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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON LINDE CERAMICS PLANT

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

DECEMBER 1, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, Genevieve S. Roessler, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

JAMES E. LOCKEY, 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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ANTOINETTE BONSIGNORE

CHRIS CRAWFORD, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

LaVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS
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

C O N T E N T S

Welcome 4 

NIOSH Brief Summary of the SEC 

 Petition #154 (1947-1953) Revised

 Evaluation Report 6 

SC&A Review Comments 11

Petitioner Questions/Comments 22

Open Issues/Action Items/Plans for

 Presentation to Advisory Board

 at Tampa Meeting 24

Adjourn 40

 
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (11:58 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, let's start with 

4 attendance, roll call, Board Members, and 

5 since we're speaking about a specific site 

6 please speak to conflict of interest as well.

7 (Roll call taken.)

8 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone. 

9 Mike, have you joined us yet? Zaida, are you 

10 on the line? No, okay. Let's carry on then. 

11 I have distributed an agenda. It should be 

12 posted on the website now. I hope it got to 

13 Antoinette as well any other participants.

14 MS. BONSIGNORE: Yes, it did, Ted. 

15 Thank you.

16 MR. KATZ: Very good. And so what

17 else do I need to cover. Everyone on the 

18 phone please, except when you are addressing 

19 the group, mute your phone. Press *6 if you 

20 don't have a mute button. Press *6 again to 

21 come off of mute.

22 And, Gen, it is your 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 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Thank you 

2 everyone. I think everyone has done a very 

3 thorough job on this. 

4 I appreciated that NIOSH provided 

5 the Work Group and SC&A with a written summary 

6 of the reasons for their reversal of their 

7 recommendations on this Class. Earlier in the 

8 week, I had the ER from 2010 laid out on my 

9 desk along with the one from -- the new one 

10 from November 2011. And I found it difficult 

11 to compare and extract the information. So I 

12 asked NIOSH if they could prepare something 

13 written.

14 We did hear a good explanation on 

15 our last teleconference by Jim Neton but that 

16 was -- we had kind of a short notice as to 

17 what was happening. And I thought that was a 

18 little difficult to comprehend on such a short 

19 notice.

20 So this written summary was sent 

21 to the Work Group and SC&A earlier this week. 

22 And everyone should have had a chance to 
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 evaluate everything.

2 And then I thought a 

3 teleconference would allow us to go through 

4 this systematically and come up with a 

5 conclusion. So according to our agenda then -

6 - and I guess this will probably be Chris who 

7 will present -- and it says brief on the 

8 agenda -- the brief NIOSH summary of the 

9 revised Evaluation Report.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, Gen. 

11 This is Chris.

12 To sum up the summary, while we 

13 were evaluating or reevaluating the 154 ER, we 

14 noticed that while we had a lot of urinalyses 

15 for most of the period, there was a mismatch 

16 between where some of the workers were and 

17 where the monitored employees were. 

18 Specifically the H.K. Ferguson employees who 

19 were dismantling the uranium processing 

20 equipment in Building 30 were independently 

21 monitored and we don't seem to have their 

22 data.
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 All the monitoring data that we do 

2 have seems to be concentrated on the Step 3 

3 processing Linde employees in Building 38. 

4 There were also some urinalyses done after 

5 that process shut down, and apparently in the 

6 clean up through Building 30, which lasted 

7 until February of 1950, but far less 

8 urinalyses during that period.

9 So what we concluded is that we 

10 have a very good handle on what the Step 3 

11 process people were exposed to. But this 

12 doesn't help with Building 30 where the 

13 dismantling of the old Step 1 equipment where 

14 uranium ore -- either preprocessed or raw --

15 was converted into oxide.

16 And in that step, as SC&A had 

17 pointed out some time ago, there was some 

18 concentration of uranium progeny from the 

19 unprocessed African ores that was almost 

20 certainly present on the equipment in Building 

21 30. And, too, in a similar fashion, on the 

22 contamination that was left in Building 30.
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 We found that the H.K. Ferguson 

2 people dismantled the Step 1 and Step 2 

3 equipment during 1948 primarily. We know that 

4 they took three railroad cars of equipment out 

5 of there. And most of it was sent to 

6 Mallinckrodt we understand.

7 But we don't have a good handle on 

8 how much concentrated holdup material they may 

9 have run into. And there is no way we can 

10 think of to estimate that.

