1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

 

+ + + + + 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 

+ + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

 65TH MEETING 

+ + + + + 

 WEDNESDAY 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

+ + + + + 

 The meeting convened in the 

Conference Room of the Danford's Hotel and 

Marina, 25 East Broadway, Port Jefferson, New 

York, at 9:00 a.m., Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman, 

presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman 

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member 

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member 

MARK GRIFFON, Member 

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member 

JAMES MALCOLM MELIUS, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member 

JOHN W. POSTON, Member 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

PRESENT (CONTINUED): 

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPANTS: 

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH Contractor 

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE 

AQUINO, LITA, NIOSH 

BONSIGNORE, ANTOINETTE, Petitioner 

BRADFORD, SHANNON, NIOSH 

BREYER, LAURIE, NIOSH 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

CIVILETTO, SAM, Petitioner 

CRAWFORD, CHRIS, NIOSH 

CUMMING, SARA, Petitioner 

DECKER, RICHARD, Petitioner 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

FITZGERALD, JOHN, SC&A 

GLOVER, SAM, NIOSH 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

HUGHES, LARA, NIOSH 

KESTEN, DOROTHY, Petitioner 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

McFEE, MATTHEW, ORAU 

McGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS 

McINTOSH, CHRIS (name not legible) 

NELSON, CHARLES, NIOSH 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

PRESLEY, LOUISE S. 

RAINAGE, BOB, Claimant 

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, NIOSH 

SARMADAK, LORETTA, Petitioner 

STEFKO, LINDA, Petitioner 

WARREN, BOB, Petitioner 

WOJCIK, MARGARET, Petitioner 
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

AGENDA ITEM PAGE 

Welcome 4 

Oak Ridge Hospital SEC Petition 6 

Dr. James Lockey, Member, Petitioner(s) 

Bliss & Laughlin Steel Facility 40 

SEC Petition 

Dr. Samuel Glover, NIOSH, Petitioner(s) 

Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor 96 

SEC Petition 

Mr. Charles Nelson, NIOSH, Petitioner(s) 

Metals and Controls Corp. 170 

SEC Petition (83.14) 

Dr. James Neton, NIOSH, Petitioner(s) 

Electro Metallurgical Co. 210 

SEC Petition 

Mr. Chris Crawford, NIOSH, Petitioner(s) 

University of Rochester Atomic 240 

Energy Project SEC Petition 

Dr. Lara Hughes, NIOSH, Petitioner(s) 

SEC Petition Status Update 281 

Mr. Lavon Rutherford, NIOSH 

Public Comment 295 

Adjourn 
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

 9:10 a.m. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Good morning, 

everyone. We are going to begin our second 

day of deliberations for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health meeting here in 

Port Jefferson, New York. 

 I will begin with my usual reminder 

to sign the attendance ledger that is in the 

foyer, if you haven't already done so, so that 

we have a record of your attendance with us 

today. Also a reminder that there are 

documents and agendas on the back table that 

relate to the items on today's agenda as well. 

 We have a number of SEC petitions 

that we will be dealing with throughout the 

day today. To the extent possible, we want 

these to be time certain in order to 

accommodate some of the petitioners who may be 

with us by phone. So we will do our best to 

stick to the schedule as it is given in the 

agenda. 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Mr. Katz, our Designated Federal 

Official, again is with us, and, Ted, we will 

ask you if you have any preliminary comments. 

 MR. KATZ: No comments, just 

guidance for the people on the phone to mute 

your phones, please, except when you are 

addressing the Board. Use *6 if you don't 

have a mute button, *6 again to take it off 

mute and, if you leave the phone, just hang up 

and dial back in. Please don't use your hold. 

 That's it. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much. We are going to begin today with the 

Oak Ridge Hospital SEC Petition. Board 

members, I will remind you that we did have 

the presentation on this petition at our last 

meeting, and I believe Dr. Hughes presented 

that, and I think Dr. Hughes is here today. 

Yes, she is. So she is available to answer 

questions as well. 

 We have already had the 

presentation on the petition, and at our last 
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

meeting the Board had raised some questions 

dealing largely with the accessibility of the 

hospital facilities to individuals who would 

not otherwise be thought of as radiation 

workers. 

 So we did set up a Work Group 

chaired by Dr. Lockey to examine that issue 

and any others that they thought were 

appropriate. So Dr. Lockey, the Work Group 

Chair, is going to relate to us what the Work 

Group found and what their recommendation is. 

 We will also have an opportunity to hear from 

the petitioner by phone and an opportunity for 

questions before we take further action. 

 So, Dr. Lockey. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: I think I will do 

this from here. Is that all right? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's fine. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: I want to thank 

members of the Work Group. We met in person 

on October 7th and then had a conference call 

on October 12th, and I also want to thank 
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Lara. She did a great job on this, and it was 

very helpful in both these sessions. 

 The Work Group did a lot of the 

work on our own. We contacted people and did 

a lot of research ourselves. So I think we 

can bring this to a close, hopefully, today. 

 The original petition -- this is 

just for everybody so we are on the same 

playing field. The original petitioner -- the 

cohort was defined as all employees from 

[identifying information redacted], 1958 to 

[identifying information redacted] of 1959. 

 This was expanded. NIOSH expanded 

the class definition to include all employees 

who worked in any location at Oak Ridge 

Hospital from May 15, 1950, to December 31, 

1959. 

 A little bit of history. There was 

an SEC granted for the Oak Ridge Institute for 

Nuclear Studies known as ORINS Cancer Research 

Hospital, and that was granted for those who 

were employed from May 15, 1950, to December 
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

31, 1963, and that is important because the 

ORINS Cancer Research Hospital was closely 

affiliated with Oak Ridge Hospital, both from 

an employment perspective and also a physical 

perspective. 

 So Oak Ridge Hospital. It was 

closely affiliated with ORINS Cancer Research 

Hospital. This latter facility was very 

unique in that it really was a pioneer in 

research in the areas of radioisotope 

treatment for various types of cancer. So it 

is really a pioneering institute that was 

affiliated with Oak Ridge Hospital in their 

early years. 

 Additional information that we -- 

we actually reviewed quite a bit of additional 

information, but I think the pertinent points 

were these. The article that was published by 

Dr. Brucer entitled Radioisotopes Hazards and 

Protection in a Hospital -- this was in JAMA -

- in 1951, and it was a very interesting read. 

 We pulled the article, distributed 
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it. Everybody reviewed the article, and it 

really indicated that Dr. Brucer was really on 

the forefront of looking at how to protect 

personnel in regard to radioisotope use in a 

hospital setting, quite a pioneer in the area, 

and the paper was an excellent paper. 

 I think John pulled a section from 

a textbook called Chronology of Nuclear 

Medicine, again partly authored by Dr. Brucer. 

 It sort of added to that history of what was 

going on during that time frame. 

 Additional contacts were made with 

various individuals, and, in particular, Roger 

Cloutier actually participated in a conference 

call with us on our second meeting at length, 

and we all had the opportunity to ask him 

various questions about his experiences, 

particularly with ORINS or the Cancer Research 

Hospital, and what he knew or did not know 

about the Oak Ridge Hospital and possible 

interaction both from a physical perspective 

as well as a staffing perspective between the 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

two facilities. 

 Bob, I think, looked up this for 

us, and if you look at this -- I don't know if 

there is a pointer here or not; is there a 

pointer? 

 This is Oak Ridge Hospital, and 

those who are in the know, correct me if I am 

wrong here. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You may need to 

stay on the mic, Jim. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Oak Ridge 

Hospital right here, and this is the E Wing, 

which is the original wing involved with the 

Cancer Research Center, and this was later the 

D Wing which also became part of it. 

 Apparently, there is a -- 

initially, a connection between these two 

facilities was just a walkway, which was later 

covered. Then you can see there is a 

connection here, which is a walkway which has 

been covered. So this was originally the 

original research center, and they expanded to 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the D Wing. This was E. This was the D Wing, 

and this is the main hospital. 

 I think I got that right. Where is 

Bob? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: You are correct. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: So what we learned 

was there was really considerable attention 

that was given to radiation safety based on 

ORINS activity. So it wasn't as if they 

weren't paying attention to what was going on 

in relationship to radioisotopes. But there 

was a definite opportunity for cross-staffing 

between the Oak Ridge Hospital and ORINS, and 

this cross-staffing existed for positions 

sometimes if they had to respond to emergency 

situations in the research center, sometimes 

positions would cross-cover. Same with 

nursing personnel, same with morgue and 

pathology personnel, operating personnel at 

least into 1955. 

 All the surgery took place at Oak 

Ridge Hospital for ORINS patients, at least, 
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I think, until 1955, and then also diagnostic 

and therapeutic radiology. It wasn't clear 

when ORINS got their own diagnostic radiology 

facility, but initially the X-rays were taken 

in Oak Ridge Hospital. 

 So there was cross-staffing and 

cross-patient flow between the two facilities, 

and we don't know how much. We don't know who 

went back and forth. It is impossible. The 

data does not exist for us to identify who 

only worked in Oak Ridge Hospital or in ORINS 

or if they only worked in Oak Ridge Hospital 

and never had an exposure to an ORINS patient. 

 We just don't know that. 

 So because of the lack of internal 

and external dosimetry records for Oak Ridge 

Hospital personnel and the potential for 

cross-staffing and cross-patient care activity 

with ORINS, the Working Group concurred with 

NIOSH that it was not feasible to do dose 

reconstruction. We really could not set an 

upper limit. 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So if you can't set an upper limit, 

you can't do dose reconstruction. We don't 

necessarily think that there was a health 

threat, but because we could not set an upper 

limit, we went back and agreed with NIOSH's 

position here. 

 Therefore, this class of employees 

should be considered by the Board for 

recommendation for addition to the special 

exposure cohort, and that was a unanimous vote 

by us. 

 We did revise the proposed class, 

and we revised it as follows. We said that 

all employees of the Department of Energy, its 

predecessor agencies, and contractors and 

subcontractors who worked at any location of 

the Oak Ridge Hospital, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

from May 15, 1950 through the 31st of '59 for 

a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

work days occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with work days 

within the parameters established for one or 
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

more classes of employees be included in the 

special exposure cohort. 

 We could not positively identify -- 

we couldn't limit the class. There is not 

enough information to limit the class. So it 

had to be an all-inclusive class. Again, this 

was a unanimous vote. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, Dr. Lockey, 

I am going to interpret that as a 

recommendation from the Work Group. As such, 

it becomes a motion on the floor before us. 

It does not require a second. So we will now 

discuss it. So the motion would be to add a 

class to the SEC. 

 Let me ask a question for 

clarification. You made a statement to the 

effect that the Work Group did not feel that 

health was affected. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But let me also 

remind us all that in order to make a 

recommendation for a special exposure cohort 
15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

class, we also have a second stipulation, and 

that is the stipulation that health was 

affected, usually measured in terms of the 250 

day criteria. 

 I notice in your recommendation you 

do specify the 250 day criteria. So although 

I guess your earlier statement perhaps was 

more intuitive than anything, I think this 

statement, in and of itself, implies that 

health -- the assumption is that health was 

affected due to chronic exposure. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You agree that 

that is -- 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: That is correct. 

You are unable to bound an upper limit and, 

therefore, there is -- by default, there is a 

health endangerment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that is 

exactly right. I just wanted to confirm that 

you were not in the motion separating out 

health endangerment because that is part and 
16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

parcel to the requirement for adding a class. 

 Robert Presley. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: First, I want 

everybody to know I voted for this with a 

whole lot of reservation. We are going to 

vote -- we voted to give everybody that worked 

at Oak Ridge Hospital from May 15th to 

December 31, 1959 special exposure cohort 

status. 

 What that is going to mean is that 

if you had a nurse that worked in pediatrics, 

never, ever got anywhere else in that hospital 

but that pediatrics ward, but she does have 

one of the 22 types of cancer, then she is 

eligible. 

 That bothers me because we've got 

people at other places that we can't get paid 

that we know came into more contact with 

hazardous radiation than people might have 

there. It's just the way the bill is written. 

 I'm sorry. I do have a problem 

with it. I think it needs to be changed. 
17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. And, 

certainly, we have this kind of situation in 

other facilities where we are not able to 

identify exactly where people went or didn't 

go. So we do have to operate under the 

assumption that, if they had access, they 

could have been there. 

 So part of that is erring on the 

side of claimant favorability, and that is 

part of our job, to make sure that that does 

occur. 

 Further comments? Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I was just looking 

for those documents you mentioned, Jim. Are 

those -- maybe NIOSH knows this, too. I don't 

see them on our O: drive or -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: These are the 

documents by Marshall Brucer? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. They are not 

there. They were circulated otherwise? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: These are 

documents that the Work Group developed? 
18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't see a 

folder in the A-B document review section. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, LaVon 

Rutherford is going to speak to this. LaVon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It might be in the 

site research database, but I don't see it. 

Oh, it's in here. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: It should be under 

the A-B document review folder. There should 

be an Oak Ridge Hospital. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am assuming 

these are alphabetical. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, they are. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't see it. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Now we did 

transfer folders recently from -- we did 

transfer folders recently from the drives when 

we switched you guys over. I am not sure if 

Oak Ridge Hospital was missed there. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It appears that it 

is not in the -- I mean, we can track it down. 

 I guess what struck me was, Jim, in your 
19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

presentation you said that those documents 

were enlightening because they showed how he 

was on the forefront of establishing 

protection for this type of hospital and 

facility, and I think this goes back to some 

other comments earlier that -- I think Jim 

might have made this comment -- that if you 

have these two articles that support that 

there were good controls, that kind of 

questions can't we do something with job 

titles or what. But you are saying you guys 

looked at this, and they migrated -- it's 

impossible to track, yes. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: There is no way to 

go back and say who had access or did not have 

access to patients, to tissue, to emergency 

situations or who was going back and forth 

between the two facilities. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So, really, they 

didn't have any sort of access control to that 

one side of the hospital in terms of like who 

could -- 
20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: There was some 

control, and there was some control to patient 

access, but it doesn't talk about who had 

access to the patients. It doesn't talk about 

what happens with the custodial personnel, 

necessarily. There was some cross in 

relationship to food distribution. Some of 

the food utensils were washed back at Oak 

Ridge Hospital. 

 So it would be very difficult to 

delineate who had a potential exposure and who 

did not. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I believe also -- 

and, Dr. Hughes, you may want to help us on 

this, but my memory was that you cited Dr. 

Brucer also, and there was some indication 

that they were finding high exposures actually 

outside the building, in the sidewalks around 

the streets even. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that is correct. 

 Actually, a large part of this article by 
21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Brucer was cited in the evaluation report. So 

some of the relevant tables were actually 

adapted. The important information is 

actually in the evaluation report. But, yes, 

this article actually talks about several 

incidents where they detected gamma radiation 

fields outside on the sidewalk. 

 Now this was for the ORINS 

facility, but it was right next to the Oak 

Ridge Hospital, and I think also a major point 

that Dr. Brucer made was that even in the 

ORINS facility, even the administrative 

personnel received non-zero doses. 

 So it is conceivable that anybody 

who entered the ORINS building might have been 

receiving an exposure. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. 

Roessler. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Just to add a 

little bit to Mark's question, in talking with 

Roger Cloutier who didn't begin work there 

until 1959, we couldn't get information from 
22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

him about the early time periods. 

 The only thing we got from him is, 

again, the support and indication that Dr. 

Brucer was a very careful person with regard 

to health hazards, extremely so at that time. 

 He was very protective of pregnant women. 

 There is every indication in 

everything we found, including the report Dr. 

Lockey mentioned, to show that there were very 

good health physics practices. However, the 

dilemma is we can't show that certain people 

did not have access to this area. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Just to follow up 

on this and Mr. Presley's point earlier, in 

some of our discussion yesterday, I just think 

it is important. I first reviewed this report 

when it was sent to us, the original one. 

 I think there are -- we need to 

make sure we have good documentation that 

people -- not were exposed, but that we have 

made a good effort to try to see if we can 
23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

delineate between groups and, if we can't, 

then that is fine. We can have a broad 

definition, but I think it is sort of having -

- going through and trying to document that 

and putting in the evaluation report. I'm not 

quite sure how you can do it with the reports, 

but I think the more documentation you include 

there that you have made the effort to try to 

separate out different groups, I think it 

would be helpful. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. I 

have just been asked to remind you all that 

the people on the phone are having a hard time 

hearing some of you. So please, when you 

speak, speak into the mics as much as 

possible. 

 Okay, any further discussion or 

questions? We have Phil Schofield. Phil, get 

up there close to your mic. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: In this 

particular case, John, Gen, Bob -- they all, I 

think, went the extra mile, tried to interview 
24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

people, looked at documents they were aware 

of, and when it came down to it, their 

documentation just doesn't exist. 

 I will agree that for the majority 

of the people, the risk was very low, but 

there is no way of determining which those 

people were and which were not in this case. 

The record keeping just isn't there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Any 

further comments or questions? Also, let me 

just see if the petitioner is on the line and 

if the petitioner wishes to make any comments. 

 MS. CUMMING: This is Sara Cumming, 

and I agree with the recommendation from the 

Work Group. I am having a hard time hearing 

everyone. Can you hear me okay? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Sara, we can 

hear you quite well. So we would be pleased 

to have you make any additional comments that 

you wish to make. 

 MS. CUMMING: I would just like to 

say that I certainly agree with the petition. 
25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The close affiliation with ORINS Cancer 

Research building and of this hospital clearly 

provided a potential for radioactive exposure 

for the hospital staff. 

 Oak Ridge Hospital employees 

supported ORINS by working back and forth from 

both areas, and I certainly agree with the 

petition, on behalf of my mother and other Oak 

Ridge Hospital colleagues who also died of 

cancer, but I am certainly in agreement with 

the recommendation from the Work Group. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sara, thank you 

very much for those comments. LaVon 

Rutherford has an additional comment. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I just wanted to 

let the Board know that folder is there now. 

Staff has found it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. The Oak 

Ridge Hospital folder is in our information 

drive on our computers. Okay. Thank you. So 

you can check Dr. Brucer's articles there, if 

you want to pursue that. 
26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Again, my understanding is Brucer 

talked in general health physics terms, but 

doesn't speak to identifying specific 

individuals, and apparently does not talk 

about restricting specific groups, as I 

understand it, in any way, for example, saying 

that certain parts of the hospital were 

restricted only to people in certain job 

categories, nothing like that. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Josie Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: The last time we 

spoke, we talked quite a bit about the 

laundry. Was laundry done on site? Do you 

guys remember, or did you discuss that at all? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Laundry was done 

separately. 

 MEMBER BEACH: But was it done at 

the hospital or was it taken off? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Hughes, maybe 

you can clarify that for us. 

 DR. HUGHES: I don't really know 
27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

how they did the laundry. They either 

contracted with an outside provider or they 

did it on site. I think it actually changed 

over the covered period, but what I do know is 

it was separate from ORINS. ORINS sent their 

laundry to ORNL for radiation checking and 

then washing. So they were separate. ORINS 

realized they might have a problem with 

contaminated laundry versus the Oak Ridge 

Hospital did not -- I believe they did not 

think that they would have a problem with 

contaminated laundry. So they were clearly 

separate. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the ORINS 

laundry went to X-10, which is Oak Ridge 

National Lab? You said ORNL? 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So their laundry 

went to ORNL, but the hospital, Oak Ridge 

Hospital, laundry went somewhere else. Is 

that what I understood you to say? 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that is correct. 
28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the 

possibility was that the Oak Ridge Hospital 

laundry might have been contaminated -- we 

don't know that, I guess -- and gone 

elsewhere. 

 DR. HUGHES: I believe they 

certainly didn't think that it was 

contaminated. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: The question would 

come up, if somebody needed surgery and was 

taken to Oak Ridge Hospital, how was that 

handled? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Where did their 

laundry go? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: That's right. 

There is no way to know that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 That is helpful. Any further questions? 

 Well, we have before us a motion to 

recommend adding a class to the SEC, in this 

case for Oak Ridge Hospital. Are you ready to 
29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

vote? It appears that we are ready to vote by 

roll call. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 
30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Ziemer. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: It is unanimous. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. The 

motion carries. We will make the appropriate 

recommendation to the Secretary to add a class 

to the SEC. 

 We are a little ahead of schedule, 

but I am going to go ahead and check to see if 

the Bliss & Laughlin petitioners are on the 

line. If they are, then we will proceed with 

this item. Otherwise, we will delay a short 

bit. 

 Are the petitioners for Bliss & 

Laughlin on the phone lines? Okay. 

Apparently not. So we will need to wait. 

 I am going to use this opportunity 

for us to do a little bit of our work, Board 

work, which is on tomorrow's agenda. Looking 

at you so far, we have added a class for a 
31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

certain group at Brookhaven National 

Laboratory. 

 We also indicated yesterday that we 

would need to examine the later part of the 

original petition, that we also have a 

Brookhaven site profile that needs to be 

examined, as well as an SC&A review of the 

site profile. 

 So we are going to need a 

Brookhaven Work Group, and it is my intention 

to add at least one of the new members to that 

Work Group. So I would like to at least 

identify at this point three or four 

individuals who are not conflicted and who 

would be interested in participating in the 

Brookhaven. 

 I see Brad and Josie. Any others -

- and Gen Roessler. Okay. Are there any 

others that have a specific interest in 

Brookhaven? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I certainly do. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda. 
32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER POSTON: Paul, I will do it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now I am already 

up to five individuals. Well, there will be a 

new member. One of you will become the 

alternate because I want to get a new member 

involved, and I won't name it yet -- him or 

her; I guess they are all males -- and give me 

a little breathing space. I will name a Chair 

at that time after I determine who will be on. 

 I just wanted to get some potential names 

here. 

 We will try to get that Work Group 

established as rapidly as we can with a new 

member in place. In fact, we probably will go 

ahead, won't even name the new member until 

they are -- or can we name people until they 

are really seated? I know they have to go 

through the process, but we will wait and name 

that. 

 Anyway, the four of you will be the 

group. Now having said that, let me tell you 

one other thing that I am in the process of 
33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doing. That is that currently we have 20 work 

groups and two subcommittees. This will mean 

23. Now one of those, Blockson, basically has 

finished their work. Anyway, I am still sort 

of tracking this. 

 We have -- if you look at those 22 

groups, and each of those has four or five 

slots, we have over 100 positions in work 

groups that are populated by 12 people. So if 

you do the math, you see that the average 

workload is seven or eight work groups or 

subcommittee assignments, but the distribution 

actually is not all that even. 

 So I want to go back and look at 

the numbers of assignments that people have as 

well as the number of chairs that they -- or 

work groups that they are chairing before I 

make this final appointment on chairing this, 

and also as we phase the new people in, 

certainly, at the front end we want to get 

them all involved in at least one work group 

and maybe even as observers on an additional 
34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

one or so. 

 Nonetheless, I may end up moving 

some of the alternates who are on present 

committees and opening alternate slots for the 

new people until they sort of get their feet 

wet, and then I'll make sure that they get 

fully engaged in the work group or 

subcommittee activities. 

 In any event, I am working on that 

sort of a matrix of assignments, and I want to 

take a look at that before we make the final 

decision on who should chair this group, and 

then possibly look at moving some of the other 

folks around. We will use these four as the 

starting point for the Brookhaven Work Group. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I do have a 

comment. We also have a number of items that 

are kind of waiting in the wings where we have 

reports from SC&A that we haven't developed 

work groups for, and we might want to take a 

look at that also. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that is 
35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exactly right. A lot of what we are doing now 

is based on -- whenever we have an SEC to act 

on, it becomes a priority. So those are the 

ones that we are sort of pushed to deal with. 

 Yes, and certainly a point well taken that we 

have a number of site profiles that have yet 

to be addressed in terms of matrices. 

 Some of those themselves get 

impacted by the SECs. An example is the 

Hanford one where the original matrix is very 

much impacted by the action taken just at this 

meeting itself. So that is kind of a changing 

picture, but at some point we have to be able 

to address all of those as we go forward. 

 The other part of it is it becomes 

important for us to close out activities that 

are already underway, and I think all of you 

work group chairs need to take a look at your 

activities and, to the extent possible, push 

forward -- and I am talking specifically work 

groups; our subcommittees are ongoing, but 

work groups are supposed to have a finite 
36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

life. To the extent that they are becoming 

less than finite, we need to push forward and 

try to come to closure. 

 Sometimes the closure is difficult 

because you may be waiting for SC&A or NIOSH 

to produce something. It may be a white 

paper. It may be some other activity, but 

whenever that occurs, we need to keep pushing. 

 I know they have their own limitations on 

getting work done, and they do more than Board 

work. They have their whole group of 

activities that they are engaged on in an 

ongoing basis. But we all need to push 

forward on those activities and perhaps bring 

some of these to a close as rapidly as we can. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Paul, we also need 

to be looking at the new members. I don't 

know if they have their conflict of interest 

paperwork in. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. That is part 

of the reason they are not yet seated. They 

have to go through the conflict of interest 
37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issues. They have to go through the -- well, 

you know all of it. Then on top of that, they 

have to figure out how to use the new 

computers. Okay. 

 Ted, you have a comment? 

 MR. KATZ: Just while we are -- not 

about computers. But while we are on the 

Brookhaven topic, I just wanted to raise a 

question for the Board here with respect to 

SC&A tasking. 

 SC&A has delivered a site profile 

review, which you mentioned, for the Work 

Group to consider, but I don't know whether 

you want to consider doing this now or leave 

this to the Work Group. 

 The SEC petition evaluation from 

OCAS covered the full duration of the 

petition. So it recommended adding a class up 

to '79, and then there is from '84. In 

effect, it is saying that class should not be 

added. 

 I don't know whether you want to 
38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

task SC&A at this point. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, what I 

would prefer to do on that is we have on our 

agenda tomorrow SC&A tasking, and I want to do 

this in the context of other tasking that we 

do. So we will try to do that all at one 

time. 

 Also, I would like to do that, 

although Joe Fitzgerald is here. John Mauro 

was called out this morning, and he will be 

back. I would prefer to do the tasking when 

John is present with us as well. So the 

actual tasking on Brookhaven, and there will 

be some others, I think we can do that all at 

the same time tomorrow. Then we will have 

that sort of in the context of the bigger 

picture. 

 Of course, we had the Hanford 

petition yesterday, but we already have a 

Hanford Work Group. So they will be moving 

forward on those issues. 

 The Oak Ridge has been taken care 
39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of. We will have to see where we end up with 

Bliss & Laughlin, which is the next item on 

our agenda. Let me check to see if the Bliss 

& Laughlin petitioners are on the line. 

 Are either of the Bliss & Laughlin 

petitioners on the line, the phone lines, this 

morning? 

 MS. STEFKO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, you are 

both there. We are a little bit early here, 

but we thought, if you are on the line, we 

will proceed with the Bliss & Laughlin 

consideration this morning. 

 Oh, we have a gentleman here also. 

 So you will have an opportunity as well to 

participate. I was not informed that you 

would be here. So thank you, and in a moment 

we will have you identify yourself and speak 

as well. Oh, you are not a petitioner? You 

are representing a claimant? 

 MR. RAMAGY: I am representing a 

claimant. 
40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In our 

discussions here this morning on the petition, 

the petitioners have the privilege of speaking 

to the assembly outside of the public comment 

period, but if you wish to address the 

assembly, you would need to sign up to do that 

during the public comment period. 

 Then we are going to proceed with 

the Bliss & Laughlin SEC petition evaluation 

report, which will be presented by Dr. Glover 

from NIOSH, and then the petitioners will have 

an opportunity to add comments as well. So, 

Sam, you are already at the podium. Welcome. 

 DR. GLOVER: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

 Can you hear me okay? All right. 

 This is highly -- this actually is 

linked to another facility, which is Bethlehem 

Steel. There is a lot of history that the 

Board has taken up. 

 Bliss & Laughlin was a large steel 

manufacturing facility located in Buffalo, New 

York. They operated at this site from 1929 to 
41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

1971, and they produced cold finished steel 

bars for a variety of end users. 

 This was called the Buffalo Works 

which provided non-radioactive components for 

the Atomic Energy Commission during the early 

1950s. It was later moved to Albuquerque. 

The plant closed in 1971 and sold, currently 

owned by Niagara LaSalle Corporation. 

 Don't have a very good angle here. 

 What I was hoping to provide is just some 

feel for how some of these different sites 

come together in that area, and, 

unfortunately, the grain is just not good 

enough to see on either the copy or the thing 

here. It looked better on my computer screen. 

 We had Bliss & Laughlin right here, 

but it is basically just to show you how close 

the LOOW facility -- what are the different 

operations, how quickly Bethlehem -- where 

Bethlehem Steel was with respect to this, how 

quickly things could be trucked back and 

forth. It looks a lot better on the 
42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

electronic file, unfortunately. 

 These several facilities were all 

very close in proximity. So it really enabled 

rapid -- being able to produce it one day and 

machine it at Bliss & Laughlin, take it to 

Bethlehem Steel, truck it back to LOOW very 

quickly. So this is just a blow-up of that. 

 So the records indicate that Bliss 

& Laughlin performed five and possibly six 

machining operations, and I will explain why 

the possibly six, for the AEC for natural 

uranium rods. There was one operation in 

1951, and that preceded the first, the 1951, 

April 25-26, machinings at Bethlehem Steel. 

