NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

81st MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

DECEMBER 8, 2011

 The meeting convened at 8:30 a.m., 

Eastern Standard Time, in the Tampa Marriott 

Westshore, 1001 N. Westshore Blvd., Tampa, 

Florida, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS:

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE

ANDERSON, DAVID

ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A*

BALDRIDGE, SANDRA*

BATT, CHRISTINA, DCAS

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE*

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH

DARNELL, PETE, DCAS

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A

HAND, DONNA

HINNEFELD, STU, DCAS

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL

LEWIS, GREG, DOE

LIN, JENNY, HHS

LIPSZTEIN, JOYCE, SC&A*

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

MCFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

MONTE, LAURA*

NETON, JIM, DCAS

RINGEN, KNUT

ROLFES, MARK, DCAS

ROWE, GORDON*

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, DCAS

STIVER, JOHN, SC&A 

TAULBEE, TIM, DCAS* 

WARREN, BOB*

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Opening Remarks 4 

Linde Ceramics SEC Petition

Senator Statement 6 

Work Group Comments 9 

Science Work Group Update 62

Fernald SEC 

Feed Materials Production Center 65

SC&A 69

Petitioner Statement 121

Savannah River Site 134

SC&A Statement 143

Board Letter Reviews 236

Adjournment 312
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 8:31 a.m.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Good morning, 

4 everybody. We'll reconvene. Everybody is 

5 prepared here this morning for that.

6 So, and with that, welcome, Mark 

7 Griffon, who has joined us today, and let me 

8 turn it over to Ted, for the preliminaries.

9 MR. KATZ: Sure, thank you, Jim. 

10 Let me check on the line, to see if we have 

11 Member Mike Gibson. Are you on the line with 

12 us, this morning?

13 (No response.)

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, then just a 

15 couple of things. Welcome, everyone, here and 

16 on the line, for day two of our Board meeting.

17 There is no public comment session 

18 today. Just a couple of things.

19 We have several presentations 

20 today. Those presentations, you should find 

21 on the NIOSH website, under the Board section. 

22 So, you can follow along from wherever you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 are.

2 I'll just ask folks on the phone 

3 to please mute your phones while you're 

4 listening. Press *6 if you don't have a mute 

5 button, and then press *6 again to come off of 

6 mute, if you're going to address the Board, if 

7 you're a petitioner for one of these 

8 presentations.

9 Please don't put the phone on hold 

10 at any point, but hang up and dial back in, if 

11 you have to leave the call for a while, and 

12 that's it. I think we're ready to go. Thanks.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, the first 

14 item on our agenda this morning is the Linde 

15 Ceramics Plant, the SEC petition, and we have 

16 a request from Senator Schumer's office to 

17 read a statement into the record. Laura 

18 Monte, are you on the line?

19 MS. MONTE: Yes, I am.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, go ahead. 

21 Welcome.

22 MS. MONTE: Okay, thank you. Good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 morning. 

2 I wanted to briefly address the 

3 Advisory Board regarding this issue that 

4 concerns Senator Schumer and Senator 

5 Gillibrand.

6 Today, the Board will be 

7 discussing and voting on the Linde SEC 

8 petition. Senator Gillibrand joins Senator 

9 Schumer in expressing great pleasure and 

10 relief that this second and final Linde 

11 Ceramics SEC petition has been recommended for 

12 approval by NIOSH.

13 Sickened Linde Ceramics workers 

14 and their families have been waiting for many 

15 years for not only the final disposition of 

16 these two SEC petitions, but also for a 

17 complete and accurate Site Profile that will 

18 provide the basis for the evaluation of 

19 individual dose reconstruction claims for 

20 those workers that do not meet the SEC 

21 requirements for fair compensation.

22 NIOSH has been using a wholly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 incomplete and fundamentally inaccurate Site 

2 Profile to evaluate individual dose 

3 reconstruction claims for Linde Ceramics 

4 workers since 2005.

5 Senator Schumer and Senator 

6 Gillibrand find this extended degree of delay 

7 to be both unreasonable and unconscionable, in 

8 light of the paramount interest in NIOSH 

9 providing timely evaluation and disposition of 

10 all claims.

11 Senator Schumer and Senator 

12 Gillibrand strongly urge NIOSH and the 

13 Advisory Board to work together to expedite 

14 the much needed and long delayed revision of 

15 the Linde Ceramic Site Profile, to ensure that 

16 those Claimants that do not meet the SEC 

17 requirements may finally receive the full, 

18 fair and Claimant-favorable evaluation of 

19 their individual dose reconstruction claims 

20 that they have been denied for far too long.

21 Senator Schumer and Gillibrand 

22 would also respectfully request that our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 offices receive a full listing of those 

2 Claimants that will have their previously 

3 denied individual dose reconstruction claims 

4 re-evaluated and re-dosed as soon as 

5 practicable.

6 If you have any questions or need 

7 further information, Senators Schumer and 

8 Gillibrand would ask that you please contact 

9 Ms. Antoinette Bonsignore, who has been an 

10 advocate and representative for the Linde 

11 Ceramics workers and their families for the 

12 past eight years.

13 Both Senators' offices will be in 

14 contact with Dr. Howard in the near future, to 

15 discuss this matter. 

16 Senator Schumer and Gillibrand 

17 hope that NIOSH and the Advisory Board will 

18 seriously consider the consequences of this 

19 policy today when voting on the Linde SEC 

20 petition, and for all SEC petitions going 

21 forward.

22 Thank you for your attention to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 this critical request.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you.

3 MS. MONTE: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And now, we'll 

5 proceed with our discussion on Linde, and I 

6 believe Gen Roessler would like to say a few 

7 words of introduction. Gen is Chair of the 

8 Work Group.

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: Thank you, Jim. 

10 I thought I'd bring the Board up to date on 

11 our Work Group activities.

12 We're considering the Linde SEC13 00154 petition, which covers the dates 

14 November 1, 1947 through December 31, 1953.

15 We had a Work Group meeting with 

16 regard to this period, just before our last 

17 Board meeting, and at that meeting, we met 

18 face-to-face in Cincinnati.

19 We identified a number of things 

20 that we had to discuss, utility tunnels. There 

21 was a new TBD at that time, which SC&A hadn't 

22 looked at, and we talked a lot about uranium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 progeny, and we decided that we wanted SC&A to 

2 look at a number of these things, and then 

3 we'd meet again.

4 We scheduled a meeting for October 

24th 5 . We thought we were ready to begin the 

6 evaluation that NIOSH had prepared at that 

7 time, that they could do dose reconstruction, 

8 but then we learned that there was -- that 

9 DCAS had re-evaluated the information in quite 

10 a bit of depth.

11 They presented it to us that Work 

12 Group meeting, and in their re-evaluation, 

13 they had decided that there wasn't sufficient 

14 information to do dose reconstruction.

15 This was kind of a -- it came upon

16 us rather quickly, and although Jim Neton made 

17 a very good presentation, when I read back 

18 over the transcript, I see it's all really 

19 there, but it came kind of quickly.

20 So, we decided we needed a little 

21 time to think about it. We wanted to see the 

22 new ER from DCAS. They promised that to us by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 late November. We received it on November 

22nd 2 . 

3 Monday after Thanksgiving, I took 

4 out the old ER and the new ER, and I'm sitting 

5 there, trying to compare them and that -- you 

6 just can't get the gist out of that. 

7 So, I asked DCAS and Chris 

8 Crawford, could he prepare a written brief 

9 summary itemizing why they had revised their 

10 petition.

11 He did a very good job of that, 

12 and it's in your packet. If you want to look 

13 at the details, you can read that.

14 So, then the Work Group met again 

15 by teleconference, and we had this good 

16 summary. We recognize a lot of work was done, 

17 not only by DCAS, but SC&A in looking at all 

18 the new information.

19 So, that is the background. Jim 

20 is going to present the PER, and then I'll 

21 give you the conclusions of the Work Group, 

22 and I'm hoping we can have a vote this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 morning.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, and just -

3 - because I believe the Petitioners are on the 

4 line, also, just to clarify what our 

5 procedures are, we'll hear from Jim Neton. Gen 

6 will provide some further comments, and we'll 

7 have some -- any questions for Jim, sort of 

8 technical questions, comments on the report 

9 and so forth, and then before we take any 

10 action or propose any action, we'd like to 

11 hear from the Petitioners, also.

12 So, at that point, we'll call on 

13 the Petitioners. So, go ahead, Jim.

14 DR. NETON: Okay, thank you, Dr. 

15 Melius. That was a pretty good introduction 

16 by Gen. 

17 I am going to talk about Revision 

18 1 of the Evaluation Report, where NIOSH has 

19 come to a conclusion to reverse our previous 

20 position, that dose reconstruction can be 

21 done, that was I think, presented to the Board 

22 a little over a year ago, November 2010, Rev 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 0, I think it was at the Redondo Beach 

2 meeting, although I'm not certain of that.

3 I have some background slides, 

4 just to refresh your memory about Linde and 

5 what has transpired, and then I'll have a few 

6 slides to detail, and hopefully I can convey 

7 to you the rationale behind our change of 

8 opinion here.

9 The petition has been around for a 

10 while. It was received, as you see here, 

11 November 2009, and the Class here was all 

12 employees who worked at the Linde Ceramics 

13 Plant from November 1, 1947 to December 31, 

14 1953. It's a discrete six-year -- almost six15 year interval, and it qualified in 2010, 

16 January.

17 NIOSH has evaluated the same Class 

18 that was petitioned for, which is that same 

19 time interval, 1947 to 1953.

20 The covered period, I'll remind 

21 the Board, runs from October 1, 1942 through 

22 December 31, 1953. That's the AEC contract 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 period. 

2 Then there is a residual 

3 contamination period that extends from that 53 

4 date, all the way through October 2009, and 

5 it's actually still contaminated.

6 That date is there because that's 

7 the latest update of NIOSH's residual 

8 contamination report, or the latest non-draft 

9 version of NIOSH's residual contamination 

10 report.

11 The last bullet here I think is 

12 fairly important. There were two previously 

13 added Classes to the SEC, and those were from 

14 October 1, 1942 to October 31, 1947, the very 

15 beginning period of Linde, that was -- became 

16 an SEC based on an 83.14 petition by NIOSH, 

17 and then there was another Class added more 

18 recently, from January 1954 through December 

19 1969.

20 If you recall, that was after the 

21 covered period was over. We were in the 

22 residual period, but there was some renovation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 activities going on, that the Board felt that 

2 we couldn't reconstruct with sufficient 

3 accuracy.

4 So, the bottom line is, this --

5 the Class that we're talking about today is 

6 right smack in the middle of those two other 

7 Classes.

8 I've talked about this, the 

9 original proposal that was presented to the 

10 Board in November 2010, and our belief that we 

11 could reconstruct doses with sufficient 

12 accuracy was largely tied to these 

13 approximately 600 urine samples that we had 

14 that were collected between 1947 and 1950.

15 The fair amount of urinalyses data 

16 available, it seemed to us that we could use 

17 those, like we always do in modeling, to come 

18 up with exposures for workers in those areas.

19 But during the review, as Gen 

20 suggested, we went back and took a fairly 

21 detailed look at what those urine samples 

22 represented and how they could or could not be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 used to reconstruct doses in a couple of 

2 different situations that I'll talk about 

3 later.

4 This just more -- by way of more 

5 background information. I think we're all 

6 familiar that the plant is in Tonawanda and it 

7 wasn't unique -- it wasn't new to Linde that 

8 they were handling uranium. They actually 

9 worked with uranium to make dyes and ceramic 

10 tableware and such.

11 But in 1942, the Manhattan 

12 Engineer District contracted to make uranium 

13 oxide and later, green salt.

14 There were a number of buildings 

15 erected by the Manhattan Engineering District, 

16 and these are actually DOE facilities, as 

17 such, and they constructed several buildings. 

18 The ones that we're going to talk about today 

19 are Building 30 and 38. So, keep those in 

20 mind.

21 There was a three-step process. 

22 They started originally with just raw ore. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 think I have some slides here. 

2 The three-step process, the first 

3 process, which happened very early on in the 

4 contract period, was the conversion of uranium 

5 ore, which included Belgian Congo ore and some 

6 tailings, ores, all kinds of varieties of ores 

7 that were unpurified, if you will, and 

8 converted that ore to U3O8, also known as 

9 black oxide.

10 We all know, this is very much 

11 like the operation that occurred at 

12 Mallinckrodt, where you end up with a lot of 

13 raffinate material, that is residual extracted 

14 material that contains the uranium progeny.

15 Most of the raw ores that came, 

16 for instance, from the Belgian Congo, are 

17 pretty much assumed, and I think this is true, 

18 to be in 100 percent equilibrium, all the 

19 long-lived progeny are there, you know, the 

20 radium, in particular.

21 And so, in that process, you end 

22 up extracting a lot of these and concentrating 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 a lot of these progeny in various steps and in 

2 various pieces of equipment.

3 If you remember, the Mallinckrodt 

4 SEC was added because of the -- I think it was 

5 the Sperry filter cakes, or something like 

6 that, where there was a thorium concentrate or 

7 they had no monitoring data for those workers. 

8 So, keep that in mind.

9 Step two, which also occurred in 

10 Building 30, was the conversion of the black 

11 oxide to brown oxide UO2, with UO3 as an 

12 intermediate.

13 So, these two steps were in 

14 Building 30. We all recall that Building 30 

15 was the, quote-unquote, most contaminated 

16 building onsite, primarily because of these --

17 the ores that were processed through there.

18 Step three is a slightly different 

19 situation, though. They converted the UO2, 

20 the brown oxide to green salt, uranium tetra 

21 fluoride, and that was done solely in Building 

22 37 and 38, mostly in 38.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 Because the ore had been --

2 because the uranium had been extracted and 

3 purified, you don't have the raffinate 

4 problem, the residual long-lived radioactivity 

5 issue in Building 38 that you would have in 

6 Building 30.

7 Okay, that kind of sets the stage. 

8 This is just talking a little bit about the 

9 production of UF4 in Building 38. The time 

10 period was from November 1947 through the 

11 middle of 1949, and that particular process, 

12 they fluorinated UO2 to produce the UF4 and 

13 the fluorine will become important as I talk, 

14 in a little bit.

15 But as I mentioned, it started 

16 with purified uranium, so, there was no 

17 progeny.

18 The D&D operations, the major 

19 operations, again, I forget the topic of the 

20 next slide here, which is the major 

21 operations. I want to focus on what happened 

22 between 1947 and 1953.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 So, here we have in 1947 and to 

2 the middle of 1949, the production of UF4 in 

3 Building 38, but we also have somewhat 

4 simultaneously ongoing, the D&D of Building 

5 30, it had all the raffinate material in it.

6 There was the step two process 

7 equipment that was removed. A lot of step one 

8 equipment was being decommissioned, et cetera, 

9 and we recall from the last SEC, there was 

10 extensive activity, sand blasting, removal of 

11 contaminated parts, jackhammering, torching, a 

12 number of things they tried to clean up that 

13 building, and as I mentioned, this created a 

14 large potential for exposure to uranium and 

15 progeny.

16 So, you've got two buildings here, 

17 Building 30 and 38.

18 Building 38, after they stopped 

19 production of the uranium tetrafluoride, is a 

20 little less uncertain as to what happened.

21 The decontamination efforts --

22 there certainly was a lot of contamination 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 there. They produced a fair amount of UF4, 

2 but the decontamination efforts were not able 

3 to find any significant amount of 

4 documentation as to what occurred, although it 

5 is fairly clear from a memo trail, that 

6 various attempts had been made to clean it up.

7 There was a minor clean-up that we 

8 identified at the end of operations. Equipment 

9 was placed in stand-by. As I mentioned, if 

10 you go through these memos, it's almost sort 

11 of an implied thing. They would survey it, 

12 and then a couple of years later, they would 

13 survey it again, and say, well, it's still not 

14 clean enough. How clean does it need to be?

15 It wasn't until 1954 that they 

16 finally cleaned it to the point where they 

17 felt it was available for release.

18 We have absolutely no internal 

19 monitoring data for these efforts. I 

20 mentioned at the onset that 1947 to 1950, we 

21 have about 600 urine samples. After 1950, 

22 there is nothing. We have no air sample data. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 We have no urine sample data.

2 So, we took a look at the 1947 to 

3 1950 urine sample data, fairly took a hard 

4 look at it, and to see what we could do with 

5 it, based on these two conditions that 

6 existed.

7 The uranium was, as usual in this 

8 time period, a fluorometric analysis, meaning 

9 it measured only mass of uranium. You had no 

10 isotopic information from that measurement.

11 Looking at the details, and I 

12 spent some time looking at the individual 

13 results. They appear to almost -- not almost 

14 -- not exclusively, but almost exclusively, 

15 then collected the monitored workers in 

16 Building 38. 

17 That was the building that did not 

18 have the raffinate material. It was purified 

19 uranium, and it makes some sense, and part of 

20 the reason I believe that, is that most of the 

21 urine samples had a fluorine result associated 

22 with them.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 If you remember, they used 

2 hydrofluoric acid as part of the process, and 

3 I'm forgetting what the biological effect of 

4 hydrofluoric acid is on the body, but I'm sure 

5 it's not good.

6 So, they were keeping track of the 

7 amount of fluorine that people were excreting 

8 to make sure that they didn't incur a health 

9 hazard from that chemical.

10 So, anyway, that kind of 

11 corroborated that these samples were really 

12 not taken for any -- were primarily taken for 

13 monitoring workers in Building 38, and 

14 remember, we had the ongoing operation of the 

15 clean-up of Building 30, with the raffinate

16 material.

17 We have no evidence that the 

18 workers that were doing the clean-up were 

19 monitored in Building 30 and in fact, even if 

20 they were, you remember, this is a uranium 

21 mass measurement. 

22 It gives you no information about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 the thorium-230, the radium-226, all the other 

2 long-lived progeny that could have been there 

3 from the uranium, and by nature of the 

4 chemical process, there would have been 

5 various pieces of equipment that had 

6 concentrated levels of different 

7 radionuclides.

8 So, we really don't know what 

9 those workers were breathing and being exposed 

10 to during the D&D of Building 30.

11 There are air sample data from 

12 that period, but they are gross alpha 

13 measurements. We have no isotopic-specific 

14 activity.

15 So, as I indicate here, mass 

16 measurements are incapable of evaluating 

17 intakes of long-lived progeny present in 

18 Building 30, and since we have no bioassay or 

19 air sample data after 1950, we really don't 

20 feel that we can bound the -- any of the D&D 

21 activities that had occurred in Building 30 --

22 38, which is the purified uranium processing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 building, but we have no bioassay samples.

2 If there was D&D activities going 

3 on, what do you use to bound those exposures?

4 So, this is sort of -- I think 

5 sort of summarizes what I just said. Building 

6 38 was decontaminated after July 1949. So, 

7 they were either unmonitored or the monitoring 

8 records have been lost. 

9 Building 38 was contaminated with 

10 raffinate material that included some 

11 raffinates of unknown concentration, and it is 

12 now our opinion that the available bioassay 

13 data are incapable of quantifying exposures in 

14 either of those plants. That is, the entire 

15 time period between 1947 and 1953.

16 I'll talk a little bit about 

17 radon, that's been an issue here. It's our 

18 favorite exposure pathway, I believe.

19 In the Linde site exposure -- or 

20 the Site Profile, it is assumed that all 

21 workers were exposed to 10 picocuries per 

22 liter radon in above-ground structures.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 That value was arrived at by 

2 looking at the values of radon that were 

3 measured during the processing of the ores 

4 that had long-lived progeny in them, and what 

5 we did was, we took the lowest concentrations 

6 that were measured in the era, and said, well, 

7 we don't know what they are, but they're 

8 certainly no higher than what -- the lowest 

9 concentration that was measured during the 

10 processing era, and that ended up being 10 

11 picocuries per liter.

12 So, in dose reconstructions, we 

13 will assume that all workers, since we don't 

14 know where people really ended up being, you 

15 know, during the plant production era, all 

16 workers will be exposed to 10 picocuries per 

17 liter.

18 There has been some discussion 

19 about these tunnels, these underground tunnels 

20 that are there. Our documentation, we feel 

21 fairly strongly indicates that the utility 

22 tunnels near the plant were not built until 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 after 1956. That is, 1957 and 1961.

2 So, and we also -- there is some 

3 conflicting -- we have a couple of conflicting 

4 pieces of worker input on this issue, but we 

5 feel that the weight of the evidence is that 

6 these tunnels weren't there.

7 So, we don't believe that there 

8 should be any radon assigned from the 

9 underground tunnels during this time period.

10 That is the subject of some debate 

11 still within the Working Group, I believe, and 

12 in our opinion, that rises to the value of the 

13 level of a Site Profile issue.

14 External dose, we still believe 

15 that we can reconstruct. We haven't changed 

16 our opinion on this. 

17 There are direct beta/gamma 

18 measurements -- I mean, there is about 6,000 

19 weekly film badge results that we have, that 

20 we can use to correlate job category and 

21 measured dose, and there are a few gaps in the 

22 records where film badge data are not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 available, but we have some fair --

2 significant amount of radiation area survey 

3 data that we can use to supplement the film 

4 badge readings.

5 So, we feel fairly comfortable 

6 that we can still bound the external exposures 

7 to workers between 1947 and 1953, and those 

8 would be included in dose reconstructions for 

9 those folks with non-presumptive cancers.

10 Okay, the evaluation process, 

11 we've already determined that it's not 

12 feasible to estimate the radiation dose with 

13 sufficient accuracy, so, by definition, in 

14 this case, health has been endangered, we 

15 believe, as this slide indicates.

16 So, once health has been 

17 endangered, then we need to determine if -- is 

18 it based on just presence or is it 250 days, 

19 and our review of that, like many other sites, 

20 indicates that there was no individual 

21 incident that we could use -- we could point 

22 to, that would have endangered health, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 these essentially were the result of chronic 

2 exposures incurred over a period of time and 

3 therefore, we will use the 250-day parameter 

4 to -- for workers to be -- you know, 250 days 

5 is required to have worked there to be a 

6 member of the Class.

7 Our final recommendation here is 

8 all NIOSH employees who worked in any area of 

9 Linde Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York 

10 from November 1, 1947 through December 31, 

11 1953, for a number of work days aggregating at 

12 least 250 days, and this is our summary of our 

13 recommendations here.

14 We cannot do uranium and progeny 

15 exposure. It's not feasible for the entire 

16 time period. We will assign 10 picocuries per 

17 liter radon exposures for those not in the 

18 Class. 

19 We can do external exposure. 

20 Medical, I should have made a little note on 

21 that.

22 Medical exposures, we came across 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 some records that indicated that the medical 

2 x-rays were taken offsite between 1947 and 

3 1959, I believe, at the Blackrock Clinic, is 

4 what I'm remembering.

5 Since they were taken offsite, 

6 then they're not covered exposure under this 

7 program. After 1950, they were taken onsite. 

8 So, we will assign medical 

9 exposures between 1950 and 1953, for those not 

10 in this Class, and that is it. I'll be happy 

11 to answer any questions.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Jim. 

13 Wanda?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Jim, do I understand 

15 correctly from what you said, that the major 

16 factor here in our lack of information centers 

17 around the scarcity of air samples and our 

18 ability to determine what, other than uranium, 

19 was being kicked up during the D&D period; is 

20 that correct?

21 DR. NETON: That would be correct, 

22 between 1947 and 1950. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 MEMBER MUNN: No, this period, the 

2 early period.

3 DR. NETON: The early period. 

4 After 1950, the D&D operations were over in 

5 Building 30. 

6 We don't know what really occurred 

7 in there, either, that well, but principally, 

8 you have indications that D&D occurred in 

9 Building 38, where there was uranium 

10 contamination, no long-lived progeny, but 

11 uranium, purified uranium, and we have zero 

12 bioassays.

13 I mean, no samples. No air 

14 samples. Nothing, in that three-year period.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, fine, just 

16 wanted that clarification. Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

18 with -- yes, David?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You talked us 

20 through issues regarding Building 38 and some 

21 of the issues regarding Building 30.

22 There were two other buildings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 that were related to step three, if I'm 

2 understanding this.

3 DR. NETON: Yes.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, you 

5 pointed to 37, and there's also --

6 DR. NETON: Yes.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- what wasn't 

8 measured is 31 --

9 DR. NETON: Yes.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- which I 

11 wondering if you could tell us about that.

12 DR. NETON: Yes, 31, I had 

13 originally on my slide 31, and it's really not 

14 clear to me. It appeared to be more of a 

15 warehouse-type structure, than anything, a 

16 very small block building.

17 So, yes, I don't think it was a 

18 major player. It certainly could have had 

19 contamination, as well, and added to the 

20 confusion that we would see.

21 But 38, in my opinion, is by far 

22 and away, the largest source of potential 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 exposure.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And 37 is the 

3 same?

4 DR. NETON: Thirty-seven is 

5 similar. I think it's sort of intermediate 

6 between the cinder-block building and 38.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anybody else 

9 with questions? 

10 I think, Gen, you wanted to say a 

11 few words in follow-up?

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Well, why don't 

13 we hear from Antoinette first?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Well, 

15 now, if no more questions or comments, we'll 

16 now turn to the Petitioners, and I believe 

17 Antoinette, are you on the line?

18 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, I am, Dr. 

19 Melius. Can everybody hear -- can you hear 

20 me?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, we can, 

22 very well. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay, great. 

2 Thank you. Thank you very much.

3 Good morning, Dr. Melius, Members 

4 of the Board. I want to thank you on behalf 

5 of the Linde workers and their families for 

6 this opportunity to address the Board this 

7 morning.

8 I would also like to thank the 

9 Linde Work Group for their efforts during the 

10 Linde SEC evaluation process.

11 I will be providing the Board with 

12 a copy of my presentation later this morning.

13 This morning, I am going to 

14 address three main points. First, I will 

15 recap the very long journey the Linde workers 

16 and their families have traveled since the 

17 initial filing of their SEC petitions in March 

18 of 2008.

19 Second, I will discuss some 

20 ongoing problems and concerns within the post21 SEC Evaluation Process regarding the re22 evaluation of previously denied individual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 dose reconstruction claims.

2 Lastly, I will discuss what can be 

3 done moving forward to provide greater 

4 oversight to the SEC and post-SEC evaluation 

5 processes.

6 I wish to also express how 

7 grateful I am that NIOSH has finally 

8 recommended the approval of Linde Ceramics 

9 SEC-154.

10 More importantly, I would like to 

11 express how grateful the Linde community is, 

12 that NIOSH decided to delve more deeply into 

13 the critical data that they have been relying 

14 upon for this SEC during these past six weeks 

15 to discover that their initial evaluation 

16 recommendation was incorrect, and calling for 

17 a wholesale reversal and recommendation for 

18 SEC approval.

19 NIOSH's decision has brought a 

20 great deal of relief and solace to many 

21 families that have been waiting for the final 

22 conclusion to this long process.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 To begin, I would like to briefly 

2 recap this SEC history for the Board. 

3 Linde workers and their families 

4 started this SEC petition process in March 

5 2008, when two SEC petitions were filed, one 

6 covering the residual period, which was 

7 eventually recommended for approval by this 

8 Board, over NIOSH's objection. The second 

9 SEC, which we are discussing today, was not 

10 initially qualified for review. 

11 As the Linde SEC representative, I 

12 appealed that denial and that appeal was 

13 rejected. 

14 NIOSH denied qualification 

15 initially on June 26, 2008. I then appealed 

16 that denial, to a three-member panel, which 

17 quickly affirmed NIOSH's refusal to qualify 

18 this SEC petition.

19 In order to discover what 

20 reasoning the three-member panel had used to 

21 justify the qualification denial, I was forced 

22 to go into federal court, to get a copy of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 panel's August 2008 report, which the CDC FOIA 

2 Office initially refused to disclose pursuant 

3 to my FOIA request.

4 Eventually, the CDC FOIA Office 

5 released that report, which turned out to be a 

6 mere one-page document that contained nothing 

7 more than a boilerplate and perfunctory review 

8 of the SEC qualification denial.

9 After some additional information 

10 that the Petitioners gathered from SC&A's many 

11 reviews of the Linde Site Profile issues, this 

12 current SEC petition was refiled on November 

13 5, 2009, and it finally qualified for review 

14 on January 22, 2010, nearly two years after 

15 the initial filing of this SEC petition in 

16 March 2008.

17 NIOSH's first November 2010 

18 Evaluation Report recommended the denial of 

19 this SEC, then quite unexpectedly, NIOSH 

announced during the October 24th 20 Linde Work 

21 Group meeting that, after combing through the 

22 available data over the past six weeks, NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 had discovered that they had been 

2 misidentifying the most critical data that 

3 they needed -- that they had been relying 

4 upon, presumably since the issuance of the 

5 first Linde Site Profile in 2005, that NIOSH 

6 needed to reconstruct dose for this Class of 

7 workers.

8 So, after a very long journey, 

9 that has been highly complex, opaque and mind10 bending at times, the Linde workers and their 

11 families have come to the end of a long road 

12 that officially began for the Linde community 

13 in March 2008, but in reality, started in 

14 April of 2003.

15 The second issue I want to address 

16 this morning brings me to the post-SEC 

17 evaluation process, and what can be done to 

18 provide more consistent and claimant-favorable 

19 outcomes during the post-SEC evaluation 

20 process.

21 Individual claimants that have 

22 never and will never meet the SEC requirements 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 are still being denied their most fundamental 

2 rights under this repairatory compensation 

3 program.

4 It is in my opinion, one of the 

5 most critical and fundamental underpinnings of 

6 why EEOICPA was enacted and what it was 

7 intended to accomplish, that being the timely 

8 and fair compensation of sickened workers.