11 It also turns out that there was 

12 some -- we think very few but there were some 

13 Linde employees as well as the H.K. Ferguson 

14 employees who may have been involved in that 

15 Step 1 and Step 2 dismantlement.

16 That's just the first of the 

17 problems that led us to conclude that we 

18 didn't have a good handle on the internal dose 

19 for that Building 30.

20 We have two other problems. One, 

21 Building 30 was partially turned over to Linde 

22 for general use, unrestricted general use in 
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 November of '49, well before the cleanup was 

2 finished. This was the shipping and receiving 

3 area.

4 So we know that some Linde 

5 employees would have been in that building 

6 during the subsequent months of cleanup. Now 

7 whether the building was cleared out when they 

8 did the heavy-duty grinding and so forth, we 

9 have no way of ascertaining.

10 Then there's a third area of 

11 uncertainty that we discovered, looking more 

12 thoroughly at the records. There was a 

13 minimal cleanup done in Building 38 in July of 

14 '49. And the equipment was essentially 

15 mothballed in case they were needed to restart 

16 the process.

17 But that process, however, was 

18 never restarted. And what we don't know is 

19 specifically when Building 38 was cleaned up. 

20 In fact, we are certain that it was cleaned 

21 up on at least two occasions because in early 

22 '54, the AEC, I believe, found that 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 building was not decontaminated to their 

2 specs.

3 And they ordered Linde to do yet 

4 another decontamination, which was completed 

5 by mid-April of '54. That's the last 

6 decontamination we are aware of.

7 We, however, do not know when the 

8 initial decontamination was done. And when 

9 the Step 3 equipment was removed. So there's 

10 an area in there where we don't have any

11 monitoring and we don't have any data.

12 I think that pretty much sums up 

13 why we feel that the internal dose cannot be 

14 reconstructed during that time period.

15 Also, Building 30 was released to 

16 pretty much unrestricted use after February 

17 1950. There were still, however, some 

18 residual contamination in that building. And 

19 we don't know what kind of work went on in the 

20 building.

21 So in a similar argument that the 

22 Board accepted for the early residual period, 
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 if we couldn't reconstruct the dose for the 

2 early residual period, it is a little 

3 difficult to say how we could reconstruct the 

4 dose between the end of the cleanup in 

5 February of '50 and the end of this 154 period 

6 in December of '53.

7 Gen, I hope that is a reasonable 

8 summary.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think that was 

10 -- to me that was very good.

11 I wonder, do any of the Work Group 

12 Members have any questions of Chris?

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: Chris, I reviewed 

14 this the last couple days. And I thought your 

15 two-page summary was excellent.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, Jim.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Gen, this is 

18 Josie. I found it very thorough and have no 

19 questions either.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then on 

21 our teleconference in October, as we were 

22 discussing our approach on this, we had asked 
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 SC&A to look this over. So SC&A you are on 

2 the agenda now. I assume you've gotten the 

3 information and you are ready to give us any 

4 comments that you have.

5 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve.

6 We did review it. And we also 

7 appreciate Chris's layman email. It really 

8 laid it out very nicely.

9 We're not in any position to 

10 contradict DCAS. If they don't have the data, 

11 they don't have the data. And given that they 

12 don't have the data and their arguments, we 

13 concur with them. We weren't in a position to 

14 go back and check whether data actually did 

15 exist if they say they didn't have the data.

16 John, is that a good summary of 

17 what we reached?

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, we -- this is 

19 John Mauro. You know we did have an 

20 opportunity to review and discuss this matter. 

21 And I guess we came out at a place that said 

22 the level of effort for us to go back and 
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 scrub all of the Site Research Database and 

2 all of the data the way in which NIOSH did 

3 would have been -- with the objective of 

4 seeing well, maybe there is some data there 

5 that could be used. And do we really agree 

6 with these findings? We felt that it was 

7 something that, you know, we could, in theory, 

8 go through, spend a lot of resources. And at 

9 the end, come away with the same answers.

10 That is, it would be quite unusual 

11 for SC&A to go through an in-depth review, 

12 time consuming, costly, to see if, in fact, 

13 NIOSH should not recommend. We've never done 

14 that before.

15 And so, you know, we basically 

16 understand the arguments made. And given that 

17 the data is lacking, as described, and the 

18 other problems, you know we really can't find 

19 any reason to disagree.

