petition SEC 152 

4 subsumed those previous two Classes, and put it as 

5 all areas and all workers from October 1, 1943 

6 through June 30th, 1972. So, each of these had 

7 different reasons and different, you know, what 

8 were the nuclides involved, and what were the 

9 specifics.

10 We continued our review. 1972 was when 

11 a number of different challenges, the thorium, and 

12 some different components, we changed over and 

13 started looking at some other areas. And then we 

14 found that --- we recommended the July 1972 through 

15 December 31st, 1983, again for all areas at Hanford 

16 as Petition 201. 

17 And it's been that way for a number of 

18 years now. We've continued to work with the Board 

19 regarding the SEC matrix. I should mention that 

20 one Class was not added. I included this because 

21 it was a lot of work. SEC 155 was the falsification 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

8 

1 of radiological records. And so through all of 

2 this, the Board has been with us on many of the data 

3 captures. And we, obviously, brought in folks for 

4 a lot of different interviews and have done a lot 

5 of work at Hanford.

6 So, Slide 4. So, essentially, SEC 57 

7 remains open before the Advisory Board, and an 

8 issues matrix continues to be addressed. During the 

9 review of these issues, NIOSH and the Work Group 

10 agreed there were some circumstances that we should 

11 look at a particular group of workers during the 

12 period '84 to '90, after the end of the last SEC, 

13 based on documents and correspondence that those 

14 employees were not monitored for routine bioassay.

15 The correspondence indicated that 

16 while they may have pre-job bioassay, they actually 

17 weren't getting any follow-up. So we began to look 

18 into those records. We conducted detailed 

19 follow-up, including review of monitoring records 

20 and worker interviews. And as part of this, we 

21 recommended that a lass be added to the SEC so that 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

9 

1 workers' claims can be processed during this time 

2 frame while the remaining issues are addressed by

3 the Advisory Board. 

4 This is an 83.14, so it does not talk 

5 about any other area that we --- it tries to stay 

6 focused on issues that we cannot do, that we feel 

7 that we cannot do. So, the latest Hanford petition 

8 was qualified for evaluation March 13th as an 83.14 

9 petition.

10 Next slide, Slide 5, please. And that 

11 was part of the issue for the Working Group, is that 

12 when you do have an 83.14, you have to have a 

13 petitioner. And so we had to wait for documents, 

14 and get those files in place so we could actually 

15 issue --- get a number in place and issue the 

16 report. So, I do apologize for the lateness. We 

17 certainly had intended to get this to you before 

18 the beginning of the month.

19 So, as we looked at this group of 

20 workers, DOE operated at Hanford using a large 

21 number of prime contractors. And this flexed. It 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

10 

1 went up and down, they expanded and they contracted 

2 throughout time. And in this period of time they 

3 were in an expanded mode. Each of those prime 

4 contractors had many subcontractors; in 

5 particular, the construction trade workers. 

6 So, each of these prime contractors at 

7 Hanford were responsible for implementing their 

8 own radiological control program. And so they 

9 individually got to determine who was monitored and 

10 how they should be monitored, with guidance. 

11 Battelle, PNNL, provided general guidance to all 

12 of them. And they were also the contractor who was 

13 involved with administering the external and 

14 internal dosimetry programs, access in the 

15 bioassay for the site.

16 So, construction support services was 

17 conducted under a separate prime contractor during 

18 this time. And actually from 1953 up through 1987, 

19 J.A. Jones was the principal. Was the principal. 

20 They were the radiological service, construction 

21 support services contractor, and in '87 it switched 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

11 

1 over to Kaiser.

2 Slide 6 we see that we had J.A. Jones, 

3 they're the prime contractor from 1953 through 

4 February 28th, 1987. And I mentioned, you'll see 

5 in the slides that they are cumulative for that 

6 year. And so you'll see workers shifting from one 

7 company to the other. And so these things don't 

8 happen instantly, there's always a time period 

9 where things are implemented. So you'll see some 

10 of that lag in the graphs I present.