9 In this post-SEC evaluation 

10 process, details and accuracy matter, because 

11 those details affect the lives of aggrieved 

12 and sickened workers, which brings me to the 

13 Linde Site Profile and the newly revised and 

14 recently issued ER.

15 NIOSH has been using a wholly 

16 incomplete and fundamental -- fundamentally 

17 inaccurate Site Profile to evaluate individual 

18 claims for Linde workers since the issuance of 

19 the very first Linde Site Profile in 2005.

20 There have been four additional 

21 revisions since 2005. This extraordinary 

22 degree of delay is both unreasonable and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 unconscionable, in light of paramount interest 

2 NIOSH has in providing for timely evaluation 

3 and disposition of all claims. Some of these 

4 claims date as far back to the inception of

5 this program.

6 But my concern is twofold. First, 

7 at the last Linde Work Group meeting, held 

8 last Thursday, when I first received a copy of 

9 the revised ER and a copy of a simplified 

10 explanation of what data NIOSH has been 

11 misidentifying for so many years and why that 

12 data could no longer be used to reconstruct 

13 dose for this Class of workers, I raised this 

14 very issue, regarding those claimants that are 

15 still waiting for the proper and fair 

16 evaluation of their claims.

17 Some members of the DCAS team 

18 seemed to indicate, rather quickly, after I 

19 expressed my concerns about the Site Profile, 

20 that my concerns were unfounded and somewhat 

21 irrelevant because hardly any previously 

22 denied claims would be affected by the ensuing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 Site Profile revision to the degree that would 

2 result in the approval of those claims.

3 Admittedly, there was some push4 back about the impact of Site Profile 

5 revisions from other members of the DCAS team. 

6 However, I cannot remain anything 

7 but troubled, by the -- about the integrity of 

8 the eventual program Evaluation Report, and 

9 claims re-evaluation process, after having 

10 that meeting.

11 The second concern I have deals 

12 with my review of the revised ER of this past 

13 weekend, where I discovered some rather 

14 troubling problems within the revised ER, that 

15 were not -- I would like to now briefly 

16 outline for the Board, and specifically, for 

17 the Linde Work Group.

18 First, regarding the ongoing issue 

19 of when the underground tunnels were 

20 constructed under the main uranium ore 

21 processing building. NIOSH still maintains 

22 that those tunnels did not exist under those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 uranium ore processing buildings during the 

2 operational time period.

3 What concerns me is that there is 

4 zero mention of the written memoranda that I 

5 supplied to NIOSH and the Linde Work Group in 

6 December 2010, regarding this specific issue 

7 in the revised ER, and along with that memo, I 

8 also supplied a number of original Linde 

9 memoranda from 1945 and 1948, regarding the 

10 diversion of effluents from overflowing 

11 injection wells near the ore processing 

12 buildings, to injection wells located near the 

13 Tonawanda building and Building 8, which is 

14 also known as Plant 1.

15 That memo and accompanying 

16 documents are not listed in the revised ER 

17 references and were never noted in the second 

18 revised ER, discussing the tunnel issue.

19 Moreover, that same memo and 

20 documentation is also never mentioned in the 

21 most recent version of the Linde Site Profile 

22 issued on July 15, 2011.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 In my opinion, those documents 

2 clearly demonstrate that effluence was averted 

3 from wells near Building 30 or the ceramic 

4 wells, at the northwest end of the site, to 

5 the wells near Building 8, or the Plant 1 

6 wells at the southeast end of the site.

7 Furthermore, no mention is made 

8 that Steve Ostrow from SC&A has recommended, 

9 after reviewing this information along with 

10 all of the information that NIOSH has supplied 

11 to date about the tunnel construction issue, 

12 and here, I'm just going to briefly quote Mr. 

13 Ostrow from our Linde Working Group meeting 

from October 24th 14 , where he said, SC&A's 

15 position on the tunnels is that we reviewed 

16 everything that NIOSH supplied, reviewed 

17 everything that Antoinette Bonsignore 

18 supplied, various things, and we really can't 

19 -- we think there is no definitive answer, 

20 when the tunnels were built. So, our 

21 conclusion is that there really is 

22 insufficient hard evidence to say when the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 tunnels were built, and that I guess a 

2 claimant-favorable conservative assumption 

3 would just be assuming that the tunnels were 

4 there all the time. There is too much doubt 

5 about when they were actually built.

6 You can review Mr. Ostrow's 

7 complete comments and further details about 

8 this issue in my written materials.

9 Again, I would remind the Board 

10 and the Linde Work Group that none of this 

11 petitioner-submitted information is noted in 

12 the July 2011 revised Site Profile or the 

13 newly revised ER.

14 Consequently, I cannot help but 

15 question whether NIOSH -- whether the NIOSH 

16 team has seriously considered this 

17 information. 

18 I find this to be yet another 

19 example of an extremely troubling pattern of 

20 Petitioners' and workers' arguments and 

21 statements, being disregarded time and again, 

22 as wholly irrelevant to the SEC and Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 Profile revision discussions.

2 A second serious problem within 

3 the revised ER is the continued use and 

4 reliance upon discredited interviews conducted 

5 by the ORAU team, with some Linde workers in 

6 March 2010.

7 All of the ORAU March 2010 

8 telephone interviews are noted in the revised 

9 ER's reference section. These interviews had 

10 been repeatedly discredited because the ORAU 

11 failed to verify the statements noted in those 

12 transcript summaries with the workers they 

13 interviewed, before releasing the transcripts 

14 of those interviews for use by the Linde Work 

15 Group.

16 One of those workers was then re17 interviewed by SC&A in May 2010 during the 

18 Niagara Falls Board meeting.

19 Mr. Hinnefeld was kind enough to 

20 apologize to that worker for the fact that he 

21 was materially misquoted and misrepresented in 

22 that ORAU interview transcript and needed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 attend an interview session with SC&A in 

2 Niagara Falls to rectify that misinformation, 

3 much of which dealt with misinformation 

4 regarding the occupancy and the use of the 

5 tunnels by workers.

6 I must ask why these interviews 

7 are still being referenced by NIOSH when, to 

8 my knowledge, they are not referenced in the 

9 July 2011 revised Site Profile?

10 Furthermore, none of the documents 

11 that were produced by SC&A from that May 2010 

12 re-interview of that particular misrepresented 

13 worker, along with a number of other workers, 

14 have been referenced in the revised ER, or for 

15 that matter, in the July 2011 revised Site 

16 Profile.

17 Consequently, issues that SC&A 

18 resolved and noted in their two reports from 

19 May and July 2010 that were produced from 

20 those interviews have now once again been 

21 materially misrepresented in this newly 

22 revised ER.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 Some of those issues deal with 

2 occupancy and detailed descriptions of the 

3 tunnels. I have noted all of the errors I 

4 have found so far, in the revised ER, in my 

5 written presentation, along with the SC&A 

6 documentation demonstrating those errors in my 

7 written statements.

8 Two of the more prominent and 

9 worrisome examples include, for instance, that 

10 the revised ER notes that none of the records 

11 indicate that it was a general practice for 

12 employees to use the tunnels to get from one 

13 building to another. Such a practice was not 

14 condoned by the company and was against 

15 company policy. That quote is in the revised 

16 ER.

17 NIOSH then specifically references 

18 the transcript of a misrepresented worker that 

19 was re-interviewed SC&A to support that 

20 statement. 

21 This theory has been wholly 

22 refuted time and again by many of the workers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 present at the SC&A interviews in Niagara 

2 Falls, and more importantly, SC&A clearly 

3 delineates that fact in their May and July 

4 2010 reports, detailing the Niagara Falls 

5 interview sessions.

6 Additional misinformation within 

7 the revised ER that continues to be 

8 perpetuated and misrepresented dealing with 

9 worker occupancy issues within the tunnels is 

10 also referenced in the May 2010 SC&A report 

11 that the Board Members can also review in my 

12 written presentation materials.

13 I point out these ongoing serious 

14 discrepancies because of the lack of attention 

15 to timeliness and Site Profile accuracy that 

16 has plagued the Linde SEC and Site Profile 

17 revision process for far too many years now.

18 NIOSH has known about worker 

19 radiation exposure issues in the Linde tunnels 

20 since January 2006. 

21 However, this exposure issue was 

22 never addressed in any of the Site Profile 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 issues, until the most recent July 2011 Site 

2 Profile, which notably represents the fifth 

3 time NIOSH has needed to revise and issue a 

4 new Site Profile since May 2005, this despite 

5 the fact that the workers detailed that they 

6 had worked in the utility tunnels to SC&A 

7 interviewers in January 2006.

8 NIOSH never followed up on this 

9 issue and SC&A never questioned NIOSH at any 

10 time after they issued their own July 2006 

11 audit report of that 2006 Linde Site Profile, 

12 calling for further investigation of the 

13 tunnel occupancy issue.

14 The third and final issue I would 

15 like to address deals with constructive 

16 questions that need to be asked in order to 

17 provide greater oversight to the SEC and post18 SEC evaluation processes.

19 I find no -- I find no explanation 

20 within this revised ER explaining or detailing 

21 how NIOSH finally discovered that they had 

22 misidentified this data after so many years of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 claiming that they had sufficient data to 

2 reconstruct dose for this Class of workers.

3 The workers that have waited for 

4 so many years for a resolution of these issues 

5 deserve an explanation of how this critical 

6 mistake was finally discovered and rectified.

7 Why did NIOSH suddenly begin a, 

8 quote, more detailed review of the site data 

9 and what prompted NIOSH to do so, and why, as 

Dr. Neton explained during the October 24th 10 

11 Linde Work Group meeting, did NIOSH decide to 

12 begin to, and I'm quoting here, comb through 

13 this data, quite meticulously in the last, you 

14 know, six weeks or so?

15 I believe these are important 

16 questions that must be addressed, not only for 

17 the Linde community, but also with respect to 

18 needed reforms that will be implemented as a 

19 result of the ten-year NIOSH review.

20 So many questions remain 

21 unanswered. How will the Site Profile 

22 revision and re-evaluation of previously 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 denied claims be accomplished in a timely 

2 manner? How long will Claimants that do not 

3 qualify for either of these two SECs need to 

4 wait to have their claims reevaluated?

5 These workers and their families 

6 remain in an ongoing state of limbo, waiting 

7 for the bare minimum from NIOSH: the fair and 

8 timely disposition of their claims, using 

9 accurate and appropriate information from the 

10 Linde Site Profile. 

11 The post-SEC evaluation processes 

12 and PER review is -- are far too opaque.

13 Yesterday, Mr. Hinnefeld discussed 

14 the implementation goals of the NIOSH ten-year 

15 review. 

16 One aspect dealt with adopting 

17 aggressive timeliness objectives for dose 

18 reconstruction. A significant part of those 

19 objectives should deal with the Site Profile 

20 revision process that occurred within the 

21 post-SEC evaluation and the associated PER 

22 process whereby previously denied claims are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 identified for reevaluation and re-dosing.

2 As I noted earlier, I remain very 

3 concerned about the immediate reaction and 

4 posture from some members of the DCAS team, 

5 that post-SEC Site Profile revisions and PER 

6 analysis would yield an insignificant degree 

7 of reversals of previously denied claims.

8 This statement was made just this 

9 past Thursday, before the post-SEC evaluation 

10 review even began between the DCAS and SC&A.

11 Another aspect of the ten-year 

12 implementation guide discussed yesterday. I 

13 think it is critical to utilize staff other 

14 than health physicists, when appropriate, to 

15 guard against professional orientation toward 

16 accepting adequacy of techniques and to take a 

17 critical look at the post-SEC evaluation 

18 procedures in place for Site Profile revisions 

19 and PER development that could include a 

20 formal peer review of the process to ensure 

21 consistency, claimant-favorability and 

22 transparency for Claimants and advocates 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 representing those Claimants.

2 The Linde community strongly urges 

3 NIOSH and the Advisory Board to work together 

4 to expedite this process and to set specific 

5 time-sensitive goals. 

6 The much needed and long delayed 

7 revision of the Linde Site Profile is critical 

8 to ensure that those Claimants that do not 

9 meet the SEC requirements may finally receive 

10 the full, fair and claimant-favorable 

11 evaluation of their individual claims, that 

12 they have been denied for far too long.

13 I would further ask that the 

14 request set forth by Senator Schumer and 

15 Senator Gillibrand, in their recent letter to 

16 Dr. Howard, Dr. Melius and Mr. Hinnefeld and 

17 noted earlier by Laura Monte in her statement, 

18 be approved, so that their respective offices 

19 can receive a full listing of those Claimants 

20 that will have their previously denied claims 

21 reevaluated and re-dosed.

22 I will provide a copy of that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 letter for the Board's review along with my 

2 written statement.

3 I would like to express my sincere 

4 gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Melius, the 

5 Advisory Board, Dr. Wade, Mr. Katz and Mr. 

6 Kinman for their time and patience. I very 

7 much appreciate the opportunity to present 

8 these very important issues for the Board's 

9 review during this final Linde SEC 

10 presentation.

11 I would also like to thank Senator 

12 Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for their 

13 tireless effort.

14 More importantly -- most 

15 importantly, I would like to thank all of the 

16 Linde workers and their families who have 

17 waited so patiently for so many years, for a 

18 semblance of justice and for their years of 

19 support and help while pursuing these SEC 

20 petitions.

21 I had truly been an honor 

22 representing the Linde community. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you. 

2 Okay, now, Gen.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: I hope, 

4 Antoinette, you're going to provide us a 

5 written --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

7 MEMBER ROESSLER: -- document 

8 because you speak a lot faster than I can 

9 think, and we're going to need that.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, now, she 

11 has indicated that she was sending in all --

12 all of what she said would be in writing, to 

13 us.

14 MEMBER ROESSLER: Okay, thank you 

15 so much. I think the next order then, would 

16 be to consider the -- this SEC Class.

17 At the Work Group meeting, I made 

18 a statement that my conclusion was that we 

19 need to be consistent with other similar 

20 situations at Linde, and where other SECs have 

21 been recommended.

22 Because of that and all the new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 information, my personal opinion is that I 

2 agree with NIOSH that this Class should be 

3 recommended for an SEC.

4 The other Board -- or the other 

5 Work Group Members present, Josie Beach and 

6 Jim Lockey, agreed with that and we decided 

7 then to bring it to the Board for a vote.

8 I will present a motion, and then 

9 I guess we could have discussion.

10 The motion is that this Class, 

11 this Linde Class, should be recommended for an 

12 SEC.

13 MEMBER BEACH: I will second it. 

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

15 Josie. Any further discussion?

16 So, if I can find the right slide 

17 here, yes, okay.

18 So, we would be making a 

19 recommendation that all employees working in 

20 the -- any area of the Linde Ceramics Plant, 

21 November 1, 1947 through December 31, 1953, be 

22 added to the SEC Class.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 So, if there are no further 

2 questions or comments, Ted, do you want to do 

3 the role?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you. Dr. 

5 Anderson?

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

12 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Mike Gibson, are you on 

14 the line? Mr. Gibson?

15 (No response.)

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, I will collect 

17 his vote. He's absent. Mr. Griffon?

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lemen is absent. 

20 Dr. Lemen, are you on the line? We didn't 

21 check this morning.

22 (No response.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'll collect his 

2 vote. Dr. Lockey?

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

9 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

13 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: And it's unanimous, all 

19 in favor, two absentee votes. The motion 

20 passes, and I'll collect the rest of the 

21 votes.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, very good. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 Our next agenda item would be the 

2 -- what I'll -- do you want to say something?

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: I think we need 

4 to comment that the Work Group will be meeting 

5 again. We need to discuss the items brought 

6 up by Senator Schumer's office and by 

7 Antoinette, to talk about the workers not 

8 covered by this SEC, and we will do that.

9 We'll need to have some things in 

10 place, before we do it. But I just wanted to 

11 assure people that we will be meeting again.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, yes. I 

13 think -- yes, my understanding was, the Work 

14 Group had still not resolved some of the Site 

15 Profile issues and -- on that, and will be 

16 continuing to work with NIOSH on those, and do 

17 that.

18 Yes, I think we need to hold off 

19 on Fernald for a little bit, Stu. So, you can 

20 get ready, but don't go, okay?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I was just -

22 - I wanted to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Getting ready? 

2 Okay, Mark, you can sit down for a little too, 

3 because we had told the Petitioner at 9:30 

4 a.m. So, we need to start that at 9:30 a.m., 

5 and do that. Yes?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just for our 

7 information, can any of the DCAS people tell 

8 us how many claims have previously been 

9 handled for Linde, and do we have some idea --

10 some questions raised about the PER and time 

11 tables?

12 What can you tell us right now, 

13 about sort of the status of claims and what --

14 do we know enough now, to know what the time 

15 table might be, understanding that some of 

16 these issues -- all of these issues that have 

17 been raised by the Petitioners have to be 

18 addressed?

19 But what are we looking at, in 

20 terms of numbers of claims already that will 

21 have to be looked at, particularly those 

22 previously denied?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 DR. NETON: I can't speak to that 

2 particular number, but there are 273 total 

3 claims submitted for dose reconstruction from 

Linde as of November 15th 4 . 

5 There was 144 who meet the 

6 definition of the Class under evaluation that 

7 you just voted on.

8 Now, presumably those 144 also --

9 many of them also had employment in the other 

10 periods that SECs were granted.

11 So, it's some number less than 

12 144, is all I can say, at this point.

13 As far as the process moving 

14 forward, I think the -- I believe that the 

15 only real outstanding issue is this tunnel, 

16 the -- you know, getting our hands around --

17 our heads around when the tunnels were there, 

18 and some agreement to that effect.

19 Interestingly, the tunnels is a 

20 radon-exposure situation, which would 

21 principally affect lung cancers. Lung cancers 

22 are covered under the SEC, although there will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 be some subset of workers who have less than 

2 250 days that would be affected.

3 So, it would be, I think -- I 

4 think, at the end of the day, it will be a 

5 fairly small number, but I can't predict.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thanks, Jim, for 

7 that. 

8 We have a few work groups left 

9 over that we didn't get a chance to talk 

10 about, so, we'll do some of those, while we 

11 have time, and as soon as I thought of that, 

12 Mark ran, left for the -- he had to make a 

13 call.

14 But we have the Science Work 

15 Group. Dave, do you want to give us a brief 

16 update on that?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The Science 

18 Issues Work Group had a phone conversation,

19 during which we --

20 MR. KATZ: David, can you speak 

21 more directly into your microphone, please?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I'd be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 happy to. 

2 The Science Issues Work Group had 

3 a phone meeting, and we made a listing of 

4 topics that should be covered by the Work 

5 Group.

6 We kind of gave them an order of 

7 priority for tackling. We agreed on sort of a 

8 process by which we would take one and --

9 pretty much, one topic at a time, and moving 

10 through the list, not try and divide the group 

11 into working simultaneously on several issues.

12 The aim is to produce a brief 

13 report back to the full Committee as we work 

14 through these topics, on this kind of status 

15 and open questions and perhaps, suggestions on 

16 ways to move forward on issues.

17 The first issue that we're 

18 tackling is dose and dose rate effectiveness 

19 factors. 

20 We've received a very large report 

21 from NIOSH, about 400 pages, prepared by a 

22 contractor on this issue, and will be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 producing, in the near future, what I hope 

2 will be a very brief synopsis of the topics --

3 of the issues raised within that report, and 

4 we'll see how that process goes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, good, and 

6 good participation and interest there. I 

7 mean, there is a lot of issues there. I just 

8 -- 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, yes, good 

10 participation.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we're behind 

12 on dealing with this.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, I urge you, 

15 and I think one of the other things to think 

16 about, in terms of Stu's presentation, is how 

17 do we handle some of the -- there are some 

18 scientific issues -- scientific issues that 

19 are a part of the ten-year review and so 

20 forth, how do we handle those, also?

21 Do we try to fit them in or, you 

22 know, what are relative priorities? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 Buy anyway, I am glad that is 

2 moving along and so forth.

3 Okay, our other missing Work Group 

4 reports are Mark's, so, we'll wait and why 

5 don't we go ahead and get ready on Fernald. Go 

6 ahead, Mark. We're close enough.

7 MR. KATZ: Just to note for the 

8 record, Dr. Lockey is recusing himself for 

9 this session.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We will come 

11 find you.

12 MR. ROLFES: Okay, thank you, Dr. 

13 Melius. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I 

14 am Mark Rolfes. I'm a health physicist from 

15 NIOSH Division of Compensation Analysis and 

16 Support.

17 I'm here today to provide a brief 

18 update on the status of the discussions of the 

19 Feed Materials Production Center Special 

20 Exposure Cohort review.

21 There has been six main topics of 

22 discussion with the Work Group of the Advisory 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 Board for Fernald. 

2 The first main topic that has been 

3 discussed was the coworker model for uranium 

4 internal exposures for unmonitored employees.

5 We developed the coworker intake 

6 model and published that in OTIB-78. However, 

7 there were some concerns that subcontractor 

8 data may not have been entered into the HIS-20 

9 database which was used to produce this 

10 intake, this coworker intake model.

11 So, NIOSH went back and looked at 

12 the data that were used to develop the 

13 coworker intake model, and found that prior to 

14 1985, late 1985, some of the subcontractor 

15 data was not entered.

16 And so, NIOSH has recently 

17 proposed a White Paper to adjust subcontractor 

18 intakes, and this White Paper was provided to 

19 the Work Group in November of 2011.

20 The second topic of discussion was 

21 the validation of the HIS-20 database. NIOSH 

22 has completed a full validation of the HIS-20 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 database, and I believe this issue was closed 

2 at the February 8, 2011 Work Group meeting.

3 The third topic was recycled 

4 uranium, and NIOSH recently delivered another 

5 revision of a White Paper on bounding the 

6 duration of potential exposures to the 

7 unblended Paducah Tower Ash.

8 We were asked, basically, to 

9 quantify how much time a person could have 

10 been exposed to the worse case scenario 

11 recycled uranium contaminants, and this White 

12 Paper was delivered in November of 2011 to the 

13 Work Group.

14 The fourth topic was the use of 

15 radon breath data for reconstructing doses 

16 from the inhalation of radium-226 and thorium17 230. NIOSH has completed its work and this 

18 issued was closed at the April 19, 2011 Work 

19 Group.

20 The fifth topic was the review of 

21 radon emissions from the K-65 silos and 

22 associated exposures. We have agreed to move 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 this to the Site Profile discussions.

2 We've determined that radon doses 

3 to employees can be bounded, and we had 

4 decided to move this to the Site Profile 

5 portion of discussions at the Work Group 

6 meeting that occurred on February 8, 2011.

7 The last issue that has been 

8 discussed was the reconstruction of internal 

9 exposures from the inhalation of thorium-232. 

10 NIOSH has proposed to use daily weighted 

11 exposure data from 1953 through 1967, and this 

12 has been accepted and closed at the April 19, 

13 2011 Work Group meeting.

14 The chest counts, which were used 

15 from 1968 through 1989, NIOSH recently 

16 provided a revised White Paper on the Mobile 

17 In Vivo Radiation Measurement Laboratory 

18 Calibration and also, an evaluation of the 

19 data completeness.

20 Both of these White Papers were 

21 provided to the Work Group for their input in 

22 November of 2011.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 That concludes my presentation, 

2 but I know that John Stiver has some 

3 additional information and a lot of additional 

4 details in his slides.

5 So, if you'd like to ask questions 

6 after he has given his presentation, I'd be 

7 happy to answer any questions.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, that is 

9 fair, good. Thank you, Mark.

10 MR. ROLFES: Thank you, Dr. 

11 Melius.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

13 MR. STIVER: Thank you, Dr. 

14 Melius. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

15 My name is John Stiver. I am a 

16 health physicist with SC&A, and in the last 

17 year, I've been leading the SC&A efforts on 

18 the Fernald SEC Petition review.

19 I'm giving a slightly more 

20 detailed overview of our progress today. We 

21 have -- as Mark indicated, we have received 

22 the four White Paper responses from NIOSH, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 we are now in the process of reviewing those, 

2 and today, I'm going to present kind of a 

3 recap of where we stood, as of the August 

4 meeting, Work Group meeting, and also, our 

5 initial impressions on the new NIOSH 

6 responses.

7 I'd like to give just a -- this 

8 slide here is really just to kind of give an 

9 overview of the history of the Fernald SEC 

10 process.

11 I believe it is the longest 

12 standing SEC, going on about five and a half 

13 years, at this time.

14 As you can see, this just 

15 summarizes the various steps in the process. I 

16 note that from August 2007 to August 2011, we 

17 have had a total of 11 Work Group meetings.

18 In May of 2011 at the St. Louis 

19 meeting, I presented a detailed summary of our 

20 position on all of the SEC issues, as of that 

21 date.

22 At this point, we have come to a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 place where I believe we are in a position 

2 where the remaining SEC issues can probably be 

3 decided in one more Work Group meeting, after 

4 we provide our responses to NIOSH.

5 Basically, I think we are at a 

6 place where we can either move issues into the 

7 Site Profile discussions or bring them before 

8 the Board for an SEC determination.

9 These are the issues, which Mark 

10 briefly touched on. From the SC&A 

11 perspective, the coworker model for uranium 

12 internal exposures remains open. Validation 

13 of the HIS-20 database has been closed, based 

14 on our recommendation. Recycled uranium 

15 remains open. The radon breath data from 

16 raffinates is closed. The radon emissions 

17 from the K-65 silos has been moved to the Site 

18 Profile discussions.

19 Issue 6A, which is the 

20 reconstruction of internal exposures from the 

21 inhalation of thorium-232 from 1953 to 1967, 

22 the DWE data that are comprised of breathing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 zone samples, we recommended closure in the 

2 April meeting, of this year, and the chest 

3 count model from 1968 to 1989 remains open.

4 In addition, there is a seventh 

5 issue. This is the issue of recycled thorium. 

6 This first came to our attention, the Savannah 

7 River Site discussions, in August 2011, as a 

8 potentially significant SEC issue. However, 

9 our sense at this point is, this may be 

10 tractable for Fernald for a number of reasons, 

11 which I will get into later in the 

12 presentation.

13 The open issue number one, this is 

14 the coworker model for internal exposure from 

15 uranium. 

16 Our basic concern is regarding the 

17 completeness and adequacy of the uranium 

18 bioassay data, which were used in coworker 

19 modeling, which is put forth in OTIB-78.

20 Our concerns have been largely 

21 resolved, except for matters related to the 

22 applicability of the coworker model for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 construction workers. 

2 NIOSH was to perform the analysis 

3 of the construction worker versus non4 construction worker bioassay data and then 

5 provide a report, which they did in November 

6 of this year.

7 We're currently reviewing that 

8 report, and we'll prepare a response before 

9 the next Work Group meeting.

10 Our preliminary observations are 

11 summarized here. NIOSH basically has 

12 concluded most of these type-50 bioassay data 

13 records are, indeed, for contractors. They 

14 are termed special records and were not 

15 included in the original coworker model 

16 because they were presumed to be incident17 related.

18 However, the new analysis shows 

19 that when these records are considered, and 

20 basically, they are pooled together, the 

21 coworker model estimates go up by about a 

22 factor of 1.25 to 1.6, depending on whether 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 we're looking at annual or quarterly data.

2 This next bullet point should be 

3 revised, and basically, it is clear that the 

4 data were pooled, based on our most recent 

5 investigations.

6 And so, NIOSH did not compare the 

7 two samples of the type-50 separately to the 

8 population of the original model, but will --

9 they pool them together and then looked at the 

10 overall distribution.

11 I believe the reason for that was 

12 that they felt the type-50 data was really 

13 indicative of short-term acute exposures, 

14 whereas, the original model was based on this 

15 assumption of chronic intakes over long 

16 periods of time.

17 So, they didn't feel that the data 

18 should be compared separately. They were 

19 basically not compatible populations for that 

20 kind of comparison.

21 However, we note that when the 

22 data are compared alone, the differences are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 considerably higher than 1.25 and 1.6. I 

2 believe they ranged from about 2 to 4, and in 

3 1972, they were even higher than that.

4 Two other concerns was the paper 

5 really doesn't have any details of the 

6 analysis, only a graph. The final results 

7 were presented, whereas, most of the White 

8 Papers we've seen have more thorough analyses, 

9 sample sizes, fitted distributions, time 

10 periods and that sort of thing.

11 So, we would like to -- we would 

12 recommend that a new revision be provided that 

13 has that kind of detail provided.

14 Open issue number three: recycled 

15 uranium. This is a very long standing issue. 

16 We started making progress on this, about this 

17 time last year, in the November Work Group 

18 meeting.

19 The main concern here is the 

20 default concentrations of plutonium-239 and 

21 neptunium-237, technetium-99 and fission 

22 products that were associated with recycled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 uranium at Fernald may not be bounding for 

2 certain Classes of workers and certain 

3 activities and time periods.

4 Numerous White Papers have been 

5 exchanged, where NIOSH presents their stance 

6 on why they believe the defaults are bounding 

7 and we present our concerns regarding whether 

8 they may not be bounding for certain workers.

9 As of August 11, 2011, there was 

10 considerable progress made on this issue, 

11 mainly in response to our comprehensive review 

12 of recycled uranium that we submitted in 

13 February of this year.

14 Basically, NIOSH is looking at 

15 three different time periods. These are the 

16 new proposed default values. The 1953 to 

17 1960, they're recommending no constituent 

18 intakes, based on the fact that a very small 

19 amount of material is being stored onsite, and 

20 had not been introduced into the process yet. 

21 It's believed that most of this material is 

22 very low in recycled contaminant levels.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 From 1961 to 1972, they proposed 

2 the original defaults from the original model, 

3 which were 100 parts per billion on a uranium 

4 mass basis for plutonium-239, 3,500 parts per 

5 billion for neptunium and 9,000 parts per 

6 billion for technetium.