20 And, as I said, though, we did not 

21 go back and do an exhaustive review of the 

22 material that NIOSH cited to support their 
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 decision. We simply looked at the arguments 

2 and found them compelling.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: And that's really 

4 all that we had, I think, asked you to do. 

5 And in fact, a comment that I think some of 

6 SC&A's comments earlier did lead NIOSH into 

7 looking further into some of this information. 

8 You had brought up a question about 

9 raffinates and time periods and so on. So we 

10 appreciate that.

11 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve again. 

12 I don't know if this is the right time to 

13 bring it up but I'll bring it up anyway in 

14 case I forget.

15 In addition to the SEC issues 

16 we're talking about today, there's still some 

17 open TBD issues that we discussed at our last 

18 teleconference. And this arose from the 

19 report we wrote on October 11th, 2011.

20 I think there were like three 

21 items. One was on the tunnels. Two was on 

22 the uranium progeny ratios. Actually it was 
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 just those two, the tunnels and the uranium 

2 progeny ratios.

3 I think at the last teleconference 

4 Jim Neton had indicated that NIOSH would deal 

5 with those issues separately after the TBD was 

6 settled. So I don't know if we have any 

7 formal mechanism on the project for tracking 

8 whether open TBD issues are dealt with later. 

9 But it should be remembered or written down 

10 somewhere so it doesn't slip through the 

11 cracks.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, I don't know 

13 either how we handle that.

14 Ted, do you have any advice on

15 that?

16 MR. KATZ: Sorry, I was on mute. 

17 This is Ted.

18 I mean as far as open issues, I 

19 mean ordinarily, you know, Work Groups will 

20 follow up on those after the SEC work is done 

21 at whatever point in timing it makes sense 

22 that the sort of items that are in abeyance or 
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 what have you should be put to bed.

2 So I guess what you'll need is a 

3 time frame for when changes would be 

4 implemented if there are changes in the work. 

5 If there's more analysis to be done, that's 

6 another question.

7 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

8 can help a little bit out here.

9 Joe Fitzgerald has looked into 

10 this matter, the matter being a lot of 

11 attention, of course, on many sites to the SEC 

12 issue. And very often we sort of say okay, 

13 these are the really clear SEC issues and 

14 these are the Site Profile issues.

15 And as you all know, we give most 

16 of our attention or all of our attention to 

17 the SEC issues. And eventually the Board will 

18 grant -- or recommend granting or denying the 

19 SEC. And we all know that there are still 

20 some residual Site Profile issues.

21 Joe Fitzgerald has, in fact, went 

22 through and collected the residual SEC issues 
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 that were still sort of sitting in limbo. So 

2 SC&A has done some work in trying to collect 

3 this.

4 And I think at a time that is 

5 convenient to the Work Group and/or the Board, 

6 where you are ready to say okay, listen, I 

7 think, you know, we've taken care of the SEC 

8 issues. Let's go back and revisit are there 

9 any open -- so we are -- SC&A is in a position 

10 to help out when the time comes that the Work 

11 Groups or the Board would like to go back and 

12 see is there any mop up needed to resolve some 

13 Site Profile issues.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: So it sounds like 

15 what you are saying is that this is an 

16 overarching issue that will be dealt with. 

17 And that perhaps for our call today, we can go 

18 right on to our evaluation of whether this 

19 Class should be considered an SEC. Am I right 

20 on that?

21 MR. KATZ: Gen, Gen, this is Ted. 

22 I mean it's not -- no, I mean I know what 
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 John is talking about. And I know, you know, 

2 Joe has done some catalogues and so on.

3 But this is -- I mean it is really 

4 every Work Group's responsibility to carry on 

5 with the TBD issues. So I mean I think it is 

6 a fine sort of path forward in terms of 

7 today's meeting to first address the SEC 

8 matter and put that to bed.

9 But then I mean I think what you 

10 want is to have a path forward on the TBD 

11 issues so that you know, as I was saying, when 

12 matters are likely to be addressed. And then 

13 we can, you know, we can query that closer to 

14 real time then, whenever that plan is for when 

15 TBDs would be changed. And schedule a Work 

16 Group meeting to follow up on those matters 

17 then.

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: Ted, Jim Lockey. 

19 Has that been the standard practice of the 

20 other Work Groups?

