STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes 

MEETING 54 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

DAY TWO 

 

The verbatim transcript of the 54th 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held at the Crowne Plaza Tampa East, 

Tampa, Florida on Apr. 8, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

Apr. 8, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 8 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR; DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO 

AREA IV, SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY SEC PETITION 9 

MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH PETITIONERS 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UPDATE 48 

MR. JEFFREY L. KOTSCH, DOL 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UPDATE 62 

DR. PATRICIA WORTHINGTON, DOE 

WORK GROUP REPORTS 86 

KELLEX/PIERPONT SEC PETITION 100 

DR. SAM GLOVER, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

NUMEC PARKS SEC PETITION 114 

DR. LARA HUGHES, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

NINTH SET OF CASES FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS 130 

TRACKING STATUS OF TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES 138 

UPDATE ON BOARD’S CONTRACTOR 147 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, NIOSH 

SEC PETITION UPDATE 154 

MR. LAVON RUTHERFORD, NIOSH 

DISCUSSION OF SC&A BUDGET ISSUES 171 

SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES: 

HANFORD, DR. SAM GLOVER, NIOSH 197 

SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY-LIVERMORE 231 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

CHAPMAN VALVE 238 

DR. JOHN POSTON; DR JAMES NETON, NIOSH; PETITIONERS 

PUBLIC COMMENT 293 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 343 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

 -- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

BOARD MEMBERS

CHAIR

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

School of Health Sciences 

Purdue University 

Lafayette, Indiana 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 

Senior Science Advisor 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 CLAWSON, Bradley 

2 Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 

3 Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 
5

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

4 MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 

5 Director 

6 New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 

7 Albany, New York 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

POSTON, John W., Sr., B.S., M.S., Ph.D. 

Professor, Texas A&M University 

College Station, Texas 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 

SCHOFIELD, Phillip 

Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

Los Alamos, New Mexico 

 
6

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

BILSEARDT, JANE, DOL 

BREYER, LAURIE, NIOSH 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

CARR, GLENN D. 

CHIZ, HILARY, USW 

CYPHERT, NANCY 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 

EVASKOVICH, ANDREW, LANL 

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 

GEOFFREY, HAROLD W., CHAPMAN VALVE 

GLOVER, SAM, NIOSH 

HAND, DONNA 

HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

HUGHES, LARA, NIOSH 

JOHNSON, KAREN, MCW 

KEDZIERSKI, DENNIS 

KIMPAN, KATE, ORAU 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

LEWIS, GREG, DOE 

MAISLER, JAY, ENERCON 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU 

MCKEEL, DAN, SINEW 

MILLER, RELADA L., NIOSH 

MURPHY, MARY 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

PARLER, RICHARD, NUMEC 

PETERSON, CARL 

ROBERTS, KIMBERLEY, SAIC 

ROBINSON, NELDA, NIOSH 

ROLFES, MARK, NIOSH OCAS 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 
7

SHIVES, LAURA 

WOOD, ELIZABETH, NIOSH 

WORTHINGTON, PAT, DOE 

ZEIMER, MARILYN 

ZEITOUN, ABE, SC&A 
8

P R O C E E D I N G S

(8:45 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

1 DR. BRANCHE: Good morning. We're starting the 

2 second day of the Advisory Board on Radiation 

3 and Worker Health meeting 54. I'm Christine 

4 Branche. I have the pleasure of being your 

5 Designated Federal Official, and we are 

6 beginning today. 

7 I need to make certain -- Mr. Robert Presley, 

8 are you on the line? 

9 MR. PRESLEY: Right here. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Do you have the same telephone 

11 number that I gave you yesterday in case you 

12 somehow lose contact? 

13 MR. PRESLEY: 813/623-6363. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Great, and we're still in the 

15 Cypress Room. Thank you so much; glad you're 

16 aboard. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I want to 

18 remind everyone again to please register your 

19 attendance with us this morning. The 

20 registration books are in the corridor. Also, 
9

1 again, the copies of the agenda and other 

2 materials are on the table in the back of the 

3 room. 

4 On today's agenda I just want to point out that 

5 the third item, which is really the second 

6 business item, the NIOSH program update, we -- 

7 we moved forward and covered yesterday. So we 

8 will likely move something else up, probably 

9 the -- if -- if it's okay with Jeff, and you 

10 checked with him, from Department of Labor, 

11 we'll probably move the Labor update forward to 

12 this morning so that we utilize the time 

13 effectively. 

14 AREA IV, SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY SEC PETITION

15 But we'll begin this morning with the Santa 

16 Susana Field Laboratory SEC petition. NIOSH 

17 presentation on their evaluation report will be 

18 given by Stuart Hinnefeld, and then we'll have 

19 an opportunity for the petitioners. And I'll 

20 just check and see if LaVonne Klea is on the 

21 line. 

22 MS. KLEA: Yes, I -- yes. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Good morning. 

24 MS. KLEA: Good morning. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And after the presentation by Mr. 
10

1 Hinnefeld, we'll have an opportunity for you, 

2 LaVonne, also to make comment. 

3 MS. KLEA: Thank you. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: While Mr. Hinnefeld makes his way 

6 forward, for those of you who are on the 

7 telephone, if you would please mute your 

8 phones. If you do not have a mute button, then 

9 please use star-6. And when -- for example, 

10 Ms. Klea, when you're ready to speak, you can 

11 use that same star-6 to unmute your phones. 

12 Again, please mute your phones while the 

13 discussion here at the board room is going on. 

14 Thank you. 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. Star-6? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: That's right. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Stuart Hinnefeld. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Good 

19 morning, everyone. I'm here today to present 

20 the results of the evaluation report on Area IV 

21 of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, which is 

22 located just a little ways outside Los Angeles 

23 in California. And matter of fact, it's 

24 located in the Simi Hills in Ventura County, 

25 and it was -- it's divided into four 
11

1 administrative and operational areas called, 

2 conveniently, Areas I through IV. And the DOE 

3 operations that are covered by the Energy 

4 Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

5 Program are in Area IV only, so it's Area IV of 

6 the Santa Susana Field Laboratory is the 

7 covered facility. 

8 That Area was established in 1953, and nuclear 

9 operations began in 1955 under the name of 

10 Atomics, International. There was also rocket 

11 testing operations at the same location under 

12 the name of Rocketdyne. 

13 Those -- there were two engineering centers 

14 that were group-- sub-groups of Atomics 

15 Engineering (sic), Liquid Metals Engineering 

16 Center and the Energy Technology Engineering 

17 Center. Those were involved in research and 

18 development of liquid met-- liquid metals 

19 technology and -- and nuclear technologies. 

20 There was a merger -- Atomics International 

21 merged with Rocketdyne in 1984 as part of 

22 Rockwell International. Today it's owned by 

23 Boeing. There's been sort of this 

24 conglomeration of company names associated with 

25 the -- with the site over the course of its 
12

1 operation. 

2 The nuclear operation programs at the site 

3 operated from 1955 to 1980. They involved 

4 development of operation of some ten test 

5 reactors and a number of operation -- operation 

6 of a number of critical -- criticality test 

7 facilities, which are kind of similar to a 

8 reactor, I guess. 

9 Nuclear support operations operated from 1956 

10 to the present, includes reactor fuel 

11 manufacturing, disassembly of used reactor 

12 fuels and rods, production of radioactive 

13 sources, research on fuel reprocessing, 

14 preparation of waste for disposal, operation -- 

15 and the operation of particle accelerators. 

16 And there were also non-nuclear programs that 

17 operated in the Area from 1966 to 1998. 

18 The site is still there today in the middle of 

19 a, I guess, fairly contentious environmental 

20 remediation effort, so it is still there today. 

21 And I believe the workers today are still 

22 covered under the program. 

23 The history of petition-related activities for 

24 the site -- in June 22nd of 2007 we received 

25 the petition. It's our petition number 93. In 
13

1 October 2007 we issued our professional 

2 judgment paper that petition qualified for 

3 evaluation based on limited internal monitoring 

4 data for the pre-1965 period. 

5 And I might say here very briefly that the 

6 petition petitioned for 1955 to the present. 

7 That was the petitioned -- period of time in 

8 the petition. We qualified the petition up 

9 through 1965 on the basis of limited or lack of 

10 internal monitoring data. So the entire 

11 petition period that -- up through the present 

12 was not evaluated. The evaluation then focused 

13 on the qualification period, which goes through 

14 1965. 

15 And we announced that the petition qualified 

16 for evaluation on October 27th. 

17 We evaluated the petition using the guidelines 

18 in 42 CFR 83.13, submitted a summary of the 

19 findings in the petition evaluation report -- 

20 report to the Board and to the petitioners, and 

21 that evaluation report was issued on February 

22 15th of this year. This, as it says, is an 

23 83.13 petition. The petition was received from 

24 a member of the public. It was not originated 

25 by NIOSH in our dose reconstruction efforts. 
14

1 The petitioner-proposed class definition is: 

2 All employees who worked in all the areas of 

3 the laboratory from 1955 to the present, 

4 including the post-1987 remediation period. 

5 The class we evaluated was: All employees of 

6 DOE and its predecessor agencies, contractors 

7 and subcontractors who worked in Area IV from 

8 January 1st, 1955 through December 31st, 1965. 

9 And our reco-- we are today recommending the 

10 addition of a class that's provided here: All 

11 employees of the DOE, its predecessor agencies, 

12 DOE contractors and subcontractors who were 

13 monitored while working in any area of the 

14 Santa Suna -- Santa Susana Field Laboratory 

15 Area IV for a number of work days aggregating 

16 at least 250 days from January 1st, 1955 to 

17 December 31st, 1958, or in combination with 

18 work days within another SEC. 

19 The basis that we qualified the petition for 

20 evaluation on was absence of internal 

21 monitoring data and a way to do internal dose 

22 reconstruction. There's a clear lack of that 

23 data up through 1958, or up until late 1958. 

24 And there was a health study published by UCLA 

25 that described the internal monitoring data 
15

1 prior to about 1963 as being relatively scarce. 

2 So based on that and the fact that the 

3 petitioner's employment continued through 1965, 

4 we decided to qualify the petition up through 

5 1965 and evaluate that period. 

6 The -- we came to discover during our 

7 investigation that the relatively scarce 

8 internal monitoring data up through 1963 was 

9 due to the far smaller amount of radiological 

10 work up through 1963. And as the work ramped 

11 up from that period forward, the bioassay of 

12 course would ramp up also as more employees 

13 would be engaged in it. 

14 The source of available information that were 

15 used in our evaluation report are the Technical 

16 Information Bulletins and the site profile 

17 that's been prepared; the case files and the 

18 individual claims in our NIOSH database, which 

19 we often call NOCTS; the NIOSH site research 

20 database; documentation and affidavits provided 

21 by the petitioner; interviews with former Area 

22 IV employees; the CEDR database, that's the 

23 Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource 

24 database, there have been epidemiological 

25 studies done for site; and some scientific 
16

1 publications as well. 

2 A brief summary of the availability -- general 

3 availability of dosimetry data. This is the 

4 claims in our tracking system, and this data is 

5 up to date as of January 9, 2008 when it was 

6 compiled for some purpose, and that data was 

7 used on this slide. Classes (sic) which have 

8 employment during the class definition period 

9 that was the evaluated class, that from 1955 to 

10 1965, there are 158 cases in that class as of 

11 January 9th. There are 81 of those dose 

12 reconstructions have been completed; 36 of 

13 those cases contained internal dosimetry and 65 

14 contained external dosimetry. 

15 No claim had internal data before August of 

16 1958. One claim had data beginning in 

17 September of 1958, so it kind of -- the 

18 bioassay program (unintelligible) started there 

19 in late 1958. 

20 And there were quite a large number of Area IV 

21 employees who were not radiological workers. 

22 As I said, there were other activities in that 

23 Area in addition to the radiological work. 

24 The internal monitoring data that is available 

25 is the -- we have urine bioassay available from 
17

1 1959 to 1966 for this variety of radionuclides, 

2 two different uranium analytical methods and a 

3 variety of other radionuclides -- plutonium, 

4 thorium, mixed fission products, there are some 

5 gross alpha and gross beta results, and there 

6 are some results from polonium-210, strontium7 90 and tritium. 

8 Urine samples were collected based on job 

9 assignment that required exposure to 

10 radioactive materials, and there are more than 

11 100,000 internal dose data points collected 

12 from more than 300 individuals who were 

13 monitored for internal exposure at Area IV. 

14 Those of course are not all claimants. 

15 External monitoring data is available for all 

16 years of site operation. The external 

17 dosimetry was assigned based on job or exposure 

18 potential. 

19 Beta/gamma exposure was measured from 1954 to 

20 1962 with a two-element film dosimeter; from 

21 '63 to '66 is a multi-element dosimeter from a 

22 commercial vendor; a pocket or pencil dosimeter 

23 -- I'm talking now about the evaluation period 

24 and then goes a little beyond. Pocket or 

25 pencil dosimeters were used for non-routine 
18

1 work, but they were not used to record the dose 

2 of record. 

3 Neutron doses were record-- are available from 

4 1954 to 1966 using NTA film. 

5 And there are 4,665 individuals enrolled in the 

6 external dosimetry program for which data is 

7 available. Again, those are not all claimants. 

8 The petitioner identified several bases in the 

9 petition for -- for a class addition: the lack 

10 of internal monitoring program, contamination 

11 that was found in the sodium disposal facility 

12 and the lack of records of material sent there. 

13 This was not considered radiological activity, 

14 but it was found to be contaminated after some 

15 period of disposal there. Inadequate air 

16 monitoring, a specific reactor incident at the 

17 sodium reactor experiment in which a large 

18 portion of the reactor fuel failed -- or 

19 significant -- not a large portion, a 

20 significant fraction of -- of it failed. 

21 Uranium fires that occurred, tritium plume in 

22 the groundwater and inadequate radiation 

23 badges. 

24 In our evaluation we identified issues as well. 

25 We looked at the lack -- there appears to be a 
19

1 lack of internal monitoring data from 19-- 

2 before 1959. We were concerned about possibly 

3 missing records, and the reason we were 

4 concerned about possibly missing records 

5 because we -- some workers -- when we would 

6 receive the response from the site, we asked 

7 for the radiation exposure history, we would 

8 receive -- some people would get a response of 

9 "no record" and other people we would get a 

10 response that would include a radiation 

11 exposure record that was completely blank. So 

12 we -- you know, when you see a -- when you 

13 first get a response and you -- and they 

14 respond "no record," you say well, this person 

15 probably was not a radiation worker. And then 

16 you get a response that has a radiation worker 

17 that has nothing on it and you say well, now 

18 what does this mean? Because normally I would 

19 say this person wasn't a radiation worker. But 

20 what it turns out is there were restricted 

21 areas in Area IV, meaning -- restricted being a 

22 term I believe that used to be used to denote 

23 contam-- a radiological control aspect. And if 

24 you went into the restricted area, whether you 

25 were a radiation worker and worked around 
20

1 radiation or not, because inside the restricted 

2 areas there were places -- not every site 

3 inside a restricted area were you subject to 

4 radiation exposure. If you went in there, you 

5 got a radiation exposure record, and so you got 

6 a pink card or blue card filled out and that 

7 was placed in your folder. If you were -- if 

8 you went in there and you were not a radiation 

9 worker, then nothing was ever written on your 

10 exposure record. So workers who entered the 

11 restricted area but were not radiation workers 

12 got an exposure card. Workers who never went 

13 into the restricted area did not get one, and 

14 so that's why we got the two categories of 

15 record responses of either no response (sic) or 

16 a blank exposure record. 

17 We were also concerned about monitoring of 

18 emergency personnel who may have to enter a 

19 restricted area for an emergency. 

20 So addressing each of these concerns -- I guess 

21 maybe I should speak quickly, I'm going to -- 

22 I'm tak-- I'm taking a lot of time up here. 

23 The lack of internal monitoring data -- based 

24 on our evaluation, we found that there was no 

25 established routine bioassay program before 
21

1 August of 1958, and there was exposure 

2 potential to uranium and fission products. We 

3 have insufficient source term information to 

4 bound the dose. And we do have bioassay data 

5 in term-- form of urine data after 1958, which 

6 we believe we can use to bound the dose. 

7 Petitioner raised a concern about sodium 

8 disposal burn pit and the lack of records. The 

9 burn pit was used to react sodium and an alloy 

10 -- potassium -- a sodium-potassium alloy, which 

11 I've heard commonly referred NaK -- referred to 

12 as NaK. They react it with water as a means of 

13 disposal. Some of that material apparently was 

14 contaminated with fission products because it 

15 was coolant from the sodium reactor coolant. 

16 It was not expected or intended to be used 

17 (unintelligible) radioactive waste disposal. 

18 But given that we have a robust bioassay data 

19 set for the people who were radiologically 

20 exposed, we are confident that use of that data 

21 set will allow us to bound people's doses. And 

22 we also have actually for both internal and 

23 external. 

24 Petitioner raised a concern of lack of air 

25 monitoring at the -- at the Area IV. Our 
22

1 internal dose evaluation relies primarily on 

2 the urine bioassay estimates or the internal 

3 monitoring database in order to do that. There 

4 is some air sampling data available, gross 

5 alpha and gross beta. To be honest, I think 

6 the urine bioassay or the internal monitoring 

7 data would be our pathway to do these doses. 

8 And again, since we have a fairly robust data 

9 set for that, we're confident we can provide a 

10 bounding estimate for the doses. 

11 Reactor -- the petitioner raised a concern 

12 about the sodium reactor incident, including -- 

13 that there was a release of core gases after 

14 the SRE cladding failure in 1959. And that 

15 clad-- well, cladding failure or fuel melt, 

16 probably some of both, I would guess -- 

17 incident resulted in release of gaseous fission 

18 products to the hold-up tanks, and then there 

19 were hold-up tanks over this so it was followed 

20 by a controlled release to the atmosphere. And 

21 again, since we have bioassay data and a robust 

22 bioassay data set, we believe we can analyze 

23 these doses -- or bound these doses. 

24 There is -- since it's a sodium reactor, of 

25 course, it wasn't open to the atmosphere. It 
23

1 was -- had a helium cover gas and that cover 

2 gas then was -- there was some venting of that 

3 to the hold-up tanks. 

4 Exposure from workers in fires, like sodium 

5 metal and uranium fires. There were quite a 

6 number of fires and incidents like that. They 

7 tend to be very well documented at Area IV, 

8 since they're very well documented with 

9 oftentimes radiological readings associated 

10 with that documentation. That, in combination 

11 with the bioassay data, we believe that we have 

12 sufficient data that we can bound these doses. 

13 A petitioner concern was that the groundwater 

14 used for drinking at the site and tri-- tritium 

15 was later found to be in sampling wells. And 

16 groundwater was exclusive water supply from 

17 1948 to 1964. All but one of the wells for the 

18 Santa Susana Field Laboratory were in Areas I 

19 through III, not in Area IV. Since 2000 all 

20 the water supply has been from off-site. All 

21 the groundwater supply wells were less than 

22 1,000 picocuries per liter. That sounds like a 

23 high number, but that's the detection number on 

24 the analysis, so that was not detected in those 

25 well samples at 1,000 picocuries per liter. 
24

1 There's a sampling well, not a groundwater 

2 supply well but a groundwater sampling well, 

3 near the reactor site that was never used for 

4 drinking water where there is measureable 

5 tritium on the order of 3,000 picocuries per 

6 liter. And because of some knowledge of the 

7 amount of tritium in the groundwater, we can 

8 assume that tritium made it into the drinking 

9 water and provide a bounding dose in that 

10 instance. 

11 Petitioner raised a concern about the -- that 

12 the inadequate radiation badges -- that was 

13 taken from the tiger team report, which I 

14 believe those were written in the '90s, if I'm 

15 not mistaken. What the tiger team report 

16 actually commented on was the fact that the 

17 dosimetry system at Santa Susana was not DOELAP 

18 accredited. DOELAP accreditation is actually 

19 kind of a moot issue for the evaluation period, 

20 which goes through 1965, since DOELAP 

21 accreditation didn't exist until about 1986. 

22 And even when it did come into existence, it 

23 provided for smaller sites to seek an exemption 

24 as long as they used what we used to call NVLAP 

25 accredited -- DOELAP is Department of Energy 
25

1 Laboratory Accreditation Program. NVLAP is 

2 National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

3 Program. NRC-regulated and State-regulated 

4 entities typically used NVLAP, where as DOELAP 

5 -- Department of Energy wanted to do their own 

6 thing so they invented DOELAP, which was very 

7 similar. 

8 Concern we ran across about possible missing 

9 records, I think I covered this already. 

10 Workers who worked outside a restricted area 

11 had no dose record. Areas (sic) who went 

12 inside a restricted area but had a blank 

13 record, and they were not radiation workers, 

14 those people had a record but it was blank. 

15 Our concern about firemen from Areas I through 

16 III who might be called on to respond to 

17 emergencies in restricted areas, we found that 

18 the Area IV firemen were monitored. And there 

19 is some -- there was at least one incident of 

20 apparently missing dosimetry file, someone who 

21 engaged and seems like is in fact monitored, 

22 but we didn't have a file for him. But we 

23 still feel that because of this, because 

24 firemen are included in our monitored 

25 population, that our coworker data will be 
26

1 sufficiently bounding for this situation as 

2 well. 

3 Oops, I (unintelligible) two -- hit the button 

4 twice. 

5 Now we included on the O drive a number of 

6 sample dose reconstructions to illustrate our 

7 ability -- these are hypothetical. These are 

8 not actual data -- actual cases. But if we had 

9 a hypothetical reactor operator who was male, 

10 he worked there during the period of the sodium 

11 reactor -- the sodium reactor experiment 

12 incident, we would do -- we could do a dose 

13 reconstruction based on the -- his internal 

14 monitoring and external monitoring, provided 

15 the employment starts in 1959 or later. So 

16 these are just some of the assumptions we made 

17 for this hypothetical person. 

18 The person -- we would expect to have routine 

19 monitoring for uranium and fission products. 

20 We said well, how about acute uranium intake in 

21 1965 based on his bioassay record, and so the 

22 external dosimetry throughout for all the types 

23 of external radiation. Based on this 

24 information -- which it may in fact be real -- 

25 probably an amalgam of data taken from several 
27

1 different files, it wouldn't be one person's 

2 file, if you -- when we do intakes, we always 

3 assume the solubility class that provides the 

4 most favorable outcome for the claimant if we 

5 don't know for sure what the solubility class 

6 was. So depending upon which you choose in 

7 this case, some organs -- it'll be -- you know, 

8 S will be more favorable for some organs, M 

9 will be more favorable for others, depending 

10 upon how you -- which you choose, you'll have 

11 these two different intake regimes of a fairly 

12 large -- quite large type S intake for the 

13 acute intake, on top of a quite small chronic 

14 intake over the course of employment. 

15 If you had -- if your assumption is type M, the 

16 acute intake is a little more moderate, but 

17 your chronic intake is quite a lot larger over 

18 the entire time of the employment. 

19 Strontium-90 is most favorable as type F and 

20 the bioassay would provide a chronic intake of 

21 -- of that nature. 

22 And then the external -- external doses were 

23 thrown in here. I doubt that this is real data 

24 'cause I doubt that anybody really got the same 

25 dose every year, but this was thrown in for -- 
28

1 to show that we would have those measurements. 

2 The outcome of a case like this for various 

3 organs giving the organ dose and the 

4 probability of causation is provided here in 

5 the next table. Up to -- and that's with a 

6 1990 cancer diagnosis. 

7 Sample dose reconstruction number two is the 

8 hypothetical again, hypothetical fireman, again 

9 male, tasked with removal or burning of sodium 

10 reactor components, et cetera. These are his 

11 demographics that would relate to how the case 

12 works out eventually. Presumable an Area IV 

13 fire-- Area IV fireman would have his own bio-- 

14 his own data, so we would be able to make the -

15 - use his data with -- to -- in order to do the 

16 dose reconstruction. We would expect someone 

17 like this would probably have acute intakes, 

18 more so than chronic intakes, so we could go 

19 through and do the dose calculation. 

20 And you will arrive at doses and probability of 

21 causation (unintelligible) provided in this 

22 next -- again, these are strictly hypothetical 

23 cases. 

24 Dose recon-- sample dose reconstruction number 

25 three is a technician, doesn't handle 
29

1 radioactive materials but drinking the 

2 groundwater. So you can understand -- we can 

3 go through and do this. There would be an 

4 intake -- realistically, I would believe 

5 probably the tritium would be included in 

6 everybody's, as I'm looking through these now. 

7 So these again just kind of show magnitude of 

8 exposures on certain of these scenarios. 

9 In our evaluation process to determine -- as we 

10 evaluate a Special Exposure Cohort, a two11 pronged test -- of course you've all seen this 

12 before, is it feasible to estimate the 

13 radiation -- level of radiation doses, and is 

14 there a reasonable likelihood that such 

15 radiation dose may have endangered the health 

16 of members of the class. 

17 We've de-- NIOSH has determined it's not 

18 feasible to complete dose reconstructions with 

19 sufficient accuracy for the time period -- the 

20 period of limited internal dos-- internal 

21 bioassay data, that's from 1955 to 1958, and 

22 that the health of the employees covered may 

23 have been endangered. 

24 The evidence reviewed indicates workers in the 

25 class received chronic internal and external 
30

1 exposure from reactor operations, fuel 

2 production and other support and research 

3 activities at Area IV of Santa Susana Field 

4 Laboratory sufficient to potentially be harmful 

5 to them. We did not recognize a particular 

6 incident that would indicate that they were 

7 subject -- they were likely to be harmed from 

8 just being present. 

9 Our recommended class definition is: All 

10 employees of the DOE, its predecessor agencies 

11 and the DOE contractors and subcontractors who 

12 were monitored while working in area (sic) area 

13 of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area IV 

14 for a number of work days aggregating at least 

15 250 days from January 1st, 1955 to December 

16 31st, 1958, or in combination with work days 

17 within the parameters established for one or 

18 more -- one or more other classes of employees 

19 within the SEC. 

20 The summary -- the brief summary of our 

21 findings is for -- feasibility findings for 

22 internal doses from all radionuclides from 1955 

23 to 1958, there's no data, we don't believe it's 

24 feasible to reconstruct those doses. From '58 

25 -- from '59 to the present, we believe that it 
31

1 is feasible. For external, for all the years, 

2 we believe the dose reconstruction is feasible. 

3 That ends my presentation. I know the 

4 petitioner wants to speak. I think the 

5 petitioner has even made some comments since 

6 our evaluation report was -- was presented. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, before the petitioner comes 

8 with a presentation, a couple of quick 

9 questions. Could you clarify -- your class 

10 definition does not include the "should have 

11 been monitored" category, so you're confident 

12 that anyone included was monitored. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It's our belief today that they 

14 con-- that they conscientiously monitored the 

15 radiation workers. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: And slide 21 where you indicated 

17 concern for non-monitored workers -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Which one is this, slide 21? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Slide 21. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not going to -- sure I'm 

21 going to -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: No dose records for some non23 monitored workers. So what does that mean in 

24 this issue -- 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that -- that speaks to 
32

1 our -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: The ones that were outside the 

3 controlled area? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: There were unmonitored workers 

5 outside the restricted area, and there were 

6 unmonitored workers in the restricted area. 

7 What -- our concern about possibly lost records 

8 was that when we would receive a response that 

9 said "no record" and we -- that -- we would 

10 normally assume that that meant this person 

11 wasn't a radiation worker. But in this 

12 instance, not only did we receive responses 

13 that said "no record," we received responses 

14 that said -- that had an exposure record that 

15 was blank. An exposure record that's blank 

16 indicates they were -- they were non-radiation 

17 workers. Our concern was that the records of 

18 the first group where we got no response (sic), 

19 those records had been lost and so we would not 

20 know what their exposure history was. That was 

21 our concern. 

22 Our concern was allayed by our investigation, 

23 which revealed that in fact there were two -- 

24 these two groups of non-monitored workers. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other questions 
33

1 before we hear from the petitioner? Yes, Brad 

2 Clawson. 

3 MR. CLAWSON: Stu, who did the bioassay for 

4 these people? Was it done in-house or was it 

5 done by a contractor? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: In most cases it was done by a 

7 contractor. There -- there are a number -- a 

8 variety of companies who did it. 

9 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. I -- I's just trying to 

10 picture what you were drawing up there, though. 

11 You've got a secured area that the people that 

12 go into this are supposed to be monitored, but 

13 we have some that aren't monitored. So I'm 

14 trying to figure -- you know, they should have 

15 been monitored. What controlled them from 

16 going into the rad areas? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I think what it is 

18 is that the restricted area was probably the 

19 area that was used by the nuclear operations. 

20 Remember, there were nuclear operations and 

21 rocket operations. And the restricted area, 

22 meaning restricted as a radiological control 

23 term -- 

24 MR. CLAWSON: Right. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was where the radiological 
34

1 operations occurred, not the rocket operations. 

2 Within there, there would be office buildings, 

3 there would be other -- you know, other aspects 

4 that were apart from the radioactive material, 

5 so there would be areas where there was really 

6 no potential for exposure, but that wa-- it was 

7 on that part of the plant. I believe that 

8 would be the situation. 

9 MR. CLAWSON: Did -- did I -- now I can't 

10 remember, so did we have air sampling data? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There is some air sampling data 

12 for -- gross alpha and gross beta air sampling 

13 data -- 

14 MR. CLAWSON: Just -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- starts relatively early. 

16 MR. CLAWSON: -- just air, or surrounding 

17 areas, or were they personal air -- 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know where it was 

19 collected. 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let's then hear from 

22 LaVonne Klea. LaVonne, you still on the line? 

23 MS. KLEA: Yes, this is LaVonne. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Please proceed. 

25 MS. KLEA: I do have some comments on what you 
35

1 said, but I'll -- I'll read what I've written 

2 here. I hope you've all read my comments, 

3 which have been forwarded twice. 

4 I have no evidence that the site contractor had 

5 good monitoring data after 1958. This is 

6 contrary for all the evidence that I have. In 

7 1994 Rockwell was asked for their employees' 

8 monitoring records for a UCLA worker study on 

9 radiation and chemical exposure. They stated 

10 that very little in the way of records exist. 

11 They said that you cannot invent records. 

12 NIOSH themselves have used estimates of 

13 external environmental doses from 1952 to 1974 

14 and calculated doses from 1975 to 1999. Does 

15 this mean that they have no records from '52 to 

16 '74? My dose was estimated from Portsmouth. 

17 The contractor used Landauer film badges. They 

18 were not DOE DOELAP approved. [Name redacted] 

19 pointed out certain questionable practices. 

20 The first is that data obtained by dosimeters 

21 is normalized to a 1000 feet altitude, by using 

22 an adjustment factor equal to 15 mr per 1,000 

23 feet elevation difference to obtain site 

24 averages. Two nationally renowned experts had 

25 never heard of this practice. 
36

1 Second, the contractor did not have a 

2 comparison study of the dosimeters placed by 

3 the State of California versus DOE. According 

4 to the DOE there was no procedure or technical 

5 basis for operation of the internal dosimety 

6 program. Urinalysis was used as the bioassay 

7 technique for insoluble cobalt-60. There was 

8 no technical analysis for the suitability. And 

9 what about super S plutonium? It was highly 

10 insoluble. DOE and the site contractor had a 

11 long history of giving low priority to 

12 environmental safety and health. The site 

13 contractor was basically allowed to monitor 

14 themselves with almost no oversight from the 

15 San Francisco office of DOE. They had no 

16 dedicated staff for DOE compliance and staff 

17 time was used on NASA and DOD contracts. 

18 Radiological protection personnel were not 

19 trained and qualified by DOE. The study of air 

20 flow patterns at ETEC facilities requiring air 

21 sampling was not done and did not meet DOE 

22 performance standards for the internal 

23 dosimetry program. Often doses were not added 

24 to the records because it was manpower 

25 intensive. Radioactive particulate monitoring 
37

1 did not conform to DOE, EPA and CFR 

2 requirements. No swipe tests were used for 

3 handling packages. ETEC is at 1000 foot 

4 elevation from the valley floor. Last week EPA 

5 declared that the site qualifies for Superfund 

6 eligibility. Radioactive and chemical 

7 pollution has flowed down the mountain on all 

8 sides, contaminating community drinking water, 

9 children’s camps, state parkland and new 

10 construction projects. It is estimated that 

11 contaminants will fill the Rose Bowl 55 times. 

12 Contrary to the site profile, well water was 

13 given to the employees until 1985, not 1965, 

14 that was contaminated with TCE and 1,2 

15 dichlorethylene. The contractor saved 50,000 

16 dollars a year. We have a tritium plume in 

17 Area IV of 119,000 pci per liter discovered in 

18 2004. And every year the measurements go up, 

19 suggesting that there are sources and also a 

20 water supply well in that area, yet Rockwell 

21 never tested for tritium and the tritium wasn't 

22 found until 1989 by EPA. 

23 Rockwell is a convicted felon. They are 

24 convicted felons for illegally burning waste 

25 without permit and killing workers. In 1996 we 
38

1 had an FBI raid, grand jury conviction and a 

2 record fine of 60 million dollars. Bladder 

3 cancer is very high among the workers, probably 

4 the highest percentage of the 22 cancers. Also 

5 bladder cancer is 50 percent higher in the 

6 population closest to the site, suggesting 

7 chronic internal exposures. 

8 I also mention that the site profile is flawed. 

9 According to EPA, SNAP 8DR operated in Building 

10 59 from 1962 to 1964, shut down and restarted 

11 from January 1969 to December ‘69. Yet the 

12 site profile states that it was in operation 

13 from 1968 to 1969. The site profile basically 

14 was written by the Boeing Company. One large 

15 notebook was used and the Boeing consultant was 

16 the company’s own expert witness who has been 

17 fighting workers compensation claims for years, 

18 and now he is involved intimately with the 

19 NIOSH program. This is an extreme conflict of 

20 interest. 

21 And to the Department of Labor, I see no change 

22 in the corporate culture of fighting workers 

23 compensation claims, contrary to what the law 

24 promised, that the corporations would be 

25 instructed to stop fighting claims and assist 
39

1 the workers. We had a UCLA Worker Death Study 

2 for which NIOSH had a representative on the 

3 board, yet in evaluation of my petition the 

4 BOICE study was quoted. The BOICE study was an 

5 in-house, corporate paid study, another 

6 conflict of interest. 

7 I have a question for the Board on the fairness 

8 of the NIOSH program for women. BEIR VII 

9 states that women have a 50 percent greater 

10 risk for solid tumors than men. Shouldn't the 

11 dose reconstruction project be adjusted 

12 accordingly? I thank you for listening. I 

13 will not give up. I request that my petition 

14 be investigated for the whole period from 1955 

15 to the present because most of the data I have 

16 was written in late '80s, early '90s, and there 

17 looks like corrections to the problem. Thank 

18 you. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, LaVonne. I'd 

20 like to point out, Board members, just to 

21 remind you that LaVonne distributed to us her 

22 rebuttal to the SEC petition evaluation report 

23 -- her rebuttal is dated February 6th, 2008. I 

24 think, Christine, you distributed this in early 

25 April. Is that correct? Right. 
40

1 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, 'cause she added something 

2 to it -- she said she sent it twi-- Ms. Klea 

3 said that she sent it twice, and so on the 

4 second occasion, at which time I was then the 

5 DFO -- she sent it a second time and that's 

6 when I sent it to all of you. 

7 MS. KLEA: I sent two different sets of 

8 comments and then one I just read I just wrote 

9 yesterday, so if you'd like, I can forward that 

10 also to the (unintelligible). 

11 DR. BRANCHE: If you -- actually that will be 

12 very helpful if you could please send that to 

13 Ms. Breyer and then we will make certain that 

14 it is entered into the record as well as 

15 distributed to the Board. Thank you. 

16 MS. KLEA: Thank you. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do any of you have 

18 questions for LaVonne, either on her previous 

19 materials or on her comments today? 

20 (No responses) 

21 Okay, thank you very much. Then let me open 

22 this for discussion on any of the issues 

23 related to either the NIOSH presentation or 

24 LaVonne's points, or other issues that any of 

25 you wish to raise or any comments you wish to 
41

1 make. 

2 MS. KLEA: Oh, sir, could I just -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

4 MS. KLEA: -- (unintelligible) one more 

5 statement? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

7 MS. KLEA: Okay. I have read (unintelligible) 

8 documents on the reactor (unintelligible) that 

9 we had two reactors that for sure opened their 

10 doors to -- to neutralize the radiation 

11 exposure inside, and that would have been 

12 Building 24, which (unintelligible) Building 28 

13 they call the swimming pool reactor and it 

14 operated 1961 until 1972 and it was 

15 (unintelligible) every day. They ran 

16 (unintelligible) reactor (unintelligible) open 

17 doors (unintelligible) vent the room. Also 

18 (unintelligible) reactor (unintelligible) which 

19 ran from 1956 to 1966. I have an old 

20 (unintelligible) very (unintelligible) that 

21 they had a large (unintelligible) wearing 

22 protective clothes. They had no monitoring in 

23 that building and (unintelligible) 1959 and in 

24 that report that they have the doors were 

25 (unintelligible) to this (unintelligible) 
42

1 contaminated air, so I know for sure that it 

2 happened twice where (unintelligible) and not 

3 captured. It was released by (unintelligible) 

4 the door. Thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I believe -- and Stu, 

6 perhaps you could clarify this -- I assume 

7 NIOSH has seen the -- the points that she had 

8 raised in her letter. I believe you're saying 

9 that in -- in spite of those issues, you still 

10 believe that you can bound the dose for the 

11 later periods. The early period is not in 

12 question. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the earlier -- the early 

14 period is not in question, and today we didn't 

15 see anything that would cause us to pull back 

16 and amend our evaluation report. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, looking to see if there's 

18 any other comments or -- 

19 DR. MELIUS: I -- I have a -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- yes, Dr. Melius. 

21 DR. MELIUS: -- just a factual question, and 

22 that is has SC&A reviewed either the site 

23 profile -- I shouldn't say either. Has SC&A 

24 reviewed the site profile? I'm trying to get a 

25 -- a handle on where we are in terms of looking 
43

1 at the site. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: John? 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, at the last meeting the Board 

4 authorized us to proceed with a site profile 

5 review, which is underway as we speak. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: So that's -- that's in process. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And John, what was the 

10 expected delivery date on that? 

11 DR. MAURO: In general our site profile reviews 

12 require about a four-month period, and we are 

13 only -- we started last month, so three months. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And so to the extent that 

15 that may impact on the Board's action here 

16 today, take that into consideration. Okay. 

17 It would be appropriate to take some action. 

18 Your poten-- I'll remind you of the 

19 possibilities here. The board may -- may move 

20 to recommend addition of this class. I might 

21 point out that doing so would not preclude 

22 taking additional actions later -- wouldn't 

23 require it, but it wouldn't preclude it. 

24 You could -- you could move to postpone action 

25 until the site profile is received, although 
44

1 the site profile doesn't directly address 

2 necessarily SEC issues, but it may include 

3 them. 

4 Or the other action would be to not approve the 

5 recommendation from -- from NIOSH to add the 

6 class. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Can I have a -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

9 DR. MELIUS: -- another question then for -- 

10 for NIOSH, so this is the -- the -- the way 

11 you've written up the SEC evaluation report, 

12 it's -- it's -- you make it appear that in 1958 

13 there was suddenly a full monitoring program 

14 there, and at least our past experience has 

15 been that usually those monitoring programs are 

16 phased in over time -- I mean before they 

17 capture all the workers or all the work areas 

18 and -- and so forth. And I just can't tell 

19 from your report, and I don't have access to 

20 the site profile to tell if that's really true 

21 or -- or is it -- if it was phased in, then I -

22 - it just raises some questions about time 

23 periods involved and sort of how I think we 

24 should proceed, but maybe it -- maybe in this 

25 case it did -- 
45

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: -- go from zero to full. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Our position -- it started in 

4 late 1958 and our position is by 1959 -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- is when we say we can start. 

7 They had -- the people who were exposed were 

8 appropriately monitored, and if you get a 

9 bioassay sample not on January 1st but on March 

10 31st for someone, you can do a pretty good job 

11 of estimating his exposure from -- from January 

12 31st, so our -- our view is that by January it 

13 was sufficient. Recognize that radiological 

14 operations ramped up as years went on and 

15 additional monitoring then came on line, too. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. John Poston. 

17 DR. POSTON: Well, it seems to me that if we 

18 ask SC&A to look at this that we should give 

19 them a chance to finish their work, and 

20 therefore I'd make a motion that we take no 

21 action at this time and -- upon receipt of the 

22 SC&A review. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, there's a motion to postpone 

24 action until an opportunity to see the SC&A -- 

25 and that'll be a site profile review. Is there 
46

1 a second to that motion? 

2 UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) 

3 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Discussion on the 

4 motion? 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I agree with most of it. I 

6 guess my only question would be would -- should 

7 we have them focus just on this area and then 

8 the -- on particular issues related to the SEC 

9 initially so that we could expedite it, to the 

10 extent that it can be, and I -- I just don't 

11 know enough about where they are with their 

12 work or -- to know if that's going to make any 

13 difference or not. 