7 Then for 1973 to 1989, they 

8 proposed increasing the default values, based 

9 on a re analysis of the DOE mass-balance 

10 report data, which really looked at -- they 

11 footed the data to a log-normal distribution 

and then picked out the 95th 12 percentile.

13 And so, basically, that result was 

14 that plutonium went up by a factor of four, to 

15 400 parts per billion. Neptunium went up to 

16 11 parts per million and technetium, up to 20 

17 parts per million, and for plutonium-239, 

18 which is the isotope of the most dosimetric 

19 significance, this is increase was based on 

20 the concentration of magnesium fluoride that 

21 was used in the induction pot liners in the 

22 metal production Plant 5, and we have very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 good reasons to believe, this was the highest 

2 continually exposed group of workers at 

3 Fernald.

4 Our position, as of August 2011, 

5 was that from 1953 to 1960, the intakes can 

6 certainly be bounded. However, we have 

7 concerns that a default of zero may not be 

8 adequate in an SEC context.

9 From 1961 to 1972, we feel that 

10 the -- that the intakes can be bounded. It's 

11 really become a Site Profile issue. 

12 During this period of time, I 

13 believe this was mainly group 6A material, 

14 which was less than 10 parts per billion, 

15 typically in about the two to five parts per 

16 billion range, and so, even with the 

17 magnesium-fluoride concentration mechanisms 

18 being considered, we believe that the 100 part 

19 per billion -- that data does support 100 

20 parts per billion as bounding for chronic 

21 intakes.

22 From 1973 to 1989, we certainly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 believe that the 400 parts per billion chronic 

2 intake is likely bounding for the highest 

3 continuously exposed subgroup, which would be 

4 Plant 5 metal workers and associated 

5 millwrights.

6 However, we did have concerns 

7 regarding subgroup 10A. This was the highest 

8 contaminated material that came from the 

9 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in 1980. There 

10 were about 24 metric tons of this that ranged 

11 for about 100 up to 7,000 parts per billion in 

12 plutonium.

13 So, our concern was with the 

14 people who were handling this material and up 

15 front, before it was blended down, say, the 

16 repackaging operations and then the front-end 

17 dumping operations and that sort of thing, and 

18 so, we believe this was an SEC issue, from 

19 about 1973 to 1985, but particularly, from 

20 1980 to 1985.

21 From 1986, when Westinghouse came 

22 in and took over the operation from the NLO, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 we have good reason to believe that the 

2 industrial hygiene and the health physics 

3 programs were robust and that the data are 

4 acceptable during that period of time.

5 The important points here to take 

6 home in this is that the -- you have a small 

7 sub-set of workers. We all agree on that, 

8 that it can't be identified, based on the work 

9 records.

10 The real issue that came out on 

11 this in August was that you have intermittent 

12 exposures, fairly short-term, over a well 

13 defined period of time.

14 So, our concern was, is the 400 

15 parts per billion chronic intake bounding?

16 Certainly, from a common sense 

17 standpoint, you could make a subjective 

18 argument, that yes, it has to be.

19 However, we wanted more from an 

20 SEC perspective, and we would like to see if 

21 these intervals could be quantified.

22 So, that was NIOSH's action item 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 to quantify these down-blended intervals, if 

2 at all possible and assess the impact, and of 

3 course, we were to review the report when it 

4 became available.

5 This report here, what we call the 

6 down-blender assessment, is the title provided 

7 there. We have several preliminary 

8 observations here.

9 Basically, NIOSH is estimating 

10 that any single worker would have spent at 

11 most eight percent of their time, of their 

12 work hours, annual work hours, handling this 

13 unblended plutonium out-of-specification, or 

14 POOS material, as it was called, the sub-group 

15 material.

16 However, no data were located that 

17 defined the down-blending and front-end 

18 handling operations, although it can be 

19 narrowed to about 82 to 85, based on process 

20 knowledge.

21 What they do have, and what we had 

22 discovered earlier in the summer, prior to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 August, the August meeting, was that the time 

2 necessary to repackage five of the most highly 

3 contaminated hoppers is available. It took 

4 place from April through May of 1982.

5 Those five hoppers are identified. 

6 We know what the contents were. They're all 

7 above 400 parts per billion, average values, 

8 and one was, I believe, up in the thousands 

9 parts per billion.

10 So, they have the number of shifts 

11 that were required to repackage this material, 

12 that was kind of a burn-as-you-go process. 

13 There were a lot of problems, and so, NIOSH is 

14 relying on this data as bounding for all the 

15 subsequent steps.

16 After the material is packaged in 

17 the barrels, then it would be, for the most 

18 part, remotely handled, whether it was being 

19 sent directly to the refinery that produced 

20 brown oxide, or whether a certain amount of 

21 it, actually, the five hoppers were initially 

22 sent to be calcined in the plant, and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 were blended down at a later step.

2 So, they're relying --

3 unfortunately, what we -- we do have some 

4 concerns about these assumptions that were 

5 used to drive this eight percent value, 

6 regarding the number of hoppers that were 

7 considered and the time per shift.

8 Our main concern here was they 

9 didn't really consider the variability in the 

10 plutonium concentration in these hoppers, and 

11 that the -- the period assigned per shift was 

12 -- it was kind of a subjective judgment.

13 So, we feel that an alterative set 

14 of assumptions that were equally valid could 

15 result in a higher time for action.

16 The bolded line here, though, I 

17 guess the take-home message here is that we do 

18 feel that, based on this analysis, it's a 

19 well-reasoned argument and we feel that this 

20 problem is probably tractable at this point.

21 We are in the process of preparing 

22 a response for the Work Group, which we plan 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 to have ready in time for the next Board 

2 meeting.

3 Six-B is probably the one issue 

4 that is remaining a problem, from an SEC 

5 standpoint.

6 Issue 6B was the use of the chest 

7 counts to reconstruct thorium intakes from 

8 1968 to 1989.

9 After 1968, when this Mobile In 

10 Vivo Radiation Monitoring Laboratory was 

11 introduced, the DOE -- or the DWE program was 

12 essentially terminated and so, we're 

13 completely dependent on the integrity of these 

14 chest count data from 1968 to 1989.

15 We do believe there are large 

16 uncertainties in the data that may render them 

17 inadequate for dose reconstruction.

18 White Papers have been exchanged, 

19 again, as of the -- the first time this issue 

20 was really looked at in detail was in April of 

21 this year, and during that period of time, 

22 NIOSH was to provide formal responses to our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 concerns on data adequacy and completeness.

2 Those responses were delivered, 

3 again in November, and we're in the process 

4 now of reviewing those, and providing our 

5 final responses to the Work Group.

6 I put in a couple of slides to 

7 kind of recapture our concerns. The issue of 

8 most concern to us is the data integrity from 

9 1968 to 1978.

10 This is the data that was reported 

11 in milligrams thorium. This was during the 

12 period of thorium processing.

13 We have a whole series of these 

14 concerns that came out of our White Paper. I'm 

15 not going to go through every one of them. 

16 They're available for review.

17 But number three is a very 

18 important one, and this is the questionable 

19 method to evaluate the age of the source and 

20 transform the actinium-228 and lead-212 

21 daughter emissions, the activity back to 

22 milligrams of thorium-232.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 There are no raw data available, 

2 just milligrams thorium reported, and there 

3 are considerable uncertainties in the age of 

4 the source, the times of the intakes.

5 If you look at a closed system and 

6 you're only looking at lead-212, you've got an 

7 uncertainty of maybe two, which is tractable. 

8 It's something that can be dealt with.

9 However, you're looking at 

10 actinium-228 from the radium-228 buildup, 

11 after thorium is separated, depending on the 

12 age of that material, you can have an 

13 uncertainty of up to a factor of 200, if you 

14 don't know the age of that material after 

15 separation.

16 The bottom line here is that the 

17 inconsistencies between thorium and lead-212 

18 for the period of overlap -- excuse me, I kind 

19 of got behind myself. The print is very 

20 small, here.

21 The bottom line is really here, 

22 the very last bullet point, the large 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 variability and uncertainty in the data and 

2 the lack of knowledge on the derivation we 

3 believe precludes -- or may preclude the 

4 ability to bound the intakes from 1968 to 

5 1978.

6 So, we do believe this is a 

7 continuing SEC issue.

8 Also, this is another recap of the 

9 data adequacy. This is for the next period, 

10 the next ten-year period from 1979 to 1988, 

11 and during this time, the data reported in 

12 nanocuries of thorium, based on both lead-212 

13 and actinium-228 activity levels, and this was

14 a period of stewardship.

15 Basically, most of the processing 

16 was done. Fernald became the thorium --

17 national thorium repository, and so, much of 

18 this material was just being stored during 

19 this time frame.

20 The important thing to take home 

21 here is that the raw data are available, and 

22 so, it's possible then, based on the relative 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 ratios of the activities of the daughter 

2 products, to estimate the age of the thorium.

3 So, we do believe that these data 

4 may be adequate to bound intakes, and would 

5 possibly be a Site Profile issue, but we do 

6 note that the coworker model for this period 

7 uses a GSD of seven, a geometric standard 

8 deviation of seven, which is a very large 

9 value.

10 However, we don't -- we believe 

11 that it doesn't really address the 

12 measurement, the individual measurement 

13 uncertainties. 

14 However, it may be adequate, when 

15 it's applied to an annual distribution of 

16 multiple workers, that have not yet been 

17 quantified.

18 We're looking at observations 

19 regarding data adequacy. We really sum these 

20 into two groups.

21 First is the variability and 

22 uncertainty of milligram of thorium. Our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 original position has been stated. Our 

2 interpretation of NIOSH's position is that 

3 they basically state that they believe our 

4 arguments regarding the lack of usefulness of 

5 the milligram data are unfounded. 

6 The large uncertainties in the 

7 data, they claim, will just result in larger 

8 GSDs and higher upper-bounds in the model, and 

9 they also stated that the large proportion of 

10 the sub-MDL data are indicative of minimal 

11 exposure potential to thorium.

12 We believe that last statement can 

13 be misinterpreted and -- but it really -- our 

14 interpretation of that is that the high MDL of 

15 six milligrams is really indication of a --

16 limitations of the counting system, and our 

17 basis for that is that chronic intakes of MDL 

18 can result in very high doses to organs, up 

19 into the sievert level, which could be in the 

20 100 rem level, at the worse case.

21 We do note that the GSD for this 

22 period was 3, and it's -- our concerns remain 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 as they did with the later period of time in 

2 that the individual measurement uncertainties 

3 are not necessarily being accounted for.

4 The second big issue is the 

5 appropriateness of the Mobile In Vivo method 

6 for quantitative estimates versus just a 

7 screening estimate, and the basis for this is 

8 this SRDB reference 011596, which is a fairly 

9 detailed paper by Hap West from 1965.

10 Our original position, which was 

11 essentially taken from this report, was that 

12 the method was used to determine the thorium 

13 burdens, carries many uncertainties and should 

14 only be used for qualitative assumptions about 

15 thorium burden.

16 NIOSH disagrees with that 

17 position. We agree to disagree on this. They 

18 believe that they take excerpts from the same 

19 paper to bolster their position, and they also 

20 cited our data completeness report as evidence 

21 of tacit acceptance of the quantifiability of 

22 this data.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 We note that at this point, our 

2 position stands on the limitations of this 

3 method, and we also would like to note that 

4 our completeness study was based on the 

5 assumption of adequate data.

6 What we did was, we did the two --

7 the adequate -- the adequacy and the 

8 completeness study in parallel. The 

9 completeness study is written -- a set-aside 

10 adequacy for the time being. 

11 So, let's just assume for now, 

12 that the data are good. Let's look at --

13 there is enough of it available to bound the 

14 most highly exposed group of workers.

15 So, our summary position is, in 

16 plain language, is that our opinion on this is 

17 that NIOSH wants to use the results of 

18 milligram thorium without really knowing what 

19 the results mean.

20 We don't know which daughters were 

21 measured. We don't know how the results from 

22 the daughters were transformed into thorium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 lung burdens. We don't know the sensitivity 

2 of the measurements, and there were very few 

3 number of individuals in 1979 who had 

4 measurements in both milligram thorium and in 

5 nanocuries, and based on the NIOSH 

6 methodologies, those two -- those values don't 

7 match up.

8 We'd also like to bring up, there 

9 is a precedent from the NIOSH Evaluation 

10 Report for Weldon Springs, that provides 

11 guidance to disregard the chest counts for 

12 that site, due to uncertainties as to when the 

13 intakes occurred, which is essentially a 

14 disequilibrium argument, and this quote here 

15 came right out of that report.

16 Since the cases were such use of 

17 the in vivo data, would be necessary -- would 

18 be limited to those with very specific 

19 circumstances and information.

20 So, we do believe an SEC issue 

21 remains for milligrams for thorium for 1968 to 

22 1978.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 I'd like to move on to the data 

2 completeness study.

3 Basically in April, we were tasked 

4 to look at three different aspects of data 

5 completeness. The first were whether the 

6 thorium workers and their associated exposures 

7 were adequately represented in the data set. 

8 If they were not, could chemical operators 

9 provide a reasonable surrogate for thorium 

10 workers, for use in a coworker model, and 

11 finally, were the workers with the highest 

12 exposure potential to thorium targeted more 

13 frequently for monitoring?

14 Our preliminary observations on 

15 the latest NIOSH response is that -- well, let 

16 me just back up here.

17 We brought this -- broke this up 

18 until three different sub-issues.

19 The first being the identification 

20 of thorium workers and their relative exposure 

21 potential. 

22 Our original position on this was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 that there were certain workers identified in 

2 the 1968 memo as being thorium workers, and we 

3 looked at that group and we looked at chemical 

4 operators and then we looked at all workers.

5 We were able to demonstrate that 

6 the thorium workers did, indeed, have higher 

7 lung burdens than chemical operators who were 

8 not associated with thorium, as well as the 

9 all-worker group and, to characterize years 

10 after 1968, we made an assumption, and this is 

11 kind of what we call a constancy assumption, 

12 and that was that workers who were identified 

13 in this memo or in the log sheets had thorium 

14 worker or former thorium worker identified.

15 We assume that that sub-group, 

16 that cohort was involved in thorium work 

17 during that whole ten-year period, from 1968 

18 to 1978, and based on that, that assumption, 

19 we were -- reached similar conclusions as we 

20 did with the 1968 data alone.

21 NIOSH's position on this, our 

22 interpretation of it, NIOSH's position, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 that they analyzed this empirical 1968 data 

2 using a different approach. They used this 

3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic, and they 

4 concluded that thorium workers did not come 

5 from different parent population than the 

6 other worker population, and they did not feel 

7 the comparisons assuming constant thorium 

8 worker population were valid.

9 We agree that they don't 

10 necessarily constitute in the independent 

11 population, however, we do believe, based on 

12 the empirical evidence -- and let me also say 

13 that NIOSH's data adequacy response provided 

14 some nice probability plots and quantile plots 

15 and they show that in most cases, most of the 

16 data, which you would expect below the MDL, 

17 would kind of be normally distributed, but 

18 about five percent is way up above the allowed 

19 plot line.

20 And so, this indicates that there 

21 is kind of a -- maybe bimodal distribution, 

22 with a sub-set of workers who are -- have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 higher exposure potential to thorium, and we 

2 believe that that particular sub-set needs to 

3 be captured in any model that NIOSH is going 

4 to put out.

5 Issue number two is the number of 

6 positive results identified during the 

7 production period.

8 We noted that 97 percent of the 

9 chest count data in milligrams thorium were 

10 less than the detection limit, and this kind 

11 of called into question in our minds, 

12 reliability of any model based on this data.

13 We also noted that the percentage 

14 of samples greater than the MDL for workers 

15 who handled thorium was greater by a factor of 

16 two. So, they were more represented in that 

17 upper tail of the distribution, seven percent 

18 versus three percent for the non-thorium 

19 workers.

20 NIOSH's position on this 

21 particular sub-argument was that the model was 

22 used, using uncensored -- they used uncensored 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 data, and the number of records below the MDA 

2 is irrelevant for this type of model.

3 We do note that OTIB-44, put out 

4 in 2009, addresses this very issue of, what do 

5 you do when you have a large fraction of data 

6 less than MDA?

7 However, the NIOSH model predates 

8 OTIB-44 and instead, relied on OTIB-95, and 

9 so, we have concerns that, you know, if this 

10 data were to be deemed usable in a coworker 

11 model, that it might be a good idea to go back 

12 and check and make sure that the OTIB-44 

13 methods had, indeed, been applied.

14 We also noticed the large 

15 proportion of lung burdens, greater than the 

16 MDL for thorium workers who just -- for 

17 workers who handled this material had a higher 

18 exposure potential than workers who did not, 

19 and then as a result of that -- I'll just jump 

20 ahead.

21 We feel that some upper-bound 

value, whether it be the 95th 22 percentile or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 some other value, is appropriate to actually 

2 capture those workers who did, indeed, handle 

3 thorium more frequently than the other non4 thorium workers.

5 Issue three was the monitoring 

6 criteria for inclusion in the Mobile In Vivo 

7 Lung Counting Program.

8 Basically, what we looked at was 

9 whether there was any correlation between the 

10 -- those who had higher lung burdens in the 

11 sampling frequency.

12 We noted that chest counts, one 

13 was coupled with uranium counts, but not 

14 always the reverse was true.

15 We also noticed that the in vivo

16 monitoring results showed no bias towards 

17 plants where thorium operations took place.

18 NIOSH's position and our 

19 observation on this is that specific -- let me 

20 back up here.

21 NIOSH did go back in their 

22 response, and provided the specific site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 interviews, with site experts, and they 

2 definitively indicated that there was no 

3 preferential sampling conducted for thorium 

4 workers after 1968.

5 They were basically chosen for 

6 overall exposure potential, not necessarily 

7 thorium exposure potential.

8 We agree with that position. We 

9 also concluded there is not correlation 

10 between workers' monitoring frequency and the 

11 thorium lung burden. We also agree with that.

12 This is our summary of our 

13 position on this issue, is that the -- we feel 

14 that the in vivo monitoring records are 

15 essentially complete. There are no 

16 significant chronological gaps. 

17 There is no evidence that the 

18 highest exposed worker was systematically 

19 excluded from the monitoring program.

20 As I said earlier, though, we 

21 believe that NIOSH -- it's incumbent upon 

22 NIOSH to assign a sufficiently bounding intake 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 rate to assure claimant-favorability, that the 

2 most highly exposed group of workers is 

3 captured adequately.

4 We note that the original model, 

5 what we call ORAUT 2008, didn't provide any 

6 guidance as to how coworker model should be 

7 applied. Basically, what they did was, they 

8 calculated the geometric needs and geometric 

9 standard deviations.

10 However, the new response does set 

11 a floor below which no one should be assigned 

12 a lower dose, and they're going to assign the 

50th 13 percentile, but there is no guidance as 

14 to how to determine upper bounds in that 

15 particular response.

16 I'd like to move on to this last 

17 issue: recycled thorium.

18 As I said, we first became aware 

19 of recycled thorium at Fernald at the Savannah 

20 River Site teleconference in August 2011.

21 Our SRDB review has indicated that 

22 hundreds of metric tons of this material was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 received at Fernald from the mid 60s to the 

2 late 1970s, mostly from Savannah River.

3 Our principle concern here is 

4 exposures to U-233, U-232, as well as short5 lived isotopes, thorium-234 and protactinium6 233, as well as fission products during the 

7 processing, handling and storage.

8 It's kind of analogous to recycled 

9 uranium problem, only we're dealing with the 

10 contaminants in the thorium instead.

11 I'd like to also note that our 

12 previous investigations of thorium intakes had 

13 focused on the coworkers models, the DWE model 

14 and chest count model. So, any ability to 

15 reconstruct intakes of recycled thorium 

16 constituents are kind of dependent and 

17 predicated on the veracity of those coworkers 

18 models, and as we said, we have serious 

19 concerns regarding the milligram thorium data 

20 during that ten-year period, from 1968 to 

21 1978.

22 We note that the data on source-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 term configurations and the periods of concern 

2 is somewhat sparse, may require data capture 

3 trip.

4 However, our sense at this point 

5 is that accommodating the recycled thorium 

6 will likely result only in changes to the TBD.

7 The main reason for that is that 

8 at Fernald, there is an abundance of uranium 

9 bioassay data, and the principle constituents 

10 of concern are uranium isotopes, and so, what 

11 this may involve then is a review of the 

12 neutron dose potential from the U-233 and U13 232, as well as maybe a re-investigation of 

14 the internal DCFs to accommodate U-232.

15 We plan to deliver a paper for 

16 discussion at the next Work Group meeting, 

17 before the Board meeting in California.

18 So, in summary, few main issues 

19 remain to be dispositioned between NIOSH and 

20 SC&A, one being the recycled uranium from 1973 

21 to 1985. 

22 NIOSH has quantified the front-end 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 handling intervals to bound the periods during 

2 which down-winders and bystanders may have 

3 been exposed to the sub-group 10A material.

4 Our concerns, are the new defaults 

5 significantly bounding for that, and if so, 

6 which we believe they may be, we can move this 

7 to a Site Profile discussion.

8 The other issue being chest count 

9 data. We need to provide formal response to 

10 NIOSH on their November 2011 adequacy and 

11 completeness reports, and as I said, SEC 

12 concerns remain for 1968 to 1978.

13 We need to provide also a paper on 

14 our findings on recycled thorium.

15 We believe that the remaining SEC 

16 issues should be resolvable in one final Work 

17 Group meeting, and it may be optimistic, but I 

18 think we can probably do this before the 

19 February final Board meeting, the Work Group 

20 meeting, and that is it.

21 Do you want me to take any 

22 questions you may have at this time?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any questions 

2 for Mark or John? 

3 David and then Bill, or Bill and 

4 then David, either one. 

5 MEMBER FIELD: I just had a 

6 question about a topic that wasn't discussed 

7 in your presentation, as far as the radon from 

8 the silos.

9 Can you just talk a little bit 

10 about that, that potential for exposure, 

11 estimating where a person may have been for 

12 exposure, from that source?

13 MR. STIVER: The radon from the 

14 silos, we basically came to a point where we 

15 agreed to disagree with NIOSH, and this was 

16 the K-65 silos.

17 During a period of time, when they 

18 had not been capped, we felt that the radon 

19 concentrations that were emanating from these 

20 silos could have been -- silos 1 and 2, could 

21 have been up to a factor of 10 higher than 

22 what NIOSH had predicted.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 We did an extensive review of 

2 their transport model, as well as the 

3 emanation model, and essentially came to 

4 different conclusions on that.

5 I know Bob Anigstein -- Bob, are 

6 you on the line? Bob was going to join us.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I am.

8 MR. STIVER: Bob did the final 

9 analysis on the transport model. 

10 Could you say a few words to Dr. 

11 Field, and answer his questions on that 

12 particular concern?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Is this -- I'm 

14 sorry, I'm having -- the reception is kind of 

15 bad, here. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

16 This is the analysis of the N/P 

17 ratio?

18 MR. STIVER: No, this would be the 

19 radon emanation in the transport model, the --

20 basically --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Radon inhalation, 

22 I did not do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 MR. STIVER: No, I believe that 

2 you did the transport model for --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The transport 

4 model of radon --

5 MR. STIVER: Of radon from the K6 65 --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- from the K-65 

8 silos.

9 MR. STIVER: It's been a while, 

10 sorry to put you on the spot, Bob.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Is that what we're 

12 talking about?

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's the 

14 issue.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the -- yes, 

16 well, we disagreed with the -- basically, with 

17 the model used -- oh, I really hadn't expected 

18 to talk about this, it's been quite a while.

19 But to the best of my 

20 recollection, bear with me a minute.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Why don't we 

22 just follow up, then? This is --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What we disagreed 

2 on --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bob, please, why 

4 don't we just follow up and when you're more 

5 prepared and so forth --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's very hard 

8 for us to hear, also.

9 MR. ROLFES: Dr. Field, I believe 

10 I might have an answer.

11 I think you asked about the 

12 placement of the employees in different 

13 positions around the site.

14 That was actually done as part of 

15 a research project with the University of 

16 Cincinnati, that was led by Susan Pinney, an 

17 epidemiologist.

18 She had done about 3,000 

19 interviews with workers and basically, placed 

20 people into various positions on the site, to 

21 determine how much radon they could have been 

22 exposed to.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 Now, she asked the individuals --

2 this was also a cigarette smoking assessment, 

3 because they were looking for, basically, any 

4 kind of change in lung function, as a result 

5 of working at the Fernald site.

6 So, it necessarily wasn't a cancer 

7 outcome, but it was -- there were some other 

8 lung problems that they were looking into.

9 She had interviewed these 

10 individuals and when there was uncertainty as 

11 to whether the employee was working in one 

12 area versus another, they were put into the 

13 higher exposure category.

14 They also entered -- the interview 

15 questions also included, you know, what shift 

16 they were working, to determine whether or not 

17 they could have been subjected to inversions, 

18 atmospheric inversions.

19 That was the basis for our 

20 approach to use -- that is the approach that 

21 we have adopted to complete dose 

22 reconstructions for radon, because we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 employee specific radon dose estimates in 

2 working level months by year.

3 MEMBER FIELD: But Susan's study, 

4 the -- I believe she had like -- she had 

5 information on about one-third of the workers, 

6 good information, and the rest, sort of like 

7 surrogate location, based on job 

8 classification, work shift, is that right?

9 MR. ROLFES: I believe so.

10 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

11 MR. ROLFES: I believe that is 

12 correct, and in addition to that -- in 

13 addition to the K-65 silos, her research also 

14 included in-process materials, the radon being 

15 released from the Q-11 ore silos and in16 process in the plants.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David, I believe 

18 you had the next question.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob 

20 Anigstein. 

21 My comment on this last statement 

22 was, we don't -- we did not question the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 positioning of the workers in the various 

2 facilities.

3 What we did question was both the 

4 release model from the K-65 silos and the 

5 transport model, and the research done by the 

6 University of Cincinnati, using the etching of 

7 the window panes, it seemed that the model was 

8 valid and they used actually, the transport 

9 model to validate and to calibrate their --

10 the etching measurements.

11 But if the transport model itself 

12 was not correct, then -- and the release model 

13 was not correct, then the results, the 

14 validation and the calibration is not correct.

15 So, there was a gap in the logic 

16 that was -- you know, obviously, you know, we 

17 had no quarrel with the technical part, at the 

18 far end of it, that the University of 

19 Cincinnati did.

20 But the in between part left --

21 was open to a lot of questions.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: David, you still 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 have a question?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I am --

3 I'm trying to think about what you mean by 

4 bounding with the use of the in vivo data, and 

5 maybe -- maybe you could help me try to 

6 understand.

7 There is a -- you described that 

8 there is a mobile unit which arrives for in 

9 vivo counting. It comes on a periodic 

10 schedule. There are a number of workers, and 

11 there is some probability that a worker is 

12 drawn in to visit the van and have an in vivo 

13 count.

14 And so, you could imagine that the 

15 information available for a worker has --

16 there are large time gaps between one in vivo 

17 counting and the next.

18 The timing of the visits of the 

19 van is not incident driven, if I'm 

20 understanding correctly. It's one of 

21 convenience or some sort of schedule.

22 MR. STIVER: I believe that is how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 it was done, although in 1968, there was an 

2 effort to count the thorium workers in that 

3 particular time, up front.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But for a lot 

5 of the period, it sounds like there is, let's 

6 say, 100 measurements performed in a calendar 

7 year, and so, that there is large time gaps 

8 between when these counting’s are occurring 

9 and there -- the bounding that is -- so, what 

10 is happening, in terms of the bounding?

11 I mean, for me, now, it seems like 

12 that is -- there is a lot of history that 

13 could happen between measurements for a person 

14 and the --

15 MR. STIVER: Well, certainly, you 

16 could have an intake at any time, you know, 

17 from the end of the last measurement, all the 

18 way to the day or the day before the next one.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right, and so, 

20 what's being proposed is -- is the bounding 

21 based -- I mean, you were talking about the 

22 bounding based on the -- we draw a sample of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 workers. We've got a limited detection and 

2 we'll think that, well, workers may have had 

3 something up to that limited detection, and 

4 there is uncertainty about the -- this is the 

5 question about the dates of the intake and how 

6 large actually --

7 MR. STIVER: No, it's the --

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It seems to me 

9 like there is -- you know, actually, you could 

10 have intakes and the gap between these 

11 measurements is so long as to create a very 

12 large --

13 MR. STIVER: Well, you could have 

14 -- I guess the problem is, we don't know, for 

15 that milligram thorium data, what was 

16 measured. All we have is one number 

17 milligrams thorium.

18 We have a period of overlap for 

19 some workers, where the two data sets don't 

20 match up, using the NIOSH approach.

21 We also note that the one 

22 measurement or the one set of calculations we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 were able to locate did indeed use actinium2 228, and this is the one that -- you know, 

3 depending on when that material was separated, 

4 you could have huge variability’s in that 

5 number.

6 And so, we just don't think those 

7 are credible values to use.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it's --

9 the variability, there, you're talking about -

10 - 

11 MR. STIVER: In an individual 

12 measurement. For one particular worker, 

13 you've got a value of milligrams thorium, we 

14 don't really know what that means, and we also 

15 have -- you know, like I said, we did have 

16 concerns about so much of it being less than 

17 the detection limit, although after reading 

18 the --

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But there is -

20 - is the variability -- the variability you're 

21 talking about is characterization of the age 

22 of the material that was taken in, but it's --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 is it -- what about the variability related to 

2 the time between intake and the measurements?

3 MR. STIVER: Well, that's also a 

4 concern.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Because there, 

6 you need multiple measurements, I would think, 

7 or --

8 MR. STIVER: We do.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- information 

10 on the date of intake.