11 Kaiser Engineers at Hanford, beginning 

12 in '86 they began to transition in as the prime 

13 contractor for construction services, with full 

14 transfer on March 1st of 1987. And they also 

15 maintained their own radiological control program.

16 Next slide, which is Slide 7. Now, as 

17 we began to look at this we realized that these 

18 trades workers supported an incredibly broad range 

19 of activities, including activities involving 

20 research, fuel handling, plutonium processing, the 

21 decontamination and decommissioning of these 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

12 

1 facilities. They provided support to reactor 

2 outages. These workers, without having follow-up 

3 bioassay, worked in high contamination and high 

4 airborne radioactivity areas, in areas such as the 

5 100-N reactor, the PUREX fuel processing 

6 facilities, the various 300 area research 

7 facilities, plutonium finishing plant, as well as 

8 vaults. 

9 Review of the J.A. Jones and Kaiser 

10 Engineering operating procedures found detailed 

11 external dosimetry practices, but the bioassay 

12 program to support these operations was not 

13 addressed. There may be information regarding 

14 that they had to be on full face, or that they may 

15 have some respiratory --- some issues maybe having 

16 them on respiratory protection, or some general 

17 notes, but nothing as far as what were the follow-up 

18 bioassay, what were the other programs surrounding 

19 it? So, it was much different than what the other 

20 programs had.

21 Next slide, Slide 8, please. So, the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

13 

1 work in fundamental radioactive control practices 

2 was very different than the work conducted by the 

3 other prime contractors. Monitoring data for 

4 internal dose are available from other prime 

5 contractors. And I want to point out that J.A. 

6 Jones and Kaiser had a small group of permanent 

7 workers, but in general they would hire workers on 

8 a temporary basis to deal with jobs, as needed. 

9 So, it could be difficult in the records to 

10 understand are they --- because sometimes they'd 

11 be subsumed or listed as a J.A. Jones employee in, 

12 say, REX, but not always. And then as we speak to 

13 the Class Definition, and why we were forced to deal 

14 with this convoluted description doing it in 

15 reverse, as we describe this as Department of Labor 

16 and Department of Energy, it'll become more 

17 apparent.

18 Slide 9, please. So, subcontractors 

19 are difficult for the Department of Energy to 

20 determine if they worked in the capacity of 

21 construction trades, and also which company was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

14 

1 responsible for the dosimetry. So, they could be 

2 hired by other --- so that, you know, they were 

3 hired on a temporary basis, they could work for 

4 other companies. So it would be very difficult for 

5 them to identify in these back and forth which 

6 companies the subs really worked for. So, 

7 obviously, for J.A. Jones and Kaiser, many of their 

8 employees were of this type. It's particularly 

9 difficult to work with them.

10 So, in consultation with DOL and DOE, 

11 we found that we could not limit a Class to J.A. 

12 Jones and Kaiser Engineers and their 

13 subcontractors. They just could not administer 

14 that Class. So DOE has identified that they have 

15 excellent employment records for the 

16 non-construction prime contractors, and we know 

17 that Westinghouse subsumed all of the primes, 

18 including the construction primes, in '93, but they 

19 had partial implementation in '87. 

20 So, let's take a look on Slide 10, 

21 please. My colleagues at Department of Energy 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

15 

1 provided a bigger graph, or PowerPoint, that 

2 actually had the Department of Energy and all of 

3 its contractors. And I stole part of this to try 

4 to help show the diversity. And unlike Savannah 

5 River, we have a very diverse group. 

6 I circled in blue the prime contractors 

7 that we are identifying as excluded. So, places 

8 like Battelle Northwest, Rockwell Operations, 

9 United Nuclear. And these are all in the time 

10 frame --- there are some that are --- you know, 

11 this is a graph that starts back in time into the 

12 '60s or earlier. So, I tried to circle things to 

13 draw your attention to which ones are in the time 

14 frame we're dealing with here, which is '84 through 

15 1990.

16 You see Westinghouse at Hanford, then 

17 they actually become --- through 6/20/87, and then 

18 they go through '93, so they actually had --- it 

19 was Boeing Computer Services, and finally, the 

20 Hanford Environmental Health Foundation. 

21 The two that we are trying to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

16 

1 specifically focus on was J.A. Jones and Kaiser. 