14 DR. POSTON: Well, my motion was just to delay, 

15 it wasn't implied that other things couldn't be 

16 done and so forth. It was just to -- not to 

17 take action -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Actually -- 

19 DR. POSTON: -- at this time. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- let me just suggest the 

21 following. If the motion carried, then when we 

22 do our -- our other Board work, which will 

23 include SC&A tasking, we can specifically 

24 address how to task this particular one. 

25 DR. MELIUS: That -- that's fine with me then. 
47

1 Yeah, that was my only concern, I -- reason I'm 

2 a little reluctant to -- we take any action on 

3 the first part, the approved ar-- is this 

4 question of -- of what happens on the margins 

5 of the -- the -- in terms of years and so forth 

6 'cause again in the past we've -- we've often, 

7 you know, had questions about what years to put 

8 in there in terms of when is there adequate 

9 data in order to be able to estimate that -- 

10 again, it -- it -- there may very well turn out 

11 to be what NIOSH said, but I'd like to have 

12 some more information, some -- before we make 

13 that decision. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments, pro or con? 

15 We're debating the motion to delay. There 

16 appear to be no other comments. Are you ready 

17 to vote? 

18 All in favor, aye? 

19 (Affirmative responses) 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley's on the line. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, aye. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Bob Presley votes aye. Any 

23 opposed? 

24 (No responses) 

25 Any abstentions? 
48

1 (No responses) 

2 The motion carries and we will delay action or 

3 delay a recommendation on this particular 

4 petition pending the completion of the work by 

5 SC&A on the site profile. And again, we'll 

6 have the opportunity, if we wish, to focus that 

7 in some way as well. 

8 (Pause) 

9 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UPDATE

10 Okay, without objection then, we'll proceed to 

11 the presentation by the Department of Labor, 

12 and Jeff Kotsch is here this morning to present 

13 that. Jeff, welcome. 

14 MR. KOTSCH: Good morning. This is a status 

15 report from the Department of Labor for 

16 activities related to the Energy Employees 

17 Occupational Illness Compensation Program. 

18 Just as background, there are two portions to 

19 this program. There's Part B, which became 

20 effective on July 1st, 2001, and at the bottom 

21 are the dates of the slides. There are a 

22 couple of differences through this -- through 

23 the series of the slides, but this one is March 

24 25th, 2008. And because of that difference, 

25 then I think the dates that maybe Larry had in 
49

1 his, some of the numbers that we share or that 

2 are of similar activities may be a little bit 

3 different. 

4 But anyway, as of March 25th the Department has 

5 -- or there have been 61,234 cases filed with 

6 the Department of Labor. That encompasses 

7 89,282 claims. The number of claims is always 

8 bigger because survivor cases may have one or 

9 more claimants involved in them. Of those, 

10 40,025 are cancer cases, and we have referred 

11 26,766 cases to NIOSH. 

12 The other half of the program, the Part E 

13 program, became effective on October 28th, 

14 2004. This was formerly the Part D program 

15 administered by the Department of Energy. And 

16 on that side of the program we've had 51,164 

17 cases filed, which includes 70,992 claimants -- 

18 or claims. And at the beginning of that 

19 program over 25,000 cases were transferred from 

20 DOE. 

21 As far as compensation as of, again, March 

22 25th, the Department has put out in 

23 compensation $3.6 billion total; $2.3 of that 

24 is Part B, breaking down into $1.8 billion for 

25 cancer claims, $282 million for RECA, and the 
50

1 remainder of that would be for silicosis and 

2 beryllium. $1 billion has been paid as part of 

3 the Part E program and $206 million as part of 

4 medical benefits. 

5 Just quickly under the Part B benefits 

6 overview, who's eligible, it's Department of 

7 Energy and its contractors and subcontractors, 

8 atomic weapons employers, beryllium vendors; 

9 uranium miners, millers, ore transporters who 

10 worked at facilities covered by Section 5 of 

11 RECA -- that's the Radiation Exposure 

12 Compensation Act, that program's actually 

13 administered by the Department of Justice and 

14 we supplement it; and certain family members of 

15 deceased workers. 

16 And quickly, the claim categories for Part B 

17 are cancer, chronic beryllium disease or CBD, 

18 beryllium sensitivity, chronic silicosis -- 

19 which is primarily the miners/millers, and the 

20 RECA Section 5 cases. 

21 And who -- who eventually becomes -- or who is 

22 potentially covered that is compensable are 

23 workers or claims that are determined that the 

24 covered employee was a member of the SEC and 

25 was diagnosed with one of the specified 
51

1 cancers; or it is determined through a dose 

2 reconstruction conducted by NIOSH that the 

3 covered employee's cancer was at least as 

4 likely as not, that's greater than 50 percent, 

5 caused by exposure to ionizing radiation. 

6 So the Part B cancer case status as of, again -

7 - this is a little different date, March 20th -

8 - there have been 40,000 -- about 40,000 cases 

9 having 61,549 claims; 32,000 of those have had 

10 final decisions, that's about 80 percent; 1,800 

11 have recommended but no final, that means that 

12 their case is with our Final Adjudication 

13 Branch for another look -- I mean that's the 

14 part of the process of -- of turning a 

15 recommended into a final decision; about 4,500 

16 are at NIOSH, and about 1,700 are pending 

17 initial DOE (sic) -- an -- an initial DOE (sic) 

18 -- that is an initial recommended. 

19 This is the breakdown for the Part B cancer 

20 cases as far as final decisions. On the left 

21 side you see that there's 12,559 of final 

22 decisions were approved. On the right, the red 

23 bar is 19,470 denied, and the breakdowns go 

24 across from left to right -- non-covered 

25 employment -- reasons for denial, non-covered 
52

1 employment; 11,735 with a POC less than 50; 

2 about 3,000 with insufficient medical evidence; 

3 about 1,100 with non-covered conditions and 365 

4 with ineligible survivor. 

5 Just a quick one on the Special Exposure 

6 Cohorts. Of course there's the statutory ones 

7 that were in the Act -- the three diffusion 

8 plants, certain nuclear tests -- and then the 

9 new SEC class designations that have been 

10 recommended by the Board and passed by the HHS 

11 Secretary. Then there's specified cancers, 

12 causation is presumed but no dose 

13 reconstruction, and then the HHS recommends the 

14 SEC designation as -- if it -- after 30 days 

15 with Congress. 

16 As far as new SEC-related cases, we've had 

17 1,565 cases withdrawn from NIOSH. This number 

18 is as of March 20th. 1,421 have had final 

19 decisions issued, that's 92 percent; 45 have 

20 recommended but no final decisions. We have 20 

21 cases pending and we have 69 cases that are 

22 closed. 

23 As far as our NIOSH referral case status, we 

24 show now, as of March 25th, 26,760 cases 

25 referred to NIOSH; 18,645 have been returned 
53

1 from NIOSH. Of those, 16,000 -- about 16,500 

2 have had dose reconstructions, 19 are being 

3 reworked for return, 2,077 have been withdrawn 

4 with no dose reconstruction. 

5 Then the other portion of that is 8,115 are 

6 currently at NIOSH; 4,628 of those are initial 

7 or originally referrals, 3,487 are reworks or 

8 returns. 

9 The NIOSH dose reconstruction case status 

10 numbers, we have -- we're showing as of March 

11 25th 16,549 cases with dose reconstructions. 

12 That's -- and of those, 14,261 have a final 

13 decision. That's about 86 percent. 1,952 have 

14 a final -- I'm sorry -- have a recommended but 

15 no final decision, and 336 are pending with -- 

16 at Labor with a recommended decision. I'm 

17 sorry, are pending a recommended decision by 

18 Labor. 

19 Now as far as NIOSH case-related compensation, 

20 as of March 20th $956 million has been paid out 

21 in compensation to 900 -- I'm sorry, 9,908 

22 payees in 6,405 cases. $779 million has been 

23 paid on dose reconstructed cases to 7,364 

24 payees, which is 5,213 cases. And the other 

25 $177 million has been added for SEC cases. 
54

1 That includes payments to 2,544 payees in 1,192 

2 cases. 

3 Paid cases under the Act, there's 20 -- have 

4 been -- again, this is March 25th, 28,613 paid 

5 Part B and E cases; 19,777 of those are Part B 

6 cases. The breakdown there is about 12,367 for 

7 cancer payees; 5,600 -- little over 5,600 for 

8 RECA case payees; about 1,760 for other Part B 

9 payees. Those are, again, the 

10 silicosis/beryllium. And there have been 8,836 

11 Part E cases. That's the toxic side of the 

12 program -- toxic chemical exposure. 

13 Just an update quickly on some of the SECs that 

14 have been in front of the Board during the 

15 meeting or -- or is scheduled. For Texas City, 

16 which is an AWE, Texas City Chemicals, we show 

17 84 cases. It's only affected by Part B of the 

18 program. There's no toxic -- there's no Part E 

19 applications for AWEs. We show two NIOSH dose 

20 reconstructions. There have been 14 final B 

21 decisions and no compensation. 

22 For the SAM labs at Columbia, we're showing 42 

23 cases, one NIOSH dose reconstruction. We've 

24 had ten final Part Bs, nine Part B approvals, 

25 six Part E approvals, and have paid $2 million 
55

1 in compensation. 

2 For Horizons we show five cases, Part B only -- 

3 again, this is an AWE -- and no dose 

4 reconstructions and no compensation. 

5 For Area IV at Santa Susana Field Laboratory we 

6 show 729 cases. This is covered under both 

7 parts B and E because it's a DOE facility. 

8 We're showing 132 NIOSH dose reconstructions, 

9 155 final decisions for Part B, 44 Part B 

10 approvals, 46 Part E approvals, and total 

11 compensation for both parts of $9 million. 

12 And for Kellex-Pierpont we show seven cases and 

13 no dose reconstructions or approvals, or 

14 compensation. 

15 NUMEC Parks Township in Pennsylvania, we show 

16 143 cases. This is an AWE so this is only Part 

17 B cases, ten dose constructions, 29 final Part 

18 Bs, 15 approvals -- Part Es are not applicable 

19 -- and total compensation under Part B of $1 

20 million. 

21 Pinellas we show 1,137 cases, 300 dose 

22 reconstructions, 367 final decisions for Part B 

23 under the Department of Labor, 70 Part B 

24 approvals, 86 Part E approvals -- again, for 

25 toxic chemicals -- for a total compensation for 
56

1 both parts of the program, Parts B and E, of 

2 $12 million. 

3 At this point I wanted to ask Gen -- I can give 

4 a quick update on Linde Ceramics, either now or 

5 later -- I guess when you do your update. 

6 DR. ROESSLER: I think we need to have it at -- 

7 at some point. 

8 MR. KOTSCH: You can have it now -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't you do it when you do 

10 your report on -- 

11 MR. KOTSCH: We can do it later. Do you want 

12 to do it later? 

13 DR. ROESSLER: I'll get -- or you can do it -- 

14 your part when I do the report. 

15 MR. KOTSCH: Right, but I mean you will be 

16 doing an update on that, Linde Ceramics. 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Yes, tomorrow. 

18 MR. KOTSCH: We'll do it then. 

19 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

20 MR. KOTSCH: So are there any questions? 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jeff, can you give us 

22 some idea of what the rate of claim -- numbers 

23 of claims coming in nowadays on Part B? I 

24 assume you're tracking that. Is it -- you 

25 know, has it leveled out, is it going up, going 
57

1 down? 

2 MR. KOTSCH: It -- actually Larry might have a 

3 better -- have a feel, too, but I haven't 

4 looked at the numbers recently. It seems that 

5 it leveled out. There's -- occasionally 

6 there's little rises in it, but we're at a 

7 semi-steady state situation as far as 

8 additional claims. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, what they see at NIOSH has 

10 been impacted by their ability to put things 

11 back out the door. They were ahead of you for 

12 a while, but I wasn't sure whether what comes 

13 in to NIOSH is that typically reflected -- 

14 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- what -- what you have coming in 

16 or has yours been affected by budget in terms 

17 of your -- 

18 MR. KOTSCH: No -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- turnover ability? 

20 MR. KOTSCH: -- I don't think it's that, but we 

21 have -- we saw a dip for a while, and then it 

22 started coming up again. Some of it comes off 

23 of -- or responds to when we have town hall 

24 meetings and other outreach types of things. 

25 There's sometimes small increases in the input 
58

1 or the -- you know, the new cases. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: But it's more -- would it be 

3 steady state -- 

4 MR. KOTSCH: I think we're -- Larry, do you 

5 agree we're kind of -- 'cause you kind of see 

6 most of the -- the baseline, obviously. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: We see about 200 a month come at 

8 us. I caution you when you look at the numbers 

9 Jeff has provided on the total number of B 

10 claims that they receive, we don't see all of 

11 those. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: No, understood, right. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: So you can't look at my numbers 

14 and reflect upon those numbers given by DOL 

15 today because they're -- the include -- I think 

16 I understand this. They include other claims 

17 that we don't see -- 

18 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but we're seeing at NIOSH 

20 about -- on average, about 200 a month. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And that's been pretty steady now 

22 for a while. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. It may go up to 200, 225, 

24 but it'll dip down next month to 170, so... 

25 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, I think for right now that's 
59

1 a -- that's a reason-- that's the number I 

2 would think in my mind, 200 to 250 probably 

3 toward the low end as an average. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and this may -- question, I 

6 don't know who best can answer, but I'm trying 

7 to get a handle on the reworks, returns to -- 

8 to NIOSH and so forth. Seems that those have 

9 gone up dramatically and they don't appear to 

10 be getting caught up with very quickly, either, 

11 and I'm just trying to understand what some of 

12 the issues are there. I missed Larry's 

13 presentation yesterday so... 

14 MR. KOTSCH: I'll let Larry com-- comment as 

15 far as the workload for him. I mean I think 

16 the -- the cause of those over the past few 

17 quarters has been the -- the release of the 

18 Program Evaluation Reports. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the PERs has impacted on 

20 that. I think Larry discussed that a bit 

21 yesterday. 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, if you look in my slides 

23 from yesterday there are a couple of slides 

24 that show -- speak to reworks and the Program 

25 Evaluation Reviews. The spike that we see in 
60

1 the one bar graph for the last four quarters 

2 are really due to super S and other PERs that 

3 cover a large range of sites. You'll also see 

4 in a later slide in that presentation that we 

5 have returned a large number of late. We're 

6 dealing with a case load of reworks around 

7 3,000 and some. We've returned quite a number 

8 just recently, another -- with an evaluation 

9 letter saying whether we need to -- we don't 

10 need to do a rework or we do need to do a 

11 rework, so... 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it also looks as if you -- 

13 some of the older reworks have never been 

14 returned. At least you have them broken down 

15 here by quarter, so for example, in the third 

16 quarter of 2004 you received 113 and have 

17 returned 42. Now is -- 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, you know, the reworks -- 

19 you're looking at the bar graph. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Bar graph, yeah. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: There are some reworks that -- 

22 that we are -- we have not been -- we have not 

23 been able to return quickly. We're working 

24 through that. I think you'll see our pace pick 

25 up very soon on that. But -- 
61

1 DR. MELIUS: I mean is -- is the date the date 

2 that they're received or the date that they 

3 were originally -- I mean I -- done? I mean 

4 I'm just trying to understand -- this is the 

5 first time I think at least I recall seeing 

6 this graph. Maybe I've -- 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, it's been there every time. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Oh, it's been there? I apologize. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: But it -- the date -- well, when 

10 we receive them, that -- when we receive them 

11 back from DOL, that's when we lo-- start 

12 counting -- 

13 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: -- time on ourselves. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: The date we turn them back over 

17 to DOL is when we stop our clock. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, 'cause -- 'cause in that 

19 case, some of these would be four years old. 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: No, I don't believe they're four 

21 years old. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Okay, I see, this is a cumulative, 

23 not a -- 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a cumulative graph -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: Okay, okay, I understand. Okay. 
62

1 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and the trend that we're 

2 watching there is this late blip of the PER 

3 activity, but they're not -- I don't believe 

4 that we've got any rework that's over four 

5 years old. I don't believe we've got any 

6 rework right now that's over a year old. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Maybe you could report on 

8 that next time, get some data -- just out of 

9 curiosity. Thanks. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Other questions for Jeff? 

11 (No responses) 

12 Okay. Thank you very much, Jeff. We 

13 appreciate the update. 

14 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UPDATE

15 DR. BRANCHE: We have time to catch DOE. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: We're pleased also to have Dr. 

17 Worthington here with us today, and if you're 

18 agreeable, we'll proceed with your 

19 presentation. Are we set to go? Yeah. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: For those of you participating by 

21 phone, if you could please mute your line. If 

22 you do not have a mute button, then please use 

23 star-6 to mute the phone. And then when you 

24 are ready to speak, use that same star-6 to 

25 unmute your phone. Thank you. 
63

1 (Pause) 

2 DR. WORTHINGTON: Good morning. Can you all 

3 hear me okay? Good. It's always a pleasure to 

4 be here and appear before the Board and to meet 

5 with many of the counterparts and in some cases 

6 to interface with some of the actual workers. 

7 This morning I wanted to give you an update -- 

8 it really is an update. We don't have any 

9 major changes in the program. We're committed 

10 to the things we've talked about over the last 

11 sessions, and I want to tell you where we are 

12 with those. 

13 And before I get started, I probably should 

14 start with something that may be of concern to 

15 some of you on the phone and to some of you 

16 that are actually here today. We have had some 

17 -- some funding constraints over the year for 

18 the DOE program in terms of being able to 

19 deliver the services that we need to deliver. 

20 We've worked hard with our counterparts and 

21 we've revisited a number of things, and we're 

22 pleased to tell you today that we are fairly 

23 confident that all the things that we need to 

24 deliver this year, that we have the funds to do 

25 that and we're working with the sites and the 
64

1 various organizations to make sure that we're 

2 being very efficient and effective in 

3 delivering those services. 

4 And if I can find the right button here, we'll 

5 go to the next slide. Okay. Again, as I said, 

6 this was really intended to be an update and to 

7 talk about where we are with the things that we 

8 need to do for this program. As I've mentioned 

9 in the past, we have three major 

10 responsibilities here, and one -- the first one 

11 is the individual claims. And as I go through 

12 the various slides today, that certainly is the 

13 biggest part of our program and we're committed 

14 to -- to doing those efforts. 

15 We want to provide support to Department of 

16 Labor and to NIOSH and the Advisory Board, and 

17 to their contractors, to do a number of things, 

18 including research, 'cause in some cases it's 

19 not a very simple activity to be able to 

20 deliver the documents. We want to do research, 

21 retrieval and to provide the various records 

22 from the various DOE sites. 

23 We want to research issues related to the 

24 EEOICPA covered facilities or time frame 

25 designation, as appropriate. 
65

1 The DOE activities -- as I mentioned on the 

2 earlier slide, 90 percent of our activities are 

3 focused on the individual claims. And we -- 

4 you've seen these numbers before and I'll just 

5 mention them again to put sort of in 

6 perspective the magnitude of the work that we -

7 - we have before us. And that is that 

8 typically we do about 8,000 a year employment 

9 verifications. Dose documentation for NIOSH, 

10 about 5,000 a year. And our DARs, we have 

11 about 9,000 a year. So those are the big 

12 things and we remain, you know, committed to -- 

13 to working on those areas. 

14 Total number of requests. The total number of 

15 requests that we had in 2006 -- and what we 

16 wanted to do, as we've done in some of these 

17 previous meetings, is just to revisit the 

18 previous years, get some idea of where we're 

19 going, and hopefully be able to make some good 

20 and accurate predictions for the future. So in 

21 2006 we had over -- almost 17,000 requests. 

22 The total number for 2007 was nearly 22,000. 

23 So as you can see, we had certainly an increase 

24 -- what we view as a significant increase from 

25 2006/2007, more than 32 percent increase in 
66

1 that area. 

2 I want to go to the next slide, slide number 

3 five. It's a graph, and I think you've seen 

4 that graph at some -- some previous 

5 presentation. I want to just -- just talk 

6 about it just a little bit. And as you can 

7 see, we've experienced an upward trend overall 

8 in claims, although for some months we had 

9 things that went up and went down. But you can 

10 see there's certainly been somewhat of an 

11 increasing trend in terms of the number of 

12 things that have been requested. 

13 The next slide, I think we've had some similar 

14 ones before. I want to talk a little bit about 

15 that. Here we wanted to kind of depict what we 

16 had over nearly the last year, and we looked at 

17 that slide and we looked at the data and tried 

18 to determine what it's actually telling us. 

19 And we believe that although individual claims 

20 have been down so far this year, the number of 

21 large-scale record -- research projects are up 

22 significantly from last year, and we expect 

23 that to be the case for the rest of the year. 

24 But again, we are looking backwards at the kind 

25 of requests that we've received were the things 
67

1 that we have on our plate right now. And to 

2 the best we can, some projections of the -- of 

3 things that will come, and then making sure 

4 that we work with all the individual sites and 

5 with the organizations so that we can deliver 

6 those products and deliver those services. 

7 I want to talk a little bit about the SECs. 

8 They're certainly very important to all of us, 

9 and our current research in support of the SEC 

10 activities, you see that we have a number of 

11 them here -- Fernald, Hanford, Mound, Nevada, 

12 Savannah River and Pantex -- and we expect that 

13 all of these efforts will be significant, both 

14 in the volume of records gathered and the 

15 complexity. We've talked about I think at some 

16 of these previous meetings the complexity of 

17 finding the documents. We have a legacy of 

18 many different types of document collection and 

19 retrieval processes, and we have to sort of 

20 search all of them to be able to come up with 

21 the documents. So it remains to be complex. 

22 We have not yet been able to consolidate that 

23 legacy into one system at the various sites, 

24 but we're working on that and trying to be able 

25 to deliver what we believe to be a quality 
68

1 service in a timely manner. And timely 

2 certainly constantly being redefined as we find 

3 ways to be -- to do this better. 

4 DOE activities, I want to -- I think we've -- 

5 we've had a slide similar to this before. We 

6 want to talk a little bit about our efforts. 

7 Certainly we are the funding source for these 

8 large and complex activities, but we fund and 

9 coordinate the large scale record retrieval 

10 activities, and there a number of them going on 

11 and many of you are affected by -- you know, by 

12 the work there. 

13 In terms of Department of Labor, they have 

14 developed a good process in the site exposure 

15 matrix. I think it brings together a lot of 

16 information that certainly should be able to 

17 facilitate things. And then we have over -- 

18 we've completed over 20 in FY07. And those 

19 again a large, complex activities that require 

20 quite a bit of -- of interfacing. 

21 We want to continue our work with the Board and 

22 with their contractor, and we've had technical 

23 reviews of NIOSH site profile documents -- I 

24 think we've had six over the past year. 

25 And our Special Exposure Cohort, we had six 
69

1 large projects and they're active right now and 

2 we're working on those. 

3 Again, continuing discussions on the things 

4 that we're working on with respect now to 

5 NIOSH, NIOSH data capture activities. Again, 

6 those things can be extensive. These 

7 activities are ongoing and NIOSH has been 

8 working with up to ten DOE sites in a single 

9 month, so that's quite a bit of juggling and 

10 coordinating and facilitating for us, but we're 

11 working with NIOSH to be able to do that even 

12 better. 

13 In terms of special cohorts, again, it's a 

14 number of things that we do, both research, 

15 record retrieval, various activities, and there 

16 are six that are active and current at the 

17 moment. 

18 The next slide deals with DOE responsibility 

19 for research and maintaining the covered 

20 facility database. We have 343 covered 

21 facilities, and we recently updated the Dow 

22 Madison and the Chapman Valve facilities. 

23 A little bit about the DOE record retrieval 

24 activities that are going on. I've listed 

25 three of them here on the slide. One is GE 
70

1 Ohio and then the Westinghouse Atomic and the 

2 Stauffer Metals. The Stauffer Metals is not a 

3 direct result of anything that NIOSH or the 

4 Board is doing. We're doing some work -- 

5 routine research to ensure that the covered 

6 facilities period and descriptions are 

7 accurate. We are researching the covered 

8 period for both, as I mentioned, GE and 

9 Westinghouse, and that work is ongoing. We 

10 have no specific -- because we've not completed 

11 that, no specific updates, but just to remind 

12 everybody that that work continues. 

13 A little bit -- and I think we talked about 

14 this before and we're very proud of our DOE 

15 Office of Legacy Management. They certainly 

16 have a large number of professionals -- 

17 certified records managers and senior staff 

18 with security clearances, and they're formally 

19 trained in requirements of the National 

20 Archives. And a lot of the work that we do, 

21 we're looking for very old documents and we 

22 have to reach back to our archives, and these 

23 individuals are certainly experts in that area. 

24 They're readily available to us and they have a 

25 good understanding of the DOE process, and it's 
71

1 easy for us to get to them and to help them to 

2 facilitate things. And they have been 

3 supporting our office and we're certainly very 

4 pleased with that and we hope that you're 

5 benefiting from that interaction that we're 

6 having with them. 

7 A little bit about some initiatives that we 

8 have that are ongoing and that we continue to 

9 work them and try to make them a mature part of 

10 our processes. We think it's very important to 

11 have a single point accountability when we can 

12 do that, and that you know and everyone will 

13 know where to go to get information and to help 

14 resolve their problems. And we've named a POC 

15 within our office -- Greg Lewis is in the back 

16 of the room, he's with me, very active, very 

17 important person on this program, and he's 

18 coordinating with all the records requests from 

19 the Advisory Board and their contractor and 

20 with Department of Labor in trying to address 

21 any concerns in a timely manner. 

22 We've been looking at various ways to be able 

23 to communicate and to understand and to make 

24 our process smoother. We've been holding 

25 conference calls with members of NIOSH and 
72

1 their contractors to ensure that these groups 

2 are getting the information and support they 

3 need from the DOE sites. And I -- again, I 

4 talked about our support from Legacy 

5 Management. 

6 In terms of the initiatives, as I said, we've 

7 been closely working with the DOL -- Department 

8 of Labor federal POCs and their contractors, 

9 again on the site exposure matrix project. We 

10 think that's important and we want to make sure 

11 that things can run smooth there. 

12 Each site undertook a comprehensive review and 

13 updated their records search procedures. We've 

14 asked them to do that and to find ways to do it 

15 better. And as a result of this effort, a 

16 number of sites took steps to improve their 

17 data-gathering methods and sources. We think 

18 that's good. We're -- all of us are in the 

19 mode of continuous improvement in being able to 

20 deliver services much better. 

21 And of course we think that the training 

22 sessions have been good and that we all learned 

23 from all of the organizations that participated 

24 in the training sessions. 

25 We are, as I said, committed to making 
73

1 improvements, to continuous improvement. One 

2 of them is we're committed to providing site 

3 experts to participate and contribute to the 

4 Advisory Board working groups and conference 

5 calls. I believe that we had a request 

6 recently from the Rocky Flats staff to 

7 participate on the Advisory Board, and I think 

8 that that was good. We would offer to do this 

9 at request by the Board or NIOSH at any time. 

10 We certainly have the experts. They've been 

11 working on things. We want to make them 

12 available, you know, whenever we can to work 

13 through the various issues. 

14 And again, we've been looking for a way to 

15 streamline our processes. We're looking for a 

16 way that we can gather information and come up 

17 with what we would call a draft project plan 

18 that would kind of drive the activities and 

19 inform the sites about what might be coming up. 

20 And we certainly recognize that initially this 

21 might slow the process down, but we believe 

22 that in a very short period of time it will 

23 certainly expedite things, that people will 

24 certainly be more aware of what is expected, 

25 what kind of documents and the time frames that 
74

1 might be needed to deliver those documents. It 

2 also would provide, we believe, the best 

3 possible opportunity for us to minimize any, 

4 you know, overlaps or duplications that we 

5 would need and so we think that -- just bear 

6 with us as we work through this. We believe it 

7 certainly is the right way to go. 

8 At this point I am available -- and again, Greg 

9 Lewis is in the back, he's available -- for any 

10 questions that you might have about our 

11 process. I want to just reiterate what I said 

12 in the very beginning and that is that DOE is 

13 committed to delivering these services and 

14 working with the various organizations. We 

15 have what we believe identified the funds 

16 within our existing program to be able to fund 

17 these efforts and to not have any significant 

18 delays in getting the materials to the various 

19 organizations. 

20 I thank you for your attention and I welcome 

21 questions and discussion at this time. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. 

23 Worthington. Let me start off by asking you if 

24 you would elaborate on what you referred to as 

25 the covered facilities database. What's -- 
75

1 just -- could you describe briefly the kinds of 

2 things that are in that? I assume it's a 

3 database that you are building as you retrieve 

4 records for these programs for Labor and NIOSH. 

5 Is that correct? 

6 DR. WORTHINGTON: That's correct. I'll start 

7 talking and then Greg is going to walk up to 

8 the mike and is going to provide some 

9 additional clarification on this because he's 

10 worked quite a bit with that. So Greg, if you 

11 want to go on. 

12 MR. LEWIS: Sure. I think there's about 358 

13 facilities in there and this is -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: A little closer to the mike, Greg. 

15 MR. LEWIS: There's about 358 covered 

16 facilities in there and it was originally 

17 developed about four or five years ago, but 

18 we've been constantly updating it ever since at 

19 -- you know, based on questions from DOL and 

20 NIOSH, or whoever's raised issues. So at this 

21 point we have it developed but, you know, as 

22 different questions are raised -- arise we, you 

23 know, have been making changes and doing 

24 further research. You know, some of the -- 

25 like we've just recently made changes to 
76

1 Chapman Valve and to Dow Chemical based on, you 

2 know, activities and research for the Board. 

3 DR. WORTHINGTON: We look for every opportunity 

4 to make sure that that list is actually 

5 accurate, so at any point that we've generated 

6 new information and there's consensus and final 

7 decisions have been made, we go back and 

8 revisit that list to make sure that it's 

9 accurate. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. If I might ask 

11 one question on budgeting, there was some 

12 indication earlier this year, or maybe toward 

13 the end of last year, that because of the 

14 continuing resolution situation you pretty much 

15 had to focus on primarily the records retrieval 

16 and then secondarily the other issues. Is that 

17 pretty much corrected now for -- 

18 DR. WORTHINGTON: Yes. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- from your point of view? 

20 DR. WORTHINGTON: Yes, that is pretty much 

21 corrected. As you indicated, the continuing 

22 resolution certainly offered some unique 

23 challenges to us, and we were at a point that 

24 we had to focus first -- because we did have 

25 limited funds, we had to focus -- and the way 
77

1 that we had to issue those funds, a little bit, 

2 a little bit, a little bit, so we certainly had 

3 to focus on the individual claims. This is a 

4 very recent accomplishment in terms of being 

5 able to work with the sites in determining what 

6 requests were actually at the site and to look 

7 forward to things that might come, and to look 

8 at the funding that we had within our 

9 organization. And we believe that we have 

10 addressed that concern and we will be able to 

11 not have any significant delays in any of the 

12 services that we have to deliver. And we are 

13 probably in the -- and I believe Greg's correct 

14 -- in the next round of sending money to the 

15 sites, which I believe will be in the May time 

16 frame. I'm not sure that we've mis-- then we 

17 would -- based on what we have on the plate and 

18 what they're expected, provide additional funds 

19 and work with them throughout the course of the 

20 year. But we are monitoring things very 

21 carefully to make sure that we don't have to 

22 again, you know, ask for, you know, delays 

23 because we -- of funds. But we're in -- in 

24 pretty good shape at this point. 

25 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean 
78

1 we're allocating funds based on the need and 

2 it's obviously claims-driven, as well as driven 

3 by different research efforts and projects, you 

4 know, for SEC research, et cetera. That can -- 

5 that can constitute a significant effort so we 

6 have to make sure that we have the funds in the 

7 right place, depending on the need at the 

8 various sites. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: So I -- and I think now you've 

10 probably answered my final question. That has 

11 to do with whether the sites themselves have 

12 funding or you are funding the sites for the 

13 work. 

14 DR. WORTHINGTON: We are -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: It sounded like (unintelligible). 

16 DR. WORTHINGTON: We are funding the sites for 

17 the work. We are monitoring very carefully 

18 their requests and what they have already -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: That is, it's -- 

20 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- and making sure -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- out of your budget and not in 

22 their budget request. They -- they -- do they 

23 -- they may tell you what -- what they need, 

24 but you fund it out of your office. 

25 DR. WORTHINGTON: And we provide the funds to 
79

1 the sites to be able to do that. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

3 DR. WORTHINGTON: Yes, it is an HSS-funded 

4 activity. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I think we have questions 

6 here. Dr. Melius and Josie Beach. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Josie was first. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Josie, go ahead. 

9 MS. BEACH: I was wondering if you could give 

10 us an update on the medical records retrieval 

11 for Los Alamos. 

12 DR. WORTHINGTON: It certainly still is a work 

13 in progress. A week ago -- maybe a week or ten 

14 days ago -- we had a -- what we viewed as a 

15 very good face-to-face meeting with the 

16 hospital staff and the corporate organization 

17 and our organizations to talk through next 

18 steps. We believe we have a path forward for 

19 actually cleaning up the records and packaging 

20 the records, and then relocating those records 

21 to either our natural -- one of our archives or 

22 to a space at the Laboratory yet to be -- to be 

23 determined. We understand their schedule in 

24 terms of when they need to have us out of the 

25 warehouse, so we believe we have a path 
80

1 forward. But there is some specific details 

2 that have to be worked in terms of the overall 

3 cost associated with that and how that cost 

4 would be provided, and then to finalize the 

5 actual plan and the contractor that we would 

6 use to be able to -- again, to clean up the 

7 records, sort them, and then to, you know, have 

8 them repackaged and in another location that 

9 then would be easy for people to retrieve the 

10 records that they were -- needed for any claims 

11 or whatever. 

12 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, could you give an update on 

15 the Hanford situation, please? I note that 

16 we've been waiting I think at least six months 

17 to a year for records and significantly holding 

18 up any progress on that site. 

19 DR. WORTHINGTON: I'm not sure that I 

20 understand the question. Is the question -- 

21 DR. MELIUS: Well, when will we have access to 

22 the records that have been requested at 

23 Hanford? 

24 DR. WORTHINGTON: Do you understand the actual 

25 question, Greg, in terms of -- 
81

1 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, I mean there's -- you're -- 

2 you're in the process of research based on the 

3 SEC determination and so we're -- we've been 

4 trying to help facilitate the records-gathering 

5 process. And again, as -- as Pat mentioned, we 

6 did have some funding issue due to the 

7 continuing resolution late last year and early 

8 this year. We have worked past those and, you 

9 know, at that point, to -- hopefully to make 

10 the process more efficient and streamline it, 

11 we had requested that the groups involved in 

12 the research prepare one single consolidated 

13 plan that would let us know how, from front to 

14 back, they were, you know, planning on 

15 obtaining the records and what -- you know, 

16 what types of steps that they would need to 

17 identify what records they needed and then look 

18 at them and then -- and then gather them and 

19 keeping in mind security issues and -- and 

20 personnel and things like that. So they have -

21 - 

22 DR. WORTHINGTON: I think -- 

23 MR. LEWIS: -- put together such a plan and 

24 then the -- the only -- we are working through 

25 some classification and security issues right 
82

1 now, making sure that the right steps are in 

2 place to facilitate the data-gathering within, 

3 you know, our -- our limits with, you know, 

4 classification and security. 

5 DR. WORTHINGTON: I think I understand your 

6 question now. Thanks, Greg, for the 

7 clarification. As I mentioned, we did have 

8 those funding constraints. We worked through 

9 that. We've -- bringing all the parties 

10 together to come up with a plan on what is 

11 needed so we can move forward, and we are 

12 addressing those security concerns that we have 

13 so -- and I admit, we have had delays because 

14 of all of those things, but we have a good path 

15 forward and believe we can move out on those 

16 things. 

17 DR. MELIUS: But when will that path forward 

18 deliver some records, I guess is my question. 

19 DR. WORTHINGTON: The question, Greg, is when 

20 will that path forward deliver some records? 

21 It's my understanding -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a time table that -- 

23 DR. WORTHINGTON: That we are -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- has been established? 

25 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- working on the records as 
83

1 we speak, and -- 

2 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, we believe we have a meeting 

3 at the end of this week with our Hanford people 

4 and our headquarters classification folks to, 

5 you know, finalize our path forward. And after 

6 that, we should be moving forward with the plan 

7 that was put together by the NIOSH and SC&A 

8 team. So you know, as soon as next week we 

9 should be able to start the data-gathering 

10 process. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

13 DR. WORTHINGTON: Are you -- is that -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: I just -- I'll believe it when I 

15 see it, so -- I'm not going to ask any more 

16 questions now. 

17 DR. WORTHINGTON: But we are committed to -- to 

18 moving out on this. As I said, we've overcome 

19 a number of hurdles, and so we -- we want to 

20 move forward, and we understand the importance 

21 of doing that. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right. You -- you recognize we -- 

23 we face a little frustration here. We know you 

24 have the same frustrations, the funding drives 

25 a lot of this. But in turn, our clientele also 
84

1 get frustrated 'cause they think we're not 

2 doing our job in getting documents reviewed and 

3 so on. So it's a kind of a domino -- 

4 DR. WORTHINGTON: And it certainly has -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- effect all the way 

6 (unintelligible). 

7 DR. WORTHINGTON: -- been longer than any of us 

8 would have liked, but in terms of looking for 

9 the funds -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: We'll appreciate whatever can be 

11 done to expedite certainly that, and I'm sure 

12 there will be others, particularly the big 

13 complex sites. I'm not sure -- Savannah River 

14 may face the same thing as we get into that 

15 further, too. 

16 Okay. Let's see if we have any other questions 

17 for Dr. Worthington today -- or the DOE in 

18 general. 

19 (No responses) 

20 Okay, thank you again. 

21 DR. WORTHINGTON: Thank you again. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: We appreciate not only the update, 

23 but participation of you and your staff in the 

24 program and your attendance at the meetings as 

25 well. 
85

1 DR. WORTHINGTON: It's always a pleasure. 

2 Thank you. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: I think we'll go ahead and take 

4 our break now. Let's take a 15-minute break 

5 and then we'll resume. 

6 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:15 a.m. 

7 to 10:40 a.m.) 

8 DR. ZIEMER: We are ready to resume our 

9 deliberations. First a comment on phones -- 

10 Christine. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Good morning. If everyone 

12 participating by phone could please mute your 

13 phones. And if you do not have a mute button, 

14 please use star-6. And when you're ready to 

15 speak, you can use that same star-6 to unmute 

16 your phones. By muting your phones you're 

17 helping us maintain the quality of our court 

18 reporting. Thank you so much. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: This -- this is Bob. I'm on. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: We have about 20 minutes before 

22 our Kellex presentation and we want to keep 

23 that as a time certain because of participants 

24 who will join us by phone, so I'm going to use 

25 the 20 minutes to begin some of our working 
86

1 time. 

2 WORK GROUP REPORTS

3 I'd like to just take a few of the workgroup 

4 reports, and I'll ask Dr. Branche just to go 

5 down the list. We'll take them in the usual 

6 order. Workgroup chairmen, when it's your turn 

7 you can give us an update report. If there's 

8 been no action since your last meeting, you can 

9 so report. So let's go through them -- but 

10 hang on just a moment. 

11 (Pause) 

12 Just workgroups. Just workgroups, not the 

13 subcommittee. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Because we already have time 

15 allocated for Blockson and Chapman Valve, I'm 

16 going to skip over those and go to Fernald. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Yeah, with Fernald workgroup, we 

18 met with NIOSH in Cincinnati about a week and a 

19 half ago. We've still got some outstanding 

20 issues, but we're working through the process. 

21 There -- many white papers have been provided 

22 to us and so forth and we're just -- we're 

23 proceeding forward as we speak. But we met a 

24 week and a half ago and we're waiting for some 

25 information back and then we'll set up the next 
87

1 workgroup and proceed on. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Los Alamos -- Los Alamos National 

3 Laboratory, site profile and Special Exposure 

4 Cohort, Mr. Griffon chair. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't really have a 

6 report, I -- I -- again, I'd like to ask the 

7 status from NIOSH's side. We've been waiting 

8 on an updated site profile. We've sort of held 

9 off on our review until we got an update on 

10 that, and I don't know where NIOSH stands on 

11 that right at this point or... Or maybe we can 

12 get that tomorrow if someone's not here. But 

13 anyway, the -- the LANL workgroup's been on 

14 hold, but I think we need to get back to the -- 

15 and the -- the question really is the second 

16 time period. We've already addressed one time 

17 period, but I think we need a follow-up on the 

18 second time period and we're waiting on updates 

19 to the site profile, I believe, so... 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim, are you giving a -- 

21 DR. NETON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Stu -- Stu -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, a brief pow-wow here and 

24 then we'll get an update -- a quick status 

25 report, perhaps, from Stu or someone. 
88

1 DR. NETON: Unfortunately we have no one here 

2 right now that can answer that question but 

3 we'll -- we'll research it and get back to you 

4 shortly. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- we understand that, 

6 from the workgroup's point of view, they're -- 

7 they're simply awaiting that for the next step. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I -- I will follow up 

9 on -- I'll (unintelligible) with the NIOSH 

10 folks and see when we can -- as soon as we can, 

11 we're going to schedule a workgroup meeting on 

12 this, though. And we'll let all -- all the 

13 interested parties know about it, so... 

14 DR. BRANCHE: I'm going to skip over Linde 

15 because I don't see Jeff Kotsch and he was 

16 going to supply some information. 