11 MR. STIVER: And multiple intakes, 

12 you know, because this was periodic work.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That is what 

14 I'm not understanding from the description of 

15 the process of the individual monitoring, how 

16 you're -- what are the assumptions there?

17 MR. STIVER: Joyce, are you on the 

18 line? Joyce Lipsztein has looked into -- did 

19 most of the --

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Sorry, I was on 

21 mute.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, Joyce, I know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 you looked at this in considerable detail, 

2 about all the different uncertainties that 

3 could result in huge variations in these 

4 milligram thorium measurements.

5 I know one was the time of the 

6 intake relative to separation, also the length 

7 of time the material was in the lung before 

8 the count, multiple intakes, things of that 

9 sort.

10 Could you provide Dr. Richardson 

11 with kind of a summary of what your concerns 

12 were?

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, we -- let me 

14 just get this here.

15 Yes, we have a lot of concerns, 

16 especially on the thorium measurements that 

17 were reported in milligrams, where concerns 

18 refer to -- we don't know how the results in 

19 milligrams were obtained.

20 There were several papers that 

21 were -- where NIOSH has tried to respond to 

22 us, and -- but there is no definite. Sometimes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 it changes from one paper to the other, and we 

2 don't know how the thorium was -- how the 

3 measurements in milligrams were derived.

4 We don't know what was the minimum 

5 detection level, and we don't know the 

6 uncertainties that were related to the 

7 calibration of the -- of the counter.

8 So, we have too many uncertainties 

9 on the information of what was really 

10 measured, because thorium cannot be measured 

11 by itself. It has to be measured through the 

12 daughters.

13 We know that the daughters that 

14 were properly measured were either actinium15 228 or lead-212, or a combination of the two, 

16 and we don't know how they used this 

17 combination, if they used the combination or 

18 if they used just one of the nuclides.

19 What happens is that depending on 

20 the time, some separation of thorium from the 

21 daughters and the time that the measurement 

22 took place, then the activity of the daughters 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 will vary a lot.

2 The other thing that we don't know 

3 is that what happens is that the daughters 

4 have a different behavior in the lung, so, 

5 what they mean is that thorium is less soluble 

6 than the daughters, so, thorium remains longer 

7 in the lung than the daughters.

8 So, when you measure the 

9 daughters, you have to know in relation to the 

10 exposure time, how long has it been there, 

11 even if you know the age of the source, you 

12 don't know how much time has passed since the 

13 worker was monitored and the measurement was 

14 made.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, that was 

16 the --

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So, to relate to 

18 this uncertainty in the lung, you have to know 

19 if the worker was engaged in that thorium 

20 work, at that time, in a continuous thorium 

21 work, or if, you know, he worked and was 

22 measured six months after or eight months 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 after. So, we don't know this, also.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, it was 

3 the last point that I was particularly 

4 interested in, and whether you've had an 

5 opportunity to look at some illustrative 

6 records for workers and consider how long the 

7 timing is between when they had an in vivo 

8 count and when the next in vivo count 

9 occurred.

10 So, the description here is that 

11 there was not specific targeting of thorium 

12 workers, which means that each time the van 

13 visits, there is some sort of random draw of 

14 workers from the full population in, and it 

15 means that the gap -- the timing gap then, for 

16 the thorium workers, is not each time the van 

17 visits the facility --

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- and it's 

20 not incident driven, which means that you've 

21 potentially got long gaps between when you 

22 have one in vivo monitoring and when you have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 the next.

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, sometimes.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And I would 

4 imagine that becomes a very large --

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: For the workers, 

6 you have several measurements, depending on 

7 the year, also.

8 So, it's very valuable and we 

9 don't know who were the workers that 

10 specifically were working with thorium, and if 

11 it was a continuous work with thorium.

12 So, there are too many 

13 uncertainties, and we don't even know which 

14 side was -- which daughter was measured.

15 So, you know, it's too many 

16 uncertainties on this transformation -- on the 

17 data on milligrams, and we have a bunch --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you.

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: You know, we have 

20 some --

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Excuse me, we 

22 need to move along here. We've got a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 petitioner waiting to speak and other issues, 

2 and I think we understand the point.

3 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, okay.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you.

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: My point is that, 

6 that many uncertainties is related to the 

7 measurement in milligrams.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, that's the 

9 point we understood. Thank you.

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And I don't think 

11 we know exactly which -- what each measurement 

12 means, in terms of the dose.

13 MR. STIVER: All right, thank you 

14 very much, Joyce. I think you've clarified 

15 this, to the extent that we can, at this 

16 point.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark, do you 

18 have a brief comment?

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I do. Dr. 

20 Richardson, to address the issue of the 

21 intermittent measurements on site.

22 The mobile in vivo monitoring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 laboratory did come on a regular basis of 

2 about six month intervals. They did focus on 

3 the employees with the highest potential for 

4 exposure, and we have no reason to believe 

5 that those people with the highest potential 

6 for exposure for uranium versus thorium were 

7 any different. We believe that they were the 

8 same Class of workers, the chemical operators.

9 If you have one point of in vivo 

10 data in time, the incident issue that you 

11 brought up is more significant than if you 

12 have multiple data points.

13 When you have more data, you're 

14 able to get a better understanding of how much 

15 thorium that worker was exposed to over their 

16 entire work history.

17 And so, that is one of the reasons 

18 that we've agreed to assign a baseline of a 

coworker intake at the 50th 19 percentile for 

20 everyone.

21 So, we believe that one point by 

22 itself may not be meaningful, but as a whole, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 the data that have been collected, the 

2 thousands of measurements that have been 

3 conducted, are meaningful in a coworker intake 

4 model.

5 Regarding the incidents, there 

6 have been incidents where employees from 

7 Fernald were sent to other facilities to have 

8 lung counts done, because of that incident, 

9 and the same mobile in vivo unit also serviced 

10 the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, as well 

11 as the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

12 There has also been instances of 

13 employees from Fernald going to those two 

14 facilities, as well as to Oak Ridge, to have a 

15 lung count conducted.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Mark. 

17 John?

18 MR. STIVER: Okay, I was just 

19 saying that, you know, what Mark says may be 

20 valid. We did make that point in our 

21 presentation, that when multiple workers are 

22 considered over a long period of time, over an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 annual -- interval, that a lot of those 

2 uncertainties may cancel each other out.

3 We do still have concerns 

4 regarding the individual measurements and what 

5 they really mean. I guess that is really 

6 where I wanted to be at this point, and we'll 

7 take this up in the Work Group, the next time.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, John, 

9 thank you. Can we hear -- is the Petitioner 

10 on the line, and do they which to speak?

11 MS. BALDRIDGE: Yes, this is 

12 Sandra.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

14 Sandra.

15 MS. BALDRIDGE: I've prepared a 

16 statement, and I thank the Board for the 

17 opportunity to express some of my concerns 

18 about thorium.

19 As a reminder, the Fernald 

20 petition was filed because of discrepancies 

21 between the Site Profile prepared by NIOSH, 

22 and the historic Federal Fernald documents 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 that I was able to obtain, in particular, it 

2 involved thorium processing in Plant 6.

3 Section 5.2.3 of the Technical 

4 Basis Document for the occupational internal 

5 dose states, "A comprehensive effort to 

6 reconstruct the effluent of uranium and 

7 thorium from the Fernald Plant in 1988 

8 discovered that a large number of records and 

9 files were destroyed in the early 1970's, 

10 during the declassification efforts." This is 

11 according to Dolan and Hill, 1988.

12 Review of Atomic Energy Commission 

13 records in Oak Ridge and Atlanta failed to 

14 uncover additional details. Thorium processes 

15 had been shut down and most of the thorium 

16 processing equipment had been removed, prior 

17 to the effluent data reconstruction, which 

18 made the reconstruction more difficult.

19 The data reconstruction was based 

20 on information that was gathered from FMPC, 

21 Oak Ridge, the Atomic Energy Commission and 

22 FMPC customers, in addition to interviewing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 current and retired Fernald workers.

2 The questions that workers were 

3 asked are noted in the Technical Basis 

4 Document.

5 I find it strange that they were 

6 not asked if they had knowledge of additional 

7 plant locations where thorium had been 

8 processed. 

9 So, the records discovered 

10 presented incomplete picture of thorium at 

11 Fernald. The attempt to reconstruct data is 

12 flawed. NIOSH missed three and a half years 

13 of thorium processing, in Plant 6. The 

14 question is, what else has been missed?

15 What was in the records that were 

16 destroyed? Was it so incriminating that it 

17 had to be destroyed?

18 In June 1989, Federal Court 

19 documents from a trial entitled 'Fernald One 

20 Summary Jury Trial' indicate the Defendants, 

21 that's National Lead of Ohio, represented that 

22 there was no thorium-230 at the Feed Materials 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 Production Center.

2 It was not until August 1990, that 

3 the plaintiff learned that the thorium-230 had 

4 been leaking from the K-65 silo.

5 This would suggest that workers 

6 may not have been aware that they were 

7 processing thorium. I'd like to note that 

8 this trial proceeded the lawsuit that 

9 established the medical monitoring program for 

10 Fernald workers.

11 Shortly after filing the SEC 

12 petition, I met a former supervisor from Plant 

13 6, who was working there while thorium was 

14 being processed. He insisted that I was wrong 

15 and that thorium was never in Plant 6. 

16 The historic documents, however, 

17 included monthly and weekly reviews of the 

18 processing over the three and a half year 

19 period.

20 Based on my experience, I can 

21 assume that some of those workers interviewed 

22 by NIOSH may have also been limited or had no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 knowledge of the thorium being processed at 

2 Fernald. 

3 I feel NIOSH established a mind 

4 set about Fernald at the onset of dose 

5 reconstruction process, and have manipulated 

6 information to reinforce this mind set.

7 For example, Fernald documents 

8 revealed one of the dirtiest operations in the 

9 nation, yet NIOSH, according to the TBD, would 

10 have us believe they followed strict good 

11 housekeeping practices.

12 NIOSH acknowledges that Fernald 

13 was the official national repository for 

14 thorium, beginning in 1972, but failed to 

15 acknowledge petition documentation that 

16 Fernald was requested to begin stock piling 

17 thorium as early as the late 1950s, thereby, 

18 lessening the potential impact from this 

19 thorium stock piling information.

20 When you were discussing the radon 

21 report by Dr. Pinney, I'd like to also point 

22 out that that did not include thoron, and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 thank you for the opportunity that I've had to 

2 present my perspective on the thorium problem 

3 at Fernald, and I feel based on the lack of 

4 information and the way in which it was found, 

5 that there is probably more to the story than 

6 has been revealed. Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 

8 Sandra, appreciate it.

9 Brad, you had a comment, and then 

10 --

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I just 

12 wanted to make sure that everybody understood 

13 that on several of these, SC&A has felt that 

14 it's bounding, but it hasn't come to the Work 

15 Group yet. That is their recommendation at 

16 this time. But the Work Group has not 

17 addressed those.

18 But what I do want to bring up is, 

19 all of you are starting to see the complexity 

20 of this plant. In one side, it's tried to tie 

21 it up into a nice little box and a nice little 

22 bowl, and my personal feeling is, is it's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 that way.

2 As you can see by the complexity 

3 of this, we are going to have one more Work 

4 Group, and then -- because many of these, we 

5 can -- we differ on.

6 So, it's going to be coming to us. 

7 So, in the part of -- end of January, we're 

8 going to have our final Work Group meeting, 

9 and what I would ask the Board to do is if 

10 they have specific questions on this, that we 

11 get them kind of in advance, so that we can 

12 try to address these out.

13 This is a complex plant. Part of 

14 the problem too is they have good urinalysis.

15 So, you've got some good 

16 information, not others, and this plant did a 

17 lot of work and produced a lot of stuff out of 

18 it, and it's difficult.

19 So, if there any of these things, 

20 if you could send them to us, so, we can try 

21 to have these addressed, so that we can come 

22 to the Board, and I apologize.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 I know there is a lot of 

2 information on there, but I requested John to 

3 go into great detail on it, because I wanted 

4 you to see the complexity of what we're 

5 dealing with. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Brad. 

7 We need to wrap up here, because we need a 

8 break, and then we need to move on.

9 But I would urge the Work Group to 

10 also think about how this can best be 

11 packaged.

12 I have some concerns, whether 

13 given that you are in different places, in 

14 terms of reviewing issues, and I'm not totally 

15 confident you'll resolve everything in the 

16 next Work Group, that you think about how to 

17 package and bring it forward.

18 It seems to me that the 1967 to 

19 1978 period is close, and you know, frankly, 

20 I'd be ready after today, to vote on that, and 

21 I think certainly, bring it to some sort of 

22 decision by the Board, and may make more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 progress, or if there is other -- there is a 

2 lot of other areas there of concern. I think 

3 what we heard presented raised a number of 

4 issues.

5 So, those -- some of those issues 

6 may be brought forward. I may remind, we keep 

7 hearing about something being bounded, but it 

8 has to be a plausible bond, and some of those 

9 bonds, at least to me, based on what little I 

10 heard was -- don't appear to be necessarily 

11 plausible, and other issues.

12 But let's -- we need to try to 

13 really -- it's gone on long enough. We really 

14 need to try to resolve, as best we can. Maybe 

15 we can't, by the next Board meeting. But we 

16 should at least be trying.

17 But what the Work Group can bring 

18 forward, if it's too complicated, or certain 

19 issues aren't ready, maybe we need to split 

20 them up somehow, in terms of how they're 

21 presented.

22 We will try to leave a significant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 amount of time at the Board meeting, to deal 

2 with this. It may be longer than our usual 

3 hour or whatever, if that's what I think may 

4 be necessary, because I'm not sure that 

5 everyone can anticipate all of their questions 

6 by the Work Group meeting, or they'll end up 

7 having more afterwards. That is a -- it's 

8 hard to do from a distance.

9 We also will do our best to get a 

10 good package of information out to the -- with 

11 key documents and so forth, to Board Members 

12 ahead of time, that are pertinent to what 

13 needs to be addressed.

14 So, is that satisfactory with 

15 everybody? 

16 Okay and you'll notice, I didn't 

17 mention radon, Wanda. 

18 Let's take a break. Let's try to 

19 be back here about ten of, and we'll get 

20 started.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 10:33 a.m. and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 resumed at 10:57 a.m.)

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, I think 

3 we're ready to resume, and we're going to be 

4 talking about the Savannah River Site, and I 

5 think that we all know that at our last 

6 meeting, NIOSH had recommended that a Class be 

7 added to the SEC for Savannah River.

8 We had had some questions on 

9 there. There were questions on the Class 

10 Definition, and so, the Work Group has been 

11 following up on that, as has NIOSH, and I 

12 believe Mark is going to give us a 

13 presentation on -- 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, just to start.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: To start, so, 

16 Mark Griffon.

17 MR. KATZ: So, just -- I'd said 

18 earlier, I had distributed some material from 

19 Tim Taulbee, to Mark and the rest of the Board 

20 Members, by email, just to let you know, some 

21 slides that he prepared, just delivered this 

22 morning.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I'll -- I 

2 think the way I'd like to do this is to sort 

3 of introduce this, and then have NIOSH do 

4 their presentation, and then I'll give a brief 

5 introduction on what the Work Group has done 

6 and SC&A is going to fill in some of the 

7 details on what they've done.

8 We had looked at this initial 

9 proposed Class Definition in a Work Group 

10 phone call meeting. Out of that phone call

11 meeting, there were some questions about how 

12 NIOSH, or actually, how DOL would implement 

13 the Class, whether they could identify the 

14 workers that would fall within the Class.

15 So, we, the Work Group, asked SC&A 

16 to go back and consider that Definition a 

17 little more closely, including looking at some 

18 sample cases.

19 Subsequent to that, before our 

20 last Work Group meeting, which we just had a 

21 few days ago, NIOSH modified their Class 

22 Definition.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 So, we're in the midst of 

2 considering, you know, just this Class

3 Definition, and the main issue under 

4 discussion is whether they can identify this 

5 sort of sub-set of workers, or whether we have 

6 to consider a broader definition, in terms of 

7 the workers, if we consider all workers within 

8 the time period.

9 So, I'll first ask if NIOSH wants 

10 to present their piece.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't have 

12 anything to present. We thought, you know, 

13 the presentation was --

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, I thought the 

15 -- 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a 

17 presentation, but it's not ours. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: But there was a 

19 PowerPoint that Ted sent around this morning.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, he sent a 

21 few slides.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Tim sent a few 

2 slides, which I believe are complementary or 

3 supplementary to this.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, it was a 

5 PowerPoint, explaining some of the -- we asked 

6 them to look at the gaps in that data. Anyway, 

7 okay.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Hang on a minute.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess we have 

10 the slides, but -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This was what was 

12 sent this morning, right?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, right. So, 

14 no one is really available to speak to that, 

15 from NIOSH?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Tim is on 

17 the phone, I believe. Tim, are you on the 

18 phone?

19 MR. KATZ: He is.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Tim, can you give 

21 a brief -- you don't have to go through your 

22 exact overheads, but if you can give a brief 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 description of where you're at with the new 

2 Class Definition and this gap analysis that we 

3 asked for in the last Work Group meeting.

4 MR. KATZ: Tim, we can't hear you. 

5 I don't know if it's your end or our end. But 

6 your voice is very faint. I don't know which 

7 end the problem is.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Can you hear me now?

9 MR. KATZ: There we go.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That's better.

11 DR. TAULBEE: Okay?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, Tim.

13 DR. TAULBEE: Thank you very much. 

14 They did an update on why we've changed our 

15 Class Definition slightly.

16 We wanted to provide some 

17 clarification. From reading SC&A's report, it 

18 appeared that there was some confusion among 

19 our Class Definition, as to what our intent 

20 was, and so, by changing some of the wording 

21 around, we've hopefully made this clear, and 

22 some of the clarifications are -- is to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 specify that the 250 day requirement isn't 250 

2 days within an area, or 250 days worth of 

3 dosimeter codes.

4 What we indicated during our 

5 presentation back at Hanford, was that we 

6 would have -- one dosimeter code would be all 

7 we would consider for inclusion into the 

8 Class, not 250 days worth of dosimeter codes.

9 So, we hopefully clarified that 

10 with this new proposed Class.

11 The other item was the inclusion 

12 of unknown location. Within the latter time 

13 period, this would be post-1958, a dosimeter 

14 code of 000 was used when the issuance 

15 location was not known.

16 To us, the other -- these people 

17 are equivalent to the ones who may have been 

18 exposed to thorium. 

19 Again, I've broken -- when I did -

20 - provided my discussion to the Board back in 

21 August, I separated workers into three 

22 categories. One was likely exposed workers, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 and those are the ones within 773A and CMX/TNX 

2 facilities, and then workers who may have been 

3 exposed, and that was where we opened it up to 

4 construction trades workers.

5 Then the other category was 

6 workers not exposed, based upon their 

7 dosimeter codes, as working in the reactor 

8 area or the separation areas in specific time 

9 periods.

10 So, we included the 000 code and -

11 - in this definition, and added language about 

12 when records are illegible or indeterminable.

13 The only other change to the 

14 definition was the addition of two dosimeter 

15 code designations, Y and D2 for the CMX/TNX 

16 facility, and this was the result of an 

17 investigation that we went through and found 

18 that the designation for that area actually 

19 changed.

20 This was the very first facility 

21 at Savannah River to handle radioactive 

22 material, and so, it changed from Y to D2, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 Y to CMX, then D2, and so, we wanted to add 

2 those two designators for completeness.

3 So, are my slides present for 

4 everyone to see?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, if you go to 

7 the next slide then, this is our proposed 

8 Class Definition, and it's currently at all 

9 externally monitored employees at the 

10 Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies 

11 and their contractors and subcontractors, 

12 whose records have at least one of the 

13 following dosimeter codes, A, G, CMX, TNX, D2, 

14 Y or the code is blank or illegible, 

15 indicating issuance from an unknown or 

16 indeterminable location, and worked at the 

17 Savannah River Site from January 1, 1953 

18 through December 31, 1957, for a number of 

19 work days aggregating at least 250 days, 

20 occurring either solely under their employment 

21 or in combination with work days within the 

22 parameters established for one or more other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 Classes of employees included in the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort, or this is a very long 

3 definition.

4 So, the next slide, if you go to, 

5 or whose work -- or whose records have at 

6 least one of the following dosimeter codes 5A, 

7 5C, 6B through 6Z, 12D through 12H, 12J 

8 through 12Z, or 000 indicating issuance from 

9 an unknown location and worked at the Savannah 

10 River Site from January 1, 1958 through 

11 September 30, 1972, low number of work days 

12 aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 

13 either solely under this employment or in 

14 combination with work days within the 

15 parameters established for one or more of the 

16 other Classes of employees, including the 

17 Special Exposure Cohort.

18 So, that is our changes to the 

19 Special Exposure Cohort petition definition, 

20 that we're proposing.

21 Are there any questions on that, 

22 before I move onto the gap analysis?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I think, Tim, 

2 you can go ahead onto the gap analysis. Maybe 

3 explain, from the Work Group, why we -- why 

4 you did this gap analysis, sort of what was 

5 the reason that we asked for it?

6 DR. TAULBEE: Okay, a week ago, 

Monday, on November 28th 7 , we received a report 

8 from SC&A considering our Class Definition, 

9 where they did an analysis of 10 Claimants, 

10 and went through their dosimetry records to 

11 see if this Class could be -- I guess the 

12 purpose is implemented, or whether there were 

13 any gaps within the dosimetry records that 

14 needed to be resolved or would create 

15 problems.

16 Well, they identified 130 gaps 

17 among these 10 Claimants. One of the 

18 comments, though, that SC&A indicated in their 

19 report was they did not evaluate the reason 

20 for the gap, and so, during our Work Group 

21 call last Friday, we committed that we would 

22 go through and look at these gaps, and see if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 there is a reason for them, and whether they 

2 can be resolved.

3 Well, we used the Site Research 

4 Database and work history cards to evaluate 

5 these gaps, that were identified.

6 So, in summary, of the 130 gaps 

7 that were identified, we've resolved 99 of 

8 them, just in the past few days. So, that 

9 comprises 76 percent.

10 Now, there is still 15 that we've 

11 categorized as possibly resolved and 16 

12 unresolved.

13 So, in total, there are 88 percent 

14 of these gaps, we've categorized into resolved 

15 or possibly resolved. 

16 It's important to note that there 

17 are no unresolved issues post-1963. So, all 

18 of these gaps that are still in the possibly 

19 resolved or unresolved category are pre-1964.

20 So, this is an early time period 

21 where we would expect to find more difficulty 

22 with the gaps.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 So, if we go to the next slide, 

2 I'll give a little better definition of what 

3 we've defined as resolved, possibly resolved 

4 and unresolved.

5 For the resolved, we either found 

6 dosimetry data, or they were not employed 

7 during this time period, the code was 000, and 

8 the break-down of those 99, 49 of them we 

9 found dosimetry results in the SRDB that were 

10 not provided with the Claimant's file, but the 

11 data is there, within our access, within our 

12 Site Research Database.

13 So, we've considered those gaps to 

14 be resolved in that we have HP location 

15 information. We have these dosimeter codes 

16 and information during that time period.

17 And then on top, the number of 000

18 codes, there were 24 of those 99 resolved, 

19 were the 000 codes, which I think our change -

20 - or our addition to Class Definition takes 

21 care of. So, those are resolved.

22 So, that left us with, I believe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 it's 26 unresolved -- or no, 26 resolved 

2 issues, that we were able to come through from 

3 a job change within their work history cards, 

4 where they changed from a job, where they were 

5 monitored, to a job where they were not 

6 expected to be monitored, such as electronics 

7 and instrumentation technician, E&I 

8 technician, to a clerical position.

9 The possibly resolved is again, 

10 being evaluated right now. We're not done. We 

11 just got started on this last week, so, we've 

12 got some more work to do.

13 But just to give an indication, 

14 again, job change appears to be one of the 

15 major issues. Nine of the 16 possibly 

16 resolved are one individual and it's -- he has 

17 a GI indicated in his work history card, but 

18 we're not sure what that means. It could be 

19 military service. It could not be. We just 

20 don't know at this point. We need to track 

21 that down more.

22 And then there is an additional --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 I think it's 16 or 12 percent, that are 

2 unresolved, that we need for further evaluate 

3 over the next few weeks.

4 So, that is where we're at with 

5 this analysis. Again, we haven't had this --

6 a great deal of time. We really got started 

7 on this last Thursday and Friday, and my team, 

8 Mike Mahathy in particular, has been working 

9 very hard over the past few days to try and 

10 get this far.

11 So, that is where we're at with 

12 the gap analysis.

13 One final slide, the next slide, 

14 please, is an analysis that we did of the 

15 Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews, and 

16 this was something that was brought up back in 

17 August, could we use this information?

18 And it doesn't -- it's not a 

19 scientific study, because we're looking at 

20 self-reported information.

21 But we went through and identified 

22 -- did a keyword search within the CATI 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 database, all Claimants from Savannah River, 

2 and we identified 171 Claimants who self3 identified that they worked in Building 773 or 

4 CMX/TNX.

5 Of these 171, 154 were identified 

6 as during the covered period from 1953 through 

7 1972. 

8 Based on the definition that we've 

9 proposed, originally, not even this modified 

10 one -- well, I guess the modified one does 

11 include the 000 code, so, I should clarify 

12 that.

13 But based upon these dosimeter 

14 codes, 151 of the 154 self-identified people 

15 would be included in the Class, based upon 

16 their dosimetry codes.

17 Three Claimants were not included. 

18 One of them was an administrative person who 

19 worked in a typing pool. Another was a 

20 computer programmer who stated in the CATI 

21 that they did not work with radioactive 

22 materials, and the other was a power equipment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 operator -- or power equipment inspector, who 

2 went around to various buildings throughout 

3 the plant, and in his CATI, indicated a large 

4 number of buildings that he said he went into.

5 So, that is kind of an overview of 

6 our CATI analysis, where we feel that this 

7 dosimeter -- or this Class Definition will 

8 work, in the vast majority of the cases, and 

9 so, that's an update, where we're at.

10 Are there any questions?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks. Yes, I 

12 think we had one or two questions. David, did 

13 you have a question on that, on the NIOSH 

14 presentation?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Thank you. So, 

16 by gap, you meant a year in which -- or maybe 

17 first, could you define to me what you meant 

18 by a gap?

19 DR. TAULBEE: I would defer to 

20 SC&A to define that, sorry. They are the ones 

21 who came up with their definition of gaps.

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, by gap, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 meant where we didn't find a record with a 

2 dosimetry code, and the 000, where we did find 

3 them, were explicitly identified as such. We 

4 didn't call them gaps, but to combine all of 

5 those into the 130.

6 But gaps was when employment was 

7 indicated, at least as far as we could tell, 

8 and there was no code that we could find for 

9 that period.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And a gap 

11 could arise because the person was unmonitored 

12 in that year, or the -- was monitored -- the 

13 dosimetry record was not located, or the 

14 dosimetry record was located and it didn't 

15 have a health physics department code 

16 associated with it?

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, Dr. 

18 Richardson, we -- as I -- as Tim said 

19 correctly, we did not explore the reasons for 

20 the gaps, and we looked at two things.

21 We looked at the DOE files in the 

22 Claimant records, and we also looked at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews, and we 

2 didn't go into the details, and Tim has gone 

3 into some of that in his presentation to you.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, and so, 

5 you -- Tim, you described that you resolved 76 

6 percent of the gaps by identification that --

7 or by -- by determining that a job change had 

8 occurred?

9 DR. TAULBEE: Not all of those. 

10 The vast majority of them were a page -- a 

11 page of the dosimetry record was not in the 

12 Claimant's file, but we have the actual -- we 

13 have complete quarterly dosimetry reports that 

14 we've obtained form the site, and we went 

15 through those.

16 Those are all located in the Site 

17 Research Database, and we went through those, 

18 looking for that particular person, and that

19 gap, that missing data, and in 49 of the 99 

20 resolved cases, we were able to find those. 

21 That was the reason that gap was resolved.

22 Okay, so, that is one group of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 these -- of those 99 resolved.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you 

3 first describe that to me a little bit more? 

4 They had dosimetry information that wasn't 

5 provided to SC&A?

6 DR. TAULBEE: They had -- that is 

7 correct. They had dosimetry information that 

8 is in the Site Research Database, that was not 

9 provided by the site in the Claimant file.

10 Generally, what happens, a page is 

11 missed or in the earlier time periods, when 

12 Claimant files were being sent to us, if there 

13 was no change in the dose, for example, they 

14 were monitored but all of their dosimeter 

15 readings were zero, and the site wouldn't send 

16 us that particular page.

17 The location information is still 

18 there on that page. It's just, all of their 

19 doses are blank for that time period, and in 

20 that time period, blank can mean one of two 

21 things.

22 One, that the reading was zero in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 the main -- is the main one, and the other is, 

2 is that during that time period, they never 

3 picked or wore their dosimeter badge.

4 So, if they were working in 

5 another area, but badged in a particular area, 

6 they never went into the area.

7 So, the site, whenever the 

8 dosimetry or the -- the total dose doesn't 

9 change, didn't always send us every one of 

10 those pages, and that's why we were able to 

11 find so many of them.

12 But the location information is 

13 there.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, just to 

15 finish up with this --

16 DR. TAULBEE: I'm sorry, you were 

17 breaking up, sir.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The proposed 

19 Class Definition that you have is based on 

20 health physics area codes, right?

21 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so, how is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 a gap where there is a missing health physics 

2 area code for a period of employment resolved 

3 by determining that their job title has 

4 changed?