2 So we've identified a deficiency in J.A. Jones and 

3 Kaiser for our program for administering the 

4 EEOIPCA, in trying to determine dose, that it is 

5 hard to use their records to support dose 

6 reconstruction. Whereas, the other contractors 

7 seemed to have a radiological control program that 

8 --- they had their own separate program. We don't 

9 have anything that shows that they have a similar 

10 deficiency. 

11 When we realized that this group and 

12 these --- the other parts of this were still before 

13 the Board, but, you know, we're focusing on this 

14 group of workers and companies that specifically 

15 we were able to identify has not done bioassay for 

16 their workers. 

17 So, let's go to Slide 11, please. So, 

18 the basis for our findings include we found a 

19 virtual absence of monitor with J.A. Jones 

20 employees for internal dose during the period 1984 

21 through 2/28 of '87. Correspondence files and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

17 

1 memos indicate that Kaiser --- that they 

2 recognized the bioassay problem in construction 

3 trades and they issued a memo to PNNL that they were 

4 going to substantially increase the monitoring. 

5 However, for budgetary reasons, the implementation 

6 of that program was delayed.

7 So we began looking at the data in REX, 

8 and trying to come to grips with their program, to 

9 identify when the proper cut-off --- when it looks 

10 like we do have these workers in our cohort so that 

11 we can properly do coworker data sets. 

12 And it's not just bioassay, or, you 

13 know, they just did something. They had to do the 

14 right kind of bioassay. It couldn't be pre-job 

15 bioassay, they needed to be part of a routine 

16 bioassay program. It needed to be routine, not 

17 just pre-job, that they have to have the chest 

18 counting and plutonium urinalysis, and to bring 

19 that up to a similar level to what the rest of the 

20 Hanford prime contractors were doing. You'll see 

21 that in our next set of graphs.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

18 

1 So, NIOSH reached the determination 

2 that by the end of 1990, Kaiser had implemented a 

3 program that allowed dose reconstruction using 

4 personal dosimetry data or coworker data for the 

5 construction trades workers. 

6 Slide 12, please. Okay. I tried to 

7 indicate --- it looks like we've got some 

8 changeover between two different --- some color 

9 changes, some lines got deleted, it looks like, 

10 when we went between different programs. So, I 

11 apologize for that. But you can follow the dots 

12 and the dashes. 

13 What you see is that both monitoring 

14 programs, or both monitoring companies, are on 

15 here. The highest line, the inverted triangles, 

16 shows the total number of workers identified as 

17 J.A. Jones who had external monitoring during that 

18 period. And if you look below them, Kaiser wasn't 

19 doing --- they weren't responsible for this 

20 service at that time frame, so we're only talking 

21 about J.A. Jones. You see that there's virtually 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

19 

1 no in vitro or in vivo bioassay being conducted.

2 Now, for Kaiser, they begin, you see, 

3 1986. Since that's the whole year for that, you'll 

4 see that they start coming in. And you'll see that 

5 they do have higher levels, but it's not until you 

6 get into the period around 1990 when they actually, 

7 you'll see on the next graph, that they actually 

8 come up to a level which is appropriate -- or not 

9 appropriate, but similar to what other contractors 

10 at Hanford are doing. 

11 So, let's go to Slide 13, please. So, 

12 this slide focuses on the Kaiser increases. And 

13 you'll see that they come up, they start very low 

14 at the beginning, which is the J.A. Jones. Then 

15 in '88 you see the ramp up during the 30 percent 

16 of workers with external having --- in this case 

17 we have in vitro bioassay. And then it stayed 

18 pretty flat through '89. By 1990, and continuing 

19 past that, they begin to mirror the traditional. 

20 So, that's why we chose the end of 1990. That's when 

21 they came up similar levels of the other prime 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

20 

1 contractors.

2 Slide 14, please. So, our 

3 recommendation is that J.A. Jones and Kaiser 

4 employees, and all subcontractors -- so not just 

5 their subcontractors; DOE does not really feel 

6 that they can try to split these out -- will be 

7 included in the recommended Class. So we will use 

8 any internal dose data that may become available 

9 for individual claims. We will use external and 

10 medical dose to complete partial dose 

11 reconstructions.