 This operation was to take the rod 

that had been previously rough rolled at 

Simonds Saw. It had laps in it. They had to 

machine those off so that those wouldn't be 

propagated at Bethlehem Steel. They wanted to 

see what Bethlehem Steel could do versus 

propagating those laps into that. 

 So Bliss & Laughlin removed that 
43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

outside edge. In 1952 there were four or five 

operational days where they essentially took 

bars finished at Fernald and machined the 

outside of those cores off that didn't meet 

the specs. 

 The site was surveyed by the 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 

Program, FUSRAP, in 1992, and clean-up was 

conducted in 1998 through March of 1999. 

 A little bit of background. So 

October 14, 2008, petition received by NIOSH. 

 January 29, 2009, it was qualified for 

evaluation. On June 30, 2009, an evaluation 

report was issued, and we delayed this 

presentation until this date at the request of 

petitioners. 

 The petition-requested class 

definition was all employees of Bliss & 

Laughlin from [identifying information 

redacted], 1948, through [identifying 

information redacted], 1998. Based on NIOSH 

research and covered operation period, as 
44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

determined by the Department of Labor, NIOSH 

revised the petition-requested class and 

evaluated all employees at Bliss & Laughlin 

for the period from January 1, 1951, through 

December 31, 1952, and/or during the residual 

period from January 1, 1953 through December 

31, 1998. 

 Let's see. So I want to make it 

clear that the previous date, the '48-'49 

period, was revised, the operational period. 

Department of Labor revised that to begin in 

1951. 

 So documents associated with this, 

starting at the top -- this is being cut off, 

but we have the TBD-6000, which is the site 

profile for atomic weapon employees working 

with uranium and thorium metals; the site 

profile for atomic weapon employees that 

refined uranium and thorium, which is TBD6001. We have TIB information, which is 

associated with the X-rays. You are familiar 

with these, and also TIB-0070 which is dose 
45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstruction in residual radioactivity 

periods. 

 We had a number of interviews with 

former employees of B&L, and also one former 

feed materials production employee. The SRDB 

has approximately 200 documents pertaining to 

Bliss & Laughlin, and these contain historical 

background information, process information, 

trip reports, air sampling data sheets, FUSRAP 

reports, and residual contamination surveys. 

 Documentation and affidavits 

submitted by the petitioners include actually 

the site survey authorization for the remedial 

action plan, radiological surveys, a portion 

of a narrative from a petitioner, finding of 

facts of the recommended decision for an 

EEOICPA case. We also looked at computerassisted telephone interviews for the 

associated 23 cases. 

 There are 23 cases which met the 

class definition, one of which was pulled. 

Dose reconstructions have been completed on 22 
46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

cases, nine of which had a PoC greater than 50 

percent, cases which contained internal 

dosimetry is zero. Cases which had external 

dosimetry information also is zero. 

 Petitioners stated that, to the 

best of their knowledge, there are no 

monitoring records available to NIOSH. 

Documents and research material indicate that 

radiation exposures occurred but were not 

monitored. 

 Information statements provided in 

the petition qualify the petition for further 

consideration by NIOSH and the Advisory Board 

and HHS. NIOSH determined that access to air 

sample data and process information for the 

time period under evaluation. However, we had 

no air monitoring data for the first rod 

machining done in April of 1951. Therefore, 

the records were not complete for all time 

periods. 

 We concluded that was sufficient 

documentation to support for at least in part 
47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the proposed class. Therefore, we evaluated 

the SEC petition. 

 Records indicate that Bliss & 

Laughlin performed five and possibly six 

machinings. There is a discrepancy in the 

documentation after it said they did their 

last machining operation. Another report 

says, well, we picked up stuff on this extra 

day, and so that is why we say five or six, 

and I will explain that a little bit more. 

 The first of these occurred April 

24, 1951, and involved two tons of material. 

The product from the first machining was 

rolled at Bethlehem Steel on April 25th and 

26th, 1951. Four drums of oxides were 

described as being produced in this and picked 

up and shipped to Mallinckrodt in late 1951. 

 No monitoring is known to have been 

conducted that we have been able to find 

during that operation. Oxide residues from 

these operations were drummed for transfer 

based on numerous sources and operational 
48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reports that they cleaned these up. So this 

is including for this facility, it was drummed 

and then transported. 

 More substantial operations 

occurred September and October 1952, conducted 

on one Friday and three or four Saturdays. 

They were in support of the Fernald facility, 

and discussions with the Metal Fabrications 

Coordination Committee Report dated September 

10, 1952, indicated FMPC, Fernald, would hire 

a contractor to assist with backlog billet 

machining while additional equipment was 

brought online at Fernald. 

 The Tonawanda monthly reports state 

that 10 truckloads of Bethlehem's rolled rods 

were uploaded from LOOW in late August or 

early September. So Bethlehem Steel shipped 

all the materials to LOOW for storage. 

Fernald was operational at this time. 

 Those that could not be machined at 

FMPC would be machined at B&L, and reports 

further state that the first turnings occurred 
49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

September 20, 1952. 

 Tonawanda monthly reports from 

October of 1952 indicate that 31 beams -- they 

shipped the straightened rods in H-beams so 

they would keep them straight. So these are 

big iron beams. So they basically bundled 

these things up. So the first time I had ever 

come across beams of rods, a beam of uranium 

rods sent to B&L for machining and consignment 

to National Lead, Fernald. 

 Let's see. They conducted air 

monitoring data September 26-27, October 4, 

and October 11. Fernald reported providing 

rush orders and instructed Bliss & Laughlin 

personnel to use a fan to blow all the fumes 

away from the operators on the October 11 

rolling date, the date the fumes were too 

high. So they used a fan to actually help 

mitigate that. 

 Tonawanda report from November 1952 

stated that 15 drums of turnings were picked 

up by LOOW from Bliss & Laughlin during this 
50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

period, from October 20th to the 24th, and 

they also reported that a total of 53 55-

gallon drums of residue had accumulated at 

LOOW from the operations at Bliss & Laughlin. 

 This is a diagram of the Bliss & 

Laughlin, and this right here is blown up. 

This is where they said they conducted the 

special rolling area. So this is a layout, 

and also some of the -- this is from the 

FUSRAP report. They show what the 

contamination levels were. So these diagrams 

are part of the FUSRAP reports. They show 

some of the residual contamination. 

 Essentially they had what appears 

to be a fixed contamination in some of these 

areas. They actually had some fairly high 

levels left over. You will see how we use 

those later on. 

 DOL originally established the 

covered period as 1948 to 1952. Documents 

show that the basis for operations only 

support 1951 through '52. Therefore, 
51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Department of Labor changed the covered 

period. 

 The first machining occurred on 

April 24, 1951. Additional operations were 

conducted September 26th and 27th of 

September, October 4th, October 11th, and 

possibly October 18th of 1952. Analysis 

presented later in this presentation assumes 

October 18th was an operational day. 

 So two components of NIOSH's 

ability to determine doses will be presented, 

a bounding method which is based on TBD-6000 

assumptions, assuming 2,200 hours per year of 

operations, and these would be used to 

evaluate overestimates; also a draft best 

estimate method based on operational data. 

 There's no current cases to be 

done. So, therefore, I present this as a 

draft method. We have no cases for which dose 

reconstruction has not been completed, which 

would have been done using either TBD-6000 or 

the previous TBD-2, which is the overestimates 
52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for AWE facilities. 

 So a bounding method started April 

24, '51, through December 31, 1952. TBD-6000 

approach applied for each day of the year. 

TBD-6000 tabulated inhalation and ingestion 

'51 through '52, also for external dose assume 

2,200 work hours per year; '56 through '98 

assume 2000 -- this was the '51 through '55 

time frame, and then it adjusts for later to 

have 2,000 work hours per year. 

 Air concentration was assumed to be 

5,480 dpm per meter cubed. So that is 

equivalent to roughly 40,000 dpm per calendar 

day of inhaled activity. Residual 

contamination values were equivalent to seven 

dpm per meter cubed, which is 1.65 times 10 to 

the 5th dpm per meter squared contamination 

level at the facility. 

 And for external, 50 percent of the 

days are assumed to be contact with metal. 

 So you can see what the inhalation 

intake per day is, the associated GSD. So we 
53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are talking about 40,000 dpm per calendar day 

on this through the rolling time frame. Then 

we get into residual contamination periods. 

This is the ingestion intakes and the 

associated GSD. 

 This shows the external doses. 

Basically, this is the submersion in a cloud 

of uranium dust. This is the dose from being 

at the contaminated floor, direct contact, 

non-penetrating radiation associated with 

direct exposure -- your skin, shallow dose, 

hands and forearms, non-penetrating other 

skin, and here are the GSD associated with 

those. 

 Again, for monitoring data the 

original bioassay external dosimetry data for 

Bliss & Laughlin. National Lead conducted air 

monitoring on four occasions. Data included 

process, general area and breathing zone 

samples. Data from October 11, 1952, 

indicated that fans were used to reduce 

operator exposures. 
54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So in the upcoming analysis, 

because the breathing zone data was lower, 

excluded that data for comparative purposes 

because a mitigating operation was put into 

effect. 

 Just to give you some feel for the 

dates, what kind of data we got as a function 

of time. There is the uranium air 

concentration dpm per meter cubed on the 

different days we have. These were 

essentially when operations were off. So this 

just kind of gives you a feel for resuspension activities that would have been 

going on at the facility. 

 Here I have broken it down into 

process. We have here the GA samples and BZ 

samples. You can see the process samples, 

certainly, are the highest, as they should be; 

GA samples; and then the breathing zone 

samples taken for Bliss & Laughlin. 

 I want, again, to give you a flavor 

for how the geometric means compare. So if 
55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you take that data and put that on our 

standard z-score plot where you look at our 

geometric mean GSD where we have Bliss & 

Laughlin, geometric mean of about 2,603 dpm 

per meter cubed, and we have TBD-6000, which 

is 5,840 dpm per meter cubed. 

 So air monitoring data from Bliss & 

Laughlin is lower than the reference value for 

operator exposures to machining operations, 

TBD-6000 based on the highest machining 

operational daily weighted average from 

centerless grinding. 

 So for the best estimate that I 

propose and put forth here -- or we propose -- 

the value for machining operations from TBD6000 was used to determine the dose, and that 

is what I will be presenting, rather than the 

lower data. 

 We assumed all employees ate and 

drank in the areas, assumed to have occurred 

during and between operational days. Air 

concentration used to determine the surface 
56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

loading, standard TBD-70 approach and TBD6000. Used an exponential dilution model 

between and after operational periods. 

 The FUSRAP data used to determine 

the exponential decrease during the residual 

period was more claimant favorable than using 

a one percent decrease per day. So it gives 

it -- TBD-6000 gives it the option of using 

basically the contamination level that is 

present day, and basically to just get an 

exponential decrease over time. 

 There is probably some fixed 

contamination that was associated with this. 

These are inaccessible areas. So what I 

present is actually using some very high fixed 

contamination, but that is the way it was 

presented. 

 For each operating day, an air 

concentration of 5480 dpm per meter cubed was 

used to generate intakes. For the first 

intake period, initial contamination level of 

130,000 dpm per meter squared was used to 
57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

determine a residual -- a resuspendable air 

concentration of .13 dpm per meter cubed. 

Five operating days were used to generate the 

contamination levels for the end of 1952 and 

the remainder of the residual period. 

 While it is documented that 

residual materials were drummed, clean-up is 

not accounted for in this analysis. 

 So here I have a blow-up of those. 

 Here is the first operating period, declines. 

 Then we have the intake days, and you can see 

how these spike, and then you can see the fall 

off as a function of time as that material --

so this is the model coming down to the 

materials concentrations from the FUSRAP 

studies. 

 That generates the following 

average as a function of calendar days, 231 

dpm per meter cubed per calendar day from the 

4/24/1951 through 12/31/51, 796 dpm per 

calendar day during 1952. Again, these are 

just averaged out, taking those high days and 
58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

just spreading it out to make it easier for 

IMBA to be able to handle that and the 

associated intake from ingestion. 

 We have external doses from the 

uranium dust, and that is a very small dose; 

direct contact with uranium, shallow and deep 

dose; residual contamination, dust and floor 

contamination; as well as occupational medical 

dose. 

 Dose rates from TBD-6000 for 

machining operators for each day of AEC work. 

 We assume contamination levels previously 

described used to determine the dose for those 

residual periods and external. We also 

assumed, because they were handling these 

drums and they documented this drum work that 

two days of drum handling were assigned for 

each operational day, that they had to handle 

this stuff and then take care of the residual. 

 So we actually gave them full days 

of handling the drums to determine the 

external dose from this. You see, as I said, 
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the very small air submersion dose, 10-5 MR. 

Contaminated floor exposure is, again, on the 

order of 8 MR per year. These are the annual 

doses. 

 Here we have -- we haven't started 

the daily doses -- 6.27 mR per day from the 

whole body dose; hands and forearms, large 

dose, 693 from the direct contact; and other 

skin, about 63. 

 We have no evidence that AEC 

required occupational X-rays at B&L, but we 

did use the TIB-6, assume one annual medical 

X-ray during the contract period. In this 

slide, we essentially just sum up all the 

different components so we can give you a feel 

for what kind of dose from the different 

components and how those add up. 

 We provided six examples of dose 

reconstruction, several cancer types, various 

employment periods, and also to provide you a 

feel for the best estimate and bounding 

estimate doses. 
60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So we have prostate cancer as an 

overestimate, employed '51 through '81, 

diagnosed at '81, PoC using the overestimating 

TBD-6000 approach within 39 percent. We have 

used that same case and used the best 

estimate, within about 7.38 PoC. 

 Bladder -- the rest of these are 

best estimate, that draft best estimate 

approach. Bladder, 2.31 percent; bone marrow, 

depending on -- there is the dual model that 

you have to use for that, 2.08 and 1.26 

percent; a lung case, 83 percent; liver, 24, 

and bone surface, 20 percent. 

 So now as to the values in the 

petition using the guidelines established in 

42 CFR 83.13 and submitted in a summary of its 

findings, we issued this evaluation report 

June 30, 2009. We have a two-pronged test 

established with the Oracle program. Is it 

feasible to estimate the level of radiation 

doses to individual members of the class with 

sufficient accuracy, and is there a reasonable 
61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

likelihood that such radiation doses may have 

endangered the health? 

 NIOSH found that the available 

monitoring records, process descriptions, and 

source term data are adequate to complete dose 

reconstruction with sufficient accuracy to the 

proposed class of employees. Health 

endangerment determination is not required. 

 So a finding of feasibility is that 

we can do the internal dose from uranium, the 

beta gamma external and the occupational 

medical X-rays. 

 With that, I conclude my 

presentation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. 

Glover. Let's see if we have any questions 

from the Board on the evaluation report as 

presented. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: I have one 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Mr. Presley. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Dr. Glover, were 
62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they rolling enriched or, I presume, depleted 

at that time? 

 DR. GLOVER: It was natural 

uranium. 1951 would have preceded the 

Hanford, yes. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

questions on the presentation? 

 So this is largely a TBD-6000 

methodology. I don't believe on Bliss & 

Laughlin we had a separate appendix like we do 

on some of the more complex AWE sites. 

 DR. GLOVER: That's correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I just wanted to 

confirm that. If there aren't any questions 

at this time, we will have an opportunity to 

hear from the petitioners. 

 I would like -- either one or both 

of you may wish to speak. When you do, if you 

wish to identify yourself for the record, 

please do that, and then proceed with your 

comments. 
63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. STEFKO: Good morning. I am 

Linda Stefko, daughter of deceased Vincent P. 

Hibbert, employed by Bliss & Laughlin Steel. I 

have compiled a list of questions and 

statements referring to our SEC petition. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. STEFKO: Okay. At the bottom 

of page 3 on the SEC, it states, it is hard to 

understand how NIOSH can estimate radiation 

doses with sufficient accuracy when, again, 

there are no records available. 

 On page 9, NIOSH has concluded that 

internal and external radiation exposures and 

radiation doses were not adequately monitored 

at Bliss & Laughlin, referring us to Section 

7.4, which clearly states under the SEC-00131, 

the basis for the petition is that the 

facility was used to roll uranium bars. There 

was a lack of or no monitoring records, to the 

best of their knowledge, and that radiation 

exposures were incurred, but were not 

monitored. 
64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 On page 11, it lists interviews. 

Can you identify by name the Bliss & Laughlin 

contacts? There was a chemist, a clerk, a 

janitor, which states that there were phone 

interviews done. We have no names on those 

people. 

 On page 17, contaminated letters 

removed in '98 tell us that there were higher 

levels between 1948 through '52. What does 

that tell us about the levels present during 

1948 and '52? 

 On page 18, with the largest 

equipment item running, total alpha air 

concentrations measured in the general work 

area were considerably above the worker 

exposure control level guideline in effect at 

that time. 

 On page 21, the 7.2 evaluation 

states, a principal source of internal 

radiation doses for members of the class under 

evaluation was from the inhalation and 

ingestion of uranium particles in the dust 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

generated by the machining and handling of the 

uranium metals. 

 On page 35, in the listed 

references, it states, a letter concerning 

precautions taken at Bliss & Laughlin from 

Charlie to Dick. Can you present this letter 

for us to view? Can you send us a copy of 

this letter? It states that it was a letter 

concerning safety precautions taken at Bliss & 

Laughlin. 

 We would like to know just how 

carefully all our materials have been reviewed 

and thoroughly studied. We have sent in all 

documentation pertaining to this exposure. 

You have Vincent P. Hibbert's hospital, 

medical, and surgical records from Roswell 

Park Cancer Institute and Our Lady of Victory 

Hospital. You've got his birth certificate, 

marriage, death certificate, and his complete 

autopsy report. 

 Also included in our documentation 

were numerous research articles from Roswell 
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Park Cancer Institute Library and from our 

local library. 

 Also, do you have in front of you 

the Bliss & Laughlin facility floor plan? It 

was included in our SEC petition packet on 

10/4/2008 indicating the ultimate floor plan 

at the mill at Bliss & Laughlin. 

 I also have here from our hearing, 

the hearing rep was Richard Koras on March 22, 

2006. This is my statement to him on that 

particular day when we all assembled downtown. 

 There are some things in life -- 

There are some things in life you can't 

change. We can't change the fact that Vincent 

Hibbert, file number 071075100, our father, 

worked diligently for 36 years, from 1936 to 

1972, in management as chief timekeeper for 

Bliss & Laughlin Steel in a contaminated 

facility located at 110 Hopkins Street, 

Buffalo, New York. This facility was 

contaminated with excess levels of uranium, as 

stated in a July 1992 memo issued by the DOE. 
67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It was determined that residual 

uranium was far above the DOE guidelines. 

Please note that these exposure studies were 

based on a 40-hour work week, whereas my 

father, being a salaried employee, typically 

worked 48 to 60 hours a week, including almost 

every Saturday. As such, a presumption of his 

exposure was far greater than most, if not 

all, the mill workers that were there at the 

time, and considerably greater than the 

exposure assumption used in the dose 

reconstruction analysis. 

 This is a mistake. It is stated in 

all reports. My father's office consisted of 

two upright permanent structured walls and two 

portable upright walls approximately seven 

feet high. There was no permanent ceiling 

enclosing his office, only the mill roof. 

There were no separate controlled 

ventilations. He breathed the same 

contaminated air, and he was exposed to the 

same occupational radiation as all other mill 
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

workers. However, his exposure was repeatedly 

compounded by his 48 to 60 hour work week, not 

the dose reconstruction analysis figures of 

only 40 hours per week. 

 Again, this is a mistake. I am 

neither a scientist nor a technician. 

However, many questions in this process remain 

to be answered. Why weren't residual 

contamination time periods considered when 

compiling dose reconstruction figures? Many 

of the tables that illustrate dose 

reconstruction for my father only includes 

figures from 1948 to 1950 or 1948 to 1952, 

while EEOICPA Bulletin 0502 issued on April 

13th of 2005 states that residual radiation 

contamination existed at the Bliss & Laughlin 

Buffalo facility from 1948 to 1998. 

 We attached a copy of that bulletin 

to this document at our hearing. Why did it 

take so long to conclude that a site could 

remain contaminated long after the source of 

contamination is removed? If exposure to 
69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contamination was as minuscule as claimed in 

the dose reconstruction, what led the DOE to 

declare the site contaminated in the first 

place? 

 DOE statistics, findings, and other 

input into this process are absent. Why 

didn't one agency talk to the other or, if the 

DOE was involved, why isn't participation 

detailed in the NIOSH investigation? Where is 

the DOE in this process? 

 How can one worker receive 

compensation for being afflicted with 

workplace-related cancers while another 

employee working mere feet away from him in 

the same radiation contaminated area be 

denied? 

 My father suffered severely from 

colon -- rectal cancer and lip cancer. His 

rectal cancer eventually metastasized into one 

kidney, his liver, his lungs and his brain, 

eventually causing death. I can't help 

believe that the cancers that caused my father 
70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to suffer and die were likely caused by the 

radiation exposure from his workplace. 

 This wasn't Bliss & Laughlin's 

fault, and we feel it wasn't the Department of 

Labor or DOE's fault. It surely wasn't my 

father's fault. In those days a person went 

to work to make a living to support his 

family, and he had no idea what radiation 

exposure could do to him. 

 At that time in our history, 

sophisticated radiation monitoring systems 

were nonexistent. Individual radiation dose 

badges, protective clothing and other 

equipment and safety policies were not 

utilized at Bliss & Laughlin. 

 Vincent Hibbert, my father, paid a 

big price for not knowing he worked daily in a 

poisoned workplace. His memory deserves 

justice. I respectfully request this claim be 

thoroughly reviewed to specifically address 

not only the points brought up in this 

statement, but also all other issues raised by 
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

my sisters and all other claimants and their 

families in this matter. 

 While each of our circumstances is 

unique, all affected atomic weapons employees 

at Bliss & Laughlin and their families did the 

same work, bore the same burden, and suffered 

the same hardship. 

 I would like to know if you have in 

front of you or if you have access to the 

floor plan that I was able to send from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicating the 

entire workplace area at Bliss & Laughlin? 

And I have indicated on the floor plan where 

my father's office was within the mill. 

 A couple more questions I have 

here. I would like to know who prioritizes 

the stages of these cancers, and why are they 

prioritized? And we would like to know how 

can the air quality estimates of 1998 even 

begin to compare with the contaminated air, 

the uranium runs of 45-50 years after the 

fact? Certainly, there can't be any 
72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comparison. 

 In all our research that we have 

submitted with all our documentation, it still 

states, no records available. I would like to 

know who has listened to our audio that was 

taped at our hearing in Buffalo on March 22 of 

2006 -- are you aware of all the statements 

that we made, and upon receiving our text we 

sent retractions, and we never received 

information from Washington that the 

corrections were taken care of or even 

acknowledged. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much. I did want to -- this is Dr. Ziemer. I 

did want to make a couple of comments. 

 You asked for names of the people 

that were interviewed, and I believe those may 

be protected by Privacy Act issues, but I will 

ask the legal staff to confirm that. But in 

any event, unless they are not -- normally, 

names of that type are not released because of 

Privacy Act requirements. 
73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. STEFKO: I do understand that, 

and the Charlie to Dick? Is there any way we 

can get a hard copy on that? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the letter, I 

know the letter is listed in the evaluation 

report as a reference, and it is not clear to 

me why that could not be made available. We 

will certainly run that down. 

 Let me also comment that the normal 

practice of this Board on these types of 

recommendations from NIOSH, particularly since 

the Board is -- well, we have had this during 

the summer, but we haven't had your comments 

until today. 

 Normally, the Board assigns this to 

a work group, and we would then have an 

opportunity to delve in more detail to both 

the NIOSH recommendation as well as the points 

raised by the petitioner. I will leave it to 

the Board in a moment to determine what action 

to take, but that is the usual practice. 

 Is there an additional comment from 
74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

your sister? 

 MS. STEFKO: I believe so. Peggy? 

 MS. WOJCIK: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Identify, if you 

wish, your name for the record. 

 MS. WOJCIK: My name is Margaret 

Wojcik, daughter of Vincent P. Hibbert. 

 I would like to know why the 

Department of Labor came to the conclusion 

that the time frame at this site is -- I would 

like to know if Department of Labor obtained 

copies of a contractual relationship to 

confirm this fact, or are they just surmising 

this? That is one of my questions. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that is 

probably a question we can't answer here 

today, but certainly can be followed up on. 

Why don't you proceed with all of your items. 

 MS. WOJCIK: All right. If the 

Department of Labor has seen copies of a 

contractual relationship, we would like to see 

a copy of it; and if they lessened the time 
75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because no proof was found, we feel that the 

time should remain as the Department of Energy 

had originally stated, which was the start 

date was 1948, not 1951. 

 I do -- my sister had mentioned my 

father's job description. I just want to add 

a little more to that. The machine at Bliss & 

Laughlin Steel is owned by the government, and 

operations were conducted on Saturdays to 

avoid the emergency she did mention already. 

 My father used to be the first 

employee at the plant to unlock the facility, 

work a full day, then lock up the plant at the 

end of the day. No records indicating the 

radiological conditions of the space following 

uranium machining have been located, and, 

again, as my sister mentioned, the marks of 

the site's floor plan you have. 

 There was one building housing the 

mill. Vincent Hibbert's portable office 

within the mill consisted of two upright 

permanent structure walls supported with 
76 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

upright walls approximately seven feet high. 

This information was stated in a plant 

specific hearing we had March 22, 2006. 

 There was no permanent ceiling in 

his office, only the mill roof, and there was 

no separate controlled ventilation system, and 

he breathed the same contaminated air, as was 

mentioned earlier, and was exposed to the same 

occupational radiation as all other mill 

workers. 

 For lack of monitoring, NIOSH does 

not have any informational records of Bliss & 

Laughlin Steel, we have been told. 

 Also on page 4 of our SEC petition 

evaluation report, it reads under Class 

Evaluated by NIOSH, based on its preliminary 

research, NIOSH accepted the petitioner with 

the rest of the class and advised the 

operational start date. Based on the covered 

period determined by the Department of Labor, 

 the covered period's start date changed from 

1948 to '51. 
77 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We would like to know why did that 

date change? Why were those years deleted? 

Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

Margaret. Again, a good portion of those 

questions probably cannot be answered at this 

moment, but if this activity is assigned to 

the Work Group, follow-up can be made. 

 Let me also ask a question. I 

think maybe your sister raised this point 

about a March 22nd recording where, maybe at a 

worker outreach meeting perhaps -- I have not 

personally heard that recording yet, but I 

assume it is accessible to us. So we can 

certainly follow up on that as well. 

 Any of the Board members aware of 

that particular -- or maybe Mr. Elliott can 

direct us on that. Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I believe that she is 

talking about the final Adjudication Branch 

hearing. I am not sure. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Department of 
78 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Labor? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Department of Labor, 

and I am not sure that in our claim file or 

the petition file we would have that recording 

or that transcript. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If that was a 

Department of Labor hearing, we would not have 

access to that, Margaret, but certainly, we 

will follow up on that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I have asked Laurie 

Breyer, our SEC counselor, to call the 

petitioners and talk. We will find out more 

details. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: They are going to 

have to file FOIA requests to us or to DOL for 

the specific information they are seeking. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 Brad Clawson, did you have a comment or 

question? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I did. I guess 

they were more for Sam. I was wondering about 
79 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the years, of how come they got changed and so 

forth, but also what kind of data do we have? 

 According to this, you don't have any data. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What they have is 

process data which, under the rule, can be 

used to bound the dose. There is no 

monitoring data, as I understand it. 

 Sam, can you address the first 

question about the change by Department of 

Labor of the time period? 

 DR. GLOVER: Okay. During the 

course of this, I want to point out a couple 

of real quick things. 

 The previous cases were done with 

TBD-6000 or AWE -- full-year, including '48 

through '52, so that whole time frame as far 

as the cases during the operational periods. 

Indications are that very limited operations 

occurred, and we have very clear 

documentation, the Tonawanda reports, the NYO 

reports. 

 So Fernald conducted four air 
80 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sampling campaigns in '52 when they took over. 

 They didn't have controls of the AEC 

operations until May of 1952 when they had 

contractual obligation to take over the 

rolling operations for AEC. We have that 

documented. 

 The 1951 -- there is a report that 

says that this is when it began, very clearly 

stated. There is no indication of any 

operation before April 24, 1951. 

 So the DOE had originally -- DOL 

had used a broad report that talked about a 

time period of '48 through '52 to establish 

the period. That is what we believe. We gave 

them -- we showed them the additional 

information. They were provided that, and 

otherwise, what is the source term? 

 We don't know why they would be 

operating before 1951. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Sam. 

Wanda Munn? First, Larry had an additional 

comment. 
81 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't want this 

lost, and I think Sam kind of glossed over it, 

and I want to make sure that it is very clear, 

and correct me if I am wrong, Sam. 

 But the 22 claims that we dose 

reconstructed, we used TBD-6000 for all four 

years. Right? 