5 I would consider those as two 

6 dimensions of a matrix, where somebody may 

7 hold a job title and that job title may be 

8 held in various areas, either potentially 

9 clerical workers assigned to the 100 area or 

10 the 200 area and so on.

11 To identify that the person has 

12 changed from an E&I tech to a clerical worker, 

13 to me, doesn't resolve the question about the 

14 other dimension of classifying them, which is 

15 the area in which they worked as a clerical 

16 worker.

17 DR. TAULBEE: I don't disagree 

18 with you on principle, that it is a two19 dimensional type of matrix.

20 We are making an assumption that 

21 when somebody moves from a -- when somebody is 

22 monitored and their job title is electronics 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 and instrumentation technician, and then they 

2 -- the monitoring records stop for a time 

3 period, and we look at the work history card 

4 and it says they became a clerical person for 

5 this time period, and then their monitoring 

6 records pick up again, and their job title 

7 changed again, either back to E&I or to some 

8 other job, that one might assume to be 

9 monitored, in our opinion, it's showing that 

10 somebody is moving from -- that those two are 

11 coinciding together.

12 I agree that it wouldn't always be 

13 the case, but this seems like a very plausible 

14 scenario of somebody who is monitored and then 

15 they're not monitored. Well, why were they no 

16 longer monitored? Why don't we have any 

17 records for them? It's in that work history 

18 and their job changed.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I am not 

20 contending that any of those are wrong, that 

21 they are -- that their job title did not 

22 change and the determination that they needed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 to be badged or not badged changed.

2 But I'm asking, why are you 

3 assuming that they weren't a clerical worker 

4 in a given area? Why do you believe that they 

5 changed spatially, their physical location, as 

6 opposed to a job title change, where for a 

7 while, I'm a pipefitter in an area, and then I 

8 switch over to, you know, a general service 

9 operator in that same area, and I'm working --

10 you know, I tend to work in that physical 

11 location?

12 DR. TAULBEE: You are correct, 

13 they could have continued working in that 

14 area. There was that job title change. I 

15 believe without them being monitored, there 

16 would not have been an exposure to thorium.

17 In order to be exposed to thorium 

18 in the 773A area, you had to have been badged. 

19 You had to have gone into that area.

20 So, for the Class Definition, if 

21 they were still working in 773A, and I don't 

22 know the specifics on this, personally, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 don't have them in front of me, but say, they 

2 moved from the laboratory area into the front 

3 part, into A-wing, where it's an 

4 administrative area, they didn't physically 

5 change location, but their potential for 

6 exposure to thorium ceased when they moved 

7 into this other part of the building.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But is that 

9 how the Class is defined? 

10 DR. TAULBEE: The Class is defined 

11 based upon the potential for exposure to 

12 thorium in 773A in the TNX facilities.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Based on 

14 health physics areas, right, not based on job 

15 titles, held within health physics areas?

16 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct. It 

17 is based upon the monitoring of the health 

18 physics codes.

19 What the gap analysis or what the 

20 gaps were purporting was that we don't have 

21 complete records, and so, when this person is 

22 not -- when this record is incomplete, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 don't know whether they worked and were 

2 exposed to thorium or not, and what I'm trying 

3 to show during this review of work history 

4 cards is that it doesn't appear like this 

5 person had a potential for exposure to 

6 thorium, when this code changed, or when this 

7 monitoring record ceased before it picked up 

8 again.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, the way 

10 that you've resolved the gap, I guess is what 

11 I need to be clarified.

12 Are you resolving the gap under 

13 the assumption that they've remained in that 

14 area and continued to accrue their days of 

15 exposure there, or have you resolved the gap 

16 under the assumption that for that break in 

17 period, they moved out of that health physics 

18 area to one which is not considered part of 

19 the Class Definition?

20 DR. TAULBEE: The latter, but it's 

21 more of the standpoint of, they moved out of 

22 the area and were not monitored because they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 didn't need to be monitored.

2 If they moved to another area, and 

3 were monitored, we have that record.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Why don't we -- I 

5 think at this point, it would be good to have 

6 --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, Jim --

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, I'm sorry, 

9 Jim, go ahead.

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: Just maybe, for 

11 David, it would inform you that this analysis 

12 was done on what 10? I forget, it was 10 

13 cases that were submitted.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: It's not a random 

16 analysis, so, there are concerns about that. 

17 I'd like to know whether this is 

18 representative of the group as a whole. I 

19 don't know that one way or the other.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's also 

21 interesting that a lot of effort has gone into 

22 resolving these 10 cases.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 But having said that, I'll let 

2 SC&A maybe present their side of what they've 

3 -- you know, they've reviewed this, also, and 

4 Arjun, if you can present your work.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: While we are 

6 getting that set up, I have a logistical 

7 question. 

8 I know Dr. Lockey has to leave 

9 around 3:30 p.m. Has anybody else got an 

10 earlier flight? 

11 (Off mic comments.)

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, I just 

13 wanted to check. Sorry to pick on you, Jim, 

14 but no, I just needed -- was trying to figure 

15 out --

16 MEMBER LOCKEY: You warned me.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That's right, I 

18 warned you. I won't tell you informed 

19 consent, but informed.

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Informed, that is 

21 right. 

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, I just want 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 to ask whether Lynn Ayers is on the phone? 

2 Lynn, are you one the phone?

3 (No response.)

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Doesn't matter, 

5 okay. Okay, the first slide just gives a 

6 little bit of an overview of the history of 

7 the thorium SEC issue, and the -- in 2010, 

8 NIOSH published an ER addendum covering one 

9 part of the thorium issue in which they 

10 presented a dose reconstruction method in the 

11 300M area, and then there was another report 

12 that went beyond 1965, and there are a number 

13 of outstanding issues. We've issued reports 

14 about that and so on. 

15 That is not under discussion 

16 actively today. But just as reminder, that 

17 there are other thorium areas that have been 

18 and continue to be under discussion.

19 Then on August 9, 2011, NIOSH 

20 published addendum 2, which is what we're 

21 discussing today. Sorry, it says September 

22 310, 1972. Should be September 30, 1972, in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 the last bullet there.

2 As you have heard from Tim, NIOSH 

3 proposed an SEC for thorium for certain 

4 workers in certain areas, up to September 30, 

5 1972, starting in 1953.

6 I put up the original definition 

7 because our analysis of these 10 cases was 

8 against this original definition, certain 

9 areas up to 1957 and certain dosimetry codes 

10 in the years from 1958 to September 30, 1972, 

11 and so, now, that has changed, and I'll come 

12 to that.

13 But I just want to remind you that 

14 this is what we were analyzing against.

15 So, we, as Dr. Lockey said, we 

16 reviewed a small sample. It was not random. 

17 This was just to get an idea of whether there 

18 were gaps. 

19 The reason we did this, other than 

20 time and resources and to get a preliminary 

21 look, is that in the way this Class Definition 

22 has been proposed, you actually have to have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 record for every area and every period for 

2 which the worker worked, because even one 

3 designation of the particular type that's in 

4 the Class, would qualify the worker.

5 So, if you've got one period in 

6 which you have more records, then you don't 

7 know what to do with that, and so, the object 

8 was to find how many periods there were, for 

9 which there were no records or illegible 

10 records and so on.

11 We submitted a report on November 

28th 12 , and most of these claims were provided 

13 as being problem claims of non-random in that 

14 sense, too, by Petitioner representatives. 

15 So, let's see, here. So, our main 

16 finding was that there was only one case. 

17 Now, we reviewed the DOE files and 

18 the CATIs, the DOE file in the claimant record 

19 and the CATI.

20 Only one case had complete records 

21 out of 10, with no uncertainties or 

22 discrepancies. Four out of 10 cases had some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 uncertainties and discrepancies, gaps, various 

2 kinds of things, and there were several kind 

3 of problem areas that we identified gaps, 

4 meaning no records, the 000 code that you 

5 heard about, and in the first period, 

6 especially from 1957 -- from 1953 to 1957, 

7 there were illegible records, blank records, 

8 stuff that was scratched out and not replaced, 

9 twice scratched out, replaced with something, 

10 again scratched out and so on and so on.

11 So, we considered all of these to 

12 be problem areas, and five out of the 10 cases 

13 where there were these incomplete, illegible 

14 records and so on, there was no -- or there 

15 were gaps, there was no code present 

16 indicating that they would be qualified for 

17 inclusion.

18 Now, under the present -- under 

19 the present revised definition, more than four 

20 out of 10 would be included, but not all 10.

21 All right, so, a little more 

22 detail. We compiled a number of employee 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 years, and there were 139 employee years for 

2 these 10 workers, and 55 percent of the 

3 employee years had complete records.

4 Forty-five percent of the years 

5 were either fully or partially problematic in 

6 some way.

7 Now, I understand, you know, NIOSH 

8 has filled in some of those gaps. This is as 

9 presented in our November report, and so, 45 

10 percent of the claims had some kind of gap or 

11 illegible records, or blank or unreadable 

12 records and so on.

13 We also looked at the Computer 

14 Assisted Telephone Interviews, and we had a 

15 couple of conclusions about that.

16 Generally, these computer assisted 

17 interviews are very broad, where did you work. 

18 I worked in 100 area. I worked in the 200 

19 area, but they don't give you years, you know, 

20 or even -- this requires, in many cases, a 

21 finer grain than years. They don't say, 

22 "Well, in the first quarter of 1964, I worked 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 in the 200H area and so on." You don't have 

2 that kind of detail, generally, in the 

3 computer assisted interview.

4 They may have referred to the 773 

5 or 773A, as Tim has indicated, but in survivor 

6 interviews where the worker himself has passed 

7 away, generally, you have even less detail 

8 than that and often, you may find nothing. So, 

9 there would be kind of an issue.

10 Generally, we didn't think while 

11 you might be able to include people from CATI 

12 and go there and find that they, in deed, were 

13 potentially thorium exposed, CATI would not be 

14 very useful to ensure that a worker was not 

15 present in SEC area, generally speaking.

16 So, we presented this at the Work 

17 Group meeting, and NIOSH, upon reviewing our 

18 research, proposed wider definition, which you 

19 have heard about, and you have seen a written 

20 proposal, so I won't dwell on this.

21 So, a couple of comments on what 

22 NIOSH has presented. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 You heard from the Petitioner 

2 yesterday that, you know, for construction 

3 workers they may have had a badge in a 

4 particular area and then worked in other 

5 areas.

6 I've looked over the interviews. 

7 We did some interviews with workers in 2010 or 

8 2009, I don't remember.

9 Anyway, you have the interview 

10 record that was provided to the Board, and put 

11 on the O: drive, and in reviewing those 

12 records, the construction workers who were not 

13 DuPont - the construction workers who were 

14 DuPont employees generally were assigned to 

15 some particular operations area. This is 

16 according to the interviews that we've 

17 compiled.

18 Construction workers who were not 

19 DuPont employees tended to fill in the gaps 

20 where they were needed, and so, who were more 

21 -- possibly more all over the site and could 

22 be called up to go from one place to another. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 So, that is one particular issue.

2 In regard to the gaps, I'd like to 

3 comment. This -- there has been a question 

4 about workers not wearing badges, and this 

5 question would come up.

6 The third point I'd like to make 

7 is something that was referred to by Dr. 

8 Lockey. You said that, of course, you wanted 

9 to see a more complete analysis.

10 Complete analysis that is non11 random and a properly -- that is a random 

12 sample, that is properly stratified would be 

13 pretty forbidding in this case, in my opinion. 

14 I mean, we haven't consulted with our 

15 statistician, and I would certainly defer to 

16 him, if we were asked to do that.

17 But because you have to have every 

18 record, you'd have to have a pretty large 

19 sample. You not only are looking at the DOE 

20 records, then you are looking at every single 

21 record for every worker. 

22 These are available at Savannah 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 River Site, as Tim has mentioned. Sometimes, 

2 each record runs into 1,000 pages. We did 

3 this at Nevada Test Site. We did some workers 

4 and looked at every single page of records. 

5 It's a pretty forbidding task, and just want 

6 to alert you to that possibility.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess we can 

8 have some questions. We have time for some 

9 questions, right?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, one 

12 thing, this is really for Tim, I assume you're 

13 still on the line.

14 I was curious, when you say you 

15 resolved 76 percent of the gaps, how many 

16 claimants, out of these 10 that you looked at, 

17 how many of those cases were 100 percent 

18 resolved, all of the gaps, you know,

19 completely resolved for an individual 

20 claimant, because we're talking like, you 

21 know, these exposure years here, but I want to 

22 know about the 10 claimants.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 DR. TAULBEE: Mark, unfortunately, 

2 I don't have that information right here in 

3 front of me. If you give me maybe 15 or 20 

4 minutes, I can try and pull it up.

5 But I mean, that is something that 

6 we were planning on including in a report. 

7 This was a preliminary analysis of this, and 

8 we're still going through some of these 

9 unresolved.

10 So, I just don't have that number 

11 in front of me right now. I'm sorry.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Arjun is -- yes, 

13 go ahead.

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: One thing I did 

15 not say, that I intended to, when I looked 

16 over -- and I don't have the chance to study 

17 the new Class Definition, but I noticed that 

18 it did not address one point that we had 

19 brought up, which is these scratched out 

20 codes, and so, I had asked Lynn Ayers to send 

21 me some information of how many of the cases 

22 had scratched out codes, that were not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 replaced? Lynn, are you on the line?

2 (No response.)

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'll go over it. 

4 There were three cases in which there were 

5 scratched out codes, Case 2 in which -- for 

6 example, in 1955 -- I won't go through the 

7 whole detail.

8 But just to give you an example. 

9 There was a code on a card in 1955, but it was 

10 scratched out, and you can read it, but it was 

11 scratched out.

12 So, we don't know what we would 

13 attribute, whether that was -- that hasn't 

14 been addressed in the new Definition.

15 So, whether that would be taken as 

16 an area code or would be taken as an unknown, 

17 hasn't been addressed. Illegible and blanks 

18 have been addressed.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Arjun, can I ask 

20 you the same question? I know that NIOSH has 

21 attempted to resolve some of these gaps that 

22 you initially identified, but in your first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 cut through, how many of the 10 did you find 

2 was some gap in their records, during the time 

3 period of interest?

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, we don't 

5 know which cases the 12 percent remaining 

6 unresolved and the 12 percent potentially 

7 resolved, that were not resolved.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, no, no, but 

9 I'm asking in your first --

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: Nine out of 10 

11 cases did not have complete records.

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is what I 

15 was looking for. Anyway, Jim has a question.

16 DR. TAULBEE: Mark, this is Tim. I 

17 was able to pull that spreadsheet up, while we 

18 were talking here.

19 It looks like four additional ones 

20 do not have any gaps associated with them, 

21 now, if I'm interpreting this right.

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, four 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 additional? So, that would be five out of 10?

2 DR. TAULBEE: So, five out of 10.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, you have 76 

4 percent potentially resolved, but you really 

5 drop to 50 percent of the claimants that are 

6 resolved?

7 DR. TAULBEE: Well, yes, but keep 

8 in mind, one, this is not a random sample, and 

9 two, we're not finished with our work yet.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right, I 

11 understand, I understand. I'm just putting 

12 some perspective on it. Go ahead, Jim.

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: You know, I wanted 

14 to ask you about why -- maybe you can inform 

15 me why we'd be such a -- it would be such as 

16 task to do a random sample, you know, at the 

17 at-risk group, that's before 1973?

18 You set your alpha and beta. You 

19 look at your power calculations, and I don't 

20 think I'd be asking you to go back and look at 

21 everybody, but it doesn't seem to me that that 

22 would be such a laborious task. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 You don't have to look at 

2 everybody. You can set your statistical power 

3 as your outcomes and go ahead and do that.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Lockey, 

5 obviously, my comment was a preliminary 

6 comment, and subject to change.

7 But this is very different thing 

8 than say, what we did at Rocky Flats, where if 

9 you have not a complete dosimetry record, and 

10 you are looking to see whether a coworker

11 model is feasible, you can fill in the gaps 

12 with, you know, bioassay information from 

13 coworkers who were doing the same job or were 

14 in the same building and so on.

15 The way this particular Class has 

16 been defined, every worker has to have a 

17 complete record for every period, or a 

18 complete explanation, if you accept that they 

19 did not -- that they were not badged in every 

20 case, that they actually were not in the 

21 designated areas, if we, for the moment, 

22 accept that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 So, how -- I imagine that it would 

2 take a fair number of -- a fair size sample to 

3 conclude that with very high probability, you 

4 had all of the workers in Savannah River, who 

5 had all the codes, all the time.

6 So, you're asking for us, for a 

7 degree of certainty in this particular case, 

8 that we have not come across in any work that 

9 we've done for you, to the extent that I am 

10 aware, and then you'd need some stratification 

11 of this sample because as you've heard, 

12 construction workers were different than non13 construction workers. 

14 We have done a number of reports 

15 for Savannah River Site, and I'm not sure we'd 

16 have to stratify further than that, but we 

17 have found a fair number of differences among 

18 construction workers, by type of construction 

19 worker.

20 So, I just am making a preliminary 

21 remark, that it seems to me that because of 

22 the degree of certainty required, you probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 -- and the kind of stratification that may be 

2 needed, you'd probably need a very large 

3 sample, and each worker -- and you have to 

4 examine the whole work period, because -- and 

5 we didn't go to the full records.

6 So, you have seen from what we 

7 did, just looking at what is in the claimant 

8 file and what Tim Taulbee did, looking at the 

9 whole record is a lot more work.

10 That is all I am saying. I am not 

11 saying it should or shouldn't be done. I'm 

12 just saying it is --

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: I would like to 

14 actually see that. I don't necessarily want 

15 you to go ahead and do it, but I would like to 

16 see the power calculations, and all I'm really 

17 interested in is, from my perspective, is 

18 these 10 cases aren't random.

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: They are not.

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: So, I can't draw 

21 any conclusions from these 10 cases.

22 But what I would like to do is a -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 - is this a systematic problem as a cohort, 

2 where there are gaps existing, and I don't 

3 think it's going to be as laborious as you 

4 think it is. I really don't.

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: You may well be 

6 right, I don't have an opinion right now.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, two things. 

8 One, the issue of indeterminate, it seems to 

9 me, the case that you described where the 

10 thing is crossed out is clearly indeterminate, 

11 but I guess either DOL or NIOSH would have to 

12 define what they mean by indeterminate. That's 

13 kind of a side comment.

14 I don't see anything in the 

15 proposed Class that specifies that you have to 

16 have 100 percent of the records. Where is 

17 that coming from?

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: My interpretation 

19 in that direction is the Class, as it is 

20 proposed to you, says that you have to have 

21 only one correct -- one dosimetry code or area 

22 code, that corresponds to that list, to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 included.

2 It's not a -- you don't need to 

3 have 250 days in 773A. You need to be 250 

4 days on the site.

5 So, if you've got one blank, if 

6 you've got one period for which you have no 

7 information, can you assume in a claimant --

8 is it claimant-favorable to assume that they 

9 were not in there?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, what about 

11 the whole rest of their record? 

12 You're just saying maybe that is 

13 the only time they were there and none of the 

14 other codes -- and that is obviously, a 

15 possibility.

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: For most people, 

18 that probably wouldn't be the case. 

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: That would 

20 probably also be right.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, now, I also 

22 want to ask whether the inclusion of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 indeterminable and the addition of the 000 

2 characterization -- what does that do, in 

3 terms of the construction workers and so on?

4 I don't know if you've had a --

5 Knut Ringen has a -- had a chance to look at 

6 this, but is there anyone that can tell us the 

7 extent to which this does or does not address 

8 the issues raised for construction workers?

9 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim Taulbee. 

10 I can partially address that.

11 The inclusion of 000 code actually 

12 includes a large number of construction trades 

13 workers, at least based upon my review of the 

14 Rule 4 workers, which are typically 

15 construction trades workers, within the 

16 dosimetry report.

17 It appears that the Savannah River 

18 Site, in processing the dosimeter, the --

19 where the badge was issued was known in many 

20 cases, but in many -- in some of the others, 

21 it was not known, and so, 000 was entered for 

22 that dosimeter location.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I guess I'm 

2 wondering if the group that was looking at 

3 that for the construction workers, Dr. Ringen, 

4 whether you folks have had an opportunity to 

5 look at these revisions yet, and whether you 

6 have had a chance to analyze the extent to 

7 which this may or may not address those 

8 problems? Perhaps it's premature.

9 DR. RINGEN: Well, there are a 

10 couple of -- a number of things here that we 

11 can talk about, that may not be worth it.

12 I am still uncertain, what is 

13 meant by 000. I don't know how you define 

14 that, how you come up with the -- taking a 

15 worker's record and saying, "This is a 000 

16 record." That is the first question.

17 But the more broad question is 

18 that nobody is arguing here that you can't use 

19 dose codes to include somebody as having 

20 worked in a particular area.

21 The real issue is, can you use the 

22 dose record codes to determine that somebody 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 did not work there? 

2 In other words, can you use the 

3 dose record codes to exclude them from the 

4 SEC, and that is where we say, "We don't think 

5 that can be done, based on the records that we 

6 have seen," and we don't think that this new 

7 definition fixes that problem at all.

8 If anything, it complicates it, in 

9 many ways, makes it more complicated, the 

10 Class Definition, and I just don't see how you 

11 get around the question of whether somebody 

12 worked there and did not have the code that 

13 they're supposed to have, according to this 

14 Class Definition.

15 When Tim earlier said that they 

16 had looked at these workers who had a -- who 

17 said they had worked in CMX or TNX, in their 

18 work history interview, you have to remember 

19 that that is a select group of people, as 

20 well, very significantly. So, there are 

21 people who remembered where they worked.

22 In this case, that excludes an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 awful lot of Claimants who are survivors, and 

2 you have to remember, this goes back, now, 

3 we're talking about a Class that starts --

4 that ends in 1972, so, that anybody who can 

5 qualify for that -- for that SEC, at the very 

6 least, would have to be today, 58 or 59 years 

7 old, and most of them are significantly older, 

8 and most of them were there -- represented by 

9 survivors, since these are cancer cases.

10 So, they have no way of 

11 establishing -- a lot of survivors have no way 

12 of establishing clearly, that their -- that 

13 the -- the person they survived worked in one 

14 particular area or another.

15 This is where I think we're just 

16 digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper 

17 hole.

18 I don't want to stand in the way 

19 of a Class being established, based on the 

20 codes, but I also don't want a Class 

21 established that would exclude somebody, by 

22 using the codes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 That is our point, and we can 

2 discuss this further.

3 As you can see, after Arjun and 

4 Bob Warren submitted their -- the cases that 

5 they have identified, Tim realized that there 

6 are two additional codes anyway, that should 

7 be included here.

8 Now, I don't know how many more 

9 codes are out there that should also be 

10 included, and I don't know how we find that 

11 out. I don't know quite where the existing 

12 codes come from, because they are not 

13 justified in the Evaluation Report, but I 

14 believe it was maybe from a list of codes, 

15 dated 1959. 

16 Anyway, I can go on and on about 

17 this, but I think -- I don't want to waste 

18 your time by being circular.

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: One thing about 

20 this 000?

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Go ahead, and 

22 then I want to comment. Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just the 000 is 

2 actually a dosimetry code in the records, 

3 where they don't know, and since 000 has been 

4 included in the proposed definition, this 

5 would address Dr. Ziemer's earlier question, 

6 that if you don't know.

7 So, if there is a gap, so, what is 

8 the difference between having a single gap and 

9 having a 000, in my opinion, seems pretty 

10 parallel. 

11 So, you have to have 100 percent 

12 complete record to exclude some of them.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think another 

14 perspective on this is just thinking 

15 historically. This Class Definition is unlike 

16 any other. It's more -- much more complicated 

17 than -- and much more difficult to implement 

18 than any other Class Definition we have ever 

19 had, that has been able to survive.

20 In fact, if you look back, we've 

21 actually gone and revised Hanford and a number 

22 of other sites, where we tried to just get it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 down to area or even badging or not badged, 

2 and other constructs like that, and those have 

3 not proved feasible for the Department of 

4 Labor to implement.

5 So, we've the -- the other one --

6 the only other one that I believe we've used 

7 something akin to this, that's still 

8 operational, is the Mound one, and that is not 

9 working.

10 Now, we're still trying to resolve 

11 how to do that in a fair way, but it's -- it's 

12 on a much smaller number, I believe, and much 

13 less complicated situation.

14 But you know, just based on our 

15 past experience -- and then, you know, we --

16 not only are we being dependent on, you know, 

17 a high degree of accuracy in all the records, 

18 but a lot of records to be reviewed, to go 

19 through, and it didn't come up here yet, but 

20 in the Work Group call, which I listen into, 

21 there were issues related to the legibility of 

22 the records, so they have to be re-scanned, as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 I understood it, in order to be able to 

2 interpret that, and then we have to define 

3 illegible. 

4 You know, we're back to hanging 

5 chads and the -- you know, it sounds 

6 straightforward, but not always as easy to do. 

7 Right, right, I know. Well, I hope we don't 

8 have to go to the Supreme Court to resolve 

9 this one.

10 But I mean, it's -- that -- and I 

11 think -- and again, it is -- I mean, I tend to 

12 agree with Arjun on -- well, I do agree with 

13 Arjun, I should say, on the sample size 

14 required, because you really are going to --

15 you want very few false negatives, I think.

16 You know, it's not to be -- you 

17 know, you're not going to have 100 percent 

18 Class Definition, no, but do you -- can you 

19 miss five percent? Ten percent? I don't 

20 know.

21 Given that we've already revised 

22 the Class Definition in less than a week, to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 include two more areas, plus illegibility, in 

2 order to address the issues raised by a sample 

3 size of 10, I hate to think what happens when 

4 we, you know, go to a higher sample size.

5 But I think just historically, 

6 these haven't worked, and I think the onus of 

7 proof really is on NIOSH to -- if they think 

8 they can make something work, to really be 

9 able to demonstrate it, and I think that 

10 should be our test in this situation.

11 Does anybody else have -- Bill?

12 MEMBER FIELD: I think part of the 

13 problem is, we don't see the actual data. It's 

14 hard to really understand. You can see 

15 summaries, but it still makes it difficult to 

16 understand.

17 One of the questions I had was, 

18 are dose codes closely associated with job 

19 codes?

20 DR. TAULBEE: This is Tim Taulbee. 

21 Dose codes are not associated with job codes. 

22 They are associated with areas.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 MEMBER FIELD: Okay.

2 DR. TAULBEE: The codes at

3 Savannah River Site was 310 square miles in 

4 size. The dosimeter exchange cycles were done 

5 by area, and so, the badging was done by 

6 independent areas, and so, that is why we are 

7 using dose codes, for this purpose.

8 MEMBER FIELD: So, there is not 

9 any one job code, where everyone in that job 

10 code has an eligible dose code, is that 

11 correct?

12 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct. No, 

13 it is by area, and for example, in the post14 1958 time period, 1958 to 1972, the dosimeter 

15 code for people who were badged out of the

16 773A area, the code was 5A.

17 So, everybody, regardless of job, 

18 badged out of 773A, were given the HP area 

19 code of 5A.

20 MEMBER FIELD: I understand. Okay, 

21 thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, Dr. Ringen, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 I thought had another comment, and then we 

2 should listen to the -- give a chance for the 

3 other petitioners, the representatives to 

4 speak, also.

5 DR. RINGEN: I just want to make a 

6 clarification to what Tim said.

7 He said that dose codes are 

8 associated with a particular area.

9 I would like to correct that, to 

10 say that dose codes may be associated with a 

11 particular area, but in very many cases, 

12 including the cases that we have submitted to 

13 you, and granted, that is not a representative 

14 sample, but we don't have a denominator, you 

15 know, that is not information that we have 

16 access to.

17 But we have enough records 

18 submitted, to show that the person worked in 

19 various areas, having the same dose record or 

20 dose code and vice versa.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Mr. 

22 Anderson, did you have something, also?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure if this 

2 would be helpful or not.

3 Bob Warren sent me, just something 

4 today, I'm sorry. 

5 If you would like to see a card, 

6 or a code from 1957, with crossed-off things 

7 on it, this one is not necessarily indicative.

8 I do want to point out that our 

9 non-random sample that we sent into SC&A was 

10 really pretty random, because we just starting 

11 looking, thinking how is the Department of 

12 Labor claims examiner going to deal with these 

13 codes? Let's go look.

14 All of the sudden, one after the 

15 other came up problematic.

16 So, it's easy to think, "Oh, we 

17 looked for the problem ones and sent only 

18 those," but that is not necessarily true. 

19 Almost all of these are problematic.

20 In this particular case, even 

21 though the alpha numeric system was not 

22 supposed to start until 1958, here, we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 someone in what appears to be A9, whatever 

2 that is, crossed out and moved to C, and this 

3 one little sheet, we've got bunches and 

4 bunches and bunches of these sheets.

5 But the other thing that I wanted 

6 to talk about is whether or not this might be 

7 a systemic problem, you know, not just looking 

8 at these particular problematic codes, but you 

9 know, all along, we thought that the codes 

10 that have been used in dose reconstruction are 

11 not the codes, but the records have had all 

12 kinds of problems in them, that NIOSH has 

13 glossed over.

14 Also, talking about the Site 

15 Research Database that was referenced earlier 

16 by Dr. Taulbee, are the claimants going to 

17 able to get to that Site Research Database, to 

18 find all of the records that they need?

19 Is the Department of Labor claims 

20 examiner going to be able to do that? We are 

21 very concerned about how the Department of 

22 Labor is going to deal with this, because at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 an earlier meeting, a representative said, 

2 "You know, we just don't -- we're not going to 

3 be able to dig that deep."

4 Well, how deep are they going to 

5 need to dig to qualify someone who should be 

6 qualified?

7 So, I think Mr. Warren is on the 

8 phone, I hope, and would like to make a 

9 statement, as well.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, Mr. 