17 Mound, Ms. Beach, chair. 

18 MS. BEACH: Yes, we were -- we held our first 

19 workgroup meeting. Mou-- SC&A and NIOSH were 

20 able to go through the matrix and clarify some 

21 of the -- some of the concerns with the matrix. 

22 We have not scheduled another meeting but we 

23 hope to do that shortly. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Nevada Test Site profile, Mr. 

25 Presley chair. 
89

1 MR. PRESLEY: This is Robert Presley. We are 

2 in -- trying to set up our next meeting, which 

3 will be sometime around the 9th through the 

4 21st of May. NIOSH sent -- contractor to NTS 

5 to pick up some data that was needed for our 

6 final closure for comment 11, and 

7 (unintelligible) that information comes back 

8 and they get it into a final form, we will be 

9 ready to meet and hopefully (unintelligible) 

10 that's at our next meeting in St. Louis. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. We had an extensive 

12 discussion about procedures yesterday. 

13 Rocky Flats site profile and Special Exposure 

14 Cohort SEC petition, Mr. Griffon, chair. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I told Mark -- that may be a 

16 little more extensive and we'll -- 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Hold off? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- delay till tomorrow on that 

19 one, yeah. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: All right. Dr. Melius is out. 

21 Savannah River Test (sic) Site profile, Mr. 

22 Griffon, chair. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, at this point on Savannah 

24 River we just have not had time to re-- to 

25 schedule a follow-up workgroup meeting, so 
90

1 that's another one that's been on hold a little 

2 bit. No update at this point. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: We're going to hold off on the 

4 subcommittee as well, Mark? 

5 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Worker outreach, Mr. Gibson, 

7 chair. 

8 MR. GIBSON: We haven't had any significant 

9 activities recently. We're still -- NIOSH is 

10 in the process of modifying a procedure on 

11 worker outreach, and also their database where 

12 they track comments. So we're waiting on that. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Could I ask a question here? And 

14 incidentally, Board members, if you have 

15 questions as we go, that'll be fine. 

16 Mike, some of your -- you and some of your 

17 committee did attend some outreach meetings, 

18 did you not, in the last month or so? Could -- 

19 just give us an update on that. 

20 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. We've -- different members 

21 of the group have attended different types of 

22 meetings. As you know, NIOSH holds different 

23 type of outreach meetings. I think as I 

24 mentioned the last meeting, one I came to down 

25 here in Tampa back in February -- late February 
91

1 was a worker outreach on SEC process, and 

2 Laurie Breyer and Denise did a real fine job at 

3 expl-- I think explaining to the claimants 

4 about the SEC process, the steps to go through 

5 and seemed to be real well received and if 

6 there's any of the other workgroup members want 

7 to talk about meetings they've attended and how 

8 they felt they went... 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn, hang on just a minute. 

10 Again, remind folks on the phone, please mute 

11 your phone. We're getting some back talk and 

12 background conversations. 

13 Ms. Munn. 

14 MS. MUNN: I spent an interesting three days at 

15 Argonne East with our contractor's team looking 

16 through the extensive records that they have 

17 there, interviewing some of the workers and 

18 talking to the medical personnel on that site -

19 - which of course has such an extensive 

20 history. It goes all the way back, literally, 

21 to CP-1. So it was an extremely informative 

22 and I think most productive visit from our 

23 workgroup's point of view. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: That's actually the end of the 
92

1 list. I'm sorry, Dr. Neton has some 

2 information. 

3 DR. NETON: Yeah, we have an update already on 

4 Los Alamos site profile. 

5 MR. RUTHERFORD: I apologize, I stepped out of 

6 the room for one minute and there you go. 

7 We actually had a schedule for our contractor -

8 - for ORAU to provide a draft document in March 

9 for us that addressed the feasibility of post10 '75, and the ultimately what would -- we would 

11 use that document to update the site profile. 

12 We've reviewed that document. They're in 

13 comment resolution with that document. We are 

14 looking at adding a little more to that 

15 document, and we do have a schedule for 

16 completion of that. I don't have the schedule 

17 with me right now, but as soon as that is 

18 available we will provide that to the 

19 workgroup, and I expect that to be completed 

20 within the next cou-- within the next month or 

21 month and a half, I would suspect. Okay? 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Is Mr. Kotsch from the Department 

23 of Labor in the room? 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: He's not. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 
93

1 DR. ROESSLER: I could do... 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Do your part and then -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, so Linde -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we can get the statistics 

5 afterwards. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: All right. Linde, Dr. Roessler, 

7 chair. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: I had planned to put this 

9 together tonight so this is off the top of my 

10 head, but we expect soon to have completed the 

11 site profile review. We started this with 

12 SC&A's help and had our first meeting in March 

13 '07. We had 22 issues to deal with. By 

14 November '07 we had reduced it to six issues, 

15 and by January '08 we had just one remaining 

16 issue to look at. 

17 This has to do with burlap bags on-site. The 

18 bags were used to deliver ore to the site. 

19 They were then emptied and apparently stored. 

20 These empty bags, though, would have had some 

21 residual radioactivity in them. 

22 The issue came up because of a worker who 

23 recalled that some of the bags were in a 

24 certain location at a certain time. So the 

25 assignment to NIOSH and ORAU at our last 
94

1 workgroup meeting was for them to model the 

2 situation to be able to calculate doses to 

3 persons who might have been on or near the 

4 bags. 

5 The white paper that ORAU or NIOSH was working 

6 on came to all of us, and all the Board members 

7 received it, I think last week. Joe Guido 

8 completed that. So now we're waiting for SC&A 

9 to take a look at it and if they feel that this 

10 handles this issue, then we will have the site 

11 profile completed. 

12 So then I assume the next step will be for 

13 NIOSH to eval-- well, for -- the next step then 

14 will probably depend on what Jeff has to tell 

15 us. So as far as I can see, I guess the bottom 

16 line is that we hope to have the site profile 

17 review completed. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we didn't -- we will have a 

19 report on Chapman Valve later this afternoon. 

20 We will have a report on Sandia Livermore later 

21 this afternoon, as we will for Hanford on the 

22 Hanford -- and those are part of the SEC 

23 petition updates. But for -- let me report, 

24 since I'm part of the Hanford workgroup and Dr. 

25 Melius is the chair, and he can update that 
95

1 further if he wishes when he returns, but as 

2 was already indicated during the DOE 

3 discussions with Dr. Worthington, the Hanford 

4 workgroup basically is awaiting some documents 

5 from DOE. So -- thus that workgroup has not 

6 met since our last meeting, so basically the 

7 only thing to report from the workgroup is that 

8 they are awaiting those documents for -- for 

9 further action. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: This might need -- thank you, Dr. 

11 Ziemer. This information might need to be 

12 repeated when we get to that time this 

13 afternoon because there -- some of the people 

14 who plan to participate I believe were not only 

15 members of the petitioner and other workers, 

16 but also members of Congress. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, can I ask, just -- just 

19 from the subcommittee standpoint, I -- I can do 

20 the update -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: This is the subcommittee on dose 

22 reconstruction -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Dose reconstruction. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- which we -- always is part of 

25 our workgroup review, but they're -- yeah. 
96

1 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- I wou-- I'm just going 

2 to lay -- I mean we can certainly do the 

3 primary update tomorrow, but I -- I look in our 

4 provided materials and I don't see the 

5 subcommittee information so I think maybe that 

6 I need to get that to the Board members. I 

7 mean the -- we should be able to move on a 

8 tenth set of cases, and I'm assuming that Stu 

9 Hinnefeld updated -- we -- at the last 

10 subcommittee meeting we -- we went through a 

11 list of -- of possible cases and we gave that 

12 to Stu, as is our normal process. And then Stu 

13 was going to provide more detailed information, 

14 and I don't see that matrices (sic) in our -- 

15 in these handouts, so I'm wondering if we ever 

16 got those. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: No, he -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Did Stu step out of the room 

19 again? 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, he did. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in the meantime -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: It's like he's avoiding me, huh? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: In the meantime, Jeff is back -- 

25 is he back? 
97

1 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, he is. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Jeff, we just had a brief report 

3 on -- from Dr. Roessler on Linde. Are you in a 

4 position to give us those statistics, that you 

5 referred to in your report, on the Linde site? 

6 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah. I mean they weren't really 

7 statistics, and I have to apologize, I forgot 

8 to mention also that Labor is here both in the 

9 form of the Jacksonville Office and our 

10 Resource Center from Savannah River on the 

11 other side of the building over by where the 

12 NIOSH (unintelligible) are. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Get a little closer to the mike, 

14 Jeff. 

15 MR. KOTSCH: Sure. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Or raise it up a little bit there. 

17 MR. KOTSCH: Now for Linde I was just going to 

18 update you -- I think during the phone call -- 

19 the telephone meeting of the Board in February 

20 we discussed -- or I presented the rationale or 

21 the background for the change in site 

22 designation for Linde Ceramics where it went 

23 from strictly AWE to four of the buildings 

24 becoming DOE facilities, and then I think 

25 Building 14 remaining as an AWE. And at that 
98

1 point I -- I -- the discussion was what happens 

2 for those -- we were going to continue to 

3 review employees that were -- worked strictly 

4 within the residual contamination period. And 

5 so that was -- that was just the essence of the 

6 update that I -- Friday I had a meeting with 

7 our -- our legal staff and they noted that for 

8 the four buildings -- Buildings 30, 31, 37, 38 

9 -- that were switched from AWE to DOE 

10 designation, that -- those four buildings, 

11 based on further review of the 2004 amendments 

12 to the Act, that workers in those buildings who 

13 worked only during the residual period -- 

14 residual radiation period are also eligible for 

15 Part B's benefits as atomic weapons employees, 

16 even though they have changed -- they, we -- 

17 even though we, Labor, have changed the status 

18 of the buildings as a DOE facility. 

19 So I think the issue was, when we last 

20 discussed it was what happened to those people 

21 who were solely employed during the residual 

22 period, so now they will be covered under Part 

23 B. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

25 MR. KOTSCH: Okay? 
99

1 DR. ZIEMER: Any questions on that? Dr. 

2 Roessler. 

3 DR. ROESSLER: I guess I expected maybe you 

4 were going to say something about the SEC 

5 petitions for Linde. I understand that the 

6 petitioners have moved forward on that? 

7 MR. KOTSCH: For -- 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Perhaps that's still in 

9 progress. 

10 MR. KOTSCH: I -- I'm not aware. 

11 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can -- 

12 MR. KOTSCH: Okay. 

13 MR. RUTHERFORD: I don't know that Jeff can 

14 answer the SEC -- we do have SEC petitions for 

15 Linde Ceramics that we are in the process right 

16 now in the qualification phase for the 

17 operational years that were past the al-- the 

18 SEC that we've already designated, and for the 

19 residual period. Now this does affect that 

20 petition because we had -- we were not 

21 operating under that same, you know, knowledge 

22 that Jeff just gave us, so we're going to have 

23 to go back and look at that for that residual 

24 period. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Further comment? 
100

1 Jeff. 

2 MR. KOTSCH: I'm sorry, I just needed to add a 

3 disclaimer that I remembered my legal people 

4 mentioned to me on Friday concerning that -- 

5 the statement I made about the coverage at 

6 Linde. That only applies -- I mean their 

7 evaluation only applies to, at the current 

8 time, the Linde Ceramics. You know, the way 

9 they interpret that site. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you for clarifying 

11 that. 

12 KELLEX/PIERPONT SEC PETITION

13 Okay, we're going to now move to the discussion 

14 of the Kellex-Pierpont SEC petition. Dr. 

15 Glover from NIOSH is going to present the NIOSH 

16 evaluation report. I wanted to check first to 

17 see if [name redacted] is on the line. Or 

18 [name redacted]. 

19 (No responses) 

20 My notes indicate that [name redacted] or [name 

21 redacted] may wish to be on the line. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Given that we've asked people to 

23 do star-6, maybe you need to dial star-6 in 

24 order for us to hear you if you're speaking. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Or put -- take your mute button 
101

1 off. [names redacted], are either of you on 

2 the line? 

3 (No responses) 

4 If you are, we're not hearing you. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: She's going to -- our public 

6 health advisor's going to call. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: We'll -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley, are you on the line? 

9 (No responses) 

10 Is anybody on the line? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Have we -- have we lost -- does it 

12 show whether people are on -- 

13 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Pres-- okay, Robert, you're on 

15 the line, okay. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) a tremendous 

17 amount of static (unintelligible) that's just 

18 got on there. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we'll ask again if 

20 [names redacted] are on the line. We have 

21 somebody trying to reach them right now. We'll 

22 wait just a moment, give them the opportunity, 

23 'cause they may want to hear the presentation 

24 as well, so we'll wait just a moment. 

25 (Pause) 
102

1 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer, go ahead and get 

2 started. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Hello. Did -- we'll check again. 

6 Did [names redacted]-- are you on the line? 

7 (No responses) 

8 Apparently not, but we're going -- then I've 

9 been given the signal that it's okay to go 

10 ahead. I guess there was some uncertainty as 

11 to whether they actually wanted to be present, 

12 but anyway, here we are with the petition for 

13 Kellex. Sam Glover. 

14 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. Can you 

15 hear me okay? All right. 

16 So I did forget to put -- this is the -- Number 

17 0100, the hundredth SEC petition, so 

18 (unintelligible). This is the Kellex-Pierpont 

19 facility for the Special Exposure Cohort 

20 petition. This is an 83.14. We evaluated this 

21 petition in accordance with the 83.14 rule. 

22 The petition was submitted by a claimant whose 

23 dose reconstruction could not be completed by 

24 NIOSH due to lack of dosimetry-related 

25 information. The claimant was employed at 
103

1 Kellex-Pierpont from 1943 to 1946. 

2 Keeping with the 83.14, NIOSH -- determination 

3 that it is unable to complete a dose 

4 reconstruction for any EEOICPA claimant is 

5 qualified basis for submitting an SEC petition, 

6 and currently there are four claims at -- when 

7 we submitted -- when we prepared this SEC 

8 petition analysis at NIOSH with Kellex-Pierpont 

9 employment during this class period. 

10 From 1943 to 1953 Kellex-Pierpont was 

11 classified as an Atomic Weapons Employer 

12 facility. It was first established by the M.W. 

13 Kellogg Company in 1943 to design and construct 

14 the K-25 plant. It's approximately 43 acres, 

15 with about 20 buildings. Radioactive work was 

16 conducted in only one of those facilities. In 

17 1951 Kellex-Pierpont merged with Vitro, which 

18 then become the Vitro Corporation of America. 

19 If you look through the records you will note 

20 that it's often referred to as just Kellex. 

21 Pierpont is actually part of a mini-ma-- a 

22 mini-mall that was added later on, so it's 

23 often discussed as the Kellex-Pierpont property 

24 in the later time frame, but in -- if you look 

25 at the actual early documentation you'll see it 
104

1 often referred to as just Kellex. 

2 One more background, they conducted design, 

3 engineering and research on diverse 

4 radiological programs including gaseous 

5 diffusion pilot studies, solvent extraction of 

6 uranium from reactor wastes associated with the 

7 Hanford processes, and also solvent extraction 

8 of valuable components from low-grade wastes. 

9 Radiological operations were completed by 1952, 

10 and the facility was demolished in 1953. 

11 Data capture efforts involved searches at the 

12 Germantown offices, multiple visits to the 

13 National Archive and Records Administration 

14 facilities in Atlanta and Kansas City; the 

15 Fernald legal database/OpenNet/Nuclear 

16 Regulatory Commission Agency Wide Documents 

17 Access and Management System, the ADAMS system; 

18 also DOE Office of Scientific & Technical 

19 Information, OSTI. 

20 Furthermore, inquiries were made with the State 

21 of New Jersey. Kellex is a company that no 

22 longer exists so they obviously could not be 

23 contacted to request additional records. All 

24 relevant -- all records relevant to the Kellex25 Pierpont petition have been uploaded to the 
105

1 SRDB. 

2 The radiological operations were conducted in 

3 what was known as Building 11, also known as 

4 the Kellex-Pierpont -- Kellex Laboratory. The 

5 initial mission of the -- of Kellex was to 

6 develop the barrier technology for gaseous 

7 diffusion. Numerous documents provide shipment 

8 evidence of UF-6 canisters to the site. Other 

9 doc-- other documents establish operations 

10 using ores, ores residues and pilot projects on 

11 mixed fission products conducted at the 

12 facility. 

13 Information related to the radiation exposure 

14 period, internal sources of exposure include 

15 significant uranium research conducted on-site, 

16 and possible enrichment activities associated 

17 with the K-25 pilot studies. Research included 

18 AEC-funded research on uranium ore and metals, 

19 K-65 and Q-11 residues, with enhanced thorium, 

20 radium and radon levels. There was thorium 

21 work and fission product operations. And also 

22 we had ore and ore byproducts, uranium, 

23 possible enriched uranium, and other PUREX type 

24 wastes associated with Hanford. 

25 External sources of exposure would be the beta 
106

1 and photon sources, primarily from the uranium 

2 and thorium progeny. 

3 For data, none of the four claims have bioassay 

4 data in the files. From our broad scope 

5 searches we have identified 25 uranium 

6 urinalysis records for a few individuals in the 

7 1950 to '51 period, so nothing predating that 

8 for a facility that started in 1943. And also 

9 a few radon breath samples from 1951 for a 

10 single employee. 

11 For external monitoring data, badging results 

12 are available, at least in part, from the 1948 

13 through 1953 operations. One of the four 

14 current claimants has external dosimetry 

15 information in the file. 

16 Some workplace monitoring data is available. 

17 There are some health physics reports in the 

18 1950s discussing positive smear readings and 

19 locations. There are some evidence of air 

20 sampling, primarily for radon. And mostly 

21 these were general area samples. Again, these 

22 were limited to the 1951 and forward time 

23 frame. 

24 Feasibility of internal dose reconstruction, 

25 NIOSH has obtained bioassay results for only a 
107

1 handful of claimants or individuals in two very 

2 small time frames. Based on the diverse scope 

3 of source terms, coupled with the lack of 

4 operational data, NIOSH has determined that 

5 internal dose cannot be reconstructed. 

6 Lack of information regarding source term 

7 location and usage leads NIOSH to conclude 

8 (sic) all employees at the Kellex-Pierpont 

9 facility in the SEC class definition. 

10 Obviously this requires a health endangerment 

11 determination. 

12 The evidence reviewed in this evaluation 

13 indicates that some workers in the class may 

14 have accumulated chronic radiation exposures 

15 through intakes of radionuclides and direct 

16 exposure to radioactive materials. 

17 Consequently, NIOSH is specifying that health 

18 may have been endangered, with the parameters -

19 - for those workers covered by this evaluation 

20 who were employed for a number of work days 

21 aggregating at least 250 work days within the 

22 parameters established for this class, or in 

23 combination with work days within the 

24 parameters established for one or more other 

25 classes of employees in the SEC. 
108

1 NIOSH's proposed class is all AWE employees who 

2 worked at the Kellex-Pierpont facility in 

3 Jersey City, New Jersey from January 1, 1943 

4 through December 31st, 1953 for a number of 

5 work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

6 occurring either solely under this employment 

7 or in combination with work days within the 

8 parameters established for one or more classes 

9 of employees in the SEC. 

10 As a final kind of summary, the period January 

11 1 for -- to -- January 1st, 1943 through 

12 December 31, 1953, NIOSH finds that it cannot 

13 estimate radiation doses -- radiation doses 

14 cannot be reconstructed for compensation 

15 purposes. The feasibility is no; the health 

16 endangerment is yes. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Sam. Now as I 

18 understand it, there's 20 buildings, only one 

19 of which involved work with radioactive 

20 materials. But the -- the class definition 

21 covers everyone who worked, regardless of the 

22 20 buildings. Is that correct? 

23 DR. GLOVER: It's -- there's really no way to -

24 - 

25 DR. ZIEMER: We don't know -- 
109

1 DR. GLOVER: -- (unintelligible) with class 

2 titles and -- and it's very difficult to tell. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: So there's no records, is what 

4 you're saying, to indicate that that -- they 

5 would be restricted from entering that building 

6 if they were assigned to a different building. 

7 Is that -- 

8 DR. GLOVER: That's correct. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda Munn. 

10 MS. MUNN: I'm prepared to move that we accept 

11 the NIOSH recommendation for this SEC. 

12 MR. CLAWSON: Second it. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I second. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Presley has seconded it. I 

15 think that -- that Mr. Griffon is prepared to 

16 read a formal form of that motion, if that's 

17 agreeable to Wanda Munn as a friendly 

18 amendment. 

19 MS. MUNN: I was sure someone would have it. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Here is the motion. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Jim actually handed this to 

22 me, so this is the motion, the same format that 

23 we're all used to. 

24 The Board recommends that the following letter 

25 be transmitted to the Secretary of DHHS within 
110

1 21 days. Should the Chair become aware of any 

2 issue that in his judgment would preclude the 

3 transmittal of this letter within the time 

4 period, the Board requests that he promptly 

5 informs the Board of the delay and the reasons 

6 for this delay, and that he immediately works 

7 with NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of 

8 the Board to discuss this issue. 

9 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

10 Health, the Board, has evaluated SEC Petition 

11 00100 concerning workers at the Kellex-Pierpont 

12 facility in Jersey City, New Jersey under the 

13 statutory requirements established by EEOICPA 

14 and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13 and 

15 42 CFR Section 83.14. The Board respectfully 

16 recommends Special Exposure Cohort, SEC, status 

17 be accorded to all AWE employees who worked at 

18 the Kellex-Pierpont facility in Jersey City, 

19 New Jersey from January 1st, 1943 through 

20 December 31st, 1953 for a number of work days 

21 aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 

22 either solely under this employment or in 

23 combination with work days within the 

24 parameters established for one or more other 

25 classes of employees in the SEC. 
111

1 The Board notes that although NIOSH found that 

2 they were unable to completely reconstruct 

3 radiation doses from -- for these employees, 

4 they believe that they are able to reconstruct 

5 portions of the external radiation doses and 

6 the occupational medical dose. 

7 The recommendation is based on the following 

8 factors: The Kellex-Pierpont facility was 

9 involved in early research and development work 

10 for the manufacture of atomic weapons. NIOSH 

11 was unable to locate sufficient monitoring data 

12 or information on radiological operations at 

13 these laboratories in order to be able to 

14 complete accurate individual dose 

15 reconstructions involving internal exposures 

16 throughout the time period the facility 

17 operated. The Board concurs with this 

18 conclusion. 

19 NIOSH determined that the health -- that health 

20 may be -- may have been endangered for the 

21 workers exposed to radiation at the Kellex22 Pierpont facility in the Jersey City, New 

23 Jersey during the time period in question. The 

24 Board concurs with this determination. 

25 Enclosed is the supporting documentation from 
112

1 the recent Advisory Board meeting held in 

2 Tampa, Florida where this Special Exposure 

3 Cohort class was discussed. If any of the 

4 items are unavailable at this time, they will 

5 be -- they will follow shortly. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Sam, could you clarify one thing. 

7 The way we have it here, it only refers to the 

8 internal doses not being reconstructed. You -- 

9 your slides didn't give us the -- the usual 

10 chart that show-- are you saying -- the 

11 implication here is that external can. I know 

12 there -- there are some -- you said there were 

13 some external monitoring but not complete, it 

14 appears. 

15 DR. GLOVER: This is part of the 83.14 

16 difference in how we usually present the end of 

17 that about what we can and cannot do. But we 

18 believe we can reconstruct, at least in part, 

19 the external doses. We have the -- a number of 

20 records (unintelligible) -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: So it's sufficient just to say 

22 internal (unintelligible) anyway. You may be 

23 able to do external. 

24 DR. GLOVER: Yes. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. So that is the motion 
113

1 that's before us. Any discussion? 

2 (No responses) 

3 If not, we'll vote by roll call and we will 

4 also get the vote later from Mr. (sic) Lockey 

5 and Dr. Melius. Here's the roll call. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Beach? 

7 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

9 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

11 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Munn? 

15 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston? 

19 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler? 

21 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, excuse me, Mr. Schofield -- 

25 forgive me. Mr. Schofield? 
114

1 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Please forgive me. And I'll get 

3 the votes from the other two gentlemen. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The motion does carry. 

5 Board members, you will have an opportunity to 

6 see a written version of this tomorrow 

7 afternoon before the Board meeting ends, make 

8 sure that everybody's comfortable with the 

9 wording. 

10 DR. POSTON: It was such an eloquent motion. 

11 MS. MUNN: It was. 

12 NUMEC PARKS SEC PETITION

13 DR. ZIEMER: We are a little ahead of schedule 

14 on NUMEC. However, I note that the NUMEC 

15 petitioner was undecided as to whether she 

16 would be on the phone. Do we know -- oh, we 

17 have someone here. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: No, no, she's the -- she's the 

19 NIOSH staffer. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, she's NIOSH staff, right. But 

21 is -- I'm looking for -- do we know whether 

22 [name redacted] will be on the phone? 

23 DR. BRANCHE: I think you can't say her name 

24 until we know -- you can't say her name until 

25 we know she's going to speak. 
115

1 DR. ZIEMER: I didn't say her name. That was 

2 just a pseudo name, it's -- 

3 MS. BREYER: She wasn't sure that she'd be able 

4 to -- to listen in at this time. I usually 

5 tell them to call in about half an hour earlier 

6 -- earlier than the scheduled time in case the 

7 agenda gets moved up a little, so it's very 

8 likely that she just wasn't -- wasn't able to 

9 (unintelligible) -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Jane Doe, are you on the phone? 

11 (No responses) 

12 Is there a petitioner from NUMEC on -- NUMEC 

13 Parks on the phone? 

14 (No responses) 

15 Okay. This says will try to listen, but 

16 probably won't comment. So -- 

17 DR. BRANCHE: And -- and as we've heard from 

18 Ms. Breyer, she encourages the petitioners to 

19 call about 30 min-- at least 30 minutes before 

20 -- 

21 MS. BREYER: Right, I usually tell them -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: -- the scheduled time. 

23 MS. BREYER: -- about a half an hour. It may 

24 be off either way, earlier or later. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 
116

1 MS. BREYER: (Off microphone) And I don't have 

2 a number to contact her (unintelligible) she 

3 may be unavailable (unintelligible). 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, Dr. Hughes is with us 

5 anyway. Dr. Hughes will present for NIOSH. 

6 Thank you. 

7 DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer and the 

8 Board. I'm going to present on behalf of NIOSH 

9 the SEC petition evaluation for the -- 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Hughes, would you please 

11 speak up? 

12 DR. HUGHES: Okay, I'll -- I'll try. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Or get closer to the microphone. 

14 DR. HUGHES: Can you hear me better? 

15 Okay, how's this? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Better. 

17 DR. HUGHES: Okay. Okay, I'm going to present 

18 the NIOSH SEC evaluation for the Nuclear 

19 Materials and Equipment Corporation -- or 

20 short, NUMEC -- Parks Township plant. This is 

21 a petition that was submitted to NIOSH under 

22 83.14 for a petitioner whose dose -- dose could 

23 not be reconstructed with the available data. 

24 The petition evaluation also considered a class 

25 of workers similar to the petitioner. 
117

1 This is a slide you've seen before, the 

2 evaluation process, the two-step process which 

3 consists of the -- first the feasibility 

4 determination, followed by the health 

5 endangerment determination. 

6 A little bit of background. The NUMEC Parks 

7 Township plant is located in Parks Township 

8 near Leechburg, Pennsylvania, which is about 30 

9 miles northeast of Pittsburgh. It is a sister 

10 facility to the NUMEC Apollo facility, which 

11 was also evaluated by NIOSH and I believe was 

12 presented last year, in October, to the Board. 

13 This plant had its first license granted in 

14 1961, March of 1961, and it is -- the covered 

15 time period is actually 1957 to 1980. However, 

16 we found information that there was no 

17 radioactive material on-site before June of 

18 1960. 

19 The radiological operations relevant to the 

20 class consisted of production of plutonium21 containing nuclear fuels and experimental 

22 fuels, the recovering of plutonium from scrap, 

23 the production of highly enriched uranium 

24 nuclear fuels, and the processing of depleted 

25 uranium. In addition, the production of 
118

1 uranium metal alloys, also the production of 

2 thorium experimental fuels and encapsulation of 

3 thorium fuels; the production of alpha, beta 

4 and neutron sources such as plutonium5 beryllium, polonium-beryllium or americium6 beryllium sources, in addition to thermal 

7 sources; and the production of gamma sources 

8 such as iridium-192 and cobalt-60 sources. 

9 The exposure potential to the class is 

10 obviously as a result of the operations that 

11 were conducted at the plant such as plutonium 

12 from fuel fabrication and scrap recovery, 

13 uranium from the machining of depleted uranium 

14 and highly enriched uranium production, 

15 exposure potential to thorium from the fuel 

16 production operations; and exposure to 

17 polonium, plutonium, americium, cobalt, iridium 

18 and cesium from source production. 

19 NIOSH looked into acquiring all available 

20 information to determine the feasibility of 

21 dose reconstruction, and the data capture 

22 attempts included formal requests to the former 

23 operator of the site, which is BWXT; requests 

24 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; a data 

25 search at the Office of Scientific and 
119

1 Technical Information, data requests to the DOE 

2 and also information was collected through 

3 worker outreach meeting and interviews with 

4 former employees. 

5 There is monitoring data available. Internal 

6 monitoring data is available in the form of 

7 urine and fecal bioassay for plutonium, 

8 americium and uranium. Also some workers had 

9 occasional whole body counts for uranium and 

10 plutonium, starting in 1968 through 1985. The 

11 urine bioassay is available from 19-- starting 

12 in 1960 to 1976; fecal bioassay was conducted 

13 from 1966 to '76. The whole body count it 

14 appears were given to employees who had 

15 exposure potential or potential uptakes. There 

16 are very limited bioassay data for thorium 

17 available. All data also appear -- or are 

18 unclear whether or not they are for the Parks 

19 Township facility or the Apollo facility. As I 

20 mentioned earlier, they were sister facilities. 

21 They shared the same management. They also 

22 shared health and safety, so if you look at a 

23 given health and safety record it is not always 

24 clear which facility these are actually 

25 pertaining to. The process information that's 
120

1 available for the Parks Township plant for the 

2 thorium operation is insufficient for source 

3 term determination. Additional urine sample is 

4 available in form of mixed -- in form of urine 

5 data from mixed fission products, which is also 

6 very limited. 

7 There's also no bioassay or air monitoring data 

8 for radionuclides from source production, and 

9 there's also insufficient process information 

10 available to determine the source term. 

11 And lastly, NUMEC used the contractor Controls 

12 for Environmental Pollution, or CEP, as a 

13 bioassay contractor starting in 1976 to 1993. 

14 In 1994 both DOE and NRC advised contractors 

15 and licensees that the analytical results 

16 provided them by that company should be 

17 considered suspect because there were some 

18 implications of data falsifications. And for 

19 that reason, NIOSH has concluded not to use any 

20 CEP data for dose reconstruction. 

21 There is limited air sampling available at the 

22 site, only for uranium and plutonium which 

23 started in 1961, that consists of general air 

24 sample data and breathing zone sample data. 

25 There was in general a large variation in 
121

1 sampling frequency, which it is unclear whether 

2 this large variation in the data that we have 

3 is a result of a change in radiological risk or 

4 if there's a -- if there are gaps in the 

5 available data. 

6 External monitoring data is available starting 

7 in 1961 through 1980, and it -- it appears that 

8 all employees who had exposure potential were 

9 required to wear -- be monitored for external 

10 radiation. 

11 This is the petition overview. NIOSH was 

12 unable to obtain sufficient information to 

13 complete the dose reconstruction for an 

14 existing claim. And on March 10, 2008 a 

15 claimant was notified that the dose 

16 reconstruction could not be completed and the 

17 claimant was provided with a copy of the 

18 Special Exposure Cohort petition Form A. And 

19 the petition was submitted to NIOSH on March 

20 12th, 2008. 

21 The feasibility conclusion is that NIOSH lacks 

22 sufficient monitoring, process or source 

23 information from thorium and source production 

24 operation to estimate internal radiation doses 

25 to NUMEC Parks Township employees for the 
122

1 period of June 1st, 1960 through December 31st, 

2 1980. NIOSH does believe that it has 

3 sufficient information to estimate the internal 

4 doses from uranium and plutonium from 1960 to 

5 1976, and occupational external exposures, 

6 including the medical exposures, for that same 

7 period. And NIOSH will use individual personal 

8 monitoring data, with exception to the CEP 

9 data, for partial dose reconstruction, as 

10 appropriate. 

11 NIOSH has determined that it is not feasible to 

12 estimate with sufficient accuracy external or 

13 internal radiation doses, and that the health 

14 of the covered employees may have been 

15 endangered. The evidence indicates that 

16 workers in the class may have accumulated 

17 intakes of uranium, plutonium, thorium and 

18 other radionuclides during the covered period. 

19 This is the summary slide. Again, dose 

20 reconstruction is believed to be feasible for 

21 uranium and plutonium only up to 1976, and dose 

22 reconstruction is not feasible for any of the 

23 other radionuclides on-site. Dose 

24 reconstruction is believed to be feasible for 

25 external exposures, and including occupational 
123

1 medical X-rays. 

2 Therefore the NIOSH proposed class definition 

3 is all employees who worked at the Nuclear 

4 Materials and Equipment Corporation plant in 

5 Parks Township, Pennsylvania from June 1st, 

6 1960 through December 31st, 1980 for a number 

7 of work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

8 occurring either solely under this employment 

9 or in combination with work days within the 

10 parameters established for one or more other 

11 classes of employees in the SEC. 

12 And the recommendation is that feasibility is 

13 no and health endangerment, yes. 

14 Thank you. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's open this 

16 for questions. Let -- let me begin. And 

17 again, for clarification -- and I'm looking at 

18 the feasibility chart which is toward the end 

19 there, feasible to construct uranium and 

20 plutonium. What -- what was the status on 

21 americium, was or was not feasible on 

22 americium? I thought they -- I thought it's -- 

23 you said that they did bioassay for americium. 

24 DR. HUGHES: Ye-- well, yes. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Is that included in the -- 
124

1 DR. HUGHES: It's included with the -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's included. 

3 DR. HUGHES: Yes. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: On the other nuclides, for those 

5 for whom they did bioassay, were they simply 

6 not looking at anything -- or -- I'm just 

7 wondering why they wouldn't have done other 

8 nuclides if they were doing bioassay. Were 

9 they simply doing -- was this an alpha process 

10 or -- can you clarify that? What -- what would 

11 they -- what were the other nuclides that they 

12 -- that would be in this category, other than 

13 uranium, plutonium, americium? 

14 DR. HUGHES: Thorium -- they did not do -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: So thorium would be the main one 

16 here. 

17 DR. HUGHES: Yes. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: They simply weren't looking for 

19 it, or were they -- what was -- 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: At least -- this is LaVon 

21 Rutherford. At least for -- from my knowledge 

22 with Apollo, when we looked at Apollo, it 

23 appeared that for these smaller -- or through 

24 the operations that were more -- on a smaller 

25 scale, that they were not looking for those 
125

1 isotopes when they were doing actual bioassay 

2 monitoring, and the whole body count. Because 

3 if you look at the actual sheets, and Dr. 

4 Hughes can correct me if I'm wrong, they're 

5 very specific on what they -- and it's anno-- 

6 annotated what they're looking for. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Do you know in the bioassay here -

8 - was it nuclide-specific versus gross alpha, 

9 gross beta, or -- 

10 DR. HUGHES: Yes, it was nuclide -- well, for 

11 the biggest -- for the largest part, it was 

12 nuclide-specific. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

14 DR. HUGHES: I do believe that the uranium and 

15 plutonium was a very large portion of the 

16 production and the other -- the thorium 

17 production were relatively smaller programs of 

18 the site, but -- so... 

19 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I'm -- I'm really trying to 

20 get a feel for whether or not -- if someone had 

21 a positive bioassay and -- would they likely 

22 have missed the thorium, even if it was there? 

23 That's what I'm -- I'm not clear on. 

24 DR. NETON: I'm not sure what you mean by 

25 missed it. If it was specific for uranium, it 
126

1 wouldn't show up in the uranium analysis -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

3 DR. NETON: -- obviously, but -- and -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- if there were thorium there and 

5 they're -- they're just not looking for 

6 anything else, is what you're saying. 

7 DR. NETON: Right, if they (unintelligible) -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Other words, are they doing alpha 

9 spectroscopy or what -- what are they doing 

10 here? 

11 DR. NETON: It seems to me -- I think Dr. 

12 Hughes knows better, but she would 

13 (unintelligible) -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, was it a chemical separation? 

15 DR. NETON: It was a uranium chemical -- 

16 radiochemical separation. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: So they were separating out -- 

18 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- specifically for uranium. 

20 Okay. 

21 DR. NETON: Usually if you're going to go to 

22 the trouble to digest a sample, it's easy to 

23 pull off the uranium and then electrodeposit it 

24 or something like that. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. Other questions or 
127

1 comments? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Mark. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- this -- this is similar to the 

5 other NUMEC site, but I just -- and I -- I 

6 notice the language, it says all workers, right 

7 -- so that would include the question of 

8 administrative folks or guards or any workers 

9 on the site -- okay. 'Cause there was that 

10 issue at the other -- right. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: It would be appropriate to have a 

12 motion on this one if the group is prepared to 

13 make such a motion. 

14 DR. POSTON: Mark? 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I don't have that complicated 

16 detailed motion, but -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: The author is not here. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: -- if you wish to make the motion, 

20 we can have it in simple form and -- our -- our 

21 agenda is catching up with our ability to get -

22 - 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- the words together. Wanda 

25 Munn. 
128

1 MS. MUNN: I move we accept the recommendation 

2 for -- that NIOSH has made for this particular 

3 SEC class. 

4 DR. POSTON: Second. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded. Is there further 

6 discussion on this one? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: The only -- the only thing I 

8 wanted to ask was -- I -- I -- I think that in 

9 the last one -- and this is not -- well, it's 

10 sort of around the motion, but the -- in the -- 

11 in the other NUMEC site I think we considered -

12 - or we asked the workgroup on the 250-day 

13 issue to consider the NUMEC Apollo, and I think 

14 we should probably put Parks in there with 

15 that, you know, just -- I -- I think the 

16 petitioner mentioned both when they had spoken 

17 with me before, so I'm not sure it's going to 

18 fall in-- you know, at least let it be 

19 considered by the 250-day workgroup whether 

20 they could have had exposures in -- in a 

21 smaller -- shorter time frame that could affect 

22 that 250-day criteria. So -- but that's -- I 

23 don't think that -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: That's a separate issue. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: -- affects the motion -- right, 
129

1 separate issue, but -- yeah. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Do you want to include it or not? 

3 DR. ZIEMER: No, not -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Not in the motion, no, no, no. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- not in the motion, no. No. 

6 Are you ready to vote on the motion? And again 

7 we'll have -- the formal words are available 

8 for you tomorrow. 

9 Okay, we'll do it by roll call. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Ms. Beach? 

11 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

13 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

15 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: I'll get a vote from Dr. Lockey. 

19 Ms. Munn? 

20 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 

22 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston? 

24 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler? 
130

1 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

3 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Then I declare that the 

6 motion has carried and we will prepare a formal 

7 recommendation to the Secretary in accordance 

8 with the formal wording that will come in the 

9 motion. 

10 NINTH SET OF CASES FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

11 We have a little bit of time before lunch and 

12 I'm going to take care of the -- a part of a 

13 subcommittee item. The Chair had the task of 

14 assigning workgroups for the ninth set of 

15 reviews, and I have done that and I wanted to 

16 give you those assignments, and then we will 

17 give you a hard copy of this before you leave 

18 the meeting. But I'm going to give you the 

19 assignments verbally so that they are in the 

20 record, and you can jot these down as we go. 

21 This is the ninth set of cases for dose 

22 reconstruction review. On the selection ID 

23 number, and the selection ID number is not at 

24 all related to the NIOSH number -- case number, 

25 so I simply point that out. It is a Board 
131

1 number. The -- on all of these the first 

2 digits are 2008-01, which represents January of 

3 this year, which was the final date at which we 

4 made the actual selection of those cases. And 

5 then the ID number that I will use here, the 

6 last three digits, all following the 2008-01 -- 

7 I'm not going to repeat the 2008-01 each time. 

8 So I will give you the case number and I will 

9 give you the facility, and then I will give you 

10 the review team. Then I will make this 

11 available to you in writing and I will make it 

12 available to John Mauro and SC&A because they 

13 will be working with the individual teams to 

14 review those dose reconstructions. So -- and 

15 there's I think 40 of these, so I'll go through 

16 the list. 

17 MS. BEACH: Is this from the ninth set, Paul? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Ninth set. 

19 MS. BEACH: Thank you. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Ninth set. Case 125 from Feed 

21 Materials Production Center, otherwise known as 

22 Fernald. Team one -- and I'm using the same 

23 team numbers as we used last time, so -- but 

24 I'll give you the names as well. Team one is 

25 Poston and Presley. 
132

1 The next case is 135 at Argonne East, and Los 

2 Alamos and U. of California, it's a person that 

3 worked at three facilities. This is for team 

4 two, Roessler/Lockey. 