21 MR. KATZ: It's been for some Work 

22 Groups that have carried on in the TBD issues. 
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 It's just, again, every Work Group has both 

2 responsibilities for SEC matters and TBD 

3 matters. So it's really -- it's on the plate 

4 of each Work Group to carry on at the point 

5 where that makes sense to do.

6 DR. MAURO: This is John again. 

7 To add a little bit to what Ted's position is 

8 -- and I know -- I understand where -- one of 

9 the problems that we -- SC&A have run into --

10 it's interesting -- very often what would 

11 happen is the SEC issues are resolved to 

12 however they are resolved.

13 And the PER -- sorry, the 

14 Evaluation Report is revised accordingly, 

15 however things change if they do change. And 

16 the Site Profile is revised, which means there 

17 is a new protocol to do dose reconstructions 

18 where now things have changed as a result of 

19 the SEC process, decision making process.

20 And what we -- and then what 

21 happens is as part of this whole program, we -

22 - SC&A -- are very often tasked to review 
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 PERs, Program Evaluation Reports, that are 

2 issued, which say okay, we are now going to do 

3 the dose calculation differently and go back 

4 and redo some of them that were denied. And 

5 there is a whole formal process, the PER 

6 process, that's implemented.

7 And we are finding, interestingly 

8 enough, that when we leave Site Profile issues 

9 unresolved and a PER is issued, we are finding 

10 ourselves in the strange place that we are 

11 reviewing a PER and a Site Profile that has 

12 been modified.

13 But we also are aware that there 

14 still are issues that remain unresolved. And 

15 it puts in a funny place, that is we are 

16 checking the degree to which these new cases -

17 - the cases are being revised appropriately in 

18 light of the PERs and Site Profile changes 

19 when we are also aware that wait a minute, 

20 there's still a lot of Site Profile issues 

21 that are still in the wings that haven't been 

22 addressed.
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 So the reason I'm saying all of 

2 this is that I would recommend, to the degree 

3 that the Work Group, the Linde Work Group, 

4 could resolve not only the SEC issues but also 

5 the Site Profile issues so that when revisions 

6 are made to the Site Profile to reflect the 

7 recommendations and bindings related to the 

8 SEC, they also reflect the resolution of 

9 issues related to the Site Profile because 

10 this way, the PER only has to be done once.

11 And when the changes are made and 

12 everyone is comfortable with the changes, 

13 whether they're SEC related or Site Profile 

14 related, it is done once, the PER issued. 

15 SC&A can review the PER and we can put it all 

16 to bed.

17 So I'm sort of echoing what Ted 

18 just pointed out why I think it is helpful to 

19 try to address both if you can.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: It seems though 

21 today that we should address the SEC issue and 

22 make a decision on that. And then when the 
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 Site Profile issues are revised and we are 

2 alerted to the fact that we need to resolve 

3 that, that then we should schedule another 

4 meeting.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. But Gen -- Gen, 

6 all I was saying is at this meeting, after 

7 we're done with the SEC matter, we can ask --

8 we have DCAS on the line. We can ask them 

9 what the path forward is on TBDs. And at 

10 least get a sense, or get them thinking about 

11 a schedule so that we will have a process in 

12 place for then scheduling a Work Group meeting 

13 at a time when the work that is needed has 

14 been done.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: That's all I'm saying.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. That 

18 sounds like a good plan to me.

19 So if that's what we plan to do 

20 then, then I think we can move on to the next 

21 item on this agenda. And, again, we're 

22 concentrating now on the SEC decision.
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 And the next item is for the 

2 petitioner's questions or comments. 

3 Antoinette, do you have any?

4 MS. BONSIGNORE: Thank you, Gen.

5 Can everyone hear me?

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes.

7 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. I don't 

8 have any questions regarding the SEC. I 

9 actually very much appreciated the plain 

10 language description and narrative that was 

11 provided. It was very helpful.

12 I do -- I am concerned, however, 

13 about the TBD -- outstanding TBD issues, 

14 primarily because not only do I represent the 

15 SEC Class, but I also represent those workers 

16 and families who do not meet the SEC 

17 requirements. And for whatever reason they 

18 are outside of the time period or they don't 

19 have the appropriate diagnosis.