11 Warren, are you on the phone?

12 MR. WARREN: Yes, yes, I am. I'm 

13 here.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, would you 

15 like to make a public statement?

16 MR. WARREN: Well, just staying 

17 with this same piece of papers that I just 

18 faxed to David Anderson.

19 The one paper in there is the DOE 

20 verification, on the comments not listed the 

21 report of 1960, for this particular case, and 

22 if you actually look at the 1960 -- the fourth 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 quarter, look at the data, and then you look 

2 at the summary sheet for 1960, should have had 

3 655 deep, 705 shallow.

4 But then on this fourth quarter of 

5 1960 paper, it looks like 905 and 855, and 

6 whatever the figures are, they're not the same 

7 as listed on the summary.

8 What I sent this for is, these 

9 HPAREH records are supposed to be the basis 

10 for everything that NIOSH does. They say 

11 these are all verified and they all add up, 

12 but on this particular case, which I just 

13 happened to look at, it doesn't pan out.

14 What I guess I want to say today, 

15 is over the nine years I've been representing 

16 claimants, and I appreciate the Board's 

17 courtesy; former Chair Dr. Ziemer and present 

18 Chair Dr. Melius and all of the Members of the 

19 Board, but special thanks goes to union 

20 members, Dr. Ringen, for organizing the 

21 meetings and keeping workers informed on all 

22 of the proceedings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 Since 2002, we've had meeting 

2 after meeting, worker transcripts, worker 

3 testimony, secret testimony, and all of them 

4 testified about the missing records or 

5 incorrect records, and the one thing I think 

6 that's been the hardest for me through all 

7 these years, is when I get the client that 

8 calls and I'm in the last conversation with 

9 that client, because they ask me, they thought 

10 the process was that -- you know, the 180 days 

11 NIOSH has to answer an SEC petition.

12 They ask me if they had to 

13 stipulate an answer, and the missing records, 

14 why the process wasn't working.

15 I've had about 30 of those calls, 

16 and I've always responded saying, "Advisory 

17 Board had the authority to move forward. NIOSH 

18 has been granted delays," and this most recent 

19 delay is just -- has not been justified. 

20 I think you just need to include 

21 all employees from 1953 through at least 1972, 

22 and David Anderson would be glad to pass up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 those -- that paperwork to you. I don't have 

2 -- I just found it this morning. The only 

3 reason I -- I forwarded it to you.

4 But it just gives an example that 

5 DOE has this data, then when you look at the 

6 exact data, you see that it isn't transcribed 

7 directly on the card.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thank you 

9 very much, Mr. Warren. 

10 Are there any other petitioners 

11 that wish to speak?

12 (Off mic comments.)

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Further 

14 discussion? Work Group? Where is the Work 

15 Group? Go ahead.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I am speaking for 

17 myself, but I think other Members of the Work 

18 Group are the same way.

19 This is very complicated. This is 

20 -- and I know that it's not our responsibility 

21 with the Department of Labor, but we've got to 

22 give to them something that they can actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 implement, in my opinion.

2 I've seen the other sites that 

3 have been much smaller than this, Mound and 

4 all of these others, they're having trouble 

5 with this, and I have to agree with Dr. 

6 Ringen.

7 I can understand to use this, to 

8 involve somebody in a Class, but to exempt 

9 them, I have a problem with it.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mark?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, where the 

12 Work Group, we decided to bring the issue back 

13 to the Board. We really didn't come with a 

14 recommendation, necessarily.

15 But the, you know, the concern I 

16 have, similar to what Arjun was speaking to, 

17 was that if we do further analysis of bigger 

18 data sets, you know, and I think Jim, you 

19 mentioned this, too, what degree of certainty 

20 do we want to come out of that?

21 Is 90 percent acceptable? That 

22 means that, you know, 10 percent, you could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 have people that -- and this is not a 

2 population study. This is decisions on 

3 individual claimants.

4 So, I think we want to be close to 

5 100 percent right, and I see the Petitioner 

6 has a question, related to my comments. Go 

7 ahead.

8 DR. RINGEN: Well, let me say 

9 also, that if you accept a certain margin of 

10 error here, that is not distributed randomly 

11 throughout this population. It's going to 

12 affect one group of workers much more than the 

13 other ones, and they are the ones that are 

14 transient throughout the site, and this would 

15 be incredibly unfair, particularly to the 

16 construction worker population.

17 Now, to the Working Group, the 

18 Petitioners have made a recommendation that is 

19 two-fold that you could consider.

20 The first is to include all 

21 workers from January 1, 1953 through, I guess 

22 it should be September 30, 1953 -- 1972, to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 consistent with what Tim has proposed for now.

2 Secondly, to expedite the process 

3 of reviewing all of the other exotic radio4 nuclides in the other areas where thorium has 

5 been used and other periods where thorium has 

6 been used since then. Those are the two basic 

7 recommendations that we have.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, so, anyway, 

9 and you know, the -- I mean, I guess the other 

10 reason I was highlighting the gap analysis is, 

11 you know, my concern of a larger study, is 

12 that to resolve these gaps on 10, you know, it 

13 took quite a bit of effort on NIOSH's part, 

14 and I'm not sure we, you know, are even going 

15 to be definitive in the resolution.

16 I mean, it seems like there is 

17 some sort of assumptions that are made, "Well, 

18 a shift to a job meant that they were out of 

19 an area."

20 There is some -- so, you know, 

21 even in this gap analysis, I think we're not 

22 going to have a very certain answer when we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 complete a -- we'll do a lot more work, and 

2 probably won't get a definitive answer.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mr. Rowe, as you 

4 back on the line?

5 MR. ROWE: This is Gordon Rowe.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Mr. Rowe, are 

7 you back on the line? We also appear to have 

8 music on the line, and I think that is 

9 interfering. So, we're trying to get that 

10 off. Go ahead, Jim.

11 MEMBER LOCKEY: I was thinking in 

12 the gap analysis, we have the codes where 

13 workers will be included in the cohort during 

14 the -- in the SEC.

15 So, you know, what I was really 

16 interested in is looking at situations where 

17 workers were not -- had none of those codes 

18 and where there is a gap, and where re19 analysis puts them into the cohort.

20 That is really what I want to 

21 know. Yes, that is the piece I want to know.

22 If they ever have one of these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 codes, they're already in the cohort. They're 

2 already in the SEC. They're not --

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: But how would you 

4 say the re-analysis, just to take this down 

5 the road, how would you see the re-analysis 

6 putting them into the group?

7 MEMBER LOCKEY: They're already in 

8 the group.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, no, if you 

10 took that sub-set that was not, that didn't 

11 have a code -- 

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: I would look at --

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- examine the 

14 gaps on that --

15 MEMBER LOCKEY: Look at the gaps 

16 and see how many would then result in them re17 entering -- or going in -- not re-entering, 

18 but going into the SEC.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: But how do you 

20 define that? How do you determine whether 

21 they would re-enter it?

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Going back and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 look at the records to see if there is records 

2 that weren't included.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: That have the 

4 code?

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: That, or for some 

6 other reason, would suspiciously put them back 

7 into the SEC.

8 See, I don't know that. What I do 

9 know, that if you ever have that code, you're 

10 already in it.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: So, I'm interested 

13 in if you don't have that code, all right, 

14 where are those people? Yes, where are they?

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

16 MEMBER LOCKEY: Where are they?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: And what you are 

19 saying is, if there is a gap in anybody, 

20 they're automatically into the SEC.

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I mean, I 

22 think the argument is for all workers, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 you can't resolve these gaps, yes.

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes, the workers, 

3 right, yes.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: And that is a --

6 you know, before making that decision, I would 

7 like to have some information about that. That 

8 is a huge leap.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, was that -

10 - 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm just not sure 

12 how you would determine if the --

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, I think we --

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: These workers 

15 that didn't have the code --

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Was that what 

17 we were -- 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- that have a 

19 gap, how do you place them in -- you know, how 

20 do you --

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Mark, was that 

22 what was shown with the -- I wasn't quite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 following.

2 There were 154 workers who were --

3 had -- was it self-identified, as working in 

4 773A?

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: CATI.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: That was the 

7 CATI.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Based on the 

9 CATI, had said that they worked there?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And 151 of 

12 those had codes which indicated that at some 

13 point, they had worked in there and three did 

14 not have codes that indicated that they worked 

15 there?

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Correct, yes.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And is that --

18 that is the type of discordance you're talking 

19 about? 

20 Was there a gap or was there some 

21 -- what was the basis for them, not having 

22 been flagged as working there?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, I'm actually 

2 going the other way.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: He's going the 

4 other way.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: If they have a 

6 code, they're automatically in the SEC, no 

7 matter where else they worked.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right, but I 

9 think Mark's question was, what sort of 

10 external information on somebody who didn't 

11 have these codes, would be available that 

12 would suggest that you would move them in, and 

13 one type of external information would be 

14 their self-reported --

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or would answer 

16 the question that they -- right, right.

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Or move them 

18 out.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

20 MEMBER ANDERSON: Because now, the 

21 way it's defined, if there is a gap, they 

22 would be moved in, right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, if I'm -- I 

2 mean, my -- let me maybe try to clarify.

3 If you look at that set that 

4 didn't have a code, and they have gaps, then 

5 I'm asking what criteria would you -- would 

6 NIOSH look at, to determine whether they had 

7 enough information that said they didn't 

8 belong in those codes?

9 You know, how would you -- what 

10 exclusion -- because you know, if you just 

11 look at job -- you know, you say, "Well, they 

12 were an administrative assistant," it may 

13 answer it, but they might have been in 773, 

14 you know.

15 So, what would your criteria be? 

16 That is my concern. My concern is it's going 

17 to be a lot of grey area there.

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: We have to turn to 

19 NIOSH, and ask the criteria.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, right, yes.

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: But the lack -- I 

22 do -- what I am reassured is that they have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 the codes that are going to be in there.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: If they have none 

4 of those codes, then how many people have 

5 unknown information, then they put them back 

6 in -- they put then in the SEC, and we don't 

7 know that part. That's what my concern is.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, I see, okay.

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: We're dealing with 

10 a vacuum here, which we're making a very 

11 substantial expansion of the people eligible 

12 in this SEC. I'd just like to have some 

13 objective information that I can rely on, for 

14 this to be justified.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, yes.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think Dr. Lockey 

17 is suggesting that you looked at the gaps in 

18 the wrong group. You have looked at gaps in a 

19 group that is already included.

20 So, it's the issue of people who 

21 are -- have none of these codes, and do those 

22 groups have gaps that might have put them in, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 and as a start, you could do the very same 

2 thing and start picking 10 of those and see if 

3 it's similar.

4 It might give you some idea. I 

5 think it makes sense logically, why look at 

6 gaps in people who are already in, when we're 

7 really interested in the gaps for those who 

8 would be otherwise excluded, anyway.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But I think the 

10 point to do -- that Arjun made, and I agreed 

11 with earlier, was that to do that type of an 

12 effort, you're talking about a large research 

13 effort that is going to take a significant 

14 amount of time and effort, and you know, is 

15 not what we have required in other similar 

16 situations in the past.

17 I guess I can't quite see the 

18 justification for requiring that. Why would -

19 - why should we develop a -- you know, a new 

20 way of defining Classes, when we know that --

21 or implement -- recommend implementing a new 

22 way of defining Classes, when we know in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 past, this has not worked, and in fact, NIOSH 

2 has not found it to work, and has recommended 

3 -- and Department of Labor has not found it to 

4 work at other sites, not at this site, and 

5 have found that we end up with these broad 

6 Classes.

7 I think if one also thinks about -

8 - you know, again, it's not that -- what --

9 the question of the monitoring part, it's a 

10 question of the records which were never 

11 developed or designed to -- for dose 

12 reconstruction. That was not their purpose.

13 I don't think it faults the site 

14 or anything. It's just sort of fact of life, 

15 given how things developed at that site, and 

16 at most Department of Energy sites of those 

17 years, and I think we've gotten frustrated 

18 with it, at several sites, but I think it's 

19 something -- you know, we went through it with 

20 GE. We go through it with others, and I think 

21 we'll continue to confront it.

22 But it just -- more specific Class 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 Definitions, based on area or monitoring or 

2 whatever, just have not appeared to work, at 

3 all.

4 The question is, do we want to, 

5 you know, delay action on this, while we then 

6 -- you know, do a large study, to make a 

7 determination? May be helpful. It may not. 

8 It's hard to tell.

9 But it would be certainly a large 

10 effort. I mean, I don't know how -- whether 

11 this is a question of priority, but just the 

12 analysis of the CATI interviews, the 150 CATI 

13 interviews took -- is still not complete. We 

14 don't have a report on that and I don't 

15 believe a report -- and that has been since 

16 our August meeting, I believe is when that was 

17 discussed and started, and here, it's you 

18 know, three or four months later, and you 

19 know, at the Work Group meeting, and you were 

20 there, Jim, and Tim reported that, well, maybe 

21 by the end of December, this month, we'll have 

22 it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 Yes, and again, it's not 

2 necessarily faulting Tim. It's just, you 

3 know, some recognition that these efforts take 

4 a long time and that there are competing 

5 priorities and so forth, and I think we have 

6 to think carefully about that, and weigh that 

7 also.

8 People have waited. Yes, Dr. 

9 Ringen, last comment.

10 DR. RINGEN: Yes, I would like to 

11 comment on this idea about trying to do the 

12 representative study.

13 NIOSH has had -- we invited NIOSH 

14 to come down to talk to the workers about the 

15 problems of the dose record at Savannah River, 

16 starting in 2003, spent basically eight years 

17 trying to prove that the records were suspect, 

18 and then came up with this problem with the 

19 thorium, records at the last minute.

20 Workers have testified repeatedly 

21 to NIOSH, in interviews of various kinds, that 

22 there are deficiencies in the dose records and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 somehow, many people on this Board don't seem 

2 to accept perhaps, their word for that.

3 But I don't think they are being 

4 misleading in this regard. 

5 Going back to trying to validate 

6 this in a statistical study would be very 

7 hard, something, by the way, that NIOSH has 

8 never done in any way in this dose 

9 reconstruction program. It's never validated 

10 the dose reconstructions, themselves.

11 But if you want to do that 

12 statistical study, first it's going to be a 

13 question of, what is the denominator? That is 

14 very difficult. It can't be CATI interviews. 

15 It can't be workers with dose records, because 

16 you have to have also record workers without 

17 dose records.

18 You have the -- which would be 

19 very difficult to identify, and to come up 

20 with a comprehensive really, population, a 

21 denominator at Savannah River would be just 

22 about impossible, and it would be huge, 67,000 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 construction workers, alone, I believe is what 

2 we estimate has been at Savannah River.

3 If you're going to do that study, 

4 in the end then, we're also going to have to 

5 ask for a replication, for a validation of 

6 that study, just like everything else, and how 

7 long is that going to take?

8 We've been doing this for eight 

9 years, basically, and we have submitted, Dr. 

10 Lockey, objective evidence. These are cases 

11 that show that the record is not complete. We 

12 can do that. That is as much as you can 

13 expect in this case, the Petitioners to do, I 

14 think.

15 I don't think you can expect the 

16 Petitioners to do a statistical study for you, 

17 and I don't think -- how NIOSH can do the 

18 statistical study, either, in anything that 

19 would take years.

20 I mean, we were going to -- we 

21 would have to have a very long discussion 

22 about the study design, first of all, and that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 is going to -- you know, this is very 

2 complicated, if you will, epidemiological 

3 study, of administrative records, that are 

4 very incomplete, to begin with.

5 Those of us who have done 

6 epidemiology, based on administrative records, 

7 know how difficult it is to do that.

8 So, I just see more and more 

9 problems being raised by this proposal.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie and then 

11 Jim, do you have another comment, or are you 

12 okay? 

13 MEMBER BEACH: I just want to say 

14 that I believe that implementation of this 

15 Class, as defined, would be impossible.

16 I agree with your comments, Dr. 

17 Melius and of Arjun's, and I think we should 

18 move forward to vote on a different 

19 Definition, including all workers at Savannah 

20 River during those dates.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you. Jim?

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: I guess my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 comments are -- I'd like to know if this is a 

2 systemic problem, and not necessarily just 

3 applies to this particular SEC. It may apply 

4 to others, and we don't have a database to 

5 know that, in regard to those people that 

6 don't have a code that puts them in the SEC.

7 And so, I don't think it would be 

8 that -- as difficult as some were saying, to 

9 go back and design a randomized study that 

10 allows us to see if this is a systemic 

11 problem. You know, I don't think that would 

12 be as difficult as people are thinking.

13 We've given this data -- some 

14 objective data to say, you know, this is a 

15 problem and it doesn't just apply to Savannah 

16 River. It very well may apply to other 

17 facilities. Okay, that is what I'm interested 

18 in.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess just to 

20 follow up on that.

21 I think that -- I mean, my 

22 question would be, the end point of -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 study that you're describing, and if you were 

2 to look at those that didn't have the code, 

3 you know, the sub-set that didn't have the 

4 code, and looked for gaps in those records, 

5 that is one study, how many of these claimants 

6 in this time period have gaps in their 

7 records, period?

8 That might be something that is 

9 definable and doable. 

10 I think the thing that really 

11 would really run into problems is if you tried 

12 to say, how many of these have gaps that could 

13 not be resolved, and this resolution of these 

14 gaps is a very gray area, in my opinion. It's 

15 -- even in these 10, it's been difficult.

16 You know, the question of whether 

17 this -- a change in job is actually changing 

18 their area, we've heard a lot of testimony 

19 where construction workers in particular, were 

20 badged in one area, but worked in different 

21 buildings with the same badge. They came on 

22 our Work Group call saying that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 So, I think that is where it gets 

2 into that gray area, and I am afraid we're 

3 going to end up with some sort of very 

4 inclusive results. So, I don't know, that is 

5 my concern.

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: Non-resolution can 

7 be -- five to 10 percent non-resolution is 

8 really significant. That has huge 

9 implications, for me, in this classification.

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. 

11 MEMBER LOCKEY: I'm not talking 

12 about 50 percent is acceptable. I would say 

13 five to 10 percent is, to me, pretty much 

14 unacceptable, because that means there is 

15 misclassification occurring, and if this is a 

16 systemic problem because of records across all 

17 facilities, during these time frames, I think 

18 that is some important information to know.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It certainly has 

20 implications for other sites, where -- even 

21 though these definitions aren't -- Class 

22 Definitions aren't -- apply to other sites, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 certainly, I think it would have implications, 

2 in terms of what happens during dose --

3 individual dose reconstruction, and how gaps 

4 are handled?

5 Now, when there are coworker 

6 models and so forth, it's part of that, and I 

7 think maybe it's less of a problem, at certain 

8 sites. But certainly, it can be a bigger 

9 problem than that. Henry?

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I guess my 

11 only issue is, this would be the first time 

12 we've used, you know, badge codes to classify 

13 individuals as being part of an SEC.

14 I mean, the issue of, are we 

15 putting people in, who don't belong, I mean, 

16 that is the basis of the whole SEC thing, is 

17 we don't know whether they belong or not.

18 So, they're typically put in and 

19 they -- and the option here is, we either go 

20 with, we're just going to include all 

21 employees during these years. This is an 

22 attempt to narrow that down some, and I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 -- you know, whether that is doable or not, is 

2 problematic, as -- you know, and people can 

3 always appeal, if they were left out, as well, 

4 and then you have the individual records 

5 looked at.

6 But I'm not sure what would be our 

7 alternative here, that would make the -- kind 

8 of the false positives lower, and so, what 

9 would be the alternative here if you say, 

10 "Well, 10 percent of them," if you really look 

11 at them carefully, don't belong, in this SEC 

12 definition.

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, we're not 

14 looking at excluding people from the 

15 Definition. We're looking for people who, 

16 based on this Definition, would not be in it, 

17 and we're looking to those people who would 

18 not be and how many would belong.

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: So, they would 

20 all have -- they would have complete records, 

21 then?

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, if we looked 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 at those people who don't have those codes, 

2 and we can't resolve gaps in five or 10 

3 percent of them, to me, that is enough doubt 

4 across the cohort as a whole, to include 

5 everybody.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.

7 MEMBER LOCKEY: That is what I'm 

8 trying to say.

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay, that is 

10 what -- I see what you're -- I was going the 

11 other way, that we're somehow getting too 

12 many, and therefore, this would be different, 

13 yes, okay.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, I'm looking 

15 at, if you -- if there are gaps in the people 

16 who don't qualify for the SEC, how significant 

17 are those gaps, and this is a systemic 

18 problem, or is just isolated to this facility?

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: That is what I'm 

21 talking about.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Bill?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 MEMBER FIELD: I think we have had 

2 a lot of discussion. I'd like to hear from 

3 NIOSH and if they would happen to have any 

4 further comments.

5 We've had a lot of discussion 

6 regarding to some of the limitations of the 

7 method that was proposed.

8 I was just wondering, is there any 

9 response that would give us maybe more 

10 confidence that this is a valid method to use?

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Stu?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that 

13 we have really a lot to add, other than what 

14 has been provided already, in Tim's 

15 presentation.

16 I don't know if Tim is on the 

17 phone, he can hear us or not?

18 DR. TAULBEE: Yes, I am on the 

19 phone, Stu. If I'm understanding the question 

20 correct, Dr. Field, are you asking is there 

21 anything that you feel that -- is there 

22 anything that we feel we could do that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 improve your confidence, is that correct?

2 MEMBER FIELD: Well, I think that 

3 is what I was asking. There were a lot of 

4 concerns expressed over the past half-hour. 

5 I was just wondering if there were 

6 any concerns that you heard expressed, that 

7 you think you could address?

8 I know there a lot of concerns 

9 were raised, and there seems to be a lot of 

10 criticism to the method that was first 

11 proposed. I was just wondering, do you have 

12 maybe a fallback method or something else, or 

13 thoughts on some of the problems that were 

14 discussed? 

15 MEMBER ANDERSON: Why you think 

16 this would work?

17 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

18 DR. TAULBEE: I guess one thing 

19 that I could comment on, and again, this is 

20 just off the cuff here, is that the study 

21 proposed by Dr. Lockey is really -- would not 

22 be incredibly cumbersome to do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 I believe it's possible to pull a 

2 random sample from all claimants that we 

3 currently have, and from that, develop some 

4 statistics of which ones would be included in 

5 the Class, based upon what we've got 

6 currently, and from that random sample, those 

7 that have the complete gap analysis -- or a 

8 complete analysis, all dosimetry, placing them 

9 somewhere else.

10 I think that would be possible to 

11 do. 

12 The question of -- Mark had 

13 pointed out, of what do you do with the --

14 those that are, you know, true gaps, that are 

15 unresolved, that we don't know?

16 I don't have an answer for that. I 

17 don't have a way of looking at that, that I 

18 can think of right now, to use, but you know, 

19 once we get into the random sample, you know, 

20 if 90 percent of them, we can place, then the 

21 10 percent, I think that is something for you 

22 all to discuss.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 But we don't know until we get to 

2 that point, and please let me know if you guys 

3 could hear any of this. There is a lot of 

4 ringing going on, on the phone.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

6 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, we heard 

7 you.

8 DR. TAULBEE: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I just have to 

10 comment. I mean, I don't think it's -- the 

11 putting back 10 percent error rate back on the 

12 board, to solve is not appropriate. 

13 I know, I know, I'm not saying 

14 anybody on the Board was proposing that, 

15 either, to that -- Jim Neton had a comment.

16 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. 

17 I've got a question. I guess I'm a little bit 

18 confused on this gap analysis.

19 It seems to me that the gap 

20 analysis is really identifying monitoring 

21 periods where there is no information at all. 

22 Is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 It was my understanding that if 

2 there is no information in there, Tim, correct 

3 me if I'm wrong, it was our position that then 

4 no dosimeter was needed to be worn, because 

5 they were not in an area that required a 

6 dosimeter. Is that correct?

7 DR. TAULBEE: That is correct, 

8 Jim.

9 DR. NETON: All right, so, the 

10 fundamental issue here seems to be, is do we 

11 believe that if there are -- there is no code 

12 in a monitoring period for a worker, that it 

13 is 100 percent certain that that worker did 

14 not need to wear a dosimeter, and then the 

15 remaining issue is, what are the codes in the 

16 filled in spots?

17 I mean, that is really what it 

18 comes down to.

19 So, if the Board does not believe 

20 that Savannah River actually monitored -- or 

21 had a dosimeter on everybody that needed to be 

22 monitored, and if there is a gap there, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 meaning there is nothing in that slot for that 

2 monitoring period, then it didn't need to be 

3 monitored, then this won't work.

4 But I think it's fundamentally 

5 NIOSH's position right now, as I'm hearing 

6 Tim, that if there is a gap, if it's blank, no 

7 dosimeter is required, and Tim did a little 

8 bit of research on that to show that it made 

9 sense on the ones that he -- that were 

10 observed.

11 How far you go down that road, I 

12 guess is really the issue. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but I think 

14 that there is -- the issue of the gaps, there 

15 is also people being falsely attributed to be 

16 assigned to some other work area, when in 

17 fact, they were in the work areas that are 

18 covered.

19 DR. NETON: Well, see, that has 

20 not come out in any analyses I've seen to 

21 date, though. I mean, that is not --

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, but that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 is another --

2 DR. NETON: That is another issue, 

3 okay.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Another problem 

5 with this approach.

6 DR. NETON: Right.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And we'll do 

8 that, and so, I think that also has to be --

9 would have to be addressed.

10 DR. NETON: Well, that would make 

11 it a more complicated analysis.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and I think 

13 maybe that is why I think it's a larger 

14 effort, but I'm not sure years -- or whatever.

15 Brad has a question and I think --

16 I think we need to try to move forward on 

17 this.

18 DR. NETON: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think we've 

20 heard a lot.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess we have, 

22 and I'd like to hear from DOL. They've heard 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 all of these conversations here today. 

2 It's ultimately going to come down 

3 to DOL, to be able to implement what we put 

4 out there.

5 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with DOL. 

6 The only thing I can say is we've 

7 seen some samples of records which would 

8 indicate that, you know, those codes exist, 

9 but other than that, we can't say much, as to 

10 whether they're complete or the 

11 comprehensiveness of the records.

12 I don't think we could allow -- I 

13 don't think we could expect our CEs to have to 

14 do any kind of in depth analysis of these 

15 things, other than just looking at, you know, 

16 sheets, however we get those, whether we get 

17 those PAR requests or whatever, and the 

18 question of whether we have access to the 

19 Savannah River database, you know, routinely 

20 to be able to get these -- you know, these 

21 records.

22 But I think basically, you would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 just have to have whatever -- get whatever 

2 records we could for the particular worker, 

3 and look at them to determine whether there 

4 are codes there or not, and that is about, I 

5 think, all we could do.

6 Again, like I said, I don't --

7 we've only seen a sampling of records from 

8 that site.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, just one 

10 more point, and this is -- I don't know if 

11 this will clarify or complicate matters.

12 But I mean, it sort of goes to 

13 what David Richardson was asking earlier. Jim 

14 Neton, you indicated that if they didn't have 

15 the -- if there was a gap and they changed 

16 jobs, or whatever, there was a determination 

17 that they didn't need a dosimeter.

18 I think, I mean, my understanding 

19 of this is that by establishing this Class 

20 Definition, NIOSH has determined that you 

21 can't do thorium dose reconstruction.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 matter went off the record briefly at 12:30 

2 p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For those of you 

4 on the phone, we're laughing because we got 

5 unplugged here, by mistake, our Court Reporter 

6 and a few of us here.

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess my point 

8 was that, you know, you're looking at -- you 

9 know, the HP department made a decision on 

10 dosimeters, not necessarily on inclusion in a 

11 thorium monitoring program or anything like 

12 that.

13 So, then you get back to the 

14 question of whether this is an area or you 

15 know --

16 DR. NETON: Well, no, I think the 

17 dosimeter were -- the dosimeter codes, 

18 according to Tim, are area specific, right? 

19 If you needed a dosimeter to work 

20 in a certain area, you were assigned at that 

21 area. So, I think that covers it.

22 The question is --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I think there 

2 is some question on job, too, that you could 

3 have had different job designations and 

4 remained in those buildings, but Tim was 

5 saying possibly not in a function where you 

6 could have exposure.

7 So, the question is --

8 DR. NETON: But then you wouldn't 

9 have a code in that block. That is what I'm 

10 saying. If you have no code in there, you 

11 could be in the same area, but not in an area 

12 that you could have been exposed to 

13 radioactive materials. That is the 

14 assumption.

15 The underlying assumption is, you 

16 had to wear a dosimeter to go in to work in an 

17 area where thorium was present.

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess, it's a 

19 subtle point, but I'm making the distinction 

20 that they weren't making the determination for 

21 badging based on --

22 DR. NETON: Well, yes, it's --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- potential 

2 internal thorium exposure. They were making 

3 it based on, you know, other -- you know, 

4 potential to receive a certain amount of 

5 external exposure.

6 DR. NETON: Right, but it's --

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I know.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda, then 

9 Josie.

10 MEMBER MUNN: There are thousands 

11 of people who have worked at Savannah River, 

12 who are extremely healthy, hardy and led good 

13 lives as a result of their employment at 

14 Savannah River.

15 Many of them will never have any 

16 serious disease, including cancer, or any of 

17 the radiation generated concerns that we face 

18 here.

19 There is yet, more thousands and 

20 thousands of people who have worked at 

21 Savannah River, who, like every other 

22 individual in the United States, will have the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 same percentage of cancers occur in their 

2 lives, as those who have never had any 

3 interaction at all with any of our sites, or 

4 with any radiation inducing disease.