 DR. GLOVER: That's right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: We used TBD-6000 for 

all the years, all four years. Then as we 

looked -- as we were doing the evaluation of 

this petition, we identified information and 

documentation that led us to believe that 

there was no source term there for the first 

two years. 

 We turned to DOL and DOE, and we 

shared that with them, and they have the 

ownership of the facility designation, and 

they changed that. NIOSH cannot make up 

source term. So if we were to redo these 

cases, which we are not proposing to redo the 

claims, but if we have a new claim that comes 
82 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in from Bliss & Laughlin, we are only going to 

dose reconstruct two years. 

 So I hope everybody has caught 

that. There are 22 claims that have already 

been dose reconstructed, got a benefit of 

doubt with four years, two of which didn't 

have source term. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda 

Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: These are the kinds 

of SECs that really raise a great deal of 

empathy for some of us. I find myself 

wondering, if I were on the other end of that 

phone line and had tried to make my case known 

and had these questions that still remained, 

whether I would ever be able to accept what I 

was hearing transpire. 

 We use terms, phrases, refer to 

documents and processes that are completely 

foreign to anyone outside most of the people 

who are in this room. 

 Quite often, we seem to miss the 
83 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basic thing that must harm most petitioners, 

which is what caused the person that I love to 

have a disease that is a bad disease and die? 

 Was that not caused by the extremely 

dangerous material because that is what most 

petitioners believe uranium is, is an 

extremely dangerous material? 

 We in our process try to interact 

with the petitioners through other people. 

We, on the Board, do not have direct 

interaction with those folks, for the most 

part. As a matter of fact, our role almost 

precludes us from doing that. 

 It disturbs me that we seem to be 

established in such a process so that just 

simply answering some of these direct 

questions in an honest way and explaining 

science to folks is not in our purview. We 

can't do that as a Board, and it is 

frustrating for those of us who know that 

natural uranium is a very, very common element 

that exists almost all over the United States, 
84 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and that many of us probably have in our 

backyard. 

 The fact that it is a radioactive 

material and the fact that less than one 

percent of the material that they are dealing 

with has any kind of radioactivity in it at 

all is not understood or known by petitioners 

broadly, it would appear. 

 So radiation and its relative 

hazards is not something that is understood. 

Before we consider the possibility of putting 

together a work group, it would be very 

helpful, I think, at this stage of the 

development of our Board for us to consider 

the possibility of direct interaction, not by 

the Board but with other folks who have the 

opportunity to do so, to answer some of these 

questions directly and perhaps give 

petitioners a better idea of why our experts 

say they believe they can balance these doses. 

 Without some understanding of what natural 

uranium means, without that being explained in 
85 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

relationship to our program, it is difficult 

to understand how a work group would 

accomplish much more. 

 We have never considered the 

possibility of just setting up anything other 

than -- we know in Mike's group, there has 

been a great deal of concern about worker 

outreach and what that means and how it is 

done. 

 There has been a great deal of 

effort to see that experts have an opportunity 

to talk to the petitioners and perhaps give 

them better basic information about what 

happens in the real world and what happens in 

radioactive processes, but I am not at all 

sure that is happening, and this appears to be 

one of those cases, to me. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you 

for that comment. I'm not sure we are at the 

point where we can take specific action on it, 

but it is certainly food for thought. Brad 

Clawson? 
86 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, after 

listening to Wanda, I want to vent some of my 

frustration, too. 

 We have just passed an SEC for a 

hospital because they say that they can't tell 

what went on there, and we passed it for 

everybody there. Now here we actually have 

machining operation that we claim that we can 

do all of this and then to some people, it is 

magic, and show what they have done. 

 This is actually where they were 

actually machining this, where the dust and 

smoke and everything else was; and all we are 

using, all the data that we have, is the 

source term of what came in and went out. 

Okay, what else we got? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If you speak, you 

need to use the mic. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. They say 

we've got air monitoring data, four or five 

air samples? How many? 

 DR. GLOVER: I want to make sure I 
87 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

use the mic. Sam Glover. 

 We have -- as I pointed out, 

there's roughly -- I saw how many dots there 

were. There's 40 or 50 data points. There's 

four days worth of air monitoring data where 

they conducted breathing zone, process sample, 

and general area samples on four different 

days in September and October of 1952, not in 

1951. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, there's four 

days, and I can tell you what happens on 

different days with inversions and everything 

else like that. So it is real frustrating for 

me to see this. It is just frustration to me 

as a Board member because here are the people 

that are actually working with this stuff that 

has so much, that they are there right in the 

thick of it, and because there is a little 

glimmer of information, they don't get it, and 

it is frustration to me. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, these are 

issues that may need to be looked at by the 
88 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Work Group, but just in a general sense, let 

me point out a big difference between a 

facility like this and Oak Ridge. 

 At Oak Ridge, they had a multitude 

of nuclides of different strengths, a number 

of unknown operations. Here, we have a 

facility with very specific amounts of a very 

specific material with operations done under 

very specific days. 

 So I would offer that this is a 

much, much simpler -- at least, you know -- I 

don't want to pre-judge it because we need to 

look into the other issues raised by the 

claimants, but this is certainly very much 

different than, say, an Oak Ridge hospital. 

 Now, you know, aside from the 

concerns about who was exposed in that 

hospital where we cannot limit that, at least 

in this facility we have a defined facility, 

and we have people who worked -- and I believe 

even in the use of TBD-6000, you still cover 

all of the workers that are in that facility, 
89 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as I understood it. 

 It is sort of across the board, 

regardless of their job description. Is that 

not correct? 

 DR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. Well, TBD6000 doesn't allow for a striated approach. 

We assume they were all machinists. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, you have 

assumed that, regardless of whether they were 

administrative in this case, because there 

does not appear to be separation between the 

areas. 

 Nonetheless, there are issues that 

have been raised that need to be looked at, 

Brad. So I don't want to gloss over that 

except to point out that it is certainly quite 

different, say, than the Oak Ridge Hospital. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

that, Paul, and I understand also in the 

medical field they keep very close track of 

information of what comes into there and what 

goes out of there. 
90 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It is frustration, but -- yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, Dr. 

Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Brad, let me 

respond to that. It's true. I mean, when we 

looked at Oak Ridge, we didn't think there -- 

it probably was based on our medical knowledge 

of health endangerment. But the law says you 

have to have monitoring data. 

 It is a complex facility to model 

the radionuclides, tissues going over to the 

hospital. We just couldn't reconstruct it. 

That's all. There is nothing there, nothing 

at all. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: You got a source 

term there that you needed to come in. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: But you don't know 

where it's going through the hospital. You 

don't know where the tissue is going. You 

don't know where utensils are going. You 

don't know who did the cross-staffing. It 

really is a different setting. It's a 
91 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

different situation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and I don't 

want us to debate all the issues here. I 

think we probably have enough issues before us 

to make a determination as to whether or not 

this needs to be addressed by a work group. 

 Let me tell you that, if the Board 

believes that we should have a work group look 

into the issues, I will initially assign this 

to the TBD-6000 Work Group since the TBD-6000 

was the basis for this. 

 Now I should point out that that 

Work Group is looking not only at TBD-6000 but 

is also looking at the appendices, and the 

most prominent one right now is Appendix BB, 

which is General Steel Industries, for which 

there are a lot of issues, and that is a 

fairly heavy responsibility right now. 

 On the surface of this one, it 

looks to be less complex than General Steel 

Industries, which had multiple sources over 

long periods of time under very different 
92 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

kinds of situations. 

 I would say that, after assigning 

that, if the Work Group itself, as they get 

into this, if they feel that it is much more 

complex than they can handle in a reasonable 

time, we may need to set up a specific 

separate group. But this appears to the Chair 

to be a TBD-6000 issue at the moment, and thus 

it would be logical, if the Board so wished, 

to pursue both the petitioners' points and to 

review in more detail the evaluation report 

itself, that this be assigned to that group. 

 We would automatically have the 

assistance of SC&A because they are tasked 

already to work with TBD-6000. I believe that 

is correct, Ted. So that it would not 

necessarily require a separate, specific task 

because they are already tasked for TBD-6000. 

 Am I correct on that? Kelly is agreeing. 

 Further comments or questions? Now 

the appropriate action would be either a 

motion to accept the NIOSH recommendation or 
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to defer action and refer this to a work 

group, which I am suggesting, if you do that, 

it should be the TBD-6000 Work Group. Dr. 

Melius. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I move that we 

defer action on making a recommendation on 

this SEC and refer the report to the TBD-6000 

Work Group for further review. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I second it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. That 

has been seconded. Before we vote, let me ask 

for further comments on the motion. I would 

also point out to the petitioners that, if 

this motion passes and the TBD-6000 Work Group 

is empowered to pursue this, we would keep you 

informed of any meetings of that Work Group 

and would also want to make sure that you 

provide us with any materials that you may 

have. 

 Now I would point out to you that 

the Work Group and the Board cannot deal 

specifically with your case. That is, we do 
94 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not deal with individual cases. We can deal 

with general questions that emerge from your 

claim. The Work Group or the Board cannot 

deal specifically with your claim. So you 

must understand that. 

 The claim, individual claims, are 

dealt with by the regular process, which 

involves initially the Department of Labor, 

the referring to NIOSH for dose reconstruction 

and so on. General questions emerging from 

your claim, many of which you have talked 

about and you have raised questions on the 

evaluation report -- those questions we can 

deal with. 

 Ladies, do either of you, the 

petitioners -- do you have any comments before 

we vote on this motion? 

 PARTICIPANT: Dr. Ziemer, I'd like 

to make a few comments. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Since you are not 

the petitioner, you would have to defer those 

to the public comment period, sir. Thank you. 
95 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Either of the claimants -- or 

petitioners wish to make comment? Okay, I 

hear no comment. 

 Then, I will just call for a voice 

vote. All in favor of the motion, aye. 

Opposed, no. Abstentions? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: I abstain. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The motion 

carries, and we will refer this to the TBD6000 Work Group to pursue. 

 We will go ahead and take our break 

at this time, and then resume at 11:15 with 

the Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor petition. 

 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

went off the record at 10:49 a.m. and resumed 

at 11:15 a.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have a 

petition for the Piqua Organic Moderated 

Reactor, an SEC petition. We have an 

evaluation report from NIOSH that will be 

presented by Charles Nelson. I believe we 

will have a petitioner on the line -- no, I 
96 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

believe the petitioner may be here in person 

today. Yes, he is. Good. We will have a 

chance to hear from the petitioner and then 

have an opportunity to discuss this. 

 So let's begin with the NIOSH 

presentation and Charles Nelson. Charlie? 

 MR. NELSON: Thank you, Dr. Lockey. 

 My name is Charles Nelson. I am here to 

present the Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor 

Special Exposure Cohort. Can you all hear me 

okay? Okay. 

 So to give you a little facility 

background, the Piqua Reactor was a 45.5 

megawatt, and it was organically cooled and 

moderated nuclear reactor. It was located in 

Piqua, Ohio, which is about 30 miles north of 

Dayton, Ohio. 

 It was part of the Atomic Energy 

Commission's power demonstration project and 

was initially operated -- or designed, built 

and initially started up and operated by 

Atomics International. 
97 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now eventually, the city of Piqua 

workers took it over from Atomics 

International. They were essentially working 

under instruction with those individuals, and 

eventually they operated the reactor from the 

initial start-up, and it was under a contract 

with the Atomic Energy Commission. 

 This organic coolant, which is kind 

of unique -- it was a commercially available 

hydrocarbon mixture. To give you a little 

more facility background, the initial 

criticality occurred in June of 1963, and the 

final operations or when the reactor was 

finally shut down for the last time was in 

June of 1966. 

 A little more just broad background 

information. It underwent decontamination and 

decommissioning in February of 1969. So 

hereforth, I will just call it D&D. I think 

most people are familiar with that term. 

 When they did D&D the plant, they 

removed this organic coolant, all the fuel. 
98 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

The support systems were also removed. What 

they did was the reactor vessel was entombed 

under sand concrete and was all seal-welded 

shut. This was a below-grade reactor. 

 The initial Department of Energy 

covered period was 1963 to 1966. So if you 

look up a few bullets, you see it was 

decommissioned in 1969. 

 When we first initially got the 

petition, we were only able to evaluate this 

facility to 1966 because that was the DOEapproved covered period. However, we 

submitted a letter through the Department of 

Labor and went through the Department of 

Energy, and they since revised the covered 

period to include all the way through 

decontamination and demolition. So now the 

covered period would be January 1963 through 

February 1966 -- make that '69, when D&D was 

completed in February. 

 It should be noted that the 

petitioner initially wanted to go beyond that 
99 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

1966 date, but with consultation with us, we 

informed them that we would not be able to go 

past that '66 date at the time because it was 

a DOE-approved covered period. So initially 

we did evaluate that period, but we retracted 

the ER and expanded it through D&D. 

 Okay. Here is a picture of the 

facility. On the right hand side you will see 

the containment building. That containment 

building houses the reactor and all the 

reactor support systems. There is a fuel pool 

inside there and a field handling system, and 

in the middle -- that is the auxiliary 

building. 

 The auxiliary building had some of 

the support systems, like the purification 

system which I will talk about, some waste 

handling systems, as well as the support 

personnel. The control room is also in there. 

 To the left, it is a 125 foot stack that 

handled all the discharge ventilation for the 

facility. It is always nice to see pictures. 
100 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Okay. Petition overview. Let me 

give you a little information on the petition. 

 We received it on August 21, 2008, and the 

petitioner's proposed class definition was all 

employees associated with reactor activities 

who worked within and around the reactor dome 

at the Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor during 

the covered period from January 1, 1963, 

through December 31, 1966. As I mentioned, we 

did expand that period to include what we are 

calling post-operations and D&D. 

 The evaluation report qualified on 

December 19, 2008. The petitioner's basis was 

that no records were kept on activities 

related to the dismantling and that the former 

Energy employee was not trained in the hazards 

of the Piqua reactor. He also said no 

monitoring devices were ever offered. 

 Now we have quite a bit of 

documentation for Piqua, and it contains 

monthly, semi-annual, and annual summary 

reports and reactor operations reports, as 
101 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

well as some design documents, information on 

shielding and radiation sources. However, 

when we looked at the monitoring records, we 

found that they were not complete for all time 

periods. Therefore, the evaluation was 

warranted. 

 Currently, the class evaluated by 

NIOSH, as I mentioned, was all employees 

associated with reactor activities who worked 

within and around the reactor dome at Piqua 

during the covered period January 1, 1963, 

through February 28, 1969. So that is through 

D&D. 

 We issued the evaluation report on 

September 24, 2009. We did a pretty extensive 

document search for this facility. We found 

information from the Boeing Company, Santa 

Susana Laboratory -- it was previously Atomics 

International, they were the initial builder, 

you might remember from the previous slide -- 

San Bruno Federal Records Center, the City of 

Piqua, Office of DOE Legacy Management, and 
102 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the petitioner also provided some 

documentation. 

 We did interviews with nine former 

workers, and we did perform some extra 

interviews because we wanted to specifically 

talk about post-operational period. So we did 

quite a bit of interviews. 

 We also looked at the existing 

claimant files and our research database, and 

we went to both Cincinnati and Piqua Public 

Library, as well as information from 

Department of Labor and DOE OSTI. 

 Data capture efforts also included 

NRC, Technical Information Bulletins and 

Procedures, DOE site profiles, DOE 

Comprehensive Epidemiological Data Resource, 

CEDR, and Hanford DDRS. DOE opened that in 

Nevada site office, as well as the Ohio 

Department of Health. 

 As far as the number of claims for 

this facility, there are [identifying 

information redacted] claims, and out of these 
103 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

[identifying information redacted] claims, 

dose reconstructions have been completed on 

[identifying information redacted] of those 

[identifying information redacted] claims. 

[identifying information redacted] of the 

[identifying information redacted] that were 

completed were completed because individuals 

worked at other facilities, and they were 

compensated. 

 The internal dosimetry records in 

those claims, there was zero with internal 

dosimetry records. However, we did find one 

with external dosimetry documentation. 

 As far as support systems, I will 

give you a little idea of what the facility 

entailed. It was a low carbon steel pressure 

vessel. It was 85 1.9-percent enriched 

uranium fuel elements, and they were aluminum 

cladded. So they were coated. 

 There was extensive shielding 

around the reactor. There was a eight-foot 

concrete bioshield, as well as 12 1/2 feet of 
104 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

moderator above the core. So there was quite 

a bit of shielding, and I already mentioned 

the fact of this unique moderator. 

 So to give you a little more 

information about that moderator, it was 

noncorrosive. It was homologous to benzene, 

and it freezes at temperatures of about 278 

degrees. So if it was released to atmosphere, 

this stuff becomes like a wax-like substance. 

 It was kind of unique. 

 One of the problems they had with 

it, though, is this intense radiation in this 

core produced gases in high-low boiler. So 

you are getting gases and particulates 

constantly being produced, which ended up 

being kind of the downfall, these 

particulates. 

 There were some support systems to 

control these problems. They were a 

degasification and purification system. The 

idea, again, was to treat the coolant to this 

optimum level and to use vacuum distillation 
105 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and filtrations to remove -- filtration 

systems to remove gases and then capture these 

solids. 

 Waste gas was captured, filtered, 

and it was decayed in storage tanks for a 

period of time, and eventually it was 

discharged and monitored from the 125 foot 

stack. The organic waste, which would be 

these particulates, was captured also, stored, 

monitored, and burned through a high 

efficiency waste fire boiler. Then it was 

filtered and monitored prior to discharge 

through that 125 foot stack. 

 As you saw on that previous -- or a 

previous slide, there is a containment around 

the reactor. There was airlocks between that 

reactor and the auxiliary building, and there 

was a portal monitor when exiting the 

containment. 

 I mentioned there was filters, but 

there was pre-filters and absolute filters, 

high efficiency filters before the stack, and 
106 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

within the containment, there was a remote 

fuel handling system. I have a slide of that 

here a little later, just to give you an idea 

of it. 

 As far as radiation monitoring like 

remote systems that you could observe in the 

control room, there were 15 remote area 

radiation monitors. So that is for area 

radiation, and there was three continuous air 

monitors. That would be for your particulate 

air. 

 A little more dates of interest, 

and I mentioned some of these, but just to put 

it altogether. Initial criticality was in 

June of 1963. They achieved full power in 

January of 1964, and that is when you are 

going to see individuals like Atomics 

International operating the reactor, and you 

will start seeing Piqua workers getting 

incorporated and becoming the operators, 

around January. 

 In 1966, the reactor scrammed and 
107 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

never operated again, and the problem that 

they had was they had control rods that were 

hanging up in this reactor due to this 

radiolytic decomposition I mentioned. They 

had particulate buildup in the core, and it 

was hanging up some of these control rods and, 

obviously, they decided that probably wasn't a 

safe thing to have. 

 So they said, well, we need to 

undergo what they called a recovery phase, and 

the idea was let's clean this reactor up; 

let's find out the extent of this. It was a 

carbonaceous mass, as they called it. Then we 

will go forward, and we will operate this 

reactor again. 

 Well, as it turned out, they 

decided that, no, we are not going to operate 

this reactor again. The AEC decided we are 

going to shut this down. So that occurred. 

Sometime in '67, they made that decision, and 

they started D&D in '67. Final D&D was 

completed in February of 1969. That gives you 
108 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

kind of a good overall feel for some key 

dates. 

 Now when we did this evaluation 

report, we broke it down in two periods, and 

you will know why later. But the operational 

period was January of '63 through May 1, 1966, 

and that was the criticality, the final 

shutdown and this planning phase of what are 

we going to do with this to clean up this 

reactor; we are not actually doing any 

activities to clean it up, but what are we 

going to do. 

 So we coupled that into the first 

evaluation period. The second evaluation 

period was what we are calling the postoperational period. That was May 2, 1966, 

through February 28, 1969. That was what I 

had mentioned before as the recovery phase and 

D&D. 

 Okay. Activities and exposure 

potential changed drastically between 

operations and post-operations, which is why 
109 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we are breaking it into these evaluation 

reports. 

 During the operations period, most 

of the activities were fairly routine, and 

they used remote methods. Now when we got 

into post-operations, things were more handson. There was a lot of work with open systems 

and work activities that involved increased 

hazards and exposure potential. 

 As far as internal radionuclides of 

interest, the primary sources of internal 

exposure during post-operations were beta 

gamma emitting radionuclides from five 

sources, and they were activated impurities in 

the coolant; activated corrosion products; 

there was activation in the aluminum 

cladding/steel; and there was tritium produced 

by coolant activation or fission; and carbon14 from coolant activation. So that is your 

internal radionuclides. 

 As far as the available internal 

monitoring data that we have for this 
110 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

operational period, like I said, we are 

breaking it down into two periods. Initially, 

prior to the start-up of the reactor, they did 

a final safeguard summary report. 

 It calculated what would be the 

maximum air concentrations, and their 

calculations show that everything should be 

less than a maximum permissible concentration 

for operations. They were required to follow 

10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 70. 

 The supporting documentation that 

we found while looking at all these records 

were monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual 

reports of reactor plant conditions. We found 

these reports that covered the entire 32-month 

period when the reactor operated. 

 In these documents we found 

information such as stack effluence 

monitoring, environmental monitors, on-site 

air sample reports. Generally, what it gave 

us is the maximum or average values. 

 All the data that we found in these 
111 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

documents were all less than a maximum 

permissible concentration for the most 

restrictive radionuclide, which was cobalt-60. 

 We interviewed all these 

individuals, and the consensus we have from 

everybody is this was a super clean plant, 

really never had too much problems during 

operations, and that was consistent across the 

board with these workers. 

 When we looked in these progress 

reports, we also found information like no 

personnel contamination or inhalations were 

observed during this period of time. It would 

say information -- this is a quote, "Airborne 

activity in the containment building has not 

exceeded that normally observed from natural 

background." 

 We did not find any bioassay data 

except for in one monthly report there was a 

bioassay performed on a group of workers who 

worked around the reactor for about a week, 

and it said the bioassay showed no positive 
112 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

results for tritium or net beta. This is all 

during the operational period. 

 We did find evidence of two spills, 

and one of them was found in a operational 

report. There was a soot collection bag from 

the waste-fired boiler system. It came loose, 

and it spread contaminated soot, and the 

highest activity was -- it wasn't a very 

significant spill. It was less than 400 dpm 

per 100 square centimeters, and that monthly 

report concluded that there was no detectable 

contamination or inhalation of contamination. 

 Then the other one, number 2, was -

- we saw this in one of the interviews, and 

the individual said that a main coolant pump 

that was idle, and there was a loose 

connection and somebody improperly positioned 

a valve, and some of that coolant blew out 

onto the floor. 

 Then, he said, the coolant quickly 

froze up as soon as it was exposed to room 

temperature. Remember, at 278 degrees it 
113 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

becomes a solid. I asked him how he cleaned 

it up, or we asked him how he cleaned it up. 

He said they just scraped it up. It was a 

pretty simple process. 

 Now the nature of the coolant to 

become solid at 278 actually is pretty helpful 

for contamination control and airborne 

controls. As you might imagine, if it freezes 

up like a wax, it is not going to spread into 

the air too readily. 

 Okay. External radiation sources 

for the operational period were reactor 

support systems, coolant lines, filters, and 

irradiated fuel and core components, as well 

as when they did radiation check calibrations. 

 During shutdowns and maintenance, 

there would be a potential for beta exposure. 

 One of the things that the worker said, 

though, was that -- a radiation control 

technician -- is that when they did 

maintenance, they would shut down the system. 

 They would go have a cup of coffee, let this 
114 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

short-lived beta decay, and then generally it 

was not an issue to work in these radiation 

fields. The beta dose would die off pretty 

rapidly. 

 Neutron potentials were during the 

operational -- while the reactor was 

operating. When the reactor was shut down, 

there was no neutrons except for if they were 

doing instrument source checks. 

 We talked to the health physicist 

and rad control tech, and they stated that 

they never saw any neutron levels above 

detectable limits in the facility except for 

when they were doing source checks on their 

long counter. 

 As far as X-rays, we didn't find 

any information that X-rays were performed. 

However, one of the interviewees said that 

they had annual physicals and that X-rays were 

performed. 

 Okay. Available external 

monitoring data. First of all, we did not 
115 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

find dosimetry results. Information we have 

is that it went to Landauer. We contacted 

Landauer. They didn't have any luck finding 

any documentation related to Piqua for 

external dosimetry. However, we do have AEC 

annual summary reports, and these were for 

every year from 1963 through 1968. 

 Other than that, we did find some 

summary reports in one of the claimant's files 

for '63, and what is not on that slide is 

there was his report for '64 and '65. It 

included his whole period that he worked. He 

actually worked for Atomics International. 

 There were also monthly, quarterly, 

and semi-annual reports containing reactor 

plant conditions and dose information. It 

would actually give you the highest individual 

exposed during this semi-annual period was, 

you know, 240 millirem. 

 When we looked at all of this 

information in conjunction with one another, 

it all agreed and that, actually, the AEC 
116 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

annual summary report looks like a very 

accurate document. 

 Here is like a summary of the AEC 

external dose for '63 through '68. What it 

has is that the number identified as not 

monitored in all cases was zero. Our 

information from the interviews was that 

everybody that went into the facility was 

monitored. However, they backed off on the 

external monitoring for the administrative 

people to quarterly rather than monthly. 

 The next column over, it says the 

number identified as monitored. It ranged 

anywhere from 36 to 50 people, and they bin 

the dose that the individuals received as zero 

to one rem, which in the majority of cases 

most people got zero to one rem. However, in 

'67 and '68, which is during this recovery 

period, you are going to see that there was 

[identifying information redacted] individuals 

for '66 and [identifying information redacted] 

for '67 where it was one to two rem. 
117 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 This is a picture of the airlock 

going through between the containment and the 

auxiliary building. So everybody likes 

pictures. Here is another picture of the 

remote fuel handling system. 

 So this is what they used during 

normal operations if they had to handle fuel. 

 We will find out a little later they used 

some different systems during post-operations. 

 This is a picture of the control room, some 

workers in there monitoring different 

components. 

 So based on all this, NIOSH has a 

methodology for dose reconstructions. For 

internal dose, we feel that assigning a 

maximum permissible concentration for the 

entire operational phase using cobalt-60 is a 

claimant favorable method. 

 What we would do is look at each of 

those internal radionuclide groups, and we 

would assign a portion of the MPC to each of 

those based on their proportion, if they 
118 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exist, based on the data that we have for the 

coolant and the residues. 

 Then with each of those groups, the 

radionuclide contributing the most dose to the 

organ of interest will be used for the 

claimant favorable assignment of dose. 

 From an external standpoint, we 

feel that the AEC summary report is an 

accurate document. We would use the highest 

dose. In other words, for all years except 

for '66 and '67, we would assign one rem 

annually, and two rem for '66, and it should 

say '67 also. 

 Regarding beta dose, we feel we can 

assign a claimant favorable ratio to be at 40 

to one for a direct contact with your hands, 

all the way down to five to one. That was 

based on some information we had from these 

summary reports. 

 We had paired measurements of gamma 

exposure rates compared to beta exposure 

rates. They were actually lower than that, 
119 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but we raised them up a little bit to be 

claimant favorable. 

 As far as neutron assignment, we 

feel application of a one to 10 neutron to 

photon ratio would be accurate, and that is 

based on some monitoring measurements that 

were paired around the main coolant lines, 

coming through the bioshield. There were some 

paired measurements with photons and neutrons, 

and it was less than one to 10, but we used 

the conservative one to 10 ratio. 

 With regard to medical X-rays, we 

feel OTIB-0006 would be the method to use to 

reconstruct medical X-ray dose. 

 The evaluation process is a twopronged test established by EEOICPA, and the 

questions are, is it feasible to establish the 

level of radiation doses of individual members 

of the class with sufficient accuracy, and is 

there a reasonable likelihood that such 

radiation doses may have endangered the health 

of members of the class. 
120 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 NIOSH found that the available 

monitoring records, process descriptions, and 

source term data are adequate to complete dose 

reconstruction with sufficient accuracy during 

the operational period for the evaluated class 

of employees from January 1, 1963, to May 1, 

1966. 

 Therefore, health determination -- 

health endangerment determination is not 

required. So this is just a table showing, we 

feel, internal and external doses can be 

reconstructed in a feasible manner. 

 We did some sample dose 

reconstructions, two of them, in fact, for 

Piqua, and for that time period January 1, 

'63, through May '66. There's the assumptions 

we made. It was a [identifying information 

redacted] born in [identifying information 

redacted]. This is a [identifying information 

redacted] cancer, [identifying information 

redacted] of the [identifying information 

redacted], and it was diagnosed in 
121 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

[identifying information redacted], and the 

external dose, internal dose, and medical dose 

totaled up to 23.26 rem. The probability of 

causation was 62.33 percent. 

 The other sample dose 

reconstruction we did was for a -- same 

individual. However, this individual had a 

[identifying information redacted] cancer with 

the same diagnosis date of [identifying 

information redacted], total doses assigned 

were 17.073 rem, gave us a probability of 

causation of 28.86 percent. 

 So that covers the operational 

period. Now the post-operational period began 

on May 2, 1963, and this is when they started 

cleaning up this carbonaceous mass. 

