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

+ + + + +

105th MEETING

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

JUNE 9, 2015

+ + + + +

The meeting convened at 11:00 a.m., 

Eastern Time, via teleconference, James M. Melius, 

Chairman, presiding.
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:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

BAGRIER, DAVID

BARRIE, TERRIE

BARTON, BOB, SC&A

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

GIAIMIS, JEAN

KINMAN, JOSH, DCAS

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LIN, JENNY, HHS

MACIEVIC, GREG, DCAS

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

NETON, JIM, DCAS

OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A

THURBER, BILL, SC&A
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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opening, TED KATZ ............................. 4

Roll Call ..................................... 4

Recording Vote for Grand Junction ............. 5

Facilities SEC

SEC Petition for Westinghouse Electric ........ 6

Corp. Facility in Bloomfield, New Jersey

(January 1, 1950 - March 1, 2011)

Petitioners Comments.................... 33

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition ....... 51

Status Update, LaVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

Updates from Work Groups and ................. 53

Subcommittees (as necessary), WORKING

GROUP SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS

Plans for the July 2015 Board Meeting ........ 63
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 11:00 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome everyone. This is 

4 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

5 It's our 105th meeting.

6 The roll call, I'll just note up front 

7 there are no matters on the plate that relate to 

8 anyone's conflicts. So, we are not going to 

9 address individual conflicts of Board Members.

10 Let me get started with roll call, 

11 beginning with Board Members, and I'll just note 

12 the ones I know are on the line that are ready.

13 (Roll call.)

14 Let me just say for everyone's benefit, 

15 the agenda for the meeting is posted on the NIOSH 

16 website under the EEOICPA section of the Board page 

17 scheduled meetings for today's date. So, the 

18 agenda is there, and the presentation being given 

19 today is also posted there, so that members of the 

20 public can follow along, as well as anyone else 

21 Agency related who can't find their copy. Their 

22 presentation should be there, as well as the report 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that the presentation is based on. We'll come to 

2 that soon.

3 And then, let me just ask everyone, 

4 particularly, people new to this meeting, please 

5 mute your phones except when it's your opportunity 

6 to address the group. And, if you don't have a mute 

7 button on your phone, if you'd press *6 that will 

8 mute your phone. Press *6 again and it will unmute 

9 your phone, so that will improve the audio quality 

10 for everyone on the line.

11 Please, do not at any point put the call 

12 on hold, but hang up and dial back in if you need 

13 to leave for some piece.

14 And, with that, it's your meeting. Dr. 

15 Melius.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

17 I think the first order of business is

18 the Grand Junction Facilities SEC.

19 MR. KATZ: It is, thanks, Jim.

20 So, at the March Board meeting we had 

21 several SECs acted on. One of them was Grand 

22 Junction Facilities, and we had a unanimous vote 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the people attending. We had one Member who 

2 couldn't make that vote, Dr. Field, and he had in 

3 an absentee vote concurred with the rest of the 

4 Board. So, it's still unanimous, that motion 

5 passed, and I believe the Secretary has already 

6 acted on that motion, consistent with the Board's 

7 recommendations. 

8 I think that covers that.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks, Ted.

10 And now, we'll move on to our next order 

11 of business, which is the SEC Petition for the 

12 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Facility in 

13 Bloomfield, New Jersey. And, I believe first we 

14 have a presentation from NIOSH.

15 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes. If I can get the 

16 slides up here. Make sure it, actually, is 

17 functioning.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For people on the 

19 phone, our usual order is on a petition, is first 

20 we'll hear from NIOSH about their presentation, and 

21 their recommendation. We'll then have time for 

22 the Board Members to ask any questions they may have 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of Greg, and then we'll give an opportunity for the 

2 petitioners to make any comments that they wish to. 

3 And then, the Board will consider the petition.

4 I also believe I overheard when we 

5 started the meeting that the court reporter 

6 transcribing this is new, at least to our group, 

7 not new to transcribing. So, I'd just remind 

8 everybody to please, when you are making comments 

9 don't assume that he'll recognize your voice. So, 

10 please, give your name, so it will make it a little 

11 easier for him in terms of keeping track.

12 So, with that, go ahead, Greg.

13 DR. MACIEVIC: Okay. I'm Greg Macievic 

14 with NIOSH. I'm a Health Physicist there for the 

15 Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Bloomfield, 

16 New Jersey, SEC 217.

17 This presentation, we are going to use 

18 slides, do I need to say slide one, two, three?

19 MR. KATZ: Greg, that would be good for 

20 the public's sake, that would be helpful, because 

21 they don't have Live Meeting.

22 DR. MACIEVIC: Okay, sounds good, thank 
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 you very much.

2 Slide two, this presentation we are 

3 going to discuss the site history some, the sources 

4 of information that we used to come up with our 

5 consideration. We are going to look at the previous 

6 dose reconstructions that have been done, 

7 potential exposures at the site, the DR 

8 feasibility, dose reconstruction feasibility 

9 approaches, health endangerment clause, and the 

10 proposed SEC Class addition.

11 Next slide.

12 On the SEC petition, it was received on 

13 June 12, 2014. The petition Class was all Atomic 

14 Weapons Employer/employees who worked at any plant 

15 production area of Westinghouse Electric 

16 Corporation in Bloomfield, New Jersey, from 

17 January 1, 1950 through March 1, 2011. And, it was 

18 qualified for evaluation on January 8, 2015, on the 

19 lack of monitoring.

20 Next slide.

21 The petition Class evaluated was, all 

22 employees who worked in any plant production area 
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 in the Westinghouse Electric Corporation site at 

2 Bloomfield, New Jersey, during the period January 

3 1, 1950 through March 1, 2011.

4 And, NIOSH, after looking through our 

5 documentation, determined that April 30, 2000 was 

6 the last date for the applicable EEOICPA program 

7 exposures.

8 Next slide.

9 For the site history and background, it 

10 produced uranium as an AWE employer during World 

11 War II, and the covered time period for that were 

12 1942 through 1949. And then, a period, February 

13 to May, 1958, and June of 1959. There are also --

14 there is also a major residual period of radiation 

15 from 1950 through March 1, 2011.

16 Workers from August 13, 1942 to 

17 December 31, 1949, were added to an SEC under the 

18 petition for SEC 00159. They produced 200 pounds 

19 of thorium from Manhattan Engineer District in 

20 early 1945.

21 Next slide.

22 They processed -- there was processing 
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 of uranium prior to 1950, and they used a 

2 photochemical technique that was on the Building 

3 7 roof, to produce U salt that was pipe-fed to the 

4 building's basement. So, Building 7, as we'll 

5 note later, is also the main -- is the only place 

6 for the AWE work.