5 Next, ID is 183, Ashland Oil, team three, 

6 Griffon and Clawson. 

7 Case 184, Vitro Manufacturing, team four, 

8 Ziemer/Gibson. 

9 Next, 198, Y-12 and K-25, Oak Ridge, team five, 

10 Melius/Schofield. 

11 Next is 418, Herring Hall, Marvin Safe Company, 

12 that's team six, Munn/Beach. 

13 Case 1-- case 434, Los Alamos National Lab. 

14 This will be team two, Roessler/Lockey. 

15 DR. ROESSLER: What was the number again? 

16 DR. POSTON: 434. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: 434. Maybe I should read the team 

18 first and then -- 

19 DR. ROESSLER: That would help, yeah. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. The next will be assigned 

21 to team one, Poston/Presley. It's case 442 at 

22 Fernald. 

23 Next is team three, Griffon/Clawson, case 454, 

24 Bridgeport Brass. 

25 Next is team four, Ziemer/Gibson, case 461, 
133

1 Paducah. 

2 Parenthetically I will say -- normally I'm 

3 going in order unless there's a conflict, and 

4 then I'm switching teams. That's why they're 

5 not all completely in order. 

6 Next is team six, Munn/Beach, case 464, 

7 Fernald. 

8 Next, team five, Melius/Schofield, case 465, K9 - Oak Ridge K-25 and Hanford. 

10 Next is team one, Poston/Presley, case 477, 

11 Downey facility and some others as well. 

12 Next is team two, Roessler/Lockey, case 490, 

13 Weldon Spring plant. 

14 Next, case -- or team three, Griffon/Clawson, 

15 case 491, Hanford. 

16 Next, team four, Ziemer/Gibson, case 492, 

17 Hanford and PNNL, Pacific Northwest National 

18 Lab. 

19 Next, team five, Melius/Schofield, case 521, 

20 Huntington Pilot Plant. 

21 Team six, Munn/Beach, case 523, Y-12 plant. 

22 Next, team two, Roessler/Lockey, case 533, 

23 Lawrence Livermore. 

24 Team one, Poston/Presley, case 537, Brookhaven 

25 National Lab and Idaho National Lab. 
134

1 Next, team three, Griffon/Clawson, case 461, 

2 Clarksville facility and Pantex. 

3 Team four, Ziemer/Gibson, case 565, Savannah 

4 River Site. 

5 Team five, Melius/Schofield for case 568, 

6 Savannah River Site. 

7 And then team six, Munn/Beach, case 571, Linde 

8 Ceramics. 

9 Team one, Poston/Presley, case 583, Idaho 

10 National Lab. 

11 Team two, Roessler/Lockey, case 584, 

12 Albuquerque Operations Office and Los Alamos. 

13 Then team five, Melius/Schofield, case 585, 

14 Medina facility and Pacific Proving Ground. 

15 Team three, Griffon/Clawson, case 588, Oak 

16 Ridge X-10. 

17 Team four, Ziemer/Gibson, case 614, Hanford, 

18 Nevada Test Site, Los Alamos and Pacific 

19 Northwest National Lab. 

20 Team six, Munn/Beach, case 639, Y-12 plant. 

21 Next, team two, Roessler/Lockey, case 648, Y-12 

22 plant. 

23 Next, Poston/Presley, team one, case 652, 

24 Savannah River Site. 

25 Team three, Griffon/Clawson, case 653, Y-12 
135

1 plant. 

2 Team four, Ziemer/Gibson, case 664, Nevada Test 

3 Site. 

4 Team six, Munn/Beach, case 672, Idaho National 

5 Lab, Y-12, K-25 and X-10. 

6 Okay, we're getting down to the final page 

7 here. 

8 Team five, Melius/Schofield, case 677, Grand 

9 Junction Operations Office and DeSoto facility 

10 and Hanford. 

11 Then team one, Poston/Presley, case 69-- 679 -- 

12 again, 679, Hanford. 

13 Team two, Roessler/Lockey, case 681, Idaho 

14 National Lab. 

15 Team three, Griffon/Clawson, case 690, General 

16 Steel. 

17 Team four, Ziemer/Gibson, case 697, Hooker 

18 Electrochemical. 

19 That completes the list. We've got six teams, 

20 40 cases, so each of you has six or seven 

21 cases. This is a double whammy review. Okay? 

22 John, I'll give you a copy of this for SC&A so 

23 that we're ready to go on that. 

24 Any questions on those assignments? I've 

25 checked this -- these assignments with counsel 
136

1 and they have cleared this as far as conflicts 

2 of interest for all Board members. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Can I just ask -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Mark Griffon, question? 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- Stu Hinnefeld, I see him 

6 in the room now. Stu, I might ask about the 

7 tenth set. We're going to consider those 

8 tomorrow in the subcommittee meeting, and the 

9 tenth set -- we had a subcommittee -- or in the 

10 regular meeting. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: In the report. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and we had a subcommittee 

13 meeting recently. We went through a first tier 

14 review of the tenth set. We selected some, and 

15 I think you produced a expanded matrix on those 

16 -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: No -- no, I haven't. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you have not. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we're not prepared to 

20 actually make -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: So you're not prepared to do it 

22 here, okay. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: What -- what happens or what I 

24 have done is I have culled out cases that had 

25 actually been selected for the ninth set. 
137

1 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Because recall that, unlike our 

3 other preselection list -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the ninth set had not been 

6 selected when that preselection list was run, 

7 and so they had not been culled out. So after 

8 the selection of the -- the preselection of the 

9 tenth, there were some 54 cases that the 

10 subcommittee preselected. I went through and 

11 culled out 11 -- I guess there were 56. I 

12 culled out 11 that had -- that had actually 

13 been selected in the ninth -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and -- 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: -- part of the ninth -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- we saw that e-mail, but -- 

17 okay. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So the remaining 45 then we are 

19 compiling to fill out the rest of the matrix. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: The rest of the matrix requires 

22 us to enter in the way in which the internal 

23 dosimetry was done -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the way in which the 
138

1 external dosimetry was done and whether 

2 neutrons were present before and after -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I just wanted to clarify -- 

4 I thought we would have that for this meeting, 

5 but may-- for the phone call meeting I guess 

6 we'll do that. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: For the phone call meeting 

8 we'll have it. We didn't have enough time to 

9 do it by now. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: All right, all right, thank you. 

11 TRACKING STATUS OF TRANSCRIPTS AND MINUTES

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I think we have a 

13 little time for a couple of things. Dr. 

14 Branche, I'm wondering if it would be useful to 

15 cover the tracking status -- 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, that'd -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- now? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: -- be great. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: We're -- I've skipped ahead to 

20 some of the Board working time for tomorrow 

21 afternoon because these are things that, if we 

22 get done, we might be able to leave a little 

23 bit early. But we'll take care of pieces of 

24 this. This is -- bullet under Board working 

25 time called tracking status of transcripts and 
139

1 minutes, so we get an update on where we are on 

2 minutes and transcripts. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have this in our packet? 

5 DR. BRANCHE: No, you don't have it in your 

6 package this time because I'm happy to report 

7 that as it concerns the Board meeting 

8 transcripts, both the face-to-face meetings and 

9 the telephone meetings, we are completely up to 

10 date. Everything is on the web site. We are 

11 at the steady state for those issues. 

12 I -- my compliments to the staff at NIOSH and 

13 as well as our contract court reporter for 

14 getting this information to us in a timely 

15 fashion. 

16 Now as it concerns the subcommittees -- sorry, 

17 the subcommittee meetings and the workgroup 

18 meetings, we are still behind, but I don't 

19 think we've ever made a promise to you as to 

20 when those would be coming. We have tried -- I 

21 actually put a little bit of a moratorium on 

22 requests that many of you had been making for 

23 workgroup meeting transcripts until we got 

24 ourselves back into -- into a smooth delivery 

25 of our Board meeting transcripts. Our 
140

1 constituents -- and you all, appropriately -- 

2 have demanded that that backlog be cleaned up 

3 and that has been done. 

4 Ray has been giving us information -- the 

5 transcripts from our -- from our workgroup 

6 meetings and the subcommittee meetings, and he 

7 is catching up. As well he's catching up on 

8 the minutes. 

9 As it concerns the minutes, we've been working 

10 with the Federal Advisory Committee Act staff 

11 at the Centers for Disease Control and 

12 Prevention because they're undergoing a review 

13 from I guess the HHS Federal Advisory Committee 

14 Act office, and they were concerned about the 

15 fact that our minutes were lagging. I've put 

16 forth an argument that our transcript should 

17 serve as fulfilling that need, and so I'm -- so 

18 far I seem to be winning that argument, but I 

19 will appreciate any good vibes you can give me 

20 on that score. 

21 Again, our -- the time line that Dr. Wade and 

22 other staff at NIOSH outlined for you all at a 

23 previous meeting about the time frame that we 

24 need to be able to get the transcript for the 

25 Board meeting produced, redacted and posted 
141

1 seems to be exactly the amount of time we need. 

2 We have -- we would have great difficulty in 

3 producing that sooner. But we -- given that 

4 time line, we seem to be honoring it now and we 

5 are playing catch-up with our other 

6 information. I'm probably talking too long. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's fine. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Any questions? I wish Dr. Melius 

9 were here to hear me say all that. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: So you'll be working on the 

11 workgroup meetings as -- transcripts to bring 

12 those up. The minutes themselves -- Board 

13 members, you've probably noticed that we 

14 haven't had to approve any minutes lately, and 

15 the reason for that is we haven't had minutes 

16 to approve, working hard on the transcripts. 

17 And we've found in practice many of the folks 

18 who are involved in pursuing petitions -- that 

19 is, petitioners themselves -- prefer the 

20 transcripts rather than the minutes because the 

21 transcripts more accurately reflect -- or at 

22 least include everything that was covered, as 

23 opposed to the minutes, which may be condensed 

24 and may summarize what occurred rather than 

25 giving it verbatim. 
142

1 One of the issues is, and what Christine was 

2 referring to, is that in the past the folks who 

3 operate or who set forth the rules for federal 

4 advisory boards have required that I sign off 

5 that the minutes are a true reflection of what 

6 occurred. Since we are -- and -- and we're 

7 behind on those. 

8 Since the transcripts are what we're focusing 

9 on, we're -- what she's trying to do is get 

10 them to agree that we can assert that the 

11 transcripts fully and correctly reflect what 

12 occurred at the meeting. And if -- if we have 

13 that, then it's not clear to me that we have to 

14 necessarily approve the minutes. Do we still 

15 approve the minutes? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Well, I would -- I would say that 

17 in -- in my -- my being assertive about the 

18 fact that the minutes (sic) serve our needs and 

19 the needs of our constituents, and if the 

20 federal -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Minutes or the transcript? 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Sorry -- forgive me, thank you, 

23 the transcript. If the Federal Advisory 

24 Committee Act staff agree with me/us, then it 

25 would require that Dr. Ziemer in his capacity 
143

1 as the Chair of this Advisory Board, and Mr. 

2 Griffon in his capacity as the chair of the 

3 sub-- subcommittee, essentially sign off on the 

4 transcript. And if that is the case, then I 

5 think we would need to go through an 

6 opportunity for each Board member to receive 

7 those in advance and then -- whether by e-mail 

8 or another mechanism that we work out -- agree 

9 that the transcript is something that you all 

10 accept, and then we would have -- I would have 

11 them sign off on those and -- and potentially 

12 forego the minutes. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: So we may not even have minutes to 

14 deal with in the future. 

15 The other thing I think on transcripts -- I'm 

16 not sure we're ever in a position to say that 

17 what the transcript says is not what I've said 

18 because that's a -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- an official court reporter type 

21 of thing. Ray is -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: That’s all you, Ray. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Similar to a court proceeding. I 

24 -- I think you might not like what you said or 

25 how you said it, but -- but it's going to be 
144

1 there for the record. I don't think we're 

2 going to go back and -- and edit the 

3 transcript, unless there's a spelling error or 

4 something like that. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: But of course that -- if we take 

6 the step that -- and -- and because we do have 

7 a certified court reporter, it would certainly 

8 expedite our signing off on a lot of the 

9 documents that the Federal Advisory Committee 

10 Act office would -- would require. So I'm 

11 quite hopeful that they would see the wisdom of 

12 this approach. And if you don't see the wisdom 

13 of this approach, this is now your opportunity 

14 to tell me. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Now would you rather have minutes 

16 than transcripts? I think our petitioners have 

17 been relying on the transcripts rather than the 

18 minutes. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Again, I don't know that we'll be 

20 able to forego minutes, but we will be able to 

21 have -- sign off on the transcripts, which 

22 might be able to forego needing a signature on 

23 the minutes, so... 

24 I have some updates for the other information 

25 if you'd like -- 
145

1 MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to ask about -- 

2 before you move on -- the moratorium on the 

3 other minutes -- or the other transcripts. I -

4 - I know -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Well, there's not a moratorium -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Well, moratorium on producing 

7 them for workgroup members or -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: I -- I was -- I was actually 

9 asking people, when they would come first to 

10 Lew and now me -- actually nobody has asked me 

11 for -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: In a while. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: -- an expedited transcript from a 

14 workgroup or subcommittee meeting, and I 

15 appreciate the sensitivity that you all have 

16 shown because I think -- actually did cry a lot 

17 at our last Board meeting about how we were in 

18 -- in a bit of a -- a flurry in trying to do 

19 that. I'm not asking for floodgates, either, 

20 but if you do need an expedited transcript for 

21 your workgroup meeting or your subcommittee 

22 meeting, I would ask that you simply come to me 

23 and I'll let you know where we are in the 

24 production cycle. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I was just going to say, in 
146

1 -- or ask a question, I guess. In the past I -

2 - I've asked -- especially for the Rocky Flats 

3 process, we had several meetings very close to 

4 each other and it was useful to have the 

5 previous minutes and Ray -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: The minutes or the transcript? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: -- transcripts, and Ray produced 

8 them very quickly in a -- in a raw form, a -- a 

9 draft form that we wouldn't circulate, but we 

10 had them there for our information. And so I 

11 don't know when you say -- if -- can we still 

12 get those kind of minutes if we need them and -

13 - 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Transcripts? 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, transcripts, I'm sorry -- 

16 in a pinch if we need those kind of things to 

17 facilitate the workgroup process, can we get 

18 those draft transcripts? 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Very reasonable question. I 

20 think producing the draft -- it's easier to 

21 promise when we've gotten past the window for 

22 when -- for when Ray needs to produce the 

23 transcript for our Board meeting. So for 

24 example, there was a request for a workgroup 

25 meeting from November, but the person requested 
147

1 it just this past week. And so my honest reply 

2 was if Mr. Green can produce it without it 

3 interrupting the schedule -- which again, is 

4 already tight -- for getting out the transcript 

5 for the Board meeting, then that wouldn't be a 

6 problem. So I would say the same to any 

7 workgroup chair or subcommittee chair in your 

8 case, Mr. Griffon, that as long as the timing 

9 of your request is not going to jeopar-- and I 

10 always check with Mr. Green first -- is not 

11 going to jeopardize the -- the time line for 

12 our producing the Board minute -- I'm sorry, 

13 transcript, you've got me in -- the Board 

14 transcripts, then I think we can try to honor 

15 it. And in -- and in those I use a first come16 first served approach. Okay? 

17 UPDATE ON BOARD’S CONTRACTOR

18 Some of you have been asking questions about 

19 the -- the Board's contractor -- 

20 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: -- and I can give you an update 

22 on that. I appreciate Dr. Wade, Dr. Neton and 

23 the staff in the Centers for Disease Control's 

24 Office on Procurement and Grants. We expect 

25 that the first solicitation -- or rather the 
148

1 solicitation announcement will come out in the 

2 middle of this month, April 2008, and that the 

3 full request for proposals will be announced at 

4 the very beginning of May. And we're expecting 

5 to be able to select certainly someone before 

6 any deadlines are appro-- approach. But those 

7 are the two dates that you need to have in 

8 mind. Mid-- mid-April for the solicitation 

9 announcement, which essentially just gives 

10 people a heads-up -- rather potential 

11 applicants a heads-up. And then the full12 fledged request for proposals would be the 

13 first few days of May. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Mark? 

15 MR. GRIFFON: This may be just my -- you know, 

16 'cause we have so much documentation going 

17 around this Board, but have we -- has the Board 

18 seen a final -- or are we entitled to see a 

19 final copy of the RFP? I know -- I know you 

20 asked for comments on certain sections from me, 

21 and I appreciate that and I -- I did send them 

22 in, but I -- I don't know that I've seen the 

23 final form of it, and are we -- do we get one 

24 last read-through or -- or -- I don't know. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask if David Staudt 
149

1 happens to be on the phone. Do we know if he's 

2 going to -- or anyone from procurement. I 

3 think -- 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Talk about this tomorrow 

5 afternoon, though. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we can talk -- yeah. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: He was going to be available. He 

8 might be on the line. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: We'll try to get that answer by 

10 tomorrow. I -- I believe that David had told 

11 us before we would see a final copy of that, 

12 but let's -- we'll get it clarified before -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I would like to if we can, 

14 yeah. I think that'd be useful. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: I will get an answer to you as to 

16 when we would be able to get that to you. I 

17 know that by e-mail you and Mr. Claws-- or 

18 actually Mr. Clawson copied you on his request. 

19 You all had questions about some very elaborate 

20 language that had to do with conflict of 

21 interest, and the conflict of interest language 

22 that the Board apparently labored through on 

23 the last announcement -- apparently it has been 

24 undisturbed. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Remained, right, right, yeah. 
150

1 DR. BRANCHE: So that remains completely 

2 unaltered. I believe Dr. Wade gave you all 

3 information to review -- the main sections that 

4 -- again, my understanding is that the Board 

5 members labored over in a previous version of 

6 this when the announcement was done three years 

7 ago, and that language, to my understanding, 

8 has been left undisturbed. But the staff and 

9 the -- at NIOSH and Procurement and Grants have 

10 been working on the specific parameters that 

11 are date-sensitive. But I'll work to get a 

12 copy of that to you. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any other questions 

14 for Dr. Branche on those administrative 

15 matters? 

16 (No responses) 

17 Okay. Now I want to point out that after lunch 

18 today the Board is going to undergo ethics 

19 training so that we will be even more ethical 

20 in the second half of our meeting after that. 

21 Actually it -- we're -- we're required every 

22 year to participate in what is called ethics 

23 training. Is that the right word? 

24 DR. BRANCHE: That is correct, that's correct. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: I think it's ethics training. And 
151

1 that is really an administrative session of the 

2 Board. It's -- if you'll notice on the agenda, 

3 it says for Board members only. We recognize 

4 that none of the members of the public nor the 

5 federal staff people, nor our contractors, need 

6 ethics training and so you do not need to come 

7 back early from lunch. In fact, I -- I've been 

8 told the attorneys don't want you to come back 

9 early. Our session will become unethical if 

10 you're here, for some reason. Well, in any -- 

11 any -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: It's not -- it's not a closed 

13 session, though, is it? No -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's say it's not 

15 officially a closed session, as defined, but 

16 I'm told that it is considered to be for Board 

17 members only. It sort of sounds closed to me, 

18 but I -- I think if -- probably if someone's 

19 out there and they really feel they need this 

20 badly, we might let them in the door. I don't 

21 know. We'll see what -- we'll see what -- 

22 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Dr. Ziemer, this is Liz 

23 Homoki-Titus. (Unintelligible) administrative 

24 session under FACA, so therefore it is not open 

25 to the public. So even if someone really badly 
152

1 wanted to come in, they would not be permitted 

2 to. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, even if they wanted to 

4 badly. Okay. That -- that was word from 

5 counsel. This is considered an administrative 

6 session of the Board, which is -- although not 

7 closed, Mark, it's not open to the public. 

8 Okay. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: I have an administrative note on 

10 that piece. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I'll have to look that one up. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Anyway, take -- I'm simply 

13 telling folks have a leisurely lunch -- 

14 DR. POSTON: Paul -- 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul -- Paul? 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, yes, Mr. Presley. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: I got something from counsel that 

18 says it's going to start at 1:00 o'clock. Is 

19 it going to start at 1:00 o'clock or 1:30? 

20 DR. ZIEMER: 1:30. 

21 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, and -- and -- and Mr. 

23 Presley, you will note that I sent you an e24 mail message yesterday with a separate phone 

25 number that I would like you to dial in to for 
153

1 that administrative session. Did you receive 

2 my e-mail? 

3 MR. PRESLEY: I've got it right here. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: So the open -- or the regular 

6 session will begin at 2:30, and at 2:30 -- 

7 since we have already covered the Department of 

8 Energy and Labor update, I'm proposing that we 

9 consider the SEC petition update, so I'll ask 

10 LaVon to be prepared for that. 

11 So thank you very much. We're recessed until 

12 the appropriate time. 

13 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:00 p.m. 

14 to 1:30 p.m.) 

15 (Whereupon, the meeting reconvened in 

16 Administrative Session, transcript of which is 

17 not included as part of the public document.) 

18 (2:53 p.m.) 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley, are you on the line? 

20 MR. PRESLEY: I sure am, Christine. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. For those of you who 

22 have joined the re-established telephone line, 

23 we ask that you mute your phones. If you do 

24 not have a mute button, then please use star-6 

25 to mute the telephone line. And when you are 
154

1 ready to speak, please use that same star-6 to 

2 unmute your phones. Thank you. I heard all 

3 that noise, so thank you very much for muting 

4 your phones. 

5 Dr. Ziemer. 

6 SEC PETITION UPDATE

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're going to proceed now. 

8 We have a number of SEC petitions that we're 

9 going to have updates on, beginning with 

10 Hanford, then Sandia Livermore, and then 

11 Chapman Valve, and then we also will add Mound 

12 to that list. Well, we'll start with Hanford -

13 - 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Oh, I thought we were going to 

15 start with LaVon Rutherford from tomorrow 

16 morning. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Oh -- wait a minute, I'm -- I'm 

18 sorry, I'm ahead of myself on the schedule. 

19 Yes, those come at 3:45, and I was just looking 

20 at the schedule as it was and realizing it's 

21 not 3:45. We're -- we're picking up tomorrow 

22 morning's part of the SEC updates, and that is 

23 everything but the ones I just named, let's put 

24 it that way. 

25 MR. RUTHERFORD: Are you ready for me? 
155

1 DR. ZIEMER: I'm ready for you. I think I'm 

2 ready for you. 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Thank you, Dr. 

4 Ziemer. I'm going to give the update to the 

5 SEC petitions. There will be a little overlap 

6 between some of the SEC petition discussion 

7 that you probably already heard and that you're 

8 going to hear later on. 

9 We provide this update to the Board and -- to 

10 allow them a little preparation for future 

11 workgroup meetings and for future Board 

12 meetings, and so they can get a little look 

13 ahead. 

14 At this time we've -- as of March 26th we had 

15 108 petitions. I don't know if we've received 

16 any since I've been in the office or not. 

17 We've quali-- or we have four petitions that 

18 are in the qualification phase. We have 56 

19 petitions that we have -- we are -- we have 

20 qualified for evaluation. Of those 56, six of 

21 those are in the evaluation process and 50 of 

22 them have -- we have completed our evaluation. 

23 We had 48 petitions that have not qualif-- that 

24 did not qualify for evaluation. 

25 Now I'm going to go over the petitions that are 
156

1 with the Board at this time and are awaiting 

2 recommendation from the Board. 

3 Chapman Valve, the evaluation report was 

4 approved and sent to the Boa-- Advisory Board 

5 and petitioners on August 31st, 2006. We 

6 presented our evaluation at the September 2006 

7 Advisory Board meeting. At that time the 

8 Advisory Board established a workgroup to 

9 review the evaluation. The workgroup presented 

10 its findings at the May 2007 Advisory Board 

11 meeting and a decision at that time was made to 

12 postpone a recommendation until the petitioner 

13 had received all the documents and had had a 

14 chance to review those documents. 

15 The Advisory Board voted 6 to 6 on a motion to 

16 deny adding a class to the SEC at the July 2007 

17 meeting. In light of the vote, the Advisory 

18 Board determined they -- they needed more -- or 

19 needed to receive a response from the 

20 Department of Labor and Department of Energy 

21 concerning potential covered work at the Dean 

22 Street facility. Prior to the October 2007 

23 Board meeting Department of Labor provided a 

24 response to the Advisory Board's questions 

25 about the Dean Street facility. DO-- the 
157

1 Department of Energy provided an update during 

2 the November 2007 Advisory Board conference 

3 call. At that time they had not completed 

4 their investigation. 

5 The Department of Energy presented their 

6 findings at the January 2008 Advisory Board 

7 meeting that the Dean Street facility should be 

8 included as a covered facility, but they 

9 indicated that they had no information that 

10 there was any additional radiological 

11 activities. NIOSH also indicated at that 

12 meeting that they would revise the Chapman 

13 Valve evaluation report based on DOE's finding, 

14 but also indicated they anticipated there would 

15 be no changes in our feasibility determination 

16 based on these findings. 

17 We issued our revised evaluation report at the 

18 February 2000 -- February 5th -- we issued our 

19 evaluation report February 5th. At the 

20 February 2008 Advisory Board conference call 

21 the Board asked SC&A to do a focused review of 

22 the new information provided by Department of 

23 Energy, and asked that the information be 

24 available prior to the April Board meeting. 

25 SC&A provided a report to the workgroup on 
158

1 March 12th, and status -- current status is 

2 NIOSH plans to present our revised evalua-- 

3 actually the revisions to our evaluation report 

4 at this meeting. I think that's later today. 

5 Blockson Chemical, the evaluation report was 

6 initially approved and sent to the Advisory 

7 Board in September 2006. We presented our 

8 evaluation report at the December 2006 Advisory 

9 Board meeting. However, we determined that we 

10 had not addressed all covered exposures and we 

11 withdrew that evaluation report. The Advisory 

12 Board established a workgroup to review the 

13 evaluation report at its December 2006 meeting. 

14 NIOSH issued a revised evaluation report on 

15 July 3rd, 2007, and we presented that revised 

16 evaluation report at the July 2007 Advisory 

17 Board meeting. The workgroup met in Cincinnati 

18 on August 28th and a public meeting was held on 

19 September 12, 2007 to explain changes made to 

20 the dose reconstruction technical approach. It 

21 was the work-- the workgroup held a conference 

22 call on November 2nd, 2007, and then at the 

23 January 2008 Advisory Board meeting Dr. Melius 

24 indicated he wanted to review the pedigree of 

25 the bioassay data and he wanted to discuss the 
159

1 radon model with Mark Griffon. 

2 Current status is the petition and evaluation 

3 report are with the workgroup. An update will 

4 be provided at this meeting. 

5 Feed Materials Production Center, Brad Clawson 

6 has already provided an update. I'll try to be 

7 really brief here. The evaluation report was 

8 approved and sent to the petitioners on 

9 November 3rd, 2006 and we presented our 

10 evaluation report at the February 2007 Advisory 

11 Board meeting. The Advisory Board established 

12 a workgroup at that meeting and -- and May SC&A 

13 provided a draft review of the evaluation 

14 report to the workgroup, petitioners, Advisory 

15 Board and NIOSH. And the workgroup has met on 

16 a number of occasions, and the current status 

17 is that workgroup is still reviewing the Feed 

18 Materials Production Center evaluation. 

19 Bethlehem Steel, the evaluation report was 

20 approved and sent to the Advisory Board and 

21 petitioners on February 27, 2007, and NIOSH 

22 presented our evaluation report at the May 2007 

23 Advisory Board meeting. At the time, the 

24 Advisory Board determined that it needed 

25 further information before making a 
160

1 recommendation on the SEC petition. The 

2 Advisory Board tabled the discussion of 

3 Bethlehem Steel SEC evaluation report until the 

4 workgroup that is looking at the use of 

5 surrogate data reports back to the Board. And 

6 the petition and the evaluation report are with 

7 the Advisory Board for recommendation, and I 

8 believe an update is scheduled for tomorrow. 

9 Sandia National Lab Livermore, we appro-- the 

10 evaluation report was approved and sent to the 

11 Advisory Board on March 29th of 2007. On April 

12 25th, 2007 -- that was just before the May 

13 meeting -- we received new information from the 

14 petitioner. However, we presented the 

15 evaluation report at the May 2007 Advisory 

16 Board meeting and discussed the new information 

17 provided by the petitioner. 

18 The Advisory Board asked NIOSH to provide an 

19 update that addressed the new information. We 

20 issued an addendum to the evaluation report and 

21 presented that addendum at the October 2007 

22 Advisory Board meeting. The Advisory Board 

23 tabled the vote at the October meeting until 

24 information provided from the petitioner could 

25 be reviewed by the Board. NIOSH informed the 
161

1 Advisory Board during its conference call in 

2 November that all information had been made 

3 available to the Advisory Board, and the 

4 Advisory Board indicated they needed more time 

5 to review the information. 

6 The status -- an update is -- is scheduled for 

7 this meeting. 

8 Hanford Part 2, the evaluation report was 

9 approved and sent to the Advisory Board and the 

10 petitioners on September 11, 2007. We 

11 presented our evaluation report at the October 

12 meeting. The Advisory Board established -- 

13 sent the report to the already-established 

14 Hanford workgroup that was working on the site 

15 profile review. The Advisory Board's 

16 contractor, SC&A, issued a white paper 

17 questioning whether additional buildings should 

18 be included in the proposed class definition. 

19 And we reviewed that white paper and in March 

20 we issued a revised evaluation report with a 

21 modified class definition, and I believe that 

22 update is scheduled for later on today as well. 

23 The petition and evaluation report are with the 

24 workgroup, and SC&A and the Board workgroup and 

25 NIOSH will provide an update at this meeting. 
162

1 Nevada Test Site, the evaluation report was 

2 approved and sent to the Advisory Board and the 

3 petitioners in September of '07. We presented 

4 our evaluation report at the January 2008 

5 meeting, and the Advisory Board sent the report 

6 to the contractor and the NTS Board workgroup. 

7 That workgroup had already been established. 

8 The petition and evaluation report are with the 

9 Advisory Board and SC&A for review. 

10 Mound plant, evaluation report was approved and 

11 sent to the Advisory Board in December. We 

12 presented our evaluation at the January meeting 

13 and the Advisory Board concurred with our 

14 recommendation to add a class for the early 

15 years, but sent the report to their contractor 

16 for review and established a Mound workgroup. 

17 The Mound workgroup met on April 1st, and the 

18 status is the current -- the petition and 

19 evaluation report are with the workgroup and 

20 SC&A for review. 

21 Texas City Chemical, Dr. Neton presented our 

22 evaluation report on -- that was -- was 

23 approved on January 18th and Dr. Neton 

24 presented that evaluation report at this 

25 meeting. And the vote and recommendation has 
163

1 been postponed until a future meeting. 

2 NUMEC Parks, Dr. Hughes presented our 

3 evaluation report that was approved -- it was 

4 approved on February 14 and Dr. Hughes 

5 presented our evaluation report earlier today, 

6 and the Board concurred with our recommendation 

7 to add a class for NUMEC Parks. 

8 Santa Susana Area IV, the evaluation report was 

9 approved and sent to the Advisory Board and 

10 petitioners on February 15th. Stu Hinnefeld 

11 presented our evaluation this morning, and the 

12 vote has been delayed until SC&A completes 

13 their review of the site profile. 

14 SAM Laboratories, the evaluation report was 

15 approved and sent to the Board on February 

16 19th, and we presented our evaluation of the 

17 SAM Laboratory yesterday's -- during this 

18 meeting. The Board concurred with our 

19 recommendation. 

20 Kellex-Pierpont, the evaluation report was 

21 approved and sent on February 27th and Dr. 

22 Glover presented our evaluation report earlier 

23 today, and the Board concurred with our 

24 recommendation. 

25 Horizons, Inc., the evaluation report was 
164

1 approved and sent to the Board and petitioners 

2 on March 14th. I presented that evaluation 

3 report yesterday, and the Board concurred with 

4 our recommendation. 

5 Now I'm going to go to SEC petitions that are 

6 currently -- that are in the evaluation 

7 process, give you a little update where we are 

8 with each one of those. 

9 Pantex is a petition that we've had for quite 

10 some time. The petition was initially not 

11 qualified. The petitioner requested an 

12 Administrative Review of the qualification and 

13 the Administrative Review Panel recommended 

14 that we qualify the petition. We -- we have 

15 been in the evaluation for -- for some period 

16 now. We have run into some difficulties with 

17 data capture efforts and also some site reviews 

18 that have taken place. We are working to 

19 complete the evaluation report in June. 

20 However, I believe that the evaluation report 

21 is going to be approved at the later part of 

22 June and will be -- we'll have limited chance 

23 of getting that report to the Board in time to 

24 present for the June meeting. 

25 Spencer Chemical, this petition was actually 
165

1 delayed, at the petitioner's request, for four 

2 months while the petitioner reviewed additional 

3 documentation. We anticipate this report will 

4 be completed in June and presented at the June 

5 Board meeting. 

6 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development, we have 

7 -- during our review of the documentation for 

8 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development we -- we 

9 uncovered some concerns with covered activities 

10 at the facility and we have been corresponding 

11 with Department of Energy and Department of 

12 Labor concerning this. However, we expect to 

13 have some answer for the June meeting with the 

14 -- concerning Westinghouse. 

15 We also, if you remember, had some issues with 

16 the early Y-12 with administering the class. 

17 Back in our earlier SEC we had defined a class 

18 that -- at Y-12 for uranium enrichment 

19 operation and other radiological activities, 

20 and administering that class has been a little 

21 difficult based on our class definition. We 

22 are working with the Department of Labor to 

23 resolve this issue. We've actually sent a 

24 letter to the Department of Labor outlining an 

25 approach to allow us that we would not have to 
166

1 -- to complete a SEC evaluation report, that we 

2 can resolve this without that. And so current 

3 status is we are working with Department of 

4 Labor and we should have a update for the June 

5 meeting. 

6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we 

7 presented at the beginning of the meeting -- 

8 this meeting that we -- we had issued our 

9 evaluation report and we pulled back that 

10 evaluation report after it was recognized that 

11 there were other prime contractors or other 

12 contractors at the Hood facility and we needed 

13 to review additional documentation. We 

14 anticipate that we will have this evaluation 

15 completed or with a path forward at the -- and 

16 we will make that presentation at the June 

17 meeting. 

18 Dow Chemical, we have been working with the 

19 former -- with Dow Chemical to retrieve 

20 additional documentation based on the new 

21 covered per-- or new designation that 

22 Department of Energy had fin-- its -- had -- 

23 Department of Energy had indicated that the -- 

24 had made a determination that the thorium alloy 

25 at Dow Chemical was actually part of the 
167

1 weapons program or it could have been part of 

2 the weapons program and had determined that it 

3 would be a covered activity. We had not 

4 evaluated that in our initial evaluation, so we 

5 have gone back now, requested additional 

6 documentation through the State of Illinois and 

7 through Dow Chemical on the thorium operations, 

8 and we plan to issue a revised evaluation at 

9 the June 2008 meeting. 

10 Savannah River Site is currently in the 

11 evaluation phase, and we anticipate issuing a -

12 - a report and presenting that report -- we -- 

13 issuing the report in August 2008. 

14 And currently there are six sites that are in 

15 various stages of the 83.14 SEC process, and a 

16 -- we are working to have a few of those 

17 available for the June meeting. 

18 That's it. Questions? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Sam (sic), that's very 

20 helpful. I think Larry Elliott has a comment 

21 and then we'll (unintelligible). 

22 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. I just want to make 

23 one addition to the Y-12 and that is, beyond 

24 what Bomber said -- or LaVon said about us 

25 working with DOL, we are also working with 
168

1 individual claimants that come forward to us or 

2 to Denise Brock, the NIOSH ombudsman, who have 

3 in their hands a situation where DOL has not 

4 found them to be eligible for this class. And 

5 so we're -- we're working on their behalf to go 

6 back to DOL and talk to DOL about why, and so 

7 there is that component going on here, too, 

8 that LaVon hadn't mentioned. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: I assume that once NIOSH and Labor 

10 agree to that definition, you will come back to 

11 us and clarify it to us so that we can be 

12 assured that what we think we voted on is -- is 

13 properly covered in the definition. 

14 Denise may have an additional comment here on 

15 this and then we'll... 

16 MS. BROCK: I do. I just wanted to report that 

17 we've actually had probably about three or four 

18 cases that have actually been overturned that 

19 have went back to the Department of Labor and 

20 have some very pleased claimants for that, so 

21 that -- that's very exciting. So hopefully, as 

22 Larry said and as LaVon said, we'll get the 

23 rest of that taken care of. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. LaVon, you had a 

25 comment? 
169

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, my only comment was -- 

2 on that as well was actually to say that we 

3 have a pretty good approach. We actually have 

4 reviewed all the claims that fit into that pre5 1947 period, and we've laid out -- we've looked 

6 at their interviews, we've looked at all their 

7 documentation, and we've identified claims that 

8 we felt that should have fit into the class and 

9 made that -- made those available in a 

10 spreadsheet to the Department of Labor and 

11 we're working with them, as Denise had 

12 mentioned. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, how many petitions do you 

15 have that are under evaluation now for whether 

16 they qualify? 

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have four. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Four, okay. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have two at the Linde 

20 facility and we have recently received Los 

21 Alamos National Lab and -- I thought I had them 

22 all. Those are three of them, anyway. 

23 DR. MELIUS: That's not bad. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: You have -- in your last slide you 

25 mention the six sites -- 
170

1 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, we -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- under consideration. That's -- 

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, those are actually -- 

4 you don't -- those are not considered a 

5 petition until we get the Form A back from the 

6 -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: That's in addition to these four. 

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, yes, that's in addition 

9 to those four. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other comments 

11 or questions? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We have a -- we have a little time 

16 before we actually take up -- these next ones 

17 have to be fairly time certain, so I want to 

18 see if we have some items that we can handle in 

19 the meantime. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: There was going to be a report -- 

21 is John Mauro in the room? There was going to 

22 be a report by SC&A on the budget issues. That 

23 was going to be part of the Board working time. 

24 I don't know if you want to take -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Let me -- let me -- 
171

1 DR. BRANCHE: -- or not. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- ask -- hang on a minute. 

3 (Pause) 

4 DISCUSSION OF SC&A BUDGET ISSUES

5 Is John Mauro in the assembly? John, you were 

6 going to report on SC&A budget issues. Would 

7 this be something you're prepared to do now if 

8 we -- 

9 DR. MAURO: Sure, yeah. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- pick that up? This is part of 

11 the -- 

12 DR. MAURO: Let me get my notebook, I have some 

13 (unintelligible) -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- Board working time. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: For individuals who joined the 

16 telephone line, if you could please mute your 

17 phones. If you do not have a mute button, 

18 please use star-6 to mute your phone, and when 

19 you're ready to speak you can use that same 

20 star-6. But we do need you to mute your phones 

21 now. Thank you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: For members of the assembly to -- 

23 if you're trying to track where we are, 'cause 

24 we've had to jump around here a little bit on 

25 the agenda, the part of the agenda called SEC 
172

1 Petition Status Updates scheduled for 3:45, 

2 we're holding that at that time -- we're 

3 keeping it at that time because of individuals 

4 who will be joining us, either -- well, mainly 

5 by phone, some in person. But we want to keep 

6 that at a -- basically a fixed time. 

7 So what we're doing now, we're picking up 

8 pieces of what's called Board Working Time, 

9 which is on your agenda for tomorrow afternoon. 

10 For example, we covered the tracking status of 

11 transcripts and minutes. We talked a little 

12 bit about the status of next year's Board 

13 contractor support. Now we're going to have a 

14 brief report from the Board contractor, SC&A, 

15 which deals with some budgetary issues. We 

16 basically want to bring the Board up to date on 

17 some issues relating to this year's budget. 

18 John Mauro will fill us in on that. 

19 DR. MAURO: I guess it was about a week or so 

20 ago when I informed the working group, the Task 

21 III working group on dealing with procedures, 

22 that -- and that was -- we were about to run 

23 out of money on Task III, and to -- up -- that 

24 was -- that was about a month in advance, and 

25 we had a special conference call with Dr. 
173

1 Ziemer, yourself and David Staudt and Lew Wade 

2 and Christine, and we discussed what to do 

3 about that, strategies. And I did co-- come up 

4 with one strategy that might work to help 

5 resolve that problem. 

6 In effect, if you -- we would step back a bit, 

7 our -- our -- we have a system of keeping track 

8 of how much more work we have to do, how much 

9 money do we have, do we have enough money to 

10 finish all the work. The work -- the contract 

11 will end in the end of September. Bottom line 

12 is -- I'm stepping a little back from -- from 

13 this Task III issue, but Task III is sort of 

14 like a subset of this issue. In effect, our 

15 budget for this contract was about $13 million. 

16 We project, using this earned value system that 

17 I keep track of on a monthly basis, that we are 

18 probably going to run short by about $1.2 

19 million and about -- in effect, the cost of -- 

20 our projection, using our system, says we're 

21 probably going to be ten percent un-- over22 budget, if -- if, now there's a big "if" here -

23 - keep in mind what an earned value system is. 

24 It's a system that you start in the beginning 

25 of a project to score -- to -- let's say I 
174

1 think that this is the rate at which we will 

2 proceed in terms of spending money and 

3 accomplishing things. In developing that 

4 system I made certain assumptions about how 

5 much money we're going to need to do various 

6 tasks. 