20 And a good number of those workers 

21 have been waiting -- some of them seven, eight 

22 years for a proper evaluation, a fair and 
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 complete evaluation of their dose 

2 reconstruction claims. And in my estimation, 

3 there has not been a complete and accurate 

4 Site Profile or TBD available for Linde 

5 Ceramics since 2005.

6 So I think this is a very critical 

7 issue for those workers. And something that 

8 needs to be resolved as soon as practicable. 

9 And I just want to impress the importance of 

10 that issue for those workers because a lot of 

11 them -- I mean just for instance the fact that 

12 none of the workers who have ever been dosed 

13 to date have ever been dosed considering 

14 exposure for the underground utility tunnels 

15 because the Site Profile has never taken that 

16 into consideration. So that's just one issue.

17 So I would just like to impress 

18 upon the Work Group that this is a really 

19 important issue for a good number of workers 

20 who still have unresolved claims.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thank you, 

22 Antoinette. And I think we all agree. And as 
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 a Work Group, we will push to see that that 

2 happens.

3 MS. BONSIGNORE: Okay. Thank you.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then I 

5 think the next item on the agenda is for the 

6 Work Group to make some decisions. We have a 

7 whole new look at this time period. And SC&A 

8 has had a chance to look at everything and has 

9 no contradictions to NIOSH's recommendations.

10 I'll start out by giving my 

11 conclusion. And then ask for input from other 

12 Work Group Members.

13 My conclusion is that we need to 

14 be consistent with other similar situations at 

15 Linde and elsewhere where SECs have been 

16 recommended by the Board. And so considering 

17 all of this, I agree with NIOSH that this 

18 Class should be recommended for an SEC.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, I'm going to 

20 second that. I believe you are correct in all 

21 of that.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, that wasn't 
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 an official motion --

2 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I know.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: -- although it 

4 can be if we decide to.

5 MEMBER BEACH: I know.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: So do you agree 

7 with that?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: I agree with that 

10 also, Gen, Jim Lockey.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. And we 

12 don't have -- let's ask again, is Mike Gibson 

13 on the phone?

14 (No response.)

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Certainly we can 

16 get a hold of him and get his evaluation. I 

17 think the way we're going is that we perhaps 

18 should take a Work Group vote and then present 

19 our conclusions to the Board at our meeting 

20 next week.

21 Are there any objections to that? 

22 Or any other ideas as to how we go about this?
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 MEMBER LOCKEY: I concur with 

2 that.

3 MEMBER BEACH: I also concur with 

4 that. This is Josie.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Jim.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, then I'll 

7 make the motion that we agree -- the Work 

8 Group agrees with NIOSH that this Class should 

9 be recommended for an SEC.

10 MEMBER BEACH: I'll second that. 

11 This is Josie.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. And Jim?

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: I'll vote yes.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Voting yes. And 

15 I think Ted will be able to get Mike's vote 

16 and perhaps get that to us before the meeting 

17 next week.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, Gen, Gen, this is 

19 Ted. You don't need Mike's vote to go forward 

20 with this. I mean first of all, you have a 

21 majority of the Work Group already. So you 

22 can carry on with that. And I'm sure Mike can 
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 weigh in at the Board Meeting.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. If we do 

3 get it from him though, I think it would be 

4 nice to say it is unanimous.

5 MR. KATZ: Sure.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: But if we don't, 

7 we'll carry on.

8 MR. KATZ: I will send Mike an 

9 email with this follow up and see if he has a 

10 chance to get back to me before the Board 

11 Meeting.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So then, 

13 Ted, I'll prepare something that I'll present 

14 at the meeting next week. I will try and get 

15 it prepared ahead of time so I can share it 

16 with Josie and Jim and Mike and anybody else 

17 actually, the NIOSH people and the SC&A 

18 people.

19 So I think that's where we need to 

20 go at this point with regard to the SEC.

21 MR. KATZ: That sounds good, Gen. 

22 And, you know, DCAS will present their 
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 Evaluation Report ahead of you at the Board 

2 Meeting. And I will have distributed to all 

3 of the Board both the Evaluation Report, the 

4 NIOSH two-page summary. Both of those will go 

5 to the Board as well. So they'll have all of 

6 those materials when the session comes up.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: And will we 

8 expect SC&A to say anything? Or is that not 

9 necessary?

10 MR. KATZ: Gen, I think you can 

11 report on that in your presentation.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Okay.

13 Okay, other than looking at the 

14 TBD issues, is there anything else we need to 

15 do on this item?

16 (No response.)