7 Then the electrolyzed in the basement 

8 to yield uranium metal. In 1945, the contract 

9 ended, the equipment was removed, and the 

10 production facility was deactivated.

11 There are 11 main buildings, several 

12 smaller buildings, and a garage. All the AWE work 

13 took place in the basement and on the roof of 

14 Building 7, as I've said.

15 This is the next slide, by the way.

16 After deactivation, Building 7 was 

17 mostly used for research testing, as a research 

18 testing laboratory.

19 Next slide.

20 The first commercial license was issued 

21 in May of 1954, and they received only thorium 

22 compounds. And, the commercial rad-work in the 
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 '50s was in Buildings 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and they 

2 employed 78 workers, 26 people per shift, for three 

3 shifts.

4 The site's commercial work mainly 

5 developed and manufactured electric lamps, and 

6 they looked at using natural thorium light 

7 emissions in the production of thoriated tungsten 

8 wire for light bulbs.

9 Next slide.

10 Now, based on our research, the 

11 Department of Labor has added two more AWE 

12 operational periods, that is, from February to May, 

13 1958 and June 1959. Now, the active machining was 

14 only for five days in 1958, and for five days in 

15 1959.

16 The covered work included feasibility 

17 test rollings for the Feed Materials Production 

18 Center in Fernald. It included the Department of 

19 Energy Health and Safety Laboratory oversight. 

20 They did in small basis -- lot basis of production 

21 of six tubes tested in 1958, and they performed 

22 rotary elongation of these U tubes in the 
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 fabrication of fuel elements.

2 Next slide.

3 That's just a picture of the rolling 

4 mill for the tube elongation, just to get a feel 

5 for what that looked like.

6 Next slide.

7 In October of 1976, all known or 

8 suspected areas involved with the MED work were 

9 surveyed under Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

10 Action Program, FUSRAP. 

11 Surveys that were done at that time 

12 indicated traces of residual contamination, 

13 uranium contamination, slightly in excess of 

14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines in the 

15 basement and on an outside loading dock of Building 

16 7.

17 Next slide.

18 The D&D of the Building 7 began in 1976. 

19 Westinghouse, and this is without any DOE 

20 involvement, performed all the D&D work. In 1985, 

21 all the site manufacturing operations stopped, and 

22 all D&D was completed by April 30, 2000, hence, 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

1 date we are using to stop the EEOICPA work, and the 

2 fact that this was all commercial, this was all done 

3 by the site, or through the NRC, not through any 

4 DOE work.

5 Next slide.

6 Sources of available information, we 

7 used TBD-6000 to model the doses for the residual 

8 contamination generated from the machining 

9 operations.

10 There were 496 documents found in the 

11 NIOSH Site Research Database. We did 8 interviews 

12 with former employees and site experts. And, we 

13 did other data searches on the internet and some 

14 other documentation was not in the Site Research 

15 Database.

16 Next slide.

17 In the previous DRs, there were 41 

18 claims submitted for dose reconstruction. 

19 Thirty-five cases were submitted for Energy 

20 employees who worked during the period under 

21 evaluation, from January, 1950 to March 1, 2011. 

22 Thirty-two dose reconstructions were completed for 
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 Energy employees who worked during the period under 

2 the evaluation, and there were zero cases with 

3 dosimetry records, and zero claims with any 

4 external dosimetry records. 

5 And, there's two routes of potential 

6 exposure. One was internal inhalation and 

7 ingestion of uranium and thorium, and the other is 

8 an external photon/beta exposure from uranium 

9 source material, its decay products, and small 

10 amounts of U and thorium surface contamination 

11 present when the operations ceased.

12 Next slide.

13 For the internal sources, we have 

14 urinalysis, and we -- well, NIOSH has reviewed 

15 commercial license requirements for the WEC to 

16 perform urinalysis for commercial licenses, to 

17 perform urinalysis beginning in 1954. However, we 

18 haven't located any of those records.

19 And, we also requested, WEC requested 

20 a license modification for termination of that 

21 urinalysis program in 1964, due to low exposure 

22 potential.
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 Next slide.

2 This is still on the internal sources. 

3 We also have air sampling data. In 1958, during 

4 the 2nd operational period, there were 39 general 

5 air samples taken, 7 BZ samples, gross alpha, and 

6 a maximum of 6595 dpm per cubic meter, and that's 

7 from the site visit by J. Quigley, M.D., who was 

8 reviewing the rad part of the operations.

9 In 1959, during the third operational 

10 period, there were 20 general air samples, 7 BZ 

11 samples, gross alpha, with a maximum of 5551 dpm 

12 per cubic meter. And, there were many other 

13 samples, GA, BZ, ventilation exhaust and surface 

14 contamination, sampled, but they were for the 

15 monitoring of commercial work in the non-DOE D&D 

16 work.

17 Now, the potential source for external 

18 exposure, there was no data found for AEC work.

19 Okay. On the external sources from the 

20 air monitoring data in 1958 again, Dr. Quigley 

21 provided the oversight and direction of the work 

22 area decontamination to achieve a .1 millirem per 
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 hour dose rate, and there's other data available 

2 for the D&D and commercial work.

3 Next slide.

4 Now, on the DR feasibility, dose 

5 reconstruction feasibility and approaches, NIOSH 

6 finds it is not feasible to estimate commercial 

7 exposures with sufficient accuracy for all workers 

8 at the WEC during the operational periods from 

9 February 1, 1958, through May 31, 1958, and from 

10 June 1, 1959, through June 30, 1959.

11 Now, the radiation doses from 

12 commercial operations are also required to be 

13 assessed during the AWE Operations Periods. And, 

14 since we could not get -- NIOSH found that the 

15 available monitoring records, process 

16 descriptions, and source-term data are adequate to 

17 complete dose reconstructions with sufficient 

18 accuracy for the Class of employees during the 

19 residual periods, but not in the operational 

20 period.

21 Next slide.

22 All right. The first residual period, 
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 from January, 1950 through January 31, 1958, we are 

2 going to use the maximum average pre-work 

3 gross-alpha general air sample taken during 2nd 

4 operational period, of 12 dpm per cubic meter. So, 

5 this is right before the 2nd operational period, 

6 from the beginning, that is the value, 12 dpm per 

7 cubic meter that's decayed out. 

8 We'll assume that represents the 

9 residual alpha contamination generated during the 

10 first period, and has been re-suspended. And 

11 then, we will use the OTIB-70 default depletion 

12 constant to model the build-up of this air 

13 concentration back to 1950. So, we'll build up 

14 from that 12 and go back to what it would be at the 

15 beginning of 1950, based on that, too. So, we'll 

16 know what the levels of air concentration are 

17 throughout the period.