12 Now, we will continue to perform full 

13 dose reconstructions for DOE employees, and all the 

14 specifically identified prime contractors who were 

15 excluded from this Class during this period. And, 

16 obviously, we will continue to evaluate the 

17 remaining issues at Hanford during the '84 to 1990 

18 period with the Advisory Board.

19 Slide 15, please. So, you'll see this 

20 rather unusual table for DR feasibility. So dose 

21 reconstruction is feasible, and a full dose 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

21 

1 reconstruction during this time frame is done for 

2 Department of Energy, Battelle Memorial Institute, 

3 Westinghouse Hanford, Hanford Environmental 

4 Health Foundation, Rockwell, Boeing Computer 

5 Services, and UNC Nuclear. And that's for the 

6 period '84 through '87. 

7 Then we have a change in who the prime 

8 contractors are. This is part of the contraction, 

9 at least partial contraction, at Hanford from '87 

10 through '90. Still having DOE, and Battelle, 

11 Westinghouse, and the Hanford Environmental HF, 

12 Health Foundation. Some of the others, of course, 

13 subsumed by Westinghouse. And we conclude that 

14 dose reconstruction is not feasible in the period 

15 of '84 through December 31st, 1990, for all other 

16 employees, Department of Energy contractors and 

17 subcontractors.

18 Slide 16, please. So, you'll see for 

19 the external component of this, the heading in the 

20 third column has changed, that we're saying partial 

21 reconstruction is feasible, because we're 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

22 

1 obviously going to use the records that are 

2 available to do external dose. So, the same 

3 companies we consider feasible for external for 

4 both periods. It's the discussion on the partial 

5 reconstruction feasibility in external dose, is 

6 why we split this up and changed the headings. So, 

7 certainly, if there's any questions on that, let 

8 me know.

9 Slide 17, please. And just, again, as 

10 usual, we tried to give you some level of effect 

11 on what the Class might be. There's 5,384 claims 

12 submitted for dose reconstruction at Hanford. 

13 During this time frame, there's 2,175 claims. The 

14 number of dose reconstructions worked during this 

15 time period, completed is 1,801. Numbers of 

16 claims for which internal records were obtained is 

17 1,532. That doesn't mean they were obtained and 

18 were the right kind of bioassay, but we have 1,532 

19 claims which had bioassay records. And the number 

20 of claims with external dosimetry records is 2,125. 

21 So, this is going to require a pretty 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

23 

1 careful review of the cases by Department of Labor. 

2 Based on our records, we have determined there's 

3 about 723 cases at NIOSH with a PoC of less than 

4 50 percent, and 29 cases at NIOSH currently that 

5 may need further evaluation and looked at whether 

6 they have this kind of employment. And, also, 

7 Department of Energy has indicated that they have 

8 substantial new information on employment for the 

9 older cases, particularly involving 

10 subcontractors, that they've got a lot of new 

11 finding aids that provide substantially more 

12 information regarding employment time at Hanford. 

13 And with the nuance of this, they have to be 

14 re-requested to provide that new information. So, 

15 I know they're looking at having a substantial 

16 amount of work to look at these cases, and look at 

17 the employment, and the impact of these 

18 subcontractors.

19 Slide 18. So, the Class Definition in 

20 its totality, then, is all employees of the 

21 Department of Energy contractors and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

24 

1 subcontractors. You'll note we did not include 

2 the Department of Energy employees. We're talking 

3 specifically about their contractors and 

4 subcontractors, so we're excluding that right off 

5 the bat. We're not including the DOE employees 

6 directly. 

7 So, all employees of Department of 

8 Energy contractors and subcontractors, excluding 

9 employees of the following Hanford prime 

10 contractors during the specified time period. 