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Is there 

18 anything we need to, at this point in time, 

19 decide with regard to the path forward on the 

20 TBDs?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, I think it is 

22 really important to establish the dates on 
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 those tunnels. And I'm not sure how you're 

2 going to do that or how NIOSH can do that.

3 MR. RUTHERFORD: Gen, this is 

4 LaVon Rutherford. I think what we're going to 

5 have to do is we're going to -- not only with 

6 the tunnels but we're going to have to 

7 actually look back and if SC&A has got a 

8 matrix that still, you know, has the potential 

9 TBD issues in it and that's available to us, 

10 we can look at that as well.

11 But we can look back at the 

12 matrixes or the transcripts from the past 

13 meetings as well. And then we've got to sit 

14 down and actually pull together which items we 

15 feel are still out there that are TBD issues 

16 that need to be addressed. And then we're 

17 going to have to get that out to our 

18 contractor and internally to determine a 

19 timeline for resolving those issues, you know, 

20 based on their resources.

21 So I don't think we can come up 

22 with a date today. And I think we've got 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 little bit of groundwork to do on that. But I 

2 think that with doing a little groundwork, 

3 getting that information to our contractor and 

4 working through them, we can get some dates on 

5 when we'll have the TBD revised and out for 

6 review.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: And then we can 

8 push you for a date as to when you'll report 

9 back to us as to when that date might be.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, in fact I 

11 was going to offer up that I think with the 

12 Board Meeting coming up and the holidays, I 

13 don't think we'll be able to give you anything 

14 until probably January before we can give you 

15 dates, reasonable dates on that.

16 MR. KATZ: LaVon?

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes?

18 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. And I 

19 guess if I could add a little bit to that 

20 going forward, I think it would be good once 

21 you have sort of organized yourselves and you 

22 know what it is that you think you are going 
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 to be charging ORAU to do for amending the 

2 TBD, I think if you would at least consult 

3 with Steve Ostrow --

4 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: -- and make sure that 

6 you are capturing issues that you guys are in 

7 agreement of and that you identify whether 

8 there might be any issues that actually need 

9 to be resolved still at the Work Group level.

10 MR. RUTHERFORD: I agree. I think 

11 we can definitely do that, Ted.

12 DR. OSTROW: LaVon, this is Steve 

13 Ostrow. I just want to point you to a report 

14 I wrote October 11th, 2011, which, I think, 

15 summarizes the TBD issues, the major ones 

16 anyway. And there's only a few issues.

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay. That's 

18 good. I imagine Chris knew that that was 

19 there. It just wasn't on the top of my head.

20 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I'm sure Chris 

21 is familiar with that report, you know. It 

22 was on tunnels and uranium progeny and a few 
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 other smaller things.

2 MR. RUTHERFORD: Okay.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John 

4 Mauro. I have something I'd like to add with 

5 regard to the tunnel issue. And I think we 

6 briefly mentioned this at the last meeting. 

7 This date of the tunnels, I know has been very 

8 challenging.

9 But I'm starting to think -- and 

10 this is an idea for everyone to contemplate I 

11 guess, is it doesn't matter. Each of these 

12 buildings have basements. Whether the 

13 basements were connected by tunnels or not 

14 almost becomes a non-issue if you see where 

15 I'm going with this.

16 The implications being that there 

17 could be workers working in the basements of 

18 these buildings even though there are no 

19 tunnels connecting -- whether there are or 

20 not. And that means that they are being 

21 exposed to radon that might be building up in 

22 basements.
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 So the -- and as long as we know 

2 that there is soil that is contaminated in the 

3 vicinity of these buildings, which I believe 

4 there is evidence to that effect, it means 

5 that the concentration, this 99 picocuries per 

6 liter, that was derived to be used for the 

7 next time period, this 1953 forward time 

8 period, in theory, it should also apply to the 

9 1947 to '53 time period.

10 Even though there may not be 

11 tunnels, there was the basements. So it 

12 almost is a way to say that well, you're going 

13 to get that radon exposure anyway even if 

14 there weren't tunnels because there are 

15 basements. It is kind of a simplification of 

16 the problem but I see no way around it.

17 Anyway, I wanted to leave that 

18 idea with the Work Group and NIOSH to consider 

19 when you are thinking about resolving this 

20 particular Site Profile issue.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen, this is Chris. 