18 Next slide.

19 The second residual radiation period,

20 June 1, 1958, through May 31, 1959, we are using 

21 average air sample of 12 dpm per cubic meter 

22 collected after the clean-up and decontamination 
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 work was done at the end of the second operational 

2 period. That's not the same dpm per cubic meter 

3 that you saw on the other side, it's a coincidental 

4 thing, but they are not the same. That's the 

5 second after.

6 And then, we are going to assume it is 

7 representative of the air concentration at the 

8 start of this residual radiation period and then 

9 apply it as a constant.

10 Next slide.

11 In the third residual radiation period, 

12 July 1, 1959, through the remediation of that work, 

13 as I said, April 30, 2000, we are going to start 

14 with the highest air sample collected since 5551 

15 dpm per cubic meter collected during the third 

16 operational period, and use the settling and 

17 re-suspension method presented in 

18 Batelle-TBD-6000 to estimate the airborne 

19 concentration at the beginning of this residual 

20 radiation period.

21 And, we use the OTIB-70 depletion 

22 methods for subsequent years, depleted out as we 
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 go to 2000, start with that as the maximum and work 

2 it down.

3 Next slide.

4 For the D&D activities that were 

5 non-DOE, we'll look at, there was no remediation 

6 period listed for WEC in the DOE Facilities 

7 Database, and no D&D was performed at DOE direction 

8 or expense.

9 D&D work, Building 7, began on November 

10 1, 1976, and was completed by April 30, 2000. And, 

11 we are going to suggest that we use the third 

12 residual radiation period air concentration 

13 applicable at the start of each D&D effort, that 

14 500 number back there, and then bind exposures to 

15 it, and increase it by an order of magnitude with 

16 the scabbling and other work going on, and use that 

17 value to address additional re-suspension created 

18 during the D&D activity, and as it says here, as 

19 discussed in OTIB-70.

20 Next slide.

21 The intakes for the residual radiation 

22 periods will apply to all the personnel with 
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 primary responsibilities for the rad production 

2 areas.

3 For the administrative or 

4 non-production area personnel, NIOSH is going to 

5 assume that they were exposed to 10 percent of that 

6 concentration as that for the personnel was primary 

7 responsibilities for the set-up of the production 

8 area personnel.

9 Next slide.

10 All the air samples used to create these 

11 bounding methods were initially analyzed for gross 

12 alpha content; so NIOSH will choose the most 

13 claimant-favorable mixture of thorium from 

14 potentially the first operational period prior to 

15 1950 or uranium when it is estimating worker dose, 

16 so maximized by using it from the first SEC period.

17 NIOSH will derive the personal 

18 ingestion rate methodologies presented in 

19 OCAS-TIB-009.

20 Next slide.

21 For external doses, NIOSH is going to 

22 bound the residual radiation period by using the 
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 air concentrations previously modeled for the 

2 applicable periods we talked about, and apply 

3 methodology as described in OTIB-70, and the 

4 Environmental Protection Agency's Guidance Report 

5 No. 12, to model doses for contaminated surfaces 

6 and air submersion. That Report 12 is External 

7 Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil, 

8 exposure to dose coefficients for general 

9 application, based on 1987 federal radiation 

10 protection guidance.

11 Next slide.

12 And so, we will generally use 

13 Battelle-TBD-6000, TIB-9, and OTIB-70 methods, as 

14 well as available air data and operational 

15 descriptions, for partial dose reconstructions for 

16 the following: AWE operations associated with the 

17 uranium machining project for Fernald from May 12, 

18 1958 through May 16, 1958, and from June 25, 1959 

19 through June 29, 1959.

20 Next slide.

21 For health endangerment, the evidence 

22 reviewed in this evaluation indicates that some 
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 workers in the Class may have accumulated chronic 

2 radiation exposures through intakes of 

3 radionuclides and direct exposure to radioactive 

4 materials.

5 Consequently, NIOSH is specifying the 

6 health may have been endangered for those workers 

7 who were employed for a number of work days 

8 aggregating at least 250 work days within the 

9 parameters established for this Class or in 

10 combination with work days within the parameters 

11 established for one or more other Classes of the 

12 employees in the SEC.

13 Next slide.

14 So, the conclusions are, we have three 

15 residual periods, 1/1/50 to 1/31/58, 6/1/58 to 

16 5/31/59, and 7/1/59 to 4/30/2000. And, the 

17 exposure source is internal and external. We are 

18 saying they are both feasible, and can do dose 

19 reconstruction during those three residual 

20 periods.

21 In the AWE operations periods of 2/1/58 

22 to 5/31/58, and 6/1/59 to 6/30/59, we are saying 
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 that you can't, because of the mixture of 

2 commercial work being done also. And, we are 

3 saying for the internal and external it's just not 

4 feasible, and only partial dose reconstruction is 

5 to be done.

6 So, the final slide, the proposed Class 

7 is all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the 

8 facility owned by Westinghouse Electric 

9 Corporation in Bloomfield, New Jersey, during the 

10 period from February 1, 1958 through May 31, 1958, 

11 or during the period June 1, 1959 through June 30, 

12 1959, for a number of work days aggregating at least 

13 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

14 employment, or in combination with work days within 

15 the parameters established for one or more other 

16 Classes of employees included in the Special 

17 Exposure Cohort.

18 And, that is it.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, Greg.

20 Board Members, do you have any 

21 questions on the presentation, or the report.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave Kotelchuck.
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 I have a question. The AWE operational 

2 periods cover 150 days. On the other hand, as I 

3 understand it, compensation has to be -- people 

4 have to be aggregated for at least 250 work days. 

5 And, the earlier period ends in 1945, I believe.

6 How is it possible for people to be 

7 compensated for work during the AWE operations 

8 period? Could you explain it to me?

9 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, the way the law is 

10 stated, you would have those days in those two 

11 operational periods, and then any time you can add 

12 on from the previous SEC of if they worked at some 

13 other site that had an SEC where you can combine 

14 time periods that put you into it.

15 I'm not sure if that's exactly it, but 

16 Jim Neton is there, he could maybe explain that for 

17 sure.

18 DR. NETON: That's right -- this is Jim, 

19 that's correct. If you remember on one of the 

20 earlier estimates there's area for SEC Class at 

21 this site from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 

22 1949.
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 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 DR. NETON: So, these days would just be 

3 supplemental to those days and got -- they 

4 de-aggregated. So, all the Classes would be 

5 combined to establish 250 days.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 So, but for anyone hired after World War 

8 II, which might be a large component of people. 

9 There were many persons who were away at war and 

10 came back, they could not be compensated for this 

11 period.