11 We're listing Battelle Memorial Institute from 

12 January 1, '84 through December 31st, 1990; 

13 Rockwell Hanford Operations from January 1, '84 

14 through June 28th, 1987; Boeing Computer Services 

15 Richland from January 1, 1984 through June 28th, 

16 1987; UNC Nuclear Industry, January 1, '84 through 

17 June 28th, 1987; Westinghouse Hanford Company from 

18 January 1, 1984 through December 31st, 1990; and 

19 HEHF, Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, 

20 January 1, 1984 through December 31st, 1990, who 

21 worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

25 

1 during the period January 1, 1984 through December 

2 31st, 1990, for a number of work days aggregating 

3 at least 250 work days. And the rest of it is the 

4 standard boilerplate Special Exposure Cohort. 

5 So, that's the end of my presentation, 

6 Jim.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let me unmute there. 

8 Sorry for the delay. Board Members with questions? 

9 Hello?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

13 wasn't sure what was going on there. I thought maybe 

14 my phone had given out. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Maybe it's just you 

16 and I. Is anybody else on?

17 MR. KATZ: I'm on. I think we're all 

18 still on.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm getting 

21 somebody's ---yeah, okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

26 

1 MR. KATZ: Yeah, someone called in, I 

2 think.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: No problem.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anyway, any Board 

6 Members have questions for Sam? 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I have 

8 a couple of questions.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, first of all, 

11 I'll just start with a remark that I thought the 

12 definition is very strange, and I just don't 

13 understand the reason for it. But are we assured 

14 that the contractors that are excluded, none of the 

15 construction workers would have worked for those 

16 prime contractors. Is that correct?

17 MR. GLOVER: So, for those primes, if 

18 you're working for them, you would be under their 

19 radiological control program --- 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, if you were a 

21 construction worker then.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

27 

1 MR. GLOVER: So, if you were a sub to 

2 them, then --- only honest to goodness prime 

3 contractor employees, if you're a real Battelle 

4 employee, they were saying that you should be 

5 excluded. We're not trying to exclude any of the 

6 subs. So if you're a worker out of the --- I think 

7 they call it the 3000 area -- my colleagues from 

8 the Department of Energy who are on the line, they 

9 could correct me if I make any error -- but from 

10 the union halls, for any of these temporary people 

11 who would be hired to do construction labor, for 

12 any of these people, we're not trying to exclude 

13 anybody under that, because of the complexity of 

14 this. Only if you're an honest to goodness 

15 employee of that prime contractor. And those 

16 records seem to be very well documented and 

17 established. So, they know if you're a Rockwell 

18 employee.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you. But those 

20 could include construction workers that they 

21 wouldn't have the monitoring data. Is that what 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

28 

1 you're saying?

2 MR. GLOVER: Well, Rockwell, we see 

3 that their employees seem to be monitored. They 

4 weren't part of the same deficiency for our 

5 program trying to evaluate not having that 

6 internal follow-up. At this point in time, we 

7 haven't researched the rest of those. Those areas 

8 would still be before the Board. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. And then on 

10 the others, in addition to Jones and Kaiser, some 

11 of the other subcontractors, are those all 

12 construction workers, or were there other 

13 subcontracts?

14 MR. GLOVER: I'm sure that --- well, 

15 see, it's difficult to put your finger on what 

16 exactly is a construction trade worker. I mean, 

17 I was unable to try to tell somebody what the 

18 definition was going to be, because they had people 

19 who would go out in the field for them and would 

20 be doing job evaluations. And it very quickly 

21 became extremely complex as we looked at --- I was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

29 

1 quickly disabused of the notion that I was going 

2 to come up with it as a definition, what would be 

3 the employee's job titles that you would actually 

4 try to pull into it. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Department of 

6 Labor feels they can administer this the way --- is 

7 that correct?

8 MR. GLOVER: I think they are concerned 

9 that it is going to be outside their normal, you 

10 know --- it's going to be work. DOE has continued 

11 to say they think they can support this. 

12 Gail Splett from DOE is on the line, I 

13 think. I don't know if she wants to chime in or 

14 not, but they continue to state --- and I know 

15 Department of Labor had said that they thought that 

16 this was --- because we reworked this with their 

17 input. It is convoluted. This is, obviously, not

18 our preferred way of trying to write a Class.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, and then my final 

20 question was, so we've identified Kaiser and Jones, 

21 but why are we not able to identify the names of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

30 

1 other subcontractors that are on the prime list?