5 Those individuals are led to 

6 believe, if they do incur any of the cancers 

7 that we talk about here, that they incur them 

8 as a result of their work at Savannah River.

9 If we do not in some way, limit 

10 the classification of individuals that we look 

11 at, when we're looking at Special Exposure 

12 Cohorts, then we are misleading that large 

13 group of people who have had, and never will 

14 have, any adverse effects from their work 

15 there.

16 Many of them were never in any 

17 way, exposed to any significant amount of 

18 radiation and even many who were exposed, were 

19 not exposed at a level that is of any concern.

20 There was a good program, not a 

21 perfect program, by any means, we've never 

22 encountered, so far as I know, a perfect 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 badging and perfect record of any of our 

2 sites, that is not likely because they were 

3 all operated by human beings, and every single 

4 one of us has flaws in our record keeping.

5 My checkbook has flaws in it. 

6 Certainly, the kinds of records that we have 

7 to have for these kinds of programs will have 

8 flaws in them. 

9 That doesn't change the fact that 

10 it is incumbent upon us, in accordance with 

11 the charter that we have been given, to try to 

12 make some reasonable decision with respect to 

13 the number of people who may be compensated 

14 for injury that may have come to them as a 

15 result of their work for us and for our 

16 nation, and this program.

17 It's not going to be easy to do, 

18 and it's an ugly, messy business, certainly 

19 for Savannah River, it's worse than most. That 

20 is a foregone conclusion.

21 But we need to do something to 

22 agree that we will limit the number of people 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 that will be granted noblesse oblige for 

2 cancers that they suffer, if they have worked 

3 at Savannah River.

4 What we're talking about here 

5 today is difficult, and nobody that has 

6 spoken, to the best of my knowledge, has a 

7 full grip on exactly how to go about doing 

8 that.

9 But it would be a mistake, and I 

10 think a misuse of our time, and of everyone 

11 else's time, if we did not continue to 

12 struggle with how to identify and how to 

13 define this special cohort in some way, other 

14 than everybody who worked anywhere on the 

15 site.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Josie?

17 MEMBER BEACH: I would like to 

18 make a motion to reject NIOSH's proposed Class 

19 Definition for the SEC, as written, and I 

20 don't know if I can do that in two motions or 

21 not, but redefine the Class Definition.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, there is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 no motions. I think it would be easier to 

2 work from a positive motion.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I wasn't sure.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MEMBER BEACH: So, then I'll --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think 

7 that --

8 MEMBER BEACH: Then I'll change 

9 that.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: There is no 

11 recommendation from the Work Group, and so, 

12 there is no motion pending.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And so, we're --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I was 

16 wondering if we needed to reject --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can move what 

18 we want.

19 MEMBER BEACH: So, then I would 

20 like to make a motion to propose -- or change 

21 the Class Definition to all workers during the 

22 time periods listed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do we have a 

2 second for that?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'll second it.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Any further 

5 discussion? Yes, Paul?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Work Group 

7 itself didn't make a recommendation on it. I 

8 was wondering if they had had any plans to 

9 further evaluate this newest material that 

10 came before us.

11 I'm sympathetic to the motion in a 

12 certain sense, and -- but also, to the 

13 frustrations that we face in both for the 

14 Class as described, and how it might be 

15 administered, as well as the concerns for the 

16 construction workers.

17 But I am a little uncomfortable in 

18 voting on this new Definition right off the 

19 bat. Was the Work Group otherwise planning to 

20 look at any of these issues further? 

21 I am not talking necessarily about 

22 Dr. Lockey's proposal, but just this new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 information that came on the gap analysis and 

2 so on, because I --

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Where we left it, 

4 we just had a phone call meeting, and where we 

5 left it was, we asked NIOSH to complete as 

6 much as they could of the gap analysis, prior 

7 to this meeting, because we wanted to bring 

8 the issue before the entire Board.

9 But there was no plan for further 

10 action, you know, pending our discussion here.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I follow up?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Sure.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other sort of 

14 possibility that occurred to me would be to 

15 proceed with the recommendation of NIOSH, 

16 recognizing that it may not fully cover the 

17 Class ultimately, certainly, some additional 

18 information needed on construction workers, as 

19 well as perhaps, if those gaps are a stumbling 

20 block, and then allow later, the expansion.

21 I know that we don't always like 

22 to step-wise these things, but I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 certainly feel comfortable in moving ahead 

2 with a big portion of this right away, and 

3 that is the Class, as defined, and then if we 

4 find that these other issues are really 

5 surmountable, then to expand it at a later 

6 time after we've had a chance to consider it 

7 in more depth.

8 But that would be a separate 

9 motion. Anyway, that -- I just get that on 

10 the table, and others can comment.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Additional 

12 comments? I would just add one -- I'm sorry, 

13 Jim, but one further, I guess, piece of 

14 information, and is that after the last 

15 meeting, where we -- remember, we -- these 

16 issues were all raised at the last meeting, 

17 and I have talked to NIOSH staff, to Stu then, 

18 and we followed after the Work Group meeting 

19 and so forth, saying is there -- are there 

20 alternative Class Definitions that would at 

21 least appear to be more feasible to implement?

22 And I think we're at a loss to, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 you know, come up with that. I have not heard 

2 any suggestions. I know there is thoughts. 

3 Mark and I have talked about that, also.

4 So, it's not like, you know, there 

5 has been no thought given to that. I just 

6 think it's -- it's difficult to find something 

7 in between. That is all.

8 MEMBER ROESSLER: I am -- if we 

9 bring this motion to a vote, I'm going to vote 

10 against it.

11 I am just not ready to take that 

12 big step. I think it's irresponsible for us, 

13 as a Board, to do that, without maybe looking 

14 a little bit more at a step-wise approach to 

15 this, and I'm also uncomfortable because the 

16 Work Group hasn't come up with anything that 

17 we can really grab onto and feel comfortable 

18 with.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: My comment to 

20 that would be, I think -- I also feel it would 

21 be irresponsible to recommend a Class 

22 Definition that we know that Department of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 Labor cannot implement, and it's not been 

2 implementable in any other sites that we've 

3 dealt with so far.

4 We're sort of caught in between. I 

5 understand the concern, and but I don't know 

6 if there is an easy alternative or a ready 

7 alternative. Brad?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I have been 

9 involved in a lot of the data captures at 

10 Savannah River. We all know that all of these 

11 sites have numerous issues with their data 

12 keeping, especially in the early years.

13 But something that also is eating 

14 at me, and this may be just a personal thing, 

15 but in these interviews that have been 

16 performed at Savannah River, and the people 

17 that I have interviewed and have talked to, 

18 and they have talked about how that -- this 

19 badge coding would not work because they were 

20 outside the buildings, in the trenches, 

21 running away from these buildings, but they 

22 didn't have the job codes for those areas, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 the badging, I'd say over half of them that 

2 I've interviewed are no longer with us.

3 We are losing the majority of the 

4 people that actually worked during this time 

5 frame, and I think it is incumbent upon us to 

6 also realize and buck-up, and this -- we're 

7 grasping a straws to try to limit to this, and 

8 I understand why, but I think we really need 

9 to look at what we are here for and this is 

10 for these people, and I understand the 

11 concern, but I don't know how we would get at 

12 100 percent resolution of knowing where we're 

13 at.

14 This information is full of holes, 

15 and I think we're giving something to the 

16 Department of Labor that is far harder to 

17 implement than what we have ever done before, 

18 and they've had problems with.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Phil?

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I agree that 

21 this is a real difficult problem, because we 

22 have so little real accurate data that we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 honestly say that if you had a certain code, 

2 you only were in that certain area.

3 Almost any facility you go to, 

4 people will say, "Well, you know, I was 

5 assigned this area, but I went over to this 

6 area regularly," or maybe when they were 

7 short-handed, they'd move over there. People 

8 shift around, and that code is not set in 

9 concrete.

10 I mean, it's not like, well, you 

11 can't pass through that door because you have 

12 this code on your badge. If it was that 

13 accurate, then I would have no problems not 

14 voting for it.

15 But as it is, I just don't see how 

16 we can say that strictly on a code basis, for 

17 what is on that badge, you are either in or 

18 out, when it's not that clear-cut or set.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Brad, do you 

20 have another comment? Anybody else which to 

21 speak? David, yes?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I am 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 sympathetic to the approach, I mean, in part 

2 because we use this approach for kind 

3 epidemiologic analyses, for NIOSH, and we --

4 you know, we proposed it to them for trying to 

5 figure our primarily, non-radiological 

6 hazards, but also, to impute exposures in 

7 years when workers weren't -- had gaps in 

8 their dosimetry information.

9 And I think -- I mean, I'm sort of 

10 -- you know, kind of the CATI-based kind of 

11 evaluation of it was sort of impressive to me, 

12 in that fact that it had kind of the level of 

13 concordance with what people were reporting 

14 that it did.

15 I mean, that -- in a way, that was 

16 more -- that is -C that is surprising to me, 

17 but I take Knut's point, that it's -- those 

18 people were providing CATI information are not 

19 necessarily a random sample of those people 

20 who could recall what building they were in, 

21 maybe not fully representative.

22 Now, the other side of it is that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 when we used it for distinguishing between 

2 workers who on average, had a higher potential 

3 for exposure than the remainder of people who 

4 were not classified in the area, that wasn't 

5 making the case that we -- you know, that we 

6 had perfect -- like, a diagnostic test, or 

7 perfectly separating these into distinct 

8 groups of people. That is not the intention 

9 of epidemiology what so ever.

10 We were aspiring to be sort of 

11 right on average, and our level of discomfort 

12 with it was always the fact that, well, this 

13 is -- these are badging areas, and people are 

14 moving in and out through them, and so, it --

15 as developed, it was not intended for this 

16 purpose, I guess is a starting point.

17 As it would be used for -- in 

18 terms of implementation, I was just sort of 

19 looking through. 

20 We scanned through the quarterly 

21 log books, scanned in the codes, and I think -

22 - now, that is not -- I mean, this was for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

1 22,000 people who were the prime contractor 

2 employees, this bigger group of construction 

3 workers, which you're saying is maybe 60,000 

4 workers.

5 I don't know that anybody has 

6 exhaustively tried to inventory what is 

7 recorded there, but I have like five pages of 

8 codes recorded, maybe it looks like 124 

9 different numeric codes that we picked up, and 

10 what we had to do for gaps was, when there was 

11 a gap, we -- and we did what you would do in 

12 an epidemiologic study of, we made the 

13 assumption that the area was just consistent 

14 across any of the gaps, where there were -- or 

15 we split the time -- split the difference, 

16 when there was an area.

17 So, and we did a lot of that. I 

18 mean, for these 22,000 workers, there were --

19 we did a lot of imputation for their work 

20 history.

21 NIOSH has tried to pick up these 

22 codes, but I mean, one of the other things I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 remember with these areas codes is that the 

2 site was dynamic over time. Area codes were 

3 introduced and removed as things changed.

4 We could never find -- and I don't 

5 believe NIOSH has either, in their hands, 

6 something that says what all these 100 --

7 what, 120 codes actually correspond to.

8 I mean, so, 40 percent of them 

9 have some historical record of it, some 

10 calendar year, what that code -- you know, 

11 where on a map it corresponds to, but there is 

12 a lot of codes which we -- are not 000's, but 

13 there are -- they're 0ZA, or something like 

14 that.

15 I don't think anybody knows right 

16 now, what that code means. That is not a 000, 

17 but it's also not interpretable as a distinct 

18 place on a map in a given year.

19 So, there is -- there would be 

20 more -- I believe Department of Labor would 

21 encounter more problems than simply missing 

22 data or explicitly missing data. There is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 non-intelligible data, and there is 

2 assumptions that a code in two years means the 

3 same thing year to year, and then there is --

4 I think there is going to be a lot of gaps, 

5 just based on -- and this was the best -- I 

6 think probably the best documented workers, 

7 the prime contractors, the construction 

8 workers.

9 My recollection of SEC is -- what 

10 the -- the dosimetry data was not as complete.

11 So, I think there are -- I mean, 

12 just from our experience of trying to impute 

13 where workers were moving through over time 

14 and assign them days worked with exposure 

15 potential as high versus low, this was -- you 

16 know, was perhaps, the best attempt at the 

17 time, to use available historical information, 

18 but I'm not quite sure it does something as 

19 refined as declaring that somebody had no 

20 exposure, based on these codes, which were not 

21 recorded for that purpose, at all.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 David. That was helpful. Paul?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I just would like 

3 to ask David, I interpret what you say as 

4 speaking for the motion, is that correct?

5 I'm trying to -- I want to -- I 

6 think I understand what you're saying, and I 

7 think it supports the motion, is that correct?

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I am not quite 

9 sure what you mean. There are several --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I know it's --

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: There are 

12 several motions.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I thought at 

14 first, you were sort of married to the codes, 

15 but I think you're saying in spite of how you 

16 use them before, you're separating out the epi

17 work from this -- which is very different from 

18 making a decision on compensation.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That is --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Are you saying 

21 you're supporting the motion, is what I'm 

22 saying, or were you speaking in support?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just clarify. 

2 I'm more confused, but the motion is all 

3 employees. That is the motion that is on the 

4 floor.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, all right, 

6 that is what I was asking.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and it has 

8 been seconded and I think what David was --

9 yes, was -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I 

11 understand, but I'm -- the implication of this 

12 toward the motion, I believe, is that it 

13 supports the idea that the codes are not that 

14 useful for the purpose that has been described 

15 to us in the original NIOSH.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think it's --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't want to 

18 presume what you -- but I am trying to fit it 

19 in with our debate here, to help me inform my 

20 -- my vote.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think that 

22 is right, Dr. Ziemer. I mean, my -- what --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 yes, the characterization that I think that 

2 codes -- the codes are not going to be useful 

3 or a sharp tool for saying that somebody was 

4 or did -- did or did not have potential for 

5 exposure in a given area is true.

6 I also think from kind of the 

7 administratively Department of Labor 

8 perspective on our question of trying to 

9 recollect how many gaps are there and what do 

10 we mean by a gap?

11 I think there is -- the more you 

12 dig into this, the more kind of ambiguous 

13 information there is.

14 So, that is going to be very 

15 difficult to use for that purpose.

16 Now, whether the conclusion from 

17 there is that we propose something entirely 

18 different from the SEC Class Definition that 

19 is here, is the next step.

20 But I'm comfortable with this 

21 Class Definition, as NIOSH has proposed.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think one --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 some evidence of this issue with the codes, I 

2 think is the fact that based on the sample --

3 non-random sample of 10, Tim ended up adding 

4 two more codes, areas, and a third, which was 

5 the illegible, I'm not sure how that counts, 

6 but and do that.

7 And I think that, you know, you're 

8 just going to find people that were coded in 

9 different time periods in different ways, that 

10 may have actually worked in some of those 

11 areas, it's just that, and then beyond that, 

12 there is the question of how inclusive is 

13 that, and accurate is it, to find everybody?

14 So, again, they weren't -- these 

15 codes weren't designed for our purposes. 

16 Any further discussion before we 

17 vote? Sorry, Gen? 

18 MEMBER ROESSLER: I don't think 

19 David answered Paul's question. I'm not sure 

20 what -- I think what you said is you are 

21 against the NIOSH proposal. That is pretty 

22 clear.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 But are you willing to take the 

2 next step, and say, let's go for the motion 

3 that is on the floor, that I don't think we 

4 heard 'yes' or 'no' from you. Maybe you're 

5 not willing to say.

6 But I think that was the question.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: In a sense, 

8 you're asking me to vote before -- you want to 

9 know how I'll vote before we vote, which is, 

10 you know, fair enough, if you'd like to know 

11 that.

12 MEMBER ANDERSON: But you don't 

13 have to say it.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The other 

15 option that I'm still weighing with, and I 

16 think other people have asked NIOSH for, is --

17 is there -- and you posed this question to 

18 them.

19 Is there -- do you have something 

20 else in your pocket? Like, is there -- do you 

21 -- can you imagine another Class Definition 

22 which is more workable than this one, which I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 am having a hard time seeing work?

2 So, if that is the out there still 

3 as an option, I'd be open to hearing it.

4 If not, then I think it is -- I 

5 mean, there is some sort of -- this could go 

6 on and on for a long time. I don't think 

7 there would be a lot to be gained by further 

8 study of these data, but that is my 

9 perspective, having studied these data. I 

10 mean, other people may be more creative and 

11 have use for them, but we did spend five years 

12 working through the employment history.

13 So, I can say it's a long process, 

14 even for the 22,000 operations workers. I

15 can't imagine how long it would take to work 

16 with the rest of them.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, I think the 

18 question is for you, Stu. Does NIOSH have 

19 another Class Definition ready?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, I'm 

21 feeling a little bit like Captain Kangaroo up 

22 here, if anybody remembers Captain Kangaroo, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 he used to pull, you know, one thing after 

2 another out of his pockets.

3 But no, we've reached pretty far, 

4 I believe, with what we've presented so far, 

5 pretty far from, meaning -- pretty far from 

6 what we have typically done in defining 

7 Classes.

8 And so, I don't know that we have 

9 another reach that we could be expected to 

10 come up with in a reasonable amount of time.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you for 

12 that clarification. Any further discussion, 

13 before we vote? Bill Field, I'm sorry, and 

14 then John Poston.

15 MEMBER FIELD: And that's why I 

16 was asking before, was there a fallback, 

17 because this is a hard vote. I mean, it's a 

18 very hard vote, and you look for something 

19 that is going to work, and I guess I was 

20 hopeful that at some point, the dose 

21 information we had would be related to job 

22 codes, so you could fall back and use job 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 code, perhaps as a measure. That doesn't seem 

2 to be the case.

3 We're not hearing any other 

4 fallback strategy. I think there were some 

5 discussions of looking at the data further, 

6 but I think that may be an endless process. 

7 I'm not sure looking at the data further is 

8 going to tell us much, and this could be two 

9 or three years down the road.

10 So, it's -- I think this is a very 

11 hard vote. I'd prefer the stepwise process, 

12 but I don't know what the steps to that 

13 process are. They haven't been identified, as 

14 far as I can tell.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: John?

16 MEMBER POSTON: I can't be as 

17 eloquent as Bill, because he said everything I 

18 wanted to say.

19 So, what I do want to say one sort 

20 of thing, something in summary, and that is, 

21 I'm very frustrated and don't know exactly how 

22 to vote on this, and one of the reasons I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 frustrated is, we don't have a recommendation 

2 from the Working Group, and that really

3 bothers me.

4 I mean, we've made a decision 

5 without the Working Group, who had been 

6 working on this project for quite a while, to 

7 come with something solid, and so, now, we are 

8 making -- we're doing the work of the Working 

9 Group, and that just really bothers me, 

10 because it would be easy if we had a 

11 recommendation, to consider what they're 

12 recommending or vote against what they're 

13 commending.

14 But here, we don't have a solid 

15 recommendation that we know what to do. So, 

16 we each one of us is not only confused, but 

17 I'm personally very frustrated that we don't 

18 have such.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, in fairness 

20 to the Work Group, I've listened in on their 

21 last phone call, and I think one of the issues 

22 they have, that made it difficult, one is it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 was a phone call. So, it's a limited amount 

2 of time.

3 Secondly, there was new 

4 information presented, which -- again, without 

5 a report from NIOSH, that they wanted to be 

6 able to think about and third, that NIOSH was 

7 going to do some further work, you know, 

8 looking at the -- those 10 cases, and I think 

9 they felt that by this week, there would be 

10 more information, but I also think the Work 

11 Group was -- had the same concern, you know, 

12 that many of us have raised here, hoping there 

13 was some other way of resolving this.

14 I think that is why they 

15 hesitated. Is that fair, Mark? That was my 

16 interpretation?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just listening 

19 to it.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, yes, I 

21 think it was, in part. We were waiting for, 

22 you know, NIOSH to kind of -- if they could, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 complete this gap analysis and come to some 

2 more conclusions and didn't want to push it to 

3 a vote on the Work Group call, but rather, 

4 bring it back to the floor to discuss with all 

5 -- you know, all of our perspectives.

6 But I mean, I still feel strongly 

7 -- I mean, I have my opinion, but I wasn't 

8 ready to, you know, take a vote on the Work 

9 Group, but I still feel strongly that the --

10 you know, doing further analysis on this is 

11 just going to lead us into more gray area, and 

12 I think we have a lot of past activities to 

13 support that, as well as the issues on the 

14 records that David has discussed.

15 So, you know, I'm pretty 

16 convinced, just with the problems on these 10 

17 that we analyzed, whether they were random or 

18 biased or what, I think we -- you know, we 

19 could be at this for a while, and you know, in 

20 trying to define.

21 And then, you know, when you get 

22 down to it, is five percent, you know -- if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 you miss five percent of the people that 

2 should have been in, is that an acceptable 

3 rate? 

4 You know, so, I think that is 

5 where I stood, but I wanted to give the Work 

6 Group -- you know, there was still information 

7 in process, so we didn't push it to a vote on 

8 the Work Group.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Henry?

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: I was only going 

11 to say, I mean, the other thing is, is it 

12 workable, and the decision of is it workable, 

13 is really a Department of Labor decision, and 

14 is there any way to get a read from them, as 

15 to -- or will they wait -- they won't do 

16 anything until we've --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Not quickly.

18 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay, well, 

19 fine, and that helps, in my vote. Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think some of 

22 the frustration we feel is not unlike what we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 felt at General Electric and some other 

2 locations, as well.

3 We know that at Savannah River, 

4 although it's a very, very large site, and in 

5 fact, because it's a very large site, there 

6 are many workers there who were non-rad 

7 workers, but we don't have a good way to 

8 distinguish these issues on, perhaps, any of 

9 them.

10 So, we end up with a case where in 

11 order to take care of those who we know are in 

12 the categories that would be covered by the 

13 SEC, we end up pulling in many, many others, 

14 and it's as Wanda described, in a certain 

15 sense, those who are -- end up coming along 

16 for the ride.

17 They certainly won't object. We 

18 aren't doing our country a service, in a 

19 sense, by doing that, because it's money out 

20 of everybody's pocket, but we sort of had a 

21 mandate to take care of those who are entitled 

22 to this, and I'm not seeing how we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 separate it out at this point.

2 We had, I think, almost that 

3 situation at GE, in Cincinnati, and we finally 

4 said, "You know, we just -- we've got to bite 

5 the bullet," so, I'm uncomfortable as John is, 

6 Wanda, and I think we're all kind of 

7 uncomfortable in these kind of situations.

8 They probably occur at all sites, 

9 to some degree, but at a big site like this, 

10 it gets magnified. 

11 So, that is the only comment. I am 

12 at the point where I probably will support the 

13 motion, but I want to express my degree of 

14 discomfort.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I would just add 

16 that in addition to GE, I mean, we should 

17 remember that NIOSH ended up making the same 

18 recommendation -- and DOL, essentially, making 

19 the same recommendation at Hanford, where we 

20 went from areas, to all employees, because of 

21 feasibility issues, I mean, just to administer 

22 the Class, and so, you know, I think we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 some responsibility to come up with a workable 

2 Class Definition.

3 But if there is no further 

4 comments, and we've been at this a while, we 

5 should take a vote or take lunch.

6 MS. LIN: Dr. Melius?

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

8 MS. LIN: Before you take the 

9 vote, can you state the --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I will, 

11 yes. It's all employees of the Department of 

12 Energy, its predecessor agencies and their 

13 contractors and subcontractors who worked at 

14 the Savannah River Site from January 1, 1953 

15 through September 30, 1972, for a number of 

16 work day aggregating at least 250 work days, 

17 occurring either solely under this employment 

18 or in combination with work days within the 

19 parameters established for one or more other 

20 Classes of employees included in the Special 

21 Exposure Cohort.

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Anderson?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field?

7 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson is not on 

9 the line, I presume. So, absent I'm marking 

10 for him. Mr. Griffon?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Lemen, I 

13 presume is not on the line? I'm marking him 

14 as absent. Dr. Lockey is absent, now. I'll 

15 collect his vote, as well. Dr. Melius?

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn?

18 MEMBER MUNN: No.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston?

20 MEMBER POSTON: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Richardson?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler?

2 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield?

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: The motion passes. 

8 There are two 'nays' and two absences. So, 

9 the motion passes.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Now, we have the 

11 second motion to consider, which is lunch.

12 MEMBER BEACH: How much more work 

13 do we have?

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, that is 

15 what I was going to go through.

16 What we have left to do is, we 

17 have at least one or -- we have some of the 

18 letters to talk, but we can do those -- those 

19 are quick.

20 We have Mark's Subcommittee and 

21 Work Group report, quick. We have some 

22 discussions on scheduled meetings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 So, those are all quick, well, 

2 should be, and then the question is how -- do 

3 we want to spend more time on the 10 year 

4 review issue?

5 Remember, we heard Stu's 

6 presentation, but we really didn't have the 

7 time to ask questions or present.

8 So, or you know, have further --

9 more discussion and some disposition on those.

10 So, I think the options are, we 

11 can break for about an hour for lunch, come 

12 back at 2:15 p.m. or something. I don't know 

13 what that does, in terms of people's 

14 schedules, and then we would go on for about 

15 an hour, or we can go on for at least --

16 roughly a half-hour, but that would mean not 

17 doing the 10 year discussion, which that -- or 

18 we could just charge through for another hour. 

19 It's up to -- take a short break, and then do 

20 the hour.

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: The other option 

22 is, can we at least take a five minute break?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, we will, 

2 yes.

3 MEMBER BEACH: No, let's take 10.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: If we come back, 

5 I think we can go without lunch.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, is that 

8 everybody's -- 

9 MEMBER BEACH: Ten minute break?

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Ten minute 

11 break. We'll reconvene around 1:15 p.m., and 

12 will someone go and buy some cookies?

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

14 matter went off the record at 1:05 p.m. and 

15 resumed at 1:20 p.m.)

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, let's 

17 reconvene. I think Dr. Ziemer had to leave, 

18 but I think everybody else is back, and do 

19 that, and I'm going to do the letters. You'll 

20 have to bear with me, we're sort of doing this 

21 on the run, this time.

22 But I'm going to actually do them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 one at a time. We'll probably break them up 

2 with some other discussion here, because I've 

3 got to find them on my computer and make sure 

4 I've got the right version, because we've been 

5 going -- Jenny and I have been going back and 

6 forth, we've got the language right.

7 So, the first one I'm going to do 

8 is actually Savannah River. Again, sort of 

9 the usual preface on this.

10 But the Advisory Board on 

11 Radiation Worker Health, the Board, has 

12 evaluated Special Exposure Cohort SEC Petition 

13 00103 concerning workers at the Savannah River 

14 Site under the statutory requirements 

15 established by the Energy Employees 

16 Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

17 (EEOICPA) of 2000, incorporated into 42 CFR 

18 Section 83.13.

19 The Board respectfully recommends 

20 that SEC status be accorded to "All employees 

21 of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

22 agencies and their contractors and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 subcontractors who work the Savannah River 

2 Site from January 1, 1953 through September 

3 30, 1972, for a number of work days 

4 aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 

5 either solely under this employment or in 

6 combination with work days within the 

7 parameters established for one or more other 

8 Classes of employees included in the Special 

9 Exposure Cohort."

10 "This recommendation is based on 

11 the following factors, individuals employed at 

12 the Savannah River Site during a time period 

13 in question worked on the production of 

14 materials for nuclear weapons."

15 Number two, "The National 

16 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

17 (NIOSH) review of available monitoring data, 

18 as well available process and source-term 

19 information for the facility found that NIOSH 

20 lacked sufficient information necessary to 

21 complete individual dose reconstruction with 

22 sufficient accuracy for internal radiological 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 exposures due to thorium in some areas of the 

2 facility during the time period in question."

3 "The Board concurs with this 

4 determination. The Board also found that 

5 available personnel and monitoring records 

6 were not adequate to identify all employees 

7 who worked or may have worked in those areas 

8 of the Savannah River Site and for whom dose 

9 reconstructions are not feasible."

10 "Hence, the Board has recommended 

11 a Class Definition that includes all employees 

12 at the Savannah River Site, not withstanding 

13 of available personnel and monitoring 

14 records."

15 "NIOSH determined that health may 

16 have been endangered for these Savannah River 

17 Site employees during the time period in 

18 question. The Board also concurs with this 

19 determination."

20 "Based on these considerations and 

the discussion at the December 7th and 8th 21 2011 

22 Board meeting held in Tampa, Florida, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 Board recommends that this Class be added to 

2 the SEC, closed documentation from the Board 

3 meeting, where this Class was discussed, 

4 documentation includes copies of the petition, 

5 NIOSH review thereof and related materials."

6 "If any of these items aren't 

7 available, they will follow shortly."

8 The only difference from some of 

9 our usual letters, I just wanted to clarify 

10 that we were essentially agreeing with NIOSH 

11 on the SEC Class of thorium areas, but that we 

12 were -- I wanted to get the rationale we had 

13 for expanding the Class Definition in there, 

14 compared to the recommendation.

15 So, we'll circulate these, also, 

16 but as long as no one has any major concerns, 

17 I think we're fine, and let's go ahead then 

18 with the Work Group Report 1 from Mark, Rocky 

19 Flats.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: We had a call, a 

21 Work Group call on Rocky Flats, and the focus 

22 of the discussion was, well, two-fold, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 actually.

2 One was to clarify how DOL came up 

3 with a new bulletin on how to implement the 

4 Class, considering the use of the Ruttenber 

5 database data, and we had a discussion around 

6 that, and then we also had a discussion on 

7 continuing the Site Profile review that had 

8 been set aside for several years.

9 There were some outstanding Site 

10 Profile issues that remained on our matrix of 

11 issues. So, we're -- we made our first 

12 attempts at resurrecting that process, and 

13 we'll take those issues up at our next 

14 meeting.