12 DR. NETON: Well, no, this is the --

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Unless they worked 

14 elsewhere.

15 DR. NETON: -- December 31, 1949.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, right. 

17 Right. Okay, so '49 makes it more readily 

18 possible. Okay.

19 DR. NETON: Yes.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, it is a 

21 very small window of eligibility, but that's what 

22 we've determined.
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 Okay, thank you.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie. I have 

3 a question also.

4 It seems fairly complicated with moving 

5 TBD-6000, OTIB-70, and I was going to ask you to 

6 identify -- if you could identify the different 

7 people and what different jobs they did. But, I 

8 think I'll go to my last question and just ask, does 

9 NIOSH have any sample dose reconstruction to show 

10 how and what they did with all those different --

11 DR. MACIEVIC: This is Greg Macievic. 

12 Yes, we have done dose reconstructions 

13 for several scenarios. And, I believe they are out 

14 there for the Board to look at, if I'm not mistaken.

15 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford. I'm 

16 actually verifying where those were placed. They 

17 should have been put on the Board's -- the Advisory 

18 Board's folder for Westinghouse, and I'm looking 

19 for that now.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I'm sure, because I 

21 was just at a disadvantage and unable to pull it 

22 up, since I'm gone, but it is there and we can take 
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 a look at it.

2 DR. MACIEVIC: And, we'll look, and if 

3 it's not, it will be put in there immediately.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Ted, just to let 

6 you know, this is Brad. I've joined you. Sorry, 

7 I had an interview I was performing.

8 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Brad. I was going to 

9 check when we got beyond this, but thank you.

10 And, while we have you, let me just 

11 check as well, Dr. Richardson, are you on the line? 

12 Okay.

13 Okay, carry on.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

15 Members with questions?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Paul Ziemer. I 

17 have a question.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm wondering, Greg, if 

20 you can help us understand why if you are able to 

21 use the air data from the operational periods in 

22 a valid way for the residual, but not use the air 
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 data from the operational period for the 

2 operational period. In other words, why not use 

3 the most claimant-favorable mix during the 

4 operational period, and bound the doses based on 

5 that?

6 I mean, you have air sampling data for 

7 both operational periods, correct?

8 DR. MACIEVIC: Right.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, we assume that it's 

10 useable for the residual periods. Why wouldn't it 

11 be useable for the operational period itself?

12 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, a big part of the 

13 operational period, we have the air sampling data, 

14 but not -- well, there's not a lot of it in that, 

15 and we also have the commercial work going on, which 

16 we can't get a good handle on, on what was going 

17 with that. So, in the combination of the 

18 commercial and the AWE work, we felt that we really 

19 couldn't do a good job of doing a dose 

20 reconstruction during those periods.

21 Whereas, if we just assumed the highest 

22 value in the residual, we can go with that and have 
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 a better grasp of where we were, rather than during 

2 the operational period.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I am sort of asking 

4 you why not make the same assumption for the 

5 operational. I just want to make sure that -- I'm 

6 not advocating that we, necessarily, do that, but 

7 I want to make sure that we are comfortable.

8 It's the thorium issue again, is that 

9 not correct, because it's a lot of commercial 

10 thorium added on to the uranium work?

11 DR. MACIEVIC: Yes, that's it, too. 

12 Yes, the thorium, because they did a lot of the 

13 thorium to work with the tungsten in the light 

14 bulbs, and a lot of that activity was going on, 

15 which we haven't gotten a big handle on.

16 We do know decently -- what we can use 

17 from the 19 -- the first operational period to get 

18 a feel for what the thorium amounts were, but as 

19 you get later into the operational work, or the 

20 commercial work, it loses its -- yes, we start to 

21 lose the feel for doing the solid dose 

22 reconstruction during those operational periods.
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 DR. NETON: Greg, this is Jim.

2 Could you go back to that slide that 

3 shows what we can and cannot reconstruct? Maybe 

4 that would be helpful.

5 DR. MACIEVIC: Let's see.

6 DR. NETON: It's the next to the last 

7 slide, I think is what I was looking for.

8 The next to the last slide, it's got 

9 little green bars on it.

10 DR. MACIEVIC: Mine is in black and 

11 white.

12 DR. NETON: At the very end, the next to 

13 the last slide on your presentation.

14 Okay. For AWE operational period, we 

15 are saying we cannot reconstruct dose in the 

16 operational period because of the commercial 

17 activities, but we are going to do partial dose 

18 reconstructions in those operational periods using 

19 uranium air data, if I'm not mistaken.

20 DR. MACIEVIC: But, and what we do know 

21 from the thorium -- well, from the actual AWE work 

22 back in the first operational period.
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 DR. NETON: Right, but we are going to 

2 use the uranium air monitoring data we have during 

3 the operational period. It's just that we can't 

4 reconstruct the thorium exposures that occurred 

5 during that period, which were commercial 

6 activities.

7 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. Yes, the 

8 commercial activity is the long hole in the tent, 

9 that's the thing that was causing the problem.

10 DR. NETON: Right, but I think what Dr. 

11 Ziemer was asking, is why wouldn't we use the 

12 uranium, we are going to use the uranium data we 

13 have to do partial dose reconstructions.

14 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, yes, I mean, we are 

15 going to do the partial dose, but we won't be able 

16 to do full ones, without having all that other.

17 DR. NETON: Right.

18 DR. MACIEVIC: The AWE activities will 

19 pair data from those periods.

20 DR. NETON: But not the commercial 

21 activities.

22 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. Right.
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 MEMBER ZIEMER: You still assume the 

2 mix, though, right, you are still taking the 

3 thorium into consideration, or not?

4 DR. MACIEVIC: Right, in using 

5 information from what it originally was, not trying 

6 to look at what kind of thorium would have been 

7 built in, due to commercial work.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you. Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other -- I mean, 

10 I was also confused by that part, and still am to 

11 some extent.

12 DR. NETON: Maybe this might be helpful 

13 or not, but there's two thorium exposures here. 

14 There's one that's a residual from the AWE 

15 operations earlier, and then there's this sort of 

16 unknown thorium exposure that occurred during 

17 these AWE operational periods, or commercial 

18 activities, and we have no idea what they were. 

19 But, those are not considered during the residual 

20 contamination period, because they are not 

21 AWE-derived exposures.

22 I don't know if that helps or not.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, it does.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: That helps me.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

4 Members with questions for Greg?

5 Okay. Hearing none, I'll give the 

6 opportunity for the petitioners to make comments. 