2 MR. GLOVER: My colleagues told me 

3 that, when I got --- there's like 5,000.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: What? Really?

5 MR. GLOVER: Oh, there's like --- there 

6 may be more than that. There's 5,000 companies who 

7 are subcontractors to --- it's unbelievable.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh.

9 MR. GLOVER: And I may be under --- I 

10 may be actually understating how many --- so, 

11 again, in the issue of being relatively concise, 

12 I was told if I tried to do that, that I would have 

13 to list every one of them that I tried to exclude, 

14 and that they weren't able to really --- because 

15 of this back and forth working between different 

16 companies, that it would be extremely difficult to 

17 try to exclude subcontractors.

18 MS. SPLETT: This is Gail Splett in the 

19 Richland Operations Office for DOE. We do have a 

20 list that we've been maintaining of 

21 subcontractors, and it currently lists over 68,000 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

31 

1 subs that we have used over the years. And we 

2 believe that's not even close to the totality. And 

3 I think what Sam is alluding to is a sub that worked 

4 for Jones one week may be a sub to Rockwell the next 

5 week, and that's extremely common. So, for us to 

6 say these are the only subs to Jones and Kaiser 

7 would be really impossible, you know, with any 

8 level of certainty.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I guess I'm a 

10 little bit nervous about what this list of 

11 X-thousand other subcontractors looks like. I 

12 mean, are we talking about somebody who serves the 

13 Coke machine or something like that?

14 MS. SPLETT: If they were a direct 

15 subcontractor, there are some of that, but many of 

16 them, during the construction, would have some 

17 very small companies. That's absolutely true. We'd 

18 get five to six layers down of subcontracts. Very 

19 common for tank farms, for example, Jones had the 

20 contract for construction, they bid it, they 

21 subcontracted it to George Grant, who had multiple 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

32 

1 thousand subcontractors working on it. And each of 

2 those subcontractors may have subcontractors. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Someone who works for 

4 one of those sub-subs, they still have to show 250

5 days actually on the site to be eligible, right? 

6 Not just 250 days working for a sub.

7 MS. SPLETT: That's correct. That's my 

8 understanding.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sam, this is Brad. Can 

10 I make a comment, too? Because I understand what 

11 Dr. Ziemer is kind of alluding to. Would that be 

12 all right?

13 MR. GLOVER: You're a Board Member. You 

14 absolutely can.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: One of the things, 

16 being involved with this all --- one of the things 

17 that got into this was, in this time frame, J.A. 

18 Jones was the major --- they did most of the major 

19 construction, so he had all of these different subs 

20 that he had contracts going out to, but one of 

21 --- here's one of the convoluted parts that really 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

33 

1 flows into me. His major contract was like 

2 refuelings and a lot of other stuff, so they would 

3 take and they would bring in hundreds and hundreds 

4 of construction trades a week. And as we're used 

5 the term, turn 'em and burn 'em, they would be 

6 burned out within a week, and then they'd go off 

7 and they'd do another project until they could get 

8 their dose down in the next month or so. Then 

9 they'd come back in to a hot one. 

10 And we saw a lot of this going on. 

11 There's hundreds and hundreds of small contractors 

12 that did other jobs. But, see, they utilize this 

13 whole labor pool, is what I would call it, to be 

14 able to do a lot of these hot jobs. And this is 

15 why -- and I will admit that I agree with Sam on 

16 how we're proceeding ahead, because there's no way 

17 to be able to take and cut out this group and say 

18 that they didn't get it. You know, they could be 

19 working for a contractor filling pop machines one 

20 week, and the next one they could be in a hot cell.

21 But they're still there, they're still 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

34 

1 on the site 250 days. Well, this is the 

2 utilization of manpower, and talking to some of the 

3 construction trades, they were emptying the halls 

4 for three to four hundred miles away using these 

5 people to do these hot jobs, but also doing other 

6 jobs. Because this was kind of a unique group of 

7 people to be able to use out there to be able to 

8 do this work. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, a little bit 

10 like the rotating people that do the shutdowns on 

11 commercial reactors.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yeah --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- have the hot jobs. 