Activities became, actually, rather intrusive 

as compared to the operational period. 

 The exposures' potential changed 

drastically when the Piqua site went from 

operational activities to recovery and D&D. 

In the operational phase it was mostly closed 
122 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

loop operations. Then in the post-operations, 

the reactor vessel was open quite a bit, for a 

large majority of the time, in fact, and there 

was demolition work. 

 The reactor vessel and the support 

systems were open to containment, and many of 

the activities were non-routine and more 

invasive than operations. I think I have said 

that enough in different ways. 

 During post-operations, just to 

give you an idea of the activities that 

occurred, they removed the reactor vessel 

head, and it was open to containment for, like 

I said, a long period of time. The initial 

purpose of this was to cool down the reactor. 

 Then they started removing the fuel and 

control rods. 

 You know, I showed that fuel 

handling system earlier. Well, they started 

using a puller crane, which is just a standard 

type of -- I don't know if it is a jib crane 

or a particular crane that they used in the 
123 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

containment, and the reason they did that is 

because they were trying to measure all of the 

forces it needed to exert on these control 

rods to pull these because they were having 

some difficulty due to this carbonaceous mass 

being built up in there. So that was a 

nonstandard technique that, certainly, would 

have more exposure potential. 

 Also, after they removed the fuel 

and the control rods, they did a detailed core 

inspection, and they profiled this 

carbonaceous mass. It was a big chunk of 

carbon, and you could see where the fuel rods 

and the control rods were sitting around it. 

We actually have pictures of that, but I 

didn't provide them. 

 They sampled and handled the scoped 

mass. Something to mention, they were in many 

cases using remote methods to remove this 

carbon mass. They were using a periscope. 

However, some of the claimants did 

specifically state they remember looking 
124 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

directly into the reactor without benefit of 

any shielding. We didn't find that in the 

documents, but the individuals made that 

statement. 

 Also at one point, they drained the 

coolant in the reactor, and they worked above 

the reactor core, and they also removed incore components like the grid plate and 

support barrels. These were highly 

radioactive and had pretty high dose rates. 

 They actually had to go inside of 

the reactor core on a work platform and do 

some modifications, such as some air drilling 

on different components. So they actually 

worked within the reactor. 

 During the D&D activities, they did 

system dismantling and size reduction using 

mechanical and flame cutting methods. I know 

they used a regular -- like a Porta-band as 

well. I don't know if it was a Porta-band, 

but I just know that everything wasn't done 

using flame cutting methods, but some of it 
125 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was mechanical. 

 They cut and sealed all of the 

reactor outlets and all the pipes that 

penetrated the bioshield. 

 So internal data available through 

the post-operational period. Again, we have 

no bioassay nor did we have any area air 

sampling reports. There was very limited air 

data for this period of time. 

 We only found one air monitoring 

result. I think it was a stack monitoring 

result and an environmental one during that 

33-month period. So this is post-operations 

and D&D. 

 Now most of the interviewees, 

again, said it was a very clean plant, and 

there was never known to be really any 

airborne issues. I did look at the interview 

for the health physicist, and he felt that 

during the post-operations there could have 

been some potential for airborne 

contamination, specifically like size 
126 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reducing. 

 There was another interviewee that 

stated, if there was any time in which 

radiological hazards were present at levels of 

concern, it would have been after operations. 

 External data for post-operations. 

 It is very similar to what we had for 

operations. We have these AEC summary 

reports, and we did have some exposure data in 

the reports as well, radiation exposure data. 

 Now the concerns we have for the 

post-operational period is the fact that a lot 

of these activities were non-routine, and they 

had documented a potential for increased 

radiological hazards. This is all coupled 

with a lack of airborne radioactivity data. 

 There was hands-on work, as I 

mentioned before. A lot of the systems were 

open, and they had to use a pretty extensive 

effort to remove that coke mass within the 

reactor, and again I mentioned we are not sure 

if it was done remotely. From what we read, 
127 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

mostly it was done remotely. 

 I mentioned the removal and 

modification of the core components, and there 

was also a discussion. We found some verbiage 

in the health and safety representative where 

he expressed concern with regard to internal 

exposure potential during this period, and he 

quoted in numerous operations considerable 

contamination will result. 

 There was a discussion for the need 

for hood-like ventilation during welding 

activities, and a need for air supply suits. 

The health physicist for the facility said 

that, to his knowledge, there was never any 

ventilation used during D&D or postoperations, and he said, as far as respiratory 

protection -- he said maybe a half-face 

respirator. So we didn't see the use of air 

supplied or SCBAs during the post-operational 

period. 

 So as far as feasibility of 

internal dose for post-operations, based on 
128 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the absence of internal monitoring data and 

the exposure potential during the postoperational period, NIOSH's evaluation 

determined that it is not feasible to estimate 

radiation dose for all members of the NIOSH 

evaluated class with sufficient accuracy for 

the entire evaluated period of May 2, 1966, to 

February 28, 1969. 

 Due to NIOSH's finding regarding 

inability to bound internal dose for postoperations, we didn't do an exhaustive -- we 

didn't fully evaluate reconstructing the 

external dose. However, we concluded that we 

can partially reconstruct external dose, 

including X-ray exposures, in support of any 

partial dose reconstructions and 

nonpresumptive cancers. 

 Like always, if we come up with any 

personal monitoring data that becomes 

available afterwards, then we will use those 

for the partial dose reconstructions. 

 So this table here shows that 
129 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

internal dose reconstruction is not feasible, 

whereas external dose reconstruction is 

feasible. 

 The evidence reviewed in this 

evaluation indicates that some workers in the 

class may have substantial accumulated chronic 

radiation exposures through intakes of 

radionuclides from radioactive materials. 

 Consequently, NIOSH is specifying 

that health may have been endangered for those 

workers covered by this evaluation when 

employed for a number of workdays aggregating 

at least 250 workdays within the parameters 

established for this class or in combination 

with workdays within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

 Therefore, NIOSH's proposed class 

is as follows. All employees of the 

Department of Energy, its predecessor 

agencies, its contractors and subcontractors 

who worked at the Piqua Organic Moderated 
130 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Reactor during the covered period of May 2, 

1966, through February 28, 1969, for a number 

of workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays 

occurring either solely under this employment 

or in combination with workdays within the 

parameters established for one or more other 

classes of employees in the SEC. 

 That concludes my presentation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you for 

that presentation. Let me begin the questions 

with -- well, I have several. 

 Did I understand that the 

biological shield was not dismantled? Was it 

left in place? 

 MR. NELSON: That is true. The 

biological shield -- it was a 8 1/2 foot 

concrete shield that surrounded the reactor. 

Yes, it was left in place. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So there was no 

cutting on that during the shutdown? 

 MR. NELSON: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 
131 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. NELSON: They actually did some 

sampling. They looked at the activation 

products. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. You 

mentioned a search of Landauer database. Did 

you have evidence that Landauer was the film 

badge supplier? 

 MR. NELSON: We found that in 

documentation that Landauer was the film 

supplier. As far as when we contacted 

Landauer and they did a search for us, they 

did not locate any Piqua records. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That 

point, to me, is a little surprising because 

Landauer maintains -- I mean, is known to 

maintain virtually all records of all 

contracts that they have had over the years. 

 For example, we found that they had 

the badges for General Steel Industries when 

we looked into that. I know from first hand 

accounts -- I mean in personal experience -- 

that they maintain those records. 
132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So if they were the vendor, it is 

certainly surprising, and it makes one wonder 

if we were looking or you were looking -- or 

maybe you looked under all the possible vendor 

names -- 

 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the common 

vendor names Piqua, AEC, or Stuart Hinnefeld 

maybe has an answer to that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We have -- with 

respect to Landauer records, we have entered 

into a contract with Landauer this year for 

them to produce essentially a comprehensive 

index of what records they have because 

heretofore we would ask them what about this 

site or these sites, and they would conduct 

what was essentially a manual search of these 

microfilm cabinets to see if they found the 

records or not. 

 Since we have placed this contract 

with them to produce this index, they are 

doing essentially the systematic search, and 
133 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

they are recording all their customers and 

certain data associated with customers to 

provide to us, so that we can at some point -- 

we will have that comprehensive listing of 

what records they have. We won't have to make 

these individual -- ask questions and then 

have them search each time. 

 I think I might want to point out, 

though, that if we do, in fact, get film badge 

data from Landauer, that won't really affect 

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I understand. 

 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It would improve 

the external reconstructions perhaps. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I 

understand that. I was just wondering about 

that part of it. Thank you, Stuart. 

 MR. NELSON: Yes, we had a real 

hard time during the evaluation with the fact 

that we couldn't find dosimetry records, as 

well as all these internal dosimetry records. 
134 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I do know 

that the -- I'm familiar with quite a few 

reactors and their operations, and the NRC or 

its predecessors were very careful to examine 

those actual records during inspections so 

that it would be very difficult to have an 

annual summary of the type you had that was 

somehow different from the actual records, 

just as a point of information. 

 Also, did this plant issue 

radiation work permits at that period of time? 

 MR. NELSON: They had work permits, 

and the health physics technician was not 

there all the time. He worked on day shift, 

and generally he would review any work that 

was going to be done, but most of the work was 

done on day shift. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Most reactors -- 

and I don't know; this is an early reactor 

and, actually, a very small power reactor, but 

the normal practice for a power reactor is 

what is called the radiation work permit, and 
135 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 that would be especially the case during D&D 

operations where every operation requires a 

work permit that specifies who, dose limits in 

terms of time, protective equipment, and 

dosimetry. 

 So the reason I ask that, that 

would give a good handle on D&D operations, if 

they were using radiation work permits. That 

would be an important piece of information. 

 Now this is -- these years are sort 

of early in terms of what was considered good 

practice. So maybe they weren't doing that, 

but I simply raise that. 

 MR. NELSON: The biggest issue we 

had is the fact that we couldn't locate any 

job-specific monitoring, and we knew that the 

activities were kind of spread out in the 

post-operational period, and there was a lot 

of different activities. 

 Things seemed to be very organized 

during the operational period. Then you got 

into this post-operational period, and they 
136 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

did some of the work prior to a 

decommissioning plan being developed, and it 

didn't seem to flow the work as well as it did 

during the operational period. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Well, in 

fact, during decommissioning of a plant the 

jobs are very different than they are during 

operation. In fact, many plants bring in 

outside contractors for decommissioning 

because a reactor operator, for example, who 

is very specifically trained may not be the 

one you want doing decon work, or 

decommissioning work. Well, that is just a 

side comment. 

 Many reactors have maintenance 

schedules or shutdowns where they bring in 

outside, what are commonly called, rent-atechs. Would you know if that was or was not 

the practice? 

 MR. NELSON: During the operational 

period, there was one HP and one rad control 

technician. To our knowledge there wasn't any 
137 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contractors that came in during that period of 

time, other than Atomics International who was 

the initial operator. So I'm not aware of 

that or in the D&D. My understanding was the 

City of Piqua workers and the documentation 

that I have seen is that they did the work, 

but I don't know specifically if contractors 

did come in. I didn't see that anywhere. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. One final 

question. It is very common in reactor fuel 

elements that the surfaces are contaminated 

with what sometimes is called tramp uranium. 

These are clad elements. 

 MR. NELSON: Uranium clad elements, 

yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But fuel elements 

may become contaminated in the process of 

being made by the vendor and shipped, and it 

is very common for reactors to have such 

elements in the system, and the surfaces -- 

there are fission products generated on the 

surface in the tramp uranium, and it gets into 
138 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the coolant system. Would you know if that 

was or was not the case? 

 MR. NELSON: Yes, we do. There 

was actually a survey, and it was specifically 

stated that there was never any alpha 

contamination found, even in the final D&D 

survey, on any components, and that they 

concluded that none of the fuel had been 

breached. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Very good. Thank 

you. Additional? Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: I hate to get hung 

up on examples, but your first example shows 

an external dose of 22-plus rem for this 

period when your summary data showed roughly 

one rem per year, and I'm a little confused 

about that. 

 I need to understand what kind of 

assumptions you made because even in the `60s 

they used multiple filters on badges to 

determine deep dose, shallow dose, separate 

beta from gamma and so forth. I need to 
139 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

understand how you got from one per year to 22 

total. 

 MR. NELSON: Okay. The data that 

we had that we know is good, that came from 

AEC, is just a deep dose. And as far as the 

shallow dose, we do know that they had a beta 

component on their dosimeters. However, we 

don't have any beta dosimetry results. We did 

have a few paired measurements of beta and 

gamma, and they were on the order of, I think, 

upwards of three to one ratio. 

 So we felt that a five to one ratio 

would bound the beta dose. So the higher 

external dose is essentially coming from a 

beta dose. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Did you add the 

neutron dose at all? 

 MR. NELSON: Yes, we did, at a one 

to 10 ratio. 

 MEMBER POSTON: How did you justify 

the neutron dose? 

 MR. NELSON: The neutron dose was 
140 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

based on some other paired measurements. We 

used the highest ratios that we found, which 

were the exit piping from the reactor, and we 

felt it reasonable and that could bound it 

with a one to 10 ratio. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me follow up. 

 The 22 rem -- was that considered a skin 

dose? 

 MR. NELSON: Most of that was skin 

dose. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the annual 

summary records were deep dose, whole body 

values? 

 MEMBER POSTON: That's what he 

said. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So maybe 

the comparison is not the right one here. 

 MR. NELSON: Most of that dose is 

coming from shallow dose. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This was, I 

think, BCC in the temple -- what is that 

cancer? That is basal cell carcinoma of the 
141 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

temple. So it is skin cancer, skin dose. 

 MR. NELSON: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess, Dr. 

Poston, I am saying maybe the AEC summary was 

a summary of whole body doses and -- I don't 

know -- maybe didn't include the skin. 

 MR. NELSON: I don't remember the 

exact number of years, but as an example, if 

an individual was monitored -- or worked for 

three years, you would give them one rem each 

year, unless they worked in '66 and '67, in 

which case you would give them two rem for 

those years. Then you would -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For skin dose? 

 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or shallow? 

 MR. NELSON: For all cancers. Then 

as far as a skin dose, you would use a five to 

one ratio. So it would be five times higher 

for beta dose. One-fifth is only coming from 

deep dose, whereas shallow doses constitute a 

majority of the dose for skin cancer. 
142 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Poston, did 

that answer your question? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, it answered my 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

 Other questions on this one? Mark has some 

questions. He is collecting his thoughts. 

You need help in collecting them? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: During the 

operational period, were there any incidents 

or accidents? I think you went through that, 

but I was probably reading. 

 MR. NELSON: Yes, there were two of 

them, and one of them was in an operational 

report, and there was -- it was a bag that 

came off the waste fired boiler, and there was 

a clamp of sorts that fell off, and it spilled 

on the floor. So this was residue, and it was 

less than 400 dpm per 100 square centimeters. 

 That was the maximum contamination level, and 

it concluded that there were no internal 

exposures as a result of that, or no 
143 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contamination events. 

 The other one was an idle main 

coolant pump, and somebody, I think, 

improperly operated a valve, and they actually 

spilled some organic coolant on the floor. 

That was the only two incidents that we were 

aware of during the operational period. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, if I'm 

understanding this right, you are proposing 

for the post-operational period to add the 

class, but the operational period -- I'm not 

clear right now what your approach is for 

reconstructing internal, albeit small, likely 

as you described. But how are you going to 

reconstruct internal and external during the 

operational period? 

 MR. NELSON: During the operational 

period, we proposed to assign a maximum 

permissible concentration for that entire 

period that the individuals worked, and that 

is based on the fact that all the 

documentation that we have shows that it never 
144 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exceeded a maximum permissible concentration. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So MPC is set for 

the time period and -- 

 MR. NELSON: Yes. Yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. And then 

for external? 

 MR. NELSON: External dose -- that 

is based on the AEC summary reports, which 

will be one rem per year, '63 through '65, two 

rem for '66, two rem for '67, and one rem for 

'68. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then going to 

the reports, in one of them I see it says "our 

records indicate that 31" -- and I think it 

says AI -- 

 MR. NELSON: Atomics International. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay, Atomics 

International "personnel assigned to PNPF wore 

film badges at least one time during 1963." 

 I saw the summary, too, and for the 

most part they say all workers were monitored, 

but all in these ones -- I mean, I scanned 
145 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

through these. All is around 40 workers, I 

think. Is that the whole workforce? 

 MR. NELSON: I think for that year 

it was 42 workers. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Forty-two, I 

believe, and then one year it was -- 

 MR. NELSON: What it was is Atomics 

International -- they were sending a lot of 

engineers to and from. So they may have only 

been monitored for a portion of that year. It 

would have been because they weren't there the 

whole year. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. NELSON: That came out of that 

claimant's files, and in summary what it said 

is that out of the 31 people, 30 of them had 

zero rem beta, zero rem gamma, and zero 

neutrons, and only one individual had 60 

millirem for '63. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So if they were 

there and working, you are confident that they 

were being monitored? 
146 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. NELSON: Based on our 

information that we had and the interviews 

that we performed. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It wasn't like 

they were just periodically monitoring certain 

people. It wasn't any kind of cohort 

monitoring or anything like that? 

 MR. NELSON: Our understanding is 

that everybody that worked at the facility, 

including the administrative people, were 

monitored, just the frequency of badge 

exchange. As time went on, they reduced that 

for the administrative workers. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Brad Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we have any 

information of did they have any monitoring 

system on the stack? Do we know what went 

out? 

 MR. NELSON: Yes. They had a 

particulate monitor as well as a gaseous 

monitor. 
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: And what do we 

see? 

 MR. NELSON: That was some of the 

results that I went over that they had never 

exceeded a maximum permissible concentration 

on the outlet, the exit of the stack. So that 

is not necessarily on the ground where the 

exterior workers are, but coming out of the 

stack itself. And we looked at the capability 

of those instruments, and based on some of the 

documentation, they could see a couple of 

orders of magnitude more restrictive air 

limits than the MPC. 

 So they had the capability to see 

the MPC. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. You made a 

statement earlier that one of the people said 

that they actually had the reactor core top 

off, and they were looking straight down into 

it and made the comment that -- you know, just 

to say, when they were pulling those, they 

would have been directly over that. Now is 
148 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that -- that's correct, isn't it? 

 MR. NELSON: No. During the 

operational phase, which we feel we can 

reconstruct doses, they used that remote fuel 

handling machine. So everything was done 

remote. If you saw that picture, there was 

two guys standing off at a distance, and we 

even have details of how much exposure those 

individuals had on periodic occasions. 

 Now post-operations when they had 

this issue with this carbon mass in the 

reactor and they were having difficulty 

pulling those, they used the puller crane for 

that, and that is where we feel, you know, 

there could be some exposure potential, be it 

maybe external, but the fact that they were 

monitored, we felt it was adequate. 

 Now we didn't fully evaluate that 

period from an external standpoint, but we 

feel what we have there is claimant favorable. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you include 
149 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the guards? Did they use their own guards or 

did they -- 

 MR. NELSON: I am unsure about 

guards, to be honest. It would include the 

guards. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, all 

reactors have guard gates. You can't get into 

the facility. 

 MR. NELSON: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I assume this is 

a similar thing. And most of the ones I am 

familiar with do not use their own guards. 

They contract that out, and, depending on the 

particular duties, some guards themselves are 

only at the gates. They themselves cannot get 

into the facilities. LaVon, can you speak to 

that? I'm just wondering if there is another 

-- and would they be considered subcontractors 

and be covered by this? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: They are covered by 

this. It is considered a DOE facility in the 

class definition that is recommended. It is 
150 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

all DOE employees, contractors, and 

subcontractors. So they would be included. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Even if they 

couldn't get into the facility? I mean, our 

case is where the guards are at the gates, and 

that is where they are. They can't go in? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that 

we could discern whether they were -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can't discern 

that. That is what I meant. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whether they 

were -- no, we could not. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes. 

 Phil. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: A number of 

facilities, the guards are actually federal 

employees, and quite often in a lot of these 

facilities you will find the guards had punch 

clocks. They had time clocks they had to 

punch. Quite often, they would go in and make 

sure critical instrumentation, the doors were 

locked. So there is a good possibility some 
151 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of them did go in. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, and it 

certainly would depend on the facility and 

what they were allowed to do. Certainly, in 

the federal labs the function of the guards is 

very different than at a nuclear power plant 

often. So that is why I asked the question, 

whether they had that class, and whether or 

not we knew whether they could go in or not. 

Apparently not, or we don't know. 

 Let's see. Brad, additional 

question? No? Dr. Poston, additional 

question? Other questions? 

 The recommendation -- well, we want 

to hear from the petitioner, who is here in 

the room. So I will ask the petitioner to 

make comments. Well, if you are going to 

identify yourself for the record, I guess you 

are not required to, and you are certainly 

welcome to use the podium. But if you are 

agreeable you can identify yourself and then 

make your comment. 
152 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DECKER: Can everybody hear me? 

 I am Richard Decker. I am the petitioner, 

and the claimant was my step-father. 

 I would respectfully ask the 

Board's favorable condition to SEC-00126. The 

claimant in this case was asked to perform his 

duties without the knowledge or the training 

of the dangers of exposure to materials used 

at this facility in question. 

 His suffering over the years as a 

direct result of the working in and around the 

facility is beyond description. On the 

claimant's death bed, he wished me to pursue 

this action as a final request of a man dying 

from such effects of such exposure. 

 Now my brothers and I have been 

abused by exposure to another kind of danger, 

the bureaucracy of government at its worst. 

 The journey began some seven years 

ago with the original request being submitted 

to the Department of Energy. Then the 

Department of Labor somehow got involved, and 
153 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

here we all are here in this process. What 

kind of Congressional act would have ever been 

set up to care for the injured and families of 

the injured that would have dragged such an 

action out to seven years and counting? 

 I have heard from many I have 

spoken to that all that is expected of 

government. Well, as a retired military 

member, a part of government, I would have 

lost my job for such an abuse of law. 

 So we are here now awaiting another 

decision, and then it will go back to the 

Department of Labor to await another set of 

ridiculous hoops for my brothers and me to 

jump through, just to get what is rightfully 

ours. 

 Oh, you say, what could be so 

ridiculous? Well, what about having to 

provide a newspaper article to the Department 

of Labor when they refused to acknowledge the 

legal document that I provided? Oh, no, you 

say, I must be mistaken. Well, they also said 
154 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a photo of the claimant at my wedding would 

have worked as well, but they would not accept 

the legal document that I had already provided 

them. 

 This kind of waste, fraud, and 

abuse has been going on for seven years now 

and counting, and I took all of this and more 

to the Ombudsman for this Act and was assured 

that he would share this story with Congress 

but never received correspondence from him to 

indicate if that information ever was shared 

with them. 

 Well, now we stand here in this 

facility with the only positive organization 

in this whole mess, NIOSH. This organization, 

with whom I have communicated and shared my 

frustrations with, has been, without a doubt, 

the single positive group of men and women 

throughout this process. 

 From the first phone call and 

letter, I have been made to feel that somebody 

out there does love their jobs and want to do 
155 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

it in a professional manner. At no time did 

any I have been in contact with show anything 

but respect and professionalism. 

 Although it still remains a long 

process, they have been there doing their job, 

their best with the information that was 

provided. I wish to thank publicly all those 

which have put so many hours of work into this 

petition that now we seek a positive outcome. 

 Without you folks here, justice 

would never have a chance, and the claimants 

and their heirs wouldn't have a chance to 

benefit from what was to be a kind 

compensation act that has turned out to be a 

bungling of mismanagement throughout the last 

seven years. 

 So now I implore you to vote for a 

positive outcome on SEC-00126, and send this 

petition to Congress for their action. Thank 

you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Richard, thank 

you very much for those comments. We 
156 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

appreciate your being here today. Let me ask 

Board members if there are any further 

questions. Yes, Mr. Gibson. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: You mentioned that 

31 employees were employees of Atomics 

International. Did they come from the Susana 

site? 

 MR. NELSON: The employees you are 

referring to was in 1963, and they were 

Atomics International folks, which I think -- 

my understanding is now present day Santa 

Susana. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think his 

question was did they come here from Santa 

Susana? 

 MR. NELSON: Well, some of them 

came from Idaho, had worked there previously, 

and some of them came from there is my 

understanding. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: So I guess my 

question, is there a way to -- if we approve 

this petition, is there a way to track these 
157 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

employees so that their days working here will 

contribute to the 250 days needed? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Actually, 

Department of Labor does that automatically, 

is my understanding. As long as their 

employment is identified, if this were an SEC, 

and Santa Susana is, they would get credit for 

both. Is that correct? Yes, the NIOSH people 

are saying that that is correct. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: There is a way to 

track them, though, right? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Well, by 

their identification of their workplaces is 

how it would work, as I understand it. Thank 

you for that question, Mike. 

 Board members, it would be in order 

to have a motion for action on this particular 

petition. Does anyone wish to make a motion? 

 Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I move that we accept 

the NIOSH recommendation. Would you like this 

broken into two parts, one with respect to the 
158 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

early days and one specifically covering -- or 

just -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think it can be 

done in -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: I would think one. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think the 

wording is such that it is all inclusive, is 

it not? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the wording of 

the final recommendation certainly is. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They need to 

parallel. I think it is a single motion, I 

believe. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I think so. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Can you clarify 

that? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think our class 

definition actually -- I don't believe it 

does. I believe the -- the recommendation 

only covers -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. It covers 

May '66 through February '69. That is the 
159 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

motion. Correct. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That was my 

understanding, from May 1, 1966, through -- 

May 2, 1966, through -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you are moving 

the NIOSH proposed class. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. That we move 

the proposed class, specifically as designated 

in this presentation by NIOSH. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is there a 

second? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Discussion? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. Just a 

clarification on this two-part presentation. 

I think if we cover in the letter -- presuming 

that we all agree -- a finding on sort of the 

operational period, the first part, that we 

find they are able to do dose reconstructions 

during that time period. Then that would be a 

single letter report to the Secretary, a 

single recommendation. So, again, speaking in 
160 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

favor of the motion, but I think the 

clarification would be that in the letter that 

we send that we probably need to say something 

about the earlier time period, if we are in 

agreement on that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are you ready to 

vote? Okay, we will vote by roll call, and I 

am going to vote Yes and excuse myself while 

you do the rest of the vote. 

 MR. KATZ: I think I will start 

with Dr. Ziemer. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I say one 

thing before we vote? Just to follow up on 

Jim's notion, I mean, if we are -- The only 

hesitation I have on the operational period, 

quite frankly, is this question of sufficient 

accuracy. 

 The proposal right now is to assign 

the MPC value across the board five times the 

beta, and following up on John's question -- I 

mean, all these things probably bound, but it 

seems like this case of throwing high numbers 
161 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to be able to reconstruct -- I was thinking we 

were going to just vote on the postoperational period and not -- I think it might 

require a little more review by the Board to 

say do we really feel this is the adequate 

approach for doing dose reconstruction. 

 I am not saying these values aren't 

likely bounding, but it seems like they may be 

excessively so. So just my thought on that. 

I don't know how people feel. 

 MR. KATZ: Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the examples 

that were given were quite clear. I don't 

know whether you were watching those examples 

or not, but they gave us a number of examples 

of individuals whose calculations they had 

done already, and only one of which was 

compensable using the data that they had from 

the records that were clearly obvious in terms 

of less than MPCs in all conditions during 

operation. 

 So they have one compensable case, 
162 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and the others were not. That would lead one 

to believe that it is adequate. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not sure that 

doesn't support my position, actually. I 

mean, that is the -- You know, it is the 

rationale, throw the highest number out that 

we can, and some cases, though, are not going 

to be compensable. Then that is not to the 

letter of the law. We have to consider 

whether we have data to do dose reconstruction 

with sufficient accuracy. 

 I am challenging the question of 

sufficient accuracy, not the notion of 

necessarily that there are elevated exposures. 

 I am going back to John's comment of, you 

know, when I think of five to one, well, what 

was the basis for this five to one ratio for 

beta? If the basis for using the five to one 

ratio was that either when we throw this five 

to one ratio in there it is not going to be 

compensable, that is not sufficient accuracy 

in my eyes. That is not the way to back-fit 
163 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this thing. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me 

interrupt here, because we are ending up 

debating in the middle of a vote. I'll know 

better next time. But let me understand the 

issue. 

 There may be a desire, and the 

Chair is certainly willing to do this, to 

divide this in some way. As it currently 

stands, the motion covers the period -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: It is from May 2, 

1966, to February 1969, the end date. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Only the postoperational period. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: We can have a 

separate motion on the operational period. 

Then we can combine them in the letter. We 

can have separate letters. We can continue 

the evaluation of the operational period, just 

sort of what Mark is speaking to. That's all 

fine. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Mark, are your 
164 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concerns with the operational period? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But not with this 

period that we are voting on? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And, Dr. 

Melius, you mentioned including a statement in 

the letter, but it would only refer in some 

way to that other period, the operational 

period, but it is not necessary to do that. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Not necessary, but 

however we decide to handle it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Could be 

referred to, but it is not necessarily 

pertinent to this particular vote at this 

moment. Larry, you had a comment. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't know if this 

is going to help or not, but some background 

information. At the current time for the 

claims that we have, there is only one claim 

that would not be treated positively by this 

class addition. That claim is only during the 
165 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

operational period, and it has internal dose 

monitoring for it. 