22 May I --
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 CHAIR ROESSLER: Sure.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: -- break in here? 

3 To some extent, I agree with John. But I 

4 think it is a non-issue for a different 

5 reason, which is if the SEC for the 154 period 

6 is granted, and we already have an SEC for all 

7 the other periods up through 1969, during that 

8 time frame, the tunnels become quite 

9 irrelevant because radon really only affects 

10 lung cancer. And that is covered by any SEC 

11 of any kind. So it is a non-issue from a 

12 practical standpoint.

13 On the basement issue, John, it is 

14 a little more complicated argument because 

15 Building 30 had no basement.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Building 14 does 

18 but that is in an area not contaminated by 

19 excess radium. So I think that just opens 

20 more the basic problem.

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, I hear what you're 

22 saying. So this idea of a basement, I just 
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 presumed there was one. But, as you point 

2 out, that's not the case. But I do understand 

3 your argument regarding the respiratory tract 

4 cancers, it becomes -- from a practical 

5 standpoint, it really has no effect on the 

6 outcome.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Excuse me, John.

8 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I think it is 

10 important from the claimant perspective not to 

11 think that this is going to be the thing that, 

12 you know, changes everybody's claim result if 

13 they have non-scheduled cancers if you see 

14 what I'm getting at.

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, absolutely. When 

16 it comes to radon, the issue is respiratory 

17 tract cancers. And they are all covered by 

18 the presumptive cancers within the Class.

19 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Just one 

20 other thing to recall is that you might also 

21 be out of an SEC Class because you don't have 

22 250 days.
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 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, Ted, thanks. 

2 I was just getting ready to say that. So we 

3 do have to look at those individuals that have 

4 less than a year. They may have a presumptive 

5 cancer but have less than a year. And so that 

6 could effect their dose reconstruction.

7 And I think that we can take what 

8 John had mentioned into consideration when 

9 we're going back and looking at this.

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So it 

11 looks like our work isn't done yet today. But 

12 we do have one step we can take at the Board 

13 Meeting next week. And I think everyone who 

14 has worked on this has done a really good job. 

15 I think -- I especially appreciate 

16 the summary that Chris put together for us all 

17 to look at. It made it so much easier to 

18 evaluate.

19 So at that point with NIOSH being 

20 alerted as to what needs to come up, Ted, do 

21 you think we're done?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think so. And, 
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 Gen, if when you have the presentation ready, 

2 if you'll just send it to me, I'll get it 

3 posted and distributed to the Board and so on.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Do you 

5 think this needs to be PowerPoint? Or can it 

6 just be a written presentation?

7 MR. KATZ: It's up to you 

8 entirely.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: I'll have to 

10 think about that.

11 Yes, Josie and Jim, what do you 

12 think?

13 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, I think it is 

14 totally up to you also.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Let me 

16 think a bit about that. And I'll get you 

17 something before we all head out to Tampa.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen?

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: This is Chris.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Chris, yes.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: I do know that Jim 
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 has a set of PowerPoints that he will be 

2 bringing to that meeting concerning SEC 154.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: So that might be 

4 sufficient. Could he give those to me?

5 MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sure he could. 

6 I'll be happy to send him an email to that 

7 effect. He'll be back, I believe, Monday, 

8 unless Bomber knows different.

9 MR. RUTHERFORD: No, he'll be back 

10 Monday. But, you know, we can probably talk -

11 - I know that it is under final review right 

12 now, that presentation. And we can probably 

13 talk to Chris Ellison and see if we can get 

14 that sent out right away.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: That would help 

16 because I really need to do it. We're leaving 

17 Tuesday morning. If I'm going to do anything 

18 more formal than just an oral report, I'd need 

19 to look at it earlier.

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, I know it 

21 is under final review. It is actually in 

22 Stu's hands. I just got an email. It's in 
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 Stu's hands right now for his approval. And 

2 if he approves it today, I'm sure we can get 

3 it right out to you, Gen.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: So maybe like 

5 tomorrow?

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, okay. Let 

8 me take a look at that first and then decide 

9 where to go from there.

10 Okay, then I think we're finished 

11 for today. Thanks everyone for your time and 

12 patience with this.

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks everybody. Good 

14 bye everyone.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: We'll see you 

16 next week.

17 MR. KATZ: See you all next week.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: All right.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 Advisory Board Meeting was concluded at 1:41 

21 p.m.)

22