7 I don't know if they wish to or not, but if they 

8 do speak up now.

9 MR. BAGRIER: This is David Bagrier. I 

10 have a couple of points I would like to raise.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go right ahead.

12 MR. BAGRIER: Okay. Number one, when we 

13 talk about -- you were talking about the commercial 

14 -- the AWE activity, and there was no mention of 

15 dates where the work was done for the U.S. Air 

16 Force, where some of that started earlier in the 

17 Class one period, and went on -- off and on during 

18 the Class two period. And, it was a period where 

19 the Air Force work went out with thorium.

20 MS. GIAMIS: David?

21 MR. BAGRIER: Yes.

22 MS. GIAMIS: This is Jean. I have in 
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 front of me a document, "Development of 

2 Dispersion-Strengthened Tungsten Base Alloys, 

3 Utilization of Thorium," from the Air Force 

4 Materials Laboratory, dated 1966. So that, it 

5 would seem from this document that there were, in 

6 fact, other military contracts going on with 

7 thorium.

8 DR. MACIEVIC: This is Greg Macievic. 

9 If I could just interject one little thing.

10 Yes, and there probably were, but it's 

11 not atomic weapons, AWE work with the DOE. That's 

12 why it's not considered.

13 MS. GIAMIS: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other comments?

15 MR. BAGRIER: Yes, there was no clean-up 

16 after the 1945 -- the equipment was removed, but 

17 there was no evidence of a clean-up, such as 

18 clean-ups that occurred later on.

19 And, the first clean-up occurred in 

20 1978, and then, subsequently, there was a clean-up 

21 ordered for the 1980-1981 period, and then finally 

22 there was another clean-up ordered for 1993, where 
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 previous pipes were buried below some of the 

2 buildings that were not found earlier in the 

3 previous clean-ups.

4 So, the Government was involved with 

5 finding those things, so there were evidence that 

6 radiation continued on, even up to the 1993 final 

7 clean-up.

8 So, I don't see where some of this was 

9 considered in your benchmark dates.

10 DR. MACIEVIC: I'll comment -- and, you 

11 are absolutely right, there was a lot of work done 

12 for non-DOE activities. But, we are not in this 

13 SEC considering non-DOE work.

14 And, yes, there is rad material 

15 produced through the commercial operation, and 

16 like you said through the Air Force and other 

17 activities, but they were not DOE work.

18 So --

19 MR. BAGRIER: You don't know that, 

20 though.

21 DR. MACIEVIC: Well, by their 

22 contracts we do, we've seen what kind of contracts 
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 were done and with whom, and so we know they were 

2 not DOE. DOE itself does not have anything 

3 associated with them at those periods of time.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other comments? 

5 Okay. If not, I guess would entertain suggestions 

6 for how we should handle this, we just received it 

7 relatively recently, and have not had a long time 

8 to review it.

9 MR. BAGRIER: By the way, this is Dave 

10 Bagrier again. I have one -- when we talk about 

11 the 250 hours, you talk about the periods in 1958, 

12 and again in 1959. The inclusive time in those 

13 periods would be added to time before or after those 

14 periods, if that was included?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct, it would be 

16 added to any other time that was part of the Special 

17 Exposure Cohort. So, the earlier time period at 

18 Westinghouse, if a person had worked in some time 

19 period during that, that would be added to it. You 

20 know, it might not have qualified during the 

21 earlier time period, but this time period would be 

22 added to that.
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 Or, if they worked at another facility 

2 that was part of the Special Exposure Cohort.

3 MR. BAGRIER: Right. But, if they were 

4 at Westinghouse in those buildings that are 

5 included in this report, if they had worked a total 

6 of 250 hours, including the period of 1958 or the 

7 period of 1959, either before or after 

8 consecutively, that would be covered.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's 250 days, not 250 

10 hours, and it's -- it has to be working during the 

11 time periods that are covered. If they are working 

12 through a time period that's not covered, that is 

13 not added, and that would not qualify for the SEC. 

14 Their individual dose would still be reconstructed 

15 during the Special Exposure Cohort period for the 

16 extent that that's, you know, made available to do 

17 that, which NIOSH indicates there is some data that 

18 they could do that with.

19 MR. BAGRIER: Well, Class 2, 250 hours 

20 in Class 2, that includes those time periods of 1958 

21 or 1959.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.
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 MR. BAGRIER: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's 250 days, not 250 

3 hours.

4 MR. BAGRIER: My mistake.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's okay, it's 

6 confusing.

7 MR. BAGRIER: It is. There's a 

8 tremendous amount of numbers involved.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Jim, Paul Ziemer again. 

11 Could I ask one more quick question?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure thing, Paul. Go 

13 ahead.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Has SC&A reviewed any of 

15 the facility's operations?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I don't believe so.

17 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. We 

18 have not reviewed it yet.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: As I was saying, you 

20 know, one option would be to have SC&A review the 

21 entire report, the back-up documents. The other 

22 would be to have -- concur with NIOSH's 
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 recommendation for the SEC at this point, but 

2 continue to review that time period. You know, the 

3 petition covers, you know, a lengthy time period, 

4 and there's, obviously, a lot of information to be 

5 considered there.

6 Really, it's up to the Board as to how 

7 they wish to move forward on that. I mean, either 

8 way would be fine, and consistent with how we've

9 done it before.

10 Anybody on the Board wish to make a 

11 motion, or indicate what you would like to do?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is Brad. I 

13 just wanted to make sure. So, SC&A has not 

14 reviewed this to this point?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct, we just 

16 received this report --

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Like this week.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- a couple weeks 

19 ago, yes.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: All right. Well, I 

21 move that SC&A reviews this myself, because to tell 

22 you the truth, I'm a little bit confused on it 
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 myself.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Personally, I would 

3 agree with that, except I don't know if it's -- do 

4 we want to approve -- do we want to concur with the 

5 SEC portion of this while we review the rest of it?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie, and 

7 I would say that we -- I see no reason not to approve 

8 the SEC time period, with note that this is going 

9 to SC&A to review and to a Work Group.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, correct.

11 MEMBER BEACH: So, I would make the move 

12 to make the motion to approve for the NIOSH time 

13 period.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I second that, Jim.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We have a 

16 motion and a second. Any further discussion?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, Jim, this is Wanda.

18 It's valid to take the technical 

19 position that, sufficient accuracy as we are 

20 required to use the term here, as it's being applied 

21 here. Isn't truly appropriate. It's an 

22 artificial construct that's being required by the 
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 policy and procedure structures, and restrictions. 