 MR. NELSON: They have external 

dose monitoring records for that claim, and it 

did have a statement that there wasn't any 

internal -- I don't remember the exact 

verbiage, but it said that there wasn't any 

internal dose ever assigned -- which, to me, 

isn't super accurate of whether he was 

monitored or not. 

 Is there another part of that 

question? I forgot. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Oh, I did want to 

add to that. This individual also worked at 

another facility where there was internal 

monitoring. So we could use that data to 

bound the dose for internal monitoring for 

that individual. We could use that data that 

you have and backfit it for that individual. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was for a 

period after this? 
166 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Afterwards, yes, 

at Idaho. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay. Were 

you voting, Mark, at that time when you raised 

that question? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, no, no. We 

didn't go to the vote yet. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, we have one 

vote. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We had a vote. 

That's all right. We are still voting on the 

main motion, which is the class for the postoperational period. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 
167 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Griffon? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: That is unanimous. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, the motion 

carries, and we would recommend an SEC for 

that post-operational period. 

 Now we may finish this after lunch, 

but we still have then what, I believe, 

constitutes a recommendation for the 

operational period, January 1, '63, through 

May '66, which is the period for which NIOSH 
168 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

believes that dose can be reconstructed, and 

we would need to take an action on that as a 

separate action. 

 This would be either to agree that 

that is the case and to, therefore, recommend 

that the SEC not cover that period, or you may 

wish to have this studied further under a work 

group type of situation and clarify some of 

the issues such as, I believe, you apparently 

were raising, Mark, at that time. 

 So I would like to have you ponder 

that while you are eating lunch, and when we 

return. We are already past the stated 

lunchtime, and we do have another time certain 

which shows up at 1:45, but it is now -- well, 

I guess we are not past -- yes, we are. It is 

12:30. 

 So you need to be back here 

promptly at 1:45. We may have to take up the 

rest of this at a later time, because we want 

to honor the time certain, but that remains 

before us, the rest of this petition. 
169 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Let's recess for lunch. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:29 p.m until 

1:45 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are ready to 

begin our afternoon deliberations, if you 

would all have a seat, please. This afternoon 

we are going to consider the petition for 

Metals and Controls Corporation. 

 I would like to point out that Mark 

Griffon believes that he is conflicted on 

this, although it is not on his original 

conflicting list, as it were, but he 

discovered in reading the documents that he 

had actually done work on this site, 

apparently when it was under a different name, 

but in any event Mark will be away from the 

table during our discussion of Metals and 

Controls Corporation. 

 The NIOSH evaluation report will be 

presented by Dr. Neton. Also, we may have one 

of the petitioners on the line as well. So 
170 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

first we will hear from Dr. Neton. 

 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer, 

and good afternoon. I will be talking about 

the Metals and Controls SEC evaluation report, 

and that is SEC Number 149. 

 The petition overview that we 

normally give is listed here. NIOSH evaluated 

its position in accordance with the 

requirements of an 83.14. That is a case where 

we found that we couldn't do a dose 

reconstruction, and recruited a petitioner to 

file under 83.14. 

 The petitioner for this particular 

SEC worked at Metals and Controls from 1952 to 

1967, and it was received by NIOSH on July 

21st of this year. Metals and Controls is an 

atomic weapons employer facility. It covered 

employment from 1952 to 1967, located in 

Massachusetts in Attleboro. It became a 

division of Texas Instruments in '59, and 

oftentimes these terms are used 

interchangeably to refer to Metals and 
171 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Controls. You might hear it as Texas 

Instruments. It refers to one and the same 

facility. 

 The initial operations at Metals 

and Controls involved fabrication of these 

enriched uranium foils for reactor 

experiments, but interestingly to me, they did 

a quantum jump within a few years. I think 

these foils were made in the early Fifties, 

and by the end of the 1950s they were 

fabricating fuel elements, reactor cores. I 

mean some pretty heavy stuff, using enriched 

uranium. So in about seven years, they really 

jumped both feet into the nuclear business. 

 The variety of government 

contractors for this type of work that they 

have done included the Navy, the Air Force, 

and some commercial operations, but I think 

what got them into the AWE business is between 

'65 and '81 they manufactured fuel for the 

High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge. 

 I would like to emphasize this last 
172 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

bullet. They did work with thorium at this 

facility, and we have some documentation of 

that, that I will discuss later. 

 This slide just presents sort of a 

laundry list of the different types of 

radioactive materials that are present in the 

source term at Metals and Controls. Of 

course, it includes the uranium metal in many 

forms, depleted, natural and enriched. We 

have the experimental foils that I mentioned, 

reactor fuel, and various metal type pieces 

made out of uranium were fabricated there in 

various forms. You have U308, UO2 powders and 

fuel plates, and then these thorium foils that 

were manufactured there. They are similar to 

the uranium foils that were used for reactor 

experiments. They manufactured these thorium 

foils. 

 The last item we have listed here 

is radium-226 sealed beads that -- I am not 

really clear on exactly what they were used 

for. It is listed here as luminescent toggle 
173 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

switches. So I assume they had some phosphor 

coating that they used to make these toggle 

switches light up in the dark. As it turns 

out, that doesn't come into play too much, 

because these were fairly sealed sources. So 

the potential for internal exposure, at least 

in our opinions, is fairly minimal. 

 The sources of available 

information are typically what we looked at, 

which is our own site research database. We 

undertook several data capture efforts on 

behalf of the site to figure out what else we 

could garner from the different depositories 

out there. Of course, we always look at the 

computer assisted telephone interviews, our 

own technical information bulletins and online 

database searches. 

 As far as the data capture efforts 

are concerned, we actually did do Metals and 

Controls visits to pull out some information 

from there. We had some discussions with 

representatives from the state of 
174 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Massachusetts Radiological Control Program. 

We looked at the Hanford Declassified Document 

Retrieval System. These are fairly standard: 

 The DOE legacy management sites, we looked 

through, NRC, DOE and other online searches. 

So we put forth a fairly robust effort to try 

to find information on what occurred there and 

what type of monitoring information might be 

available. 

 There aren't very many claims, as 

this slide indicates, from Metals and 

Controls. There's 19 claims that meet the 

class definition, and that actually is the 

number of claims we received. So all 

claimants -- all claims that we have in our 

possession meet the class definition that we 

have evaluated. 

 We have completed 13 dose 

reconstructions for claims from this site. 

There was only one active claim -- there's six 

active claims in our possession right now that 

have bioassay data, although I will hasten to 
175 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

add that none of the claims that we have 

processed thus far have any thorium bioassay 

data, which will become important as we 

discuss, and five of the active claims have 

external data. 

 The characterization of operation: 

 I mentioned this in my introductory slide, 

much government work between '52 and '67. 

Again U.S. Naval reactors, Air Force, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory were some of their 

customers. If you read the DOE website on 

this, I think it is even suggested in there. 

It is really unclear how much weapons related 

work they did. We can point to the Oak Ridge 

High Flux Isotope Reactor as one example, but 

I would say from looking through the records, 

a large, large portion of the work at Metals 

and Controls was non-AEC related -- or nonweapons related, for certain. 

 But, nonetheless, they did a lot of 

radiological work in a number of site 

buildings. We have listed the buildings here, 
176 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11. I've forgotten 

exactly how many buildings there are on this 

site, it's a fairly large site. There are 14 

total buildings. So a pretty good percentage 

of the total buildings on site actually, in 

some form or another, were involved in either 

the processing or waste management or shipping 

of radioactive materials. 

 Like a lot of these legacy AWE type 

sites, we have very limited information on 

access control practices. We found no 

information that could tell us how the 

material was controlled, how workers would 

have been authorized to enter radioactive 

material areas, that sort of thing. So given 

the fact that the material was widespread 

throughout the site and there is very little 

access controls, as usual here, I think we 

have come to the conclusion that we are unable 

to determine which workers entered 

radiological areas. 

 Now let me talk a little about the 
177 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thorium activities. I mentioned they made 

these thorium foils at this facility. We have 

some information in the database in product 

literature that talked about the thorium they 

manufactured and promoting its usage. 

 Again, they supplied these thorium 

strips for criticality experiments, source 

tests and reactivity tests. The time period 

of production is unclear, but if you look 

further down the slide, you can see that we 

have evidence of shipments from the Fernald 

site between 1955 and '57 of thorium material 

going there, presumably for use in the 

production of these foils, and then even up 

until '62 we see a safety analysis report 

talking about thorium. 

 In fact, in that year it listed a 

thorium inventory of 244 kilograms, which by 

some of these AWE sites is not a huge amount, 

but it doesn't take much thorium to give you a 

fairly large internal dose. So this is a 

quantity of sufficient magnitude to generate 
178 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

some very high internal dose numbers, if it 

wasn't properly controlled. 

 Like I said, the time period wasn't 

clear, and a little bit about the process. 

All we know right now is it was a vacuum melt 

process where they cast the thorium into flat 

ingots, and then it went through some sort of 

a rolling machine to roll it into these thin 

foils. So it had the potential to be a 

somewhat messy operation. I just garnered 

this out of one of the documents that we have, 

and I thought it was an interesting quote. 

There is a 1964 health physics operation 

manual that had a statement that caught my 

eye, and I will just quote it. 

 It said, "No techniques are 

presently available for thorium body burden 

determinations except weighted exposure 

averages. As soon as an accurate technique is 

developed, it will be employed." 

 In other words, we found no 

monitoring data, bioassay data for thorium, 
179 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because they really didn't think that there 

was any techniques that were useful. On top 

of that, we found no air sampling data for 

thorium either. So we are pretty much left in 

the lurch here with what we can do for 

thorium. 

 So what do we have that we can work 

with from this site? We do have uranium 

bioassay data. It started around 1953. Since 

they were dealing with the spectrum of 

enrichments, there are data that are both the 

typical mass base fluorimetry type analyses as 

well as gross alpha measurements that would be 

used when a person, a worker had a potential 

to be exposed to higher levels of enrichment. 

 Some data available for all years 

through 1967, and as of 1957 about one-third 

of the workers were monitored. Now, no 

thorium or radium bioassay data were found, as 

I mentioned before, and although air 

monitoring was conducted, only one week of 

measurements that we found were available, and 
180 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that was taken in 1957. When available, we do 

intend to use all this individual monitoring 

data to reconstruct internal doses for non-SEC 

classes, but at this point we don't have any 

way to do the thorium measurements. 

 Okay, external dose: Film badge 

results were available for the period '53 to 

'67. Interestingly now, we have tried to get 

an idea on the completeness of that, and the 

Texas Instrument site staff really couldn't 

give us a feel for the completeness of the 

records that were provided. Essentially, we 

heard this is what we got. They couldn't 

really sort of put a pedigree on it and say 

that everybody was clearly monitored who 

should have been, or something to that effect. 

So we couldn't get any corroboration as to how 

much of the workforce is really represented. 

 For the non-SEC cases, as with 

internal, we use available individual 

monitoring data that we have in the case files 

to reconstruct those doses, and occupational 
181 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

medical doses will be reconstructed over all 

time periods using the existing methods that 

we talked about previously. So to get to the 

bottom line here, we believe that we lack 

sufficient information to reconstruct internal 

doses for thorium at the Metals and Controls 

facility. We will do dose reconstruction for 

non-presumptive cancers using the individual 

external and internal monitoring data that are 

available. As I mentioned earlier, we will 

reconstruct the medical doses using the 

approaches outlined in our TIB that we have 

discussed previously. 

 As far as health endangerment goes, 

it is pretty clear to us that some workers may 

have accumulated chronic radiation exposures 

from working at the facility, and we believe 

that these exposures were of sufficient 

magnitude to have endangered the health of 

workers at the facility, particularly for 

those who have worked there for 250 days of 

employment. 
182 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The final slide is the proposed 

class for Metals and Controls, which includes 

all atomic weapons employees who worked at 

Metals and Controls Corporation in Attleboro, 

Massachusetts, from January 1, '52 to December 

31, '67 for a number of work days aggregating 

at least 250 work days occurring either solely 

under this employment or in combination with 

workdays established within the parameters for 

one or more other classes of employees, 

included in the SEC. 

 That's it. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim. 

Considering the number of claims, which seems 

rather small so far, I was a little surprised, 

especially in terms of the various operations 

that you described. Can you give us an idea 

of what the potential for the radiological 

workforce might have been at this facility? 

 MR. NETON: Yes. I think in the 

early years, the 1953-54 time frame, it was 
183 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fairly small, about 30 people. By the late 

fifties, 1958 time frame, they were up to 

about 660 employees. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. That 

makes a bit of sense in terms of the 

operations you described. So in terms of the 

claims so far, those 19 claims, is that the 

total claims? 

 MR. NETON: Yes, that is the total 

number of claims that we have received. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- so far. So it 

would seem that there is a potential for many 

more based on the size of that workforce. 

 MR. NETON: Potentially, that is 

true. Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. 

Melius. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I have a few 

questions. Your evaluation report is a bit 

sparse in terms of some of this information. 

So some of this in your presentation is new, 

or maybe I missed it in the evaluation report, 
184 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but in your eleventh slide talking about data 

available for internal dose reconstruction, 

you have some data available through '67. As 

of 1957 one-third of workers monitored. 

 Who are you referring to when you 

say the one-third? Is it all the workers that 

were ever monitored or of the 600-plus? 

 MR. NETON: No. I'm not 100 

percent certain. I interpret that to mean 

one-third of the workers who were present at 

that time frame. Am I correct, LaVon, in 

that? I think that is true. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: And what is that 

number then? I'm just trying to get a sense? 

 I mean, when you are referring to 600-plus 

working there, is that all? 

 MR. NETON: Well, that was in 1958, 

there were 600 employees at the site. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Are you referring 

to the time period -- all the people at the 

entire facility or those involved in 

radiological or this kind of operation? I'm 
185 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

trying to get a sense of the facility. 

 MR. NETON: The total workforce. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: LaVon is 

indicating that the total workforce over the 

period was about 600. Is that correct? 

 MR. NETON: No, no, the total -- 

the workforce in 1958 was about 660 people at 

that time. We don't know, I don't think, what 

the total number of employees that were ever 

employed at Metals and Controls were. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the one-third 

number only refers to '57, which is the 

earlier -- 

 MR. NETON: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Were they up to 

that 600 by then or is that the earlier 

number? 

 MR. NETON: Well, '58 -- I've got a 

number here written down that was in '58. It 

was around 660. I don't know. I assume it's 

got to be close to that in '57. You can't 

increase the workforce that dramatically in 
186 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

one year. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know if 

that answered your question or not, Dr. 

Melius. You may want to pursue that. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, let me try 

another question, which you may not be able to 

answer also. But if we refer to the onethird, are we -- is there any information to 

indicate that would be the people involved in 

these operations? I mean, they seem to be 

specific to particular buildings, located in 

particular buildings at different points in 

time. So I am just trying to get a sense. 

Was the entire workforce involved in these 

type of operations or is it a predominant part 

of the workforce? Is it just a small part of 

the workforce? 

 MR. NETON: I don't know, but 

Lavon, can you help me out with that? I am 

not certain. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Based on the 

information we have available, as time went on 
187 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a larger portion of the workforce became more 

and more involved in radiological operations. 

 As Jim mentioned, there are 14 buildings at 

that facility. Roughly half were involved -- 

we have indications roughly half were involved 

in using radioactive material. So that gives 

you an idea from that. Again, as time went 

on, a much larger portion of the workforce was 

involved in radiological operations. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: But that could also 

mean that they segregated the operations to 

certain buildings, and a lot of other people 

could be in the -- I'm just trying to -- 

 MR. NETON: That is quite possible. 

 But remember, we will use the available 

uranium monitoring data to reconstruct doses 

for people who have nonpresumptive cancers. 

It's the thorium that we are saying here is 

the issue. We really don't know which 

building the thorium activities -- in which 

building the thorium activities occurred. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay. Well, I am 
188 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

trying to get the class definition issue. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I want to point 

out a couple of more things, too. Not only do 

we not know which buildings the thorium in, 

but we don't have any data at all to 

determine. We know there was contamination 

found outside of a couple of the buildings 

later on, and so we don't know, one, the 

movement of personnel to and from the 

buildings. We also do not know any releases 

or any information on airborne releases around 

the facility during the thorium operations or 

any of that. So that gives you a better feel. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Do we have any 

information, was there a separate divisions 

set up that dealt with these operations within 

the facility or was it -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: There was a -- one 

of the buildings -- I think, building 10 -- 

was later referred to as the nuclear building, 

which I think a majority of the work later on 

in the period that were identified -- the 
189 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

majority of the radiological work was 

occurring in that building, but I'm not sure 

that there was a separate division of workers. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Who can answer 

this? Anybody. You were relying, at least -- 

I'm a little confused between the report and 

then some of the information presented. It 

sounded initially like you were relying mostly 

on the CATI interviews for information. There 

is a statement in the report -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I can give you a 

better feel for how we got to where we got. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. That would be 

helpful. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We had initially, 

in the process of developing a site profile 

and in the development of the site profile, we 

had done a number of data captures. There 

were some interviews that were done at the 

time, and the CATI interviews as well. But 

ultimately, as we pulled all the information 

together and drafted our site profile, it 
190 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

became apparent that our methodologies for 

doing thorium were not going to work. And 

then we moved in to the -- that's why we 

ultimately moved in to the 83.14 -- 

 DR. NETON: I can amplify a little 

bit on that. Originally, the thought process 

was that, if we knew the uranium operations 

and what the airbornes were based on the 

uranium bioassay results, we could somehow 

scale that to estimate what the thorium 

operations were. But once we realized this 

was sort of a vacuum melt furnace operation 

and with a separate rolling, we really knew 

very little about how that compared to the 

uranium activities, and then we came to the 

conclusion that it was just -- you know, we 

couldn't bound the thorium doses. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I guess I don't 

have a problem with the thorium. I guess I am 

just -- it's the class definition and 

statement, you know, sort of you are unable to 

specify which workers may have been exposed. 
191 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Did you make an adequate effort to try to 

determine if there were records or other 

information to do that? It is certainly not -

- I wasn't comfortable with what was in the 

report. I am more comfortable with what you 

have presented here. I am just trying to 

understand it a little bit more. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is 

analogous, sort of, to the Oak Ridge Hospital 

situation where, as I understand it, you 

cannot exclude even the so called nonradiological buildings, people, at least in 

terms of access, that there is nothing at this 

point to indicate who had access to which 

buildings. So if they are present in any of 

them, they would qualify under this 

definition. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Let me give an 

example. I didn't -- and I could have missed 

it in the evaluation report. I didn't see any 

reference to a site visit, somebody actually 

going to visit the site and obtaining 
192 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information. You referenced that in your 

slides. So that is helpful to know. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are there other 

questions or comments from the Board members? 

 Thank you, Jim. Oh, Mike Gibson? Sorry. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: It also appears 

that some of the radiological work was not AEC 

work. It was for other agencies. 

 MR. NETON: Correct. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Is the dose from 

those type operations going to be included? 

 MR. NETON: Yes. Yes, that is part 

and parcel of our program, that all sources of 

radioactive exposures must be reconstructed, 

regardless of the nexus of those exposures. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: And that is true 

for all facilities and sites? 

 MR. NETON: It is not true in the 

residual contamination periods at AWEs. Once 

the contract is terminated with the AEC, then 

the residual contamination as a result of AEC 

activities is reconstructed, but the other 
193 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sources of radiological exposures are not 

reconstructed. 

 MEMBER GIBSON: But during the 

active years? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Everything is 

included, correct. 

 MR. NETON: All sites. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Also, I want to 

check and see if the petitioner is on the line 

and, if so, if the petitioner wishes to 

comment. If the petitioner is on the line -- 

 MS. SAMARDAK: I believe I'm the 

petitioner. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. If you are 

willing to identify your name for the record, 

and then if you wish to comment, that would be 

fine. 

 MS. SAMARDAK: My name is Loretta 

Samardak, and was an employee of Texas 

Instruments from 1957 to 1985. When I went to 

work in the nuclear group -- I immediately 

went to work in the nuclear group in 1957, and 
194 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I stayed there until it closed. And then I 

continued work for Texas Instruments until '85 

when I retired, because I had cancer. 

 The records sound pretty accurate 

to me. I recall there were about 700 

employees at its peak in the nuclear group, 

and I know that it was wide open 

manufacturing, and there were a few 

evacuations when they had problems, and it 

never dawned on me when I got cancer what it 

could be from, because there was no record of 

anyone in my family, not even cousins, ever 

having cancer. 

 Then when the publicity came about 

in the Providence Journal in Rhode Island that 

this program was being started, I called and 

got the information, and it went on from 

there, that was in 2001. But I'm surprised 

it's only 19 claims that you have received, 

because I made a count of people I knew who 

were very active in the production operation 

who died of cancer. I could name some of them 
195 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

off the top of my head, but I know there were 

many more. 

 It was mostly men. There weren't 

that many women employed in the nuclear group, 

and there were some inspectors and women who 

worked out on the production floor inspecting, 

but they were predominantly men, engineers and 

physicists. We had a vault that had workers 

in it that worked exclusively in the vault 

where they split uranium, and I know they got 

cancer quite early on. 

 It was only 700 people in there, 

and it was like a family, because we were 

isolated, pretty well isolated in that 

building, and there wasn't a lot of traffic in 

the building, because people without 

clearances weren't allowed. 

 I don't know if you would like me 

to expound on anything else. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much, Loretta, for that information. 

Your very last comment, of course, raises some 
196 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

questions, because we have just been talking 

about access to that building, and you have 

indicated that others weren't allowed in the 

so-called nuclear building, although there 

were other buildings involved through the 

years. That may have been possibly before 

your work time there. So that, as it ends up, 

the proposed definition expands the coverage 

to other buildings as well. 

 As far as the 19 claims, that is 

all that has been received so far, but it is 

certainly a possibility there would be more to 

come, based on just the numbers of people that 

worked there and, as you have indicated, there 

certainly may be others that -- 

 MS. SAMARDAK: At the time I 

started working there, I was 24 years old, and 

I retired from there when I was like 52. I 

actually retired in '55. So I think -- that 

was an error. I was thinking that was when I 

had the cancer. Yes, I did work there until 

'85. That's right. I did. That is when I 
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

got cancer, in November of '85. 

 The nuclear facility had office 

areas, and there was access to both areas, but 

people without clearances didn't go out into 

the manufacturing area. But the ladies' room 

-- this was really a strange situation, but 

the -- there was a mezzanine area over the 

manufacturing floor, and I worked with the 

division manager, and he -- it was all glassed 

in, and he could overlook the whole 

manufacturing floor. And I was on that floor 

all the time. Coffee machines were in the 

manufacturing area, the ladies room was in the 

manufacturing area. You had to cross the 

whole plant to get to the ladies room, and the 

ladies room was right next to the vault, and 

that material was passing in and out on 

dollies all the time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

for those additional comments. Now, Board 

members, I would like to see if there is any 

additional comments or questions for NIOSH. 
198 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

We have a recommendation that the Materials 

and Controls Corporation SEC be recommended to 

the Secretary as a class of -- or as an SEC 

petition, that we recommend a class to the 

Secretary. 

 It would be appropriate to have a 

suitable motion. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I have one more 

question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, questions 

first, okay, Josie Beach. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And I don't know who 

can answer this. Has there ever been any 

worker outreach done in that area, other than 

the CATI reports that you read? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: LaVon, can you 

answer that? That may also have to do with 

the numbers that we are seeing, which seem to 

be very low. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I haven't seen any 

official worker outreach. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Is there any plan 
199 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that you know of? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Not that I know 

of. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Josie. 

 At least, the question may raise some 

awareness of some follow-up. Thank you. 

 Additional comments? Again, it 

would be in order to have a suitable motion 

for action on this recommendation. Yes, Mr. 

Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: So moved. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I believe you 

moved that we recommend to the Secretary that 

this class be added to the Special Exposure 

Cohort. Is there a second? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Second. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There is a 

second. Then the class description would be 

as provided by NIOSH. Are there any further 

comments or discussion on the motion? 

Apparently not. Then we will vote by -- yes, 
200 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

by ballots. We'd rather have vote by ballots 

-- Ted will take the roll call vote. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 
201 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: It is unanimous. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the vote is 11 

yeas, and Mr. Griffon is conflicted and does 

not vote. So the motion passes, and we will 

recommend to the Secretary that an SEC class 

be added for Metals and Controls Corporation. 

 Next on our agenda is an SEC 

petition for Electro Metallurgical Company. I 

do need to determine whether or not the 

petitioners are on the line. Are either of 

the petitioners on the line for Electro 

Metallurgical Company? 

 We are just a bit early. So we 

will wait just a moment. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 2:20 p.m. and 

resumed at 2:21 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Mr. Katz, do we 

need to talk about meeting dates and locations 

as we look forward? First of all, we do have 
202 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a Board teleconference scheduled for December 

the 8th, and I believe that is at 11:00 a.m. 

So make sure that is on your calendar. 

 MR. KATZ: Right. So following 

that there is -- we have a full Board meeting 

February 9th through 11th. That is Manhattan 

Beach, California. That is all set. Then we 

have a Board teleconference on March 31st at 

11:00 a.m. again. The one we want to confirm 

here is -- It is tentatively written in -- a 

full Board meeting May 19th through 21st, and 

it has been discussed. It was requested by 

the New York delegation that we hold that in 

Buffalo, New York. We discussed that at the 

last Board meeting. There was also some 

mention of holding one in the D.C. area, but 

at the time we spoke about it this summer, we 

were having difficulty finding a hotel. We 

have a hotel. So having the meeting in 

Buffalo is not a problem in a logistical sense 

at all. 

 D.C. -- we didn't pursue it, but -- 
203 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: I thought there was 

interested in Idaho for that. 

 MR. KATZ: We have a meeting 

scheduled for Idaho this summer. I will get 

to that, but that is August, August 10th 

through 12th, when there is no snow. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that the week 

that there is no snow? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: We don't guarantee 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think the 

question Ted is asking is do you want to 

confirm a Buffalo meeting in May, I believe, 

is the question he has. Yes, Phil? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I think we kind 

of pushed that at the last meeting for 

Buffalo. I think we should just keep it 

there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Other 

comments? 

 MEMBER MUNN: What is happening 

that would take us to Buffalo? 
204 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What we have in 

Buffalo is we do have a petition, an SEC 

petition from Bethlehem Steel. Now part of 

that petition, I believe, rests on the issue 

of surrogate data, and I believe that the 

Surrogate Data Work Group is still dealing 

with the criteria for use of surrogate data, 

and I am looking for Dr. Melius, because he 

chairs that particular work group. 

 It would certainly be helpful if we 

had by May some closure on surrogate data 

criteria, both at the work group level and, in 

my opinion, at the Board level as well. Since 

there is another meeting prior to that -- we 

have the February meeting -- that would be a 

goal to try to push for. Dr. Melius seems to 

have left the room. He was looking for Mark 

who is now here. Mark, could you go find Dr. 

Melius? No, don't do that. 

 In any event, let me have any other 

comments on Buffalo. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: There is Dr. 
205 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Melius. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or alternates. 

We can defer this until tomorrow also, until 

we see what other things are coming. We have 

some other SECs coming down the line as well, 

which will be presented by LaVon tomorrow. I 

guess I am going to just stop at that point. 

We will pick it up again. We have confirmed 

the other two meetings. We will come back to 

this after we see what the total SEC picture 

looks like. But let me just alert Dr. Melius. 

 We were talking about meeting in 

Buffalo, and I indicated that it would be -- 

if we do meet in Buffalo, one of the things 

the folks there are very interested in are the 

surrogate data criteria, which are in draft 

form and would need to be finalized by the 

work group and then out to the full Board by 

the February meeting. 

 I don't know if that is doable 

because of the meeting times, but it would be 

a goal. It seems to me, if we are going to 
206 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Buffalo, it would be important to have some 

level of closure on those or at least have 

those on the table. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: We are not planning 

on Buffalo in February, are we? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. We are 

talking about Buffalo in May, but our meeting 

before that is February. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I understand. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I am 

suggesting that we perhaps then finalize the 

decision on that tomorrow after we see sort of 

the full load of other SEC activities coming 

before us, and have a good feel for what else 

is on our platter at that time. But we have 

had a number of requests from the, not only 

Congressional delegation, but the folks 

associated with Bethlehem Steel, the 

petitioners, to come to Buffalo. Certainly, to 

the extent we are able to do that and have the 

appropriate material ready to discuss, that 

certainly would be appropriate. So at least 
207 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be thinking about that, and be prepared 

tomorrow to finalize a recommendation on that. 

 I am going to now -- having used a 

little time here to go back and see if the 

petitioners are on the line from the Electro 

Metallurgical Company. Are there petitioners 

on the line? 

 (No response.) 

 Because it is now 2:30 which is the 

proper time. The indication I had was that at 

least one of the petitioners would be on the 

line. Perhaps before we actually get into the 

presentation, I will make one other comment on 

this particular petition. 

 On this particular petition, the 

petitioner asked us to delay the presentation. 