7 That brings me to Task III. It turns out we 

8 ended up spending more money on Task III than 

9 we anticipated, and there's a variety of 

10 reasons for that that I -- no need to go into 

11 that now, but -- and one way to help resolve 

12 the problem goes to Task I. Please bear with 

13 me. 

14 In Task I we currently have ten site profiles 

15 that we've completed -- the review of the site 

16 profiles that we've completed, and they're 

17 sitting on a shelf, but we have not activated a 

18 workgroup and so no work is -- we're really not 

19 in a closeout process. Now what I do -- what I 

20 did is for every time we deliver a report, a 

21 site profile review report, I put in the bank 

22 $61,000. That's basically saying I'm going to 

23 hold $61,000 available for the -- when the day 

24 comes when we open up -- when we have a working 

25 group and we start the closeout process. This 
175

1 is based on historical experience on what does 

2 it cost to go through the whole closeout 

3 process for all the issues on one of our site 

4 profile reviews. 

5 So in effect right now we have ten site profile 

6 reviews -- you can read them if you'd like the 

7 list of them; they are INL, LANL, X-10, 

8 Pinellas, Paducah, K-65, Lawrence Livermore 

9 National Laboratory, Pantex, Portsmouth and 

10 Argonne National Laboratory West. All of those 

11 are sitting and waiting for a working group. 

12 Which means there's $610,000 sitting in the 

13 bank waiting to take that on. 

14 Now one of the things that -- and they've been 

15 sitting there for -- for some time. But in the 

16 interim, from when we wrote those reports to 

17 today, of course we've learned a lot. We've 

18 enga-- we've had a closeout process with many 

19 procedures, closeout process for many site 

20 profiles, many SEC petitions. Where I'm 

21 heading is that I suspect if SC&A were to go 

22 back and look at the findings contained in the 

23 ten site profile reviews as a group, just 

24 collect them all and come and report back to 

25 the Board, or to a working group of the Board, 
176

1 and summarize -- and sort of do a -- some 

2 triage, would -- let's say it turns out there 

3 are ten findings per site profile, just for 

4 discussion. We don't need 100 findings 

5 associated with these ten site profile reviews. 

6 I strongly suspect that some fraction of that, 

7 maybe 25 percent, are issues that have already 

8 been resolved in another venue because we've 

9 seen them before. Can't say that for certain -

10 - I'm using this as an example. There may be 

11 other issues that we're currently resolving and 

12 dealing with actively, either as part of 

13 procedure review process or we've -- or as part 

14 of one of the other site profile reviews that 

15 are currently active. 

16 Where I'm headed is -- and this is a bit 

17 speculative, though -- in theory, let's assume 

18 that 50 percent of the issues imbedded in those 

19 ten site profile reviews can be -- say are -- 

20 are already well in hand, we're dealing with 

21 them. The way I look at it is this: That 

22 means we have $610,000 sitting in the bank when 

23 perhaps we really only need $300,000. It frees 

24 up $300,000 -- this is all hypothetical now. I 

25 haven't done any of this yet, it's a concept. 
177

1 It frees up $300,000, which I believe could be 

2 money that's sitting there to be used, one, to 

3 help out on Task III, to help keep the closeout 

4 process going 'cause, you know, we're through 

5 with all the procedure reviews but we're not 

6 through with the closeout, so that has to 

7 continue. 

8 Also, as I understand from watching these 

9 proceedings, there may be a number of new SEC 

10 petition support work. Those resources could 

11 be made avail-- right now we're -- we're okay 

12 on Task V, which is the SEC. But if we start 

13 to add in a number of additional focused 

14 reviews on some of the new SEC petitions, it 

15 may turn out that we -- we could use those 

16 resources and -- in helping to relieve the 

17 pressure on Task Order V. 

18 So I guess what I'm saying is I'm bringing 

19 before the Board an idea that -- I guess there 

20 are a couple of things that could be done -- 

21 add additional resources to the contract, or 

22 shift some resources between tasks. And I 

23 think one place where I think it's a very good 

24 possibility that we could be able to shift some 

25 resources is regarding this Task I matter. But 
178

1 it would require, I would say, SC&A to take a 

2 look at these ten site profiles and then go 

3 through this triage process. We would do it 

4 initially within SC&A and -- and perhaps make 

5 some type of matrix, sorting; bring that before 

6 perhaps a special workgroup that might be 

7 formed to help with this process; or of course, 

8 bring it before the Board and -- and tell our 

9 story. Say out of these 100 issues, so to 

10 speak, here's how many we believe are being 

11 handled or have been handled, but -- and here's 

12 what's remaining. And in that way we can get a 

13 sense of how much resources we could break free 

14 from Task I closeout and make it available for 

15 other tasks that could use the resources. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John. Let me add a 

17 couple comments to that and then we'll open 

18 this for discussion. The immediate issue of 

19 being short of funds has been handled between 

20 Dr. Branche and David Staudt and -- and some of 

21 the funds have been shifted from one task to 

22 another to allow Task III work to continue. 

23 Further, a fair amount -- and I don't know how 

24 much, but a fair amount of what's been carried 

25 out under Task III might -- one might argue is 
179

1 more generally administrative work; that is the 

2 development of the -- of the database tool that 

3 was described to the Board yesterday by Kathy 

4 Behling. One might argue it's not exclusively 

5 a Task III item. One might argue that it is 

6 either administrative or it perhaps could be 

7 spread over other tasks since it has potential 

8 applicability to others as well. 

9 In any event, the -- the immediate problem has 

10 been handled. But going forward, as John has 

11 indicated, he has put funds in reserve to 

12 handle clear work that has to be done by our 

13 contractor, and by us as we have workgroups 

14 available, to resolve the findings in those 

15 completed site profiles. So what John has 

16 described here to us now is a sort of 

17 streamlining process that supposes that there 

18 are common issues in the remaining site 

19 profiles -- perhaps issues like the neutron 

20 dosimetry issue which seems to have reoccurred 

21 in several past site profiles, which have been 

22 largely addressed. Maybe they'd have to be 

23 further tweaked for a given site, but for which 

24 we don't need the full funding to address yet 

25 another time. So I think that's kind of the 
180

1 thrust of -- of what John is suggesting. And I 

2 think what we're looking for is some feedback 

3 from the Board for -- basically this -- this is 

4 the last year for that contract. We don't 

5 know, going further, whether the new contractor 

6 will be SC&A or some other entity, but we have 

7 to think about completing this year and 

8 completing those tasks. And it's important 

9 that SC&A be able to complete what they've been 

10 assigned. They've been assigned to close out 

11 those site profiles. That's an obligation to 

12 them and also to us because they can't complete 

13 that without Board input and without exchange 

14 with NIOSH on -- on issues as well. 

15 So with that as background, I think -- Dr. 

16 Melius, you have a comment or a suggestion? 

17 DR. MELIUS: No, I have first a question -- 

18 actually a couple of questions. Fir-- first of 

19 all, when we're talking about a year left on 

20 the contract, what are -- what are you 

21 specifically talking about, when -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I believe it's the fiscal 

23 year of the government, so it would go to 

24 October. Is that not correct? 

25 DR. MAURO: Yes, October 1st. 
181

1 DR. ZIEMER: By end of September. 

2 DR. MAURO: October 1st would be the 

3 termination date. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: And actually I -- I think what 

5 would happen, as I understand from David Staudt 

6 -- for example, if there were a new contractor, 

7 it would still be possible for funds -- a no8 cost extension to carry forward to allow 

9 closeout with the present contractor. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Or even if it's the same 

12 contractor, you can carry some funds forward. 

13 So we are still looking at sort of this year as 

14 a package, either way. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. Okay. But so -- so we're 

16 talking about six months. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah -- I mean roughly -- 

19 roughly. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And I might observe, and I think 

21 you realize that closing out ten site profiles 

22 in six months, even if we had all -- even if we 

23 had to use all the money, would be a formidable 

24 task for this Board in terms of our workgroup 

25 activities. 
182

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Secondly, has NIOSH 

2 responded to the SC&A review of any of these 

3 site profiles, or how many have they responded 

4 to? 

5 DR. MAURO: Those ten, no response. In other 

6 words -- 

7 DR. MELIUS: No, no -- 

8 DR. MAURO: -- these are ten site profile 

9 reviews, the ones I just read, that were 

10 delivered but the -- to the Board, but there 

11 has not been a workgroup formed or the process 

12 started to close out those issues. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: I think we should recognize that 

14 the reality is, as we prioritize things, 

15 usually the closeout process is triggered by 

16 the Board saying we're ready to move ahead. I 

17 understand that they're there. The 

18 information's there for NIOSH to look at. But 

19 -- 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- unless -- unless we're ready to 

22 go with it, it -- well, you understand -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, I'm -- I'm not 

24 faulting -- trying to fi-- fault NIOSH for not 

25 having done something. I'm just trying to 
183

1 think if we're going to try to do this process, 

2 one, does NIOSH have the time to do it in six 

3 months, and -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, they would have -- 

5 DR. MELIUS: -- secondly -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: -- the same issue as the Board; 

7 it's a formidable task. 

8 DR. MELIUS: And they have some resource 

9 issues, too, at least in the sort term, with 

10 the renewal of the ORAU or whatever's going on 

11 with the contract and so forth, so -- the new 

12 contract. So I mean I think -- I'm not sure 

13 how far we're going to get with those six -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- 

15 DR. MELIUS: -- though I think we can think of 

16 a way of starting, but I think what John was 

17 talking about, I -- I just don't see us being 

18 feasible to do in that -- that time period and 

19 -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Let me add one other comment and 

21 then we'll hear from Larry. A concern I have -

22 - let -- let's assume, for example, that -- one 

23 scenario is we have a new contractor. It would 

24 be very difficult for us to be closing out 

25 those -- those documents with a contractor for 
184

1 whom it -- it's not their findings. 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: So -- okay. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott. I didn't take it 

5 that you were finding fault with us, Dr. 

6 Melius. When you first made your comment, I 

7 thought well, is he talking about a departure 

8 from process here, because certainly I could 

9 say that NIOSH could pick up one or two of 

10 these reviews and examine them and tell the 

11 Board where -- you know, where we're at on 

12 them. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: We can do that. 

15 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: It's going to -- you know, it's 

17 going to take time and resources to do that -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but that's -- that would be a 

20 departure from process and so -- I'm not 

21 advocating one way or the other, but I'm saying 

22 that's something that could be looked at as 

23 well. We could work with SC&A on a technical 

24 level and react. 

25 Here's the other part that I would like the 
185

1 Board to think about -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

3 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and as each one of these 

4 reviews are sitting on the shelf, they are also 

5 on our web site, and claimants hold these up to 

6 DOL and say look at this review on this site 

7 profile, and there are deficiencies noted in 

8 this. And so the Final Adjudication Branch of 

9 DOL turns that back to us to answer. All 

10 right? 

11 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: And in some cases when we get 

13 those back, we pend them. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: We hold those claims. And so 

16 those claimants are now further frustrated -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

18 MR. ELLIOTT: -- because they're back at NIOSH 

19 and they're not getting any answer. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: And we can't move forward because 

22 we don't have closure on a set of issues. In 

23 other cases we are able to provide a definitive 

24 disposition of the claim without going to the 

25 point of closure. 
186

1 DR. MELIUS: I guess a third question then is 

2 that -- say we -- okay, we have the procurement 

3 for the -- the new review contract that's going 

4 to go in place. Should SC&A be the -- 

5 successful in that, then would this money roll 

6 over into the new contract? How does that 

7 work? Or -- or would it -- would it roll over 

8 or would the activity be allowed to continue, I 

9 guess, it'd sort of be melded into the new 

10 contract if -- if SC&A were successful and 

11 decides to apply and wins and all that stuff. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. You asked a couple of 

13 questions, let me try -- at them all. 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: How -- how a new Board contractor 

16 is selected in this next cycle, to a degree, is 

17 a bit divorced from the current set of 

18 activities. And that's what I think Dr. Ziemer 

19 was saying. You've got professional opinions 

20 that you've sought from your current Board 

21 contractor, and those are pending further 

22 action from this Board. 

23 Now, he also mentioned that in our discussion 

24 with David Staudt, the procurement and grants 

25 officer for this -- for the Board from CDC, 
187

1 there is an opportunity for SC&A to be in a no2 cost extension situation to close out those -- 

3 the information from their current contract if 

4 SC&A is not selected on the next round. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, but I think there's -- Dr. 

6 Ziemer mentioned that possibility, but I -- the 

7 possibility I was -- what happens if SC&A is 

8 selected in the next round? 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Then -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: The-- then, you know -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I think Lew has some comments. Go 

12 ahead, Lew, you can help us on this 'cause 

13 you've been involved with David on procurement, 

14 but I believe those funds can still roll 

15 forward, can they not? 

16 DR. WADE: Right, they can in -- in two ways. 

17 I mean theoretically, if SC&A was to secure the 

18 next contract, you could have two contracts 

19 running concurrently. You could have the 

20 existing contract with the money in it, or it 

21 might be prudent for the government to in some 

22 way combine those two -- 

23 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

24 DR. WADE: -- but those -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: One thing we do know, that the new 
188

1 contract -- let's say it is a different entity 

2 -- does not contain money for closing out the 

3 old contractor's work. 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, no, I -- that's 

5 (unintelligible). 

6 DR. ZIEMER: And the deliverables under the 

7 contract were -- for example, the site profiles 

8 are deliverables under the contract, so S&CA 

9 has met that. But then we have the other task 

10 which involved the resolution of those. 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: You have to think of it this way. 

12 The money that has been awarded under this 

13 current contract goes to SC&A -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to finish the task. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 

17 DR. MELIUS: No, no -- 

18 DR. BRANCHE: And you've heard from John Mauro 

19 on a coup-- this is Christine. You've heard 

20 from John Mauro on a couple of occasions that 

21 they are holding money on reserve to be able to 

22 close out those reports. And I would just say 

23 it's just prudent bookkeeping for the cycle of 

24 -- of assignments to be completed in the ti-- 

25 as close to the time frame as possible. It's -
189

1 - and -- 

2 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: -- and I think Mr. Elliott's 

4 given you additional reason why, for other 

5 reasons as it concerns the claimants, that 

6 there are some reason-- that there's -- there 

7 are good reasons to be able to close those out. 

8 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Now -- oh, go ahead, Jim. 

10 DR. MELIUS: I would guess then sort of my 

11 opinion on how we should do here is, one, we -- 

12 the Board does need to work out a process for 

13 closing those out. I'm not sure a single 

14 workgroup is the -- is the ri-- best way and 

15 most efficient way, and I'm not sure I'd wish 

16 it on my other Board members or -- or they 

17 would wish it on me, I guess, given the 

18 potential scope of that. But I -- but I do 

19 think we -- we're obliged to come up with a 

20 mechanism and a schedule for figuring out how 

21 to resolve that within the -- the available 

22 resources. I'm just very skeptical that we -- 

23 that the way John suggested would -- would 

24 actually be workable in a -- in that period of 

25 time, given what it would take, not only from 
190

1 the Board members but also from NIOSH, to be 

2 able to -- to devote in terms of resources, 

3 time and -- time and effort. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let -- let me suggest a 

5 couple of things, perhaps to help focus our 

6 thinking. There's two parts to this. One is a 

7 resource issue for, in a sense, moving money 

8 out of the site profile part to make it 

9 available -- 'cause that's -- that's John's 

10 bank right now. 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And if the -- if the Board thinks 

13 something along the lines that John has 

14 described, maybe some variation of that or 

15 maybe that exactly, is a useful thing, we could 

16 get them underway on that, as a mat-- as an 

17 effort to free up funds, for example, to cover 

18 Task III. 

19 The other part of it is, we need to be thinking 

20 about the schedule itself for the closeout. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Whether or not we go to 

23 streamlining, I think we all recognize closing 

24 out ten site profiles, most of which are pretty 

25 sizeable facilities -- they're not -- not the 
191

1 little small guys, so to speak -- that a six2 month turnaround is just not feasible. 

3 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I would like to ask the question 

5 can we even think about a -- an 18-month 

6 turnaround, which is -- you know, for carrying 

7 money forward, if we're going much beyond that, 

8 that's a problem, but -- but I -- I guess I'd 

9 like the Board and SC&A to start to think 

10 seriously, maybe -- well, we -- we can't 

11 postpone thinking about this and say well, 

12 let's be thinking about it and we'll start to 

13 take action in three months or six months. 

14 DR. MELIUS: No. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We need to -- to start looking and 

16 say okay, what site profiles are we going to 

17 start working on sort of right away off the 

18 shelf, and -- and get some kind of a schedule 

19 on those. And perhaps how can that process be 

20 streamlined to free up the resources, so 

21 there's two parts to that. And per-- I -- I 

22 would suggest, maybe when we come to our work 

23 session tomorrow, that we come -- I don't want 

24 to invent this -- 

25 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 
192

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the spot. 

2 DR. MELIUS: So you'll be -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: But I don't want us to say yeah, 

4 let me cogitate for the next three months, or 

5 by October 1st I'm going to have a solution, 

6 because it's -- it's pressed upon us. It was -

7 - in essence was thrust upon us by -- perhaps 

8 this was a good thing for that particular 

9 budget to call attention to what was going on. 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. Can -- you know, I -- thank 

11 you for letting us procrastinate at least until 

12 tomorrow 'cause -- but two pieces of 

13 information I think would be useful to have by 

14 -- before we meet tomorrow. One is I would 

15 certainly like to have a fuller understanding 

16 of -- of what is the amounts of money left -- 

17 funding left in the different tasks. I mean 

18 you said you were able to do a short-term take 

19 -- take care of this, but I just need to 

20 understand what -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- what -- what happens and what 

23 was -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we have the monthly roll-ups 

25 and we can come up with that very easily. In 
193

1 fact, I have it on my computer, but we'll -- 

2 we'll have that in our work session tomorrow -- 

3 DR. MELIUS: Tomorrow, it -- yeah -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- on where we are on each task, 

5 and John can give it to us by percent. See, we 

6 -- we want to be around 50 percent of the task 

7 -- 

8 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- and this one was getting up 

10 toward 90 percent -- 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yeah -- no. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- and of course, as John said, 

13 he's put some money away, so he's been a 

14 prudent guard of -- of some of that money as 

15 well, so -- 

16 DR. MAURO: There is a -- there's $3 million 

17 left in this project for SC&A to use, in 

18 theory, over the next six months. So there are 

19 a lot of resources, but a large fraction of 

20 that is in the bank because we're moving -- we 

21 -- we've completed the vast majority of our 

22 deliverables, our procedures, our site profile 

23 reviews. We only really have two site profile 

24 reviews that are be-- in process right now, 

25 Santa Susana and Weldon Springs. We've 
194

1 completed 26 site profile reviews. So I mean -

2 - think of it like this. There are -- of all -

3 - of all the work we do, we deliver our work 

4 product as a draft and then we move into the 

5 closeout. Well, in effect, what I -- what I'm 

6 saying is that we have substantial funds, but 

7 we also have a substantial amount of work that 

8 has to be done to close out all of these produ9 - work products, so -- and I certainly have all 

10 the -- every -- all the information you might 

11 need, how much resources are left in each one 

12 of the tasks, and how to use those resources. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: And also it's -- it's probably -- 

14 as we think about this we may need to think 

15 about, for example, whether or not it's prudent 

16 to assign more profiles when we have all this 

17 backlog to resolve. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: What good does it do to put 

20 another one on the shelf at this point, you 

21 see. 

22 DR. MELIUS: And -- and then can we get a list 

23 of the -- these site profiles that are in 

24 limbo, so I think we -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Right, I think you read my -- 
195

1 DR. MELIUS: -- a written -- a written list 

2 would be -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: We'll get the list for -- right. 

4 Wanda? 

5 MS. MUNN: The budgetary concerns that we 

6 express here often fail to take into 

7 consideration what we as a Board do to the 

8 budget plan on a regular basis. It's a rare 

9 occasion that we do not postpone something that 

10 we are doing -- case in point, this very 

11 meeting -- with a request that our contractor 

12 perform a, quote, focused review or a broader 

13 review of a point or other points. Now these 

14 items have not been factored into our budget 

15 process, and we continually ask our contractor 

16 -- this is not an obscure case. We do this 

17 almost every meeting. We're asking them to add 

18 something more to the process. So when we find 

19 ourself in a position where we're squeezed in 

20 terms of where we want the budget to be and 

21 where our contractor wants the budget to be, it 

22 would seem wise for us to be very conscious at 

23 each step of our own process that we're 

24 creating a portion of the problem that we're 

25 attempting to overcome every time we say let's 
196

1 postpone this for six months and get a focused 

2 review in the meantime. We're adding to the 

3 issue. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Now keep in mind that the budget -

5 - or the tasks and the budgets do in fact 

6 specify certain monies for certain numbers of 

7 focused reviews. And Lew has been helpful, and 

8 Christine now, in making sure that in fact when 

9 we do that -- and they touch base with David 

10 Staudt to make sure it's within the framework 

11 of the larger task. So yes, we do add to that 

12 workload, but in general we've kept within the 

13 framework of -- of the annual big picture. But 

14 what has happened in this particular case -- I 

15 think in the procedures review, as we've 

16 developed -- I think particularly the -- the 

17 new instrument for -- for data sorting and so 

18 on, I believe that's taken more resources than 

19 we had originally thought it would, and the 

20 product is great and probably well worth it, 

21 but it has brought us to this -- this -- or at 

22 least focused on this issue, so -- Lew, you had 

23 another comment -- or Jim, you -- 

24 DR. MELIUS: No, I -- you gave my comment for 

25 me. Thank you. 
197

1 DR. ZIEMER: I took the words out of your 

2 mouth. 

3 DR. MELIUS: Out of... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Out of the mouths of babes. 

5 DR. MELIUS: Go that far with... 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see -- well, we'll return to 

7 this tomorrow during our work session. We do 

8 have a time certain item that -- or items that 

9 are before us here, and that is the -- the SEC 

10 petition updates dealing with Hanford, Sandia 

11 and Chapman, and we will also have – 

SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES:

12 HANFORD

13 DR. BRANCHE: And we have -- we're also going 

14 to have one thing back on Mound. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: One Mound item, okay. So let us 

16 begin with Hanford, and actually LaVon 

17 mentioned all of these in his summary, and now 

18 we will have the specifics on Hanford. And 

19 also with regard to Hanford -- just checking my 

20 list here -- Mary Ann Carrico, Rosemary Hoyt 

21 and [name redacted] I think are going to be 

22 with us. Are either or all of you on the 

23 phone? 

24 MS. HOYT: This is Rosemary and I am on. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Rosemary. And Mary Ann, are 
198

1 you on? 

2 MS. CARRICO: Yes, I am. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. [name redacted]? 

4 (No responses) 

5 Mary Ann or Rosemary, do you know if [name 

6 redacted] is going to be with us? 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: No, I have not heard from him. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Laurie, have you heard from him? 

9 DR. ZIEMER: [name redacted]? 

10 MS. BREYER: I mean I -- I mean I haven't 

11 called him today. I think he was a maybe, so 

12 he said yeah, he'd probably be on so I have him 

13 on there as a yes, but -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: But we should proceed? 

15 MS. BREYER: -- I can try to give him a call -- 

16 yeah, I'd proceed and I'll call him. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're going to proceed, so 

18 let's hear first from -- from Sam Glover. 

19 DR. GLOVER: Bomber already gave a good update 

20 so -- he stole my thunder. All right, so we're 

21 going to step back just a little bit and -- 

22 because this was a two-part review, I thought 

23 I'd just remind everybody how we got to this -- 

24 where we are. 

25 So this is a -- the Hanford update for the 
199

1 Special Exposure Cohort petition, Part 2. And 

2 just a little bit of background. We had three 

3 Hanford petitions qualify. One November 9th, 

4 2006, which was all production workers in the 

5 100 and 300 areas in the very earliest years of 

6 Hanford. We had another one, SEC-57 -- that 

7 was SEC-50, the first one. SEC-57 was November 

8 -- qualified on November 21st, 2006, which was 

9 all employees in all facilities in areas of 

10 Hanford Reservation from 1942 though December 

11 31, 1990. And then we had a third qualifying 

12 on February 28, 2007, which was for all roving 

13 maintenance, carpenters and apprentice 

14 carpenters that worked in the 100, 200, 300 and 

15 400 areas of Hanford from April 25th, 1967 

16 through February 1, 1971, and that was SEC-78. 

17 So just a brief reminder, these three petitions 

18 were merged into a single petition and 

19 evaluated under SEC-57. 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible conversation) 

21 DR. GLOVER: We split them into two periods 

22 because there was some... 

23 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible conversation) 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me. 

25 DR. GLOVER: Yes. 
200

1 DR. BRANCHE: The pers-- the people who are on 

2 the phone, if you could please mute your 

3 phones. If you do not have a mute button, then 

4 please use star-6. Thank you. 

5 DR. GLOVER: So one of the major reasons that 

6 we split that was because Part 1 was evaluating 

7 the DuPont years, during the DuPont contract 

8 time, from 1942 through September 1, 1946. And 

9 then Part 2 was from September 1, 1946 through 

10 1990. This presentation reports the 

11 conclusions of the evaluation for Part 2, and 

12 that first re-- that report was issued 

13 September 9th, 2007 -- I'm sorry, the evalu-- 

14 and the evaluation report for Part 1 was issued 

15 on May 2007 and presented to the Advisory Board 

16 in July of 2007. 

17 Just a brief reminder, the summary of the class 

18 added under Part 1, employees of the Department 

19 of Energy -- this just summarizes -- this was 

20 added October 12th, 2007, employees of the 

21 Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies 

22 or DOE contractors or subcontractors who were 

23 monitored, or should have been monitored, for 

24 internal radiological exposures while working 

25 at the Hanford Engineering Works in the 300 
201

1 area fuel fabrication and research facilities 

2 from October 1, 1943 through August 31st, 1946; 

3 and the 200 area plutonium separation 

4 facilities from November 1, 1944 through August 

5 31st, 1946; or the 100 B, D and F reactor areas 

6 from September 1, 1944 through August 31st, 

7 1946 for a number of work days aggregating at 

8 least 250 work days or in combination with work 

9 days within the parameters established for one 

10 or more other classes of employees in the 

11 Special Exposure Cohort. 

12 So that brings us to the second evaluated 

13 class, which we evaluated all employees in all 

14 facilities and areas of the Hanford Nuclear 

15 Reservation from September 1, 1946 through 

16 December 31st, 1990. This was presented to the 

17 Advisory Board in September of 2007. As part 

18 of this report, NIOSH's original class 

19 recommendation was as follows: All employees 

20 of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

21 agencies and DOE contractors or subcontractors 

22 who were monitored, or should have been 

23 monitored, for, one, internal thorium 

24 radiological exposures from September 1, 1946 

25 through December 31st, 1959 in the 300 area 
202

1 facilities: the metal fabrication building, 

2 313; the reactor fuel manufacturing pilot 

3 plant, 306; the 300 area maintenance shops, 

4 3722; or the radiochemistry laboratory, 3706; 

5 or internal americium radiological exposures 

6 from January 1, 1949 through December 31st, 

7 1968 in the following areas: the isolation 

8 building, 231-Z; the waste treatment facility, 

9 242-Z; and the plutonium finishing plant, 234-

10 5Z while working at the Hanford Nuclear 

11 Reservation -- the standard language regarding 

12 the 250 days. 

13 So that brings us to the update. So as LaVon 

14 mentioned, SC&A has had -- issued several white 

15 papers since we had our report, and NIOSH has 

16 continued to evaluate these param-- these class 

17 -- they issued a report on americium, thorium 

18 and uranium, and they discussed primarily where 

19 operations were conducted outside of the areas 

20 that we -- they limited the scope of their 

21 evaluation to the time frame that we had 

22 proposed. And they put forth that there may be 

23 other facilities that these were -- would be a 

24 concern. 

25 So NIOSH has continued to research these and 
203

1 other topics. I will admit, as we have 

2 discussed previously, that progress has been 

3 hindered by inability to access DOE data. 

4 We have had several workgroup calls and 

5 meetings. We had a workgroup call on March 

6 6th, 2008 and what I would like to put forward 

7 is that, based on the additional research, 

8 NIOSH proposed to revise the class definition 

9 and reissue the evaluation report for Part 2 of 

10 SEC-57. The proposed changes to the class will 

11 allow DOL to effectively administer the 

12 proposed class. 

13 We also followed this up with a working group 

14 call. These follow-up discussions were held 

15 between SC&A and NIOSH. The matrix was updated 

16 and discussed. We had some initial 

17 prioritization to the matrix items and kind of 

18 worked out what will be -- how we're going to 

19 proceed. 

20 Finally, NIOSH issued a revised evaluation 

21 report on March 31st, 2008, of which I believe 

22 everyone was provided a copy. 

23 So as part of that, NIOSH updated the proposed 

24 Hanford class, and the language will now -- now 

25 reads: All employees of the Department of 
204

1 Energy, DOE or its predecessor agencies and DOE 

2 contractors or subcontractors who worked from 

3 September 1, 1946 through December 31st, 1961 

4 in the 300 area; and from January 1, 1949 

5 through December 31st, 1968 in the 200 area at 

6 the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for a number of 

7 work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

8 occurring either solely under this employment 

9 or in combination with work days within the 

10 parameters established for one or more other 

11 classes of employment (sic) in the SEC. 

12 As part of that, we'll restate the health 

13 endangerment, that NIOSH has determined that it 

14 is not feasible to complete dose 

15 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

16 1949 through 1968 period in the 200 area for 

17 hazards associated with americium, nor for the 

18 1946 through 1961 period in the 300 area for 

19 hazards associated with thorium. 

20 NIOSH finds that the health of employees 

21 covered may have been endangered from chronic 

22 exposures from production and research 

23 activities in these areas. 

24 (Pause) 

25 So then a summary of our standard summary of 
205

1 feasibility slides. You note that for -- it is 

2 not feasible for thorium or americium during 

3 these time periods. For the other materials, 

4 we still retain that being feasible for 

5 plutonium, fission products, tritium, polonium, 

6 iodine, ambient environmental, and that -- 

7 believe we can reconstruct external doses in 

8 this time period. 

9 With that, Dr. Ziemer, I conclude the update. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Sam. Let's see if -- 

11 before we hear from the petitioners, let's see 

12 if we have any questions from the Board members 

13 on Sam's report. 

14 (No responses) 

15 If not, I'd like to ask Mary Ann or Rosemary, 

16 do either of you have comments for the Board 

17 today? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: We may have some speakers from 

19 the audience as well. 

20 MS. HOYT: Yes, this is Rosemary and I would 

21 like (break in transmission) (unintelligible) -

22 - 

23 DR. BRANCHE: If she could speak up. 

24 MS. HOYT: -- worked so hard any (break in 

25 transmission) (unintelligible) -- 
206

1 DR. ZIEMER: Mary Ann, you are breaking up, 

2 we're having a hard time hearing. Let's ask if 

3 -- oooh. 

4 MS. HOYT: Hello? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, try it again. We're having 

6 trouble -- your phone seems to be breaking up 

7 as you speak. We're hearing just clipped vowel 

8 sounds. Maybe move back a little bit from the 

9 mouthpiece and try again. 

10 MS. HOYT: Okay, I took it off speaker phone. 

11 Is that better? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: That's much better. Thank you. 

13 MS. HOYT: I would also like to 

14 (unintelligible). I've had difficulty with 

15 (unintelligible) getting his (unintelligible). 

16 I'd like to just thank everybody who has worked 

17 on this and (unintelligible) also to Dr. Melius 

18 (unintelligible). 

19 There are a few things that I would like to go 

20 over on the (unintelligible) petitioner 

21 requested (unintelligible) basis in NIOSH22 proposed class (unintelligible), and this is a 

23 quote. The SEC-00057 petitioner 

24 (unintelligible) exists for several individual 

25 workers listed in the petition. NIOSH found 
207

1 monitoring data information (unintelligible) 

2 petitioner did not support submission date 

3 qualifying the petition. However, during the 

4 qualifying process NIOSH identified 

5 (unintelligible) monitoring for 

6 (unintelligible) NIOSH qualified SEC-00057 on 

7 this date, end quote. 

8 There are two misrepresentations in the above 

9 statement. The first is petition 00057 cites 

10 far more than (unintelligible) monitoring 

11 records. We responded (unintelligible) request 

12 (unintelligible) 2006. This letter became a 

13 supplement to (unintelligible) petition. The 

14 letter (unintelligible) were not monitored or 

15 (unintelligible) monitored, falsification of 

16 records, (unintelligible) records, under17 reported neutron doses, (unintelligible) not 

18 accurate and in adequate. Bioassay records did 

19 not exist or were lost or destroyed. Under 

20 section (unintelligible) point four of the 

21 original petition, we included the Hanford site 

22 profile (unintelligible) requesting that NIOSH 

23 qualify the petition based on their findings. 

24 When Laurie Ishak, now Breyer, called to tell 

25 us the petition had qualified for evaluation, 
208

1 she told us it was (unintelligible) based on 

2 the SC&A report. Finding two in the 

3 (unintelligible) of that report specifically 

4 addressed (unintelligible). I request that 

5 (unintelligible) be corrected to accurately 

6 state the facts. 

7 4.3 of the (unintelligible) report, facility 

8 employees and experts. There were two groups 

9 interviewed. The minutes (unintelligible) 

10 really something that gets to me. The minutes 

11 of the March meeting are (unintelligible) on 

12 the OCAS web site, but (unintelligible) minutes 

13 are not. The (unintelligible) minutes were 

14 specifically for the class covered by 

15 (unintelligible) petition 00057 Part 2. The 

16 (unintelligible) of this information is 

17 worthless. It's outrageous that these minutes 

18 cannot be (unintelligible) in a timely manner. 

19 External monitoring in general (unintelligible) 

20 not be consistently applied (unintelligible) 

21 stated. I state that if, quote, consistently 

22 applied, end quote, equates consistently 

23 absent, this might be a true statement. 

24 In the comments to the Advisory Board for 

25 October 4th, 2007 we stated worker outreach 
209

1 meetings (unintelligible) the worker exposure A 

2 was not monitored for all employees, B 

3 (unintelligible) bucket at the end of the 

4 shift, C employees were transported 

5 (unintelligible) without monitoring devices, D 

6 monitoring devices were worn under layers of 

7 protective clothing and not on areas of the 

8 body being exposed, and we question that 

9 (unintelligible) monitoring (unintelligible). 

10 Somebody's dog (unintelligible) -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: I gather that's not your dog. If 

12 someone on the line has a dog barking, please 

13 mute your phone or mute your dog, whichever 

14 works better. 

15 MS. HOYT: Okay, (unintelligible) statement 

16 (unintelligible) affidavit (unintelligible) 

17 petition and then (unintelligible) out of the 

18 ER it says potential unreported neutron dose 

19 (unintelligible) distribution (unintelligible) 

20 August 27th, 1997 (unintelligible). We did not 

21 submit that letter. The letter 

22 (unintelligible) stated was in a file 

23 (unintelligible) former worker who assisted us 

24 and submitted an affidavit for the petition. 

25 (Unintelligible) only record in our response 
210

1 (unintelligible). We also claim there is a 

2 conflict of interest (unintelligible). This is 

3 (unintelligible) the Board's (unintelligible) 

4 in the past. We would appreciate 

5 (unintelligible) being fully addressed. 

6 (Unintelligible) quote (unintelligible) 

7 submitted by SEC-00057 petition regarding 

8 (unintelligible) records, location of records, 

9 (unintelligible) condition of individual -- are 

10 you there? 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Yes. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead. 

13 MS. HOYT: Hello? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, we're here. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: We're still here. 

16 MS. HOYT: Okay. It -- it sounded 

17 (unintelligible). But (unintelligible) workers 

18 incidents and exposures. The affidavit also 

19 covered falsification of records, coercion to 

20 falsify records, loss or destruction of 

21 bioassay records and lack of cooperation from 

22 the FO-- from the FOIA office, DOE 

23 (unintelligible). We would appreciate 4.7 

24 being corrected to accurately reflect the 

25 facts. 
211

1 On 7.1, pedigree of the Hanford data, the 

2 Hanford pedigree has little credibility or 

3 reliability. (Unintelligible) is not accurate, 

4 (unintelligible) does not (unintelligible) 

5 favorable and the TBD is not accurate and is 

6 incomplete. Out of the -- a quote out of 7.1, 

7 current and past Hanford workers have access to 

8 their records at any time upon request, end 

9 quote. This is not true. The FOIA process is 

10 burdensome, unfriendly, inaccurate, not 

11 (unintelligible). The FOIA officers are 

12 uncooperative. Personal exposure records are 

13 not accurate. Worker outreach meeting speakers 

14 that were rad techs confirmed that their own 

15 exposure records were not accurate. The 

16 (unintelligible) issues in, quote, official use 

17 only, quote, issues limiting access to records. 

18 I think that this is (unintelligible). 

19 7.4, evaluation of (unintelligible) for SEC20 00057-2. (Unintelligible) accurately states 

21 the fact (unintelligible), (unintelligible) 

22 were not monitored or consistently monitored, 

23 falsification of records, coercion to falsify 

24 records (unintelligible) accurate and 

25 inaccurate bioassay records did not exist 
212

1 (unintelligible) employees. 

2 On behalf of my sister and all the former and 

3 current workers of Hanford, we would appreciate 

4 your resolution of these (unintelligible). 

5 Thank you very much. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Mary Ann (sic). I'd 

7 like to ask a question for clarification on the 

8 -- of the manuscripts that you were having 

9 difficulty -- I think you mentioned the June 

10 minutes, was that correct, or was it the 

11 transcripts? 

12 MS. HOYT: The June minutes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: They're all posted. According -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Are they the transcripts or the 

15 minutes? 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Everything we have -- Ms. Hoyt, 

17 this is Christine Branche. According to my 

18 records, everything that we have for all 

19 meetings in June of 2007 have been posted. 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

21 (Unintelligible) worker outreach -- 

22 MS. HOYT: Well, I (unintelligible) to -- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Now if you're talking about a 

24 worker outreach meeting, that's different. Is 

25 that what you're talking about, a worker 
213

1 outreach meeting? 

2 MS. HOYT: Okay. Now that's -- that -- that's 

3 something that the NIOSH staff handles and not 

4 the Board. 

5 MS. HOYT: Yes, and I received a reply back and 

6 it said that it was not on their web site at 

7 this time. It's from -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: We don't handle those. 

9 MS. HOYT: -- update Ms. Hoyt, at this time I 

10 have not been provided with final 

11 (unintelligible) the meeting you are referring 

12 to in the e-mail below. Please note that if 

13 the meeting was a worker outreach meeting, 

14 information about the meeting is not posted 

15 until the final minutes are approved and 

16 available for public distribution. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: This has nothing to do with -- 

18 MS. HOYT: Which brings up another question, 

19 and that is why are the worker outreach 

20 meetings being redacted now when they were not 

21 redacted in the past? Why is this process so 

22 burdensome that from June to now they cannot be 

23 posted? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're going to try to track 

25 that down. The Board is not involved with the 
214

1 worker outreach minutes, but we're going to try 

2 to find out -- also on the redaction here -- 

3 Larry Elliott has a comment here that was -- 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't -- I don't know which 

5 worker outreach effort we're speaking about and 

6 I don't know who sponsored it. If it was -- if 

7 it was a meeting in -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Might it have been Labor? 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: We did sponsor it? Okay. Well, 

10 if we sponsored it, then there should be a set 

11 of minutes that are being created for that -- 

12 that meeting. The minutes of these worker 

13 outreach meetings that NIOSH has sponsored and 

14 held, whether it be a town hall type meeting, a 

15 -- a focused panel group meeting or individual 

16 interviews, those things have always gone 

17 through Privacy Act review before we post them, 

18 before we share them, so... 

19 DR. ZIEMER: And keep in mind that those are 

20 not -- those aren't part of the same group 

21 covered by the Board's policy on that 

22 redaction, probably, or -- is there -- is the 

23 redaction policy different than -- 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: The Board's activities are 

25 covered under FACA. 
215

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: The program's activities are 

3 covered under the Privacy Act in FOIA. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Which is different. 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so the redaction policy of 

7 the agency on those -- on those matters is 

8 different than the Board's, which is under the 

9 Federal Advisory Act issue -- or laws, so there 

10 is a difference in the redaction there. 

11 MS. HOYT: So the worker outreach meetings were 

12 not redacted. (Unintelligible) the site will 

13 be that former worker outreach meetings 

14 (unintelligible) meetings (unintelligible) Mr. 

15 (unintelligible) who was a worker who has 

16 (unintelligible) and I would like to have the 

17 redaction policy for worker outreach meetings 

18 (unintelligible) because they are 

19 (unintelligible). 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, these are -- these are 

21 meetings that, when minutes are captured -- as 

22 they have always been -- will have to go 

23 through Privacy Act review before they are 

24 released. Yes, there will be names in these 

25 minutes. Names of government employees are not 
216

1 redacted. Names of individuals who worked at a 

2 site and are representing themselves as having 

3 worked at that site may not be redacted, or may 

4 be redacted, given the particular context of 

5 how they -- of what they had to say. So you 

6 may expect to see minutes continue to be 

7 redacted before they are shared and publicly 

8 distributed. You may expect to see holes in 

9 those where certain people's names or personal 

10 identifiable information that is sensitive has 

11 been struck out. I am sorry for that, but that 

12 is the way we have to live. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and that is different from 

14 the Board meetings and minutes. 