2 If this Board has developed and imposed on 

3 calculations, the manufacturing and level of 

4 radiological process that is being described in 

5 this, don't really constitute serious exposure to 

6 the employees.

7 So, an SEC in this case, and from that 

8 position, isn't technically reasonable. So, I 

9 understand the recommendation, because of the 

10 procedural mandate we placed on ourselves to make, 

11 but ethically I can't support it, because it does 

12 not appear to me to be a threat to these employees. 

13 If I felt for a moment that the employees were 

14 actually threatened by the work that they've done 

15 here, then it would be a different thing, but that's 

16 not really what we are looking at. What we are 

17 looking at boils down to sufficient accuracy, and 

18 that, in my personal technical opinion and 

19 experience, isn't justified.

20 So, I can't support this for that 

21 reason.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, 
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 Wanda.

2 Any additional comments?

3 MS. GIAMIS: I need to ask a question. 

4 This is Jean Giamis again.

5 So, essentially, what we are saying is 

6 that unless workers were in some way, shape, or form 

7 exposed in terms of the AWE work, I mean, let's be 

8 honest here, the Manhattan Project, in the early 

9 1940s that was done with the processing of pure 

10 uranium, and then concomitant to that, other 

11 thorium alloys that were used, that unless people 

12 were exposed directly to that, then the idea of 

13 residual impact is null and void.

14 Essentially, there was no more harm 

15 from radiation after, oh, let's say, 1945, that 

16 everything was cleaned up, and that the large 

17 numbers of people who died from various forms of 

18 cancer within Westinghouse Lamp in Bloomfield just 

19 died coincidentally.

20 Is that what I'm understanding here?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's not correct, 

22 and it's not really consistent with what the 
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 program has done. We are, actually, really in the 

2 middle of the deliberations on that.

3 MS. GIAMIS: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, we need to finish 

5 up our work here.

6 MS. GIAMIS: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any other Board 

8 Members that have comments before we vote on the 

9 motion? We have a motion to approve the NIOSH 

10 recommendation, in terms of the two SEC periods, 

11 and then to refer the report to follow-up for SC&A 

12 review, and then to come back to one of our Work 

13 Groups for further discussion and review, and then, 

14 eventually, back to the Board.

15 So, without any more comments, hearing 

16 anymore comments, I'll ask, Ted, do you want to do 

17 the roll call?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just one question. 

19 This is Paul Ziemer again.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, the motion would be 

22 to -- and maybe we should have two motions -- the 
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 motion is to approve the two operational periods

2 the one in '58 and the one in '59 and then the two 

3 residual periods --

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Three residual 

5 periods, yes.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Three residual periods.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, we would refer the 

9 review of the residual periods back to SC&A, is that 

10 what the motion is?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Did that take care of 

14 it for you, Paul? 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I wanted to be sure 

16 that was what was being proposed. 

17 MR. KATZ: Right, and that's clear to me, 

18 and is everyone else straight here?

19 Okay. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: One other question.

21 As part of the review of those residual 

22 periods, it seems to me that SC&A will also have 
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 to look at the data from the two operational 

2 periods, because that data is the basis for some 

3 of the residual data for dose reconstruction. So, 

4 they still will, in a sense, be looking at that. 

5 They, obviously, cannot recommend something 

6 different if we approve this, but they still have 

7 the ability to look at the data in those two 

8 periods, correct?

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Correct.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

11 MR. KATZ: Very good, is everyone set 

12 then? All right, we are voting, and I'll do this 

13 alphabetically, and I'll include, just in case, Dr. 

14 Richardson has joined us, I'll include him.

15 Dr. Anderson?

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Approve the motion.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

22 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.
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 MR. KATZ: Dr. Kotelchuck?

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen?

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes, and as I told you 

5 yesterday, Ted, I have to cut out at noon today.

6 MR. KATZ: Very good, thanks.

7 Dr. Lockey?

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

12 MEMBER MUNN: No.

13 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

14 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson? Okay, he 

16 appears to be absent, and I'll collect his vote 

17 after this.

18 Dr. Roessler?

19 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

21 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Ms. Valerio?
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 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: And, Dr. Ziemer?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: So, it is -- the motion passes 

5 with a large majority, and I will collect the extra 

6 votes.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you.

8 And, I have a drafted a letter which I 

9 circulated to NIOSH and to our attorneys. I 

10 haven't heard back from everybody yet, so I think 

11 we will hold the letter and circulate it later, once 

12 I've heard back from everybody.

13 Yes?

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I'm asking our lawyer. 

16 Jenny?

17 MS. LIN: Sorry. I sent you my response 

18 earlier today, I believe.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, Jim, everyone was in 

20 agreement that reviewed the letter, the draft 

21 letter.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. Well, I 
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 never heard from Jenny. I didn't get that email. 

2 That's okay. Probably sent it to my CDC address.

3 MS. LIN: Let me research that.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. That's fine. 

5 Then let me get the letter here. 

6 Okay. It's the Advisory Board on 

7 Radiation Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated 

8 Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition 00217 

9 concerning workers at the Westinghouse Electric 

10 Corporation, (New Jersey facility) in Bloomfield, 

11 New Jersey, under statutory requirements 

12 established by the Energy Employees Occupational 

13 Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

14 incorporated in 42 CFR Section 83.13. The Board 

15 respectfully recommends that SEC status be 

16 accorded to all atomic weapons employees who worked 

17 at the facility owned by Westinghouse Electric 

18 Corporation of Bloomfield, New Jersey, during the 

19 period from February 1, 1958 to May 31, 1958, or 

20 during the period from June 1, 1959 through June 

21 30, 1959, for a number of work days aggregating at 

22 least 250 work days occurring either solely under 
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 this employment or a combination with work days 

2 within the parameters established for one or more 

3 other Classes of employees included in the Special 

4 Exposure Cohort. 

5 This recommendation is based on the 

6 following factors. Individuals are employed at 

7 this facility in Bloomfield, New Jersey, during the 

8 time periods in question, worked on the production 

9 of uranium metal related to their weapon 

10 production.

11 The National Institute for 

12 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review of 

13 available monitoring data, as well as its available 

14 process and source term information for this 

15 facility, found that NIOSH lacks the sufficient 

16 information necessary to complete individual dose 

17 reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for 

18 external exposures to radiation (with the 

19 exception of occupational medical x-rays), 

20 internal radioactive exposure to uranium and 

21 thorium to which these workers may have been 

22 subjected during the time periods in question.
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 Board concurs with this 

2 determination.