 That request occurred just a few days ago, 

over the weekend, and Ted Katz did discuss 

that with me. I felt that -- well, the 

petitioner basically said we haven't had time 

to review the evaluation report and respond to 

it, and my feeling on this was that we needed 
208 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to go ahead and have the presentation made. 

This is one where NIOSH is -- I will get to 

the bottom line, you already know what it is. 

 They are recommending that they can 

reconstruct dose. 

 Our usual practice for this is to 

take such recommendations, to assign the 

review of the evaluation report to a work 

group, usually to task SC&A to assist in the 

review, if needed, and to involve the 

petitioners in both the review process and the 

resolution of findings and that sort of thing. 

 So, and the effect that typically 

occurs, if we delay the presentation, is also 

 to delay the subsequent action, such as the 

tasking and the initiation of the work group 

activities. So it seemed to me that it would 

make sense to go ahead. We are not expecting 

the petitioners to necessarily have either 

fully reviewed the document and to have 

necessarily, if they have things to rebut or 

contrary information, to necessarily present 
209 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. All this will do will allow the process 

to get underway, which in my mind is actually 

beneficial to the petitioner, so that we don't 

delay any actions. 

 By no means do we want to handicap 

the petitioners in any way, and we will 

certainly do everything we can, not only to 

involve them, but to make sure that we do our 

best to clarify technical issues which may be 

of concern. 

 So with that as background, we are 

going to proceed to have the NIOSH 

presentation, which will be given by Chris 

Crawford. Let me check again to see if either 

of the petitioners are on the line at this 

moment. This is for Electro Metallurgical. 

Apparently not, but I think we do think we 

need to proceed. They do have a copy of the 

evaluation report. Thank you. 

 Chris, please proceed. 

 MR. CRAWFORD: This is a brand new 

controller. So bear with me for a moment. 
210 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Good afternoon. We are here today 

to talk about the Electromet evaluation report 

from NIOSH. As you see, Electromet is located 

in Niagara Falls, New York, not far from 

Linde, and that is no coincidence, because 

Linde provided the source material, the 

feedstock, for the Electromet people. They 

began uranium operations in April of '43 under 

contract with the NED at that time. Form 

April '43 through June '53, the plant 

intermittently produced uranium metal from 

uranium tetrafluoride, also known as green 

salt, in a thermal reduction process employing 

magnesium. 

 This was the only process employed 

at Electromet, and it was done consistently 

through the years. Just as a matter of 

history, Electromet, which is also known as 

Electro Metallurgical Company, as well as 

Corporation, was acquired by Union Carbide, 

and that in turn was acquired by Dow at some 

point later, but during these years we are 
211 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concerned with Electromet Corporation itself. 

 From '43 to '51 uranium operations 

were carried out, with two standby periods. 

Then on June 30, '53, all AEC operations 

formally ceased. There was a short period in 

-- six-month period in '51 where they were 

doing less than full scale production. Most 

of the production was done in the '43 to '46 

period, and then again '47 to '49. 

 We are talking about natural 

uranium being the only nuclear component 

present. We actually received two petitions, 

one on November 17th, which I believe was 132, 

the other on December 8th, which was 136. On 

March 12th we qualified them both and rolled 

the earlier petition into the 136 petition. 

Then on July 23, 2009, we issued the 

evaluation report. 

 The petitioner had proposed all 

workers who worked in any area at the Electro 

Metallurgical Corporation facility from 

[identifying information redacted], '42 
212 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

through [identifying information redacted], 

'53. After a little investigation by NIOSH, 

we were able to confirm that the first uranium 

actually arrived on or about April 1, 1943. 

So we changed the class evaluation to all 

workers who worked in any area at the Electro 

Metallurgical Corporation facility from April 

1, 1943 through June 30, 1953. 

 We had many sources of available 

information. The SRDB, Site Research 

Database, actually turned out to be filled 

with things. I won't go through these 

individually. I think you have seen them from 

site after site. We also did interviews with 

former Electromet employees. We also have, of 

course, material in the individual case files 

filed by the claimants in our tracking system, 

and petitioner's documentation as well. 

 As of October 1st -- this says 

August 1st, but I don't think that number has 

changed -- we had 98 claims submitted on 

Electromet. We have done 92 dose 
213 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstructions. As you can see, only 

[identifying information redacted] of the 

cases had internal and external dosimetry. 

Forty-four of the 92 cases had PoCs of over 50 

percent. So at least with this batch, we are 

compensating just under 50 percent of the 

cases, as things stand. 

 The petitioner was concerned on two 

rounds, really: that very few workers were 

monitored for external exposure in the MED, 

Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Energy 

period, and that the effectiveness of the 

health protection industrial health programs 

was, by implication here, weak. 

 We looked into this again. We 

found that some Electromet workers were 

monitored. The production workers were 

monitored intermittently. They were monitored 

for a very short period in '44. This is 

external monitoring I am talking about, and 

then in '48 and '49 we had the production 

workers monitored externally fairly closely. 
214 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Electromet issued dosimeters to 

employees in '44. However, in '44 there was 

only one employee monitored and for a period 

of three days. So that data is pretty light 

for external dosimetry. For '48-'49 all the 

process workers were monitored. We also have 

urinalysis data for '44 and for '49. We have 

breathing zone and area monitoring air samples 

for '44 and from '47 to '49. We also point 

out again that the production processes were 

essentially the same for the entire period. 

 We found that production personnel 

were indeed exposed to high levels of external 

and internal radiation, that personal 

protection was substantially less than modern 

standards call for. 

 Let me say just a couple of things 

parenthetically before getting into our sample 

dose reconstruction. We cannot say how many 

people had any personal protective equipment. 

 We know they wore gloves. We know they used 

respirators. We have comments about that, but 
215 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we don't know how many people did or how often 

or how consistently. So of course, we never 

include respirator protection anyway in our 

monitoring. 

 The only reason I bring it up is 

that, you will see later, we have some very 

high inhalation exposures, and one was so high 

that one would wonder how they worked in such 

an atmosphere. Well, many of the dustiest 

jobs, in fact, they probably did wear 

respirators, but again that is parenthetical. 

 For our sample dose reconstruction, 

what I am presenting here, we will take an 

operator -- that is, one of the process 

people, most exposed -- a male, born in '23, 

who got a basal cell carcinoma, ICD Code 

173.3. We are assuming that this is on a part 

of the body that is not covered by clothing 

and that isn't in the direct path of the X-ray 

beam, as far as I know. 

 The date of diagnosis is 1980. 

Ethnicity is white, non-Hispanic. This person 
216 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was unmonitored for the entire production 

period. There is no external monitoring and 

no internal monitoring at all for this person. 

 We made claimant favorable assumptions in the 

case by providing under TBD-6001, Appendix C, 

which is specific to Electromet. We have 

established unmonitored photon and electron 

doses assigned for all years of production. 

 We also assumed anterior, posterior 

exposures. We assumed 100 percent, 30 to 250 

keV photons at the 95th percentile exposure 

level, and a beta exposure also at the 95th 

percentile. We used, as we do with skin 

cancers, a dose conversion factor of one, and 

we assigned internal intakes of uranium at the 

95th percentile for both inhalation and 

ingestion. We ended up with an unmonitored 

photon assigned photon dose of 24.355 rem for 

the period, and an unmonitored electron dose 

of 126.407 rem for the period. 

 For the internal, the inhalation 

intake of Type S natural uranium, we posited 
217 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

60,661 dpm per day during operations, and 473 

dpm per day during standby periods. I 

actually found personnel rosters from '44 

through '49, which is basically the entire 

production period, and these weren't just 

standbys in the sense of no uranium work was 

going on. Most of the staff was laid off at 

that point except for the office personnel and 

guards for these intermittent periods. But 

nonetheless, we established for those people 

or for anyone else left on site some standby 

period exposures. 

 The ingestion intake of 1178 dpm 

per day of natural uranium, also posited, and 

we came up with an internal dose based on 

these figures from '43 through the date of 

diagnosis in 1980 was 15.372 rem, which for a 

skin cancer case is a substantial dose from 

internal exposure only. So in this we 

consider it a best estimate, because we are 

going by TBD-6001 figures, which is what we 

have to use essentially for all cases where we 
218 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

don't have exposure monitoring. So we have a 

total dose of 166.188 rem, with a probability 

of causation of 93.46 percent. 

 We also did a lung case, which you 

will not be surprised to hear was compensable. 

 I believe that was well over 97 percent. 

This was a very dusty plant. So lung doses 

can be very large. We also did a prostate 

case, and that had a very high probability of 

causation also at 49 percent. 

 Now that is assuming that one 

worker stayed through the entire 10-year 

period. In many cases, there was a lot of 

plant turnover, as you would expect. So not 

all workers would have had this kind of dose. 

 As I mentioned before, we issued 

the evaluation report on July 23, 2009. There 

is a two-prong test that needs to be met that, 

again, you are all aware of. 

 The first was is it feasible to 

estimate the level of radiation doses of the 

individual members of the class with 
219 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sufficient accuracy. And if the answer to 

that is no, then we have to answer the second 

test. Is there a reasonable likelihood that 

such radiation dose may have endangered the 

health of members of the class? 

 Since Dr. Ziemer has given away the 

answer, NIOSH has concluded that we can do 

dose reconstructions for the entire period. 

We have enough records, and we are sure enough 

of the source term data and the production 

process that we feel we can do dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

the evaluated class of employees. So we don't 

need to establish the health endangerment 

determination. 

 Essentially, we found 

reconstruction feasible for internal uranium 

doses and for all external radiation sources. 

 The neutron source is trivial compared to the 

gamma photon production in this kind of a 

plant. There is an alpha n reaction which can 

take place with the fluoride present, but it 
220 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

produces very low doses compared to the other 

dose. 

 Any questions? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me start by 

asking a question about internal dose to the 

skin. I guess I just don't remember in the 

models. I am going to claim it is a senior 

moment, Jim, but I'm not seeing how we get 

such a big -- the skin dose from uptake of 

uranium. So am I missing something here? Is 

that a translocation? 

 DR. NETON: It's interesting. I've 

just had this exact same conversation with Dr. 

Poston over the lunch hour. 

 The ICRP 66 models and the new 

dosimetry model actually do account for dose 

to the skin from internal -- from intakes of 

radioactive materials. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is this 

deposition somewhere in fatty tissue or 

something? 

 DR. NETON: Well, I think what it 
221 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is, is remainder tissue, essentially the 

remainder organs, and then they assume some 

sort of proximity of the remainder 

distribution of tissues in association with 

the surface layer of the skin. 

 I am not certain I am in 100 

percent agreement with their approach, but 

that is, nonetheless, what they have done. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's the way they 

assign that then? 

 DR. NETON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was going to 

claim the model is too new for me to have been 

familiar with it, but it sounds like it is -- 

certainly, in my mind, it would be a very 

questionable calculation. I don't know if 

that is something -- particularly if it is 

going to be used in the future, but would be 

one of those scientific issues NIOSH might 

want to look at closely. 

 It looks like -- I understand the 

assigning of sort of what is left over to, you 
222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

know, a bunch of other organs, but in reality 

I don't see a mechanism where the skin can be 

one of those in this case. 

 DR. NETON: You parallel my 

thinking exactly. In fact, when we first 

started this program eight years ago or so, I 

was surprised to see this, and we went through 

in some detail and discussed this with some 

folks. One wonders about the dose to the 70 

micron layer where the sensitive cells of the 

skin reside, versus an internal exposure that 

is sort of uniformly distributed. 

 This may be one of those issues -- 

and there are some disconnects in ICRP where 

for radiation protection purposes they have 

taken certain liberties that may end up not 

being 100 percent appropriate -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: From a biological 

or cancer point of view maybe. 

 DR. NETON: Right. Nonetheless, it 

is claimant favorable. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I will grant you 
223 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that, but is it plausible? 

 DR. NETON: This is not new. We 

have been assigning these doses for a long 

time. What you see here, though, is an 

artifact of the situation where we just have 

some very, very large inhalation intakes. I 

forget what Chris talked about, but 60,000 dpm 

per day or something. So 30 nanocuries per 

day intake is a substantial quantity. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I 

confess, I wasn't aware we were assigning skin 

doses of that magnitude in other cases, but it 

is, at least from a scientific point of view, 

a little troubling, although perhaps someone 

can convince me that it really does occur. 

 It is one of the issues we do face 

with models sometimes. You know, we do rely 

on models a lot, and they are often useful, 

and, again, I quote my friend, Dan Strom: All 

models are poor, but some are useful. Okay. 

 Other comments? Josie? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Since you stole my 
224 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

first question, was there any air sampling 

data, or is this all process data? I'm sure I 

missed that. 

 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. There was air 

sample data, and we do have both breathing 

zone and general area. As luck would have it, 

the `48, '49 data actually compares very well 

to the '44 data that was gathered, and it is 

high. 

 I might also point out that there 

are many layers of conservative assumptions 

built into this. The highest exposed member 

of the work team, for instance, was taken as 

an example, and his dose -- some of the air 

sample data were more than 500 times above the 

maximum permissible level in his case. Now we 

think he wore a respirator, but leaving that 

aside, we based our doses on the high member 

of the team. 

 Many of the people received much 

less exposure than the most highly exposed 

members. 
225 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Has there been any 

sort of a site visit or worker outreach for 

this facility? 

 MR. CRAWFORD: I am unaware -- the 

site, by the way -- my understanding -- first 

of all, this is a DOE site. There is no 

residual period. I forgot to mention that. 

Also, I believe the building was torn down 

shortly after the AEC period was over. 

 There has been no site visit that I 

know of. We have many documents, and I don't 

know of any outreach meeting specifically for 

Electromet. Somebody may contradict me. No? 

 Okay. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I would just add 

that I think the Union Carbide facility is 

still operational. I don't know how this 

particular operation was connected to that, 

but their facility in Niagara Falls -- they 

had one that was active for years. 

 MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sure you are 
226 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right. I believe this operation was later 

done at Fernald, if I have that right, and 

that is why the processing stopped in the 

Buffalo area for this kind of work. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Further 

comments? Let me check again -- oh, another 

comment, Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Actually, you 

reminded me of another question. You have a 

statement in the report about -- one of the 

issues at Fernald are the so called blowouts, 

and you have a statement in the report that 

there was sort of -- I can't tell how -- 

whether it just was a flat statement here, 

something about no credible evidence or 

something like that. Can you sort of 

elaborate on that -- of any blowouts at this 

facility? 

 MR. CRAWFORD: First of all, we 

were unable to establish exactly what a 

blowout was. It was also not clear -- it may 

have referred to the bombs, which are kind of 
227 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

an enclosed crucible, you might call it, 

that's a reaction vessel. Maybe it would be 

the loss of seal on one of those. 

 It is not clear that that would 

actually produce more dust and dirt than some 

of the later mechanical operations in filling 

the bomb and in taking the material out of the 

bomb. But anyway, we had nothing to go on 

there. We don't exactly know what a blowout 

is. Nobody was able to tell us, and we 

certainly have no sample data from that. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Funny, because the 

report seemed to compare it to activities at 

Fernald so it's a little confused. We can 

address it later. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I want to check 

and see if either of the petitioners who are 

Electro Metallurgical have come on the line 

and, if so, if they wish to speak. Okay, 

apparently not. Hang on. Yes? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Hello. This is 

Antoinette Bonsignore. I am not one of the 
228 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Electromet petitioners, but I have been 

assisting both of these petitioners with this 

SEC petition. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I am aware 

of that. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: And I don't 

believe that they were aware that this 

petition was going forward today. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it has been 

on the agenda. I mentioned at the beginning, 

I know that one of the petitioners asked that 

we delay it, but -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- but we 

indicated that we did plan to have the 

presentation in the interest of going ahead 

with the follow-up operations that we usually 

do on this type of petition, which include 

usually the tasking of our -- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Working Group. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, both the 

Working Group and of our contractor. 
229 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think we have-- 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Well, I understand 

that, Dr. Ziemer, but I know that -- I believe 

that Ted Katz may have sent an email to one of 

the petitioners letting them know that this is 

going forward, but I don't believe she got the 

email or -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I see. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I happen to know 

her quite well, and she doesn't check her 

email very regularly. So I don't believe she 

knows what is going on, and I contacted both 

of the petitioners by phone about 10 minutes 

ago, and neither of them are at home. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we 

appreciate you following up on that. We have 

an additional comment here from Laurie. Go 

ahead. 

 MS. BREYER: No, I was going to add 

that we notified the petitioners when the 

evaluation first came out in late August/early 
230 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

September, that it was going to be at this 

meeting, and then I contacted them in mid- to 

late September and let them know, and I talked 

to the petitioner the day before she sent the 

email letting her know it was still going to 

be on the agenda. Then she received an email 

again from Ted saying that it would be the 

agenda still, and I received no phone calls or 

emails from either of them asking if it was 

still on the agenda. 

 Everything that has been 

communicated to them was that it was going to 

be on this agenda at this time and that it was 

still going forward. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I understand that, 

Laurie, but I don't believe that this 

petitioner has seen that email from Ted. 

 MS. GREYER: Well, the petitioner 

does have my phone number and has my email as 

well, and hasn't contacted me since I talked 

to her on Thursday telling her that it was 
231 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

going to be on today's agenda. So if there 

was some confusion, you know, I would be happy 

to clear it up with her and tell her what 

happened. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

believe it will be a problem in terms of how 

we will proceed. As I indicated at the 

beginning of this, we will give the petitioner 

every opportunity to provide input to a Work 

Group, which I expect will be the next 

assignment. We will keep the petitioners 

involved in the activities of the Work Group 

meetings and try to assist in answering 

technical questions that may arise. 

 So we will do our best to make sure 

that the petitioner stays in the loop. And we 

appreciate the fact that you have tried to 

help her, Antoinette, and we will be in 

contact with her as well. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. I just 

think it is unfortunate that she was planning 

to give some form of a statement today and 
232 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that she was unable to. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. They 

still have the opportunity. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I don't think that 

is appropriate. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, also if 

you're able to reach her, we do have a public 

comment period that you are aware of later 

today, and perhaps if you are successful or 

one of us is successful in trying to reach 

her, she may have an opportunity then also to 

make comment. 

 I know that you will be on the line 

also, I believe, at 6:00 for comments on 

another matter. Hopefully, we will be able to 

hear from her one way or the other. We 

appreciate your efforts in that regard. 

 MS. BREYER: And I will be happy to 

call the petitioner on Monday as well and let 

her know what happened. I did tell her that, 

more than likely, what would happen, it would 

go to a Work Group, and I would keep her up to 
233 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

date of any future Work Group meetings. That 

way, we can avoid any future miscommunication. 

 I will be happy to do that as well. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MS. BREYER: And let her know that 

she could send a written statement by email to 

the Board as well. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Board 

members, any additional discussion? Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: At the risk of 

sounding like a broken record, a question here 

on the sufficient accuracy thing. I just 

wanted to ask while you are here -- can lay 

out some specifics on this. 

 A couple of the documents on the O: 

Drive. One of them says all personnel in the 

plant were exposed to greater than MAC, which 

I assume to be one MAC, but I'm not sure, of 

uranium dust. Some operations more than 100 

times MAC. 
234 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The other report -- and I think 

this is a 1948 report -- said they found high 

exposures with essentially all workers exposed 

to greater than five MAC. One group handling 

UF4 had exposures greater than 500 MAC. 

 So I go back to my theme of the 

day, I guess. You know, it seems like all 

workers were greater than five, but then you 

got a factor of 100, and I think what you are 

saying in your model is that you are going to 

assume the worst case for all workers 

throughout the plant, and to me, I would ask 

the Board to consider whether a factor of 100 

is sufficiently accurate. 

 I don't know if you can -- there is 

no way to narrow down these workers, I assume, 

is what you are saying, on who worked in these 

hotter operations or these dustier operations. 

 MR. CRAWFORD: That's right. We 

can separate the process workers from the 

office workers, but we can't say for sure 

which process workers did which operations. 
235 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

We also know that several of the operations, 

apparently by plant custom, the jolter 

operator and the green salt room operator 

would switch jobs every other day. The same 

with the head remelt man and the furnace 

operator. 

 So pinning down the exact location 

of any individual is really impossible. Even 

if we had their job titles, we would have a 

little problem, and we don't, for the most 

part. 

 So that is quite true. Also, I 

should explain that the 60,000 dpm per day 

level is conservative in another sense. The 

actual maximum data that was collected, which 

was the 557, I think, MPL level, maximum 

preferred level, when that was translated into 

dpm per day, that comes out to about 40,000 

dpm per day, and that was true both in the '44 

time frame and in the '48-'49 time frame. 

 The reason we used 60,000 is we fit 

that to a log normal distribution, took the 
236 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

95th percentile, which we felt was more 

conservative. 

 And this also fits -- I didn't 

mention, but should. The urinalysis data we 

have is comfortably below that kind of level. 

So there is no urinalysis data that would 

challenge the assumption of 60,000 -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess that would 

 be my question. How comfortably below? I 

would assume it is way below. 

 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. I don't have 

an exact number for you, but it was way below. 

 This is also above the TBD-6000, which is a 

fairly general report. This is a specific 

one, this TBD-6001 for Electromet, but it is 

considerably above the TBD-6000 figures, too. 

 MR. KATZ: Paul is returning to the 

table as we speak. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I usually try to 

leave when Mark has a question. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Well, we voted for 

you while you were away. 
237 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any other 

discussion on this? An appropriate motion 

would be to refer this to a work group and 

perhaps do some tasking. But let me point 

out, this is a TBD-6001 and is involved in one 

of the appendices, and we have, again, an 

existing Work Group, the TBD-6000/6001 Work 

Group, which now is getting more and more 

loaded up with activities. But I think, as a 

starting point, it would be appropriate to 

have a motion to refer this to that Work 

Group. 

 Again, as in the other case, if 

this becomes such a burden because they now 

are dealing with three sites if this is 

approved as well as the main TBD documents 

themselves -- we still have 6001 to close out 

as well as some parts of 6000. 

 Nonetheless, I think that would be 

appropriate at this time. Is there a motion 

to refer this to that Work Group, and, again, 

that Work Group already has available SC&A's 
238 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

services for tasking. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I will make 

the motion to move this to the 6001 Work 

Group. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. A 

second? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I will second 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And seconded. 

Any discussion? All in favor, aye? 

 (Chorus of ayes.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any opposed? No. 

 And abstentions? Motion carriers. 

 So this will be considered then by 

that Work Group, and, again, we will provide 

opportunity for the petitioners to provide 

their responses to the evaluation report, as 

well as other information that they believe 

might be helpful to the Work Group and to the 

Board. 

 We can go ahead and have our break. 

 Originally, it was scheduled for 15 minutes, 
239 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but we can string that out a little bit. So 

we will make it a half-hour break and then 

return. 

 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

went off the record at 3:04 p.m. and resumed 

at 3:38 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are ready to 

resume our meeting. Our next item on the 

agenda is a petition, SEC Petition from what 

is called the University of Rochester Atomic 

Energy Project. Dr. Hughes will present the 

NIOSH evaluation report. 

 We are uncertain if the petitioners 

will be on the line, but if they are, they 

will have an opportunity to comment. Dr. 

Hughes, welcome back to the mic. You may 

proceed. 

 DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

 This is the last presentation for today. So 

this is the NIOSH evaluation for the SEC 

petition for the University of Rochester 

Atomic Energy Project. 
240 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 A little bit of the site history, 

this coverage started in 1943 when the 

Manhattan Engineer District, the predecessor 

of the AEC, contracted with the University of 

Rochester to develop a medical program for the 

nuclear bomb project. The reason the 

University was chosen was because some of the 

faculty or researchers at this facility 

already had some previous experience with 

investigating radionuclide and radiation 

effects on animals, I suppose. 

 The initial task of this program 

was to construct a building where this project 

was housed, and this building opened on 

September 1943. After the war, by 1946 this 

project was transferred to the Atomic Energy 

Commission, later to the Department of Energy, 

and was renamed the Atomic Energy Project or 

AEP, as it was known from thereon. 

 By 1950 the project was 

supplemented by an educational program. This 

was a research university, after all, and this 
241 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was called the Department of Radiation 

Biology, and just for some statistics, by 1968 

about 800 students had passed through this 

department. 

 From 1952 to 1968, the project 

operated the so-called Alpha Laboratory, which 

was a special facility to study inhalation 

effects of alpha emitters, and I will get back 

to that in a little bit. This facility, the 

Alpha Laboratory, was decommissioned by 1971, 

and the contract with the AEC, or rather the 

DOE -- by that time, it was the DOE. The 

contract ended in 1986, and the AEP ceased to 

exist. 

 This is somewhat of a outline or 

floor plan of the facility. Unfortunately, I 

could not find a photograph. The project was 

housed in the medical school annex. That is 

what it was called, and it was a facility that 

was constructed by the Atomic Energy 

Commission for this project. 

 The initial building was called the 
242 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

A Wing, which is this part, already existed at 

the University, and the following wing, the B 

Wing, C Wing, and the O Wing and OO Wing 

eventually had to be expanded across the 

street, and they were connected to the 

previous wings with a tunnel, an underground 

tunnel, which also had a vault associated with 

it where some sources were stored, and all 

these were built by the AEC. 

 As for the site operations, during 

wartime and shortly thereafter, the main focus 

of this project was determining tolerances 

doses for workers with regard to external, 

internal radiation exposure. Also they were 

tasked to develop instrumentation to measure 

exposure, to measure contamination in plants 

and in workers, and develop safety measures to 

protect workers from exposure. 

 After the immediate post-World War 

II time, from 1949 on, the focus shifted 

somewhere -- primarily to focus on 

consultation and education. The specific task 
243 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of protecting workers and providing services, 

monitoring services to outside plants, were 

shifted to the New York Operations Office, the 

Health and Safety Laboratory, actually. 

 As for the petition, this petition 

was received on March 6, 2009. On May 7, 2009 

NIOSH issued a professional judgment that the 

petition qualified based on the unavailability 

of personal monitoring data. On May 22nd the 

Federal Register notice was published, and 

September 9, NIOSH issued the evaluation 

report. 

 The petitioner-proposed class 

definition included all laboratory technicians 

who worked in the University of Rochester 

Atomic Energy Project Laboratory building at 

the University of Rochester in Rochester, New 

York, from September 1, 1943, through June 19, 

1945. 

 Now NIOSH expanded this class in 

order to evaluate it based on the finding of 

lack of monitoring data, and the NIOSH 
244 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evaluated class was all employees of the 

Department of Energy and its predecessor 

agencies, contractors, subcontractors, who 

worked at this facility from September 1, 

1943, through October 30, 1971. 

 NIOSH recommends to add a class to 

be added to the SEC which consists of all 

employees of the Department of Energy, its 

predecessor agencies, its contractors, and 

subcontractors who worked at the University 

Rochester Atomic Energy Project from September 

1, 1943 through October 30, 1971. 

 In order to evaluate this petition, 

NIOSH went through its usual search for 

records, and this includes the ORAU Technical 

Information Bulletins, the case files in the 

NIOSH database, the NIOSH site research 

database, documents provided by the 

petitioners, interviews and the University of 

Rochester Library special collections. 

 Now let me add a little something. 

 The documents that are in the NIOSH site 
245 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

research database, obviously, come from 

various sources, and NIOSH has done a pretty 

thorough -- has tried to turn over every stone 

possible in order to find records for this 

facility. 

 This included various federal 

records centers and, of course, several visits 

to the actual site were made in order to 

determine if there are records available. We 

looked through the special collections in the 

library, as well as the health and safety 

records that were stored at the University of 

Rochester site. 

 As for the interviews, we have 

actually been able to interview eight 

individuals, and the combined work span of 

these eight individuals actually encompasses 

the entire period from 1942 -- or '43, pardon 

-- through the present. So we actually 

covered the entire period. 

 We were actually able to talk to 

people that worked at any given year during 
246 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that period. Some of these were actually 

individuals that worked for a very long period 

of time, 20 to 30 years at this facility. 

 There are currently seven claims in 

the NIOSH claims system as of August 12, 2009. 

 This is in the evaluation report, but this 

number has not changed since then. One dose 

reconstruction was completed, and there are no 

cases, no claims, with internal dosimetry 

information available, and external dosimetry 

information is available for one claim. 

 The internal exposure potential at 

this site was a result of numerous and varied 

research projects involving a large variety of 

radionuclides, including iodine-131, tritium, 

carbon-14, and several alpha emitters. The 

previously mentioned Alpha Laboratory was the 

large part that produced this internal 

exposure potential. 

 The Alpha Laboratory was a facility 

for exposing animals to aerosols of primarily 

alpha emitting radionuclides, such as uranium, 
247 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

plutonium, polonium, radium and radon; and 

this facility was located on the second level 

of the B Wing. It was pretty much in the 

center of this facility. 

 It was designed to project the 

worker from exposure. It was divided into hot 

and cold areas. Although it was designed to 

protect a worker from exposure, the available 

documentation has shown that it was also found 

necessary to monitor whether or not workers 

were exposed to internal radionuclides. 

 The external exposure potential was 

a result of several X-ray units that were used 

for various industry and medical applications. 

 One of them was called the million volt X-ray 

machine. 