14 Yeah.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And this was 

16 really true, but at Hanford these hot jobs 

17 continued on not just, you know, this is what we're 

18 doing for this one, yeah, they'd go to the next one. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, I got you.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other --- Bill, 

21 did you ever come on the line? I guess not. Arjun, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

35 

1 are you on the line?

2 MR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I was on mute.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I don't know 

4 if you --- from SC&A, I don't know if you have any 

5 comments.

6 MR. MAKHIJANI: The one comment I have 

7 is, looking over, we haven't talked about the 

8 records of non-construction workers for some time. 

9 And I know the Evaluation Report covered it, but 

10 I'd like, you know, maybe Sam to expound a little 

11 bit more on that.

12 MR. GLOVER: So, as we started, you 

13 know, to identify this Class and the correspondence 

14 and the comparison, we had to begin pulling those 

15 records, but we haven't to look through them, 

16 Arjun. That's why we're --- we're excluding them 

17 because it may take us X amount of time. It's not 

18 going to be something we can do overnight. We'll 

19 got to pull those records, try to figure out what 

20 the rest of these are. So we've got requests in 

21 to Hanford to try to understand what their record 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

36 

1 systems are, because now we've got seven or eight 

2 primes that we have to put our arms around. In the 

3 interest of trying to work on this construction 

4 trades Class, we just didn't want to hold it up. 

5 MR. MAKHIJANI: Oh, okay. I understand 

6 better now. Thank you. 

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, so this is sort 

8 of inclusive for the Class, but it doesn't really 

9 exclude other people in the sense that, you know, 

10 NIOSH or the Board's reached a conclusion on these 

11 other groups that dose reconstruction is feasible.

12 MR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Sam.

13 MR. GLOVER: You got it.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Ted, I don't believe 

15 the petitioner was going to be on the line, or 

16 wished to comment.

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I don't believe so, 

18 but I like to always open that opportunity just in 

19 case someone changes their plans or what have you. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, if the 

21 petitioner for this petition is on the line wishes 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

37 

1 to comment, you're welcome to, but you're also 

2 welcome not to. 

3 MS. VLIEGER: Dr. Melius?

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes?

5 MS. VLIEGER: Who's listed as the 

6 petitioner?

7 MR. KATZ: No, we won't talk about that 

8 if --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But it is the 

10 petitioner for this specific 83.14.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MS. VLIEGER: Okay, because there was a 

13 time period where I was listed as the petitioner.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But not on this --- 

15 MR. KATZ: Not on this one.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not on this 

17 particular petition. 

18 MS. VLIEGER: Perfect, then I'll mute.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, and you're 

20 welcome to comment in the public comment period 

21 when we have it later this week. It's sort of a 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

38 

1 technicality, but --- 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is Brad. 

3 Can I make a comment, though, just something you 

4 covered there just a minute ago? I agree, like I 

5 said, wholeheartedly with Sam on this 83.14, what 

6 we've got into. But in no way do I say that this 

7 exact cut-off date --- when we looked at this, as 

8 Sam has alluded to, this was a clear cut to them, 

9 no questions. This is where, you know, this time 

10 is where you started to see the upgrade of the dose 

11 reconstruction. We have not dove into the prime 

12 contractors, or really even the subcontractors. 

13 This was just a cut-off time where Sam 

14 says, you know what, Brad, I feel confident right 

15 here. And if we continue on into this and we see 

16 these, you know, this is just a clear-cut 83.14. 

17 But by no means do I want to say that, yes, we're 

18 absolutely --- there's substantial information on 

19 primes or subcontractors at this time. We need to 

20 evaluate it more in-depth. 

21 MR. GLOVER: Yeah, we did it as a matter 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

39 

1 of, you know, convenience is the wrong word, but, 

2 you know, the data at that point, without dragging 

3 it out for months and months and months trying to 

4 figure out, you know, arguing about the 1990. 