3 NIOSH determined that health may have 

4 been endangered for these employees at this 

5 facility during the time periods in question. The 

6 Board also concurs with this determination.

7 These considerations were discussed at 

8 the June 9th Board meeting, held by conference 

9 call. The Board recommends that this Class be 

10 added to the SEC.

11 Enclosed is the documentation from the 

12 Board meetings, where this SEC Class was discussed, 

13 the documentation includes copies of the petition, 

14 NIOSH review thereof related materials. If any of 

15 these items are unavailable at this time, they will 

16 follow shortly.

17 Okay. The next thing on our agenda is 

18 an update from LaVon Rutherford.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. This is 

20 LaVon Rutherford. I will give an SEC update. 

21 It's going to be pretty quick. We'll be presenting 

22 one new SEC petition evaluation at the July 
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 Advisory Board meeting. That will be for 

2 Carborundum. This Evaluation Report was recently 

3 approved and sent to the Advisory Board.

4 Class evaluated by NIOSH, is all 

5 employees who worked in any area of the Carborundum 

6 Company facility on Buffalo Avenue in Niagara 

7 Falls, New York, January 1, 1943 through December 

8 31, 1976.

9 And again, we'll be discussing that 

10 petition at the July meeting.

11 There will be no other new petitions 

12 discussed at the meeting. We do have two petition 

13 evaluations that we have noted to the Advisory 

14 Board and the petitioners that we will not make the 

15 180 days in completing the petition evaluation. 

16 That's for Lawrence Livermore National Lab and 

17 Argonne National Lab West.

18 We will present these evaluations at 

19 the November meeting. We will also be presenting 

20 -- we are on schedule to present a Blockson Chemical 

21 petition evaluation, and that petition evaluation 

22 is for the residual period.
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 That's about it. There are some 

2 petition evaluations that are with Work Groups that 

3 potentially could be presented or could come to 

4 closure at the July meeting. I don't know if you 

5 want to wait until the Work Group committee 

6 discusses that or not, but other than what I've 

7 discussed that's the only new petition.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

9 LaVon.

10 Why don't we hold off on the others 

11 until the Work Groups speak. If they don't, then

12 we can cover it at the July Board meeting.

13 Any questions for LaVon?

14 Okay. Work Group updates, 

15 Subcommittee updates, anybody want to volunteer?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie. I'll 

17 just quickly say that Kansas City Work Group will 

18 be meeting in Cincinnati on July 16th and 17th. 

19 Half a day on the 16th will be for petitioners to 

20 present their issues and hopefully come to some 

21 closure on those, and then the Work Group will work 

22 on the 17th.
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 We hope to finish up and possibly be 

2 real close to finished with our work in July.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

4 MEMBER BEACH: And, that's all I have.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you, 

6 Josie.

7 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I'd be 

8 glad to report what's going on the Procedures 

9 Review Subcommittee.

10 We did meet on April 28th, a 

11 teleconference call, and with a fairly full agenda. 

12 We were able to resolve well over a half dozen --

13 actually, I guess, about ten or 12 single findings, 

14 closed out OTIB-54, and the two PROCs, procedure 

15 findings that we had before us.

16 We spent a large portion of time going 

17 through the open items that we had on the PERs that 

18 are currently before us.

19 We were successful in resolving 

20 probably another half dozen issues for that 

21 particular group.

22 We did assign two more PERs for our 
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 contractor to review, PERs 53 and 55.

2 And, we are scheduling our next meeting 

3 for August 11th. So, we are moving forward well.

4 Reducing the number of open items and 

5 items that are in progress, that we are showing on 

6 the BRS, and with the exception of a few software 

7 glitches there we are handling that portion of our 

8 responsibilities as well.

9 So, Procedures is getting done what we 

10 think we need to get done.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Very good, thank you, 

12 Wanda.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is Brad.

14 On Savannah River, which just put out 

15 a paper to us on neptunium. I still haven't seen 

16 anything on this co-worker model that we've been 

17 working on. I'm hoping it will come fairly soon.

18 For Pantex, we still have not received, 

19 I believe it was a neutron/photon ratio. I believe 

20 that NIOSH is still working on that. Is that 

21 correct, Jim? Neton?

22 DR. NETON: Sorry, Brad. Did you ask a 
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 question? I was multitasking here.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's no problem. It 

3 was on the neutron/photon ratio we discussed out 

4 there at Pantex. I believe you guys were going to 

5 -- were trying to make it one big one, but now you 

6 are going to be dividing it by site?

7 DR. NETON: Well, actually, what we were 

8 doing was, we were going to take and go away from 

9 the neutron/photon ratio at Pantex and, actually, 

10 develop a co-worker model based on just the neutron 

11 data by itself.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: All right.

13 DR. NETON: That document was generated 

14 and went through internal review, and at the final 

15 stage of review process I, actually, made a comment 

16 that required it to go back for a little bit of 

17 rework.

18 So, unfortunately, it's my fault, but 

19 it's going to take a little bit longer to issue that 

20 document. So, all I can say is, it's going to be 

21 at least a month or so out from now, and I do 

22 apologize for that, but I thought it would be better 
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 to regroup and issue it in its best form, you know, 

2 rather than just get it out the door quickly.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, Jim. I 

4 appreciate that. I know it's been kind of on the 

5 burner for a while.

6 DR. NETON: Yes, it has been. It's the 

7 last real issue at Pantex, if I remember correctly.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: That is correct.

9 Thanks. That's all I've got, Jim.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave Kotelchuck.

12 Dose Reconstruction Review, we, at our 

13 April 14th meeting, we began review of three of the 

14 blinds, that were completed. And, those three 

15 were -- none of them were resolved, but will be 

16 reported back at our next meeting. I've have some 

17 of the details of resolving those on Wednesday, the 

18 24th, at 10:30, when we have our next meeting, and 

19 we will continue on the blinds for the rest of 17 

20 and the blinds for set 20, as I understand are 

21 completed, and I would expect that we would get to 

22 them at that next meeting on the 24th.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, this is Jim 

2 Melius, maybe I can jump in, the Work Group which 

3 we just formed on dose reconstruction methods, I 

4 guess, review methods, is meeting on June 22nd, two 

5 days before the Dose Reconstruction Review 

6 Subcommittee is meeting. And, we will be 

7 discussing there, you know, different approaches 

8 that might be used, and may even have some 

9 recommendations for the Dose Reconstruction Review 

10 Committee to try out some different -- slightly 

11 different approaches or something, in order to 

12 still have a number of sets to resolve that have 

13 already been reviewed, so how do we go about 

14 resolving those.

15 So, we'll have the meeting ahead of 

16 time, and we'll be talking more on the 24th also.