 There were two cobalt-60 

irradiators, one of 6,000 curie strength and 

one of 10,000 curie strength. There were 

radon progeny from the Alpha Lab operations. 

There was a large amount of uranium present 

associated with various parts of this project, 
248 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

which could have posed an external exposure 

potential, and just a very large number of 

varying gamma and beta emitting radionuclides. 

 If you look at the evaluation report, it is 

in there in a little bit more detail. 

 In addition, the University itself 

had two cyclotrons, and in addition there was 

a neutron -- the facility also had a neutron 

generator and some alpha beryllium neutron 

sources. So there was some neutron exposure 

potential as well. 

 The availability of the internal 

dosimetry data is limited. There is very 

little internal dosimetry data. There is 

some. They are very small datasets that 

consists of five samples here, five samples 

there, over the course of operations. It is 

in no way sufficiently comprehensive to bound 

the dose. 

 Now as I mentioned, the Alpha 

Laboratory documentation that is available 

indicated that workers needed to be monitored 
249 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for internal exposure, and they actually were 

monitored. 

 There are indications that a 

routine bioassay program existed, which 

started in 1953 and monitored workers for the 

exposure to polonium-210. This was for the 

employees of the Alpha Lab, but NIOSH was 

unable to locate this data. 

 The external dosimetry data is in a 

little bit better shape. External exposure 

summaries start in 1947, and individual 

exposure data is available starting in 1953. 

 The Brookhaven National Laboratory 

actually provided the external film badge 

service from 1953 to 1971, which included 

neutron monitoring. This external data will 

be used by NIOSH for partial dose 

reconstruction on a case by case basis. the 

external data is suitable for that. 

 The petition basis was that the 

petitioner claimed that, to the best of the 

petitioner's knowledge, the petitioner was not 
250 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

monitored for radiation exposure for work in 

the radiation area, and NIOSH -- The 

evaluation by NIOSH concurred with this 

statement. There was no personal monitoring 

in the period from [identifying information 

redacted], 1943, through [identifying 

information redacted] 1945, which was the 

period the petitioner had indicated on her 

petition. 

 Now, NIOSH expanded this class that 

was evaluated to December 1971, based on the 

unavailability of internal monitoring data, 

and the NIOSH evaluation has found that 

monitoring data for the proposed period for 

the University of Rochester Atomic Energy 

Project was not found in a sufficient amount 

that would allow to bound the dose, although 

the Atomic Energy Project had the potential to 

expose workers in the AEP facility, the 

medical school annex, to internal and external 

radiation sources. 

 Again, this evaluation process was 
251 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a two-pronged test that first determines the 

feasibility to estimate the level of radiation 

doses and, secondly, determines whether there 

is a reasonable likelihood that that radiation 

dose may have endangered the health of the 

members of the class. 

 NIOSH found that the available 

monitoring records, process description, and 

source term data are insufficient to complete 

the reconstructions -- to complete those 

reconstructions for the proposed class of 

employees, and NIOSH currently lacks access to 

sufficient monitoring, source term data and 

process information to estimate the complete 

internal and external dose to members of the 

class. 

 Therefore, again, the NIOSH 

proposed class definition includes all 

employees of the Department of Energy, its 

predecessor agencies, and its contractors and 

subcontractors who worked at the University of 

Rochester Atomic Energy Project in Rochester, 
252 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

New York, from September 1, 1943, through 

October 30, 1971, for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days occurring 

either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more classes 

of employees in the SEC. 

 Since NIOSH has determined that it 

is not feasible to complete dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 

this site and period, and concludes that the 

health of the employees covered may have been 

endangered, the evidence that was reviewed in 

this evaluation indicates that workers in the 

class may have received chronic internal, 

external, exposures from a large variety of 

radionuclides used in research at the 

University of Rochester, under contract with 

the AEC or DOE. 

 This is my last slide, and I have a 

mistake in there. I apologize. So please 

disregard these numbers for the years. 
253 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The summary: the internal dose 

reconstruction is not feasible for the entire 

evaluated period of 1943 through 1971, and 

external dose reconstructions is not feasible 

from 1943 to 1953. 

 NIOSH has determined that those 

external doses can be reconstructed starting 

in 1953 when individual external data are 

available. I made a mistake of putting 1947 

here, which is the start of the external data 

availability. However, it is only available 

in summary data, and it is not clear to what 

extent that could be used for external dose 

reconstructions. 

 Now, I would like to point out that 

NIOSH reserved the post-1971 evaluation 

period, because -- okay, let me start over. 

 The post-1971 period was reserved 

by NIOSH because of some possibility that 

additional data might be found. Currently, 

there are no claims that would fall into the 

post-1971 period. So with this SEC petition 
254 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evaluation, all current claims would be 

covered, and if a claim should come in that 

would fall into the post-1971 period, NIOSH 

would have to reevaluate for that period. 

 I think that is my presentation. 

Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. 

Hughes. Could you speak to an issue which is 

fairly common in universities, and that is the 

issue of access to buildings. 

 Are we assured that the buildings 

associated with this project were not 

accessible by others on the campus? I would 

not want this to become one of those where 

anybody on the campus is covered. But 

universities are sort of notorious for not 

having good security on buildings. So have 

you confirmed that there was limited access to 

this building by only those in the project? 

 DR. HUGHES: No. During the MED 

period, there was strict access controls. 

There was a guard. As far as we know from 
255 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

interviews and some other documentation, there 

was access control. 

 Now after the post-World War II 

period when this became the AEP under the 

Atomic Energy Commission, there were no access 

controls, as far as I am aware of. 

 I am not sure if people who were 

not affiliated with this project would go in 

this building, because this building was 

solely devoted to just project. However, I do 

not believe there were access controls. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it could be 

a problem, because at least -- I've been on a 

lot of different university campuses, and 

except for university reactors, which are very 

highly controlled, you can walk in almost 

anywhere. 

 There's a few exceptions to that. 

Some inner-city campuses, like Temple 

University, you have to have a photo ID to get 

into any building just to take a class. I 

don't know if that is still true at Temple, 
256 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

but it was when I visited there, and it had 

nothing to do with radiation. 

 On our campus, you can just -- 

almost anybody can walk into almost any lab, 

even those that are presumably restricted. 

That is one of the problems the NRC has 

typically with universities, because they are 

so accessible. So that would be a concern, if 

they did not have access control. 

 Dr. Roessler, and then Dr. Melius. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: Lara, mine is 

pretty simple. I think on your last slide you 

have a typo. I think you have ORINS instead 

of -- 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: You might want to 

fix that for the record. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, I will send out -

- I noticed it after it was already sent out, 

and I didn't want to change it for the 

presentation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 
257 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MELIUS: A couple of 

questions. As I recall -- and I am trying to 

bring up the DOE report, but this was also one 

of the sites involved in the human 

experimentation issue? 

 DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: So were there 

records from that report accessed in some way? 

 I couldn't tell. 

 DR. HUGHES: They were reviewed, 

yes. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Okay, good. 

Secondly, another source of information which 

I didn't see referenced was -- or you talked 

to the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, but radiation 

regulation in New York state is divided by 

between the State Department of Labor and the 

State Health Department and the Environmental 

Conservation group. 

 Department of Labor had a very 

active inspection program that covered 
258 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

radiation prior to OSHA and some of the other 

Atomic Energy Commission and other -- Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission coming into place. 

 So they may very well be a source 

of records. Then when their program was 

discontinued, to some extent some of their 

records were transferred over to the State 

Health Department, their radiation control, 

which had more to do with medical issues 

related -- medical radiation sources, and so 

forth, in terms of both regulation and so 

forth. 

 So the State Health Department may 

be a source, as well as the State Labor 

Department, because I actually -- in my work 

for the State Health Department, I received a 

lot of the Department of Labor records related 

to their -- essentially, their OSHA program, 

OSHA-type program, and I believe at the same 

time some of their records on radiation went 

to the Radiation Bureau. 

 I don't recall specifically for the 
259 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

University of Rochester and so forth. 

 DR. HUGHES: I will check on it. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: The other thing I 

will try to shake my memory on, but I can't 

remember the physician's name. There was a 

physician who I worked with for a period of 

time at University of Rochester who had been 

trained in that program during this time 

period, and then had worked for Kodak for a 

number of years, and then returned to the 

University. I have no idea if he is still 

there or what's happened to that, but there is 

that, and a fairly active radiation safety 

office. 

 I don't know if you have talked to 

some of those people as sources, but seems to 

be there might be some people who would have 

known what might have happened to the records. 

 I'm not going to guarantee it will help, but 

it may be another source. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I saw in 

the list that a radiation safety officer was 
260 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

one of those interviewed. I don't know if it 

was the current one or a past one. Do you 

recall, Lara? 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. We interviewed 

the current Radiation Safety personnel and 

some -- I think, two past, two people who 

worked in radiation safety in the past, might 

have actually been three. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: LaVon Rutherford 

had a comment, too. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I wanted to make 

it clear, this is a Department of Energy site. 

 Therefore, the employees that are -- only 

Department of Energy employees, contractors 

and subcontractors are covered. Students 

would not be covered under this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the students 

on the fellowships who were -- I don't know 

whether you would say they were under 

contract. The students in that program were 

actually paid by ORINS, because it was part of 

the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, 
261 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the AEC fellowship program. 

 I assume those would be covered, if 

they were there the 250 days. Most of them 

were only there for the summer. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. You would 

have to verify -- they would have to verify 

the 250 days, and I certainly don't want to 

speak for the Department of Labor, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But a 

student who wandered in there from another 

part of the campus, since they are not an 

employee or a subcontractor, would not be 

covered in any event? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thank you. 

 Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Was there a number 

on that building? 

 DR. HUGHES: It was called the 

Medical School Annex or just the Annex. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Medical School 

Annex? 
262 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, Medical School 

Annex. It was an annex to the medical school 

building or the hospital. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: So you had to work 

within the Medical School Annex? 

 DR. HUGHES: That is correct, on 

the project. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are there other 

questions? Dr. Melius, did you have an 

additional question? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: No. I'm just 

trying to jog my memory. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In terms of those 

follow-up things that you were referring to, 

those would be things that might be used to 

reconstruct dose in those cases that didn't 

qualify, if this were an SEC. Is that what 

your implication was, or were you concerned 

that we get that information prior to taking 

action? I am trying to get a feel for it. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: My guess is that it 

wouldn't be -- I don't think it would be the 
263 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

treasure trove of all personnel records, 

though some of the records were fairly 

extensive. I just have no idea what were 

kept. 

 I know for some other facilities 

that were under state regulation, the state 

was given -- State Health Department ended up 

with all of their monitoring and personnel 

records. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This was a group 

within the state Labor Department or state 

Public Health? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: The radiation 

control -- I don't know what it is called 

within the Labor Department. Within the state 

Health Department it is the Bureau of 

Radiation Protection. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do we know if 

they were one of the information sources? Dr. 

Neton, do you have -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I could be wrong, but 

I don't know that the particular sources that 
264 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were used for this facility would have been 

licensed by the state. They were under AEC 

control, such as the alpha emitters, the 

uranium, plutonium and such. 

 I know when I was at New York 

University we had a number of sources, and I 

don't believe we actually were required to be 

licensed by the state for the AEC-type work we 

were doing. I don't know. That is my guess. 

 DR. HUGHES: I could maybe answer 

to that. We did contact the state authority 

that was pointed out to us by the radiation 

safety personnel at University of Rochester 

where, historically, they were interacting 

with regarding their license information or 

their licenses. 

 So this agency was contacted, but 

no monitoring data was found. We found a 

considerable amount of license information for 

this facility but no internal monitoring data. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: As I said, the 

Labor Department had -- again, I am just -- I 
265 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

don't know jurisdiction. It changed over time 

and so forth. So there was -- and within the 

state, who regulated what changed and so 

forth, and the three agencies fought with each 

other and all that usual bureaucratic stuff, 

but it just would be worth contacting to see 

if they have some information that would be 

helpful. 

 I know the former director. I can 

even give you the name of a person to contact 

on the Health Department side. I don't know 

who runs that bureau now. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. 

Lockey. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: I know at my 

university that we were digging for records 

for a study that was done in 1975, and nobody 

thought the records were available, but the 

records, in fact, were available in some 

basement, in some room; because universities 

just don't get rid of such things. 

 So I would be -- it would be 
266 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

unlikely that monitoring data doesn't exist 

someplace, especially in a university setting, 

especially as you go up through the 1960s and 

early 1970s. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. The 

issue before us is the recommendation itself. 

The recommendation would be to add a class to 

the SEC for the specified period. Do you wish 

to take action at this point? If so, a motion 

would be in order. Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: My opinion is that 

we should maybe spend a little extra effort to 

see what may be available at the state and 

perhaps also at the university. It may take 

some time. It may take some on-site personnel 

looking around. 

 I don't think a phone call would be 

adequate, because more likely than not, you 

are going to get a blow-off, but if you are on 

site and say we are here and this is our goal 

and we need to make sure there's -- know what 

is in the facility. I think it is worthwhile 
267 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doing that. 

 DR. HUGHES: May I point out 

something? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, of course. 

 DR. HUGHES: There were actually 

three or four data capture trips to the 

university, and NIOSH collected all of the 

available dosimetry data for the entire 

university, not just AEP. We've got all 

external dosimetry data that was available at 

the site, and it was a fairly thorough search 

through all health and safety records with the 

aid of two of the current health physics 

personnel, and we just have not been able to 

find any internal data. 

 There is, especially in later 

years, a very large amount of external data 

for employees of the entire university that 

worked with radioactive materials. So I am 

not very confident that, if the university was 

contacted again, there would be anymore 

information found. 
268 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess one of 

the questions would be, for example, the 

contact that you mentioned, Jim -- would they 

be likely to have the monitoring data or is it 

likely that monitoring data exists outside of 

this, what appears to be all of the -- you 

have records covering the full span of years, 

it sounds like, at least external and some 

internal. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. It starts in 

1947. So the university was very diligent 

keeping records. However, there are no 

internal records. They have no idea where 

they went or if they even existed, really. So 

it was kind of odd, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You had a large 

number of references in your list, some of 

which were historical descriptions of the 

program. I think Dr. Stanard's book was 

listed in there, amongst others, and I have to 

admit I haven't read that full volume, but it 

is pretty thick. 
269 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I am wondering if any of those 

described internal monitoring program that -- 

you know, do we know one existed but can't 

find the records or are there hints that they 

just didn't have a complete internal 

monitoring program or some of the nuclides 

they did not have the ability to do bioassay 

on in the early days or -- what can you tell 

us about that? 

 I am trying to get a feel for 

whether it is fruitful to interview other 

people who may give us some information, but 

are they likely to have internal dose records 

that aren't otherwise available? That is sort 

of my issue. Maybe, Dr. Hughes, if you could 

respond, and maybe, Jim, you have a related 

comment. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. We have 

indications that for the operations of the 

Alpha Laboratory there was a more or less 

routine bioassay program for those employees, 

and the data analysis was for polonium-210. 
270 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We have some summary data from one 

year that discusses that about 97 individuals 

were monitored for polonium. However, we do 

not have the actual monitoring data. 

 So there are some indications that 

some internal dosimetry data existed, but we 

do not have it. 

 Now even if the polonium data was 

found, it is not clear if other radionuclide 

internal data could be reconstructed or if it 

existed. We only have a clue that, for this 

Alpha Laboratory facility, there was some 

data, and that it is missing, that we could 

not find it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes. The thing 

that makes me a little -- I agree with Jim 

Lockey -- surprised in some ways the records 

aren't available, because -- I was never 

directly involved in looking at the program, 

but it dealt with both the radiation safety 

people as well as the physicians, and then was 
271 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in the Department of Preventive Medicine. 

 They were always very outspoken 

about how good their program was over time 

and, obviously, with the human experimentation 

issue, they are upset about the revelations 

about that part of the program and so forth. 

 I would think they would have 

maintained records, but again, things change 

over time. They could have been shipped off 

someplace. Who knows? Again, I don't know 

who you talked to. I don't remember all the 

names either off the top of my head. 

 One thought would be -- I mean, I 

don't think it would take a long time to get 

the information from either this State 

Department of Labor or in the State Health 

Department. I mean, I have contacts in both 

who could tell us -- if we deferred action on 

this until our conference call in December? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This can 

certainly be done. I think it is at the 

pleasure of the Board what direction you wish 
272 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to take. We have heard a couple of 

expressions of a desire to follow up. I don't 

know how widespread that is. Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: For example, at the 

University of Rochester, when a new Department 

chair comes in, they are sort of in charge of 

what goes in and what goes out of the 

department, and one of the avenues I would 

pursue is go back in history of the 

department, look who the department chairs 

were, who the business managers were at that 

time. 

 If they are alive, re-contact them 

and sort of reconstruct to a certain degree 

what happened to the records when you took 

over, because the program was -- becomes 

defunct, and they are responsible for doing 

something with the records. 

 So that is a type of exploration 

you could do. It would be unusual that there 

aren't some records available somewhere. 

 MEMBER MELIUS: Jim and I also have 
273 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a contact currently in the department who is 

in a slightly different department, but has 

been active in -- he is active in department 

of health. I don't know who chairs the 

department now, but they have a fairly active 

preventive medicine department. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have looked 

at a number of individual dose cases. I don't 

recall the number. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Were the records 

for those from a master list or some 

individual files? Let me give you an example, 

and I will use my university as an example. 

 For dose records where you have a 

film badge service, we have a master list, and 

you can go to the master list and pick off all 

the people and find their doses. 

 If you wanted to find an internal 

dose record, you would have to go to that 

individual's file in the Radiation Safety 

Office, because there is not a master list at 
274 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

our place of all internal dosimetry. It is 

done on a sort of as needed basis, and the 

results go into an individual file. 

 I don't know how typical that is, 

but I am wondering if, on the cases that you 

have looked at and you have the medical 

information and so on, do you have things from 

their file that comes out of the Radiation 

Safety Office? 

 DR. HUGHES: For the individual 

claims that we have, we have only seven, and 

the one claim that has external dosimetry data 

available is in the form of summary data for 

that particular year that this individual 

worked there. There is no individual data. 

 Now after some repeated visits to 

University of Rochester site, at about the 

same time these visits took place, the 

university was in progress of microfiching the 

entire external dosimetry record, and they 

were so nice as to provide us with these 

files. So we have all, and it is these 
275 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

computer printout sheets that are not in 

individual worker files. 

 The data capture trips looked 

through the entire filing -- the entirety of 

the filing cabinets that were available in the 

Radiation Safety Office. I was not actually -

- I was not personally there. So I cannot 

really tell you how they were structured, but 

I can certainly find out. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and this 

may be something if we do a follow-up to look 

 into. But, for example, this time period 

covers the period where the AEC, NRC began to 

require lifetime records and calculations of 

the 5 times n minus 18, and you have to have 

also on file certain records, previous dose 

histories and those kinds of things. 

 So in almost every case you had to 

have a personal file on each radiation worker, 

and this, at least in our case, would be the 

source of both an individual record of 

bioassay as well as what isotopes they were 
276 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

approved to use and all of that kind of thing. 

 That is why I asked the question. 

I don't think places like universities 

necessarily have a master list of bioassay 

like they would a film badge report from, say, 

a commercial company. It's just a thought 

there. 

 Other comments? Otherwise, we need 

an appropriate motion to either recommend this 

SEC or to explore further avenues. We have a 

comment from Wanda Munn. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It would seem when we 

have a Board member available to us with the 

authority of associations that Dr. Melius has 

and who has offered to take advantage of those 

of those associates in order to provide us 

with some potential additional information 

that it seems to me most Board members feel it 

must be out there somewhere. It would be 

remiss of us not to take advantage of that 

offer, it seems to me. 

 I would recommend that the Board 
277 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

consider postponing further action on this 

until Dr. Melius has had an opportunity to 

pursue the potential of additional information 

until at least such time as we convene by 

telephone or until we convene in person again. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So your motion 

is to defer action pending receipt of that 

information? You are not necessarily 

recommending a formal work group or anything 

of that sort, but at least a sort of a 

preliminary exploration of potential 

additional information? 

 MEMBER MUNN: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have heard 

the motion. Is there a second? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Second. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The motion as 

expanded upon by the Chair. Okay, let's 

discuss that. 

 So if this motion passes, we would 

simply allow some time to elapse while perhaps 

Dr. Melius had a chance to determine whether 
278 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there is some fruitful contacts out there, and 

then the answer to that is yes or no, at which 

point we can decide what to do with that. We 

could discuss that at our December Board 

meeting. Would that be everybody's 

understanding, if we approve the motion? 

 Any questions? If you are 

comfortable with that or not comfortable, it 

is time to say so, particularly if you are not 

comfortable with that motion. This is not -- 

this is a bit like a motion to table. It is 

an action to defer, but it has a specific time 

associated with it so that, by passing the 

motion, we agree that it will be discussed at 

the next meeting, and we will get a report 

from Dr. Melius on his findings and whether or 

not we can proceed further. 

 Larry, do you have something to 

inform us on or enlighten us here? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I would like to 

say that we are pretty confident that we've 

got everything that the university has to give 
279 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

us. I mean, to go back there -- I understand 

Dr. Lockey's comment about department chairs 

and that, but you know, I am pretty confident 

that their data retrieval folks have made 

every effort for the university holdings. 

 I think, though, that we could have 

done a better job maybe touching a different 

state -- We are not familiar, as Dr. Melius 

is, with the different state agencies that 

might have had some of this data, and so it 

might be useful to at least touch the stone 

with those folks and make sure that we didn't 

miss something there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. That 

is helpful. Okay, I think -- Oh, Josie? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Dr. Hughes, I 

believe you mentioned it, but I wanted to 

make sure that you were going to send us out 

the correction to the last slide, the summary 

slide prior to our next telephone call. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. 
280 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are we ready then 

to vote on the motion to defer action? Okay, 

by voice vote, all in favor, Aye? Opposed, 

No? And any abstentions? The motion carries, 

and this will come before us at our conference 

call in December, at which time Dr. Melius 

will report to us, and then we can either 

proceed to make a recommendation on an SEC or 

we can proceed to take additional action as 

may be deemed appropriate. Thank you. 

 I was looking here to see how we 

stand on items. I am going to ask LaVon if 

you can tell me, number one, do you need a 

half-hour for the SEC update; and number two, 

are you prepared to give it today? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, and no? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- if I did, I'm 

sure I can handle it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In less than half 

an hour? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. Well, I 
281 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

don't know. It depends on how many questions 

are asked. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we have set 

aside tomorrow morning a session called SEC 

Petition Update, and I was asking if, in fact, 

does that take a full half-hour? We are 

scheduled to -- I thought that I did, hang on. 

 The question was did I check to see if the 

petitioner was on the line for Rochester. I 

thought I did, but I can't remember now doing 

it, actually. Hold on, LaVon. Let me just 

check. 

 Is the University of Rochester 

petitioner on the line today? 

 MS. KESTEN: I am a petitioner. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For the 

University of Rochester? 

 MS. KESTEN: I am a petitioner. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For the 

University of Rochester? 

 MS. KESTEN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? Okay. Very 
282 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

good. Have you heard our previous discussion 

on the petition for the University? 

 MS. KESTEN: Yes, I have. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And did 

you have additional comments? If you did, you 

may wish to identify yourself and make 

additional comments. 

 MS. KESTEN: Well, my name is 

Dorothy Kesten, and I worked at the University 

of Rochester Project Center from September 1st 

through 19th, and it indicates to me that 

there was no data that you could find, and a 

lot of this conversation was for the period 

after that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are talking 

about the period from 1943 to 1971. 

 MS. KESTEN: Well, I only worked 

there from September 1st to June 19th, 1945, 

and it seems to me -- it sounded to me like 

there wasn't any data for that period of time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That period of 

time is covered in this discussion that we 
283 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had. That is correct. 

 MS. KESTEN: Okay. Is there any 

way I can get a copy of the conversation from 

Dr. Hughes? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Exactly? We can 

provide you with a copy of the -- do you have 

a copy of the evaluation report which Dr. 

Hughes summarized? If not, we will make sure 

you get that, and we can also, I believe -- 

can we provide a copy of the PowerPoint 

presentation? 

 MS. KESTEN: And the motion that 

was made? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we will make 

sure that you get a copy of that. The motion 

that was made was simply to -- that this Board 

would defer action to our December meeting 

until Dr. Melius has an opportunity to check 

on the possibility of additional records with 

a state agency there in New York, but we will 

make sure you have all the documents involved, 

and you will hear from one of the NIOSH staff 
284 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

members with that information and the 

opportunity to follow up, if you need to, as 

well. 

 MS. KESTEN: Thank you very much. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Then I will ask again, LaVon. What 

I was asking was do you have more than 15 

minutes of actual presentation? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: More than 15? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Well, we 

had scheduled you for 30 minutes. I wasn't 

sure whether you were wanting to take that 

all. It's all right. I think we would rather 

do it today. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think we can 

knock it out pretty quick. Let's go ahead and 

do it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's do it. I 

think we would -- particularly, you know, we 

are going to get into mid-day tomorrow, and 

people are going to be wanting to catch 

planes. So I would like to cover this, if we 
285 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

can. We have time to before five o'clock, 

certainly. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think most of 

the -- a lot of the information has been 

discussed already. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Exactly. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I guess I can go 

ahead? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. I am 

LaVon Rutherford, and thank you, Dr. Ziemer, 

for letting me do this today. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If you would like 

a more formal introduction, I will go back. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. Thank you. 

 I am going to give an SEC petition 

status update. We do this at every Board 

meeting. We do it to provide the Board 

information about existing petitions that we 

have, the process, where they are, and 

hopefully, this information provides the Board 

enough information to prepare for future work 
286 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

groups meetings and future Advisory Board 

meetings. 

 As of October 5, 2009, we have 153 

petitions, and I didn't get an e-mail today 

that it went up. So I am assuming it is still 

that. We have five that are in the 

qualification phase. We have 84 petitions 

that are qualified, and we have three 

evaluations in progress. 

 We completed 81 evaluations, and we 

had 24 SEC petitions that are with the 

Advisory Board for recommendation, and we had 

64 petitions that have not qualified -- or 

that did not qualify. 

 Okay. A little status: we have a 

few petitions that are in the evaluation 

process. Hangar 481 at Kirkland Air Force 

Base, which is just outside Sandia or part of 

Sandia. We anticipate that report completed 

in February of 2010. 

 We have the Weldon Springs plant. 

All employees from January '57 through 
287 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

December 31, 1966, and we anticipate that 

report completed in February. 

 St. Louis Airport Storage Site, 

which is a site that stored some byproduct 

material for Mallinckrodt. We anticipate that 

report completed in March of 2010. 

 These are evaluation reports that 

are with the Board: Chapman Valve. We have 

completed all actions on that one. 

 Blockson Chemical. NIOSH feels we 

have completed all actions on that one, and it 

is with the Advisory Board for recommendation. 

 Feed Material Production Center. 

There are still some discussions ongoing, a 

few minor issues that we are trying to work 

out, and it is with the work group and SC&A 

and NIOSH. 

 Bethlehem Steel. Again, we feel we 

have completed all actions on Bethlehem Steel, 

and it is with the work group. 

 Hanford. We did take action on -- 

additional action on Hanford, but this is the 
288 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evaluation that actually the initial one for 

SEC 57, and there's still some ongoing work to 

look at the post-1972 period. 

 Nevada Test Site. Again, research 

and discussion continues on the petition. We 

have a couple of issues that I think that are 

still outstanding, and the work group is 

trying to resolve. Hopefully, we will come to 

resolution on that one soon. 

 The Mound Plant. Again, research 

and discussion continues. They are still 

resolving some issues, the work group, SC&A 

and NIOSH. 

 Texas City Chemical. This one is 

we are issuing a revised evaluation report for 

Texas City Chemical that will include 

additional information that we received after 

we -- right when we initially approved our 

first evaluation. I anticipate after that 

comes out that there will be some additional 

activities that will occur with the work 

group. 
289 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Area 4, Santa Susana. Again, 

research and discussion continues on this 

petition. We are finalizing a period where we 

believe that we are going to pursue an 8314 to 

add additional years at Santa Susana. We are 

finalizing the end dataset. We anticipate 

that that will hopefully be out. That report 

will be ready to be out for the February Board 

meeting. 

 Dow Chemical. We had some 

additional issues -- findings identified based 

on the SC&A review of the Dow Chemical 

appendix, which kind of tied to the work 

group's evaluation of the addendum that NIOSH 

presented. We are working through resolution 

of those issues at this time. 

 Pantex. Research and discussion 

continues on this with the work group, SC&A 

and NIOSH. 

 Savannah River. We have been 

resolving some -- finalizing some issues and 

some papers that will be presented to the work 
290 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

group. We anticipate that happening very soon 

for the work group to continue. We will be 

issuing an addendum as well to outline our 

decision on the feasibility for thorium. 

 General Steel Industries. There 

was a recent work group meeting. There have 

been work group meetings with the other ones I 

discussed as well, too. But this one just 

happened recently. Research and discussion on 

this one continues. 

 LANL. Again, research and 

discussion on the petition continues amongst 

the work group, SC&A and NIOSH. 