15 I would like to ask maybe for a 

16 specific agenda item on the next Board 

17 meeting. I think it can be the phone meeting, 

18 if we have a phone meeting coming up between 

19 the -- as usual, to have Rocky Flats, a 

20 discussion of the Class Definition by the full 

21 Board.

22 Our concern on the proposal, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 some on the Work Group are concerned that the 

2 proposed use of the Ruttenber database is --

3 has some -- is flawed, specifically in that it 

4 relies on identifying people in the Ruttenber 

5 database that were noted to have neutron 

6 exposures greater than 100 millirem in any one 

7 year, and why, in my opinion, that is flawed, 

8 is because we already, by this Class 

9 Definition, have indicated to NIOSH that we 

10 don't believe neutron doses can be 

11 reconstructed during that time period.

12 This would rely on the same 

13 neutron/photon ratios used in the original 

14 proposal by NIOSH to reconstruct doses, to 

15 make a determination on this 100 millirem.

16 So, if it wasn't useful for dose 

17 reconstruction, we feel it isn't useful to 

18 identify a cut-off for who is in and out of an 

19 SEC Class.

20 So, I think we want to come back 

21 to the full Board with that, and possibly 

22 consider modifying the Definition of the Class 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 for Rocky Flats.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, any 

3 questions for Mark on that? 

4 Okay, good, and do you want to do 

5 your Subcommittee?

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: The Subcommittee 

7 is very quick.

8 No meeting occurred between the 

9 last Board meeting and now. We have a 

10 Subcommittee meeting scheduled for December 

19th 11 . 

12 So, there is really no report on 

13 the DR Subcommittee for this meeting.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, we are 

15 going to go back to letters, and now, we can 

16 read through the Linde letter.

17 The letter is, "The Advisory Board 

18 on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) has 

19 evaluated a Special Exposure Cohort SEC 

20 Petition 00154 concerning workers at the Linde 

21 Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York, under 

22 the statutory requirements established by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

2 Compensation Program Act of 2000, and 

3 incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13."

4 "The Board respectfully recommends 

5 that SEC status be accorded to "all Atomic 

6 Weapons Employees" who worked in any area at 

7 the Linde Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New 

8 York from November 1, 1947 through December 

9 31, 1953, for a number of work days 

10 aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 

11 either solely under this employment or in 

12 combination with work days within the 

13 parameters established for one or more other 

14 Classes of employees included in the SEC."

15 This recommendation is based on 

16 the on the following factors: "Individuals 

17 employed at the Linde Facility during the time 

18 period in question worked on the production of 

19 materials for nuclear weapons and/or in the 

20 decontamination of buildings where these 

21 materials have been previously been produced."

22 Number two, "The National 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

2 (NIOSH) review of available monitoring data, 

3 as well as available process and source-term 

4 information for this facility found that NIOSH 

5 lacks sufficient information necessary to 

6 complete individual dose reconstructions with 

7 sufficient accuracy for internal radiological 

8 exposures due to uranium and uranium progeny 

9 (with the exception of radon) during the time 

10 period in question. The Board concurs with 

11 this determination."

12 "NIOSH determined that health may 

13 have been endangered for these Linde Ceramics 

14 Plant employees during the time period in 

15 question. The Board also concurs with this 

16 determination."

17 "Based on these considerations and 

the discussions at the December 7th and 8th 18 , 

19 2011 Board meeting held in Tampa, Florida, the 

20 Board recommends that this Class be added to 

21 the SEC."

22 "Enclosed is the documentation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

1 from the Board meeting, where this SEC Class 

2 was discussed. The documentation includes 

3 copies of the petition, NIOSH review thereof, 

4 and related materials."

5 "If any of these materials are 

6 unavailable at this time, they will follow 

7 shortly."

8 Any concern or questions? Again, 

9 I will circulate these, so that everybody gets 

10 to see them. 

11 Okay, Ted, do you want to deal 

12 with meeting schedules?

13 MR. KATZ: Sure. So, I'm missing 

14 a few for this. I did notice we got Paul 

15 Ziemer's availability, and I think at this 

16 point, at least tentatively, we've got 

17 everybody's availability who is here.

18 We need to schedule another 

19 teleconference. Just to remind you, right 

now, our last teleconference is April 26th 20 , 

21 and our latest Board meeting we scheduled out 

to is June 19th through 21st 22 . Those have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 already been scheduled.

2 So, the next teleconference then, 

the right time frame is August 6th through 10th 3 

or 13th through 17th 4 . Both of those time 

5 frames work for Paul.

6 Normally, we do them on Wednesday, 

7 but of course, any day of the week is okay.

 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It is 6th 8 

through 10th 9 and when is the next option?

 MR. KATZ: The 6th through the 10th 10 

or the 13th through the 17th 11 of August.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, for 

13 argument's sake, the Wednesday would be the 

8th or the 15th 14 ? 

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, right.

 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The 15th 16 is 

17 better for me.

 MR. KATZ: The 15th 18 ? Does that 

19 work for everyone here?

 Okay, that was quick. August 15th 20 ? 

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: At what time?

22 MR. KATZ: Normally, we do 11 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 o'clock, but it's not -- we're not set on it 

2 yet. Very good, that's all. Next, we have 

the next face-to-face then, and September 10th 3 

through 14th, 17th through 21st or 24th 4 through 

28th 5 . Those are the whole weeks. Of course, 

6 the -- we can pretty much go around that, and 

Paul has a conflict. He can't do the 10th 7 , 

but he can do the 11th through 14th 8 , and he 

can't -- no, I'm sorry, 24th and 28th 9 and is --

10 Paul is not certain, but he's pretty sure that 

11 doesn't work for him.

 So, 10th through 14th or 11th 12 through 

14th or 17th through 21st 13 ? 

 MEMBER MUNN: The 17th through 21st 14 

15 would be better for me.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Me too.

17 MS. LIN: Me too.

 MR. KATZ: This is September 17th 18 

through 21st 19 . 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: What is the 

21 location?

22 MR. KATZ: We don't have it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We don't have a 

2 location, yet.

3 MR. KATZ: Right, we just put it 

4 out there, for this Board meeting. 

5 Okay, any problems with that? 

6 Okay, so, then --

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: So, what days 

8 are you talking about?

9 MR. KATZ: So, it's better not to 

10 start on a Monday. I mean, if people like 

11 Tuesday through Thursday, that is okay? 

 So, the 18th through the 20th 12 , the 

20th 13 may be a half-day.

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: We need to get 

15 around Oak Ridge.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For the record, 

17 we also have a request to meet in Washington, 

18 D.C.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: From some 

21 Congressional staff, not naming names.

22 MR. KATZ: So, those are two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 locations. We can ponder further.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: We a discussion of this 

4 before, and there may be other locations, 

5 depending on the progress of work that you see 

6 a few months down the road.

7 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: Now, we've done -- we 

9 had a beast of a time getting down a hotel 

10 that is available in the entire San Francisco 

11 area, apparently, but we do now have a place. 

12 It's San Jose.

13 We had hoped to do it closer to 

14 Berkeley, because there are more claimants 

15 there, but there is not a hotel.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Where is this 

17 one going to be?

18 MR. KATZ: So, this is the 

19 February, end of February meeting. It will be 

20 in San Jose.

21 MEMBER BEACH: So, that is San 

22 Jose?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 MR. KATZ: So, it's San Jose. It 

2 sounds like it's a -- we haven't signed the 

3 contract with them, but it's the only hotel we 

4 could meet in.

5 Oh, by the way, that meeting will 

6 be your ethics training too. 

7 MEMBER POSTON: Will you send 

8 these out to everybody?

9 MR. KATZ: The dates?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. I mean, 

12 you already have these, the dates right here, 

13 for the ones that we've established, right?

14 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll send out the 

16 new dates.

17 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. As I was 

19 saying, there was a lot of confusion 

20 yesterday. I mentioned smart cards. Andy is 

21 going to send me something that I'm going to 

22 circulate to those of you who have smart 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 cards, or want them, so that you can fill out 

2 applications, extending your coverage with 

3 your smart card.

4 MEMBER ROESSLER: What if you 

5 don't -- I missed my opportunity to pick mine 

6 up, and I don't have one. Do I need one?

7 MR. KATZ: Well, you did all the 

8 paperwork up front?

9 MEMBER ROESSLER: I did all the 

10 paperwork.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, then send me an 

12 email to that effect, but it would be a 

13 similar situation, and I'll assign someone to 

14 get you one.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Ted actually 

16 told me earlier that I didn't qualify for a 

17 smart card. So, I get the dumb card.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Well, one other 

19 thing on those smart cards. I just got an 

20 email that says they're going to kick me off 

21 the training portal, if I don't go in and --

22 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 different. So, the training --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, but to get 

3 into that portal, you have to have the little 

4 thing that they send you to read your smart 

5 card, which none of us have.

6 MR. KATZ: No, you don't need a 

7 smart card right now. You don't. So, you can 

8 get into the portal, now, until they say --

9 they haven't instituted it yet.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: But you can't 

11 get in to do the training.

12 MR. KATZ: No, no, you don't need 

13 a smart card right now, for anything.

14 So, it's not stopping you right 

15 now, but --

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: But if you go --

17 we keep getting these notices about --

18 MR. KATZ: So, if you use the 

19 portal, it will continue your coverage.

20 MEMBER BEACH: When I tried to get 

21 on the portal yesterday, it said I needed to 

22 use my smart card.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 MR. KATZ: There is two ways to 

2 get into the portal. One is your smart card. 

3 One is your ID and password, all of that, and 

4 that middle section.

5 MEMBER BEACH: All right, thank 

6 you.

7 MEMBER ANDERSON: But once you get 

8 there, then you need to do the training side.

9 MR. KATZ: No, no, no.

10 MEMBER ANDERSON: You can't do the 

11 training side.

12 MR. KATZ: Stop trying to make 

13 trouble here. 

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, I mean, 

15 that is the notice for -- you know, your 

16 ethics training and go to the site and try to 

17 do it, and it's very frustrating.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I am not sure 

19 what our work load will be for the next 

20 meeting. So, we will try to get an estimate 

21 of that by the time of our conference call, of 

22 whether we can have a two-day meeting -- given 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 what LaVon presented, I don't think that there 

2 will be a lot of -- maybe 83.14s or newly 

3 qualified petitions, evaluations, there may be 

4 that, too.

5 So, and we certainly have Fernald 

6 to address at that meeting, but we'll do an 

7 inventory, to sort of see where we are. I'm 

8 not sure on GSI and some of the other 

9 outstanding sites, or Mound might be ready, 

10 too. So, it could be two and a half days. I'm 

11 not predicting.

12 But we will try to make that 

13 determination, so, if we can -- don't have to 

14 have the extra day, that's fine.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, it seems like a 

16 good chance we'll be able to have two more?

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, so, I think 

18 Fernald, I think we will at least set aside at 

19 least two hours for discussion on that, 

20 because I think there are a lot of issues 

21 there, and I think we're fooling ourselves, if 

22 we think we can do it in an hour.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 MR. KATZ: And we have the ethics 

2 session, and that will be --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, the ethics 

4 session.

5 MR. KATZ: -- at least an hour. 

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think two and 

7 a half days. We'll see. Let's see how it 

8 looks.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, LaVon never 

11 gets anything done on time. So, he always 

12 disappoints us. Yes, Brad?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just wanted to -

14 - when was passed the SEC for Pantex, the 

15 letter has gone out.

16 I know that I saw a copy of it and 

17 I reviewed it, but I didn't know if it had 

18 come before the full Board and had been sent 

19 out.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: That's all done.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's all done?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I just 

3 wanted to make sure.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, and the 

5 package is on its way, or so forth, through 

6 the process. So, that's fine.

7 I have one more letter I need to 

8 do, which is -- this is a quick one. This is 

9 on the Hooker Electrochemical Site.

10 "The Advisory Board on Radiation 

11 Worker Health, the Board, has evaluated a 

12 Special Exposure Cohort, SEC Petition 830141, 

13 concerning workers at the Hooker 

14 Electrochemical Company, under the statutory 

15 requirements established by the Energy 

16 Employment Occupational Illness Compensation 

17 Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and incorporated 

18 into 42 CFR 83.13."

19 "National Institute for 

20 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has 

21 recommended that individual dose 

22 reconstructions are feasible for workers at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

1 the Hooker Electrochemical during the 

2 operational period from January 1, 1943 

3 through December 31, 1948, and the residual 

4 period from January 1, 1949 to December 31, 

5 1976."

6 "NIOSH found that it has access to 

7 adequate exposure monitoring, other 

8 information necessary to do individual dose 

9 reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

10 members of this group, and therefore, a Class 

11 covering this group should not be added to the 

12 SEC. The Board concurs with this 

13 determination."

14 "Enclosed is the supporting 

documentation from December 7th through 8th 15 , 

16 2011 Board meeting, held in Tampa, Florida, 

17 and earlier meetings where this potential SEC 

18 Class was discussed."

19 "Documentation includes copies of 

20 the petition, the NIOSH review thereof and 

21 related materials."

22 "If any of these items aren't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

1 available at this time, they will follow 

2 shortly," and I have one change to the letter,

3 I just noticed, because I haven't --

4 Well, it's, I think we really 

5 should say that they have -- NIOSH has access 

6 to adequate information necessary to do an 

7 individual dose. They really didn't have 

8 adequate exposure monitoring at that facility, 

9 in order to do that.

10 So, I think just say "adequate 

11 information," I think is appropriate, yes.

12 Okay, any other things? And I 

13 believe the -- actually, the official name of 

14 the facility under the DOE is Hooker 

15 Electrochemical.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Without any --

18 it sounds funny, but it's -- and we have to be 

19 -- tied to that.

20 Okay, 10 year, yes, got your mouth 

21 -- your sandwich adequately finished, Stu? We 

22 can call you up here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I hate to rub 

2 it in, but it was delicious.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You can talk 

4 with your mouth full.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, to refresh 

6 everybody's memory, in my presentation 

7 yesterday, I suggest that many of the 10 year 

8 review action items fall neatly into the 

9 purview of various Work Groups and 

10 Subcommittees of the Board, and I suggested 

11 that those Work Groups and Subcommittees stay 

12 engaged with us, as we proceed, maybe by 

13 reviewing intermediate products and choosing, 

14 really, to be as involved as the Work Group or 

15 Subcommittee chooses to be.

16 So, that is -- I'll just kind of 

17 leave it at that, and we'll entertain any 

18 questions that anybody might have about what I 

19 presented yesterday, which was just sort of an 

20 overview of information.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Wanda, do you 

22 have a question or are you just holding up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291

1 your pen?

2 MEMBER MUNN: No, I am just 

3 holding my pen.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I need support.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Support, okay. 

7 Yes?

8 MEMBER BEACH: For me, it would be 

9 helpful to know which Work Group is going to 

10 be involved in that and maybe what information 

11 would go to those Work Groups.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, here is the 

13 ones that I suggested.

14 In the quality of -- 12 of these 

15 service areas, the Worker Outreach Work Group, 

16 dose reconstruction area would be the Dose 

17 Reconstruction Subcommittee.

18 The quality of science area would 

19 be the Science Issues Work Group, and the --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Put your 

21 microphone on.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Is my microphone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292

1 off? Okay, we can try this. Okay, for the 

2 quality of service area, the review, I 

3 suggested the Worker Outreach Work Group --

4 Okay, we're going to try this 

5 again.

6 Okay, for the quality of service 

7 area, I suggested the Worker Outreach Work 

8 Group, because it has to do with clarity of 

9 communication and our receptiveness to 

10 communication.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Let's go through 

12 them like one area at a time, because --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- I'm not sure 

15 I agree with them.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Quality of 

17 service.

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Quality of 

19 service I think, certainly, that would be to 

20 the Worker Outreach Work Group.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and for the 

22 dose reconstruction area, I suggested --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, the next 

2 slide you have is timeliness.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and the 

4 timeliness one?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Timeliness, and 

6 I think regard to dose reconstruction issues, 

7 it would go to the Dose Reconstruction 

8 Subcommittee.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Time limits for 

11 the completion of SEC petitions, I believe 

12 would be the SEC Review Committee.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that 

14 would be true.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Work Group, 

16 excuse me, Work Group that I chair.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, quality of 

18 science?

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And well, I 

20 guess the question now, SEC petitions is next. 

21 Do that.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And again, those 

2 are SEC. I think the one issue we need to 

3 think about is how to deal with sufficient 

4 accuracy, because I think that is a key issue, 

5 and it's got some issues related to science 

6 and it's got the -- you know, some issues, 

7 sort of, that are policy issues, and I'm a 

8 little hesitant on sending that to David's 

9 Work Group, because they've got six -- I think 

10 five or six major issues, and I don't 

11 necessarily think that -- I don't know if you 

12 want to add that or it would be better to 

13 either have the SEC Work Group deal with that, 

14 or form a new Work Group, or something, 

15 because it's almost -- I think it's working 

16 with that, and I think the would prefer the 

17 SEC Evaluation group to simply -- we've 

18 already gone through a bunch of the SEC 

19 issues, and sort of touched on that, without 

20 ever trying to address it.

21 So, we may pull in other Members 

22 or work with the SEC -- the Science Issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295

1 Work Group, but I don't want to get you bogged 

2 down in that issue. Is that --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, on the SEC 

4 petitions area, then, the issue having to do 

5 with sufficient accuracy to keep with --

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, keep all 

7 the SEC in the SEC area.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: So, that puts us 

10 both doing part of the time on this, and all 

11 the quality science?

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

14 MEMBER MUNN: No?

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Just the 

16 sufficient issues, related issues of 

17 sufficient accuracy, is the only sort of 

18 quality issue that goes there.

19 Now, quality of science would be -

20 - there is -- two areas. One is an 

21 implementation guide for levels of peer 

22 review. I think that is something that comes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296

1 back to the whole Board. I think Stu is going 

2 to develop a recommendation.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And because 

5 there is so many different types of documents 

6 that would overlap, I think it would be more 

7 efficient to have a Board discussion of that.

8 Now, if we are uncertain about an 

9 area and we think that there is some way of 

10 referring that, we can.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The second one 

13 under quality science is assessing validity of 

14 indirect exposure methods, which is, I think 

15 coworker data --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- and so forth. 

18 Now, that could either be a science issue or 

19 it could go to the Procedures Work Group, 

20 which I think has previously reviewed coworker 

21 -- some of the coworker TIBs and so forth?

22 MEMBER MUNN: We have reviewed the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297

1 procedures and the coworkers.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is that -- I 

4 can't tell if that's a 'yes' or a 'no', that 

5 you think it's -- you're willing to take it 

6 on, because I think it's an important issue.

7 I mean, if you think about the 

8 discussions we had earlier today on Fernald, 

9 there are issues that SC&A has raised about 

10 the adequacy of the coworker models, and they 

11 really -- and those were developed under sort 

12 of the old procedures.

13 We have a Science -- quality of 

14 science recommendation that those coworker 

15 procedures may not be adequate, and those need 

16 to be changed, and sort of didn't -- the 

17 process on that, and I'm not quite -- I don't 

18 know quite where the White -- I just hesitate 

19 to put it -- you know, put it off, dealing 

20 with that, that issue because it could be a 

21 significant change.

22 It has some implications for a lot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298

1 of the sites that we're currently dealing with 

2 and will be dealing with.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, the other 

4 places that kind of -- the DR Subcommittee, I 

5 think -- you know, right now, we sort of, at 

6 least internally agree, that the quality of 

7 science group was going to focus on those 

8 scientific issues related to models for 

9 disease outcomes, and that's opposed to 

10 science related to dose reconstruction because 

11 there were a number of other Work Groups 

12 already working on that.

13 So I think for our own purposes, 

14 it may be useful to keep those scientific 

15 issues separate, but certainly, we can --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Another 

17 possibility --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Procedures can 

19 certainly handle that.

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Do you have an 

21 epidemiologist on Procedures?

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, we don't.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, you do, 

2 Dick Lemen.

3 MEMBER MUNN: No, we don't.

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is Bill? I 

5 think Dick Lemen is. Yes, so, okay. Well, 

6 let's start there. We can see -- I just think 

7 it needs a

8 There is enough epidemiological 

9 issues there in terms of looking at the -- one 

10 of the issues is sort of what -- how fine --

11 how focused down to the job title there, the 

12 level, and so forth, should coworker models 

13 be, because most of them are not, at the 

14 moment.

15 And I think that was the major 

16 recommendation in -- David's talk, in terms of 

17 dealing with epidemiological data. It's an 

18 ongoing issue, but Dr. Lemen is there, so, 

19 that is fine.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Dr. Lemen is fine.

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: He can handle that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We need to 

2 recruit Bill Field in.

3 MEMBER ROESSLER: I would 

4 recommend, if you're talking about the quality 

5 of science being given over to the SEC Work 

6 Group, I would recommend we mention adding 

7 something -- I would recommend adding Bill 

8 Field to that group.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I would --

10 quality of science we were talking about for 

11 the SEC Group.

12 Well, we're talking -- no, I'm 

13 sorry, I meant -- I was thinking of the 

14 science group, for the second one, the 

15 indirect exposure, which is that the -- we --

16 which essentially, coworker is one of the main 

17 areas, but it's not the only one, that we add 

18 that over to the -- either the Procedures or 

19 Science, and I think we just decided 

20 Procedures.

21 I will add, and I am, for whatever 

22 reason, keep forgetting and I keep trying to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301

1 mention this at a time when all the Board 

2 Members are here so it's sort of fair notice.

3 

4 But we do have to do some 

5 modifications to some of our Work Groups in 

6 terms of adding people and changing and so 

7 forth. Bob Presley needs to be replaced on 

8 some and -- and others, that I think are sort 

9 of outstanding.

10 So I will send, after the meeting, 

11 I will send out an email to everybody asking 

12 for some specificity of that, and adding some 

13 -- asking people to -- for volunteers, 

14 essentially, so that we can bring some of 

15 those back up, in terms of numbers and so 

16 forth.

17 The other quality -- the next 

18 quality of science issue is characterize 

19 degree of claimant-favorability in current 

20 methods.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: That is something 

22 that we will do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: You will do?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: We will do.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think that 

4 goes back to the Dose Reconstruction.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: For the most 

7 part.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Or whatever the 

10 -- you know -- I think you do, and then let's 

11 see how it shakes out, or what you specify in 

12 that, then we go from that.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then 

15 surrogate data, you will be doing?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's that -

17 - 

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- having 

19 outside reviews, and then I think that we have 

20 a Surrogate Data Work Group --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- which is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303

1 active right now.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: But could be 

4 reactivated.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: All right.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: The final last big 

8 bullet is supposed to be a subordinate bullet.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That is 

11 subordinate to the EPA.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Right, yes, 

13 which is another -- would be input into that.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, yes.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And then dose 

16 reconstruction, I think that's the Dose 

17 Reconstruction Committee.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, yes.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Is that 

20 satisfactory? I mean, we can always change 

21 these and if the workload, you know, if it 

22 interferes with workload or whatever, we can -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304

1 - or if we need a new Work Group to address 

2 certain ones, we can do that.

3 I think one of the other 

4 questions, which is always harder to think 

5 about, especially at the end of a meeting, is 

6 what is missing here? Is there something that 

7 we think Stu should be prioritizing, in terms 

8 of implementation, that is not on this list, 

9 that was from the 10 year review, or some 

10 other thing that should be started now?

11 I think as it goes to the Work 

12 Group, if you have suggestions on other 

13 approaches or other areas to look at, that is 

14 fine, but I guess I'm looking for anything 

15 that's missing, and again, I don't think this 

16 is something we all have to think of now, but 

17 can do so at a later point in time.

18 But do think about that because I 

19 don't think we want to get -- you know, two 

20 years from now, suddenly say, "Well, you 

21 really should have addressed this. This is 

22 what is important," in the program, when a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305

1 change that's needed and was recommended, and 

2 isn't being implemented.

3 MR. KATZ: Do you want this on the 

4 agenda for the teleconference?

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think we have 

6 that. We'll put it as an agenda item on the 

7 teleconference, yes, seeing how active and 

8 vigorous we're all feeling right now.

9 By the way, my plane just got 

10 delayed until 9 o'clock. So I think we're 

11 going to go for another four or five hours.

12 MEMBER ROESSLER: Then we need a 

13 lunch break.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What do you mean 

15 lunch?

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: Just after 

17 you've changed it, right?

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I didn't have a 

19 chance to change it. I decided not to change 

20 it. That was the fatal mistake.

21 Any other issues on this? I do 

22 want to commend Stu and NIOSH for working on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306

1 this and getting this implemented. I know 

2 it's a lot to do, with all the other things 

3 you have to do, and sort of putting this on 

4 top, and trying to figure out -- I think one 

5 of the difficulties I foresee is how do you --

6 how do we implement this, at the same time, 

7 without having to go back over everything or 

8 keep progressing on other -- we don't want to 

9 wait to all of these issues, but at the same 

10 time, it would be terrible to -- it would be 

11 difficult, I shouldn't say terrible. It could 

12 be difficult if we, you know, evaluate and, 

13 again, just as a hypothetical example, 

14 something with sort of -- the old coworker 

15 approach, and then we end up, you know, six 

16 months later, recommending a brand new 

17 approach and almost on the face of the old 

18 ones, you know, the old approach is 

19 inadequate, and -- in terms of recommendation.

20 I think there is -- I'm not 

21 predicting that is so, but it's the kind of 

22 thing that would be difficult, and I think you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307

1 -- from some of the public comments we had 

2 from the Petitioners and others, I think you 

3 can see there is some expectation of other 

4 changes and that these changes be implemented. 

5 So, again, I commend you on getting this 

6 going.

7 Any other comments? I think we can 

8 -- if not, we finish as promised by 2 o'clock, 

9 unless somebody has other business they want 

10 to bring up? Yes, Dave? You're brave.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: There was an 

12 issue raised in correspondence that was 

13 circulated with us.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, thank you 

15 for reminding me. Go ahead.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It was an 

17 issue about whether the Board should evaluate 

18 -- I don't know anymore what the terminology 

19 is, perceptions of conflict of interest --

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- with 

22 contractors who are doing work for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308

1 program.

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I think 

3 there is a specific concern that has been 

4 raised in a letter to the DCAS -- not -- I 

5 believe to John Howard, wasn't it? Yes, and I 

6 just think it certainly raises an issue that 

7 certainly made me uncomfortable when I saw it.

8 Now I don't know the details and 

9 there is contracting and other issues 

10 involved, but it's -- certainly, the 

11 perception on the outside, at least among some 

12 of the claimants and claimant representatives, 

13 is that that is a -- does raise issues for 

14 them, and I would hope that it would get 

15 addressed, and I would hope that the Board 

16 would be kept informed about it, as you -- as 

17 it does get addressed.

18 Thank you for reminding me, Dave.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I guess, 

20 I felt like that these are -- I mean, I guess 

21 -- you know, I find these categories of 

22 conflict of interest difficult to fully 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

309

1 understand, without probably a legal training, 

2 and it's probably -- I felt like looking at 

3 it, yes, I had the same sort of sense of --

4 sort of unease.

5 I'm not -- I don't have the 

6 capacity to fully make evaluations of it, but 

7 I would like to kind of keep on top of it and 

8 maybe kind of be educated and informed about 

9 it so that the Board can serve its role on 

10 these issues.

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, it just so 

12 happens that Ted told me at our next meeting 

13 we will have our annual ethics training.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, those 

15 have always --

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Someone will be 

17 there, and I think we can certainly ask that 

18 that specific -- that they be ready to -- if 

19 not address the specific issue, to address 

20 that -- the issue that's been raised, in terms 

21 of helping us to understand it, in the --

22 because I think what happens is that we're --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310

1 we're asked these questions, isn't it a 

2 conflict of interest on this issue or a 

3 perceived conflict with certain individuals or 

4 certain situations, and so forth.

5 And it puts us in an awkward 

6 position. I don't think we'd say we'd make a 

7 determination on it, but for us to claim that 

8 we're ignorant of it, it appears as if we 

9 don't have any concerns about it. At the same 

10 time, you don't want to exaggerate your 

11 concern because of the specifics.

12 So I think it helps to have some 

13 level of information on it and go forth.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And, Jenny, I'll 

16 make sure you get that specific, if you're not 

17 aware of what it is.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't mean 

19 to say that I feel like I'm ignorant of -- I 

20 think the training that we've received has 

21 been focused on perceptions of bias and 

22 conflict of interest as they concern our own 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311

1 behaviors and the relationships that we engage 

2 in, and what is being brought before us 

3 concerns organizations that are contracted to 

4 do work for the program.

5 And so, now, we're in a different 

6 position, and I don't think we have the 

7 responsibility for that sort of oversight or 

8 anything, but at some point, I mean, 

9 specifically to make those evaluations --

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, but if 

11 we're relying on those contractors or 

12 subcontractors, then that perception also, in 

13 some ways, could apply to the public's --

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- or claimant's 

16 perception of what our work is and NIOSH's and 

17 other work, and so -- I think that our -- all 

18 of us have been on the Board a while. We've 

19 all struggled with this. It's evolved, and I 

20 think we finally have gotten at least what's 

21 written down, a much more coherent policy that 

22 addresses all levels, the Board, the Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312

1 contractor, NIOSH, NIOSH's contractors, and so 

2 forth, with some -- at least not -- and it 

3 can't all be the same, you know, sort of rules 

4 and conflicts, there's different balancing 

5 that goes on and so forth.

6 But at least it is more coherent 

7 than it was before, and it appears, I think, 

8 more equitable, but there is still our 

9 differences and there is still our details and 

10 nuances to it that can be confusing.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, thanks.

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, okay. 

13 Anything else? Okay, without objection, we're 

14 adjourned.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 matter concluded at 2:05 p.m.)

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22