15 Okay, Board members, any other -- 

16 MS. HOYT: (Unintelligible) Elliott and I 

17 should discuss this further in a different -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, sure, right. 

19 MS. HOYT: -- (unintelligible) if I could have 

20 Mr. Elliott's phone number (unintelligible) e21 mail to me I would appreciate it. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, he -- he has your number and 

23 will call you then, Mary Ann. 

24 MS. HOYT: This is Rosemary. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Rosemary, okay. I'm sorry. 
217

1 MS. HOYT: Thank you. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any other comments from 

3 either of the petitioners? 

4 MS. CARRICO: This is Mary Ann Carrico. I'd 

5 like to comment. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

7 MS. CARRICO: I would like to say that we were 

8 relieved that NIOSH and SC&A came to agreement 

9 on (unintelligible) areas rather than specific 

10 buildings within the areas of Hanford. 

11 Also on the white paper prepared by SC&A 

12 (unintelligible) issue for the proposed Hanford 

13 petition to the special cohort, there's a 

14 specified roving workers. This includes 

15 construction workers, instrument technicians 

16 and maintenance workers. These people would 

17 generally perform work in various parts of the 

18 area. They'd be required to go into a variety 

19 of buildings. There were several 

20 (unintelligible) workers who were not mentioned 

21 in the white paper. The security emergency 

22 response people, the transportation 

23 (unintelligible) to name a few; there may be 

24 others. I (unintelligible) in the roving 

25 workers. We question how NIOSH 
218

1 (unintelligible) worker. 

2 Also, my other question is, are the other 

3 findings on the matrix (unintelligible) for 

4 exclusion in the SEC. Thank you. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we will ask that those 

6 questions be looked at. I don't know if we 

7 have the answers to those at the moment. 

8 MR. ELLIOTT: It's all workers. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: It's all workers, so it's not a -- 

10 any ro-- any of the roving workers. 

11 DR. MELIUS: The definition is who worked in 

12 those areas -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: -- so it's not -- you know. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: The naming of some of them does 

16 not -- is not limiting; it's an example, more 

17 or -- 

18 DR. MELIUS: Right. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Can I just comment on -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius has -- 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- the last question? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- a comment for you. 

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just to say that -- I think 

25 as we all know, we're early in the review of 
219

1 this SEC evaluation report, and so the many 

2 other issues that are in the matrix, most of 

3 them are still open and we're trying to figure 

4 out a -- sort of a way forward, what's the most 

5 efficient way forward. We have been stymied by 

6 the fact that both NIOSH and SCA have very 

7 limited, if any, access to records from the 

8 site at the moment. It's been over six months 

9 now, have not had access, and this is causing a 

10 I think very significant delay in the work that 

11 -- that both NIOSH needs to do to complete some 

12 of the work to both respond to SC&A's comments, 

13 as well as some other work they've already 

14 planned in their evaluation report, and 

15 certainly makes it essentially impossible for 

16 SC&A to review any of the -- the work in the 

17 NIOSH -- any more of the work in the NIOSH 

18 evaluation report. We've talked -- as part of 

19 the working group, as well as some techni-- 

20 technical call to try to, you know, make -- 

21 develop a way that -- that we can go forward on 

22 some of these issues, but it's -- it's very 

23 limited until DOE resolves the issue of access 

24 to records at this site. As I said, it's been 

25 over six months and I -- I don't know, Larry, 
220

1 if you have any further information. All we 

2 heard today from DOE was that there may be an 

3 update or some plan or something, but I don't 

4 know -- I haven't -- yet to hear a schedule for 

5 access. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't -- I don't know if -- Sam 

7 has been working as the NIOSH point of contact 

8 to coordinate with SC&A on what information 

9 needs we have and prioritize those so we can 

10 put them in front of DOE. I think that has 

11 happened. Right, Sam? 

12 DR. GLOVER: That is correct. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: And -- and DOE is telling me 

14 today that -- that they are going to respond to 

15 that prioritized set of requests, so I take 

16 that to mean -- and I asked specifically, does 

17 that mean the logjam is broken and work can 

18 start? Yes, that's what I hear. So we should 

19 start knocking on the door and seeing, you 

20 know, how far we get with our requests. 

21 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

23 DR. MELIUS: Thank you. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Any further questions or comments? 

25 I was told there might be some Hanford folks 
221

1 here with us in person. Are there any here? 

2 (No responses) 

3 Apparently not. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) Department of 

5 Energy en route to Hanford. I'm on the phone. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: One of the things that I 

8 understood DOE was going to do first is give 

9 you guys some instruction on how to do -- do 

10 your own searching and sorting, but you know, I 

11 don't know, so we'll see. 

12 DR. GLOVER: Do you want any details? Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: There -- there was someone else on 

14 the phone, a Hanford person, we didn't catch 

15 your name. 

16 UNIDENTIFIED: This is Gail (unintelligible), 

17 I've been working with Sam on giving them on18 line access to some of our finding aids to -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Did you have any 

20 comments on that for us? Any -- any additional 

21 comments on this discussion? 

22 (No responses) 

23 Apparently not. Okay, thank you. 

24 DR. GLOVER: It's -- we are working with DOE -- 

25 we have developed a formal strategy of keyword 
222

1 searches that will help support the matrix, a 

2 closure of these items. Both SC&A and NIOSH 

3 have put together a common set of search terms 

4 to reduce the duplication of this effort, so 

5 we're going to share those resources. We've 

6 put that forward to the DOE so they can 

7 prioritize and understand a better -- have a 

8 better understanding of how much resources they 

9 need to put forward. And so pending a meeting 

10 I think in the next week which we will begin -- 

11 able to have an understanding of what the 

12 schedule will be so we can gain access to those 

13 records. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Greg has -- 

15 MR. LEWIS: This is Greg Lewis from DOE. I 

16 just want to back up what -- what Sam said. 

17 You know, we are committed to getting them in 

18 there to start looking at the records as soon 

19 as possible. We're working with Gail, working 

20 with Sam. We believe we have a plan that 

21 should be successful. There are a couple of 

22 final issues that we'll be meeting on later 

23 this week, and we should be able to dive right 

24 in as -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 
223

1 MR. LEWIS: -- soon after that as possible. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Further questions? 

3 DR. MELIUS: No, I've... 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Is there anything further we need 

5 to do on Hanford at this time then? 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I need to make a motion. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead. 

8 DR. MELIUS: I'll offer a motion, it's a 

9 lengthy motion -- get Ray ready. 

10 Board recommends that the following letter be 

11 transmitted to the Secretary of Health and 

12 Human Services within 21 days. Should the 

13 Chair become aware of any issue that in his 

14 judgment would preclude the transmittal of this 

15 letter within that time period, the Board 

16 requests that he promptly informs the Board of 

17 the delay and the reasons for this delay, that 

18 he immediately works with NIOSH to schedule an 

19 emergency meeting of the Board to discuss this 

20 issue. 

21 The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

22 Health, the Board, has evaluated SEC Petition 

23 00057-2 concerning workers at the Hanford 

24 Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington 

25 under the statutory requirements established by 
224

1 EEOICPA, incorporated into 42 CFR Section 

2 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends 

3 Special Exposure Cohort status be accorded to 

4 all employees of the Department of Energy, its 

5 predecessor agencies and DOE contractors or 

6 subcontractors who worked from, number one, 

7 September 1st, 1946 through December 31st, 1961 

8 in the 300 area; or two, January 1st, 1949 

9 through December 31st, 1968 in the 200 area at 

10 the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for a number of 

11 work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

12 occurring either solely under this employment 

13 or in combination with work days within the 

14 parameters established for one or more other 

15 classes of employees in the SEC. 

16 The Board notes that although NIOSH found that 

17 they were unable to completely reconstruct 

18 radiation doses for these employees, they 

19 believe they may be able to reconstruct 

20 external doses, and internal doses (other than 

21 americium and thorium). 

22 This recommendation is based on the following 

23 factors: Hanford Reservation facility was 

24 involved in development, manufacture of nuclear 

25 weapons; two, NIOSH found there was 
225

1 insufficient monitoring data, information on 

2 radiological operations at these laboratories 

3 in order to be able to complete accurate 

4 individual dose reconstructions involving 

5 internal exposures to thorium in the 300 area 

6 and americium in the 200 area of the facility 

7 during the time periods in question. The Board 

8 concurs with this conclusion. 

9 NIOSH determined that health may have been 

10 endangered for the workers exposed to radiation 

11 in the 200 and 300 areas of the Hanford Nuclear 

12 Reservation during the time periods in 

13 question. The Board concurs with this 

14 determination. 

15 Enclosed is rec-- supporting documentation from 

16 the recent Advisory Board meeting held in 

17 Tampa, Florida where this Special Exposure 

18 Cohort class was discussed. If any of these 

19 items are unavailable at this time, they will 

20 follow shortly. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: You heard the motion. Is there a 

22 second? 

23 MR. CLAWSON: Second. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Got a couple of seconds here. Any 

25 discussion? 
226

1 I have a question. This is kind of a devil's 

2 advocate type of question. In light of the 

3 documents that we don't have from Hanford, what 

4 level of confidence does NIOSH have that the 

5 issues that lead you to -- to recommend this as 

6 a class of the SEC would not be resolved in the 

7 materials that may be forthcoming? Probably a 

8 question you can't answer, but it seems to me 

9 we have to ask it anyway. 

10 DR. GLOVER: The driving point is that there 

11 were no bioassay during that early phase for 

12 those nuclides. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: So -- and we know that for certain 

14 -- 

15 DR. GLOVER: Absolutely. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's not simply that we haven't 

17 seen the records. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Through interactions with many 

19 different sites and different levels, there is 

20 absolutely no bioassay at that facility. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: That's what I wanted to hear. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I think the issue was 

23 the -- the sort of class definition, how do you 

24 -- and given, I think -- or you -- what 

25 information we did have on operations, the 
227

1 facility and so forth, that -- that going to 

2 the -- the area definition as opposed to 

3 building definition was -- was probably much 

4 more appropriate as a way -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that -- that part's all 

6 right. 

7 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah, yeah -- yeah, regardless, 

8 yeah. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Just to make sure that -- 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- there's no doubt that -- that 

12 there were no bioassay. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, there are a number of other 

14 issues at the site that -- that -- that, as I 

15 said, we are stymied until we have access to 

16 records and NIOSH -- I mean just to be able to 

17 begin discussions on -- on some of these 

18 issues, and that's why -- so adamant about the 

19 records access issue. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments or discussion on 

21 this? 

22 DR. POSTON: I have ques-- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Poston? 

24 DR. POSTON: I have a clarification -- Jim, you 

25 named some specific areas -- 
228

1 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 

2 DR. POSTON: -- in your motion, and I didn't -- 

3 maybe I missed it. I didn't think I heard all 

4 the areas included, which was what LaVon -- I 

5 thought LaVon was talking about. I mean -- not 

6 -- I'm sorry, I've -- did you name all the 

7 areas, is that -- just for clarification? 

8 DR. MELIUS: It's the same -- they match the 

9 definition. 

10 DR. POSTON: Since I don't have it to read, I 

11 have to ask the question. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah, no, I -- take another 

13 look at it tomorrow 'cause it's a little tricky 

14 to write, given the -- two separate areas, but 

15 -- 

16 DR. POSTON: So you did -- not -- 

17 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

18 DR. POSTON: So it's all the workers in all the 

19 areas. 

20 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: It's all facilities and areas. 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: They're -- Dr. Poston -- 

24 DR. GLOVER: No. 

25 DR. MELIUS: No. So -- 
229

1 DR. GLOVER: It is the 300 area and the 200 

2 area. 

3 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it's both those areas, yes. 

4 DR. GLOVER: The 100 area -- for -- just for 

5 review, the 100 areas are primarily the reactor 

6 facilities. 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, yeah. 

8 DR. POSTON: Okay. 

9 MS. BEACH: I have a question. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: You need to come to the 

11 microphone. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Josie's question is -- 

13 MS. BEACH: The 200 area is -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- as a site expert. 

15 MS. BEACH: -- actually plural. There's an 

16 east and a west. Does it cover both east and 

17 west? 

18 DR. GLOVER: It -- it -- yes. 

19 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Are you ready to vote then? It 

21 appears we're ready to vote. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley, you're on by phone, 

23 so may I get your vote first? 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, I can get your vote, or yes 
230

1 is your -- is your decision? Mr. Presley? 

2 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, yes. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Clawson? 

4 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Gibson? 

6 MR. GIBSON: Gibson. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Griffon? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Melius? 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Poston? 

12 DR. POSTON: Yes. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler? 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Schofield? 

16 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Ziemer? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: And I'll get Dr. Lockey's vote. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And the record will show that Ms. 

21 Beach is not voting on this. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Nor is Ms. Munn. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Nor Ms. Munn. 

24 DR. POSTON: I apologize to Sam for calling him 

25 by the wrong name. 
231

1 DR. ZIEMER: I declare that the motion has 

2 carried and we will transmit the appropriate 

3 recommendation to the Secretary for action. 

4 DR. MELIUS: And can -- can I make one final 

5 comment? I would just like to thank Sam and 

6 the people -- other staff at NIOSH for sort of 

7 -- we're trying to do this -- that -- move this 

8 forward sort of incrementally and -- been very 

9 good to work with and I think we've -- we've 

10 got a process in place that, once we get access 

11 to the information, I think will allow us to go 

12 through -- it's a large facility with a lot of 

13 complicated issues -- I think pretty rapidly 

14 and I think between S-- SC&A and NIOSH and the 

15 workgroup, I think we've -- able to make good 

16 progress. 

17 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES:

18 SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY-LIVERMORE

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Next we have Sandia 

20 National Lab Livermore. It says that -- that 

21 Paul Ziemer is making the presentation. 

22 Actually that's not the case. I'm simply 

23 declaring that that's where we are on the 

24 agenda. The -- 

25 DR. BRANCHE: May I -- may I, Dr. Ziemer? 
232

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: For those of you participating by 

3 -- by phone, I know I sound a bit like a broken 

4 record. I would like you to please mute your 

5 phone, and if you do not have a mute button, 

6 please dial star-6. It's important not only 

7 that our court reporter be able to record 

8 information correctly when he prepares the 

9 transcript, but also understand the background 

10 noise that's created when your line is open 

11 makes it difficult for other participants by 

12 phone to get all of the information that's 

13 going on in our Board -- in our room here. So 

14 I do ask -- I encourage strongly that you mute 

15 your phones. Thank you so much. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. The Sandia National 

17 Laboratory material was actually presented to 

18 us at our last meeting by Sam Glover. Sam, 

19 perhaps you would take a moment and just remind 

20 the Board of -- of the recommendation and where 

21 we were on that. We -- we had a -- an 

22 evaluation report and recommendation from NIOSH 

23 on Sandia, and we need to see the bottom line, 

24 and I believe in -- in LaVon's review he 

25 reminded us on -- on that particular one that -
233

1 - that was tabled so the Board could review the 

2 -- I believe it was the addendum. 

3 DR. GLOVER: I did not bring the presentation 

4 down here yet. If you want the -- the 

5 (unintelligible) -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we need the whole 

7 presentation, just... 

8 DR. BRANCHE: LaVon is bringing up his stuff, 

9 too -- there it is. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: There it is. Just go to the 

11 bottom line on that one. 

12 DR. GLOVER: Let's see -- so let me make sure 

13 we have the -- we actually had several -- we 

14 had the first -- the evaluation was approved, 

15 sent to the Board in March of 2007, as -- as 

16 LaVon mentioned that -- right before the Board 

17 meeting we received additional information and 

18 di-- after -- following the presentation on 

19 March -- actually the beginning of April at the 

20 Board meeting the Board asked us to update the 

21 evaluation report. We did so, and there was a 

22 change because what -- the real change -- the 

23 material that came was that there was potential 

24 for direct beam interactions, and so that was 

25 the major change in the evaluation report that 
234

1 we reissued and presented in October 2007. 

2 At that point in time the Board tabled the 

3 vote. The petitioner provided -- it's weird to 

4 look at two different screens -- provided some 

5 additional information regarding I believe a 

6 number of items that were to be reviewed by the 

7 Board to see if they would make an impact on 

8 their evaluation of our -- of the evaluation 

9 report. We certainly could -- I -- I didn't 

10 bring that down, Dr. Ziemer. I'd be happy to 

11 put that forward. I could -- that 

12 presentation's previously in my room, depending 

13 on what level of detail you would like to see 

14 it. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: The -- the additional materials 

16 for the -- from the petitioner, as I recall, 

17 were distributed to the Board members to look 

18 at after that meeting. My understanding is 

19 that NIOSH found no reason to change their 

20 recommendation on the basis of those materials. 

21 Board -- Board members, I ask you now if any of 

22 you wish -- or are ready to make a 

23 recommendation on this particular petition? 

24 (No responses) 

25 If you are not ready to do that, I'm going to 
235

1 ask you again tomorrow if you are ready to do 

2 that. I -- I don't believe there's any point 

3 in continuing this for any longer. We've had 

4 the material in our hands for a fair amount of 

5 time. If you need to review it tonight, you 

6 can do that, but otherwise we need to take 

7 action. 

8 Give us your bottom line recommendation. The 

9 recommendation -- 

10 DR. GLOVER: Yeah, the recommendation was that 

11 we could do -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- was that you could reconstruct 

13 dose -- 

14 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I believe it was only an 

16 external dose issue, it was an X-ray device, as 

17 I recall. So that if the Board accepts -- 

18 accepts that recommendation, then there is 

19 nothing that would go forward to the Secretary 

20 since we would not be recommending a class. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: I might add, for the Board's 

22 understanding, if you recall, there are a very 

23 small number of individuals involved in this 

24 class, a total of three, one of which we have a 

25 claim for. And upon revisiting that dose 
236

1 reconstruction, I believe that claim is now at 

2 a compensable state. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there anyone that wishes 

4 to make a recommendation or make a motion? 

5 MS. MUNN: Well -- 

6 DR. MELIUS: We'll do it tomorrow. 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: Can we pick it up -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: We can pick it up tomorrow -- 

9 well, I -- I've already told you that that's 

10 what's going to happen if I have no -- if no 

11 one is moving today, they -- 

12 DR. MELIUS: If we all leave the -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: If you all -- I think -- 

14 DR. MELIUS: If we all leave the room -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: You become motionless, I can tell 

16 that. Okay. 

17 DR. GLOVER: Dr. Ziemer, I would be happy to 

18 quickly review the main points of that tomorrow 

19 morn-- before your -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I'll ask you to do that. That may 

21 help the Board recollect this particular one. 

22 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I just wanted to see the 

23 bottom line. I couldn't -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and -- and keep in mind 

25 that, in essence, this petitioner -- as Larry 
237

1 has indicated -- this will not affect this 

2 petitioner any longer, in any event, either 

3 way. It's kind of a moot point issue. 

4 Although there are two -- there are two 

5 possible other petitioners. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Don't take my statement as to say 

7 that this won't affect the other two -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, I -- 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: -- because if one of those other 

10 two are both -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- said this particular 

12 petitioner, but there are two potential other 

13 ones. 

14 MR. RUTHERFORD: There -- one -- I'm sorry. 

15 There are two -- two people that are 

16 potentially in the class. However, they are 

17 not claimants -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

19 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- at this time. I'm just 

20 making sure -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Right, they are not claimants. 

22 [name redacted], are you on the line? I -- I 

23 didn't give his last name, did I? 

24 DR. BRANCHE: No, I'm trying to keep you from 

25 saying it. 
238

1 DR. ZIEMER: Is there anyone on the line named 

2 [name redacted]? Are there any petitioners... 

3 In the future, don't give me a list with 

4 people's names on it -- give me a redacted 

5 list. 

6 Apparently there's no one on the line from 

7 Lawrence (sic) Livermore. Thank you. I'm 

8 becoming motionless myself. 

9 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES:

10 CHAPMAN VALVE

11 We're going to move on to Chapman Valve, for 

12 which we have petitions from unknown people. 

13 DR. BRANCHE: And we have people in the room. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: We have some people in the room, 

15 but I'm not even going to tell you who they 

16 are. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: I think that might be smart. No 

18 one fr-- Dr. Ziemer, no one from Chapman 

19 Valve's name can be mentioned because it's -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Unless they wish to mention it. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: -- unless they wish to mention 

22 their own names if they are on the phone. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Are there any folks from Chapman 

24 Valve on the phone or any -- 

25 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 
239

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- Congressional people on the -- 

2 from -- representing Chapman? 

3 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

4 MS. BLOCK: Yeah, this is Sharon Block from 

5 Senator Kennedy's office. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

7 MS. REALE: Maryanne Reale, petitioner. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. We will have a report 

9 from the working group chair, Dr. Poston, on 

10 Chapman Valve, and then we will hear from those 

11 on the phone who wish to make comment. 

12 DR. POSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't have 

13 much of a report. As you know, there's been 

14 some -- addition of the Dean Street facility. 

15 There's been a reconsideration of that added to 

16 the group, and I guess the -- we've had a 

17 revision that was -- I'm -- can't find it here 

18 -- SEC petition evaluation report was reissued 

19 February the 5th of this year. And as far as I 

20 can see, it really hasn't changed the -- the 

21 conclusions that -- that NIOSH can do the dose 

22 reconstruction. And Jim Neton may want to have 

23 -- say something. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And the recommendation from the 

25 workgroup is? 
240

1 DR. POSTON: That -- that the petition is still 

2 as -- as it was, that the petition be denied. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Does NIOSH have any 

4 additional comments on this facility? Jim 

5 Neton. 

6 DR. NETON: Okay. Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. I'd 

7 just like to have a -- I have a few slides so 

8 I'll be somewhat brief. But I'd just like to 

9 address the changes that were made to the 

10 evaluation report that Dr. Poston alluded to 

11 that are based on the Department of Energy's 

12 research into additional activities that may 

13 have occurred at Chapman Valve. 

14 If you recall, NIOSH requested the Department 

15 of Energy to review the information surrounding 

16 Chapman Valve and to look at that definition to 

17 see if there were any additional work 

18 activities or sources of radiation-related work 

19 activities that occurred at Chapman Valve. And 

20 this was in direct response to some statements 

21 made in a site expert interview that SC&A 

22 captured during their worker outreach 

23 activities that indicated that there may have 

24 been activities off-site -- that is, at Dean 

25 Street. In fact, there was some speculation 
241

1 that maybe those activities could have involved 

2 additional exposure to radioactive materials. 

3 We sent -- we requested this from Department of 

4 Energy, and they provided a response to us in a 

5 letter report dated January 7th, 2008. And 

6 their conclusion in that report was the Dean 

7 Street facility is indeed -- should be covered 

8 under the Atomic -- AWE facility, it is now 

9 part of the covered facility definition. But 

10 they did state in their report that they found 

11 no indication of additional radiological 

12 activities that occurred at Dean Street after 

13 their somewhat I think apparently detailed 

14 review of the records. 

15 I'd just like to go a little bit into that 

16 review. We did look at the additional 

17 information that was provided by Department of 

18 Energy. They sent over -- and we have put all 

19 this information on the -- on the O drive for 

20 the Board to review as well -- about 30 letter 

21 documents documenting the manufacture of valves 

22 and manifolds for the Y-12 electromagnetic 

23 enrichment facility that was being constructed 

24 in Oak Ridge. No doubt that Y-12 -- or Chapman 

25 Valve manufactured these manifolds for the -- 
242

1 what's called the racetracks down at -- in Oak 

2 Ridge. In addition to these letters there were 

3 about 40 engineering drawings of various valves 

4 and manifolds, sort of documenting what their 

5 configurations were. 

6 In those -- in that information, though, there 

7 was no indication of shipment of valves for 

8 repair. And if you recall, that was one of the 

9 -- the statements made by the subject expert 

10 from Chapman Valve, that she had a very de-- 

11 very real recollection of -- of things being 

12 shipped up from Oak Ridge to Chapman Valve, 

13 being staged at the main facility and then 

14 being transferred over to the Dean Street 

15 facility. However, in looking through these 

16 records, I was caught by the similarity of some 

17 of the test specification documents for valves 

18 and manifolds that were included in these 30 

19 essentially letter reports. And that is, as -- 

20 what I would call test specification for valves 

21 and manifolds, and I worked for equipment 

22 manufacturers and we would call these factory 

23 acceptance tests. That is, when you make a new 

24 product, oftentimes in the purchase 

25 specifications you'll require that -- you know, 
243

1 the purchaser will visit the site, hook up the 

2 equipment and test it to make sure it meets the 

3 specs. And in fact there were about three or 

4 four letters that -- that spoke to this, that 

5 each pump and manifold should be tested before 

6 shipment down to Oak Ridge, and that is in the 

7 presence of the purchaser's representative -- 

8 if you recall, the expert talked about people 

9 coming up to the site -- and using purchaser's 

10 test equipment. And this is not little 

11 equipment. They speak of these 440 volt valves 

12 and pumps and test gauges and all these sort of 

13 things. Matter of fact, one of the letters 

14 spoke about -- from Chapman Valve telling Stone 

15 and Webster they actually needed six complete 

16 sets of these things to do their tests around 

17 the clock. So there is no doubt there was a 

18 lot of equipment shipped -- I'm not sure from 

19 where, but to Chapman Valve. Sometimes the 

20 shipment was requested from Westinghouse, 

21 sometimes the letter originated in Boston -- 

22 could have come from Oak Ridge; we don't know. 

23 At any rate, there were a number of tests 

24 conducted on these manifolds, presumably at the 

25 Dean Street facility. And also there were 
244

1 specifications about how these valves must be 

2 cleaned prior to shipment using these solvents, 

3 and also they must be coated with some sort of 

4 a drying agent, a desiccant, and that was also 

5 in the recollection of the site expert. So 

6 there's -- there seemed to be a match here 

7 between the recollections. 

8 At any rate, after looking through this -- 

9 looking at the DOE letter and also the 

10 documents provided by the Department of Energy, 

11 we saw nothing in their review that indicated 

12 there were additional sources of radioactive 

13 materials present at Chapman Valve, 

14 specifically nothing in the 1948 and '49 period 

15 -- that is the right period, am I right? I 

16 have to look and see if it -- what's the 

17 covered period for Chapman Valve? That was -- 

18 '46 -- whatever the covered period was for 

19 Chapman Valve, I think it's '48 and '49 -- 

20 MR. CLAWSON: '48 through '49. 

21 DR. NETON: '48 through -- I'm sorry. We saw 

22 nothing in there, in that period specifically. 

23 All this information that we talked about with 

24 these acceptance testing of the -- of the 

25 manifolds and such occurred in the early '40s, 
245

1 1943, 1944 time frame. Although we would say 

2 the acceptance requirements for these new 

3 products in the '43-'44 time frame are not 

4 inconsistent with the site expert's 

5 recollections. 

6 So to that end, after looking at all this 

7 information, we revised the evaluation report 

8 in February and distributed it to the Board and 

9 -- and put it on our web site, and additional 

10 text was added to pages 13 and 14 specifically 

11 of the report to summarize DOE's findings that 

12 the Dean Street facility is now part of the 

13 covered facility, and that their conclusion was 

14 that there was no -- and we support the 

15 conclusion that no additional sources of 

16 radioactivity were identified. 

17 So in essence, nothing changed in our 

18 evaluation report other than adding Dean Street 

19 to the covered facility, and you'll see that 

20 here. The previous definition just listed 

21 Building 23 at Chapman Valve. And then if you 

22 look at the revised definition, I've 

23 highlighted in yellow here "work at the Chapman 

24 Valve Manufacturing Company" and now we say 

25 "(i.e., Building 23 and the Dean Street 
246

1 Facility)" -- that is the total sum change of 

2 the report, other than a summary, like I say on 

3 pages 13 and 14, of what the DOE identified. 

4 So we still maintain that it's feasible to do 

5 dose reconstructions at Chapman Valve during 

6 the covered time period, and the summary is 

7 feasibility is possible, yes, and therefore 

8 health endangerment's not applicable. And 

9 here's the covered periods -- January 1, 1948 

10 through December 11th, 1949 -- in addition to 

11 this residual period, if you recall, that the 

12 petitioner has requested to be evaluated. That 

13 is January '91 through '93. We still do not 

14 have information on the '94-'95 time frame. 

15 That's it. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Questions for 

17 Jim? Yes, Jim Melius. 

18 DR. MELIUS: Jim, did you talk to the site 

19 expert yourself about these -- these letters 

20 and -- 

21 DR. NETON: No, I did not. 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- go over that -- okay. 

23 DR. NETON: No. 

24 DR. MELIUS: So it's just based on what 

25 information -- 
247

1 DR. NETON: I'm just suggesting that I looked 

2 at -- these factory acceptance tests were in 

3 there and they're very similar -- there's no 

4 information about contaminated manifolds being 

5 shipped up for repair, but there was a lot of 

6 information about factory acceptance tests 

7 being conducted on the newly-produced manifolds 

8 and a lot of test equipment being shipped to 

9 Chapman Valve. It was just an observation on 

10 my part and I just bring that up as an -- as 

11 just that, an observation. 

12 DR. MELIUS: Well -- okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Other questions? Okay, I 

14 understand that Sharon -- 

15 MR. CLAWSON: I've got one question. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, hang on -- Clawson. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: I -- I've still just got the 

18 question. You know, we pulled three samples, 

19 two of them were natural and we've still got 

20 one that's high enriched, so I -- I don't know 

21 how you can just cast that one sample off and 

22 say well, it didn't. There wasn't anything 

23 there -- or, you know, this -- this was kind of 

24 food for the fire, repairing manifolds or so 

25 forth like that and I -- and I just don't see 
248

1 how we can take and -- 

2 DR. NETON: Well -- 

3 MR. CLAWSON: -- discard that. 

4 DR. NETON: I -- I -- well, we could -- 

5 MR. CLAWSON: (Unintelligible) 

6 DR. NETON: We could talk more about this -- 

7 DR. POSTON: It's not highly enriched. That's 

8 a misstatement. 

9 MR. CLAWSON: What is it? 

10 DR. POSTON: It was what, less than two percent 

11 or about two percent? 

12 DR. NETON: It was 2.16 percent enriched, I 

13 believe. 

14 DR. POSTON: That's not highly enriched. 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) that's not high 

16 enriched. 

17 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, but -- 

18 DR. NETON: Not high enriched, but it was 

19 slightly enriched by their calculation. It is 

20 still unknown to us, even though SC&A has done 

21 some reviews in their -- their report, whether 

22 the sample truly was enriched uranium or not. 

23 I think it's SC&A's opinion that they feel it 

24 was. I'm not convinced that it was, based on -

25 - there's a lot of unknowns of what happened 
249

1 here. 

2 I could tell you a few more things that are 

3 also inconsistent here. I've spent a lot of 

4 time thinking about this. SC&A correctly 

5 indicated in their report that the -- the 

6 activity that was discovered at the west ramp, 

7 the loading ramp on the west end of Building 23 

8 where the sample was found, was I think 120 

9 picocuries per gram of uranium, and that's the 

10 one they cited was 2.16 percent enriched. What 

11 was interesting to me, though, was that the 

12 gamma measurement there was 32 micro R per 

13 hour, which was well above -- that's three 

14 times basically above background. That, to me, 

15 is not consistent with 120 picocurie per gram 

16 material. That just doesn't make any sense to 

17 me. 

18 In addition to that, if you look at the FUSRAP 

19 report and the cleanup activities, there's an 

20 indication that when Bechtel came in there in 

21 1995, they actually still found some elevated 

22 contamination at that spot, but they actually 

23 found it to continue underneath the ramp and 

24 actually had to jackhammer out part of the 

25 concrete to dig under there to pull out the 
250

1 rest of the contamination. So I really have no 

2 idea as to what -- what that might have been 

3 and how it -- when it got there. But it's 

4 still, to me, sort of an unknown. 

5 There is evidence that radium was used at the 

6 site. One of the worker outreach meetings 

7 someone talked about 100 to 200 radioactive 

8 radium sources that were used to X-ray 

9 materials. I know SC&A has commented that they 

10 believe that it couldn't have been radium 

11 because they're aware of the fact that the 

12 radium and U-235 share the same energy line, 

13 but I'm not convinced that that's necessarily 

14 the case 'cause you can't tell how they 

15 stripped out the contribution from the U-235 in 

16 that analysis. 

17 So anyway, there are a lot of unknowns there, 

18 you're right. But again, in the contract -- in 

19 the SEC period, 1948-'49, we have a complete 

20 picture, with a closure report and a 100-page 

21 document or so that documents every natural 

22 uranium activity that was carried on at that 

23 location; no evidence of enriched uranium being 

24 processed that would have exposed the workers, 

25 in our opinion. 
251

1 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Poston? 

2 DR. POSTON: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not 

3 being as complete as I should have, perhaps. 

4 If you read the revised report, there's 

5 basically no question about the external doses. 

6 Those -- the workers were monitored, lots of 

7 badges exchanged on a regular basis, processed 

8 by Rochester, so this -- there's no question 

9 about the external dose. That's never come up 

10 in -- as far as NIOSH is concerned, as far as I 

11 -- I can see, they feel that -- very strongly 

12 and very -- that they can reconstruct the 

13 external doses. The approach that they took in 

14 reconstructing the internal doses is based on 

15 bioassays, and the assumption that they took is 

16 what we call in health physics extremely 

17 conservative. They took the highest bioassay 

18 that they measured. They calculated an air 

19 concentration for the -- for that -- that would 

20 result in that bioassay. They assumed that 

21 every worker at the site was exposed at that 

22 air concentration every work day for about a 

23 year and a half, which is the period of time in 

24 which the Chapman Valve facility was operating. 

25 The point here is that if a -- if -- in these 
252

1 dose calculations and the calculation of POC, 

2 if a person doesn't reach 50 percent, they're 

3 never going to reach 50 percent, and that's the 

4 whole crux of the matter. We understand the 

5 external dose. We've made what in physics we 

6 would call a bounding calculation to see what 

7 it would -- would be the maximum, and if the 

8 POC doesn't come anywhere close to 50 percent, 

9 it will never be 50 percent. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I think we have Sharon 

11 Block on the line from Senator Kennedy's 

12 office. I'm allowed to say both of those 

13 names, I'm told. 

14 MS. BLOCK: Yes, (unintelligible). 

15 DR. ZIEMER: And Sharon, do you have a comment 

16 from the Senator? 

17 MS. BLOCK: Yes, I do. Can you hear me? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, very well. 

19 MS. BLOCK: I think you're aware the Senator 

20 sent you a letter last week concerning the -- 

21 this petition and (unintelligible) for dose 

22 rate (unintelligible) significant questions 

23 about what is known about the (unintelligible) 

24 Chapman Valve. And (unintelligible) question 

25 (unintelligible) the answer or (unintelligible) 
253

1 determination needs to be (unintelligible) now 

2 (unintelligible) this has gone on too long 

3 without (unintelligible) any answers 

4 (unintelligible) petition for the -- for the 

5 Chapman Valve petitioners, that this is not -- 

6 a process this lengthy was not what Congress 

7 had in mind when they created this -- this 

8 system and he would like to see 

9 (unintelligible). 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Are there any 

11 other folks on the line representing Chapman 

12 Valve? 

13 (No responses) 

14 We have a couple folks here that -- do you wish 

15 to speak? 

16 MR. PETERSON: Yes, I would. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, please address the assembly. 

18 MR. PETERSON: My name is Carl E. Peterson. 

19 [redacted] is a petitioner in the Chapman Valve 

20 issue. This is really my first meeting and 

21 [redacted] has been handling this, but my eyes 

22 were widened today in terms of the whole 

23 process and I've -- I have talked to some 

24 gentlemen and some people about what has 

25 transpired about Chapman Valve and I have a 
254

1 couple of issues -- not necessarily on the 

2 technical issues at this particular point 

3 because I have not had a chance to read them 

4 all and I'll certainly get a copy of the 

5 report. But certainly the dialogue I've heard 

6 just then from Mr. Clawson and -- and the 

7 assumptions made -- my understanding, the bill 

8 was written to give the applicant the benefit 

9 of the doubt. That's my understanding when the 

10 bill was written in Congress, and that's what 

11 is supposed to transpire today. What I just 

12 heard was something about manifolds that we say 

13 well, you know, I worked and they did this with 

14 manifolds, they cleaned manifolds, I don't 

15 think they sent manifolds that were radiated, 

16 but I didn't hear conclusively that that 

17 happened. I didn't -- I didn't really hear 

18 back that something was shipped or someone 

19 thought it was shipped. That -- that's not 

20 justification. That -- that is certainly not 

21 enough evidence to say that it didn't happen. 

22 The next issue, and I'll be very short in this. 

23 I was -- I was going to say something else just 

24 about [redacted] and -- you know, she lost her 

25 dad. He was 37 years old. She has spent seven 
255

1 years because the Department called her and 

2 says look, we want to do something for people. 

3 And they said okay, we're going to open up your 

4 heart again, and for seven years she's been 

5 sitting by -- and what I heard today was people 

6 making assumptions and people basing those 

7 assumptions on -- you know, I understand there 

8 was a report by Ferguson. I understand -- they 

9 were the contractors making the product at 

10 Chapman Valve. Now to me, just in simplistic 

11 terms, if I'm a businessman and I have someone 

12 making something for me, I don't depend on them 

13 to give me the report whether it's right or 

14 wrong. I haven't heard any justification -- if 

15 that person who could have a liability in 

16 relationship to what they're doing at a 

17 facility is giving you the report that 

18 everything's just fine and dandy and we're 

19 cutting up concrete and finding other items, I 

20 think just from a basic layman's understanding 

21 there seems to be something wrong. There's not 

22 conclusive evidence here. We could talk about 

23 science, and science can work both ways. I'm 

24 an engineer. I understand that. But it seems 

25 there's certain items related to this 
256

1 particular facility that we're making a broad 

2 assumption at this particular point in time. 

3 And I think we need to be more conclusive. And 

4 if the benefit of the doubt goes to the 

5 claimant, you can't just say that I think the 

6 valves weren't contaminated. You -- I don't 

7 think you have a right to say that. 

8 That's what I have to say at this point. Thank 

9 you. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Any other 

11 comments? 

12 Okay, Jim. 

13 DR. NETON: I'd just like to -- I think I 

14 pointed this out but I just want to be clear 

15 that the shipment of the valves was in 1943 and 

16 1944, which is outside the covered period for 

17 Chapman Valve right now. So right now the 

18 petition requested an evaluation for the 

19 current covered period, which is 1949-1950. I 

20 think that's an important thing to keep in 

21 mind. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: The valves were -- were not 

23 involved at that time. 

24 DR. NETON: The valves were not involved and 

25 it's not covered. I mean it may be indeed at 
257

1 some point in time become covered -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: So you're saying it leaves it 

3 open for -- 

4 DR. NETON: Certainly it leaves -- the 

5 possibility's open for that period to be opened 

6 and valves to be discovered to have been 

7 contaminated, if they indeed were. But right 

8 now '49 and '50 -- or '48 and '49 is the time 

9 period under evaluation. And the Department of 

10 Energy, with the Department of Labor 

11 collaboration, we've come -- come to that 

12 conclusion. 

13 MR. PETERSON: If I might? 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 MR. PETERSON: Correct me if I'm wrong. If -- 

16 let's -- let's go on the assumption the valves 

17 were contaminated. Does that mean they were 

18 set on the site in '43 and '44, there's no 

19 contamination and '45 there's no contamination? 

20 I mean I understand there's half-life, full 

21 life of these particular elements -- they just 

22 don't go away. You have to be realistic here. 

23 Because something's under -- not under your 

24 domain, that doesn't mean to say that 

25 particular item affects something in 1947. I -
258

1 - I think that's -- should be pretty clear. 

2 What's -- what's the life of the particular 

3 item? Is it less than five years? I don't 

4 think so. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius? 

6 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I believe at our last 

7 meeting we asked SC&A to review some issues. 

8 I'd sort of like to have a chance to hear from 

9 them. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

11 DR. MELIUS: If that's okay. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Who -- who is -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: There's Arjun. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- reporting for SC&A? 

15 DR. BRANCHE: There's Dr. Makhijani. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, Arjun Makhijani. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. We had 

18 five conclusions in our report, and I can just 

19 go over them very quickly if you'd like. 

20 Chapman Valve manufactured manifolds on a large 

21 scale and tested them prior to shipment to Oak 

22 Ridge. This would be during the Manhattan 

23 Project, and we agreed with the DOE and NIOSH 

24 finding there. So those were the first two 

25 conclusions. 
259

1 We looked at the documents posted on the O 

2 drive and did not find evidence of returns of 

3 manifolds from Y-12 to Chapman Valve for repair 

4 and testing. And there was no available 

5 evidence in the reviewed documentation that 

6 manifolds were returned during the 1948-'49 

7 period covered by the NIOSH evaluation report. 

8 That was the third conclusion. 

9 We -- the fourth conclusion was about this M-31 

10 sample which was on -- just on the inside of a 

11 building on the north side of the west ramp. 