5 That's when the data certainly got better, but we 

6 understand that we have more discussions that are 

7 going to be with the Board.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yeah. No, I think 

9 that's clear.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, Sam, how many 

11 cases will this free up that you guys have? Wasn't 

12 it 760 cases, I thought.

13 MR. GLOVER: Yeah, there's like 

14 probably 750 that we've sent a list back to DOL and 

15 DOE that have employment --- the right --- and a 

16 POC less than 50 percent that will be affected by 

17 this, or may be affected by this.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other questions 

19 at this point? Okay, unless some has another

20 preference, rather than make a formal 

21 recommendation at this point, I'm not even sure if 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

40 

1 we can, given the numbers of people on the line. 

2 Board Members, Ted?

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, I mean, it's fine if you 

4 want to. You don't need a quorum with a Work Group, 

5 so you're welcome to make a recommendation and 

6 solicit from Phil and John at the full meeting. But 

7 however you want to handle it is fine.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Unless someone feels 

9 otherwise, I think let's wait until the full 

10 meeting.

11 MR. KATZ: Sure.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Straightforward, we 

13 have questions. And since we also just got the 

14 report and trying to see what needed to be clarified 

15 at this point in time. Paul and Brad, is that okay?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's fine with me.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

18 MR. KATZ: Maybe Paul is on mute.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No problem. The 

20 other thing I wanted to try to --- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was on mute. Yeah, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

41 

1 that's fine with me.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Paul. The other 

3 thing I want to try to accomplish is maybe, Arjun, 

4 you could give us a brief update on where we are 

5 with sort of the issues matrix, and going forward?

6 MR. MAKHIJANI: Hello, can you hear me?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now we can, yes.

8 MR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, sorry. I heard a 

9 phone ringing.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, no, it seems to 

11 ---

12 MR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you know, as we go 

13 through these we generally let aside a number of 

14 Site Profile issues. And, actually, could I send 

15 you a note about that before the Board meeting?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that would be 

17 fine. I was just wondering if there was anything 

18 --- I think what we need is maybe at the Board 

19 meeting being able to sort of figure out what next 

20 steps would be for the Work Group.

21 MR. MAKHIJANI: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

42 

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And to be able to 

2 inform the original petitioners and other people 

3 interested in what's happening with the site, so 

4 we can provide an update and figure out when we need 

5 to meet again.

6 MR. MAKHIJANI: Let me send you a note 

7 about that. Let me look at the Evaluation Report, 

8 and then I'll send you a note about that before the 

9 Board meeting.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

11 MR. MAKHIJANI: And I'll be on the phone 

12 at the time of the Board meeting.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right. Yeah. We 

14 have an evaluation matrix, and I guess sort of where 

15 do we stand with that, and does this add more to 

16 it in some ways, or not, other issues? 

17 Okay. Any other comments or questions 

18 from Board Members? If not, I think we can 

19 adjourn. Ted?

20 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I would just suggest, 

21 though, as you think about this presentation in the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

43 

1 next day before the Board meeting, if you have 

2 anything that you think Sam can expand upon or 

3 clarify in his actual presentation, just let him 

4 know, pop him an email, that'll be helpful for him.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, actually, Sam, 

6 I thought you did as good as job as you can with 

7 the situation. I mean, it is complicated to 

8 explain.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you know, Jim and 

10 Ted, I want to take this opportunity, because 

11 working with Sam on this, to be able to get into 

12 this and really look at it, and Gail has done an 

13 absolutely marvelous job of getting us this data. 

14 But this is one of the hardest ones that I have ever 

15 really seen, and I appreciate Sam going at with this 

16 kind of attitude, because it is very, very 

17 complicated, I guess I could say that and feel 

18 secure with that. But I really think he's done a 

19 fine job on it, and I think we're headed down the 

20 right path.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hanford Work Group, has been 

reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has 

been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of 

the Hanford Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change.

44 

1 thanks, everybody. I believe we can adjourn. And 

2 we'll see everybody in Richland in a day or two.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. Safe travels, 

4 everybody.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

7 went off the record at 2:50 p.m.)

8 

9 

10 

11 

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