17 And then, we've -- our tentative agenda 

18 for the July Board meeting has got a longer time 

19 period to discuss, with the whole Board, our 

20 approach for doing dose reconstruction reviews.

21 So, that will be -- we will try to 

22 resolve relatively quickly.
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 MEMBER ANDERSON: This is Andy. We have 

2 a review that we just got, and we are in the process 

3 of scheduling a teleconference to go over it, 

4 probably the end of June, first part of July.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you.

6 And, the SEC Evaluation Work Group had 

7 a conference call a couple weeks ago, I believe now, 

8 which that was -- it was actually Site Profile 

9 issues at the Dow Madison facility. I believe we 

10 resolved those, there were a couple of issues that 

11 Jim Neton was following up on, and I'm not sure that 

12 he's heard back from all the Work Group Members yet. 

13 He did follow up and send us all an email, but we'll 

14 be able to report on those at the July meeting. It 

15 will be a relatively brief report, but we can fill 

16 everybody in at that time.

17 Others?

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, this is Phil.

19 We have a teleconference on the 8th of 

20 July for Idaho National Lab, and at that time, 

21 hopefully, we can resolve the issue of the 

22 definition of the Class for the SEC for the Chem 
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 Plant, and we can have a recommendation for the full 

2 Board when we meet a couple weeks later.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Actually, Phil, this 

4 is Jim, I don't believe we'll be able to settle at 

5 the July 8th. It's looking as if a major part of 

6 the evaluation of that definition is going to need 

7 to wait on some interviews that NIOSH and others 

8 will be conducting just before the Board meeting 

9 in Idaho. And so, the NIOSH report on that, my 

10 understanding now is, we will not receive that 

11 until some time after the July Board meeting.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie.

13 I thought those interviews before the 

14 Board meeting are for Argonne West, not for --

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I've heard both, so I 

16 don't know.

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'm like Josie, I 

18 thought those were Argonne West. I'm confused.

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: This is LaVon 

20 Rutherford.

21 That is correct, those are for Argonne 

22 West. Right now, we anticipate, and we will 
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 hopefully get some closure for that Work Group 

2 meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Then people are 

4 telling us different things.

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I will --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I won't name names, 

7 but --

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- I will double check 

9 with our people internally and see if we can get 

10 an email out to the Board.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. We'll try to 

12 figure that one out.

13 Any other Work Group reports, or 

14 Subcommittee reports?

15 I'll just go back to Savannah River for 

16 a second. You know, that's got issues there that 

17 have been pending a long time, and I'd like to 

18 understand better what NIOSH's intentions are in 

19 terms of dealing with the co-worker models.

20 We have co-worker models that appear 

21 to, maybe violate is too strong a word, but they 

22 are not consistent with what appear to be our 
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 guidelines for co-worker models, certainly, in 

2 terms of the mixing incident, routine monitoring 

3 data in a single co-worker model.

4 And, I'm not sure where that stands, in 

5 terms of NIOSH trying to resolve that, going 

6 forward on that, in terms of the co-worker models.

7 So, I know Tim is not on the line, but 

8 I don't know if Jim or Stu, if you have any comments.

9 DR. NETON: This is Jim.

10 I don't have any comments on that, other 

11 than we have started looking at that, and we have 

12 identified there's at least one instance where 

13 there's a mixture of incident based and routine 

14 monitoring. But, I can't exactly give you the 

15 status of where we are.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. I just urge you 

17 to get that moving forward, because it's been a long 

18 time on Savannah River.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is just Brad. 

20 If I could comment on one thing.

21 We've been working on these co-worker 

22 data models for a long time, and then the added 
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 problem with getting information from Savannah 

2 River, which is getting harder and harder, I think 

3 we really need to look, if it's myself personally, 

4 if it's even feasible there.

5 So, I just -- we've been working on this 

6 for so many years, and we've got a lot of them 

7 presented to us, but they haven't been able to pass 

8 it.

9 So, I'd just like to keep that in mind, 

10 too, Jim, as we go on with this.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. So, we've gone 

12 through our Work Groups, and, Ted, do you want to 

13 speak about the July --

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, sure, thanks Jim.

15 So, for July, I mean, we've discussed 

16 one item that's been on there in one form or 

17 another, which is -- I was thinking it was just the 

18 update on INL, because I was under sort of the same 

19 understanding as Jim, as to whether we are ready 

20 on the Class Definition.

21 In any event, one way or the other, INL 

22 will be on the agenda for July, either for an update 
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 or for an actual potential action.

2 And, LaVon mentioned one other SEC that 

3 will be on the agenda for sure, which is Carborundum 

4 SEC. So, we have that scheduled.

5 The other potential actions are Rocky 

6 Flats and Kansas City Plant. So, I have those on 

7 there. This all adds up to, and we have, of course, 

8 the session on dose reconstruction review, as Dr. 

9 Melius mentioned and a brief update on the 

10 co-worker dose model, depending on where we get 

11 with the Subcommittee's work.

12 So, this all adds up to about a day and 

13 a half, a full day the first day, July 23rd, and 

14 a day, at this point, ending, you know, 11:00 a.m., 

15 on the second day, Friday, the 24th.

16 So, for your scheduling purposes, I 

17 think that's about where we are. If the INL work 

18 ends up being an action versus just an update, we 

19 may need a little more time for that. We would push 

20 out the time a little bit, but we are looking at 

21 a day and a half.

22 Any questions?
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Ted, this is Josie. Can 

3 I ask one quick question? I'm sorry.

4 MR. KATZ: Of course.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Do we have a hotel lined 

6 up? I've not seen anything, probably because I'm 

7 not on my usual email.

8 MR. KATZ: You haven't seen anything, 

9 because we haven't a signed and sealed a contract.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: But, we are working on it, and 

12 we are hoping for it to be the newer, whatever line 

13 of Marriott it is.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Residence Inn 

15 Marriott?

16 MR. KATZ: Right, that's what we are 

17 looking at. That's what it ought to end up being, 

18 but we don't have a contract in hand yet.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If not, there's a 

21 campgrounds nearby.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Perfect.
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 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bring your fishing 

2 rods, Henry.

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: With a license, 

5 though, this time. Okay.

6 If there are no other issues to bring 

7 up or discuss, we will see everybody, if not on Work 

8 Group meetings or calls, in the end of July in 

9 Idaho.

10 Is the snow going to melt by then?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe not.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bring boots.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: That would be a good 

14 idea.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thanks, 

16 everybody. Hang onto your generators and stuff, 

17 don't lose your equipment again, you know.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anyway, see you all in 

20 July. Thanks, everybody.

21 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded 

22 at 12:17 p.m.)