12 In view of -- we examined the -- the 

13 measurement pretty closely and by -- by a 

14 number of different methods. We looked at the 

15 measurement techniques that were used at the 

16 time and concluded that it's reasonably certain 

17 that M-31 sample, that sample in question, was 

18 an enriched uranium sample. It would be very 

19 difficult to conclude otherwise because 

20 (unintelligible) a lot of things about the -- 

21 about measuring samples and measuring uranium 

22 samples into question because the measurement 

23 methods were specified in considerable detail, 

24 and we had several people at SC&A look at this 

25 before arriving at this conclusion because we 
260

1 realized that obviously this would be a -- a 

2 significant matter for you to consider. We -- 

3 specifically, we looked at the NIOSH work. We 

4 looked at the Oak Ridge '90-'92/9092* report, 

5 and we looked at the measurement protocols, 

6 which was a 1987 Oak Ridge document. 

7 Finally was the question of the -- ques-- 

8 question of what might have been done at 

9 Chapman Valve. The -- the '90-'92/9092* Oak 

10 Ridge report describes a wider range of 

11 activities that was done at AWEs in the context 

12 we're referring to Chapman Valve. It doesn't 

13 actually say that -- that additional activities 

14 were done at Chapman Valve. I recognize that. 

15 And the -- the evidence that is available about 

16 the enriched uranium sample, the only evidence 

17 is from the site expert interview, who had said 

18 that material was returned for repair during 

19 the Manhattan Project. The -- the only thing 

20 about the enriched uranium sample that isn't 

21 consistent with that is that it's on the inside 

22 of the building rather than on the outside of 

23 the building, and the activities described were 

24 the manifolds were returned and then 

25 transferred from train to truck at the Chapman 
261

1 Valve main facility and taken by truck to the 

2 Dean Street facility. And given the size of 

3 the manifolds, this -- this would have -- this 

4 would have obviously happened on the outside, 

5 although it is a surmise. The person -- the 

6 site expert wasn't actually present at the main 

7 facility, but -- but this -- I think it would 

8 be a very reasonable surmise. 

9 The -- let me read the rest of it, since this 

10 is a sensitive matter. Why don't I just read 

11 the fifth conclusion so -- so you can have it 

12 all on the record for you in case you haven't 

13 had a chance to look at it. 

14 Oak Ridge '90-'92/9092* describes a wider range 

15 of storage and other historical activities than 

16 are described in NIOSH 2008, but as -- as I 

17 have said, this is generally for AWEs. It is 

18 possible that enriched uranium sample may have 

19 been associated with these other activities; 

20 however, there is no evidence of this in the 

21 reviewed documentation. The only piece of 

22 evidence as to the possible source of the 

23 enriched uranium is a site expert interview 

24 which described the returns of contaminated 

25 manifolds from the electromagnetic separation 
262

1 plant at Oak Ridge that was operated during the 

2 Manhattan Project and for a short period 

3 thereafter. While this does not prove that 

4 that was the source or that there was not 

5 another source, it is consistent with the 

6 available evidence, including the fact that the 

7 sample was very close to the entrance ramp and 

8 that it is the only sample that was enriched 

9 uranium. If manifold returns were -- were the 

10 source of the enriched uranium, it would have 

11 been deposited prior to the period covered by 

12 the evaluation report and the SEC petition. 

13 However, the fact that it was on the inside of 

14 the building creates some uncertainty since the 

15 site expert stated that the main Chapman Valve 

16 site was at -- was the location of transfers of 

17 the manifolds from train to truck, all of which 

18 would have taken place on the outside. 

19 The only thing -- the only last thing I'd like 

20 to add is that, as we understood the charge 

21 given to us by the Board, was to look at the 

22 new documentation posted on the O drive and the 

23 letters from the DOE, and we stuck to that 

24 charter and did not go beyond that, so -- so we 

25 did not look for additional documentation or do 
263

1 any additional search. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Dr. Poston? 

3 DR. POSTON: Arjun, I have two -- a couple of 

4 questions. One, could you describe a little 

5 bit further what you did in evaluating this one 

6 measurement to ascertain that you -- that you 

7 felt it was correct? I mean you said you had 

8 three -- three of your folks look at it very 

9 carefully and I'd like to know exactly what you 

10 did. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, Chuck Phillips is also 

12 here. We -- well, it's described in detail in 

13 the report you have, Dr. Poston. 

14 DR. POSTON: Yeah, but I'd like to hear you 

15 describe it, please. 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: The -- the NIOSH report 

17 describes the sample as being enriched uranium 

18 of 2.16 percent enrichment, but that there was 

19 no U-235 measurement and that there was no 

20 uncertainty on the U-235. We found in looking 

21 -- 

22 DR. POSTON: Wait, wait, I'm confused already. 

23 You -- you said -- 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm just going through the 

25 process. 
264

1 DR. POSTON: Yeah, but you said there was no U2 235 present? 

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I'm just saying what -- 

4 DR. POSTON: Did you misstate or... 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I just -- I'm just saying 

6 what the NIOSH report said. That was our 

7 starting point, the NIOSH report. 

8 DR. POSTON: I'm sorry, I thought you were... 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: We then went to the original 

10 Oak Ridge document and found that there was 

11 additional information about the sample. 

12 Uranium-238 was given at 120 picocuries per 

13 gram, as Jim has stated. An uncertainty bound 

14 was described, which we have cited. Since the 

15 enrichment was provided, you can estimate a U16 235 concentration, which would be about 17 

17 picocuries per gram. Radium was also described 

18 in this particular sample, and that is a very 

19 important point, as less than one picocurie per 

20 gram, because then this allowed a comparison of 

21 the 186 keV gamma emission from radium -- 

22 almost 186 -- with a similar line from U-235. 

23 And given the various concentrations and the 

24 relative probability of emission of the 186 keV 

25 line, you could conclude that almost none of it 
265

1 was due to radium. And in fact, the radium 

2 intensity would be less than one -- the -- the 

3 uranium intensity would be more than 280 times 

4 the radium intensity. 

5 DR. POSTON: I guess I don't understand. I 

6 mean I would expect to find radium in normal 

7 soil samples, whereas I wouldn't expect to find 

8 uranium-235, so -- 

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right, that's why this 

10 was an enriched uranium sample of artificial 

11 provenance. That's -- that's the reason for 

12 the conclusion. If you had found radium at -- 

13 on -- 

14 DR. POSTON: Well, how can you tell if you -- 

15 if they have the same -- roughly the same 

16 energies? 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: No -- 

18 DR. POSTON: I mean how can you conclude one 

19 way or the other? 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: They have the same energy per 

21 photon. 

22 DR. POSTON: Yeah. 

23 DR. MAKHIJANI: They're at least 280 photon 

24 more from the U-235 than they are from the 

25 radium, so you can tell that whatever you're 
266

1 measuring would be -- 

2 DR. POSTON: Wait, wait, wait, the specific 

3 activity of radium is much higher than the 

4 specific activity of uranium-235. 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, but the number of -- num-- 

6 number of emissions of 186 keV photons is only 

7 3.2 percent, whereas it is 54 percent from U8 235, and U-235 concentration was 17 picocuries 

9 per gram, and it is not related to specific 

10 activities because everything is in terms of 

11 picocuries, so it's comparing radioactivity 

12 with radioactivity and nothing to do with 

13 weight. 

14 DR. POSTON: But you're talking about activity. 

15 Right? 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Exactly. That's why it had 

17 nothing to do with specific activity. 

18 DR. POSTON: I guess I'm still not clear why 

19 this -- you know, what -- what evaluation you 

20 made that would make -- lead you to this 

21 conclusion, other than -- 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: I explained it in detail. The 

23 -- the gamma -- the measurement protocol is 

24 described in the Oak Ridge 1987 document. 

25 Really, since the specific isotopes are 
267

1 mentioned, there are only two measurement 

2 protocols that are reasonable. The measurement 

3 protocol that's actually described is -- is 

4 gamma spectro-- spectroscopy. That's why we 

5 actually compared the intensity of the line -- 

6 whether it was possible that you would confuse 

7 what was measured between radium and uranium, 

8 and we concluded that you could not confuse it 

9 because a radium measurement was actually 

10 provided as being less -- well, it was a upper 

11 limit as being less than one picocurie per 

12 gram. And when you look at the characteristics 

13 of the emissions of photons from U-235 and 

14 radium and their frequencies, and the described 

15 concentrations, you come to the conclusion that 

16 you could not mistake this for radium, that it 

17 would have been associated with U-235. And if 

18 you do the same with alpha spectroscopy, of 

19 course, you would come to the same conclusion. 

20 DR. POSTON: Did they use alpha spectroscopy -- 

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 

22 (Unintelligible) 

23 DR. POSTON: -- or just gamma? 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's not described. 

25 DR. POSTON: Okay, I was just asking why you 
268

1 brought that up. 

2 MR. PHILLIPS: The reason we did the 

3 calculation from the radium is if you had that 

4 amount of radium in it, you would have 

5 certainly seen that in the gamma analysis and 

6 the lead and bismuth-214 (unintelligible), to 

7 that extent. So you could -- you know, you -- 

8 it wasn't reported as that. It was reported as 

9 less than one. So if there was sufficient 

10 amount of radium in there to have sufficient 

11 interference in the uranium-235 

12 (unintelligible) to account for this amount of 

13 uranium-235 that would be required for this 

14 amount of enrichment, you would certainly have 

15 detected that. And we -- was that 185 

16 picocurie (unintelligible)? 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Sir? 

18 MR. PHILLIPS: How much radium (unintelligible) 

19 have to have to -- 

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you have to have 280 

21 times more radium (unintelligible). I didn't 

22 measure (unintelligible). 

23 DR. NETON: Can I speak for a second? This is 

24 getting pretty technical, but I think it's 

25 important to discuss this. My -- my reading of 
269

1 the protocol that was used to measure the sam-- 

2 first of all, I don't think they ever said that 

3 they used the 609 or the 239 keV 

4 (unintelligible), that's not even covered. 

5 What they do say is they recognize the fact 

6 that uranium can -- higher levels of uranium 

7 can interfere with measurements of radium-226. 

8 That's what they say. Presumably when they say 

9 that, that must be talking about the 185 keV 

10 line. 

11 Now what they did say is that if there were 

12 higher levels of interference in that 185 keV 

13 line, they would quote a detection limit above 

14 that peak. So in other words, the higher the 

15 U-235 peak that's there, the less ability they 

16 would have to measure radium-226 because it 

17 would essentially be there with an interfering 

18 background. So that's -- that's what they did, 

19 so I don't know -- I looked at SC&A's analysis 

20 and it makes no sense to me when they say they 

21 basically stripped out the 235 peak -- or they 

22 -- they assumed that all the 185 keV was 

23 primarily due to interference from -- from 

24 uranium, and then calculated a detection limit 

25 above that. So there's no -- I don't know how 
270

1 you can make an inference from that about the 

2 degree of enrichment. And in fact, the 

3 protocol that was used in the manual said that 

4 enriched -- enrichment of uranium was 

5 established using neutron -- neutron analysis, 

6 like measuring the proper fission neutrons in a 

7 reactor. That was their standard protocol. I 

8 have no idea what the uncertainty is of that 

9 measurement, and that's what concerns me quite 

10 a bit, how they would have done that and what 

11 the total uncertainty is of the -- of the 

12 neutron measurements that they -- that they 

13 used, by their own method, to calculate the U14 235. 

15 DR. POSTON: I have a -- I have another 

16 question for Arjun. I'm -- Arjun, I'm 71 years 

17 old and my memory sometimes fades, but as you 

18 may remember, I attended those meetings at the 

19 Chapman Valve and when we talked with the 

20 folks, and I was there when we made the 

21 interviews and I attended every interview that 

22 you attended. My recollection is that we found 

23 out about these manifolds from a woman who 

24 worked primarily at the Dean Street facility, 

25 and her recollection was she was sure that they 
271

1 came from the Dean Street facility 'cause she 

2 always typed the shipping orders. I do not 

3 remember her saying that they were 

4 contaminated. I do remember a discussion 

5 between you and John Mauro and myself that says 

6 maybe that explains the enriched uranium 

7 sample, maybe they were processing contaminated 

8 systems that came from Oak Ridge. But as Jim 

9 stated in his -- there's no evidence that those 

10 were shipped back to the -- the valve company 

11 at all, so I -- I don't recall anyone 

12 testifying or stating during the meeting that 

13 we had that evening in that question and answer 

14 session that these -- these manifolds were 

15 contaminated. 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Poston, the -- the record 

17 of that interview of course was part of -- you 

18 looked at it, and the interview, we looked at 

19 it, and that is part of our original review, 

20 and I also attached it for convenience -- 

21 DR. POSTON: Well, I'm -- 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- with this report. The thing 

23 that is stated in our report is that the 

24 existence of an enriched uranium sample is 

25 consistent with what she said, since she had 
272

1 said that the manifolds were returned from the 

2 elec-- from -- from Y-12. 

3 DR. POSTON: I'm reacting to your statements 

4 today when you said -- 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: No -- 

6 DR. POSTON: -- they were contaminated. Yeah, 

7 we -- we did agree, the three of us, that that 

8 is a potential pathway and that was a potential 

9 way that these were contaminated, that's all. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: I believe -- I believe -– Dr. 

11 Poston, our report is quite carefully written, 

12 and what -- 

13 DR. POSTON: I'm sure of that. 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- (unintelligible) said -- 

15 yes. Well, I hope that you expect nothing 

16 less. The -- what we've said that the 

17 existence of the enriched uranium sample is 

18 consistent with what she said. I didn't say 

19 that she said that it was an enriched uranium 

20 sample. This is obviously an inference, and 

21 because it's only an inference, we also have to 

22 leave open the possibility that it didn't come 

23 from there, and I believe that we have also 

24 done that. I mean I -- I believe -- if you 

25 would like, I would -- I could read it again, 
273

1 but I have already read it into the record. 

2 DR. POSTON: Well, no, I'm -- I'm -- again, 

3 Arjun, I'm not talking about what's in the 

4 record. I'm talking about what you're saying 

5 orally when you stood up there. You -- you 

6 emphasized that she was -- contaminated 

7 manifolds. There -- 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: I (unintelligible) -- 

9 DR. POSTON: -- is an inference. You didn't 

10 indicate that these were inferences, one way or 

11 the other. You indicated that these were -- 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well -- 

13 DR. POSTON: -- contaminated, and that leaves 

14 the thought in people's minds that they were 

15 contaminated. That's why the gentleman is 

16 reacting the way he is. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, in order to be accurate, 

18 I actually decided that I was going to just 

19 read what we had written, and I read that into 

20 the record, and I'd like to say again, I don't 

21 know -- I can't remember every single word that 

22 I said and we'd certainly have to go back to 

23 the record and look at that, but for the 

24 record, what is written here I'd like to read 

25 again since it seems to have engendered some 
274

1 confusion. Let me read the -- perhaps caused 

2 by me, I do not know. 

3 The point number five that we wrote about this. 

4 It is possible that the enriched uranium sample 

5 may have been associated with these other 

6 activities. However, there is no evidence of 

7 this in the reviewed documentation. The only 

8 piece of evidence as to the possible source of 

9 the enriched uranium is the site expert 

10 interview which described the return of 

11 contaminated manifolds from the electromagnetic 

12 separations plant at Oak Ridge that was 

13 operated during the Manhattan Project and for a 

14 short period thereafter. 

15 Now I do see here that I think -- I think what 

16 we have return-- written is not 100 percent in 

17 conformity. You're quite right. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, it says -- 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: It should have said potentially 

20 -- return of manifolds from Y-12 which may have 

21 been contaminated. 

22 DR. POSTON: Yeah, that was -- 

23 DR. MAKHIJANI: You're quite right. 

24 DR. POSTON: -- that was the contention between 

25 you and John and me, and had nothing to do with 
275

1 the site expert. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm -- you're quite right, Dr. 

3 Poston. What we will do is we will issue a 

4 page change to this report and -- and make that 

5 correction so it's clear that it is an 

6 inference that that could possibly be the 

7 source. But the rest of it is very clear that 

8 it may not -- it may not be the source. 

9 DR. POSTON: You have made my point. Thank 

10 you. 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I did, I'm agreeing. 

12 DR. POSTON: Yeah, like I say, you did very... 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's (unintelligible) -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: I think the gentleman from Dow -- 

15 or from Chapman had an additional comment. 

16 MR. PETERSON: (Off microphone) 

17 (Unintelligible) 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Use the mike, please. 

19 MR. PETERSON: (Off microphone) 

20 (Unintelligible) actually quite a number of 

21 comments. One being a inference or being 

22 proactive, it appears to me or what I just 

23 heard is we're not sure. That -- I think 

24 that's what we heard. Maybe I'm wrong, but 

25 there's documents that were presented that say 
276

1 one thing and I just heard this gentleman say 

2 another thing. And again I would go back to 

3 the premise that we have to be proactive. If 

4 we think it might be possible, then we have to 

5 go on the assumption that it did happen. You 

6 know, we -- we're making -- we're making 

7 judgment calls with people's lives and issues 

8 that happened based on well, it could have 

9 happened. I -- I think -- I think the approach 

10 should be if you don't know for sure, you can't 

11 act in the negative. You have to act in the 

12 positive or do more tests. If in fact we found 

13 uranium in the building, you -- I just heard an 

14 assumption that the manifolds could not be in 

15 the building. I'm a registered architect. I 

16 could sit here and tell you that I don't care 

17 what size they are, they make buildings and 

18 they make doors and they move space shuttles in 

19 and out of buildings. You cannot make a 

20 statement that a particular item that you built 

21 cannot be housed in a building, moved out of a 

22 building and put on a loading deck. That's an 

23 absurd assumption, as far as I'm concerned. 

24 You know it and I know it. So we're -- we're 

25 compounding our assumptions to come up with a 
277

1 conclusion that are based on assumptions that 

2 we have no right saying. And I guess -- I 

3 guess that's my concern. Unfortunately, this 

4 gentleman -- he's restricted as to his 

5 investigation because he has to go on 

6 information that originally by an agency that 

7 we're -- we're supposed to be looking at in 

8 terms of were their assumptions correct. And -

9 - and I guess that gives me a very bad feeling 

10 that all I heard today was maybe, maybe not, 

11 and no real conclusive evidence and we're 

12 dealing with a lot of scientists here, a lot of 

13 brain power here and I don't hear anything 

14 conclusive. I hear people making assumptions. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Let me make two comments, somewhat 

16 in reaction to that. Number one, the 

17 restrictions on the contractor are set by this 

18 Board, not by NIOSH. 

19 MR. PETERSON: Okay, fine. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: We -- we define the task for them, 

21 so NIOSH did not restrict them in any way. 

22 Number two, I think Dr. Poston described the 

23 process that is used in terms of -- to handle 

24 uncertainties. John, I think you described it 

25 well, and that is to make the assumptions that 
278

1 every worker got the highest exposure found, 

2 every work day of their -- of their time. So 

3 if there was contamination there, then that -- 

4 that -- those kind of assumptions, those worst5 case assumptions, are -- are intended to cover 

6 that. 

7 Now we -- we all -- we all know that if -- if 

8 we make a worst-case assumption, I can always 

9 think of something worse than the worst-case 

10 assumption. But within reason, not just in 

11 Chapman Valve but in many of these cases, the 

12 bounding -- the bounding assumption or the 

13 bounding calculations made by NIOSH are 

14 intended to cover those uncertainties. 

15 Actually we have found in -- in many cases the 

16 better we know the data, the lower the 

17 exposures tend to be. These bounding 

18 assumptions are extremely user-friendly, if I 

19 can use that term. They're not 100 percent 

20 certain, but that -- that is the intent. We 

21 recognize -- not just here, but in almost every 

22 case -- there are uncertainties and that's 

23 built into the system. So that -- that -- 

24 nonetheless, we understand the point you made. 

25 We -- we don't know whether these -- these 
279

1 manifolds were inside or outside, but -- 

2 although at this point the -- they -- they are 

3 not there during -- during the time interval. 

4 The contamination was. John's -- the 

5 description of his calculation is intended to 

6 cover that. Whether it does or not, the Board 

7 members have to make that determination as to 

8 whether that satisfies their concerns or not. 

9 MR. PETERSON: I -- I guess the only point I 

10 would make -- 

11 DR. BRANCHE: Please use the microphone. 

12 MR. PETERSON: Oh. I guess the only point I 

13 would make, and correct me if I'm wrong, they 

14 were not put in the calculation to -- to reach 

15 a level. If -- if the manifolds -- we're -- 

16 we're stating as far as coming up with the 

17 criteria to gauge the amount of exposure, the 

18 manifolds were looked at as being neutral. 

19 Correct? 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 

21 MR. PETERSON: They were looked at as not being 

22 contaminated. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: If the contamination -- in spite 

24 of the manifolds, if the contamination is 

25 present during that period, if it's 
280

1 contributing -- for example, number one, to 

2 external, that's covered. If it's con-- 

3 MR. PETERSON: No, but you -- you're doing a 

4 reconstruction. You're doing an assumption. 

5 You're creating a value level, and in creating 

6 that value level the manifolds are not part of 

7 that value level. Is that my understanding? 

8 DR. POSTON: Well, fir-- let me see if I can 

9 clarify this. First, we have no evidence that 

10 they were contaminated or not contaminated. 

11 Okay? 

12 MR. PETERSON: (Unintelligible) 

13 DR. POSTON: Now we had this one person, and 

14 Arjun has correctly corrected his statement, 

15 saying potentially contaminated because there 

16 was a sample taken outside of the building that 

17 in 19-- 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: Inside the building. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Inside the building. 

20 DR. POSTON: -- inside the building that in 

21 1992 or something that showed elevated levels 

22 of uranium-235. That -- that -- that was not 

23 taken into -- 

24 MR. PETERSON: Account. 

25 DR. POSTON: -- account in the worst-case 
281

1 bounding sort of calculation of the dose. 

2 MR. PETERSON: We're saying the same thing. I 

3 guess that's my point. That -- that has not 

4 been factored into the level. 

5 DR. POSTON: But that wa-- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Right, but that's not it. 

7 MR. PETERSON: Well, I -- I don't know, I'm not 

8 a scientist or -- I'm -- I'm just saying -- 

9 DR. POSTON: Yeah, let -- 

10 MR. PETERSON: -- that's just one item. 

11 DR. NETON: I don't want to engage in argument 

12 or anything, but I just wanted to point out 

13 that it was -- the activity that was found was 

14 120 picocuries per gram, a fairly low level of 

15 activity, the dose of which would be very minor 

16 compared to what we've assigned to these 

17 workers based on the measurement of uranium in 

18 their urines, which were taken on-site. So -- 

19 MR. PETERSON: But it would be added to that. 

20 DR. NETON: Well, it -- it depends. I mean we 

21 do have contem-- we had contemporaneous urine 

22 measurements on the people. If -- if -- worst 

23 case scenario is if they were all exposed to 

24 enriched uranium, it would essentially double 

25 their dose. I mean if -- if we -- if we, for 
282

1 some reason, had no knowledge that two percent 

2 enriched uranium was processed at this site as 

3 opposed to natural, which I don't believe is 

4 the case, the net difference would be a factor 

5 of two difference, approximately, in the dose 

6 based on our calculations. So it -- it could 

7 be factored in if we did find out that there 

8 was indeed enriched uranium. And -- and that 

9 certainly would be bounding and, again, we -- 

10 we could do that if -- if we did have 

11 information to that effect. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

13 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. I mean -- but isn't the 

14 real point about the potentially enriched 

15 uranium sample -- hopefully I'm correct on that 

16 -- is whether or not we have -- whether or not 

17 we are aware of all the activities that have 

18 gone on at that site. If there were additional 

19 activities, then the question is what were 

20 they, what time period, and would they further 

21 contribute to dose. And I'll remind you that 

22 originally the Dean Street facility was not 

23 part of this because DOE had not designated -- 

24 in fact, DOE came and tried to tell us that the 

25 building had disappeared, et cetera, and lo and 
283

1 behold, we found that there were -- you know, 

2 operations there that's now part of the 

3 facility. So I think the question is do we 

4 have -- what do we make of this -- this sample 

5 and -- as well as the information from this one 

6 person who's reported, and how do we resolve 

7 that and has there been sort of due diligence -

8 - you know, again, not on the part of NIOSH but 

9 on the part of DOE -- in terms of -- of 

10 evaluating the operations that were on the site 

11 and -- and designating the site. 

12 Also remind you that as we -- looking at other 

13 older industrial facilities of this type, 

14 general type, I think some of them that we've 

15 looked at -- in fact, one we looked at earlier 

16 today where we're lacking information we are 

17 des-- basically designating the whole site as a 

18 -- everybody working there as being part of the 

19 SEC because there's so much uncertainty about 

20 operations and so forth so -- at those sites 

21 that NIOSH is not able to describe those 

22 operations in a way that's sufficient to 

23 develop appropriate individual dose 

24 reconstruction. So I think there's also an 

25 issue of how are we being consistent with -- 
284

1 with what we're doing in -- in other instances. 

2 Now not to say there isn't other information on 

3 Chapman that may indicate otherwise, but -- but 

4 I think -- you know, some of us are very 

5 concerned and suspicious about trying to 

6 understand this site better and understand the 

7 operations there and -- and trying to 

8 understand this -- this sample and, again, it's 

9 not the situation were we can go back and 

10 recreate or resample or whatever. It's -- we 

11 have limited information and I think we're 

12 trying to understand it and what its 

13 implications are in terms of operations at that 

14 facility as opposed to particularly exposures 

15 at that facility. Go ahead, Jim. 

16 DR. NETON: Yeah, I just -- just a couple of 

17 comments on that. I think this is somewhat 

18 different than some of the other facilities 

19 we've looked at because indeed the exposure 

20 that was discussed in those facilities was part 

21 of the certified covered exposure period by the 

22 Department of Energy. Right now we have no 

23 covered period in 1943 to 1944 to even 

24 evaluate. We would do that if the Department 

25 of Energy said yes, there were covered 
285

1 activities there. They've exercised a lot of 

2 due diligence, in my mind. In fact, a lot of 

3 things had to happen to make this sample a 

4 problem. One is it has to be enriched uranium, 

5 which I'm still not convinced it is, that it's 

6 -- it's -- delayed neutron measurement to 

7 establish enriched uranium, which is what their 

8 procedure says, is a fairly uncertain 

9 measurement technique. Secondly, there are 

10 FUSRAP data in '92 and '97, none of which 

11 recovered any evidence of additional enriched 

12 uranium samples at the site at all. Third, 

13 were manifolds shipped back that were 

14 contaminated -- were they shipped back at all, 

15 or were they actually factory acceptance test 

16 pumps. And if they were shipped back, were the 

17 contaminated. A lot of things have to happen 

18 for that scenario to play out, and it just 

19 seems to me the weight of the evidence right 

20 now is not there. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments or questions. 

22 Yeah, Mark. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just a -- a call out to Jim 

24 on that. When you were up here at the podium 

25 before you mentioned that there were -- you 
286

1 mentioned the radium issue or -- or the -- 

2 someone had raised early on in the -- 

3 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- and you followed up by saying, 

5 which -- which -- this is where I stand, is 

6 there's a lot of unknowns here, even if -- you 

7 know, is this an enriched sample, you know, and 

8 -- and you said -- 

9 DR. NETON: Yeah, I agree. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- right up here, there's a lot 

11 of unknowns here. That's the question, I 

12 think. If it was radium interference, maybe 

13 they were working on radium beads, I don't 

14 know, but that's another operation that we 

15 don't know about, so I guess that's the 

16 question, going back to the operations 

17 question. 

18 DR. NETON: That -- that activity, to my 

19 knowledge, was not -- not carried out in 

20 Building 23 during 1948-'49 -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Well, not to mine, either, based 

22 on what we're seeing -- 

23 DR. NETON: -- but remember -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 

25 DR. NETON: -- this is 1048-'49, Building 23 
287

1 and Dean Street are the covered facilities. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

3 DR. NETON: The other buildings are not part of 

4 the class definition. And those radium 

5 activities were carried out elsewhere, if there 

6 were indeed, I mean -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, but I thought you were 

8 referring to those, that they might have been 

9 in-- the reason -- 

10 DR. NETON: Well -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: -- for interference with that 

12 enriched uranium sample. 

13 DR. NETON: It could have been near the loading 

14 dock -- 

15 MR. GRIFFON: That's Building 23. 

16 DR. NETON: It could have ended up there 

17 because there was a pile -- if you look at 

18 pictures in the H. K. Ferguson report, there's 

19 a pile of material laying over where -- where 

20 that sample may have been taken. In fact, this 

21 was not -- this was sort of a dust sample. 

22 They had to -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. NETON: -- the way they described it, they 

25 almost like kind of scooped it up and got a 
288

1 sample of some contaminated dust, if you will, 

2 so -- so I -- I'm not sure, but it's -- the 

3 radium sources were asserted to have been used 

4 by one of -- one of the site experts. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any other comments? 

6 (No responses) 

7 Board members, are you at a position where 

8 you're prepared to take action on this? We're 

9 late in the day. We have -- we need a break 

10 before public comment period. We can continue 

11 the discussion further or if you've heard as 

12 much as you wish, we -- we -- it would be also 

13 in order to have a motion, so -- one way or the 

14 other. 

15 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

16 DR. POSTON: Is that true? 

17 MS. MUNN: Could we prepare the motion for 

18 tomorrow morning? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: We can have a motion. 

20 DR. POSTON: We already had a motion and 

21 (unintelligible). 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, one of the options is to do 

23 nothing. I guess that's an option. We've had 

24 a motion on this, als-- and we -- we ha-- the 

25 vote was split. 
289

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: It was a -- we had a 6-6 split on 

3 Chapman the last time. The effect of a -- of a 

4 6-6 vote is that there is no recommendation 

5 sent forward. It has the same effect as a 

6 motion to deny the petition. I'm asking if 

7 there's a motion -- we've had some additional 

8 information that's been looked at and so on. 

9 If the Board wishes to make a motion, you're 

10 entitled to do that. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: You would first need to vote to 

12 take the motion off the table. 

13 DR. POSTON: It's not on the table. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: There's no motion on the table. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: No, to put it back on the table. 

16 You've tabled this issue -- 

17 DR. POSTON: No, we have not. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: No, no -- 

19 DR. POSTON: That was incorrect. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- the motion has never been 

21 tabled, we -- 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 

23 MS. HOWELL: I think the split -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- had a vo-- huh? 

25 DR. POSTON: The vote -- 
290

1 DR. BRANCHE: I -- I gotcha. The split 

2 effectively tabled it. 

3 MS. HOWELL: Yes. 

4 DR. POSTON: No. 

5 MS. HOWELL: You -- you would be voting -- you 

6 would be picking that back up because as a 

7 split vote there was no Board decision so this 

8 issue has never been -- 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Officially tabled. 

10 MS. HOWELL: -- officially determined. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Well, okay, if -- if we're going 

12 to be -- do it parliamentary-wise, this has not 

13 been tabled, but you can always vote to 

14 reconsider. 

15 MS. HOWELL: Right. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: A vote to reconsider would put it 

17 back on the table. 

18 MS. HOWELL: I'm not saying it was tabled. I'm 

19 saying you're bringing it back -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

21 MS. HOWELL: -- up for a vote. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: We can vote to reconsid-- 

23 DR. BRANCHE: So the motion as it was is what 

24 you're -- 

25 MS. HOWELL: Yes. 
291

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. A motion to reconsider 

2 would be in order, and -- and you have to vote 

3 to reconsider, and then you have the motion to 

4 deal with if you -- if reconsideration is -- is 

5 approved. 

6 DR. MELIUS: Perhaps we should refer this to a 

7 workgroup on Roberts' Rules of Order to... 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn. 

9 MS. MUNN: If a vote -- if -- if a motion to 

10 reconsider is in order, I so move. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, there's a motion to 

12 reconsider. Is there a second to the motion to 

13 reconsider? If -- if there is -- 

14 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, and I'll second that 

15 motion. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I hear a -- hear a second. 

17 Let me instruct you, if the motion to 

18 reconsider comes before us, then we will be 

19 considering the motion that we had before. My 

20 recollection is that that was a motion to deny 

21 the petition. 

22 MS. MUNN: I believe that's correct. 

23 DR. POSTON: That's correct. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: But what I'm going to suggest to 

25 you that if we pass the motion to reconsider -- 
292

1 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- if we pass the motion to 

3 reconsider, then I'm going to suggest that we 

4 do the reconsideration tomorrow after we have a 

5 chance to confirm the nature of the original 

6 motion. Is that a -- would that be -- well -- 

7 MR. CLAWSON: That'd be agreeable with me. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. All in favor of 

9 reconsidering, say aye. 

10 (Affirmative responses) 

11 Any opposed? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Mr. Presley, did you vote? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: He seconded the motion. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. So the motion to 

17 reconsider has been approved and we will 

18 reconsider then -- is it agreeable with the 

19 assembly that we do this tomorrow, in view of 

20 both the time and the need to get the wording 

21 of the original motion that we handled before? 

22 MS. MUNN: Yes, please. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: I hear no objections. I think 

24 with that I'm going to postpone anything on the 

25 Mound issue till the public comment period 
293

1 because it's simply reading a letter into the 

2 record. 

3 It's now 5:30, this -- this assembly is going 

4 to come back together at 7:30 for a public 

5 comment period. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Only, strictly. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Strictly public comment at 7:30. 

8 We will not be debating any motions at that 

9 time. 

10 Thank you very much, everyone, for your 

11 attention. We will see you all in two hours. 

12 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 5:35 p.m. 

13 to 7:30 p.m.) 

14 PUBLIC COMMENT

15 DR. ZIEMER: Good evening, everyone. If you 

16 would take your seats, we're going to begin the 

17 public comment session of our Board meeting 

18 this evening. 

19 I should tell you in advance that we do not 

20 have a large number of individuals who have 

21 indicated that they wish to speak. But 

22 nonetheless, we will hear from several. 

23 Before we call on our speakers, I'm going to 

24 ask our Designated Federal Official, Dr. 

25 Christine Branche, to give us some ground rules 
294

1 as far as the policies are concerned on 

2 redaction and related things. And I will also 

3 tell you that we have an operating Board rule 

4 that the individual comments are limited to ten 

5 minutes. So Dr. Branche. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. I want to make sure 

7 people are -- Mr. Presley, can you hear me? 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, I can. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. I just want to 

10 make sure the line is open. 

11 Our policy on redaction of Board meeting 

12 transcripts are as follows: If a person making 

13 a comment gives his or her name, no attempt 

14 will be made to redact that name. NIOSH will 

15 take responsible steps to ensure that 

16 individuals making public comment are aware of 

17 the fact that their comments, including their 

18 name, if provided, will appear in a transcript 

19 of the meeting posted on a public web site. 

20 Such reasonable steps include the statement 

21 that I'm reading now at the start of this 

22 meeting. When people signed up today and 

23 yesterday, a printed copy of the -- of this 

24 redaction policy was available on display at 

25 the table where they signed up. A statement of 
295

1 our redaction policy was appended to the NIOSH 

2 web site along with the agenda for this 

3 meeting. And also our redaction statement was 

4 also included with the Federal Register notice 

5 for this meeting. 

6 If an individual in making a statement this 

7 evening reveals personal information, such as 

8 medical information about themselves, that 

9 information will not usually be redacted. The 

10 NIOSH Federal -- sorry -- Freedom of 

11 Information Act coordinator will, however, 

12 review such revelations in accordance with the 

13 Freedom of Information Act and the Federal 

14 Advisory Act -- excuse me -- the Federal 

15 Advisory Committee Act and, if deemed 

16 appropriate, will redact such information. All 

17 disclosures of information concerning third 

18 parties will be redacted. 

19 And if you'd like to make a statement but not 

20 reveal your name, I would ask that you come to 

21 see me -- well, now. 

22 And for those persons participating by phone, 

23 if you could please mute your phone. And if 

24 you do not have a mute button, please dial 

25 star-6. And then when you are ready to speak, 
296

1 you may still either use your mute button or 

2 use that same star-6 to unmute your phone when 

3 you're ready to speak. It is important that 

4 everyone use the mute button or the star-6 

5 feature because the people participating by 

6 phone will end up with a very unclear 

7 transmission of this portion of our meeting, 

8 and they will not be able to hear everything. 

9 I'm concerned that I still hear some background 

10 noise, so that person, if you could please mute 

11 your phone. Oh, there's still some background 

12 noise. Somebody has a radio. 

13 MR. PRESLEY: Christine? 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Yes? 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Somebody's -- somebody's (break 

16 in transmission) their telephone on a (break in 

17 transmission) that's got (break in 

18 transmission) signal on. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Will that -- and here's a case in 

20 point. I only got every other word and only 

21 part of those words, Mr. Presley, so I think we 

22 just need to go ahead and get started. Thank 

23 you for muting. 

24 UNIDENTIFIED: It appears that someone put 

25 their phone on hold. 
297

1 AV TECH: I can -- I can turn it off and you 

2 won't hear, but only when (unintelligible) 

3 you're going to have a problem. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: The people on the line may not be 

5 able to hear -- hear the presentations since 

6 somebody on the line apparently is causing 

7 noise through their "hold" system instead of a 

8 mute system. So if your phone is on "hold" 

9 rather than "mute" -- although if it's on 

10 "hold," you're probably not around to take care 

11 of this. I don't know the answer to that, 

12 but... 

13 MR. CLAWSON: We could call and have that 

14 disconnected. 

15 UNIDENTIFIED: Dr. Branche, I think you can get 

16 (break in transmission). 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Say it again. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Ms. Bon-- Ms. Bonsignore, what 

19 were you saying? Someone was trying to get my 

20 attention? 

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: I wasn't speaking. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: It was someone else. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, it was someone else. 

24 Forgive me. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're going to proceed. 
298

1 First of all, we have two Congressional letters 

2 that we want to enter into the record. One's 

3 from I believe Senator Kennedy's office and I 

4 forget -- the other one was perhaps from the 

5 Ohio -- was it a Mound letter? 

6 MR. BROEHM: Yeah, the second one's a Mound 

7 letter. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So Jason's going to read 

9 those letters into the record for us first. 

10 MR. BROEHM: Okay. So the first letter was 

11 addressed to Dr. John Howard, Dr. Lewis Wade 

12 and Dr. Paul Ziemer, dated April 2nd, 2008. 

13 This was cosigned by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, 

14 Senator John F. Kerry and Representative 

15 Richard E. Neal about the Chapman Valve site. 

16 And we were going to read this in later, but 

17 the discussion kind of got ahead of us. 

18 (Reading) Dear Dr. Howard, Dr. Wade and Dr. 

19 Ziemer, we're writing to bring your attention 

20 to the Special Exposure Cohort petition filed 

21 by former employees of the Chapman Valve 

22 Manufacturing Company of Indian Orchard, 

23 Massachusetts, pursuant to the Energy Employees 

24 Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. 

25 The company was involved in the nation's 
299

1 nuclear weapons program in the 1940s, and its 

2 employees were exposed to radioactive materials 

3 in their work. Cleanup activities took place 

4 from 1991 to 1995 under the Formerly Utilized 

5 Sites Remedial Action Program of the Department 

6 of Energy. 

7 The Chapman Valve petition was filed on August 

8 18, 2005. It was qualified on November 9th, 

9 2005, and was submitted to the Advisory Board 

10 on August 8th, 2006, nearly six months after 

11 the statutory deadline for completion. 

12 Petitioners have been waiting for a 

13 determination from the Advisory Board for more 

14 than two and a half years. 

15 Last month Sanford Cohen and Associates, the 

16 Advisory Board's experts, issued a new report 

17 on Chapman Valve in which they conclusively 

18 determined that enriched uranium was present in 

19 the Chapman Valve facility. The report 

20 concludes, however, that we are still no closer 

21 to determining exactly when and how the uranium 

22 came to be at the facility. 

23 It is now seven years since Congress enacted 

24 EEOICPA. A primary motivation for this 

25 legislation was the need to expeditiously 
300

1 compensate workers and their surviving family 

2 members. The statute specifically states that 

3 the purpose of the program is to provide, 

4 quote, timely compensation, unquote, for these 

5 Cold War victims. The Special Exposure Cohort 

6 is Congress's acknowledgement that, because 

7 these were programs carried out in secret more 

8 than 50 years ago, many workers would not have 

9 the records they need to prove their claims. 

10 The Special Exposure Cohort process was 

11 specifically designed to ensure compensation 

12 for workers whose records are not available. 

13 Congress clearly did not intend them to get 

14 trapped in an endless search for records that 

15 no longer exist. 

16 Yet the Chapman Valve petitioners have been 

17 forced into just such an endless search. Over 

18 the past two and a half years their petition 

19 has been debated and discussed repeatedly at 

20 Advisory Board meetings, without conclusion. 

21 The Advisory Board has asked the Department of 

22 Energy to go back time and again to review its 

23 records, and yet the latest report by Sanford 

24 Cohen and Associates makes clear that NIOSH 

25 still lacks the information needed to make an 
301

1 accurate dose reconstruction for the Chapman 

2 Valve petitioners and their families, the 

3 program has obviously failed to fulfill its 

4 promise. 

5 It is unfair to ask these petitioners to wait 

6 any longer while the Department of energy 

7 endeavors to pursue even more avenues of 

8 possible evidence raised by the latest report. 

9 We ask the Advisory Board to fulfill its duty 

10 and grant the Chapman Valve petition as soon as 

11 possible. The hard-working men and women of 

12 Chapman Valve have waited too long for the 

13 compensation they deserve from our country for 

14 their sacrifices. 