 Linde Ceramics. We recently had a 

work group meeting on Linde Ceramics, went 

over some issues, and it is in NIOSH's court 

to provide some updates for that. We 

anticipate that happening fairly soon in 

support of a November work group meeting. 

 Oak Ridge Hospital. The work group 

made the recommendations. The Board took 

action on that petition at this Board meeting. 
291 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Bliss & Laughlin. We presented our 

evaluation report at this Board meeting, and 

that has been sent to the work group. 

 Electromet. Again, we presented 

the evaluation report today. It has been sent 

to the work group, I believe. 

 United Nuclear. We actually 

completed this evaluation report awhile back. 

 However, the petitioner requested early on -- 

fairly early on, a few months ago -- that we 

delay presentation to this, because the 

petitioner wanted to be in person for the 

meeting, and she was unable to be here at the 

time. So the Board granted that. 

 Metals & Controls. We presented 

that evaluation at this Board meeting. The 

Board concurred with our recommendation to add 

the class. 

 University of Rochester. We just 

had that presentation, and we got a little bit 

more work to do. 

 Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor. 
292 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

We just had that presentation a little earlier 

today, and the Board concurred with NIOSH's 

recommendation to add a class, and deferred 

action on the operational period. 

 Brookhaven National Lab. That 

report was done yesterday, and the Board 

concurred with NIOSH's recommendation to add 

the class. They also anticipate assigning 

additional work to evaluate NIOSH's decision 

that dose reconstruction was feasible for the 

post-1980 period. 

 And then the Hanford petition that 

we just presented earlier today. This was an 

8314 that added a class up to 1972, and the 

Board took action on that today as well. 

 A little additional information. I 

don't have it as a slide. We do anticipate 

that there will be four to five 8314s that we 

anticipate moving forward at the February 

Board meeting. 

 One of those, I misspoke the other 

day. I indicated to Dr. Melius that we had 
293 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

already taken action on Lawrence Livermore 

National Lab to change the class definition. 

In my mind, we had already done that, but the 

report is not done. Lawrence Livermore 

National Lab, we will be doing -- we will 

actually finalize our 8314 that will change 

the existing class from monitored to all 

employees at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. 

 I said that when I was speaking to 

you. Then as I walked back, Dr. Glover 

reminded me that we had not approved that 

report yet. So I wanted to get that on 

record, that that has not been approved yet. 

 We also will be presenting -- 

 MEMBER MELIUS: We have our review 

of it in our mind already. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We also will be 

presenting 83.14s on Lawrence Berkeley for the 

early years at Lawrence Berkeley, which had 

some of the same early uranium enrichment 

operations that we have dealt with, with 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development and a 
294 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

few others. 

 General Electric Evendale. We are 

moving forward on the 83.14 on that. 

 I believe there is one more, but 

off the top of my head -- I would have been 

prepared tomorrow for that, but there is 

another one. 

 Do I have any questions? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks for that 

update. Let's see if there are questions. 

Anyone have a question in their mind? Okay, 

well, that was good to have the update. 

Always appreciate that. It helps us see what 

is coming down the pike and what remains to be 

done. 

 Dr. Melius? 

 MEMBER MELIUS: I might as well 

harass LaVon a little bit. You can sit down. 

 To the extent you can get the 83.14 reports 

to us sooner rather than later, it helps deal 

with issues like this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 
295 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We will recess for the afternoon 

session. There is a public comment session 

scheduled for six o'clock, and then, of 

course, we will be meeting again tomorrow. So 

thank you very much. You've all been good 

attendees today, and we appreciate your 

participation. 

 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

went off the record at 4:39 p.m. and resumed 

at 6:01 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Here is Mr. Katz. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you. So it looks 

like we don't have anyone in the room, but for 

those of you on the telephone, just to let you 

know the ground rules: we have a verbatim 

transcript of this session, public comment 

session. That will posted on the CDC-NIOSH 

website that goes with this program. 

 So everything that is said will be 

recorded and posted there in a transcript. 

It takes about 30 days to do so, more like 45 

days to do so. 
296 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 If you give your name -- you don't 

have to give your name, but if you give your 

name when we take comments, then your name 

will appear in the transcript, and any 

personal information you give about yourself 

will also be retained in the transcript. 

However, if you talk about a third party, any 

details you give about that third party that 

would be identifying of that party, including 

their name, those will be redacted, meaning 

whited out from the transcript. Those will 

not show, be revealed to the public. 

 If you would like to see the full 

redaction policy, this NIOSH-CDC website page 

has the policy listed, along with -- well, it 

is listed in several sections, the Board 

section, I believe. There is a section that 

is devoted to this Advisory Board, and it is 

posted there. That is probably the easiest 

place for you to find it. 

 Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Mr. 
297 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Katz. 

 Now I am going to begin by 

introducing a person on the phone, but not by 

name, but by nature of the comment. The 

reason for that is I want to give a prelude to 

an issue that will be raised and which will be 

on the Board's work time agenda tomorrow. 

 One member of the public 

representing a public group has asked that the 

Board consider as part of its operating policy 

the possibility of automatically tasking the 

Board's contractor to begin work immediately 

on SEC petitions in those cases where NIOSH 

has in their evaluation report indicated that 

they can reconstruct dose with sufficient 

accuracy. 

 So the commenter wishes to 

elaborate on that a bit and indicate why she 

believes this would be a good policy for this 

Board to follow. 

 Now we will have an opportunity as 

a Board to debate the matter tomorrow. So I 
298 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

don't want to sort of prejudge the issue, but 

simply give this member of the public the 

opportunity to make her case for that 

particular position and related matters. She 

may also have additional comments not related 

to that, but I did promise her the opportunity 

at this public session to make comments on 

that. 

 So I will not call the individual 

by name, but she will identify herself, I am 

sure. So if that individual now is on the 

line, it would be appropriate to make those 

comments. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, hello. This 

is Antoinette Bonsignore for the Linde 

Ceramics facility. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Antoinette. 

 Please proceed. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay, thank you, 

Dr. Ziemer. 

 The issue that Dr. Ziemer raised 

is, I think, a very important matter for the 
299 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Board to consider. As the Linde Ceramics 

petitioner, I have found that having SC&A's 

involvement in the SEC evaluation process from 

the very beginning before the full 

presentation of the petition to the Board has 

been an invaluable resource to me as well as 

to the workers I represent. 

 The workers have been able to 

review the material that SC&A has provided to 

us, and have been better able to understand 

the technical nature of what is involved in 

the NIOSH evaluation process and the reasons 

why NIOSH is recommending that SEC status be 

denied for this petition. 

 I think that the issue really comes 

down to how the Board views the role of the 

petitioner in the SEC evaluation process. If 

the Board considers that petitioners should be 

participants in this process, not only in 

terms of getting the petition prepared and 

qualified for review, but also being able to 

respond and fully understand the reasons why 
300 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH does not recommend SEC status, then 

SC&A's involvement in the review process 

should begin at the very outset once the 

petition is qualified and once a petition 

evaluation report has been produced in order 

for petitioners to be able to respond to NIOSH 

in an effective and in a cogent manner. 

 Otherwise, the petitioner really 

becomes a collateral part of this whole 

process, and they can't really fully and 

effectively participate in the discussion 

between NIOSH and the Advisory Board, and it 

really becomes an evaluation process where it 

becomes a back and forth between NIOSH and the 

Advisory Board, and it effectively excludes 

the petitioner from the process. 

 Again, you know, the fact that SC&A 

has provided the material that they have 

provided for the Linde petitioners to date has 

been fully very, very important for us, and it 

has really provided information for the 

workers that I represent, and I think that 
301 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that type of information does become very 

important for all petitioners. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you 

very much. Did you have any additional 

comments on that then or other issues? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I actually had two 

additional comments. Regarding the Electromet 

SEC petition, I did manage to get in contact 

with one of the SEC petitioners, and I think 

he will be calling in to make a statement. So 

I just wanted to let you know that. 

 The final point I wanted to make 

was I had submitted a request to the 

Department of Labor for information on the 

percent of the claims that are denied under 

the dose reconstruction that have been 

processed through the Final Adjudication 

Branch appeals program. 

 So what I was asking for was 

information about whether the percent of 

success or the probability of success once a 

dose reconstruction claim is denied and then 
302 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that claimant appeals the denial through the 

FAB. What is the chance that those claims 

will eventually be compensated? 

 I put that request in to Rachel 

Leiton at the Department of Labor, and she 

stated in a letter to me on August 21st of 

this year that -- and I will read the exact 

statement. She says, "Our database does not 

track statistics on the success rates of 

appeals on claims denied, because NIOSH -- 

because the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health dose 

reconstruction led to a probability of 

causation under 50 percent." 

 I think that this kind of 

information would be very valuable to 

claimants to get a clear understanding of the 

utility of appealing a denied claim through 

the Final Adjudication Branch. 

 Ms. Leiton claims that the DOL 

database does not track this information. If 

it does not, I believe it should, and that 
303 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

kind of information should be provided in an 

open manner, either on the NIOSH website or 

the Department of Labor website. And since 

that kind of information is not subject to a 

FOIA, I think it would be important for NIOSH 

to gather that kind of information and provide 

it to claimants at the website. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you for 

that comment. Since that is actually a 

Department of Labor issue, as I would 

understand it, it probably will not be 

something NIOSH can handle directly. 

 I would simply point out there is a 

person in our assembly here from Department of 

Labor who has heard your comment. So at least 

at that point, the comment is known to Labor. 

 That is something that actually is outside 

the purview of this Board, but your point has 

been heard. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you, Dr. 

Ziemer. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Let 
304 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

me ask if the Electromet petitioner is on the 

line this evening, and if so, would the 

petitioner wish to make any statement? 

 Okay. Let me ask for others who 

may wish to make comment on the phone lines. 

 MS. WOJCIK: Yes. Regarding the-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Please identify 

yourself, if you wish to. You are not 

required to. 

 MS. WOJCIK: I am Margaret Wojcik. 

 This was regarding the SEC class petition for 

Bliss & Laughlin. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We need 

for the court reporter for you to spell your -

- oh, we have it? He has it. Okay. He is 

very good. Thank you. You can proceed. 

 MS. WOJCIK: This is Margaret 

Wojcik, Buffalo, New York, [identifying 

information redacted]. 

 Class evaluated by NIOSH, all 

employees of the steel company. The date is 

January 1, 1951, through December 31, 1952, 
305 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and/or during the residual period from January 

1, 1953 through December 31, 1998. 

 Now, the Department of Labor chose 

to remove a couple of years. We originally 

had 1948, and now it is changed to 1951. We 

don't know if there is any proof that they 

have gotten contractual information stating 

that, yes, 1951 was the starting -- operating 

time frame, starting 1951 instead of '48. 

 What I have brought up on the 

Internet was a little bit stating beginning in 

the early Forties, DOE and its predecessors, 

the Atomic Energy Commission and the 

Manhattan Engineering District relied upon 

hundreds of private sector factories, 

laboratories to develop tests and produce 

atomic weapons for use by the military. 

 Now this says beginning in the 

early Forties. Originally, we had 1948 date, 

and now it is changed to '51. 

 Where I got this, I Googled Atomic 

Workers/Louise Warner, a Congresswoman for 
306 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Western New York. 

 I do want to know, when they 

mentioned -- when air sample data is 

mentioned, what are they saying, and how do we 

know this is plausible information? 

 I know a lot of information is 

taken from another facility, surrogate 

information. How plausible is this? 

 The Advisory Board today did say 

that our petition will be handled by a work 

group. I'd like to know who the work group 

is, and will they have all our documents, all 

of the information that we have submitted over 

the years? Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much. Hang on just a moment. I am going to 

give you some answers here, and then we will 

have to follow up. Just a moment. 

 That has indeed been assigned to a 

work group. It is a work group that we 

designate as our TBD-6000 Work Group. That is 

the work group that handles facilities such as 
307 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Bliss & Laughlin, and that work group is 

already -- has already been constituted, and 

we will inform you of when that work group 

meets next so that you will have an 

opportunity -- you can be involved in the 

activities of the work group in terms of being 

either in person or by phone, whichever it may 

be. 

 The work groups usually meet in 

Cincinnati, and you will be able to fully 

participate in those activities. 

 Some of the questions that you 

asked are ones that the work group can deal 

with more directly, and they will be glad to 

do that. So we will try to keep you fully 

informed as we progress both on the schedule 

of activities as well as the topics and be 

glad to receive information from you that 

might be pertinent. 

 MS. WOJCIK: We will be hearing 

from them within a few weeks or a few months? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Actually, I can 
308 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

tell you that the work group already has a 

meeting scheduled. I don't have the calendar 

here -- but that work group will be meeting on 

December 16th, and if you wish to call in and 

participate by phone, we will provide you with 

the call-in number. 

 And again, that meeting will be in 

Cincinnati, and you are certainly welcome to 

attend in person, if you so desire and are 

able, but yes, we will -- if you will go ahead 

and put that on your calendar and then you 

will be informed of the call-in number. 

 MS. WOJCIK: Okay, we will write a 

date. December 16th? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is correct. 

 Typically, the start time is 9:30 Eastern -- 

well, I think we are back to Standard Time by 

then. So it would be 9:30 Eastern Standard 

Time. 

 MS. WOJCIK: As you said, we will -- 

my sisters, myself, we will be getting 

information on that? 
309 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You bet. 

 MS. WOJCIK: All right. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

much. Just a comment from one of the Board 

members here also. On the NIOSH web page, we 

have a section that delineates the Board's 

activities and schedules, and you can also 

find that information there. The times and 

dates of the work groups are posted there as 

well. 

 MS. WOJCIK: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. WOJCIK: Yes, thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are there others 

on the phone lines that wish to address the 

assembly? 

 MS. HAND: Yes. My name is Donna 

Hand. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Is that 

Donna Hand? 

 MS. HAND: Yes, it is. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Donna. 
310 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Please proceed. 

 MS. HAND: Okay. My first issue is 

criteria or qualification under the SEC 

petition and how it is used then to evaluate, 

because the -- as you are well aware of -- 

Pinellas Plant filed a SEC petition, and one 

of the issues is the metal tritides, but NIOSH 

evaluated and said that we did not qualify. 

So, therefore, we were denied, and the Board 

was then denied a full evaluation as well as 

the claimants. 

 This is an abuse of operational 

procedures, since every other criteria in the 

Federal regulation was met in that SEC 

petition, and as of today's date NIOSH has 

admitted they still cannot do the metal 

tritides for Pinellas Plant. 

 Back in the Federal Registry of 

2002, page 22321, it stated that single 

exposures might also fall outside the scope of 

ICRP models, such as a worker that inhaled 

metal tritides. In these cases, NIOSH will 
311 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have to use alternative metal models and 

modify existing models. 

 In February, Larry Elliott has 

stated that they can do the metal tritide dose 

to the Pinellas plant workers. And again, as 

of today's date, not one worker has had a 

metal tritide dose put to them. 

 Then on April 24, 2009, under a 

Freedom of Information Act, I requested the 

upper bound of the uranium that was present at 

the Pinellas plant, the upper bound for the 

external doses for Area 108, Building 200, and 

Building 400, the upper bound and lower bound 

for the unmonitored dose of a worker at the 

Pinellas plant for the years 1956 through 

1997, the upper and lower bound for the 

equipment that produces radiation at the 

Pinellas Plant. 

 I still have not received that 

Freedom of Information Act. The only thing 

that I did receive was a letter that was not 

on a letterhead and was not signed and stated 
312 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that there was not guides at the Pinellas 

Plant, which is in total disagreement with the 

baseline report that was used as a reference 

document for your technical basis document. 

 Laurie Breyer also went on to state 

that they do not bound the doses, and they do 

not have to use the technical basis documents 

to determine the doses. It is all done on a 

case -- individual case by case basis. 

 That's strange from all the 

transcripts that I have read and going to the 

Advisory Board, you continually mention can 

you bound it. In 2009, Peter Darnell said, 

"Pinellas was different from Mound in the case 

that the tritide containment from the neutron 

tube was a bit more spread out." In other 

words, more of the workforce would be exposed 

to it. 

 Again, these are issues that have 

not been done. So why can't we have a SEC 

petition for Pinellas Plant, because you are 

not able to do the dose reconstruction for the 
313 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

metal tritides, and it is admitted in 

documentation everywhere that these people 

were exposed to that, and you cannot tell me 

that that did not have a significant health 

effect. 

 The second thing is this OCAS-1 

form. Whenever we signed that OCAS-1 form, it 

has to be clear and clean. When we dispute 

and say you did not include the metal 

tritides, you did not include the cuts and 

wounds from radioactive producing equipment, 

they inform us that they have to have a clean 

one or they will wait the 60 days and send it 

to Department of Labor without that OCAS-1 

form. 

 When you get to FAB, where you are 

supposed to be able to dispute the Part B and 

the application of the methods, FAB then says, 

well, you signed the OCAS-1 form; so 

evidently, you gave them all the information 

that was needed. 

 This is contradictory to a due 
314 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

process right for these claimants across the 

board, and something needs to be addressed for 

that, because there is either a way to appeal 

the NIOSH dose reconstruction or have the dose 

reconstruction, or at least their health 

physicist address the concerns, and then issue 

in writing to the claimants and tell us why 

they didn't use that dose and base it on the 

regulations and the law and the policy 

procedure. 

 Basically, that's it for right now, 

and I appreciate the Board's help, and we need 

to have transparency across the Board 

throughout the whole thing, because even in 

the 42 CFR, NIOSH interpreted "reasonable 

estimates of the doses for the claimants" and 

that the claimants would not be harmed by any 

level of uncertainty and that they will 

consistently give the benefit of the doubt to 

claimants; and that is not being done across 

not only at Pinellas Plant, but at all the 

sites. There are incidents of cuts and wounds 
315 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that they are not addressing, because they 

said, "there is no radiation health physicist 

that addressed it; so, therefore, we are not 

going to use it." 

 That is a dose. You have a 

bulletin that says to use that dose for 

internal calculations, and whenever a 

gentleman is cut with classified waste or a 

gentleman is cut in Building 200 where they 

tested the neutron generator, and he is cut on 

that neutron generating testing equipment 

several times, but yet you do not allow it 

into the dose reconstruction -- something is 

wrong with the problem, and they did not 

fulfill the 42 CFR 82 as far as uncertainty 

and being claimant favorable. 

 Thank you very much for your time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

Donna. You have, obviously, raised quite a 

few issues here. I do note that the chair 

for the Pinellas Group is, of course, with us 

here tonight and is cognizant of issues that 
316 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you have raised. 

 I don't know to what extent the 

work group can deal with those directly, but 

certainly in a general sense, as needed, can 

follow up as appropriate. So thank you for 

those comments. 

 Let me ask if there are others on 

the line who wish to comment? 

 MR. WARREN: Yes. This is Bob 

Warren from Black Mountain, North Carolina. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hello, Bob. 

Okay, go ahead, Bob. 

 MR. WARREN: I'm talking about the 

Savannah River plant, the SEC. What I want to 

comment on is that apparently there is a 

requirement that information given to the 

auditor contractors not -- there is a 

requirement that it be sent -- the information 

they've got be sent to NIOSH immediately, and 

what happens is workers that want to talk to 

the auditors about incidents not reported by 

DOE are then having their names disclosed 
317 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

before the report is ready to be sent to the 

Board, certainly by the time the auditors 

finish their report. 

 At that point, it would seem like 

it might be appropriate to disclose to NIOSH 

the ones that want to be disclosed and to 

redact the other workers, but it has had a 

chilling effect on workers who want to give 

the information that is not in the DOE 

records, but then they may still be working at 

the plant and their names are then disclosed 

to NIOSH who then discloses them to DOE. 

 So I wish you all would take some 

action to protect the information the workers 

are giving and not have them disclosed 

immediately but wait until the auditors can 

follow the leads and interview other people 

without giving that information to NIOSH 

immediately. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you for the 

comment. I don't have an immediate answer for 

you, but I will certainly ask our folks here, 
318 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

starting with SC&A after we finish here 

tonight, to look into that. I don't know if 

that is fully correct or not. I personally do 

not know. 

 I could ask John Mauro from SC&A 

just for informational purposes what is 

required of you on those kind of situations, 

and are we talking about classified material 

here? 

 MR. WARREN: No, not necessarily, 

but -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, let me ask 

John Mauro from SC&A what their understanding 

of the requirement for them is. 

 MR. WARREN: All right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Normally, we 

would just take your comments and pursue them, 

but I do want to find out for myself. 

 MR. RIVER: Yes. Whenever we 

interview anyone -- originally, we had a 

prepared statement to let everyone know that 

any material that is provided to us is 
319 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

material that will be subject to review by DOE 

for sensitive information. So, therefore -- 

so that information is -- that person's 

information is going to go to DOE. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the name? 

 MR. MAURO: And the name, because 

DOE may very well want to follow up on that 

information. Now, a little more recently, we 

were also given certain information that says 

any information that we collect, under 

contract to NIOSH, is information that really 

is the government's information. It is paid 

for by the government. The government owns 

that information, and we are required to 

provide that information. 

 This is a relatively, I guess, 

realization that where we may be taking some 

notes or were provided. We, actually, in one 

case very recently, a very recent case, we 

were provided with a folder, a large folder of 

information, some of which, when it was 

delivered to our interviewee, was given to our 
320 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

interviewee with the proviso that at least 

some of that information be kept confidential, 

and it was given under those conditions. 

 We subsequently found out that we 

can't do that. If we are given information 

such as a folder, that information belongs to 

the government. So we are in a situation now 

where any information that we are given during 

an interview is -- this is how we are 

operating now -- is information that must be 

made available to NIOSH. 

 If it contains Privacy Act 

information, it is up to the Privacy Act 

Office to make the judgment on what has to be 

controlled as Privacy Act. It is not within 

the purview of SC&A to do that. 

 So, yes, the reality is that the 

point made by the folks on the phone is 

correct. Now, we do inform everyone that any 

information provided to us is information that 

is going to be made available. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Very good. Thank 
321 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you, John, and thank you, Bob, for that. 

 MR. WARREN: Could I just speak to 

that for a second? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, you may 

certainly continue. 

 MR. WARREN: We are not quarreling 

with the fact that some of this happens to be 

-- or all of it has to go to DOE eventually. 

The role of an auditor, in accounting and 

otherwise, is to develop a report that is 

going to the Board, and in order to protect 

their leads of workers -- I mean, our whole 

point at Savannah River is that there are not 

DOE records available to adequately do the 

dose reconstructions. 

 What we are trying to do is give 

statements from workers who comment on 

incidents that are not in the records or that 

they are in the records, but DOE won't give 

the records, whatever DOE says. 

 So it is not a question of if you 

give the information. It is a question of 
322 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

when, and it seems like it is out of ordinary 

for an auditor to have to disclose to the 

people being audited the information that is 

not in their records, and then they can argue, 

well, we don't have those; therefore, these 

aren't valid. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I 

understand your point, Bob. The only thing I 

can tell you at this point is that the Board 

can have further discussions on this at its 

work group meeting, and we may very well be 

bound by certain regulations dealing with 

classified material. So I certainly can't 

make you any promises. 

 MR. WARREN: I hear you. I just 

wanted to bring that to the Board's attention, 

that we are losing out on information that is 

pertinent. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I appreciate 

knowing the point. Thank you very much. 

 MR. WARREN: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see if 
323 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there are others. Others on the phone lines 

tonight? 

 MR. CIVILETTO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I feel like a 

disk jockey here. Who else is on the phone 

lines? 

 MR. CIVILETTO: Yes. This is Sam 

Civiletto calling. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is it Dan? 

 MR. CIVILETTO: No, it is Sam 

Civiletto. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Sam. yes. 

 MR. CIVILETTO: Yes. I had -- I'm 

sorry, can you hear me? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we can hear 

you. 

 MR. CIVILETTO: Yes. I had 

requested an adjournment or to have my SEC 

petition for the Electromet removed from the 

Advisory Board's meeting, and I was out of my 

office and came back this afternoon and was 

advised that my request was denied without 
324 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

articulating a reason. I was just wondering 

why it was denied. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And we are 

sorry we missed you on the earlier phone line 

when we discussed the facility, and let me 

sort of paraphrase what I told the group then. 

 This request came to me late last 

week, well after our agenda had been 

established. The usual practice of this Board 

when we have an evaluation report where NIOSH 

indicates it is able to reconstruct dose with 

sufficient accuracy, the Board typically 

assigns this activity to a work group and 

tasks the Board's contractor to begin work on 

reviewing the evaluation report. 

 If we did not proceed with the 

presentation by NIOSH, typically that would 

delay action by the Board to get underway with 

its work group and with its contractor to 

review the report. 

 We actually think it is to the 

advantage of the petitioners for us to begin 
325 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that work, because you have the opportunity to 

be involved in that process. That is, all of 

the work group meetings will be open to you to 

participate in either by phone or in person. 

 We can assist you. I know one of 

the concerns was the interpretation of the 

technical content of the evaluation report, 

and the work group can assist you, and our 

contract can, in understanding those issues. 

 So in fact, although you had 

requested the delay, I believe, because you 

wanted some further time to review that 

report, we felt it was important to move 

forward and would be to your advantage to 

actually be able to begin work immediately 

with the work group and the contractor to 

actually help resolve some of the issues that 

you have raised and may raise in the future. 

 So that is the reason we proceeded. 

 We did try to provide that by e-mail to you 

and the other petitioners that we intended to 

keep that on the agenda, and I regret that 
326 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you didn't get the message in time to actually 

participate earlier today. 

 MR. CIVILETTO: Okay. Would it be 

too late for me to submit something in 

writing, because originally that is what I had 

planned on doing, and then I decided that I 

would ask that it be removed. So I didn't do 

that. So I would like to submit something. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can certainly 

do that, and this is not a closed issue. The 

 petition evaluation report and the action on 

it will come up in future meetings or a future 

meeting, certainly, but you can provide that 

information at anytime, and we would certainly 

be glad to get it, and we will distribute that 

to all Board members. 

 MR. CIVILETTO: Yes. Well, I thank 

you for your consideration and the time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You bet. Thank 

you, Sam. 

 Are there others on the line 

tonight that wish to comment? 
327 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Dr. Ziemer, this 

is Antoinette Bonsignore again. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Antoinette? 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I just wanted to 

add a point that Mr. Civiletto just made. I 

believe in his letter to the Board that he was 

not only asking for an adjournment, but he was 

also asking for SC&A to be tasked to review 

the evaluation report, so he would be better 

able to understand what was contained in that 

evaluation report before the presentation by 

NIOSH to the full Board, as I have done in the 

Linde Ceramics case. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Well, of 

course, SC&A has that task already now, and 

the only real difference is that you may have 

had that information at the time that the 

report was given, but there will be ample 

opportunity, I believe, for this petitioner to 

gain that information and to interact and to 

react to it. 

 So we will do our best to make sure 
328 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that all the petitioners are fully informed, 

not only of the actions but the opportunity to 

air their concerns and their issues. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: I appreciate that. 

 I just wanted to clarify that, you know, your 

point of not adjourning the petition was that 

you wanted for SC&A to begin review and for 

the working group to begin review, but that is 

what the petitioner was asking for, and they 

were asking for that before NIOSH made its 

presentation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and our 

practice has not been to task SC&A until we 

ourselves see what the report has to say and 

have an opportunity to respond to it. So it 

is sort of a catch-22 in a certain way, but I 

think either way, we will do our best to make 

sure the petitioner has ample opportunity to 

give us feedback. 

 So there is no intention to 

foreclose that. We really wanted to move 

ahead on this and make sure that we -- and as 
329 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you say, or as I say, this is our usual method 

on these to move ahead and do the tasking at 

the time that we hear the report. 

 We ourselves, the Board members, 

typically, are not in a position either to 

respond to it, because it is very fresh to us, 

and we have not fully digested it either. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Well, again 

I just wanted to reiterate that I found that 

having SC&A do the review in advance of 

NIOSH's presentation was very valuable to me, 

and I think it would be valuable to all. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, there are 

some cases where NIOSH -- or SC&A rather, has 

already reviewed some facilities as part of 

the site profile review, actually, prior to a 

petition coming in. 

 So I don't recall. That may have 

been the case in the Linde case, but there are 

cases where we already have a review of sorts. 

 It may not be specific to the SEC petition, 

but there are some cases where a review has 
330 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

occurred relating to the site profile, and in 

those cases it does give a sort of preopportunity to understand what the issues 

might already be, even before the evaluation 

report occurs. 

 So there are those differences in 

certain cases like that. 

 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Good, 

let's proceed. Who else would like to speak 

tonight? Anyone else on the phone lines that 

wishes to address the assembly? I hear no 

others are indicating they wish to speak. 

 I do want to give opportunity if 

someone has come in here that wishes to speak 

but didn't have an opportunity to sign up 

earlier. This is a good time to do that. 

 Okay. Apparently not. That being 

the case, then I think we can adjourn the 

session or recess until tomorrow morning. We 

thank all those, particularly, who 

participated by phone to assure us that we had 
331 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

business to do here when we all came here 

tonight and didn't have any local ones to 

speak. So thank you all for your 

participation. We will recess until tomorrow 

morning. 

 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

went off the record at 6:42 p.m.)