15 Thank you for your consideration of this issue. 

16 If you have any questions or additional 

17 information to provide, please contact Sharon 

18 Block in Senator Kennedy's office at 202-224-

19 5441. 

20 With respect and appreciation, sincerely, 

21 Edward M. Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Richard E. 

22 Neal. 

23 Then the second letter is addressed to Dr. 

24 Ziemer, and really to the whole Board, by 

25 Representative Michael R. Turner from Ohio. 
302

1 This is about Mound. 

2 (Reading) Dear Dr. Ziemer, I am writing in 

3 support of the Special Exposure Cohort petition 

4 0090 and 0091 for former Mound employees whose 

5 dates of employment are between 1959 and the 

6 plant's closure. Granting these petitions in 

7 full would assist workers who could be victims 

8 of a magnitude of potential exposures to 

9 radiation and other toxins used and handled at 

10 the Mound facility. 

11 It is my understanding that Mound employees who 

12 were employed between the dates of 1949 and 

13 1959 have recently been granted SEC status. I 

14 thank the Advisory Board for their efforts in 

15 ensuring those workers were granted this 

16 special status. 

17 Former Mound workers have dedicated years of 

18 service to this facility, and many have 

19 incurred health problems as a result of the 

20 dangerous nature of their employment. 

21 Additionally, in order to properly assess 

22 benefits, workers must attempt to reconstruct 

23 old employment records that may no longer exist 

24 or are otherwise incomplete. It is my hope the 

25 Advisory Board will help alleviate the health 
303

1 issue affecting these workers by recommending 

2 them SEC status for workers from 1959 until the 

3 facility's closure. 

4 Sincerely, Michael R. Turner, Member of 

5 Congress. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Next we'll 

7 hear from Donna Hand, who represents the 

8 Nuclear Workers of Florida, Pinellas. Donna, 

9 welcome. 

10 Just push that down a little bit, or tilt it 

11 down will be fine. 

12 MS. HAND: I want to thank you very much for, 

13 you know, coming to Florida and giving me the 

14 opportunity to be educated and where do I get 

15 my certificate on 101 Advisory Board meetings? 

16 All right? 

17 And then as a same token, I want to thank you 

18 and as a claimant, as a private citizen and as 

19 a worker advocacy for all your time and energy, 

20 because I have seen first-hand how much time 

21 and energy you have spent on all these claims, 

22 and I really, really appreciate that you are 

23 really, really looking after the worker, as 

24 well as making sure that the law is fulfilled. 

25 Myself and a introduction to Pinellas plant, 
304

1 I'm going to -- I don't have enough but we -- 

2 you can share. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Can I help you? I'll hand these 

4 out. 

5 MS. HAND: Okay. The Pinellas plant, as you 

6 know, was a neutron device facility. I got 

7 these facts not only from the site description 

8 that NIOSH has, as well as the baseline report 

9 that you can get from the Department of 

10 Environment Protection on the decontamination, 

11 but also there's Pinellas flat -- plant facts 

12 that you can get when you Google GE ND into the 

13 DOE OSTI web site. 

14 As you can see from the Pinellas plant pro-- 

15 site profile, there was ion silirators (sic), 

16 pneumatic seals, high voltage generation, 

17 lightning arresters, special decapacitors, 

18 vacuum systems -- now these were glass vacuum 

19 systems -- crystal resonators, active and 

20 reserve batteries and radioisotopically-powered 

21 thermoelectric generators. 

22 This facility, especially Building 100, was a 

23 warehouse-type facility. That means that it -- 

24 that there were partitions, that the ceiling 

25 did not -- you know, and the walls did not go 
305

1 up to the wall -- the ceiling in this 

2 warehouse, and therefore all the radionuclides 

3 was exposed everywhere. In fact, when they did 

4 the decontamination, one of the cement walls 

5 that was supposed to have had a lead panel in 

6 it did not have the lead panel in it. 

7 The only monitoring that was done was a finger, 

8 a wrist and two whole badges, dosometers (sic). 

9 These whole badge dosometers were sensitive to 

10 some radionuclides and insensitive to others. 

11 From 1954 to 1980 only 27 percent of the 

12 employees were monitored. From 1980 to 1996 

13 when they closed, only 14 percent were 

14 monitored. And again, these monitors were not 

15 adequate. Some of the reports that you would 

16 find would have zero, some of them just said 

17 that they met the minimum detection, that's it. 

18 So therefore they weren't really accurate 

19 because, as you know and you have done -- 

20 excuse me -- in other facility sites that a 

21 zero is not adequate at all on a radiation 

22 dosometer (sic). 

23 If you go next to the next page, you'll see a 

24 list of 28 radionuclides. The list of these 28 

25 radionuclides was confirmed by DOE to be 
306

1 present at the Pinellas plant. Also, because 

2 they are -- according to the definition of the 

3 40 CFR (unintelligible) also the Atomic Energy 

4 Act, and 20 CFR 1910, there's already been 

5 determined a significant health effect, 

6 according to the (unintelligible) Supreme Court 

7 requirement before these substances could be 

8 added to this list. 

9 Besides the radionuclides are other 733 toxic 

10 substances. The sitometrics* that DOL has only 

11 lists 433. 

12 Anyway, your concern is the 28 radionuclides, 

13 because you're concerned with ionizing 

14 radiation. 

15 Again, that came from the Pinellas plant 

16 environment baseline report. I need a podium. 

17 Okay, the next page you'll see is a chronicle 

18 list of unusual events. These are all the 

19 unusual events that happened at the facility, 

20 so therefore these are all incidents. Even 

21 though the employee may not have been right 

22 there, because this warehouse-type effect and 

23 the residual contamination afterwards, they 

24 were still exposed to that ionizing radiation. 

25 Also which is not on this list but was 
307

1 confirmed when we received a file from DOL, 

2 there was a plutonium fire in 1973 at this 

3 facility in Building 200. 

4 Again you'll see the radio-producing equipment. 

5 There's a list of a whole bunch of equipment 

6 that would have radiation-producing on it as 

7 well. These radio equipment was cleaned by 

8 people that were not monitored. They were also 

9 worked and maintained on by people, again, that 

10 were not monitored. And several -- several 

11 reports we've been finding out, when we get the 

12 entire file from DOL or DOE, that these people 

13 were injured while working on these equipment. 

14 If they're injured, they're required to, in 

15 your dose reconstruction, to have a wound 

16 guidance bulletin and to have run multiple 

17 myeloma and/or other ill-defined sites. None 

18 of the dose reconstructions have attempted to 

19 do this. 

20 You'll see a report from the health physics 

21 Pinellas plant. It (unintelligible) tritium, 

22 krypton, radiation generators, neutron 

23 generators and calibration sources. It goes on 

24 to explain the badges, the -- the neutrons, et 

25 cetera, et cetera, and the -- like I said, the 
308

1 finger and the rings. 

2 I have requested, under the Freedom of 

3 Information Act, a copy of the dosometer (sic) 

4 readings from the fingers, wrist and the two 

5 whole bodies from NIOSH, because this is what 

6 they're supposed to use when they determine an 

7 unmonitored -- so far, to date, I have not 

8 received it. 

9 You'll see a dose reconstruction view -- review 

10 -- overreview (sic). Some of the lettering or 

11 wording of this is very confusing. For 

12 example, claimant favorable assumptions are in 

13 addition to this report, but even under these 

14 assumptions NIOSH has determined that further 

15 research and analysis will not produce a level 

16 of radiation. How do they know, they haven't 

17 con-- taken all in relevant factors. They 

18 haven't tooken (sic) in the injuries. They 

19 haven't took in neutron doses. And you've 

20 already done several, several facilities 

21 regarding neutron doses. You've also regarded 

22 several industries or sites regarding tritium. 

23 And as you know that the tritium 

24 radiocobiological (sic) effect when it hits 

25 water, where does it go to? In the body. This 
309

1 is a human area. This was a pretty hot area so 

2 people would sweat, so therefore absorption 

3 through the skin was very, very high. 

4 Again on the next page, dose estimate, as you 

5 can see, they confirm that this was classified 

6 waste that this person got injured on, that he 

7 may have been exposed to photon, electron and 

8 neutron radiation, but they were not considered 

9 in the external dose. Why weren't they? 

10 Wasn't this part of your guidelines? They had 

11 the potential of the exposure and that's all 

12 that is required by the law. 

13 There was an insignificant amount of dose 

14 received so therefore they ignored that. It 

15 doesn't matter what type of dose or level of 

16 dose, these are not standards. These are 

17 potential exposures, period. That's what your 

18 methods say. That's what your guideline says, 

19 and that's what your law says 'cause it says 

20 radiation-related illnesses. 

21 And again they said incidental exposures may 

22 have included neutron doses, but the only 

23 unmonitored dose assigned was photon. Why not 

24 the other? Aren't you supposed to include all 

25 the ionizing radiation in your external and 
310

1 your internal? Are you not required to use 

2 inhalation, ingestion, absorption and 

3 injection, and the injection is all the 

4 injuries. 

5 Some of these areas were unconfined radioaction 

6 -- radioactive areas, so then therefore these 

7 workers could be exposed because just walking 

8 by it or what-- and also their cafeteria. In 

9 order to get to the cafeteria, he had to walk 

10 through the machine shop or right by the 

11 machine shop area. The machine shop area was a 

12 high radioactive area because of the oil and et 

13 cetera, et cetera. 

14 No unmonitored neutron doses were assigned 

15 again. The internal doses, as you can see, 

16 they've -- confirm and they state the rems, and 

17 then they go to the uncertainties. Since this 

18 was a high uncertainty because the person was 

19 unmonitored, he was a janitor that worked in 

20 decontamination. He was noted in a file that 

21 he was cut on his left wrist with classified 

22 radioactive waste but none of these relative 

23 facts were taken into account. You can see 

24 that the IREP input program over in -- they ran 

25 it all constant, and then they put in the 
311

1 perimeter (sic) one, .129? Point one, when 

2 your technical information document, June 2002, 

3 says this would be a hybrid of 30 to 250 keVs 

4 with the perimeters (sic) of being lognormal 

5 and one to five. If you're going to do the 

6 constant, then you should look at every single 

7 area, who had the highest dosometer (sic) 

8 reading in that area, and the 95th percentile 

9 of that person's reading. So that means for 

10 every year and every location that every worker 

11 went to, they would have had to calculate that, 

12 and that is very time-consuming and I think 

13 that's why you passed that June 2002 NIOSH 

14 technical information document. 

15 Again, I enlarged it so you could see, because 

16 what the claimants get is that smaller version. 

17 You're talking about elderly people. They 

18 can't read it, so... 

19 Again I put into the guidance on wound 

20 modeling, even though it addresses plutonium, 

21 at the very end it says this can go for all 

22 radionuclides. 

23 Pinellas plant is one of the ten that's been 

24 put on the shelf. It was done in 2006 by SC&A. 

25 Certain questions were asked. To this date, 
312

1 nothing's been addressed by NIOSH or anyone 

2 else. Because they have not been addressed, 

3 the health physicist for NIOSH will not comment 

4 on a draft. Because they have not been 

5 addressed, these workers are being denied the 

6 law by really getting to all the external, 

7 internal and environmental radiation exposures 

8 from all ionizing radiation because even an 

9 environmental report done by Oak Ridge at this 

10 facility, if a claimant sat out on that north 

11 porch overlooking the pond, they could get over 

12 2,000 bcqs. Now I'm just a country farmer 

13 girl. I don't know what bcqs are, but I know 

14 it's a lot for just a person just sitting out 

15 there looking at the scenery. 

16 Really in conclusion is that why does NIOSH not 

17 include things according to your own guidelines 

18 in the dose reconstruction? Why does DOL not 

19 abide by your guidelines for probability of 

20 causation? 42 CFR 81.21 says all cancers, even 

21 precancers, neoplasms unknown or uncertainty 

22 shall be considered as malignant neoplasms. 

23 DOL refuses to send over precancers. In fact, 

24 DOL has a bulletin, 614, that lists cancers in 

25 that that is not radiogenic cancers, no known 
313

1 medical significance. That's not what the law 

2 says. That is not their authority nor the 

3 responsibility. By law, that was given to 

4 NIOSH, HHS. They are the ones to determine all 

5 the cancers by the probability of causation 

6 guidelines. NIOSH was supposed to require to 

7 do the dose reconstruction as methods that this 

8 Board has determined, and I haven't seen any 

9 Code of Federal Regulations where this Board 

10 has changed any of those methods yet. Some of 

11 them I think you have addressed as far as 

12 technical bulletins and have through Oak Ridge, 

13 but you -- the basic method you have not 

14 changed. The only one that I'm still confusing 

15 of and I'm still having a lesson on is your 

16 Monte Carlo simulation, and I'm sure some of 

17 you know what I'm talking about, others do not. 

18 But what basic line is is that in order to be 

19 claimant friendly, your photons are supposed to 

20 be acute. We don't care if they got exposed to 

21 chronically, they're supposed to be acute. 

22 That's claimant friendly. 

23 Your neutrons is supposed to be chronic. We 

24 don't care if they got it at an acute exposure, 

25 it's supposed to be chronic because that's 
314

1 claimant friendly. 

2 And that's all we're asking is that the 

3 guidelines and the dose reconstruction methods 

4 be ascertained as per as in the law for all the 

5 Pinellas workers. If it cannot be done, then 

6 please inform us. If it's just that they're 

7 forgetting it, then, you know, they -- that 

8 needs to be addressed because this is really 

9 negligence of the law. 

10 Thank you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Donna. 

12 The next person I have on the list I think is 

13 here by phone. That's Antoinette Bonsignore. 

14 Antoinette, are you on the line? 

15 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

16 My name is Antoinette Bonsignore and I'm 

17 speaking tonight on behalf of the former Linde 

18 workers and their families who, despite 

19 repeated efforts to get basic information from 

20 the Department of Labor regarding a request for 

21 appeal for redesignation of the Linde facility 

22 that eliminated residual radiation workers from 

23 (unintelligible), the Linde workers have been 

24 unable to get any response from the Department 

25 of Labor to requests -- a letter that was 
315

1 submitted to Peter Turcic on February 6th 

2 requesting information about revisitation of 

3 the decision and an opportunity to appeal that 

4 decision. 

5 Additionally, I would like to address two 

6 issues that are related to the Department of 

7 Label -- Labor's decision to redesignate the 

8 Linde facility. 

9 First, on February 20 Jeff Kotsch addressed the 

10 Advisory Board regarding the redesignation 

11 issue at Linde and a request was made by the 

12 Board at that time for a written statement from 

13 the Department of Labor explaining the reason 

14 (unintelligible) the decision. That statement 

15 was provided to the Board, but I have been 

16 unable to get a copy of the statement 'cause 

17 the Department of Labor designated the document 

18 for Board use only. My question is, why are 

19 the Linde workers being denied access to this 

20 document, and what do the Linde workers need to 

21 do at this point to get the Department of Labor 

22 to respond to their February 6th letter? 

23 Finally, I submitted an SEC petition covering 

24 the residual radiation time period 

25 (unintelligible) Linde last month and the 
316

1 petition is currently under qualification 

2 review. Our ability to pursue this petition is 

3 directly affected by the Department of Labor's 

4 decision about the redesignation and whether we 

5 will be provided with an opportunity to appeal 

6 that decision. It is imperative that the 

7 Department of Labor provide an answer to the 

8 request to appeal the redesignation decision 

9 and stop denying the Linde workers access to 

10 the basic (unintelligible) that directly 

11 affects their rights under the Part B program. 

12 Thank you. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Antoinette. And 

14 although, as you know, the Department of Labor 

15 issues are not directly the responsibility of 

16 this Board, I can tell you that Jeff Kotsch, as 

17 well as some other Labor colleagues, are with 

18 us today and they have heard your concerns, so 

19 -- in fact, maybe Jeff is -- is actually 

20 approaching the mike so he may have some 

21 comments for you. Thank you. 

22 MS. BONSIGNORE: Great, thank you. 

23 MR. KOTSCH: Antoinette, we -- I know Labor ha24 - is in receipt of your -- what date is it -- 

25 February 6th, 2008 letter. I know they're 
317

1 working on a response, I just don't know where 

2 it -- it is. I know it's close to the end of 

3 the process of getting out. 

4 I did mention to the Board today that on Friday 

5 I was informed that, as far as the residual 

6 period, the decision was made, after review of 

7 the 2004 amendments to the Act, that the 

8 workers in Buildings 30, 31, 37 and 38, which 

9 are the buildings that changed designation from 

10 AWE status to DOE status, who worked -- so 

11 people in those four buildings who worked only 

12 during the residual radiation period are also 

13 eligible for Part B benefits as atomic weapons 

14 employees, even though they changed the status 

15 of those buildings to a DOE facility. So that 

16 -- you'll be seeing that -- that decision in 

17 your letter whenever it -- when it arrives. 

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: I'm -- I'm sorry -- I'm sorry, 

19 Jeff, I -- I didn't quite understand what you 

20 just (unintelligible). 

21 MR. KOTSCH: Well, first of all, let me say 

22 that this decision was made -- and only applies 

23 to Linde Ceramics, but Buildings 30, 31, 37 and 

24 38, which are the ones that changed status, 

25 workers who worked only during the residual 
318

1 radiation period will now be eligible for Part 

2 B benefits as AWE employees. 

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. So essentially the 

4 decision (unintelligible) coverage has been 

5 rescinded? 

6 MR. KOTSCH: Yes, for -- as far as the review 

7 for Linde Cer-- this is only applicable to 

8 Linde Ceramics. 

9 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. Okay. I was not aware 

10 that that decision had been made. 

11 MR. KOTSCH: Oh, that was -- it's very recent. 

12 Like I said, I got it con-- not going out the 

13 door, but in a meeting on late Friday. 

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. And so are -- has 

15 Senator Schumer's office or Senator Clinton's 

16 office been advised of this? 

17 MR. KOTSCH: They will be. That -- that 

18 information is also in letters that -- that 

19 will be going to them. 

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you may be the first to 

22 know, Antoinette, so -- 

23 MR. KOTSCH: I -- I have to -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- but you will be hearing this in 

25 writing, is my understanding. 
319

1 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, they -- as far as I know -- 

2 I mean the letter is -- is -- I asked before I 

3 left on Friday, which is when I get -- kind of 

4 get instructions on what -- 

5 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay, well, I -- I guess tell 

6 you I'm not easily shocked, but I'm -- I'm 

7 shocked. Okay. Well, I appreciate that 

8 information and I assume that letters to -- 

9 addressed to me and to Senator Schumer and 

10 Senator Clinton will be forthcoming at this 

11 point. 

12 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah. I mean I can't guarantee 

13 the -- the time frame, but I know that they've 

14 been drafted and, as far as I know, they're 

15 working their way through the -- through the 

16 end of the process. 

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. All right. Well, thank 

18 you very much. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Antoinette. 

20 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. Now I -- I'm going to ask 

22 if there are any individuals in the assembly 

23 here who did not have an opportunity to sign up 

24 but do wish to make public comment? 

25 (No responses) 
320

1 There appear to be none. Are there any 

2 individuals on the phone who wish to make 

3 public comment? 

4 MR. FUNKE: Dr. Zimmer (sic)? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

6 MR. FUNKE: This is John Funke. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, John, do you have some 

8 comments for us? 

9 MR. FUNKE: Yes, I do, I -- 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

11 MR. FUNKE: -- (unintelligible) on the agenda 

12 (unintelligible) -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's fine. You're quite 

14 welcome to make comments. Remember the ten15 minute time limit. 

16 MR. FUNKE: I do. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

18 MR. FUNKE: I sent the Board -- the entire 

19 Board a packet of information -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we have received that. 

21 MR. FUNKE: -- (unintelligible) got it? 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

23 MR. FUNKE: Okay. There were three very 

24 important points to that information. One was 

25 the -- the job classification was -- was post-
321

1 1992 on the site profile. They are no good. 

2 We're not concerned about what happened after 

3 '92 (unintelligible) the test was over. We're 

4 concerned only with the job classifications 

5 when the tests was going on. In 1992 there was 

6 a major change in the job classification at 

7 Nevada Test Site. 

8 Number two, there was a -- in the site profile 

9 made a comment that all the radioactive areas 

10 were fenced in and posted with 

11 (unintelligible). I sent you a document that 

12 tells you as late as 1996 there still was no 

13 (unintelligible) and no (unintelligible). 

14 There was also a question about area 

15 (unintelligible) as I have Fred Dunham on the 

16 line is going to comment after me. There was a 

17 -- it shows this -- that area -- I know you 

18 don't want to talk about Area 51, but it was a 

19 part of Nevada Test Site, and up until the 

20 realignment in 1999 it was part of the Nevada 

21 Test Site. All the employees who worked there 

22 came and went through the Mercury gate. All 

23 the employees who worked there (unintelligible) 

24 paychecks with DOE allocated funds. All the 

25 equipment used over there was part of 
322

1 (unintelligible). The general manager of Area 

2 51 was [name redacted] (unintelligible), a 

3 REECo area manager. We cannot ignore that area 

4 any longer. It has to be considered. It was 

5 part of Nevada Test Site and it should be -- if 

6 nothing else, we're not interested in the 

7 secrets that are out there. We're only 

8 concerned about the contamination that the 

9 people who worked there would have gotten. 

10 That has to be considered and can no longer be 

11 ignored. 

12 There's another problem that surfaced. NIOSH -

13 - recently there's been some claims that's been 

14 reopened on super S plutanium (sic), and a 

15 couple of other items. And NIOSH has been 

16 sending out arbitrarial (sic) denials with a 

17 single form letter. They're all the same. 

18 I've looked at a dozen of them already, they 

19 just change the names on them. They're not 

20 running the programs through an IREP, they're 

21 simply saying the changes on the site profile 

22 doesn't make any difference, therefore it was 

23 changed by original denial. Your claim is 

24 still being denied. I don't see how they can 

25 do this considering the amount of 
323

1 (unintelligible) as we found in the site 

2 profile. I don't even want to begin naming 

3 them off. I've already named them off to you a 

4 dozen times and they're not considering this 

5 and this is not allegations. We've provided 

6 documentation. I have more coming. And I -- I 

7 would like you to address the issues I sent you 

8 in the packet, if you would, and also I'd like 

9 to find out why NIOSH is just sending out these 

10 arbitrarial (sic) denial letters to these 

11 people when there is a lot more than just the 

12 one issue. They are not rerunning the claims 

13 like they're supposed to and I'm -- I'm 

14 wondering whether that's even the -- the -- the 

15 procedure that Congress laid out. 

16 So I'll (unintelligible) over to Fred Dunham. 

17 He's (unintelligible) the next man behind me. 

18 He's one of the people that worked over in that 

19 area and he's got some concerns. He's got some 

20 more information (unintelligible) to you 

21 tomorrow. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

23 MR. FUNKE: Thank you, Dr. Zimmer (sic). 

24 DR. ZIEMER: So Fred Miller, are you there 

25 then? 
324

1 MR. FUNKE: Fred Dunham. 

2 MR. DUNHAM: My name's Fred Dunham. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Could you please say your last 

5 name again? 

6 DR. ZIEMER: What's your last name again? 

7 MR. DUNHAM: Dunham, D-u-n-h-a-m. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Proceed. 

9 (Pause) 

10 Go ahead, Fred. 

11 MR. DUNHAM: Okay. I was an employee out at 

12 the Nevada Test Site in the area commonly known 

13 as Area 51. I came down with chronic 

14 obstructive pulmonary disease after being 

15 exposed to chemical fumes from the byproducts 

16 of open pit burning of material that was used 

17 in a classified aircraft. And through the 

18 Department of Labor, my claim has been refused 

19 on the basis that Area 51 was out of the 

20 boundary of the Nevada Test Site. 

21 Now on October 23, 1999 President Clinton did a 

22 realignment of the property, transferring the 

23 ownership and control of the property known as 

24 Area 51 to the Department of the Air Force in a 

25 trade for a piece of property that the 
325

1 Department of the Air Force had that was 

2 contaminated with nuclear material 

3 (unintelligible) Department of Energy. So the 

4 Department of Labor clearly erred based upon 

5 the information on the site alignment that 

6 occurred in the 23 October 1999. Like I say, I 

7 worked there from 1981 to 1991. 

8 I would like to have some clarification on 

9 that. Also they indicated that the contractor 

10 that I worked for, EG&G Special Projects, was 

11 not a Department of Energy subcontractor. 

12 Well, at the time, EG&G Special Projects was a 

13 contractor for both the Department of Energy 

14 and the Department of Defense. I worked for -- 

15 part of the things that I did was the rad safe 

16 badge exchange. I traveled to and from across 

17 the Nevada Test Site, exchanged the dosimeter 

18 badges for that location, manned a post at the 

19 700 gate which was clearly out of the bounds of 

20 Area 51 directly across from a (unintelligible) 

21 guard. So I can't understand how the 

22 Department of Labor can suggest that Area 51, 

23 between October -- I mean from 1980 to '92 was 

24 not part of the Nevada Test Site. The prime 

25 contractor for that particular area was 
326

1 Reynolds Electric. All the contracts went -- 

2 for the subcontractors went through Reynolds 

3 Electric and the site manager was [name 

4 redacted] (unintelligible), as Mr. 

5 (unintelligible) said, and he was an employee 

6 of Reynolds Electric, who was the prime 

7 contractor for the Nevada Test Site. And with 

8 that, I -- I'd like to have some clarification. 

9 Either the President knowingly signed a bogus 

10 document or there's a mistake in the Department 

11 of Labor when they looked at my claim. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Fred. Again, 

13 this is an area -- it appeared to me, an area 

14 that is outside the jurisdiction of this Board. 

15 However, I will -- since there are some 

16 Department of Labor folks here with us tonight, 

17 I don't know if they're in a position to answer 

18 that at all but at least they've heard your 

19 comments and will follow up as they may deem 

20 necessary. Jeff Kotsch, you probably don't 

21 know the answer to that at the moment -- but he 

22 has heard your comment, so -- 

23 MR. DUNHAM: I -- I do have the -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Who is this? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Is this Fred? 
327

1 MR. DUNHAM: Yeah, this is Fred again. I do 

2 have the particular information on the site 

3 realignment that occurred in October -- 23 

4 October '99 that I could fax to you -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Not to us. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, again, this Board is not the 

7 one involved with those decisions by Labor. I 

8 think you would need to provide that directly 

9 to a Labor representative, and I'm going to 

10 pause here a minute. Maybe -- Jeff, can you 

11 advise me on -- 

12 MR. DUNHAM: Yeah, I -- I have done that -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. You have done that 

14 already? 

15 MR. DUNHAM: Yes, and -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's what you need to do. 

17 MR. DUNHAM: I sent them to the lady here and 

18 her name is -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Well, she -- 

20 MR. DUNHAM: -- [name redacted], I believe, and 

21 -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, well, she can channel that to 

23 the proper person then. Thank you very much. 

24 MR. FUNKE: Dr. Zimmer (sic), one -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 
328

1 MR. FUNKE: -- one comment, please. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 

3 MR. FUNKE: We are concerned with the 

4 boundaries at Nevada Test Site during the 

5 period of testing -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I understand -- 

7 MR. FUNKE: -- (unintelligible) 1992. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and -- and that could -- that 

9 could impact indeed on the rest of the program. 

10 Again, a determination that Labor would have to 

11 make on our behalf. 

12 MR. FUNKE: Well, one -- one thing I'd like to 

13 remind them of, though, like I said, the 

14 general manager was (unintelligible), he was 

15 the REECo general manager. All the employees 

16 worked over there were REECo employees. They 

17 all came and left the site through the Mercury 

18 gate. They all wore Department of Energy 

19 badges. All their paychecks was the same as 

20 mine. They were all REECo paychecks, and they 

21 was all paid for through the appropriations 

22 fund of Department of Energy. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 

24 MR. FUNKE: And this cannot be ignored longer. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 
329

1 MR. FUNKE: (Unintelligible) 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Is there anyone else on the line 

3 that wishes to make public comment? 

4 (No responses) 

5 Again I'll ask, is there anyone else who wishes 

6 to make public comment? 

7 UNIDENTIFIED: Hello? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? We hear you. Do you wish to 

9 make comment? 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: Well, yes, I must have gotten in 

11 the wrong conversation here 'cause I was -- my 

12 concern is relative to the Pinellas plant. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, the Pinellas -- this is 

14 dealing with the Energy Employees Occupational 

15 Illness Act. Pinellas plant is one of the 

16 facilities of interest. Do you have a comment 

17 relative to Pinellas? 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, only (unintelligible) -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Give us your name and then we'll 

20 hear what you say. 

21 MR. FLYNN: All right. Name is Jim Flynn, F-l22 y-n-n. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

24 MR. FLYNN: I live out in Oakland, California. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, what is your comment, Jim? 
330

1 MR. FLYNN: I guess it's more of a question, 

2 and that is -- I -- I've been diagnosed now 

3 with chemical (unintelligible), and as I look 

4 back over my career and the only place that I 

5 was exposed to that type of thing would have 

6 been at that location working -- I spent my 

7 time out there, approximately four years -- on 

8 the floor. And that would be making sure that 

9 (unintelligible) was in control or 

10 (unintelligible), that type thing. So is that 

11 (unintelligible) doctors explored this thing, 

12 who do I contact relative to information 

13 regarding (unintelligible) and, you know, that 

14 type of thing? 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I believe you're going to have to 

16 make contact with Labor, too. And if he's in 

17 California, can we give him a contact? Who 

18 would he contact in California for the proper 

19 information? We have some Labor folks here. 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: He can contact -- 

21 UNIDENTIFIED: You have to go to the 

22 microphone. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: There's a Labor (unintelligible). 

24 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to try to get you a 

25 name here 'cause you have to go through the 
331

1 Department of Labor on this. 

2 MR. FLYNN: Okay. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

4 MR. MILLER: Yeah, this is David Miller from 

5 the Jacksonville office. We would handle a 

6 claim for the Pinellas plant, and you would 

7 need to contact our office here in 

8 Jacksonville. If you could, if you could give 

9 us a telephone number, we can call you back and 

10 get that information from you personally. 

11 Would you mind doing that? 

12 MR. FLYNN: Sure, [redacted]. 

13 MR. MILLER: Okay, sir, we'll call you first 

14 thing tomorrow. Is that fine with you? 

15 MR. FLYNN: That's fine. Now who would be 

16 calling me? 

17 MR. MILLER: I'll call you myself. My name is 

18 David Miller. 

19 MR. FLYNN: Okay, Dave. All right, sir, look 

20 forward to the call. 

21 MR. MILLER: Thank you. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: And thank you, Jim. Hang on. 

23 We're going to repeat the phone number to make 

24 sure we have it right. It's [redacted]. Is 

25 that correct? 
332

1 (No responses) 

2 He may -- we may have lost him. 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: I got it on tape. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: We have it on tape if we need it, 

5 very good. 

6 Any -- is there anyone else on the line that 

7 wishes to make comment? 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: Is there -- can you make comment 

9 on Chapman Valve? 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you may. 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: Okay. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Identify yourself and make your 

13 comment. 

14 MR. DUARTE: My name is Robert Duarte. I'm 

15 from Springfield, Massachusetts. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Could you spell your last name? 

17 MR. DUARTE: D-u-a-r-t-e. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

19 MR. DUARTE: I'm hoping [redacted] in the 

20 audience there. I don't know if she is, but 

21 she lives in [redacted]. I'm calling 

22 concerning [redacted]. We had a -- appeals two 

23 years ago in [redacted] case. [redacted] 

24 worked for Chapman Valve as a foreman in 

25 Building 23 and he died at the age of 36. He 
333

1 was the second-youngest one to die there. 

2 Chapman Valve destroyed all his records and we 

3 have to prove that to the people that we went 

4 to the -- went to the tax people, we -- all his 

5 records prove that he worked there for 12 -- 12 

6 -- from '47 to '59 and that the appeals from 

7 Washington said they would give us a decision 

8 in 90 days. Now we're two years later waiting 

9 on this. I've spoken to Mark Rolfes on many 

10 occasions with no -- no -- no results. 

11 (Unintelligible) got a reading, they said they 

12 were going to send it back to Cincinnati so he 

13 could get another reading, and we're still 

14 waiting on that. And I asked them before the 

15 meeting, at the end of the meeting, if he was 

16 going to make the final decision and this 

17 gentleman, [name redacted](unintelligible), 

18 said that he was. And now, two years later, 

19 [redacted] going to be 85 now. She's still 

20 waiting, still getting the same results. 

21 I understand they're supposed to have a -- a 

22 recount somehow or some kind of 

23 (unintelligible) again. You know anything 

24 about when that's going to be? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: We'll give you a timetable here. 
334

1 Chapman Valve will be on our agenda tomorrow 

2 morning, -- 

3 DR. BRANCHE: I'd say after 10:00 a.m., Eastern 

4 Standard Time. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: -- approximately 10:00 a.m. 

6 Eastern time. You can -- again, you can call 

7 in and listen in if you wish. 

8 MR. DUARTE: On that vote, doing a re-vote 

9 again. They had a 6-6 vote the last time, I 

10 guess. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 

12 MR. DUARTE: Probably nothing transpired again, 

13 which they just keep prolonging this thing 

14 here, but nobody's getting results from Chapman 

15 Valve. You know, you don't just die at 36. 

16 The autopsy showed everything he had 

17 (unintelligible) -- slow everything down with 

18 [redacted], who's going -- like I said, she's 

19 going to be 85 and we still haven't got any 

20 results from the people there. I'm sure Mark 

21 Rolfes may be there, I don't know. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Mark is not here at this meeting, 

23 but as I say, we will be discussing Chapman 

24 tomorrow morning, approximately 10:00 o'clock, 

25 so you're -- you're welcome to join at that 
335

1 time, if you wish. 

2 MR. DUARTE: Has there been any other comments 

3 from Chapman Valve tonight? I don't know, I 

4 didn't get in at the beginning of this meeting, 

5 but -- 

6 MR. CLAWSON: Yes. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. There has been. 

8 MR. DUARTE: Okay. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

10 MR. DUARTE: Very good. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone else on the line that 

12 wishes to comment? 

13 MS. RYAN: Yes, my name is Darlene Ryan. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Ryan, is it, R-y-a-n? 

15 MS. RYAN: Yes, it is. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Proceed. 

17 MS. RYAN: You've had many calls from my 

18 friends and I who are in (unintelligible) and 

19 the contentions of most of the people is that 

20 they're spending more time and money denying us 

21 and having these meetings -- and one time it's 

22 in Vegas, the next time it's in Tampa or 

23 wherever -- that these people, day by day, are 

24 dying off and we keep getting the same results. 

25 They're not finding any new information. 
336

1 They're not coming up with anything that is 

2 positive for them but they're still putting us 

3 off like they are again tomorrow for the 

4 (unintelligible). And I was a little upset 

5 when today Dr. Poston said that he was really 

6 on (unintelligible) came up to Chapman Valve 

7 (unintelligible) without any (unintelligible) 

8 to him. I was there and he sat in the back of 

9 the room and at one point one of the girls hit 

10 me because he was snoozing. Well, I know 

11 (unintelligible) be over (unintelligible) we 

12 don't feel anybody is really listening to us 

13 and listening -- this -- we didn't ask for 

14 this. We did not ask you. You came to us. 

15 You opened up a part of my heart that I never 

16 knew the suffering and what my father went 

17 through and how he did it for his country. He 

18 took that (unintelligible), he probably, like 

19 most of them say, didn't even know how 

20 dangerous this job was, but he died for his 

21 country. He had a long, four-year death from 

22 cancer, and six months later my mother was 

23 dead, who took care of him. And finally in the 

24 back of our heads, we were going on, and you 

25 get a letter telling us that you're looking out 
337

1 for us to give us people something -- you're 

2 helping us, when you haven't helped us. You've 

3 hurt us. We have many people. 

4 (Unintelligible) paper I picked up a woman from 

5 Chapman Valve died. Are they just going to 

6 (unintelligible) until there won't be anybody 

7 left to pay? We're very hurt here and I feel 

8 very (unintelligible) when I get a call from 

9 someone who may say to me do you have any 

10 answers for me, and I say no. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Bev (sic), for 

12 those comments. Let me ask if there's anyone 

13 else on the line who wishes to comment? 

14 (No responses) 

15 No further comments? 

16 (No responses) 

17 Okay. Again, anyone here in the assembly that 

18 has comments? Yes -- 

19 MS. HAND: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

20 second chance? 

21 DR. ZIEMER: You bet. 

22 MS. HAND: Thank you. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Now you don't get another full ten 

24 minutes now, remember. 

25 MS. HAND: What was my remainder of time, did 
338

1 anybody notice? 

2 DR. ZIEMER: No, you're -- I'm just kidding. 

3 Go ahead. 

4 MS. HAND: My question is, is that the 

5 radionuclides, do they change, as far as 

6 factors go, to their distribution or their 

7 assumptions, depending on their geographic 

8 locations, such as in the dry areas where 

9 you've got sites that are in the dry area, does 

10 that energy distribution change as compared to 

11 Florida? (Unintelligible) has no effect on it, 

12 but it does have effect on the soluble and 

13 insoluble, does it not? 

14 Also, at the Pinellas plant was phosphoric 

15 acid. The phosphoric acid, if it came from 

16 central Florida, had a higher degree of uranium 

17 inside that phosphoric acid. Because it is 

18 mixed with acid, it is soluble, so therefore 

19 these workers were exposed to insoluble and 

20 soluble. There are eight sites in the state of 

21 Florida. Pinellas plant is the only ones 

22 having claims. Five of these sites are in the 

23 phosphate industry. And if you'll look at 

24 those, there's only two or three claims. Some 

25 of the sites have zero claims -- everything. 
339

1 We would request that you have a resource 

2 center or tell us how to go about getting a 

3 resource center for the state of Florida. 

4 These people are elderly. The survivors don't 

5 know anything, don't know how the program -- 

6 and the phone interviews are not working. 

7 For example, one of my clients was going to do 

8 a update on his employment history. I 

9 requested that the form be sent, because I'm 

10 his authorized representative, to him and me. 

11 I went to his house. We went over it. Again 

12 we find out that he was a janitor, but he 

13 worked as a decontamination area (sic) -- or 

14 that he did this, he did that. Okay, in what 

15 area did you work? We did this, we did that. 

16 We looked in the Pinellas baseline report, oh, 

17 this area -- you've -- exposed to this, this 

18 and this. You did this, this and this. You 

19 did this, this and this. By the time when we 

20 came to the interview, we had everything down 

21 pat. We knew exactly where you're exposed to 

22 beryllium instead of no, don't know, yes, we 

23 were exposed to beryllium. Were you exposed to 

24 cobalt? Yes, we were exposed to cobalt. Were 

25 you exposed to explosives such as boron? Yes, 
340

1 we were exposed to boron. We were exposed to 

2 all those incidents, besides the personal 

3 incidents. We had all that documentated (sic). 

4 Also in the form they are not claimant 

5 friendly. The NIOSH form that there was 

6 required for the people to sign at the end of 

7 the interview that I do not know anymore 

8 information is very, very intimidated and not 

9 claimant friendly at all. And in the hearing 

10 officers -- in their final decisions, use it 

11 against the claimants. The -- going back to 

12 the employment history, you have a frequency 

13 that you have to list. It's one to five in the 

14 very center, but over in the column it has one 

15 to three, five meaning every day, one meaning 

16 hardly ever. So if a -- over the phone you're 

17 saying answer me one to three, they're not 

18 getting the adequate picture because some of 

19 these people it happened every day, but -- and 

20 I asked the -- the hearing case person that was 

21 taking the interview, did you know that there's 

22 a clerical error? Yes, we know it's a 

23 technical error but we can't change it because 

24 DOL did it. It's a technical error that 

25 affects not only the claimant's dose 
341

1 reconstruction, but their entire claim. You 

2 know, these are just two issues that are very, 

3 very confusing. I called up the resource 

4 center as -- and suggested -- I said 'specially 

5 since these claims are elderly, whenever you 

6 call up and you make the appointment for a 

7 phone interview, why don't you send that 

8 employment history ahead of time to them so 

9 they can look over it, start refreshing their 

10 memory and et cetera, et cetera? We can't do 

11 that unless they ask for it. 

12 Again, these are issues that pertain to the 

13 law, the regulations, which is in your purview, 

14 that is in your job responsibility descriptions 

15 to help that part, to tell legislative these 

16 things are happening, not just the SEC group 

17 and everything, but dose reconstruction, the 

18 probability of causation and the problems these 

19 people are having with this. We want 

20 consistency, which means that if the guy next 

21 to me got paid for skin cancer, I did the same 

22 job, I worked the same way, how come I'm being 

23 denied skin cancer? I had the same dose. I 

24 had the same distribution. I had the same 

25 exposure to ionizing radiation. Why am I being 
342

1 denied? And again, we need a resource center 

2 here because we do have eight sites. We do 

3 have a lot of claimants that are not even aware 

4 of this program. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. And last 

6 call for anyone else here who wishes to 

7 comment. 

8 (No responses) 

9 If not, I thank you all for your time this 

10 evening. This Board will reconvene in the 

11 morning to complete our business, and we will 

12 hope to see many of you then. Thank you and 

13 good night. 

14 (Whereupon, the day's business was concluded at 

15 8:35 p.m.) 

16 
343

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of Apr. 8, 2008; 

and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 

testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

10th day of May, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102